Japan has aged; Singapore is aging. Japan’s workforce is shrinking; Singapore’s has plateaued. Japan’s homogeneous society has struggled with immigration; Singapore’s island culture has been welcoming of foreigners, though increasingly less so.
So is the city-state scoring an own-goal by inviting a demographic decline and Japanese-style lost decades?
After Monday’s annual government budget release, in which Singaporean Minister for Finance Heng Swee Keat (王瑞杰) announced stronger curbs on immigrants in service industries, questions around his economic strategy have become more urgent.
For Singaporean firms, hiring the right talent in the right quantities and at the right prices is already the No. 1 headache, and yet the bureaucrat-turned-politician, tipped to take over as Singapore’s next prime minister, is inflicting more pain.
So what exactly is Heng’s big idea behind choking off supplies of foreign workers?
Consider the change in the labor composition of Singapore’s service industries since 2013. Back then, the dependency ratio ceiling was 45 percent. Hence, a business with 20 full-time locals (citizens or permanent residents) could employ 16 foreigners. In 2015, the ratio was reduced to 40 percent. For the same 20 locals, three foreigners had to be cut.
Now Heng wants to drive the ratio still lower to 35 percent in two steps by January 2021.
Two more foreigners need to be let go while keeping the same 20 locals in employment.
Since businesses need to grow, they will have to make up the difference by hiring more locals instead. It is a risky strategy, because firms can always curb expansion or shut down, but so far at least, the gamble has worked.
Every member of households with at least one working person has seen inflation-adjusted income from work grow almost 23 percent between 2013 and last year, compared with less than 10 percent in the previous five years.
Is a permanent anti-immigration stance the right one for a small, open economy (population 5.6 million)? Contrast again with Japan, but this time focus on the difference in how the countries are responding to their shared demographic challenge of low fertility.
Japan, since 2013, has embarked on a bold program of monetary adventurism to beat back deflationary expectations, engineer low or negative real interest rates and coax employers to invest more and raise wages. Abenomics, as the plan is known, has had only limited success.
Singapore, by comparison, has gone deeper into the engine room of the economy, and sought a stronger (rather than weaker, as in Japan’s case) currency. While Japan has been forced to temper the force of its monetary expansion by raising sales-tax rates, Singapore has used its enviable fiscal resources to throw money at low-wage employees.
Heng’s latest budget proposals will see 60-year-old, low-income Singaporean workers get 30 percent of their compensation from the state. That is on top of a new S$8 billion (US$5.9 billion) support package for seniors.
Cementing popular support for the ruling People’s Action Party ahead of an election and a leadership change may be part of the motivation, but there is also economic logic behind the budgetary largess.
The city-state has systemically attacked pockets of inefficiency and high consumer prices in everything from transport and telecom to media and banking. Singapore has even crossed swords with developers who wanted a Hong Kong-style mania in property prices after a prolonged, policy-induced decline. Instead, they got whacked with new government curbs instead.
It is hard to say how this experiment will end. The Singaporean dollar might have to stay strong to ensure that an artificially tight labor market does not trigger an inflationary spiral, though there is no sign of one yet.
If anything, real household incomes have grown handsomely over the past five years partly because inflation has been low.
A strong currency amid weakening global demand could spill over as frothy asset prices. Hence the property curbs will probably stay. (I was expecting them to be relaxed after the leadership transition, together with a little more impetus for immigration.)
Even as Heng thins down the foreign worker category, he wants to weed out the less experienced among them. Encouraging automation of routine tasks is key to the plan.
The past three years of rapid growth in Singapore’s labor productivity must endure. Otherwise, without additional foreign labor, annual GDP expansion cannot be much higher than the long-term productivity growth of 1.5 percent. Singapore will lose out to rivals (unless London suffers badly from a botched-up Brexit and China intrudes too much in Hong Kong’s autonomy).
Singapore is special: Not many global cities get to write their own immigration policies. However, if Hengnomics does succeed, there will at least be a different route to breaking out of the tyranny of demographics than money-printing and negative interest rates.
Andy Mukherjee is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering industrial companies and financial services. He previously was a columnist for Reuters Breakingviews. He has also worked for the Straits Times, ET NOW and Bloomberg News. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Congressman Mike Gallagher (R-WI) and Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) led a bipartisan delegation to Taiwan in late February. During their various meetings with Taiwan’s leaders, this delegation never missed an opportunity to emphasize the strength of their cross-party consensus on issues relating to Taiwan and China. Gallagher and Krishnamoorthi are leaders of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party. Their instruction upon taking the reins of the committee was to preserve China issues as a last bastion of bipartisanship in an otherwise deeply divided Washington. They have largely upheld their pledge. But in doing so, they have performed the
It is well known that Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) ambition is to rejuvenate the Chinese nation by unification of Taiwan, either peacefully or by force. The peaceful option has virtually gone out of the window with the last presidential elections in Taiwan. Taiwanese, especially the youth, are resolved not to be part of China. With time, this resolve has grown politically stronger. It leaves China with reunification by force as the default option. Everyone tells me how and when mighty China would invade and overpower tiny Taiwan. However, I have rarely been told that Taiwan could be defended to
It should have been Maestro’s night. It is hard to envision a film more Oscar-friendly than Bradley Cooper’s exploration of the life and loves of famed conductor and composer Leonard Bernstein. It was a prestige biopic, a longtime route to acting trophies and more (see Darkest Hour, Lincoln, and Milk). The film was a music biopic, a subgenre with an even richer history of award-winning films such as Ray, Walk the Line and Bohemian Rhapsody. What is more, it was the passion project of cowriter, producer, director and actor Bradley Cooper. That is the kind of multitasking -for-his-art overachievement that Oscar
Chinese villages are being built in the disputed zone between Bhutan and China. Last month, Chinese settlers, holding photographs of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), moved into their new homes on land that was not Xi’s to give. These residents are part of the Chinese government’s resettlement program, relocating Tibetan families into the territory China claims. China shares land borders with 15 countries and sea borders with eight, and is involved in many disputes. Land disputes include the ones with Bhutan (Doklam plateau), India (Arunachal Pradesh, Aksai Chin) and Nepal (near Dolakha and Solukhumbu districts). Maritime disputes in the South China