SingaporeApr 14, 2010Inflation to rise up to 3.5%THE Government expects Singapore's inflation to rise between 2.5 and 3.5 per cent this year, slightly higher than the earlier 2 to 3 per cent forecast.The Ministry of Trade and Industry on announced the revised projection for inflation on Wednesday, in view of the strong economic recovery in the first quarter, prompting it to raise growth forecast for this year from from 4.5 to 6.5 per cent to 7 to 9 per cent. At the same time, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) also tightened its monetary policy on Wednesday by recentreing its Singapore dollar policy band upwards and by shifting its policy to modest and gradual appreciation for the currency. The MAS said inflation averaged 0.6 per cent in the first two months, rising from -0.3 per cent and -0.8 per cent in the last two quarters of 2009 respectively.On a sequential basis, consumer price inflation has trended higher since the third quarter of last year, largely due to the rise in global commodity prices and private road transport costs. "These two factors will continue to drive headline inflation rates up for the rest of 2010," said MAS in a statement. Meanwhile, other domestic sources of inflationary pressures, though subdued presently, could be expected to emerge in the coming quarters. MAS added that the labour market has tightened, with the seasonally adjusted resident unemployment rate falling from 5 per cent in September last year to around its pre-crisis rate in December. "Wage growth will begin to pick up this year, while commercial rentals are also likely to rise given improved economic conditions. Overall CPI inflation in 2010 is projected to be between 2.5 and 3.5 per cent, slightly higher than the 2 to 3 per cent," it said.
Two recent news stories were left dangling by our traditional media. One was about the extraordinarily high initial valuation put on a donation to the Peranakan Museum, and the other was about the Education Ministry disinviting a distinguished American educator to a conference here.Both were more than mere gaffes, though not quite putrid enough to be called scandals. Both were reported by our press. Up to a point.Yet, I could smell a back story in each case, and I'm sure any half-respectable journalist would too. But so far I don't see anyone whose paid job it is to ferret out the news doing so, even though both cases would meet the public interest test.Now why is there no ferreting? And what might the back stories tell?All I have are suspicions. These suspicions however hint at an ugly side of the "Singapore establishment" and bureaucracy. They contest the oft-bandied claim that here we have a competent, nay, meticulous meritocracy, and that integrity is in the DNA of public officers.I am certain many others share the same thoughts. Actually, the fact that paid reporters are not digging into these two stories leads me to believe that they too share my suspicions. The fear of unearthing truths unflattering to the government is the most likely reason why further questions are not asked.* * * * *Let's start with the Peranakan Museum fiasco. The outline of the story is this: In 2008, a Mr and Mrs Tan Eng Sian offered to donate 300 pieces of Peranakan items to the newly set up Peranakan Museum. These were valued at S$15 million and the donation accepted. The Tans were not paid for the items but they received a tax deduction equivalent to twice the value, i.e. S$30 million. Additionally, they were honoured with the Distinguished Patron of Heritage Award last year.Apparently, some members of the Board of Directors of the Asian Civilisations Museum, which oversees the Peranakan Museum, had doubts about the valuation. Exactly when they first raised their doubts does not seem to be clear, but seven of the nine members of the Board including chairperson Priscylla Shaw resigned in December 2009.At some point, two additional valuation exercises were conducted. Both came up with valuations far below S$15 million; the lower of the two said the collection was worth less than S$2 million.The Tans asked for a return of the collection; the museum agreed. The couple also returned the Distinguished Patron of Heritage Award.On 19 April 2010, it was reported [1] that Lui Tuck Yew, the Acting Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts, had apologised to the Tans, I would imagine for any distress and embarrassment his ministry might have caused. Lui also acknowledged the important role played by the museum Board in alerting the National Heritage Board that the donation could have been overpriced.The Sunday Times tracked down the person who provided the initial valuation. He turned out to be Peter Wee, a dealer in Peranakan antiques with a shop in Katong [2]. He told the newspaper that he continued to "definitely" stand by the value he had put to the collection. "I do not look at value merely in terms of dollars and cents," he said. "I look at it in terms of the history, heritage, culture and the rich individual stories behind each work."How I value my history and heritage will be different from the way you value it" – which struck me as a rather odd statement. When commissioned to put a market value on something, surely one should try to be as objective as possible.However, putting the focus on Wee, as the Sunday Times did, would be to chase a runaway hen when there's a fox in the chicken coop.The fox is this question: Why did it take a mass resignation of Board members to get the minister's attention and compel museum executives to get a second opinion? Resigning would not have been the first step taken. That it had to be resorted to suggests that initial queries were either not taken seriously or stonewalled.It looks awfully as if the museum officers involved were not only very invested in their decision to appoint Peter Wee as the valuer and accept his valuation of S$15 million, they also resisted oversight by their very own Board. Even the reasonable idea of getting a second opinion -- which surely must be considered good practice in any museum -- appeared to have made no headway.How do public servants get to this point where they feel they can act with impunity? I found it disturbing that the story begged this question.I posed it to a friend at dinner one evening. Yes, he said, he too thought there was more to the story than the newspapers told. More interestingly, he offered his speculation -- and I must stress, it's speculation -- as to what could have happened.One possibility, my friend said, was that the donors could have known a minister or two, and that at some early point in the process, a word could have been dropped from on high to please consider the Tans' offer.This is not to say that the "high-up guy" meant anything more than strictly that. I do not think it is in the nature of our ministers to try to sway such decisions.But in the Singapore system, middle and junior ranks tremble at the feet of gods. They've been brought up that way. It's the Singapore system. So they would have plunged headlong into acquiring the collection believing it had blessings from the highest levels... and when their own Board questioned the decision, well, who the hell are these directors compared to the gods who have spoken?Wouldn't even getting a second opinion, possibly revising the valuation, embarrass not only the donor but the gods too? How dare anyone risk crossing the expressed wishes from high up?Now, as I said, this is just conjecture. We really do not know the back story. But I'll say this: any one of us who knows anything about the Singapore-Confucian system (in particular the rule: never question your superiors) will say this is entirely plausible. It has a despairing ring of familiarity.* * * * *Susan Elliott is the 2009 Colorado State Teacher of the Year and one of four finalists for the 2009 National Teacher of the Year. Despite being hearing-impaired, she teaches her subjects -- history and social studies -- to mainstream and hearing-impaired students at the same time, in the same classroom.As reported in a blogpost by Anthony Mullen in Teacher Magazine, Elliott was first invited by our Ministry of Education, then disinvited (and after the story broke, re-invited) to a major education conference to be held here in September.Mullen wrote:Once the Singapore education officials discovered that Susan was hearing-impaired, they retracted her invitation. The so-called discovery and subsequent retraction of her invitation was an act of disingenuous statesmanship because the Singapore education officials knew all along that Susan was deaf. The official in charge of inviting and then disinviting Susan attributes the mistake to miscommunication. Wait a minute. Singapore is renowned for its academic prowess; surely the highly educated official could read a simple biography that very clearly noted Susan was hearing-impaired. ...Susan Elliot sent a few emails to Singaporean education officials, hoping the "miscommunication" was itself a miscommunication and the whole matter an innocent mistake. She had to defend her disability and remind conference officials that America's teachers and children are a diverse lot.How did the Singapore officials respond? Susan was wished a successful future but remains persona non grata at the conference.Today's Straits Times reported that the disinvitation has been retracted. She is now welcome again. See box at right.Every bone in my body tells me somebody in the Education Ministry failed to think, failed to check facts, and jumped to conclusions. Think about it:As Mullen said in his blogpost, "they" must have known from the outset that she was hearing-impaired. Who would be that "they"? For starters, it must include whoever it was who initially put her name on the invite list. This person (let's call him or her the proposer) must have known about her background and achievements -- why else propose her as a speaker at the conference?Yet, as the Straits Times report indicated, the withdrawal of the invitation had something to do with the conference being about mainstream education, and that someone jumped to the conclusion that she had nothing to do with that, being "a teacher of only deaf students" (emphasis mine); furthermore, that there would be a logistical problem, "a misunderstanding about the need for interpreters" -- euphemistic words from the ministry's statement to the media.Susan Elliott This person who jumped to conclusions and "misunderstood" is unlikely to be the proposer for reasons stated above. It is likely to be the proposer's superior or other higher-ranking members of the conference organising committee who obviously didn't bother to find out why Elliott was proposed in the first place. My guess is that the superior officer(s), on discovering that Elliott is hearing-impaired, immediately pigeonholed her as "a teacher of only deaf students" and someone unable to communicate with a mainstream audience without interpreters. The superior officer(s) never realised that Elliott teaches mixed classes.Why didn't the proposer then correct her superiors' misconceptions before someone meekly carried out the instruction to disinvite Elliot?More trembling at the feet of superiors, perhaps? Have higher officers in our civil service cultivated a reputation that juniors questioning their "wisdom" would be committing career suicide? Do they think of themselves as demigods?What thinking skills do officers in the Education Ministry have if they are so prone to pigeonholing based on unchecked assumptions? Oh wait, isn't that what they've been doing for years and years? Mother-tongue policy would be the first example that comes to mind. Is not pigeonholing the "Singapore way"?Indeed, stereotypical thinking is rampant in this ministry. Here we have deaf = non-mainstream, deaf = sign language. Other days we have gay = bad and Malay = Muslim = don't bother to push them too hard, they're not very intelligent (Indeed, I heard this one from a teacher herself who was appalled at her colleagues' attitudes towards Malay pupils).* * * * *These two cases show up two chronic diseases that ail Singapore: uncritical thinking and excessive deference to authority. And yet we boast about our education system.But as I said, I'm only making educated guesses at best. We don't know the true back stories. And that may be because some senior editors believe it's the Singapore way that we should not know too much, lest we think less of gods, cease trembling at their feet, and it is the gods themselves who have cause to tremble. © Yawning Bread
Jun 28, 2010PM: Don't expect flood-free SingaporePreventing widespread floods more realistic, he saysBy Jeremy Au Yong, Political CorrespondentGIVEN Singapore's tropical climate, it will be very costly to keep the country flood-free, said Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong yesterday.Speaking for the first time on the two flash floods this month, he noted that any attempt to wipe out flooding here would require plenty of money and land.'If you are going to do that, you will need huge tracts of land put aside for huge monsoon drains, which will be empty most of the time, (and) the infrastructure will cost a lot of money and it is not worth it,' he said.A more realistic objective, he added, is to prevent widespread and prolonged flooding, and limit the risk to lives and damage to property.Mr Lee made the point while assuring Singaporeans that the Government 'will continue to implement new drainage works, to improve the design of the drainage systems and deal with more intense storms'.'But I don't think it is possible in Singapore to expect the place to be completely free of floods,' he said, as heavy downpours are very much part of the climate for an 'island in the tropics'.PM Lee was speaking at the opening of new facilities at Lower Seletar Reservoir that include a Rower's Bay for competitive rowing and a 170m bridge that gives panoramic views of the reservoir.They were built under a programme known as ABC Waters (Active, Beautiful, Clean), to freshen up Singapore's reservoirs and rivers and turn them into recreation spaces.The Prime Minister, in his speech, also stressed the need to have contingency plans for unusually heavy rain to ensure swift response in pinpointing the problem areas, dealing with them and 'putting them right'.He was keen to make sure the recent floods that caused chaos and disruption in Orchard Road, Thomson Road, Bukit Timah and Tanjong Katong would not happen again.'We have to learn from these episodes, do post-mortems, find out what happened, and upgrade our infrastructure and systems,' he said.The flood that submerged parts of Orchard Road two weeks ago was the worst to hit the area in more than two decades.It caused traffic chaos and millions in losses as several shops on the shopping belt were inundated with waist-high water.The flood was blamed on a clogged drain in the area and record rainfall - 60 per cent of what normally falls in the entire month of June poured down in one morning.A similar storm landed a week later, and this time it was areas such as Thomson Road, Bukit Timah and Tanjong Katong that saw rising waters which, however, subsided in 30 minutes.The two incidents had many Singaporeans chiding national water agency, PUB .Yesterday, PM Lee defended the agency's work, noting that floods were relatively rare occurrences in Singapore.'PUB has ongoing drainage improvement programmes which, over the years, have made floods much rarer, and much less severe so much so that when it does happen, we are sometimes taken by surprise and we scramble to see how we can deal with those remaining problems,' he said.PUB had admitted to being caught off-guard by the Orchard Road floods and has since taken several measures.They include installing new gratings on drains upstream of Orchard Road to trap debris such as leaves and plastic bags and having its contractors clean big drains monthly instead of quarterly.But ultimately, it is not just the PUB that has to take flood prevention measures, said Mr Lee.'We all have parts to play, to keep our public places and our waterways clean.'We must prevent litter from choking up our drains. Otherwise, the litter will find its ways into the canals, into the drains, into the reservoirs and pollute our water supply,' he said.jeremyau@sph.com.sg
SINGAPORE — During the day,her four-room flat is empty asMdm Lim P G, her husband andchildren are out at work.She only flicks the switcheson at night — for about fourhours — to operate a smallstanding fan and the lightsin the living room when shewatches the television.Their daily consumptionhabits have stayed constant, yettheir utilities bill has grown byover 20 per cent since the startof the year, said the 51-year-oldtea lady. “From paying around$90, my bill was nearly $120 lastmonth.Mdm Lim’s experience willresonate with many householdswho are set to face a fifthstraight quarter of higher electricityprices, starting today.From July 1 to Sept 30, electricitywill cost 2.42 per cent more,electricity retailer SP Servicesannounced yesterday.Average fuel oil prices overthe last three months have remainedstable at about $102 perbarrel, according to SP Services,a subsidiary of the SingaporePower Group.The higher rates also includean adjustment for under-collection in the previousquarter. As tariffs are set inadvanced based on forecastedconsumption.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/218109-is-singapore-s-economic-growth-sustainableAugust 02, 2010Is Singapore's Economic Growth Sustainable?By: Joshua HongFlying into Singapore’s harbor is a remarkable sight. The green ocean is dotted with thousands of cargo boats in endless lines off the coast. At night, the lights from the boats reflect from the sea, creating a miniature city within the water. Singapore’s thriving harbor is one of the many signs of its rapidly growing economy.Singapore’s Ministry of Trade and Industry announced in early July that economic growth has been much higher than its earlier estimates of 7 to 9 percent growth. According to the New York Times, Singapore is expected to be among the world’s fastest-growing economies this year, after a growth spurt in the first half of the year prompted the government to project an expansion of as much as 15 percent for 2010 – more than four times the pace at which the U.S. economy is expected to grow. While Singapore’s economic growth is impressive in comparison to America’s, many have questioned whether it is sustainable.The Asia-Pacific region’s economic development is thriving. China and India are expected to grow by 10.5 and 9.4 percent respectively. Thailand has recently joined a number of other countries in South-East Asia in raising their main interest rates, indicating that many have begun to raise borrowing costs. Singapore lies at the heart of this growth for 2010. It is one of the region’s most open economies, serving as a major financial center and an important production and research hub for pharmaceuticals and electronics. Singapore’s GDP growth far surpassed what was originally estimated, and it represented the highest recorded increase in the country’s history. Growth in the first half was primarily driven by exports, tourism, and a booming manufacturing sector. Fredric Neumann from HSBC in Hong Kong wrote in an e-mail to Bloomberg: “We have long been bullish on Singapore’s growth outlook this year. But these numbers are running well ahead of even our estimates.”Another main driver of Singapore’s economy is major government expenditures on infrastructure and buildings. This has lead to a cleaner and more tourist-friendly country. Within four months, the government built half of the new orange line for the country’s public transportation system. Two new casinos, owned by Genting Singapore PLC and Las Vegas Sands Corp. (LVS), and the first Universal Studios in South-East Asia opened in Singapore. In 2007, the country extended the transit system to Sentosa, an island off the coast of Singapore with beautiful beaches and amusement attractions. After a stressful day, Singaporeans can travel 20 minutes on the transit system and relax on Sentosa’s white-sanded beaches for free. All of this development has led to a jump in the number of tourists visiting the country. Bloomberg reported that “[the] opening of the integrated resorts and higher visitor arrival numbers has contributed to growth in the tourism-related sectors.”Singapore is cautious of its economic growth and is keeping inflation in check by raising interest rates and allowing for currency revaluations. In the first quarter alone, Singapore’s dollar rose by 1.3% against the U.S. dollar. Brian Jackson, a senior emerging markets strategist at the Royal Bank of Canada, wrote that “[we] continue to forecast further gradual policy normalization across the Asia-Pacific region over the rest of the year, including moderate appreciation in the Singaporean dollar.”In contrast, the U.S.’s economic growth is dwindling. Unemployment levels are high and consumer confidence is faltering. The U.S. Federal Reserve is considering whether new steps are needed to keep the U.S. economic recovery alive. A report from a meeting with officials from the Federal Reserve on July 14 indicated that the central bank needs to explore new options for bolstering the economy in light of Europe’s debt crisis, a volatile Wall Street, a stalled housing market, and high unemployment. The report indicated that the Fed policy-makers have lowered their forecasts for U.S. economic growth this year.New claims for U.S. unemployment benefits grew more than expected, hitting levels not seen since August of 2008. The Thomson Reuters and University of Michigan preliminary index of consumer confidence decreased to 66.5, the lowest since August of the same year. The report also indicated that more than 7 out of 10 Americans believe that the economy is mired in recession and just 1 in 6 believe that they are personally better off than they were 18 months ago, when President Barack Obama took office. In comparison to America, Singapore’s economy is growing rapidly; however, is this growth sustainable?Paul Krugman, an economics Nobel laureate, has criticized the East-Asian economic growth model by characterizing it as input-driven. It is based on increasing capital and labour, rather than growth in total factor productivity. In an article, he writes, But it is only when one actually does the quantitative accounting that the astonishing result emerges: all of Singapore’s growth can be explained by increases in measured inputs. There is no sign at all of increased efficiency. In this sense, the growth of Lee Kuan Yew’s Singapore is an economic twin of the growth of Stalin’s Soviet Union growth achieved purely through mobilization of resources…Singapore is closer to, though still below, the efficiency of Western economies.Krugman’s article demonstrates that while GDP numbers have drastically increased since the 1990s, Singapore’s productivity growth has remained virtually stagnant, at around 0.7% from 2000-2008. Despite this lackluster growth in labour productivity, Singapore’s manufacturing output grew at a rate of 4.3%. A major component in the growth of Singapore’s economy is the labour input. This finding is supported by the Global Wage Report 2009, which found that Singapore workers had the longest work-week among the countries surveyed, with an average work-week of 46 hours.The main concern is that stagnant or falling productivity will eventually lead to a static economy; an example of this is Japan’s recession in 1989. To improve productivity, Singapore should invest more in education. As of now, Singapore invests roughly 2.9% of its GDP in education, a low number compared to other developed countries. The country tends to import foreign workers instead of investing in Singaporeans and nurturing talent. Consider this table on public education expenditure below:(http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2010/8/2/saupload_singapre_education_thumb1.jpg)While Singapore’s recent economic growth figures are impressive, be cautious as the numbers are not as rosy as they initially appear.
Converting 10% of PRs to citizens "not a target": SM Goh's press secretary Photos 1 of 1 Mr Goh Chok Tong (file picture)SINGAPORE: The press secretary to Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong has said that the figure mentioned by Mr Goh about Permanent Residents who will be asked to take up citizenship, was only for "illustrative purposes". Mr Ho Tong Yen was replying to queries following Mr Goh's comments at a dialogue session at Marine Parade on Monday. Mr Goh was reported as saying that the government might approach ten percent of PRs in Singapore to take up citizenship and if they did not do so, their PR status would not be renewed. Mr Ho said that the Senior Minister was making a general observation to illustrate the point that the government would be managing the inflow of PRs and that some would be encouraged to become citizens. The figure of ten percent which Mr Goh gave was "not a target", and it is also not the case that all PRs who turn down the offer of Singapore citizenship would not have their PR status renewed, said Mr Ho. The government will continue to review and refine its policies to ensure that those who have PR status are an asset to Singapore's society and that those who are given citizenship are, in addition, assessed to be committed in their allegiance to Singapore, added Mr Ho.
Oct 27, 2010S'pore least corrupt nationRepublic rises 2 spots in watchdog rankingBy Cai HaoxiangSingapore was tied with Denmark and New Zealand for top spot, with a score of 9.3 points. -- ST PHOTO: MALCOLM KOHSINGAPORE shared top spot with Denmark and New Zealand as the least corrupt nations in the world, in the latest annual ranking by non-governmental corruption watchdog Transparency International (TI).The ranking yesterday by the Berlin-based outfit saw Singapore move up from third place last year when Denmark was top and New Zealand second. In 2007 and 2008, Singapore was ranked as the world's fourth least-corrupt nation.The latest ranking rates 178 countries and territories on a scale of 0 (highly corrupt) to 10 (least corrupt) and draws on the results of 13 business and expert surveys conducted between January last year and September this year.That Singapore remains one of the least corrupt nations is due in part to effective laws, said TI's head of private sector programmes Francois Valerian, who tracks corporate corruption. 'Singapore is perceived as a state which has made legislative efforts and enforcement of laws and regulations to fight and curb corruption in the public sector, administration and governmental spheres,' he said.But he added that an estimated US$1 trillion (S$1.3 trillion) obtained through illegal means flowed through major financial centres, including New York, Hong Kong and Singapore, annually. While he was not aware of specific instances of illicit financial flows through Singapore, he said Singapore and other territories have a responsibility to exchange information and investigate these flows.Ms Juanita Riano, who oversees the ranking known as the Corruption Perceptions Index, said there was no change in the methodology when compiling this year's list. She added that the index measured perceptions of corruption and this 'doesn't mean that a country is corruption-free'.SOURCE: http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_595768.html
Author
Topic: Matters : Singapore, Heartland, Close to heart - Close to us (Read 5401 times)
