“When we have 6.9 million people we will have even less space for making mistakes. I would urge the government to think three times before we move.” - Opposition MP Chen Show Mao
"Beyond a tipping point, a country populated by immigrants loses its feeling if home. Singapore is arguably reaching that point." - Chua Mui Hong in "In search of a new narrative"
"In the past, Singaporeans would have probably just complained in coffee shops before going about their everyday business, but not anymore. For many, the White Paper was the last straw. A protest organized at Hong Lim Park – the only space in the country where citizens are allowed to protest without a permit – drew a crowd of over 3,000 people, all of whom were fed up with the government’s policy and lack of serious engagement." - Kirsten Han
"One is witnessing an anger startling not in its intensity, but by the way it cuts across all demographics of society.... the anger is widespread, even amongst some staunch PAP grassroots leaders." - Calvin Cheng
"when a Government has not been able to adequately handle a population increase from 3 million to 5 million, what faith do the people have that it can do so from 5 to 6.9?" - Calvin Cheng
Source: http://www.sgag.sg/
The population white paper is one of the most controversial planning document which flops badly and receives little buy-in in the short history of Singapore. How unpopular is the document:
For the first time, they got the highest reject votes in the parliament: 10 from opposition parties which is expected, but all the 3 non-partisan Nominated MPs voted against except one who abstained his vote (NMP Eugene opposed the white paper in his speech but abstained form the vote). PAP Mr. Inderjit Singh who stood out for his strong criticism on the white paper absent himself from the voting. It may be his conscientiousness at play but it is likely to cost his MP seat in the next election. Such fine good man who stood by his principal since Tan Soo Khoon!!!
The Government wants GDP growth but this is not what the people one, want proof? See this voting result from a local TV. How overwhelming is the result? If put to a national referendum, you can be sure that the white paper will be voted down.
It has further divided the country as the "US (the locals) vs THEM (Foreigners, New Citizens, PRs)" debate reach the highest level since independence. For the first time in our short history that anti-Foreigner (including new citizens) sentiment is so obvious among the locals.
Singapore is becoming more polarised and politicised than ever on immigration and integration; those who voice strong opposition to foreigner-friendly policies find themselves risking being called xenophobic even if they are not (xenophobic = an intense dislike or fear of people from other countries). Singapore has been accepting immigrants since independence from Malaysia, Indonesia, Hong Kong and Taiwan without causing much discomfort to the local population as the immigrants have come in smaller numbers and are similar to Singaporeans in terms of culture, language and beliefs and have few problems assimilating into Singapore society. No longer the case in the last few years when droves of China and Indian immigrants are let in sincd LHL took over.
Why the white paper is a disastrous PR exercise and no buy-in from Singaporeans:
people want the Governement to solve the current problem first before we talked about the vision in 2030;
the emphasis should be on getting local Singaporeans (the retirees, the housewives, handicapped, the illiterates etc) and the non-Singaporean dependents (who are already living here) to re-enter the workforce – and not bringing in more foreign labour;
the ageing population should not be considered dependents or hindrances to a dynamic Singapore, but rather a rich source of untapped manpower resource, many of whom still have much to offer our country;
allowing more foreigners into Singapore = economic growth and enhanced quality of life is a "false dilemma";
No mention of the ultimate population that this island can take;
Diluting of the Singaporean "core" with less than 55% of Singaporeans by 2030. And this "core" is also highly questionable as many are imported "New Citizens" who share little common background, culture and aspiration of this country;
Worry of sardin-packed city with even fewer green spaces;
More infrastructure constructions ahead;
The income gap will get even bigger;
No address of the social issues in the white paper
For the policy makers who like technicalities but still not convinced that they have got it all wrong, hopefully the following extract will make them worry and reverse the flawed population policy:
In his famous 1960s "mouse universe" experiment, behavioural scientist John B. Calhoun’s showed how an ever-increasing number of mice living in a safe but finite living space resulted in a gradual breakdown in normal behaviour. Over a two-year timeframe when the original mice were allowed to breed freely before resulting in overcrowding, the following changes were seen in the mice's behaviour: expulsion of young before weaning was complete, wounding of young, inability of dominant males to maintain the defence of their territory and females and increased aggressive behaviour of females.
After day 600, the social breakdown continued and the population declined toward extinction. During this time, females stopped reproducing. Their male counterparts withdrew completely and stopped engaging in courtship or fighting. They ate, drank, slept, and groomed themselves – alone.
The process was eventually termed "behavioural sink", and the conclusions drawn from this experiment were that, to quote Wikipedia, "when all available space is taken and all social roles filled, competition and stress experienced by individuals will result in a complete breakdown in complex social behaviours, ultimately resulting in the demise of the population".
Worryingly, the experiment also showed that the change in behaviour became permanent even after the mice population was reduced to a comfortable number. In short, there is no turning back.
"So did the town councils as public institutions do the right thing, selling to a company owned by a political party with its own agenda?" -Dr. Tan Cheng Bock
"(Town councils) certainly are political organisations.It does not, however, follow that they are not public institutions just because they are politically constituted." - Cheng Shoong Tat
Askmelah's Note:
The latest incident unveiled around Dec 2012 is quite mind boggling to say the least. The controversy had arisen earlier this month when a town council management review gave the opposition-controlled Aljunied Town Council the lowest banding for arrears management and subsequently sparked off a war of words between the two political parties and some dirty linens being spilled out in the open. Some glaring questions to be answered by the Government to the people are:
Why the IT system developed by Government (town councils are technically a Government machinery but is strangely "outsourced" to political parties to manage) are transferred to a PAP subsidiary?
Why the PAP town councils sold the IT system at a low cost of $140,000 and then leased it back at $785/month (source) for each council? As there are 15 GRC and 12 Single ward town councils, if you minus the two opposition wards then, the sum would work out to $235,500 per year!!! Not bad to buy a business with a payback in much less than one year plus opportunities for other upgrades and potential business, what a profitable proposition and I am surprised there was only one bidder! [Updated 3 Jan 2012: In the latest clarification, Teo revealed that between November 2010 and October 2011, it works out to a total outlay of S$131,880 for the 14 PAP town councils and AIM was also paid about S$33,150 during a contract extension for November 2011 to April this year. A back-of-the-envelope calculation by shows that AIM made about S$25,000 from the contracts. (source) and this does not include profits earned by AIM after Oct 2011.]
Why no tender to spin it off to a neutral private commercial company through a open and thorough process [Updated 4Jan2012: indeed there was one and the picture can be found here]? And most important of all... to a $2 company? If there is only one bidder, and worse from one that has conflict of interests, common sense dictates that the sale must be called off by those who makes decision on behalf of the residents. Where is the integrity and accountability in this case? How does a $2 company that AIM Pte Ltd is, which doesn't even have a corporate website, meets the tender requirement of an 'Experienced and reputable Company with relevant track record'?
Is it in the best interest of the public for the Town Councils to sell the system to a private company and then rent it back? Is it true as claimed by the opposition that "(AIM) could exercise rights of termination if there was a 'material change' in the composition of a town council"? it is then fair for WP to believe that the system could have been terminated at short notice by AIM and that each party can try to create some special software or hardware to hold the other party at the neck using public monies?
Let's be crystal clear about this saga: It is not about the management fee arrears, it is not about the the IT system, it is not whether AIM is a PAP subsidiary, it is about the messy state of someone is confusing and refusing to separate the state from the party as if they will be the one that will rule Singapore forever, it is about public's confidence of PAP in its business dealings and that is the crux of the problem!
[Updated 3 Jan 2012] With latest reply from PAP's Teo Ho Pin, more questions raised than answered:
"The PAP town councils sold the management software to a third party because it was "cumbersome and inefficient" to have 14 individual town councils hold intellectual property rights to the software....The vendor would have to deal with all the 14 town councils when reviewing or revising the system. It would be better for the 14 town councils to consolidate their software rights in a single party which would manage them on behalf of all the town councils, and also source vendors to improve the system and address the deficiencies (source)" - Why not handover back to a HDB's subsidary rather than a PAP's subsidary?
"the idea to have a third party own the computer system with the councils paying a service fee was not uncommon and that the deal ultimately yielded savings of around $8,000 for the town councils. (source)" - Is the $8000 (between November 2010 and October 2011) saving worth the risk of the backlash? Any other hidden cost such as manpower not accounted for?
"the town councils were advised by Deloitte and Touche Enterprise Risk Services (D&T) that the software was "obsolete and unmaintainable" - which could explain why no other company wanted to bid for the tender (Source)" - First Teo still did not reveal how much public money has been spent to develop this piece of obsolete and unmaintable junk, NCS is my no-mean cheap software vendor (in fact they are damn Ex),ASkmelah is surprised to hear that what crap software NCS have come up with that are not maintainable and upgradable. If it is such a junk, why "D&T also suggested the option of having a third party own the computer system, including the software, with the town councils paying a service fee for regular maintenance"?
"The sum involved in the transactions are modest. But as a PAP company we wanted to be helpful to the PAP town councils. So we were ready to take on the task and submitted a proposal to help the PAP town councils achieve their goals. The objective of the company with the town councils is not to make profit. (Source)" - Is PAP confused with its role? The ruling party may not be there forever but the civil service (aka Government) will be there regardless of which party are voted in?
"The PAP declined to comment on the number of companies it owns. A check with the Workers' Party, the Reform Party, the Singapore Democratic Party, the National Solidarity Party and the Singapore People's Party showed that none of them own any companies (Source)." - Where is the much-acclaimed integrity and the much touted nothing-to-hide by the men-in-white?
[Updated 9 Jan2013: PM Lee asks MND to review AIM computer systems deal, Askmelah has a few big question marks.... Who order the review? PM Lee who is the PAP Chief; Who to be investigated? Coordinating chairman of PAP town councils Teo Ho Pin, A current PAP MP, AIM's chairman, Chandra Das, a PAP person and an ex-PAP MP; Who will be investigating? The Deputy Secretary of MND who is reporting to Khaw Boon Wan who is a PAP minister. So much for maintaining public trust and transparency, looks more like wayang to me.]
In 2003, PAP town councils wanted to "harmonise" their computer systems and jointly called an open tender for a computer system based on a common platform.
NCS was chosen to provide this system from Aug 1, 2003 to Oct 31, 2010, with an option to extend the contract for one year.
In 2010, PAP town councils jointly appointed Deloitte and Touche Enterprise Risk Services (D&T) to advise on the review of the computer system.
After a comprehensive review, D&T identified various deficiencies and gaps in the system which was becoming "obsolete and unmaintainable".
D&T suggested the option of having a third party own the computer system, including the software, with the town councils paying a service fee for regular maintenance.
After serious consideration, the PAP town councils decided to call for a tender under which only the intellectual property in the old software would be sold. The ownership of the physical computer systems remained with the PAP town councils.
On June 30, 2010, PAP town councils advertised the tender in the Straits Times. Five companies collected the tender documents: CSC Technologies Services, Hutcabb Consulting, NCS, NEC Asia and Action Information Management (AIM).
On July 20, 2010, AIM submitted a bid which was the only one received by the town councils.
After assessing that AIM's proposal was in the PAP town councils' best interests, the tender was awarded to AIM.
Both sides hit back in dispute over contract for opposition town council
By Goh Chin Lian and Andrea Ong, The Straits Times, 29 Dec 2012
AN ARGUMENT over the termination of an IT contract for an opposition-run town council continued yesterday, with officials from the People's Action Party (PAP) and Workers' Party (WP) exchanging more accusations over the issue.
The coordinating chairman of PAP-run town councils, Dr Teo Ho Pin, took Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC) chairman Sylvia Lim to task, asking why the council had "suppressed" the fact that it had wanted to develop its own software even before the IT firm, Action Information Management (AIM), ended the contract last year.
The town council had told AIM that it wanted to do this on June 10 last year, he said. "Thereafter the contract was terminated with mutual agreement on Sept 9, 2011, after two extensions had been given at AHTC's request. AHTC thanked AIM for the extensions."
Ms Lim, however, said that in June, the town council was "acutely aware" of the possible termination by the PAP-owned firm. AIM yesterday released an exchange of letters between the town council and the firm leading to the termination.
The controversy had arisen earlier this month when a town council management review gave AHTC the lowest banding for arrears management and did not rate its corporate governance, as its auditor's management letter had not been submitted in time.
Ms Lim blamed the poor showing on the need to replicate new computer and financial systems after AIM ended the lease of AHTC's computer and financial systems. She said the first extension to the contract with AIM until Aug 31 last year had to be "fought for".
But AIM's chairman, Mr Chandra Das, refuted this claim on Monday, saying that AHTC had said it wanted to develop its own system after the WP took over the town council last year, following its victory in Aljunied GRC at the general election.
AIM readily gave it the two extensions that it sought - to Aug 31 and then Sept 9 - and AHTC even thanked AIM for the extensions, he said.
In her latest statement yesterday, Ms Lim said WP MPs were "acutely aware of the possible termination of computing and financial systems at short notice by AIM, hanging over AHTC like the proverbial Sword of Damocles".
She said the new management at AHTC requested an additional month, from Aug 1 to 31, mainly to do parallel testing of the front-end of the system, "which AIM agreed to after intercession".
After Aug 31, the former system was no longer operational at AHTC, she said.
Meanwhile, AHTC worked overtime to scale up the WP-run Hougang town council's system.
But Dr Teo last night criticised Ms Lim for not answering the "key question" on the termination.
"Ms Lim should come clean on the facts," he said in his statement. "Why state that AIM wanted to terminate, while suppressing the fact that AHTC had on June 10, 2011, written to say that it wanted to develop its own software? The question has not been answered by her."
Exchange of letters
ACTION Information Management (AIM) yesterday released an exchange of letters with Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC), in response to media queries. Here are extracts:
JUNE 10, 2011
From Mr Jeffrey Chua, secretary (interim), to AIM, cc. Ms How Weng Fan, general manager:
"We would like to inform you that Aljunied-Hougang Town Council is in the process of developing a Town Council Management System to support its operations effectively.
We would like to thank AIM for the assistance rendered to us in preparing the migration of database to the new system.
The new system is targeted to go live on 1 August 2011. While the new system goes live, we are planning to have the AIMS-TCMS (Financial Module) running concurrently till 31 August 2011, so as to ascertain the reliability of the new system.
As such, we would like to put up a request to continue to use the AIMS-TCMS till 31 August 2011, for your favourable consideration please."
AUG 29, 2011 From Ms How to AIM:
"We... would like to inform that the auditors is auditing the TC's accounts up to 31 July 2011 would require to review the data in the system. As such, we would like to request the TCMS to be made available till 9September 2011 for review purposes only. "We appreciate your assistance to render the above at no cost."
AUG 31, 2011
From director, AIM, to AHTC chairman c/o Ms How:
"We refer to your letter dated 29 August 2011 to request for the TCMS to be made available till 9September 2011 for audit review purposes.
We are pleased to inform you that the request is granted, subject to Aljunied- Hougang Town Council agreeing to the one-off payment below...
Total Amount Due: $419.98
Separately, please be informed that the provision for parallel run of the TCMS will be terminated wef 1 September 2011."
SEPT 2, 2011
From Ms How to AIM:
"We agree and accept to your one-off charge of $419.98 and would appreciate your kind assistance in facilitating the process."
WP reiterates question on public interest By Andrea Ong, The Straits Times, 29 Dec 2012
WORKERS' Party chairman Sylvia Lim yesterday accused the PAP town councils and the IT company which bought the councils' computer system of side-stepping a key question in the ongoing saga.
The question: How was public interest served in the deal the two signed?
She was referring to the sale and subsequent lease back to Action Information Management (AIM) of the computer and financial systems co-owned and developed by the PAP town councils.
As she did in an interview last week, Ms Lim, who is also chairman of Aljunied-Hougang Town Council, again sought to draw attention yesterday to a clause in the contract which she said allows AIM to terminate the lease of the software if there is a "material change" in the composition of a town council.
PAP town councils' coordinating chairman Teo Ho Pin and AIM chairman S. Chandra Das had on Monday defended the contract, saying it was in line with financial regulations and the law.
However, Ms Lim yesterday asked for a public interest explanation: "What justification was there for the town councils to relinquish ownership and leave the continuity of town council operations at the mercy of a third party?"
She also took issue with the confirmation on Monday that AIM is "fully owned" by the People's Action Party. "In other words, the PAP-managed town councils saw fit to sell away their ownership of the systems, developed with public funds, to a political party, which presumably could act in its own interests when exercising its rights to terminate the contracts," she said.
She questioned whether there are arrangements at PAP town councils to cater for subsequent changes in composition.
Responding last night, Dr Teo said he would go through Ms Lim's "latest allegations" of conflict of interest and "deal with them openly, in a further statement over the next few days".
During Lee Kuna Yew's reign, there were a few capable PM candidates: Tony Tan, Goh Chok Tong, Ong Teng Cheong
During Goh Chok Tong's reign, there were a visible PM candidate Lee Hsien Loong waiting at the wings.
Fast forward to today, there is no visible PM candidate in the waiting despite two elections under the current reign of Lee Hsien Loong.
Something is just not right. Despite the Government's insistence that they need to pay world class salary to pay their ministers (in fact highest in the world), there are just no visible PM talent in the cabinet like in the past. Yet you see many charasmatic leaders in the private organisations, the MNCs and the civil services. This Government really has to do the soul seraching as to what is wrong with our selection process. Few things are crystal clear to me:
it is not the lack of money and rewards
it is not the lack of talented persons with PM calibre
it is the political environment
it is the one type of people at the highest echelon consisting of only public servants (mostly from the uniform groups) with esteemed scholarships
The situation seems to be getting from bad to worse with each succesive PMs, the future of Singapore does not look bright indeed if PM Lee can not make right this glaring instability factor.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong says he intends to stay in office for 10 more years. If he does, it will result in a record father-and-son tenure as prime minister.
FACED with a host of tough problems that challenges his government’s ability to resolve, the prime minister has made it clear that he intends to stay in office for 10 more years.
The 60-year-old Lee Hsien Loong told an interviewer that he would prefer not to lead beyond then and “definitely not till 80”.
His comments were, however, made in reply to a specific question rather than as a deliberate statement.
“I do not see myself as prime minister in 20 years’ time,” said Lee to the current affair website Singapolitics. “I think if I am, something has gone seriously wrong.”
If he steps down at 70, he would have outdone his father, Lee Kuan Yew, who quit the post in 1990 at the age of 67.
However, Lee Senior had led for 31 years, a much longer period compared to his 18 years if he lasts that long.
One obstacle could be his party’s declining popularity, and the other his health.
But if he pulls it off, it would result in a combined father-and-son tenure as prime minister for a total of 51 years, a record not matched in any other country.
Singapore would have established a new world leadership record that will not be easily beaten.
By indicating he would step down in 2022 Lee has slightly put it back by two years. In 2011, Lee had said that he hoped a new man could take over in 2020.
Whatever the deadline, the road will be strewn with hidden mines, the biggest of which is a changing electorate with aspirations that his ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) may find hard to meet.
A rising number of Singaporeans have grown discontented during the past six years over the mass influx of foreigners, particularly mid-level and high-wage professionals.
It contributed to a host of problems – rising cost of living, especially in public housing, over-crowdedness and the widening rich-poor gap.
And now adding to these is a dark cloud, a deepening social friction between Singaporeans and foreigners that could worsen into a more serious conflict if it is not resolved.
How much longer can Lee’s party beat back voter unhappiness to retain power is a large crucial question.
He became prime minister eight years ago but the PAP has ruled this city even before independence in 1965.
The possibility of it being defeated in the next election in 2016 is probably minimal, but for the one thereafter anything goes.
A second worry is his health. PM Lee successfully fought off cancer in 1992 after undergoing a three-month chemotherapy treatment, but fear of relapse remains given his high pressure work.
For him to pronounce a long leadership intension could suggest that he believes a relapse is slim.
Of late he appeared very active, being involved in a spurt of activities that belied this faith in his health.
Helped by a pro-government press, Lee has hardly spent a day without hitting the daily headlines.
He initiated a “National Conversation” to discuss the future, addressed two TV forums, paid a hectic visit to China, and spoke on a wide range of subjects from education to public housing, from prices to the plight of the middle class.
“It is good to see him so active and in good health,” said a school teacher, whose profession just received an 8% pay rise.
But for every piece of good news, there were one or two bad ones.
His remarks that Singapore could hold six million people, a hint that the unpopular immigration policy would continue, has gone down badly with Singaporeans who were worried about their future.
Lee’s intended stay-on for 10 more years has come as a surprise to many Singaporeans.
Of late, doubts had been expressed whether the PM’s father, Kuan Yew, would contest in the 2016 election. If he calls it a day, it would be the real end of the Kuan Yew era.
By then, the founding leader, who is suffering from a nerve illness (which makes it difficult to walk), would be 93.
In its wake, some observers had believed, it would not be long before PM Lee would also step down. Such talk recently also turned to who would then succeed PM Lee.
The prime minister’s interview has put paid to this talk – at least for now.
Two years ago, PM Lee said the PAP was looking for suitable people in their 30s for a potential leader - not the easiest of tasks anywhere. Most countries would have allowed for a natural political process to evolve by allowing leaders to be tested by competition that would reveal his capability to survive crises.
However, selecting and grooming a 30-year-old under Singapore’s stable non-confrontational politics so that he could take over from PM Lee in 10 to 20 years’ time sounds more practical in theory than in real life.
The PAP process may have arisen out of fear that unless succession is structured from the top, it could lead to a damaging power struggle. As a result, Singaporeans generally have no knowledge about who will immediately take over if their current leader meets an emergency.
Is it one of the two deputy prime ministers, if so, which one? Or will it be decided by a quick Cabinet meeting?
This perceived uncertainty was not obvious under Lee Senior’s strong rule in the past. He would have made the decision, if necessary single-handedly before persuading his colleagues to accept it.
Today, despite a more consultative prime minister, no one knows for sure.
"Racial and religious harmony cannot be meaningfully fostered when the State is required to insulate its people from anything and everything remotely harmful." - Source
Amy Cheong, a true blue locally bred Singaporean Singapore PR[updated 10/10/2012: according to this source, she is a Malaysian Chinese turned Australian citizen but working here in Singapore] and NTUC Membership Assistant Director, ranted about the noise generated by the Malay wedding at the void deck, the FB's comments hurt the feeling of the Malay community, faced a much harsher punishment. Not only was she sacked from her job, she also got chasticised from the Government's big guns from PM Lee, DPM Tharman, Minister K Shanmugam, Tan Chuan Jin and a few others. In contrast, in Sun Xu's incident Singaproeans were asked to reflect on our behaviours instead.
At the highest level, while PM Lee did disapprove Sun Xu's action, compare and contrast the tone vis-a-vis that of Amy Cheong:
"You look at the Sun Xu incident, he shouldn't have made that blog post. He did. He has been chastised. He has been disciplined. He has expressed his contrition. He's sorry about it. And I think we should accept that. We should have been able to move on from that and deal with it as one person who mis-spoke." (Source)
Writing on his Facebook page, Mr Lee said he was "shocked to hear about this (Amy Choeng incident). The comments were just wrong and totally unacceptable," he said. "while Ms Cheong has promptly apologised for her grievous mistake, the damage had been done. NTUC did the right thing in terminating her services". (Source)
As a netizen said, a more appropriate punishment for her should be community services (to reflect on her shortsightedness on religious sensitivities) and perhaps an investigation by the police and the ensuing punishment meted by the Police rather than NTUC. Amy Cheong has since deleted the post and sincerely apologise for her mistake.
We are all a little racist in everyone of us, I am sure some Indians or Malays themselves may have ranted about racists remarks in their private spaces as well [further reading:The problem of a racialised mind (Todayonline 11 Oct 2012)]. I leave you with a quote from publichouse.sg:
[Extract Todayonline's 9 Oct 2012] National University of Singapore new media and communications lecturer Aaron Ng noted that there was "no real benefit from sacking" Ms Cheong. "Strong condemnation does not equal to a witch hunt. An inclusive society does not exclude; we should try to understand and correct racist ideas after condemning them," he said. Still, he stressed that "racially insensitive remarks can never be justified, and no organisation would risk their image being tarnished by being associated with a person perceived as being racist"
MOM and the Government have no incentive to cramp down the cheap labour policy:
it is a lucrative income when the Government can make average SGD$210-500 per head per month from each foreign worker that works here, multiplier that by several hundreds thousands of these workers and the amount is staggering. Assuming $500 levy per worker and we have 500,000 workers at any one month (which is much lower than fact), the Government will be collecting 250million per month, and this does not include the multiplier effect on additional income the Government generated from transport, housing, GST collected etc.
The availability of cheap labour in the region and a generation of Singaporeans and employers addicted to below market rate cheap goods and services.
The policy has not hurt the votes yet
The side effects of this failed policy are
widening rich-poor income gap, with the lower income group's income has been declining over the last two decades (see Minimum wage has no place in Singapore)
Year of neglect in improving productivity, as a result, the productivity has been declining instead of increasing due to the availability of cheap labour.
Strain on infrastructure
Worsening status on low paying job and a lazier new generation
Here are the proof if you need convincing.
One of the many get rich programs adverts you will find daily on local newspaperswhy the need to dig up road and cover up again and again?
why the need to paint the tens of thousands of houses every few years? which country do that?
why the need to keep tearing down perfectly good buildings and rebuilt them since the labour costs are dirt cheap?
My gut feel is half of the locally bred Singaporeans are engaged in non-productive, value creating jobs from insurance agents, housing agents, travel agents to full time bloggers, MLM, SPA and beauty shop owners, full time traders, full time trainers (so called internet entrepreneur) to train even more people to quit their useful jobs (pic right). There is something serious wrong with tax regime which disincentivise abled bodies to work in productive works which the economy is crying out for.
Overly-staffed civil service which hogs talents and useful workforce who can otherwise contribute to GDP rather than spending time writing and revising papers and come up with all kinds of useless campaigns and initiatives and wasteful projects (such as the Garden on the bay, ITE 9th wonder).
Thursday, February 21, 2013 at 6:40PM 
Source: http://www.sgag.sg/
