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