The following is the third in a three-part summary extract from the soon-to-be-published ““Creating Jobs and Enterprise in a new Singapore economy – Ideas for Change” by Tan Jee Say, former secretary to the late Dr Albert Winsemius, the economic adviser to the Singapore Government.

Jee Say’s analysis and prescription are ‘persuasive’, according to Lord Butler who as Head of the British Civil Service in the 1980s and 1990s, oversaw the “painful transition” of the United Kingdom from a predominantly manufacturing economy to a knowledge-based one:

“As the former Head of University College, Oxford University, where Tan Jee Say was a student, I am happy to commend his essay “Creating Jobs and Enterprise in a New Singapore Economy -Ideas for Change”. I am not an expert on the Singapore economy but I was Private Secretary to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and Head of the British Civil Service in the 1980s and 1990s whenthe UK was making the painful transition from a predominantlymanufacturing and mining economy to a knowledge-based one.Against that background, I find Jee Say’s analysis and prescription persuasive. It seems to me a thorough and well-argued piece of work and as such it deserves the attention of policy-makers.”

You can read Part One here.

___________

Minimum Wage and Workfare

Our workers deserve a decent and dignified living that is made possible with a minimum wage.The alleged negative effects of a minimum wage are alarmist in nature and do not standup to practical experience in countries that have implemented a regime of minimum wage; more than 90% of countries in the world have some form of a minimum wage. It will ensure that Singaporean workers are not short-changed and under-cut by foreign workers.

A minimum wage is more superior than a levy in reducing the flow of foreign workers. A higher levy raises the cost to an employer of hiring a foreign worker but the increase in cost goes to government coffers not to the worker, so the employer ends up coughing out more money for the same quality of worker. On the other hand,a higher wage attracts a higher quality worker as it goes directly to him, so the employer benefits from a higher output, thus contributing to raising theoverall productivity level. The Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) is a poor substitute of a minimum wage as it represents only a meagre amount (about$83 a month) and is paid by Government using taxpayers’ money and hence does not hurt the employer who can merrily continue to hire cheap foreign workers. Coming from the taxpayer rather than the employer, the transfer payment protects and enhances the profitability of employers and widens the gap between the rich and the poor.

In the 10-year period from 1998-2008, theaverage incomes of the poorest 20 per cent of households fell by -2.7 per cent,from $1,309 to $1,274 whereas the richest 20 per cent of households saw their average incomes rose by 53 per cent, from $12,091 to $18,472.

Income Inequality- when growth stops trickling down

The problem of income inequality has become much worse in recent years. Singapore’s Gini coefficient (a measure of income inequality from 0 to 1.0 with 0 representingcomplete equality) has risen from 0.428 in 2002 to 0.471 in 2007 even after accounting for government benefits and taxes. These numbers put Singapore “in league” with poor developing countries of the Third World such as ” the Philippines (0.461) and Guatemala (0.483) and worse than China (0.447). Other wealthy Asian nations such as Japan, Korea and Taiwan have more European-style Gini’s of 0.249, 0.316 and 0.326.” Hasn’t Singapore “graduated” from Third World to First World a long while ago and if so, shouldn’t Singapore be “in league” with other rich First World societies rather than with poor developing countries?

The conventional wisdom of development economists is that economic growth will “trickle down” and benefit the poor. This was true in the earlier stages of Singapore’s economic development but has not been so in recent years as more and more Singaporeans particularly the older ones lost their jobs while those with jobs experienced falls in their real earnings. Yes the GDP has grown and it has trickled down but it flowed through Singaporean workers and bypassed them to benefit cheaper foreign workers at even lower levels. It is hardly surprising that more than half, perhaps more than two thirds ofthe 112,500 new jobs created in 2010, had gone to and benefitted foreigners. A minimum wage will stem the trickle of jobs downwards to cheaper foreign workers. As for foreigners on “S” and “E” passes which do not require employers to make CPF payment on their behalf (although a small levy is imposed on the “S” passes), an equalisation charge should be imposed on their employers in order to level the field for equivalent Singaporean professionals.

Cost of living and Government budget surpluses

The ultimate objective of all economic activity is to raise one’s standard of living. A minimum wage will help. But cost of living has been creeping up and eating into real earnings ; as import prices have been declining, the increase in consumer prices have been caused principally by domestic factors where Government policies on labour, land, housing, transport, public utilities charges for electricity and water, GST (goods and services tax), education and a host of others, have a dominating effect. These policies have boosted Government coffers and the ordinary citizen has been made to contribute to it in a hefty way that offset the beneficial effect of lower import prices that he can rightfully expect from living in an open economy. This need to be put right.

We can begin by examining the Government’s basic philosophy and practice of using the price mechanism to regulate the supply and demand of public services. When the demand for any public service goes up, the instinctive response of Government is to raise its price in order to dampen demand.Using the price mechanism is a no brainer and is often a guise for revenueraising that has contributed to the huge Government budgetary surpluses year after year. The Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) scheme is an example of theuse of pricing mechanism that has gone wild with ERP gantries popping up here, popping up there and popping up everywhere, faster than jack-in-the-box. While we could understand and accept why a profit-oriented private enterprise uses the pricing mechanism, we expect a higher moral purpose from Government which should devise and implement administrative measures to satisfy public demand without opting for the easy way out of raising price inthe first instance. Higher prices should be considered only as a last resort after all possible non-price options have been explored and exhausted.

A comprehensive review of all Government fees and charges should be undertaken immediately to see if the pricing mechanism has been abused often for revenue purposes and if so, corrective action taken without delay.We can start with the GST by waiving it for basic food items and reducing it for all the rest, and eventually doing away with it altogether. This will help arrest the decline in the real earnings of citizens particularly those in the lower income group and eventually raise their living standards. Isn’t this what economic development is all about? The huge Government budget surpluses that have accumulated in past years, provide sufficient buffer for Governmentto reduce or remove unnecessary taxes, fees and charges without the fear that it would result in budget deficits. In fact, the persistently huge budget surpluses recorded year after year imply that the Government has over-taxed the people by raising revenue from them far in excess of what it needs to provide and keep public services going.

______________________

The writer was with the Ministry of Trade and Industry from 1979 to 1985 where he headed economic and manpower planning and also served as secretary to the late Dr Albert Winsemius, the economic adviser to the Singapore Government. From 1985-1990, he was the principal private secretary to Mr Goh Chok Tong. In 1990, he went into investment banking and subsequently took up fund management. He is a Chartered Fellow of the Chartered Institute for Securities & Investment. He is a graduate of Oxford University where he read philosophy, politics and economics.

He will be sharing his insights of the Budget 2011 this coming Saturday 19th Feb at TOC’s Budget Forum 2011.

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

Nanny gets serious about babies but…

A broader perspective needed to enhance birth rate.

Singaporeans would need to continue to speak up when it matters and say no to injustice

by Roy Yi Ling Ngerng What really struck me this General Election…

Singapore think-tank plans to host haze portal

Singapore, 6 November 2014 – The Singapore Institute of International Affairs (SIIA) will…

【选举】意图阻止在野党扎根 林瑞莲再抨非选区议员制

工人党主席林瑞莲再次抨击非选区议员制度,指这是人民行动党为了防止在野党建立政治根基的做法。 工人党昨日(1日)首次在线上直播,也反击“在野党可当非选区议员”的论述。 该党后港单选区候选人陈立峰,引述前党魁刘程强的话,认为没有选民和选区的非选区议员,就如同水塘里的浮萍。 “人民行动党推行非选区议员制度,其根本目的在于确保没有其他政党可以在选区扎根,而且非选区议员在行动党选很难获得设施使用权,因为那是行动党成员常用以办活动的地方。” 工人党在上届国会中,共有三名非选区议员,分别是吴佩松、贝理安和陈立峰。 然而,非选区议员制度自引入以来,工人党便一再抨击,认为非选区议员并不等同于当选议员,且是为了行动党的政治优势所创建的。 工人党秘书长毕丹星认为,工人党必须取得至少三分之一的议席,方能确保行动党无法随意修改宪法。 佘雪玲则录制视频向年轻选民喊话,“记得2020大选是你们的机会,在国会选出你们想要的政府。我们可以有一个选择聆听人民心声,同时脚踏实地的政府。” 非选区议员制度早在1984年出现,在当选的在野党候选人少于下限的情况下,让得票率最高的落选者以非选区议员的身份进入国会,以确保国会有一定人数的在野党议员。 非选区议员享有在国会的投票权利,包括对修改宪法、拨款法案、财政法案、不信任动议以及罢免总统等事项进行辩论和表决。 随后,在2016年修宪,包括非选区议员在内的反对党议员人数下限已从九人增至12人。