Singapore to legislate on right to work until 65

[ray245]

SINGAPORE, Jan 8 - Singapore plans to compel firms to offer re-employment to staff when they reach retirement age and introduce an annuity to help it cope with a rapidly ageing population, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said on Thursday.

ADVERTISEMENT

"We are legislating not to further delay the retirement age, but to require employers to offer re-employment to workers at 62 for another three years until 65, though not necessarily in the same job or at the same pay," Lee said at a conference organised by AARP, a U.S. organisation that represents senior citizens.

Singapore was considering changes to the Central Provident Fund, which all working Singaporeans must contribute to, such that citizens will receive a steady stream of income for the rest of their lives after they reach 65, he added.

Lee, however, ruled out offer free healthcare, although he acknowledged that many Singaporeans were concerned about the spiralling cost of medical treatment.

"A free healthcare system is not the answer. It is an attractive ideal, but experience in many countries has shown that in practice 'free' healthcare leads to uncontrollable and unsustainable demand for healthcare services," he said.

Singapore has one of the world's lowest birth rates, with the average woman bearing 1.29 children in her lifetime, and the government expects one-fifth of the population will be 65 years or older by 2030.

The issue of working age has always interested me, given that human lifespan is getting longer in most developed nations, and it is getting harder to get around with retirement savings.

On one hand, simply allowing older workers to work with an increasing pay does not benefit the company, nor does it benefit the younger generation of workers.

However, a welfare system for the elderly does have its flaws as well, given that it will increase the burden of the younger working class to support the welfare system.

So what is your view on the ageing population problem, and their right to work?

[Glocksman]

So what is your view on the ageing population problem, and their right to work?

Right to work??

Most of the 'blue collar' workers I know can't wait to retire as soon as possible.
Understandable, since few 60+ year olds have any desire to continue unloading trucks, mining coal, or pricetagging 1200 pairs of jeans every day (hello carpal tunnel) after 30+ years of such labor.

On the other hand, I have heard both 'white collar' (managers, teachers) and some 'blue collar' (cooks, waitresses, and other people whose jobs aren't so physically monotonous or demanding) say they wouldn't mind working past retirement.

My own job is 'blue collar', but not so physically demanding (I drive forklifts and VNA storage trucks) that I couldn't do it until past the normal US retirement age.
On the other hand, if you send me to load trailers by hand at 65, I'd probably have a heart attack before the week was out.

Ideally, any solution would involve both the willingness and the capacity of the person to continue working past retirement age.
If they can physically perform their jobs and are willing to do so, by all means let them.
Though if they are physical wrecks because of the nature of their job and can't really continue effectively past retirement, let them retire.

English is my second language - please help me by politely pointing out my errors so I can continue to improve.

OK.
In the US, 'right to work' is used to refer to laws in some US states that prohibit 'union security' clauses in labor contracts.
A union security clause mandates that all new hires must join the union after a probationary period where the employer may terminate their employment at will.

Not all states have laws prohibiting union security clauses, but some (mainly in the US south) do.

Obviously you mean something different than that, but be aware that if you speak to an American about 'right to work' laws, he or she will probably assume you are referring to laws that prohibit union security agreements.

[Pelranius]

So what are the penalties for not adhering to the new legislation?

And how much of a pay difference and change in jobs is acceptable under this law? Otherwise the corporate guys will just figure it's easier to make the lives of 62+ employees hell enough so that they opt into retirement.

[PainRack]

The laws haven't been drawn up yet........


However, I do not expect the measures to be severely punitive since such a stance would be anti business and would hurt the desire of the government to lure and start up more SMEs/MNCs in the region.

And as usual, we dance around the issue of free healthcare once again. The myth that somehow, free healthcare will lead to unlimited consumption rises its ugly head. The reality is that under a free healthcare system, consumption rises as a greater portion of the populace can afford to and will use up wanted medical services. The myth that these services are unneeded is simply fallacious, and given the language of the relevant speakers over the years, one suspect that their focus is once again, on the system and the issue of sustainable costs/fees and not on individual needs..........

[ray245]

The laws haven't been drawn up yet........


However, I do not expect the measures to be severely punitive since such a stance would be anti business and would hurt the desire of the government to lure and start up more SMEs/MNCs in the region.

And as usual, we dance around the issue of free healthcare once again. The myth that somehow, free healthcare will lead to unlimited consumption rises its ugly head. The reality is that under a free healthcare system, consumption rises as a greater portion of the populace can afford to and will use up wanted medical services. The myth that these services are unneeded is simply fallacious, and given the language of the relevant speakers over the years, one suspect that their focus is once again, on the system and the issue of sustainable costs/fees and not on individual needs..........

Well, our government will just use this as a reason to increase tax, citing that 'where is the money coming from?' , while ignoring the budget can be diverted from other sectors.

[PainRack]

Well, our government will just use this as a reason to increase tax, citing that 'where is the money coming from?' , while ignoring the budget can be diverted from other sectors.

If you're referring to the healthcare and taxation issue, that's a dumbass reason.

First of all, yes, you're going to require increased funding and that would mean increased taxation. And diverting budget from other sectors is difficult. Where're you going to draw it from? Education? The military? These are the largest budget expenditure as it is, and any other social services would require budget monies.

And why would increased taxation for the benefits of universal healthcare somehow be bad? As it is, you're ALREADY paying taxation, most people are turning to C class wards for the increased subsidy, and means testing is just another bureaucratic measure that will cost money so as to justify denying people medical subsidies.....

The real issue is sustainability, especially with regards to our aging populace. As our populace ages and demand goes up, our ability to sustain public spending would go down due to the decreased taxbase and economic capabilities. This is on top of other public sector demands and inflation. However, the only alternative available solution being offered now is private insurance backed up with medishield........... Which essentially shafts the problem of cost elsewhere to other companies and to private individuals. Not to mention that this requires that personal savings/economic performance be in relative good health when you require it.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

GOvernment policy is contradictory as it is a game of double speak. A few years ago, people were whining about losing your job at age ~40 because companies deemed you too old and at the end of your usefulness. The government's reply was to retrain, but that didn't change the fundamental problem that companies were reluctant to hire >40 year olds and even if they did, the pay was low and comparable to an initial graduate. Back then the foreign talent speak was in full swing and you know, lots of China people from abroad were successfully depressing our labour market. Government would also bitch that people were being fussy about jobs.

Then came LKY's exhorting people to work for longer periods of time, up to sixty-five. The eyes rolled as he talked, and of course the thought that comes to mind was, "This fucker not only refuses to quit politics, but creates his own job and draws a huge salary, and he's telling us to work longer? Who the fuck wants to hire us?" Now the government tries to "urge" local companies to hire older people. What a joke. The nature of the job market will take precedence. How the hell do they wish to even make this successful? Or is this aimed at an electorate just so that they appear to be "caring"?

Now with the prospects of mass layoffs, perhaps the government is scrambling to find solutions. Oh the layoffs have already started, first in the banking sector. The manufacturing is next.

[ray245]

GOvernment policy is contradictory as it is a game of double speak. A few years ago, people were whining about losing your job at age ~40 because companies deemed you too old and at the end of your usefulness. The government's reply was to retrain, but that didn't change the fundamental problem that companies were reluctant to hire >40 year olds and even if they did, the pay was low and comparable to an initial graduate. Back then the foreign talent speak was in full swing and you know, lots of China people from abroad were successfully depressing our labour market. Government would also bitch that people were being fussy about jobs.

However, I thought Singapore will require foreign labour to sustain ourself to some extend? While I don't mind foreign labour in certain areas such as construction crews and etc, I have no idea why did the government decides to extend it into the service industry.

Although it is extremely funny to hear the PAP calling themselves socialist, when they don't act that way.

[PainRack]

GOvernment policy is contradictory as it is a game of double speak. A few years ago, people were whining about losing your job at age ~40 because companies deemed you too old and at the end of your usefulness. The government's reply was to retrain, but that didn't change the fundamental problem that companies were reluctant to hire >40 year olds and even if they did, the pay was low and comparable to an initial graduate. Back then the foreign talent speak was in full swing and you know, lots of China people from abroad were successfully depressing our labour market. Government would also bitch that people were being fussy about jobs.

Then came LKY's exhorting people to work for longer periods of time, up to sixty-five. The eyes rolled as he talked, and of course the thought that comes to mind was, "This fucker not only refuses to quit politics, but creates his own job and draws a huge salary, and he's telling us to work longer? Who the fuck wants to hire us?" Now the government tries to "urge" local companies to hire older people. What a joke. The nature of the job market will take precedence. How the hell do they wish to even make this successful? Or is this aimed at an electorate just so that they appear to be "caring"?

Now with the prospects of mass layoffs, perhaps the government is scrambling to find solutions. Oh the layoffs have already started, first in the banking sector. The manufacturing is next.

You're confusing various situations with the current drive. The current drive for workers to work past 65 has always, and would ALWAYS be tied down to two factors
1. Aging populace.
2. Insufficient savings both in terms of personal, be it private or publicly enforced via CPF and government revenue.

Or to put it simply, you don't have enough money to retire successfully and live golden years anymore, since inflation and the 2 is enough policy has created a severely sandwiched generation demographic. Our economy also need workers, you guys need more services, so screw you, get back to work.

The age 40 and retraining is linked directly to the poor performance of the economy and the then known loss of jobs as the economy restructured. It has little bearing to do with the current situation other than the popular fact that older workers are prone to being dismissed, along with pregnant workers when companies hit cash-flow problems. This is aggravated by the high costs of doing businesses, which was why we even had someone posting an article here on how the government supposedly cut "payroll" taxes in a pro business policy.

[PainRack]

However, I thought Singapore will require foreign labour to sustain ourself to some extend? While I don't mind foreign labour in certain areas such as construction crews and etc, I have no idea why did the government decides to extend it into the service industry.

Although it is extremely funny to hear the PAP calling themselves socialist, when they don't act that way.

You see..... we can't call ourselves good old democrats, cause we aren't. We can't call ourselves republicans cause we aren't representatives either. So, the only thing left is to call us socialists, because that justify the huge amount of government control over businesses, labour unions and make us popular with our other attempts at social engineering with regards to the West. We just call ourselves "unique", that way, we can justify why our socialist goals are virtually utterly different from the West socialist goals. I mean, come on. Free education, healthcare, cradle to the grave? As any good old conservative would tell you, that just means government control over the good old business who knows best.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

You're confusing various situations with the current drive. The current drive for workers to work past 65 has always, and would ALWAYS be tied down to two factors
1. Aging populace.
2. Insufficient savings both in terms of personal, be it private or publicly enforced via CPF and government revenue.

Or to put it simply, you don't have enough money to retire successfully and live golden years anymore, since inflation and the 2 is enough policy has created a severely sandwiched generation demographic. Our economy also need workers, you guys need more services, so screw you, get back to work.

They are all interlinked one way or another. You can't expect companies who fire off the old workers first in retrenchment exercises (or pseudo-retrenchment exercises) and to hire people aged 60 and above.

There's no question that with our high cost of living, there will exist a substantial percentage that have to work longer to even come up with the savings to retire. The question is who will hire these people who need the money? Restaurants and small shops come to mind, though some of them might prefer younger stuff for the sake of ensuring a "hip and hop" image to attract the intended clientele to come in.

Of course, these old folks have to contend with 'foreign talent', so I am not sure by what sort of cost matrices were used. It is not uncommon for example, for hotels in Singapore to employ Filipinos as hotel staff. I am not sure if that is true now, but think about how many jobs could be freed up if they hired Singaporeans instead.

The age 40 and retraining is linked directly to the poor performance of the economy and the then known loss of jobs as the economy restructured. It has little bearing to do with the current situation other than the popular fact that older workers are prone to being dismissed, along with pregnant workers when companies hit cash-flow problems. This is aggravated by the high costs of doing businesses, which was why we even had someone posting an article here on how the government supposedly cut "payroll" taxes in a pro business policy.

Our economy is so beholden to the random factory that sets up here, it's actually pretty hard to stick to a sector for too long. I wonder how the hell all the bioengineers are going to find jobs when the bulk of factories can't possibly hire thousands of them. Good luck to "retraining". Banking was popular because they were willing to take anyone with the right results in. Now that is down on the rocks. Our economy is just simply too prone to the occasional bad weather.

You see..... we can't call ourselves good old democrats, cause we aren't. We can't call ourselves republicans cause we aren't representatives either. So, the only thing left is to call us socialists, because that justify the huge amount of government control over businesses, labour unions and make us popular with our other attempts at social engineering with regards to the West. We just call ourselves "unique", that way, we can justify why our socialist goals are virtually utterly different from the West socialist goals. I mean, come on. Free education, healthcare, cradle to the grave? As any good old conservative would tell you, that just means government control over the good old business who knows best.

We are actually quite close to a totalitarian state, except we allow capitalism and no-holds barred competition to determine the distribution of resources. If we are to follow the strict dictionary definition, we can't be considered socialist. If by anything, our goals are "what that old man up there feels is good for us".

[ray245]

Of course, these old folks have to contend with 'foreign talent', so I am not sure by what sort of cost matrices were used. It is not uncommon for example, for hotels in Singapore to employ Filipinos as hotel staff. I am not sure if that is true now, but think about how many jobs could be freed up if they hired Singaporeans instead.

We started hiring China workers for the service industry for a long time and the fact that a number of Restaurant hiring Malaysians.

Well, our government's 'speak Mandarin campaign' is working to some extend, by increasing the amount of people who speak Mandarin as a first language, and can't speak proper English.

We need foreign labour to some extend, although I have no bloody idea why do we need to extend it to the service industry?

Our economy is so beholden to the random factory that sets up here, it's actually pretty hard to stick to a sector for too long. I wonder how the hell all the bioengineers are going to find jobs when the bulk of factories can't possibly hire thousands of them.

That's what happen to some people I know. A number of them graduate with a Degree in Bio-engineering, and end up as a lab assistant or as a lab technician. You basically have to get a major in order to find a job as a bio-engineer.

Now, computer gaming/ 3d animation is considered to be the 'in' thing now. However, I don't think that any Singapore based company can make a decent game as compared to EA.

However, what other 'real' industry can we set up here in Singapore, beside harbour related jobs? We simply cannot hope to compete against places like China and India in regards to low-skilled manufacturing, nor do we have too much choice in regards to manufacturing industry that requires highly skilled workers.

Perhaps Nuclear engineering can be a way out for us, if ASEAN is open to the idea of adopting Nuclear power plant regionally.

Sigh, I highly doubt that is a way for Singapore to weather any financial stormy better than what is going on now. We are simply too dependent on our surroundings. Other than being more flexible to new technologies, we don't really have a choice in regards to how we can protect our economy.

We are actually quite close to a totalitarian state, except we allow capitalism and no-holds barred competition to determine the distribution of resources. If we are to follow the strict dictionary definition, we can't be considered socialist. If by anything, our goals are "what that old man up there feels is good for us".

Well, we are supposed to be flexible...so...

Although one thing for sure, it seems to me that other political party has yet to take any proper political stance as well, other than being the opposition. We don't really have an opposition party based on any real political model, so no socialist party, no democratic party and etc.

Hell, our opposition party is basically contend to be an opposition party all the way. The only thing those party seems to be interested about is welfare and nothing else.

[PainRack]

They are all interlinked one way or another. You can't expect companies who fire off the old workers first in retrenchment exercises (or pseudo-retrenchment exercises) and to hire people aged 60 and above.

That's a no shit sherlock statement.
However, it in no way invalidate the fact that the replies you quote were in response to two utterly different situations and from seperate campaigns. Thus, saying its speaks of double speak is thus ludricious. You're confusing two utterly different replies to two different situations together.

There's no question that with our high cost of living, there will exist a substantial percentage that have to work longer to even come up with the savings to retire. The question is who will hire these people who need the money? Restaurants and small shops come to mind, though some of them might prefer younger stuff for the sake of ensuring a "hip and hop" image to attract the intended clientele to come in.

Hence, the demand that staff retrain, and of course, the ineveitable problems that come with THAT line of reasoning.

Of course, these old folks have to contend with 'foreign talent', so I am not sure by what sort of cost matrices were used. It is not uncommon for example, for hotels in Singapore to employ Filipinos as hotel staff. I am not sure if that is true now, but think about how many jobs could be freed up if they hired Singaporeans instead.

Except that the only reason we can demand companies to hire Singaporeans is to adopt a protectionist policy AND to price the businesses beyond profitability.

Our economy is so beholden to the random factory that sets up here, it's actually pretty hard to stick to a sector for too long. I wonder how the hell all the bioengineers are going to find jobs when the bulk of factories can't possibly hire thousands of them. Good luck to "retraining".

Simple. They can't. Retraining to find a specific niche works in terms of increasing your personal employability. It doesn't work in the sense that it gurantees you a job in THAT niche.

Banking was popular because they were willing to take anyone with the right results in. Now that is down on the rocks. Our economy is just simply too prone to the occasional bad weather.

We're 649 square kilometers piece of rock with no natural resources and a mere 4 million people. Fuck. New York City alone is LARGER in every single sense than us and is more sustainable with access to more water, and of course, a larger hinterland. And I'm not counting the freaking suburbs. Is this supposed to be another no shit sherlock statement?

We are actually quite close to a totalitarian state, except we allow capitalism and no-holds barred competition to determine the distribution of resources. If we are to follow the strict dictionary definition, we can't be considered socialist. If by anything, our goals are "what that old man up there feels is good for us".

And you confuse a facetious reply with a statement for fact........................ why?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

That's a no shit sherlock statement.
However, it in no way invalidate the fact that the replies you quote were in response to two utterly different situations and from seperate campaigns. Thus, saying its speaks of double speak is thus ludricious. You're confusing two utterly different replies to two different situations together.

How is not double speak when the two campaigns are utterly contradictory and are tackling the same problem albeit packaged to us as piece meal problems? The issue of hiring older workers is something that is highly relevant to both those who got retrenched, retrained and still can't get hired, and those who are nearly 65. The economics of the job hiring in our cut throat job market is such that they are inseparable issues. No shit sherlock, if you actually read what you write for once, instead of jumping up when I throw something at you, maybe you will write clearly for once.

Hence, the demand that staff retrain, and of course, the ineveitable problems that come with THAT line of reasoning.

No argument.

Except that the only reason we can demand companies to hire Singaporeans is to adopt a protectionist policy AND to price the businesses beyond profitability.

Then I'm sorry, we are back to square one, which means the Government can say all they want, but the situation doesn't change at all if we are going to adopt a laissez faire policy towards job hiring, and not being selective about it.

Simple. They can't. Retraining to find a specific niche works in terms of increasing your personal employability. It doesn't work in the sense that it gurantees you a job in THAT niche.

I kinda laughed when I saw tonnes of morons racing for biology and related when Philip Yeo was exhorting Singaporeans to go that sector. Seriously, did anyone step back to think about the consequences? And then lo and behold, MOE was doing its best to facilitate the transfer. Now we are actually lacking in electronic engineers and engineers of other stripes. Fine way to screw the economy over, and bad enough that university professors lack exposure to the private sector, and can't impart a lot of real world knowledge to them.

We're 649 square kilometers piece of rock with no natural resources and a mere 4 million people. Fuck. New York City alone is LARGER in every single sense than us and is more sustainable with access to more water, and of course, a larger hinterland. And I'm not counting the freaking suburbs. Is this supposed to be another no shit sherlock statement?

New York may be larger, but perhaps you should take a trip to some of the shadier corners of Queens and Brooklyn. Actual part of New York that generates the cash is Manhattan, the lower half. About at most the size of Singapore, or twice that. Never mind, that the streets involved in generating the wealth are not much bigger than a housing estate combined.

The issue is not so much that we have no resources, but that we focused on banking as a core service sector and not diversified into other service sectors, such as electronics design etc., high tech companies that focus on niche products that can be sold across the world. But nope, we have none, or pathetically small, in no small part because of our inadequate university system.

And you confuse a facetious reply with a statement for fact........................ why?

I dunno, I can't read your mind.

[ray245]

The problem of innovation thinking is a problem that must be resolved sooner or later. However, balancing innovative thinking while ensuring that pure academic studies is not being ignored is not going to be easy. There is many people who confuse innovative thinking with liberal arts, never mind the fact that Engineers are around to design machinery.

It is sad that critical thinking was not taught in our primary and secondary school system, it would really benefit our education system as a whole.

Creationism has never been a huge issue in regards to our education policies. However, most people never understood why creationism is a wrong idea as compared to evolutionism. The lack of proper understanding in why certain things are accepted and other ideas rejected is really hurting our nation.

I kinda laughed when I saw tonnes of morons racing for biology and related when Philip Yeo was exhorting Singaporeans to go that sector. Seriously, did anyone step back to think about the consequences? And then lo and behold, MOE was doing its best to facilitate the transfer. Now we are actually lacking in electronic engineers and engineers of other stripes. Fine way to screw the economy over, and bad enough that university professors lack exposure to the private sector, and can't impart a lot of real world knowledge to them.

Now, we have to see if our aerospace industry can sustain the influx of Uni Grads who took up Aerospace as a course.

Which reminds me, I thought our electronic industry just laid off a number of people recently.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

The problem of innovation thinking is a problem that must be resolved sooner or later. However, balancing innovative thinking while ensuring that pure academic studies is not being ignored is not going to be easy. There is many people who confuse innovative thinking with liberal arts, never mind the fact that Engineers are around to design machinery.

It is sad that critical thinking was not taught in our primary and secondary school system, it would really benefit our education system as a whole.

Creationism has never been a huge issue in regards to our education policies. However, most people never understood why creationism is a wrong idea as compared to evolutionism. The lack of proper understanding in why certain things are accepted and other ideas rejected is really hurting our nation.

There's a whole lot of factors that govern how our education system is run, but a big factor is that principals and teachers have this thing called Key Performance Index, which all civil servants have. To get that coveted promotion, obviously they would streamline how they teach such that students are well prepared to tackle the A' Levels and O' Levels. A good portion of the curriculum involves drilling. Go to a top school, and that happens a fair bit. Room for thinking? Nah...

On the other hand, NUS High School seems to be doing a decent job, though the new principal is a really... either egotistical, or KPI follower fanatic.

Now, we have to see if our aerospace industry can sustain the influx of Uni Grads who took up Aerospace as a course.

Anyone who takes up aerospace has to go abroad if he wants to make it in the industry. There's too little in-house capabilities in Singapore.

[PainRack]

How is not double speak when the two campaigns are utterly contradictory and are tackling the same problem albeit packaged to us as piece meal problems? The issue of hiring older workers is something that is highly relevant to both those who got retrenched, retrained and still can't get hired, and those who are nearly 65. The economics of the job hiring in our cut throat job market is such that they are inseparable issues. No shit sherlock, if you actually read what you write for once, instead of jumping up when I throw something at you, maybe you will write clearly for once.

Because the only connection is that it involves the economy...... If that's double speak, then any measures meant to improve wages is contradictory and double speak with measures meant to keep down inflation.

Let me repeat myself.
The current statements are with regards to retirement age. You're aren't able to retire anymore, so get back to work, whip!
The previous statements is with regard to a restructuring economy. We're losing jobs, we're adding new types of jobs, so get back to school, whip!

Get it?
While they're certainly linked(Graying populace affects workforce which would affect the type of economy, workforce affects services and revenue capable of supporting populace), AGAIN, You're referring to two different situations. One is with regards to retirement, and is a social issue. The other is with regards to economic restructuring, and is an economic issue.

Then I'm sorry, we are back to square one, which means the Government can say all they want, but the situation doesn't change at all if we are going to adopt a laissez faire policy towards job hiring, and not being selective about it.

And pray tell, on one hand, you're complaining that the government has too much power with regards to the general populace, and on the other, you're demanding that it increases its power?

I kinda laughed when I saw tonnes of morons racing for biology and related when Philip Yeo was exhorting Singaporeans to go that sector. Seriously, did anyone step back to think about the consequences? And then lo and behold, MOE was doing its best to facilitate the transfer. Now we are actually lacking in electronic engineers and engineers of other stripes. Fine way to screw the economy over, and bad enough that university professors lack exposure to the private sector, and can't impart a lot of real world knowledge to them.

Errr.... My friends are mechanical engineers. The job market out there is still quite tight, especially with the current depressed world economy. Say hello to week-long factory closes and enforced annual leaves!

New York may be larger, but perhaps you should take a trip to some of the shadier corners of Queens and Brooklyn. Actual part of New York that generates the cash is Manhattan, the lower half. About at most the size of Singapore, or twice that. Never mind, that the streets involved in generating the wealth are not much bigger than a housing estate combined.
The issue is not so much that we have no resources, but that we focused on banking as a core service sector and not diversified into other service sectors, such as electronics design etc., high tech companies that focus on niche products that can be sold across the world. But nope, we have none, or pathetically small, in no small part because of our inadequate university system.

The wealth of New York does not evolve entirely from Wall Street. There's is, or was, a flourishing textile industry, fashion industry and a good port.
And the point is still valid, our economy is small enough that it will be affected adversely by world and local events.
I also find it funny that you on one hand decry the drive into biomedicals and ignore that the drive into biotechnology was the desire to diversify electronics manufacturing that had taken over our hard manufacturing industry in the 90s.
As for over specialisation in services, have you forgotten the success of Osim and Creative? And while Yeos is a mixed Malaysian/Singapore product, its also one of the very successful F&B industries. While our finanicial services industry is the largest and most affluent component, that ignores the engineering consultancy and port services industries which is involved in Shanghai and other overseas projects, including the construction of oil rigs. And last but not least, the drive by Singtel which has caused it to acquire overseas telecomns markets, to the extent that over a quarter of its earnings now come from overseas holdings.

[ray245]

You know, I think you and Fingolfin_Noldor can debate with each other on the Coliseum given the history of you guys.