[ad_1]
SINGAPORE – The Workers’ Party (WP) has changed its position on the $ 1,300 minimum wage it advocates, Chief Minister of State for Manpower Zaqy Mohamad suggested on Tuesday (Nov. 3) during an exchange at the Parliament with WP MP Jamus Lim.
This led Associate Professor Lim (Sengkang GRC) to clarify that his party’s position of $ 1,300 is for the monthly minimum wage, not gross income, and to claim that the WP has been consistent in its position.
In a parliamentary question, Professor Lim had asked for the number of Singaporeans earning $ 1,300 a month or less on a net basis, excluding contributions from the Central Provident Fund (CPF) from employers and employees and other income deductions.
Mr. Zaqy responded that there are around 30,000 Singaporean workers earning less than that amount per month after including WIS payments and contributions to the CPF.
When Professor Lim pressed for the figures he wanted in a follow-up question, Zaqy said that “it would not be meaningful or accurate to consider income according to the parameters of (Professor Lim’s) query,” given international conventions on how income is measured. .
The use of gross income, which includes contributions to the CPF but before tax deductions, as a benchmark is aligned with how the International Labor Organization (ILO) defines gross income, and “is not a definition pure Singapore, “said Mr. Zaqy.
“If you use the ILO definition of earnings, for example, they include social security, pension plans, insurance premiums, union dues and other employee obligations,” he said.
“So this is how it is done internationally, so we keep the same conventions because it provides meaningful comparisons and benchmarks.”
Mr. Zaqy also pointed out that countries with a minimum wage system, such as the United States, Germany and South Korea, also stipulate that the minimum wage is subject to taxes and social security contributions.
Turning the question around, Mr. Zaqy asked Professor Lim to clarify the minimum wage level the WP represents.
The chief state minister said that in previous debates in Parliament, Professor Lim had said that his party was proposing a minimum wage of $ 1,300, but that his current query suggested that the WP now proposes a take-home minimum wage of $ 1,300. .
“That’s a change where the line is – if this is the case, then the gross salary, including contributions to the CPF, should be higher – between $ 1,600, $ 1,700, roughly,” he said.
Professor Lim replied that the premise of his question had nothing to do with the minimum wage.
“The question did not specify anything about the minimum wage … in part, the reason we raised $ 1,300 was because that was the notion of how much a reasonable basket of goods and services would entail for a proper life in Singapore,” he said. .
Mr. Zaqy replied: “Mr. President, I think the deputy is avoiding the question because I have shown that the manifesto (WP) mentioned $ 1,300. In recent debates, the same figure was also mentioned but with different definitions.
“The root of the problem now is that the WP changed its definition of its minimum wage line.”
Professor Lim disagreed that he was avoiding the question, because Mr. Zaqy had “imputed an inference” to the figure of $ 1,300 in his question.
When asked once again by Mr. Zaqy if the WP’s proposed minimum wage line is $ 1,300 in gross income, Professor Lim said this was correct and “a fair characterization”. But he later clarified that his party’s position is a take-home minimum wage of $ 1,300 a month for full-time work, and not gross income.
In an earlier session of Parliament last month (October), a lengthy debate ensued between the deputy general secretary of the National Trade Union Congress, Koh Poh Koon, and the leader of the opposition, Pritam Singh.
Later, Dr. Koh suggested that having a universal minimum wage could leave workers and businesses worse off, and that the exercise to determine the wage level would become a political auction.
Mr Singh had said that a universal minimum wage is a moral imperative and an act of national solidarity, and the Government’s progressive wage model is taking too long to apply across all sectors.
[ad_2]
