Call for S$1b package to help low-wage workers
-
Therein lies the paradox.Originally posted by Medicated Oil:The Hundreds of Billion of Dollars of Reserves is originally started for the SIngapore People.
Now, it is just a figure to show the outsiders that how much reserves that Singapore have.
Therefore, the reserves is there for show and will never be utilised.
-
It looks like in good time reserve will not be used to benefit the citizens because it is intended for raining days.Originally posted by charlize:Therein lies the paradox.
So far, there is no policy or critera put up to show how the reserve will be used; may be the government will wait for more scandas like the golden taps and first-class ticket abuses to be unveiled by some whistle blowers before doing anything, like has happened in the NKF case.
The simplest measure the government can take is to use reserve as some form of endowment to generate interests or bond returns and use such returns to lower costs of providing essential services or job creations or temporary medical or unemployment assistance. I do not think such use of reserve will turn us into a welfare state.
Because there is no policy, no objective in building the reserve, it becomes very oppressive to keep increasing fees and recovering full costs to benefit the government's own extravagant projects to boost their own image or increase their own rewards in the form of higher salaries and bonuses.
Until such time as the above-stated policies are set, citizens will not benefit from reserve in good time or in bad time, as the reserve will be used only to benefit the government. -
[color=darkred]When one's position is untenable, it leads to some very queer and erratic reactions: [/color]
How desparate can one be in defense of one's own blindly misplaced position ?Originally posted by anonymouscoward:
Well, it say the lowest 20% of income earners. Given Singapore's 3.9million population, it is DEFINITELY more than 200,000 people.
What surprise me more is that 20% of income earners actually makes less than S$1200. What a great job our government is doing..
[/quote]Originally posted by Salman:
I think the figures must be wrong. How can 200k be 20%?
One of these figures mustbe wrong. I think its the 20%.
Are you not Singaporean yourself ?Originally posted by Salman:
Either way you interpret it, it still doesn't make sense.
bad english by the journalist, I hope they improve. Thats what you get when you hire Singaporeans.
Have you elevated yourself into stratosphere that you will disassociate yourself by libellously labelling all Singaporeans in one simplistic statement ?Originally posted by Salman:
All the TAXES come from EVERY WORKING SINGAPOREAN - whether it is from PERSONAL INCOME TAXES or Corporate Taxes.
You are wrong, you are required to pay taxes. Not all tax money came from you, in fact most tax revenue came from corporations, not from individuals. How much tax do you pay btw?
Where and who do you think the Corporations are making their profit from and which are taxed by the government ?
[quote]Originally posted by Salman:You are a slave because you are lazy!You are certainly brilliantly creative in deluding yourself into thinking that you are "running circles around" all those who are contributing replies to the various threads in this Forum.
Only those who suffer from some instability in their sanity will perform repititive tasks, and pride themselves of their delusionary achievements.
Still thinking of constantly "running in circles around all of you critiques" ? -
ok, here is some action which i think not many of us are aware of:Originally posted by Salman:Actions speak louder than words sir. At least they gave 1 billion. How much did you give?
An Honest Day's Pay for an Honest Day's Work?
By Sylvia Lim
Sylvia, Chairman of the Workers' Party, is a Law Lecturer and a former police inspector
Singaporeans cannot afford to be arrogant these days. From being one of the 4 Asian tigers of the 1990s, Singapore's economic growth has been falling behind the rest of the developing Asian economies since the Asian financial crisis in 1997 (M Bhaskaran, 2004). Competition from low-cost countries who have built up capabilities has forced painful restructuring of businesses in Singapore in order to attract job-creating investments and to reduce off-shoring of existing Singapore jobs.
Faced with pressures to reduce costs, businesses invariably look at manpower costs. At the national level, policies have been changed to reduce wage bills e.g. reversal of the decision to restore the employers' Central Provident Fund contributions back to 20%, discouraging seniority-based wages and promoting flexi-wages.
To what extent will pro-employer policies be pursued at the expense of workers? Changes to the Employment Act passed by Parliament on Sep 21, 2004, should raise alarm bells for Singapore workers.
What happened in Parliament
By the amendments, the Commissioner for Labour was given the power to allow certain employers not to pay for extra work done by non-executive workers earning not more than $1,600 per month. Such extra work would include working overtime and working on rest days and holidays. Prior to the changes, such employees were statutorily protected under the Employment Act when they did extra work, being entitled to be paid not just their basic hourly pay but also 1.5 to 2 times their basic pay. The recent amendments are so wide that it is likely that, with the Commissioner's approval, the worker may receive no pay at all for the extra work done.
In moving the amendments, Acting Minister for Manpower told MPs that employers needed flexibility to deploy their work force. According to him, business cycles would mean there would be busy periods and lull periods. Therefore, employers should be allowed to give workers time-off during lull periods and, correspondingly, extra work done during busy periods would not be paid but would be compensated by time off during lull periods. The purpose of this restructure, as is the often-cited purpose in Singapore for any wage restructure, is to save jobs.
In exercising his power under the amended Section 41A of the Employment Act, the Commissioner for Labour will exempt employers from paying workers for extra work after considering "the operational needs of the employer and the interests of workers".
In opposing the amendments, Workers' Party Secretary-General and MP for Hougang Low Thia Khiang highlighted that the change would have the effect of removing protections for the low wage earners who had the weakest bargaining power with their employers, particularly in this lacklustre job market. Instead of having the law to safeguard them, the amendment would expose them to exploitation.
Impossible task for Commissioner for Labour
As businesses are generally run to derive maximum returns for shareholders, many employers would guarantee their employees only the minimum required under the law. Now that the law has allowed the Commissioner to grant exemptions, it is certain that employers would want to put up cases for exemption.
How will the Commissioner perform this virtually impossible task of excusing employers from paying employees, and say that it is for the employees' own good? The justification will probably come down to one of employers' costs. If the wage bill eats into the employer's profits, such that retrenchments are an option the employer is considering, then the Commissioner may exempt the employer from paying employees for extra work in order to forestall the retrenchments.
What severity of employer's "operational needs" would justify the Commissioner's exemption of employers? Would it be just to ensure the company breaks even, or to ensure that profitable companies keep up their profit margins to maximise shareholder's returns? Singapore has already seen pre-emptive retrenchments in profitable government-linked companies such as the PSA (Port of Singapore Authority), which were supported by the government as necessary moves. There is hence no assurance that, after all the pain of working extra for free, the worker's job is secure.
How the worker will be affected
Arguments that the worker will be compensated with time-off in lieu of pay are little comfort to him due to the heavy price he will have to pay.
First, he may be required to work longer hours within a working day or week, for no extra pay. For instance, he may be required to work for longer than 8 or 9 hours per day, or longer than 44 hours per week. Secondly, he may be required to work on rest days or on holidays, for no pay.
Prior to the changes, workers working extra hours sacrificed rest, and family and social life, because they were assured of supplementary income. Now, they may be required to do extra work for no pay, to be compensated by time-off, which will probably be given at a time of the employer's choosing. The time-off could be given even several months down the road.
On the other hand, there may also be workers who hold a second job due to the low wages they earn in the first job. By impinging on their time after work and on rest days / holidays, their ability to earn extra income will be curtailed. This could be dire for some families.
It is interesting to note here that, according to the Labour Force Survey Report 2003 (Ministry of Manpower), the average working hours for the poorly educated was higher (51 hours per week) than the national average (49 hours). The Report attributed this to the fact that more hours had to be put in to earn a living for the less educated (and presumably, poorer paid). Cleaners, labourers and related workers worked an average of 58 hours per week, with the average for female workers in this category being 62.3 hours per week.
Some might argue that the worker could always leave for a more scrupulous employer if things got too bad. If jobs were in abundance, probably so, but a lot would depend on prevailing market conditions and the mobility of the particular worker.
In the current employers' labour market where good jobs are not easy to come by, many workers may not be able to be choosers. Two days after the changes were passed in Parliament, the local media highlighted the outsourcing of jobs by SATS (Singapore Airport Terminal Services, a subsidiary of Singapore Airlines). A cleaner earning $1,400 per month whose job was outsourced told the media that she had been offered the same job by the new contractor for less than $1,000 per month and had to take it because she needed the job to support a child. -
at the end of the day, whatever crisis our national carrier has weathered has been weathered by us commoners. we're just virtual slaves to be exploited ...Originally posted by pearlie27:In the current employers' labour market where good jobs are not easy to come by, many workers may not be able to be choosers. Two days after the changes were passed in Parliament, the local media highlighted the outsourcing of jobs by SATS (Singapore Airport Terminal Services, a subsidiary of Singapore Airlines). A cleaner earning $1,400 per month whose job was outsourced told the media that she had been offered the same job by the new contractor for less than $1,000 per month and had to take it because she needed the job to support a child. -
Ours is a system that favours only the leaders, the upper echelon and elites. The whole governance system for 40 years seems to be premised on some conceptual assumption that the leaders can do no wrong.Originally posted by snow leopard:at the end of the day, whatever crisis our national carrier has weathered has been weathered by us commoners. we're just virtual slaves to be exploited ...
The leaders seem to hold fast to their past belief and assumptions that they are the talents and even if economy or companies are not performing well they will not be blamed but the people or workers are at fault.
For example, when SIA was losing out to budget airlines, the solution is to confront the pilots to get them to admit their pays were too high and force them to lower their pay packages.
When the economy was down in the last two recessions and could not recover due to leaders' lack of ability in strategically restructuring the economy to compete with asian tigers and China and India, our leaders took the easy way out again by forcing the workers to lower the workers' cpf and opening the employment doors to foreigners in the name of attracting talents.
Nowhere was there any entrepreneurship or creativity or leadership in our system as painted to the outside world.
There was no effort made to commiserate with workers' plight or show greater talents or leadership like Iococca to forego his own salaries or bonus during the bad years to take the rap for leaders' own lack of performance.
That is why our system being so lacking in EQ will never grow in excellence or competitiveness. I foresee that we will see more NKF scandals and hidden wrong doings as the system is self-indulgent only to look after the leaders' own wellbeings and comfort zones. -
As I foresee, there is no other really feasible policy that can restrain the competition from the cheaper labour force from a rising China and India than to lower our wages to secure a job.Originally posted by robertteh:For example, when SIA was losing out to budget airlines, the solution is to confront the pilots to get them to admit their pays were too high and force them to lower their pay packages.
When the economy was down in the last two recessions and could not recover due to leaders' lack of ability in strategically restructuring the economy to compete with asian tigers and China and India, our leaders took the easy way out again by forcing the workers to lower the workers' cpf and opening the employment doors to foreigners in the name of attracting talents.
Do you have a win-win solution for that? I am all ears. -
i don't profess to offer a solution, just some thoughts.Originally posted by TooFree:As I foresee, there is no other really feasible policy that can restrain the competition from the cheaper labour force from a rising China and India than to lower our wages to secure a job.
Do you have a win-win solution for that? I am all ears.
1. we see the importance of having competitive wages. but when cost of living is rising while at the same time our wages are being depressed, surely we have reason to be disgruntled? if everyone suffers together, we accept it. but if the masses suffer while the elites are being protected how can we be convinced? how much lower can we go? lead by example. it's not win win but if any burden should be borne, it should be borned equitably by all.
2. we don't fight for the same jobs. in fact, we don't fight for jobs at all. in today's world, you're either a cheap labourer or you're the wealthy employer. no such thing as highly paid technician anymore. so we be our own boss, create our own entreprises, be our own masters. -
There are at least three ways to compete with the lower-cost countries and other Asian Tigers:-Originally posted by TooFree:As I foresee, there is no other really feasible policy that can restrain the competition from the cheaper labour force from a rising China and India than to lower our wages to secure a job.
Do you have a win-win solution for that? I am all ears.
(1) Mass participation in practical knowledge applications in all fields - nurture every one of our own talent we can find among the people and support all to reach their best skills and abilities.
(2) Practice implementation excellence at every level - tone down on intuitive judgmental assumptions, justifications and showmanship, stop rhetorics about leadership and self-promotion. Get real on efficiency and productivity. Exude quiet efficiency and innovations.
(3) Leaders should commit themselves to achieving results - through internalizing natural efficiency and knowledge applications and teamwork into attainable accountable and transparent work processes. Empower all staff and people and try not to be over-judgmental or overtake them with assumptions, ideas and concepts which at the end will only restrict creativity, entrepreneurship and contributions. Mistakes in education streaming, CL2, over-promotion of academic talents at the expense of practical knowledge applications and oversight in economic restructuring to value-adding high technology model are all caused by top-down system which restrict our scholars to move more shiftly and creatively forward to reach higher plain.
Lead by examples but most importantly lead from behind to unleash people's internal motivations to achieve teamwork results. -
Originally posted by robertteh:
The solution for your Q1 lies in the highlighted portion in Q3. To filter out early potentials who are more technical-inclined and nurture them in their respective fields has somehow solved the competitive issue but one way or the other, it leads to biasness in the education system.
There are at least three ways to compete with the lower-cost countries and other Asian Tigers:-
(Q1) Mass participation in practical knowledge applications in all fields - nurture every one of our own talent we can find among the people and support all to reach their best skills and abilities.
(Q3) Leaders should commit themselves to achieving results - through internalizing natural efficiency and knowledge applications and teamwork into attainable accountable and transparent work processes. Empower all staff and people and try not to be over-judgmental or overtake them with assumptions, ideas and concepts which at the end will only restrict creativity, entrepreneurship and contributions. Mistakes in education streaming, CL2, over-promotion of academic talents at the expense of practical knowledge applications and oversight in economic restructuring to value-adding high technology model are all caused by top-down system which restrict our scholars to move more shiftly and creatively forward to reach higher plain.
Lead by examples but most importantly lead from behind to unleash people's internal motivations to achieve teamwork results. -
I think there is clearly a case of the emperor's new clothes here. At the risk of exposing myself as an ignoramous, I admit that I do not understand the majority of your posts.Originally posted by robertteh:There are at least three ways to compete with the lower-cost countries and other Asian Tigers:-
(1) Mass participation in practical knowledge applications in all fields - nurture every one of our own talent we can find among the people and support all to reach their best skills and abilities.
(2) Practice implementation excellence at every level - tone down on intuitive judgmental assumptions, justifications and showmanship, stop rhetorics about leadership and self-promotion. Get real on efficiency and productivity. Exude quiet efficiency and innovations.
(3) Leaders should commit themselves to achieving results - through internalizing natural efficiency and knowledge applications and teamwork into attainable accountable and transparent work processes. Empower all staff and people and try not to be over-judgmental or overtake them with assumptions, ideas and concepts which at the end will only restrict creativity, entrepreneurship and contributions. Mistakes in education streaming, CL2, over-promotion of academic talents at the expense of practical knowledge applications and oversight in economic restructuring to value-adding high technology model are all caused by top-down system which restrict our scholars to move more shiftly and creatively forward to reach higher plain.
Lead by examples but most importantly lead from behind to unleash people's internal motivations to achieve teamwork results.
I hate to say this, but i think most of your posts are filled with too much 'management speak'. large parts of your posts are gobbledeegoook to me i'm afraid. Now I think you need to review why you are posting. If it is to communicate to others your ideas, then I think you are going to achieve only llimited success. This is due to the fact that most (ithink) people dun understand what you are saying.
have you not realized that large numbers of your threads have very few relevent replies and that there have been very few responses to the specific issues raised in your posts?
Maybe Its me. I certainly do not have a business background. But i certainly do not consider myself illiterate.
In this case what you are saying is:
1)Develop the potential of our workers so that they become more highly skilled.
2)Be more efficient and increase productivity
3)Leaders should be mission orientated. How?
You said
---
"through internalizing natural efficiency and knowledge applications and teamwork into attainable accountable and transparent work processes."
---
wtf does that mean? wtf is 'natural efficiency' and 'knowledge applications'? I guess you are saying:
Have a focus on efficiency and applying knowledge (meaning wat? being able to apply what you help you complete the task at habnd?) and teamwork at every level. Set realistic targets, and monitor progress towards those targets.?
You also said:
---
"Empower all staff and people and try not to be over-judgmental or overtake them with assumptions, ideas and concepts which at the end will only restrict creativity, entrepreneurship and contributions.
Mistakes in education streaming, CL2, over-promotion of academic talents at the expense of practical knowledge applications and oversight in economic restructuring to value-adding high technology model are all caused by top-down system which restrict our scholars to move more shiftly and creatively forward to reach higher plain."
---
huh?
Do you mean:
Leadesr should not stifle the Staff but should allow them leeway to contribute and exhibit creativity and entrepreneurship. To this end, Leaders should be open-minded and not stick rigidly to their own ideas and concepts.
(The governemnt) has made many mistakes.
In education, some of these mistakes include the streaming system, recent de-emphasis on the chinese langauge(?). Other mistakes include over estimating the value of academic ability. Evidence of this policy is seen in the way the govt overpromotes scholars.
All of these have had a negative impact on Sinagpore. For isntance, you think there is an inability among many to apply their knowledge in a practical manner.
An oversight in economic restructuring to a value-adding high technology model have been caused by a rigid system of micro-management that has stifled out scholars. They are unable to exercise creativity, etc and their develpment have been handicapped as a result. -
I agree that it is a case of emperor's new clothes in our system. It is not easy to see one's own fault or shortcomings no matter how enlightened or intelligent one may be.Originally posted by lwflee:I think there is clearly a case of the emperor's new clothes here. At the risk of exposing myself as an ignoramous, I admit that I do not understand the majority of your posts.
I hate to say this, but i think most of your posts are filled with too much 'management speak'. large parts of your posts are gobbledeegoook to me i'm afraid. Now I think you need to review why you are posting. If it is to communicate to others your ideas, then I think you are going to achieve only llimited success. This is due to the fact that most (ithink) people dun understand what you are saying.
Therefore, I must admit the in my postings about process management, I might have committed certain errors too like the emperor's new clothes.
Anyway, I would take this opportunity to explain certain things about my posting.
I wish to say that my objective is not to impose any management ideas or concepts on anyone. Rather I had posted strongly in some instances on process management to show that there are alternative solutions to many of our current top-down intuitive autocracy based on the man and his ideas system or belief.
In my opinion any management or government that is based on such self-centred policies and intuitive controls practised by our top-down system of government will only achieve so much and no more. It has a lot of limitations.
Process management called OSP was posted at thread "Practical Efficiency and Productivity" in Market Place of this forum having been published in the Recruit of ST on 27.12.2004 of the same name. People may not find process management useful because of prevalent past habits with intuitive decisions and ad hoc management practices. It may take some time for people to discover its usefulness to go for processes to be objective, accountable and involve the whole team to produce implementation efficiency and results.
In Singapore, because we are too strongly based on intuitive personal efficiency, we have been encountering a great deal of problems with implementation to date. Many governemnt policies or economic restructuring plans do not receive the fullest implementation support of all staff of the whole governemnt because they have remained as intuitive - policies or assumptions. I need not elaborate for its merits or demerits as I believe my posts at Market Place of this forum can be read and verified by many of its own rationale and merits. May be it will take time and patience for people to test out the process management beneifits.have you not realized that large numbers of your threads have very few relevent replies and that there have been very few responses to the specific issues raised in your posts?
In posting in forum, we are all equal. My opinions are not higher than anyone. I feel that you should not feel constrained in any way by my views on management as they are just my opinions. Just be patient and read my rationale in those posts mentioned and test out the ideas if you will.
Maybe Its me. I certainly do not have a business background. But i certainly do not consider myself illiterate.
In this case what you are saying is:
1)Develop the potential of our workers so that they become more highly skilled.
2)Be more efficient and increase productivity
3)Leaders should be mission orientated. How?You said
The existing management habits are too much entrenched in selfness and intuitions or talents or ability of individuals or the man at the helm or one man show. If we want to be good efficient or excellent or competitive, such a system will not work.
---
"through internalizing natural efficiency and knowledge applications and teamwork into attainable accountable and transparent work processes."
---
wtf does that mean? wtf is 'natural efficiency' and 'knowledge applications'? I guess you are saying:
Have a focus on efficiency and applying knowledge (meaning wat? being able to apply what you help you complete the task at habnd?) and teamwork at every level. Set realistic targets, and monitor progress towards those targets.?
The alternative is to enable or empower staff through setting work processes so that they can take over the implementation if not part of the decisions making at the operation level. If Singapore is to succeed in competing with the world competitiveness, I personally believe it has to avoid and tone down on individualism and top-heavy management system depending on one-man become efficient or competitive.
To do so, there has to be enabling work processes with organizations practising delegations through open and accountable work processes instead of going for micro-management as seen happening too often in our system.You also said:
Many policies of our government did not succeed because there are abstract ideas, concepts or assumptions not easily understood or implemented by all.
---
"Empower all staff and people and try not to be over-judgmental or overtake them with assumptions, ideas and concepts which at the end will only restrict creativity, entrepreneurship and contributions.
Mistakes in education streaming, CL2, over-promotion of academic talents at the expense of practical knowledge applications and oversight in economic restructuring to value-adding high technology model are all caused by top-down system which restrict our scholars to move more shiftly and creatively forward to reach higher plain."
There have been many feedbacks in forum pages of Straits Times on this topic - all talks and no actions or lack of midfielders in our systems.
It is sad but true that after many years we still hear a lot about the same policy and nothing much was accomplished due to lack of attainable empowering work processes below the senior officers or leaders to make things happen.
I have suggested in many posts how the policies should be made more attainable in processes. Read my posts about "Leaderships" at Market place.
---huh?
Our society has to change a lot of its past management habits and practices on developing personal efficiency, abilities and talents.
Do you mean:
Leadesr should not stifle the Staff but should allow them leeway to contribute and exhibit creativity and entrepreneurship. To this end, Leaders should be open-minded and not stick rigidly to their own ideas and concepts.
(The governemnt) has made many mistakes.
In education, some of these mistakes include the streaming system, recent de-emphasis on the chinese langauge(?). Other mistakes include over estimating the value of academic ability. Evidence of this policy is seen in the way the govt overpromotes scholars.
All of these have had a negative impact on Sinagpore. For isntance, you think there is an inability among many to apply their knowledge in a practical manner.
An oversight in economic restructuring to a value-adding high technology model have been caused by a rigid system of micro-management that has stifled out scholars. They are unable to exercise creativity, etc and their develpment have been handicapped as a result.
Such a system is too individualistic and cannot bring about change. Change can happen only in my opinion through the intervention of process management where staff will know what to do and how to implement all decisions and policies. We have as a top-down management system neglected coordination and mass knowledge applications which can happen only when all are practising process management. I hope you will now understand a little more about my posts concerning management. -
You are definitely not alone!Originally posted by lwflee:Maybe Its me. I certainly do not have a business background. But i certainly do not consider myself illiterate.