Abstract
Based on a research paper (2002) by the McKinsey Global Institute, this essay argues the importance in the role of the government in focusing on a few strategic sectors. The McKinsey paper reveals some surprising findings: 1. Much of the United States labour productivity growth jump in the period 1990-1999 was real and will continue. 2. The productivity growth jump was concentrated in only six out of fifty-nine economic sectors in the United States. Therefore, if the Singapore government choose to focus on these few strategic sectors, they can potentially drive the overall Singapore economy.

This essay also argues how the above strategy can be complemented by leveraging on the opportunities accruing from the globalising economy, and by identifying city-state's role in the portion of value chain in an increasing China-centric world, to enhance Singapore's competitiveness on the international stage.

Introduction
In the second volume of the memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew, aptly titled "From Third World to First - The Singapore Story 1965-2000", the book tells Singaporeans and the world how the island republic has risen from a poverty-stricken Third World nation to be among of league of First World countries. The memoir recounts extraordinary measures adopted by the leaders of this city-state in making Singapore a great success story. But what the book does not mention is how for Singapore to advance to the next stage of growth.

After achieving First World status in just one generation, the country is currently going through one of the longest recession in her history; unemployment rate is high and climbing (Chart 1) as more jobs will be moved to low-cost countries like China and India. Amid the globalising world and pitting against emerging giants like China and other Southeast Asian rivals, the city-state is now hobbled by high labour costs, a small domestic market, an ageing population and heavy reliance on foreign labour. The recent announced cuts in Central Provident Fund contributions are meant to address Singapore's weakening cost competitiveness relative to other developing nations.

Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong raised the alarm of Singapore's eroding cost competitiveness when he remarked: "For every one manufacturing worker hired here, a company can employ three in Malaysia, eight in Thailand, 13 in China or 18 in India" (ST 2003a).

But cost reduction is at most an expediency in the present crisis: saving jobs, lessening the burden of the businesses. It is not and cannot be a long-term solution. Instead of relying on cost competitiveness and constantly comparing it with other developing nations, Singapore, already seeing herself as a First World nation, should think and act like a developed country. A number Western European countries show it is possible to have high wages and a hefty welfare and medical systems alongside with sustainable growth and competitiveness. For example, Finland, an European country whose population is about a million more than Singapore, was ranked by International Institute for Management Development and World Economic Forum as the most competitive (IMD 2003) and the second most competitive country (WEF 2002) in the world respectively. Economist Jeffrey Sachs noted that the "intelligence of people (Finnish) and a high standard of education could go a long way towards alleviating the burden on an economy of having a large public sector and high wages" (HS 2002).

In order to act and think like a developed nation, the city-state should start by learning from one. What better nation to learn from than the largest and the most successful economy in the world. The United States enjoyed her longest period of prosperity in the 1990s with doubling of productivity growth, according to a paper by consultancy firm McKinsey Global Institute (McKinsey 2002).

The paper made a surprising finding - the primary source of labour productivity gains of 1995 to 1999 came not from the increased demand from the stock market bubble; nor from the heavy investment in information technology; but rather, from managerial and technological innovations in only six highly competitive industries: wholesale trade, retail trade, securities, semiconductors, computer manufacturing, and telecommunications (Exhibit 1).

The remaining 70 per cent of the economy, representing 53 economic sectors, registered little or no productivity gains.

The lesson for Singapore: only a few strategic sectors, when competitive and innovative, are needed to drive productivity and therefore sustaining growth in the overall economy.

This essay basically argues the importance in the role of the government in focusing on a few strategic sectors. And together by leveraging on the opportunities accruing from the globalising economy, and by identifying city-state's role in the portion of value chain in an increasing China-centric world, Singapore's competitiveness on the international stage can be greatly improved.

A Globalising World Economy
Globalising world economy or globalisation has become a buzz word in recent decades. Some people even think that globalisation is a recent phenomenon, though it has been with us throughout history. What makes globalisation different today is its magnitude and its speed, augmented by technology. In general, globalisation is the increase mobility of products, services, and factors of production across national boundaries (Shin 2002).

Globalisation, whether for good or bad, is important for economic growth and prosperity, though the gains may not spread out equitably. Many economists, J. M. Keynes especially, have pointed the Great Depression in 1929 had led to tick-and-take protectionist policies which ultimately resulted in a worldwide depression in the early 1930s. To prevent such occurrence, the Bretton Woods agreement, in 1944, promoted trade liberalisation. Today, tariffs on goods are less than 4 per cent among members of the World Trade Organisation. Moreover, the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) has encouraged the free mobility of capital, goods and services, at first among developed nation, and later worldwide. Nowadays, no country, big or small, is immune to the impact of globalisation. Even the United States, the world's largest economy, see hundreds of thousands of jobs, especially related manufacturing, leaving for low-costs countries like China. Singapore, notwithstanding, faces the double-edge sword of globalisation.

Singapore is among the most internationalised economies in the world. A.T. Kearney and Foreign Policy magazine's Globalisation Index 200 rated Singapore "fourth-most globalised country" in the world. The globalising world has been a double-edge sword for the city-state. One the one hand, accessed to the global market has fuelled growth in Singapore through attracting Direct Foreign Investment (FDI) the likes of Multinational Companies (MNCs) and foreign investment into the local equity market. On the other hand, blue-collar as well as white-collar jobs in the city-state are taking flight to low-costs countries such China and India.

Competitiveness
Like "globalisation", the word "competitiveness" is also an international buzzword. But unlike its counterpart, "competitiveness" is less clear in what it exactly means, for different people interpret it differently.

In order to narrow the scope of discussion, this essay will adopt the definition put forward by Stephane Garelli, Director of the World Competitiveness Project: Competitiveness of nations. He refers the measures of competitiveness as "...the facts and policies that shape the ability of a nation to create and maintain an environment that sustains more value creation for its enterprises and more prosperity for its people." In short, competitiveness means productivity. According to the neo-classical theory, one way for any economy to grow is to increase its level of factor inputs like labours and capital accumulation. However, as pointed out by economists like Paul Krugman, input-driven growth will invariably suffer from diminishing returns and is thereby not sustainable. Moreover, there are natural and political constraints for how much more labour and capital that can be brought in. Hence, improving productivity is therefore crucial for an economy to sustain long-term economic growth. In general, there are two ways of measuring productivity: the labour productivity or the total factor productivity. Labour productivity measures attribute output entirely to one factor of production, which is labour in this case. TFP, however, measures the joint influence on economic growth of factors such as technological change, efficiency improvements, returns to scale and reallocation of resources (Boltho 1996).

Improvement in productivity will almost surely mean an increase in competitiveness; but this relation does always hold vice-versa. Some countries can improve their national competitiveness by slashing nominal wages; and engineering a depreciation of its currency. These beggar-thy-neighbour expediencies, though may save jobs for a while, may invite retaliation. Trying to reduce nominal wages in every country will lead to higher unemployment without improving growth and competitiveness. Likewise is the case for competitive devaluation of currencies. Moreover, exports based on low wages or a cheap currency do not support an attractive standard of living. Only productivity allows a nation to support and enjoy high wages, a strong currency, and attractive return to capital. Productivity should the goal for growth and prosperity. According to Harvard Business School Prof Michael Porter, "Only if a nation expands exports of products and services it can produce productivity will national productivity rise" (Porter 2002: 25). Productivity is the goal, not exports per se.

Challenges for Singapore
As Singapore looks to a future increasingly marked by globalisation, the strategies which have served the island republic well in the past may not do the same from now onwards. The last couple of years have been extremely challenging for the city-state. The rapidly changing world of globalisation can erode Singapore's competitive advantage within a short span of time. The recent years saw the island republic rankings in international competitiveness slipped from 2nd to 4th place, according to World Economic Forum (WEF 2002), and from 2nd to 6th place, reported by International Institute for Management Development (IMD 2003) (Table 1). The rest of the world is also fast "catching up" with the city-state. In 2003, Singapore was rated the "fourth-most globalised nation" in the world, from the top place two years ago (Table 1). Another worrying sign is that Singapore was ranked a low 17th in terms of technology innovation (WEF 2002). She belongs to the non-core technology economies. Though these non-core economies can achieve high growth, but they have their inherent limitations. As the gap with the technology economies narrows, these non-core technology economies will find themselves difficulties in closing the gap unless they become technology innovators themselves (Cornelius 2002: 11).

Exacerbating the situation is the decade high unemployed rate in Singapore (Chart 1); as well as the low real GDP (Gross Domestic Growth) growth expected (Chart 2). Together with Singapore's tiny domestic market, a less than dynamic regional hinterland, an aging population, and an increasing reliance on foreign labour, the years ahead seem challenging and uncertain. The gravity of the situation cannot be exaggerated when even Prime Minister Gok Chok Tong, in his speech, said: "We cannot afford to wait and do nothing. If we slumber for 20 summers, we will wake up so much glummer; for our companies have flown, and our jobs all blown" (ST 2003a).

The McKinsey's findings
But all is not doom and gloom as the findings from McKinsey reveal. The 6 sectors in the United States alone accounted for 99 per cent of net productivity acceleration and 74 per cent of all positive contribution in the period 1990-1999. The remaining 70 per cent of the economy, representing 53 economic sectors, registered little or no productivity gains.

The study managed to trace the sources of the productivity acceleration in these 6 sectors. Surprisingly, these sources came from the "old-fashion" fundamental changes in the way companies develop and deliver their products and services. The changes include innovations aided by technology, and increased competition due to regulatory changes. Most of the innovations are structural and are likely to persist. Some of them were triggered by a market leader, like in general-merchandise retailing; productivity improved in general-merchandise retailing was due to competitors adopting Wal-Mart's innovations.

Regulatory liberalisation played an important role in intensifying competition and, therefore, boosting innovations, especially in the telecommunications and the finance sector.

In the finance sector, competition from online brokers such as E*Trade and Charles Schwab lowered the cost of transaction; hence, spurring competition and innovations, and boosting demand.

In the wholesale trade and retail sector, new warehouse management systems developed enhanced productivity, especially from the combination of hardware (bar codes, scanners, picking machines) and software for tracking and controlling inventory allowed wholesalers to automate their flow of goods partially and to increase their productivity.

In the telecommunication sector, the licensing of new spectrum for mobile telephony intensified competition and quickened faster falling of prices, thereby lifting penetration and usage.

In the semiconductor sector, competitive pressure between Advanced Micro Devices and Intel had resulted in innovations in developing and designing faster chips within a shorter span of time than before.

Another surprising finding is that heavy investment in IT did not automatically translate into productivity gains as in the case of many industries, especially hotels and retail banking in the United States. The study shows that IT was only one of many factors causing the productivity to jump. Heavy IT investments had a tremendous impact on productivity in some industries, but virtually no effect in many others (Exhibit 2).

Lessons for Singapore
If the findings are accurate and applicable to the city-state, it implies that only a few strategic sectors, when competitive and innovative, are needed to drive productivity and therefore sustaining growth in the overall economy. In the specific case of Singapore, the role of the government may prove important in industry-targeting as well as selecting the types of innovation to be developed here. Unlike the United States, the island republic is constrained by her small domestic market and workforce, though Singapore has and continues to import significant number of foreign workers in order to grow, the government cannot continue this policy perpetually. Nor can she rely on "footloose" MNCs investing in the city-state. There is a limit as to how much the island republic can grow through merely increasing capital and labour.

In fact, Singapore faces the same barriers as other developing countries in playing "catch-up" with the industrialised nations (Scherer 1999: 124). F. M. Scherer (Professor of Business and Government, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, USA) has identified three kinds of barrier: 1. The political, social and economic environment lack the institutional and legal framework to encourage and foster independent risk-taking and dynamic competition. 2. The scarcity of business entrepreneurs willing and able to undertake the risk and opportunity offered by new technology. Nobel laureate Joseph E Stiglitz (1996) also highlighted the same point and with that, he justified the role of government intervention. 3. Developing nations have low real per capita income; therefore, they face constraints in allocating funds for long term projects like R&D which often require long gestation period.

The first two points are particularly fitting to the problems in Singapore. Moreover, the presence of GLCs deters some entrepreneurs from venturing into certain areas. Even if the government is willing to divest all of her GLCs, this does not mean the businessmen can compete successfully in domestic or the international markets. Nurturing entrepreneurship among Singaporeans takes more than just a couple of policies. It requires a completed change of mindset and that is not expected to happen within a few years. In the meantime, Singapore can adopt a two-pronged approach: nurturing entrepreneurs and making the environment conducive for conducting businesses, while practising industry-targeting and promoting certain kind of innovations developed by industrialised countries.

As indicated by McKinsey's study, 70 per cent of the remaining economy (representing 53 sectors) registered little or negative growth. Entrepreneurs, if left to their own devices, may do little and too late in boosting the whole Singapore's economy. What's more, they may neglect the high growth sectors. Government should act as a facilitator for high growth areas and develop new growth engines wherever and whenever private enterprises are unable or unwilling to participate because the risk is too high or the gestation period too long, yet the growth potential can be enormous.

However, the government participation should end when the private sector is ready and up to task for its proper role. When developing growth engines or industry-targeting, other than resorting to setting up GLCs, the government should also consider various ways of involving the private firms. This could be achieved through using incentives to attract private sector participation, or setting up joint-venture with private firms.

Government should play the role of bringing together complementary players to work together. It should pick or identify GLCs or private firms capable of leading the pack in licensing a new technology or entering a new technology sector. This will give the local players bargaining power in these transactions. The government should also prevent cutthroat competition among the local industries when offering the same kind of products and services using the same kind of technology.

For example, South Korea (Republic of Korea), in a globalising world, pioneers a reverse sequencing of innovation system development. The development of South Korea's industries depends heavily on international linkages. The government play a crucial role encouraging its chaebols to accumulate knowledge and technology through a series of linkages like licensing of foreign technology, foreign production machinery, technology licensing partners, component suppliers. Without having to develop indigenous technology and capital equipment, South Korea companies can focus on the efficiency issues regarding mass production and various form of modifications in re-engineering and production customisation. The role of the government is visible here, given the risk involved and long gestation period. With government intervention, private firms are unlikely to amass huge amount of capital to start the project, let alone to pull through. By providing critical externalities such information, funds, and others, the Korean managed to foster her local industries to a scale that overcome high entry barriers (Ernst 1999: 32). South Korea has achieved spectacular growth rates without the advantage of having indigenous and pioneering technology. Her industrialisation has been a sheer case of learning on borrowed technology that has already been commercialised by foreign firms (Amsden 1997: 339).

The government should not also ignore the domestic industry altogether. Instead, the government must ensure that domestic businesses raise their efficiency and productivity. These domestic industries provides the crucial non-tradable goods and services to GLCs and MNCs. Substandard domestic services raise the cost of doing businesses and reduce competitiveness as pointed out by Harvard Business School Prof Michael Porter (ST 2001). Singapore may ignore the productivity of the local industry at her own peril.

As the other findings of the study reveal, Singapore should not make the same mistake of investing heavily in new technology (or IT) for the sake of new technology. The island republic is always at the forefront of adopting the latest technology, especially in influencing the business community in adopting these capabilities with projects like SingaporeOne, TradeNet, MediNet and LawNet. However, the subscription rate for SingaporeOne is anything but satisfactory (Koh and Lim 2002: 249). And according to the latest review of the courts' Electronic Filing System (EFS) or LawNet, lawyers in Singapore view the $29 million e-filing system as slow and unreliable, and feel safer using hard copies (ST 2003b). Though 380 of the 776 law firms in Singapore are connected to the EFS, few actually rely on the system in court.

Technology is merely a means to an end, not an end per se. Ultimately, productivity comes from the "old-fashioned competition and managerial innovations" in more efficient and effective ways of developing and delivering goods and services. Unless the technology can add value to the supply chain, the government should not be over zealous in investing them. The so-called first mover advantage, touted during the dotcom's craze, can be a serious disadvantage when the precious resources could be better allocated to other much needed areas. Of course, the government should lead the way in setting an example to the business community within its public sectors. Beyond that, the government should adopt a down-top and demand-driven approach in adopting technology. Another cost effective way is to closely monitor what other developed countries have been doing. If these nations are reaping returns from their investment in certain technology, the city-state can follow suit, with uncertainty greatly reduced.

In the areas of deregulation to spur competition, the Singapore government has made the right move of liberalising its telecommunication and finance sector. The island republic needs more and quicker of these liberalisations. Competition ultimately spurs innovations and, therefore, productivity.

Leveraging on the Globalising World
Given the economic climate of globalisation, no firm, not even a dominant market leader, can generate all the capabilities internally to meet international demands and competition. Competitiveness to these firms depends on critically selecting specialised capabilities externally from the simple assembly and packaging to the sophisticated R&D. This requires a shift from individual to increasing collective forms of organization and "...from the legal entity known as the firm to the contractual network of firms tied together by mutual long-term interest (Stopford, 1997: 2).

Today, globalisation allows the firms to span its production process over different time zones and continents. For example, before a personal computer is sold in the United States, the processor chip inside may be produced somewhere in Malaysia or the Philippines; the monitor from Korea; the motherboard from Taiwan; harddisk from Singapore; with the end product assembled in China and finally were shipped to America through some logistic arrangements by Hong Kong and Singapore's transport firms. MNCs are "deconstructing" their supply chains, and re-distributing production and jobs to where they can be done cheaply.

Moreover, the growing importance of the information age has been fulfilled by an increasing weightlessness of output such as computer software, financial products, telecommunications, the Internet, entertainment and even management consulting. These goods accounted for about 23 per cent of the United States' GDP between 1987 and 1994 (Cameron 1998). Online stores like the USA-based Amazon.com Inc has its entire call-centre located half the world away in Bangalore, India. The globalising world will only boost the demand for weightlessness output (services and information), and vice-versa.

The globalising world offers both opportunities and threats. The positive aspect can be seen in the harddisk industry, one of the most globalised industries. Seagate, a dominant player, has most of her production capacity (in terms of employees) in three locations: Bangkok (32 per cent), Penang (30 per cent) and Singapore (less than 30 percent). Increasingly, Seagate has developed its internally specialisation in East Asia. Low-end work is being done in China and Indonesia. Thailand and Malaysia make components and specialise in partial assembly. Singapore is the centre of the production network, overseeing and managing higher-end work as well as coordination and support functions like testing (Ernst 1999: 13). In the case of harddisk manufacturing, Singapore has found her niche in the supply-chain. Applying this principle, Singapore should quickly identify her niche or her place in the supply-chain of other products and services in the globalising world.

Aforementioned, in the globalising world, competitiveness depends on critically selecting specialised capabilities in various localities. By identifying some of the key growth areas in developed nations, Singapore firms can initial some kind of strategic alliance or even joint-ventures with foreign firms to enter certain sectors. Today, Singapore is gradually more open to such possibility. In an interview with the Financial Times, Goh Chok Tong made known that "...if there is a better partner who can run SingTel, it may be a foreigner, in principle, we are prepared to let SingTel be owned by a foreigner" (FT 2003). Despite US President George Bush allowed the sale of a majority stake in bankrupt Global Crossing Ltd. to a company owned by the Singapore government, Singapore GLCs generally appear to suffer from an "image" problem. The perception that GLCs are under the control of Singapore government has thwarted a number of merger and acquisition schemes such as the failure of SingTel to acquire shares of time Engineering, a Malaysian enterprise, and Hong Kong's Cable and Wireless HKT, as well as that of Singapore Airlines' unsuccessful bid in Air New Zealand. There is no simple solution to this problem. Immediate divestment of GLCs is neither practical nor make commercial sense. There are some successful cases such as Neptune Orient Lines establishing a global presence through the acquisition of American Pacific Line. The private sector has its successful stories when City Development acquisition of foreign hotel chains. But these are few and far between. Cross-country straddling of firms, joint-ventures, mergers and acquisition between local and foreign firms are the inevitable steps in leveraging on the benefits from globalisation.

Taiwanese firms, for example, apart from continuing strengthening of their domestic R&D capabilities, have been locating R&D labs as "listening posts" abroad in the relevant centres of excellence in the US, Japan and Europe, through a variety of joint ventures and strategic alliances with major international electronics firms, i.e. "moving towards a joint knowledge creation" (Ernst 1998: 25).

The emerging China
Some people regard the modern China comparable to the emergence of the United States as a world power at the beginning of the 20th century, or even to the rise of the Roman and Ottoman empires. The magnitude and speed of change taking place in China has taken everyone by surprise. The "heat' is especially felt by the East Asia countries for China, for the last couple of years, has been the largest recipient of FDIs, soaking up as much as 70 per cent of the region's much-needed foreign investment (ST 2001). In manufacturing, Singapore and other neighbouring countries are faced with the prospect of a hollowing out of their manufacturing firms. In general, the comparative advantage of China is similar to many East Asia nations. And with China moving rapidly up the value chain in areas like high-end electronics and contract manufacturing, even Malaysia and Thailand are under threat.

Author and management strategist Kenchi Ohmae emphasised the urgency to tap China's dynamism to foster growth. He said "in the long run, the ability of a company to thrive in this new world will depend on how well it can figure out how to internalise China's advantage to increase its own competitiveness" (ST 2001). Sounding the same bell was Gail Fosler, Chief Economist of the Conference Board, a New York-based economic and business consultancy group. She said small economies like Singapore should go for "value capability" in today's China-centric world. Asian countries have to figure out "where they want to be in that value chain" (BT 2003).

Singapore, for one, has resources and a government with swift response to global environment. Another strength of the island republic lies in acting as a coordination and managerial centre in the region, as demonstrated in the case of harddisk manufacturing. This could be the part of the value chain in relation to China on which Singapore should focus.

Conclusion
This essay argues the importance in the role of the government in focusing on a few strategic sectors, as well as leveraging on the opportunities accruing from the globalising world, and identifying city-state's role in the portion of value chain in an increasing China-centric world, to enhance Singapore's competitiveness on the international stage.

One of the greatest economists of the last century John Maynard Keynes underlined the importance of breaking away from the past when he said: "The real difficulty lies not in developing new ideas but in escaping from the old ones."

Singapore, in my opinion, must deal with both.

References

• Amsden, A. 1997. "South Korea: Enterprising Groups and Entrepreneurial Government." in Big Business and the Wealth of Nations. eds. Chandler, A. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 336-368.

• Boltho, A 1996. "The Assessment: International Competitiveness". Oxford Review of Economic Policy 12(3): 1-16.

• BT (The Business Times, Singapore). 2003. "S'pore must go for value capability." 30 July 2003.

• Cameron, Gavin. 1998. "Economic Growth in the Information Age: From Physical Capital to Weightlessness Economy." Journal of International Affair. Online, Internet. 4 Oct 2003. Available: http://hicks.nuff.ox.ac.uk/users/cameron/papers/jia.pdf

• Cornelius, Peter K. 2002. "The Growth Competitiveness Index: Recent Developments and the Prospects for a Sustained Recovery." Online, Internet 4 Oct 2003. Available: http://www.weforum.org/pdf/gcr/GCR_2002_2003/GCR_GCI.pdf

• Ernst, D. 1998. "What Permits Small Firms to Compete in Globalized High-Tech Industries? The Co-evolution of Domestic and International Knowledge Linkages in Taiwan's Computer Industry." Paper prepared for the TSER programme, DG XII, Directorate G, European Commission.

• Ernst, D. 1999. "How Globalization Reshapes the Geography of Innovation systems: Reflections on Global Production Networks in Information Industries". Paper prepared for the DRUID 1999 Summer conference on Innovation Systems. Rebild, Denmark, 9-12 June.

• FT (Financial Time). 2003. "Transcript of the interview with Goh Chok Tong." 15 September 2003.

• HS (Helsingin Sanomat). 2002. "Finland takes top spot in Environmental Sustainability Index". 4 Feb 2002. Online, Internet. 4 Oct 2003. Available: http://www.helsinki-hs.net/news.asp?id=20020204IE3

• IMD (International Institute for Management Development). 2003. Online, Internet. 4 Oct 2003. Available: http://www.imd.ch/documents/wcy/content/pastranking.pdf

• Koh Ai Tee and Lim Kim Lian. 2002. "Singapore: An infocomm hub" in Singapore Economy in the 21st Century. eds. Koh Ai Tee and others. Singapore: McGraw Hill.

• McKinsey Quarterly. 2002. "What's right with the US economy." 2002: 1. Online, Internet. 4 Oct 2003. Available: http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/article_page.asp?ar=1151&L2=19&srid=69

• Porter, Michael 2002. "Building the Microeconomic Foundations of Prosperity." Online, Internet. 4 Oct 2003. Available: http://www.weforum.org/pdf/gcr/GCR_2002_2003/GCR_MICI.pdf

• Scherer, F.M. 1999. "New Perspectives on Economic Growth and technology innovation." Washington DC. Brookings Institution Press.

• Shin Jang-Sup. 2002. "The Role of the State in an Increasingly Borderless World." Unpublished.

• ST (The Straits Times, Singapore). 2001. "The Innovation Invasion." 5 August 2001.

• ST (The Straits Times, Singapore). 2003a. "E-filing - Lawyers say judges want hard copies." 1 October 2003.

• ST (The Straits Times, Singapore). 2003b. "S'pore Dream: Staying competitive." 18 August 2003.

• Stiglitz, Joseph E. 1996. "Some Lessons from the East Asian Miracle". World Bank

• Research Observer, 11: 2 (August). 151-177.

• Storper, M. 1997. "The Regional World: Territorial Development in a Global Economy." New York: The Guilford Press.

• WEF (World Economic Forum). 2002. "Global Competitiveness Report". Online, Internet. 4 Oct 2003. Available: http://www.weforum.org/site/homepublic.nsf/Content/Global+Competitiveness+Programme%5CGlobal+Competitiveness+Report%5CGlobal+Competitiveness+Report+2002-2003

Leo Kee Chye

Saturday, April 24, 2004