Go green? Not at cost of growth

Letter from Maximilian Png, Straits Times Forum 4 Jul 08;

IN MONDAY'S article, 'Inflation, sustainability and growth: When less is more', Professor Linda Lim and Dr Geh Min claimed that aggressive GDP growth targets were 'less justifiable for higher- income countries like Singapore'. This implied that economic growth should be curtailed in order to save the environment and, ultimately, ourselves.

Although I agree with many of the writers' points, notably on demolition of residential buildings, on the targeted 50 per cent increase in population and on pollution, I have a hard time digesting the reason to restrain economic growth.

A key negative impact of restraining economic growth is that the middle-income group and the poor will suffer. Restraining GDP targets would result in less economic development. All Singaporeans will benefit from economic growth, and restraining it - especially when Singaporeans need more money to deal with rising prices - would deal a heavy blow to people with middle and low incomes.

A much larger, more ominous threat lies in wait though. If Singapore took a passive, laid-back economic stance, Singaporeans would find it increasingly hard to buy basic necessities. This is because, as the rest of the globe surges ahead, notably China and India, demand for energy, food and pretty much everything in the market will rise. When Singaporeans do not have the money to buy what they need due to lax GDP growth targets, Singapore would be in trouble.

Perhaps the Government could do more to help the poor by spending more than 1 per cent ($427 million on the Workfare Income Supplement scheme and $242 million on public housing subsidies) out of the $58 billion expected government expenditure. But restraining economic growth is definitely not the way to go.