“I’m not a rich man – everything I make is reinvested in the Company.”

I remember my Dad and I once had a discussion about money. I was still at school and he wasn’t happy with how I was spending things. He made the point that despite the good things we had around us, he was not a rich man with infinite resources. Everything he had was reinvested into his business.

This conversation summed up the importance of money. While money is not everything, it plays a vital part in most of what we do. Money is not the root of all evil – it is the root of most things and business people, including the ones that are doing well, will always remind you that whatever surplus they earn has to be invested back into the business. Hans Hofer, the founder of Apa Guides once said that he only made money from his business when he sold his business and did other things.

I remembered these conversations and as I started freelancing in an industry where people are expected to work for foreign multinationals, I learnt two valuable lessons. The first lesson was the fact that money is power. The guys with the money will inevitably squeeze those without. The guy who has the advantage in a business negotiation is inevitably the guy with money in the bank. It is, as they say, easier to tell someone to f** off when you have enough money to worry about not having that job or project.  

The second lesson I learnt was that there was a clear difference in attitudes towards money between those working for someone else and those who were employed. Big ticket items like posh meals, fancy wines, swanky hotel rooms and business class tickets were inevitably bought by those on expense accounts. The self-employed, including the successful ones, tended to be a little more conservative with their spending. It is inevitably easier to spend someone else’s money.

These lessons I took from the world of business seem to apply to electoral politics. The winner of any given election is inevitably the party that has the resources to spend. American elections are particularly well known for this. Candidates need to raise hundreds of millions to get past the finish line.

It isn’t much different in the Westminster System, where its often said that elections are lost by governments rather than won by opposition parties. Singapore’s government, for example is pretty good at dishing out goodies before an election.

It has also has been particularly good at buying over potential opponents. Our scholarship system is designed to bring bright and potential trouble makers onside. Two of our more prominent ministers (Tharman Shanmugaratnam and Vivian Balakrishnan) are examples of two bright sparks, who had

However, Singapore’s ruling party has run into a few challenges recently. The first one is the fact that potential opponents in the opposition are increasingly financially independent like former Worker’s Party Member of Parliament, Chen Show Mao, who was a partner at David Polk & Wardwell, a law firm with over a billion in revenue. Telling someone they can afford a condominium in a few years of working for you just doesn’t quite have the same effect on a man who is already living in a condominium.

The second challenge comes from an attitude towards resources. At the end of the recent election, the Prime Minister announced that Mr. Pritam Singh, leader of the Worker’s Party would be given the title “Leader of the Opposition,” which would be recognized office in the apparatus of the state which comes with a salary and staff.

This is office is found in other Commonwealth Jurisdictions like the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and India. However, in the Singapore context this was revolutionary in the sense that it was official recognition of “opposition” parties as a legitimate force. The cynics also argued that it was a sign of taming the Worker’s Party with an effective bribe.

However, Mr. Singh threw a wrench into the works by donating half of his salary increase. This announcement instantly brought him into the cross hairs of one of the ruling party’s most prominent trolls, Mr. Calvin Cheng, who complained that the Prime Minister’s donations didn’t get the good press that Mr. Singh’s was getting:

http://theindependent.sg/calvin-cheng-asks-why-pm-lee-doesnt-get-the-recognition-pritam-does-for-donating-half-his-lo-salary/

To make matters worse, Ms. Ho Ching, the Prime Minister’s wife, CEO of Temasek Holdings (Singapore’s Family Office), and the only person whose salary is a state secret joined in the fray:

https://www.asiaone.com/digital/ho-ching-and-calvin-cheng-take-pritam-singhs-donation-declaration-netizens-respond

Mr. Singh has clarified that he wasn’t giving away half his salary but half his salary increase:

https://www.straitstimes.com/politics/wp-chief-pritam-singh-clarifies-that-he-will-donate-half-his-salary-increase-not-half-his

Why are people associated with the ruling party getting upset by Mr. Singh’s donation? The obvious point would be that it doesn’t make them look good. The act of forgoing the salary increase (which is considerably less than the lowest paid political office holder) has started what the Malay Mail described as a potential charity war and made Mr. Singh look better than the ruling party office holders:

https://www.malaymail.com/news/opinion/2020/08/02/singapores-opposition-leader-launching-a-charity-war/1890250

The less noticed and talked about point is that Mr. Singh probably had no choice in donating his new salary increase. If you look carefully at what Mr. Singh has said he would donate to, you’d note that it is primarily towards grassroots causes in the areas that his party controls.

 

 

The Worker’s Party is playing a long-term game. Strategy is simple – win seats, keep taking care of constituents to stay elected and then challenge for seats when you have enough strength. Unfortunately for Mr. Singh, his options of executing that strategy are particularly limited in as much as the main source of funding comes from the government, which is controlled by the ruling party, which unashamedly works on the principle of delaying funding to wards that it does not control.

Hence, Mr. Singh has to find different ways of funding the programs that his constituents need. The donation of his salary increase can be seen in the same light as a small shop keeper investing a windfall back into the business.

It’s different for the ruling party in as much as it controls official purse strings. Ruling party members of parliament (MPs) can afford to behave like executives on a generous expense account because getting the money is simply a question of following official rules on accountability.

Someone who comes from a position where he does not have to find ways and means of creating a budget will not be able to understand the motives of someone who is operating in a system where he or she has to get creative about raising the money.

While it will be sometime before the Worker’s Party will be in a position to fight for the government, the lack of resources is inevitably good for it. Its MPs will be trained to think of their wards like microenterprises with limited resources. This mindset will produce people who should be able to come up with creative solutions to the more complex problems of the modern age.

Hopefully, a stronger opposition will also help improve efficiency in the government. One can only hope that the increase in dissenting voices will get ruling party MP’s to think more creatively in order to get things past parliament. In business, big conglomerates like General Electric have started to work on the principle that they need to behave like smaller enterprises. Hopefully the same will happen in politics.    

When You’re Poor, what’s due to you is a cost

I Got Scammed by a Media Masterstroke.

After expressing my delight that Singapore’s Sunday Times published a news snippet stating that eight out of ten Singaporeans were willing to pay more for essential services if it meant giving the workers more money, I’m now disturbed.

You could say that after a decade of dealing with the news media, I’m getting my just deserts. It’s just dawned upon me that my delight in thinking that my fellow citizens were more kind hearted than I gave them credit for, was in fact a total distraction from the reality. Call it an endorphin shot that distracts you from the fact that you have cancer. It is a PR master stroke that stops you from asking hard questions.

Background to this started in April 2020, when Covid-19 cases started exploding in foreign worker dormitories. Singapore, which before then, had been basking in the international spotlight for its management of the virus, suddenly saw its reputation for basic competence tarnished. Instead of focusing on the “brilliant” job that the government was doing, the focus shifted to the fact that Singapore had an underclass that was being royally screwed.

In fairness to the government, it did act quickly to shut down the dorms and it offered assistance to the migrant workers, who had been screwed by the disease and the ensuring confinement. Instead of focusing on their plight, a good portion of the workers were suddenly given a reason to be grateful to the government. While the government did upset the more extreme elements who felt the government was spending too much tax payer money on ungrateful foreigners, it did take away a motive from the foreign worker population to cause any civil unrest.

The second stroke of genius was to focus on one simple question. This question was “Would you be willing to pay more for services if the wages of the poor and needy were to be increased?” This was done very subtly and it slid in between all the noise about the need to improve conditions for foreign workers and so on.

At the lowest end of the scale you had the likes of the Fawning Follower, who argued that poor living conditions for Singapore’s underclass were in fact good for Singapore (despite the evidence brought by Covid-19). At the more intelligent end of the scale, you had the likes of the CEO of Centurion Corp, who replied to my forum letter on his profit margins. He appeared reasonable, did not “hide” from the obvious, explained that he was doing this and that to make things better and then somehow it was going to costs money and the tax payer would have to pay for it.

This question frames the issue into one of self-interested costs. Think of the various ways in which this has been framed:

1. Yes, we understand that living conditions for Indian and Bangladeshi workers need to be improved – but you do know that it’s going to costs the employers more and they’ll raise prices so your road tax and building maintenance fees will go up; or
2. Yes, poor aunty carrying the trays at the food court only earns $7 an hour for a 12-hour day – but you know,, if you raised her salary to $10 an hour and reduce working hours to 10 hours a day, the stall owners will need to recoup their costs and are you willing to pay $7 for your noodles instead of $4?

When you frame the issue in this manner, even the most well-intentioned person, will think twice. This is especially true if your own wages are barely keeping up with inflation and rising costs. Think about it – nobody wants aunty to slave at the food court of the Thambis to come home to a slum after a day in the hot sun – but it means that I have to pay more …… Sure, its inspiring that people will say that their willing to pay more if it goes to the workers but the counter to that is that is inevitably – since we don’t know the money will go to the workers, why should we risk paying more.

The second problem with framing the debate this way is that it distracts people from the real issue, which is why is the cost structured the way it is.

In my earlier posting “Lucrative Problems,” I made the point that in the case of foreign labour in Singapore, foreign labour is not cheap and the labourer gets paid badly because there are too many parties taking a cut in between the employer and employee. The biggest cut goes into foreign worker levy to the government. This increases the employer’s costs but does not benefit the worker at all.

I’ve also argued in my piece "The Obvious Answer to Cheaper Hawker Food" that the government has the capacity to reduce rents on land that it controls so that businesses keep more of the money they earn. 

If you look at the way the question is phrased, you think it’s just an employer-vs-employee issue. It makes you look at your own pocket without looking at the real issues. Imagine if we took the examples provided and said the following instead:

1. Since foreign workers live in awful conditions, why don’t we reduce the levy and regulate agent fees more, so that the employers and workers have more to spend on better accommodation; or
2. Why don’t reduce the rents at the food court so that the stall owners have more money to pay the cleaning aunties more?

It’s not going to happen because too many powerful parties have an interest in keeping things this way. These parties consider the reduction of the profit margin (take 50 percent instead of 80) as asking them to make a loss. Thus, they’ll fight tooth and nail to keep things the way they are.

However, there is a case to self-interest to be made. If the government took less from businesses and people through hidden levies and rents, it would create higher spending, which in turn would lead to more business activity and tax revenue.

While I’m happy that my fellow citizens are open to having more compassion for the less fortunate, we shouldn’t get distracted from asking real questions and addressing the real issues.

Lucrative Problems

I got to admit that I love Bollywood and being forced to stay at home and having access to Netflix has allowed me to catch up on a few Bollywood movies. The smattering of Hindi I’ve been able to pick have come from watching Bollywood movies.

Anyway, I watched Aiyaary, where there was a scene about an incident in Kashmir (the long-disputed sore in Indian-Pakistan relations). In this scene, the younger character asks his mentor, “There are intelligent and capable people on both sides. Why is it that we can’t solve the problem?” The reply of the older character replies, “Kashmir is an industry,” and he goes onto explain that too many people on both sides are making money from the problem. He then let’s his protégé understand that, “When you’re making money from a problem, you safeguard the problem instead of solving it.” The dialogue can be found at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-we3SC-NzA

This section of the movie caught my attention because the world is going through a lot of problems. We have a global pandemic, the depletion of natural resources, climate change and now there’s racism in much of the Western world. Old conflicts like Kashmir and the Israel-Palestine issue seem set to get worse.

None of these problems are new. These problems were highlighted in the global media some thirty years ago and if you followed the news in that time, you’d get the impression that these were insolvable problems.

However, if you look at the technological advances that have been made in that period, a sane mind would have to ask, “Why can’t we solve these problems?” Why, for example does South East Asia and the South America get covered in a haze every so often? The annual bout of regional choking haze comes from the burning of forest, which is meant to clear land for cash crops.

When environmentalist complained about the ecological devastation, the standard reply in Southeast Asia (and is now being loudly used by Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro) was that “the poor world needed to feed people,” and the subtext was “even if it pissed off Western environmentalist,” who were merely imperialist trying to keep us poor.” While this might have been the case in the 1960s, why does this have to be the case in 2020? You’d imagine that we’d have found a way to substitute palm oil in certain products or found a way for farmers to clear land that didn’t kill off the rest of us.

Unfortunately, it’s not been in anyone’s (or at least the people who count) interest to find a solution. The plantation owners keep poor people busy and politicians have been convinced that its in their interest to keep the plantation owners happy.

Here in Singapore, there’s the issue of foreign labour, which has become an issue now that Covid-19 has exploded in foreign worker dormitories. Suddenly, Singapore’s media has shifted its focus on the condition of foreign workers and there have been letters galore about the need to rely less on foreign workers.

True to form, the industry has hit back and there have been a number of letters from “industry” groups, which called for any cut to the supply of foreign labour to be “short-sighted” and detrimental to the economy. One of the most prominent forum letters can be found at:

 https://www.straitstimes.com/forum/forum-call-to-cut-number-of-foreign-workers-here-is-short-sighted

The argument against having more foreign workers is unfortunately the same as it is the same argument against any basic improvement to the welfare of foreign workers – namely less foreign workers like better foreign worker welfare will increase the costs for employers who will then have to charge more and make everything more expensive for us, the consumers.

This argument has been used very effectively to dodge solving the actual problem, which is the fact that employing a foreign worker is not actually cheap for employers nor does it give foreign workers the money they thought they’d have but the system benefits a host of other parties like labour suppliers, dormitory operators, labour agents and repatriation companies. Any disruption to the system will inevitably upset a host of other people. Nobody explains the problem better than Alex Au, who works at TWC2, an NGO for migrant workers:

http://twc2.org.sg/2020/05/01/the-dorms-are-not-the-problem/?fbclid=IwAR1nhYuPYZ_hYyigLs3VbUrfO4CLtEXz9XuTbB20EOFyKNU6aOInlRGp5GQ

Crudely put, every foreign worker is a money spinner for a host of parties. The government, despite its generous support for the migrant workers in this pandemic, is in fact one of the guilty culprits. The revenue from the foreign worker levy is a major money spinner (average of $750 per worker per month – the stress of this being an average) for the government. However, in addition to that, there is a quota system, which limits the number of foreign labourers that a company can hire.

The official reason for the levy and quota is that it reduces the price differential between foreign labour and local Singaporean labour. The reality is that it has created a very lucrative niche called Labour Supply. The basics are simple – hire a labourer on the cheap and then “rent” them out to other companies that need labour but don’t have the quota. As one former accountant for a labour supplier says, “The worker works the overtime while the labour supplier pockets the overtime pay.”

Other laws get exploited too. There is a lucrative niche for lawyers working on workman 

compensation. All you need is to find a worker involved in a workman compensation claim. You pay for the housing, flight ticket and perhaps give him a bit of pocket money and once he’s gone back, collect the workman compensation, which is inevitably higher than what you paid.

The answer to our foreign labour problems is simple. You just need to reduce the people in between the labourer and the employer. If you reduce the army of middlemen, the employers can get cheaper labour and the workers can get more money. The key parties would benefit. However, the middlemen form an industry in themselves.

I look at the situation with maids as an example. At one time, a maid in Hong Kong earnt up to $700 a month because there wasn’t a powerful middleman. In Singapore a maid would costs an employer around $700 a month but the maid would only get $400 if she was lucky. The difference between the Hong Kong and Singapore scenario is the fact that there is a levy to be paid in Singapore.

I’ve never argued against the need for middlemen. Agents and even labour suppliers have a role to facilitate the relationship between employer and employee. Dormitory owners also serve a purpose in housing workers. Nobody is saying that these businesses should not be allowed to make a profit.

What is being argued here is that the system needs to be changed so that the most important players (namely the employer and employee) get a fairer deal. The system as it is, remains a problem. It’s a choice between increased costs for employers and basic welfare for workers (which is defined as livable wages and accommodation that does not make people sick.)

Entrepreneurial thinking is needed to restructure the system and the sooner the government bites the bullet and goes through the pain (including losing the addiction to easy levy money), the better it will be for all of us.

Your Rich – We Have to Give You More

I’ve been spending a little less time on the blog and focusing more of my time on writing for the mainstream media in recent days. A part of shifting focus has been work-related. The other has been the fact that there are issues that need to be raised in a place where there’s going to be wide discussion.

The most prominent issue that has caught my attention and the attention of many in Singapore is the issue of foreign worker dormitories. The reason for this is simple, these are the places where the explosion in Covid-19 cases have been found and the government has decided to throw a lifeline to the dormitory operators by offering to foot the bill for the increased operational costs that the dormitory operators will have to face. More details on that story can be found at:

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/government-to-absorb-additional-operational-costs-for-dormitory-operators-during-circuit

While the stay-at-home orders and lockdowns on the dormitories has undoubtedly raised operational costs for the dormitory owners, one has to ask why the government has decided to step in as their proverbial sugar daddy. This is especially in a situation where the dormitory owners are in no danger of going bankrupt.

As matter of principle, I’m against subsidies from the government, whether its to individuals or corporations. Having grown up in the West, I saw how noble intentions ruined. Welfare, which was meant to help the poor ended up destroying the incentive to work. “Free” healthcare was often abused (think of the 18 months it takes to get an appointment with an orthodontist in the NHS) and then, there’s the well subsidized business of farming, which became very lucrative for farmers who realized that farming was not about crops or livestock but filling out forms.

I get why some subsidies exists. On a personal level, there are people who are basket cases that you can’t leave to rot (think of the problems they’ll cause as they rot). I think of Flesh Ball and her various men as an example. When it comes to businesses, there are times when a subsidy is necessary, especially when it involves bringing something to market that will have eventual social benefits. Renewable energies for example, were highly subsidized because they were expensive. However, those subsidies have paid off in that the cost of producing renewables are now competitive and it has provided the world with energy sources that don’t damage the environment.

Then there are exceptional circumstances where subsidies to businesses help provide social collapse. Subsidies to businesses in the current shut down of the global economy have helped keep people who might otherwise be unemployed in a job. The alternative is mass long-term unemployment, which in turn would mean social unrest.

So, the question is, does the dormitory operations industry justify giving a subsidy? I believe that the obvious answer is no.

Firstly, there is no benefit to the tax payer in doing so. Unlike renewable energy companies, they are producing anything that would add value to either people or the planet in the long run. They are merely putting people into a certain space and charging a fee for it.

Secondly, the dormitory operators are not in any danger of going bankrupt and throwing people out of work. While a breakdown of their number of employees is not available, a look at Centurion Corporation’s website would indicate that they are still hiring.

https://www.centurioncorp.com.sg/career-opportunities/

As mentioned in two letters to the Straits Times (including one by me), the dormitory owners are exceptionally profitable. Details can be found at:

https://www.straitstimes.com/forum/why-foot-the-bill-for-dorm-operators-that-have-profited-for-years; and

https://www.straitstimes.com/forum/forum-let-dormitory-operators-face-the-music-themselves

Numbers quoted in both letters were taken from Centurion Corporation’s financial website at (Being a listed company, Centurion Corporation has to publish its financial results):

https://centurion.listedcompany.com/financials.html

The letter by Mr. Cheng Shoong Tat got the board of the Centurion Corporation to scramble and they had to issue a “clarification” as to what their $103.78 million profit on revenue of $133.353 million meant. They’ve made a point that of that $103,78 million profit that they made includes a “one-time” net fair valuation gain of $66.3 million on investment properties and assets held for sale. The clarification also makes the point the worker dormitory business is just 65percent of their total. More details can be found at:

https://centurion.listedcompany.com/newsroom/20200518_205520_OU8_AKSMHTJUI645S6UQ.1.pdf

What does this mean in layman terms? Is the company saying that the $66 million in “fair-valuation” gains merely an accounting treatment rather than actual cash?

Even if you take the “clarification” at face value, Centurion’s profits are exceedingly healthy by any standards. If you take out the “one-time” net fair-valuation gain, the profits before tax would be $44.735 million (Gross Profit less expenses), which would mean profit margins of 33 percent (still very healthy by any standard) and if you less income tax, there’s still $37.522 million, which means a margin of 28 percent. Furthermore, the “one-time” net valuation gain is also in the financial results for 2018, which would suggest that the one-time gains are fairly consistent.

All these factors should not distract from the fact that Centurion Corporation is sitting on a cash pile of some $48 million (cash at bank).

Nobody is saying that Centurion Corporation and its brethren are not allowed to make profits. What is questioned is why the tax payer has to subsidise them when there is a situation where they are likely to make less. The point about going into business is that you take the risk and rewards accordingly. When times are good, you are entitled to your profits but when times are harsh, you take the losses. Other businesses have also taken hits. SIA, for example has had to lay off staff because the global airline industry has been badly hit. However, SIA provides jobs for many Singaporeans and actively promotes Singapore, something which the dormitory owners do not.

The most crucial point to the case against footing the bill is that many of the costs that are now being imposed on the dormitory owners are now being forced to take on, were costs that should have been factored in when the Foreign Employers Dormitories Act (“FEDA”) came into force in January 2016. This act essentially sets certain standards in the industry of providing accommodation for foreign workers and the fact that the government introduced this act would indicate that the government realized that it needed to have some oversight on the industry. More can be found at:

https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/FEDA2015

This leads to the fact that half of all dormitory owner’s flout licensing requirements on a yearly basis as the Minister of Manpower admitted to parliament:

https://www.straitstimes.com/politics/majority-of-dorm-operators-flout-licensing-conditions-each-year-says-josephine-teo

So, the question remains, why should the tax payer bail out a highly profitable and cash rich industry from failing to fulfill its legal obligations? What hold does this industry have over the tax payer that it can demand a right to be subsidized to correct its own failings. When was it my obligation as a tax payer to fund an industry’s right to make healthy profits.

The Fawning Follower.

One of the most prominent moments in Barak Obama’s Presidency was when he suggested that people who felt that people living on low wages didn’t have it that bad was “Try it.” I often think of this phrase whenever I read comments about workers dormitories and how foreign workers should be grateful for their lot in life because it's  apparently much worse elsewhere.

The most recent character who should try it is a character called “Michael Petraeus,” a Polish national who has reinvented himself as a blogger called “Critical Spectator.” Mr. Petraeus like all good foreigners at the “expat” end of the scale is a devoted fan of the Singapore Government and while he is a spectator, he is not critical of the situation in Singapore.

To be fair, Singapore stacks up pretty well in most aspects of life. We remain for the most part a 

rich, clean and green city. The government machinery for the most part remains pretty good. Our Prime Minister, for example, gets the world’s most generous political salary but unlike his previous counter part across the causeway, nobody has found a criminal and unaccountable sum of money in his bank account. In this era of Covid 19, we’ve also done a reasonable job. If you look at the statistics, we’ve not done as well as we could have when compared to say Taiwan or New Zealand but it's not the disaster of say, the USA, where there’s a national leader undermining safety measures.  

Mr. Petraeus is also a foreigner, who is getting a good deal from Singapore. It might be natural that he takes the view that he should “educate” the locals and show them that Singapore is not as bad as they think it is and as a “guest,” he might feel that its not his place to be critical.

Having said that, Singapore is not perfect. As PN Balji, former editor of the Today Newspaper used to say, “They’ve got about 75 to 80 percent right but you need to harp on the 20 to 25 percent that isn’t right because it’s the only way they’ll stay on their toes.”

Unfortunately, the one area that most glaring errors in the Singapore system is in the area of dealing with the poor and neglected. Our so called “Asian-Values” society that respects elders, for example,  sees nothing wrong with old folks going through the trash so that they can pick out drinks cans to sell for a few pennies because they need the money.

We are also a society that doesn’t seem to have a problem with “slave labour,” and “race-based” pay scales, particularly when it comes to dealing with people who happen to be darker than a shade of pink. Only the blind would argue otherwise.

Unfortunately, Mr. Petraeus is blind spot to the obvious and this causes him to be anything but a “Critical” spectator. His most recent post was to rush the defense of the workers dormitories after the outbreak of Covid-19 cases. His post can be found at:

https://www.facebook.com/CriticalSpectator/posts/2788391291268580?__tn__=K-R

Mr. Petraeus argues that far from being a failure that the NGO crowd have made them out to be, the dorms are a sign of success. His arguments can be summed up as follows:

 1. Singapore has built cheap and good infrastructure by using cheap labour from elsewhere;
       2. The foreign workers are not complaining because what they get here is better than what they get at home;
       3. Singapore is short of land and the dormitories are the most cost-effective way of housing them; and
       4. This is not exploitation because everyone benefits.

     Mr. Petraeus is correct. The dorms are a sign of success. If you are an owner of a dormitory for example, you are bound to be very successful

Take a look at the Centurion Corporation, which owns and runs the Westlite Toh Guan, the dormitory that has become one of the main covid-19 clusters. In the year ending 31 December 2019, Centurion Corporation had revenue of SG$ 133,353,000 and after-tax profits of SG$103,788,000. The joint non-executive chairmen of the board, Mr. Han Seng Juan and Mr. David Loh Kim Kang from Potong Pasir CCC are appreciated by their shareholders.

Mr. Petraeus is also right in as much as the workers generally don’t complain about their lot because they are earning more than what they could earn back home and from what I could see of Westlite Toh Guan from the outside, it does not look unpleasant.

As to how much we’ve benefited in terms of cheap and affordable infrastructure, it’s a question of debate. What is certain is that the trade in labourers has built a few fortunes. In addition to helping the construction companies earn good money from cheaper labour, there is an industry called labour supply. In July 2019, one of the largest labour suppliers in Singapore sold his company for 40 odd million Singapore dollars.

Mr. Petraeus also uses another defense of the system, which is – migrant labourers are always at the bottom of the social heap wherever you go.  

https://www.facebook.com/CriticalSpectator/posts/2792915094149533?__tn__=K-R

However, what Mr. Petraeus seems to forget is that just because a situation exists everywhere in the world or the fact that people don’t complain about it doesn’t make it right.

Everyone knows that the foreign workers are where they are because they want to earn money to help families get out of poverty. They’re willing to work longer hours and for less money than the locals. Nothing wrong with that. However, the real beneficiaries of this business are not the workers themselves but a host of intermediaries like labour suppliers, agents and incidentally, in the case of Singapore, the government, which collects a levy on every foreign worker (which ranges from $600 to $900 per person per month).

While Mr. Petraeus’s point that Singapore benefits from cheap labour might be up for debate, the government definitely benefits from it in the form of the levy. If you take the low-end figure of $600 per person and the fact that there are 284,300 construction workers as at June 2019, that amounts to some S$170,580,000 a month in revenue from the workers levy alone.

While the intention of the levy is supposed to be to reduce the cost differential between the foreign labourer and a local Singaporean, the result is that its encouraged employers to look for further cost savings elsewhere, particularly from the workers.

Some locals have complained that the Singapore government is “wasting” resources on the labourers and that we’re doing more for them than their own governments. However, let’s look at the other side of the equation. The mere presence of the labourers is contributing to the government’s coffers in return for no benefit at all. Call what the government is doing for the labourers a form of investment to ensure the system can sustain itself rather than benevolence. Whatever benefits the government gets from contractors using cheap labour, the one that is clearly measurable is the returns from the levy.

Mr. Petraeus also forgets that the government has admitted that standards for worker accommodation are also not what they should be. Minister for Manpower, Ms. Josephine Teo has said that standards need to be raised and it is clear that current conditions of accommodation are not healthy. While the recent outbreaks of covid-19 have attracted media attention because of their sheer number, this is not the first-time workers have died in Singapore because of an outbreak of disease in their accommodation.

It must be nice for Mr. Petraeus has so much faith in the Singapore government. However, blind faith is not healthy for any organization including the Singapore government. It’s the likes of Mr. Petraeus’s efforts to defend glaring flaws that leads to complacency, which leads to something like the case that we currently have

Perhaps the solution for Mr. Petraeus to celebrate the success that our dorm represent, would be for him to try living in one of them. Perhaps he really would be a “Critical Spectator” rather than a “Fawning Follower.”