Skip to main content

Productivity, Maid Salary and International Wages


If you believe the PAP will implement changes for a better Singapore with equality and social justice, you are as optimistic as Professor Ng Yew Kwang.  Will the PAP change and remake Singapore? It is ‘so far not so good’.      
My Indonesian maid is returning home after two years of service and her salary is $350 per month including day-off allowance. My new maid is from Myanmar and her salary is $485 per month including day-off allowance.

In terms of percentage, this is a big jump in pay, especially when you compare it with our low income workers who have no real income increase for more than 10 years.  So, it is fair to say that “Even maids have better bargaining power than low wage workers in Singapore.” http://pijitailai.blogspot.sg/2012/04/even-maids-have-better-bargaining-power.html
[Maids in Singapore, if they don’t do so much shopping, should have more savings and disposable income than our low wage workers. ]
The government says you must increase productivity then the wages can be adjusted. For the case of a new maid, the productivity will be low in the first few months due to coaching and training. However, to employers they have to pay more regardless of productivity. 
[I learn from my maid agent that due to salary adjustment, some older employers are asking maids to work longer hours to make up the difference. (?) Maybe they learn from the PAP: wage increase must match with productivity and hours of work.  Unfortunately, this will create unnecessary waste of resources and higher PUB bill for extra cleaning, washing and cooking.]
The maid market is an international market and Singaporeans are forced to pay international wages or closer to it. However, Singaporean low wage workers are working in domestic market and have no bargaining power at all.  

In the current market, if I want to get a new Indonesian maid, it will be more costly than a Myanmar maid. So, practical Singaporeans and business owners will have to find a new source of cheaper supply.  But the fact is even the cheapest replacement will cost higher than the existing ones.

The maids have their governments to support them but our government does not support our low wage workers because they are not “exportable products”. (Sorry to use this term).

To soften the burden of low income families and families with dependents, the government introduces maid grants and lower maid levy.   This indirectly also helps to push up the maid salary or making (supporting) Singapore maid market closer to the international wage level in Taiwan or Hong Kong. 
[Hong Kong's 300,000 domestic helpers will get a pay rise for the second year running, taking the minimum wage from HK$3,740 a month to HK$3,920 - an increase of 4.8 per cent, or HK$180. 
Employers offering a food allowance instead of free meals will have to pay HK$100 more, or no less than HK$875 a month. 
It is the eighth pay rise since 2001 and will apply to all contracts signed from today.] (Emphasis mine) 
http://www.scmp.com/news/article/1041007/maids-pay-rise-48pc-hk3920-their-second-increase-two-years
Taiwan or Hong Kong can offer higher wages to foreign maids and we can’t.  Why?  Their income per capita is lower than us and they are able to pay maids more.  One key factor is there are minimum wages there. We are free to offer salary to maids but maids can choose to work in other countries.  

From Economy to Political Economy

Comparing to maids, low wage workers are not getting international wages in Singapore.  Even in your own country, you are not protected if you don’t have marketable value or exportable potentials. This is pure economics and Singapore economy has been organized and operated like this since the PAP took over the government.

It is no surprise the ‘Population White Paper’ sets a targeted economic growth rate supported by a sustainable population.   And a NTU economic professor, from the view of development economics, supports the idea of bigger population. 
[An economics professor has spoken up to dispel what he perceives to be misconceptions on immigration and Singapore having a bigger population. 
Nanyang Technological University’s Winsemius Chair Professor of Economics Ng Yew Kwang, are the ones that make people oppose the idea of a larger population for Singapore — congestion, as well as the depletion of existing resources and the crowding out of locals.] 
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/concerns-on-immigration-%E2%80%98based-on-fallacies%E2%80%99--ntu-prof-103620093.html
The PAP’s economic model is too economics and has less political, social, and even cultural considerations.  An economics professor will find it difficult to find faults at a pure economic and capitalist model such as Singapore. But Singapore is a nation. So, Singaporeans wants to see Change! - A real change.

This is why Professor Ng also recognizes this and in his reply to TRE, he says:

[I also mentioned that, though Singapore has done well on efficiency and growth in the past, it has not done so well on equality and broader social objectives, including happiness. I suggested that Singapore is in a good economic and financial position so that it may pursue more in these areas without worrying too much about doing it excessively. ] 
http://www.tremeritus.com/2013/03/04/prof-ng-replies-to-tr-emeritus-readers/ 
Change or no change, optimistic or pessimistic 

Professor Ng is at the optimistic side and he believes the PAP will change or is changing. Hence, he suggests the government to “pursue more in these areas” (equality and social objectives).

However, I don’t see the change. I am not as optimistic as Professor Ng. Even Budget 2013 is a chicken bone not a drumstick. #1  It is just a modification to the existing model not a real change.   

The current PAP leadership is hardly a change agent or a change quality!

The PAP government is looking at the economic profits/rents by exercising monopoly power or productivity (depressed wages). It has no idea to create wealth through creativity, entrepreneurship, and design.   

If really the PAP can improve the quality of life, equality, and social justice in Singapore for Singaporeans,  then more people will support the White Paper like the professor. But this needs a real change! – A total different approach from the current economic model.

#1
http://pijitailai.blogspot.sg/2013/03/blog-post.html

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...