What ever happen to the PAP insistence in learning from
the experiences of other small countries with
similar difficulties as was done when Singapore was
suddenly given independence and had to grope around to find a path
forward ?
Did we not draw lessons from Switzerland, Israel, Malta, and
some other smaller sized European countries as well ?
Have Switzerland and Israel need any help from massive
inflow of immigrants to take up citizenship just to ensure progress
in their economic enterprises, or to ensure full employment,
or to supplement their falling birth rates to achieve
replacement in their population numbers ?
All these countries - that Singapore had drawn lessons
from in 1966 - continued with their open political
system of full citizen involvement in the political process;
with Switzerland having a political leadership that
do not assume themselves to be smarter then the sum total of
all the intelligence of the citizens.
The prosperity and stability of Switzerland is due to
the Swiss Citizens being given a stake in the political
process in that they are consulted on all major
policies which can affect their interests - and done in a
process called "Referendum".
Unfortunately, the PAP leadership has no confidence in their own
policies nor with Singaporeans, and will not allow Singaporeans to
have any say in political issues that affect our own lives through
"Referendum".
It is a fallacy to claim that "The economy need to be expanded to the max
possible, so that we can have the widest choice possible in goods
and services" - given the fact that we have limited
resources in land, relevant technical skills and
technology.
The "father of Singapore's economy and industrialisation" - Dr
Goh Keng Swee - had always advocated the need for Singapore to
do what we do best, instead of trying to be the best in
everything but being master of none.
The economic "theory of comparative advantage" that Dr Goh had
led Singapore in the early path towards industrialisation had
given a foundation to grow within our limited resources.
Now it seems to have been forgotten as the long period
of success has resulted in sheer arrogance in the
thinking of the PAP leadership - leading them to
believe that they are omnipotently infallible.
Is Singapore spreading our resources too thin and attempting to
be involved in too many directions - to be the top in technology,
bio-science, pharmaceutical, ship building and maintenance; to be a
regional hub for air and sea transportation, to be a regional
financial hub; to be the center of Southeast Asia in the film
industry, in computer sciences, and communications ?
It has always been the PAP policy of getting the "talent"
if none is available locally so as to get the desired
plans accomplished.
Has anyone actually done an audit to all the projects that
the PAP government has led Singapore to undertake ?
What has been the returns - in financial terms
- considering the huge R+D grants given to some of these new
fields of bio-science and pharmaceutical niches that Singapore
insist on having ?
Does the financial returns justify the social
and economic burden to the Singapore population ?
Living within our means remains an Asian Value - and
it seems to have been forgotten when it should never have been
lost.
I think the
shift away from a manufacturing base economy to a service one is a
move in the right direction considering our size.
Remember Malaysia's Multimedia Super Corridor, and the
Iskander Regional Development each by themselves is much larger
than the island of Singapore. Every inch of Singapore has to be
covered with factories to compete with these
developments.
Singapore is
different from Israel and Switzerland, and have learnt from them in
the begining. The early founders like Dr Goh Keng Swee have
seen to that.
I agree that
Singapore maybe spreading out its resources too thin. Although
there are a number of developments that gives the appearance that
Singapore is much advanced that the neighbouring countries, I
believe this is because of the compact nature of our nation. Cities
like Shanghai and even Kuala Lumpur is in some areas much more
"advance" than Singapore. They can have a manufacturing and
services based economy, whereas Singapore can only choose one. If
it has been manufacturing, we would all have been regimented
factory workers now.
What Singapore has as a
resource is manpower, and this limited in number and quality. Thus
the need to "import". Singapore can stagnate or progress
at a slower rate, and be a sleepy pearl of the orient like Penang
and strive to attract tourist in Hawaiian shirts and straw hats to
savour the colonial settings.
Like it or not,
Singaporeans are just as voracious as any other nationality in
consumerism, and want to be so. I personally don’t think
Singaporeans as a whole will exercise humility and be not
materialistic. Singaporeans want, and will want the latest and the
best and also the cheapest. And this is what the government of the
day has to endeavour to provide for its citizens.
There are
numerous strategies to achieve this purpose. The ones that work
well are deemed correct, the one that is disastrous is considered
wrong, and all in between are open to debate. Therefore,
considering that Singapore’s only resource is manpower, the shift
to the various services industries should be in the right direction
as oppose to manufacturing. And also in as many in this field as
possible, and thus spreading the resources thin, as you have
brought out. This has its pros and cons, as those not viable are
left to their own demise, and those that take off are
nurtured.
That’s why the
government has my agreement on the importation of foreigners to
supplement our workforce. Then how they do it, and how you would
like them to do it, is the issue.
