Speaking dialects helps build rapport, even in business
Saturday, 21 March 2009
Bng S C
Perhaps we may wish to consider the role a dialect plays in building rapport and leading to business opportunities.
I refer to the Straits Times article, “Mandarin drive starts in the home”, on March 18, 2009.
When I was in secondary school, I agreed wholeheartedly (presciently, it appears) with MM Lee’s statement that with Mandarin, “We can connect with the whole of China and its 1.3 billion people. Dialects will confine us to our original village or town or at most, the province of our ancestors”. I even took that line of reasoning one step further – I thought that with English, I could connect with the whole of the English-speaking world. Mandarin, I thought, would confine me to China and its 1.3 billion people – a large percentage of whom would eventually learn to speak English anyway.
Along the way I realised, however, that I could not build rapport easily with English speakers who did not speak English my way, the Singaporean way.
In university, I made it a point to brush up my Mandarin. However, I discovered that I still could not build rapport easily with Mandarin speakers who did not speak Mandarin my way, the Singaporean way.
For that matter, many Mandarin speakers in China find it difficult to understand the Mandarin spoken by people from other provinces. Although the Chinese Government has made it mandatory for Mandarin to be taught in schools, Mandarin is still not the mother tongue for most Chinese - their hometown dialect is. Northerners find it hard to understand southerners and the Shanghainese often gleefully mix Shanghainese words and pronunciation into their Mandarin. Does this sound familiar?
Building rapport
Building rapport is the first step to developing the all-important Guanxi in China. Building rapport is about seeking common ground, about getting the other person to treat me as one of “Us” and not as “Others”. In China, it is prevalent for family-run SMEs to have one price for Us and another higher price for Others. It may be surprising for some that many Chinese do not consider the Chinese from other provinces as Us, but rather as Others. So whom will a Chinese consider as Us? Someone with a nexus to his hometown, perhaps. Someone who enjoys the same food and speaks the same dialect, perhaps.
We all like to feel like members of an elite fraternity, and sharing a common dialect, even if it does not open as many doors as a Masonic handshake, still does wonders in building rapport. Perhaps we may wish to consider the role a dialect plays in building rapport and leading to business opportunities. After all, as the Teochew say, “Ga ki nang, pa si bo xiang gan” (If you are one of Us, it does not matter even if we die for you).
Just look at the facts - the Cantonese-speaking Hongkong-ers have made many successful investments in the predominantly Cantonese-speaking Pearl River Delta of southern Guangdong Province , but do not have investments of a similar scale in north-eastern Guangdong Province , which is predominantly Teochew-speaking. Similarly, the Hokkien-speaking Taiwanese have made many successful investments in predominantly Hokkien-speaking southern Fujian Province, but do not have investments of a similar scale in northern Fujian Province , where the Min Bei dialect (which is mutually unintelligible with Hokkien) is prevalent. Can Singaporeans, who have been trained to speak Mandarin and not dialects, boast of a similar presence and as many successes investing in China?
The Hokkien spoken in Singapore is not the same as the Hokkien spoken in Taiwan or in Fujian Province . Nevertheless, speaking a variant of the dialect is often sufficient to build rapport – after all, it is a standing joke in Fujian Province that every village speaks a different variant of Hokkien from the next village across the mountain.
Leveraging on dialects
One does not have to be extremely proficient in a dialect to build rapport. From personal experience, it is sufficient to be able to conduct a simple conversation in a dialect to draw attention to the commonality of the ancestral homeland. Further negotiations can be carried out in Mandarin. I have oftentimes been able to leverage on my dialect to obtain better prices from Hokkien vendors than my non-Hokkien Chinese counterparts.
Furthermore, the use of dialects is not restricted to China. The Chinese Diaspora began long before Mandarin became the official dialect in China . As such, there are approximately 30 million Overseas Chinese, originally from Guangdong, Fujian and Hainan provinces , who may not be able to communicate fluently in Mandarin. It would not be a far stretch to assume that it would be easier to build rapport with an Overseas Chinese by speaking to him in his dialect, rather than struggling to carry on a conversation in Mandarin. This might prove difficult in two generations’ time, if, as MM Lee predicts, “Mandarin will become our mother tongue”.
With regard to Mr. Chee Hong Tat’s comment that “it would be stupid… to advocate the learning of dialects, which must be at the expense of English and Mandarin”, I would like to introduce him to some Malaysian Chinese friends of mine. Speak to a Malaysian Chinese, and chances are, she can speak English, Mandarin, Malay, Cantonese and Hokkien well enough to carry on a conversation in all of the abovementioned languages. As MM Lee rightly pointed out, English and Mandarin are two “manifestly different languages”. The dialects that we are referring to, however, are merely spoken variants of the Chinese language. Surely, learning to speak a dialect must be easier than to learn Malay along with English and Mandarin?
I agree with Ong Siew Chey’s letter on March 19, 2009 that “in spite of our claim of being bilingual, some of us are actually non-lingual, hovering between Singlish and substandard Mandarin.” The Speak Mandarin Campaign started 30 years ago. If Singaporeans, after 30 years of the Speak Mandarin Campaign, are still “non-lingual”, can anyone be certain that not speaking dialects is really the cure for “non-lingualism”?
In 2005, I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Robert Kuok, the “Sugar King of Asia”, together with a delegation of NUS students. Mr. Kuok (then a sprightly 82 year-old multi-billionaire) took the effort to greet us individually when we first met. Upon hearing our surnames, he would first make guesses at our dialect groups, and greet us with a few words in each of our own dialects. This left a deep impression on me, and I hope that one day, with proper training, my “5GB” brain would be able to replicate that feat.
However, I understand that I should not be too hard on myself if I cannot learn to speak several dialects. After all, Mr. Robert Kuok’s unique. He’s Malaysian.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=24718.1
Saturday, March 21, 2009
MM Lee's mandarinate system
MM Lee’s “mandarinate” system is the real scourge of multi-party politics in Singapore
At the launch of an alumni complex at the National University of Singapore (NUS) last night, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew said he did not believe the country with its small population could sustain a two-party system as the PAP already has ‘to scour the whole country to find the quality we now have’. (read rest of article here)
‘You need character, commitment, drive and (the) ability to connect with people. It’s a very tough job.’ he said.
Mr Lee’s statement is inherently flawed in two aspects:
1. There is no correlation between the population of a country and its political system, be it a one party or two party state. Denmark, Finland, New Zealand and Luxembourg are examples of countries with a small population comparable to Singapore which have two or more political parties in their Parliament.
2. Why does the PAP have to “scour the whole country” to find people to run for public office? In a truly democratic country, citizens with a passion to serve the people will step foward to offer themselves as candidates to stand for elections under the banner of any political parties.
The quandrary which the PAP finds itself in now is largely a creation of its own. Its heavy-handedness in squashing political dissent against its rule through the liberal use of defamation law suits and security apparatus over the years had backfired upon itself.
Singaporeans are generally fearful and adverse to politics. Bright young men and women would rather spend time to advance their careers and to accure material possessions than to dirty their hands in the political arena.
That is why both the opposition and the PAP are finding it increasingly difficult in recent times to recruit qualified people into their ranks in spite Singapore having one of the highest literacy rate in the world.
Though our population is small, over 50% of our citizens have either a degree or diploma. Why are they not keen to join politics?
The main stumbling block to the growth and development of an active citizenry and multi-politics in Singapore lies in the “mandarinate” system being propagated and perpetuated by none other than MM Lee himself.
Under the “mandarinate” system of the feudal Qing dynasty in China, the ultimate seat of power lies with the Emperor who used his court officials or mandarins to govern his dominion.
The PAP itself is one such entity tightly controlled under the thumb of one man. PAP MPs are merely “mandarins” of the system. They are there to serve the interests of the party and to execute the orders of the “Emperor”.
In a real political party which practises democracy, any cadre within its rank will have the opportunity to get a shot at the top post. The PAP has no lack of capable leaders. Why is its top echelon still dominated by members of a particular family even after 50 years in power?
Singapore is full of talented people in all professions be it law, medicine, engineering or finance. Who is willing to join a party only to follow orders blindly from the top and not given the freedom and opportunity to fully display one’s capability and to implement one’s ideas and initiatives?
We do not have to look too far away for answers to our predicament. Just put the performance of the 82 PAP MPs in Parliament under scrutiny. Are they the real “quality” as proclaimed so proudly by MM Lee that Singapore has to offer?
Unless the PAP reform itself and allow its cadres more say in the party’s decision making process, it has to be contented with “second division mediocrity” because first world talents are leaders in their own right. They are born to lead, not to follow and obey.
The selfish ambitions of one man has stymized the emergence of a real, vibrant and rigorous parliamentary democracy in Singapore for decades because he doesn’t like dissenting voices to challenge him. He wants to rule as he pleases without any questioning or resistance. All his colleagues and subordinates are merely musicians in an orchestra to play the tune according to his wishes.
Singapore has enough talent to form not only two, but three or more political parties to ensure adequate representation of the aspirations of all Singaporeans in Parliament.
MM Lee can take the following measures to solve the dilemma he is in:
1. Abolish the GRC system and allow one to one contests in all 84 wards in Singapore.
2. Refrain from using defamation lawsuits to cripple the PAP’s opponents and if there is a need to use them, to limit the damages to less than $10,000.
3. Allow the media complete freedom to report on domestic politics without any interference.
There are many more urgent reforms to undertake to dismantle the PAP’s “mandarinate” system, but for a start, implementing the above three measures will greatly level the playing field and allow for the emergence of a strong alternative party or coalition to give the PAP a run for its money.
Does MM Lee still have the fire in his belly to fight a real political battle at his age? Or is he contented to hide behind the charade of his party to continue ruling Singapore like his personal fiefdom?
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=24717.1
At the launch of an alumni complex at the National University of Singapore (NUS) last night, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew said he did not believe the country with its small population could sustain a two-party system as the PAP already has ‘to scour the whole country to find the quality we now have’. (read rest of article here)
‘You need character, commitment, drive and (the) ability to connect with people. It’s a very tough job.’ he said.
Mr Lee’s statement is inherently flawed in two aspects:
1. There is no correlation between the population of a country and its political system, be it a one party or two party state. Denmark, Finland, New Zealand and Luxembourg are examples of countries with a small population comparable to Singapore which have two or more political parties in their Parliament.
2. Why does the PAP have to “scour the whole country” to find people to run for public office? In a truly democratic country, citizens with a passion to serve the people will step foward to offer themselves as candidates to stand for elections under the banner of any political parties.
The quandrary which the PAP finds itself in now is largely a creation of its own. Its heavy-handedness in squashing political dissent against its rule through the liberal use of defamation law suits and security apparatus over the years had backfired upon itself.
Singaporeans are generally fearful and adverse to politics. Bright young men and women would rather spend time to advance their careers and to accure material possessions than to dirty their hands in the political arena.
That is why both the opposition and the PAP are finding it increasingly difficult in recent times to recruit qualified people into their ranks in spite Singapore having one of the highest literacy rate in the world.
Though our population is small, over 50% of our citizens have either a degree or diploma. Why are they not keen to join politics?
The main stumbling block to the growth and development of an active citizenry and multi-politics in Singapore lies in the “mandarinate” system being propagated and perpetuated by none other than MM Lee himself.
Under the “mandarinate” system of the feudal Qing dynasty in China, the ultimate seat of power lies with the Emperor who used his court officials or mandarins to govern his dominion.
The PAP itself is one such entity tightly controlled under the thumb of one man. PAP MPs are merely “mandarins” of the system. They are there to serve the interests of the party and to execute the orders of the “Emperor”.
In a real political party which practises democracy, any cadre within its rank will have the opportunity to get a shot at the top post. The PAP has no lack of capable leaders. Why is its top echelon still dominated by members of a particular family even after 50 years in power?
Singapore is full of talented people in all professions be it law, medicine, engineering or finance. Who is willing to join a party only to follow orders blindly from the top and not given the freedom and opportunity to fully display one’s capability and to implement one’s ideas and initiatives?
We do not have to look too far away for answers to our predicament. Just put the performance of the 82 PAP MPs in Parliament under scrutiny. Are they the real “quality” as proclaimed so proudly by MM Lee that Singapore has to offer?
Unless the PAP reform itself and allow its cadres more say in the party’s decision making process, it has to be contented with “second division mediocrity” because first world talents are leaders in their own right. They are born to lead, not to follow and obey.
The selfish ambitions of one man has stymized the emergence of a real, vibrant and rigorous parliamentary democracy in Singapore for decades because he doesn’t like dissenting voices to challenge him. He wants to rule as he pleases without any questioning or resistance. All his colleagues and subordinates are merely musicians in an orchestra to play the tune according to his wishes.
Singapore has enough talent to form not only two, but three or more political parties to ensure adequate representation of the aspirations of all Singaporeans in Parliament.
MM Lee can take the following measures to solve the dilemma he is in:
1. Abolish the GRC system and allow one to one contests in all 84 wards in Singapore.
2. Refrain from using defamation lawsuits to cripple the PAP’s opponents and if there is a need to use them, to limit the damages to less than $10,000.
3. Allow the media complete freedom to report on domestic politics without any interference.
There are many more urgent reforms to undertake to dismantle the PAP’s “mandarinate” system, but for a start, implementing the above three measures will greatly level the playing field and allow for the emergence of a strong alternative party or coalition to give the PAP a run for its money.
Does MM Lee still have the fire in his belly to fight a real political battle at his age? Or is he contented to hide behind the charade of his party to continue ruling Singapore like his personal fiefdom?
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=24717.1
Minister to table Public Order Bill
Home Affairs Minister to table Public Order Bill in Parliament
Saturday, 21 March 2009
When Parliament sits on Monday, Home Affairs Minister, Wong Kan Seng, will table the Public Order Bill. The law could give the police powers to prevent protesters from gathering at places like Parliament House and the Istana, and to compel them to ‘move on’.
Another bill on the agenda is the Human Organ Transplant Act’s amendment Bill. The Bill, if passed, will allow organ donors to be compensated for their time and costs. It will also provide reimbursement for any possible future health problems related to their organ donation.
The Films Act, too, will be on the agenda as the Government seeks to amend the Act to liberalise the ban on “party political films”. Live recordings of election rallies or public speeches will no longer be considered ‘party political films’, provided the events are held in accordance with the law.
Here are some of the other questions which MPs have tabled to be answered in Parliament. For the full list, please click here.
Ms Sylvia Lim: To ask the Prime Minister whether he has appointed the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee and, if not, whether he intends to do so within the next 3 months.
Ms Sylvia Lim: To ask the Minister for Finance (a) how the 25% fall in overall portfolio value from its peak is distributed over the different asset classes held by the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation; and (b) whether there is any form of accountability for fund managers who invested “too early” in failing banks.
Ms Ellen Lee Geck Hoon: To ask the Minister for Health in view of the economic recession where more people especially the matured/older Singaporeans are affected by unemployment or retrenchment (a) whether the Government will consider relaxing the rules for application to MediFund; and (b) whether successful applicants will be able to receive financial assistance to pay their hospital bills fully.
Mr Inderjit Singh: To ask the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what are the terms of the $300 million loan provided by the Government to Micron Technologies; (b) what are the risks of this loan and are there terms and conditions which benefit Singapore; (c) whether this loan was disbursed through any of the banks in Singapore or was it a direct loan from the Government; and (d) whether the Government is now prepared to give direct loans to companies instead of sharing risks with banks.
Dr Ong Seh Hong: To ask the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry tracks the educational performance and psychological well-being of undergraduates on scholarship; (b) what are the numbers of undergraduates who have lost their scholarships over the last 10 years; and (c) whether counselling was provided to these undergraduates who had lost their scholarships, to help them cope financially and psychologically.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan: To ask the Minister for Finance (a) whether he will explain the steps taken by Temasek Holdings to find a replacement CEO; and (b) whether any Singaporeans were considered for the position.
Ms Sylvia Lim: To ask the Minister for Finance why the Civil Service’s hiring practice of restricting access to state secrets to Singaporeans is not applied to Temasek Holdings.
Mdm Cynthia Phua: To ask the Minister for Health why a Government hospital has no flexibility to waive the medical fee of a Dutch national who sustained injuries arising from his exemplary deed to save a drowning woman.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=24714.1
Lee Kuan Yew Pictures Singapore's Outlook in 25 Years
Lee Kuan Yew Pictures Singapore's Outlook in 25 Years
2009-03-21 02:06:36 Xinhua Web Editor: Zhu Jin
Singapore in 25 years will reflect the state of the major economic, technological and military powers, Singapore's Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew said on Friday evening.
During a dialogue, "Singapore and Singaporeans, a Quarter century from now", which was held at the newly opened Alumni Complex at the National University of Singapore, Lee said that Singapore exists within the world and regional context.
Lee pictured the future of the world to be somewhere in between of "optimistic and pessimistic scenarios."
He said that the optimistic scenario of the world might be big powers at peace with each other and prosperity throughout the world, while the pessimistic scenarios could be increased tensions and insecurity among big powers and the emerging of regional economic areas.
He said Singapore in 25 years will be "more cosmopolitan" because the country has got many people from China, India, Malaysia and from the region.
Lee added that Singapore will need more talents in the future to remain competitive, adding that Singapore will need to offer more opportunities and reward talents equally.
Talking about the current economic crisis, Lee said that Singapore is an export dependent country, the optimistic scenario for Singapore is in two or three years to be out of the crisis, and the worst could be four, five or six years.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=24712.1
Singapore needs foreigners for economic survival
Singapore needs foreigners for economic survival
SINGAPORE (AFP) — Singapore, which is facing its worst recession in history, needs foreigners to survive in the long-term, founding father Lee Kuan Yew said.
The city-state is not reproducing itself fast enough and the government has in recent years opened its doors to attract more talented migrants to avert a serious population shortage.
"Without new citizens and permanent residents, we are going to be 'The Last of the Mohicans'. We will disappear," Lee, 85, told an audience at a local university late Friday.
Lee is the country's first prime minister and remains an influential figure. He is an adviser in his son Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's cabinet with the title minister mentor.
Singapore needs a fertility rate of 2.1 babies per woman to maintain its population naturally but a string of incentives including monetary ones to encourage Singaporeans to have babies has failed to make an impact.
A report released this month by the Department of Statistics showed 39,935 babies were born in 2008, well short of the 60,000 births the country needs each year.
Singapore has a population of 4.84 million, including about one million foreigners who work in the country and their families.
The local economy is projected to shrink by up to 5.0 percent in 2009 and the elder Lee told the audience at the university it may take up to six years to recover in a worse-case scenario.
In a sign of how tough times are, Singaporeans trained as engineers are looking for jobs such as bus drivers once shunned by locals, The Straits Times reported Saturday.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=24713.1Singapore newspapers censor PM's BBC interview
Singapore newspapers censor PM's BBC interview
It’s amusing to see the Singapore newspapers have not run the complete BBC interview with Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. The broadsheet Straits Times and the freesheet Today have not published the last question asked in the interview, which can be heard in a five-and-a-half-minute audio clip on the BBC World Service website.
The interviewer said: “Finally, Prime Minister, I read that you are apparently the highest paid head of government in the world. Your salary is about four or five times what President Obama gets. Are you worth all that money?”
PM Lee laughed and said: “I am not comparing myself and I don’t look at these rankings.We go on a system which is open, honest, transparent – what is the job worth, what is the quality of the person whom you want. We need the best people for the job and these are jobs where you make decisions which are worth billions of dollars. And you cannot do that if you are pretending and you just say, ‘Well, we are all in it for the love of King and Country’. We want it to be honest, we want people not to come in for the money. But at the same time the sacrifice cannot be too great. And at times like these, you want the best possible government you can have.”
Why on earth did the Straits Times and Today censor the Prime Minister’s interview?
The Prime Minister did not hesitate to answer the question.
So why did the Singapore newspapers not run the question and the answer?
It looks silly because people visiting the BBC World Service website are likely to come across the interview and discover that the Singapore media are still censoring the news.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=24777.1
It’s amusing to see the Singapore newspapers have not run the complete BBC interview with Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. The broadsheet Straits Times and the freesheet Today have not published the last question asked in the interview, which can be heard in a five-and-a-half-minute audio clip on the BBC World Service website.
The interviewer said: “Finally, Prime Minister, I read that you are apparently the highest paid head of government in the world. Your salary is about four or five times what President Obama gets. Are you worth all that money?”
PM Lee laughed and said: “I am not comparing myself and I don’t look at these rankings.We go on a system which is open, honest, transparent – what is the job worth, what is the quality of the person whom you want. We need the best people for the job and these are jobs where you make decisions which are worth billions of dollars. And you cannot do that if you are pretending and you just say, ‘Well, we are all in it for the love of King and Country’. We want it to be honest, we want people not to come in for the money. But at the same time the sacrifice cannot be too great. And at times like these, you want the best possible government you can have.”
Why on earth did the Straits Times and Today censor the Prime Minister’s interview?
The Prime Minister did not hesitate to answer the question.
So why did the Singapore newspapers not run the question and the answer?
It looks silly because people visiting the BBC World Service website are likely to come across the interview and discover that the Singapore media are still censoring the news.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=24777.1
The hole just gets deeper
The hole just gets deeper
SINGAPORE - GST hike, raised utility bills, HDB flats at unaffordable prices, hefty healthcare bills and raised transport fees - all of which are common gripes regarding the relentless cost of living in Singapore. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that Singapore is an expensive place to retire in.
And our government is waking up to the reality, and have proposed measures. One proposed solution is to exhort Singaporeans to retire in overseas destinations where costs of living are lower. Our government has actually sent teams to survey potential sites slated to host retirement villages in Batam and Johor Baru (JB). And Mr Khaw Boon Wan has recently jumped on the bandwagon with his suggestion that aging Singaporeans can retire in JB. However, what the government may not realize is that this is a short-term solution that can snowball into a glut of unwanted scenarios.
The fact is that in reality, Singaporeans do want to retire overseas. The Tsao foundation conducted a survey in which 300 Singaporeans aged between 21 to 55 were queried on their retirement plans. The results? A staggering two-thirds of the respondents cited that they want to retire overseas, with Australia and Malaysia being popular destinations. The reasons? A slower pace of life and lower costs of living.
What the government does not realize is that in encouraging Singaporeans to retire overseas, it is also an indirect, albeit unconsious endorsement of migration to retiree-friendly pastures. And when Singaporeans migrate, this is not a good thing as far as our government is concerned. Why is this so?
For one, the healthcare system may see an oversupply of doctors. Aging Singaporeans form a substantial customer base for our healthcare providers. And a while ago, the list of recognized medical degrees qualifying medical graduates for practising licenses has expanded in a move to expand the supply of doctors. The demand-supply dynamics will obviously be affected should a significant customer base be eroded.
If that is not enough, it may not be a rosy scenario for the government body charged with handling our Central Provident Funds (CPF). The current policies dictate that Singaporeans can withdraw part of their CPF savings save for a certain amount set aside in what is known as the CPF Minimum Sum when they are 55 years old. If the latter stays in Singapore or West Malaysia, a monthly payment will be given from their Minimum Sum to meet their retirement needs. By 2013, the Minimum Sum will be set at $120,000. Unsurprisingly, this leads to the perception that the government is implementing measures that make the withdrawal of CPF even harder.
However, the equation changes when Singaporeans migrate to destinations other than West Malaysia, giving up their citizenship in the process. And why not? After all, citizens in some of these countries benefit from retiree-friendly policies such as pension schemes, access to basic services and others. Combined with the withdrawal of their entire CPF savings, they are enjoying the best of both worlds. However, the government body charged with handling our CPF wouldn’t dare contemplate the scenario of a massive CPF payout to a huge influx of migrated “Singaporeans”.
And this might be a concern to the ones who run Temasek Holdings and Singapore Government Investment Corporation since our CPF was said to be a source of funds for their investments.
If that is not enough, our friends at the Housing Development Board (HDB) will have to deal another headache - the oversupply of HDB flats. It is not unusual for Singaporeans who are retiring overseas to sell their HDB flats. This would simply jack up the supply side of our housing equation, and could pose a potential problem for HDB.
Undoubtedly, the costs of living brought about by inflation has burned a hole in our pockets. However, the hole in our pockets cannot be compared with the deeper hole our government may have dug with its suggested measure in the form of doctor and public housing oversupply, and massive CPF payouts.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=24926.1
SINGAPORE - GST hike, raised utility bills, HDB flats at unaffordable prices, hefty healthcare bills and raised transport fees - all of which are common gripes regarding the relentless cost of living in Singapore. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that Singapore is an expensive place to retire in.
And our government is waking up to the reality, and have proposed measures. One proposed solution is to exhort Singaporeans to retire in overseas destinations where costs of living are lower. Our government has actually sent teams to survey potential sites slated to host retirement villages in Batam and Johor Baru (JB). And Mr Khaw Boon Wan has recently jumped on the bandwagon with his suggestion that aging Singaporeans can retire in JB. However, what the government may not realize is that this is a short-term solution that can snowball into a glut of unwanted scenarios.
The fact is that in reality, Singaporeans do want to retire overseas. The Tsao foundation conducted a survey in which 300 Singaporeans aged between 21 to 55 were queried on their retirement plans. The results? A staggering two-thirds of the respondents cited that they want to retire overseas, with Australia and Malaysia being popular destinations. The reasons? A slower pace of life and lower costs of living.
What the government does not realize is that in encouraging Singaporeans to retire overseas, it is also an indirect, albeit unconsious endorsement of migration to retiree-friendly pastures. And when Singaporeans migrate, this is not a good thing as far as our government is concerned. Why is this so?
For one, the healthcare system may see an oversupply of doctors. Aging Singaporeans form a substantial customer base for our healthcare providers. And a while ago, the list of recognized medical degrees qualifying medical graduates for practising licenses has expanded in a move to expand the supply of doctors. The demand-supply dynamics will obviously be affected should a significant customer base be eroded.
If that is not enough, it may not be a rosy scenario for the government body charged with handling our Central Provident Funds (CPF). The current policies dictate that Singaporeans can withdraw part of their CPF savings save for a certain amount set aside in what is known as the CPF Minimum Sum when they are 55 years old. If the latter stays in Singapore or West Malaysia, a monthly payment will be given from their Minimum Sum to meet their retirement needs. By 2013, the Minimum Sum will be set at $120,000. Unsurprisingly, this leads to the perception that the government is implementing measures that make the withdrawal of CPF even harder.
However, the equation changes when Singaporeans migrate to destinations other than West Malaysia, giving up their citizenship in the process. And why not? After all, citizens in some of these countries benefit from retiree-friendly policies such as pension schemes, access to basic services and others. Combined with the withdrawal of their entire CPF savings, they are enjoying the best of both worlds. However, the government body charged with handling our CPF wouldn’t dare contemplate the scenario of a massive CPF payout to a huge influx of migrated “Singaporeans”.
And this might be a concern to the ones who run Temasek Holdings and Singapore Government Investment Corporation since our CPF was said to be a source of funds for their investments.
If that is not enough, our friends at the Housing Development Board (HDB) will have to deal another headache - the oversupply of HDB flats. It is not unusual for Singaporeans who are retiring overseas to sell their HDB flats. This would simply jack up the supply side of our housing equation, and could pose a potential problem for HDB.
Undoubtedly, the costs of living brought about by inflation has burned a hole in our pockets. However, the hole in our pockets cannot be compared with the deeper hole our government may have dug with its suggested measure in the form of doctor and public housing oversupply, and massive CPF payouts.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=24926.1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)