Skip to main content

Even maids have better bargaining power than low wage workers in Singapore



For the past years, we have seen the wage increase of maids from one hundred over dollars to now more than 300, 400 dollars per month. However, as pointed out by Prof. Lim Chong Yah, low wage workers have not enjoyed increase in wages over the same period.  Comparing to domestic helpers from other countries, our very own workers seems to have stagnation in income.   Are they less productive than the domestic helpers? Do they contribute less than the maids in our GDP?

Neighbouring countries know that they have to protect their workers and request Singapore government to raise the wage level of their country workers. What has happened to our government, why do they treat our low skills low wage workers differently?

People, who have experience in employing maids for a longer period, will notice whether the productivity of maids have improved over the same period.  With due respect to these domestic helpers, we know their productivity may be the same before and after wage adjustment.  However, considering the cost of livings, expenses, inflation, etc., we know we cannot pay them like before even the Singapore dollars has appreciated a lot over the years.  

As our income level increases, we also share the growth with our maids voluntarily or involuntarily.  Therefore, if we really have to link productivity and wage increase together as suggested by Lim Swee Say, then the foreign domestic helpers may not entitle for a wage increase. But we cannot do that if not, no foreign domestic helpers will come to Singapore.  It is also unfair to the domestic helpers who have help to maintenance and keep our houses clean as well as the well beings of our children.  So, when our income grows, we also share with our domestic helpers.  But why not the low wage Singapore workers? Who is going to take care about them? 

Even with wage increase, the foreign domestic maids working in Singapore is also facing a ‘short-change’ situation. Maids who work in Hong Kong and Taiwan are getting higher wages than in Singapore.  However, Singapore’s GNP per capita is higher than these two regions.    Hence, even for maids, there is also an under paid problem even with some wage increases.  The situation for low wage workers is even worst. They don’t even have an increase at all.  Their fate is worse than the maids.  By this analogy, Singapore low wage workers are treated less favourable than the foreign domestic helpers.   It is really amazing!
If we are willing to share the growth with foreigners, how come we can’t do the same for our own Singaporeans?  Is it because we can find replacement for our low wage workers but we cannot find substitutes for domestic helpers?  

So, this goes back to Prof Lim’s reasoning:  the import of foreign workers to replace low wage Singaporeans.   Even they are Singaporeans; the government will not care about their welfare and keep on pushing down their wages by allowing more foreign workers to come in.      

It is like the ancient Chinese landlords.  They keep pushing down the wages and income of the small farmers and landless farmers; they use different tactics to confiscate lands of small farmers or force them working until they drop.        

Singapore is a first world country and we see the third world or ancient practices here.  We can cry high to call for respects to low wage workers but is this enough?  They need a minimum income to survive in one of the most expensive cities in the world. Who is going to help them? The PAP says no unless you improve your productivity.

So, this is a chicken and egg problem.  We may never get a satisfactory answer unless ….. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Sub-standard PAP and the Singapore education system

I make a 'policy shift' when I hear the debate of right politics, constructive politics and sub-standard opposition. My original aim is to discuss about “Su Dongbo, Zhang Juzheng and Singapore education system”. The discussion will end with a sub-standard PAP, in particular from the assessment of the quality of PAP potential candidates. Another policy shift is to discuss it like a play, a drama and make it more entertainment rather than a sub-standard political discussion. Act 1 Gangster’s demand Imagine a sense in the Hong Kong's gangster movie (or a godfather movie), the gangsters' master is shouting at his poor opponent and demand him to give a price for his wrong act. The poor guy without any resources can only offer his body or his service to work for the master. Back in his own chamber, the master is still not satisfied and continues to shout 'don't play, play, you think you are hero, you think you are tiger, or superstar or acting ...

Is Prism Project Another Central Planning of the PAP?

There are 3 scenarios under the Prism Project#1 of Institute of Public Policy.  However, it looks more like the central scenario planning of the People’s Action Party. From the instructional menu of Prism Project Primer #2, participants were guided to a situation in 2022 and they have to imagine, within the Primer framework, to come out with 3 possible scenarios in Jun-Aug 2012.  2022. What a coincidence! Not long ago, PM Lee declared that he would like to hold the prime minister post for another 10 years. The other coincidence is the similarity between the 3 scenarios and the candidates of PE2011. How competitive and sustainable are the 3 scenarios to the people of Singapore and to the PAP?   Will the scenarios produce competitive and sustainable Singapore, Singaporeans or the PAP?  Perhaps, as what the Chinese say: planning cannot always catch up with changes.   And planning sometimes turns out the wrong, bad and unexpected results, espec...

对话一定要有共识吗?还是求取多元性来丰富自我?

全国对话喊到现在还一直高喊全国要有共识,尤其是全国对话的结果就是要寻求新加坡人的共识。不然,行动党就会说,我国的政治将会出现分裂,新加坡就变成一个不团结的国家。 全国对话一定要取得共识吗?文明对话的目的难道就是为了取得全国共识吗?如果是共识,那就一定有取舍。是不是说强势的人就领头共识,而落势的就落得一无所有。这不又走回老路,一条行动党独大的旧政治框框吗?看来,行动党对于过去,仍然依依不舍,行动党的共识,就是国家的共识,新加坡人的共识。 对话是要加深双方的了解,尊敬并且互相学习,吸取对方的优点,填补自己的缺点。这就是多元性的好处。然而全国对话的结果,如果只是强求共识,而忽略多元性和不同的意见,甚至否定他人的意见,那么,这个共识,是否具建设性,破坏性,还是分裂性,那就很难说了。 行动党似乎忘记了多元性。文明的对话并不是要把自己的 意见,信仰和理念强加给对方。即使这些意见,信仰和理念都是好的,善的。但是,对方未必会欣赏,未必会接受。因此,对话的结果应该是吸取对方的意见,改进自己的治国方针,然后,交给人民去决定,而这个决定也不过是大多数人的共识,而不可能是全国人民百分百的共识。 (乐观的看,行动党的全国对话,也不过是改进自己的治国方针,通过自己的小圈圈,自我讨论,研究,更新和改良行动党的政治策略,然后,在下一次大选时,拿出来让选民决定。因此,所谓的共识,在全国人民还没有决定前,仍然不是全国大多数人的共识。很可惜,行动党原本应该通过全国对话这个平台,吸收更多对手的意见,不同的观点,将它们纳入自己的政治策略中,然后在大选中让选民选择这个纳入反对意见的新政纲。可惜的是,行动党没有这个雅量,也或许根本看不起反对的意见。因此,它只能企图通过全国对话,硬要说这是全国共识。所以,充其量这只能说是行动党小圈圈的改良版政治策略,绝对不能说是全国共识。) ‘己所不欲,忽施于人’我们不喜欢的,不要强加他人身上。同样的,我们喜欢的,也不可以强加于他人身上。例如,有些人不喜欢吃有些食物,我们却很喜欢吃这类食物,但是,我们要尊重个人的喜好,不要强迫他人接受我们的建议。了解了这点,下一回提供食物时,就会通过多些选择,而不是只提供自己喜欢的食物。这点一般新加坡人都有这个敏感度,我们会了解马来族的要求,尽量避免他们敏感的食物。 为何行动党过去能够了解国人...