Ease immigration to stay competitive
According to the Straits Times news report “Singapore ‘will have to ease immigration laws to stay competitive’: EIU” (Mar 17) – “Despite moves to curb immigration in recent years, Singapore will likely ease its rules on foreigner inflows in the long-term to remain economically competitive, the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) predicted on Tuesday.”
Propaganda again?
I had an eggy feeling when I read the title of the subject news report – that perhaps our 153rd Press Freedom ranking media may be true to its usual form – used this as an opportunity to sing the propaganda so often seen recently – that we need more rather than less foreigners. Even the editor wrote about this recently.
The “more juicy” parts of the EIU report?
I read the entire EIU report, and guess what? Here are some of the “more juicy” parts of the report that were not mentioned at all.
“Winds of change seem to be gaining some momentum in the political arena too.
Singapore’s success story is the story of strong political leadership—under Lee Kuan Yew Singapore thrived, and in 1980 he said, “Whoever governs Singapore must have that iron in him. Or give it up.”
His son, Lee Hsien Loong, has provided able leadership, but as Singaporeans–who Lee Kuan Yew once referred to as “champion grumblers”—are getting more and more politically engaged, they are demanding more freedom of speech.
However, a new generation of leaders remains largely invisible.
This continues to fuel longstanding concerns about Singapore’s post-Lee Kuan Yew future, with the primary fear being that Lee Hsien Loong’s leadership will be challenged once his father is not around.
In the absence of a credible succession plan in a country where the media is largely state-controlled and democracy is flawed, this could potentially lead to political turmoil that could hamper the growth of the city state.
in 2012 signs of potential fissures in the political landscape started to emerge because of the government’s liberal immigration policy.
Many Singaporeans have been disgruntled Lee Hsien Loong’s open immigration policy, which has seen Singapore’s total population (including foreigners) grow by 31% between 2004 and 2014, to 5.47m.
Over this period, the resident population rose by 13% to 3.9m, while the number of foreigners increased by a spectacular 112% to 1.6m.
Anti-immigrant sentiment has thus been rising and riots in 2013 over the death of a foreign construction worker—one of the worst instances of civil unrest in years—tarnished Singapore’s carefully created image of a harmonious city state where all communities can co-exist safely.
Although the riots had only a limited impact on political stability, the incident refocused attention on policies towards foreign workers.
In a sign of increasing popular disenchantment with the government, more than 2,000 people attended a rally in mid-2014 against an alleged lack of transparency in the management of the state-run pension scheme, the Central Provident Fund.
This followed three protests against the government in 2013, including two large demonstrations against an official white paper projecting that the population would need to expand to 6.9m by 2030.
Further protests are likely as Singaporeans become more politically engaged
Extra-parliamentary protest is also tightly controlled.
The fertility rate has now been below the notional replacement rate of 2.1 since 1976.
The lack of childcare facilities and the high cost of living act as constraints to the effectiveness of policy measures aimed at increasing the birth rate.
… the government has failed in its efforts to increase productivity–which is essential to reduce the city state’s reliance on foreign labour— and this could drag down economic growth.
In the first three quarters of 2014 productivity was -0.5%— the third consecutive year in which productivity has been weak.
Enhancing productivity becomes particularly significant in view of the tightened immigration laws that have significantly increased operational costs for businesses.
Despite several incentives offered to small businesses to increase productivity, there has been little progress on this front.
A moderately strong economic growth rate juxtaposed with rising real median incomes (a 10% increase over the past five years, according to the prime minister’s office), which have not been accompanied by unemployment in an economy that is particularly sensitive to global headwinds, is commendable.”
Increase in incomes?
It may be interesting to note the remarks “according to the prime minister’s office” in regard to the increase in real median incomes”.
Perhaps the EIU was being diplomatic in not expanding on the issues of the measure of incomes in recent years has been changed to full-time employed including employer CPF contribution, instead of all workers (full-time and part-time) excluding employer CPF contribution, and changing the definition of part-time from 30 to 35 hours.
Can you find another country in the world that defines a worker who works seven hours a day for five days in a week, as a part-time worker?
Of course, in so doing, both the incomes of full-time and part-time workers may magically increase simply by the definition change!
Win battles lose war
TRS Contributor