What are the differences between the Economic Strategies Committee (ESC) report, the February 2003 report by the Economic Review Committee (ERC), and the Economic Committee report in the 1980s?
Well the last two were chaired by one Lee Hsien Loong, the latest was by Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Minister for Finance.
As Lee went on to become PM, could Tharman be the anointed PM in waiting? Could S’pore finally be ready for a non-Chinese PM, despite the recent influx of PRC people. Remember the sage of Singapore, one LKY, told us that the present chairman of Temasek would have made a gd PM in the 1990s: the problem was that the Chinese majority was not prepared to have a non-Chinese as PM.
I never thought much of MM’s comments because many S’poreans thought (and still think) that the boss is one LKY. Anyone else is irrelevant.
Sorry for this aside, back to the reports. What are similar? Same old issues abt productivity, seizing opportunities, lowering costs: you get the picture. The civil servants must be glad that in the 80s, there was already software programmes that allowed docs to be cut and paste.
So what shld we conclude?
One way (and a very generous way) of looking at these reports is that these issues will always be with us. S’pore like the Red Queen in “Through the looking glass”, has to run to keep in the same spot. Life is tough.
Another take is that the governing party are incompetent. They can’t solve issues that they flagged in the 1980s by 2003 and 2009, despite the chairman of two committees becoming PM. An example is the tinkering with the CPF system, not radical reform. One could presume (not me) that SM’s comments about execution could be taken to mean that the PAP ministers, and civil service are incompetent.*
Yet another way of looking at the reports is to conclude that the government’s premises for prosperity have to be rethought. In New York city, home of Wall Street and mega-bonuses, housing is subsidised for middle class renters in certain areas. In fact GIC’s recent loss http://atans1.wordpress.com/2010/01/27/gic-ny-loss-us100m-more/ was the result of the courts overturning rent increases.
And below find something on how the most capitalistic country in the world has a socialist model in one of its favourite sports.
Now I am not suggesting we go socialist like the Americans. What I’m suggesting is that the premises of our prosperity have to be rethought. Now for all I know, we are like the Red Queen; we have to run to remain at one spot. In fact, I think this is the case.
But until S’pore is prepared to rethink its assumptions, we wouldn’t know would we?
American football is socialism that works
I mean if in the most capitalistic country in the world: “There are only 32 professional football teams in the United States and strict rules about who can own a team”, the teams share at least half of their revenue from lucrative TV rights, merchandising and ticket sales; have salary caps etc
As the BBC report goes on to say, “[I]n other sports leagues the burden of rapidly rising player salaries has broken smaller clubs, leaving larger ones to dominate the landscape. Think of Premier League football in the UK or US professional sports such as basketball, baseball and ice hockey.”
*This sentence was added on 5 February at ant 10.30 am.