Another NUS Prof whacks PAP's FT policy

makapaaa · Sep 15, 2009

Coffeeshop Chit Chat - Another NUS Prof whacks PAP's FT policy</TD><TD id=msgunetc noWrap align=right>

Subscribe </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=msgtable cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="96%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=msg vAlign=top><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgbfr1 width="1%"> </TD><TD><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgF width="1%" noWrap align=right>From: </TD><TD class=msgFname width="68%" noWrap>kojakbt22 <NOBR>

</NOBR> </TD><TD class=msgDate width="30%" noWrap align=right>12:07 am </TD></TR><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgT height=20 width="1%" noWrap align=right>To: </TD><TD class=msgTname width="68%" noWrap>ALL <NOBR></NOBR></TD><TD class=msgNum noWrap align=right> (1 of 4) </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgleft rowSpan=4 width="1%"> </TD><TD class=wintiny noWrap align=right>21005.1 </TD></TR><TR><TD height=8></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgtxt><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD>Sep 15, 2009
ECONOMIC GROWTH
</TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD>Just a numbers game? Quality counts too
</TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD class="padlrt8 georgia11 darkgrey bold" colSpan=2>By Basant K. Kapur
</TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

RECENT observations by economists suggest a need to reconsider some aspects of Singapore's economic growth experience.
In an article in this newspaper last Saturday on the inflow of foreign workers, National University of Singapore professor Hui Weng Tat was quoted saying: 'Growth at any cost is not something we want.'
In a chapter in a forthcoming publication of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Professors Lee Soo Ann and Linda Lim observe: 'The fact that government officials are rewarded economically, through salaries and bonuses...for delivering GDP growth, may also lead to 'growth fetishism'... and thus to preference for the easiest route to growth, which is through the addition of inputs of foreign capital, labour and skills.'
These comments raise a number of related issues. Differing somewhat from professors Lee and Lim, I am of the view that, in general, inflows of foreign capital and skills provide valuable growth momentum. However, large inflows of lower-skilled foreign workers are a different matter.
Such inflows create a vicious circle. The availability of low-skilled workers reduces the incentive for employers to upgrade their operations through mechanisation, automation and the like. The resulting low productivity levels imply that they can offer only low wages, which in turn acts as a disincentive to Singaporeans to take up such jobs, and which in turn leads employers to continue demanding for foreign workers.
Of course, the foreign worker 'tap' should not be abruptly curtailed. But a gradual and sustained tightening of the inflow is likely to be highly beneficial over time. There would also appear, as professors Lee and Lim suggest, to be a need to reconsider the GDP bonus scheme for civil servants, which factors in only the real total GDP growth rate each year.
Economic growth should, one, be significantly based on productivity improvement or at least not interfere with such improvement; and two, be inclusive, benefiting all sections of society, especially the less privileged.
I am therefore of the view that consideration should be given to replacing sole reliance on GDP growth in the bonus scheme with a composite criterion, comprising:

GDP growth

A fairly broad-based measure of productivity growth, such as the growth of per capita indigenous GDP (GDP accruing to Singaporeans divided by the total number of Singaporeans); and

A welfare measure, such as the growth rate of the average household disposable income of the lowest 20 per cent of Singaporean households.
No set of criteria for the bonus scheme can be perfect. Just as the current scheme leaves out other desiderata of economic policy - such as low unemployment and inflation rates - so does the proposed composite criterion.
However, a composite criterion along the lines I have proposed will have the effect of, at least symbolically, reinforcing the desirability of productivity growth and inclusiveness as public policy goals.
Two other issues: First, I have referred in the third measure above to 'disposable income', which would be inclusive of fiscal transfers. Is there a danger that an 'easy' route to achieving higher disposable income among the poor might be sought - through overly generous transfers, rather than through training and skills upgrading, thus breeding an entitlement mentality?
Clearly, the application of any criterion will have to be tempered by good judgment. Though, in this case, a little 'erring' on the side of generosity may not be a bad thing for the least-privileged among us, especially if it helps to produce a more comfortable home environment for children in these households.
Second, what weights should be attached to the three criteria in the composite scheme? Since we are considering simply a bonus scheme and the signal we wish it to send to public servants, the exact choice of weights is not critical.
Tentatively, may I suggest equal weights to all three criteria, based on the following considerations: the intrinsic worth of each criterion; and since GDP growth is also facilitated by productivity growth, on the part of both higher- and less-skilled Singaporeans, the three criteria can, to a certain degree, be mutually supporting.
The writer is professor of economics and director of the Singapore Centre for Applied and Policy Economics, Department of Economics, National University of Singapore.

[email protected]

</TD></TR><TR><TD> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

makapaaa · Sep 15, 2009

He forgot to mention the billions the Familee collects from the FTrash levy to fund Ho Jinx's problem gambling habit!

scroobal · Sep 15, 2009

To summarise

Singapore style Growth in GDP - increase population where input and consumption increases. The increase comes from foreigners

Rest of world style growth in GDP - number of factors - innovation, new business, higher productivity

Basant Kapur, Lee Soon Ann and Mukul Asher have been telling these idiots for over 10 years. By the way, this holy trinity plus a few others ran the NUS Staff equivalent of CPF via OCBC and achieved record returns.

chupacabra · Sep 16, 2009

Pappies are blind and refuse to take notice that a large poppulation of third world workers who earn peanuts are a non factor in the domestic consumer spending.

In fact foreign workers drive prices basic goods like raw foods upwards.

But the retail sector that hires the majority of workers here are suffering. Sinkees and tourists dollars are still the bread and butter for many retail outlets and eateries here.

Only people that stand to gain from overpopulation are the landlords = Pappies

scroobal · Sep 16, 2009

You got your economics all wrong. If they get peanuts and not a factor in domestic spending, how are they driving basic food prices up. Your example about tourism and retails are also wrong.

People like Basant Kapur and the local economist are saying that they are pushing up the GDP in a manner that will come back to bite us. Population is being increased by bringing foreign workers who not only provide the input but also increase the consumption base. This level of growth requires continues growth in population. Once they hit capacity, the economy will not be able to sustain itself.

The symptoms are already here
Physical symptoms
- overcrowded flats and lifts (beyond town planning rules of the 1st world)
- heavy traffic despite COE, ERP
- crowded trains even during off peak hrs
- coffeeshops washing dishing along 5 foot way and pavements
Psychological symptoms
- anti foreign sentiments prevalent in non state controlled media
- change in mannerism, behaviour and move towards coarse and survival mode
- emigration

This is how GFC occurred - subprime loans could only work as long as the demand for real estate kept up. As the people buying these properties start to come down, the prices stalled, and the rest is history.

Goh Chok has to take the plan for this and he was trained in economics . This trend started in 1995 when the economy began to stall and property prices began to sag.

The country long had foreign construction workers and maids in large numbers but when they brought in foreigners with better qualifications, these people brought in money of their own, bought houses, rented homes and they began patronising restaurants etc. They also brought in their friends, relatives etc. They of course began drawing income from within. This is how the US prospered but in their cases, they had ample capacity and resources.

chupacabra said:
Pappies are blind and refuse to take notice that a large poppulation of third world workers who earn peanuts are a non factor in the domestic consumer spending.

In fact foreign workers drive prices basic goods like raw foods upwards.

But the retail sector that hires the majority of workers here are suffering. Sinkees and tourists dollars are still the bread and butter for many retail outlets and eateries here.

Only people that stand to gain from overpopulation are the landlords = Pappies

phouse3 · Sep 16, 2009

The title glaringly says "Just a numbers game? Quality counts too". If one bothers to glance through the short article, it is beyond any doubts that Kapur is concerned about the low-skilled foreign workers and their impact on productivity and wages for the locals.

The theory on population reaching its capacity in Singapore is definitely not what the economists are concerned about, at least not for the moment. Economists being economists are concerned about labour or the letter "L". L and GDP can still grow without an increase in population:-

1. increased productivity
2. higher labour force participation

Now back to growth fetishism.

^GDP = f(^L, ^K) where L=labour and K=capital

I had been going beyond raising concerns on the quality of lowend L. I think the quality of highend L and K stinks too.

I wrote that we must rein in the EDB. I used the analogy of a bank - EDB has been performing both the marketing and credit functions which no bank is allowed to do so since the 1990s. So why is the EDB (the marketing arm of Singapore) allowed to give out tax-free statuses freely to MNCs in order to meet FDI targets year after year without any respect for quality of investments?

How the hell have some of the MNCs, especially those in the petrochemical and pharmaceutical sectors, generating billions worth of exports and GDP benefitted Singaporeans? Exports can plunge or conversely soar 20% month to month without any meaning at all.

The brother of EDB is of course the MOM. MOM has been giving out work permits to "foreign talent". Many of these FTs are as unproductive as their cheaper counterparts.

It is not just the salaries of the civil servants that are dependent on GDP numbers. Their political masters' salaries are also dependent on GDP numbers. That explains the current situation.

RP is inaccurate in wanting to boost domestic consumption to make up for the "loss" in exports. For that to happen, every Singaporean would be having 10 meals a day, a hairdo every week and buying a TV/washing machine/handphone every 2 weeks. Domestic consumption should be boosted but not to the extend of making up for exports "loss" or becoming a big GDP driver.

WP is inane in upholding Singapore's export model.

P.S. In passing, I would say that Chupacabra's observation is correct, low-skilled workers do drive up prices of food necessities without contributing much to domestic consumption. Domestic consumption is heavily skewed by big-ticket items like cars and consumer durables. The bottom 20% of the population is hit by a double-barrel gun - loss of jobs to cheap foreign labour and high food prices (made worse by high GST, medical costs, etc.).

In passing, I would also like to say the Labour Force Participation Rate in Singapore is rubbish. One moment the Manpower Minister said the rate was 65% (a whopping 14% below Japan's 79%) and the next at 77%. 77% referred to overall employment rate, including foreigners. It was not due to the Ministry having successfully attracted more women back to the labour force.

SamuelStalin · Sep 16, 2009

chupacabra said:
Pappies are blind and refuse to take notice that a large poppulation of third world workers who earn peanuts are a non factor in the domestic consumer spending.

In fact foreign workers drive prices basic goods like raw foods upwards.

But the retail sector that hires the majority of workers here are suffering. Sinkees and tourists dollars are still the bread and butter for many retail outlets and eateries here.

Only people that stand to gain from overpopulation are the landlords = Pappies

Better to use an avatar with a chupacabra doing a middle finger. More cute.

SamuelStalin · Sep 16, 2009

Chupacrabras should be unleashed and set free by me in Singapore so they can run around day and night and maul and eat the bladder faces and bodies of your locals and foreigners. Of course, and killing them as well.

SamuelStalin · Sep 16, 2009

makapaaa said:
<TABLE id=msgUN border=0 cellSpacing=3 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD id=msgUNsubj vAlign=top>

Coffeeshop Chit Chat - Another NUS Prof whacks PAP's FT policy</TD><TD id=msgunetc noWrap align=right>

Subscribe </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=msgtable cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="96%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=msg vAlign=top><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgbfr1 width="1%"> </TD><TD><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgF width="1%" noWrap align=right>From: </TD><TD class=msgFname width="68%" noWrap>kojakbt22 <NOBR>

</NOBR> </TD><TD class=msgDate width="30%" noWrap align=right>12:07 am </TD></TR><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgT height=20 width="1%" noWrap align=right>To: </TD><TD class=msgTname width="68%" noWrap>ALL <NOBR></NOBR></TD><TD class=msgNum noWrap align=right> (1 of 4) </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgleft rowSpan=4 width="1%"> </TD><TD class=wintiny noWrap align=right>21005.1 </TD></TR><TR><TD height=8></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgtxt><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD>Sep 15, 2009
ECONOMIC GROWTH
</TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD>Just a numbers game? Quality counts too
</TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD class="padlrt8 georgia11 darkgrey bold" colSpan=2>By Basant K. Kapur
</TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

RECENT observations by economists suggest a need to reconsider some aspects of Singapore's economic growth experience.
In an article in this newspaper last Saturday on the inflow of foreign workers, National University of Singapore professor Hui Weng Tat was quoted saying: 'Growth at any cost is not something we want.'
In a chapter in a forthcoming publication of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Professors Lee Soo Ann and Linda Lim observe: 'The fact that government officials are rewarded economically, through salaries and bonuses...for delivering GDP growth, may also lead to 'growth fetishism'... and thus to preference for the easiest route to growth, which is through the addition of inputs of foreign capital, labour and skills.'
These comments raise a number of related issues. Differing somewhat from professors Lee and Lim, I am of the view that, in general, inflows of foreign capital and skills provide valuable growth momentum. However, large inflows of lower-skilled foreign workers are a different matter.
Such inflows create a vicious circle. The availability of low-skilled workers reduces the incentive for employers to upgrade their operations through mechanisation, automation and the like. The resulting low productivity levels imply that they can offer only low wages, which in turn acts as a disincentive to Singaporeans to take up such jobs, and which in turn leads employers to continue demanding for foreign workers.
Of course, the foreign worker 'tap' should not be abruptly curtailed. But a gradual and sustained tightening of the inflow is likely to be highly beneficial over time. There would also appear, as professors Lee and Lim suggest, to be a need to reconsider the GDP bonus scheme for civil servants, which factors in only the real total GDP growth rate each year.
Economic growth should, one, be significantly based on productivity improvement or at least not interfere with such improvement; and two, be inclusive, benefiting all sections of society, especially the less privileged.
I am therefore of the view that consideration should be given to replacing sole reliance on GDP growth in the bonus scheme with a composite criterion, comprising:

GDP growth

A fairly broad-based measure of productivity growth, such as the growth of per capita indigenous GDP (GDP accruing to Singaporeans divided by the total number of Singaporeans); and

A welfare measure, such as the growth rate of the average household disposable income of the lowest 20 per cent of Singaporean households.
No set of criteria for the bonus scheme can be perfect. Just as the current scheme leaves out other desiderata of economic policy - such as low unemployment and inflation rates - so does the proposed composite criterion.
However, a composite criterion along the lines I have proposed will have the effect of, at least symbolically, reinforcing the desirability of productivity growth and inclusiveness as public policy goals.
Two other issues: First, I have referred in the third measure above to 'disposable income', which would be inclusive of fiscal transfers. Is there a danger that an 'easy' route to achieving higher disposable income among the poor might be sought - through overly generous transfers, rather than through training and skills upgrading, thus breeding an entitlement mentality?
Clearly, the application of any criterion will have to be tempered by good judgment. Though, in this case, a little 'erring' on the side of generosity may not be a bad thing for the least-privileged among us, especially if it helps to produce a more comfortable home environment for children in these households.
Second, what weights should be attached to the three criteria in the composite scheme? Since we are considering simply a bonus scheme and the signal we wish it to send to public servants, the exact choice of weights is not critical.
Tentatively, may I suggest equal weights to all three criteria, based on the following considerations: the intrinsic worth of each criterion; and since GDP growth is also facilitated by productivity growth, on the part of both higher- and less-skilled Singaporeans, the three criteria can, to a certain degree, be mutually supporting.
The writer is professor of economics and director of the Singapore Centre for Applied and Policy Economics, Department of Economics, National University of Singapore.

[email protected]

</TD></TR><TR><TD> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Putting aside these fine phrases and letters I think the professor is likely to be much more afraid of his rice bowl over all else (they are now mostly on a renewal contract basis aren't they), because to him it may be that if low-skilled workers are more expendable than ever that would eventually go up to include higher-skilled personnel and specialists in the advent of cheaper and may I add better (more qualified and professional) foreigners allowed into the country to work, which is a beginning new reality she and some others are struggling to come to terms with.

What a hypocrite. Just tell the truth bitches.

lifeafter41 · Sep 16, 2009

SamuelStalin said:
Putting aside these fine phrases and letters I think the professor is likely to be much more afraid of his rice bowl over all else (they are now mostly on a renewal contract basis aren't they), because to him it may be that if low-skilled workers are more expendable than ever that would eventually go up to include higher-skilled personnel and specialists in the advent of cheaper and may I add better (more qualified and professional) foreigners allowed into the country to work, which is a beginning new reality she and some others are struggling to come to terms with.

What a hypocrite. Just tell the truth bitches.

There is always somebody better qualified and will readily go for a lower salary.

Such is the reality nowadays.

chupacabra · Sep 16, 2009

scroobal said:
You got your economics all wrong. If they get peanuts and not a factor in domestic spending, how are they driving basic food prices up. Your example about tourism and retails are also wrong.

People like Basant Kapur and the local economist are saying that they are pushing up the GDP in a manner that will come back to bite us. Population is being increased by bringing foreign workers who not only provide the input but also increase the consumption base. This level of growth requires continues growth in population. Once they hit capacity, the economy will not be able to sustain itself.

The symptoms are already here
Physical symptoms
- overcrowded flats and lifts (beyond town planning rules of the 1st world)
- heavy traffic despite COE, ERP
- crowded trains even during off peak hrs
- coffeeshops washing dishing along 5 foot way and pavements
Psychological symptoms
- anti foreign sentiments prevalent in non state controlled media
- change in mannerism, behaviour and move towards coarse and survival mode
- emigration

This is how GFC occurred - subprime loans could only work as long as the demand for real estate kept up. As the people buying these properties start to come down, the prices stalled, and the rest is history.

Goh Chok has to take the plan for this and he was trained in economics . This trend started in 1995 when the economy began to stall and property prices began to sag.

The country long had foreign construction workers and maids in large numbers but when they brought in foreigners with better qualifications, these people brought in money of their own, bought houses, rented homes and they began patronising restaurants etc. They also brought in their friends, relatives etc. They of course began drawing income from within. This is how the US prospered but in their cases, they had ample capacity and resources.

What we need are the big earners and big spenders. Not kuching kurap third world wage earners. Remember that these workers make up a bulk of the foreigners here. Sinkapore is shooting itself in the foot. Hiring cheap labour
and building more swanky shopping centres. I seriously doubt the nearly one million work permit holder gonna shop at Ion.

Take for example Ikea, do you see hordes of banglas shopping there? But Ikea hires alot of staff, and who do you think pays their salaries? Sinkees of course.

scroobal · Sep 16, 2009

We had low skilled construction workers and maids since the 80s. No issues there. Its the foreign workers that take up the clwsrical, service, professional and business sectors. Basically all vocation sectors except taxi drivers.

chupacabra said:
What we need are the big earners and big spenders. Not kuching kurap third world wage earners. Remember that these workers make up a bulk of the foreigners here. Sinkapore is shooting itself in the foot. Hiring cheap labour
and building more swanky shopping centres. I seriously doubt the nearly one million work permit holder gonna shop at Ion.

Take for example Ikea, do you see hordes of banglas shopping there? But Ikea hires alot of staff, and who do you think pays their salaries? Sinkees of course.

takcheksian · Sep 16, 2009

That NUS prof is asking to have his income audited. I wonder how much longer he can hope to teach in NUS. Maybe he has an offer from a uni elsewhere?

Also I'm waiting for Besotted to come here and praise FTs again.

scroobal · Sep 16, 2009

You even more blur!

Do explain how foreign workers drive up prices without contributing much to domestic consumption. You mean they stand in front of the shop and the shopkeeper raises the prices. Obviously they do buy and that drives consumption.

phouse3 said:
low-skilled foreign workers and their impact on productivity and wages for the locals.

P.S. In passing, I would say that Chupacabra's observation is correct, low-skilled workers do drive up prices of food necessities without contributing much to domestic consumption. .

limpeh2 · Sep 16, 2009

scroobal said:
You even more blur!

Do explain how foreign workers drive up prices without contributing much to domestic consumption. You mean they stand in front of the shop and the shopkeeper raises the prices. Obviously they do buy and that drives consumption.

maybe.. what he meant was they always remit (thru some very grey area of avoiding tax from local gov) most of their money & dun spend on any other items other than food. So, Sporns end up paying more for food than anything else but after that, money no enough to spend on other necessities & clothing. So, non-food vendors end up with little business & going broke.

scroobal · Sep 16, 2009

Do read both their comments -how does one drive prices up without consumption.

I too suspect that he meant remittance which is big business. The issue is not contruction workers and maids who earn meagre amounts and usually cook for themselves sparingly. Nothing grey here, its too little to tax. They have no families here and they have to pay the loan shark back home. These people have been here since 1980s. They have little impact on pricing.

The issue is not low income workers but those in the middle and upper category that are actually driving up the prices. This occurred from 1995. When this group of people came, brought money and began raising families here and they have kids that need to go to school. They all have to be fed. This is what driving prices, nothing to dow ith low income workers.

Kapur for the low income category is stating that over realiance leads to unproductive methods and no incentive to innovate. In a first world country, one man drives a truck with bricks for delivery. At the back of the truck is a forklift. He reaches the destination and he himself will operate the foreklift to unload. In Singapore, there will be 3 to 4 jokers and there will be 2 forklifts, one at loading and one at delivery site. No incentive to do anything. GDP still grows, space becomes a constraint.

limpeh2 said:
maybe.. what he meant was they always remit (thru some very grey area of avoiding tax from local gov) most of their money & dun spend on any other items other than food. So, Sporns end up paying more for food than anything else but after that, money no enough to spend on other necessities & clothing. So, non-food vendors end up with little business & going broke.

singveld · Sep 16, 2009

makapaaa said:
He forgot to mention the billions the Familee collects from the FTrash levy to fund Ho Jinx's problem gambling habit!

that one woman destruction derby and her cronies (US ivy league graduates) does not affect FT policy, she only burn away your CPF money, meaning when you are old, you dun see your money.

limpeh2 · Sep 16, 2009

scroobal said:
I too suspect that he meant remittance which is big business. The issue is not contruction workers and maids who earn meagre amounts and usually cook for themselves sparingly. Nothing grey here, its too little to tax. They have no families here and they have to pay the loan shark back home. These people have been here since 1980s. They have little impact on pricing. The issue is not low income workers but those in the middle and upper category that are actually driving up the prices.

Dey that's simply not true b/c as an example, overseas remittance is WORTH an equivalent several billions of US dollars in transaction taxes, to the governments of all the keling lands. So 1 keling's nothing, but we're talking abt the hordes of temporary & long term FTrash keling workers here. They've the numbers & that'll all addup. Now that's only talking the several hundred thousand cockroach-like FTrash kelings, not counting other FTrash cockroaches like your ah tiongs & pinoys. Together they can drive up food costs for locals enough to stress Sporns out. With their numbers, if they dun support other industries, other industries cee liao b/c Sporns themselves now cannot afford or won't waste time with luxuries anymore due to increased necessities costs & job losses to FTrash cockroaches.

At best I think it's selective consumption that'll distort the industries towards 3rd world demand & downgraded consumption patterns in non-essential commodities, some that we manufacture for angmo companies to resell to us at 5-10X the price.

scroobal · Sep 17, 2009

I have no doubt about billions. What they contribute is many many folds and they get peanuts. Thats not the issue. The gulf states are now modern cities because of them and their remittance is even more huge.

You are barking up the wrong tree. Whose is going to be maids and constuction worker in Singapore - Singaporeans.

As I said those are not the issue. After 1995, the wages of cleaners from 1,100, has dropped to $660. Our Ah Sohs and Ah Ters can no longer survive. Our Ah Lians manning cashier points at supermakets, retail stores can longer get a job because pinoys have taken over.

The reason why this govt can take Singaporeans for a wide is because you guys have no clue about what to attack and where the problem.

An ITE grad with printing qualifications cannot get a job because Ah Tiong got "cert" and he is a lot cheaper. The tool and die chaps are now from India. Go to an SIA Hangar and you think you are in Manila. The technicians are put in Bayhore apts 6 to an apt.

Employers have gone mad with the cheap foreign labour that they cutting corners on standards.

limpeh2 said:
Dey that's simply not true b/c as an example, overseas remittance is WORTH an equivalent several billions of US dollars in transaction taxes, to the governments of all the keling lands. So 1 keling's nothing, but we're talking abt the hordes of temporary & long term FTrash keling workers here. They've the numbers & that'll all addup. Now that's only talking the several hundred thousand cockroach-like FTrash kelings, not counting other FTrash cockroaches like your ah tiongs & pinoys. Together they can drive up food costs for locals enough to stress Sporns out. With their numbers, if they dun support other industries, other industries cee liao b/c Sporns themselves now cannot afford or won't waste time with luxuries anymore due to increased necessities costs & job losses to FTrash cockroaches.

At best I think it's selective consumption that'll distort the industries towards 3rd world demand & downgraded consumption patterns in non-essential commodities, some that we manufacture for angmo companies to resell to us at 5-10X the price.

scroobal · Sep 17, 2009

Still no one has explained how prices have gone up while consumption has not. There is no such thing as prices don't operate in a vacumn in an open economy.

If construction workers and maids are paid $2B and the majority goes out, there is no price pressure locally. If we keep up our exports, there will be little effect on the singapore dollar.

When we fight this govt on foreigners, we must know what to shoot and what not to shoot.

limpeh2 said:
Dey that's simply not true b/c as an example, overseas remittance is WORTH an equivalent several billions of US dollars in transaction taxes, to the governments of all the keling lands. .

Another NUS Prof whacks PAP's FT policy

Alfrescian (Inf)

Alfrescian (Inf)

Alfrescian

Alfrescian

Alfrescian

Alfrescian

Alfrescian

Alfrescian

Alfrescian

Alfrescian (Inf)

Alfrescian

Alfrescian

Alfrescian

Alfrescian

Alfrescian

Alfrescian

Alfrescian (Inf)

Alfrescian

Alfrescian

Alfrescian

Similar threads