• 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.

The wage revolution, interrupted

Fook Seng

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Below is an extract from ST 27 Jan 2012 on a speech by Businessman Ho Kwon Ping on the reason for the high income inequality of Singapore. Scholars and analysts present generally agreed with him.

Insight | Updated today at 06:00 AM
By Janice Heng & Cai Haoxiang

IN THE 1970s, Singapore's economy was more 'assembly line' than 'top of the line'.

But by the end of the decade, things were set to change.

Labour-intensive manufacturing faced a tightening labour market and low-cost competitors emerging in the region.

Policymakers had begun looking to technology and education, not employment, as the driver of growth.

And in 1979, a revolution happened.

It was not one led by workers, but a three-year wage restructuring exercise by the National Wages Council (NWC).

The NWC recommended wage increases of about 20 per cent each year.

Yet one sector of the economy was left behind: low-skilled domestic services.

This incomplete revolution was the theme of Banyan Tree Holdings executive chairman Ho Kwon Ping's speech at an Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) seminar this month.

Today, low wages and low-skilled labour still characterise industries such as construction and retail.

If Singapore continues on this track, it will be 'an increasingly rich and unequal society with growing dependence on an underclass of lowly paid foreign workers', warned Mr Ho.

Insight takes a look at why the high-wage wave passed some industries by, and what it might take to complete the revolution.

An incomplete revolution

THE Government's high-wage policy from 1979 to 1981 meant that low-skilled, labour-intensive industries had to upgrade, move away, or simply close shop.

To help firms make the shift, the Economic Development Board (EDB) promoted automation, mechanisation and computerisation.

It also courted multinational companies in new, high value-added industries and invited them to invest in Singapore.

The strategy worked, said Mr Ho. 'Today's life sciences, pharmaceuticals and other high-tech manufacturing industries testify to the correctness of that vision.'

Yet the domestic service sector - including retail, hospitality, and construction - failed to similarly reinvent itself.

It was not that the Government targeted only manufacturing firms, says Professor Lim Chong Yah, who helmed the NWC from its inception in 1972 till 2001.

'At the time, when we were restructuring the economy, the labour-intensive industries were ubiquitous.' Domestic service industries were among the many labour-intensive ones.

Rather than having been neglected, domestic service industries may have failed to board the high-wage, high-skilled train because they did not feel the pressure to do so, say economists.

Wage restructuring succeeded in manufacturing because firms faced global competition, says Singapore Management University (SMU) economist Davin Chor.

'It was a case of 'upgrade or fall behind to foreign competitors'.'

Firms which could not move up the value chain had to exit. But it is 'harder for this same logic to play out for the services sector', adds Dr Chor.

Industries such as retail or food and beverage are non-tradable, and do not face direct global competition.

'It is unlike manufacturing where if you're uncompetitive, you lose your supply orders to an alternative producer who might be based in another country.'

Data on wages seems to bear out Mr Ho's thesis of an incomplete wage revolution.

Citing Central Provident Fund (CPF) data on incomes, National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) deputy secretary-general Ong Ye Kung says: 'It would appear that manufacturing wages are higher, based on published statistics.'

In manufacturing, the average monthly income - including both white-collar and rank-and-file workers - more than tripled from $1,240 in 1989 to $4,260 in 2010.

In construction, incomes grew more slowly, from $1,130 in 1989 to $3,110 in 2010. As for the hotels and restaurants sector, incomes did not even double during that period. They went from $830 in 1989 to just $1,510 in 2010.

The dual economy

SINGAPORE'S incomplete wage revolution has given rise to a 'dual-income economy', argued Mr Ho.

Alongside an internationally competitive, well-paid economy is the low-cost, low-skilled domestic service economy.

The fortunes of employees in both sectors differ greatly, and to a greater extent than in other countries.

Data which Mr Ho obtained from the IPS showed that the income gap between professionals and low-skilled workers is much larger in Singapore than in eight other developed countries.

In Singapore, construction workers earn less than a tenth of a doctor's pay. In the other countries, they earn about a third of what a doctor does, and up to half in Germany and Australia.

The stark difference remains even in comparison with Hong Kong, a fellow small city-state.

Doctors in both territories earn similar salaries, the study said.

Yet a construction worker in Hong Kong earns a quarter of a doctor's salary.

Mr Ho surmised that the difference was because Singapore's construction industry uses more low-cost, unskilled foreign workers, which keeps wages low for Singaporeans in the same jobs.

The wage gap between professionals and lower-skilled workers has existed for a long time, says Associate Professor Tilak Abeysinghe of the National University of Singapore (NUS), who conducted a similar study in the 1990s.

Then, Singapore had the widest wage gap of 10 cities studied. Prof Abeysinghe attributed this to labour market openness, and a high proportion of low-skilled workers in the labour force.

Associate Professor Hui Weng Tat of NUS observes that Hong Kong has 'stricter control over the import of lower- skilled foreign labour'. Hong Kong admits only a few thousand foreign workers to lower-skilled jobs each year. Before turning to foreign labour, Hong Kong firms must first source for local workers through the Labour Department's job-matching service. They must also offer a wage no less than the median wage of comparable local workers in similar jobs, he says.

In contrast, Singapore's foreign labour policy between 2005 and 2008 was 'much more liberal but clearly unsustainable', with lower-skilled workers admitted in the tens or hundreds of thousands.

The ready availability of foreign workers has contributed to a vicious circle of wage-dampening, in which Singaporeans avoid certain low-paying jobs, causing firms to resort to yet more cheap foreign labour.

Prof Hui says: 'As long as companies can pay low wages to their workers, there will be less motivation for them to engage in skills upgrading of the low-wage workers or actively seek improvement in their work processes.'

No pain, no gain

THERE is broad agreement with Mr Ho that the effects of Singapore's incomplete wage revolution are 'no longer sustainable'.

Economic efficiency is one concern. Low-cost labour facilitates growth, but 'at the cost of stagnant productivity'.

Mr Ho also worried about the creation of a low-income 'underclass' stuck in low-skilled jobs, an underclass of 'low-income foreigners living in enclaves', and resulting social tensions.

Dr Chor says raising wages in the service sector is 'absolutely crucial... if we are to address the widening wage gap and concerns over decreasing social mobility that have come to dominate the political discourse especially since the last general election'.

NTUC's Mr Ong says 'there is a need to raise the income of the lower rungs to hold our society together'.

But the question remains - how best to complete the wage revolution?

Some like Prof Hui advocate minimum wage legislation, which he believes is 'certainly viable, as has been shown to be the case in other advanced economies'.

Dr Chor disagrees. He says legislation may boost wages in the short term, but will not compel firms to improve productivity.

In his speech, Mr Ho noted that low-wage domestic services have kept the cost of business low, helping export industries to be cost-competitive. This edge will be lost if wages rise.

It has also helped to keep costs down for consumers.

The good lives of Singaporeans today have been built on the back of foreign workers, observed Mr Ho.

'Middle-class Singaporeans didn't complain that the cost of their hawker food was kept reasonable because of low-paid hawker assistants from China or Indonesia,' he said.

Are Singaporeans prepared to pay higher prices so workers at the bottom can enjoy higher wages?l

Or will they, as Mr Ho put it, 'complain if costs rise because of higher wages'?

Mr Ong says that as a society, 'it is not tenable for us to demand higher wages for the lower-income, yet refuse to accept higher costs'.

The sustainable way to raise wages in the domestic services is by raising productivity, he says. That means innovation, new products and services, new markets and new and smarter ways of doing things.

'Education, skills training, encouraging IT and automation, breaking into new markets - all these are critical things to do,' he adds.

But parts of the process will be painful because, as Mr Ong notes, it is 'not the natural state of things' for management and workers to come together to raise productivity.

That is why there is a need to restrict the inflow of foreign workers, so businesses do not have that option to fall back on.

That in turn means some businesses which cannot compete without easy access to cheap foreign labour will have to close.

Costs for both businesses and consumers will also go up.

But that, in Mr Ong's view, is a necessary part of economic development. He points out that no country brings about better lives for its people by lowering consumer costs, otherwise known as deflation.

'Things may become cheaper and people may be happy, for a while. But with lower prices, businesses start to hold back investments, since their expected revenue will also drop. Consumers start to hold back spending, since things will be cheaper tomorrow or next year. Activities go down in a spiral, incomes drop, and life actually gets worse despite cheaper prices,' he says.

'A healthy economy will have some inflation, not too high, that encourages investments, spending, that brings about even higher wage increases for the people.'

There will be those who cannot cope because their wages do not keep up with inflation. Mr Ong says the Government will have to step in to help them through targeted subsidies and other forms of aid, including education and training to help these low-wage workers and their children move up.

DBS economist Irvin Seah offers a different perspective. He believes that in trying to raise wages at the bottom, Singapore must take care not to tilt the balance too much in the other direction.

He notes that only about 20 to 25 per cent of Singaporean and permanent resident workers are in direct competition with low-wage foreign workers. Yet 'in a bid to raise the well-being of this group, we essentially increase the burden on the rest of the population'.

Productivity must go up, mindsets must change

If anything, the Government may have moved too quickly, says Mr Seah, who thinks that the supply of work permits for lower-skilled workers has been too drastically tightened.

A more calibrated approach will avoid 'abruptly adding to the cost burden of companies' and of consumers, he says.

It can be complemented by enhancements to the Workfare Income Supplement scheme, through which the Government tops up the wages of low-income workers, he adds.

A way forward

THERE remains an uncomfortable possibility: that many Singaporeans are content with the status quo.

For one thing, higher wages may not suffice to attract Singaporeans to certain jobs.

It will be easier to reduce dependence on foreign labour if local workers can pick up the slack. But that is far from guaranteed when it comes to being a construction worker, waiter or nurse.

In his speech, Mr Ho called for just that: 'We must create a culture which respects quality plumbers, builders, food service staff - and the entrepreneurs who will be self-employed in providing these services.'

Still, even if Singaporeans continue to shun such jobs, improvements in productivity could help lower dependence on foreign labour. Fewer foreign workers will be needed if one who is higher-skilled is able to do the work of several lower-skilled ones.

The bitter pill of higher consumer prices might be easier to swallow if sweetened by improvements in quality.

'Singaporeans may be less averse to paying slightly more for services if they recognise that they are paying for genuine improvements' such as better or more efficient service, says Dr Chor.

Closing his speech, Mr Ho spoke of the need to create a social ethos to underlie the restructured economy.

'The supposed social compact between the Government and its people must be underpinned by a consensus about the nature of Singapore society itself,' he concluded.
 
Last edited:

Fook Seng

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Is there a way to complete the revolution? Or like what LeongSam would say, "Let the income inequality be"?
 

Leongsam

High Order Twit / Low SES subject
Admin
Asset
Is there a way to complete the revolution? Or like what LeongSam would say, "Let the income inequality be"?

The article explains it all.

For one thing, higher wages may not suffice to attract Singaporeans to certain jobs.

It will be easier to reduce dependence on foreign labour if local workers can pick up the slack. But that is far from guaranteed when it comes to being a construction worker, waiter or nurse.

Sinkies don't want to do the jobs in the first place. They're spoilt. You can't blame the PAP for that. You need to stand in front of a mirror and blame the sinkie character that you see.
 

Fook Seng

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Personally I cannot remember a 20% NWC increase a year. But 4 to 5 % NWC increases on top of the seniority increase in your time-scale for public service workers were the norm. These increases were not the same as annual bonuses today which are one-off. These were permanent increases that stayed with you in your salary.

At that time, the salary increase each year with no regard for competitiveness was something of a shock but if you were on the receiving end, you would not complain. It was a risky strategy of forcing productivity gain by paying the workers increasingly higher and higher salaries to make the business impossible to make profit unless you modernize. The end result was some industries couldn't keep up and a dual economy was the result.

Was it wise or foolhardy?
 
Last edited:

zhihau

Super Moderator
SuperMod
Asset
Was it wise or foolhardy?

penny wise, pound foolish? me thought a free market should be allowed to self regulate, let the competition root out the weaker links & perhaps we may even have a strong house brand marketed overseas by now :o:o:o
 

TracyTan866

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
penny wise, pound foolish? me thought a free market should be allowed to self regulate, let the competition root out the weaker links & perhaps we may even have a strong house brand marketed overseas by now :o:o:o

a truly market economy is good. it reconciles supply and demand
 

Fook Seng

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
That NWC phase was not the only reason for the high income inequality today. Somewhere along the line closer to recent times, an elite class emerged with salary size and increases unheard of in the past, something that LeongSam would not have enjoyed because he left too early.

If you are in the Public Service, there emerged new salary classes e.g. the Admin Service and the Military Service. The original super scale salaries of the civil service and the general public service like statutory boards got dissociated. When in the past, the two scales could be equated, now they are far apart with the super scales of the civil service rapidly shooting up (most of these senior officers are in the Admin Service). A top performer in his early 30's in the Admin Service would earn an annual package of $360k, was the example given. At that time, this was the salary of the local CEO of an MNC.

The private sector also saw a remarkable change at the highest end. While a $20k to $30k a month represented a top salary 20 years ago with a bonus of 4 months considered very good. Then out of the blue, some one from a GLC was given a million dollar bonus. A medium size listed GLC, ComfortDelgro paid its CEO almost 2 million dollars a year. Much more than the largest listed company, SingTel. That started a game of catching up.

Within a short a few years, salaries all over for the elites shot up. Today, the top honchos in several GLCs are paid millions, more than the PM's revised salary and some 2 to 4 times as much.

That is the second change that moved the income inequality to what it is today.
 

Fook Seng

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Leongsam said:
The article explains it all.

Sinkies don't want to do the jobs in the first place. They're spoilt. You can't blame the PAP for that. You need to stand in front of a mirror and blame the sinkie character that you see.

I think it is a chicken and egg. If there are jobs there that answer to your academic achievement that pay more in another industry you would not go for these low paying service jobs. If the salary gaps were much lower the acceptance degree would have been very different.
 

Fook Seng

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Come to think of it, 20% annual NWC increases could be for the super scale grades as they had no time scale in their salary. So the higher end gets 20% increase, the lower end gets 5 to 10%.
 

coolguy

Alfrescian
Loyal
The 60% increase in wage of the pap elite in 2007 was approved without a sound.
yet, now they have to make so much noise when coming to increase the wages of the "lowest skilled".
Giving so much excuses as rising price etc.
Why can't they reduce the ridiculous high rental?
 

Fook Seng

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
coolguy said:
The 60% increase in wage of the pap elite in 2007 was approved without a sound.
yet, now they have to make so much noise when coming to increase the wages of the "lowest skilled".
Giving so much excuses as rising price etc.
Why can't they reduce the ridiculous high rental?

We need a multi-prong solution:
1) Curb the high increase at the top end - this has gone up at a hair raising rate in the last 10 years.
2) Restrict foreign import in services where locals would fill if the wages were increased.
3) Continue to import labour for services where locals would not fill even if wages were raised. For these industries keep the wages down to keep overall costs low.
4) Increase productivity at the low end, particularly in the services industries by using technology and job enhancement (i.e. increasing job scope and multitasking).
5) Reduce key roots of costs, in particularly property cost, starting with HDB as the catalyst (this may have to take some years to fully adjust to avoid negative equity). Find ways to reduce the high cost of transportation, by eliminating the middlemen and looking at new technology including an early look into green technology as fossil fuel is likely to cost much more in the near future as Peak Oil is reached.

The combined cost reduction with the salary correction at both the top end and the low end will support an overall wage structure from moving up too high, thereby maintaining our export competitiveness.
 

Windsor

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Why was there no mention of the CPF savings in the early 80's and the subsequent CPF cuts that affected the lower income earners more than the others? Couple that to the unprecedented population growth that had nothing to do with the citizens but the uncontrolled open door policy that GCT and LHL's administration adopted. This led to the increase in HDB property prices burdening the lower income group that depleted their meagre CPF savings.

Earning less and saving less with higher cost of living has eaten into the income of this group, leaving them to the mercy of not enough savings to see them through retirement and old age. That is why more and more old people has either to work or collect cardboards for a living. With the dawn of the silver hair age, we will begin to see more of such people and also more destitutes in the streets wondering about in the dead of the night with torchlights searching for discards like rats. Shall we stand by to see this happening to our fellow citizens?
 

TracyTan866

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Why was there no mention of the CPF savings in the early 80's and the subsequent CPF cuts that affected the lower income earners more than the others? Couple that to the unprecedented population growth that had nothing to do with the citizens but the uncontrolled open door policy that GCT and LHL's administration adopted. This led to the increase in HDB property prices burdening the lower income group that depleted their meagre CPF savings.

Earning less and saving less with higher cost of living has eaten into the income of this group, leaving them to the mercy of not enough savings to see them through retirement and old age. That is why more and more old people has either to work or collect cardboards for a living. With the dawn of the silver hair age, we will begin to see more of such people and also more destitutes in the streets wondering about in the dead of the night with torchlights searching for discards like rats. Shall we stand by to see this happening to our fellow citizens?

good analysis. this bad policy will come back to haunt Singapore in 20yrs time when many aged people are left with nothing much in their CPF despite a life of toil.

it is so clear that this will happen in the future.
 

Fook Seng

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Windsor said:
Why was there no mention of the CPF savings in the early 80's and the subsequent CPF cuts that affected the lower income earners more than the others?

The salary cap on Employer's CPF contribution and the reduction during Asian (Tomyum) Crisis did affect the lower income more percentage wise.
 

Simbian

Alfrescian
Loyal
As I see it, we have already lost the productivity increases gained due to forced wage uplifting. One does not need to be a genius to realize that the biggest benefactor of importation of foreign labour are the GLCs. Sure, the MNCs might benefit, but they have internal hiring policies and standards which allow them to operate in global environments so you rarely see them stinting much in renumeration in hiring unless they want to drop in competitiveness. Of course, there is the obvious observation that local SMEs are totally addicted to the influx of foreign labour.

Frankly, I wonder when will the government realize that their attempt at privatization has merely created massively inefficient monopolies/oligopolies that become laughing stock when they move overseas to compete. Ironically, as long as the revenue keeps flowing from the GLCs, I guess they will continue to be oblivious.
 
Last edited:

ChaoPappyPoodle

Alfrescian
Loyal
As I see it, we have already lost the productivity increases gained due to forced wage uplifting. One does not need to be a genius to realize that the biggest benefactor of importation of foreign labour are the GLCs. Sure, the MNCs might benefit, but they have internal hiring policies and standards which allow them to operate in global environments so you rarely see them stinting much in renumeration in hiring unless they want to drop in competitiveness. Of course, there is the obvious observation that local SMEs are totally addicted to the influx of foreign labour.

Frankly, I wonder when will the government realize that their attempt at privatization has merely created massively inefficient monopolies/oligopolies that become laughing stock when they move overseas to compete. Ironically, as long as the revenue keeps flowing from the GLCs, I guess they will continue to be oblivious.

This is the same government that pays contractors $50K to build an HDB home and then charges low and middle income Singaporeans up to 7 times the cost. And you still wonder if the same government realizes what it is doing to the economy and to a majority of its citizens?

In our early years, we had Goh Keng Swee to thank four our early economic successes. Who can you think of to accord similarly for the past 20 years? The PAPpies have essentially destroyed almost 2 generations of Singaporeans through a pathetic education system coupled with a systematic bastardization of our economy. We are surely heading towards a Philippines or Indonesia socio-economic fabric within the next 10-20 years. As it is, our education system has been seen to be of a similar level to 3rd world countries, seeing how easy it is for their citizens to displace our workers right here.
 

Fook Seng

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Simbian said:
Frankly, I wonder when will the government realize that their attempt at privatization has merely created massively inefficient monopolies/oligopolies that become laughing stock when they move overseas to compete. Ironically, as long as the revenue keeps flowing from the GLCs, I guess they will continue to be oblivious.

You are totally right. That is why in another thread I mentioned that the Govt had not done enough for SME and we might have missed the chance and are now left behind by countries like Korea and Japan on indigenous products to sell.
 

Fook Seng

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
ChaoPappyPoodle said:
This is the same government that pays contractors $50K to build an HDB home and then charges low and middle income Singaporeans up to 7 times the cost. And you still wonder if the same government realizes what it is doing to the economy and to a majority of its citizens?

One positive thing is that since there is such a large margin, there is a glimmer of hope that this Govt, if not the next Govt, can do something about it. It is only a matter of whether they want to or not.
 
Top