Jump to content

CKP

Member
  • points

    1,469
  • Content count

    1,232
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,469 5th Gear

About CKP

  • Rank
    5th Gear
  1. CKP

    General Election 2015 - 11 Sep 2015

    I will disagree with the points raised by Vivian on "shrinking, ageing and so forth" because after doing some studying on these topics myself, my conclusion is that the so called ageing/shrinking issues have been overblown to sell the 6.9 million PWP. I recommend everyone should do some reading for themselves directly from the independent experts on demographic issues before buying into all of talking points found in the 2013 PWP. The hard truths you listed are really not that hard -- they are primarily based on the 2013 PWP which I have read in full. They seem like "hard truths" because there haven't been a robust and open debate on the details.
  2. CKP

    General Election 2015 - 11 Sep 2015

    Most of Singapore's economic growth was low quality because it was derived from importing of workers (immigration). If you were to take away immigration, Singapore would have experienced many more quarters of recession the previous decade. They must be naive to think the economy can switch from low quality input-driven growth at 5.5 or 6.9 million to a high quality efficiency-driven growth at 5.5 or 6.9 million just because they read about a Government talking about it, taking measures and spending lots of money to tackle this issue. By the time recessionary conditions remain a permanent feature post 2020, it is already too late to make changes to policies to wean Singapore off this input driven model.
  3. CKP

    General Election 2015 - 11 Sep 2015

    "Building tertiary sectors can only come when the primary and secondary sectors have contributed to the economy and the general wealth of the people." You combined "primary and secondary sectors". The topic was on "natural resources" or the primary sectors like mining and agriculture. The topic was not on the importance of secondary sectors like manufacturing, eg the industrial revolution in the 19th century. As mentioned many times, the evidence and examples show it is not necessary/required to have any important primary sectors before secondary or tertiary sectors develop. There many real world examples from countries to cities that start off with secondary sectors and not primary sectors, Singapore, HongKong, South Korea, Taiwan, Luxembourg, Japan, Macau, Germany, New York City, Los Angeles etc. To be even more specific, manufacturing like sugar refining, publishing, garment trade had flourished in New York City during the 19th century not because NYC had your so called pre-requisites of natural resources like coal deposits, oil reserves, sugar or cotton fields, but because of NYC's location as a hub and port.
  4. CKP

    General Election 2015 - 11 Sep 2015

    These two charts explain why the primary (natural resource) economy isn't that important in first world high income countries Also, primary sectors like mining and agriculture will never be able to absorb/employ the workers in the secondary and tertiary ones.
  5. CKP

    General Election 2015 - 11 Sep 2015

    There is good mix of both rich and poor countries that have huge populations in the billions all the way to small ones with 25,000. Size doesn't matter. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest so. It really boils down to the question of selecting the right industries in which the country has both competitive and comparatives advantages as Goh Keng Swee put it. If one selects the wrong industries, then even if Singapore has 10 or 20 million, Singapore will still fail and need to import more immigrants. It's really that simple.
  6. CKP

    General Election 2015 - 11 Sep 2015

    Yes, HK has their entrepreneurs and Singapore has its from foreign MNCs and in both cases, natural resources like oil and gold were not necessary. These examples prove my point and debunk your own point (USA Texas example) that somehow having oil makes it easier or faster to reach first world status.
  7. CKP

    General Election 2015 - 11 Sep 2015

    Japan was the first to reach developed status in the Asia-Pacific in the 1970s, this is 25-30 years ahead of Singapore. Japan does not have resources like oil or gold; in fact, the amount of flat lands in Japan quite limited flatland for habitation and agriculture.
  8. CKP

    General Election 2015 - 11 Sep 2015

    If you run through the figures for rest of the first world countries it's from 0.1% to under 5%. If you make 100 dollars per year in Singapore of which 5 dollars per year (5%) is from selling fishes and vegetables, do you think you can rely on (thottle back) on this 5% to sustain your 100 dollars of income? The other possibility is that you simply don't believe the figures I provided. Well, if that's the case, maybe you can try to recall did anyone else provide hard figures and facts on the actual amount natural resources (mining/agriculture) contribute to first world economies? Try to remember if anyone else actually brought up real and hard figures, besides stating a broad motherhood statement like "Singapore has limited/no resources" and at the same time omitted saying "[Other] first world countries ALSO have limited resources too".
  9. CKP

    General Election 2015 - 11 Sep 2015

    So are you suggesting that the oil rich economies, which are not first world economies, are well on their way to first world economies status? There are many more examples of natural resource rich countries that never made it to first world economies. For example, South Africa was the number one gold producing country in the world before the mid 2000s by a huge margin for the whole of the 20th century. In 1960, South Africa produced 680 metric tons per year vs USA (second highest producer) 50 metric tons per year In 1980, South Africa produced 680 metric tons per year vs USA (second highest producer) 40 metric tons per year Also, there are many countries there were never oil producing countries that reached first world status like Luxembourg to Hongkong to Japan.
  10. CKP

    General Election 2015 - 11 Sep 2015

    I added some real world comparisons in my previous post. Natural resources contribute an insignificant amount of GDP to most first world countries including Switzerland, Japan, USA, Germany, Italy, UK etc. Only a handful of exceptions out of the 30-40 first world economies are Norway (oil/gas, 11-13% of GDP), Australia and Canada (precious commodities, 9-11% of GDP). If one looks outside first world economies, most of the oil rich countries are lesser developed economies eg mid-east economies, Venezuela, Russia, Iran.
  11. CKP

    General Election 2015 - 11 Sep 2015

    Because there is a perfectly good reason for that. Singapore is really no different from the overwhelming vast majority of first world countries that are all resource poor countries. "Natural resource" is just a talking point to fool the layperson who don't understand what makes first world economies sustainable in the first place. I will use a real world example. The mining including energy extraction industry in USA is about 600+ billion USD. You must be thinking, this very huge when this is slightly bigger than Singapore's economy. However, this mining sector is only about 3% of USA's 18 trillion economy. This is the same for rest of the first world economies. Russia and Saudi Arabia are considered natural resource rich because oil forms about 25% and 50% of their GDP. In short, "natural resource" is just an over simplistic myth that is repeated constantly to over inflate its importance to a layperson.
  12. CKP

    General Election 2015 - 11 Sep 2015

    Most the so called "trade offs" that have been talked about are actually either taking the easy ways out or false dichotomies.
  13. CKP

    Q2 GDP falls by 4.7% - how many are aware?

    I think majority of people here will be aware. Meanwhile, employment growth from June/Dec 2014 to June/Dec 2015 looks to come in at an increase of +2.5 to 2.7%. Coupled with a +1% increase in GDP over the same period if we are lucky, it looks like Singapore will experience yet another -1.5% fall in productivity. (where GDP growth = employment growth + labor productivity growth)
  14. CKP

    General Election 2015 - 11 Sep 2015

    Well, your chart is a useful chart but it only shows total labor costs as a percentage of total costs. Total labor costs = hourly costs per unit labor x hours worked per unit labor x size of employed labor force For a fuller picture, one ought to consider other crucial factors. For example, the above is a chart for hourly compensation costs that shows how a German worker is paid twice the amount over a Singapore worker. And by the way, a German worker works 25% less annual hours than a Singapore worker. And despite all that, the Germans are not losing their title as the industrial powerhouse of the world to cheaper workers from less developing or emerging economies anytime soon. So, it all boils down to productivity and also the specialization/complexity of the industry, something Singapore isn't that good at, I am afraid to say.
  15. CKP

    Elitism: Is our society fair? Certainly not

    "Life is never fair (and other similar clichés)" Well, life has been getting even less fair. Evidence: see attached article on falling social mobility. "I know so many pple who..." Anecdotes are in no way representative of the big picture. Your circle of people are not representative of the general population. Evidence: see attached article on falling social mobility.
×