Tan Kin Lian

For many years, the Government has advocated a pro-business environment in Singapore. This is aimed at attracting foreign investors to set up businesses here and create more jobs for Singaporeans.

This strategy has been successful. Singapore has received many international awards for being a competitive economy and a world class workforce.

A hard working, well educated, productive and co-operative workforce is an important contributor to this pro-business environment. This strategy has also benefited many Singaporeans. They have the opportunity to get good jobs at high wages. Many multi-national companies set up their operations in Singapore to serve the Asian region. The demand for talent and for professions in accounting, legal, marketing, business development and other services have contributed to this happy situation.

To cope with the shortage of talent, Singapore has an open door policy to attract professionals and foreign talents to work in Singapore.

Depressed Wages

The open door cannot be restricted only for the talents that are scarce in Singapore. In any case, this type of people has not been defined clearly.

In practice, the open door policy has also been applied to other sectors of the labour force. The demand for workers willing to work for competitive wages extends down the skill ladder.

Although there are controls to ensure a balance of local and foreign workers, they have been difficult to apply in practice. As a consequence, we have an abundance of low wage workers in Singapore. The actual number has not been published. If we look at the people who do not speak like Singaporeans working in the heartlands and in the factories, one can conclude that there must be a large number.

One unfortunate consequence of this influx of foreign workers is the large number of local “mature” workers above 40 years who are unemployed.

Choosy Workers

A common explanation for the large number of unemployed workers is that they are “choosy”. They are not willing to do certain types of outdoor work, especially if they are risky or dirty.

I suspect that it is a question of adequate wages. If the jobs now shunned by Singaporeans pay adequate wages, I believe that many Singaporeans will be willing to do the work.

I have spoken to many taxi drivers who are willing to work 12 hours a day just to earn $2,000 to feed a family.

There are many older Singaporeans who earn less than $800 a month as cleaners or security guards. They have no choice. They have to work or face starvation. Singapore does not provide any welfare.

I do not consider Singaporeans to be “choosy”.

Foreign workers

Employers will prefer to bring in foreign workers, as they are willing to accept any job and work for a low wage, so long as they earn enough to feed a family in their home country, where the cost of living is much lower than Singapore’s. They are usually provided with accommodation near their place of work and can save on the high accommodation and commuting cost.

In contrast, a Singaporean has to earn enough to feed a family in Singapore, with its high cost and standard of living. He has a family and social life in Singapore, he cannot live in a dormitory near his place of work. He has to incur high accommodation and travel costs.

Outsourcing

For many years, the public sector has been a source of employment for many lower educated workers in our society. They work as cleaners and provide a wide range of services in our hospitals, airports and other public services.

They earn a low wage, but it is adequate to feed a family. They are represented by the public sector’s trade unions, which look after their interests.

In recent years, many of these jobs have been outsourced to the private sector. Instead of employing the direct workers, the government agencies have reorganised the work and retrenched the direct workers. They outsource the work to private contractors, to reduce their cost of operation.

A contractor has to submit a low price to win the tender on a contract. The contractors re-employ the retrenched workers at lower wages, to do the same work that they did previously as direct workers. If the local workers are “choosy”, the contractor can find foreign workers willing to work for less.

The contract is for a term of two or three years. On the renewal of the contract, the contract price is likely to reduce further, due to competition. This means even lower wages for the local contract workers.

Adequate salaries

I believe that local workers deserve to have an adequate salary for a hard day’s work. This salary has to be commensurate with the cost of living. It should be adequate for a worker to feed a family, at least in a frugal way. The worker should not be expected to work for 12 hours a day, and still not earn enough for the family.

In some countries, this is achieved through a “minimum wage”. Even America, which is the strongest proponent of a free market economy and a flexible labour force, finds it necessary to have a minimum wage.

Business has to be competitive

It has been argued that competitive wages and a flexible labour market are necessary for business to remain competitive and to stay in Singapore. This argument has been pushed too hard by our leaders. Many Singaporeans accept this argument quite blindly.

Does it really help the country much for the public sector to save a few million dollars a year, by depressing the earnings of the contract workers who were previously the direct workers of the agencies?

If businesses have to pay a more adequate wage to the low income workers, will the businesses become non-viable? I do not think so.

These businesses can reduce the exorbitant earnings of their top directors and managers, or spend less on lavish offices or other business expenses. These businesses may earn less for shareholders, but will probably still find it quite attractive to remain in Singapore.

Pride to be a Singaporean

I believe that more people will be proud to be Singaporean, if they find that the nation looks after their interests and is willing to give them a fair standard of living for a hard day’s work. I hope that the wages of the lower income workers can be increased. This is even more pressing in 2008, due to the high inflation rate.

—————–

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

陈清木冀政府设立独立审查机构 检讨巴蒂一案疏失

前进党秘书长陈清木医生,呼吁政府应设立独立审查机构,以检讨各造在调查和审理前女佣巴蒂一案中出现的疏失。 印尼籍前女佣巴蒂,曾在樟宜机场集团前主席廖文良家中帮佣,然而后者却在2016年10月28日开除巴蒂,两日后再报警指控巴蒂偷走于5万元财物,包括名表、Prada的名牌包和Gucci墨镜等。 巴蒂再去年被国家法院判监禁26个月,惟在本月4日,终高庭推翻判决,沉冤得雪。巴蒂一案近两周来引起国人议论,并关注女佣在整个审讯中处于弱势的地位。高庭法官陈成安判决中,更形容廖家父子报警可能存在“不当意图”,被告有充分理由投诉人力部,而廖家“先下手为强”将他开除。 对于上述案件,陈清木表示国人欣见正义终获伸张,也相信包括总检察署和警方等各造,都会如律政部兼内政部长尚穆根所言,将对调查环节中究竟哪些问题出了错,作出检讨。 他毫不怀疑内政部和总检察署,都将适时地发表检讨报告。然而毕竟内政部等各造并非独立、100巴仙客观的,故此政府理应设立独立审查机构,批判和全面地审查此案中出现疏失的部分,并且提出建议改善。 “适当的问责乃是要我们找出问题根源,且不仅仅是否乃个人认为疏忽引起的,因为找代罪羔羊并无助解决问题。”陈清木指出,比起责怪或开除问题人物,更应该去检视是否有体制上、程序上和问责制衡的疏失。 高庭法官陈成安,在判决中也点出所谓“赃物”移交警局过程存在疑点。包括廖家声称开箱检查女佣留下的三大箱子,并报警后,警方未立即取走证物。由于高庭法官的判词,也针对警方的调查工作,这也致使警方需出面回应此事,表示将展开调查。

PM Lee: Next Prime Minister “likely” to be already in the cabinet

In a Channel NewsAsia report dated 19 october (Thursday), it is reported…

Sentosa Gateway Tunnel to be opened on 27 April

Land Transport Authority (LTA) has announced that the Sentosa Gateway Tunnel will…

何晶推荐自制口罩 称“任何口罩都比没口罩强”

总理夫人何晶昨日在脸书分享,倡议“任何口罩都好过没口罩”,也指假设有两人见面,互相都戴口罩,可以进一步减低感染风险。 “有鉴于一般我们很少有机会遇到病重病患,不一定需要医用级别的手术口罩。”故此,她建议在当前全球疫情严峻、口罩吃紧的情况下,应把口罩留给前线医护人员。 在最新的一则贴文,她则提到20世纪初,一名槟城医生(即知名的伍连德医生)到正发生鼠疫的中国。他让所有医务人员戴上用手术纱布制成的口罩,起初还被嘲笑,但最后拯救了不少医疗人员性命,而备受尊崇。 2月份就有四医生呼吁戴口罩 然而,本地早在2月10日,就已有四名医生联署疾呼,全民若离开家门都要经常戴口罩。 其中一名医生也指出,理解如今不是每个人都买得到口罩,也建议民众可以以可清洗的布制口罩代替,缝入合适的(过滤)纸,或者围围巾包裹脸部,至少比起完全不戴口罩好。 她指出,她从医学院毕业后,也曾使用过布质口罩,故此不见得布质口罩现今无法使用。 麦锡威称将检讨戴口罩政策 当时卫生部医药服务总监麦锡威副教授称,尽管一些建议都很贴切,包括勤洗手等。不过人们必须记得病毒是通过飞沫(droplets)传播的,仍未有证据表明透过空气传播。“戴口罩仍不是最重要的(防疫)事项。” 不过,在本周二(31日)的跨政府部门抗疫工作小组记者会上,他则改口指该部针对口罩的使用政策,将“审慎”检视现有数据和其他国际经验。 总理称只有身体不适才戴口罩 事实上,跨政府部门工作小组领导,包括卫生部长颜金勇和国家发展部长黄循财,都曾呼吁民众不要抢购口罩,人们遵循医疗建议使用口罩。换句话说,即有不适者才需要戴口罩,而身体强健者,可以将口罩让给那些有需要者。…