~ By Kenneth Jeyaretnam ~

Despite Prof Lim’s undoubtedly good intentions, the solution to wage stagnation for Singaporeans is not some central planning directive taking us back to the Soviet era. It is Singapore’s lack of democracy that is holding us back. What we need now is thoroughgoing reform ofSingapore’s political institutions so that they become more democratic and inclusive and thus more responsive to the interests of the bulk of Singaporeans and not just a narrow elite.

I read the outlines in our State media of Prof Lim Chong Yah’s proposals for restructuring the Singapore economy with some scepticism. Among the questions that immediately sprang to mind was how we were going to simultaneously reduce our dependence on cheap foreign labour and raise the wages of the low-paid (by 50%!) without either a statutory minimum wage or greater curbs on foreign labour. Without either of these, Singaporean workers would just be priced out of the market which I assume is not the intention. The State media were predictably short of details given that a minimum wage has up till now been anathema to the PAP government. However Prof Lim’s proposals have been criticised by the head of the NTUC, Lim Swee Say, as “very risky” and likely to lead to unemployment.

This has always been the government’s line whenever discussion of a minimum wage has come up. However such criticisms are disingenuous as they omit to mention that Singaporeans have been priced out of working in several sectors because of undercutting by foreign workers and therefore there may not be much additional unemployment among Singaporeans. In fact it could lead to higher employment of Singaporeans while at the same time spurring restructuring of the economy towards higher value-added activities and cutting our dependence on foreign workers.

However Prof Lim’s proposals go much further than a minimum wage and amount to wholesale state intervention in the labour market to determine wages. This would be anathema to me as a free market economist. Despite the longstanding efforts to burnish Singapore’s market credentials with international media and global business, the proposals are revealing of the appeal of Communist and statist central planning to many in the government and establishment. As the former head of the National Wages Council, Prof Lim was responsible for the policy of pushing up wages rapidly at the beginning of the 1980s. This was aimed at bringing about the restructuring of the Singaporeeconomy towards higher value-added activities.

Classic development strategy, but…

I remember discussing this plan with my Director of Studies at Queens’ College Cambridge in 1981. His comment was that this was classic development strategy. However the policy was abandoned after the economic recession in 1986 when there was a big rise in unemployment. In the 1990s as labour force participation rates rose towards full employment levels there was an ideal opportunity to resume the restructuring of the economy and to move away from low-value added activities and our dependence on extensive growth without any increase in underlying productivity.

But, rather than let the growth rate decline the government chose instead to open the gates wider to foreign labour, first a trickle but one which had become a deluge by the late 2000s. This kept our growth rate high and impressed foreigners but caused wage stagnation for those workers at the 80th percentile and below and probable real wage declines for the bottom two deciles over the period 1998-2010.

Since I pointed out in 2009 that the emperor had no clothes, the PAP government has started enthusiastically talking the language of restructuring and higher productivity and cutting our dependence on foreign labour while making noises about how “inclusive” they are. They devoted a whole Budget to it in 2010. The truth is that the government would not like any curbs on foreign labour but they have been reluctantly forced to be seen doing something after the last election where unhappiness at uncontrolled immigration was a major factor. Hence they have come up with the gradualist policy of raising foreign worker levies instead.

Drawback of using just levies

While a tax (which is what the levies are) is generally preferable to a quota because the price mechanism is a more efficient way of allocating resources than quantitative restrictions, there are potential drawbacks. I have already pointed out that raising levies may not be enough in a situation where employers are able to source cheaper labour from poorer countries to replace Chinese and Indian workers who find themselves priced out of the market.

One has to ask why the PAP government have pursued economic policies for so long which are not in the economic interests of the broad mass of Singaporeans. After all governments in democratic countries have been voted out of office for what is perceived as their failure to control immigration. The flood of workers from Eastern European countries that had joined the EU was a factor in the Labour government’s defeat in the UK in 2010. Clearly for our government it was not lack of knowledge of the economic consequences of their policies.

As Why Nations Fail* makes clear, history is littered with examples of countries with extractive political institutions that have pursued policies that have impoverished the bulk of the population but allowed a small segment to get immensely wealthy. Singapore also suffers from non-democratic and non-inclusive political institutions. This in turn ensures that policies that favour a small elite get implemented and that economic institutions get less inclusive.

By allowing in cheap foreign labour and cutting real wages for ordinary Singaporeans the PAP government increases the share of GDP going to profits and the high-paid. High economic growth rates and increased profitability do not translate into higher living standards for the bulk of Singaporeans but do serve to justify high salaries for the leaders of our GLCs, our Sovereign Wealth Funds, senior civil servants and of course government ministers. At the same time higher property prices stemming from a deliberate policy of uncontrolled immigration also benefits the elite who in turn are quite happy to support the non-democratic nature of our political institutions.


*Why Nations Fail, by Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson

This article was first published on Kenneth Jeyaretnam's blog, Reinventing the Rice Bowl. TOC thanks the writer for allowing us to republish this article in full.

________________________

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

You can’t preach meritocracy without also addressing privilege

Channel News Asia (CNA) released a documentary recently called ‘Regardless of Class’…

包括四宗本土感染病例 我国再添六武汉确诊病例

卫生部宣布,我国再添六宗武汉肺炎确诊病例,包括四宗本地人感染病例,但是没有出现社区传播情况。 卫生部于今日(2月4日)下午2时发文告指出,我国的新型冠状病毒肺炎确诊病例已经达到24宗,其中有四名病患近期内都没有到过中国,包括一名印度尼西亚籍女佣。 第19名确诊患者为28岁的女性,在24号卡文路的永泰行工作,主要负责中国游客的保健产品公司接待工作。 她于1月29日出现喉咙痛和发烧症状,便到家庭诊所就医,隔日再到陈笃生医院紧急部门价差,但是其X光检测并没有显示任何肺炎症状,于是就回家。 随后她于1月31日至2月2日都待在惹兰红山(Jalan Bukit Merah)的住家内,但是却在昨日到新加坡中央医院就医时,被确诊患上武汉肺炎。她目前已经被列为可疑病例进行隔离,在中央医院的隔离房内留医。 而第19名患者的同事,同样没有到过中国的48岁女性,也于昨日被发现感染武汉肺炎。 居住在后港第61街的新加坡女子,目前也被安排到国家传染病中心的隔离病房内就医。 第21宗确诊病例患者是一名印度尼西亚籍的女佣,现年44岁,受雇于第19名病患。她是于2月2日出现武汉肺炎的症状后,目前已经被安排入住中央医院的隔离病房。 第22宗和第23宗确诊病例患者都是新加坡人,于1月30日自中国武汉回到我国。他们在飞机上时并没有出现任何症状,但是在抵达我国后进行了14天的隔离。 他们昨日进行的医疗报告显示了两人都患上了武汉肺炎,虽然没有出现任何明显症状,但是已经被安排到国家传染病中心的隔离病房接受治疗。…

Carrie Lam should announce full withdrawal of extradition Bill: Hong Kong former secretary for transport and housing Anthony Cheung

Hong Kong’s former secretary for transport and housing Anthony Cheung Bing-leung has…

“不怕做正确的事” 李显龙:来届大选将是场硬仗

昨日(10日)人民行动党办65周年党大会及常年服务颁奖典礼,获得约2500名党员出席。 在会上,总理暨行动党秘书长李显龙致词时表示,来届大选将是一场硬仗,攸关新加坡能否继续“由稳定和善治的政府造福国家人民”,而行动党必须致力维护其高标准和贴近民心,继续赢取国人的信任和委托。 他认为许多国家的民众不再相信精英,严重民愤分化社会,故此他呼吁行动党必须贴近民众,守护和珍惜国人赋予的信任。 “精英脱离群众的情况不能在新加坡发生,行动党必须永远是人民的政党,不论是党员或领袖都必须能与人民打成一片和服务人民;政策需聚焦人民需求,让人民受益。” 与此同时,李显龙称尽管不是所有政策都得到国人认同,且一些政策短期内让执政党在政治上失分,惟他认为该党不能为此而害怕为新加坡作出正确决定。 他以总统选举保留机制为例,指出总统是多元族群国家的团结象征,但非华族候选人很难当选,长远而言这种情况会遭传不满和侵蚀我国建国价值观。“我与部长们讨论,也谨慎斟酌。我决定,为了新加坡长远利益,我们必须做出这一根本性改变。” 即便政策不讨好,也要和选民诚实交代,“就拿消费税来说,很少政府会在大选前告诉你要调高税率,我大可推迟决策,或留给未来总理来解决,但我们必须做正确和负责任的事。” 至于王瑞杰也在致词中解释自己日前在国会提出诚信动议的考量,重申阿裕尼-后港市镇会问题严重,反映当选议员诚信,“身为执政党,我们有责任确保新加坡体制的信誉。我们必须并且已经针对这个原则问题采取了明确立场。” 他们在致词中都分别强调此次行动党大会可能是选前最后一次大会。 李光耀曾表示执政党终因选民厌倦而下台 但回溯2011年,在报业控股推出的《新加坡赖以生存的硬道理》,其中已故建国总理李光耀表示到了一个时候,公众会说,“看,我们试试另一方吧,可能是因为行动党的素质已下降,或是反对党已经形成了与行动党势均力敌的团队”。那一天将会来临。 这本经《海峡时报》记者一系列访谈,汇集成书的著作,其中李光耀认为,如果(行动党)素质逐步下降,那么反对党可能以素质崛起,公众是可以感受的到的。…