- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
[h=2]Prof Ng replies to TR Emeritus’ readers[/h]
March 4th, 2013 |
Author: Editorial
Professor Ng Yew Kwang speaks on his opposition to anti-immigration policies in this year's Budget. (Yahoo! photo)
TR Emeritus (TRE) reported that NTU’s Winsemius Chair Professor of Economics Ng Yew Kwang spoke out against what he perceives to be misconceptions on immigration, at an economic forum organized by the Economic Society of Singapore (ESS) last week (‘NTU professor speaks out against anti-immigration policies‘).
He mentioned congestion, as well as the depletion of existing resources and the crowding out of locals, as reasons held by the public against Singapore having a larger population.
Prof Ng said, “These views are largely based on fallacies, on mistaken ideas.”
He gave examples of crowded MRT and congestion on the road to support his views.
His views and controversial examples drew the ire of many TRE readers. More than 200 comments were posted by readers on the thread with many throwing counter arguments against his views.
Not long after the news report was put up, a TRE reader, Edward, submitted in his rebuttals to what Prof Ng had said (‘Rebutting NTU Prof Ng Yew Kwang’s views on immigation‘).
TRE then took the opportunity to forward Edward’s rebuttal to Prof Ng for comments.
TRE would like to thank Prof Ng for taking time to comment on Edward’s rebuttal and as promised, TRE is publishing Prof Ng’s reply in full below:
Editor’s note: Again guys, do try to be civil in posting your comments here. It’s ok to attack a view if you do not agree with it but let’s not attack the person expressing it. Let’s not get emotional and personal. We are all here to listen to all views so that we can be more enlightened to make our own decision
.
Join our TRE facebook page here: http://www.facebook.com/TREmeritus
TR Emeritus (TRE) reported that NTU’s Winsemius Chair Professor of Economics Ng Yew Kwang spoke out against what he perceives to be misconceptions on immigration, at an economic forum organized by the Economic Society of Singapore (ESS) last week (‘NTU professor speaks out against anti-immigration policies‘).
He mentioned congestion, as well as the depletion of existing resources and the crowding out of locals, as reasons held by the public against Singapore having a larger population.
Prof Ng said, “These views are largely based on fallacies, on mistaken ideas.”
He gave examples of crowded MRT and congestion on the road to support his views.
His views and controversial examples drew the ire of many TRE readers. More than 200 comments were posted by readers on the thread with many throwing counter arguments against his views.
Not long after the news report was put up, a TRE reader, Edward, submitted in his rebuttals to what Prof Ng had said (‘Rebutting NTU Prof Ng Yew Kwang’s views on immigation‘).
TRE then took the opportunity to forward Edward’s rebuttal to Prof Ng for comments.
TRE would like to thank Prof Ng for taking time to comment on Edward’s rebuttal and as promised, TRE is publishing Prof Ng’s reply in full below:
I have no time to answer individually to the hundreds of comments mostly against my views and loaded with emotions and extreme expressions. I thank the few who understand my views enough to strongly support them. I will just respond briefly to the 5 points [quite representative of the majority views] by Edward.
1. I do travel quite often by public buses and MRT. I prefer to be in Singapore without a car than in Bangkok and get stuck in traffic for hours. I do find the Singapore now with its 5.3m people much more convenient in transportation then when I was here in the mid 1960’s with its 1m+ population. With less people, the MRT could not have so many lines; the frequency of trains and buses would also be much lower. I have occasions to catch the 179 bus. Once, just before reaching the bus-stop, I saw two 179’s passing. I thought I had to wait at least 15 minutes but the next 179 came in less than 1 or 2 minutes. This is the advantage of a larger population most people ignore.
=> It only shows the power of monopolies to provide the bare minimum to extract the most lard from the people.
2. It is possible that, following a rapid increase in population [including from immigration], if the transportation facilities are not increased correspondingly, we may see a substantial increase in congestion which both the locals and immigrants will find inconvenient. However, I am concentrating on the long-term effects of different population sizes, with corresponding changes in facilities. I explicitly said something about ‘given the per-capita investment/tax’. Of course, the width of roads in Singapore will not be halved overnight if half of the people in Singapore suddenly disappear overnight. What I meant was that, in the long run, the facilities should be varied roughly corresponding to population size, if the per-capita investment/tax is held constant. Had Singapore maintained its 1m+ population size as half a century ago, its MRT, road systems, frequency of trains and buses would be much less or lower. Congestion would unlikely be less; transportation convenience would probably be less.
=> SGs would be driving cheap cars if this were to be the case!
Also, even household maids contribute to revenues through the levies paid by their employers. And of course foreign workers are not just low-tax paying workers but also include higher earners.
=> And revenues go to Ho Jinx's Gambling Fund!
3. If we have [or had as before] more people from overseas without improving the transport and other facilities, of course congestion will become worse. However, with more people, the economy becomes larger, tax revenues become larger [with per-capita tax unchanged], facilities should be expanded correspondingly in the long run. From media reports, the government is trying to catch up on some inadequacies or lags in the past and hopefully the current congestion situation will be significantly reduced.
4. Who is really picking and choosing specific countries to fit arguments. I ask people to compare the income levels of low populated country sides and highly populated cities for the same country for all countries. I also ask people to contrast the whole most populated continent (Europe) on earth and the least populated continent (Africa) except the small island continent of Australia with only 23 million people.
True, the quality of life in Australia is very high. However, its quality of life would probably be even higher if it has a bigger population with corresponding improvement in facilities, holding per-capita investment/tax unchanged. This is at least partly why Australia is taking in substantial number of immigrants. I am also aware of the fact that we cannot put 10 to the power of 10 people in the island of Singapore and that increases in land supply through reclaiming from the sea are very costly. However, up to certain limits, the law of diminishing returns due to the limited land size is more than offset by the economies of scale and specialization (through higher degrees of division of labour) and the public-good aspects of many things like knowledge. This is particular true if we take into account the importance of defence. I refer readers to my articles on the defence tax in Zaobao, 22 Feb. and Business Times, 26 Feb. I am not against the proposed defence tax in principal, but I sincerely believe that the Singapore economy and Singaporeans, at least as a whole, will benefit in the long run from having a larger population both through appropriate immigration and natural growth, when short-term problems like congestion are ironed out.
True, the quality of life is probably lower in China and India and similar countries than in Australia. However, I see the problems as arising not mainly from population but from institutions and policies.
=> But conveniently ignores the fact that SG has the highest population density in the world now? No point wasting time reading the rubbish below.
5. Higher immigration may push up prices of land and flats, favouring those already owning properties to the detriment of those who have not. Immigration of unskilled workers may also push down the wages of local unskilled workers. Though local Singaporeans benefit as a whole money wise (demonstrated in my book Common Mistakes in Economics: By the Public, Students, Economists, and Nobel Laureates, open access online), it need not be so welfare wise. The gain of 100 million dollars to the rich may be less than the loss of 50 million dollars to the poor in welfare terms. If this happens, the situation should be rectified by trying to improve the distribution of income. In my speech at the Budget Forum on 28 Feb., I also explicitly mentioned that I strongly support the recent emphasis of my predecessor, Prof. Lim Chong Yah on the importance of equality. I also mentioned that, though Singapore has done well on efficiency and growth in the past, it has not done so well on equality and broader social objectives, including happiness. I suggested that Singapore is in a good economic and financial position so that it may pursue more in these areas without worrying too much about doing it excessively. [This aspect of my talk is missed out in the TR Emeritus report.] Thus, the innuendos and even outright accusations that I argue in favour of the White Paper for personal gain like promotion or tenure is simply not true. I am already 70 and am on a 5-year contract. My current plan is to retire after this contract and I can certainly not be promoted as I am already a full professor; I have no aspiration nor competency (no admin experience) in being a dean or a president. I have no personal gain from saying the truth [at least what I believe to be the truth] that I believe is good for Singapore. I knew that I would likely lose personally as I knew that this view is very unpopular. I explicitly say this in my presentation at the Budget Forum. My first ‘pro-population’ research paper was published at least as early as in 1986 in Population and Development Review, an A* rated academic journal, more than 2.5 decades before I left Australia to accept the invitation of NTU to succeed Prof. Lim. Monash University had offered to continue my appointment there and gave me the title of an emeritus professor upon my leaving.
.
Prof Ng Yew Kwang
Winsemius Chair Professor of Economics
Nanyang Technological University
.1. I do travel quite often by public buses and MRT. I prefer to be in Singapore without a car than in Bangkok and get stuck in traffic for hours. I do find the Singapore now with its 5.3m people much more convenient in transportation then when I was here in the mid 1960’s with its 1m+ population. With less people, the MRT could not have so many lines; the frequency of trains and buses would also be much lower. I have occasions to catch the 179 bus. Once, just before reaching the bus-stop, I saw two 179’s passing. I thought I had to wait at least 15 minutes but the next 179 came in less than 1 or 2 minutes. This is the advantage of a larger population most people ignore.
=> It only shows the power of monopolies to provide the bare minimum to extract the most lard from the people.
2. It is possible that, following a rapid increase in population [including from immigration], if the transportation facilities are not increased correspondingly, we may see a substantial increase in congestion which both the locals and immigrants will find inconvenient. However, I am concentrating on the long-term effects of different population sizes, with corresponding changes in facilities. I explicitly said something about ‘given the per-capita investment/tax’. Of course, the width of roads in Singapore will not be halved overnight if half of the people in Singapore suddenly disappear overnight. What I meant was that, in the long run, the facilities should be varied roughly corresponding to population size, if the per-capita investment/tax is held constant. Had Singapore maintained its 1m+ population size as half a century ago, its MRT, road systems, frequency of trains and buses would be much less or lower. Congestion would unlikely be less; transportation convenience would probably be less.
=> SGs would be driving cheap cars if this were to be the case!
Also, even household maids contribute to revenues through the levies paid by their employers. And of course foreign workers are not just low-tax paying workers but also include higher earners.
=> And revenues go to Ho Jinx's Gambling Fund!
3. If we have [or had as before] more people from overseas without improving the transport and other facilities, of course congestion will become worse. However, with more people, the economy becomes larger, tax revenues become larger [with per-capita tax unchanged], facilities should be expanded correspondingly in the long run. From media reports, the government is trying to catch up on some inadequacies or lags in the past and hopefully the current congestion situation will be significantly reduced.
4. Who is really picking and choosing specific countries to fit arguments. I ask people to compare the income levels of low populated country sides and highly populated cities for the same country for all countries. I also ask people to contrast the whole most populated continent (Europe) on earth and the least populated continent (Africa) except the small island continent of Australia with only 23 million people.
True, the quality of life in Australia is very high. However, its quality of life would probably be even higher if it has a bigger population with corresponding improvement in facilities, holding per-capita investment/tax unchanged. This is at least partly why Australia is taking in substantial number of immigrants. I am also aware of the fact that we cannot put 10 to the power of 10 people in the island of Singapore and that increases in land supply through reclaiming from the sea are very costly. However, up to certain limits, the law of diminishing returns due to the limited land size is more than offset by the economies of scale and specialization (through higher degrees of division of labour) and the public-good aspects of many things like knowledge. This is particular true if we take into account the importance of defence. I refer readers to my articles on the defence tax in Zaobao, 22 Feb. and Business Times, 26 Feb. I am not against the proposed defence tax in principal, but I sincerely believe that the Singapore economy and Singaporeans, at least as a whole, will benefit in the long run from having a larger population both through appropriate immigration and natural growth, when short-term problems like congestion are ironed out.
True, the quality of life is probably lower in China and India and similar countries than in Australia. However, I see the problems as arising not mainly from population but from institutions and policies.
=> But conveniently ignores the fact that SG has the highest population density in the world now? No point wasting time reading the rubbish below.
5. Higher immigration may push up prices of land and flats, favouring those already owning properties to the detriment of those who have not. Immigration of unskilled workers may also push down the wages of local unskilled workers. Though local Singaporeans benefit as a whole money wise (demonstrated in my book Common Mistakes in Economics: By the Public, Students, Economists, and Nobel Laureates, open access online), it need not be so welfare wise. The gain of 100 million dollars to the rich may be less than the loss of 50 million dollars to the poor in welfare terms. If this happens, the situation should be rectified by trying to improve the distribution of income. In my speech at the Budget Forum on 28 Feb., I also explicitly mentioned that I strongly support the recent emphasis of my predecessor, Prof. Lim Chong Yah on the importance of equality. I also mentioned that, though Singapore has done well on efficiency and growth in the past, it has not done so well on equality and broader social objectives, including happiness. I suggested that Singapore is in a good economic and financial position so that it may pursue more in these areas without worrying too much about doing it excessively. [This aspect of my talk is missed out in the TR Emeritus report.] Thus, the innuendos and even outright accusations that I argue in favour of the White Paper for personal gain like promotion or tenure is simply not true. I am already 70 and am on a 5-year contract. My current plan is to retire after this contract and I can certainly not be promoted as I am already a full professor; I have no aspiration nor competency (no admin experience) in being a dean or a president. I have no personal gain from saying the truth [at least what I believe to be the truth] that I believe is good for Singapore. I knew that I would likely lose personally as I knew that this view is very unpopular. I explicitly say this in my presentation at the Budget Forum. My first ‘pro-population’ research paper was published at least as early as in 1986 in Population and Development Review, an A* rated academic journal, more than 2.5 decades before I left Australia to accept the invitation of NTU to succeed Prof. Lim. Monash University had offered to continue my appointment there and gave me the title of an emeritus professor upon my leaving.
.
Prof Ng Yew Kwang
Winsemius Chair Professor of Economics
Nanyang Technological University
Editor’s note: Again guys, do try to be civil in posting your comments here. It’s ok to attack a view if you do not agree with it but let’s not attack the person expressing it. Let’s not get emotional and personal. We are all here to listen to all views so that we can be more enlightened to make our own decision
.
Join our TRE facebook page here: http://www.facebook.com/TREmeritus
