A new land of immigrants - WordPress.com

A new land of immigrants: challenges and opportunities of population growth
Hou Shi Hang
29 May 2011
Abstract
In this essay, I argue that the opportunities immigration brings depend on
the direction our economy takes in the future. In my opinion, this involves a
move to high knowledge-based industries, and in particular, creative industries.
To best achieve this, I argue that we need to reduce our dependence on cheap
low-skilled foreign labour and instead establish Singapore as a destination for
creative and skilled talent. This is not simply a matter of building facilities and
offering incentives. It requires a social change. Strong-handed social intervention
by the government, and a slapdash national identity due to the patchwork nature
of the politics of pragmatism have created an environment hostile towards ideas
that challenge the status quo.
I also argue that the main challenges we face are related to the problem
of density. One solution is to make each body in Singapore count for more.
Another is for Singapore to develop systems with loads of spare capacity (to
increase elasticity of supply). However, this comes at the cost of upkeep costs
(with which HDB had a particularly bad experience during the Asian financial
crisis). Ultimately, it may simply be that more packed streets are simply a price
to pay for the benefits immigrants bring.
I conclude with the assertion that the immigration of skilled workers is
desirable. First, I address the issues of greater density and argue that Singapore
can look at other major cities who are addressing these issues. Second, I advance
the position that the most crucial step to encouraging immigration of such
workers is fostering a culture of innovation. One possible point of intervention
through which we can do this is through universities, where a homogeneity of
thought can be broken up, and people can be exposed to different knowledge and
skill sets.

Introduction
The main economic effect of a surge in immigration is an increase in
labour. The most desirable make up of this inflow of labour depends on the
growth model the economy is adopting. Therefore, the economy we want to have
decides what sort of labour force we need to have; any discussion of immigration
is dependent on a determination of the growth model Singapore will adopt in the
future.
This essay rests upon the premise that Singapore’s growth in the future
will rely not just on riding the wave of regional markets’ growth, but also on
developing a healthy entrepreneurial sector to complement our technocratic
prowess. Our key challenge in the future is not being stable and attracting more
foreign multi-national companies, or excelling as a transitory node in the global
trade network. It is managing a structural change from being an exemplary
executor of good ideas, to being a source of them.
Immigration offers us several opportunities in this regard. First, freedom
of entry and exit offers us a wider and deeper the labour pool than that which we
naturally have access to. The chief advantage of this is not the opportunity to
increase the size of our labour force, but to be able to attract the best talent the
entire world to Singapore. This ability also allows us access to different kinds of
skills, making skills transfer possible and moving into new industries easier.
Second, immigrants may have differentiating qualities, like unique ways of
thinking, which are valuable to an innovative society. However, these advantages
come with challenges that must be actively managed, such as inequality,
breakdown of social trust, and density problems.
The essay makes three broad arguments: first, creative immigrants offer
the most opportunities to Singapore, while low-skilled immigrants from a few
major sources offer little advantage; second, relative ease of entry and exit
means that foreigners can “vote with their feet”, making a country’s intangible
characteristics an important determinant of the type of immigrants we attract;

and finally, that it is best to use public policy to tackle problems directly and
correct market failure instead of imposing bans and quotas.
1. An awkward legacy
In the past, we have prospered through a great feat of administrative skill,
through a “mobilisation of resources that would have done Stalin proud”
(Krugman, 1994). In 20 years, our workforce has doubled, and, as the following
chart shows, a large part of this increase has been an increase in foreign labour 1 :
Figure 1
Now, a million foreigners are employed in Singapore, constituting 35% of
the workforce. However, of these, the majority, about 80%, are work permit
holders. This reflects one of two things: (1) that there is a strong demand for
low-skilled labour in Singapore, which would be an indictment of our ability to
shift to high-skilled industries, or (2) that there is a weak supply of such labour,
implying that there will be little labour substitution, where a foreigner takes the
job of a local.
In either case, rapid population growth due to an increase in low-skilled
labour 2 is not economically optimal. The most common justification of this policy
1
The statistics used to make the chart are from the Department of Statistics.
2
The issue is that foreign labour may not be described as labour as they are not included in the
computation of number of residents. However, they are economically active members of society, who

is that this has led to an increase in potential growth and then, actual growth due
to the multiplier effect. However, I believe this this spillover being quite small due
to Singapore’s small multiplier effect. Furthermore, I would argue that
uncontrolled importing of foreign labour leads to short term decision making.
Price signals send messages. By importing cheap work-pass holders, firms are
incentivised to exploit this cheap source of labour by making their operations
more labour-intensive than they should be. This is the main reason why the latest
productivity drive is unconvincing: how can you say you are moving to a
knowledge-based economy if over a million of your workers, constituting 28.6%
of your total work force, were imported to perform low-skill labour 3
After all, their low-skilled and low-paid nature implies that they are not
very productive. Furthermore, their presence is often temporary, and hence,
there is little to no upgrading of their skills upgrading. On the other hand,
amassing low-skilled hordes of foreign labour will lead to greater density and
infrastructural pressures. In Singapore, having a lot of workers with low
productivity just does not make much sense; since Singapore experiences
diminishing returns due to space faster than other countries do, we should strive
to make person as productive as possible.
Foreign labour and PRs support a substantial portion of economic activity
in Singapore, and their removal will lead to higher wage rates. Nevertheless, the
best policy is hence to create a labour market that incentivises people to be
productive, and invest in human capital investment. A tighter labour market in
some of the sectors that employ many foreigners will be an incentive to
encourage the development of techniques to maximise productivity. Adverse
labour market conditions force firms to innovate towards more productive
practices, or inevitably decline. On the other hand, if they can comfortably
consume and produce, and hence relevant to our analysis.
3
I refer to the number of work permit holders in Singapore, who often are here on temporary contracts,
and are without many privileges.

employ a low-skilled production model, they will not be incentivised to switch to a
more productive one.
2. Hub this, hub that
Singapore should move towards a knowledge economy, and use
knowledge as a factor of production. Instinctively, this approach fits Singapore
very well, and it has already taken steps in the right direction. Singaporeans are
among the most connected people in the world, with the ITU claiming that 77.8%
of the population used the internet in 2010, up from 36.8% 10 years ago. They
also benefit from a sound education, and have performed well on global tests,
with PISA concluding that Singapore students scored in the top 5 worldwide in
math, science and reading. The manufacturing sector did well in 2010 mainly
because of the astonishing performance of the pharmaceuticals industry, no
doubt partly due to Singapore’s movement to establish a biochemical hub. In the
industry, each worker produced seven times as much output, contributed 14
times as much value added and was on average paid twice the average wage
workers in manufacturing received. Output has grown 60% since 2007, far
exceeding the 19% growth registered on average. Other technical industries, like
electrical machinery also have done well. But industries like transport equipment,
which hires many work permit workers, have done less well, with each worker
producing only a third as much as the typical worker in manufacturing.
Now, Singapore should capitalise on immigration to tap on what has been
controversially termed “creative capital” 4 , as it is vital to the development of an
entrepreneurial and innovative sector in the economy. Clever people come with
positive externalities. First, besides lending their talents to the local economy,
they compete and in so doing, keeps the local population sharp and focused.
Second, some foreign talent may have great ideas, and set up firms, explore new
fields of expertise, and be pioneers in new fields. By interacting with driven and
4
Richard Florida’s controversial book “The Rise of the Creative Class” argues that bohemianism
contributed to growth, but has since been disputed.

creative immigrants, locals can come up with fresh thoughts and conceptions, and
succeed with them. In a dense urban space, which maximises interaction between
people, there are “creative multipliers”, where competition and discussion lead to
innovation and progress in the tradition of Henry Ford-era Detroit and Silicon
Valley.
This is a simplification of the effects individuals have on society, but on the
whole, the point stands that driven and motivated people who generate ideas
usually have more of an impact on society than people who are very good at
mastering ideas other people have. Entrepreneurs who crack a successful field
gain first-mover advantages, in that other subsequent entrants must play catchup
and attempt to attract customers away from the incumbent firm, who had a
brand name monopoly. Even after other firms enter the market, the onus remains
on them to find technological breakthroughs (in both embodied and disembodied
technologies) to gain an advantage over the incumbent. In other words, markets
are dominated by the companies with the best ideas, and countries want to
attract the sort of people who would have these ideas.
Singapore excels at a mimetic sort of dynamism, in that they are quick to
adopt good ideas, but less likely to come up with them. Of course, a global
discourse on the benefits of innovation has not gone unnoticed, and the
government has offered more subsidies for research and development. Despite
much talk of being a research and development hub, it remains a woeful
innovator. In 2008, in terms of patents granted per thousand people, it
performed at the bottom of the group, just beating out Spain and China 5 .
5
The sources of the statistics presented in the chart on the next page are as follows: patents granted
statistics are from Department of Statistics and World Intellectual Property Organisation. Population
statistics are from Department of Statistics and World Bank.

Figure 2
2.1 The importance of heterogeneity
How do we attract the most creative people to work in Singapore The
government’s strategy towards innovation seems to be derived from their earlier
success in fashioning Singapore as a business hub. First, they have offered
Production and Innovation Credit (PIC), a tax deduction for innovative and
productive activity, as an incentive for firms to innovate. It has also attracted
many foreign researchers to the Biopolis with the promise of good facilities and
adequate funding 6 . A flagship R&D project, one north, a research hub currently
being built in Buona Vista appears to be a good idea on paper. It is located near
the National University of Singapore (echoing perhaps the importance of Stanford
University in the development of Silicon Valley) and is conceptualised as a space
for work, and play. However, innovation depends on people, not buildings. While
the project is certainly welcome, the crux of our strategy has to be the
development of human capital.
Singapore is not very successful in this regard. In Nov 2010 (Ng, 2010), it
was reported that only a fifth and a third of PhD positions in NTU and NUS
respectively were taken up by Singaporeans. The failure to develop home-grown
research talent is problematic, because financial incentivisation defines the
6
UNESCO 2010 cites Singapore as the most rapidly growing science investor, having doubled its
expenditure on R&D, increasing as a percentage of GDP to 2.5%.

transaction as purely an economic decision, and hence one that is easily
reversible. If we develop no other advantage, we will likely lose our attractiveness
if other countries are willing to offer better laboratories and more research
funding. Hence, while incentivisation is effective (after all, after the investment in
the Biopolis, Singapore’s pharmaceuticals manufacturing has been robust), it is
not necessarily sustainable. There must be other intangible factors which make
Singapore a place inherently conducive to research.
Hence, a country’s intangible aspects serve as an important determinant
of the type of people who come to Singapore: after all, people are drawn to
places with values they identify with. Creative people are drawn to places which
promote creativity and are home to many groundbreaking industries or firms.
When they come, they in turn makes the country a yet more creative place,
creating a self-reinforcing reverse-causality. The solution is to develop the local
population to favour risk-taking and innovation.
One main cause of Singapore’s lack of success in promoting innovation is
its homogenised labour pool, and the homogenising effect its emphasis on
assimilating immigrants has on foreign workers. This is largely due to the
distorting effect the Singaporean government’s fondness for social dirigisme has
on the workforce. This should not be surprising. The insight that society has an
effect on the economy is neither new nor controversial: Max Weber, the famous
sociologist, famously attributed the success of capitalism to a Protestant work
ethic. The country’s dominant culture influences the prevailing corporate culture,
and the country’s education system affects the skill sets of the local workforce. If
everyone thinks in largely the same way, it is more difficult to come up with new
ideas which have not been explored in the past.
One specific source of the problem is Singapore’s education system.
Homogeneity in Singapore partly arises from its lack of scale, leading to
monolithic social institutions. The best students usually end up being schooled in
one or two main junior colleges. This, together with the strong government

control over the syllabus, leads to highly educated workers capable of thinking
critically in exactly the same way. This homogeneity in methods of thinking
carries over to university life and when these students eventually end up in the
workforce. This is why overseas educations have positive effects not just on
students, but on society. Similarly, to strengthen our local universities, it is worth
attracting a diverse student pool. However, diversity of cultures is in itself not our
goal. To maximise the potential of our diversity, we have to attract a diversity of
ways of thinking.
Ethnic diversity may seem more a social concern than an economic one,
but cultural diversity has been found to be positively correlated with wages
(Ottavario and Peri, 2004). One significant channel through which a ‘diversity
effect’ may have a positive effect on growth is by generating more choice, and
the availability of many diverse consumer choices has been found to be a
significant advantage in major cities (Glaeser, Kolko & Saiz, 2001). After all, an
Italian chef provides a different service from the Singapore chef. The contribution
of different cultures also can lead to creativity and innovation for local culture. In
the same way, differing life experiences arising from cultural differences can lead
to different ways of thinking, which can lead to different ways of framing
problems and a richer set of alternative solutions. This not only leads to better
decision-making, but can also serve a part in spurring innovation.
However, the benefits of multiculturalism arise not because of diversity for
its own sake. In other words, being foreign is not an advantage in itself; rather,
being foreign tends to lead to different life experiences and a different way of
thinking. Hence, the benefits of diversity are lost when we have a policy of
assimilation, rather than a policy of multiculturalism. This difference is best
exemplified by the disagreement over the metaphor “melting pot”, which implies
blending local cultures to form a dominant culture. Instead, Canada in particular
has referred to their multiculturalism as a cultural mosaic, where different

cultures retain their individual identity 7 . Our overzealous self-identification with a
national identity and social conservatism, together with homogeneous local
institutions, creates a society unconducive to innovation.
2.2 Barbarians at the gate
Another possible reason why Singapore is not very good at producing
home-grown researchers is the practical emphasis of its education system and its
culture. After all, high school grades are all-important in university admissions
decisions and even in job applications. The fixation on quantifiable markers of
success makes the country objectively meritocratic, but promotes excellence in
exams, rather than in knowledge. To paraphrase Tharman Shanmugaratnam,
Singapore is exam meritorious, but should strive to be talent meritorious.
Singapore’s current success in attracting foreigners to work in knowledgebased
industries and R&D requires us to take a closer look at our domestic
education policy not just because it is advantageous to have a pool of homegrown
talent in research. A culture of innovation, critical thinking, and challenging
the status quo is important because these are the skills which become more
important in the new knowledge economy. If locals do not possess these skills,
they may see their jobs usurped by more qualified foreigners.
The more sociological aspects of immigration are the tensions between the
local population and the foreign population. One prominent problem in this regard
is the claim that foreign talent steal jobs and lead to wage stagnation for the
locals. This seems unlikely in part because of the existence of business complaints
of a labour shortage. Even if the importing of labour plays a part, other reasons,
like an increase in the number of graduates or the natural differential in
productivity gains between low paying jobs like cleaning and more high-level
work, are more convincing explanations of the trend of wage stagnation in times
7
Economically speaking, while there are obvious advantages to multiculturalism, it should be pointed
out that there may be trust and communication issues, as trust is usually strongest when cultures are
homogeneous (Judt, 2010).

when Singapore is experiencing an inflationary gap and the labour market is
tight. Borja (1994) similarly found in a survey of the academic literature that an
inflow of immigrants typically had a negative but extremely small impact on
locals’ wages.
Borja’s comprehensive study yields a few interesting results. For example,
it is striking that immigrants to the US earned 17% less than natives at first, but
in 15 years, their wages overtook native wages. This seems to suggest that the
average foreigner is better skilled than the average native, and this becomes
obvious as foreigners gain advantages suitable to the local workplace that locals
had possessed. He also found that there is a pronounced cohort effect, in that
some groups of immigrants had higher wages than others upon arrival. This
raises the possibility that there is endogeneity in the skill level of immigrants, and
Borja himself reports that source country composition seems to account for most
differences in wage differentials between groups of immigrants. This is because
immigrants from different countries come for different reasons.
Hence, to the extent that an immigrant inflow is due to the pull factor of
high demand for a skill possessed by immigrants, like creative thinking skills and
verbal flair, foreigners will tend to perform better than natives. However, if
immigration is due to push factors, if immigrants are simply escaping a set of
adverse conditions for slightly better ones, there may be labour quality
degeneration and a case for controlling inflows from poor countries.
In this sense, strong inflows of a certain type of immigrant may be an
indication of a flaw in our current labour pool or our relative strength compared to
nearby countries. While there is a legitimate worry that there are biases towards
foreign talent, it is also very possible that the economy is moving towards
rewarding skills which are not taught extensively in schools. Perhaps, this is
another manifestation of the distorting influence of social intervention on the
economy. By fostering a certain educational paradigm which leaves out certain
important workplace skills through a government monopoly on education, local

workers are disadvantaged or privileged from the outset, but this depends on
how well our government can read the future and adjust education policy
accordingly.
Hence, an inflow of immigrants who can work and contribute to our
creative sectors will have positive effects on our economy. However, to not be left
behind, our education system has to move towards critical thinking and creative
thinking. The recent move towards more critical questions in the A-levels and
plans to set up a liberal arts college in Singapore are hence moves in the right
direction.
2.3 Packed sardine economics
There is a distressing anti-immigrant strain to the chorus of voices of
dissent in Singapore. The chief complaint, also expressed in the Workers’ Party
manifesto, is that while Singaporeans are not anti-immigrant per se, they believe
that “the rate of immigration should not exceed the capacity of the country’s
infrastructure and the comfort level of the local population” 8 . However, they make
the valid point that immigration is far more beneficial if we have the space and
infrastructure to accommodate immigrants.
The chief problems with an increasing number of people in Singapore are
density and inflation, although the perceived problem of inflation can be reduced
to a problem of density. It is fallacious to think that inflation of tradable goods,
like oil and food, is the fault of immigration unless you believe that there are
restrictive transaction costs in cross-country trade. Otherwise an increase in
world population will contribute to higher demand for these products, no matter
where this increased population is located. If a good is tradable, a firm takes into
account global demand and supply. Hence, a population boom in Africa will lead
to higher food prices if there is no equivalent increase in supply, whether or not
these new people move to Singapore.
8
Workers’ Party Manifesto 2011

Any inflationary effect of immigration is due to an increase in the need for
non-tradable goods with a low elasticity of supply. We can buy raw materials,
accumulate capital and nurture entrepreneurs, but we cannot significantly
increase our land area. In other words, inflation caused by immigration is an
effect of greater density. As the chart below shows 9 , house prices have been
outstripping median wage growth since 2007.
Figure 3
The increase in density also may lead to increased infrastructural
demands, for public transport, roads and public facilities. For example, in 1990,
there was 5.16 meters of paved road for every motor vehicle in Singapore. In
2010, there are only 3.63 meters per motor vehicle. The number of passengers
per km of MRT has increased from 2930 in 1990 to 5660 in 2008. Infrastructural
problems have to be managed actively to reduce these pressures. On the other
hand, when it is not possible to increase capacity (due to land scarcity etc.), it
may be instructive to consider whether the benefits extra immigrants offer suffice
to offset the trouble of a more packed nation.
9
Statistics from Department of Statistics. It has been observed that indices comparing house prices and
wage growth are influenced heavily by the choice of base year. Hence, it is possible that using another
base year, the result may be different. However, the point still stands that higher house prices are a
burden on residents’ standard of living.

3. Steps
First, problems of greater density in cities have always been a problem in
our lives. In the past, the major problems included water systems and public
health. Now, the main channel through which more immigrants can lower
standards of living is by causing higher home prices and more congestion,
particularly because of the high inelasticity of supply of public building works.
Singapore has demonstrated ability to increase capacity just 9 days after
transportation was a hot issue in the general election (‘Shorter waiting time’,
2011). However, sooner or later, Singapore will run out of space, even as it
reaches its target of a 6.5 million population. So, barring a breakthrough in
building technology, social infrastructure or city planning, a denser city is simply
something Singaporeans have to live with. Singaporean policy makers can also
look to other major cities who are struggling with similar problems. For example,
one popular solution to reduce congestion is the introduction of cycling as an
alternative mode of transport to address congestion 10 .
Second, this essay argues that to attract creative and skilled immigrants,
we must foster a culture of innovation, and that this is superior to the status quo
of importing foreign researchers and banking on the positive externalities they
bring. Importing innovative individuals cannot make society inherently more
creative, but it can make an already innovative society even more innovative
because the positive externalities foreign talent bring apply mostly to other
creative individuals. For example, their ideas and expertise are most useful to
those who are well placed to capitalise on them. This is perhaps why simply hiring
‘mercenary’ researchers to staff our laboratories is a limited policy. We must also
develop our own innovative talent.
I propose that this is best done by reviewing the education system,
especially by targeting universities and graduate schools as policy intervention
points. One positive change in the last few years is a shift away from rote
10
Bike rental schemes, famously used in Amsterdam and Paris, have become popular worldwide, even
in some parts of China.

learning towards critical thinking. Now, the government should consider the next
step: away from solving problems but to creating opportunities. Universities
should promote aggressively the notion that one has to question conventional
knowledge to learn; instead of reinforcing the notion that a professor has a
monopoly on ideas, our universities should move away from examination based
studies and focus on engaging with ideas. After all, new ideas drive change, and
by definition, comparing these ideas against conventional wisdom to see which is
“correct” is irrelevant. This brings us to the old cliché that universities are places
of learning, not institutes for producing office drones.
Instead of responding to situations and acclimatising to workplace
demands, students are best served by the ability to recognise and capitalise on
opportunities. In other words, education has to make a student’s future seem like
a tabula rasa. If students are worried by the artificial social standards of the
Singaporean dream or other social oddities like the 5 Cs, it is unlikely students
will be empowered by anything other than the desire to secure a well-paying job
and a comfortable lifestyle.
While Singapore has made strides towards critical thinking and exploring
the liberal arts, the public is largely rooted to the notion of preferring career
stability over all else. These tectonic shifts in attitudes take time, and in the short
run, the government can offer short run incentives to promote innovation. It is
also important to elevate the status of creative enterprises in the minds of
Singaporeans and destroy the dichotomy between pragmatic employment and
creative enterprises. One possible way to achieve this is to promote research
amongst local students. Research should be promoted as a legitimate career
options in high schools.
It is interesting that these problems should not be considered problems of
immigration, as they can be caused by population growth whatever the cause.
They are best solved with the Tinbergen principle in mind, that there should be a
policy for each problem. This is why handling immigration involves so many

changes to domestic policy. One question, though not strictly economic in nature,
is enlightening: how is an inflow of immigrants different from a population boom
This is reduced to the next question: how is an immigrant or foreign worker
different from a citizen I cannot think of a satisfactory answer. What affects
locals affects immigrants equally. If they are both convinced of their dedication to
a country, surely their immigration status should not differentiate them
meaningfully.
Conclusion
Immigration is more opportunity than challenge, and I believe that this
opportunity is best used to build up a creative sector. I have presented my
conclusions about this regard in the essay. However, in the 2011 general election,
immigration was seen more as a problem than a boon, to the extent that the
government resorted to apologising for its mistakes, including letting too many
people into the country.
This is mistaken. The government’s error is not keeping up with density
demands. These are caused by absolute numbers of people, and as the following
chart shows, absolute increases in resident population outstrip increases in nonresident
population; most of the squeeze for seats on the MRT is due to fellow
Singaporeans, not foreigners.
Figure 4

The adverse reaction to immigration is similar to the negative reaction to
free trade. Just as the rise of free trade opened Pandora’s Box and forced local
firms to compete with international firms, local workers find themselves
threatened by someone potentially better. However, this is largely illusionary, a
matter of perceived limits and bounds. They have always had to compete with
those they share a country with. Why is this more acceptable than competing
with those they share a world with such an abhorrent idea
Yet, immigration presents an incredible opportunity to firms because it
increases the quantity and enhances the pool of factors of production they have
access to. A New York company may have their HQ in Singapore employing
workers from all over the world. This makes it easier to employ people with
different methods of working, and different skill sets. In other words, the freedom
to immigrate presents an opportunity to have the best of all worlds: cultural
synthesis leading to economic advantage, leading to greater growth (see section
2.1).
Hence, immigration is not about Chinese workers at our construction sites
or Filipino salesgirls in our shops. Indeed, nationality is just a superficial issue in
the economics of immigration, at best an indicator of other underlying factors
important to the suitability of a workforce. On the supply side, immigration is the
potential for a country to access resources beyond what it normally is able to
achieve. Hence from a policy point of view, the benefits we hope to achieve from
immigration depend on what we want, and how receptive we are to the
advantages it offers.

Bibliography
Borjas, G. J. (1994). The economics of immigration. Retrieved from
http://www.econ.utah.edu/~philips/soccer2/readings_files/Borjas%20The%20Economics%20of
%20Immigration%20%201994.pdf
Chrisafis, A. (2007, August 16). ‘The city’s gone cycling mad’. The Guardian, pp.
18
Florida, R. (2005). The flight of the creative class. HarperBusiness.
Glaeser, E., Kolko, J. and Saiz, A. (2001). Consumer city. Journal of Economic
Geography, 1, 27-50
Hunt, J., Gauthier-Loiselle M. (2009). How much does immigration boost
innovation Retrieved from http://ftp.iza.org/dp3921.pdf
Kerr, W.R., Lincoln, W.F. (2010). The supply side of innovation: H-1B visa
reforms and US ethnic invention. Retrieved from
http://www.nber.org/papers/w15768.pdfnew_window=1
Krugman, P. (1994). The myth of Asia’s miracle. Retrieved from
http://www.pairault.fr/documents/lecture3s2009.pdf
Ng, J. (2010, November 16). 800 more PhD places at NTU. The Straits Times.
Ottaviano, G., Peri, G. (2004). The economic value of cultural diversity: evidence
from US cities. Retrieved from
http://www.onevoiceforflorida.com/media/c9d717b7-d818-4d90-a180-
bfc2470d07c5.pdf

Shorter waiting time at MRT stations expected. (2011, May 16). Retrieved from
http://motoring.asiaone.com/Motoring/News/Transport/Story/A1Story20110516-
279133.html