Strong words were used on Mr Low TK, and I would think that a poster of your stature would at least follow up with some substantive examples to justify your dismissive derision of Low.

Simi stature? KTM only got short and greasy stature lah.
Done. See http://kwayteowman.blogspot.com/2009/02/untruths-about-jobs-credit.html.

Also, do you think that the questions poised to Low and Siew by the PAP MPs were all well researched, and well grounded in theories of econs/finance?

Nope. PAP MPs are equally clueless, but they have been so since last year’s Budget, so no surprises here. The way the KTM sees it, all they do is contribute noise to the Budget discussions.

@RSE,

Much happier than before, though!

Sounds good. KTM is happy for you. Any reason why?

OK, this is what I know about the JCS. 1) It is based on some 1970s paper 2) It was one of Obama’s proposals (one of his advisors was helped came up with the paper) but was shot down for benefitting corporations 3) A modified version of the JCS is one of the items on the budget 4) I understand that not only the criticisms from (2) applies, and in the current incarnation is too indiscriminate to even be useful.

Your analysis is very sloppy.

The KTM actually likes Obama. He knows how to say sorry (just google “Obama says sorry”). The KTM thinks that’s really important for a politician. Instead of weakness, it belies strength of character.

Don’t worry. I’m still the same person . Much happier than before, though! Don’t worry lah, I know that whatever money the GLC gets in their pockets isn’t really THAT substantial compared to their overall revenues, it’s just the principle of it. So it’s just a fat waste of money as far as I am concerned. It doesn’t even fatten the pockets of the GLCs.

Anyway, there are just soo many things to keep an eye on nowadays with the current crisis. JCS is the least of my worries.

OK, this is what I know about the JCS. 1) It is based on some 1970s paper 2) It was one of Obama’s proposals (one of his advisors was helped came up with the paper) but was shot down for benefitting corporations 3) A modified version of the JCS is one of the items on the budget 4) I understand that not only the criticisms from (2) applies, and in the current incarnation is too indiscriminate to even be useful. The pros is that it applies to CPF, so Singaporeans benefit more from it compared to other types of workers.

Han:

I’m not too enamoured with the original proposal myself and *gasp* I think Obama’s overrated anyway. He’s good, but he’s no messiah. I am afraid that once the shine wipes off, people would be unreasonably disappointed in him for not being as infallible as the PAP.

Aaron:

Subsidizing ailing companies is all good and well, but do you have to throw money blindly? If you wish to subsidize, go straight out and subsidize. You only have so much money: target properly. Don’t out and subsidize everyone from zombies to mega-ultra profitable.

This crisis is more of a ride. There’s very little you can do to ‘save’ jobs, at least not in the long term. The global economy is going to change after this crisis, and there is a good chance it will hurt Singapore badly.

I’m trying to see the other side of the argument since I’m not in favor of the JCS.

I think the gist of MP Low’s argument is whether it is EFFECTIVE. There is no question this whole thing will save some jobs. There is no question that a number of viable companies will be saved by this. But we are talking about $4.5B, that is a lot of money.

Main issues with it:

a. It is a wage subsidy that goes to ALL companies regardless of whether they need it (you can argue MOST companies need it but I would disagree).

b. Does it address the underlying reasons for retrenchments which Siew Kum Hong also mentioned. The believe is this bout of retrenchments is caused by demand collapse cost is less of an issue of cost. Lets put it this way, they are retrenching workers in China where wages are low. In the past when we were having retrenchments and jobs were lost to China, we slash cost and that help a lot.

There are a number of people who argue from a “trickle down economics” POV that the money will allow companies to expand and hire more people. However, when your demand is not rising, and the climate is bad, they will keep the money in the bank.

The govt wants to spend $4.5B on a scheme which it is unable to estimate the +ve outcome. How many jobs saved? What % of companies will modify hiring due to this?

Although much of it’s success will depend on what businesses do with the cost savings, if you have been following the debates and studies in the US. This whole thing is similar to a tax cut. In a climate such as this, businesses will just keep the money as spare rather than to spend it. This is analogus to the money the govts around the world govts have been injecting into the banks – it did not spur lending and trigger a multiplier because banks just kept the money.

I prefer that the money be kept and used to help the jobless. I believe that will be a major problem regardless of the effectiveness of the JCS. Another less preferred alternative would be for the govt to increase spending – IT, infrastructure, schools, to ahead of the good times that we hope will come back. ..that too will create jobs.

I don’t understand the specifics fully, but I do know that theJCS is not about saving companies. However, Low is claiming that the JCS won’t work because it can’t save jobs in companies that are on the brink of collapse. And my response to Low is that the government has no intention fo helping these companies in the first place because they are not going to survive and retrenchment is inevitable. The JCS will reduce costs and help sound companies weather the storm, but for those that are already sinking, good luck.

Like Michael mentioned, due to the government’s resorting to all means both fair and foul during elections – there are simply no guarantee that poor results will equate with the PAP being punished with losses in Parliament seats.

I think that the failure to offer significant assistence to workers who lost their job is a glaring omission in the JCS, and it seems as though the government has written them off together with jobless Singaporeans.

Hi KTM,

Strong words were used on Mr Low TK, and I would think that a poster of your stature would at least follow up with some substantive examples to justify your dismissive derision of Low.

Also, do you think that the questions poised to Low and Siew by the PAP MPs were all well researched, and well grounded in theories of econs/finance?

Er how exactly will be PAP be punished at the ballot box? How will they “demise” in the ballot box?

(a) If there is no opposition to challenge them, how will they be punished. Either way, they are going to return to power unless there is a viable alternative. Are there? Are you planning to stand for election to add number to the oppositions?

(b) Ok the percentage vote for PAP may fall but so? They still come back to govern and dominate parliament. They will still keep their job. So exactly how will they demise?

No sympathies for Low here. He never go and learn his econs/finance properly and never do his research before he talk.

Asking to get whacked only.

In any case, your understanding of the JCS is off track lah. It has nothing to do with figuring out which companies to help. When the KTM is more free, he will go and write something to explain.

@RSE:

Long time no hear from you. You don’t seem quite as sharp as you used to be. Are you the same RSE the KTM used to know? Think harder and read a bit more before you comment on the JCS lah.

@Han:

Well said. The Govt is not equipped to pick the “winners” and the “losers”. It is not the Govt’s job. It’s the market’s job to do the pickings.