MM Lee outlines two challenges for Singapore to undertake

seyKai

15 Aug 09, 23:16

I think he is more worry about not enough ppl to contribute to CPF fund to sustain their salary

Georgetan884

16 Aug 09, 09:37

they one month salary 6 figures - we salary 3, 4 and 5 figures per month - is it fair

obama how much one month

more population = more productive = more money = singapore currency face value

not depreciate = singapore currency appreciate

who gain the most!

ten years ago, now and ten years later - all the same

not same is only hdb may be 5 room - s$1 million but our salary only increase a little

just my luck not able to migrate to another country

charlize

16 Aug 09, 10:46

Originally posted by 4sg:

Just as LKY outlined our declining birthrate, highlighted the negative effect it has on our economy, he drawn Japan into the picture as example of a country facing declining birthrate and doing nothing about it.

But interesting enough, I saw programme in Channelnewsasia that went on length to describe how Japan is coping with the declining birthrate by turning to robotic technology. Japan is investing and researching into robotic technology to help it to cope with aging population.

Japan is not doing it, the simple and easy way - importing. Japan is doing it another way

Those creative Japanese people can never beat our theory based scholars.

Never.

BaharChief

16 Aug 09, 11:18

The man has said a lot of things for decades, and a lot of things DID NOT pan out the way he said it would.

HE Should start looking for a bucket to kick...

Chew Bakar

16 Aug 09, 12:20

Put the bucket on his head first.

reyes

16 Aug 09, 14:42

But interesting enough, I saw programme in Channelnewsasia that went on length to describe how Japan is coping with the declining birthrate by turning to robotic technology. Japan is investing and researching into robotic technology to help it to cope with aging population.

Japan is not doing it, the simple and easy way - importing. Japan is doing it another way

i agree with the japan way. they are not doing the shortcut. they are more worried about social cohesion, hamony, social tension, more than just taking a short cut to solve the aging population.

some of my japanese friends also commenting that most of the japanese crimes are committed by mainland chinese, koreans. imagine if more are allow into japan he said.

at least the japanese govt are listening to what japanese voters wants. find more innovative ways to solve the ageing population problems. such as increase the productivity thru technology.

Fugazzi

16 Aug 09, 14:43

If One is busy DEFENDING a policy or law or ..... know jolly well, by and large it is not favoured by the public. Probably, this (these) policy is failing or has failed.

SM, MM or whatever M ( i confused lar so many Ms in Singapore) are too busy lar , busy defending, and rehashing ... to cajole and lull us into the illusionthat all is hunky dory.

As for this crap about immigrants integrating or must integrate - talk rubbish as usual, as it is, even citizens here (the 4 races) don't mingle much, dont interact much - sporadic at most. Singapore has not arrived as the govt would have us believe. The icing on the cake is not the real cake.

PS - Most foreigners are here for two reasons :
i - to use Singapore as a stepping stone and leave after the necessary what--have--u has been acquired the next flight to countries like US< UK or back to where ever they came from.
ii. Simply, to remit money home and have a 'better' life later.
Only a handful stay.

Politics aside - One cannot cultivate integration - it is fake and artificial. An integrated individual can. Only parents if they are unprejudiced, intllegent n mature can this integration happen. I say that cos the formative years of a child- the frist 4 years are crucial.

An eg. Courtesy campaign we had - after the campain all reverted to what they were.

reyes

16 Aug 09, 14:47

well said fugazzi.

why does the ruling party dont give a damn what singaporeans feel or want in our country. coz they think we will still vote for them every election. the choice is really up to us. we are only given a real chance to show our frustration every 4-5 yrs. use it wisely.

Chew Bakar

16 Aug 09, 15:57

Vote? If only given a chance to.

BaharChief

16 Aug 09, 16:16

Originally posted by reyes:

i agree with the japan way. they are not doing the shortcut. they are more worried about social cohesion, hamony, social tension, more than just taking a short cut to solve the aging population.

some of my japanese friends also commenting that most of the japanese crimes are committed by mainland chinese, koreans. imagine if more are allow into japan he said.

at least the japanese govt are listening to what japanese voters wants. find more innovative ways to solve the ageing population problems. such as increase the productivity thru technology.

I believe He knows Japan is doing things the RIGHT WAY and He dares not draw anyone's attention to it!

All he and his administration cares about is the economy that fuels their family business.

BaharChief

16 Aug 09, 16:21

Originally posted by reyes:

well said fugazzi.

why does the ruling party dont give a damn what singaporeans feel or want in our country. coz they think we will still vote for them every election. the choice is really up to us. we are only given a real chance to show our frustration every 4-5 yrs. use it wisely.

The way they CLING ON to their GRC thing, they might as well do away with the GE...

I mean, what the fxxk; out of a total population of 4 million, a FRACTION gets to vote????

What do you call this??

Chew Bakar

16 Aug 09, 16:25

Originally posted by BaharChief:

The way they CLING ON to their GRC thing, they might as well do away with the GE...

I mean, what the fxxk; out of a total population of 4 million, a FRACTION gets to vote????

What do you call this??

Election Day = holiday. Just a holiday for many.

will4

16 Aug 09, 16:49

I agreed that majority of the foreign professional here to earn money n go back. The local also agreed that this country is overcrowded due to the influx of foreign professional n other blue collar employees. This is the reason some of the local bought properties in neighbouring Malaysian state of Johor, the Iskandar Development project.

4sg

16 Aug 09, 18:10

India and China have healthy real GDP growth of 8.9% and 10.8% (2003-2007) respectively. And save for some upheavals, these trends are projected to continue.

Economists are predicting that between 2035 to 2040, the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and recent added Vietnam) will overtake the G6 (France, Germany, Italy, Japan, UK and US).

Ultimately, I believe, the migrants will decide if, by going back, they benefit more, or by staying, they benefit more.

We can safely assume that as India and China take centrestage, many Indian and Chinese migrants may wave us goodbye and head home. We can assume that some Singaporeans of Indian and Chinese ancestries, will be tempted to follow.

I also know of Pinoy, Bangladesh and Burmese who said that they will do everything to stay in Singapore because going back means facing bleak, rundown economies with low employment and poor future prospects.

Over time, we may not end up with the ideal situation as wished for by the PAP, i e to draw fresh blood from India and China to replace ourselves and to boost our birth rates.

We may end up drawing migrants whose social habits, religion and work ethics don't fit into our social-economic profile. In the worse case scenerio, we may end up searing and stroking racial tension.

I think we will still see an influx of foreigners after all. Only time will tell if the bulk will stay or leave. Or for certain racial group, eventually to depart, leaving the vacuum to other races, hereby tilting the racial balance further and further - beyond recognition.

4sg

16 Aug 09, 19:10

MM Lee – population control revisited, 30 years later

Straits Times, Front Page, 14 August 2009

On 8 March 2008, the Straits Times carried a report headlined, “Oil prices ‘unlikely to rise further’.” The person making that prediction was none other than Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew.

At that time, oil prices were trading at US$105. The ST report said, “As crude oil prices hit US$105 (S$145) per barrel, MM Lee believes it is not likely to creep further up to US$110.”

MM Lee said, “’I don’t think it can go up US$110, US$120, US$150 and the world economy goes on. Inflation will go through the roof. Economies of the West will go down, hyper-inflation in many developing countries. So it will go into reverse.”

Hardly two months later, prices rose above US$110 in May. Another two months later, in July, prices shot to US$145.

Picture from Under The Willow Tree

[MM Lee has also admitted to being wrong in banning Formula One races and for disallowing casinos in the past. The GIC, of which he is chairman, was also wrong in "going in too early" when it invested in UBS and Citigroup, MM Lee said in March this year. See here. In July 2007, MM Lee said Singapore was in a "golden period" - right before the financial crisis hit.]

The point here is that we must not be lulled into thinking that MM Lee is always right. He is not. Even his GIC outfit has lost more than $50 billion in bad investments this past year alone.

Thus when the 14 August 2009 edition of the Straits Times gave front page prominence to MM Lee’s remarks on foreign workers and immigrants, we should take pause and ask ourselves: Is MM Lee right?

His past results in population control is, to say the least, dubious.

4sg

16 Aug 09, 19:11

Stop-At-Two

In the 70s, then-Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew introduced the “Stop-At-Two” policy to curb our population growth. The buzzwords then were “Family Planning” and “Two Is Enough”. For those who are unfamiliar with the policy, this was what it entailed, according to this website:

“Birth rates fell from 1957 to 1970, but then began to rise as women of the postwar baby boom reached child-bearing years. The government responded with policies intended to further reduce the birth rate.

Abortion and voluntary sterilization were legalized in 1970. Between 1969 and 1972, a set of policies known as “population disincentives” were instituted to raise the costs of bearing third, fourth, and subsequent children.

Civil servants received no paid maternity leave for third and subsequent children; maternity hospitals charged progressively higher fees for each additional birth; and income tax deductions for all but the first two children were eliminated.

Large families received no extra consideration in public housing assignments, and top priority in the competition for enrollment in the most desirable primary schools was given to only children whose parents had been sterilized before the age of forty.

Voluntary sterilization was rewarded by seven days of paid sick leave and by priority in the allocation of such public goods as housing and education.

The policies were accompanied by publicity campaigns urging parents to “Stop at Two” and arguing that large families threatened parents’ present livelihood and future security. The penalties weighed more heavily on the poor, and were justified by the authorities as a means of encouraging the poor to concentrate their limited resources on adequately nurturing a few children who would be equipped to rise from poverty and become productive citizens.”

The policy was so clinically effective in its application and implementation that by the 80s, Singapore’s falling birth rate was in the danger zone. None of the Members of Parliament at that time sounded any alarms about the danger and all apparently supported the birth control policy. The local state-controlled media went along for the ride, much as it is today.

Yet, instead of a total reversal of the policy when it became clear that it was having adverse consequences, MM Lee introduced another ill-fated idea – the infamous “Graduate Mothers Policy”.

“The government acted to give preferential school admission to children whose mothers were university graduates, while offering grants of S$10,000 to less educated women who agreed to be sterilized after the birth of their second child. The government also established a Social Development Unit to act as matchmaker for unmarried university graduates. The policies, especially those affecting placement of children in the highly competitive Singapore schools, proved controversial and generally unpopular.”

In 1985, the highly unpopular policy was abolished as it was not achieving its aims of having graduate mothers produce more babies. It was only in 1987 that the Stop-At-Two policy was abandoned entirely. By then, Singapore’s birth rate had run into serious problems – we were not replacing ourselves at an appropriate rate.

4sg

16 Aug 09, 19:12

Population control revisited

30 years later, the same man who was responsible for the “Stop At Two” policy in the 70s, is now telling us that the government “accept only immigrants who increase the average level of competence of Singaporeans” – and doing so to the tune of 1.68 million foreigners presently on our tiny island, in a population of 3.2 million Singaporeans.

This is in response to Singapore’s birth rate problem – it continues to fall, despite government incentives to induce Singaporeans to have children.

Besides MM Lee’s dubious record in population control, the same danger of our Parliamentarians silently tagging along and thus giving support to such policies, as similarly happened in the 70s and 80s, may see history repeat itself – 30 years hence, with future generations living the consequences of this present policy.

Calls from some quarters for the government to re-look its policy on foreigners have been met with dismissive remarks by government ministers. “Just zeroing in on foreign workers alone is not the total solution,” Manpower Minister Gan Kim Yong said in August. He also termed such calls “simplistic”.

What concerns Singaporeans are not just jobs or economic prosperity but also the social consequences of having so many foreigners in our midst. This has led to some Singaporeans wondering if the government knows what is happening on the ground, where physical and personal space is now harder to come by, even in the heartlands. This may potentially result in social friction among the various groups, something which the Prime Minister spoke about in his National Day message recently.

The government’s preoccupation seems to be the economy and how foreigners can contribute to this. It has said little about the social consequences, although it has set up the National Integration Council “to drive social integration efforts across the private, people and public sectors”. The success of the council’s effort is left to be seen.

In the meantime, the government has been urging Singaporeans to “embrace and accept” these foreigners, as MM Lee said on 14 August. He also urged Singaporeans to “treat new citizens as equals”. (AsiaOne)

According to the New Population Secretariat website, the number of PRs in 2008 was 79,167, upped from 63,627 the previous year.

The number of new citizens hit a record high of 20,513 in 2008, upped from 17,334 in 2007.

We seem to be in a hurry to bring in foreigners at an alarming rate.

But perhaps all is not lost. The lone voice in Parliament calling for a re-look of the policy has come from the ruling party’s own Member of Parliament, Mrs Josephine Teo. But even so, she is only concerned about the falling productivity level of Singaporean workers. Her argument is that a more targeted approach to the employment of foreigners will help up the productivity level of Singaporeans.

But given how the government seems to feel that the policy is the right one, and ministers have defended it to the hilt, it does not appear that any changes will be forthcoming.

The man and his ideas are not always right

Lee Kuan Yew’s attempt at population control in the 70s and 80s has resulted in a population unable and unwilling to replace itself.

Will our current policy at population control by the same government result in a worse fate for Singaporeans in the future?

Blogger Lucky Tan says it best here:

The real reason for the large percentage of imported labor, more than almost anywhere else in the world, is to keep wages down so that rent, utilities, transport and other costs can go up. It would have been alright if we did it like Dubai where the indigenous population sits on top of the economic food chain while foreigners do all the work. The problem is a large number of Singaporeans are at the bottom of the food chain….crushed.

Anyone who’s had a track record in population control as Lee Kuan Yew has would be seen as a failure. Yet, we are providing front page coverage to MM Lee’s latest thinking on the topic.

MM Lee may have been instrumental in building Singapore.

But neither he nor his government is always right – as history has proved.

http://sgblogs.com/entry/what-will-tonight/357513

reyes

16 Aug 09, 21:43

The way they CLING ON to their GRC thing, they might as well do away with the GE...

I mean, what the fxxk; out of a total population of 4 million, a FRACTION gets to vote????

What do you call this??

well, whether we got a chance to vote also depends on how many candidates the opposition can foster.

we as voters can give encouragment to aspiring opposition candidates by showing our support.

the ruling party should also stop playing the dirty tricks by promising goodies if they win the ward or elections.

as i said, whether we want a change or lead a life of dogs depends on us. it start with the election.

Fantagf

16 Aug 09, 23:12

Originally posted by seyKai:

I think he is more worry about not enough ppl to contribute to CPF fund to sustain their salary

You speak my mind, i share the same sentiment ! wahahahhaha!

Fantagf

16 Aug 09, 23:25

Originally posted by Ah Chia:

Fantagf, it is good that you criticised Lee Kuan Yew , Lee Hsien Loong and PAP regime but I think that the criticism can be improved by using the full name of Lee Kuan Yew, Lee Hsien Loong etc, not just use initials such as LKY, lhl.

We should use the proper full names as in:

In whatever matters, singaporeans are always the ones to be pointed at by Lee Kuan Yew, Lee Hsien Loong and the members of the thunderstrike team.

I am not an extremist like you. I don't see the need to do as you suggested.

Atobe

17 Aug 09, 08:58

Originally posted by 4sg:

Population control revisited

30 years later, the same man who was responsible for the “Stop At Two” policy in the 70s, is now telling us that the government “accept only immigrants who increase the average level of competence of Singaporeans” – and doing so to the tune of 1.68 million foreigners presently on our tiny island, in a population of 3.2 million Singaporeans.

This is in response to Singapore’s birth rate problem – it continues to fall, despite government incentives to induce Singaporeans to have children.

Besides MM Lee’s dubious record in population control, the same danger of our Parliamentarians silently tagging along and thus giving support to such policies, as similarly happened in the 70s and 80s, may see history repeat itself – 30 years hence, with future generations living the consequences of this present policy.

Calls from some quarters for the government to re-look its policy on foreigners have been met with dismissive remarks by government ministers. “Just zeroing in on foreign workers alone is not the total solution,” Manpower Minister Gan Kim Yong said in August. He also termed such calls “simplistic”.

What concerns Singaporeans are not just jobs or economic prosperity but also the social consequences of having so many foreigners in our midst. This has led to some Singaporeans wondering if the government knows what is happening on the ground, where physical and personal space is now harder to come by, even in the heartlands. This may potentially result in social friction among the various groups, something which the Prime Minister spoke about in his National Day message recently.

The government’s preoccupation seems to be the economy and how foreigners can contribute to this. It has said little about the social consequences, although it has set up the National Integration Council “to drive social integration efforts across the private, people and public sectors”. The success of the council’s effort is left to be seen.

In the meantime, the government has been urging Singaporeans to “embrace and accept” these foreigners, as MM Lee said on 14 August. He also urged Singaporeans to “treat new citizens as equals”. (AsiaOne)

According to the New Population Secretariat website, the number of PRs in 2008 was 79,167, upped from 63,627 the previous year.

The number of new citizens hit a record high of 20,513 in 2008, upped from 17,334 in 2007.

We seem to be in a hurry to bring in foreigners at an alarming rate.

But perhaps all is not lost. The lone voice in Parliament calling for a re-look of the policy has come from the ruling party’s own Member of Parliament, Mrs Josephine Teo. But even so, she is only concerned about the falling productivity level of Singaporean workers. Her argument is that a more targeted approach to the employment of foreigners will help up the productivity level of Singaporeans.

But given how the government seems to feel that the policy is the right one, and ministers have defended it to the hilt, it does not appear that any changes will be forthcoming.

The man and his ideas are not always right

Lee Kuan Yew’s attempt at population control in the 70s and 80s has resulted in a population unable and unwilling to replace itself.

Will our current policy at population control by the same government result in a worse fate for Singaporeans in the future?

Blogger Lucky Tan says it best here:

The real reason for the large percentage of imported labor, more than almost anywhere else in the world, is to keep wages down so that rent, utilities, transport and other costs can go up. It would have been alright if we did it like Dubai where the indigenous population sits on top of the economic food chain while foreigners do all the work. The problem is a large number of Singaporeans are at the bottom of the food chain….crushed.

Anyone who’s had a track record in population control as Lee Kuan Yew has would be seen as a failure. Yet, we are providing front page coverage to MM Lee’s latest thinking on the topic.

MM Lee may have been instrumental in building Singapore.

But neither he nor his government is always right – as history has proved.

http://sgblogs.com/entry/what-will-tonight/357513

Great materials and clear observations made with your posts - with the exception of the statement:-

"MM Lee may have been instrumental in building Singapore."

He is not instrumental in building Singapore to what it is today.

Without the other Founding Fathers of Singapore - Toh Chin Chye, Goh Keng Swee, S. Rajaratnam, Lim Kim San, E.W.Barker - LKY would have been struggling out at sea after getting Singapore kicked out of Malaysia.

During the critical period after Singapore was kicked out of Malaysia, LKY was lost, demoralised, shattered, and had sleepless nights while recuperating at a government villa at Changi Point - (next to the Changi Swimming Club). [See my post on previous page for more details]

The days after Singapore was cut out from being part of Malaysia, LKY was a changed person - reading the text of his speeches from the 1950s till his last speech at the Malaysian Federal Parliament in Kuala Lumpur clearly had LKY clamouring for the Freedoms and Human Rights enshrined in the Constitutions of then Malaysia and Singapore.

Yet, immediately after 9 August 1965 - Singapore was subjected the Machiavellian Ways of a despot determined to mobilise Singaporeans to wreak his personal vengeance onto the Malaysian politicians.

From his own political disappointments, LKY suppressed his democratic idealism, and penalised Singaporeans from having those democratic values that he had so eloquently propounded first to the British Colonial Government then the Malaysian.

Singapore's entry into Malaysia was LKY's own wilfull ambitions that were pushed by him against better advise from Singaporeans who were more familiar with the political mentality of the Malay Politicians in Malaya.

Singapore's merger with Malaysia was an outcome of LKY's personal ambitions and scheme to gain independence as part of a bigger country, when the British Colonial Office and many Singaporeans were hesistant with this marriage of convenience.

The British Colonial Office was reluctant to accept this proposal unless LKY could get Tunku Abdul Rahman to accept his proposal for Singapore to merge as a state within the Federation of MALAYA so as to gain independence as a single entity.

Tunku had balked at Singapore entry into the Federation of MALAYA with a large Chinese population that will increase the Chinese population even more.

To placate Tunku's fears, LKY proposed to the British Colonial Government that British North Borneo and Sarawak must be added to form the a larger Federation of MALAYSIA - as the native ethnic groups of these two states will negate the effects of a largely Singapore Chinese population in an enlarged Federation.

The addition of Sarawak and British North Borneo (now known as Sabah) to form a larger Federation of Malaysia was totally unexpected by Tunku Abdul Rahman, and it sparked the natural instincts of a politician in the Tunku, even as it stirred the wrath of the Indonesian President Sukarno.

On all accounts, LKY was proven wrong by events in History - as during the struggles which Singapore had with the Federal Government and the UMNO politicians, the peoples in Sarawak and Sabah were similarly disenchanted with Malaysia too.

The politicians in Sabah and Sarawak had proposed joining Singapore to separate from the Federation of Malaysia, and form a Federation of "3-S" with LKY heading the "3-S" States out of Malaysia.

Fortunately for the folks in Sabah and Sarawak, LKY declined their proposal.

angel7030

17 Aug 09, 09:38

Originally posted by Atobe:

Great materials and clear observations made with your posts - with the exception of the statement:-

"MM Lee may have been instrumental in building Singapore."

He is not instrumental in building Singapore to what it is today.

Without the other Founding Fathers of Singapore - Toh Chin Chye, Goh Keng Swee, S. Rajaratnam, Lim Kim San, E.W.Barker - LKY would have been struggling out at sea after getting Singapore kicked out of Malaysia.

During the critical period after Singapore was kicked out of Malaysia, LKY was lost, demoralised, shattered, and had sleepless nights while recuperating at a government villa at Changi Point - (next to the Changi Swimming Club). [See my post on previous page for more details]

The days after Singapore was cut out from being part of Malaysia, LKY was a changed person - reading the text of his speeches from the 1950s till his last speech at the Malaysian Federal Parliament in Kuala Lumpur clearly had LKY clamouring for the Freedoms and Human Rights enshrined in the Constitutions of then Malaysia and Singapore.

Yet, immediately after 9 August 1965 - Singapore was subjected the Machiavellian Ways of a despot determined to mobilise Singaporeans to wreak his personal vengeance onto the Malaysian politicians.

From his own political disappointments, LKY suppressed his democratic idealism, and penalised Singaporeans from having those democratic values that he had so eloquently propounded first to the British Colonial Government then the Malaysian.

Singapore's entry into Malaysia was LKY's own wilfull ambitions that were pushed by him against better advise from Singaporeans who were more familiar with the political mentality of the Malay Politicians in Malaya.

Singapore's merger with Malaysia was an outcome of LKY's personal ambitions and scheme to gain independence as part of a bigger country, when the British Colonial Office and many Singaporeans were hesistant with this marriage of convenience.

The British Colonial Office was reluctant to accept this proposal unless LKY could get Tunku Abdul Rahman to accept his proposal for Singapore to merge as a state within the Federation of MALAYA so as to gain independence as a single entity.

Tunku had balked at Singapore entry into the Federation of MALAYA with a large Chinese population that will increase the Chinese population even more.

To placate Tunku's fears, LKY proposed to the British Colonial Government that British North Borneo and Sarawak must be added to form the a larger Federation of MALAYSIA - as the native ethnic groups of these two states will negate the effects of a largely Singapore Chinese population in an enlarged Federation.

The addition of Sarawak and British North Borneo (now known as Sabah) to form a larger Federation of Malaysia was totally unexpected by Tunku Abdul Rahman, and it sparked the natural instincts of a politician in the Tunku, even as it stirred the wrath of the Indonesian President Sukarno.

On all accounts, LKY was proven wrong by events in History - as during the struggles which Singapore had with the Federal Government and the UMNO politicians, the peoples in Sarawak and Sabah were similarly disenchanted with Malaysia too.

The politicians in Sabah and Sarawak had proposed joining Singapore to separate from the Federation of Malaysia, and form a Federation of "3-S" with LKY heading the "3-S" States out of Malaysia.

Fortunately for the folks in Sabah and Sarawak, LKY declined their proposal.

And luckily we separated from Malaysia, if not, I still live in Kampong and those old old squatting toilet shows yesterday at NDP rally....yak!!!

And what is Sabah and sarawak??, besides its Mt Kinabalu and pineapples and palm trees, the rest are coconut heads and drug addicts. Bloody hell, i lost my Ipod there, daylight robbery.

The ability of LKY to raise from the fall in 1965 was not a magnitude that any man can do it, praise to him. And because of the failure, thus come the apetite to fight for success. Both events, the separation and the failure is actually, a blessing in disguise.

zaxis

17 Aug 09, 10:52

Originally posted by lotus999:

there he goes again! forever think that only scholars can engage china. didn’t our scholars fail miserably in the suzhou ind park?

SIP did it fail????? Suzhou Ind Park or New Suzhou Ind Park!!!!

from major shareholder become minor shareholder!!!!!!

in Singapore under JTC, enjoy many gov benefit, policy & tax hholiday, but Paya Ubi ind where have benefies ?????

so same in SIP, when SGP major shareholder enjoy nothing, but when chinese become major shareholder they enjoy everything.

where in earth doing business within 365 days can from loss become profit, without much transactions????

IT is where the company draw the profit line.

when SGP major shareholder in SIP, they draw the profit line higer, hard to achieve.

but chinese shareholder become major shareholder, they set the profit line easy to achieve.

angel7030

17 Aug 09, 11:16

Originally posted by zaxis:

SIP did it fail????? Suzhou Ind Park or New Suzhou Ind Park!!!!

from major shareholder become minor shareholder!!!!!!

in Singapore under JTC, enjoy many gov benefit, policy & tax hholiday, but Paya Ubi ind where have benefies ?????

so same in SIP, when SGP major shareholder enjoy nothing, but when chinese become major shareholder they enjoy everything.

where in earth doing business within 365 days can from loss become profit, without much transactions????

IT is where the company draw the profit line.

when SGP major shareholder in SIP, they draw the profit line higer, hard to achieve.

but chinese shareholder become major shareholder, they set the profit line easy to achieve.

To my understanding, Suzhou was one of the blue print for China industrialisation to follow. My MP in Joo Chiat was the first former CEO there, he told us that doing business in China come in two chinese words, that is Kuan Xi...translate in english is call Relationship, if you dun have relationship, you will fail and fail miserably.

When Singapore was building the Suzhou park, beijing was building a similar one following what Singapore is doing, after completion, they support the beijing one with full utilities power and lower rate for FDI, they then charge Suzhou one with higher utilites cost and also make it diffcult by causing problem to the supply resulting in FDI moving else where. Then when LKY visited Beijing to allow Chinese high ranking to have a share in suzhou, things changed, if not long long Suzhou will be a waste land. Chinese are not stupid hor, when i was 15 yo, i visited Suzhou park as part of my community education, we visited Hyflux Singapore and beside the company is rice field and banana plantation, OMG, the infrastructures was so poor then.

noahnoah

17 Aug 09, 11:27

maybe can consider doing business

in india also

sell roti prata there~~

dun mind owning a prata empire

Bread talk ,

Prata Talk?