The debate on having a minimum wage is back and this time it’s
back with force. The reason for this is simple – Dr. Jamus Lim, who is the
Member of Parliament for Sengkang Group Representation Council (GRC) for the Workers’
Party and a star economist. Dr. Lim managed to make what has traditionally a
placid affair (the usual case being a state of every time someone suggests what
little the poor get should be protected by law, the ruling party inevitably
comes up with a statistic suggesting that its bad for the poor) into a news
storm because he had the audacity to suggests that we needed to find hard
statistics to prove that minimum wage legislation was bad rather than to reply
on “folksy wisdom.” Singapore’s normally placid unions have been up in arms
over the adjective of “folksy.” More can be found at:
This event underlines some of the more serious fault lines
in Singapore’s “meritocratic” society. The first one is the fact that we are a
society that seems to link wealth with achievement. The official line is that if
you are good, you will rise and earn a lot of money. Hence, whenever there’s a
debate on ministerial salaries, the bottom line that the government stresses that
you need to pay top dollar for top talent and Singapore has done well in the
world because we paid good money to have honest and very competent ministers
running the show.
However, it’s a different story at the other end of the
scale. Whenever anyone floats the idea of any form of legislation that faces
the realities of the free market system, the idea is instantly shot down.
Things like a minimum wage or unemployment insurance are considered bad for the
economy because they’ll somehow raise labour costs and scare away the investors
who have made Singapore so wealthy.
Using the military analogy, the message is clear. Generals have
to have more money because we need them to plan. The foot soldiers (i.e. the
people who actually put their life on the line in a battle) should not be mollycoddled.
The second point of Dr. Jamus Lim’s speech is the focus on
the role of unions. In the 20-odd years that I’ve lived in Singapore, this is the
first time that I remember seeing our unions say anything. The unions normally prefer
to stay mum and let their umbrella organization; the National Trade Unions
Congress (NTUC) be the public face on all issues relating to workers.
NTUC is an exceedingly successful organization. It runs a chain
of supermarkets and an insurance cooperative amongst many other enterprises. It
provides discounts to a number of commercial enterprises (most of which it has
a stake in). What is less clear is whether the Union of All Unions has been good
at helping the working man. The Secretary General of NTUC is inevitably a cabinet
minister, whose main role seems to talk about the success of our “tripartite”
model of industrial relations between employers, workers and the government.
However, the question remains, what exactly have the unions done for all industrial
relations?
The government’s line is that it has done a successful job
in as much as Singapore seems to have confined strikes to the history books. I
think of the press business where the last strike in journalism was back in
1971 (before I was born). The leader of that strike once admitted that the end
of the strike was perhaps good for journalists working conditions but not good
for the independent media in as much as the government helped make conditions
so comfortable that challenging the status quo was frowned upon.
NTUC will also point out that they offer discounts and in
some cases payment for people who want to retrain and thus make themselves more
employable. I have yet to take on the paper work required to get paid to learn.
However, does that mean that NTUC has been successful in
ensuring harmonious working relationships? As in the case of foreign workers, the
answer is likely to be no. Employers begrudge the extra dollars paid to workers
as costs and the truth of the matter is that workers continue to struggle. The
basic line on wages in Singapore is that the average salary in Singapore is
around $4,500 a month and two thirds of us earn below that. Furthermore, costs
continue to rise in Singapore. If you want to give the government a headache,
just repeat the findings of the Economist Intelligence Unit, which has found
that Singapore is the world’s most expensive city for expats. If we’re
expensive for an expat with all sorts of perks like housing allowances, then
what must it be for locals?
The standard line that the government has used as that
Singapore has a “progressive” wage model which is better than the Worker’s
Party proposal of a minimum wage. They have pointed out to the fact that the
poor saps earning $1,300 a month do get “workfare” supplementary support.
As someone who has received workfare, I will say that its
nice to see a few extra bucks in your account every quarter. Workfare is a good
incentive to help you stay in a job. However, it is by no means a serious supplement
to ones living expenses. I take myself, a 46-year old worker as an example. How
much I’d get in income support, assuming I earned the proposed minimum of
$1,300 a month:
https://www.workfare.gov.sg/Pages/CalculatorEmployee.aspx
Let’s be realistic, the most I’ll be able to do with the money is to buy the family a meal when I receive it. It’s not going to do anything beyond that.
Something needs to be done to ensure that workers at the
lower end of the scale have a means of getting a living wage. Rather than
dismissing Dr. Lim’s remarks about “folksy wisdom,” the unions should gather
their “folksy wisdom” and lead a discussion on making our model for industrial
relations better. Unions are after all supposed to protect the rights of the workers
as well as selling them products.
No comments
Post a Comment