Announcing a wage increase for workers should be an occasion of joy for any government. But not for the PAP. When DPM Tharman disclosed that new laws would be introduced to ensure that cleaners and security guards are paid a minimum wage, he was defensive to the point of being apologetic. He was at pains to describe them as progressive wages for different skill levels targeted at selected sectors rather than as a national minimum wage for all workers. Tharman was splitting hairs. Juliet would have admonished him:
“What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet “(From Shakepeare’s “Romeo and Juliet“).
Contrast Tharman’s behaviour with President Obama’s. In his State of the Union address on Tuesday, the US President declared that he would raise the minimum wage of all Federal Government employees from $7.25 to $10.10 an hour, a sharp increase of 39%. He would do so unilaterally, bypassing Congress. He was defiant and in triumphant mode. On the other hand, Tharman was defeatist as he tried hard to justify that his so-called “progressive wage model” was better. Why so defeatist? Because he and his PAP tribe are truly in retreat in this debate over the minimum wage.
PAP in retreat…
For some time now, PAP has resisted the call of opposition parties for a national minimum wage, accusing them of being populist and irresponsible that would frighten investors away. But as evidence mounts in favour of a minimum wage regime with more and more countries adopting it, the PAP’s position has become increasingly untenable. Even establishment figures such as Professor Lim Chong Yah and Ambassador Tommy Koh joined in the call for a minimum wage. I believe many in the civil service share a similar view. Indeed, a senior civil servant friend told me more than a year ago that she was sure that the government would implement a minimum wage if the opposition stops calling for one “because the PAP cannot admit that it is wrong and the opposition is right or that the opposition has a better idea”! So PAP’s minimum wage is a progressive wage, not a minimum wage!
And about a year ago, Tharman’s comrade, the NTUC Secretary General Lim Swee Say even had the foolhardiness to claim that the PAP wage model was better as the worker’s basic wage “was supplemented by the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS), the Workfare Training Support (WTS) scheme and the new Wage Credit scheme (WCS). According to the labour chief, these combined supplements will make the wage system “work better than a minimum wage”.
….Blinded by greed
I had asked then, “Better for whom?” (PAP wage model : The unspoken greed?) . He did not tell us a crucial difference namely that these income supplements are paid not by employers but by taxpayers. And “this wage subsidy by taxpayers enables the employer to maintain or increase his profit margin without the requirement that he shows improvement in his workers’ productivity”; it “does not hurt the employer who can merrily continue to hire cheap foreign workers”, a point I had made earlier in part 3 of my essay Creating Jobs and Enterprise in a New Singapore Economy – Ideas for Change . This important difference was also noted by Han Fook Kwang in his article Minimum wage debate will go on
I also pointed out in PAP wage model : The unspoken greed?: “Why does the PAP government go about in this convoluted way instead of introducing a straight minimum wage? The answer is obvious. It is more interested in maintaining and enhancing the profits of companies than in safeguarding the welfare of Singaporean workers. And these profits lead to bigger bonuses and higher salaries which will in turn raise the benchmark for ministers’ salaries.”
“Intellectual dishonesty”
Why does Tharman insist that his targeted progressive wage is not a minimum wage? His denial and squirming remind me of what the late Dr Goh Keng Swee described as “intellectual dishonesty” in the early years. Those of us who had worked for Dr Goh knew that he did not suffer fools gladly. We are sure that Dr Goh would be turning in his grave.
Tan Jee Say
* Jee Say was a Presidential candidate in the 2011 Presidential Election. The article first appeared on his facebook: http://www.facebook.com/TanJeeSay.