I wonder who wrote this - from Yahoo Sg news. http://sg.news.yahoo.com/070530/5/singapore279180.html
Wednesday May 30, 2:17 PM
The faculty of
accountability
Anger, disbelief, fear, shock and tears. Those were just some of
the reactions to the University of New South Wales (UNSW) Asia's
announcement that it was giving up after just one term.
Even as UNSW, the Economic Development Board (EDB), the Ministry of
Education (MOE) and other educational institutions (including the
three local universities) continue to try to help UNSW students
deal with the aftermath, there are other issues that merit debate
on a more macro level.
The first concerns the accountability of government agencies.
The MOE had reportedly played an important role in attracting UNSW
to Singapore in the first place. Furthermore, all private schools
must register with the MOE.
Yet, when students and parents wanted to meet with the latter after
UNSW's decision, the MOE's response was that UNSW had ultimate
responsibility.
As for the EDB, it had sealed the deal with UNSW and had invested
heavily in the project. Yet, it has declined to reveal the losses
resulting from UNSW's pullout.
While disclosing the figures could affect the EDB's bargaining
position in future negotiations with other universities, the fact
remains that this is taxpayers' money. The Financial Times has
reported the amount to be as high as $80 million.
The EDB has also not provided information on how the deal was
structured. What sort of guarantees and commitments were extracted
from UNSW? How could UNSW simply quit after just one term, when
construction work on the new campus was already underway,
apparently without having to pay compensation?
Did we give away too much to lure UNSW here?
The onus is on the EDB to explain what had happened and give an
indication of our losses, while not compromising its ability to
negotiate future deals.
Its continued silence does not sit well with Singaporeans,
particularly in light of the Public Accounts Committee's recent
findings of significant lapses in the EDB's internal controls and
governance.
Singaporeans expect greater accountability from ministers and civil
servants, given the recent public service pay hike. The handling of
this case may not have met the enhanced standards expected by the
public.
A more fundamental question concerns the Singapore model, which
relies heavily on foreign investments to drive the economy. UNSW's
departure demonstrates the risks inherent in playing this game,
especially in an increasingly globalised world where competitors
are everywhere and funds come and go easily.
Investors are understandably fickle, coming to seek returns and
leaving if there are none. As with UNSW and other multinational
corporations, when they pull out, Singaporeans have to pick up the
pieces, whether they be lost jobs, missed opportunities or dashed
dreams.
This could come without warning, such as when there is a management
change and hardnosed businessmen such as UNSW vice-chancellor
Professor Fred Hilmer disagree with the previous decisions
made.
So long as we persist with this economic model, the risk will
remain. I am not saying we should abandon this model it has
served us well in the past, and it could continue to work for the
future.
But we have to be aware of the inherent risks, make sure our eyes
are open to what could happen if things go wrong, and do our best
to mitigate the risks.
Just as foreign investments have a multiplier effect on the
economy, the negative repercussions of capital outflows will
similarly be amplified.
And that brings us back to the EDB's role in attracting
investments. Yes, capital should be able to flow in and out of
Singapore freely, and we cannot stop an investor from
leaving.
But surely it is not too much to ask that where public funds are
spent to entice foreign investments, we also extract some
assurances and commitments to stay in Singapore. This not only
minimises the wastage of taxpayers' money, but also mitigates the
risk of lives being disrupted by premature departures.
Ultimately, our model of foreign investments requires us to keep
foreign investors happy, to ensure that the business case presented
is realistic and justifiable, and to ensure a long-term binding
commitment.
But, at the same time, we must not lose sight of the need to grow
indigenous players who can compete internationally while retaining
local roots.
Otherwise, we will always remain hostage to the whims of foreign
investors.
- /so
