Skip to main content

Productivity: In the Name of Outsourcing and Out of Touch




Productivity then inflation is given as excuse for the inability to give wage increase to low income workers.  PM Lee said wage increase would lead to inflation but just a day ago, DPM Tharman said most people would not feel the inflation. 

Anyway, the government has to think of some reasons to justify no wage increase for low income workers.  Perhaps, they are running out of ideas. After productivity, inflation, they will add economic restructuring (business closures), jobs lost, and even world economic crisis.  All the fear tactics will come out but will people believe them?

When we celebrate May Day, it is really not a piece of good news to the workers.  Just like a birthday without a cake and in addition, you receive a warning of inflation, jobs lost, competitions, and even crisis. Instead of celebration, it is like mourning.

Let see how the government is raising productivity through their outsourcing activities. How do they perform more jobs through less manpower used? You can visit the website of Spring Singapore. There are various assistance schemes for companies to raise their productivity.

The basic and straight forward grant, for example the LETAS, is done by Spring Singapore and the complicated cases, companies seek help through so called EDC (Enterprise Development Centres).  This model creates more jobs for others but fewer jobs for Spring Singapore.  The end result is Spring Singapore can achieve higher productivity through outsourcing activities to third parties. But the activities of the third parties are added to the contributions of Spring Singapore and so they can claim that with fewer headcounts, they can achieve more.  Hence, their productivity increases and can justify for wage increases.     

IDA has a program called Infocomm@SME, another productivity improvement assistance scheme for companies.  The basic iSprint is done by IDA and the complicated ones (SIRC), companies have to seek help from Singapore Poly and Chinese Chamber.  Doing the easy and straight forward cases and leaving the complicated and may be no result cases to third parties, IDA can claim credit for productivity gains, again with smaller headcounts.   

Same may go for the SAF, outsourcing catering, vehicle maintenance activities to Singapore Food and ST Technology and claim the credit of productivity improvement.

The whole exercise is beneficial for all parties involved. There are also multiplier effects on our economy. The source parties (Spring, IDA and SAF) claim productivity improvements, and the third parties gains from having the contracts and businesses.

Powerless workers

Only with monopoly status or regulated protections, the outsourcing effect will make meaningful gain in productivity.  

This has nothing to do with low income workers and also will not improve their productivity.  As for the third parties, in order to make money and also to improve their productivity, they will go for cheaper sources, be it foreign labour or older workers or another third parties.

Consequently, we see the stress on low income and low educated Singaporeans.  In the whole process of outsourcing, the cost will have to go lower and lower to achieve profits. There is no bargaining power for low income Singaporean workers as they have to compete with younger and more productive foreign workers.  

When we talk about economic restructuring, especially in the name of productivity improvement, we have failed to input local human factors.  Of course in the name of greed, who cares about low income Singaporeans? Spring, IDA, the SAF and other government bodies, all can claim they have achieved productivity improvements.  But this is at the expense of whom?

The more outsourcing the more out of touch

But the single and most critical of the outsourcing activities is THE LOST OF TOUCH with the people. This is the reflection of the PAP government – by outsourcing activities to PA, then PA outsources to CCC, CDC or many other Cs.  The end result is the government is not receiving correct feedback and has no feeling on the ground. This is why the government seems to do all the wrong things, from housing, transportation to immigration.   

When the government announces they are spending more money to help companies to raise productivity, again they will use the same outsourcing tactic. Needless to say, we have already known the answer. It will help some companies but certainly not majority of the companies as well as their low income workers.


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...