Economic growth was better before the floodgates opened for foreigners?

Thanks to ES again

Our regular insider ES, sent us the following “very interesting” newspaper article:

Inline image 1

http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/straitstimes19670809-1.2.74.aspx

1966 – only 10.7% non-citizen workers?

In 1966, there were 59,000 non-citizens on work permits, comprising 10.7% of the total workforce of 550,000.

2013 – 48% non-citizen workers?

We believe the huge influx of foreign workers began around 1997 – such that by June 2014, there were 1.3 million foreign workers and an estimated 320,000 permanent resident (PRs) workers (since there is no breakdown of the resident workforce, we assumed 15% were PRs) – making a total non-citizen workforce of about 1.65 million – about 48% of the total workforce of 3.5 million.

So, the non-citizen workforce grew from 10.7 to 48%.

If we account for new citizens – then, perhaps more than half the workforce may already be non-citizens.

1960 to 1966 – 6.6% GDP growth?

In the subject article (Straits Times, 9 August, 1967) – which was reporting on the National Day message – “for the eight years since the Government took office in 1959, we have surged forward at a 6 per cent to 9 per cent annual growth”.

For the first 6 years from 1960 to 1966 – using data from the Department of Statistics – GDP growth was computed to be 6.6% per annum.

1966 to 1997 – 9% GDP growth?

For the next 31 years, from 1966 to 1997, before the floodgates were arguably opened to foreign workers – GDP growth was 9% per annum.

1997 to 2013 – 5.2% GDP growth?

From 1997 to 2013 – GDP growth was 5.2% per annum.

Huge influx of foreign workers = lower economic growth?

So, does it mean that the huge influx of foreign workers may have resulted in relatively lower economic growth at 5.2% per annum, compared to 9 and 6.6% – for the earlier periods from 1966 to 1997, and 1960 to 1966, respectively?

Does the past and continuing rhetoric that we need more foreign talent to ensure economic growth still hold water or make sense?

Other countries didn’t resort to lots of foreigners?

For example, other countries like the Nordic countries may have arguably managed to derive good economic and social development without resorting to having a huge influx of foreigners.

S Y Lee and Leong Sze Hian

P.S. Come with your family and friends to the 4th Return Our CPF protest on 27 September 4 pm at Speakers’ Cornerhttps://www.facebook.com/events/516436478486589/Share this:

 

About the Author

Leong
Leong Sze Hian has served as the president of 4 professional bodies, honorary consul of 2 countries, an alumnus of Harvard University, authored 4 books, quoted over 1500 times in the media , has been a radio talkshow host, a newspaper daily columnist, Wharton Fellow, SEACeM Fellow, columnist for theonlinecitizen and Malaysiakini, executive producer of Ilo Ilo (40 international awards), Hotel Mumbai (associate producer), invited to speak more than 200 times in about 40 countries, CIFA advisory board member, founding advisor to the Financial Planning Associations of 2 countries. He has 3 Masters, 2 Bachelors degrees and 13 professional  qualifications.