Sunday 27 January 2013

Is Population Growth a Ponzi Scheme?






By Joseph Chamie | Thursday, March 04, 2010
The basic pitch of those promoting population growth is straightforward in its appeal: "More is better." Joseph Chamie, who has spent a lifelong career as a demographer, including 12 years of service as the director of the United Nations Population Division, finds that more is not necessarily better.

ernie Madoff's recent Ponzi scheme has drifted out of the world’s headlines. However, there is another even more costly and widespread scheme — "Ponzi Demography" — that warrants everybody’s attention. While it may come in many guises, Ponzi demography is essentially a pyramid scheme that attempts to make more money for some by adding on more and more people through population growth.
While more visible in industrialized economies, particularly in Australia, Canada and the United States, Ponzi demography also operates in developing countries. The underlying strategy of Ponzi demography is to privatize the profits and socialize the costs incurred from increased population growth.
Concerns about population growth become radioactive. Politicians, journalists and environmentalists choose by and large to sidestep the entire issue.
The basic pitch of those promoting Ponzi demography is straightforward and intoxicating in its pro-population growth appeal: “more is better.” However, as somebody who has spent a lifelong career as a demographer, including 12 years of service as the director of the United Nations Population Division, I find that more is not necessarily better.
As has been noted by Nobel laureate economists Joseph Stiglitz and Amartya Sen as well as many others, current economic yardsticks such as gross domestic product (GDP) focus on material consumption and do not include quality-of-life factors.
Standard measures of GDP do not reflect, for example, the degradation of the environment, the depreciation of natural resources or declines in individuals’ quality of life.
According to Ponzi demography, population growth — through natural increase and immigration — means more people leading to increased demands for goods and services, more material consumption, more borrowing, more on credit and of course more profits. Everything seems fantastic for a while — but like all Ponzi schemes, Ponzi demography is unsustainable.
When the bubble eventually bursts and the economy sours, the scheme spirals downward with higher unemployment, depressed wages, falling incomes, more people sinking into debt, more homeless families — and more men, women and children on public assistance.
That is the stage when the advocates of Ponzi demography — notably enterprises in construction, manufacturing, finance, agriculture and food processing — consolidate their excess profits and gains. That leaves the general public to pick up the tab for the mounting costs from increased population growth (e.g., education, health, housing and basic public services).
In an unrelenting public relations campaign, every effort is made to equate population growth with economic prosperity and national progress.
Among its primary tactics, Ponzi demography exploits the fear of population decline and aging. Without a young and growing population, we are forewarned of becoming a nation facing financial ruin and a loss of national power.
Due to population aging, government-run pensions and healthcare systems will become increasingly insolvent, according to advocates of Ponzi demography, thereby crippling the economy, undermining societal well-being and threatening national security.
Low birth rates, especially those below replacement levels, are considered a matter of national concern. Without higher fertility rates and the resulting population growth, the nation, it is claimed, faces a bleak and dreary future.
So Ponzi demography calls for pro-natalist policies and programs to encourage couples to marry and to have more children, which will lead to the promised sustained economic growth.
In addition to financial incentives and other benefits for childbearing, appeals are also made to one's patriotic duty to have children in order to replenish and expand the homeland: “Have one (child) for mum, one for dad and one for the country.”
In addition to measures to increase fertility levels, Ponzi demography also turns to immigration for additional population growth in order to boost companies' profits. The standard slogan in this instance is “the country urgently needs increased immigration,” even when immigration may already be at record levels and unemployment rates are high.
Among other things, increased immigration, it is declared, is a matter of national security, long-term prosperity and international competitiveness. Without this needed immigration, Ponzi demography warns that the country’s future is at serious risk.
The sooner nations reject Ponzi demography, the better the prospects for all of humanity and other life on this planet.
Another basic tactic of Ponzi demography is a pervasive and unrelenting public relations campaign promoting the advantages and necessity of an increasing population for continued economic growth. Every effort is made to equate population growth with economic prosperity and national progress.
"Economic growth requires population growth" is the basic message that Ponzi demography wants the public to swallow. No mention is made of the additional profits they reap and the extra costs the public bears.
Attempts to question or even discuss Ponzi demography are denigrated and defamed to such an extent that concerns about population growth become radioactive. Politicians, journalists and environmentalists, for example, choose by and large to sidestep the entire issue.
When confronted with environmental concerns such as climate change, global warming, environmental contamination or shortages of water and other vital natural resources, the advocates of Ponzi demography typically dismiss such concerns as unfounded and overblown.
And they claim there is no scientific basis, or they obliquely stress “innovation,” ingenuity and technological fixes as the only appropriate and workable solutions.
Many are complicit with Ponzi demography or at least tacitly support its goals. Few politicians, for example, are able to resist promises of campaign financing, the appeal of increased numbers of supportive voters, prospects of increased tax revenues and the political backing of pro-natalist and pro-immigration lobbyists and special interest groups.
Increased immigration, it is declared, is a matter of national security, long-term prosperity and international competitiveness.
Many environmental groups are also reluctant to take up or even touch the volatile subject of population growth, especially those that have been burned on this issue in the past. Such groups fear possibly offending some members and donors, which might undercut their organizations and efforts.
Despite its snake-oil allure of “more is better,” Ponzi demography’s advocacy for ever-increasing population growth is ultimately unsustainable. Such persistent growth hampers efforts to improve the quality of life for today’s world population of nearly seven billion people as well as for future generations.
Moving gradually towards population stabilization, while not a panacea for the world’s problems, will make it far easier to address problems such as climate change, environmental degradation, poverty and development, human rights abuses and shortages of water, food and critical natural resources.
Fortunately, most couples around the world have chosen — or are in the process of choosing — to have a few children rather than many and to invest more in each child’s upbringing, education and future well-being. Nations need to make the same vital transition with respect to their populations.
The sooner nations reject Ponzi demography and make the needed gradual transition from ever-increasing population growth to population stabilization, the better the prospects for all of humanity and other life on this planet. 


About the writer:
Joseph Chamie
Director of Research, Center for Migration Studies, New York


Joseph Chamie has recently been appointed director of research at the Center for Migration Studies in New York. Previously, he was the director of the United Nations Population Division. Mr. Chamie served the UN in the field of population and development both overseas and in New York for more than 25 years. Among other major duties, he was the deputy secretary-general for the 1994 UN International Conference for Population and Development.
In addition to completing numerous studies under UN authorship, he has written many studies in such areas as fertility, population estimates and projections, international migration and population and development policy.
Mr. Chamie received his graduate training in population at the University of Michigan.
 

Thursday 24 January 2013

Workers' Party Got Talent


Professor Daniel Goh is currently teaching in NUS Department of Sociology.............intelligent, credible, talented and eloquent. Let him tell you why he join Workers' Party and what's wrong with MIW.

Tuesday 15 January 2013

Should wealth creators or wealth managers lead the future?

17 May 2012



Mr Ngiam sharing his views on wealth creation

Should Singapore be a wealth creator or a wealth manager? NUS Pro-Chancellor Mr Ngiam Tong Dow posed this thought-provoking question to the 250-strong audience at the Institute for Engineering Leadership's (IEL) Distinguished Speaker Series lecture on 16 May.

At the hour-long session titled "Leaders in wealth creation: Jurong vs Shenton Way?", the former top civil servant shared that Singapore has nurtured too many wealth managers and far too few wealth creators for the future.

Describing wealth creators, Mr Ngiam said that their singular strength is the ability to think outside the box, spotting opportunities where others only see obstacles. In the public sector, Dr Goh Keng Swee epitomised this spirit. During his appointment as Defence Minister, Dr Goh set up Sheng-Li Holdings to build Singapore's defence industries. Sheng-Li Holdings, to be renamed Singapore Technologies, was able to compete with international defence companies in the global markets.

To groom wealth creators, students should be taught to think outside the box. However, "I believe that Singaporeans and Asians in general think within the box because of our didactic system of education," opined Mr Ngiam. At NUS, he said that the Faculty of Engineering should be given more resources if wealth creation is to be encouraged.

Following the lecture, a spirited Question and Answer session saw Mr Ngiam sharing his views on issues which included the scholarship system, the distribution of talent throughout society, the nurturing of home-grown talents, and the attitude of competing among the best of the best.

On Singapore's position as a wealth creator vis-à-vis emerging markets especially those in Southeast Asia, Mr Ngiam said the country's economic structure has moved from being labour intensive to skills intensive. The future now lies in being knowledge intensive with unique Singaporean expertise to export such as the public housing system.

With a career in civil service over a period of 40 years, Mr Ngiam has served as Permanent Secretary in the Prime Minister's Office, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Trade, the Ministry of Communications and the Ministry of National Development. He was also the Chairman of the Singapore Economic Development Board and the Development Bank of Singapore.

Mr Ngiam is currently an independent director of United Overseas Bank, Singapore Press Holdings and Yeo Hiap Seng Ltd.

Ngiam Tong Dow -Lecture @ NUS

SPEECH BY MR NGIAM TONG DOW AT THE INAUGURAL FASS
(FACULTY OF ARTS & SOCIAL SCIENCES) LECTURE AT THE
LECTURE THEATRE, NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE,
ON 26 OCTOBER 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDUCATION AND GROWTH
---------------------------------------
Professsor Tan Tai Yong, dear friends and fellow alumni

Thank you for having me this evening as speaker for the
inaugural FASS Alumni Lecture. I am deeply honoured. I will speak on
“Education and Growth”, relying on the Singapore Experience during the
period 1960-2000.

1. Synopsis
In my view, education has three imperatives, namely the
economic, the cultural, and the political. Over the last forty years, 1960-
2000, the overriding priority of education has been economic growth.
Faced with a young and rapidly growing population, our schools,
polytechnics and universities were all geared up to teach literacy in
English and the mother tongue, technical skills, science and technology.
Literature and the arts, history, geography, were derided as soft options.
Even those who excelled in law in their professional careers later on in
life, struggled to obtain A’s in the hard sciences in school.
Now that the world is entering an era of knowledge based
competition, we are unsure whether our hard science education will
stand us in good stead. By neglecting the "soft options" of poetry, music
and philosophy, have we missed something? What has happened to our
imagination? Do we find it difficult to think out of the box? Why are the
majority of Singaporeans followers? Isn’t that true of all societies? And
not just Singapore?  Politically, do we want to be a Sparta? Or an Athens?
Ideally, can we be both? Where do our political temperament and
instincts lie? I would like to invite you to join me this evening in debating
this proposition: While it is true that man cannot live by bread alone, can
he live without any bread at all?

2. The Three Imperatives of Education
Education has to serve society’s cultural, political and
economic imperatives. The priority and emphasis depend on a country's
time in history and its stage of development. In the case of China, the
political imperative was paramount during the period of the Cultural
Revolution. In contrast to Chairman Mao's ideological leadership, Mr
Deng Hsiao Ping, seeking truth from facts, brought the economic
imperative to the fore.

3. Historical Developments
At the end of the Second World War on the return of the
British colonial Administration to Singapore, English medium schools
funded by the Government were quickly re-established. During the brief
period of the Japanese Occupation (1942-1945), the Japanese civilian
administration used the private Chinese medium schools to teach
Japanese to youngsters like me. Japanese was taught whenever the
Japanese supervisor was around. Teachers and students reverted to
Mandarin the moment he was out of sight. In this way, I had one year of
schooling in Mandarin.

4. English Medium and Vernacular Schools
The British colonial government funded and staffed only the
English medium schools. Vernacular schools in Chinese and Tamil were
left to fend for themselves. They were financially supported by the
various ethnic clan and community associations. Teachers were poorly
trained and poorly paid. Most parents sent their children to English
medium schools, as school fees were lower and facilities better.

Being poorly paid, some teachers in Chinese schools
became embittered and taught leftist ideology to their students. The
Chinese Middle School Union was a powerful political force, which the
PAP Government had to contend with.
English medium schools on the other hand were apolitical.
The aim of the British Government was to teach English, so that young
Singaporeans can serve as clerks and bookkeepers, primary school
teachers and nurses, and policemen. The British Colonial Government,
supported by our own philanthropists, established the King Edward VII
School of Medicine and Raffles College. The two institutions merged in
1949 to become the University of Malaya, serving Singapore and
Malaya. The Law and Engineering Faculties of NUS were established
later in the 1960’s.
Colonial education policy was essentially aimed at oiling the
wheels of administration.

5. Jobs and Technical Education
On the attainment of self-government in August 1959,
Singapore had a population literate in English, an advantage over other
non-English speaking countries in attracting American and European
MNC’s. The population however possessed little technical skills.
Paradoxically, the Chinese-educated possessed more technical skills
through apprenticeship. This skilled labour went on to build complex
steel structures, such as jack up oil drilling rigs.
The indigenous skills however were not adequate for higher
end precision engineering and process industries. EDB was tasked with
starting up technical education in Singapore. We established joint
industrial training centers with MNC’s, such as Philips of Holland, Rollei
of Germany, Seiko and Yokogawa Electric of Japan. The industrial
training systems became models for our six polytechnics today.

6. The Economic Imperative
In the first three decades of independence, the economic
imperative was the driving force of our education policies. In our
schools, attention was focused on the teaching of science and
mathematics dubbed the hard sciences. All other subjects were derided
as soft options.
As a result, less and less students in English medium
schools studied English literature. Paradoxically, it was harder to score
an ‘A’ or distinction in English literature than in maths or science, simply
because English is not our mother tongue at home. Without studying
literature and history, whether in English or Chinese medium schools,
our literacy in both languages fell.
History is a neglected subject in all our schools. Politically,
we have been an independent country since 1965, hardly 40 years old.
In world history, we rate only a comma. Yet our multi-racial and multireligious
society must retain our roots. Without a sense of history, we
will become a people lost in limbo.

7. Singapore's Path?
In the first half of our short history to date, Singapore had no
choice but to embrace science and technology for economic survival. At
a very basic level, we established industrial training centers to train our
young school leavers in precision machining and mould making, still the
core skills for manufacturing industry. At the polytechnics, students are
taught process engineering and technical analysis. They also learn
finance and cost accounting. As our manufacturing and service
industries grew and became more sophisticated, there was a great need
for trained manpower who can go beyond the "how” to the "why" of
things.

8. Nanyang Technological Institute
When we had achieved full employment in the mid-1970’s,
our Economic Advisor, Dr Albert Winsemius, persuaded Prime Minister
Lee Kuan Yew to establish the Nanyang Technological Institute (NTI), to
train practice oriented engineers, to complement engineering science
taught in the University of Singapore. The EDB, nicknamed metal eaters
by Mr Lee, had boldly asked that our university, polytechnics and
industrial training centers produce 1,000 engineers, 5,000 technicians,
and 10,000 skilled workers annually to meet surging demand for
technical manpower.

The elitist establishment at University of Singapore baulked
at increasing the engineering enrolment, raising the spectre of
unemployed graduates. The professors had little faith at the ability of
EDB to attract high tech jobs to Singapore. Yet, even in the recent
recession, MNCs still find difficulty recruiting skilled personnel for tech
industries, such as wafer fab plants. As a result, a number of them are
relocating to China.
NTI was therefore established as a university of science and
technology. To establish its academic credentials, NTI was allowed by
NUS to award a joint degree with NUS. NTU now conducts degree
programmes in almost every academic discipline other than medicine
and law.
As someone who had a role in the establishment of NTU, I
hope my university colleagues will allow me the privilege to state once
more that the aim was to establish NTU as the MIT, and for NUS to
become the Harvard of South-east Asia. The goal of all academic
institutions must be excellence in both teaching and research. Simply
establishing new faculties and departments because the other university
has such a department will just distract the faculty and administration of
both universities from the drive for excellence.

9. Cultural and Racial Roots
Out of sheer necessity, we concentrated on the economic
imperative in education. Efficiency, rather than effectiveness, was the
name of the game.
Along the way, we also lost some of our cultural roots and
ethnic instincts. In the late 1960’s, the Government decided to drop
Chinese dialect programmes over radio and TV. There may be
compelling reasons for stopping Hokkien, Teochew, Cantonese, Hakka
and Hainanese programmes over the airwaves. One reason given was
that we wanted our children to concentrate only on learning Mandarin,
and not have their young minds confused with the various dialects
spoken at home.
Whether this hypothesis is true or not, we do not know for
sure. But, we do know that the grandparents who speak only dialects
and no Mandarin, were deprived of one of their few sources of news and
entertainment. As less and less dialect was spoken at home, the
communication gap between the young and the old widened.
Transmission of cultural values from generation to generation was
diminished. Our children and grandchildren had to learn to speak
Mandarin ab initio, and to study the Chinese language outside what was
our natural cultural environment.
Today, we cannot go back to the status quo ante. It will be
pointless to restore dialect programmes back to our airwaves simply
because the young grandparents of today do not speak any dialects at
all, growing up under the non-dialect regime. A back of the envelope
solution might be to encourage our English-speaking to read Chinese
history, literature, and even poetry, in English to enthuse their
grandchildren on their Chinese heritage.
Though translations will not have the richness of the original,
they do give the English literate some flavour. We can start by reading
Lee Lien Fung's Bamboo Green columns in the Straits Times.

10. Literature
With the neglect of English literature in school, young
Singaporeans do not have enough command of English to absorb the
essence of western culture. Hollywood is their western cultural diet.
At the same time, unable to speak to their grandparents, they
cannot relate what little culture they are taught in their Mandarin lessons
to their daily lives.
My generation, schooled entirely in the English medium and
speaking dialect at home, can at least get a flavour of Chinese history
and culture reading the English translations of All Men are Brothers,
Dream of the Red Chamber, and Lin Yu Tang's My Country and My
People.

11. Humanities and the Arts
In education as in any field of human endeavour, we have to
face reality. Our single-minded pursuit of economic prosperity has
brought us to a crossroad. In a knowledge-based global economy,
inputs of land, labour, and capital, are necessary, but not sufficient for
growth and prosperity. We have to learn to apply knowledge creatively.
A vice-minister of Japan's Ministry of Trade and Industry
once told me that knowledge is power, if applied with wisdom. Or, with
insight and creativity. How do we become a society with insight and
creativity?

12. Holistic Education
The short answer is a holistic education system. Such a
system will have to serve all the three imperatives of education, the
cultural, political and economic. We have successfully established
industrial training centers, polytechnics, and universities, to teach the
“how” but, in my view, not the “why” of things.
At the risk of being dismissed as an educational Rip van
Winkle, may I suggest the Ministry of Education revisit the grouping of
subjects for the O Level examinations. In 1953, when I sat for what was
then known as the Senior Cambridge School Certificate examination,
candidates were required to offer not more than 9 subjects, divided into
three groups of English and English Literature; Mathematics and
Science; History, Geography and Art. Latin and Religious Knowledge
were optional subjects.
A candidate has to pass in at least two subjects from each
group, graded into pass, credit and distinction. Your scores determine
your overall grading into Grade I, II, III. Only those with Grade I were
admitted into the Post School Certificate classes to prepare for university
entrance examinations.

13. Arts and Science
The curriculum required competence in arts and science. In
my view, a broader rather than a narrow curriculum is likely to produce
greater creativity in individuals, and society as a whole. The competition
for entrance into university is at the final stage of schooling. Streaming
at too early a stage is not only unfair to the individual student, but is also
less effective overall in terms of cost.

14. Becoming a Nation
The prosperity achieved from pursuing the economic
imperative in education comes with a cost. Mr Robert Kuok, the
Malaysian entrepreneur whom I know and greatly respect, once told a
private gathering at NUS that to survive beyond economics, Singapore
has to retain its Chineseness, and by extension its Indianness and
Malayness. It was not a rhetorical answer to a rhetorical question.
Because of our political history, Singapore embraced English
as the lingua franca. As English is also the language of international
commerce, science and technology, and the language of today's only
world superpower, the United States, our literacy in English gave us a
head start in attracting MNC investments. Our pragmatism led us to
adopt English as our first language, and our mother tongue, whether it is
Malay, Chinese or Indian, our second language.
Our legal system based on English law is understood and
accepted by international banks, shipping companies, fund managers,
and the rest of the international business community.
As Microsoft dominates the internet, software is largely
written in English. So those fluent in the English language, have an
advantage in writing software than those who are not. Hence, Indians
who are more literate in English have an edge over the Chinese.

15. Cultural DNA
But is language facility the only competitive criterion? Or is it
the cultural DNA of the Indians, Chinese, and Malays that will count
increasingly in the new millennium? Mr Robert Kuok is right in stressing
the importance of remaining culturally Chinese, Indian, and Malay.

16. The Future of English
MM Lee, in his memoirs, said he sang three different national
anthems living in Singapore. First, as a schoolboy he had sung God
Save The King in English, in the crown colony of Singapore before the
Second World War. Then, for three short years, he sang the Japanese
national anthem during the Japanese occupation of Singapore. On the
defeat of Japan, it was back to God Save The King. Finally, the
Singapore national anthem Majullah Singapura when we obtained selfgovernment
in 1959, composed by the late Mr Zubir Said, a Malay
Singaporean and sung in our national language, Malay.
The origin and language of the national anthem is
determined by the political power governing Singapore. Now that
Singapore is an independent country, the origin and language of our
national anthem is settled. Singapore however has still to evolve its own
national cultural identity.

17. China and India
Western civilization, which has spawned most of the major
discoveries in science and technology, has been in the ascendant for the
last 500 years. Before then, the Chinese, Indian and other civilisations
have been in the forefront of the quest for knowledge. Not being a
historian, I will stick my neck out and postulate that western civilization
overtook eastern civilisation because the peoples and societies were
more outward looking, including conquest and colonisation of foreign
lands. An outward orientation forced on us by necessity has enabled
Singapore to make progress.
Continental size countries, such as China and India,
stagnated because they considered themselves to be the centres of the
civilised world. China named itself as Zhong Kuo, center of the world.
There is a rock outcrop on the island of Hainan, my Chinese ancestral
homeland, facing south, which is considered as the spot where the
civilised world ends.
Similarly, my impression is that Indians consider themselves
to be morally superior to other people. Gandhi coined the slogan of
simple living and high thinking. But when India goes on to imply that this
is the only way to progress, it falls into the Chinese trap of
ethnocentricity.

18. Japan
Japan, like India and China, has supreme confidence in its
own culture. I once read in Japan Echo, which publishes Japanese
"think" pieces in English, that foreigners can never penetrate Japan’s
cultural barrier. The author, a professor in Japanese economic history,
held the view that while Japan can be forced to lower import duties,
remove quantitative restrictions, or reduce non-tariff regulations, the
cultural defence of buying Japanese first is a barrier other countries
cannot penetrate. Japan does not promote the study of English.
Instead, there is a huge translation industry publishing Western works in
Japanese.
Japan, unlike China and India, is not a continental country. It
is an archipelago of islands with the sea as the border. Though insular
by nature, Japan has no choice but to trade with the world. The
orientation is outward. Ezra Vogel, a personal friend of mine, who wrote
Japan As No.1, would have done the Japanese a great disservice if the
Japanese had believed him. My hunch is that the Japanese were not
taken in by the accolade.
Japan in the last fifty years has been successful
economically in the league of the United States. Now that China and
India have begun to embrace openness, how will Japan adjust to
compete economically and culturally?

19. Notes from a Very Small Island
In a speech delivered on 19 April 04 at a meeting of the
Association of American Universities (AAU), Professor Shih Choon
Fong, President of the National University of Singapore (the very small
island) and Chairman of the Association of Pacific Rim Countries
(APRU), posed a very intriguing question to his North American
colleagues: "Will the center of higher education remain in North America
or will move? (To China and India?).
He quoted a Goldman Sachs prognosis that the world in
2050 will face a tectonic change. In 2050, China and India, each with a
population far exceeding 1 billion, and the United States with a
population under 450 million, could be the largest economies in the
world.
In another forecast by an English applied linguist, David
Graddot, the English language will probably drop in prominence by
2050, ranking after Chinese, and comparable to Hindi and Arabic.
Although the United States has become the global education
universe in the 20th century, China and India now poised to become two
of the world's largest economies may aspire to become the new centers
of learning. They will strive for cultural and technological primacy. Can
they?

20. Harvard MPA
I attended the MPA course at the Graduate School of Public
Administration of Harvard University in 1963. On arrival at Harvard, midcareer
officers such as myself were told that while it was easy to pass,
having been carefully selected by Harvard, it would be difficult to excel,
as we will be among the best competing with the best.
The teaching method at Harvard was in stark contrast to the
University of Malaya (NUS). The professors assumed that, as we were
learning at a post-graduate level, we already know the subject matter.
I was startled at one of the first American-style lecture when
the professor began the course by asking a question. The student he
asked responded not with an answer, but with another question! The
process was a relay of questions rather than a round of answers.
Though strange at first, I soon learnt to navigate this system by thinking
of the whys rather than the hows. This is a more stimulating way of
learning.

21. Open Societies
Without a doubt, the wealth of human talent in China and
India can propel these countries and societies to intellectual and
technological prominence if, and it’s a big, big if, they can break out of
the mould of Confucian philosophy of the emperor knows best, and the
Indian caste system where some are preordained to be masters and the
others slaves.
For such large countries, because of endless cycles of war
and famine, stability was prized above everything else. In my view, it will
take decades, if not centuries, before Chinese and Indian societies will
be ready to embrace openness and risk chaos. Yet, they must.

22. Cultural DNA
In the view of Mr Robert Kuok, if we lose our Chineseness,
our Malayness, and Indianness, we would have lost everything. Having
only western DNA in our blood will lead us to a dead-end in an era when
China and India are in the ascendant. Without cultural DNA, our best
and brightest, schooled in the leading western universities, will not be
stayers. They will rationalise and migrate at the slightest tremor.
Though bright Chinese and Indians also migrate, they have
enough cultural DNA to leave their hearts behind. As China and India
become more open societies, the best and brightest of their people will
return to help build their own country.
Our size and diverse languages leave us in a no-man's land.
The present adoption of English as our first language has served the
economic imperative of education. But is economics the only
imperative? Can national survival depend only on economics?

23. Being Monolingual
Personally, I was schooled in the English medium. English is
my master language. In the world of the future, a monolingual person,
such as myself, will not survive whether he is English or Chinese educated.
Indeed, in a global knowledge based economy, an individual
has to be multilingual and bicultural to survive.

24. Bilingual and Bicultural
I am encouraged by recent Government announcement of
plans to set up a scholarship scheme to nurture a group of Chinese
students to have a deeper understanding of Chinese culture and history,
so as to be able to engage China in depth. The scheme will groom 100
to 200 Chinese students in every primary school cohort yearly. This will
ensure that Singapore could continue to have in depth exchanges and
close relations with China.
While we await MOE's proposal on how to accomplish this,
my guess is that such schooling will be at SAP plus level. This select
group of students will have to study both English and Chinese at first
language level.
Indeed, some friends of my generation, at the insistence of
their Chinese- educated parents, attended English medium schools in
the morning and Chinese medium schools in the afternoon. They were
schooled in both English and Chinese at first language level. As a
result, they were comfortable in both cultures.
Though it is tough to achieve, the Singaporean of the future
has to be not only bilingual, but also bicultural. It will be a challenge for
MOE, society and the family, to bring this about. It is a worthwhile goal.
Indeed, Singapore's very survival rides on us being multilingual and
bicultural.
Unlike China and India, Singapore has no other choice. MM
noted that language and culture were inseparable and the Chinese elite
of the new generation had to be like students from the Chinese schools
in the past who not only mastered the Chinese language. but also knew
the culture and history of China.

25. Singapore's Destiny
I began by postulating that the purpose of education is to
serve the cultural, political and economic imperative of a society.
Singapore's education system has focused almost exclusively on the
economic imperative. While it is true that man does not live by bread
alone, can he live without any bread at all?

26. Ideal Teaching Method
Finally, what is the ideal teaching structure? Is it to be
prescriptive like Confucius or Plato? Or, interactive like Socrates? Or,
divine like Christ? Learning and teaching will exercise the minds of men
forever. A society that stops learning and teaching will be dead and
fossilized like dictatorships.
But the worst dictatorship is dictatorship of the mind.
Societies which allow themselves to be trapped by political indoctrination
or religious fanaticism will ultimately self destruct. Singapore has to
change and evolve, breaking out of our present mould and mindset.

27. Continuity of Policies
Whatever the endowments of a country, the one single
aspect that foreign investors will not tolerate is lack of continuity in public
policies, whether economic and financial, social or educational.
I recall a conversation with a senior Chinese Communist
cadre in 1985 when I asked him about the Cultural Revolution. He
replied with great sadness that, leaving aside the immense personal
suffering of individuals, the greatest damage was the loss of a whole
generation of students. In the mid-1980’s, there was a lack of midcareer
cadres with the education, or the experience, to drive the
development process that China was then embarking on.
With its vast population and talent base, the wounds were
quickly healed. China today is on everyone’s radar screen. A tiny city
state like Singapore cannot survive even a mini-cultural revolution,
whether in the body politic or in education, in the schools, universities, or
society at large. Yet, we must change. How?

28. The PAP and Political Stability
Continuity of policies is only possible if a country enjoys
political stability. The post-independence (1965) generation, who are
now young parents themselves, have taken the political stability of
Singapore for granted. Without the leadership of Mr Lee Kuan Yew and
his first generation founding colleagues, Singapore could well be another
sorry third world story.
The older generation of our citizens born during the war
years will remember the Singapore of the 1950’s and early 1960’s,
wracked by religious and racial riots, and crippled by left-wing
communist inspired strikes.
The non-communist English educated leadership of the PAP
fought the chauvinists, racialists, and communists on their turf, and won.
It is not surprising therefore that the PAP which came into power in 1959
has won every general election since.
The political and economic prosperity wrought by the PAP
Government has to be jealously guarded. In such an environment, there
will be no fertile soil for the opposition to grow.
Only the PAP can defeat itself.
The greatest danger to the PAP, which has been the
governing party for the last forty years, is elitism and complacency. I am
glad that our new Prime Minister, Mr Lee Hsien Loong, wants to create
an inclusive society, not an exclusive ruling class. Complacency sets in
when the administration flies on auto-pilot.

29. Creating a Nation
As we know, the Jewish nation which is larger than the state
of Israel, is bonded by the Torah, the old Testament. As a multi-racial
and multi-religious society, this is not open to us. My personal belief is
that to build the nation of Singapore, we have to value human life and
respect the core of the person. As a Christian, I believe that God has
given each one of us at least one talent. In God's eyes, there is no
person who is completely stupid. Some of us may be cerebral with
abstract thinking skills. Some blessed with motor skills are good
practioners. Artists and great violinists are blessed with both.
So I believe that to become a nation, we as parents,
teachers, siblings and friends should search hard for the talent that each
child has inherently, and help him or her to grow and excel in it. In this
way, we can become a people with diversity of skills and temperaments.
In time, we will evolve into a nation.
Finally, the nation of Singapore will not just be the state of
Singapore. It will embrace all who have their hearts in Singapore.

--------The End--------

Singapore Must Achieve More With Less (by Ngiam Tong Dow)


20120320-210000.jpg

IN THE aftermath of GE 2011, a new buzzword entered our political vocabulary. Political reporters wrote about the ‘new normal’ of Singapore politics. Being an ‘old normal’, I wondered what was new.

From third world to first: Like any other country in the world, Singapore now competes in a global economy. In such an economy, importing cheap foreign labour is no longer a viable strategy. It is a dead end.
 

That was until I spoke to NUS undergraduates at a ‘tea chat’ as a guest of the Master of Cinnamon College, one of seven new colleges forming part of NUS’s new University Town. I wanted to understand the mindset of the younger generation compared with the old mindset of my generation. Except for the few activists of the University Socialist Club, my contemporaries at university were politically passive but not naive. In the political environment we were then in, we thought it prudent to keep our thoughts to ourselves.
In contrast, NUS undergraduates today are more articulate. They have courage of their own convictions, expressing their views vigorously at tutorials or the cafeteria.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has to deal with an electorate that is vastly different from the old normal of his father’s generation. The command politics of his father no longer works. While Mr Lee Kuan Yew appealed to emotions, PM has now to appeal to reason.
In my synopsis, I posed the question: Though Singapore has held seven general elections, can Singapore be considered a democratic state?
 

Let me state what we are not. We are not a theocratic state like the Vatican or present day Iran. We are definitely not ideological states like North Korea, Cuba or China.
The western concept of democracy is government of the people, by the people, for the people. China’s emperors had to gain the consent of the people to earn the mandate of heaven to rule. In my view, the core purpose of government is to raise the livelihood of the people.
 

The People’s Action Party (PAP) has won every one of the seven general elections since independence in 1965. The PAP won the mandate to govern because it delivered jobs and housing. Singapore is almost a model state attracting some of the ablest people in the world to work here. Would they also live here and raise their families?
There are two competing strands in our body politic. The first strand is meritocracy. It is modelled on the Chinese imperial scholar system where the best minds compete in nationwide examinations presided over by the emperor himself. The Singapore President Scholar is akin to the Chinese Imperial Scholar. Both systems aim at identifying the best talent to serve the country.
The second strand relates to the system of selecting leaders. It is modeled on Plato’s Republic. In the Republic, peers select their own leaders until the philosopher king emerges. As the first among equals, he is accountable to no one but himself.
Over time, peer selection breeds a leadership that becomes complacent. Though our state is rooted in meritocracy, we must beware of the dead hand of peer selection. Elitism creeps in imperceptibly.
The recommendation by the ministerial salaries review committee to peg ministerial salaries to the median income of the top 1,000 income earners reflects an elitist mindset which is troubling. If the primary purpose of government is to raise the livelihood of the people, a better statistical measure of livelihood would be the median income of all workers, not just the top 1,000 income earners or the MX9 salary scale of the Civil Service.
Curiously, both the government and the Workers Party accept that ministerial salaries be pegged to high income earners rather than the median of the work force, which is $3,070 a month as at June 2011.
The term first world is the vocabulary applied to wealthy European countries in the early 20th Century. In the early 1900s, Argentina was considered a first world country. Dr (Henry) Kissinger praised Singapore for moving from third to first world. Singaporeans may agree with the first but not the second half of his compliment.
Singaporeans of my generation remember vividly the slums, joblessness, dirt and disease of the 1950s. Through dint of hard work and discipline, we moved rapidly from a labour to a skill-intensive economy. By the early 1970s, we achieved full employment with an unemployment rate of 3 per cent.
The great challenge for us today is that we have reached the limits of our skill-based model of growth. Nothing stands still. The BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) are rapidly catching up on the United States, Japan and Europe in the automotive industry. China and Japan are embarking on the design and manufacture of commercial aircraft. But it will take considerably more time to succeed in the production of jet engines, landing gears and constant speed drives – key components of an aircraft.
Singapore has to move from a skill to a knowledge-based economy. The products and services of such an economy are characterised by high technological content. To position ourselves for such an economy, Singapore devotes the greater part of our national budget to education and training.
When I was in school in the 1950s, only three out my O level class of 40 went on to university. Today, 30 per cent of a primary school cohort enrol in tertiary education. Raising our average educational level from primary to post-secondary should make a world of difference for our international competitiveness.
So I observe with some dismay that the manufacturing share of our GDP dropped from a high of 30 per cent in the 1980s to 20 per cent currently. We need to ask ourselves why our concentration on engineering and science-based education is not yielding dividends in productivity and innovation.
Instead, the employment share of low-wage, low-skilled personal services is rising. Are we overeducating our children? This is a heretical thought contrary to all my basic EDB instincts. In EDB, our article of faith is that the higher the education level, the more rewarding will our jobs become. Our total factor productivity should be rising not stagnating.
In my view, productivity and real wages of the bottom 20 per cent of our work force have not risen because our labour policies allow employers easy access to low wage foreign labour. In national accounting, low wage foreign labour may not be as low-cost as employers believe. If we add the cost of housing, transportation, health and other social services which employers have to provide for their foreign work force, they may be better off training and equipping their Singaporean employees to raise their productivity. Rising productivity enables workers to be paid more. Inflation sets in only when wages are raised without any increase in productivity.
Productivity can only be raised when CEOs leave their comfort zones and take direct charge of the production process. They have to be hands on, not resorting to outsourcing. Productivity should be the key KPI (key performance indicator) for the award of bonuses to CEOs and management.
At the national level, PM is the CEO. Bonuses for the Cabinet should be pegged to increases in the median income of the work force, rather than the GDP.
Like any other country in the world, Singapore now competes in a global economy. In such an economy, importing cheap foreign labour is no longer a viable strategy. It is a dead end.
The 2012 budget is politically adroit, replete with spending proposals which basically are income transfers from the taxpayer to the poorly paid, the disadvantaged and the aged. Income transfers are palliatives, temporary reliefs to abate rising social discontent. They do not help to raise productivity. The real challenge is to grow the economy by raising total factor productivity.
It is not easy. A Japanese scholar pointed out in an article in Japan Echo that the optimum rate of productivity increase achieved by his country averaged 4 per cent annually. We need to remember that the Japanese are one of the most diligent people in the world. Singapore is already straining at the seams with a current resident population of five million. We are embarking on a crash programme to build more MRT lines, hospitals, HDB flats, schools and universities to accommodate the sudden surge in population.
The economic assumption is that we can increase our GDP if we can accommodate more people. In my view, even doubling our population to 10 million people will not make things better. More likely, a larger population can only make matters worse.
We have to grow through raising productivity, not higher headcount. We need to be smart enough to produce more with less. Our higher education levels and superior infrastructure enable us to compete in knowledge-based industries and services. We transformed ourselves in the 1970s from a labour to a skill-intensive economy.
There is one reality our younger generation has to face. In a global economy, you will be competing not only with friends and classmates but with the best and brightest of your generation in India, China, Brazil, Russia and Eastern Europe.
University graduates in China and India are willing to work for a tenth of what our young engineers and scientists expect. If we fail to raise our total factor productivity, Singapore would just be an also-ran in the race to be a knowledge-based economy.
When Sir Stamford Raffles founded Singapore in 1819, his town planner demarcated the town into several ethnic enclaves. Kampong Glam (Malays/Arabs), Chinatown (Hokkiens, Cantonese, Teochews), Little India (Tamils), and Tanglin (Europeans).
Empress Place on the left bank at the mouth of Singapore River was the administrative and civic centre. The British governor presided from the Istana. The Istana where our President and Prime Minister have their offices is the seat of government.
Each racial group was free to conduct their own trades, practice their own religions, set up their own schools, and largely married within their own race and ethnic group.
The colonial government provided the overarching framework of law and order and schooling in the English medium. Being a British colony, the language of administration was English. Access to English medium schools was open to all races. English became the lingua franca acceptable to all the races as none has any in-built advantage over the other.
From 1819 to 1959 when Singapore was granted self-government, our different races lived lives of passive co-existence. Even then, Singaporeans witnessed at first hand the madness of three racial riots in the 1950s-60s. Learning from bitter experience, our government established the inter-religious council and enacted legislation to protect minority rights.
Income gaps
 

In 2012, what will be the threat to social stability? In a society that is racially diverse and practising different faiths, it is matter of pride for me as a Singaporean that we have learnt to treat our neighbours as our friends. Future social unrest will arise not from racial or religious differences but from the growing class divide caused by widening income gaps. The top 1,000 earn million-dollar annual salaries while the rest a monthly median income of US$3,070. The gap is untenable.
Paradoxically, this income divide is seeded in our deep belief in meritocracy. In the past, equal opportunities in education have provided the social mobility to enable the bright boy from a poor family to make good. The playing field was level for all students.
The spread of private tuition has changed the educational playing field. During my school days, only the academically weak students of rich parents take remedial tuition. Taking private tuition was not a badge of honour. Today, any parent who can afford the fees will send their children not for remedial but enhancement classes to give their children a head-start over their classmates.
Though there will still be the exceptional individual who triumphs against all odds, more and more of our state scholars will come from upper, middle income families with professional parents. There is no easy answer to the problem of an uneven playing field in our schools. In itself, private tuition is unalloyed free enterprise which society should encourage, not frown upon.
The challenge is to level up, not to level down. One suggestion I have is to make classes for academically weaker children smaller. The student-teacher ratio should be more favourable than in brighter classes so that the teacher can give more personal attention to each student, which is what private tuition is all about.
The elitist among us will invariably ask the question whether this is the right allocation of teaching resources. This was the very question I asked of my late EDB colleague Ong Wee Hock who requested more funds to expand our industrial training centres. The ITCs are the precursor of our ITEs. I had to eat my own words later when our ITC trainees with barely O levels went on to start their own factories producing parts and components for MNCs.
It is hard to find the university graduate who becomes a successful entrepreneur. The prevailing reward system drives our graduates to become bureaucrats/managers both in government and business. White collar jobs pay better than blue collar jobs.
In the early 1970s when we achieved full employment, some of us in the EDB began to ask the question about the critical size of populations. We did some desktop research and found that there were several industrialised European countries with population size of around 5-6 million. These were Israel, Norway, Sweden and Finland. Our town planners went to work and concluded that Singapore with a land area of 670 square kilometres can comfortably accommodate a population of 5-6 million.
Flying on auto-pilot, we allowed in one million foreigners in the last decade. As we arrive at our numerical target of five million, Singaporeans find themselves squeezed on crowded MRT trains and buses. Low wage foreign workers replaced older Singaporean workers in menial jobs.
As our births fell below replacement levels, we resorted to immigration as an instrument to top up the babies that young Singaporean couples are not having. There are also elements of political re-engineering. Submerged in our immigration policies is the belief that to maintain racial harmony, we need to keep the current population balance constant.
I have come to the conclusion that we have been peering at the wrong end of the population telescope. Since the 1970s when job hopping became a bottleneck, computer technology has made many manual operations in production obsolete.
The key is to produce more with less manpower. The window to raise total factor productivity through application of knowledge and training is fast closing with the opening up of India, China and Indonesia. Singapore has lost two decades relying on low-wage, low-skilled foreign labour to drive economic growth.
Our managers and administrators are among the best paid in the world. They will have to get off their high horse and personally lead the drive for higher productivity. Outsourcing is a bad word in my vocabulary. Companies and government ministries should figure out how to train their staff and redesign jobs and processes to achieve more with less.
Grants should not be given to management (consultants) to do a job they are already paid to do. Instead, interest free loans should be given to enterprises with clear roadmaps to re-equip and raise the productivity of their workers.
I am against job credits in any form because they are simply wage subsidies which do not raise productivity in any way. My personal observation is that job credits simply add to the bottom line for payment of bonuses to management who do not have to lift a finger to raise the productivity of their enterprises.
We failed to bite the bullet in the 1980s to restructure our economy. There may be no second chance the next time around.
 
The writer is a former permanent secretary who has served in several ministries and statutory boards, as well as corporate boards. This is the edited text of a speech delivered at an SICC luncheon talk yesterday. (19/3/12)