TR EMERITUS

OPINION During a discussion about Budget 2010 on YPAP Facebook, a 28 year old Singapore man who have served two and a half years of National Service lamented that he had been taking on contract jobs for the last few years because all the permanent jobs are going to foreigners. It brought a sharp rebuke from a probable Indian new citizen/PR Mr Sinha Shekar who replied that “there is nothing called permanent jobs” and called on Singaporeans to make themselves more “marketable and move ahead”. There is nothing fundamentally wrong in Mr Sinha Shekar's statement except that no matter how Singaporeans try to make themselves more "marketable", they will always be on the losing end so long the ruling party's pro-foreigner policy remains unchanged. Singaporeans have been exhorted repeatedly by PAP leaders to make themselves "cheaper, better and faster" and to go for re-training to upgrade their skills. While continued education, training and upgrading should make one more marketable theoretically, the outcome is less than desirable in reality as evident by recent figures released by the Manpower Ministry which shows that only 6 per cent of the workers receive a pay rise after attending training courses conducted by SPUR. At the end of the day, employers still do not see the value to pay more for highly trained and qualified Singapore workers when they can easily hire an unskilled foreign worker, thanks to the ultra-liberal labor policies in Singapore. Despite some cosmetic changes introduced lately to placate angry Singaporeans such as raising the levy for foreign workers, it will have minimal impact on the ground as the cornerstone of the ruling party's policies remain essentially the same. During a parliamentary session last year, Manpower Minister Gan Kim Yong dismissed calls from MPs to tweak the manpower policies to put locals first: "Singapore has to remain an attractive place for businesses, so as to retain those which are here and attract new investments which will bring in more and better jobs for Singaporeans. We cannot get rid of all other competitors just because they run faster than us and make it into a locals-only game," he said. [Source: TODAY, 14 February 2010] His message still applies today. Because Singapore is an export-oriented economy heavily dependent on foreign direct investments, it has to make itself attractive to businesses by keeping labor costs low and in order to do so, Singapore must remain open to foreign workers. Unlike other countries such as Australia, Canada, Japan and South Korea which have imposed strict curbs on the influx of foreign migrant workers, Singapore welcomes them with open arms and even expect its own citizens to compete with them directly. It will be political suicide for any governments in a functioning democracy to implement laws which disadvantage the local workers, but not so in Singapore where the ruling party holds an absolute majority in parliament and there is no opposition to check on it. The S-pass scheme was introduced in 2004 to recruit foreign workers at the diploma level who command a basic salary of $1,800 and above. These group of semi-skilled foreigners are taking up jobs which can otherwise be filled by Singaporeans. Contrary to what is reported in the mainstream media, Singaporeans are not shunning them - the terms offered are simply not attractive enough. Without the easy availability of foreign workers, employers will have no choice but to pay more to hire locals and to invest in innovation to boost productivity, but in an open and unregulated labor market like Singapore's, foreigners will forever enjoy an unfair advantage over locals: 1. Foreign workers cost much less than Singaporeans and they can well afford to be as they live alone and do not need to support their families here in Singapore. 2. For the same reason, they are willing to work for long hours including the weekends as their loved ones are not here to spend time with time. 3. Unlike Singapore males, they do not have to be away for up to 4 weeks a year to fulfil their reservist obligations. A Singaporean worker may have undergone countless of courses to upgrade his skills, but if he is going to cost more than a foreign worker, a prospective employer will still opt for the latter eventually. The onus is on the government to revamp its unfair and discriminatory labor policies against Singaporeans completely to level the playing field so that Singaporeans are able to compete fairly with the foreigners. In Australia, a new rule was introduced lately to curb the intake of skilled migrant workers. Companies will have to pay a hefty levy amounting to the difference between the salaries of native Australians and foreigners to the government to ensure that locals are not disadvantaged. Furthermore, the hiring of foreigners is restricted to only selected industries where there is a real shortage of local workers. Australians always have priority in jobs unlike in Singapore where its citizens have to put up with lower wages because the ruling party has opened the floodgates to foreigners. While Singaporeans should make themselves more marketable constantly, they must be allowed to compete with others on equal terms and not on bended knees. The government should consider implement the following measures to level the playing field and to make Singapore workers more marketable: 1. Phase out S-passes gradually so that foreign PMETs do not compete with Singaporeans for jobs which can otherwise be taken up by them. 2. Increase the levy for foreign workers to match the difference in wages between them and Singaporeans to neuter their unfair advantage in labor costs. 3. A grant for each NSmen hired by companies to increase their employability. 4. Remove PRs from the "resident" workforce, dependency ratio and all statistics used by the Manpower Ministry to prevent companies from exploiting loopholes in the regulations. 5. Impose a minimum wage for Singapore workers with the difference topped up by grants from the government. The right to livelihood is a basic human right all Singapore citizens are entitled to and right now they are being denied it by the misguided policies of their own government. Unless Singaporeans unite and exert political pressure on the ruling party to safeguard their interests, they will forever be on the losing end, regardless of how "marketable" they have become.  Read More →

I refer to the recent comments made by Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam regarding the issue of wages of lower skilled workers, which I read with reservation. Mr Tharman made comparisons of wages between Singaporean workers and that of Taiwan, Malaysia and China. He concluded our local workforce commands a "significant premium" over our regional counterparts. A more rigorous comparison will be needed should Mr Tharman want to convince discerning citizens that all is indeed well. The issue is not about compensation rates but whether wages are sufficient for a decent standard of living. In line with that, there is a need to compare not only wages, but also the cost of living in the various countries. Such a more comprehensive look will paint a more accurate picture about the situation of Singapore's lower skilled workers. A quick check revealed that Singapore is ranked 10th by the Economist Intelligence Unit World Cost of Living Survey 2009/2010. Kuala Lumpur in contrast is ranked 90th. From this example, it show how naive it would be for us to hastily conclude just on salaries alone, the quality of life our fellow citizens are leading. Another interesting observation I made from the same survey is that Hong Kong is ranked 11th, behind Singapore. Considering that Singapore and Hong Kong share many economic similarities, I would have liked the comparisons made by Mr Tharman to include Hong Kong as well. And by extension, it will also be very useful to compare the wages of lower skilled workers in the 9 countries ranked ahead of Singapore i.e. Japan, France and Switzerland. A "significant premium" must be translated into a better standard of living, for it to have any value. It will be on all our conscience should we dismiss the plight of lower skilled workers with an over simplified approach. Best Regards, Mr Thng Zheng Xian  Read More →

Written by Our Correspondent Though HDB has introduced some cosmetic changes in its housing policies to placate Singaporeans angry at the sky-rocketing flat prices and to entice PRs to take up Singapore citizenship, some PRs still refused to bite the carrot. Channel News Asia interviewed an Indonesian PR by the name of Vina Mubtadi who is not keen to give up her Indonesian citizenship despite Singapore's exalted status as a developed nation as compared to Indonesia. "If I give up my nationality, that means I cannot have a property in Indonesia. But if I stay a PR (in Singapore), although I have to pay a higher price to own a property here, at least I can have a property here and I can also have a property in Indonesia," she was quoted as saying. [Source: Channel News Asia, 7 March 2010] Ms Vina is not alone. There are a number of Malaysian and PRs from other nations who refuse to take up Singapore citizenship in order to enjoy the best of both worlds. Being a Singapore PR enable them to work in Singapore on a long-term basis while retaining their citizenship will enable them to own properties back in their own country for retirement in the future. As the Singapore dollar is a strong currency, it will usually bring these PRs a windfall when converted back into their native currencies. Furthermore, they are able to sell their HDB flats for a profit after they leave Singapore. The lack of differentiation between the immigrants and Singaporeans is becoming a sore point of contention which may cause the PAP to lose votes in the coming election. Though National Minister Mah Bow Tan claimed that PRs make up only 20 percent of the market and have no impact on the prices, a flat purchased by a PR is one deprived for a Singaporean. The latest measure to increase the minimum period of residency to three years will only exacerbate the housing shortage and inflate prices as there are now less resale flats in the market. Singapore PRs should not be allowed to buy HDB flats meant solely for Singaporeans or at the very least there should be a minimum period of residency before they can purchase the flats in the open market. Existing PRs who own flats should be barred from profiteering from the sale of their flats should they decide to leave Singapore later. With no opposition in parliament to fight for the rights of Singaporeans, there is nobody to check on the pro-foreigner PAP which has been courting the PRs and new citizens to shore up its flagging support base. Unless Singaporeans send out a strong signal to the PAP in the next general election, such discriminatory housing policies skewed in favor of the PRs will likely to remain in the near future to the detriment of young Singaporeans who are yearning to own a home of their own.  Read More →