Johor-Singapore cooperation: Boom, bane or both?
On Jan 6, Singapore and Malaysia inked a formal agreement to establish the JS-SEZ to attract businesses in every thing ranging from manufacturing, to health and to digital. With a land area four times that of our tiny island-state, the JS-SEZ opens up the possibility for Singapore companies to set up in Johor Bahru.
In May, a convenient light rail transit system connecting Singapore and JB was announced. Slated for launch end-2026, the JB-Singapore Rapid Transit System (RTS) Link will be able to serve up to 10,000 commuters during peak periods for every hour and in each direction, with a journey time of about five minutes. This should significantly reduce congestion along the Causeway and reduce travel times between JB and Singapore.
While lowering costs and increasing efficiency should be golden words to corporate leaders' ears, every conversation I have had with business owners or CEOs have so far started with a grimace and ended with a groan.
Clearly, the JB-Singapore story is more than cost reduction and transport efficiency.
Competition with Singapore
The closer linkage may offer opportunities, but it also presents formidable competition to Singapore – at least in the short term.
BT in your inbox
Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox.
Sign Up
Sign Up
RM1 is currently worth 30 Singapore cents. For Singaporeans, the favourable exchange rate means that prices are lower in Malaysia. Already, many are making day trips to JB to stock up on diapers, enjoy cheap meals and get pampered in a spa.
And they are there not just for basic necessities. They are also going to Malaysia for health check-ups and simple medical treatments. Pharmaceuticals, too, are cheaper across the Causeway.
Business owners in Singapore are worried that this will hollow out local demand in supermarkets, food and beverage (F&B) outlets and other specialised services.
If the product is something that Singaporeans can buy in JB and carry home, it appears they are already doing it. As Singaporeans enjoy their days off across the Causeway, the dollars they would have spent at home otherwise is now being converted into ringgit (and if they fail to declare it, the purchases are not attracting goods and services tax).
This has already happened in Hong Kong, where residents eat and play on weekends in nearby Shenzhen for half the cost. Hong Kong, as I have heard, is a thriving metropolis five days a week but a ghost town come Saturday.
A more divided Singapore?
The supply of land in Johor should ease commercial and industrial real estate prices here, which should have an eventual knock-on effect on residential real estate, making housing more affordable for first-time Singaporean homeowners.
But as one business leader pointed out, if a guy loses his job or has to shutter his business, he will not be able to buy a house anyway.
Also, existing homeowners will not be celebrating property prices coming down. Cost of living issues – so central to the discussions during the recent General Election and already exacerbated by the US tariffs – could loom even larger in the national consciousness.
Middle and lower-income Singaporeans have been talking about buying a retirement home in Malaysia where housing is cheaper and savings stretch further.
With JB becoming such an efficient commute away, will more than just silver-haired Singaporeans relocate? Working individuals, while continuing to be employed in Singapore for higher salaries, may consider commuting from homes in Forest City.
Singapore businesses, to retain customers, may move with them. Such businesses could enjoy cost savings and offer lower prices in JB. However, the same products and services would not become cheaper in Singapore where the savings do not apply. This cannibalisation of a company's own business may lead it to bifurcate offerings between high-end Singapore stores and more basic shops across the Causeway. Think premium CS Fresh versus Cold Storage's standard fare.
If their Singapore offerings become more high end, the less well-off would simply shop in Malaysia. Local outlets may increasingly cater principally to the well-heeled, likely to comprise a larger component of expatriates and uber-wealthy new citizens or permanent residents.
If our country becomes a place where only the rich can afford to work and live, but the everyday Singaporean can only travel in to work, that may have an impact on the fabric and cohesiveness of our society.
Will we see a 'two-speed Singapore' with a hollowing out of the middle and lower middle income demographic? And even if this does not happen at significant scale, will the everyday Singaporean start to feel less rooted in their home country?
Intentional policies for social cohesion
The issue is a complex one.
Sure, Singapore needs to address property prices. Rent is becoming an untenably high portion of business costs; and citizens need access not just to affordable public housing, but the ability to aspire to upgraded homes.
If the JS-SEZ ameliorates that problem, this would be a good long-term outcome. Likewise, productivity enhancements from efficiency of the RTS Link should be embraced.
But in the near term, there will be discomfort and discombobulation.
As the JS-SEZ and RTS Link come into operation, Singapore businesses and landlords will be affected. This may result in more precarious businesses failing or choosing to relocate offshore. That will in turn have an impact on their employees' livelihoods.
So far, there has not been much discussion on this – but I think it is an issue that needs to be unpacked and tackled openly.
We need to assess and address the implications that the new linkages will have in the short term, even while celebrating anticipated future upsides for big corporates and small businesses.
On the employment front, upskilling and training need to be core. Singapore will have to accelerate its development into a higher-up-the-value-chain hub, especially in the services sector, where compensation packages are most attractive.
Local businesses also need to upgrade to stay creative and relevant. This could be in the form of curating new concepts or offering innovative experiences unique to Singapore.
The consequences to our social fabric must not be less front-of-mind.
We need intentional policies to build community cohesion and make Singaporeans feel that this, here, is – and always will be – our home.
On the business front, this could entail holding space for local entrepreneurs, F&B startups or small businesses. If a home-grown clothing label starts to feel squeezed out by big-name international brands, they will decamp offshore.
On the community side, we must be purposeful in building a local identity – be it ever so diverse and messy – with shared spaces and events to enjoy and build cohesion and belonging.
The economic benefits of JB-Singapore collaboration will take time to be felt, and in the near term, individuals and businesses will be economically discomfited.
Let us not allow that uncomfortable adjustment to lead to a more divided Singapore community.
The writer is joint managing partner at TSMP Law Corporation
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNA
an hour ago
- CNA
S$7.5m fund launched to help social service agencies track impact of programmes, refine offerings
Social service agencies can tap a new S$7.5 million fund to improve expected outcomes of their programmes and refine services. The National Council of Social Service said this will attract sustained funding as sponsors can better track the progress of the programmes. The fund was announced at the NCSS Social Service Summit. Around S$34 million has been invested into technology capabilities within the social service sector since 2022. These aim to improve operational efficiency and help alleviate manpower challenges amid a shortage of social workers. Chloe Teo reports.
CNA
3 hours ago
- CNA
Singapore and Cambodia to strengthen cooperation in renewables, carbon markets, agri-trade
Singapore is seeking to diversify its food sources by exploring new agriculture business opportunities with Cambodia. Prime Minister Lawrence Wong said closer collaboration will benefit both countries, with Singapore as a key importer and Cambodia as an exporter. During his visit to Cambodia, both nations reaffirmed their commitment to ASEAN unity. Mr Wong also expressed hope for the de-escalation of tensions at the Cambodia-Thailand border. As Singapore's prime minister, Mr Wong's trip to Cambodia concludes his introductory visits to ASEAN countries. Aslam Shah reports.
Business Times
4 hours ago
- Business Times
The surprising tariff lesson buried in inflation data
IF THE Trump administration's tariff policies result in higher overall inflation – a scenario that will play out in the coming weeks – the question is who will pay for it. A surge in prices will presumably raise the cost of doing business. Less clear is whether, and to what extent, companies will pass on those higher costs to consumers. Any inflationary impact from tariffs should first show up in the Producer Price Index (PPI), which reflects changes in the cost of producing goods and services sold to consumers. Over time, producer inflation is passed on to consumers and shows up in the better-known Consumer Price Index (CPI). The PPI and CPI's long history shows that the two are closely related. They have grown at roughly similar rates – the PPI by 2.8 per cent a year since 1913 through May, and the CPI, at a slightly higher rate of 3.2 per cent a year. Annual changes in the two indexes have also been highly correlated over that time (0.8, counting monthly). The relationship was as strong during the past 30 years (0.81), marked by the increasing globalisation of trade, as it was during the first three decades of the data series (0.79). That long and consistent history supports the intuition that in the long run, businesses do – indeed, must – pass on their higher costs to consumers. Looking at shorter periods, however, the numbers tell a more nuanced story. The first thing that jumps out is that annual changes in the PPI have been twice as volatile as those of the CPI, as measured by annualised standard deviation. This suggests that businesses have routinely shielded consumers from much of the turbulence in producer inflation. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up Notably, most of that shielding occurred when producer inflation spiked. The median annual change in PPI has been 2.3 per cent since 1913. During 12-month periods when producer inflation was lower than the median, roughly half the time, CPI outpaced PPI more than 90 per cent of the time, and by a median of 2.2 percentage points. But when annual producer inflation was higher than 2.3 per cent, it was just the opposite. On those occasions, PPI outstripped CPI more than 70 per cent of the time and by a median of 1.6 percentage points. The results are nearly identical when annual changes in PPI and CPI are compared on a six- or 12-month lag. In other words, the higher the inflation, the more likely businesses were to absorb most of the higher cost, at least in the near term, and vice versa. One way to understand that divergence is that there may be a limit to how much price inflation consumers can digest at one time. It would explain why businesses seem to have little trouble passing on their own higher costs to consumers in normal inflation environments, but struggle to do so when inflation spikes. Companies may also have a strategic incentive to internalise cost surges, given competing considerations of volume and margin. Raising prices would protect profit margins in the near term, but could imperil them down the road if higher prices result in lower volume and market share. Passing on higher costs to consumers gradually might be a way to protect both, particularly if companies have margin to spare. Fortunately, many big US companies do – the profit margin for the S&P 500 Equal Weight Index is near an all-time high, and expected to grow this year and next. That may explain why the stock market has been so sensitive to tariff news this year. The White House's Liberation Day announcement was greeted with one of the worst two-day US stock market routs on record, and the tariff delays were routinely celebrated with surging stock prices. The seemingly single-minded focus on levies makes sense if companies have the most to lose. One countervailing consideration is that heightened inflation expectations may give companies more room than usual to raise prices. A notable outlier in the data is that during the hyperinflationary years of the late 1970s and early 1980s, CPI mostly kept pace with PPI despite double-digit producer inflation. Businesses may have been able to raise prices more aggressively because consumers had come to expect big price hikes. Memories of the pandemic's price surge are a big reason Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell has called for caution on cutting interest rates until the implications of tariffs are more clear. With inflation expectations for next year nearly double the long-term inflation rate, businesses may be able to push costs to consumers more quickly. The PPI and CPI do not overlap perfectly, so they can only be a rough guide to the way businesses and consumers navigate higher prices. But given the behaviour of producer and consumer inflation during previous periods of surging prices, do not be surprised if any tariff-related inflation is initially absorbed mostly by companies. BLOOMBERG
