Monday, 1 March 2010

Singapore’s economy: the path not yet taken

Singapore's fiscal probity is legendary. Often, final budget numbers turn deficits into surpluses and surpluses into larger than expected surpluses. Arguably, Singaporeans are overtaxed due to Singapore's fiscal conservatism. Undoubtedly, the Goods and Services Tax rate of 7% can be lower.
Singapore 2010 is not Singapore 1990 and neither should it be. Cities change, populations grow and adapt as progress marches onwards. Yet, the recent recession has generated discussions about social safety nets in the Republic.
Singapore's blogosphere highlighted the plight of homeless Singaporeans and 'cardboard ladies' (old women who eke out a living collecting and selling cardboard disposed by supermarkets). Clearly, for a wealthy, compact city state such as Singapore the existence of poverty and homelessness is an embarrassment.
However, the solution to pressing social issues is not simply to increase government spending. It's easy for the government to establish homeless shelters, provide more subsidized health care and so on. The government has enough cash, at least for the next few decades.
Larger social safety nets change behaviour. Already, many Singaporeans are demanding distinctions in pay between citizens and foreigners. In principle, such distinctions are fine. However, anyone who has worked in the Gulf can testify that over time the privileged position of the 'locals' leads to noticeably lower productivity and higher operating costs.
Is a Singaporean bus captain doing anything differently from a Chinese bus captain to deserve his higher pay? If he is, then the higher pay is merit based and not passport based. If not, then travellers on Singapore's buses must be prepared for higher bus fares.
Higher pay and better privileges cannot be created out of thin air. Even Lee Kuan Yew (LKY) and the People's Action Party (PAP) are not magicians. Ultimately, Singaporeans themselves have to pay the bill for the enhanced benefits. Someone always pays the bill.
The increased costs may include higher personal taxes, GST, corporate taxes but will most certainly result in higher operating costs for businesses (or fewer services for the same cost). Higher operating costs do not necessarily equate to reduced competitiveness and, hence, fewer jobs. However, Singapore does not operate in a vacuum. The region includes lower cost markets such as China, Indonesia and Malaysia.  
Come May, when Singapore Post stops delivering mail on Saturday's we should understand that the service reduction is part of the bill Singaporeans pay for demanding a better life.
Singaporeans must decide the extent of the trade-off they are willing to make. There is a long and slippery slope which Singapore must avoid; a path sugar coated by hubris and arrogance.

Don't take my word for it. Charles Munger, the long time partner and right hand man of legendary investor Warren Buffett, describes the rise and fall of a fictional superpower in "Basically, It's Over: a parable about how one nation came to financial ruin."
Singapore's transformation from Third World to First was not a freak accident. The nation's progress benefited from an enabling policy environment but its basic building blocks were values such as thrift, hard work and family support. Relying on social security or winning a lottery is not a sound financial plan, even for citizens of First World nations.

8 comments:

  1. Well if the PAP Ministers and MPs took a pay cut since they are 30 highest paid politicians in world, the bill can be footed by taxes that are already being paid.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I couldn't agree more!

    This has got to be one of the most enlightened post I've seen recently. I'm so bored of reading blogs that go on and on critisizing the government and their policies. Before complaining about about a phenomenon, it is important to evaluate what was the policy which resulted in the phenomenon, why was the policy implemented, what was it trying to solve, was it a legitimate concern, what could have been a better way of resolving the concern, how other countries have adopted a better model to solving the same concern.

    It is a pity that many people fail to realise that many of the complains they have are artefacts of very sound policies. Yes, it is hard to bear, but it is all for the greater good. It is always easy to criticize on hindsight, and I would definitely look forward to reading a proposal of how they would have handled the original concern better.

    I've read your other posts, and I like your elegant style of putting things in perspective.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hello Florets,

    Thank you for visiting my blog and taking the time to post a comment.

    I am glad that you enjoyed reading some of my posts and the writing style. Thank you for the encouraging words!

    I endeavour to make my posts constructive in order to urge readers to contemplate the respective issue in its larger perspective.

    I hope you will keep visiting my blog and look forward to more comments in the future.

    Kind regards,

    Imran

    ReplyDelete
  4. I don't really understand the pay distinction issue. Isn't one of foreign labour's attractiveness "low cost"? If the pay for locals is spiked up and as you say, provides no different value in the work, won't that drive more corporates to prefer foreign labour instead? Doesn't that equate to dropping a rock on our own feet?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi Anonymous,

    Thank you for visiting my blog and taking the time to post a comment.

    You are right, the bill can be borne by the government, even without any significant budget cuts in salaries or other public services. However, the real question is what direction do we want Singapore to head towards? Do we wish to have a society with labour market rigidities where structural unemployment is high but wages (for the employed) are high. Additionally, taxes on the employed will be high in order to pay for the social safety net (acting as a disincentive for hard work). Then there is also the issue of 'free riders' or those who try to take advantage of the welfare system.

    Your comment on the salaries of Singapore's politicians is worthy of much more detailed consideration and, hopefully, the subject of a future post!

    I hope you will continue to visit my blog and I look forward to hearing from you in the future.

    Kind regards,

    Imran

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi Jezebella,

    Great to hear from you again and thank you for your insightful comment!

    You are absolutely right, the pay distinction leads to complications and unintended consequences such as making foreign labour more attractive. The result is the government's recent announcement of a higher foreign worker levy to act as a counterbalance - increased costs for businesses and consumers?

    However, in the long term there is a real danger that hard quotas / regulations will be imposed requiring that locals be hired for certain jobs, irrespective of suitability. Such quotas are already in place in the Gulf countries and the results are mixed, at best. I should point out that most of the Gulf countries have the luxury of implementing such (locals) quota policies due to the cushion provided by oil revenue.

    I look forward to hearing from you again soon.

    Kind regards,

    Imran

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks Imran for enabling the comments by people without the 6 types of account IDs.

    I can't agree that Singapore is overtaxed given the extremely low incidence of taxation on income and in general, compared to most of the rest of the world.

    In my view, the surpluses are not due to high taxation; rather, they are due to low expenditure and, as you point out, the low provision of public services.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hi Contrarian,

    Thank you for visiting my blog and taking the time to post a comment. I always enjoy hearing from readers so have enabled anonynous users to place comments.

    I believe we are in agreement about the taxation issue, perhaps I did not express my opinion clearly. Undoubtedly, on a relative global basis, Singapore's tax regime is competitive. However, when one places the revenue in the context of the public services (or expenditure) that taxes appear high. In other words, the Singapore government collects excessive revenue for the amount of recurring operating expediture it undertakes annually.

    Thank you for making the point and helping me to clarify my language. I hope to hear from you again in the future.

    Kind regards,

    Imran

    ReplyDelete