Reform Party Responds to the Economic Strategies Committee
-
Thursday, 04 February 2010 02:29
In our previous press release, “Work Smarter NOT Harder”, dated 25th January 2010, we said that we were delighted that one of our core messages had been taken up by the Government. This was that economic growth had to be driven by productivity growth and not as has happened over the last ten years largely through expansion of the foreign labour force and that we had to improve our dismal productivity record, We have been saying for over a year that the Government’s target should be focusing on raising the majority of Singaporeans’ living standards rather than just maximizing economic growth.
Now, as expected, the ESC has said exactly the same. Further they have said that this can only be achieved by a substantial increase in investment in education and training. The Reform Party, at its Education Seminar on 23rd January 2010, called for a considerable increase in the percentage of GDP spent by the Government on education and that it should rise from an average of 2.8% of GDP over the last five years to between 5 and 6%, in line with other advanced countries. We are glad the ESC, after a considerable period of time, has reached the same conclusions as the Reform Party, but feel that considerable resources could have been saved and the time of some very highly talented and busy people better spent, if they had consulted us earlier and in particular if they had attended our Education Seminar which was free. To save the government much time and expense the Reform Party is prepared to offer the services of its SG, Kenneth Jeyaretnam, as a consultant on economic strategy for free.
We discuss below the key strategies outlined by the ESC:
1. Growing through skills and innovation
The Reform Party has for some time been pointing out the need for us to raise substantially our investment in education. In addition over investment for an extended period will be necessary to compensate for decades of under-investment. As the ESC report points out over 60% of our workers only have secondary education which is much higher than levels in other comparable countries. Other countries’ rates of tertiary enrollment have been rising for some time so even if we substantially boost our current rate of around 33% we will still be playing catch-up. And the quality of our degrees has to be questioned when so many MNCs, and even GLCs, seem to prefer foreign graduates.
Otherwise the Reform Party supports in principle the idea of a high-level national council to boost productivity but worries that this will be just an excuse to create another layer of highly paid bureaucracy without tangible results. We call in our draft manifesto (circulated at our dinner in September 2009) for a considerable rise in the resources devoted to worker retraining as well as raising the level of investment in education. The ESC’s recommendations also carry the worrying implication that the money spent on programmes like SPUR, touted in the last budget as evidence of the government’s commitment to worker retraining, has been wasted or was just a means of keeping the unemployment statistics lower.
The Reform Party advocates a minimum wage as a means of forcing employers to use labour more productively. Raising foreign worker levies (effectively a tax) may be a means of achieving the same goal but does not directly raise or put a floor under the wages of less-skilled Singaporean workers. It may look more efficient on economic grounds but if employers go further afield in search of cheaper and cheaper labour it may nullify the effects of the increased levy and not boost productivity or the wages of low-income Singaporeans. So the Reform Party still prefers a minimum wage on balance though it could be combined with higher foreign worker levies.
2. Anchor Singapore as a Global-Asia Hub
Surely it did not take this long and require so many talented individuals to produce something that any mid-level PR executive could have produced in an afternoon? These have been the government’s aims for some time and it is difficult to see how we are going to be more successful at them just because they have been regurgitated as part of the ESC’s report.
The Reform Party feels that a target of 20-25% for the manufacturing sector as a proportion of the economy is probably neither realistic nor desirable in the medium to long term given Singapore’s limited land and other resources. Instead we should aim for high value-added activities whether in services or manufacturing. The concentration on manufacturing is just part and parcel of this government’s mercantilist obsession which sees exports (saving) as good and imports (consumption) as bad and explains their preference for a low level of domestic consumption (spending by Singaporeans) and such a high level of net exports (fuelling the unproductive growth of our external assets in Temasek and GIC).
3. Build a Vibrant and Diverse Corporate Ecosystem
In our draft manifesto we called for much greater help for Singaporean SMEs and start-ups so the Reform Party would support these aims while worrying over how well this will be implemented and how much will be wasted. $1.5 billion over ten years is “peanuts” in the context of Singapore’s GDP of some $257 billion (about 0.06%) so it is hard to see how it will make much difference. Temasek and GIC have probably been investing much greater sums than this in foreign private equity and venture capital funds.
The Reform Party would go much further though in dismantling or privatizing the whole GLC structure starting with the privatization of GIC and Temasek and giving Singaporean citizens a direct stake, whether through shares, deferred shares or quasi-equity, in their assets. We would seek to sell off or break-up most of the GLCs which control such a substantial portion of economic activity (up to 60% according to some estimates) which has in our view a detrimental effect on the growth of a vibrant private sector in Singapore.
There must be lessons we can learn from countries with a far superior track record in starting new businesses, such as Israel, yet the committee does not seem to have considered how we can best learn from others.
4. Make Innovation Pervasive, and Strengthen Commercialization of R&D
The Singapore government has been a late convert to the game of boosting R&D given that most of our competitors have been aiming to do this for years, with mixed results. Given that China is massively boosting its R&D spending, as are the US and EU, it must be doubtful whether Singapore can achieve the necessary economies of scale or whether we just end up giving wasteful subsidies to foreign MNCs. The Reform Party is still in favour of increasing R&D spending but we also want to see the dismantling of the GLC structure which is out of step with a modern economy, has held back our private sector and has probably had a stifling effect on innovation, not least through the diversion of talent into secure, well-paid employment rather than into more entrepreneurial roles.
5. Become a Smart Energy Economy
In the Reform Party’s draft manifesto which was circulated to journalists at our dinner in September 2009 but had been written in May of 2009, we called for a massive increase in investment in energy-saving and green technologies. So we are glad that the ESC also thinks alike.
However the Reform Party has serious doubts over the advisability of nuclear energy as an option for Singapore given our limited land area and highly concentrated population. Not only terrorism but the risk of a catastrophic accident like Chernobyl probably rules out the nuclear option. Even if the risk is small (and experience has taught us that extreme events are always underpriced by the market), its actualization would be likely to end Singapore’s existence.
6. Enhance Land Productivity to Secure Future Growth
The Reform Party calls in its draft manifesto for a review of the government’s role as the owner of approximately 79% of the land in Singapore so our policies in this area are likely to be much more radical than anything the committee proposes. We have written about this in relation to increasing the efficiency of the provision of public housing and the need to inject more competition into this sector and would extend the same principles to the question of how best to promote economic efficiency and increase productivity.
7. Build a Distinctive Global City and an Endearing Home
The second part of this phrase suspiciously echoes the title of the Reform Party’s National Day Speech, “We have built a house but not a home.” There is little in this part or indeed in the government’s track record to suggest that it is committed to building an endearing home for Singaporeans.
The consequences of the last ten years of focusing on economic growth by the import of cheap labour while not investing enough in education and training have been dire for the majority of Singaporeans. The full report states that the “majority of households have seen significantly higher real incomes over the decade, with median incomes rising by over 20%”. This is contradicted by the Household Expenditure Survey 2007/08 released in December 2009. This shows that the Average Monthly Household Income of the 1st - 20th, 21st - 40th and 41st - 60th Quintiles increased from $1,309 to $1,274, $2,778 to $3,476 and $4,207 to $5,480, respectively, from 1997/98 to 2007/08.
This is a per annum increase of - 0.3, 2.3 and 2.7% respectively for the above mentioned three quintiles.
After adjusting for inflation at 1.4% per annum, the real increase was - 1.7, 0.9 and 1.3% respectively. So real incomes of the bottom 20% fell by nearly 20% (much more if one uses a CPI weighted by the consumption patterns of the lowest quintile) over ten years while that of the next 20% increased by just 9% and the average income of the median quintile rose by only a little more, 14%.
Conclusion
-
It is just another empty goody bag...elegantly phrased but rewards nothing except for the fact to push us beyond the productivity frontier in the same old mold of blah blah blah..work work work harder, smarter for their big fatter salaries .....
this is really a high governmental costs country and we are just bolts and nuts of an overall big cocky machine...
-
This ESC thing.
Funny how they create such a mess and then get back the same people to form a committee to solve the problems they created in the first place.
-
Originally posted by charlize:
This ESC thing.
Funny how they create such a mess and then get back the same people to form a committee to solve the problems they created in the first place.
it's a dirty job but somebody got to do it.
-
Originally posted by charlize:
This ESC thing.
Funny how they create such a mess and then get back the same people to form a committee to solve the problems they created in the first place.
I think....Its never a mess to begin with.
Don't tell me Lim Sway Sway and gang are so blur, never noticed productivity has been falling year-to-year for the past ten years?
Its more like wayang to get your vote for the coming election.
After the election, the real ESC will begin....
-
Originally posted by 4sg:
I think....Its never a mess to begin with.
Don't tell me Lim Sway Sway and gang are so blur, never noticed productivity has been falling year-to-year for the past ten years?
Its more like wayang to get your vote for the coming election.
After the election, the real ESC will begin....
ESC is the escape button.
-
Originally posted by Chew Bakar:
ESC is the escape button.
-
Originally posted by 4sg:
I think....Its never a mess to begin with.
Don't tell me Lim Sway Sway and gang are so blur, never noticed productivity has been falling year-to-year for the past ten years?
Its more like wayang to get your vote for the coming election.
After the election, the real ESC will begin....
I recall we used to have a lot of these committees and sub committees formed every few years to move the country forward socially and economically.
Starting from "The Next Lap" during GCT's time.
The 80s and 90s were good decades. By the time the new millennium came, standard of living seemed to be declining while cost of living started spiralling upwards.
It seems like life is getting relatively harder and harder for the people for the past few years.
-
Originally posted by charlize:
I recall we used to have a lot of these committees and sub committees formed every few years to move the country forward socially and economically.
Starting from "The Next Lap" during GCT's time.
The 80s and 90s were good decades. By the time the new millennium came, standard of living seemed to be declining while cost of living started spiralling upwards.
It seems like life is getting relatively harder and harder for the people for the past few years.
Things change, good to bad and worse keel over.
-
more and more ppl
will eat cai png /one plate of rice
with two vega..
-
Originally posted by noahnoah:
more and more ppl
will eat cai png /one plate of rice
with two vega..
n cai png some place now at least $3 hor....
-
It's the same thing with the issue of income gap.
Every year, they acknowledge the problem and come up with fancy ideas on how to reduce it. But in reality, it grows wider and wider. (Yes, they acknowledge this too) Goes to show a lot of what they are doing or not doing.
Sometimes, you want to believe what they say when they tell you they will help you, but with the current track record, it's getting harder and harder. They did a good job years back, but now, they are creating more and more problems instead of solving them.
-
Originally posted by charlize:
It's the same thing with the issue of income gap.
Every year, they acknowledge the problem and come up with fancy ideas on how to reduce it. But in reality, it grows wider and wider. (Yes, they acknowledge this too) Goes to show a lot of what they are doing or not doing.
Sometimes, you want to believe what they say when they tell you they will help you, but with the current track record, it's getting harder and harder. They did a good job years back, but now, they are creating more and more problems instead of solving them.
Acknowledge doesn't meaning solving the problems. It's telling to accept the reality. Solving problems is another thing altogether.
-
The Singapore Daily 'Today' - that is owned by ChannelnewsAsia - had reported that the Workers' Party will give its reply during the next Parliamentary sitting, while giving a summarised brief of the reactions from RP, NSP and the SDP to the release of the recommendation from the ESC.
It will do well for the Alternative Parties, if they will sit together and pool their resources and make common strategies to form an alternative solution that is more viable and credible for the interests of Singapore.
Opposition parties respond to ESC report
By Teo Xuanwei, TODAY | Posted: 04 February 2010 0733 hrsSINGAPORE: Several opposition parties have responded to the Economic Strategies Committee's (ESC) report and in general, they felt the recommendations were a thrust in the right direction - though more could be done.
While the Workers' Party will give its views when Parliament debates the Budget in March, when Singapore People's Party secretary-general Chiam See Tong will also have a chance to respond, other parties not represented in Parliament seized the chance to comment yesterday.
The Reform Party and National Solidarity Party (NSP) cited similar aspects of the report for discussion: The lot of low-wage workers, ways to help local small-and-medium enterprises and how the economy should grow.
In a media statement, Reform Party secretary-general Kenneth Jeyaretnam called for a minimum wage - in tandem with the proposed hike in foreign worker levies - to "force" employers to use labour more productively.
He said the ESC's suggestion to raise levies "may be a means of achieving the same goal but does not directly raise or put a floor under the wages of less-skilled Singaporean workers".
He added: "It may look more efficient on economic grounds, but if employers go further afield in search of cheaper and cheaper labour, it may nullify the effects of the increased levy."
The NSP did not offer suggestions on how to help low-wage workers, but secretary-general Goh Meng Seng felt the ESC should not dissect the economic issues without considering the social, cultural and political ramifications. "We need a more holistic approach instead of formulating quick fixes for short-term gains," he said.
On ways to encourage more start-ups, both parties agreed government-linked companies hindered the growth of local SMEs. The NSP said the government should "provide funds and facilities for technological research and upgrading SMEs into Original Equipment Manufacturers". If not, local SMEs would remain "mere vendors providing parts and services for MNC plants".
Mr Jeyaretnam suggested "dismantling or privatising the whole GLC structure", including Temasek Holdings and the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation.
On the ESC's suggestions for growing Singapore into a Global-Asia Hub, the Reform party said manufacturing should eventually comprise less than 20 to 25 per cent of the economy, as suggested by the ESC, "given Singapore's limited land and other resources".
Mr Goh suggested wooing regional economies to overcome constraints: "There's no mention whether Singapore will work actively towards a more comprehensive free trade zone in South-east Asia."
He also expressed concern at the possible plan to price energy to reflect real costs. "Singapore's energy pricing is already on the high side in this region. We should take care of implementing pricing policy that would affect our cost of living, as well as doing business," he said.
The possibility of nuclear energy as an option for Singapore worried both parties, due to Singapore's small size and dense population.
Moreover, on the ESC's overarching theme of improving productivity, the Reform Party said it "supports in-principle the idea of a high-level national council to boost productivity".
As for higher investments in education, Mr Jeyaretnam said the target amount should rise to between 5 and 6 per cent of gross domestic product, from the current average of 2.8 per cent over the last five years, to be on par with other advanced countries.
Meanwhile, the Singapore Democratic Party called the ESC's suggestions "old wine in a new skin". SDP secretary-general Chee Soon Juan said: "Save for the development of nuclear power, haven't we heard all this before?"
He cited examples such as the government's National Technology Plan in 1991 to become a world-class innovation-driven economy by 1995; the SME21 plan in 1996, targeted at helping start-ups; and the 2001 Economic Review Committee report, which touched on using levies to regulate the demand for foreign workers.
"If all these initiatives had been effective, why the persistent problem of declining productivity and the need for another report?" he said. Dr Chee said it will present "concrete alternative proposals in the days and weeks ahead".
- TODAY/sc -
This is a response to the ESC recommendations - from SgForums' blogger Goh Meng Seng who is now the Secretary-General of National Solidarity Party :
Thursday, February 04, 2010
NSP's views regarding the ESC's recommendations
NSP's views regarding the ESC's recommendations
Fri, Feb 05, 2010What is NSP's views regarding the ESC's recommendations?
In general, we appreciate the government’s effort in trying to deal with new economic challenges in the next decade. However we feel that ESC is trying too hard in dissecting economic issues without realizing that the model of economy is tightly linked to the social-cultural- political aspects of the Nation. These “software” of the Nation will mold the mindset of the citizens which in turn will impact on how the economy will develop in reality.
We need a more holistic approach instead of formulating quick fixes for short term gains. The U-Turn on the FT policy is a classic example on how such quick fixes applied in the past may just become irrelevant and worse, creating irreversible damage to our social fabrics.
For a start, we would like to see the government play their role in assuring adequate housing for every Singaporeans. While we take care of foreign workers and students’ housing needs, we should not leave our citizens living in the wild without a roof over their heads. Housing is a basic needs for citizens before they could work on upgrading their skill sets and contribute to the society.
Secondly, if we want our workforce to be more creative and innovative, an atmosphere of creativity, innovation and dynamic democratic vibrancy should be built based on a more open democratic system whereby diverse views are tolerated in schools, work place, civil service and the political sphere.
Which specific areas/aspects/ issues/recommend ations does NSP agree with the ESC? And why?
We have no issues with ESC’s broad direction as presented in their report although there is nothing specifically new. However we wish to highlight specifically the point on strengthening support for low wage workers and dependency on foreign workers which are more of a concern for these few years.
We felt that this is long overdue. Our low wage workers have their salaries depressed by the constant influx of these foreign workers, making their livelihood tougher by the day. While many of these foreign workers enjoy very low rent flats provided by HDB, many of our citizens have to manage life with a mortgage of higher amount. Sometimes, they are even deprived of a roof over their heads while HDB demanded them to wait for 30 months before they could rent a flat from it.
We have been expressing grave concerns about the government’s over-reliance on foreign workers since decade ago at every opportunity. We are finally glad that the PAP government, through the ESC committee, is finally taking heed to deduce this dependency.
On the other hand, which specific areas/aspects/ issues/recommend ations does the NSP disagree with the ESC? And why?
First of all, we are concerned about ESC’s suggestion to “Price energy to reflect real costs and constraints” on the household sectors. We would like to understand more in details and monitor the pricing implementation process to ensure households are not severely burdened.
Singapore’s energy pricing is already on the high side in this region. We should take care of implementing pricing policy that would affect our costing in living as well as doing business.
Secondly, we do not agree to ESC’s recommendation to look into nuclear energy as the alternative energy source. Singapore is too small a place to take the risk of having a nuclear disaster of any sort.
Thirdly, we feel that it is totally inadequate for ESC to focus only on labour productivity. We should be looking at Total Factor Productivity as well, which will include Capital Productivity.
While the government pays lip service in grooming local SMEs, our over reliance on MNCs and GLCs has impeded the growth of our local SMEs. A more relevant study should be done on the economic model of Korea and Taiwan. These governments play an active role in providing funds and facilities for technological research and upgrading their enterprises into Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) instead of mere vendors providing parts and services for MNC plants.
ESC has made bold vision about building Singapore into a Global-Asia City but we feel that Singapore should leverage more on its regional role. What is missing in this ESC report is the strategy of more integration in regional economies, creating an economic hinterland for Singapore. There is no mention about whether Singapore will work actively towards a more comprehensive Free Trade Zone in Southeast Asia or even Southeast Asian Economic Union. We feel that Singapore should start the economic integration with our closest neighbours and expanding to other ASEAN countries in the long run. We need an enlarged consumer base before our Nation could maintain continuous growth for decades ahead.
The focus on innovation and creativity should not be measured solely on dollars and cents spent in research. The cultivation of innovation and creativity needs a whole generation of mindset changed through our educational system as well as political climate. There is no way for a nation to depend solely on foreign researchers for their sustainable economic growth. Our people must be cultivated through their daily lives. Let’s start with our political climate.
Goh Meng Seng
Secretary General
National Solidarity Party -
The following is SDP's response to the ESC recommendation - which follows some of the books written by Dr Chee Soon Juan (see below).
See also - ‘SDP’s alternative economic program’ – Monday, 1 February 2010 (*1)
If an economy is in trouble and the government wants to look like it is doing something about it, the best thing to do is to set up a body, give it an authoritative name, and then issue a report.
The report need not say or recommend anything new. It just needs to look and sound officious, and it needs to occupy front and centre of the newspaper - with computer-generated graphics thrown in. That's exactly what the report by the Economic Strategies Committee (ESC), headed by Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam, is about.
The ESC report recommended, amongst other things:a. raising the foreign workers' levy to manage the inflow of guest workers,
b. investing more in R&D,
c. facilitating the growth of small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs),
d. pushing local companies to expand abroad, and
e. developing nuclear energy.
Save for the development of nuclear power, haven't we heard all this before?
In 1991 the Government came up with the National Technology Plan which would propel us into the “major league of a world-class innovation-driven economy by 1995.”
Five years later, then trade and industry minister George Yeo launched the SME21 plan “to strengthen the SME sector in Singapore” and “to promote SMEs is to help them tap into global networks.”
This was followed by a 2001 report from Economic Review Committee led by then prime minister Lee Hsien Loong which promised to “...carefully manage the inflow [of foreign workers] to benefit our economy and our people. An appropriate levy will regulate the demand for foreign workers, and ensure that they complement rather than displace Singaporean workers...” (emphasis added)
This "careful" management of foreign worker inflow through “an appropriate levy” has lead to our population being made up of 38 percent of non-Singaporeans.
Now the ESC is again proposing to use the foreign worker levy to manage the influx of foreign workers. Old wine, new skin.
The 2001 ERC report also pledged to “strengthen R&D efforts.”
Yet if all these initiatives had been effective why the persistent problem of declining productivity and the need for another report?
In truth, these recommendations are a rehash of old ideas, repackaged to make it look as if the PAP has a workable plan. It doesn't.
What the Government needs to do is to cease its dominance, and micro-management, of the economy that has been grossly and grotesquely distorted, both in structure as well as performance. This, alas, the PAP will not do because it will mean the end of its control of the country.
The reality is that we cannot continue to separate the country's politics from its economics. As long as the PAP insists on the kind of authoritarian control, the full potential of the Singaporean people cannot be realised, and no amount of reports generated by authoritative-sounding committees will help Singapore move ahead economically.
The Singapore Democrats will tackle - in depth - the difficulties presently faced by our economy and, more importantly, we will make alternative proposals in the days and weeks ahead as promised (see here).From SDP's website:-
Way back in 1994 the party adopted Dr Chee Soon Juan's book ‘Dare to Change: An Alternative Vision for Singapore’ (*2) as its manifesto. The book explicitly spells out alternative policies as well as the rationale for these ideas, including those for the economy, politics, society, culture and the arts, education and the media.
These ideas were subsequently expanded in Your Future, My Faith, Our Freedom: A Democratic Blueprint for Singapore. They are further developed in A Nation Cheated. Our flagship publication, The New Democrat, and pamphlets consistently focus on our alternative ideas to the PAP programmes. A look at Our Manifesto in this website would nail the lie that the SDP does not offer constructive alternatives. The latest example is our Budget proposal to help Singaporeans and the economy.
But Singaporeans don't know much of this because the state media will not publish our ideas and keeps printing lies that the Singapore Democrats simply criticise and don't offer constructive ideas.
Read more ... -
The people that are creating the problems with their short sightedness cannot be tasked to solve the problems that they have created.
It is like asking the criminal to admit that they are guilty.
The people with the original mindset cannot be tasked to solve the problem in the future when they cannot even recognise the existing problem.
We have employed a bunch of scholars who are unable to think out of the box and have to rely empty concepts with no concrete plan to execute their solution.
Singapore is an excellent place to implement the solar energy on the HDB to save our over-reliance on fossil fuel for electricity generation.
Why no use of solar energy ?
Why rely the use of another limited and expensive medium to generate electricity ?
-
all our power stations sold to foreigners so they keep using oil/gas so they can charge higher prices...........
sold out by PAP again..............
-
Originally posted by As romanista2001:
all our power stations sold to foreigners so they keep using oil/gas so they can charge higher prices...........
sold out by PAP again..............
The ridiculous part is that oil prices are separate from gas prices.While oil prices maybe high, gas is relatively low due to the vast supply conditions.
Still, with our power stations geared to using either oil or gas, it is amazing that the price of power is pegged to oil prices alone.
-
It never fails to amuse me seeing Gan Kim Yong speak about the economy in the media. He has an engineering degree from cambridge, served in the home affairs department, president of NatSteel and now talks about Singapore's economy.
Leo Yip, a former police scholar who was chief of CID and subsequently No. 2 in the SPF, then became LKY's principal private secretary, is now the chairman of EDB.
Does it make sense to you pple? Do we see people of such vastly distant backgrounds manage economics 101 of the nation?
-
Originally posted by Rock^Star:
It never fails to amuse me seeing Gan Kim Yong speak about the economy in the media. He has an engineering degree from cambridge, served in the home affairs department, president of NatSteel and now talks about Singapore's economy.
Leo Yip, a former police scholar who was chief of CID and subsequently No. 2 in the SPF, then became LKY's principal private secretary, is now the chairman of EDB.
Does it make sense to you pple? Do we see people of such vastly distant backgrounds manage economics 101 of the nation?
The 'real brains' are all working behind the scenes - while these front liners are the PR 'rah-rah' guys, with a pretty smiling face to sell the ideas, the solutions, and drive the sales pitch into a frenzy.Is it any wonder that Singaporeans will find ourselves in the present predicament - when these front line PR 'rah-rah' guys start to believe in their skills and expertise, and begin to influence the 'real brains' to come up with solutions that fit their own thinking ?
-
I like what this guys says. 'Funny how they create such a mess and then get back the same people to form a committee to solve the problems they created in the first place'
-
Originally posted by charlize:
This ESC thing.
Funny how they create such a mess and then get back the same people to form a committee to solve the problems they created in the first place.
this is how the minster get off the hook you see than they can turn around and say there I told you so....they play both said.....people get confused.... -
i am still waiting for an independent enquiry for the Temasek losses......
-
you wait , once they annouce that Temasek is in good shape again, they will have an enquiry into those losses. The inquries will not be use to penalise any one but rather, by that time, they hope peoples still remember their losses. The inquiry will end with a huge celebration. Till then, see you.