Skip to main content

Structural Reform – no lazy way out


[In between Mother’s Day and Vesak Day, more compassion and hard thinking are needed to solve the problems of low wage and older workers. The lazy thinking of the PAP is not only outdated but will add more pressures to citizens.]  

My neighbor, a good and loyal senior citizen, still insists on working without complaining. To the PAP, she is really a model citizen. However, our work and business structure have forced her to quit her job.

She told me she is going to work until 26th of this month.  Why? Her cleaning company has lost the tender. But according to market practice, she can still work with the new tender winner as she is more familiar with work environment and condition. Her answer is the new cleaning contractor wants workers to work for 2 blocks of buildings instead of the current arrangement of 1 block 1 worker. Physically, she said she couldn’t handle 2 blocks of cleaning work in one go.

In fact, as she told me, the condo management (MCST) has just increased the conservancy fees and she thought she not only could keep her job perhaps with a pay increase. However, the result is just the opposite. A senior citizen lost her cleaning job while the cleaning industry is under restructure with new licensing requirement.  

This is the reality of the PAP job reform and economic re-structure.  Everyone must be fit even senior citizens must be fit to compete in a physical demand environment. Apparently, the new contract winner must be able to cut cost by giving extra money or overtime pay to younger workers by covering the cleaning work of 2 blocks. If the contractor cannot find local workers willing to do the job, then the contractor will have reasons to bring in foreign workers.

This is logical and it seems reasonable explanations on why we need to bring in foreign workers. But is it a lazy way of thinking and solving problems?  The lazy thinking provides straight forward solutions but also creates problems at the same time.  

Singapore is already a first world country and as what the Minster for Trade and Industry had said we could no longer paying our workers third world wages. We need hard creative thinking not lazy direct thinking to solve our complicated problems, especially when we want to increase the retirement age. What kinds of suitable jobs are we going to offer to senior citizens, in addition to fair wages? 

The PAP has been using this lazy way of thinking to solve problems since independence. This explains why the wages of lower income workers have not increased for more than 10 years. Our economic policymaking is a very straight and lazy thinking. We use low wages to stimulate the growth and in many ways we seek to achieve growth rate above our local potentials.

How can the minister offer first world wages to our old-age cleaners? How can the reformed cleaning industry continue to provide jobs match the physical condition of senior citizens?

Another example: CPF

If you look at the CPF minimum sum, it is again another lazy thinking. In anticipation of future inflation, living longer and higher living costs, the retirement funds will certainly increase. As the payout is not inflation-adjusted but a fit sum, so this minimum sum has to increase not decrease. Is this another lazy thinking? Like the cleaning lady, by increasing the minimum sum is the easiest way to solve the problem. Whether you have physical or intellectual ability to meet the minimum sum is not the problem of the government. You find your own solutions and the government is not helping you at all. 

So, when the cleaning lady is running out of money, and she wants to enter the labor market again, she will have to offer herself at a lower rate, a rate lower than her current employment. And you know there is no minimum wage here, even there is a so-called guideline for cleaning industry, the cleaning contractors will want to find the productive workers and unfortunately this has to come from outside Singapore or willing younger workers.

How to give a fair value to senior citizen cleaning workers, and how to cover the retirement needs (either minimum sum or some combinations) are hard thinking questions. The PAP’s lazy thinking solution may work well in the past but certainly Singapore needs hard and creative thinking now and in future.  

Other lazy thinking examples include:

Hospital beds: The lazy thinking is if you can’t wait, you can either upgrade or go to private hospitals. To make it one step lazier, once you upgrade, you can’t downgrade. Once you go out, it is hard to return to public hospitals. Your financial burdens are your problems.  

The Toa Payoh graffiti: The lazy thinking of the mainstream media is to alter the picture so that readers will not be able to read the right messages. There is no hard thinking on why this happens. There is no hard thinking why the truth cannot be reported. In placing charges, will the persecutors take the lazy way to skip the key words in the graffiti?

The Little India Riot: The lazy thinking is to blame the alcohol. The lazy thinking is to move foreign workers to a remote area and contains them there.   

Jubilee Baby Gift and Golden Birth Certificates: To celebrate SG50, the lazy thinking is to give all new born babies something in 2015 and ignore other babies. Are they caring the minority or the majority?

You can find more examples if you take a closer look at the PAP and how they run Singapore.  They are solving problems in a lazy way. However, Singapore has become more complicated and sophisticated, and the lazy thinking of one-party rule has gone. Singapore can no longer solve our problems like the past – only the PAP doing the lazy thinking. Lazy thinking is not creative thinking.  


It is time to do the hard thinking, difficult thinking and involving more parties. And in between Mother’s Day and Vesak Day, we shall not be so lazy in thinking, rather we must think in a compassion way. 

Comments

  1. 'Lazy thinking'? You are being too kind.
    The correct way to describe it is 'wilful blindness or neglect'.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

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...