[ad_1]
SINGAPORE – Workers’ Party (WP) MP Jamus Lim’s first parliamentary speech on Thursday (September 3) on minimum wage and compassionate policymaking prompted a number of questions and strong reactions from several MPs from the Popular Action Party (PAP).
Associate Professor Lim, MP for Sengkang GRC, argued that the root of some challenges Singapore faces, such as low-wage workers and the elderly poor, is “insufficient compassion” in its policy-making process.
The decisions made by Singaporeans as a society and a country “should no longer privilege efficiency at the expense of equity,” he emphasized during his 18-minute debate on the president’s speech.
Recognizing Singapore’s “form of minimum wage policy”, or the Progressive Wage Model (PWM), Professor Lim called on the government to instead seek to implement “a simple and generalized minimum wage”.
He noted that the employment impact of a minimum wage is likely to be “very minimal or statistically insignificant” based on empirical evidence from around the world.
“Because we are no longer a third world nation, we cannot continue to operate as if we are blind to the consequences that harsh policies bring to our people.”
He also expressed his belief that Singaporeans are not inherently “anti-foreigners.” “But what has inspired the recent resistance to foreigners is concern about the unmitigated demographic expansion, the feeling that they are not being treated fairly, feeling discriminated against in their own country,” said Professor Lim.
The Minister of State for Human Resources and Education, Gan Siow Huang, agreed with Professor Lim that compassion should be exercised in policy-making, which is what the government has been trying to do.
But in doing so, policies can become very complicated, as “there is no one-size-fits-all policy,” said Marymount SMC MP.
She disagreed with Professor Lim’s suggestion that the minimum wage model will have minimal impact on unemployment, especially in the context of the current recession.
“… (There is) a very real risk if we were to introduce a universal minimum wage in all sectors (now), many of our lower paid workers could lose their jobs. From low wages, they become no wages, “Gan said, of what he described as” unintended consequences of well-intentioned policies. “
Professor Lim acknowledged that while the policy may not be “ideal” at present, lawmakers can agree on its principle now so that plans can be put in place “after the storm has passed.”
But this does not mean that he believed it would have “adverse consequences” if it were implemented now, he stressed, in response to a question from MacPherson SMC deputy Tin Pei Ling whether he agreed with Gan’s statement.
Tin also asked if this meant that the minimum wage model would be retracted during the economic crises and the minimum wage for cleaners in Sengkang City Hall.
Professor Lim replied that the goal of the minimum wage is to provide a social safety net, and if it were to be removed during those times, it would “throw the rug under those workers.”
Stating that the WP team has not made decisions about the Sengkang City Council minimum wage, he noted: “Can we just implement a minimum wage in a given city hall? No … substitution (will occur). “
Other PAP MPs who questioned Professor Lim are GRC MP Marsiling-Yew Tee Zaqy Mohamad, SMC MP from Potong Pasir Sitoh Yih Pin, and GRC MP from Sembawang Vikram Nair.
Zaqy, who is also Chief Minister of State in the Ministry of Manpower and Defense, highlighted the fundamental difference between the PWM model and the minimum wage: that it is different between sectors.
When asked by Vikram what his proposed minimum wage level is for Singapore, Professor Lim admitted that he does not have the answer and stressed the need for a national commission to study the issue.
This independent panel should be made up of university professors, union representatives and companies – “our famous tripartite agreement” – as well as continually assess the situation after the implementation of the policy.
Household budgets versus government
Zaqy noted that there is currently compassion in the actions taken by the government, particularly when it announced four budgets from February to May totaling $ 92.9 billion to help businesses, workers and households cope with the impact. of the COVID-19 crisis.
“It’s easy to talk about compassion when it comes to just talking … as a government, you need to consider where the money is coming from,” said the deputy speaker of the House, although he acknowledged that he can do more. “Where the PAP government made a difference, we put money where our mouth is.”
Briefly touching on reserve issues, Professor Lim said government budgets should not be thought of in the same way as household budgets.
“Households have finite horizons, people can pass things on to the next generation, in general, households eventually die,” said Professor Lim. “Governments have an infinite horizon and that is why we can think in a much longer term.
“We want to make the best possible use of economic resources and not cling to a rigid ideology that we should never touch (the reserves).
“The way we should think about our expenses, like our reserves… we are stewards and we are responsible not only for ensuring that the pot grows over time… but also for making the right financial decisions, which can sometimes involve spending on (things of) higher investments, like education. “
Sitoh said he was “quite disturbed” by Professor Lim’s comparison of such use of reserves with a household’s decision to re-rent their home while interest rates are low.
“As an accountant with more than three decades of experience, I can tell you that this is how people start to get into trouble. I hope they are not teaching that in their classes, ”he noted, adding that Singapore is one of the few countries that has not borrowed during the pandemic.
Professor Lim said the analogy was used to illustrate that there are cases where borrowing at low interest rates to invest in something that provides higher returns “is not only financially prudent, it will actually be better for your balance sheet in the long run.” . run. “It is also possible for a government to save excessively, he added.
Sitoh replied: “This is living in a stage of euphoria … you are assuming that there is a better return that may never come.”
Professor Lim replied that he was not assuming a “future euphoria”, but acknowledging that there are higher performing projects in the present.
“Unless you are saying that it is not worth investing in today’s youth in Singapore,” he added, prompting speaker Tan Chuan-Jin to say that this was not the point he was making.
Avoid ‘straw man arguments’; no one has a ‘monopoly’ on compassion
Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam, the last PAP MP to respond to Professor Lim’s speech, made repeated calls to avoid “straw discussions” and to assume that one has a monopoly on compassion.
“A little advice: Try to avoid false arguments, such as saying that the government is only interested in efficiency and not in fairness. That’s downright laughable, ”said Tharman, who is also the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies.
“I would like to suggest that none of us have a monopoly on compassion, and I say this so as not to discredit anyone and, in particular, I really respect where the member Jamus Lim comes from, intellectual, emotional, etc. nobody should assume that he has the monopoly of compassion, “he added.
Tharman emphasized the government’s firm belief in raising the wages of Singapore’s lowest paid workers. “We have made significant progress in the last 10 years and in the last five years, and we believe we should go further.”
On PWM, he said he would not “exaggerate the differences” between it and the minimum wage model.
The sectoral approach of the former, which he described as “minimum wage plus”, allows the government to set at “a level neither so low nor so high”.
“How to do it without games is an issue that legislators grapple with, it’s not that complicated in practice to be frank. We have to watch what happens around the edges, but it’s a very sensible approach, “added Tharman.
But raising the standard of living of the poor is a “complicated matter”, since it would imply a balance between retaining the ability of the wage earner to have a job and earn a salary, he acknowledged.
“I say that through an economist and someone who studies experiences abroad very carefully and, together with my colleagues, as a practitioner,” Tharman said.
He also pointed to Professor Lim’s quote from a study by the National University of Singapore to reinforce his argument.
“I have never heard economists cite a university as a source of research, be it a well-regarded or not a highly regarded university. Individuals do research, and it can be very credible research, but universities don’t publish research, ”he said.
Professor Lim, in response, expressed his regret apparently as if he, his party or an individual had a monopoly on compassion.
“In fact, that was explicitly why I cited cases where I felt that the existing policies showed a lot of compassion. I even mentioned other members who, not from our party, also spoke of compassion, “he emphasized.
But he argued that he was not making a straw argument by talking about a trade-off between efficiency and fairness.
“I am not suggesting that all the policies that currently exist are only oriented towards efficiency and, likewise, I am not suggesting that all the policies that I have laid out in my speech and elsewhere are only oriented towards equity”, concluded the Professor Lim.
“Rather it is a continuum, I am arguing that we can go further in the direction of favoring equity over efficiency.”
Girl riding bicycle hit and grabbed railing in HDB parking lot before falling 6 stories
48 more COVID-19 cases in Singapore, including 2 EU and 5 imported
Open verdict registered in the death of a three-month-old baby who slept with his mother
Essential business, official travel between Singapore and South Korea now allowed
