Indian FTrash Advises Ass Loon Not to Give in to SGs

[makapaaa]

[h=1]PM LEE DOESN'T WANT TO 'PLEASE-ALL' BECAUSE IT'D BE BAD FOR THE ECONOMY?[/h]
<!-- /.block --> <style>.node-article .field-name-ad-box-in-article {float: left;margin: 15px 15px 10px 0;}.node-article .field-tags{clear: both;}</style> Post date:
18 Jun 2014 - 10:49pm





<ins style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: inline-table; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><ins id="aswift_1_anchor" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: block; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><iframe name="aswift_1" width="336" height="280" id="aswift_1" frameBorder="0" marginWidth="0" marginHeight="0" scrolling="no" vspace="0" hspace="0" style="left: 0px; top: 0px; position: absolute;" allowTransparency="true"></iframe></ins></ins>


While trolling through the PAP Facebook page, I came across a LHL comment, in regards to a “thoughtful piece by Andy Mukherjee”, that our glorious leader had read over the weekend. The article, as seen here, is written by one Andy Mukherjee, an ex ST writer who’s from India. Needless to say, he’ll be well-versed in the art of keeping the ruling party on-side; seeing as how the ST is the de facto propaganda mouthpiece of the government.

The gist of the article, that LHL so enjoyed, was that despite the many issues faced by Singaporeans (older people pushing for bigger nest eggs, more subsidies and citizens opposition to rising GST are some of the ones he mentioned), the government should not succumb to a term he likes to call, “please-all” economics. Mukherjee believes that Singaporeans are “too pragmatic” and won’t fall for this in the next general election.

This, by the way, was also what LHL latched on to. He said that Mukherjee was right and that he believes Singaporeans won’t fall for it.

And no wonder he did so! Apart from the fact that the article carries a fear-mongering tone (just look at the words he associates with “please-all” economics; words like “perils”, “mistake”, “less wealthy” and “more miserable”), this article is essentially saying that people who vote for these “please-all” measures are not pragmatic, which in my view just reeks of yet another name-calling exercise by the government’s proxy.

However, the real gripe I have with this article its lack of neutrality. Let’s have a look, shall we …

Murherjee starts by insulting the local workforce, by saying that it’s a long shot for said workforce to improve its productivity without foreign labour. Well, in some sectors, I’d fully agree. Which Singaporean that you know of can build a high rise building as expertly as an India or China national? Which Singaporean you know of can clean and do menial labour as well as an Indian or Chinese national? However, when it comes to skilled work and other PMET jobs, I believe that we Singaporeans are just as good, if not better, than anyone out there.
Perhaps if Singaporeans aren’t as stressed as they are and have a good work-life balance, productivity can increase. Perhaps when Singaporeans don’t need to factor in transport delays and breakdowns, productivity can increase. Perhaps if Singaporeans aren’t constantly scared that they’ll lose their jobs, productivity can increase.

Murherjee also believes that in order to implement this untenable idea of “please-all” economics, the government will have to raise corporate taxes; making an already expensive country, even less attractive to foreign investors. Well, Singapore may be expensive to do business in, but something must be wrong when the percentage of personal tax increases more than the percentage of corporate tax. I remember reading (although don’t quote me on this) that over the last ten years, Singapore’s corporate tax rate (or was it tax paid) doubled. Compare that number (tax rate or tax paid) to personal tax and it was up 2.5 to 3 times more. Also, there are other ways of decreasing costs. Making Singapore less millionaire-friendly and reducing the number of foreigners should limit (albeit slightly) this artificial inflation.

Murherjee also warns that should the government channel funds to such “please-all” policies that the money has to come from funds set aside for investments, thus reducing government investments, which will then reduce the price of real estate and as a result, Singapore will lose its charms on investors and tourists.

Wow, it all sounds very apocalyptic, doesn’t it? But I don’t believe that outlook true at all. Investors will find their way to business wherever and whenever the opportunity presents itself. Singapore, back in the early days, didn’t have the same “urban buzz” that Murherjee talks about. Yet, investors still came; tourists still came. Yes, without this “urban buzz”, country bumpkins (see, I can name-call too) from overseas may not come to see the bright light city and her tall buildings and casinos, shiny pavements and endless supply of clone-like shopping malls. But that’ll be offset by a new breed of tourists – the ones who come to Singapore to experience her charm, her beauty, and her culture. I’ve spoken to so many people (especially since I was a travel agent) who refused to go to Singapore because “it’s just another city”, “there’s no culture there”, and “it’s just too expensive”. Sad isn’t it, when the real Singapore (sorry, I had to!) has so much more than man-made monstrosities that any other country can copy.

But the real pièce de résistance of this article lies quietly in the middle of the article; somewhere in the sixth paragraph.

“A third strategy could be for the city-state to try to earn more on its substantial sovereign wealth by buying riskier assets. That could backfire, leaving less money for welfare.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t this sound a bit like an admission (yet another one) that our welfare-slash-retirement fund is inextricably linked to the buying of investments? Why then, are there still so many pro-government supporters who can’t see what is happening to their money; who chide old ladies who beg so desperately for the return of their hard-earned money, so that they can live and die in peace?

By BlackandWhite
TRS Contributor

 

[makapaaa]

[h=2]PM: We must make sure Andy Mukherjee is right[/h]

June 17th, 2014 |

Author: Editorial

PM Lee

A Reuters columnist, Andy Mukherjee, wrote an opinion piece (‘Singapore confronts peril of please-all economics‘) last Thursday (12 Jun).
In his article, Mr Mukherjee said that Singapore is confronting the perils of “please-all” economics. He cited some examples:

• Ageing citizens are pushing the government for bigger nest eggs and more subsidised healthcare and housing
• Popular resentment against letting more foreigners in
• Disagreement in increasing the 7% GST further

Mr Mukherjee noted that it will be a long-term challenge for the government to balance the fiscal budget.

“Already, there’s simmering anger in the city-state about overcrowded trains and costly public housing. About 2,000 people gathered recently to demand that the state-run retirement plan raise its 4 percent annual interest rate,” he pointed out.

“People protested last year, too, when the government unveiled a plan to boost the resident population by 30% to 6.9 million by 2030, with immigration compensating for a drooping birth rate,” he added.

Mr Mukherjee is of the view that such multifaceted discontent will put Singapore’s “fiscally conservative” government in a quandary.

“Expanding the economy – and the tax base – with less foreign labour will mean improving the productivity of the local workforce,” he said.

However, he thinks that increasing the productivity of our local workforce is a “long shot”.

Another way is to raise taxation on companies to get more government revenue but Singapore’s business costs are already quite high, he noted.
A third way would be for Singapore to try earning more on its “substantial sovereign wealth” by buying riskier assets. “That could backfire, leaving less money for welfare,” he said.

The fourth suggestion he had was for the government to skimp on investing, that is, to reduce its development budget.

However, Mr Mukherjee observed that Singapore’s development budget in the recent 5-year period has jumped by a third. He thinks slowing down the pace might be a mistake. The reason he gave was that pricey real estate would swoon if Singapore loses its urban buzz and stops attracting investors and tourists. That would make Singapore’s property-loving citizens less wealthy and more miserable, he reckoned.

There is a fifth way which Mr Mukherjee has not considered. It is to reduce and reallocate government expenditures. In particular, the government can consider reducing defence spending so as to increase spending on welfare.

This is a classic “Gun vs Butter” resource allocation problem studied in elementary economics. At present, Singapore is spending nearly a quarter of the $57 billion estimated government expenditures for FY2014 on defence alone (23% at $13 billion) [Link].

Still, Mr Mukherjee said that Singapore has some advantages.

“Rival Hong Kong is facing an existential threat as China tightens its grip on the former British colony and boosts alternatives like Shanghai. By contrast, Singapore offers investors proximity to India and Indonesia, neither of which will boast a global city soon,” he said.

He concluded his column by warning that “please-all” economics is “scratching at the door”. He warned, “If it finds a way in, prosperity could be in jeopardy.”
In any case, PM Lee posted a message on his Facebook page [Link] yesterday (16 Jun), applauding Mr Mukherjee.

He wrote:

Came across this thoughtful piece by Andy Mukherjee over the weekend. It explains clearly the issues and trade-offs Singapore faces in building our ideal society, while ensuring that Singaporeans have jobs and economic opportunities to build better lives and a brighter future.
As the article points out, we do enjoy important advantages compared to other countries, but it will still not be easy. There are serious trade-offs, which we must be willing to acknowledge and address. If we just pretend that everything can be better, and no hard choices are necessary, we will get into trouble. Mukherjee calls this “please-all economics”, and expresses confidence that Singaporeans are too pragmatic to fall for it. We must make sure that he is right. – LHL
​

Who is Andy Mukherjee?

Reuters Breakingviews columnist and ex-ST senior writer, Andy Mukherjee


According to his online biodata [Link], Mr Mukherjee currently covers Asian economies from Singapore for Reuters.
Prior to joining Reuters, he was a senior writer with The Straits Times.

He spent eight years at Bloomberg News till 2008. In 2004, and again in 2006, he was awarded the second prize for outstanding commentary writing by the New York-based South Asian Journalists’ Association.

He left Bloomberg to join a start-up business television station in Mumbai where he was the executive editor until 2010.

He has an undergraduate degree in journalism from the University of Delhi.

In March 2014, he wrote in a column for Reuters, that Singapore is not the most expensive city in the world (‘Ex-ST writer: SG is not the world’s most expensive city‘). He criticised a survey conducted by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), saying that the survey “suffers from a flawed methodology”. EIU is the research and analysis division of the Economist Group with nearly 70 years of experience in conducting surveys.

Mr Mukherjee’s arguments were later soundly rebutted by TRE regular contributor Ng Kok Lim (‘Prize winning ex-ST writer is not world’s most wise‘).

 

[makapaaa]

[h=2]Prize winning ex-ST writer is not world’s most wise[/h]

March 10th, 2014 |

Author: Contributions

Reuters Breakingviews columnist and ex-ST senior
writer, Andy Mukherjee


I refer to the 9 Mar 2014 TR Emeritus article ‘Ex-ST writer: SG is not the world’s most expensive city‘ by Mr
Andy Mukherjee.

Mr Mukherjee claims that Singapore will obviously have higher US dollar
prices due to Singapore’s appreciating exchange rate over the past decade. That
is not true for goods imported from the US or for international commodities
denominated in USD like oil.

When the Singapore currency strengthens, a 1 USD imported item will still
cost 1 USD even though it can be bought for less SGD. For example, if the
exchange rate was 1 USD = 1 SGD, a 1 USD item will cost 1 USD or 1 SGD. When the
exchange rate improves in our favour to 1 USD = 0.5 SGD for example, the 1 USD
item will still cost 1 USD but will now cost 0.5 SGD. Thus, the USD price didn’t
change while the SGD price became lower.

An imported item will only become pricier in USD if the currency of the
country from which the item was imported strengthens against the USD. For
example, a 1 Euro item from Europe will cost 1 USD when the exchange rate was 1
USD = 1 Euro. When the Euro strengthens relative to USD to 1 USD = 0.2 Euro, the
1 Euro item will now cost 5 USD. The USD price of non-USD denominated imports
depends not on SGD-USD exchange rate but on the respective currencies’ exchange
rate with USD.

Only local products and services will cost more in USD when the Singapore
currency strengthens. However, since the Singapore economic model is based on
low wage workers, labourers, waiters, cooks and so on, Singapore services should
still be cheaper than services in other developed economies despite the
strengthening of the Singapore dollar.

Mr Mukherjee claims that cars in Singapore have little utility beyond the
dating scene. But many friends have expressed appreciation for the convenience
that a vehicle brings to a family with little children.

Mr Mukherjee suggests that safe drinking water can be quite expensive in
Mumbai. But if Mumbai has no cheap access to safe drinking water, wouldn’t most
Mumbai people have died of thirst within a few weeks? Mumbai residents boiling
water to make drinking water safe is no different from Singaporeans boiling
water to make drinking water safe.

Mr Mukherjee points out the issue of nationality specific spending patterns
like kimchi refrigerators for the Koreans or cheap cricket channels for the
Pakistanis. But don’t Koreans and Pakistanis wear Western style underwear,
T-shirt, shoes, socks, eat McDonalds hamburger, drink Coca Cola, use toothpaste,
toothbrush, drive automobiles, ride bicycles, watch television, use the
computer, connect to the Internet and so on? Should one, two differences in
nationality specific spending patterns invalidate the comparison of a whole
multitude of products and services commonly consumed across cultures and
throughout humanity?

Mr Mukherjee claims that the EIU study fails the simple test of people
revealing their preferences by their decisions because employers that used the
EIU study to tone down Mumbai’s wage expectations would have caused a beeline of
Mumbai people rushing to find jobs in Singapore. It is Mr Mukherjee who has
failed the test of his own logic. We can always turn the question around and ask
what if employers did not adjust wages to account for differences in cost of
living? Wouldn’t the Indians in Singapore be making a beeline for low cost
Mumbai since wages are the same? Since that hasn’t happened, by Mr Mukherjee’s
logic, employers should have adjusted wages here to account for higher cost of
living so that expatriates here do not make a beeline for Mumbai. As for Mr
Mukherjee’s original logic, he should realise that it is not just Mumbai people
but many Third World nation people have always been making a beeline for jobs in
Singapore which is why international surveys have always revealed Singapore to
be one of the top destinations for Third World citizens.

In conclusion, there is nothing in Mr Mukherjee’s essay that proves that
Singapore is not the world’s most expensive city.

Thank you

Ng Kok
Lim

Editor’s note: Andy
Mukherjee is a Reuters Breakingviews columnist. He covers Asian economies from
Singapore. He joined from the Straits Times where he was a senior writer. Andy
spent 8 years at Bloomberg News, the last 5 as an Asia columnist. In 2004, and
again in 2006, he was awarded the 2nd prize for outstanding commentary writing
by the New York-based South Asian Journalists’ Association. He left Bloomberg to
join a start-up business television station in Mumbai where he was the executive
editor until 2010. Andy has an undergraduate degree in journalism from the
University of Delhi.

 

[winnipegjets]

Pinky has this bias for Ah Nehs ...he has 4 Ah Neh ministers in his cabinet, he literally gave away sinkapore's sovereignty in the free trade agreement with India, he kowtows to India in every way.

Why?

 

[Leongsam]

I agree fully with Mr Mukherjee. It's good to see intelligent comment to counter that garbage that is spewed by the anti PAP IB.

The fact that much of the intelligent debate comes from foreigners proves what the government has been saying all along... that foreigners are needed in the country because the local population are stupid and untalented.

 

[batman1]

Pinky so happy and enjoying the BJ by Ah Neh and Pinoy.WTF!

 

[virus]

the ah neh obviously forgotten his roots, sucking up to foreign DIGnities will not add medals to his life. he can FO back to his fishing village.

 

[GoldenPeriod]

Mukherjee has been the recipient of much benefits under the open door immigration system. For him personally, indeed it has been a "win-all" policy.

What Loong doesn't realise is it's not a "please-all"policy that he has promulgated, it is a "lose-all" policy. Native Singaporeans have indeed lost their jobs, their livelihoods and the shirt on their backs because of open door immigration.

No more bullshit on how creating jobs for foreigners has created jobs for Sinkies. That has been debunked a thousand times. We not only have anecdotal evidence that natives have lost jobs due to mass immigration, we now have hard facts coming out of Europe, that mass immigration does indeed lead to job losses and a lower standard of living for the native population. Furthermore, We also have hard statistics that shows immigration brings little if any economic growth for the locals, almost all growth is accrued to the immigrants.

PAP has to seriously ask itself now, whom is this growth for, who are these jobs for, who ultimately benefits?

What is the use of a government that governs for foreigners? This is now bordering on the farcical. It makes no sense, not even to the PAP.

 

[Leongsam]

No more bullshit on how creating jobs for foreigners has created jobs for Sinkies. That has been debunked a thousand times.

Where has this been debunked? If I was not allowed to hire foreigners in my Singapore company, I'd move all my operations to somewhere else and that would result in the Singaporeans in the company losing their jobs too.

By hiring cheap foreigners, I manage to keep the company profitable and this enables me to cover the overheads of some rather expensive Singaporeans.

 

[GoldenPeriod]

Where has this been debunked? If I was not allowed to hire foreigners in my Singapore company, I'd move all my operations to somewhere else and that would result in the Singaporeans in the company losing their jobs too.

By hiring cheap foreigners, I manage to keep the company profitable and this enables me to cover the overheads of some rather expensive Singaporeans.

Labour cost is not the only factor. A company can feel free to move to Vietnam/Thailand or Indonesia. But there are issues with the rule of law, an efficient transportation network, property rights and a well educated workforce that are not available in these countries. So it's not a simple matter of transplanting operations and seeking out the lowest costs. These companies can feel free to move and watch their operations get burnt down by Thais or Viets.

Governments in Europe have now realised that immigration generates no significant economic growth for the native population.

-A 2008 inquiry by the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee found no evidence for the argument that immigration generates significant economic benefits for the British public.
-The British Government’s Migration Advisory Committee recently showed that any economic gains from higher immigration go mainly to the immigrants themselves, not to the wider population.
-Evidence from around the world over the last 50 years shows that immigrants are not a “panacea” to boost economic growth , new analysis by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) finds.

 

[The_Hypocrite]

I wonder who post more 'intelligent' comments. Boss Sam or these Foreign Trashes?

I agree fully with Mr Mukherjee. It's good to see intelligent comment to counter that garbage that is spewed by the anti PAP IB.

The fact that much of the intelligent debate comes from foreigners proves what the government has been saying all along... that foreigners are needed in the country because the local population are stupid and untalented.

 

[Leongsam]

Labour cost is not the only factor. A company can feel free to move to Vietnam/Thailand or Indonesia. But there are issues with the rule of law, an efficient transportation network, property rights and a well educated workforce that are not available in these countries. So it's not a simple matter of transplanting operations and seeking out the lowest costs. These companies can feel free to move and watch their operations get burnt down by Thais or Viets.

Governments in Europe have now realised that immigration generates no significant economic growth for the native population.

Imagine how many less jobs there would be in Singapore today if the Chinese and Indians had gone home along with the Brits in 1959.

The fact that waves of Chinese and Indian immigrants were allowed in by the British during the colonial era of Singapore and stayed on after they left proves beyond doubt that immigrants create jobs. Take away these pioneers and Singapore would be a very different place now.

 

[Leongsam]

Pinky has this bias for Ah Nehs ...he has 4 Ah Neh ministers in his cabinet, he literally gave away sinkapore's sovereignty in the free trade agreement with India, he kowtows to India in every way.

Why?

If he has a bias for Indians, why did he slap one so hard that the poor chap ended up living in Queenstown NZ?

 

[GoldenPeriod]

Imagine how many less jobs there would be in Singapore today if the Chinese and Indians had gone home along with the Brits in 1959.

The fact that waves of Chinese and Indian immigrants were allowed in by the British during the colonial era of Singapore and stayed on after they left proves beyond doubt that immigrants create jobs. Take away these pioneers and Singapore would be a very different place now.

There was scarcely anyone around nor any infrastructure when the Chinese first came, so that point is moot. I am talking about well developed, prosperous societies that already have established institutions and infrastructure that are now handed on a platter to immigrants.

The bottom line is this entire mass immigration malarkey to stave off aging populations in developed societies was dreamt up by Western economists and political liberals. The PAP and it's cadres with no innovative ideas of their own, simply bought it wholesale. No credit to PAP for that one, they just did what western countries did, hoping their white counterparts were intellectually superior.

Unfortunately politicians are not always right, in fact, most of the time, they are wrong. What has happened in the recent European elections, has shown us that some countries now admit that this is indeed a terribly flawed policy. When will the PAP have the courage to do likewise?

 

[frenchbriefs]

Imagine how many less jobs there would be in Singapore today if the Chinese and Indians had gone home along with the Brits in 1959.

The fact that waves of Chinese and Indian immigrants were allowed in by the British during the colonial era of Singapore and stayed on after they left proves beyond doubt that immigrants create jobs. Take away these pioneers and Singapore would be a very different place now.

if what u say is true that would means africa is the country with the most jobs in the world since they are fucking like rabbits and have a birthrate of over 3.2,along with india and Philippines and vietnam and many other 3rd world countries....since by the virtue of simply having more human head count population=more jobs....but that isnt true is it?these countries are all still shitholes....

question,if population=job creation,shouldnt there be an abundance of jobs in china and india and failipines?so why are they migrating en masse to america,australia,uk,canada,singapore and europe to steal jobs from locals?

 

[Leongsam]

if what u say is true that would means africa is the country with the most jobs in the world since they are fucking like rabbits and have a birthrate of over 3.2,along with india and Philippines and vietnam and many other 3rd world countries....since by the virtue of simply having more human head count population=more jobs....but that isnt true is it?these countries are all still shitholes....

question,if population=job creation,shouldnt there be an abundance of jobs in china and india and failipines?so why are they migrating en masse to america,australia,uk,canada,singapore and europe to steal jobs from locals?

You're talking native population vs immigrant population.

1st generation Immigrants are always the cream of the crop.

3 to 4 generations ago, the Singapore Chinese were hardworking and motivated. However, the current generation are just a lazy bunch of complainers. That's why enterprising immigrants are needed to generate jobs for Singaporeans.

 

[frenchbriefs]

If he has a bias for Indians, why did he slap one so hard that the poor chap ended up living in Queenstown NZ?

did he slap u too?is NZ the place where all failures end up?

 

[frenchbriefs]

You're talking native population vs immigrant population.

1st generation Immigrants are always the cream of the crop.

3 to 4 generations ago, the Singapore Chinese were hardworking and motivated. However, the current generation are just a lazy bunch of complainers. That's why enterprising immigrants are needed to generate jobs for Singaporeans.

again according to ur fail logic,since new immigrants are the most hardworking and enterprising,in that case why isnt malaysia,india,failipines,vietnam etc etc the richest and most highly developed countries in the world?i mean my god they are so hardworking and enterprising while sinkies and aussies and nzs and yankees are fucking lazy sacks of shits....oh dear...

since most of the world's immigrants come from these countries if u look at immigration flow charts....i believe 3rd world countries have more people leaving the country than first world country...i mean which nutcase would want to migrate to africa,even a russian would shit on africa.

 

[frenchbriefs]

Cmon leong sam tell us why did u move to aussie and nz which incidentally are a bunch of lazy sack of shits....why didnt u move to india and malaysia and philippines to join ur hardworking and enterprising compadres that u so adore??????

 

[KNNBCCB]

Ah neh is the best... bring them all in.