~ By Elijah Pear ~

There is no doubt income disparity is escalating in Singapore. Debate about implementing a minimum wage law is becoming heated. Nonetheless I think we should take a step back to rethink our positions. First we should reflect on the reasons behind it. Why do we need minimum wage laws? To what extend will such regulations benefit society? How will minimum wage change our lives? Some contend that to reduce income disparity, implementation of a minimum wage law can boost productivity (raises incentives to work) and allow better quality of life for low-income workers. But this brings us the question; where will this increase in wages come from?

Simply said, a business is similar to baking a cake. Consumers spend money on goods and services provided by business. This revenue provides the firm with “the cake”. Top management usually consumes the biggest portion while leaving smaller ones to lower level workers. If regulation demands an increase in wages, what are the possibilities that the top management would give their slice to others? Considerably they would prefer finding ways to increase the size of the cake; increasing the cost of existing goods and services and passing the cost to consumers. Furthermore they might even result to giving away lesser slices of cake by reducing employment, resulting in higher unemployment; exacerbating social disparity.

Nonetheless minimum wages can increase growth as it may put an end to reliance on cheap labour, encouraging firms to discover more efficient allocation of resources. Moreover, minimum wage laws are seen as a standard for employment rights and can promote fairness in wages. Perhaps this reflects conventional views on human rights and liberty. Certainly some countries have implemented such regulations and are ranked high in income equality; however there are others which have yet to solve this crisis.

Basically this is not a simple ‘cut and paste’ strategy towards equality. Singapore is already well-known for its rules that govern the everyday lives of Singaporeans. Do we want more regulations to dominate our lives? Just like baking a cake, plainly adding more ingredients might not promise a unique taste. Instead it is important to look at other factors that may contribute to the flavour. Countries like Finland for instance have no minimum wage laws; on the contrary laws govern the rights of employees to enter collective bargaining agreements with their employers and the government[1]. Unions in Singapore are arguably not as strong, and employees have limited privileges in bargaining power. By just implementing minimum wage, businesses would simply find other alternative means that may infringe on social welfare.

This is not a sole remedy which can be handled with the same poison that framed it (以毒攻毒). Economic measures are important, but this income disparity drives deep into the heart of society.  The income gap is an economic issue with significant moral disputes. We complain about inflation and condemn the government’s culpability. For the same reasons we fancy inexpensive meals; cheap labour, services, fares……etc.

Balancing income is merely an economic aspect. It also involves us making significant sacrifices. Perhaps we may need to assign part of our income to cheap labour we already take for granted; pay more towards a meal for the opportunity cost forfeited by the hawker uncle and aunts. As the saying goes “Egalitarianism requires a moral recovery as inequality is a spiritual crisis”. A good thought to ponder this ANZAC day.


[1]Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labour, “Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights: Finland,” US Department of State, http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61647.htm

___________________________________

 

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

Insect repellent for pregnant women at all CCs starting from Saturday

The People’s Association (PA) released an announcement that insect repellent will be…

From budget to elections – diversion tactics?

by Howard Lee It seems almost deliberate. The announcement of the revised…

Missing 27-year-old Singaporean found dead at a car park

A body, found on the top of a multi-story car park, is…

寿命超过屋契年限或让屋主“续租” 黄循财称不让屋主无家可归

因担心自己的寿命会超过所保留的屋契年限,有意参加屋契回购计划套现部分组屋资产的年长者都停步不前了。 但日前国家发展部长兼财政部第二部长黄循财表示,不会“让参与计划的屋主无家可归”,而且政府或会允许他们原地养老。 至于收取租金一事,黄循财则表示有待商榷。 他出席由《联合早报》主板的“善用组屋,安稳退休”讲解会,首次提出这点。有关活动是由国家发展部和建屋发展局协办,吸引了超过800人出席聆听。 在讲解会上,他对再次租屋99年屋契意味着国人只是租户这说法澄清,并强调即使屋契有限,国人仍然能够自由出租和卖屋,且获得相关收益。 会上,政府也推出了家居改进计划II等协助组屋保值的计划,并且通过屋契回购计划等方式,协助屋主将组屋套现。 自今年1月开始,屋契回购计划扩大范围至所有组屋类型,而首六个月参与计划的近600户家庭中,每四户中有一户是五房式或更大型组屋的屋主。 不多人加入计划非坏事 黄循财指出,据建屋局数据显示,截至今年6月有近4000户家庭加入屋契回购计划,他认为这未必是坏事。 他指出在家访选区居民时介绍了有关计划,但是居民都表示目前不需要有关计划,而且自己有储蓄,还有孩子需要照顾。“这是好事,表示他们过得很幸福,所以不需要参与计划。” “屋契回购计划自2009年实施到2018年,这10年里吸引了3400户家庭参与,可是单单在今年首六个月就有592户家庭参加,我相信随着更多国人明白计划的好处,会有更多人加入。” 据数据显示的592户家庭中,有149户是居住在五房式或更大型的组屋内。…