Minimum Wage – The Good, the Bad and the Truth
-
Originally posted by Angel7030a:
Mr Atobe, you are losing your reputation rapidly by your way of criticising Angel7030 for everything that she post on sgf.
You have built a reputation in the past by responding to posts with proper facts and arguments.
By the way, I am not a new sgforum user. Angel7030a is only a clone.
Is Speaker's Corner a supermarket for buying and selling reputations ?
Are you deluded ?
Did anyone solicit for your respect - or are you making your own deluded assumptions based on your own vanity ?
If you are an exact clone as the Taiwanese "hum" - we can expect you to have the same sense of values to ask - what is the weight of "HONOR" and "INTEGRITY" - and what values it can bring ?
Is your reputation worth as much "INTEGRITY" and "HONOR" as the Taiwanese "hum" who find nothing worthy with such values ?
If you are a clone of that "Attention Seeking Whore" - what right have you to ask anyone about reputation ?
Do you have no shame to plagiarize the infamy of the Taiwanese "hum" ?
Are you having the same desires to be an "Attention Seeking Whore" as well ?
-
Originally posted by googoomuck:
There are arguments for and against minimum wages.
I look at 2 arguments in favour of minimum wage, based on facts, not theory:
1 )- A study of U.S. states showed that businesses' annual and average payrolls grow faster and employment grew at a faster rate in states with a minimum wage.
2) - Historical evidence shows that at current levels, it neither hurts businesses nor reduces job creation
There are many small business owners(in the US, unfortunately) who support minimum wage.
If our gommen spends money to help these people in the lowest rung of the ladder, then it has less money to lose on speculation in the financial market.
The gommen can set up business and hire workers with minimum living wages to rival those small business owners whose only concern is the bottom line.
If there's a will, there's a way.
To complement govt's FT policy, why not implement minimum wage to protect the locals from exploitation, to ensure that their wage level are not driven down below a certain level by the FTs who are willing to work for much less? -
Originally posted by googoomuck:
There are arguments for and against minimum wages.
I look at 2 arguments in favour of minimum wage, based on facts, not theory:
1 )- A study of U.S. states showed that businesses' annual and average payrolls grow faster and employment grew at a faster rate in states with a minimum wage.
2) - Historical evidence shows that at current levels, it neither hurts businesses nor reduces job creation
There are many small business owners(in the US, unfortunately) who support minimum wage.
If our gommen spends money to help these people in the lowest rung of the ladder, then it has less money to lose on speculation in the financial market.
The gommen can set up business and hire workers with minimum living wages to rival those small business owners whose only concern is the bottom line.
If there's a will, there's a way.
Agreed. I've said it many times, most economist agree that minimum wage does not hurt businesses.
There has been positive correlations between minimum wage and growth. And I am pretty sure that most companies don't strive to only pay just the minimum wage but follow market wages. If they do that, then they would have a problem recruiting people. The net effect IMO would be more competitive wage levels.
Lets not misconceive that minimum wages are meant to raise wages. It is not. It is to set a certain wage level that is lower than the market wages, but high enough to be fair to the employee for the labor he puts in. It is to prevent exploitation and forcing people to work for wages that are below subsistence levels.
-
Originally posted by Angel7030a:
00011000 and Keeptouch are also clones. So, clones are talking to clones now ?
I and 00011000 are not clones.You think everyone is like you going around making clones to attract attention for yourself
-
Social divide inevitable in Singapore, but a lot of it is caused by PAP
Written by Ng E-Jay
21 October 2009During a dialogue held at the National University of Singapore on Monday night, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew said that a social class divide was inevitable in a maturing society like Singapore.
He was responding to pre-planted questions raised by a couple of students who had asked him what Singapore could do to narrow its income gap, and if he was worried about the growing social divide.
A social divide may be inevitable in Singapore, but what MM Lee does not acknowledge is that a lot of it is in fact caused by PAP policies that favour Big Business and the elites, and not merely due to the unstoppable tide of globalization.
MM Lee argued that global competition depresses wages at the bottom and boosts wages at the top. If so, then it must be the responsibility of any Government to redistribute the spoils of capitalism through enlightened policies, including the creation of a comprehensive social safety net for the poor and underprivileged.
In Singapore however, the ruling PAP Government exacerbates the problem by indiscriminately importing huge numbers of low skilled foreign workers in order to boost GDP growth and enable large corporations to fatten their bottom lines.
This has led to wages at the lower end of the spectrum remaining depressed for well over a decade and has created a continuous cycle of hardship for the working class who have not only had to deal with increasing inflation from policies like GST, but also find themselves having to compete on equal terms with those who do not need to serve National Service or service the mortgage of an expensive flat in Singapore.
Our immigration and pro-foreigner policies which are meant to shore up population growth and counter our low birth rate also have the potential to create many social problems. The sudden influx of large numbers of foreigners who have not had sufficient time to adapt to the local culture (and who have not necessarily demonstrated sufficient willingness to do so) cannot be good for any society. This is not 19th century Singapore we are talking about here, where the population base is still tiny and large areas of the island remain uncultivated.
MM Lee also argued against a minimum wage, saying that it would do more harm than good, because employers who are forced to deal with higher staff costs would simply find ways to hire less people. He mentioned that every country that has set a minimum wage over what the market will bear has found that the move cuts jobs.
It has always been the opinion of this website that such simplistic arguments fail to take into account the responsibility of a Government to provide for its citizens by making sure there is always a level playing field for all. Such arguments also neglect to consider the unique circumstances Singapore is in and the failed economic policies of the PAP.
Firstly, what is the logic in avoiding a minimum wage policy in order to keep staff costs down, but yet allowing other cost factors like office rentals to balloon out of control, as what has happened in recent years?
Secondly, the entrenchment of GLCs in our economy has crowded out many small and medium enterprises over the years and has made our economy uncompetitive. Isn’t it far more logical to promote job creation and enterprise by doing away with this top-down, cronyistic approach to economic management?
The institution of a minimum wage in Singapore would not necessarily lead to businesses relocating their operations, because countries like China, India, Vietnam and Thailand have much lower cost structures even without us having a minimum wage. If businesses wished to relocate due to cost factors, they would have done so already, with or without minimum wages for employees.
Ultimately, I believe the question should boil down to the kind of society that we are trying to create and the kinds of businesses and models of free enterprise that we should encourage in Singapore. If a business or a corporation has to close shop simply because it is compelled to pay a minimum wage to its workers, perhaps we should ask if this is the kind of business or enterprise that we would like to see flourishing in Singapore. Shouldn’t we be compelling private enterprise to move up the value chain and reduce their dependence on cheap labour?
The Government believes that it is more practical to assist low income workers through tax relief or direct cash subsidies instead of instituting a minimum wage. However, these measures have thus far been quite ad hoc, and it is not clear whether low income families have been sufficiently helped by the Government in this regard.
Much more needs to be done to help our working class citizens secure jobs and lead a decent life, beginning with eliminating GST for essential items like food and giving them a head start in the job hunt against foreigners who neither have to serve National Service nor support their families in high-cost Singapore. In my view, a minimum wage would also go a long way toward helping them and would not be detrimental to our economy.
The Government has pursued a “growth at all cost” model of economic management that relies on the heavy import of foreign labour to depress wages at the lower end of the spectrum. This model of economic management is clearly unsustainable given the limits of population growth. It has benefited GLCs and multi-national corporations whilst pushing working class citizens into economic hardship and despair. Until such policies change, the vaunted social cohesion that the Government keeps talking about will never be fully realized.
-
Originally posted by whycannot:
Social divide inevitable in Singapore, but a lot of it is caused by PAP
Written by Ng E-Jay
21 October 2009During a dialogue held at the National University of Singapore on Monday night, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew said that a social class divide was inevitable in a maturing society like Singapore.
He was responding to pre-planted questions raised by a couple of students who had asked him what Singapore could do to narrow its income gap, and if he was worried about the growing social divide.
A social divide may be inevitable in Singapore, but what MM Lee does not acknowledge is that a lot of it is in fact caused by PAP policies that favour Big Business and the elites, and not merely due to the unstoppable tide of globalization.
MM Lee argued that global competition depresses wages at the bottom and boosts wages at the top. If so, then it must be the responsibility of any Government to redistribute the spoils of capitalism through enlightened policies, including the creation of a comprehensive social safety net for the poor and underprivileged.
In Singapore however, the ruling PAP Government exacerbates the problem by indiscriminately importing huge numbers of low skilled foreign workers in order to boost GDP growth and enable large corporations to fatten their bottom lines.
This has led to wages at the lower end of the spectrum remaining depressed for well over a decade and has created a continuous cycle of hardship for the working class who have not only had to deal with increasing inflation from policies like GST, but also find themselves having to compete on equal terms with those who do not need to serve National Service or service the mortgage of an expensive flat in Singapore.
Our immigration and pro-foreigner policies which are meant to shore up population growth and counter our low birth rate also have the potential to create many social problems. The sudden influx of large numbers of foreigners who have not had sufficient time to adapt to the local culture (and who have not necessarily demonstrated sufficient willingness to do so) cannot be good for any society. This is not 19th century Singapore we are talking about here, where the population base is still tiny and large areas of the island remain uncultivated.
MM Lee also argued against a minimum wage, saying that it would do more harm than good, because employers who are forced to deal with higher staff costs would simply find ways to hire less people. He mentioned that every country that has set a minimum wage over what the market will bear has found that the move cuts jobs.
It has always been the opinion of this website that such simplistic arguments fail to take into account the responsibility of a Government to provide for its citizens by making sure there is always a level playing field for all. Such arguments also neglect to consider the unique circumstances Singapore is in and the failed economic policies of the PAP.
Firstly, what is the logic in avoiding a minimum wage policy in order to keep staff costs down, but yet allowing other cost factors like office rentals to balloon out of control, as what has happened in recent years?
Secondly, the entrenchment of GLCs in our economy has crowded out many small and medium enterprises over the years and has made our economy uncompetitive. Isn’t it far more logical to promote job creation and enterprise by doing away with this top-down, cronyistic approach to economic management?
The institution of a minimum wage in Singapore would not necessarily lead to businesses relocating their operations, because countries like China, India, Vietnam and Thailand have much lower cost structures even without us having a minimum wage. If businesses wished to relocate due to cost factors, they would have done so already, with or without minimum wages for employees.
Ultimately, I believe the question should boil down to the kind of society that we are trying to create and the kinds of businesses and models of free enterprise that we should encourage in Singapore. If a business or a corporation has to close shop simply because it is compelled to pay a minimum wage to its workers, perhaps we should ask if this is the kind of business or enterprise that we would like to see flourishing in Singapore. Shouldn’t we be compelling private enterprise to move up the value chain and reduce their dependence on cheap labour?
The Government believes that it is more practical to assist low income workers through tax relief or direct cash subsidies instead of instituting a minimum wage. However, these measures have thus far been quite ad hoc, and it is not clear whether low income families have been sufficiently helped by the Government in this regard.
Much more needs to be done to help our working class citizens secure jobs and lead a decent life, beginning with eliminating GST for essential items like food and giving them a head start in the job hunt against foreigners who neither have to serve National Service nor support their families in high-cost Singapore. In my view, a minimum wage would also go a long way toward helping them and would not be detrimental to our economy.
The Government has pursued a “growth at all cost” model of economic management that relies on the heavy import of foreign labour to depress wages at the lower end of the spectrum. This model of economic management is clearly unsustainable given the limits of population growth. It has benefited GLCs and multi-national corporations whilst pushing working class citizens into economic hardship and despair. Until such policies change, the vaunted social cohesion that the Government keeps talking about will never be fully realized.
"Social divide inevitable" - said by MM LKY to justify the fault of its very existence and the inability for the PAP to resolve this permanent feature as a failure of his deliberate social engineering plans, or an admission that his policies make this social divide a necessary inevitability ?
It is a fallacy for MM LKY to claim that "global competition depresses wages at the bottom and boosts wages at the top" - when the top wages are snatched by similar foreigners who are given easy access as those foreigners supposedly allowed in to handle work that Singaporeans do not wish to handle.
The characteriscally ingenious claims by MM and his PAP that "immigration and pro-foreigner policies which are meant to shore up population growth and counter our low birth rate" - is no bigger a lie than the refusal to admit that the influx of new citizens will affect the outcome of any Elections, as these new citizens will counter act - or may even balance - the growing resentment from the existing citizens towards the PAP.
It is also a fallacy for - "The Government believes that it is more practical to assist low income workers through tax relief or direct cash subsidies instead of instituting a minimum wage" - as such policies are no better then showering water to merely sustain life, when what is needed is a total change of the type of seedlings and sub-soil to ensure permanent growth.
Such tax relief and direct cash subsidies surely must be hypocritical when it comes from a PAP government, as this policy is the anthi-thesis to the PAP abhorrence towards Social Welfare.
The fact that it has been identified by every economic and political observers that this PAP government had embarked on - 'a “growth at all cost” model of economic management that relies on the heavy import of foreign labour' - clearly shows that it is more concerned with keeping its own track record of maintaing success, more then its ability to manage success with the correct dosages that suit Singapore.
At this stage of its political development - in the face of repeated global political and economic challenges with constant changes - the PAP government is in a hurry to succeed, so as to justify its own relevance to all that it had claimed for itself, from its claim as being the Elite Talents, to the highest wages paid for any governments in office in any countries with open societies.
-
atobe,
i'll stand outside lky or lhl house and wave placards or something.
-
This mentality of "cheap" labour is already implanted onto the employers.
Every now and then, somebody will write to the forum pages to lament about the lack of singaporean workers for certain jobs.
In a normal situation, to attract workers to the job, the employer will increase wages to entice people. Here in sg, the employer sets the lowest wage she wants to pay and then wants workers to work at that level. If there is nobody willing to work at that low wage, she will want the government to allow in more cheaper workers from other countries to fill the position at that wage level - and the government does that (it benefits from foreign worker levies etc)
You see that happening in many public and private companies - they set the lowest wage they are willing to pay, complain about no singaporean workers willing to do the work, then get cheap foreign workers to fill those positions.
-
Originally posted by charlize:
This mentality of "cheap" labour is already implanted onto the employers.
Every now and then, somebody will write to the forum pages to lament about the lack of singaporean workers for certain jobs.
In a normal situation, to attract workers to the job, the employer will increase wages to entice people. Here in sg, the employer sets the lowest wage she wants to pay and then wants workers to work at that level. If there is nobody willing to work at that low wage, she will want the government to allow in more cheaper workers from other countries to fill the position at that wage level - and the government does that (it benefits from foreign worker levies etc)
You see that happening in many public and private companies - they set the lowest wage they are willing to pay, complain about no singaporean workers willing to do the work, then get cheap foreign workers to fill those positions.
Aiya old new le.... anyway look on the bright side got $ no health also bo eng.... start to live healthy ba.... meybe plant some vegetables in HDB balcony. Organic i heard very healthy!
-
Originally posted by charlize:
This mentality of "cheap" labour is already implanted onto the employers.
Every now and then, somebody will write to the forum pages to lament about the lack of singaporean workers for certain jobs.
In a normal situation, to attract workers to the job, the employer will increase wages to entice people. Here in sg, the employer sets the lowest wage she wants to pay and then wants workers to work at that level. If there is nobody willing to work at that low wage, she will want the government to allow in more cheaper workers from other countries to fill the position at that wage level - and the government does that (it benefits from foreign worker levies etc)
You see that happening in many public and private companies - they set the lowest wage they are willing to pay, complain about no singaporean workers willing to do the work, then get cheap foreign workers to fill those positions.
Thi is the effect of not having a min wage. I dont know which fool said that lack of min wage will bring about competitive wages.
-
they will alter minimum wage as that amount is set by unions in spore.and unions in spore got no power one!if government says no...they kneel down n say yesh master yesh...by all means?!!!yesh but no real unions in spore anyway...all unions not really unions,,,more like fer the namesake n cant demand for high pay fer werker.
-
the purpose of min wage is to prevent exploitation and wage fixing.
-
PAP MP floats idea of minimum wage, criticizes ‘overheated’ growth model
Tuesday, 20 January 2009, 5:51 pm | 2,236 views
Choo Zheng Xi / Editor-in-Chief
“If we would like to see Singapore moving up as one of the most developed countries in the world, and costs increase accordingly, lower income Singaporeans might need a minimum wage to survive.”
A minimum wage law was a constant theme of the late opposition icon Mr Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam, and more recently canvassed by ex-NTUC Income CEO Mr Tan Kin Lian. But yesterday the minimum wage was canvassed by an unlikely proponent: businessman and People’s Action Party (PAP) Member of Parliament, Mr Inderjit Singh.
Speaking in his personal capacity at the Institute of Policy Studies’ (IPS) Singapore Perspectives 2009 seminar, Mr Singh said that cheap foreign labor had depressed wages, and this hurt low income Singaporeans the most.
“As we brought in more and more people, many from India and China, not just at the top level of talent, but also at various levels including unskilled workers, we depressed wages of Singaporeans”, he said.
Noting that the problem of low wages was exacerbated by a high cost society, he added:
“Our costs continued to go up. So we caused a double whammy for Singaporeans who had no choice but to live with the high cost of living while having to accept lower wages”.
Minimum wage a possible solution
One way of solving this problem, he said, could be a minimum wage policy.
Speaking to TOC after his speech, he acknowledged that a minimum wage would be an additional cost to business, but that the government was in a position to draw up a scheme to make it workable.
Noting that the government was “unlikely to move very quickly on this”, he nevertheless emphasized its importance.
“If we would like to see Singapore moving up as one of the most developed countries in the world, and costs increase accordingly, lower income Singaporeans might need a minimum wage to survive.”
One way of doing it, Mr Singh suggested, was “either we incentivize companies to implement it, or the government has to supplement wages to a minimum level.”
Mr Singh favoured an incremental introduction of a minimum wage policy, as companies might not immediately adapt well to such a policy in the current economic downturn.
To begin with, the government could work within the existing Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) framework to level up wages. Mr Singh suggested including workers earning up to $2,000 in the scheme. The current scheme covers only those earning up to $1,500. He also suggested giving payouts on a monthly basis instead of the current six-monthly payout.
Growth at all costs a mistake
In the course of his presentation, Mr Singh was critical of several of the aspects of the Singaporean growth model, which he characterized as “growth at all costs”.
He raised the problem of high business costs not matched by productivity, tracing it to the government’s fixation with moving up the manufacturing value chain too quickly.
Mr Singh told the audience of 700 that a growth driven policy had “dislodge[d] Singapore’s economy, workforce, and other infrastructure”. He felt that a “slower rate of development, encouraging the stretching of domestic capabilities and technologies, would keep industries in Singapore for a longer period of time”.
He was also critical of what he called the government’s approach to “disincentivize companies from trying to keep many of what the government considered as no longer attractive capabilities in Singapore”, which he felt had led to too high a turnover in Singapore’s core competencies and had “made it difficult for Singaporeans and firms to cope”.
Moving ahead, Mr Singh proposed a model he felt was more sustainable:
“The suggested model should involve a moderation of cost while Singapore’s core competencies are strengthened…We must avoid any “boom and bust” type of policies, which go for broke in good times and slow down when the world economy grows.”
——-
Note:
In 2008, Mr Inderjit also criticised the “growth at all cost” policy. He “pointed out that the “grow-at-all-costs” policy of the government might have overheated the economy and worsened the income divide… “I feel a significant part of the inflation has been caused by factors that we could have controlled.
“In the last two years, the government has contributed to inflation by allowing multiple cost increases, both directly or through policy changes that resulted in cost increases.
“The end result is an era of very high cost increases, high inflation not supported by enough wage increases, especially for the lower and lower middle income Singaporeans and companies.”
-
Labour Day: Economic growth should benefit all, not just the rich
Friday, 1 May 2009, 8:37 am | 1,203 views
Announcement: The Online Citizen will bring you “live” updates from Suntec City tomorrow (Saturday) of the AWARE Extraordinary General Meeting. “Live” updates will begin from 12 noon. Stay tuned to TOC!
By Avery Chong, Gerald Giam, Nathaniel Koh, Watson Chong and Yaw Shin Leong
Singaporean workers are facing their most challenging period since Independence. Thousands have lost their jobs since the current economic crisis began last year, and unemployment is expected to continue rising through 2009 and beyond. Many workers have been forced to accept salary cuts or go on unpaid leave to help their companies stay profitable.These workers should be saluted for their resilience, perseverance and adaptability in the face of enormous challenges. Singapore’s prosperity and economic progress were achieved primarily through the sweat of our workers.
The Government always claims credit for Singapore’s economic growth during good times, yet conveniently blames the global downturn when our economy takes a nosedive. However the facts tell a different story. Singapore was the first country in Asia to slip into recession last year. Our GDP is expected to contract 8.8% this year — much worse than almost all our major trading partners (see Annex A for the economic forecasts for our top trading partners).
The Government’s economic model may no longer be serving us well, and we need to start a national conversation to discuss alternative economic models to take Singapore to the next level of progress.
Closing the income gap
Singapore’s economic growth over the last decade has resulted in phenomenal income increases for PAP ministers, “foreign talents” and top company executives, while the incomes of low wage Singaporean workers have stagnated or even fallen. Singapore’s income inequality is now more in line with Third World countries than with other developed economies like Japan and Denmark.
Economic growth should benefit all Singaporeans, not just the rich and well-connected. While there should be fair rewards for hard work and good performance, the reality is that many ordinary Singaporeans work just as hard, if not harder, than their wealthy counterparts, but have not reaped commensurate rewards.
The Government should implement measures to increase the take home pay of low-wage local workers. This can be achieved through tighter restrictions on the import of foreign labour in domestic industries, skills development for higher value-added industries, productivity increases through capital investments and increasing government-funded income supplements.
The Goods and Services Tax (GST) for basic necessities like rice and sugar should be removed to benefit low-income Singaporeans. The GST should be reverted to its previous rate of 5% for all other goods and services, except luxury items.
While a no strings attached welfare state is undesirable, there is room for limited and conditional financial assistance for the unemployed. This financial assistance could be based on a fixed quantum or a proportion of the job seeker’s last drawn salary. It should not be disbursed solely at the discretion of Citizen’s Consultative Committees or Community Development Councils. It should be given for a limited period (e.g., six months) to all retrenched Singaporeans who demonstrate a commitment to looking for a new job.
Finally, wealthy Singaporeans should do their part to help their less fortunate countrymen through increased contributions to social welfare organisations and foundations that help Singaporeans in need.
-
mister prime ministers and all cabinet members,
i have lost hope in the lot of you who claim to be the best of the best of the best.
doesnt matter if we paid u a gazillion dollars a second ,,,,,,,,,,,,u still cant deliver a decent life for all singaporeans.
its a case of too little too late.
-
Originally posted by mlmersrlosers:
PAP MP floats idea of minimum wage, criticizes ‘overheated’ growth model
Tuesday, 20 January 2009, 5:51 pm | 2,236 views
Choo Zheng Xi / Editor-in-Chief
“If we would like to see Singapore moving up as one of the most developed countries in the world, and costs increase accordingly, lower income Singaporeans might need a minimum wage to survive.”
A minimum wage law was a constant theme of the late opposition icon Mr Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam, and more recently canvassed by ex-NTUC Income CEO Mr Tan Kin Lian. But yesterday the minimum wage was canvassed by an unlikely proponent: businessman and People’s Action Party (PAP) Member of Parliament, Mr Inderjit Singh.
Speaking in his personal capacity at the Institute of Policy Studies’ (IPS) Singapore Perspectives 2009 seminar, Mr Singh said that cheap foreign labor had depressed wages, and this hurt low income Singaporeans the most.
“As we brought in more and more people, many from India and China, not just at the top level of talent, but also at various levels including unskilled workers, we depressed wages of Singaporeans”, he said.
Noting that the problem of low wages was exacerbated by a high cost society, he added:
“Our costs continued to go up. So we caused a double whammy for Singaporeans who had no choice but to live with the high cost of living while having to accept lower wages”.
Minimum wage a possible solution
One way of solving this problem, he said, could be a minimum wage policy.
Speaking to TOC after his speech, he acknowledged that a minimum wage would be an additional cost to business, but that the government was in a position to draw up a scheme to make it workable.
Noting that the government was “unlikely to move very quickly on this”, he nevertheless emphasized its importance.
“If we would like to see Singapore moving up as one of the most developed countries in the world, and costs increase accordingly, lower income Singaporeans might need a minimum wage to survive.”
One way of doing it, Mr Singh suggested, was “either we incentivize companies to implement it, or the government has to supplement wages to a minimum level.”
Mr Singh favoured an incremental introduction of a minimum wage policy, as companies might not immediately adapt well to such a policy in the current economic downturn.
To begin with, the government could work within the existing Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) framework to level up wages. Mr Singh suggested including workers earning up to $2,000 in the scheme. The current scheme covers only those earning up to $1,500. He also suggested giving payouts on a monthly basis instead of the current six-monthly payout.
Growth at all costs a mistake
In the course of his presentation, Mr Singh was critical of several of the aspects of the Singaporean growth model, which he characterized as “growth at all costs”.
He raised the problem of high business costs not matched by productivity, tracing it to the government’s fixation with moving up the manufacturing value chain too quickly.
Mr Singh told the audience of 700 that a growth driven policy had “dislodge[d] Singapore’s economy, workforce, and other infrastructure”. He felt that a “slower rate of development, encouraging the stretching of domestic capabilities and technologies, would keep industries in Singapore for a longer period of time”.
He was also critical of what he called the government’s approach to “disincentivize companies from trying to keep many of what the government considered as no longer attractive capabilities in Singapore”, which he felt had led to too high a turnover in Singapore’s core competencies and had “made it difficult for Singaporeans and firms to cope”.
Moving ahead, Mr Singh proposed a model he felt was more sustainable:
“The suggested model should involve a moderation of cost while Singapore’s core competencies are strengthened…We must avoid any “boom and bust” type of policies, which go for broke in good times and slow down when the world economy grows.”
——-
Note:
In 2008, Mr Inderjit also criticised the “growth at all cost” policy. He “pointed out that the “grow-at-all-costs” policy of the government might have overheated the economy and worsened the income divide… “I feel a significant part of the inflation has been caused by factors that we could have controlled.
“In the last two years, the government has contributed to inflation by allowing multiple cost increases, both directly or through policy changes that resulted in cost increases.
“The end result is an era of very high cost increases, high inflation not supported by enough wage increases, especially for the lower and lower middle income Singaporeans and companies.”
I think this MP is one of the few who does ask hard questions in Parliament sometimes.
But he is one of the rare ones.
-
For thunder party elites
got min wages
but no max wages one
-
is best not to ask too many q in the P. meeting
best is to keep silent , so that no pay cut .
just like in the army.
best to agree on all issue..
-
Dont understand why discussing minimum wage when Singaporean is among the most well paid in the world.
-
Originally posted by Wmyongj:
Dont understand why discussing minimum wage when Singaporean is among the most well paid in the world.
The cost of living and the standard of living within Singapore do not depend on the relative salary scale of a given occupation here vis-a-vis that of another country.Being well paid does not mean the cost of living is affordable to all, esp for the lower income group.
-
We need minimum wage policy when we have all the dirty and low paying job in the countr to protect the workers. I stay in Yantai, that is close to South Korean. SK is the 2nd most expensive country in Asia to live and Yantai is the cheapest place on earth to live. It takes only 20 min to cross to SK. The ave SK salary is probably 2-3K USD per month and Yantai ave workers pay is abt 100 USD per month. Many SK companies setup factories in YK and explore the cheap labour cost because Chinese government set the minimum wage at 100USD per month. Interestingly, Yantai is short of workers and yet the mkt salary did not exceed the min wages rule..the reason is that South Korean are pretty united people..they discussed and agreed among themself not to compete or increase the salary or wages of their employees..
The point is that there are numberous factor that dictate the salary level in the country, hence in Singapore I am sure that the influx of PRs will cheapen our salary level in the long term and unitl now, I dont think PAP know how to manage this problem.
-
I agree the cost of living in Singapore had reached a level that is unbearable for the middle and lower income Singaporean. Unlike PR that can leave the island when it becomes unbearable, we have to continue to live in this country.
Having MWL will not solve the problem of decling income for Singaporean. The spiral effect of low income is lower standard of living, crimes and prosperity. The problem is that we have nothing in the island except interim foreig investmenrts, a little tourim and a small banking community (dont be misled we are a 'Financial hub'! when the west start demanding us to disclose the tax evaders and criminal money that are kept in our bank, we will collapse like leman Bros)
As I say, PAP dont have an answer
-
Originally posted by Wmyongj:
I agree the cost of living in Singapore had reached a level that is unbearable for the middle and lower income Singaporean. Unlike PR that can leave the island when it becomes unbearable, we have to continue to live in this country.
Having MWL will not solve the problem of decling income for Singaporean. The spiral effect of low income is lower standard of living, crimes and prosperity. The problem is that we have nothing in the island except interim foreig investmenrts, a little tourim and a small banking community (dont be misled we are a 'Financial hub'! when the west start demanding us to disclose the tax evaders and criminal money that are kept in our bank, we will collapse like leman Bros)
As I say, PAP dont have an answer
yes , you are right - all true -
Originally posted by tan reborn:
yes , you are right - all trueour pm mention singapore is not an welfare country
-
Reform Party Forum on Minimum wage
December 7, 2009 by Amanda Lian
Filed under Amanda Lian, Columnists, HeadlinesBy Amanda Lian
This forum by the Reform Party was held at the RELC Hotel on the 5 December 2009, Saturday, at the Napier Room on Level 5. Temasek Review dodged the gloomy, rainy weather and attended this forum to gain some insight and to allow our readers to know about the economic policy proposals that were being brought up and discussed.
Leading the seminar was the Secretary-General of the Reform Party, Kenneth Jeyaretnam. Other speakers included the Reform Party CEC (Central Executive Committee) member, Mr. Tony Tan, financial consultant, Mr. Leong Sze Hian and the moderator of the forum, Miss Jeanette.
Upon reaching the fifth level, there were a handful of people waiting to proceed into the function room. When the forum started, Mr. Kenneth Jeyaretnam started with the discussion of starting a minimum wage policy. He said that real earnings for less-skilled workers are falling because of competition from foreign workers. Several pressing questions were asked during the discussion from the floor including “what is the rational for workers who are exempted?” and “why are older workers being exempted rather than having a lower minimum wage?”
The seminar was followed closely by the next speaker, Mr. Leong Sze Hian, who touched upon the issues of productivity, housing policies, CPF and healthcare. He mentioned that the poor productivity record has been falling since 2007.
He also continued with a humorous speech saying why every year, the government says that people are not buying the smaller HDB flats. Because more than 230,000 households could not even afford to buy flats! From the household expenditure records which were recently released, 40 percent of households in Singapore have no increase in income.
Out of these households, statistics state that their expenditure had increased simply put, if you earn $700 per month, how can you have spent $1000? So the figures are quite ridiculous.
The Reform Party will examine why the HDB programme has slowed right down since 2000 and the effect this had and also, how the failure to build cheaper units is going to affect in pushing up property prices at the lower end, including how much does it cost to build a HDB flat since the last published breakdown of costs back in 1984. They will also push for privatisation of CPF after part has been used to fund a genuine public health insurance scheme and to fund a basic pension for all Singaporeans who have contributed to CPF for a specific number of years.
Mr. Tony Tan embarked on his part of the seminar on education and training. He proposes to provide students with a buffet of choices on what to study, quoting Steve Jobs on learning Calligraphy so that he is equipped with skills to design fonts other than his engineering modules.
Kenneth Jeyaretnam added that foreign students should not be rejected in Singapore’s education but provided that they pay the full cost of their education without any subsidy, just like us if we choose to head overseas for further education. We should also have compulsory and free primary and secondary education, and only then, we can head and work towards a top ranked country in the world. By expanding tertiary opportunities, we should head in that direction and strive at making our Polytechnics into Universities in itself. Do we have the resources and can we afford to? The Reform Party says “it is not a question of whether we are able to afford but whether why we are not able to afford?”
About immigration and foreign workers, they attempt to level the playing ground by providing them with a CPF scheme. Singapore should not give ad hoc assistance to foreign workers because they are definitely on higher ground than locals as they will save on National Service leave, Maternity leave, they have no CPF, no reservist and employers do not have to pay extra tax!
Other issues being discussed were liberal tax and investment regime, increasing domestic consumption and privatization of SWFs. There was also talk of finding a middle ground for people who finds that the minimum wage is still too low.