they simply seize the properties and resell them at market rate. that's why a lien and or collateral. win-win for banks and equity loan companies. so many of them advertising on all media like crazy. worse than spam.
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Chitchat Jamus Lim plays the idiotic minimum wage card
- Thread starter Scrooball (clone)
- Start date
I am sure these old foggies also have unsecured debt like credit card debt too.
yup.
sure better if u have money,is chinese who typically owns businesses in malaysia or is a malaysian working in singapore,even a jhk mcdonalds worker in sg is 5 times better off than the average malaysian.....
jesus i just watched a cna documentary about the new poor in malaysia 2020.......malaysia looks like a bombshell in syria.......so many poor people and homeless wandering the city area u think this was skid row,USA.......
Yeoh Lam Keong: NTUC not only fails to set minimum wage for S’pore workers, it fights constructive opposition suggestions
by Aldgra F.
23 October 2020
in Labour
3 min read
37
Not only that the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) has failed to set minimum wage levels for workers in Singapore, it even “fights constructive opposition suggestions for this”, said Mr Yeoh Lam Keong on Thursday (22 Oct), as he indicated it as “entirely baffling”.
Mr Yeoh, former GIC Chief Economist, was commenting on the heated argument between NTUC’s Deputy Secretary-General Koh Poh Koon and the Workers’ Party (WP) leader Pritam Singh in Parliament on last Thursday (15 Oct).
To recap, Dr Koh had criticised the WP’s proposal of setting up a universal minimum wage of S$1,300 per month, saying that it could result in a worse situation for businesses and workers, and potentially lead to a “political auction”.
He highlighted that the Government’s current Progressive Wage Model (PWM), and Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) scheme, can help to ensure that low-wage workers earn more than S$1,300 without putting their jobs at risk or raising consumer prices significantly.
In response, Mr Singh emphasised that this concern is not with the PWM, but rather on why is the Government taking this long to cover these low-wage workers.
Dr Koh replied that the tripartite partners had looked into data in their discussions, which showed that the practical considerations of implementing minimum wage may be challenging.
Following that, Mr Yeoh took to his Facebook on Thursday saying that a “constructive collaboration and discussion” would be “more appropriate” for NTUC instead of condemning the WP’s suggestions on the minimum wage issue.
Mr Yeoh cited how major unions and collective bargainings in countries like Austria, Germany and Scandinavia would become “instrumental” in recommending minimum wage levels.
“In some countries this is done so well that such minimum wages stick even without compulsory legislation,” he wrote.
“It’s entirely baffling to me, therefore, why the NTUC, which is perfectly institutionally placed to do so via our well established tripartite process, not only fails to do so comprehensively and quickly but fights constructive opposition suggestions for this incomplete though they may be tooth and nail,” said Mr Yeoh.
He pointed out that the Government should conduct and update studies on the basic needs of the families living in poverty in order to build a “proper income support” for the low-wage workers, particularly those who live in “absolute poverty”.
“There are an estimated 60-80 thousand resident families or around 150 to 200 thousand citizens living in absolute poverty even though one family member is fully employed!” the economist stressed.
Similarly, this was also “resisted equally bafflingly” by the Government, said Mr Yeoh.
“This is because we have had uncontrolled excessive immigration for so long and in such quantity for the 2 decades ending around 2010 that our lowest decile wages are far below the living wage and those of comparable developed economies,” he explained.
Meanwhile, Mr Yeoh suggested increasing WIS cash payouts to ensure that most families’ “basic dignified needs” are met.
For those who are not aware, WIS supplements eligible workers’ income and retirement savings through cash payments and CPF contribution, as stated in the Ministry of Manpower’s website.
“My own back of the envelope calculations suggest an additional $500 -600 per month increase in WIS would be needed for poorest workers. As I have written previously, this is eminently affordable fiscally,” he added.
Mr Yeoh added that the cash supplement can be reduced in gradually as higher work productivity “enables a minimum real wage to reach the properly measured decent living wage longer term”.
“To enable this, sufficiently tight controls on unskilled immigration needs to be maintained, which is arguably not sufficient even after significant improvements in this area after the economic strategies commission in 2010,” he asserted.
Share this:
23 October 2020
in Labour
3 min read
37
Not only that the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) has failed to set minimum wage levels for workers in Singapore, it even “fights constructive opposition suggestions for this”, said Mr Yeoh Lam Keong on Thursday (22 Oct), as he indicated it as “entirely baffling”.
Mr Yeoh, former GIC Chief Economist, was commenting on the heated argument between NTUC’s Deputy Secretary-General Koh Poh Koon and the Workers’ Party (WP) leader Pritam Singh in Parliament on last Thursday (15 Oct).
To recap, Dr Koh had criticised the WP’s proposal of setting up a universal minimum wage of S$1,300 per month, saying that it could result in a worse situation for businesses and workers, and potentially lead to a “political auction”.
He highlighted that the Government’s current Progressive Wage Model (PWM), and Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) scheme, can help to ensure that low-wage workers earn more than S$1,300 without putting their jobs at risk or raising consumer prices significantly.
In response, Mr Singh emphasised that this concern is not with the PWM, but rather on why is the Government taking this long to cover these low-wage workers.
Mr Singh explained that WP’s proposal of a minimum wage does not include foreign labour given that they are governed by other regulations, adding that some sectors might profit off the backs of the PWM.
Dr Koh replied that the tripartite partners had looked into data in their discussions, which showed that the practical considerations of implementing minimum wage may be challenging.
Following that, Mr Yeoh took to his Facebook on Thursday saying that a “constructive collaboration and discussion” would be “more appropriate” for NTUC instead of condemning the WP’s suggestions on the minimum wage issue.
Mr Yeoh cited how major unions and collective bargainings in countries like Austria, Germany and Scandinavia would become “instrumental” in recommending minimum wage levels.
“In some countries this is done so well that such minimum wages stick even without compulsory legislation,” he wrote.
“It’s entirely baffling to me, therefore, why the NTUC, which is perfectly institutionally placed to do so via our well established tripartite process, not only fails to do so comprehensively and quickly but fights constructive opposition suggestions for this incomplete though they may be tooth and nail,” said Mr Yeoh.
He pointed out that the Government should conduct and update studies on the basic needs of the families living in poverty in order to build a “proper income support” for the low-wage workers, particularly those who live in “absolute poverty”.
“There are an estimated 60-80 thousand resident families or around 150 to 200 thousand citizens living in absolute poverty even though one family member is fully employed!” the economist stressed.
Similarly, this was also “resisted equally bafflingly” by the Government, said Mr Yeoh.
“This is because we have had uncontrolled excessive immigration for so long and in such quantity for the 2 decades ending around 2010 that our lowest decile wages are far below the living wage and those of comparable developed economies,” he explained.
Meanwhile, Mr Yeoh suggested increasing WIS cash payouts to ensure that most families’ “basic dignified needs” are met.
For those who are not aware, WIS supplements eligible workers’ income and retirement savings through cash payments and CPF contribution, as stated in the Ministry of Manpower’s website.
“My own back of the envelope calculations suggest an additional $500 -600 per month increase in WIS would be needed for poorest workers. As I have written previously, this is eminently affordable fiscally,” he added.
Mr Yeoh added that the cash supplement can be reduced in gradually as higher work productivity “enables a minimum real wage to reach the properly measured decent living wage longer term”.
“To enable this, sufficiently tight controls on unskilled immigration needs to be maintained, which is arguably not sufficient even after significant improvements in this area after the economic strategies commission in 2010,” he asserted.
Share this:
SDP’s James Gomez talks about minimum wage misconceptions
Dr James Gomez said that minimum wage is a tool that can be coupled with training opportunities
Photo: FB/SDP - Dr James Gomez
Author
- Advertisement -
In a video posted on the Singapore Democratic Party’s (SDP) Facebook page, Dr James Gomez spoke about four misperceptions of Minimum Wage.
He said: “For me, the key issue and challenge facing Singapore and Singaporeans is really the misperception, misconception and the need for public education”.
Dr Gomez highlighted 4 misconceptions surrounding minimum wage:
1. Minimum wage does not affect me as I am earning beyond the minimum wage
2. Will Minimum Wage bring down my salary?
3. People will not work hard if there is a Minimum Wage
4. “S10,000 also not enough” for some people
“Minimum wage is a tool that we can use to demonstrate concern, as well as to ensure that people at the lower end of society, at least have enough money to live a dignified life”, he added.
- Advertisement -
Calling it an “important tool” in the public arsenal, Dr James Gomez noted that Minimum Wage is a tool that can be coupled with training opportunities.
A minimum wage has been the subject of much debate in the country since the WP featured it as one of the key policy proposals in its manifesto for this year’s General Election.
During a debate against Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh, Mr Edward Chia, MP for Holland-Bukit Timah GRC, asked the Workers’ Party (WP) MPs if they recognise that there is a possibility low-wage workers may lose their jobs with technology being increasingly adopted by businesses.
Mr Pritam said that none of the WP MPs made any remark about automation and in turn asked whether Mr Chia is willing to pay the 32,000 low-wage workers S$1,300 a month.
Read related: KF Seetoh calls out PAP’s Edward Chia on minimum wage issue
Mr Chia, who is the managing director for F&B company Timbre Group, jumped in to say that businesses need to stay competitive and to do so, it has to be coupled with an increase in productivity.
Mr Pritam then asked: “I would like to ask the member in return, is he agreeable to pay the … 32,000 workers S$1,300 as a business employer. Is he prepared to do that? I hope he is.”
Mr Chia replied that a business owner’s responsibilities are to his entire company and not to the employees of a specific sector. That would include finding ways to be sustainable and to expand to provide more jobs for Singaporeans.
“A minimum wage may be more negative for a business. We need to look at it as a holistic approach, helping businesses upskill their employees, helping businesses grow their business,” he said. /TISG
Dr James Gomez said that minimum wage is a tool that can be coupled with training opportunities
Photo: FB/SDP - Dr James Gomez
Author
- Advertisement -
In a video posted on the Singapore Democratic Party’s (SDP) Facebook page, Dr James Gomez spoke about four misperceptions of Minimum Wage.
He said: “For me, the key issue and challenge facing Singapore and Singaporeans is really the misperception, misconception and the need for public education”.
Dr Gomez highlighted 4 misconceptions surrounding minimum wage:
1. Minimum wage does not affect me as I am earning beyond the minimum wage
2. Will Minimum Wage bring down my salary?
3. People will not work hard if there is a Minimum Wage
4. “S10,000 also not enough” for some people
“Minimum wage is a tool that we can use to demonstrate concern, as well as to ensure that people at the lower end of society, at least have enough money to live a dignified life”, he added.
- Advertisement -
Calling it an “important tool” in the public arsenal, Dr James Gomez noted that Minimum Wage is a tool that can be coupled with training opportunities.
A minimum wage has been the subject of much debate in the country since the WP featured it as one of the key policy proposals in its manifesto for this year’s General Election.
During a debate against Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh, Mr Edward Chia, MP for Holland-Bukit Timah GRC, asked the Workers’ Party (WP) MPs if they recognise that there is a possibility low-wage workers may lose their jobs with technology being increasingly adopted by businesses.
Mr Pritam said that none of the WP MPs made any remark about automation and in turn asked whether Mr Chia is willing to pay the 32,000 low-wage workers S$1,300 a month.
Read related: KF Seetoh calls out PAP’s Edward Chia on minimum wage issue
Mr Chia, who is the managing director for F&B company Timbre Group, jumped in to say that businesses need to stay competitive and to do so, it has to be coupled with an increase in productivity.
Mr Pritam then asked: “I would like to ask the member in return, is he agreeable to pay the … 32,000 workers S$1,300 as a business employer. Is he prepared to do that? I hope he is.”
Mr Chia replied that a business owner’s responsibilities are to his entire company and not to the employees of a specific sector. That would include finding ways to be sustainable and to expand to provide more jobs for Singaporeans.
“A minimum wage may be more negative for a business. We need to look at it as a holistic approach, helping businesses upskill their employees, helping businesses grow their business,” he said. /TISG
Instead of a full blown minimum wage, perhaps a 'living wage' might work.
https://www.thelegalpartners.com/na...ational-living-wage-rates-for-2020-explained/
It could be a blessing in disguise if it can reduce the dependence on Banglas.
Of course, those cronies in charge of workers' dorms won't be pleased.
https://www.thelegalpartners.com/na...ational-living-wage-rates-for-2020-explained/
It could be a blessing in disguise if it can reduce the dependence on Banglas.
Of course, those cronies in charge of workers' dorms won't be pleased.
Weak. This 4G all use less lah. Could have ask Prit man if 32,000 low wagers could do the work of 300,000 banglas. No capable like old guards. No fork tongue like old man. Nothing special at all. Rubbish.
We live in a first world country,one of the richest in the world,70,000 gdp pc,where some people think it's ok to pay someone $1300 a month or less.
Employers think they are doing a good deed by hiring some one for 1.3k when so many able body banglas, msians do it for less! Watch poor people get zero, lose job to FTs, is that what u want oppie?
With a union leader like Koh Poh Koon and a Minister for Manpower like Teo, what hopes to workers really have? - The Online Citizen
Manpower Minister Josephine Teo speaking in Parliament on 6 October 2020 (Screenshot from CNA parliamentary broadcast)
It is clear that the ruling Peoples’ Action Party (PAP) Government are against the implementation of a minimum wage as proposed by the Workers’ Party. (WP). Indeed, Deputy Secretary-General of the National Trade Union Congress (NTUC), Koh Poh Koon had cited reasons ranging from fears of political auctioneering (however remote and irrelevant) and lavished praise on the Progressive Wage Model as justification of why a minimum wage scheme is not required. Given that Koh wears two hats in seeming conflict, as both MP and a labour union leader, is he more interested in protecting his political position over the livelihood of workers?
Whatever the case, it seems clear that the PAP are more interested in preserving the status quo then engaging in an in depth look at how things in the labour market may have changed.
Yet the latest contribution by our Minister for Manpower, Josephine Teo has to really take the cake. According to the Minister, the implementation of a minimum wage in Singapore to address concerns about inequality could ultimately lead to lower levels of employment and workers turning to illegal jobs!
If I understand this correctly (using an analogy), she is saying that bringing an umbrella out on a cloudy day could lead to you accidentally snapping it in your face as you try to use it when it rains.
But surely, despite the remote and speculative risk of you sustaining minor injuries while opening your umbrella in the wind, you should still bring it out if it looks like it is going to rain right? After all, you are guaranteed to need shelter from the rain while snapping your face is an unlikely possibility.
At the end of the day, it is imperative to remember that the minimum salary of $1300 as proposed by the WP is not a high benchmark. It is quite literally the bare minimum required for workers to live a life of dignity and respect. As a former associate professor who taught at NUS for 30 years (1979 to 2009), Dr. Ho Ting Fei said:
Readers ought to be reminded that shortly after the PAP won the general election in 2020, Senior Minister of State for Information, Communications and the Arts, Grace Fu raised concerns about people not joining politics if political salaries are cut.
This means that while Dr Ho and members of WP are worried about the ability of the lower income Singaporeans to survive in Singapore on less than $1,300, PAP ministers are worried that people may not consider political office if the pay of ministers is cut further.
Let that sink in.
Let’s also remember how the Prime Minister’s wife, Ho Ching, appeared to make a dig at Leader of the Opposition, Pritam Singh’s decision to donate a proportion of his salary to charity.
Teo is the Minister for Manpower, surely she should have more concern for workers? Yet, she is using a remote scenario as a justification to keep wages low. This could create the impression that she is trying to toe the establishment line instead of putting the welfare of workers at the forefront.
With a union leader like Koh and a Minister for Manpower like Teo, what hopes do workers really have?
Share this:
Manpower Minister Josephine Teo speaking in Parliament on 6 October 2020 (Screenshot from CNA parliamentary broadcast)
It is clear that the ruling Peoples’ Action Party (PAP) Government are against the implementation of a minimum wage as proposed by the Workers’ Party. (WP). Indeed, Deputy Secretary-General of the National Trade Union Congress (NTUC), Koh Poh Koon had cited reasons ranging from fears of political auctioneering (however remote and irrelevant) and lavished praise on the Progressive Wage Model as justification of why a minimum wage scheme is not required. Given that Koh wears two hats in seeming conflict, as both MP and a labour union leader, is he more interested in protecting his political position over the livelihood of workers?
Whatever the case, it seems clear that the PAP are more interested in preserving the status quo then engaging in an in depth look at how things in the labour market may have changed.
Yet the latest contribution by our Minister for Manpower, Josephine Teo has to really take the cake. According to the Minister, the implementation of a minimum wage in Singapore to address concerns about inequality could ultimately lead to lower levels of employment and workers turning to illegal jobs!
If I understand this correctly (using an analogy), she is saying that bringing an umbrella out on a cloudy day could lead to you accidentally snapping it in your face as you try to use it when it rains.
But surely, despite the remote and speculative risk of you sustaining minor injuries while opening your umbrella in the wind, you should still bring it out if it looks like it is going to rain right? After all, you are guaranteed to need shelter from the rain while snapping your face is an unlikely possibility.
At the end of the day, it is imperative to remember that the minimum salary of $1300 as proposed by the WP is not a high benchmark. It is quite literally the bare minimum required for workers to live a life of dignity and respect. As a former associate professor who taught at NUS for 30 years (1979 to 2009), Dr. Ho Ting Fei said:
Yet, instead of providing that good start, the PAP Government seems determined to side step the issue with a multitude of indirect reasons.
Readers ought to be reminded that shortly after the PAP won the general election in 2020, Senior Minister of State for Information, Communications and the Arts, Grace Fu raised concerns about people not joining politics if political salaries are cut.
This means that while Dr Ho and members of WP are worried about the ability of the lower income Singaporeans to survive in Singapore on less than $1,300, PAP ministers are worried that people may not consider political office if the pay of ministers is cut further.
Let that sink in.
Let’s also remember how the Prime Minister’s wife, Ho Ching, appeared to make a dig at Leader of the Opposition, Pritam Singh’s decision to donate a proportion of his salary to charity.
Teo is the Minister for Manpower, surely she should have more concern for workers? Yet, she is using a remote scenario as a justification to keep wages low. This could create the impression that she is trying to toe the establishment line instead of putting the welfare of workers at the forefront.
With a union leader like Koh and a Minister for Manpower like Teo, what hopes do workers really have?
Share this:
SDP’s Bryan Lim shares letter from 16 y/o student who believes minimum wage policy help improve low-wage workers’ lives, not cause unemployment - The Online Citizen
Source: Bryan Lim
The minimum wage issue has been the subject of public discussion lately, after a heated debate over a minimum wage erupted in Parliament on 15 October between the People’s Action Party (PAP) MP Koh Poh Koon and the Workers’ Party (WP) leader Pritam Singh.
Dr Koh, who is also NTUC’s Deputy Secretary-General, had argued in Parliament that the WP’s proposal of setting up a universal minimum wage of S$1,300 could result in a worse situation for businesses and workers, and potentially lead to a “political auction”.
WP’s minimum wage proposal was further criticized by some union leaders, who claimed that the lowest salaries in certain sectors are already above S$1,300, adding that the formulated policies derived from data and the NTUC leaders’ knowledge of ground sentiments.
Meanwhile, a 16-year-old student penned a letter to Singapore Democratic Party’s (SDP) member Bryan Lim to voice his point of view on the minimum wage issue, as he reflected on his Social Studies’ examination questions.
Mr Lim shared a screenshot of the letter on Facebook on Tuesday (27 Oct), along with the student’s Social Studies O-Level examination papers which dated on Monday (26 Oct).
“My social studies paper today mainly talked about minimum wage as a topic question in the paper, which consists about 70% of the whole day,” the student wrote in the letter.
“I was disturbed to find that the sources that talked about this issue erred on the side of the opinion on the current Government,” he added.
The student believes that a minimum wage policy will help to improve the lives of low-wage workers, rather than causing unemployment.
“I knew from my contextual knowledge that minimum wages, when its policies are set properly, will not lead to unemployment, instead; it will lead to higher wages and better living quality for low wages worker,” he noted.
The student recalled the story of a 74-year-old woman who was featured in SDP’s video on 7 July, saying that he was “aghast” to hear that an elderly person would still have to live with a “two-digit pay”.
The elderly woman, Madam Tan, works as a dishwasher and earns only S$32 per day. It was stated in the video that she has medical conditions and had undergone an operation.
Her application for social welfare was rejected due to her 50-year-old son earns S$3,000 salary per month.
Though Madam Tan noted that her son could write an appeal for her social welfare application, she claimed that her son does not understand English.
“Certainly, such policies will help her. However, I am not sure if I am ever going to see such policy implement,” said the student.
He continued, “I am reaching out to you [Mr Lim], as you have more knowledge on this topic [minimum wage issue] than me.”
In response, Mr Lim praised the student for voicing out his opinion on the minimum wage issue and said that he has arranged for a meet up with the student after his O-Level exam.
“I am heartened [and] delighted that even a minor can understand the merits of a minimum wage. I have given him my blessings for his remaining papers,” said the politician.
“One word sprang to my mind when I saw his message. The word is ‘hope’,” he remarked.
Citing a link to SDP’s statement which released on 23 October, Mr Lim hinted that the party will be releasing its updated minimum wage policy “soon”.
SDP said in its statement that based on its latest review on minimum wage policy, the party is planning to propose a minimum wage of S$10 per hour, which would work out to be S$1,760 a month in a 44-hours work week.
“This would commensurate with the amount required for an older person to achieve a basic standard of living in Singapore at S$1,721,” it asserted.
Bryan Lim’s viewpoint on minimum wage policy
Speaking of Mr Lim’s viewpoint on setting up a minimum wage policy, the politician believes that implementing such a policy will not reduce Singaporeans’ competitive advantage, nor “drives away investors”.
“Besides labour costs, a huge chunk of overheads goes to the payment of rental to the Government. If this rental issue can be addressed, then half of the problem can be solved,” he wrote in a Facebook post on 2 September.
Citing other developed countries’ minimum wage policy, Mr Lim pointed out that the Foreign Direct Investment inflows in Japan and South Korea were not “drastically affected over the years just because they hire locals to do the jobs”.
“Additionally, if we enact a minimum wage law like what some other developed countries have done [and] I mean a wage fit for living [and] survival in the most expensive city in the world, Singaporeans will not shun some of the jobs on offer.
“When we have a decent minimum wage in place which applies to all nationalities, there will be no incentive for companies to hire a foreign worker,” he asserted.
Share this:
Source: Bryan Lim
The minimum wage issue has been the subject of public discussion lately, after a heated debate over a minimum wage erupted in Parliament on 15 October between the People’s Action Party (PAP) MP Koh Poh Koon and the Workers’ Party (WP) leader Pritam Singh.
Dr Koh, who is also NTUC’s Deputy Secretary-General, had argued in Parliament that the WP’s proposal of setting up a universal minimum wage of S$1,300 could result in a worse situation for businesses and workers, and potentially lead to a “political auction”.
WP’s minimum wage proposal was further criticized by some union leaders, who claimed that the lowest salaries in certain sectors are already above S$1,300, adding that the formulated policies derived from data and the NTUC leaders’ knowledge of ground sentiments.
Meanwhile, a 16-year-old student penned a letter to Singapore Democratic Party’s (SDP) member Bryan Lim to voice his point of view on the minimum wage issue, as he reflected on his Social Studies’ examination questions.
Mr Lim shared a screenshot of the letter on Facebook on Tuesday (27 Oct), along with the student’s Social Studies O-Level examination papers which dated on Monday (26 Oct).
“My social studies paper today mainly talked about minimum wage as a topic question in the paper, which consists about 70% of the whole day,” the student wrote in the letter.
“I was disturbed to find that the sources that talked about this issue erred on the side of the opinion on the current Government,” he added.
The student believes that a minimum wage policy will help to improve the lives of low-wage workers, rather than causing unemployment.
“I knew from my contextual knowledge that minimum wages, when its policies are set properly, will not lead to unemployment, instead; it will lead to higher wages and better living quality for low wages worker,” he noted.
The student recalled the story of a 74-year-old woman who was featured in SDP’s video on 7 July, saying that he was “aghast” to hear that an elderly person would still have to live with a “two-digit pay”.
The elderly woman, Madam Tan, works as a dishwasher and earns only S$32 per day. It was stated in the video that she has medical conditions and had undergone an operation.
Her application for social welfare was rejected due to her 50-year-old son earns S$3,000 salary per month.
Though Madam Tan noted that her son could write an appeal for her social welfare application, she claimed that her son does not understand English.
“Certainly, such policies will help her. However, I am not sure if I am ever going to see such policy implement,” said the student.
He continued, “I am reaching out to you [Mr Lim], as you have more knowledge on this topic [minimum wage issue] than me.”
In response, Mr Lim praised the student for voicing out his opinion on the minimum wage issue and said that he has arranged for a meet up with the student after his O-Level exam.
“I am heartened [and] delighted that even a minor can understand the merits of a minimum wage. I have given him my blessings for his remaining papers,” said the politician.
“One word sprang to my mind when I saw his message. The word is ‘hope’,” he remarked.
Citing a link to SDP’s statement which released on 23 October, Mr Lim hinted that the party will be releasing its updated minimum wage policy “soon”.
SDP said in its statement that based on its latest review on minimum wage policy, the party is planning to propose a minimum wage of S$10 per hour, which would work out to be S$1,760 a month in a 44-hours work week.
“This would commensurate with the amount required for an older person to achieve a basic standard of living in Singapore at S$1,721,” it asserted.
Bryan Lim’s viewpoint on minimum wage policy
Speaking of Mr Lim’s viewpoint on setting up a minimum wage policy, the politician believes that implementing such a policy will not reduce Singaporeans’ competitive advantage, nor “drives away investors”.
“Besides labour costs, a huge chunk of overheads goes to the payment of rental to the Government. If this rental issue can be addressed, then half of the problem can be solved,” he wrote in a Facebook post on 2 September.
Citing other developed countries’ minimum wage policy, Mr Lim pointed out that the Foreign Direct Investment inflows in Japan and South Korea were not “drastically affected over the years just because they hire locals to do the jobs”.
“Additionally, if we enact a minimum wage law like what some other developed countries have done [and] I mean a wage fit for living [and] survival in the most expensive city in the world, Singaporeans will not shun some of the jobs on offer.
“When we have a decent minimum wage in place which applies to all nationalities, there will be no incentive for companies to hire a foreign worker,” he asserted.
Share this:
Government launches work group to look into wages, welfare of low-wage workers
A new work group that will come up with measures to address issues on the salaries and work environment of low-wage workers was launched on Thursday (Oct 29). Chua Tian Tian reports.
Bookmark
SINGAPORE: A new work group that will come up with measures to address issues on the salaries and work environment of low-wage workers was launched on Thursday (Oct 29).
The Tripartite Workgroup on Lower-Wage Workers will be spearheaded by Senior Minister of State for Manpower Zaqy Mohamad, and include members from the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) and the Singapore National Employers Federation - representing workers and employers respectively.
The aim of the work group is to raise the salaries and well-being of low-wage workers, particularly by improving the progressive wage model (PWM).
The PWM refers to "wage ladders" aimed to increase the salaries of low-wage workers through upgrading their skills and improving productivity. It currently covers about 80,000 workers in the cleaning, security and landscaping sectors, and will apply to lift and escalator technicians in 2022.
The work group will develop policy ideas that include ensuring wage growth in PWM sectors continue to outpace median wage growth, increasing the number of workers covered by the model and expanding the number of occupations covered by the PWM, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) said in a statement.
It will also push for more companies to offer progressive wages.
READ: 470,000 lower-income Singaporeans to receive Workfare Special Payment payouts in October
Mr Zaqy said during a press briefing on Thursday afternoon that plans to bring the PWM into more sectors were already announced in Parliament in March, but this was disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Now with the coronavirus battering the economy, the work group will have to figure out how businesses can raise the living standards of low-wage workers amid the downturn.
“If you want to expand PWM today, you really have to think about how this impacts businesses today in the current context because ... as you know, companies are retrenching, firms are reviewing their head counts, the last thing you want is to scare them and you have inadvertent effect,” said Mr Zaqy.
He added that the discussion is not about “ideology” nor is the Government against minimum wage.
READ: PAP, WP MPs debate minimum wage; 1.7% of local workforce earn below S$1,300 a month, says Koh Poh Koon
The work group will release an interim report in the middle of next year, and publish the full set of findings in the first quarter of 2022, MOM said.
Mr Zaqy stressed that the study will look not just into wages, but also productivity, work conditions and the impact of other low-wage worker schemes. Wage models other than the PWM will also be evaluated to find one most “sustainable” for each sector.
Sectors like cleaning and security have benefitted from the PWM because these services tend to be outsourced and wages in these industries were depressed before the model was introduced in 2012, he said.
But with the push to improve productivity alongside wages, the PWM had little cost impact on consumers and businesses. However, the results could vary with other sectors.
“So these are areas in which I think it's important for the unions and employers and the Government, to work through, to create a win-win situation,” he added.
A new work group that will come up with measures to address issues on the salaries and work environment of low-wage workers was launched on Thursday (Oct 29). Chua Tian Tian reports.
Bookmark
SINGAPORE: A new work group that will come up with measures to address issues on the salaries and work environment of low-wage workers was launched on Thursday (Oct 29).
The Tripartite Workgroup on Lower-Wage Workers will be spearheaded by Senior Minister of State for Manpower Zaqy Mohamad, and include members from the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) and the Singapore National Employers Federation - representing workers and employers respectively.
The aim of the work group is to raise the salaries and well-being of low-wage workers, particularly by improving the progressive wage model (PWM).
The PWM refers to "wage ladders" aimed to increase the salaries of low-wage workers through upgrading their skills and improving productivity. It currently covers about 80,000 workers in the cleaning, security and landscaping sectors, and will apply to lift and escalator technicians in 2022.
The work group will develop policy ideas that include ensuring wage growth in PWM sectors continue to outpace median wage growth, increasing the number of workers covered by the model and expanding the number of occupations covered by the PWM, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) said in a statement.
It will also push for more companies to offer progressive wages.
READ: 470,000 lower-income Singaporeans to receive Workfare Special Payment payouts in October
Mr Zaqy said during a press briefing on Thursday afternoon that plans to bring the PWM into more sectors were already announced in Parliament in March, but this was disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Now with the coronavirus battering the economy, the work group will have to figure out how businesses can raise the living standards of low-wage workers amid the downturn.
“If you want to expand PWM today, you really have to think about how this impacts businesses today in the current context because ... as you know, companies are retrenching, firms are reviewing their head counts, the last thing you want is to scare them and you have inadvertent effect,” said Mr Zaqy.
He added that the discussion is not about “ideology” nor is the Government against minimum wage.
READ: PAP, WP MPs debate minimum wage; 1.7% of local workforce earn below S$1,300 a month, says Koh Poh Koon
The work group will release an interim report in the middle of next year, and publish the full set of findings in the first quarter of 2022, MOM said.
Mr Zaqy stressed that the study will look not just into wages, but also productivity, work conditions and the impact of other low-wage worker schemes. Wage models other than the PWM will also be evaluated to find one most “sustainable” for each sector.
Sectors like cleaning and security have benefitted from the PWM because these services tend to be outsourced and wages in these industries were depressed before the model was introduced in 2012, he said.
But with the push to improve productivity alongside wages, the PWM had little cost impact on consumers and businesses. However, the results could vary with other sectors.
“So these are areas in which I think it's important for the unions and employers and the Government, to work through, to create a win-win situation,” he added.
Shock over comment that low-wage workers “only need to worry about food and death”
"You can disagree with minimum wage, but I hope that you do not trivialise the suffering and circumstances of others"
Photos: FB screencapture, Jeraldine Phneah FB
Author
- Advertisement -
Singapore — Workers’ Party (WP) member Jeraldine Phneah has called on the online community to be more compassionate to low-wage earners after coming across online comments trivialising the circumstances these workers face amid the national discussion on a minimum wage.
The plight of those who earn below the liveable wage of S$1,300 was thrust into the spotlight in Parliament on Oct 15 when WP chief Pritam Singh called on the authorities to implement a universal minimum wage set at S$1,300 per month since the Government’s Progressive Wage Model (PWM) was taking too long to roll out to all sectors.
The PWM, which takes a sectoral approach to lifting the wages of Singapore’s least-paid workers, has been in force for eight years but has only been applied to three sectors in that time. Despite this, the Government has positioned the PWM as a “minimum wage plus” initiative in the face of calls for it to implement a minimum wage.
People’s Action Party MPs sparred with those from the WP over which initiative will be more beneficial to workers. While the WP held that it is not acceptable for any number of workers to earn lower than a liveable wage, no matter how small the numbers, the PAP argued that implementing a minimum wage could handicap or kill small-medium enterprises and lead to greater unemployment, especially amid the Covid-19 pandemic.
- Advertisement -
In the midst of the online and offline public discourse on a minimum wage following the debate in Parliament, Ms Phneah was taken aback when she noticed one comment that was made on the Seedly Personal Finance Community in response to a news report on whether it was possible to survive on an income less than S$1,300 per month.
The commentator had said: “If you only earn S$1000/month, most of your stuff nearly free cos subsidized. You only need to worry about food and death.”
Suggesting that this is not the case, Ms Phneah pointed to the story of Mdm Rosmah, a cleaner whose story was picked up by CNA recently.
Mdm Rosmah, who cares for her recuperating husband, earns S$700 a month but has to spend S$1,000 a month on just the bare necessities like groceries (about S$420), with the rest going to electricity and conservancy charges (about S$120), medical expenses (about S$100), transport (about S$100), rent for their one-room flat (S$33) and prepaid SIM cards (S$18).
Mdm Rosmah and her husband cook less or eat with their neighbours when their finances dwindle towards the end of the month.
Ms Phneah asked: “Sure, they may have some social assistance. However, if it was truly enough to ensure ‘most of your stuff nearly free’ and ‘only need to worry about food and death’, I wonder if they would have to put up with the circumstances above?”
She said: “It was indeed disappointing and saddening to read some of the comments in this thread.
“The Covid-19 pandemic has impacted many people, particularly the lower income group. If someone who earns less than S$1,300 and was facing hard times saw these comments, I can’t imagine how hurt and humiliated he or she would feel.”
Calling on Singaporeans to refrain from trivialising the suffering of others no matter what their stance on minimum wage is, Ms Phneah added: “You can disagree with minimum wage, but I hope that you do not trivialise the suffering and circumstances of others.
“Let’s try to have more empathy for others, and treat those who are struggling with respect and dignity. Singaporeans, we can do better.”
Please follow and like us:
Tags: WP
- Advertisement -
"You can disagree with minimum wage, but I hope that you do not trivialise the suffering and circumstances of others"
Author
- Advertisement -
Singapore — Workers’ Party (WP) member Jeraldine Phneah has called on the online community to be more compassionate to low-wage earners after coming across online comments trivialising the circumstances these workers face amid the national discussion on a minimum wage.
The plight of those who earn below the liveable wage of S$1,300 was thrust into the spotlight in Parliament on Oct 15 when WP chief Pritam Singh called on the authorities to implement a universal minimum wage set at S$1,300 per month since the Government’s Progressive Wage Model (PWM) was taking too long to roll out to all sectors.
The PWM, which takes a sectoral approach to lifting the wages of Singapore’s least-paid workers, has been in force for eight years but has only been applied to three sectors in that time. Despite this, the Government has positioned the PWM as a “minimum wage plus” initiative in the face of calls for it to implement a minimum wage.
People’s Action Party MPs sparred with those from the WP over which initiative will be more beneficial to workers. While the WP held that it is not acceptable for any number of workers to earn lower than a liveable wage, no matter how small the numbers, the PAP argued that implementing a minimum wage could handicap or kill small-medium enterprises and lead to greater unemployment, especially amid the Covid-19 pandemic.
- Advertisement -
In the midst of the online and offline public discourse on a minimum wage following the debate in Parliament, Ms Phneah was taken aback when she noticed one comment that was made on the Seedly Personal Finance Community in response to a news report on whether it was possible to survive on an income less than S$1,300 per month.
The commentator had said: “If you only earn S$1000/month, most of your stuff nearly free cos subsidized. You only need to worry about food and death.”
Suggesting that this is not the case, Ms Phneah pointed to the story of Mdm Rosmah, a cleaner whose story was picked up by CNA recently.
Mdm Rosmah, who cares for her recuperating husband, earns S$700 a month but has to spend S$1,000 a month on just the bare necessities like groceries (about S$420), with the rest going to electricity and conservancy charges (about S$120), medical expenses (about S$100), transport (about S$100), rent for their one-room flat (S$33) and prepaid SIM cards (S$18).
Mdm Rosmah and her husband cook less or eat with their neighbours when their finances dwindle towards the end of the month.
Ms Phneah asked: “Sure, they may have some social assistance. However, if it was truly enough to ensure ‘most of your stuff nearly free’ and ‘only need to worry about food and death’, I wonder if they would have to put up with the circumstances above?”
She said: “It was indeed disappointing and saddening to read some of the comments in this thread.
“The Covid-19 pandemic has impacted many people, particularly the lower income group. If someone who earns less than S$1,300 and was facing hard times saw these comments, I can’t imagine how hurt and humiliated he or she would feel.”
Calling on Singaporeans to refrain from trivialising the suffering of others no matter what their stance on minimum wage is, Ms Phneah added: “You can disagree with minimum wage, but I hope that you do not trivialise the suffering and circumstances of others.
“Let’s try to have more empathy for others, and treat those who are struggling with respect and dignity. Singaporeans, we can do better.”
Please follow and like us:
Tags: WP
- Advertisement -
52,000 Singaporeans earn less than S$1,300 a month: Zaqy Mohamad to WP's Jamus Lim in discussion on minimum wage
Senior Minister of State for Manpower Zaqy Mohamad and Workers' Party Member of Parliament Associate Professor Jamus Lim debated the latter's party's minimum wage definition on Tuesday (Nov 3).
By Rachel Phua@RachelPhuaCNA
03 Nov 2020 03:29PM (Updated: 03 Nov 2020 07:22PM)
Bookmark
SINGAPORE: Around 52,000 Singaporeans earn less than S$1,300 monthly after "including Workfare supplements and CPF (Central Provident Fund) contributions", said Senior Minister of State for Manpower Zaqy Mohamad in Parliament on Tuesday (Nov 3).
The figure includes 30,000 full-time Singaporean employees working in areas such as food services, cleaning and retail, and 22,000 self-employed workers, said Mr Zaqy in response to opposition Member of Parliament (MP) Jamus Lim, who had asked how many Singaporeans made less than S$1,300 a month.
Four in five of these Singaporeans have up to post-secondary qualifications and more than a third of them are aged 50 and above, reflecting that low-wage workers tend to be older and have a lower education profile compared to the current generation, said Mr Zaqy.
According to Mr Zaqy, low-wage workers also receive other kinds of support from the Government, including GST vouchers and financial assistance under ComCare.
He said Singapore follows after the International Labour Organization’s (ILO) definition of earnings, which includes employee contributions to social security and pension schemes.
Therefore, calculations have to consider CPF and Workfare contributions, as these can be used for healthcare and housing needs, he said.
READ: IN FOCUS: The wage debate – how to lift the salaries of those earning the least?
READ: Universal minimum wage of S$1,300 could be considered 'parallel' to 'minimum wage plus' approach: Pritam Singh
Workfare is a scheme introduced in 2007, which provides lower-income Singaporeans with cash payouts and CPF top-ups to encourage them to keep working and saving for retirement.
“I think it’s worth to note that 75 per cent of our Workfare recipients, lower-income workers, also own their own homes and therefore there’s a direct impact from CPF into your home ownership,” Mr Zaqy said, adding that most minimum wage systems overseas - including in the United States and the United Kingdom - are subject to taxes and social security contributions.
Dr Lim, who is MP of Sengkang GRC replied, saying: “ The ILO has a particular definition but I’m sure that he will also appreciate that for a worker that works full-time in Singapore, they will have a notion of how much their labour effort is worth every month.”
READ: Government launches work group to look into wages, welfare of low-wage workers
In Parliament, Mr Zaqy also pressed Dr Lim to clarify the Workers' Party's position on the minimum wage level as it seemed unclear if it was a gross or nett S$1,300 minimum wage level the party was proposing based on its manifesto and recent parliamentary speeches.
Dr Lim said his question was not about the minimum wage but about take-home pay, "in part because it is about what it means for survival".
Despite this, Mr Zaqy asked Dr Lim to spell out WP's minimum wage standards.
"Could I just confirm once again that the Workers' Party's S$1,300 minimum wage benchmark is gross income so that we could settle this and come to an understanding?" he said.
Dr Lim at first said that was correct and a "fair characterisation", but later said that WP's stand was for the S$1,300 minimum wage to mean take-home pay.
WORKFARE RECIPIENTS
In response to a separate question by MP Liang Eng Hwa on the number of Workfare recipients, Mr Zaqy said an average of about 400,000 individuals received an average of S$1,560 annually through Workfare in the past three years. The maximum payout was S$3,600.
Older workers tend to make up the bulk of the programme’s recipients - 49 per cent of them are aged 60 and above and 18 per cent are aged 55 to 59, compared to 21 per cent aged 45 to 54 and 11 per cent aged 35 to 44, he said.
“The Government will continue to provide holistic support to low-wage workers,” he said.
“Besides Workfare and the schemes already mentioned, there are also efforts to raise standards of living for low-wage workers in other meaningful ways, such as providing access to quality healthcare, enhanced housing grants and subsidies to help them own their own homes, education for their children and adequate support in their retirement.”
Editor's note:
A previous version of this article said around 52,000 Singaporeans earn less than S$1,300 monthly after deducting CPF contributions. This is incorrect. The calculation includes CPF contributions. We apologise for the error.
Source: CNA/rp(hs/ta)
Senior Minister of State for Manpower Zaqy Mohamad and Workers' Party Member of Parliament Associate Professor Jamus Lim debated the latter's party's minimum wage definition on Tuesday (Nov 3).
By Rachel Phua@RachelPhuaCNA
03 Nov 2020 03:29PM (Updated: 03 Nov 2020 07:22PM)
Bookmark
SINGAPORE: Around 52,000 Singaporeans earn less than S$1,300 monthly after "including Workfare supplements and CPF (Central Provident Fund) contributions", said Senior Minister of State for Manpower Zaqy Mohamad in Parliament on Tuesday (Nov 3).
The figure includes 30,000 full-time Singaporean employees working in areas such as food services, cleaning and retail, and 22,000 self-employed workers, said Mr Zaqy in response to opposition Member of Parliament (MP) Jamus Lim, who had asked how many Singaporeans made less than S$1,300 a month.
Four in five of these Singaporeans have up to post-secondary qualifications and more than a third of them are aged 50 and above, reflecting that low-wage workers tend to be older and have a lower education profile compared to the current generation, said Mr Zaqy.
According to Mr Zaqy, low-wage workers also receive other kinds of support from the Government, including GST vouchers and financial assistance under ComCare.
He said Singapore follows after the International Labour Organization’s (ILO) definition of earnings, which includes employee contributions to social security and pension schemes.
Therefore, calculations have to consider CPF and Workfare contributions, as these can be used for healthcare and housing needs, he said.
READ: IN FOCUS: The wage debate – how to lift the salaries of those earning the least?
READ: Universal minimum wage of S$1,300 could be considered 'parallel' to 'minimum wage plus' approach: Pritam Singh
Workfare is a scheme introduced in 2007, which provides lower-income Singaporeans with cash payouts and CPF top-ups to encourage them to keep working and saving for retirement.
“I think it’s worth to note that 75 per cent of our Workfare recipients, lower-income workers, also own their own homes and therefore there’s a direct impact from CPF into your home ownership,” Mr Zaqy said, adding that most minimum wage systems overseas - including in the United States and the United Kingdom - are subject to taxes and social security contributions.
Dr Lim, who is MP of Sengkang GRC replied, saying: “ The ILO has a particular definition but I’m sure that he will also appreciate that for a worker that works full-time in Singapore, they will have a notion of how much their labour effort is worth every month.”
READ: Government launches work group to look into wages, welfare of low-wage workers
In Parliament, Mr Zaqy also pressed Dr Lim to clarify the Workers' Party's position on the minimum wage level as it seemed unclear if it was a gross or nett S$1,300 minimum wage level the party was proposing based on its manifesto and recent parliamentary speeches.
Dr Lim said his question was not about the minimum wage but about take-home pay, "in part because it is about what it means for survival".
Despite this, Mr Zaqy asked Dr Lim to spell out WP's minimum wage standards.
"Could I just confirm once again that the Workers' Party's S$1,300 minimum wage benchmark is gross income so that we could settle this and come to an understanding?" he said.
Dr Lim at first said that was correct and a "fair characterisation", but later said that WP's stand was for the S$1,300 minimum wage to mean take-home pay.
WORKFARE RECIPIENTS
In response to a separate question by MP Liang Eng Hwa on the number of Workfare recipients, Mr Zaqy said an average of about 400,000 individuals received an average of S$1,560 annually through Workfare in the past three years. The maximum payout was S$3,600.
Older workers tend to make up the bulk of the programme’s recipients - 49 per cent of them are aged 60 and above and 18 per cent are aged 55 to 59, compared to 21 per cent aged 45 to 54 and 11 per cent aged 35 to 44, he said.
“The Government will continue to provide holistic support to low-wage workers,” he said.
“Besides Workfare and the schemes already mentioned, there are also efforts to raise standards of living for low-wage workers in other meaningful ways, such as providing access to quality healthcare, enhanced housing grants and subsidies to help them own their own homes, education for their children and adequate support in their retirement.”
Editor's note:
A previous version of this article said around 52,000 Singaporeans earn less than S$1,300 monthly after deducting CPF contributions. This is incorrect. The calculation includes CPF contributions. We apologise for the error.
Source: CNA/rp(hs/ta)
SDP reviews its minimum wage proposal to S$1,760 a month to protect workers from “unduly low pay”
by S.Ling
30 October 2020
in Community, Labour, Politics
4 min read
42
The Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) has proposed a monthly minimum wage of S$1,760 following its policy team’s most recent review of its minimum wage proposal.
This will work out to a minimum wage of S$10 per hour and is calculated based on a 44-hour workweek.
SDP in a statement on Friday (30 October) said that setting a wage floor will protect workers from “unduly low pay”.
The party also proposed coupling the minimum wage with pro-employment policies and social transfers that will better enable low-income workers to obtain a dignified living standard.
Citing research done by Assistant Professor Ng Kok Hoe from the National University of Singapore (NUS)’s Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (LKYPP), SDP said that the proposed minimum wage of S$1,760 would “commensurate with” the amount required for a person aged 55-64 in achieving a basic standard of living in Singapore which is at S$1,721.
“The latest Household Expenditure Survey states that ‘on average, the bottom 20 percent of households are each spending S$2,570 a month while having a monthly income of S$2,235, which include regular government transfers.’
This means a shortfall of S$335 on average each month,” SDP noted.
SDP also estimated that a single person would need a gross pay of S$1606.25 per month — or about S$8 in hourly wages — in order to meet their monthly expenses, assuming that the person makes a 20 per cent CPF contribution.
Minimum wage increases spending power, stimulates domestic consumption: SDP
Challenging the idea that implementing minimum wage could impact businesses adversely, SDP argued that “such views have not been borne out by research” — in fact, the party said, minimum wage practice has shown minimal negative effects on employment.
The spending power of an entire band of income earners could increase as a result of minimum wage, and that may, in turn, consequently stimulate domestic consumption, said the party.
However, to ease the financial burden of business owners, SDP pointed out that the “untenably high” rent — especially of government-owned properties — needs to be reduced and go beyond the temporary relief given during COVID-19 period, as “savings in long-term reductions in rent will compensate increased wage costs”.
“In the final analysis, businesses will not suffer. In fact, they stand to gain from the higher spending power of workers and the improvement in labour productivity as employees enjoy income security. This is a win-win situation for businesses and workers,” the SDP posited.
People’s Action Party (PAP)’s Member of Parliament (MP) Koh Poh Koon on 15 October earlier criticised the Workers’ Party’s proposal of implementing a minimum wage, warning that a minimum wage could worsen current conditions for businesses and workers, in addition to becoming a politicised issue.
Dr Koh also asserted that Government initiatives such as the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) have already helped increase the wages of lower-income workers.
Minimum wage ensures workers in any industry paid a living wage, not just select industries as seen in PWM: SDP
SDP stressed in its policy that the universal minimum wage is a cross-sectoral and national policy which will benefit the employees in other sectors such as food and beverage (F&B) as well as retail and service, as opposed to the current PWM which only covers landscaping, cleaning and security sectors.
“The PWM is a five-level career progression model where workers experience wage growth by completing courses and clocking years of experience.
“Unlike the PWM, the minimum wage will be applied to all low-income workers regardless of the industries they work in,” it noted.
Compared to the PWM, SDP emphasised that the minimum wage ensures that the entrants to any industry are paid a living wage and are not deceived by of an upskilling ladder which is often illusory.
“The PWM allows employers to exploit loopholes such as requiring employees to work extended hours without additional pay.
“The problem is exacerbated where the contract-bidding system often creates a race to the bottom, depressing the wages of workers.
“PWM also abandons those who are unable upskill to earn below a living wage,” the SDP’s policy read.
Furthermore, the Party also called for a Wage Equity Commission to recommend the minimum wage policy to the Government.
Given that the level of minimum wage depends on various factors including the cost of living index and inflation rate, SDP said that the Commission will assess the impact of the policy by taking into consideration economic conditions, living expenses, labour market and its conditions and then adjust the level annually.
SDP also proposed to implement the minimum wage universally to both locals and foreigners, as the minimum wage will encourage the employers to hire Singaporeans rather than migrant workers while preventing local lower-paid workers from being undercut by foreign workers.
“The ultimate goal is to create conditions where Singaporeans including the ones in lower-income jobs are paid wages that allow them to lead dignified, productive, and creative lives,” the SDP noted.
According to SDP, it has been calling for the implementation of the minimum wage since the 1990s.
Previously, SDP had called for a minimum wage of S$5 per hour in its 2001 general election manifesto. It later revised the proposal to S$6.80 per hour in 2010 before updating the figure to S$7 per hour in 2015.
30 October 2020
in Community, Labour, Politics
4 min read
42
The Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) has proposed a monthly minimum wage of S$1,760 following its policy team’s most recent review of its minimum wage proposal.
This will work out to a minimum wage of S$10 per hour and is calculated based on a 44-hour workweek.
SDP in a statement on Friday (30 October) said that setting a wage floor will protect workers from “unduly low pay”.
The party also proposed coupling the minimum wage with pro-employment policies and social transfers that will better enable low-income workers to obtain a dignified living standard.
Citing research done by Assistant Professor Ng Kok Hoe from the National University of Singapore (NUS)’s Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (LKYPP), SDP said that the proposed minimum wage of S$1,760 would “commensurate with” the amount required for a person aged 55-64 in achieving a basic standard of living in Singapore which is at S$1,721.
“The latest Household Expenditure Survey states that ‘on average, the bottom 20 percent of households are each spending S$2,570 a month while having a monthly income of S$2,235, which include regular government transfers.’
This means a shortfall of S$335 on average each month,” SDP noted.
SDP also estimated that a single person would need a gross pay of S$1606.25 per month — or about S$8 in hourly wages — in order to meet their monthly expenses, assuming that the person makes a 20 per cent CPF contribution.
Minimum wage increases spending power, stimulates domestic consumption: SDP
Challenging the idea that implementing minimum wage could impact businesses adversely, SDP argued that “such views have not been borne out by research” — in fact, the party said, minimum wage practice has shown minimal negative effects on employment.
The spending power of an entire band of income earners could increase as a result of minimum wage, and that may, in turn, consequently stimulate domestic consumption, said the party.
However, to ease the financial burden of business owners, SDP pointed out that the “untenably high” rent — especially of government-owned properties — needs to be reduced and go beyond the temporary relief given during COVID-19 period, as “savings in long-term reductions in rent will compensate increased wage costs”.
“In the final analysis, businesses will not suffer. In fact, they stand to gain from the higher spending power of workers and the improvement in labour productivity as employees enjoy income security. This is a win-win situation for businesses and workers,” the SDP posited.
People’s Action Party (PAP)’s Member of Parliament (MP) Koh Poh Koon on 15 October earlier criticised the Workers’ Party’s proposal of implementing a minimum wage, warning that a minimum wage could worsen current conditions for businesses and workers, in addition to becoming a politicised issue.
Dr Koh also asserted that Government initiatives such as the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) have already helped increase the wages of lower-income workers.
Minimum wage ensures workers in any industry paid a living wage, not just select industries as seen in PWM: SDP
SDP stressed in its policy that the universal minimum wage is a cross-sectoral and national policy which will benefit the employees in other sectors such as food and beverage (F&B) as well as retail and service, as opposed to the current PWM which only covers landscaping, cleaning and security sectors.
“The PWM is a five-level career progression model where workers experience wage growth by completing courses and clocking years of experience.
“Unlike the PWM, the minimum wage will be applied to all low-income workers regardless of the industries they work in,” it noted.
Compared to the PWM, SDP emphasised that the minimum wage ensures that the entrants to any industry are paid a living wage and are not deceived by of an upskilling ladder which is often illusory.
“The PWM allows employers to exploit loopholes such as requiring employees to work extended hours without additional pay.
“The problem is exacerbated where the contract-bidding system often creates a race to the bottom, depressing the wages of workers.
“PWM also abandons those who are unable upskill to earn below a living wage,” the SDP’s policy read.
Furthermore, the Party also called for a Wage Equity Commission to recommend the minimum wage policy to the Government.
Given that the level of minimum wage depends on various factors including the cost of living index and inflation rate, SDP said that the Commission will assess the impact of the policy by taking into consideration economic conditions, living expenses, labour market and its conditions and then adjust the level annually.
SDP also proposed to implement the minimum wage universally to both locals and foreigners, as the minimum wage will encourage the employers to hire Singaporeans rather than migrant workers while preventing local lower-paid workers from being undercut by foreign workers.
“The ultimate goal is to create conditions where Singaporeans including the ones in lower-income jobs are paid wages that allow them to lead dignified, productive, and creative lives,” the SDP noted.
According to SDP, it has been calling for the implementation of the minimum wage since the 1990s.
Previously, SDP had called for a minimum wage of S$5 per hour in its 2001 general election manifesto. It later revised the proposal to S$6.80 per hour in 2010 before updating the figure to S$7 per hour in 2015.
Minimum wage: Jamus Lim says don’t rely on folksy wisdom, the stat says “only” 32,000 workers, so what are we waiting for?
Sense And Nonsense By Tan Bah Bah
Facebook screengrab: Jamus Lim
Share
https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php...nly-32000-workers-so-what-are-we-waiting-for/
https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?te...so-what-are-we-waiting-for/&via=Independentsg
https://www.linkedin.com/shareArtic...”+32,000+workers,+so+what+are+we+waiting+for?
https://telegram.me/share/url?url=h...”+32,000+workers,+so+what+are+we+waiting+for?
https://reddit.com/submit?url=https...”+32,000+workers,+so+what+are+we+waiting+for?
AUTHOR
Tan Bah Bah
DATE
October 18, 2020
- Advertisement -
Leaders of individual trade unions in Singapore seldom make noises in public. Usually, their umbrella NTUC big brother, one leg of the tripartite system here, will do all the talking for them. Until Associate Professor Jamus Lim spoke on Thursday October 16 about the wisdom of not relying on the folksy wisdom and beliefs of union leaders. At least two of these allegedly folksy leaders have sprung up from the woodwork to disagree with the Workers’ Party Sengkang GRC MP. Good for them. We need more engagement for better dialogue on every issue, if nothing else but to remind everyone that times have changed and attitudes should too.
In the Parliamentary debate on basic wage, Dr Lim said:
“With all due respect, as much as it will be lovely to always rely on folksy wisdom and beliefs by labour union leaders, at the same time it’s important to realise that when we talk about studies that show that the minimum wage does not lead to any appreciable increase in unemployment, this is based on careful consideration and not just beliefs.
“It’s worth reminding ourselves that there was a time in the 16th century when people believed that the sun revolved around the earth. But that belief is not in fact the same as evidence.”
Evidence from around the world demonstrates that a minimum wage does not cause widespread unemployment, as long as it is not set too high, said Dr Lim.
Two union leaders fired back.
In a letter entitled “Jamus Lim’s remarks belittle work of unionists” (ST Forum Oct 17), Nasordin Mohd Hashim, former president of the Building Construction and Timber Industries Employees’ Union (Batu), said:
“It is regretful that Jamus Lim made comments… not just belittling our hard work all these years, but also seemingly putting down the intricate issues involved in outsourced industries such as cleaning, landscape and lift maintenance…
“Folksy, as we understand the term, refers to a simple manner of one being friendly and, perhaps, informal in behaviour. In other circumstances, unionists like us may not take offence at the term.
“However, in the context of the parliamentary debate… it belittles the years of hard work put in by unionists.
“When working at the Progressive Wages Model for the cleaning and landscape industries, Batu engaged many workers to get feedback, and went beyond just facts and figures from the stakeholders in the tripartite committees.”
At the same time, a website SG Matters carried what appeared to be a rebuttal from Karthikeyan Krishnamurthy. In an article entitled “Jamus Lim knows nothing about workers and their worker representatives: veteran unionist”, the general-secretary of the United Workers of Petroleum Industry said: “We have made significant progress in the past 10 years. The wages of workers at the lowest 20th percentile have increased by 24 per cent in real terms in the last five years, and by 3 per cent over the last 10 years. This was the result of the labour leaders….we the unsung heroes made sure they were not exploited and made sure they are well taken care of.”
I fear our union leaders doth protest a mite too much. The debate is not about the undoubted good work done so far by the trade union movement. It is about whether we should have a basic wage.
I found the week’s tussle between Koh Poh Koon and WP MPs quite enlightening.
A single minimum wage is not a panacea for low-wage workers, and like all other policies, there will be pros and cons, with politicisation one of the big risks, the NTUC deputy secretary-general said.
Each sector will have a different profile of low-wage workers and different realities, Dr Koh said, it will be difficult to set a single wage level that is right for all sectors.
Meanwhile, an arbitrarily fixed wage level is likely to be either not high enough to benefit all workers, or so high that companies in some sectors pass the costs back to consumers, cut back on hiring or go under, he added.
The debate revealed that the number of people earning below the full-time $1,300 minimum wage proposed by Pritam Singh is, according to Koh, only about 32,000 or 1.7 per cent of the workforce.
WP chief Singh said: “My question quite simply is: Do we need to wait so long to cover these Singaporeans? Can we not consider how we can cover them now immediately because it’s not a small number, it is a large number.”
In response, Dr Koh said that included in the 32,000 are workers across different job roles, including those who are helping out at a family member’s hawker stall.
He added: “How do you legislate a minimum wage to say, the father who runs the store employing the son as a worker? When you go down to the bottom, there will be challenges of implementation.”
Are we all arriving at a consensus?
Koh this week repeated what Manpower Minister Josephine Teo has said, that he was “not ideologically opposed” to the idea of a basic wage. Out of Parliament, public debates have also seen people like Prof Tommy Koh arguing for a minimum wage. Pro Koh cited Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong as places which have a minimum wage without the consequences of unemployment or workers turning to illegal jobs.
More stats, more data, faster decision – and less folksy we-know-better posturing. As Singh pointed out, 32,000 is NOT a small group of Singaporeans. And Singapore is no longer Third World.
Tan Bah Bah, consulting editor of TheIndependent.Sg, is a former senior leader writer with The Straits Times. He was also managing editor of a local magazine publishing company.
Sense And Nonsense By Tan Bah Bah
Facebook screengrab: Jamus LimShare
https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php...nly-32000-workers-so-what-are-we-waiting-for/
https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?te...so-what-are-we-waiting-for/&via=Independentsg
https://www.linkedin.com/shareArtic...”+32,000+workers,+so+what+are+we+waiting+for?
https://telegram.me/share/url?url=h...”+32,000+workers,+so+what+are+we+waiting+for?
https://reddit.com/submit?url=https...”+32,000+workers,+so+what+are+we+waiting+for?
AUTHOR
Tan Bah Bah
DATE
October 18, 2020
- Advertisement -
Leaders of individual trade unions in Singapore seldom make noises in public. Usually, their umbrella NTUC big brother, one leg of the tripartite system here, will do all the talking for them. Until Associate Professor Jamus Lim spoke on Thursday October 16 about the wisdom of not relying on the folksy wisdom and beliefs of union leaders. At least two of these allegedly folksy leaders have sprung up from the woodwork to disagree with the Workers’ Party Sengkang GRC MP. Good for them. We need more engagement for better dialogue on every issue, if nothing else but to remind everyone that times have changed and attitudes should too.
In the Parliamentary debate on basic wage, Dr Lim said:
“With all due respect, as much as it will be lovely to always rely on folksy wisdom and beliefs by labour union leaders, at the same time it’s important to realise that when we talk about studies that show that the minimum wage does not lead to any appreciable increase in unemployment, this is based on careful consideration and not just beliefs.
“It’s worth reminding ourselves that there was a time in the 16th century when people believed that the sun revolved around the earth. But that belief is not in fact the same as evidence.”
Evidence from around the world demonstrates that a minimum wage does not cause widespread unemployment, as long as it is not set too high, said Dr Lim.
Two union leaders fired back.
In a letter entitled “Jamus Lim’s remarks belittle work of unionists” (ST Forum Oct 17), Nasordin Mohd Hashim, former president of the Building Construction and Timber Industries Employees’ Union (Batu), said:
“It is regretful that Jamus Lim made comments… not just belittling our hard work all these years, but also seemingly putting down the intricate issues involved in outsourced industries such as cleaning, landscape and lift maintenance…
“Folksy, as we understand the term, refers to a simple manner of one being friendly and, perhaps, informal in behaviour. In other circumstances, unionists like us may not take offence at the term.
“However, in the context of the parliamentary debate… it belittles the years of hard work put in by unionists.
“When working at the Progressive Wages Model for the cleaning and landscape industries, Batu engaged many workers to get feedback, and went beyond just facts and figures from the stakeholders in the tripartite committees.”
At the same time, a website SG Matters carried what appeared to be a rebuttal from Karthikeyan Krishnamurthy. In an article entitled “Jamus Lim knows nothing about workers and their worker representatives: veteran unionist”, the general-secretary of the United Workers of Petroleum Industry said: “We have made significant progress in the past 10 years. The wages of workers at the lowest 20th percentile have increased by 24 per cent in real terms in the last five years, and by 3 per cent over the last 10 years. This was the result of the labour leaders….we the unsung heroes made sure they were not exploited and made sure they are well taken care of.”
I fear our union leaders doth protest a mite too much. The debate is not about the undoubted good work done so far by the trade union movement. It is about whether we should have a basic wage.
I found the week’s tussle between Koh Poh Koon and WP MPs quite enlightening.
A single minimum wage is not a panacea for low-wage workers, and like all other policies, there will be pros and cons, with politicisation one of the big risks, the NTUC deputy secretary-general said.
Each sector will have a different profile of low-wage workers and different realities, Dr Koh said, it will be difficult to set a single wage level that is right for all sectors.
Meanwhile, an arbitrarily fixed wage level is likely to be either not high enough to benefit all workers, or so high that companies in some sectors pass the costs back to consumers, cut back on hiring or go under, he added.
The debate revealed that the number of people earning below the full-time $1,300 minimum wage proposed by Pritam Singh is, according to Koh, only about 32,000 or 1.7 per cent of the workforce.
WP chief Singh said: “My question quite simply is: Do we need to wait so long to cover these Singaporeans? Can we not consider how we can cover them now immediately because it’s not a small number, it is a large number.”
In response, Dr Koh said that included in the 32,000 are workers across different job roles, including those who are helping out at a family member’s hawker stall.
He added: “How do you legislate a minimum wage to say, the father who runs the store employing the son as a worker? When you go down to the bottom, there will be challenges of implementation.”
Are we all arriving at a consensus?
Koh this week repeated what Manpower Minister Josephine Teo has said, that he was “not ideologically opposed” to the idea of a basic wage. Out of Parliament, public debates have also seen people like Prof Tommy Koh arguing for a minimum wage. Pro Koh cited Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong as places which have a minimum wage without the consequences of unemployment or workers turning to illegal jobs.
More stats, more data, faster decision – and less folksy we-know-better posturing. As Singh pointed out, 32,000 is NOT a small group of Singaporeans. And Singapore is no longer Third World.
Tan Bah Bah, consulting editor of TheIndependent.Sg, is a former senior leader writer with The Straits Times. He was also managing editor of a local magazine publishing company.
SDP’s minimum wage proposal works in tandem with other policy changes such as lower rent, migrant worker levy abolishment: Party chief Chee Soon Juan
by S.Ling
17 November 2020
in Economics, Labour, Property
Reading Time: 4min read
8
Singapore Democratic Party (SDP)’s minimum wage proposal aims to work in tandem with other policy changes such as lower rentals and abolishment of foreign worker levy, said party chief Chee Soon Juan.
In a Facebook post on Tuesday (17 November), Dr Chee said that such an integrated solution can “result in a win-win situation for employers and employees”.
He made his remarks in response to a reader’s question on whether the SDP’s minimum wage proposal would apply to migrant workers and how it would affect the construction sector and housing prices if it is implemented.
Earlier, the SDP reviewed its minimum wage proposal to S$1,760 a month — this works out to a minimum wage of S$10 per hour based on a 44-hour work week.
SDP said in a statement on 30 October that setting a wage floor will protect workers from “unduly low pay”.
“Minimum wage should also be coupled with pro-employment policies, social transfers which allow for low-income workers to obtain a living standard,” SDP noted.
SDP also proposed implementing the minimum wage universally for both locals and migrant workers, as the minimum wage will encourage employers to hire Singaporeans instead of migrant workers while preventing local lower-paid workers from being undercut by their migrant counterparts.
Lower land prices, abolish foreign worker levy
Dr Chee opined in his post that a minimum wage policy that applies only to locals “defeats the purpose” of legislating such a wage threshold as “it would further incentivise employers to turn to foreigners in an attempt to keep wage costs down.”
On concerns regarding how paying migrant workers a minimum wage might put even greater pressure on the bottom line of SMEs (small and medium-sized enterprises), he replied: “Not if we concurrently lower land prices – and, hence, rental – so that increases in wage costs are offset by lower office rent.”
Along with the minimum wage policy and lowering land prices, the SDP chief also suggested to lower or abolish altogether the foreign worker levy as it adds a huge and unnecessary layer of cost to businesses.
“The levy serves no useful purpose other than for the government to cream off more dollars,” Dr Chee remarked.
“And remember, minimum wage means more spending power for workers. Local businesses will benefit from this as opposed to paying wages to foreigners who remit their incomes to their countries, causing funds to leave our economy,” he said.
Lowering land prices would reduce HDB prices, affecting resale market?
Dr Chee also stressed the need public housing affordable again, freeing up capital, allowing enough savings for retirees, removing the illusion that HDB flats are “nest-eggs” of Singaporeans as well as encouraging more births.
Citing the recent case where 191 households in Geylang will have to hand back their homes to Government by the end of this year without compensation, Dr Chee said the values of flats will drop as they age.
This means “there will not be a market for older flats”, he added, in explaining why lowering HDB prices would not adversely affect the resale market.
Dr Chee added that public housing should never have been used as a profit-making industry — doing so will cause all kind of problems such as what has happened to Geylang’s 191 households.
He mentioned that SDP has proposed the Non-Open Market policy last year to remedy the conundrum for existing owners who purchased their flats at inflated rates.
Low-income migrant workers needed in construction?
Speaking about low-income migrant workers being needed in construction sectors, Dr Chee argued that industrialised economies countries such as Germany and Scandinavia employ their own citizens for construction work and “not cheap labour from poor countries”.
He said that construction workers in these countries are skilled artisans who undergo proper training and education, adding that they are “paid respectable wages and valued by society”.
“These are not seen as end-of-the-road jobs that no one else wants. The workers are certainly not treated as lesser beings, herded into overcrowded and unsanitary dormitories, and made to ride dangerously in the back of pick-ups,” he added.
However, from how construction workers are viewed and treated in Singapore’s society, Dr Chee said it is no wonder that Singaporeans run away from the vocation “as fast and as far as their legs can carry them”.
“We owe it to ourselves to look beyond the patch of sky above our little well and see how these successful countries treat their peoples and their workers,” he noted.
He went on to say, “In Singapore, we have drunk the Kool-Aid that without cheap – and exploited – labour, our society cannot survive. We have been conditioned to think that only Scholars with sterling exam grades should occupy the highest rungs of society and, together with it, the biggest financial accolades.”
“Worse, we buy into the propaganda that there is no alternative to the current system. Nothing could be further from the truth.
“As I’ve said before, our biggest obstacle is not the PAP. It is what the PAP has done to our minds,” he said.
Share this:
17 November 2020
in Economics, Labour, Property
Reading Time: 4min read
8
Singapore Democratic Party (SDP)’s minimum wage proposal aims to work in tandem with other policy changes such as lower rentals and abolishment of foreign worker levy, said party chief Chee Soon Juan.
In a Facebook post on Tuesday (17 November), Dr Chee said that such an integrated solution can “result in a win-win situation for employers and employees”.
He made his remarks in response to a reader’s question on whether the SDP’s minimum wage proposal would apply to migrant workers and how it would affect the construction sector and housing prices if it is implemented.
Earlier, the SDP reviewed its minimum wage proposal to S$1,760 a month — this works out to a minimum wage of S$10 per hour based on a 44-hour work week.
SDP said in a statement on 30 October that setting a wage floor will protect workers from “unduly low pay”.
“Minimum wage should also be coupled with pro-employment policies, social transfers which allow for low-income workers to obtain a living standard,” SDP noted.
SDP also proposed implementing the minimum wage universally for both locals and migrant workers, as the minimum wage will encourage employers to hire Singaporeans instead of migrant workers while preventing local lower-paid workers from being undercut by their migrant counterparts.
Lower land prices, abolish foreign worker levy
Dr Chee opined in his post that a minimum wage policy that applies only to locals “defeats the purpose” of legislating such a wage threshold as “it would further incentivise employers to turn to foreigners in an attempt to keep wage costs down.”
On concerns regarding how paying migrant workers a minimum wage might put even greater pressure on the bottom line of SMEs (small and medium-sized enterprises), he replied: “Not if we concurrently lower land prices – and, hence, rental – so that increases in wage costs are offset by lower office rent.”
Along with the minimum wage policy and lowering land prices, the SDP chief also suggested to lower or abolish altogether the foreign worker levy as it adds a huge and unnecessary layer of cost to businesses.
“The levy serves no useful purpose other than for the government to cream off more dollars,” Dr Chee remarked.
“And remember, minimum wage means more spending power for workers. Local businesses will benefit from this as opposed to paying wages to foreigners who remit their incomes to their countries, causing funds to leave our economy,” he said.
Lowering land prices would reduce HDB prices, affecting resale market?
Dr Chee also stressed the need public housing affordable again, freeing up capital, allowing enough savings for retirees, removing the illusion that HDB flats are “nest-eggs” of Singaporeans as well as encouraging more births.
Citing the recent case where 191 households in Geylang will have to hand back their homes to Government by the end of this year without compensation, Dr Chee said the values of flats will drop as they age.
This means “there will not be a market for older flats”, he added, in explaining why lowering HDB prices would not adversely affect the resale market.
Dr Chee added that public housing should never have been used as a profit-making industry — doing so will cause all kind of problems such as what has happened to Geylang’s 191 households.
He mentioned that SDP has proposed the Non-Open Market policy last year to remedy the conundrum for existing owners who purchased their flats at inflated rates.
Low-income migrant workers needed in construction?
Speaking about low-income migrant workers being needed in construction sectors, Dr Chee argued that industrialised economies countries such as Germany and Scandinavia employ their own citizens for construction work and “not cheap labour from poor countries”.
He said that construction workers in these countries are skilled artisans who undergo proper training and education, adding that they are “paid respectable wages and valued by society”.
“These are not seen as end-of-the-road jobs that no one else wants. The workers are certainly not treated as lesser beings, herded into overcrowded and unsanitary dormitories, and made to ride dangerously in the back of pick-ups,” he added.
However, from how construction workers are viewed and treated in Singapore’s society, Dr Chee said it is no wonder that Singaporeans run away from the vocation “as fast and as far as their legs can carry them”.
“We owe it to ourselves to look beyond the patch of sky above our little well and see how these successful countries treat their peoples and their workers,” he noted.
He went on to say, “In Singapore, we have drunk the Kool-Aid that without cheap – and exploited – labour, our society cannot survive. We have been conditioned to think that only Scholars with sterling exam grades should occupy the highest rungs of society and, together with it, the biggest financial accolades.”
“Worse, we buy into the propaganda that there is no alternative to the current system. Nothing could be further from the truth.
“As I’ve said before, our biggest obstacle is not the PAP. It is what the PAP has done to our minds,” he said.
Share this:
The NTUC disappointment post-GE2020
The Online Citizen by The Online Citizen 17 October 2020 in Editorial Reading Time: 3min read
47
Op-Ed on Parliament debate regarding Minimum Wage
This term of Parliament was always poised to be different from the last. With more elected Opposition MPs (all coming from the Workers’ Party) and a heightened engagement in politics by the Singaporean electorate, I was hopeful that rationale discussion could come about.
I was particularly hopeful with the Sengkang victory and its impact on National Trades Union Congress (NTUC).
NTUC may be known as a supermarket for many post-65ers, but it is positioned as the defender of worker’s rights. Or at least it was in the 60s, until the People’s Action Party (PAP), in its eagerness for economic growth and its own rightward shift post-independence, brought NTUC and its union members to its viewpoint of having tripartitism at the centre of labour relations. Avoiding labour unrest for the stability of jobs was the key, and growth was obtained.
But where has that led us? Sure, we have what many term as a first-world economy, but workers’ rights looks ever more tenuous. The fact that the average Singaporean have been seen to be disgruntled with their employers in survey after survey must not be a coincidence.
All these feels counter to what purported work of the labour union confederation in Singapore has done for Singaporeans, which is to act as the counterweight to businesses and government and champion workers’ rights. NTUC looks closer to a conglomerate with its involvement in supermarkets, food courts, insurance, education, and healthcare. Its involvement in the jackpot business has been subject to concerns from the press. NTUC was even offered to manage a golf course!
What has the NTUC leadership and union leaders done in the meantime for its primary objective? It seems like trumpeting the symbiotic relationship is key. Every Labour Day, the Government makes a big show of its concern on workers.
However, as 32,000 workers would tell you, they are not even able to earn more than $1,300.
Singaporeans should legitimately wonder what is NTUC up to these days and how is it fighting for labour rights? Is it through asking its other partners in the Tripartite system to legitimately answer the needs for those workers who can earn more, or is it content to hide underneath the veneer of economic growth and recovery without giving a thought to the fairness of our economic system in letting workers earn less than a livable wage?
This leads me to my disappointment with NTUC post GE2020. It was turning a corner, having sanctioning industrial action to deter an unfair retrenchment exercise at Eagle Services Asia to protect Singaporean jobs. But its steadfast refusal to support a universal minimum wage is befuddling.
The most recent discussion in parliament about the minimum wage had MPs from both sides of the aisle articulate their arguments. WP MP Jamus Lim referred to the prevailing sentiment that union leaders have about how a minimum wage has an impact on jobs and employment as ‘folksy wisdom’. But instead of engaging the matter, many union leaders chose to attack Jamus Lim online for insulting them.
Perhaps the choice of terms by Jamus could have been better, but the outrage, manufactured or otherwise, is distracting and misplaced. I wish the unionists place as much effort into materially addressing low wage such that we see greater effectiveness. After all, the point should be what we are doing to address low wage and inequality. If prevailing wisdom is correct, then its up to the unionists to show the proof, not attack the messenger of bad news.
But there is still hope for NTUC to advance workers’ rights. NTUC should consider a stronger stance on how to improve their vaunted Progressive Wage Model further. If the Minimum Wage Plus model is truly that amazing, then accelerate the implementation.
Taking 8 years to cover 3 sectors is simply unacceptable for a system of governance that touts efficiency. Or is there no political will on NTUC’s side to take on business interests in more ways?
The Online Citizen by The Online Citizen 17 October 2020 in Editorial Reading Time: 3min read
47
Op-Ed on Parliament debate regarding Minimum Wage
This term of Parliament was always poised to be different from the last. With more elected Opposition MPs (all coming from the Workers’ Party) and a heightened engagement in politics by the Singaporean electorate, I was hopeful that rationale discussion could come about.
I was particularly hopeful with the Sengkang victory and its impact on National Trades Union Congress (NTUC).
NTUC may be known as a supermarket for many post-65ers, but it is positioned as the defender of worker’s rights. Or at least it was in the 60s, until the People’s Action Party (PAP), in its eagerness for economic growth and its own rightward shift post-independence, brought NTUC and its union members to its viewpoint of having tripartitism at the centre of labour relations. Avoiding labour unrest for the stability of jobs was the key, and growth was obtained.
But where has that led us? Sure, we have what many term as a first-world economy, but workers’ rights looks ever more tenuous. The fact that the average Singaporean have been seen to be disgruntled with their employers in survey after survey must not be a coincidence.
All these feels counter to what purported work of the labour union confederation in Singapore has done for Singaporeans, which is to act as the counterweight to businesses and government and champion workers’ rights. NTUC looks closer to a conglomerate with its involvement in supermarkets, food courts, insurance, education, and healthcare. Its involvement in the jackpot business has been subject to concerns from the press. NTUC was even offered to manage a golf course!
What has the NTUC leadership and union leaders done in the meantime for its primary objective? It seems like trumpeting the symbiotic relationship is key. Every Labour Day, the Government makes a big show of its concern on workers.
However, as 32,000 workers would tell you, they are not even able to earn more than $1,300.
Singaporeans should legitimately wonder what is NTUC up to these days and how is it fighting for labour rights? Is it through asking its other partners in the Tripartite system to legitimately answer the needs for those workers who can earn more, or is it content to hide underneath the veneer of economic growth and recovery without giving a thought to the fairness of our economic system in letting workers earn less than a livable wage?
This leads me to my disappointment with NTUC post GE2020. It was turning a corner, having sanctioning industrial action to deter an unfair retrenchment exercise at Eagle Services Asia to protect Singaporean jobs. But its steadfast refusal to support a universal minimum wage is befuddling.
The most recent discussion in parliament about the minimum wage had MPs from both sides of the aisle articulate their arguments. WP MP Jamus Lim referred to the prevailing sentiment that union leaders have about how a minimum wage has an impact on jobs and employment as ‘folksy wisdom’. But instead of engaging the matter, many union leaders chose to attack Jamus Lim online for insulting them.
Perhaps the choice of terms by Jamus could have been better, but the outrage, manufactured or otherwise, is distracting and misplaced. I wish the unionists place as much effort into materially addressing low wage such that we see greater effectiveness. After all, the point should be what we are doing to address low wage and inequality. If prevailing wisdom is correct, then its up to the unionists to show the proof, not attack the messenger of bad news.
But there is still hope for NTUC to advance workers’ rights. NTUC should consider a stronger stance on how to improve their vaunted Progressive Wage Model further. If the Minimum Wage Plus model is truly that amazing, then accelerate the implementation.
Taking 8 years to cover 3 sectors is simply unacceptable for a system of governance that touts efficiency. Or is there no political will on NTUC’s side to take on business interests in more ways?
Similar threads
