Extracted from http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2008/06/giving-equal-access-to-social-benefits/
I wish to say a few words on why there should be a minimum wage. It is necessary to ensure that the weakest members of our society, i.e. the poor and lower educated, are given a wage that is sufficient to meet the cost of living and raise a family. They should not be required to work 12 hours a day or two jobs, just to earn enough.
Most countries in the world has a minimum wage, including the low income and high income countries. Even the USA, which is the worlds biggest proponent of the free labour market, has a minimum wage.
A minimum wage may not increase the business cost significantly. It just reduces the huge profit earned by the business owners, salaries of the top management and the rental costs. The share of business cost of the minimum wage earners is probably not significant, except for labour intensive industries.
There is less economic pressure for a minimum wage policy in a big country. If necessary, a person can move to live in a low cost part of the country. Some people can go back into farming, for example.
But in a small country like Singapore, the choices are limited. So a minimum wage policy is necessary.
The argument against a minimum wage is that it will drive jobs to other countries. Let us look at the facts. Are our jobs going overseas? Hardly!
We have the opposite situation. Many jobs are created in Singapore, that have to be filled by low wage workers from other countries.
I am surprised at the large number of these foreign workers. They increase the demand on our public infrastructure and facilities and increase the congestion in Singapore. Is this good for Singapore?
These low cost foreign workers compete with our local workers. Many of our local workers cannot find jobs and have to be unemployed. The unemployed are criticised for being “choosy”. Is this true? Many of our elderly are willing to take menial jobs as cleaners just to survive. I respect them. I hope that we can give them a decent wage for their work.
We must remember that there is a high cost of living in Singapore. More so, for a worker who has a family to feed. We cannot expect them to accept the same wage that is adequate for a foreign worker who feeds a family in a low cost country.
Tan Kin Lian
Dear Mr Tan - Perhaps on another connected issue, we can tie our leader wages on a formula that takes in the top earners as well as say the bottom wage earners so they can restructure our economic system and find ways to uplift the low income earners. I am sure our top notch ministers and their civil services scholars will be able to find a way to do this in view their top grade education and administrative and management experience.
ReplyDeleteThis will be one good way of many to make our society inclusive and also to narrow the affective divide.
I am sure someone may have already consider such ideas, but if the leadership is sincere, they should not be too quick to brush off this idea.
Dear Mr Tan - what signal are our government sending to us when they eliminate estate duties which benefits the rich while they are still using old arguements to refuse implementing a minimun wages system?
ReplyDeleteSome time back we talk about sacred cows, perhaps someone could count which cows are no more sacred and how this has benefitted the various sectors of our society.
This is where insurance brokers come in handy. They will source for you the various insurers quotes and recommend to you the better ones. Doesn't matter to them which one you choose, as they still get referral fees from whichever insurer that gets your business :)
ReplyDeleteBeside competition, I think consumer education is important. I can suggest our basic education should include responsible consumer and perhaps related other social education. Most of us are easily lulled into paying whatever the sellers asked from us through the power of advertisement and unfair contracts which are too onerous for us to understand and which we have no chance to modify or reject.
ReplyDeleteTake the recent cutting of annual bonus, very few of the policy holders take part in the protest initiated by Mr Tan, even if this protest entail very little effort from the policy holders and Mr Tan is taking the risk and not charging anything.
Insurance brokers can be induced to push those products which they will get higher commission just like doctors are being induced to push more expensive drugs to their patients. This is the capitalist system and small consumers have no chance at all unless our government or some NGOs make sure we get a fair deal. Again, our government is trying to push us to stand on our own, they may have good reasons to do this, but they should ensure the consumer/citizens are able to stand up for themselves first. Otherwise they are just throwing us to the wolves. On the other hand, the withholding of CPF - the CPF is being withheld because government think we are not to be trusted to spend it wisely - so therin lies a contradiction.
In a small island-country and resource-scarce in Singapore, the people is the most valuable asset. There are many strata layers in the society, some are really illiterate who have to depend on subsidies and help. Our authority wants to make things happen fast and so foreign-talents have become one quick and easy way to fill up jobs for the big multinationals and even at the SMEs. So the residents find it difficult to compete, much more the lowly educated residents. Though there are cash and subsidies handed out, some are still short of provision especially current high inflation. Hope that more well-to-do people can come forward more to help, and the authority can give more to these people.
ReplyDelete