Reaction to Reactions to SM's Comments
When SM Goh made the remark about Singapore losing its top talent, there was the same predictable (over) reaction. Molly said we had sprung a leak. Aaron went about his favourite "we are not taking care of Singaporeans" lament. And worse, he seemed to imply that people were leaving because the government did not "take care" of them. The arguments were confused as much as they were confusing.
It is important to listen to what SM actually said objectively and rationally, instead of jumping to all the (wrong) conclusions and brandishing all kinds of pet theories. What SM said was that we were losing top talent - top talent are mobile and skilled people who have options galore. Is it therefore plausible to argue that these people are leaving because the government has not taken care of them? So, what kind of "care" are other governments providing that is so attractive to our talented Singaporeans? Is there a case to be made to give our top 0.5 per cent even more privileges to dissuade them from leaving?
The suggestion that fewer Singaporeans will leave when we have a generous welfare state is even more preposterous (this by the way is not an argument about welfare). If this argument was true, these very talented Singaporeans, the top 0.5 per cent, were going to New York and London with the intention of collecting more unemployment benefits. How convincing is this? As far as I can tell, those who really need social welfare might find re-settling to a western welfare state a rather difficult proposition.
Competition for Talent
Instead of meandering around for reasons that do not exist, why not just recognise the fact and stick to the simplest and most likely explanation. Talented and mobile people choose to work and live wherever they want, wherever that is most fulfilling and wherever the reward is the highest - the global cities like London and New York where a world of opportunities beckons. This is the whole idea behind cumulative causation - the best people move to locations where they can find the best jobs, and the best firms move to the locations where they can find the best people. Advantage begets advantage and soon enough, alpha locations emerge.
In a flattened world, it is not just Singapore that is laying out the red carpet. Every country competes to attract talent. The universities in UK/US provide generous scholarships and research grants to attract foreign students. Countries are copying one another in implementing high-skilled migration programmes to attract skilled professionals. As their operations become ever more globalised, multi-national companies post staff all across the globe with generous expatriation benefits - company paid housing, childcare and children education at international schools.
The net result is that the choices and opportunities for skilled professionals, including Singaporeans, have expanded tremendously over the past few years. Given the opportunities, people simply move to wherever best suits their lifestyle and career goals at different stages of their lives. It is not about quitting or staying anymore, it about being a global citizen in a flat world.
The Meaning of Being Global
The link between state welfare and emigration is a spurious one. The UK has a fairly generous welfare state, but 5.5 million Britons (10 per cent of its citizens) are living abroad. Many are young professionals seeking to enrich their experiences elsewhere, many are retirees trying to stretch their savings or live in sunnier places. The Foreign Office even had to warn Britons not to expect welfare to be so generous abroad. But overall, the population in UK continues to rise because of immigration.
To keep the best talent, Singaporeans included, Singapore has to competitive in providing the kind of opportunities, exposure and reward they get elsewhere. This it can only do by firmly plugging itself into the global economy. We cannot hope to fix the leak or will there be a need to. It is part of the process that some will come, some will stay, and some will leave. There is also a recognition that some talent churn may in fact be a healthy thing. This is one area where I think official thinking is ahead of many bloggers.
When SM Goh made the remark about Singapore losing its top talent, there was the same predictable (over) reaction. Molly said we had sprung a leak. Aaron went about his favourite "we are not taking care of Singaporeans" lament. And worse, he seemed to imply that people were leaving because the government did not "take care" of them. The arguments were confused as much as they were confusing.
It is important to listen to what SM actually said objectively and rationally, instead of jumping to all the (wrong) conclusions and brandishing all kinds of pet theories. What SM said was that we were losing top talent - top talent are mobile and skilled people who have options galore. Is it therefore plausible to argue that these people are leaving because the government has not taken care of them? So, what kind of "care" are other governments providing that is so attractive to our talented Singaporeans? Is there a case to be made to give our top 0.5 per cent even more privileges to dissuade them from leaving?
The suggestion that fewer Singaporeans will leave when we have a generous welfare state is even more preposterous (this by the way is not an argument about welfare). If this argument was true, these very talented Singaporeans, the top 0.5 per cent, were going to New York and London with the intention of collecting more unemployment benefits. How convincing is this? As far as I can tell, those who really need social welfare might find re-settling to a western welfare state a rather difficult proposition.
Competition for Talent
Instead of meandering around for reasons that do not exist, why not just recognise the fact and stick to the simplest and most likely explanation. Talented and mobile people choose to work and live wherever they want, wherever that is most fulfilling and wherever the reward is the highest - the global cities like London and New York where a world of opportunities beckons. This is the whole idea behind cumulative causation - the best people move to locations where they can find the best jobs, and the best firms move to the locations where they can find the best people. Advantage begets advantage and soon enough, alpha locations emerge.
In a flattened world, it is not just Singapore that is laying out the red carpet. Every country competes to attract talent. The universities in UK/US provide generous scholarships and research grants to attract foreign students. Countries are copying one another in implementing high-skilled migration programmes to attract skilled professionals. As their operations become ever more globalised, multi-national companies post staff all across the globe with generous expatriation benefits - company paid housing, childcare and children education at international schools.
The net result is that the choices and opportunities for skilled professionals, including Singaporeans, have expanded tremendously over the past few years. Given the opportunities, people simply move to wherever best suits their lifestyle and career goals at different stages of their lives. It is not about quitting or staying anymore, it about being a global citizen in a flat world.
The Meaning of Being Global
The link between state welfare and emigration is a spurious one. The UK has a fairly generous welfare state, but 5.5 million Britons (10 per cent of its citizens) are living abroad. Many are young professionals seeking to enrich their experiences elsewhere, many are retirees trying to stretch their savings or live in sunnier places. The Foreign Office even had to warn Britons not to expect welfare to be so generous abroad. But overall, the population in UK continues to rise because of immigration.
To keep the best talent, Singaporeans included, Singapore has to competitive in providing the kind of opportunities, exposure and reward they get elsewhere. This it can only do by firmly plugging itself into the global economy. We cannot hope to fix the leak or will there be a need to. It is part of the process that some will come, some will stay, and some will leave. There is also a recognition that some talent churn may in fact be a healthy thing. This is one area where I think official thinking is ahead of many bloggers.
posted by Bart JP at
1:36 am
34 Comments:
I never said that Singaporeans are leaving because Singapore is not a welfare state. I am only saying that the government's drive to make us take care of ourselves and not expect the government to provide welfare (as in the so called western welfare model) had created the unintended side effect of Singaporeans who are so "money-minded" that they will move to anywhere that pays better. I was just making a case of the double-edged nature of such a policy.
Of course, you are entitled to your opinion about what kinds of 'pet theories' I endorse. As far as I'm concerned, I made the comment only because I had a couple of friends who made that observation, and I found it interesting. I don't think commenting on an observation is the same as endorsing a pet theory. :)
By
Aaron, at 2:45 am
One thing really puzzles me. I have never heard any one in UK say something like "my government doesn't value me".
I find the concept rather weird, what does it mean? It is as if citizens need the approval of the government to be happy and fulfilled - that is very strange indeed since I thought the perennial complaint is that our government is too paternalistic!
Should'nt people be responsible for their own happiness and fulfilment instead of waiting for the government to 'value' them?
Perhaps when you said we only had ourselves to blame, you had a good point. The Government had made Singaporeans feel that they needed to be valued by the Government before they could become happy citizens.
By
Bart JP, at 7:34 am
It's an interesting phenomenon that I have no answer to. But I can
offer a couple plausible explantions.
1. Some people feel a lack of self-efficacy. They want to make changes to the place they live in but they perceive it to be too hard to do so, i.e. bureaucracy, climate of 'fear' etc.
2. Some people might feel that the government is interested in me as long as I can contribute to the economy. If I can't, the government won't take care of me. Therefore, I feel like it's an economic transaction and I don't feel 'valued'.
As you have rightly pointed out, it should be the individual's responsibility to find happiness and fulfilment. However, I suppose the government has played such a big part in all of our lives that it might have become difficult for one to disengage the government from an individual's happiness and fulfilment. I'm not sure if I'm right though.
Maybe Singaporeans in general are confused about life. Since Singapore is 40 years old, could it be possible that Singapore society is facing a mid-life crisis? :p
By
Aaron, at 9:16 am
And nor have I heard anything from Ozzies regarding how their govt doesn't value them.
However, your argument from that perspective is spurious at best.
Where in the world do you find a country that is so entrenched in the view that everything you do must be made permissible by the government, to the point where the question of whether you live, die or prosper depends so much on the authority of a few?
The crux of the matter is first and foremost about state-society relations.
While it is true that as the spectre of globalisation heralds this century by forcing governments to roll out the red carpet for 'talents', it is also true that political culture and the influence of the PAP is far more disruptive and coercive to the way of life that Singaporeans have.
To say that just because no one in the UK nor Australia has ever said something like 'my government doesn't value me' in support of the notion that 'official thinking is ahead of many bloggers', is at best to opine that Singapore's political culture is similar to that of the UK or of Australia's.
Do the Brits or the Ozzies need some form of indirect permission from their government to be a little weird, quirky, or awkward or even gay?
Do Brits or Ozzies require some lightning bolt-like sermon to tell them that it is okay to think about issues or persons in a particular way?
Do Brits of Ozzies ever need to pursue the powers-that-be, to try to convince and persuade them that their direction is wrong, that they need to start listening attentively and empathically and not let their (supposedly) uber-smart scholars churn out policies that have no correlation with reality? (cf. Denise Phua's comments in Parliament before the Budget debate period regarding how the govt ought ask the end-users of policies for feedback over asking those who designed the policies; I happen to know where that point came about.)
No, because you cannot argue that they have a 'single, dominant party system'. The politicians have to woo them, whereas Singaporeans by and large have to do otherwise.
Further to that, as zyberzitizen has touched on, SM Goh's comment is at best, a Freudian slip.
And if your argument is that Singaporeans ought not to think that the government will take care of them forevermore, then perhaps you'd like to proffer an argument that the current state of affairs that we face—the 'climate of fear' (to put it succinctly)—is not due to the obsessive control-maniac type of state-society relations perpetuated by a misguided hardly-invisible hand.
kh
By
Anonymous, at 9:23 am
Hi Bart,
you mention that Aaron imply that"
And worse, he seemed to imply that people were leaving because the government did not "take care" of them."
In fact, what Aaron imply this or not, there are some brutal truth in it. Most talented Singaporean and those above 30s' if you have to chance to talk to will rather want the country to be more compassionate and take care of people when grow old. People should be not be seem as a tool that outlive its usefulness. If Singapore gov aka PAP want to think and behave like such, I would rather gov stop wasting money on biotech, training etc and spending money on R&D on developing androids. I am pretty serious when I say this because android at least don't complain, don't question, productive, has good memory, and is upgradeable.
What gov needed to grow their wealth is therefore not Singaporean but android. Sure, it make Singapore lifeless, and dull, but then isn't what gov want this in the first place ? And what's more, Singapore has really no culture of its own. We have multi-racial but not multi-culture which don't really make sense. The only prominent feature of our culture is money-cultured, which thank to our money-consious gov.
I never agree on Singapore gov that say no welfare for moral being. Afterall, they paid such high amount of money to themselves and create welfare from their salary.
If gov think that welfare is bad, then why not continue to stop giving welfare ? Why wait til people leaving and thinking about abandon citizenship that they start implementing policy to resolve that issue ? Why wait ppl get frustrated and really fedup and then do it ?
From the action, I can't help thinking that gov somehow do agree that having no welfare is bad for society but if giving too much is definitely create laziness and complaceny.
Well then, since gov take the view of that most people will rather be lazy and useless, careless if not pressured, and therefore should treated with penality in term of heavy fine etc, then why not continue in this way ? At least, we are sure we have no welfare culture than fake culture.
If we want to be, then be ourselves and stop faking being someone else. If gov say no welfare, then stop wayanging thing to make welfare then.
By
Anonymous, at 11:20 am
I need to put a qualification to my previous comment. (Sorry, I'm extremely ****-retentive about the need for qualifications.):
Bart is right in certain aspects in his observation that the way Brits don't go about saying 'my govt doesn't value me', is the healthier way to think about things.
In fact, it'd be crucial that more Singaporeans think like that.
Because, really, the govt can only do so much. The policies have largely changed and opened up. The media space has opened up significantly compared to before, as well.
To see policy as foundations as to what may be done in a certain social space and what will be encouraged, the foundations have more or less been set.
How the future then turns out from thence, depends entirely on the people.
—Not the govt.
By
Anonymous, at 11:29 am
Kid and Anon,
You guys are bringing out so many socio-political issues, it is impossible to discuss every issue raised. Let's stick to the point - SM said top people (0.5 per cent) and their children are leaving.
Let me hazard a few reasons
- The elite want their children to go international schools, but this is not allowed if they are in Singapore. But they can do so when they are overseas.
- They value overseas education, contacts, network much more than the social capital they have in Singapore.
- Opportunities are better elsewhere, whether in commerce or in arts.
- Avoiding NS liability
Some might, but I don't think many actually care what kind of political system Singapore adopts if they can have the above mentioned.
I don't deny there could be many complex reasons - but there is a danger of over-intellectualising the discussion. If Singapore has to same kind of opportunities like NY, London, many no doubt will return.
I am an economist, I would rather not describe Singaporeans "money-minded" or appeal for them to be "rooted". It is better to understand what are the push-pull factors that affect people's decisions, and how to make Singapore's policies better adapted to modern realities.
The last couple of paragraphs of the BBC article are highly instructive. Instead of seeing movement of people as a bad thing, the UK govt is tuning their policies to manage the flow.
By
Bart JP, at 1:39 pm
Bart:
because it's a systemic problem... many things intertwined.
By
Anonymous, at 2:37 pm
Indeed, socio-economic issues are always inter-twined, like Kid pointed out. All the more, it requires thought discipline to clearly identify and even isolate causes, effects, and feedbacks separately.
By
Bart JP, at 5:37 pm
People who leave Singapore might not be leaving because there is no welfare in Singapore. Nevertheless, looking at things in the long term, life is unpredictable and anything could happen to talented people - illness, diasbility, etc. Some people might prefer to be elsewhere because they feel that in Singapore, they are valued insofar as they serve an economic use and the state isn't going to take care of them if they suddenly become disabled. As SM Goh said, one reason people leave is that they prefer the lifestyles in other countries.
It's not that people really need to feel valued by their government but that people want to be in a place where they are taken as human beings and not mere economic tools. Personally I'm not a top elite talent. I would say that while I don't need the government to value me, I do not like to be a citizen in a country with such a huge amount of social engineering and paternalism and be taken as an economic digit.
It's perhaps not totally the "government" we are talking about here but the social structure. Nevertheless, the government is a part of the general social structure.
To be fair, of course I can't expect SM Goh to address every single aspect of the issue in that brief talk with the media. It's just that based on what he said alone, many complicated issues can be discussed. While we aren't playing the blaming game or the "He's wrong" game, it's very much a matter of raising the But's.
By
Anonymous, at 5:47 pm
Hi Molly,
Well said - I think you have a point in that some people are fed up by the social structure, not necessary the govt.
Paternalism is a two way thing, can't keep blaming the govt for my own lack of esteem. But increasingly, I see young Sporeans claiming greater and greater civic space for themselves. The blogs are one prime example, many are public opinion shapers I believe. I feel it is a good development, even though I clearly do not agree to what is said in many blogs.
SM referred to the top 0.5 per cent. These people clearly do not regard themselves as economic units. SM's remarks were clearly over-interpreted by bloggers.
My wife studies in LBS, MBA students have very different ambitions. Many understandably aspire to expatriate lifestyles, perks and prestige.
When a Singaporean gets expatriated, he can send his kids to elite international schools, to mix with international students of equally privileged backgrounds. This network is a huge advantage in life. MOE has so far refused this privilege if the child is in Singapore, for the sake of national education and social cohesion. Shall we soften this policy and dissuade the elite from leaving? It is a difficult balance.
You are right to raise the but's, though many bloggers have clearly mis-read the remark or the issue at stake.
By
Bart JP, at 6:38 pm
I think another reason why skilled young Singaporeans are moving to UK and US in considerable numbers is because of the high level of English literacy and westernisation in Singapore amongst young Singaporeans. The cultural familiarity of America and Britain makes it easier for Singaporean emigrants to assimilate and thus stay on.
By
Fox, at 1:07 am
This comment has been removed by the author.
By
Lucky Tan, at 6:59 am
Hey I thought you're doing a PHD in economics. You should have figured this out.
Singapore is leaking talent for the simple reason that if opportunities are more or less evenly distributed around the world, the odds of the single best money making opportunity being on this 40kmx30km is near zero.
Wait till you get your PHD in economics and come back to Singapore. The only people who will hire you is the MAS and they have to take in their own scholars first. ...and they are not going to pay you the salary you rightfully deserve. The only reason you want to be in MAS you're a patriotic Singaporean. Judging from your blog, I can't really tell. The other thing that keep people in their home country is unique culture - you don't find too many Fins or Swedes leaking out of their country.
Take my own story as an example. I was offered lucrative jobs in Silicon Valley, spent a year in california but eventually end up in Singapore working in a small company in Kallang. Why?....Because I couldn't find anyone in Silicon Valley to speak Singlish with and my Singlish was getting really rusty. ...I would pour half a bottle of mexican source on my chicken and it wasn't half as spicy as stuff I get back home. ...when I get back from work, I turn on the TV and couldn't find Fiona Xie on it. ...and what I missed most was the Straits Times and all those Chua Mui Hoong articles that would elevate my level of happiness. After one year in California, I could take it although I was offered twice as much as what I would make in Singapore.....I went home.
If one yearns for something else other than money, you can even keep talents in Muar, Malaysia. If you keep harping on money and money become the primary motivation (http://singaporemind.blogspot.com/2006/11/money-as-motivation-in-singapore-inc.html) for every damn thing in the country, people will naturally leave for the highest pay. What is discuss everyday in Singapore is how to get the 5 'C's whether its time to a condo, whether the COE is at the bottom, whether the stock market is going up. What is foremost in the minds of Singaporeans is MONEY. Singaporeans would hop from one job to another for an additional $100. When you run a country like a company, and treat the citizens like they are employees....you get Singapore Inc....people resign for a better pay somewhere else is no surprise...it is just natural.
By
Lucky Tan, at 7:04 am
Lucky,
Thanks for dropping by. I read your blog regularly. Even though I don't agree with many things you say, but I believe your concerns to be genuine. Plus, you are Singapore's most humorous ninja. But let me declare my interest first, my PhD studies is sponsored by a ministry (something I already declared before), 6 year bond. I am taking advantage of the freedom from work to read, research, think, write and blog. But due to my training, I mainly touch on economics issues.
Unlike what you said, economic opportunities are not evenly spread. Look around the map, economic activity is concentrated in a few locations. I have discussed this last month in the economic geography post.
http://perspectiveunlimited.blogspot.com/2007/02/tipping-point-lessons-of-economic.html
The Swedes and Finns have a different history from us, so I find any comparison with them moot. Singapore has always been built by expatriates (from India, China, all over SE Asia). A static population has never been its comparative advantage or its destiny. My father came from China, never with the intention of staying for good, but he did.
Turn on the CNN, you will see them talking about stock market, interest rates, companies performance, inflation, Bernanke's statement, Greenspan's speech non stop. We are not the only country obsessed with economics. Singaporeans are not "money-minded", they are pragmatic people. People make their own calculation whether to change jobs or move to another country. But if Singapore becomes a more global city with more opportunities, the calculus changes.
Finally, let me relate a personal experience. Last week, I received an email from a faulty at my department - I was arrowed to make contact with a top chinese student from Tsinghua (somehow, people think that all chinese are from china), to persuade the student to come. LSE was very keen to have her, and was hinting at the strong chance of her getting a scholarships. But this lady had multiple offers and scholarships from NYU, Columbia. This is how competitive the world has become, Singapore is not alone in this talent chase, but many Singaporeans don't realise this.
By
Bart JP, at 8:07 am
:::6 year bond. I am taking advantage of the freedom:::
Wow you got your freedom by signing a BOND. ...wah so smart!
::::Look around the map, economic activity is concentrated in a few locations:::
My basic point is a person just looking for the highest financial renumeration anywhere in the world, will unlikely find it in Singapore...because the opportunities are plenty and not exclusive to Singapore.
::::The Swedes and Finns have a different history from us, so I find any comparison with them moot.:::
Any example that does not prove your point is probably moot. Wah so smart. What about the Aussies, even Thais, are not 'leaking' at the same rate as us! There is no country with the same history as us. ...there are no two countries with the same country as each other....so country comparisons are moot.
::::Turn on the CNN, you will see them talking about stock market, interest rates, companies performance, inflation, Bernanke's statement, Greenspan's speech non stop.::::
You mean to say CNBC right? Yes that is a financial news channel, if I turn on MTV, it is music all day, that doesn't mean we are all hip-hop fans - only the P65 MPs are! What I'm talking about are major concerns of Singaporeans and their attitude towards money. Like what Aaron said there is this thing about being "money-minded". I don't think it the same level elsewhere.
:::: was arrowed to make contact with a top chinese student from Tsinghua ::::
Oh come on how dare you trivialised the efforts of our esteemed PAP govt by comparing with the british. The PAP govt brought in 800,000 FTs into Singapore in a decade, the highest rate per capita in the world. Your experience of trying to attract one top chinese student and the sum total of all british effort to bring in foreign talent simply pales by comparison with the PAP govt....they are in a different ballpark. When we get to 6.5M, that is going to be one heck of an expansion.
You seem to like the idea of getting to 6.5M. Well coming from a govt that 2 decades ago was so worried that Singaporeans would have too many children and overpopulate this little island, this 6.5M thing is just amazing. They were so absolutely certain they were right given the economic research at that time they asked couples to stop at 2 and gave incentives for sterilisation. Now they so wisely conclude that 6.5M is a good population size. You can't be wrong twice especially if you're the PAP govt.
I'm sure 6.5M will also get us that coverted top 1st world status. Given that more than 30% at the bottom of the workforce saw their incomes depressed in the past decade, one sometimes wonder what it will be like when we bring in 2 million more. Don't worry the PAP is so kind to give out work fare because it is now possible to work a full time job without earning enough for basic necessities.
I'm grouchy, I've not been taking my blue pills for my headaches and I've been smelling armpits on the MRT during the peak hour...we definitely need better armpit deordorants if we get to 6.5M . When I get home, read a little Straits Times, pop a few blue pills....I guess I will begin to realise what a wonderful brilliant idea it is to have 6.5M people on the island, and our wonderful govt wouldn't do it if it not good for us.
By
Lucky Tan, at 2:20 pm
This comment has been removed by the author.
By
Bart JP, at 2:44 pm
This comment has been removed by the author.
By
Bart JP, at 2:55 pm
Don't be such a grouch Lucky - continue to write the good stuff you are writing. Your satirical commentary on socio-economic issues is a welcomed distraction for us all.
On a more "serious" note. Singaporeans are all decendents of immigrants, leaked from somewhere else. Even the great and ancient civilisations like China and India leaked talent to us, how good is that?
British has been poaching people all over the world. UK gives out scholarships to so many foreigners, no strings attached. You are right, I am but a small small cog in the big wheel. When I visited the national health service, the doctors, sonographers, nurses, many are all poached from developing countries including services-starved Africa. These people have no heart.
If you think smelling Sporeans' armpits is bad, try coming to London. You will realise Singaporeans do not have a patent on body odour, all of humanity has it. And worse, summers are hot like mad in UK thanks to global warming, but the victorian era underground has no aircon, temperatures hit hit 47 degrees (celsius, not farenheit) last summer (see below).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_cooling
People start fainting and get chuck from the train to the platform at the next station.
But life goes on Lucky. Like Monty Python said, look on the bright side of life. This is something you, of all people, surely understand.
By
Bart JP, at 2:57 pm
We are always talking the top SG talents, we also talked about the foreign talents. Ministers talked about top talents, bloggers talked about talents.
There is this importance on top talents. So, what is left for the rest of us? What are we going to call them, "non-talents"?
The government takes effort to get talents and give help to them. What about the rest of us? We do not want everything but we do not want them to create subtle barriers to stifle the way we want to live our lives.
I always wonder one thing, Bart. In a economy, how the rich, the middle class and the poor are related to each other. Is the persistent existence of the poor helps the economy.
By
Anonymous, at 3:49 pm
Hi Anon,
I can only hazard an answer. Human beings are highly heterogeneous, every one has their own abilities. I mentioned it in this post:
http://perspectiveunlimited.blogspot.com/2007/03/job-fallacy-and-job-hyperbole-idea-that.html
Forget about all the who is an elite, who is a talent talk. They key is for one to find his comparative strengths, focus and occupy a niche or area of differentiation, and become a talent in whatever he does.
For those who are unable to cope and really poor, my belief is for the state to intervene quickly and early to help their children as much as possible. Help the next generation.
But this is just my personal belief.
By
Bart JP, at 6:09 pm
Let me digress a bit from the earlier bigger population is better debate.
So bart, you are studying for a PHD in economics with taxpayers' money. MY MONEY!!! ...and you're enjoying all that London freedom and all that ...with MY MONEY!!
Make sure you get all our money's worth by writing a groundbreaking thesis....and if you can't do that at least learn the 10 principles of economics:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVp8UGjECt4
By
Lucky Tan, at 12:13 am
Lucky,
This 'my money' argument is superfluous. My whole family pays taxes. I served NS. And the study comes with a 6 year bond, your rightly said is freedom curtailed. How do you know what I am getting is net positive? How do I know you are not living off the state and on PA - $290 every month of my money?
But thanks. I will do my best for the papers.
By
Bart JP, at 7:42 am
Well, the bit on whether Lucky is on PA is also quite superfluous: I am supremely confident (99.9%) that people on PA are not likely to have any access to the internet.
As for whether you are getting a net positive, heh, it's a question we cannot answer, although according to Mankiw's 10 principles, People respond to incentives, thus if you are anywhere disincentiv-ised, I doubt you would be in LSE now.
By
Anonymous, at 1:10 pm
Ted,
Well said Ted, I concede. Taking a scholarship with a bond is a voluntary transaction between two parties - it should lead to pareto improvement, ie both parties should gain from the trade.
I also concede Lucky is unlikely to be on PA, just saw this tirade against Lily Neo, that was proof enough.
By
Bart JP, at 1:24 pm
I thought long and hard about this leaking problem and I think Bart is right (wah so smart!) when he said:
"We cannot hope to fix the leak or will there be a need to"...
We cannot fix the leak but there is also another way to improve the workforce, by encouraging bottom-talents to leave. Already, the govt has incentives for the low wage earners to practise birth control and limit their proliferation of this inferiority.
Although I'm not on PA, I decide not to have children and burden the govt with my lack of talent genes. Others should consider doing the same to.
We should have schemes to help the less talented leave. One way to insert flyers about our "beautiful" neighboring countries for those living in 1 rm to 3 rm flats to plant some ideas into their heads. Its is win-win for everyone, the people living in 3 rm flats can easily afford landed property elsewhere like in Johor, Batam & Bangkok...these are places where their meager skills can be consider talents and they will definitely have a better life.
There is nothing the govt can do to stop leaking top talents but plenty they can do to get non-talents to leave and replace them with higher talents from China/India.
By
Lucky Tan, at 9:27 am
Lucky,
Don't be modest. To be able to see the reality as well as you do and be so articulate at that, you must be quite talented.
But surely you must be kidding when you suggest that Singaporeans can find a better life in Johor, Batam and Bangkok.
Have you not read these
http://www.todayonline.com/articles/166484.asp
http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/9/2007/2493
Like you have said many times, Singapore is safe, secure, efficient and well-managed. While some Singaporeans might have unwisely taken the plunge, many smart Singaporeans would rather stay in a 3 room flat here than a bunglow at JB.
By
Bart JP, at 1:31 pm
Bart
You forget that for a lot of middle class or working class Singaporeans who are astute enough. Will be playing the same game as the Europeans who basically increase their standard of living by flirting from country to country and just coming back for the cash topups and the excellent medical care.
Rgds
Wang
By
Anonymous, at 12:01 pm
Hi Wang,
That is true, but this is inevitable since people exercise free choice to move around different countries if they can, to get the best of all worlds.
The point of my blog has always been to encourage people not to see globalisation or immigration as a threat.
Singapore's social fabric has always been a part of the larger pan-Asian or even global fabric. Instead of seeing immigration and emigration threats, try to see the pluses and minuses and then develop the suitable responses to it, like the UK is doing. It is, in my opinion, a much more enlightened attitude. But that is just my view.
Regards.
By
Bart JP, at 1:49 pm
Bart
Thanks for your comment. I do see and appreciate the globalisation view.
By God's grace,being a part of it.
My comments were just to point out as you stated that some will lose maybe not in actual monetary but in relative socioeconomic terms.And vice versa.
In my opinion, the choice and the responsibility rests on the individuals as far as the effort. The government of the day should just ensure that the economy is humming.
By
Anonymous, at 6:02 am
hi Bart.
would u mind if i asked your opinion of this quote:
["With the rate of immigration, even among unskilled and semi skilled labour at a rate twice of what we experienced in the 90s, at a rate fastest in the developed world, the question is - does this dampen our real wages as we grow? Does the strategy itself dampen real wages and depress real wages at the low and middle end of the spectrums? They are sacred cows but we should step back and think about them," said Yeoh Lam Keong, Vice President, Economic Society of Singapore.]
By
utwt, at 1:34 pm
Hi Kuku,
I am not 100 per cent familiar with this, but I would just hazard an opinion.
Studies in the US find some dampening effect, but not a lot. The stagnation in real wages for the lower wage groups in the US have been mainly attributed to skill-biased technological change. You can google it, there is a mountain of literature of this.
I did mention in previous posts that the lower income group is likely to be worse off with the immigration (at least relatively speaking, if not absolutely). But this has to be balanced against other considerations, whether the whole country is better off, which then allows some distribution to be made to the lower income group. Like Speranza mentioned, a higher GST rate will also catch all these immigrant workers (even if our income tax rates are low). They may provide some fiscal latitudes for transfers to be made. I don't know the numbers, but in principle, this is plausible.
Finally, economic geography. The theory suggests that a high concentration of people/firms has positive externality on productivity, and can make a location sticky.
Once a location is sticky, there is economic rent (arising from the externality) to be exploited. My favourite example is the London can drivers who charge exhorbitant rates. This is only possible only because it is London, and not anywhere else. Even the not so skilled workers can benefit from this rent.
By
Bart JP, at 4:21 pm
There are many talented Singaporean who have been retrenched due to globalistaion, restructuring and FT policy.
Instead of re-grooming these retrenched Singaporean who are in their forties and find ways to assist us to get back into employments, our government prefer to open the flood gate for FT and praise them for bring in jobs. Worst, one of the minister even blame us for our predicaments.
Many of us, almost known as PMET, end up having low-paid jobs, free-lancing, odd-jobs etc. In fact, our of us are worst off then 10 years ago.
Some are still unemployed for many years. It make us feel worst and terrible to hear one of the ministers say that it was us who don't wants to be employ.
How do you feel if you are one of us? How do you feel when you keep on hearing, since 1997, from the ministers that FT bring in jobs and we, the PMET, are still out of proper jobs?
Your have never been in our position so you will never understand how we felt. So stop talking rocks.
By
Anonymous, at 2:32 am
To further add on with I have written at 2:32 am.
Many of us, the unemployed PMET, understand the effects of globalisation and restructuring. What we don't and can never accept is this FT policy, that is FT bring in more jobs period.
By
Anonymous, at 2:51 am
Post a Comment
<< Home