Minimum wage and productivity take centre stage at forum

Home

News

Singapore

Monday, 29 March 2010

Singapore Democrats

Economic concerns such as the issue of foreign workers, income inequality and falling productivity took centre stage today at the public forum organised by the SDP. A panel of five speakers comprising of Messrs John Tan, Jufrie Mahmood, Sylvester Lim and Gandhi Ambalam were on hand to present the SDP's proposals in the various areas of our economy.

The audience repeatedly brought up these subjects during the discussion period and highlighted that the influx of foreign workers were causing wages to be depressed and that this had an adverse effect on productivity.

The forum was organised to discuss the Democrats' alternative economic programme. The full programme can be read here.

Facts, figures and solutions

Mr John Tan spoke of the problem of the non-transparency and the non-accountability of the GIC and Temasek. To remedy the problem, he proposed the prohibition of government leaders and their relatives from assuming positions of control at the two corporations.

Mr Tan also presented the Norwegian model of managing a sovereign wealth fund which is well-managed, transparent and democratic. Most of all the fund is competitive, earning high returns. The GIC and Temasek should model their operations on the Norwegian example.

The second speaker, Mr Jufrie Mahmood, dealt with the causes of low labour productivity in Singapore. He cited the continuing exodus of Singaporeans as one such cause. The PAP's solution of replacing these Singaporeans with foreigners has led to a decline in productivity because these foreigners have been brought in as cheap labout rather than for their talent.

He also made several proposals to deal with the question of productivity one of which was to develop an entrepreneurial society by emphasizing on pluralism and respecting the rights of the people. Mr Jufrie also reiterated the SDP's policy of employing Singaporeans first.

CEC member Mr Sylvester Lim took the floor next and presented facts and figures on the income divide in Singapore. He then proceeded to spell out the SDP's proposals to level up society and reduce income inequality.

He introduced several ideas including the SDP's hallmark proposal of minimun wage and retrenchment entitlements. A minimum wage of $6.80 per hour should be legislated and a programme of providing retrenched workers temporary income for up to 18 months should be introduced.

Mr Lim also called for the raising of taxes for the most wealthy to pay for social programmes for the poor and needy. He also pointed out that the Government needed to increase its national expenditure on the poor, especially the elderly.

Party chairman Gandhi Ambalam presented the Party's platform of reducing flat prices by calling for the HDB to be a zero-profit venture in the long-run. He also wanted to see the contribution of CPF be reduced so that workers could have a larger take home pay.

Dr Chee Soon Juan rounded up the Democrats' case by citing that the plan was, among other things, comprehensive, workable and realistic.

He reminded the audience that the SDP's plan was not a populist one where everything is provided for free by the state. Citizens had to shoulder their share of finicial responsibility in order that the system is not unduly burdened by debt.

At the moment, however, the balance is heavily tiltered in favour of the Government which controls hundreds of billions of taxpayers' dollars. The Democrats' alternative aims to level this imbalance and make the system more egalitarian.

A meaningful discussion

During question time a member of the audience, Mr Andrew Teo, supported the SDP's employ Singaporeans first idea. He cited that a relative of his, who lived and owned a business in the US, had to justify to the authorities that no local talent could be found for a position before she was allowed to employ a foreigner.

Mr Leong Sze Hian questioned SDP's proposal of a reduction in the CPF contribution rate to 20 percent (to be divided evenly between employer and employee). He wondered if the policy was a good idea given that many Singaporeans depended on the contributions to finance their HDB loans.

Dr Chee replied that the cut in CPF contributions needed to be taken together with the proposal to lower HDB prices. With cheaper HDB prices there would be no need to spend so much of one's CPF savings to service HDB mortgages.

Coupled with increased wages through the minimum wage scheme, Singaporean would end up paying less for their flats while at the same increase their take home pay. This would make high CPF contributions unnecessary, even undesirable.

Former ISA detainee Mr Michael Fernandez rubbished the idea that the traditional media would carry any news on the SDP's alternative for obvious reasons.

Dr Chee had expressed hope that the SPH would do the right thing by reporting and publicising the SDP's alternative plan instead of just giving Singaporeans the impression that only the PAP had answers.

The SDP secretary-general called on the Internet community to help publicise the programme so that Singaporeans can become aware that there is an alternative to the PAP.

Share this article:

Comments (9)

Mon 29 Mar 2010 1:49 AM | quantum

The SPH would rather do the same old personal attacks on CSJ and sow discords amongst the opposition in the papers. If the SPH is so interested in bringing back the past, they should talk about PAP's Teh Cheang Wan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teh_Cheang_Wan

Mon 29 Mar 2010 12:11 PM | tewniaseng

PAP would not accept any alternative ideas from oppositions or the public at large.We know that they are very arrogant,they have their own plan,therefore the REACH feedback unit is for show only.Amy Khor can't do much, except become a yes woman.HDB should learn from M'sia where their low cost housing program is very successful.The so called elite ministers, their mentality is lower than their counterparts across the causeway.BN govt. at least take care of their poor, unlike pap govt,rather prefer losing billions of dollars in investment than helping the poor!moe gan thai!!

Tue 30 Mar 2010 10:04 AM | BryanT - Well done

First, I want to congratulate SDP for organising such a public forum to discuss issues pertinent and of interest to the commoners.

Secondly, through this forum, I hope that SDP will recognise two things:

a. Organising a PROPER indoor discussion forum is more effective than its previous attempts at bringing issues onto the streets through its law-breaking ventures. The barrier to participation is lifted and people are less shy to be seen to associate themselves with SDP's more relevant causes.

A public forum allows an exchange of ideas. In contrast, the street-bound antics that SDP is notorious for only permits much posturing and hollering. These are regarded as feckless noise.

I also don't think much meaningful discourse subsequently takes place in the courtrooms or jail cells.

b. The political space widens for SDP to engage the public's attention when it shifts away from its (narrow) focus on freedom and democracy. Interest is generated when the issues are those that matter to Singaporeans.

As Ho Khai Leong said in 'Shared Responsibilities, Unshared Power' : "Citizens... are...an opportunistic and self-interested lot. They cast their votes based on short-term self-interest and parochial concerns rather than long-term interest of the nation as a whole."

It is not the most correct thing to do, but at least SDP should exploit these "short-term self-interest and parochial concerns" to make them give SDP a listening ear first. Otherwise, SDP and its supporters will be talking to themselves (and whatever foreign interested parties).

Thirdly, I may disagree with SDP whether the proposals are “comprehensive, workable and realistic”.

But I would like to congratulate SDP that it is conscious of NOT taking a “populist” approach in the proposals. The same cannot be said of some other Opposition parties.

I am heartened to hear CSJ say that “citizens had to shoulder their share of finicial [sic] responsibility in order that the system is not unduly burdened by debt.”

You don't hear it from me often, but KUDOS to SDP this time round.

And let me say this too : the other Opposition parties were wrong to have shown little support or interest for this forum. But we already know that it is not only the citizens who are parochial.

(I have also some reservations about the blunt and impudent call for SPH to "do the right thing by reporting and publicising the SDP's alternative plan". Who does SDP think it is? But that is another story.)

Tue 30 Mar 2010 11:56 AM | quantum

Freedom and democracy is not a narrow concern. It is a general framework on which we raise issues that matter to Singaporeans. For eg, if the law bans closed doors political assembly, the event above cannot be held at all, without breaking the law.

Tue 30 Mar 2010 10:14 PM | betrayed

ByranT (I have also some reservations about the blunt and impudent call for SPH to "do the right thing by reporting and publicising the SDP's alternative plan". Who does SDP think it is? But that is another story.)

You bodoh is it? ST published Chiam-Chee spat and not SDP's economic forum. Who is Chee to garner so much news? Much more than you think bodoh!

Tue 30 Mar 2010 11:05 PM | Robox

Re: "Former ISA detainee Mr Michael Fernandez rubbished the idea that the traditional media would carry any news on the SDP's alternative for obvious reasons."

Neither did the two major non-partisan socio-political newsblogs online.

Tue 30 Mar 2010 11:17 PM | Robox

While I am in broad agreement with SDP's Economic Alternative and especially the paradigm adopted, in a previous post I mentioned that I had a couple of questions and reservations regarding a couple of details. (I could have overlooked these, because I read through the various parts very quickly.)

One is that I feel that the income security programs haven't been expanded on sufficiently despite the SDP having voiced support for them. (I'm talking specifically about disability income, which admittedly I am biased towards.)

The other is regarding retrenchment benefits, as opposed to unemployment insurance and this is my reasoning.

I agree that because of the PAP's harebrained policies, Singapore has outpriced itself in the international market. Retrenchment benefits are a cost that is borne by employers which means that it adds more to operational costs in the form of business savings; that cost will then be passed on to consumers both domestically and internationally, making the prices of those goods and services higher than it would have been if this cost hadn't been incurred.

I am more in support of unemployment insureance because, as an insurance scheme, the cost is borne by the employee. (I propose, if feasible, a tiny percentage cut from employees' CPF contributions as insurance premiums - no additional burden is borne by employees.)

Would some clarification over this be possible?

Wed 31 Mar 2010 6:21 AM | Robox - On Productivity

http://www.facebook.com/sghealthminister

Boon Wan - I hope that you don't mind that I drop the formalities - I have three issues to raise which I hope you will respond to. This post will address the first of the three:

In your speech at this conference you mentioned that '...there is no free healthcare. Every healthcare service is eventually paid for by the patient, either through taxes, or reduced wages. Ultimately, patients and their families pay for the bills. Our job is to make sure that the cost of delivery is as low as possible. This means cutting out abuses and other moral hazards'.

I don't know about the "reduced wages" part, but leaving that aside, you are indeed correct: health care costs, as with the costs of all public goods and services, are eventually borne by the us, the public - it cannot be any other way.... See More

This brings me to the matter of unnessary burden that your government has placed on the Singaporean taxpayer on a spectacularly wasteful chunk of public expenditure, and this time I hope you can speak in your other capacities as a member of the ruling party as well as a member of the government.

I'm talking about the cost of government.

The Cabinet consists of one minister mentor, two senior ministers, the prime minister, two deputy prime ministers, and two ministers without portfolio. That's eight men doing the work of one prime minister and his deputy and, in my estimate, in excess of $20m annually.

Most Singaporeans do not see the need for NMPs. While their allowances don't add too greatly to government expenditure, it is still an expenditure borne ultimately by the Singaporean taxpayer.

Then there is the matter of NCMPs and the cost that their allowances add to the tab; the deadwood in the PAP's backbench is yet another. Why not just abolish GRCs and conduct yourselves at elections, and in between them, with a sense of fairness instead?

Why is the government squandering taxpayers money when there are 120 000 disabled Singaporeans - a constituency that is under the partial purview of your ministry - who don't have a guaranteed income, but whose families are instead punished by having to bear their costs of living?

Please regard this is my contribution to the latest fad launched by your government: the drive for greater productivity.

I hope that you understand that I am just sticking my spurs into your hide to make you move faster; my noble endgoals are to make you cheaper and better so that we, your employers may better exploit you for all you are worth.

Wed 31 Mar 2010 4:50 PM | Robox - On This Plan

Next, I wonder what you think of the SDP's Economic Alternative. I will understand if you feel that many parts contained in it are not areas of your specialization - I do happen to be aware that PAP members are not as omnipotent as they would like Singaporeans to believe - but I wonder if you could critique at least the parts about reforming the health care system.

http://www.yoursdp.org/index.php/the-party/our-manifesto/3404-the-sdp-economic-alternative

As a matter of course, the PAP has a pathological addiction to stealing from those they most demonize. As the plan laid out by the political rivals that your party most demonizes, this proposal by the SDP is prone to being stolen while the PAP takes credit for it. Nnd continues to demonize the SDP anyway.... See More

This is one moral hazard cthat I would like to see come to end.

So, please tell us what you think of this plan. That way, if it gets stolen by the PAP, at least we know that either you first stated that 1) you don't think much of it but it gets stolen anyway; or that, 2) you like it and when it gets stolen, it is on record that credit should go to the SDP after it gets implemented by the PAP government.

PS. I am not a member of the SDP, and have no intentions of entering politics precluding me from ever being one, but I am a supporter.