TUESDAY'S report ("Higher growth 'sacrificed' to moderate inflow of foreign workers") made two seemingly unrelated points.
First, that economic growth had been "sacrificed" to moderate the inflow of foreign workers.
Second, that economic growth had been "sacrificed" by government measures to strengthen the Singapore dollar in order to fight inflation.
However, inflation is once again rearing its ugly head in the Singapore economy despite record highs in the exchange rate of the Singapore dollar against the US dollar.
While it would be convenient to blame the high oil prices for our problems, perhaps the inflation is a sign that the high inflow of foreign workers has created excessive demand for housing, transport and food, and other services.
If this is the case, then two things that form the bedrock of Singapore economic policy deserve rethinking.
First, economic growth is far from the best single measure of our overall performance and well-being. Excessive economic growth which results in our social fabric, public infrastructure, and even domestic prices being strained, is undesirable.
Second, perhaps managing our exchange rate alone is no longer sufficient to control inflation.
A holistic approach is necessary to tackle many of the problems which Singaporeans are deeply concerned about today: high living costs, uncomfortably high inflows of foreign workers and inflation.
These issues are not independent, and trying to find piecemeal solutions for each issue may result in all the problems worsening.
With that in mind, I urge the Government to not view economic growth as the ultimate goal, but to be wary of all the attendant problems of excessively high growth as well.
Tan Jiaqi
So if exchange rate is "not enough", even when your trade to GDP ratio exceeds 300%, then what does the author suggest we use?
Price controls?
The $$$ still has to come from somewhere right?
No gripes with the other points though. Trying to make SG a seven-star hotel just won't cut it in the long run.