in a flattened world with boundaries eroded, it is difficult to convince a populace to think big when in reality we are indeed a tiny red dot compared to others.
only fools living in cubicle space would open their doors to party goers fit for mansion.

A country that has the economic strength to grow should grow and not be hindered by irrational and emotionally-charged fears.

Singapore should grow both in economic might as well as population size if it can. Policy-makers cannot be held back by the fear to tread, else nothing ever grows or progresses.

Every growing nation in history has and continues to face the variant grouses the local populace has with a migrant diaspora and the "ills" it brings. Unfortunately, as history continues to show, eg in the USA, UK, EU and Australia, population growth in emergent nations either via migration or baby boom has always been for the betterment of the nation, tempered (or is it cast in a bad light) by reports of irrational grouses coming to the fore.

History also shows that migration is the fastest way for an emergent nation to quickly realise its potential. In the height of SEAsian migration to Australia for education and jobs in the late 90s, the grouses became more apparent, especially with one Ms Hanson corrupting the process for her own political mileage. But as the nation progressed, the fire and ire die down and life goes on. Fast forward 20 years and Australia and Australians are now enjoying the fruits of a liberal migration policy, at least for the states that embraced it, ie Victoria, New South Wales, where large population growths equated larger economic growths.

Here's an article in South China Morning Post that could add some thought to the discussion. Its a columnist who was responding to another column in the same paper written by a former govt official, Regina Ip. (She resigned just before Tung Chee Hwa left). i won't reprint the whole article here - but the excerpts that touch upon some foreign talent policy.

The paras that are in quotes are those he quoted from the column.

-------------------
"A corporate tax cut announced in its [Singapore's] latest budget will be balanced by a 2 per cent GST increase, apparently because the government puts corporate investors ahead of the retail and tourism industries."

More than apparently, madam. Let us also have it clear that the corporate investment largely comes from abroad while retail and tourism are domestic industries. These tax changes tell you that Singapore puts foreigners ahead of its own citizens. Is that what you would like us to do in Hong Kong too?

"For example, Singapore decided that at least 25 per cent of its economy must be in manufacturing; so it pulled out all the stops to lure multinationals that could bring in technology and high-skilled jobs."

What high-skilled jobs? Manufacturing jobs in technology are technician jobs. The high skill in technology is in devising the machines on which the manufacturing technicians push buttons and Singapore imports these machines.

It also imports the workers who operate them. Twenty per cent of its population is non-resident. Thus the wages leave Singapore from the bottom while the dividends leave Singapore from the top of these largely foreign staffed and foreign-owned operations. Singaporeans get little from the government's obsession with technology. Do we want to copy this?

"We have always had a hard time competing with Singapore in enticing biotech or semiconductor manufacturing giants because of our inability to offer free land, direct investment or other subsidies."

If only it were true that we do not throw away public land and public money on technology delusions. The likes of Cyberport and Science Park tell us otherwise.

But when you talk of giant and technology in the same breath in Singapore, you can only be talking of the regular giant losses of Chartered Semiconductor. Yes indeed, that would be the one owned by the Singapore government. The foreigners don't lose money like that. They just take the money and run.

Wayne's point is that research should be done so that the discourse on the impact of immigration and an increased population can be empirically based and, hopefully, thereby more useful to all concerned. That said, I don't blame those tempted to respond to the post by sounding off their views on the issue of immigration and population growth as these affect livelihoods directly.

One suspects that at least some of the data that might impact on this debate might be available. So another approach might be to identify the kind of data that would impact on this discourse, make a case for its relevance and seek support for a call for its disclosure into the public realm.

For example, what percentage of our workforce is employed in sectors of the economy that cater to a global market compared with the percentage who make a living from the 'local' economy i.e.selling their goods/ services locally ? What are the profiles of the immigrants we have attracted and intend to attract ? Will they contribute by growing the 'global' wing of the economy or just add to the stress on the local ? What policies are in place to ensure that they will in fact contribute to growing the 'global' wing/ sectors of the the economy ?

Wong Hoong Hooi

Empirical evidence is good. Much evidence have been found in the US and UK on the overall benefits on immigration. Even though the country will benefit, some segments will lose. Immigration therefore becomes a political issue, away from economic considerations.

I fear that no amount of substantiable evidence will ever convince the man on the street to accept that immigration is good for his country if his livelihood becomes threathened by it. It is painful to watch how the GOP/Democrats and Labour/Tories grapple with this is painfu. Lots of nonsensical arguments, policy flip flops from both sides.

I think you already know who has the relevant information. I think you also know about the selective chunks of information that have been released. Even when the releases have been so selectively made, the picture does not look pretty for Singaporeans.

You may also recall how one such piece of information was amended three times in a CNA online article - each amendment cleverly designed to look a little more as if jobs created in Singapore were actually going to Singaporeans.

More research is absolutely necessary. But I want to stress two other factors that would make 'more research' effective, because 'more research' can also become ideologically driven, or should I say, propagandishly towing the party line.

1. More research done by multiple and independent researchers. The problem is that the think tanks here are strongly strung to the government, and they do their thinking either for the government or with the government in mind, since they are funded by the state. The universities have more independence, but the problem may be funding, as most research funding now comes from the state, which means that government 'terms of reference' tend to influence the research. We don't have independent NGOs with the kind of resources to mount such research. So how?

2. More research is rather pointless when there is no transparency, when almost every other bit of information is classified as state secret, as Mr Wang said so. When there is a poverty of information, there is conspiracy theory. Clever researchers would try to go around it and collect their own information, or use proxy information. But recall the NTU professors who got heat for their research into, if I remember correctly, the income gap , or was it related to this topic, non-citizen income versus citizen income. They were blasted by the relevant government ministry, who retorted they were wrong as their information was faulty, which was all too convenient since the information was not released. So, in the end, all we can do is trust in the 'Authority' of the ministries, or believe the spin-spill that the state-owned media broadcast when we are half-awake from our slumber trying to get to the consciousness to earn our daily bread. I find myself in a faith situation in a secular and purportedly democratic country. So how?

Wong, research need not be done since alot of it has already been done b4. Do we need another $400,000 Marina Bay debacle?

http://www.anz.com/business/info_centre/economic_commentary/StatesJan06.pdf

Independent research on Australian state economic growth vis-a-vis population changes, either via inter-state migration or otherwise. The document speaks for itself.

One might ask, yes this is evidence, is should we have more? Yes you can always have more but I think it's enough. While a call for research might sound balanced and fair, to me it's irrational thought wrapped in prose.

Singapore will not have achieved its global successes without the migrant population we have today at 1 million plus. Growing our population from 4 million to 6 is merely the next evolutionary step. What, did you honestly think our population would be artificially culled at 4 million? Nor do we have the luxury of waiting for CMIO to produce enough children fast enough.

Thank you for all your comments. =)

Dansong and Mr Wang,

While I agree there is much difficulty in doing research in Singapore (and Dan has pointed out a very important issue on the relationship between intellectuals and state power which I will discuss later in this post), there do exist avenues for information on policies and issues in Singapore. I will also be deliberately provocative in some of my arguments in this post for us to think about some of these issues at hand.

In Singapore, one key area of accountability politics is the parliament, where Members of Parliament are able to ask questions and data on issues such as immigration and the minister is obliged to reply. All reports are accessible to the public and for researchers to purview. I suspect Dan, that is what you also do with historical legislative records for your own research? This is the reason why I tend to look through Hansard reports before writing any substantial articles on issues I am interested it.

There is a caveat though on the limitation of parliamentary questions on the immigration issues. I postulate that the PAP and opposition MPs have difficulty prodding such issues and asking relevant questions because they don't want to appear xenophobic or non-inclusive, which is a sort of label that is floating around that somehow limits rational debate on the issue. (Even though Slyvia Lim asked a few in her opening speech in a careful and round-about manner; notice the focus on immigration for her maiden speech)

My only question is, why aren't the NMPs asking the Minister Wong and Mah then for all these figures then? I thought it would be a great opportunity to ask since they are politically less at stake and have the intellectual capacities to do so. Perhaps Mr. Siew, whom I am particularly impressed with his maiden speech, can take up the challenge.

The issue of intellectuals and state power is a more problematic one. I disagree with the observation that simply because think-tanks and universities in Singapore are directly or indirectly related to state power, therefore their research is somehow "tainted" fundamentally. I think too little historical weight and imagination is given to the agents, the researchers themselves, here. As you mention, many researchers try to adopt clever methodology to circumvent the current research mines. In fact, I think such issues cut across space and time. Bruce Cumings, a Chicago historian, argues in his book "Parallax Vision" that the formation of "area studies" in American higher education also has the footprints and hand-prints of the American government and the CIA.

Thus, with such knowledge at the back of one's head, we can then assess the work of these researchers in more critical light. However, does it really mean that their research is less objective than let say, someone that has no stake on the issue?

What REALLY differentiates, for example, Garry Rodan's work on Singapore politics and Diane Mauzy and R.S Milne's work on Singapore politics? Thus, can the issue only be boiled down to "independence of researchers"?

But to say, in a rather post modernist fashion, can any research can be totally independent? Are we to say there are no agenda by "non-independent NGOs"? Are there compelling reasons to reject their basic premises or many of their arguments? Ironically, many researchers already buy into the epistemology and methodology that is commonly associated with neo-liberalism. Who is the agent and structure then?

Finally, I don't see doing research and pushing boundaries on research a zero-sum game. Do we try to work with the best we have currently or do we want to change the boundaries to allow for more independent and multiple research? I don't see both mutually problematic.

Mr Wang, Dansong,

We all know some data is not made public, this is not in dispute. But if you look at the various publicly released statistic trends, it is definitely possible to piece together a more or less accurate picture of immigration numbers - demographic trends moves at glacial speed compared to other kinds of data. You only need a large enough spreadsheet and sufficient patience and care to do the forensics.

But then again, I don't think I even need to look at the data to know that some segments in society might be made worse off with more immigration. There are enough research in other countries that point to that. Here is the double-edge sword we face:

On one hand, Singaporeans demand govt to be stringent about the quality of people we let in. Now think about it, the more high calibre people (students or professionals) we attract, the worse it must be for some native Singaporeans relatively speaking. Their relative position in society must be worse off, since we are asking for immigrants with higher quality that the average we have.

This is the tradeoff, we cannot have the cake and eat it too - that is, on one hand demand that immigrants be of high quality, and on the other, demand that all local Singaporeans can maintain their relative socio-economic standing. This is the incoherence that I observe in many blogs.

Wayne, Mr Wang, Dansong,

I hasten to add that I am keen to hear your take on the tradeoff I just mentioned. Do you think it is better to slow down high quality immigrants to maintain the relative socio-economic standing of native Singaporeans.

[By the way, appreciate if we do not mix immigration policy with foreign workers policy, since the latter are transient workers].]

Regards.

Bart

You are asking the impossible of most of the commentaters as far as economic prospects are concerned. The desire is of no tradeoffs and that the reserves built up are to be used to ensure such. Further,this should be prioritised that there are no tradeoffs for nativeborn Singaporeans who are male & have served NS and those of the PMET who are now having sandwich issues especially those above 35 firstly and than in declining order of priority.

The problem is that such prioritisation perception arises due to the redhot economic times in Singapore till the ASEAN financial crisis where basically people could leave without batting an eye or need to secure a job first. This is despite the well known news where US/UK economies in the 80s and both 80s & 90s for Japan were suffering gut wrenching layoff issues for the PMET class there at the time. This was further compounded by the effiency & perceptions created during those times.

Regards

Wang,

You may have a point there that the govt can be more generous for the lower income native Singaporeans, or even towards the PMET or Singaporean males. I don't question this argument. I understand and respect your concerns for them.

But I hope you understand that even if we help some Singaporeans to make sure that their absolute standard of living is acceptable, it is not possible to guarantee that all Singaporeans will maintain their relative socio-economic positions, if we set the standard to attract high calibre people.

Even though many Singaporeans may not express it outright, I sense that the erosion of relative socio-economic standing is their real fear. It is something I don't think research (which inevitably tend to focus on the overall benefits) can quell.

Regards,
Bart.

(This comment is only addressed to Wayne, I only want his reply)

Wayne, do you think it is wise to reveal information to Singaporeans, some of which are very notorious for looking at the worse side of things, looking at statistics and whining at the "always so bad" facts and figures?

I said the rich pay progressively more than the poor in terms of GST tax. But the whiners would then over-react before the know the whole truth of the off-set package and come up with mathematical distortions that the poor would pay an "inversely regressive" GST tax, using their dysfunctional mathematical "proofs" as basis to substantiate their whining.

Why should the government reveal globalising statistics and information to a national of pessimists? Singaporeans already cannot handle looking at the figures in their bills so why the need to give them more whining material? They would probably take the facts and statistics, and write twisted views on their whiny blogs. And then WSM would resurrect.

Maybe the information should only be revealed to dedicated people who have the roles in implementing social counter-measures.

Wayne and Bart,

Thanks for the thought-provoking responses. Lots of stuff there.

First, research funding and independent intellectuals. On NMPs, I am sceptical of their 'critical' role in creating more debate in parliament and opening up the state opacity. This is something I draw from my historical research into the nominated Chinese representatives of the Straits Settlements Legislative Council (1870s-1930s), the predecessor to our national parliament. The Chinese reps, all prominent members of the community like the NMPs now, were supposed to represent the 'ground' view independently, but for the most part until the 1900s, they were ineffective and treat their position as a social honor, a kind of public recognition by the authorities then. It was not until a new generation of Straits Chinese leaders rose, who organized themselves through various civil society organizations, that the Chinese LegCo reps became more effective in challenging and crafting policies, in posing questions to get more transparency. In particular, Lim Boon Keng during the 1910s and his successors later were really good at it. This depended on two things: their political response to ground nationalist and anti-colonial movements, and their own organization and networking as a self-conscious stratum of society. As long as the NMPs treat their nomination as a medal of recogntion and do not respond to ground movements, then they are useless. And even if they do respond, as long as NMPs remain as fragmented individual actors represent just a small section of the community, then their voice won't be effective and the government of the day will treat them as token representations.

I don't take the view that state funding per se will make the data collection and analysis biased. Yes, everyone is in a way 'compromised' and no one can be truly independent - if so, one would be considered mad and outside the confines of society, ignored and perhaps ostracized as a jeremiad. My point is that, precisely because of this, we need multiple research so that the clashing of data and views from varied and relative positions of independence will end up with good standing but provisional truths. This is at the core of science. Not the truth articulated by one or two parties of research from an authoritative position, but truth arising from multiple research that check and correct each other. Right now, and as long as transparency of information does not exist, the first situation persists. Some privileged researchers will be allowed to access the data, but will not be able to publish the data and analysis for the public (including scientific journals). These researchers will be given terms of reference by the government so that the civil servants will know the 'truth' (not really, since one research does not produce truth) and we have no recourse but to trust in their authority (either that, or apathy coupled with conspiracy theorizing).

Second, Bart's tradeoff: Do you think it is better to slow down high quality immigrants to maintain the relative socio-economic standing of native Singaporeans. Problem, I don't think we have enough data to make the assumptions underlying this tradeoff. The tradeoff assumes these causal relationships: (1) HIGH QUALITY IMMIGRATION causes ECONOMIC GROWTH, (2)ECONOMIC GROWTH DUE TO HIGH QUALITY IMMIGRATION causes INCREASE IN OVERALL/AVERAGE SOCIO-ECON STANDING OF SPOREANS but (3) DECREASE IN RELATIVE SOCIO-ECON STANDING OF SPOREANS. A lot of problems, not enough data being one of them.

The historical examples of Western countries are often used to show (1), but is it applicable to first, the globalization era, second, to developed postcolonial countries such as ours?

For (2), overall/average socio-econ standing, measured by income or job growth, hides how the economic pie is shared among the population, and that is fundamentally, the issue here. The questions are who loses out or gains more and how much for each group? We have been talking about who is going to lose out, but what if we ask who is gaining from all this, will the arguments in this forum and in the wider Sporean bloggoscape change?

For (3), we have no picture as yet to the relative standing of immigrants and native citizens - but I suspect even high quality immigrants are stratified in terms of socio-econ standing, so the question of relative standing becomes complicated, and we cannot talk in terms of immigrants vs. native citizens, but have to go into the details of which class/group compared with which.

My standing opinion is that immigration is good ON THE AVERAGE, but the question is one of balancing between relative standing and overall growth, with the details of how much immigration affects growth and the stratification of natives and immigrants considered. And this balancing is a PUBLIC issue and good, and therefore should involve not just civil servants, elected politicians and privileged researchers, but the whole society/public in deliberation as to what kind of balance we want. Or else, our talk here will just go round in circles with lots of rants and frustrations, and conspiratorial ideas and stupid condescensions about the stupidity of Sporeans (how ironical) going around.

Bart

I do understand where you are coming from and do subcribe to the basic worldview of "equal opportunity for all but not equal outcomes". In a nutshell, I do not dispute and sympathise with your proposed points and arguments not to conflate the different issues.

My comment was just to point out the real & imagined fears and some of the underpinnings behind the comments, having also come across your well made points on the polarised debate in UK/USA and which also occurs in Australia and the resultant politics.

Further, this is compounded in Singapore where "services" per se are viewed as demeaning and not just to regards as a honest day's work eg recent news report on cleaner.

Frankly, my sympathies lie with all Singaporean kids whether nativeborn or otherwise and who should not be themselves who are fully adult and should be given the full support so as to reach their potential at age 21. From than onwards, the marathon would need to be run individually although some necessary measures should be given to people who have been hit by the globalisation truck, hence in agreement on some negative income tax credits or welfare with work/training required. I would make Charles Handy's books as required reading.

Regards
Wang

WBG:

On the contrary, I find Singaporeans generally forgiving, forgetful and understanding with regards to most government's policies. In Dan's words, often Singaporeans "find themselves in a faith situation in a secular and purportedly democratic country." I think the conclusion to my article speaks clearly on my stand.

"However, the debate on immigration should go beyond the emotional and intrinsic towards a rational discourse based on rigorous research on the issue of immigration in Singapore. If all residents and foreigners will need to live in a growing Singapore due to the necessities of globalisation, is increasing resources for research on immigration not the least we can do?"

Dan:

I am less skeptical of the role of the NMPs in the Singapore Parliament. I agree with you that many NMPs are closely intertwined with state power--one of which was recently appointed the head of Sentosa Development Council. Some of them are trade unionists and many of them go on to become ambassadors after their stint as NMPs. And it is interesting that contemporary situation drew its lineage from the NCR in the Straits Settlements Legislative Council , shedding even more doubt on the "new-nation" thesis propagated by the post-colonial regime.

But surely in contemporary times of the NMP scheme, there are NMPs who are not related to state's power. They represent civil society organizations from the Nature Society to the Women Rights Group AWARE. Yet others are independent observers that have very limited ties to the state power. Many have asked important questions helpful to research. However, I do take your point of view that such appointments are elitist in nature; how much do the NMPs really can articulate those most divorce from state power? Have they created U-turns in policies?

I completely support your point on multiple research to get to the "truth" of the matter. But what if we can't even start running the first lap alone, can we get 5 other people to ran the marathon of truth with us?

P.S. I am very interested in reading your research on the nominated Chinese representatives of the Straits Settlements Legislative Council; if it is ever published in the form of a journal article or more, please share with me.

(This comment is only addressed to Wayne, I only want his reply)

Wayne,

you said,
"On the contrary, I find Singaporeans generally forgiving, forgetful and understanding with regards to most government's policies."

However, this does not specifically apply to the minority who are notorious for distorting the truth of facts and advocating so. Preventing facts distortions is often one of the main factors sensitive information is not revealed to the public.

You also said,
"However, the debate on immigration should go beyond the emotional and intrinsic towards a rational discourse based on rigorous research on the issue of immigration in Singapore."

Again, the question is raised on why globalisation information "should" be revealed to non-policy makers who do not have the roles in implementing social counter-measures. Why should the public be given statistical information on globalisation? "Faith" in perception and behaviour is not a logical criteria in determining whether sensitive information "should" be revealed to the public. "Should" everything be done on "faith" alone?

"Should" doesn't mean it would. Can you guarantee that your "should suggestion" that the whiners "would" listen to reason? One good example is that I told them progressive GST tax is not regressive but they didn't listen to my reason. So unless you can ensure that facts "would" not be dangerously distorted by such people, perhaps important globalisation information "should" not be revealed to the public.

Wayne,
I don't think more research is the solution, especially along the socio-economic strata you mentioned. Based on my experience here at the UK, immigration will always be divisive. There will always be some losers (at least relatively speaking).

Wang,
Appreciate your comment about not conflating the issues.

A potentially divisive issue like this requires the resonable majority to hold the frame of the debate, and prevent it from sliding into something truly nasty (bad for immigrants, and bad for ourselves as an enlightened society).

Regards,
Bart.

(This comment is only addressed to WBG, replies are optional)

You find that there are always some people who misrepresent or distort information, whether intentionally out of malice or unintentionally out of stupidity, but does this necessarily mean that governments must hide information from the public?

There are plenty of examples of people who either don't understand information, or intentionally misrepresent information, such as yourself, and yet this does not mean that the state must somehow step in and remove all relevant information from the public domain.

At the end of the day, you must re-examine your assumption that governments always act in the best interests of the people. They often don't, not because of malice, even though that could possibly happen, but more likely it is because of hubris, the fatal conceit that governments can solve all problems.

US/UK/Australia may have a liberal immigration policy, but are they more open to immigration compared to Singapore? Is it easier to migrate to US/UK/Australia or Singapore? If Singapore were to adopt, say, Australian immigration rules, will be a net tightening or loosening of our current immigration restrictions? If you think that it will be a tightening, then stop using these countries as examples to promote Singapore's "foreign talent" policy. You are comparing apples with oranges.

At the same time, does Singapore have a social safety net for her citizens that is comparable to US/UK/Australia?

It is silly for any nation to reject high quality high calibre immigrants, but Singapore isnt just aiming for quality. As long as you have a degree from any university and a local company willing to pay the minimum wage of $2500 and sponsor the application of the Q or S employment pass for you, Singapore will welcome you with open arms. This has created an artificial salary ceiling, not just for the lowest income, but for the bulk of Singaporeans without a degree, ie poly dip and below. We are talking about 60% of Singapore with an effective pay ceiling caused by an unlimited inflow of Q and S employment pass holders, while acting as a millstone around the neck of graduates who arent earmarked as talents like the esteemed writers who contribute to Singapore Angle.

And one has to ask, what kind of internationally mobile talent can $2500 buy you? How many of you will leave your comfy home to take up a job that pays you $2500, with no possibility of bonus or increments? Where is the talent in the "foreign talents"? And yet these minimum wage Q and S EP holders form bulk of the white collar foreign contingent who are practically slaves to their employers because their residency privileges will be remove if their employment is terminated. Why hire a servant when you can own a slave? And if you have first hand working experience with such "foreign talents" like I do, you will know that I am not exaggerating when I say most of them will not be able to pass English at GCE "O" level, and few can "hit the ground running" even with their "vast" work experience in their home countries as stated in their resumes submitted to MOM.

In a 6.5 million future, will some Singaporeans be better off? I suppose there will be, especially the cutting edge talents like the esteemed writers of Singapore Angle, the business owners and the well-connected. But if you intend to raise your children in Singapore, and you cannot be sure that your genes and connections will ensure they rise to the elite class, then you better not use taxi-drivers as bogeymen, for in a crowded island with a massive rich-poor gap, your kids would be lucky to drive a cab.

Speaking of NMP, instead of raising Singaporean issues, one NMP Gautam Banerjee decided to be a champion for "foreign talents" and demanded "something significant" from the budget to make them "as comfortable as possible" even if "they were just passing through with no plans to stay".

I wonder if he thinks it is a good idea if we should budget handouts to tourists for choosing Singapore as a holiday destination?

By the way, I am amazed by how blind the people who updated his CV on the parliament homepage is. Does he look remotely like he is 29 years old, and received his bachelor's degree before he was born?

The main thrust of the article points toward more research to be done and be made publicly available: the 'public' may thus argue within itself (i.e. the polity) about the pros and cons using these best available research. This, however, does not also mean that people will be any more convinced, in the resulting argumentation, any policy direction set by the executive of the nation's government.

Likewise, policy makers can be informed by results of more research, but we should be aware that policy makers are also not obliged to make policies according to policy recommendations/implications.

Jimmy,

I can only hope that you can disentangle the various issues. If you think lack social safety net is the issue, then make the case for it. If you think the entry eligibility criteria is the problem, then make a case on how it can be better adjusted. Hope you would also be kind enough not dish out terms like 'elite, genes, connections, bogeymen' around. I don't quite get the point you are making.

Bart,

The problems are tangled, or they are not problems to start with.

I am not against NS or reservist training. But if we are expected to compete against this many foreigners in the job market, then the government cant tie the legs of Singaporeans down with NS and still expect us to run as fast.

I am not against the CPF system, but why the huge gap in contribution rates for the foreigners and new PRs, which makes Singaporean employees so much more costly?

I am no fan of social safety nets, if the Singaporean worker have a fair chance competing with foreign workers.

I am not against immigration, if the government could demonstrate some care and compassion for foreign labour working here, including the white collar EP holders against abusive employers, who in turns finds Singaporeans less desirable employees compared to so many obedient foreigners who are free from NS, CPF or paternity/maternity liabilities.

I believe if we stay in our current course, the entire native middle class will be wiped out when the next prolonged recession hits. We will have a tiny slice of rich, highly talented elite class who can still extract wealth from this island, while the overwhelming majority are the "old natives" and "new stayers" who are stuck here because nowhere else welcomes them. Stuck in hand to mouth service jobs. Where mothers once told their children to study hard or they might end up as taxi drivers, the mothers of tomorrow's Singapore will tell their children to study hard so they can be taxi-drivers.

But worst of all, I believe that our leaders have so surrounded themselves with yes-men and yes-women, they will not realise what they are doing wrong until it is too late. Singapore should have jammed the brakes on "Stop At Two" campaign long before our birthrate plummeted to the lowest in the world. History will repeat itself, if we dont do anything about it. Now.

WBG:

I am not too sure which minority individuals you are referring to that purportedly distort the "facts". I wouldn't be too quick to assume people are childish on policy matters and needs to be "educated" politically. Removing agency and denying their fact that ordinary Singaporeans can reason and think is at best, a problematic thing to do. I think good researchers try to avoid such a cognitive block?

Bart:

You might be right but I guess more data points would have to be available for analysis before we come to a conclusion?

Ted:

Good point. I think you capture what I meant in your first paragraph. Thanks.

Jimmy:

Your concerns are real and I wish your answers can be answered more convincingly by the relevant authorities. However, I wonder if we can also look at the positive intrinsic value of learning from other people that come to our country. I don't think Singaporeans can and should take the attitude that we know best and foreigners are feeding off our capabilities. There are many interesting and important life perspectives we can learn from our international counterparts.

(This comment is only addressed to Wayne, I only want his reply)

The "hypothetical" minority and extreme fact twisters aside, information is always meant to be distorted by any person's subjective perception. So why should globalisation information be revealed to non-policy makers who do not have the qualified roles in implementing social counter-measures?

Why should the public be given statistical information on globalisation and information? Is it crucial information that they must know? What can they do with the information? Is research on globalisation just good for public knowing? How useful is the information for the public?

I would like to place globalisation facts and figures as on a need-to-know basis.

"Why should the public be given statistical information on globalisation and information?"

Because information like Sunlight refreshes the spirit.

Wayne,

once again, you choose to frame the Singapore problem using the overseas experience. As an Engineering graduate who worked with PRC scholars for school projects, who stayed in a hostel which was overwhelmingly occupied and controlled by foreigners and working in the IT line where Singaporeans are a rarity, I am hardly the "heartlander" type with a false superiority complex. I am hardly of the opinion that we should shut our doors and keep all foreigners out. But how many of them are talent, and how many of them are commodity?

I was hopping mad once when MOM rejected the EP application of a highly qualified new hire who speaks impeccable English because he stupidly put his race down as "Malay" - he probably thought he could enjoy some privileges that way - even though his father is Chinese. Whether race played a role in that rejection, I dont know. OTOH, I have seen plenty of PRC/India imports who barely speaks English, with degrees from unknown universities and dubious abilities in their area of "expertise", coast through the EP application.

Maybe I am wrong. After all, I cannot possibly claim to know the entire pool of "foreign talents" in Singapore. But every extra bit of statistic or research on the impact of foreigners to Singaporeans only affirms my conviction that we are cannibalising our future for short term gains.

That's what I mean by research. However, as Dan points out, we probably need multiple independent research to get to a clearer picture of the actual situation.

The Business Times Singapore
March 6, 2007 Tuesday
Economy can grow at 6.5% a year: analysts;
Conditions include more foreign talent and investments

SINGAPORE's medium-term growth potential is apparently higher than the oft-assumed 3-5, or even 4-6, per cent. According to econometric projections, the economy can grow 6.5 per cent a year over the next 10-15 years - if global growth stays on track and if Singapore can attract enough investments and foreign talent.

In a third year of robust growth after a Sars-hit 2003, the economy grew 7.9 per cent last year, following a 6.6 per cent pace in 2005 and 8.8 per cent surge in 2004.

'We don't see the Singapore economy slowing down very much in the next lap,' said Nanyang Technological University economist Choy Keen Meng yesterday. He was speaking at the launch of a book he wrote jointly with National University of Singapore's (NUS) Tilak Abeysinghe, on a big-scale macro-econometric model of the Singapore economy. The book, titled The Singapore Economy: An Econometric Perspective, fleshes out the model, and is produced by NUS' Singapore Centre for Applied and Policy Economics.

Among the key assumptions in the model - first developed in 2001 when both the economists were in NUS - is annual world economic growth of 4 per cent, which Asst Prof Choy said is 'not overly optimistic', and is in fact about the average over the last 10-15 years. Other caveats: the ability to attract foreign investments and an open-door policy on foreign talent will be critical, he added.

Indeed, to achieve 6.5 per cent annual gross domestic product (GDP) growth, the model 'requires' that net investments grow 14 per cent a year and employment 4.6 per cent a year, even though the Singapore population grows just 2.8 per cent a year. 'This implies that we need foreign workers, foreign talent,' said Asst Prof Choy.

Policy simulations using the model also show that if the number of foreign workers had been frozen at 1994 levels, average wages here would rise and the jobless rate would fall, but in fact, total employment would decrease by 145,000 workers in nine years, and the level of GDP would be one per cent lower by the end of the period.

Singapore's total unemployment rate, however, does not fully reflect job market pressures because when demand for labour falls and a foreign worker loses his job, he would have to leave the workforce, Asst Prof Abeysinghe pointed out. A better measure is the resident unemployment rate. In any case, according to the forecasts, the economy apparently can grow 6.5 per cent a year without stoking inflation - which would average about 2 per cent a year in the medium term so long as monetary policy 'continues to offset foreign inflation'.

The simulations also find no economic impact from the upcoming changes to the corporate tax rate and Central Provident Fund rate because of offsetting effects.

An interesting article written almost 10 years ago.

An excerpt from:http://www.frbsf.org/econrsrch/wklyltr/el97-15.html#singapore

Does Singapore invest too much?

"...Singapore's government and businesses have been undertaking massive investment, its citizens have been saving at unrivaled rates. As reflected by its persistent current account surplus, Singapore's saving rate is even higher than its investment rate! However, much of this saving is "forced." Since 1955, the government has operated a compulsory savings program called the Central Provident Fund. Like the U.S. social security system, this program requires a "contribution" from both employees and their employers. The current contribution rates are 21.5% for employees and 18.5% for employers. This sort of forced savings policy, along with tax incentives that lure in foreign investment, raise the suspicion that Singapore could be a dynamically inefficient economy."

Don't forget the rest of that concluding section:

"However, the second thing to notice in Figure 2 is that capital income in Singapore has also been quite high. During the past 20 years it has averaged about 35.5% of GDP, although capital's share is steadily falling as labor's share rises (presumably due to improvements in education). Overall, the evidence in Figure 2 does not allow us to make a definitive judgement about dynamic efficiency. However, unlike the G-7 countries, we cannot rule out the possibility that Singapore invests too much and is dynamically inefficient. During the early 1980s, investment consistently exceeded capital income, and over the full sample the average investment rate has slightly exceeded capital's average income share."

Given that the paper was written in 1997, I would be interested to see a follow up.

Here's another piece of analysis: http://www.creativeclass.org/acrobat/TheWorldIsSpiky.pdf

Really refreshing for me, after all the preaching by the pro-flat earthers, you know who you are.