http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123264905073306835.html

i'm surprised actually, about how many facts wsj either got wrong or only partially correct. pretty amazing for one as established as them. but then again, as we already know, western media is almost perpetually biased against singapore, and it is difficult for them to understand a model like ours which is so fundamentally different from theirs.

that said, sometimes you really wonder what journalists do. had a taste of stupid enough journalists who are just out to write the most sensational story instead of getting facts straight. seen enough articles to make me disgusted with quite a few of them.

anyhow, back to the article.

first of all, the cpf contribution figure of 34.5% is misleading, because it's a shared component between workers and businesses - 20% from workers, and an ADDITIONAL percentage from the company that is on top of the monthly wages. moreover, 2% return is relatively high already (take a look at interest rates in most banks in singapore, or even in the US), but the more accurate figure is a min interest of 2.5% per annum, with an extra 1% interest on the first $60,000. The interest rate is actually a floating one, pegged to the market rates etc. In addition, pple also have the option of using the money to invest in other areas, as well as to buy property. the cpf funds can in fact be used as investment funds, contrary to what the article postulates.

wsj also claims that our economy would be more resilient if better balanced - true. but it continues to say that our consumption only composes 40% of GDP, and puts the blame on our limited consumption and the need for more incentives to push consumption rates up. while domestic consumption is sth govts world-wide are trying to encourage, one must also be mindful of the fact tt singapore's limitation of market size means that we cannot simply rely upon domestic consumption to jumpstart the economy. the heavy emphasis on exports does not indicate low domestic spending, so using a percentage compared to external exports is not accurate since our small market wld translate to a far smaller percentage of domestic consumption vs our heavy export economy. a better indicator would be to use domestic spending in relation to our pop size (ie market size) for a real comparison of our domestic consumption in contrast to other countries, rather than simply comparing it across the board and pegging 55% as the regional rate.

wsj also postulates tt s'pore govt's interference in market decisions are less preferable to letting private actors make market decisions. while true to a certain extent (in that the govt has tried to bank on certain industries, eg R&D, financial sector etc), it must also be balanced up with the fact that singapore is second in the world for the freest economy for a long time in running already. And many govts (look at US), particularly local and state govts, do the exact same thing abt trying to encourage certain sectors. as a city-state, the govt doubles (triples?) up as the local, state and federal govt - can it then be blamed for doing what other local and state govts do as well?

wsj does bring up some good points tho - the need for more citizen involvement and companies to push the economy out of recession, rather than simply letting and relying on the govt to do it all. but considering tt we dun have many big local name companies, and tt our economy simply isn't as established as those in europe or the US to have big players supporting our economy, it really becomes a making-do of the what we have right now.

i dunno. i mean, i'm not an economist, and i'm hardly a good economic geographer... but i just think tt wsj's suggestion of the permanent cutting of personal income tax rates is hardly feasible given that the rates are already one of the lowest in the world, and cutting now means yr eye is only at the present, not the future.

all that said, i dun believe tt our economic model is the best in the world. there are certainly improvements that can be made, and govt's "meddlings", tho warranted, shld slowly be reduced over the years.

oh wells. gotta go... so enough of critiquing wsj critiquing singapore =)