• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

NSP's response to Budget 2010

Goh Meng Seng

Alfrescian (InfP) [Comp]
Generous Asset
The National Solidarity Party (NSP) appreciates the PAP Government efforts to invest in the productivity growth of Singapore, but we are also concerned whether the scheme would really benefit a majority of our Small & Medium Enterprises (SMEs).

The local SMEs form the main group that needs a productivity boost, especially the smaller ones. However, most SMEs do not have the financial means to embark on sizeable investments in human resources and technology to improve their productivity. Thus, the higher tax rebates would not solve their woes, as they do not have the required funds in the first place. NSP understands from sources that even the Special Risk-sharing Initiative (SRI) has reduced the repayment period from 5 years to 2 years while interest rate has been raised from 5% to 5.5%. Such adjustment coupled with stringent criteria would have effectively rule out most SMEs from the scheme.

The new ‘Productivity and Innovation Credit’ scheme is apparently rather generic with no particular focus on SMEs. It may ultimately benefit the larger firms which may have less requirement for additional financial incentives. It seems that there is no clear cut lines drawn between foreign and local, big and small enterprises within the stated policy. NSP feels that special emphasis should be given to the local SMEs to help upgrade themselves from mere contract manufacturers and spare parts suppliers to that of MNCs, and from Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) to that of Original Design Manufacturers (ODM), Private Label Manufacturers (PLM), or Main Brands Owners (MBO).

Countries such as Taiwan and Korea have fared particularly well in grooming their local SMEs into ODMs, PLMs and MBOs. Much concerted efforts had been jointly invested by their Governments and Corporations in funding and technological research facilities. The two Asian tigers overtook Singapore in the 90’s in grooming their local SMEs into higher value industrial players. Recently, China has also evolved quickly into an ODM industrial base. Over the past two decades, Singapore failed to implement any comprehensive plan to help its local SMEs to grow on par with other major Asian players. It is thus a great disappointment that the PAP Government should continue to with its oversight in addressing this malady in its Annual Budget.

The NSP is also concerned that the Budget ignores the need in enhance the social infrastructure and amenities to cope with the increased population of 5 million and growing. The tremendous stress caused by the liberal foreign workers policy, has weakened our social fabric and created considerable tension to our way of life in our overcrowded island. The capacity of our public transport system appears to be saturated. In particular, the MRT needs a major investment in upgrading their signalling system in order to improve on the frequency of trains during peak hours. Adequate and affordable housing poses another big challenge. The present model of City Planning, based on a population size of 3 million, is totally inadequate to accommodate the present population size of 5 million. We need a model that could better integrate housing and the public transportation system.

Apparently, the Government has eventually realized the folly of their over-liberal FT policy. However, the proposed implementation of a higher levy for foreign workers to curb their growth, lacks feasibility in the absence of a corresponding minimum wage policy or an effective quota policy. The increased levy could be translated into even lower wages for the foreign workers.

The Budget gives minimum attention to the reality of our aging population. The need to have more conducive facilities for the elderly in all aspects of life, grows with each passing year. The Government ought to develop specific infrastructure such as the “elderly” villages, specific trades and recreational facilities to accommodate and provide for the enlarged senior communities, before the demand for such facilities reaches another tension point.

Last but not least, NSP wishes to remind the PAP government that there are still Singaporeans without a proper roof over their heads and there are genuine cases of poverty that needs to be addressed. There is a need to set up a comprehensive social welfare system to cope with the various needs of the socially and economically disadvantaged groups of people so to help them get off from the poverty trap.

Goh Meng Seng
Secretary General
National Solidarity Party
 

Goh Meng Seng

Alfrescian (InfP) [Comp]
Generous Asset
Reported in Chinese Zaobao:

国民团结党认为

对中小企业援助不足

  国民团结党对政府在财政预算案中提出的促进生产力增长的计划表示欢迎,不过却批评它对本地大多数的中小企业援助不足。

  党秘书长吴明盛昨天发出文告,针对财政部长尚达曼前天向国会宣布的预算声明作出回应时指出,本地中小企业是最迫切需要提升生产力的公司,但是多数中小企业都因缺乏资金,而无法对提高生产力所须的人力资源开发和科技作出可观的投资。

“提供更多税务回扣对它们来说于事无补。因为它们根本就连提高生产力所需的资金都没有。”

  他也批评政府不像台湾或韩国那样协助中小企业转型。他认为本地的中小企业应获得政府援助,以从为跨国企业服务的零部件供应商或合约制造商,转型为设计生产商或拥有本身的品牌,甚至发展为跨国公司。

  他还指出政府的预算案忽视了扩充社区设施以应付人口膨胀的问题。

  “我们需要一个更好地结合住屋与公共交通系统的城市规划模式。”

  团结党认为政府透过提高劳工税来抑制外劳人数的计划注定会失败。

  “政府终于领悟到它过去实行过度自由的外劳政策是愚蠢的。但是,如果还是不实行最低工资制或限制外劳人数,单是提高劳工税来抑制外劳人数是行不通的。而调高劳工税只意味着外劳的工资将减少。”

  他也提醒政府在拼生产力的同时,不要遗忘贫困家庭。

  “团结党想提醒行动党政府,本地还有一些人没有栖身之所,而且生活在贫困中。政府有必要制定一套完善的福利体系来协助社会上较不幸的群体,使他们脱贫。”
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
Spot on ............ relevant and covers the concern of most Singaporeans.

........... However, most SMEs do not have the financial means to embark on sizeable investments in human resources and technology to improve their productivity. Thus, the higher tax rebates would not solve their woes, as they do not have the required funds in the first place. NSP understands from sources that even the Special Risk-sharing Initiative (SRI) has reduced the repayment period from 5 years to 2 years while interest rate has been raised from 5% to 5.5%. Such adjustment coupled with stringent criteria would have effectively rule out most SMEs from the scheme.
.................It may ultimately benefit the larger firms which may have less requirement for additional financial incentives. It seems that there is no clear cut lines drawn between foreign and local, big and small enterprises within the stated policy. NSP feels that special emphasis should be given to the local SMEs to help upgrade themselves from mere contract manufacturers and spare parts suppliers to that of MNCs, and from Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) to that of Original Design Manufacturers (ODM), Private Label Manufacturers (PLM), or Main Brands Owners (MBO).


............................The NSP is also concerned that the Budget ignores the need in enhance the social infrastructure and amenities to cope with the increased population of 5 million and growing. The tremendous stress caused by the liberal foreign workers policy, has weakened our social fabric and created considerable tension to our way of life in our overcrowded island. .........................The capacity of our public transport system appears to be saturated. In particular, the MRT needs a major investment in upgrading their signalling system in order to improve on the frequency of trains during peak hours. .....................Adequate and affordable housing poses another big challenge. The present model of City Planning, based on a population size of 3 million, is totally inadequate to accommodate the present population size of 5 million. We need a model that could better integrate housing and the public transportation system.

......................Apparently, the Government has eventually realized the folly of their over-liberal FT policy.

...................The Budget gives minimum attention to the reality of our aging population. The need to have more conducive facilities for the elderly in all aspects of life, grows with each passing year. .......................The Government ought to develop specific infrastructure such as the “elderly” villages, specific trades and recreational facilities to accommodate and provide for the enlarged senior communities, before the demand for such facilities reaches another tension point.

Last but not least, NSP wishes to remind the PAP government that there are still Singaporeans without a proper roof over their heads and there are genuine cases of poverty that needs to be addressed. ....................There is a need to set up a comprehensive social welfare system to cope with the various needs of the socially and economically disadvantaged groups of people so to help them get off from the poverty trap.

Goh Meng Seng
Secretary General
National Solidarity Party
 

Goh Meng Seng

Alfrescian (InfP) [Comp]
Generous Asset
CNA & Todayonline reports:


Opposition parties give their views on Budget
By Ng Jing Yng, TODAY | Posted: 24 February 2010 0819 hrs


Photos 1 of 1

Singapore skyline



SINGAPORE: Several opposition parties have responded to the Budget report, with the general sentiment that the Government was right to aim for a higher value-added economy.

But they felt that the measures could be more effective and more targeted.

In a statement to the media, the National Solidarity Party (NSP) said it "appreciates the PAP Government efforts to invest in the productivity growth of Singapore", but felt that the higher tax rebates announced will ultimately benefit larger firms instead of small and medium enterprises.

NSP secretary-general Goh Meng Seng said: "Most SMEs do not have the financial means to embark on sizeable investments in human resources and technology to improve their productivity."

Likewise, Singapore Democratic Alliance secretary-general Desmond Lim said the Government is "on the right track of bringing up productivity through innovation".

But Singaporeans could benefit more from this, he said, if a portion of the increase in foreign worker levies is used to subsidise the wages of local workers.

Reform Party secretary-general Kenneth Jeyaretnam, who is currently in London, said that more could be done to "wean off" the economy's dependence on foreign labour.

"The increase in foreign worker levy is too gradual and small. Employers will either cut the pay of their workers or find cheaper sources," said Mr Jeyaretnam, who repeated his call for a minimum wage.

Meanwhile, Singapore Democratic Party secretary-general Chee Soon Juan said that "Budget 2010 is no different from past budgets" in tackling the perennial problem of productivity. He asked how a new National Productivity and Continuing Education Council would help when productivity growth already falls under the ambit of Spring Singapore.

While these parties seized the chance to comment on Tuesday, the Workers' Party will give its views when Parliament debates the Budget next week.

Singapore People's Party (SPP) secretary-general Chiam See Tong will also have a chance to respond.

Productivity was not the only issue the opposition parties touched on Tuesday. They felt that more could be done to tackle the issue of a greying population.

NSP's Mr Goh called for more conducive facilities for the elderly.

"The Government ought to develop specific infrastructure such as 'elderly' villages, specific trades and recreational facilities to accommodate and provide for the enlarged senior communities," he said.

Mr Jeyaretnam said the Government support, in terms of Medisave top-ups, was "meagre" compared to how other advanced countries provide for the less well-off.

The Reform Party suggested a universal health insurance scheme, while the SDA suggested that the extra revenue from the tax levy on casinos can be converted into funds for a social safety net for the elderly.

Parliament will debate the Budget as well as the expenditures and programmes of all the ministries from March 2 to 12.
 

Papsmearer

Alfrescian (InfP) - Comp
Generous Asset
GMS, your party did not mention the glaring contradiction that under D26 to D29, Temasek has been doing exactly these kind of financing but for companies in other countries. Why has not Temasek invested in S'pore based aspiring companies instead of aspiring companies in other countries? The PAP track record for support of viable and world ambitious companies is abysmal, evidenced by Creative Labs.
 

Goh Meng Seng

Alfrescian (InfP) [Comp]
Generous Asset
GMS, your party did not mention the glaring contradiction that under D26 to D29, Temasek has been doing exactly these kind of financing but for companies in other countries. Why has not Temasek invested in S'pore based aspiring companies instead of aspiring companies in other countries? The PAP track record for support of viable and world ambitious companies is abysmal, evidenced by Creative Labs.

Tharman has mentioned about "Angel investors" in his speech and I am not sure who or which companies he was referring to. This is a grey area and it might turn out that he is referring to Temasek. I have no solid evidence that Temasek or any GLCs are not those Angel investors he has mentioned, thus I could only take a broader approach.

I do agree with you. In fact, prior to putting up this press release, I have given ST reporter a short interview and mention that we need to groom more companies into Creative. They did not really understand the difference between OEM and ODM.

I have been reading a research on the difference between Korean and Singapore approaches towards technological research, written by Taiwanese researcher. It is written in Traditional Chinese here:

http://www.moea.gov.tw/~ecobook/cynex/saa18.htm


The gist of it, Korean has resisted reliance on MNCs for FDI as well as technological transfer via direct investment. They prefer to develop their own industries as well as technological research capabilities. Now, they are reaping off the benefits now, surpassing other Asian Tigers Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore.

We have lost a couple of decades of opportunity to grow our SMEs. We should not waste any more time.

Goh Meng Seng
 

Papsmearer

Alfrescian (InfP) - Comp
Generous Asset
Tharman has mentioned about "Angel investors" in his speech and I am not sure who or which companies he was referring to. This is a grey area and it might turn out that he is referring to Temasek. I have no solid evidence that Temasek or any GLCs are not those Angel investors he has mentioned, thus I could only take a broader approach.

I do agree with you. In fact, prior to putting up this press release, I have given ST reporter a short interview and mention that we need to groom more companies into Creative. They did not really understand the difference between OEM and ODM.

I have been reading a research on the difference between Korean and Singapore approaches towards technological research, written by Taiwanese researcher. It is written in Traditional Chinese here:

http://www.moea.gov.tw/~ecobook/cynex/saa18.htm


The gist of it, Korean has resisted reliance on MNCs for FDI as well as technological transfer via direct investment. They prefer to develop their own industries as well as technological research capabilities. Now, they are reaping off the benefits now, surpassing other Asian Tigers Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore.

We have lost a couple of decades of opportunity to grow our SMEs. We should not waste any more time.

Goh Meng Seng

Goh, I have to agree with you, but with regard to technological research I think the problem is much deeper than that. In order for a country to grow its R & D (mentioned elsewhere in the budget), and to develop their own industry internally (as you mention in your examples of the other 4 tigers), you need to have universities. The more unis you have the more engineers, researchers, etc. you can turn out. If you look at all the success stories of Silicon Valley, Boston, etc. you will see that there is a synergy between the unis (Stanford, MIT) and the aspiring companies in these areas. Without the unis, the companies cannot exist. In Singapore, this problem is 2 fold. One, the synergy does not exist. There are few aspiring companies along the lines that Tharm wants and if there are they are not affiliated with NUS. What synergy there is is Govt. made and not naturally forged. Secondly, there are just not enough unis and they do not graduate enough students. Roughly only 5% of all primary 1 students manage to get into a tertiary school in singapore. The number is something like 20% in Taiwan, and even higher in Korea (I want to say 30%).

Without these graduate students, you will never achieve what Tharm wants. If Korea had relied on MNCs like we have, there will never be a Samsung. The PAP also needs to change the business environment starting with the culture of "failure is not acceptable and is penalised" mentality.
 
S

sodoMee

Guest
World's fastest Robot!

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vzHpDDttIBU&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vzHpDDttIBU&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

World's Fastest Secretary!

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZKlv-Ps-ug0&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZKlv-Ps-ug0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
 
S

sodoMee

Guest
Goh, I have to agree with you, but with regard to technological research I think the problem is much deeper than that. In order for a country to grow its R & D (mentioned elsewhere in the budget), and to develop their own industry internally (as you mention in your examples of the other 4 tigers), you need to have universities. The more unis you have the more engineers, researchers, etc. you can turn out. If you look at all the success stories of Silicon Valley, Boston, etc. you will see that there is a synergy between the unis (Stanford, MIT) and the aspiring companies in these areas. Without the unis, the companies cannot exist. In Singapore, this problem is 2 fold. One, the synergy does not exist. There are few aspiring companies along the lines that Tharm wants and if there are they are not affiliated with NUS. What synergy there is is Govt. made and not naturally forged. Secondly, there are just not enough unis and they do not graduate enough students. Roughly only 5% of all primary 1 students manage to get into a tertiary school in singapore. The number is something like 20% in Taiwan, and even higher in Korea (I want to say 30%).

Without these graduate students, you will never achieve what Tharm wants. If Korea had relied on MNCs like we have, there will never be a Samsung. The PAP also needs to change the business environment starting with the culture of "failure is not acceptable and is penalised" mentality.

someone seriously look into our education system...

are we producing graduates that are not relevant to the needs of the industries because what they are learning now will longer be relevant after they graduated??

and why are we producing graduates who are not interested in R&D?

are there enough fundings for SGPlians&PR reseachers?

people leading the R&D centers, are they politicians or really visionary thinking scientists?

people trying take researched products into the markets, are they politicians or entrepreneurs? :biggrin:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Goh Meng Seng

Alfrescian (InfP) [Comp]
Generous Asset
Goh, I have to agree with you, but with regard to technological research I think the problem is much deeper than that. In order for a country to grow its R & D (mentioned elsewhere in the budget), and to develop their own industry internally (as you mention in your examples of the other 4 tigers), you need to have universities. The more unis you have the more engineers, researchers, etc. you can turn out. If you look at all the success stories of Silicon Valley, Boston, etc. you will see that there is a synergy between the unis (Stanford, MIT) and the aspiring companies in these areas. Without the unis, the companies cannot exist. In Singapore, this problem is 2 fold. One, the synergy does not exist. There are few aspiring companies along the lines that Tharm wants and if there are they are not affiliated with NUS. What synergy there is is Govt. made and not naturally forged. Secondly, there are just not enough unis and they do not graduate enough students. Roughly only 5% of all primary 1 students manage to get into a tertiary school in singapore. The number is something like 20% in Taiwan, and even higher in Korea (I want to say 30%).

Without these graduate students, you will never achieve what Tharm wants. If Korea had relied on MNCs like we have, there will never be a Samsung. The PAP also needs to change the business environment starting with the culture of "failure is not acceptable and is penalised" mentality.

Yes, you are right. The biggest mistake PAP made was to close Nantah back in 1980 when it could have transformed it or build even more Universities. While Taiwan and Korea, subsequently Hong Kong were building universities, we were doing the reverse. When PAP realized its mistake, it was 10 years too late.

Goh Meng Seng
 

Goh Meng Seng

Alfrescian (InfP) [Comp]
Generous Asset
Lianhe Wanbao reported yesterday night:

国民团结党秘书长吴明盛表示提高客工税或导致雇主压低外劳工资。

“针对提高生产力,政府宣布了5年计划,但对于基础设施如交通系统的改善,却没有提到相应的规划和拨款,这一点我感到失望。在没有最低工资的机制下,提高客工税未必会促使雇主减少外劳,或请更多本地员工,因为雇主可以压低给外劳的工资,而外劳还是会无奈地接受,这对本地员工也没好处。另外,政府对中小型企业的资助还可以更慷慨,很多中小企业没有余钱投入研发或自动化系统,未必能受惠于政府推出的生产力及优惠计划。”
 
S

sodoMee

Guest
Yes, you are right. The biggest mistake PAP made was to close Nantah back in 1980 when it could have transformed it or build even more Universities. While Taiwan and Korea, subsequently Hong Kong were building universities, we were doing the reverse. When PAP realized its mistake, it was 10 years too late.

Goh Meng Seng

are our Universities used as a political tool to keep students busily occupied or they have no political controls and freedom of ideas and expression and especially government involvement? Is the head of University kowtowing to gubernatorial political interests like snitching on fellow staffs taxi fares and postage stamps claims? :biggrin:
 

Goh Meng Seng

Alfrescian (InfP) [Comp]
Generous Asset
are our Universities used as a political tool to keep students busily occupied or they have no political controls and freedom of ideas and expression and especially government involvement? Is the head of University kowtowing to gubernatorial political interests like snitching on fellow staffs taxi fares and postage stamps claims? :biggrin:

That is the politically incorrect questions to ask... :wink:

But seriously, we need to relook into the whole model. Even the Chinese companies are flying pass us very rapidly. There must be something wrong with our industrial model.

Goh Meng Seng
 

Papsmearer

Alfrescian (InfP) - Comp
Generous Asset
Yes, you are right. The biggest mistake PAP made was to close Nantah back in 1980 when it could have transformed it or build even more Universities. While Taiwan and Korea, subsequently Hong Kong were building universities, we were doing the reverse. When PAP realized its mistake, it was 10 years too late.

Goh Meng Seng

Frankly, I don't think they realise their mistakes, and if they do, they don't care. Local unis are still allocating too many spaces to non singaporeans, and in fact, we can easily absorb another two 20,000 students unis. To them, its not a mistake to have one uni. Unis cost money to run, they don't provide profits and are a cash drain as well as fermenting grounds for young politically idealistic people. Also, PAP likes to keep the exclusivity and elitism of the uni degree, where in many countries, uni degrees are commonplace commodities. Hence, better not to have too many tertiary spots. Of course, this strategy is coming back to kill singapore.
 

longbow

Alfrescian
Loyal
They should also open a university that has a more liberal admittance policy. This will allow those who fall through the cracks in life another chance. I know of many who missed out on a tertiary edu because of poor 2nd languange skills. Others may have outmoded skill sets due to Gov policies.

Instead of giving out some job retraining $$ why not give them an avenue to change their career. No need for a new campus just put together an accredited curriculum, house them in one of the many empty office buildings away from CBD but next to MRT, get feedback on what industry wants (software programmers, financial analysts, etc) and start. That way we need not hear the excuse that we do not have enough FT. Why not take the 2 to 3 years and re-equip our citizens for these jobs. If we had such a university 3 years ago, today we would have a graduating class ready for the market. Some may even have a university edu and they can probably trade in their civil engineering degrees (course taken) and get a freshly minted degree in software programming.

It is worth the while to go back to university for a career change (a former civil engineer could now be a software engineer) since we are told that our retirement age should be 70. This means that even if we are 40 to 50 today, we could still reinvent ourselves and it makes economic sense because we can work till 70 (another 20 to 30 years of economic life). This will also help in the retirement time bomb that Singapore faces. A good 20 years of better earnings could mean a much better retirement and less reliance on the Gov.

I have met many ex bank managers with uni edu driving taxis. NTUC should ask how many drivers have poly and above edu. All these people can go back to university and come out with a good job waiting for them. What a waste of talent for them to be driving around in Taxis.


Frankly, I don't think they realise their mistakes, and if they do, they don't care. Local unis are still allocating too many spaces to non singaporeans, and in fact, we can easily absorb another two 20,000 students unis. To them, its not a mistake to have one uni. Unis cost money to run, they don't provide profits and are a cash drain as well as fermenting grounds for young politically idealistic people. Also, PAP likes to keep the exclusivity and elitism of the uni degree, where in many countries, uni degrees are commonplace commodities. Hence, better not to have too many tertiary spots. Of course, this strategy is coming back to kill singapore.
 

aurvandil

Alfrescian
Loyal
The NSP is also concerned that the Budget ignores the need in enhance the social infrastructure and amenities to cope with the increased population of 5 million and growing. The tremendous stress caused by the liberal foreign workers policy, has weakened our social fabric and created considerable tension to our way of life in our overcrowded island. The capacity of our public transport system appears to be saturated. In particular, the MRT needs a major investment in upgrading their signalling system in order to improve on the frequency of trains during peak hours. Adequate and affordable housing poses another big challenge. The present model of City Planning, based on a population size of 3 million, is totally inadequate to accommodate the present population size of 5 million. We need a model that could better integrate housing and the public transportation system.

Apparently, the Government has eventually realized the folly of their over-liberal FT policy. However, the proposed implementation of a higher levy for foreign workers to curb their growth, lacks feasibility in the absence of a corresponding minimum wage policy or an effective quota policy. The increased levy could be translated into even lower wages for the foreign workers.

AS an economic policy tool, there is actually nothing wrong with having a FT policy to grow the economy. India and China will become the next super powers of the world mainly because of the amount of manpower resource that they possess.

The problem with the FT policy in Singapore is that there seem to have been very little thinking in putting together an integrated policy. If you plan to increase the population substantially, then you need to make provision to increase key infrastruture services like housing, transportation, medical services etc. You need to take into account the negative impact of such a policy on wages and employment of the citizen population and implement the necessary policies to help those affected by the policy to cope with the policy.

Unfortunately none of this was done. The only KPI which the PAP set was GDP growth. As long as GDP was increasing, then policy was deemed to be "working".

Singapore will pay the price of this policy failure over the next 5 to 10 years. The recent budget with its meek levy adjustments will not change employer behaviour subtantially. The recent productivity improvement are a political half-truth. They will not work as anything which a Singaporean can learn, a foreigner can learn too. Employers will do the math and continue to demand for foreigners as long as it is more cost effective. Budget 2010 will therefore fail to achieve most of its lofty ambitions. If we are going to spend those billions as laid out by Tharman, then it will be simply more money wasted on yet another failed PAP initiative.
 
Last edited:

jw5

Moderator
Moderator
Loyal
That is the politically incorrect questions to ask... :wink:

But seriously, we need to relook into the whole model. Even the Chinese companies are flying pass us very rapidly. There must be something wrong with our industrial model.

Goh Meng Seng
There's no need to talk so much.
Just get yourself elected and make lives better for ordinary singaporeans.
I'm already getting a little tired of this political rhetoric, and the elections have not even been announced yet! :(
 

kingrant

Alfrescian
Loyal
Our best and brightest are seduced every year into govt scholarships abroad in Ivy League Unis and then into the secluded good life of a Mandarin in the Admin Service, and possibly into Ministerial appointment via GRC electoral mechanism. Taiwan, Korea and HK have no such delusionary paths or model to assured career or job success. They also do not believe that the best and brightest should be in govt. It will be some time before this model is reinvented or abandoned. As long as Old Man lives, he will never let go of this scholar mill for his PAP govt. Redesign the system to release them to the private sectors, esp the SMEs, encourage the entrepreneurial spirit by proper shared equity financing or co-investment with govt, cultivate a high tolerance to failures, more govt hands off in picking winners and FDIs...such ideas have been bandied before for the last 15 years, but Old Man is always the stumbling block. He still believes he can run Singapore as Singapore Inc.


That is the politically incorrect questions to ask... :wink:

But seriously, we need to relook into the whole model. Even the Chinese companies are flying pass us very rapidly. There must be something wrong with our industrial model.

Goh Meng Seng
 

tanwahtiu

Alfrescian
Loyal
Singapore did well in exporting their talents through migration. The budget should increase to improve Singapore position as the world best export of Singapore talents with 'good english speaking and educated Chinks' for Western countries. These talents are good to work for people as employees than as employers.... hahaha
 

yellow_people

Alfrescian
Loyal
Goh, I have to agree with you, but with regard to technological research I think the problem is much deeper than that. In order for a country to grow its R & D (mentioned elsewhere in the budget), and to develop their own industry internally (as you mention in your examples of the other 4 tigers), you need to have universities. The more unis you have the more engineers, researchers, etc. you can turn out. If you look at all the success stories of Silicon Valley, Boston, etc. you will see that there is a synergy between the unis (Stanford, MIT) and the aspiring companies in these areas. Without the unis, the companies cannot exist. In Singapore, this problem is 2 fold. One, the synergy does not exist. There are few aspiring companies along the lines that Tharm wants and if there are they are not affiliated with NUS. What synergy there is is Govt. made and not naturally forged. Secondly, there are just not enough unis and they do not graduate enough students. Roughly only 5% of all primary 1 students manage to get into a tertiary school in singapore. The number is something like 20% in Taiwan, and even higher in Korea (I want to say 30%).

Without these graduate students, you will never achieve what Tharm wants. If Korea had relied on MNCs like we have, there will never be a Samsung. The PAP also needs to change the business environment starting with the culture of "failure is not acceptable and is penalised" mentality.

Papsmearer, you are one of the more astute and sharper forummers out here and the infractions you receive is testimony to that fact. And you like me very well know that R&D, creativity and innovation let alone invention does not thrive in a sterile supressed environment such as Singapore. Anyone still remember "Oasis of Talent" slogan? We can have another 10 universities and 70 billion to raise productivity and entreprenuership but we will only be forestalling the inevitable.
 
Top