I think the objectives to many things were set wrong. Sometimes secondary, often conflicting, objectives were put into the idea.
Take for instance the Sports Hub. The central idea was to find a sucker to bear the risk in a very substantial investment, not to get a good stadium done properly and expediently. The investor found his mistake early enough but not before making great losses. The motor circuit in Changi is likely to repeat history.
Another example is the immigration policy. Although the pretext used was to compensate for a fall in TFR, the end result was a drastic increase in population of more than a million in only 10 years. Lucky Tan could be right - it appeared like there was a dislocation of what was required to what was implemented by some 20 odd years - what you need as numbers only in 20 years' time, you take them in now.
But look at it in another way, it could be a case of multiple objectives. Not only is arresting falling TFR an objective but micro-engineering a desired racial mix was an important objective and mind you PRC immigrants do not reproduce themselves in large numbers nowadays with their concept of one child family strongly ingrained in their heads, so they must be brought in in larger numbers than what it might have been which in turn required a large intake of Indians, giving the outcome that we all know.
Some people went to the extent to suggest that the whole exercise was to raise money from a larger economy brought about by a larger population to compensate for heavy losses in overseas investment.
It is pertinent to note an observation that Singapore has invested an amount equivalent to 70% of our GDP or some US$140 billion in European banks. The common wisdom is that these banks will suffer great, maybe incapacitating, losses due to investment in increasingly junk-rated bonds.
As recently as last month, some senior investment officer of our country's investment team proudly announced that we would be investing more into Europe to catch prices at the low in a contrarian way. They do this thing with what essentially is our pension fund? What if the downturn last a full economic cycle? Isn't the European Crisis a more structural problem than even the 2008 Crisis?
I am concerned because, to me, there is one very sick concept propagated by a well-regarded consultant that you do not need to react to any up and down because if your horizon is long enough, your investment return in USD will be around 12 % pa. But time is money. A cycle that takes 5 years to fully recover, like the Great Depression, for instance, will wipe off 85% to 90% of your money when compared with taking out the money and investing at a better time or not investing until the time is more right and the trend more clear.
If all these did not make much sense, then maybe there was no other choice. Much like a gambler who lost so much money that the only way out was to bet even heavier to try to win back the losses, high risk not a factor in the equation. For such a gambler, what is your usual suggestion for action?
