atans1

Archive for the ‘Political economy’ Category

Returning to the past

In Political economy, Political governance on 15/04/2011 at 5:54 am

Lucky Tan reminds that we have been here before. While the GRC helped to retain seats for the PAP …  If nothing was done, there was a good chance the PAP would lose a few GRCs in the 1991 elections. The PAP had 2 choices – fix their policies so that ordinary Singaporeans will benefit from them or tweak the system to retain their dominance. The PAP chose to do the later by linking votes to estate upgrading … sad to say their “kiasu” nature got the better of them and the % votes for the PAP went up after that.

Well we are back to 1991, and the PAP has the choice of listening or tweaking again, to avoid losing a few GRCs. It is clear from the PM that the PAP “don’t do listening”. NTUC minister’s “Deaf frogs” comment comes to mind.

So it’s tweaking the system again.  But what can it tweak? The PAP is still trying the upgrading approach. But I’m sure the PAP knows that this is not enough, so what else can it do? What is the 2011 equvalent of upgrading for PAP areas? 

I don’t think there is one major new tweak, but here are several tweaks that it can do.

Given the reserves that the PAP-managed town councils have built-up, the PAP could offer voters the carrot of lower maintenance charges. The town councils could even afford to pay part of the utility bills of poorer residents.

The excuse: allievating inflation pressures, is now a better use of town council reserves since inflation is so much higher than bank deposit rates.

The the government can increase welfare spending and use the PA to administer it.  

I’m sure that the combi of asset enhancement,, smaller bills for residents in PAP areas, and increased welfare spending via the PA will win the PAP the Kiasu votes, juz as asset enhancement in PAP areas did in 1991.

The disconnect that matters

In Political economy on 31/03/2011 at 6:36 am

The disconnect that matters is not the one that exists between what the government does and what the media says. It is the one between what the media says and what people actually think about their lives, blogged Alistar Campbell, once Tony Blair’s spin doctor.

In S’pore, the disconnect is even worse. The disconnect is between what SPH, MediaCorp and government say and the facts on the ground as perceived by reasonable people.

Anyone relying on SPH, MediaCorp and government statements for their understanding of Singapore would have believed that there was no poverty here; that social workers would deliver delicious cooked meals to welfare receipients; that all FTs were talented people that S’pore needed; that FTs did not put a cap or drive down on the salaries of S;porean PMETS; that the liberal immigration policies did not strain the public transport and housing, and social infrastructures; that public security was good; and that ministers were all worth a lot more than they were being paid. Read the rest of this entry »

RP: Boorish behaviour

In Political economy on 24/02/2011 at 6:02 am

When the news broke that there were resignations from RP, the Sec-Gen issued a statement. It made allegations and insinuations abt those who had quit:

— The timing of this departure, its highly co-ordinated and planned manner and the way the individuals then went to the Press, hardly seems an appropriate response to personal incompatibility.

— an action designed to do maximum damage to The Reform Party and gain maximum publicity for the political careers of the individuals involved.

then there was an account of an “ang pow” incident which seemed to insinuate that there could be corruption (although the Sec-Gen denied making an allegation of corruption.)

Contrast this with the response of Tony Tan and Hazel Phua. They wrote, In the short one year plus that we have been in the Reform Party, although we have our disagreements, we have also seen the SG’s drive and dedication.  Since we cannot achieve agreement, we do not wish to be in his way. 

They also answered the “ang pow” allegation, an explanation that sounds reasonable, though $400 sounds a bit too  rich for kids.

The Sec-Gen is a gd economist, speaker and writer. But he is no gentleman as this statement shows and his petulance over the leaking of his letter to SDA showed.

Now not being a gentleman may not be be important in S’pore*, but being accident prone is. Can anyone trust a guy who has been involved in disrupting three parties: SPP, SDA and now his own RP?

*Example- the letters of condolences that MM, PM and SM sent to the sons of JBJ

Waz the point of stability?

In Economy, Political economy on 22/02/2011 at 8:43 am

We are told that stability is to be prefered over democracy because investors want stability. But the rapid collapse of the autocratic governments in Tunisa, Egypy and Libya should make one reflect whether stability is over-rated. These countries economies and politics are now in utter chaos.

India, S Korea, M’sia, Indonesia, the Philippines and Taiwan (with their messy democracies) are safer places to invest in. They may be less stable than places like Libya and Egypt, but they don’t go from stability to chaos in 21 days.

S’pore Inc: 21 years and still in transition?

In Corporate governance, Political economy on 18/02/2011 at 6:34 am

All my old colleagues have left. I am alone of the old team. I am staying on for a while to help the transition. According to “Confucius Confounded: Analects of Lee Kuan Yew” by Francis Seow, Forward by Dr M, this was said by LKY at Davos in February 1990.

As it’s 21 years since MM said this, we can only conclude that for MM, time passes very slowly: the US is on its fourth president (two of them serving two terms), China has had several leadership changes, M’sia is on its third PM, and Indonesia has had five presidents.

And little us are still transiting leaders?

But maybe the on-going transition is the fault of GCT and LHL? They are slow learners, GCT not mustering his ABCs by the time he stepped down as PM?

BTW, in 1990, the Internet had yet to spin its web, the US was the unchallenged Hegemon and China wasn’t yet an economic superpower.

How time flies, outside S’pore’s political system.

Better and funnier than Hard Truths

In Political economy, Wit on 15/02/2011 at 3:15 pm

Get hold of this: “Confucius Confounded: Analects of Lee Kuan Yew” by Francis Seow, Forward by Dr M.

http://www.mphonline.com/books/nsearch.aspx?do=detail&pcode=9789679695663

Like Hard Truths, it quotes MM. But unlike HT, it keeps its quotes pithy and concise. MM should have consulted Francis Seow, and not ST, on how to produce a book that the young will want to read.

Sumehow I doubt any bookseller will bring this in.

Why PAP can’t do coups or violence

In Economy, Political economy on 13/02/2011 at 6:21 am

Sumetime back I flippantly blogged on a “Klingon election”.

Seriously this or military intervention is unlikely because it will shake confidence in the rationality of the PAP internationally, especially its willingness observe the letter of internationally accepted rules.

S’pore is trying to attract foreigners to set up oil  and chemical plants, and R&D facilities here. These projects are expensive and have long lead times. So if there is military intervention or “Klingon election”, they will fear that somewhere down the line, their expensive investments may be at risk.

Then there is plan to get more MNCs to base their regional HQs here. Overturning a “freak” result will scare them away because they want a quiet place.

And then there is the attempt to build a wealth mgt centre to rival Switzerland. Would people want to keep their money in a country where there is a military intervention or “Klingon election”? Next time, their assets could be seized. Read the rest of this entry »

S’pore Inc: The Achievement Test

In Political economy on 06/02/2011 at 2:53 pm

Here’s an idea (from the NYT) that could make a difference in the usually sterile election debates.

The best way to measure government is not by volume, but by what you might call the Achievement Test. Does a given policy arouse energy, foster skills, spur social mobility and help people transform their lives?

Translated into the S’pore context: Do the govmin policies on say casinos, housing, FTs, breeding, transport, education or R&D arouse energy, foster skills, spur social mobility and help people transform their lives?

Debate.

MM and Lucky Tan could both be wrong

In Political economy on 28/01/2011 at 5:28 am

MM and Lucky Tan disagree on many things (see this piece by Lucky) But as the piece shows they agree that if the PAP cannot deliver material prosperity, it will get kicked out fast. They of course disagree on whether the PAP is delivering prosperity, and what is prosperity

But they both could be wrong on the PAP quickly losing power if the PAP cannot deliver prosperity. Think Japan and the LDP. After holding power continuously from its inception in 1955 (with the exception of a ten-month period in 1993–1994), Japan’s Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) lost control of the national government only in September 2009. This despite failing to fix the economy for 16 years. An economy that had crashed after a huge bubble had burst in the early 1990s.

One reason, among several. The people knew the LDP was incompetent but they tot the Opposition was worse. So they kept voting LDP, in the hope that the LDP would get its act together, until they decided that the Opposition could not do any worse. Note the party in power, the JDP, since 2009 has been lurching from crisis to crisis.

Improve Workfare not press for Minimum Wage

In Economy, Political economy, Political governance, Public Administration on 13/10/2010 at 6:34 am

By arguing the case for minimum wages, the SDP, Tan Kin Lian, RP etc are allowing the govmin to get away with being mean to the poor under the present arrangement which does have an element of “minimum wage”.

Tharman said in February this year that the enhanced Workfare scheme will cost the government S$100 million annually and benefit around 400,000 low-wage workers. S$100 million in the S’pore context is “peanuts”. It is 0.3% of the operating expenses under the latest Budget*.

And Workfare payments end up largely locked up in never-never CPF land. OK I’m being unfair, but the fact is that the poor need cash now. Yes they will need it in the future, but when you are living hand-to-mouth, and hungering for hawker or restaurant food (as the welfare minister insinuates), you need $ now.

So the Opposition and others like TKL  should be pressing for more to be spent on Workfare and for more $ to be disbursed today rather than at 65. The govmin cannot argue against Workfare, juz how much to give, and when to give it. The government will have a hard time defending the tiny amount set aside for Workfare.

BTW, I’m surprised that the do-gooders have not raised Kaushik Basu’s suggestion of how to help the poor.

Kaushik Basu of Cornell University and chief economic adviser to India’s finance ministry says it is not enough that the income of the bottom 20% rise at the same percentage rate as the average. Instead, they should get an equal absolute share of the income the economy.

Let’s translate this into S’pore terms.According to the CIA Fact Book, in US$ terms (using purchasing price parity) the S’pore’s GDP was US$235.7 billion. Based on MTI’s latest growth estimate of 4.5-6.5% growth in 2010, this would work out to GDP of US$246.3 — US$251.0bn. The increase would be S$10.6 — 15.3bn. If this formula were adopted the poorest 20% would get S$2.1 –3.1bn.

And election winner? A one-off transfer of US$2.1 or S$3.1 billion to the poorest 20% of S’poreans. Less than GIC’s paper loss on its investment on UBS or Temasek’s realised loss on Merrill Lynch.

And as it’s one-off, there is no fear of welfarism creeping in. The govmin is right to be fearful of welfare getting out of hand. The BBC reported that 40% of UK  govmin expenditure goes to welfare payments. Talk of entitlements running riot.

Update — Academic research supports PAP view

https://atans1.wordpress.com/2010/10/17/minimum-wages-yikes-pap-may-be-right/

Update in Dec 2010

*This may give the impression that that is all govmin spends on Workfare. If so I apologise.  “[A] total of $1.65 billion in the last five years, or $400 million a year, to help 400,000 low-income workers” ,the PM reminded in November. So the spending in Workfare is now S$500m or 1.5% of the operating expenses under the latest Budget. Still peanuts and remember the Kiddie Games cost S$387m. It was budgeted at S$122m. And yes I know that 1.65bn divided by 5, doesn’t equal 400m. Taz why I quoted PM.

Update on 4 January 2011

The meanness of Workfare in $

A gd writeup on the nitty gritty of WF

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 241 other followers