'Utterly wrong'? Tan Jee Say makes economic sense
I DO not agree with former MP and current Singapore Management University professor of economics Augustine Tan's arguments in his letter ('First-rate, not First World, MPs and govt'; Tuesday), in which he said that former senior civil servant and current Singapore Democratic Party candidate Tan Jee Say 'is utterly wrong'.
Mr Tan headed economic and manpower planning in the Ministry of Trade and Industry, and also served as secretary to late economist Albert Winsemius.
I think his ideas of change make economic sense. Since Singapore has no resource base and has limited manpower, it will be more prudent to maintain only high-value and knowledge-based industries to fuel manufacturing, and phase out labour-intensive industries to neighbouring countries, while still supporting our service industry.
We should not keep on expanding manufacturing industries that employ two foreigners for every one Singaporean because of economic growth, at the expense of compromising our housing, transport, education, health-care services and other social amenities.
I agree with Mr Tan that while we maintain profitable and viable manufacturing industries to keep jobs at appropriate levels, we should also plan for economic growth via other directions that bring more good-paying jobs for Singaporeans. Therefore, using $10 billion to fund the five-year transformation programme is necessary.
Paul Chan
I DO not agree with former MP and current Singapore Management University professor of economics Augustine Tan's arguments in his letter ('First-rate, not First World, MPs and govt'; Tuesday), in which he said that former senior civil servant and current Singapore Democratic Party candidate Tan Jee Say 'is utterly wrong'.
Mr Tan headed economic and manpower planning in the Ministry of Trade and Industry, and also served as secretary to late economist Albert Winsemius.
I think his ideas of change make economic sense. Since Singapore has no resource base and has limited manpower, it will be more prudent to maintain only high-value and knowledge-based industries to fuel manufacturing, and phase out labour-intensive industries to neighbouring countries, while still supporting our service industry.
We should not keep on expanding manufacturing industries that employ two foreigners for every one Singaporean because of economic growth, at the expense of compromising our housing, transport, education, health-care services and other social amenities.
I agree with Mr Tan that while we maintain profitable and viable manufacturing industries to keep jobs at appropriate levels, we should also plan for economic growth via other directions that bring more good-paying jobs for Singaporeans. Therefore, using $10 billion to fund the five-year transformation programme is necessary.
Paul Chan