Jim Rogers, whom is a legendary American investor, uses his
vast experience in economics in giving arguments on his stand on the importance
of immigrants in Singapore and the impact they can provide to Singapore.
However his arguments lack substantial evidences to support his points. He
explains that Singapore will not be a lucrative place for investment if
“Singapore cannot get enough labour” which leads to higher wages and inflation
rate. In truth, they are other factors not only the lack of labour, that might
result in increasing inflation rate. Claiming that immigrants can solve the
issue of the rising demand of labours that ensure Singapore to be a lucrative
country for investment is bias, when they are also other factors that encourage
investors are to invest in Singapore because of the country low crime rate and
free trade agreements.
Jim Rogers has effectively pointed out that Singapore is
facing an ageing population and more help is needed to support the elderly.
They are less effective and efficient compared to the younger generation.
However, the older generation has wealth of experience and they are not be the
primary cause of slower development of the country that leads to losing out to
our neighbouring countries. There can be also other alternatives in balancing
an ageing population whereby the government can carry out Baby Bonus plans to
encourage higher birth rate in Singapore.
Therefore, I would only agree with Jim Rogers if he can
provide substantial evidences or sources with real data to support his
arguments on immigrants’ ability to drastically improve the future of
Singapore’s economy growth, as I believe his point of view is biased because he
is an immigrant of Singapore as well.
Hi Sebastian,
ReplyDeleteThis is a brief but concise summary of the article and a very daring and assertive response from you. I can hear your voice very clearly. Well done.
Just one thing: "the government can carry out Baby Bonus plans..." Isn't this in place already?
Let's look at the language.
1. "Jim Rogers, whom is"
Use whom if it refers to an object (after verb).
eg This is the man whom I saw in the shop. (I saw the man... => the man = object of the word saw)
Use who if it refers to a subject (before verb)
eg This is the man who lives next door to me. (The man lives next door... => the man = subject of the verb lives).
So... "Jim Rogers, who/whom is..."?
2. "uses his vast experience in economics in giving arguments on his stand on"
Usual expression is "uses... to support his stand on..."
3. "the impact they can provide to Singapore"
Usually, "the impact they have on Singapore" or "the benefits they can bring to Singapore"
4. "In truth, THEY are other factors..."
"THEY are also other factors that encourage investors..."
Should it be "they" or "there"?
5. "Claiming that immigrants can solve the issue ... is bias..."
Should be "biased".
6. "...the elderly. They are less effective and efficient compared to the younger generation."
Ouch! This lacks tact. Perhaps "They are often DEEMED TO BE less... productive.."?
Actually, the elderly requires resources for healthcare and welfare, more specifically.
7. "evidence" should not carry a plural -s.
8. "an immigrant TO Singapore"
Anita