Is Singapore trying to excel in too many areas?

[borom]

We've 40 years of savings and repressed consumption, so do we throw it at UBS and Citigroup and lose 60 per cent of the value, or do we use it for ourselves?'said Prof Lim,

I agree with Prof Lim that the money should have been used to save or create jobs for locals (not FT or S'poreans converted from FT).

Its good for a nation to want to excel and aspire for better things provided thats what the people want.

But if a country aim to excel just because some 85 year old wants to show off and go around dispensing unsolicited advice, then its another matter.
We vote for people to represent us and fullfil our wishes-NOT for our elected representative to order us around and tell us what to do. Absolute power corrupts absolutely and that is why many countries set a limit at how long a leader can serve-usually a maximum of two terms.S'pore should follow suit and if anyone claims that the country cannot do without him -there is nothing to stop him from dispensing free advice or voicing his opinions freely (like Dr M).

 

[johnny333]

There's one suitable cliche here that applies:

"Jack of all trades, master at none."

That's why the PAP should have checked themselves at the door, and ask if Singapore can be everything to everybody outside of this country. As a rule, in any place, one has to maximise one's strengths, and weaken the others.
.

The PAP is the source of the problem. They have too much control of the economy. Spore has become like a communist state which is centrally directed.

Each time they make a mistakes, the consequences effect alot of people. e.g. losses made by the GLC. The fast tracking of primary educated workers into industries. Now this work force is in trouble as these jobs are gone.

Again the PAP has failed these people, instead of REAL re-training they now want to replace these citizens with cheaper foreign workers.

 

[phouse3]

The PAP government has been consolidating economic power.

1. Housing. Homeownership is highest in the world with an anaemic rental market. In other words, the stakeholders (especially in a downturn) are the people instead of the government.

2. Commercial properties. TLCs like Capital Land offloaded S$9 billion worth of commercial properties to the people in the form of REITs. Now, it can afford to be smug in the current market meltdown.

3. Land sales. URA sold off $8 billion worth of land, aided by the hype over the integrated resort.

4. GST hike, budget surplus and use of reserves. Taking from your left hand and returning to your right is not an accounting exercise but will create a crutch behaviour.

5. Force savings and mega investments. When the people are deprived of spending money, again they have to turn to the government's handouts from investment returns. The contention has always been the return of CPF to the people versus CPF returns.

6. Jack of all trades. The approach is not incidental but discretionary. We do not have any comparative advantage in terms of cheap labour, intellectual capital and natural resources. Therefore, the PAP started shooting arrows, hoping some will strike the bull's eye. So, each hub is not suppose to contribute more than 5% to GDP. In other words, the PAP need to pick more than 20 winners. They need to shoot at least 100 arrows for a 1-in-5 chance of hitting target.

7. GDP numbers. PAP's performance, pay and legitimacy are tied to absolute GDP growth numbers. Higher quality GDP numbers without the foreign labour will lower absolute GDP growth numbers.

8. Buying time. Cheaper foreign labour has helped to keep the MNCs in Singapore longer than they intended. MNCs have long haboured intention to move to low-production- costs and huge-consumer-market countries. The current downturn will alter the dynamics to one of accelerated withdrawals and relocation.

9. EDB. As EDB is performing both the marketing and credit function for FDIs, there is a conflict of interest. We need a 3rd party to assess the quality of investments and to grant tax-free statuses.

10. TLCs. TLCs and withholding of forced savings (CPF money) have crowded out private enterprises. We can see the marked difference between Singapore and other countries like HK, Taiwan and Korea.