Commentaries
NTUC dissatisfied with non-unionised companies? Are workers satisfied?
By Leong Sze Hian
I refer to the article “Few non-unionised firms heed pay guide” (Straits Times, May 31).
NTUC not happy with non-unionised companies?
It states that “the labour movement has come out to say it is dissatisfied with the number of non-unionised firms that heeded last year’s recommendations.
2 in 10 unionised companies did not give $50?
While some eight in 10 companies in the unionised sector followed NWC guidelines calling for low-wage workers to be given a $50 raise, only a small minority of non-unionised companies followed suit.”
Such is the pathetic state of our labour environment and movement that even about 20 per cent of unionised companies did not heed the NWC guidelines to give just a miserable $50 wage increase to those earning less than $1,000 a month.
Workers even more unhappy than NTUC?
So, what does the NTUC do about this pathetic state of affairs? Well, it voices its dissatisfaction with the non-unionised companies of which only a small minority heeded the recommendation.
If you are a low-wage worker earning less than $1,000 in the about 20 per cent of unionised companies who did not even get the paltry $50 increase, when inflation was about 4.6 per cent last year – who should you blame? Arguably, shouldn’t it be the NTUC?
What are unions for if it does not fight for the rights of workers – particularly low-wage workers?
How many – did not reveal?
As to “NTUC did not reveal the exact number (small minority of non-unionised companies), but a Straits Times check with 12 firms found that only four complied” – why is NTUC not transparent? – why did it not reveal the actual numbers? – what is it afraid of? – how were the numbers (secret because “did not reveal”) derived?
95.9% did not give one-off special payment?
When 95.9 per cent of private establishments had not given the one-off special
payment to their rank-and-file employees as recommended by the NWC in 2010, according to the Ministry of Manpower’s Report on wages 2011 – did the NTUC say or do anything?
Only 60% gave pay rise?
When the Singapore National Employers Federation’s (SNEF) efforts to get companies to support the National Wages Council’s (NWC) recommendations (“More companies supporting NWC’s recommendation on low-wage workers”, Channel NewsAsia, Jul 7, 2012) – reported the results of its survey that only 60 per cent of the 160 companies which had responded then, had given a pay rise to low wage workers – did the NTUC say or do anything?
How much less to how many?
Moreover, the fact was that one-quarter of the responding companies gave
less than the recommended $50, which means that even an increase of say $10 may also have been recorded as partial fulfillment of the NWC recommendation. In this regard, did the NTUC say or do anything?
All against Lim Chong Yah’s $50?
When Professor Lim Chong Yah suggested last year that those earning $1,000 or below be given an immediate $50 raise per month – the response generally from the union movement, employers’ federation and the Government was that even this meager $50 increase for all low-income workers was not very favourable. In this regard, did the NTUC say or do anything? (actually it did say that it was not in favour of it)
Must have productivity gains?
The consistent rhetoric was and still is that wages can only go up with productivity gains, despite Singapore’s poor productivity growth being a clear indictment that our productivity enhancement initiatives and programmes have not and are still not working.
So, what is NTUC trying to tell us (by implication if you read the subject news report) now – that it is better for a low-wage worker to be working in a unionised company rather than a non-unionised one?
In conclusion, I doubt if anyone would disagree that the NTUC has not been very effective in helping low-wage workers to get higher wages (just a decent fair wage will do).
1,001 reasons?
Like all things, people will say that there will always be low-wage workers, there will always be companies that are not doing well (and so may not be able to give the miserable $50 increment), “minimum wage” is not good for Singapore” – blah, blah, blah!
So, let’s let the numbers do the talking:
How many workers not getting a fair wage?
With about 110,000 full-time workers earning less than $1,000, and about 400,000 full and part-time workers earning $1,200 and below, the total number of full and part-time workers earning not more than $1,500 may be over half a million.
According to the Department of Statistics’ Yearbook of Statistics 2012, ACTIVE CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND MEMBERS BY WAGE LEVEL in 2011, there were458,600 workers earning less than $1,500 a month. If we include those who for various reasons may not be active CPF members because they did not make a contribution in the last three months, such as the unemployed, self-employed who did not make CPF Medisave contributions, those under-going training, etc, the total number of workers earning below $1,500 may be more than 500,000.
According to the Report on the Labour Force 2011, as of June, 2011, there were 697,200 earning less than $2,000 of which 464,000 earned less than $1,500 and 236,300 earned less than $1,000. There were 306,800 full-time workers and 157,300 part-time workers earning less than $1,500, 110,400 full-time workers and 126,000 part-time workers earning less than $1,000, 299,800 self-employed persons, and 36.2 per cent of employed residents worked more than 48 hours a week.
Looking at the above statistics, we may have a long way to go before most Singaporeans may get a fair basic wage (without having to be the world No. 1 for the longest weekly work hours) – thanks (or perhaps no thanks) to the effectiveness of our labour movement.
Finally, aren’t you ashamed when you look at the above wage statistics – when Singapore recently became the richest country in the world!
Commentaries
Lim Tean criticizes Govt’s rejection of basic income report, urges Singaporeans to rethink election choices
Lim Tean, leader of Peoples Voice (PV), criticizes the government’s defensive response to the basic living income report, accusing it of avoiding reality.
He calls on citizens to assess affordability and choose MPs who can truly enhance their lives in the upcoming election.
SINGAPORE: A recently published report, “Minimum Income Standard 2023: Household Budgets in a Time of Rising Costs,” unveils figures detailing the necessary income households require to maintain a basic standard of living, using the Minimum Income Standard (MIS) method.
The newly released study, spearheaded by Dr Ng Kok Hoe of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (LKYSPP) specifically focuses on working-age households in 2021 and presents the latest MIS budgets, adjusted for inflation from 2020 to 2022.
The report detailed that:
- The “reasonable starting point” for a living wage in Singapore was S$2,906 a month.
- A single parent with a child aged two to six required S$3,218 per month.
- Partnered parents with two children, one aged between seven and 12 and the other between 13 and 18, required S$6,426 a month.
- A single elderly individual required S$1,421 a month.
- Budgets for both single and partnered parent households averaged around S$1,600 per member. Given recent price inflation, these figures have risen by up to 5% in the current report.
Singapore Govt challenges MIS 2023 report’s representation of basic needs
Regrettably, on Thursday (14 Sept), the Finance Ministry (MOF), Manpower Ministry (MOM), and Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) jointly issued a statement dismissing the idea suggested by the report, claiming that minimum household income requirements amid inflation “might not accurately reflect basic needs”.
Instead, they claimed that findings should be seen as “what individuals would like to have.”, and further defended their stances for the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) and other measures to uplift lower-wage workers.
The government argued that “a universal wage floor is not necessarily the best way” to ensure decent wages for lower-wage workers.
The government’s statement also questions the methodology of the Minimum Income Standards (MIS) report, highlighting limitations such as its reliance on respondent profiles and group dynamics.
“The MIS approach used is highly dependent on respondent profiles and on group dynamics. As the focus groups included higher-income participants, the conclusions may not be an accurate reflection of basic needs.”
The joint statement claimed that the MIS approach included discretionary expenditure items such as jewellery, perfumes, and overseas holidays.
Lim Tean slams Government’s response to basic living income report
In response to the government’s defensive reaction to the recent basic living income report, Lim Tean, leader of the alternative party Peoples Voice (PV), strongly criticizes the government’s apparent reluctance to confront reality, stating, “It has its head buried in the sand”.
He strongly questioned the government’s endorsement of the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) as a means to uplift the living standards of the less fortunate in Singapore, describing it as a misguided approach.
In a Facebook video on Friday (15 Sept), Lim Tean highlighted that it has become a global norm, especially in advanced and first-world countries, to establish a minimum wage, commonly referred to as a living wage.
“Everyone is entitled to a living wage, to have a decent life, It is no use boasting that you are one of the richest countries in the world that you have massive reserves, if your citizens cannot have a decent life with a decent living wage.”
Lim Tean cited his colleague, Leong Sze Hian’s calculations, which revealed a staggering 765,800 individuals in Singapore, including Permanent Residents and citizens, may not earn the recommended living wage of $2,906, as advised by the MIS report.
“If you take away the migrant workers or the foreign workers, and take away those who do not work, underage, are children you know are unemployed, and the figure is staggering, isn’t it?”
“You know you are looking at a very substantial percentage of the workforce that do not have sufficient income to meet basic needs, according to this report.”
He reiterated that the opposition parties, including the People’s Voice and the People’s Alliance, have always called for a minimum wage, a living wage which the government refuses to countenance.
Scepticism about the government’s ability to control rising costs
In a time of persistently high inflation, Lim Tean expressed skepticism about the government’s ability to control rising costs.
He cautioned against believing in predictions of imminent inflation reduction and lower interest rates below 2%, labeling them as unrealistic.
Lim Tean urged Singaporeans to assess their own affordability in these challenging times, especially with the impending GST increase.
He warned that a 1% rise in GST could lead to substantial hikes in everyday expenses, particularly food prices.
Lim Tean expressed concern that the PAP had become detached from the financial struggles of everyday Singaporeans, citing their high salaries and perceived insensitivity to the common citizen’s plight.
Lim Tean urges Singaporeans to rethink election choices
Highlighting the importance of the upcoming election, Lim Tean recommended that citizens seriously evaluate the affordability of their lives.
“If you ask yourself about affordability, you will realise that you have no choice, In the coming election, but to vote in a massive number of opposition Members of Parliament, So that they can make a difference.”
Lim Tean emphasized the need to move beyond the traditional notion of providing checks and balances and encouraged voters to consider who could genuinely improve their lives.
“To me, the choice is very simple. It is whether you decide to continue with a life, that is going to become more and more expensive: More expensive housing, higher cost of living, jobs not secure because of the massive influx of foreign workers,” he declared.
“Or you choose members of Parliament who have your interests at heart and who want to make your lives better.”
Commentaries
Political observers call for review of Singapore’s criteria of Presidential candidates and propose 5 year waiting period for political leaders
Singaporean political observers express concern over the significantly higher eligibility criteria for private-sector presidential candidates compared to public-sector candidates, calling for adjustments.
Some also suggest a five year waiting period for aspiring political leaders after leaving their party before allowed to partake in the presidential election.
Notably, The Workers’ Party has earlier reiterated its position that the current qualification criteria favor PAP candidates and has called for a return to a ceremonial presidency instead of an elected one.
While the 2023 Presidential Election in Singapore concluded on Friday (1 September), discussions concerning the fairness and equity of the electoral system persist.
Several political observers contend that the eligibility criteria for private-sector individuals running for president are disproportionately high compared to those from the public sector, and they propose that adjustments be made.
They also recommend a five-year waiting period for aspiring political leaders after leaving their party before being allowed to participate in the presidential election.
Aspiring entrepreneur George Goh Ching Wah, announced his intention to in PE 2023 in June. However, His application as a candidate was unsuccessful, he failed to receive the Certificate of Eligibility (COE) on 18 August.
Mr Goh had expressed his disappointment in a statement after the ELD’s announcement, he said, the Presidential Elections Committee (PEC) took a very narrow interpretation of the requirements without explaining the rationale behind its decision.
As per Singapore’s Constitution, individuals running for the presidency from the private sector must have a minimum of three years’ experience as a CEO in a company.
This company should have consistently maintained an average shareholders’ equity of at least S$500 million and sustained profitability.
Mr Goh had pursued eligibility through the private sector’s “deliberative track,” specifically referring to section 19(4)(b)(2) of the Singapore Constitution.
He pointed out five companies he had led for over three years, collectively claiming a shareholders’ equity of S$1.521 billion.
Notably, prior to the 2016 revisions, the PEC might have had the authority to assess Mr Goh’s application similarly to how it did for Mr Tan Jee Say in the 2011 Presidential Election.
Yet, in its current formulation, the PEC is bound by the definitions laid out in the constitution.
Calls for equitable standards across public and private sectors
According to Singapore’s Chinese media outlet, Shin Min Daily News, Dr Felix Tan Thiam Kim, a political analyst at Nanyang Technological University (NTU) Singapore, noted that in 2016, the eligibility criteria for private sector candidates were raised from requiring them to be executives of companies with a minimum capital of S$100 million to CEOs of companies with at least S$500 million in shareholder equity.
However, the eligibility criteria for public sector candidates remained unchanged. He suggests that there is room for adjusting the eligibility criteria for public sector candidates.
Associate Professor Bilver Singh, Deputy Head of the Department of Political Science at the National University of Singapore, believes that the constitutional requirements for private-sector individuals interested in running are excessively stringent.
He remarked, “I believe it is necessary to reassess the relevant regulations.”
He points out that the current regulations are more favourable for former public officials seeking office and that the private sector faces notably greater challenges.
“While it may be legally sound, it may not necessarily be equitable,” he added.
Proposed five-year waiting period for political leaders eyeing presidential race
Moreover, despite candidates severing ties with their political parties in pursuit of office, shedding their political affiliations within a short timeframe remains a challenging endeavour.
A notable instance is Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, who resigned from the People’s Action Party (PAP) just slightly over a month before announcing his presidential candidacy, sparking considerable debate.
During a live broadcast, his fellow contender, Ng Kok Song, who formerly served as the Chief Investment Officer of GIC, openly questioned Mr Tharman’s rapid transition to a presidential bid shortly after leaving his party and government.
Dr Felix Tan suggests that in the future, political leaders aspiring to run for the presidency should not only resign from their parties but also adhere to a mandatory waiting period of at least five years before entering the race.
Cherian George and Kevin Y.L. Tan: “illogical ” to raise the corporate threshold in 2016
Indeed, the apprehension regarding the stringent eligibility criteria and concerns about fairness in presidential candidacy requirements are not limited to political analysts interviewed by Singapore’s mainstream media.
Prior to PE2023, CCherian George, a Professor of media studies at Hong Kong Baptist University, and Kevin Y.L. Tan, an Adjunct Professor at both the Faculty of Law of the National University of Singapore and the NTU’s S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), brought attention to the challenges posed by the qualification criteria for candidates vying for the Singaporean Presidency.
In their article titled “Why Singapore’s Next Elected President Should be One of its Last,” the scholars discussed the relevance of the current presidential election system in Singapore and floated the idea of returning to an appointed President, emphasizing the symbolic and unifying role of the office.
They highlighted that businessman George Goh appeared to be pursuing the “deliberative track” for qualification, which requires candidates to satisfy the PEC that their experience and abilities are comparable to those of a typical company’s chief executive with shareholder equity of at least S$500 million.
Mr Goh cobbles together a suite of companies under his management to meet the S$500m threshold.
The article also underscored the disparities between the eligibility criteria for candidates from the public and private sectors, serving as proxies for evaluating a candidate’s experience in handling complex financial matters.
“It is hard to see what financial experience the Chairman of the Public Service Commission or for that matter, the Chief Justice has, when compared to a Minister or a corporate chief.”
“The raising of the corporate threshold in 2016 is thus illogical and serves little purpose other than to simply reduce the number of potentially eligible candidates.”
The article also touches upon the issue of candidates’ independence from political parties, particularly the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP).
It mentions that candidates are expected to be non-partisan and independent, and it questions how government-backed candidates can demonstrate their independence given their previous affiliations.
The Workers’ Party advocate for a return to a ceremonial presidency
It comes as no surprise that Singapore’s alternative party, the Workers’ Party, reaffirmed its stance on 30 August, asserting that they believe the existing qualifying criteria for presidential candidates are skewed in favour of those approved by the People’s Action Party (PAP).
They argue that the current format of the elected presidency (EP) undermines the principles of parliamentary democracy.
“It also serves as an unnecessary source of gridlock – one that could potentially cripple a non-PAP government within its first term – and is an alternative power centre that could lead to political impasses.”
Consistently, the Workers’ Party has been vocal about its objection to the elected presidency and has consistently called for its abolition.
Instead, they advocate for a return to a ceremonial presidency, a position they have maintained for over three decades.
-
Comments1 week ago
Christopher Tan criticizes mrt breakdown following decade-long renewal program
-
Comments4 days ago
Netizens question Ho Ching’s praise for Chee Hong Tat’s return from overseas trip for EWL disruption
-
Current Affairs2 weeks ago
Chee Soon Juan questions Shanmugam’s $88 million property sale amid silence from Mainstream Media
-
Singapore1 week ago
SMRT updates on restoration progress for East-West Line; Power rail completion expected today
-
Singapore1 week ago
Chee Hong Tat: SMRT to replace 30+ rail segments on damaged EWL track with no clear timeline for completion
-
Singapore6 days ago
Train services between Jurong East and Buona Vista to remain disrupted until 1 Oct due to new cracks on East-West Line
-
Singapore5 days ago
Lee Hsien Yang pays S$619,335 to Ministers Shanmugam and Balakrishnan in defamation suit to protect family home
-
Singapore1 week ago
Major breakdown on East-West Line: SMRT faces third service disruption in a month