- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
<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 vAlign=top><TD class=msgF width="1%" noWrap align=right>From: </TD><TD class=msgFname width="68%" noWrap>kojakbt_89_ <NOBR></NOBR></TD><TD class=msgDate width="30%" noWrap align=right>2:32 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></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgleft rowSpan=4 width="1%"></TD><TD class=wintiny noWrap align=right>52246.1 </TD></TR><TR><TD height=8></TD></TR><TR><TD id=msgtxt_1 class=msgtxt>MISTAKE in PAP “think tank” critique on UBS ranking of the purchasing power of Singapore wages
June 6th, 2011 |
Author: Contributions |
Edit
One of the annual rankings which the PAP loves to hate is the annual UBS ranking of the purchasing power of wages of 73 cities across the world. Every year, Singapore scores very poorly. The following are the latest set of results from UBS. Singapore is ranked below Moscow, Rio and even Kuala Lumper.
The low ranking of Singapore reflects the often expressed sentiment among many Singaporeans that we have to endure a First World cost of living but survive on Third World wages. This is largely due to the PAP’s wage suppression policies via the import of “foreign talent”.
To “counter” the damaging annual UBS study, the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy released a paper of their own. As the name would suggest, the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy is a PAP “think tank”. Headed by Dean Kishore Mahbubani, it contains many “wise men” that regularly provide counsel to the PAP. The paper released by the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy is fiercely worded as Figures, Facts and Fallacies. You can download a copy of it here
The paper’s main author is Dr Tan Khee Giap. Dr Tan as you will recall shot to fame in 2003 with his paper indicating that the bulk of the jobs created in Singapore went to foreigners. This earned a sharp rebuke from then Acting Minister of Manpower Ng Eng Hen.
Dr Tan eventually apologized for making a mistake with his analysis in 2003. It would now appear that Dr Tan has made yet another mistake in his latest paper.
Referring to the paper from the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, it can seen that the main line of argument against the UBS ranking is that it is not an apple-to-apple comparison. This in itself is hardly earth shattering since the circumstances in the various cities are different and it is impossible to construct a universal basket of goods that is used by everybody across the world. UBS notes this limitation prominently on pg 6 of their report.
The mistake that Dr Tan makes can be found on pg 3 of his paper. After arguing that it is not apple-to-apple, he then uses not apple-to-apple empirical work to try and show that Singapore’s ranking is unnaturally low.
The UBS paper ranks Singapore against 73 cities. Dr Tan ranks Singapore against just 5 other cities.
This is faulty reasoning. This is because based on whatever 5 cities you select, you can prove just about anything. For example, suppose we select the top cities from the UBS list of 73 cities and compare this against Singapore.
From these two examples, it is obvious that you cannot just pick 6 cities from the list and do the analysis. Dr Tan should have applied his alternative methodology to ALL 73 cities in the UBS list. Only if Singapore jumps 10 to 20 ranks can he then assert that the UBS ranking of Singapore is wrong and Singapore should in fact be ranked higher.
As is, the empirical work in the paper has therefore NOT proved any of the assertions made by Dr Tan.
.
Aurvandil
*The Author blogs at Thoughts of a Singapore Statistician.
*Editor’s note: Dr Tan Khee Giap is an Associate Professor and Co-Director of Asia Competitiveness Institute at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy. He obtained his PhD (Economics) from the University of East Anglia, UK [Link].
.
The low ranking of Singapore reflects the often expressed sentiment among many Singaporeans that we have to endure a First World cost of living but survive on Third World wages. This is largely due to the PAP’s wage suppression policies via the import of “foreign talent”.
To “counter” the damaging annual UBS study, the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy released a paper of their own. As the name would suggest, the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy is a PAP “think tank”. Headed by Dean Kishore Mahbubani, it contains many “wise men” that regularly provide counsel to the PAP. The paper released by the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy is fiercely worded as Figures, Facts and Fallacies. You can download a copy of it here
The paper’s main author is Dr Tan Khee Giap. Dr Tan as you will recall shot to fame in 2003 with his paper indicating that the bulk of the jobs created in Singapore went to foreigners. This earned a sharp rebuke from then Acting Minister of Manpower Ng Eng Hen.
Dr Tan eventually apologized for making a mistake with his analysis in 2003. It would now appear that Dr Tan has made yet another mistake in his latest paper.
Referring to the paper from the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, it can seen that the main line of argument against the UBS ranking is that it is not an apple-to-apple comparison. This in itself is hardly earth shattering since the circumstances in the various cities are different and it is impossible to construct a universal basket of goods that is used by everybody across the world. UBS notes this limitation prominently on pg 6 of their report.
The mistake that Dr Tan makes can be found on pg 3 of his paper. After arguing that it is not apple-to-apple, he then uses not apple-to-apple empirical work to try and show that Singapore’s ranking is unnaturally low.
The UBS paper ranks Singapore against 73 cities. Dr Tan ranks Singapore against just 5 other cities.
- New York
- London
- Tokyo
- Taipei
- Hong Kong
- Singapore
This is faulty reasoning. This is because based on whatever 5 cities you select, you can prove just about anything. For example, suppose we select the top cities from the UBS list of 73 cities and compare this against Singapore.
- Zurich
- Sydney
- Miami
- Los Angeles
- Luxembourg
- Singapore
- Singapore
- Jakarta
- Nairobi
- Manila
- Mumbai
- Mexico City
From these two examples, it is obvious that you cannot just pick 6 cities from the list and do the analysis. Dr Tan should have applied his alternative methodology to ALL 73 cities in the UBS list. Only if Singapore jumps 10 to 20 ranks can he then assert that the UBS ranking of Singapore is wrong and Singapore should in fact be ranked higher.
As is, the empirical work in the paper has therefore NOT proved any of the assertions made by Dr Tan.
.
Aurvandil
*The Author blogs at Thoughts of a Singapore Statistician.
*Editor’s note: Dr Tan Khee Giap is an Associate Professor and Co-Director of Asia Competitiveness Institute at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy. He obtained his PhD (Economics) from the University of East Anglia, UK [Link].
.
Side Note
Dr Tan has apparently gotten into a cyber brawl on Temasek Review. Shortly after publishing his paper, Ng Kok Lim who writes for the Temasek Review wrote the following nasty open letter to him. The last part in particular was perhaps a little over the top.
[URL]http://www.temasekreview.com/2011/05/25/figures-facts-and-fallacies/[/URL]
You set out to point out the fallacies in the UBS report. You ended up producing your own fallacious arguments that put shame on you and the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy.
Dr Tan replied with the following equally nasty email.
[URL]http://www.temasekreview.com/2011/06/03/dr-tan-khee-giap-replies-to-ng-kok-lim/[/URL]
Dear Mr Ng Kok Lim,
1.My reply to questions you raised are in the email below. If you find my reply and explanations convincing and reasonable, please say thank you, and would you promise to circulate my e-mail reply to all your friends including DPM Tharman who you copied in your e-mail to me too ? So I enclosed our comments on the UBS report in both English and Chinese for your perusal which are also posted at the website of Asia Competitivness Institute at Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, NUS.
2. If you want to engage me again in future policy discussions, please do not use unkind words such as “bring shame to yourself and Lee Kuan School of Public Polcy” when you have NOT even listen to my reply and you jumped into the coclusion, doubted our comments on the careless UBS Report. You did not give respect to my co-authors too! Did you also have doubts and check with authors from the UBS Research Department or are you giving different level of respect to the UBS Report becasue it is written by angmoh?
3. From the way you wrote and posed questions, you sounded like an able young or teenage Singaporean which is good as you do doubt what you read and that is how we learn. May i suggest that you do free you mind first and listen to more explanations from all sides before you formed your own views ok. You see, I am still very nice to you in my reply and i did not call you names.
majulah Singapura!
best regards,.
khee Giap
I have quoted Dr Tan’s email in full as I was surprised by his reply. It does not appear to be very becoming of an intellectual with a respected PAP “think tank”. As a former ambassador to the UN, Dean Kishore Mahbubani should know better. If he wants the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy to be taken seriously, he might want to consider sending Dr Tan for some etiquette lessons.
</TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgVFM colSpan=2 align=center>View Full Message</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>Dr Tan has apparently gotten into a cyber brawl on Temasek Review. Shortly after publishing his paper, Ng Kok Lim who writes for the Temasek Review wrote the following nasty open letter to him. The last part in particular was perhaps a little over the top.
[URL]http://www.temasekreview.com/2011/05/25/figures-facts-and-fallacies/[/URL]
You set out to point out the fallacies in the UBS report. You ended up producing your own fallacious arguments that put shame on you and the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy.
Dr Tan replied with the following equally nasty email.
[URL]http://www.temasekreview.com/2011/06/03/dr-tan-khee-giap-replies-to-ng-kok-lim/[/URL]
Dear Mr Ng Kok Lim,
1.My reply to questions you raised are in the email below. If you find my reply and explanations convincing and reasonable, please say thank you, and would you promise to circulate my e-mail reply to all your friends including DPM Tharman who you copied in your e-mail to me too ? So I enclosed our comments on the UBS report in both English and Chinese for your perusal which are also posted at the website of Asia Competitivness Institute at Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, NUS.
2. If you want to engage me again in future policy discussions, please do not use unkind words such as “bring shame to yourself and Lee Kuan School of Public Polcy” when you have NOT even listen to my reply and you jumped into the coclusion, doubted our comments on the careless UBS Report. You did not give respect to my co-authors too! Did you also have doubts and check with authors from the UBS Research Department or are you giving different level of respect to the UBS Report becasue it is written by angmoh?
3. From the way you wrote and posed questions, you sounded like an able young or teenage Singaporean which is good as you do doubt what you read and that is how we learn. May i suggest that you do free you mind first and listen to more explanations from all sides before you formed your own views ok. You see, I am still very nice to you in my reply and i did not call you names.
majulah Singapura!
best regards,.
khee Giap
I have quoted Dr Tan’s email in full as I was surprised by his reply. It does not appear to be very becoming of an intellectual with a respected PAP “think tank”. As a former ambassador to the UN, Dean Kishore Mahbubani should know better. If he wants the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy to be taken seriously, he might want to consider sending Dr Tan for some etiquette lessons.
