Trapper's Swamp

The Workers' Party's Low Thia Kiang slammed the "conventional wisdom" that has squeezed local workers of "every drop of effort and energy from our workers to achieve its desired GDP numbers", in the Budget 2010 parliament debate.

The Opposition leader pointed out that manual workers like cleaners and garbage collectors in developed economies are paid so much more than their counterparts in Singapore, attributing this to those countries’ more compassionate and effective policies to ensure that workers at the bottom of the economic ladder enjoy a decent and dignified life. Referring to the Government’s latest productivity drive, which is to grow productivity by 2 to 3 per cent each year over the next decade, Low wondered if low wage workers had to wait another 10 years for the wage increases which they had not seen in the last 10 years.

Low lamented that Singaporean workers are constantly told by the Government to “up-skill, re-skill, multi-skill, be cheaper, better, and faster”. He accused the Government of “squeezing every drop of effort and energy from our workers to achieve its desired GDP numbers”. He felt that the ‘growth at all costs’ strategy initiated since the late nineties resulted in the present state of our economy where low wage earners are growing dependent on state-funded handouts to subsist. He charged that for Budget 2010, the Government is using their same conventional wisdom to address the fundamental problems caused its policies of the last decade.

Low then proposed two separate policies: removing the foreign worker levy and use a dependency ratio for hiring of foreign workers, and a community college without age restrictions.

He reasoned that employers will save on the foreign worker levy they currently pay, and this could be used to benefit their local workers, including providing more training for them to improve their skills to become more productive.

Low suggested starting a community college for citizens of all ages, especially older Singaporeans.  He said the college should have no or minimum entry requirements, offering courses that are totally modular. This would allow senior citizens to earn credits towards a degree or simply for self-enrichment purposes.

I am not too sure of the viability of the former, but increasing the foreign worker levy is bad policy because it is easily exploitable by employers and could affect the performance of SMEs. Unless the language specifically bars it, employers can include the levy as part of foreign workers' salaries, much like how CPF contributions are part of a Singaporean's wage package, driving down wages of foreign workers. Whether this will affect hiring of foreign workers is debatable, but it will definitely make their lives worse, and Singaporeans will not gain an ounce of benefit for it. These jobs will still not go to Singaporeans because foreign workers will still be cheaper to employ.

A community college to cater for all ages, and especially for those who do not have the benefit of continuing their education at a younger age, is something that I believe will benefit Singaporeans. Both are viable policies when it comes to increasing productivity, which is the theme of the budget for 2010. They merit closer examination. Why it was not mentioned by any PAP MP when it can affect the productivity meme speaks volumes.

But instead of attacking the ideas, PAP's Mrs Josephine Teo decided to just decry the ideas as "dangerous".

Responding to Low, PAP MP Josephine Teo criticised his suggestion to remove the foreign worker levy. She said: “To try and introduce an alternative system to a pricing mechanism is a very dangerous suggestion to make. It opens up a whole pandora box (sic) of the difficulties we have to overcome.”

Teo was dutifully following the PAP’s modus operandi of labelling any bold idea suggested by an Opposition MP as “dangerous”. She said that without the levy, foreign workers will be cheaper and more attractive to businesses, and some will find loopholes to get round the quotas, to get cheaper workers, “affecting jobs for Singaporeans”.

In a flash of presumptuousness, Teo declared: “I can speak on behalf of the union leaders that we totally and firmly reject Mr Low’s disastrous suggestion that we remove the foreign worker levy as it will harm our workers’ interest.”

Though expected, this is very disappointing. Mrs Teo chose to use the bogeyman instead of addressing the viability of the policy suggestions and did not illustrate how the increased foreign worker levy will not depress wages and still not benefit locals. Mrs Teo chose to use big-sounding words to bully the opposition in submission, in a way reminding me of a certain retired US politician: all hot air and big words, zero substance. Ezra Klein's description is particularly apt, except maybe even a stupid person wouldn't think she's smart.

Mrs Teo, calling an idea "dangerous" does not make it so. You're better off examining the ideas before launching into a tirade that shows your lack of thought towards policy making that affects the country. This move has served nothing but to accentuate the difference between the PAP and the likes of Low Thia Kiang. It's not only bad politics, it's bad policy, and should be reported as such

Update on Friday, March 5, 2010 at 1:59PM by Callan Tham

I neglected to say how farcical it is for an elected MP to speak on behalf of union leaders. Conflict of interest appears to be something that does not enter the minds of locals as a bad thing; if anything the constant trumpeting of "tripartite" arrangements by the PAP government should be emphasised as something to avoid.