1 Mrs Josephine Teo: Mdm Deputy Speaker, first, let thank the 16 Members and the two Ministers who have spoken on the motion. They have made many useful contributions to the debate and I will attempt a brief summary.
2 First, many Members supported the view that growth has been inclusive. In addition to better jobs, better wages, Mayor Zainudin highlighted the beneficiaries of the ComCare Hope scheme. Assoc. Prof. Paulin Straughan marveled at Pinnacles, a public housing project right smack in the centre of the business district. Ms Audrey Wong talked about the job-re-design efforts that have helped sectors such as security. Mr Yeo Guat Kwang talked about the workers in the services sector who have benefited from the Customer-Centric Initiative. Mr Gan Kim Yong shared various forms of Government assistance to low-income families – through housing, through medical care.
The Member, Mr Low Thia Khiang, earlier in his speech, suggested that the programmes that the Government have put in place offer only hope but, perhaps, not such concrete improvements. I beg to disagree with him with all due respect.
3 For the 32,000 workers that e2i has helped to find new jobs, for the 15,000 workers that are benefiting from the inclusive growth programme, for the 4,000 workers that have participated in the Best-Sourcing Initiative – these programmes do not just offer hope. They offer a real lift, a real improvement in their circumstances. We should not diminish these efforts.
4 My collegues in the e2i, 101 of them – we just recruited one more today – are passionate about what they do, they put a lot of real effort into it. It is hard work, they get scolded left, right, centre. Jobs seekers who are unhappy; employers who also face pressures of their own. I think to say that the work that they do offer only hope is a great disservice to them and I want to say this so that Members do recognise the work of not just the e2i colleagues but many others in the WDS, in the UCCW, in the MOM, in the WDA, in the CDCs, and the self-help groups. So many people in Singapore are working together to make sure that this group of low-wage workers, low-income families benefit from growth. I am glad that most Members supported the view that growth has been inclusive.
5 There has been a robust debate on minimum wage. I think it is fair to say that most Members agree that Workfare is a better alternative. Ms Jessica Tan pointed out that Workfare does not discourage employment. She shared the very important point that inclusive growth must mean not just benefit-sharing but also participation. I fully concur with her.
6 Mr Calvin Cheng asked a very pertinent question of minimum wage. Who pays, he says? He says it is not a magic medicine, it is more like a tax. I agree with him. This was a point I made also in my opening speech. He pointed out that small businesses will suffer and, in that sense, it is not inclusive at all. I agree with him, too.
7 Mdm Halimah Yacob shared with us some very useful studies conducted by the ILO. One particular study that she shared, I think, bears repeating. She said that this study shows that the workers who cannot get jobs at minimum wage are basically driven underground. Is this something that we want to do? I think the answer is clearly "no". Far better for them to remain within the formal workforce. Mdm Halimah also pointed out that the study shows clearly that if we really want to help low-wage workers we must put job creation at the centre of policy. So, we must put job creation at the centre of policy. That is important.
8 Ms Denise Phua pointed out that a minimum wage will backfire. It will cause the low-wage workers, whom we are trying to protect, to lose their jobs. Minister Gan Kim Yong shared some data of what is happening in Hong Kong – that estimates of up to 100,000 workers could lose their jobs. I think these are very strong arguments for us not to go down the path of minimum wage.
9 Mr Low Thia Khiang gave suggestions on Workfare. Since he is not advocating minimum wage but chose to offer suggestions on Workfare, I think it is quite reasonable to conclude that he thinks Workfare is better at least for now.
10 Mr Heng Chee How asked a very good question on minimum wage. Why go for minimum when we should go for best? I agree with him. Minister Lim Swee Say took pains to explain to us how a minimum wage could end up as a maximum wage.
11 There is a consensus forming here on the difficulties associated with minimum wage. What is infinitely clear is that no one has argued definitively for minimum wage. No one is prepared to make an outright call to the Government to implement minimum wage because no one is 100% confident, in fact, not even 50% confident perhaps, that it is better than what we have today. That clarity and consensus has emerged from this debate and I think it is a very useful clarity to have. Mdm Ho is no longer here but she mentioned that minimum wage is fashionable but not practical, and I think that is precisely what it is: sounds fashionable, looks good but not terribly practical.
12 Mdm, I would like to speak briefly in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): Some people believe that imposing a minimum wage can motivate the employer to upgrade his workers' skills. However, in reality, things are not so simple. Many experienced MPs remember that during the period between 1979 and 1981, the Government implemented a high wage policy. My colleague Mr Heng Chee How also mentioned this high wage policy earlier.
13 At that time our economy was not as diversified as it is today and productivity levels were generally lower. Hence, when the policy was implemented, initially we did see some increase in productivity. However, the policy is a blunt tool. It could not differentiate between industries which were doing well and could afford to pay higher wages, and which industries were facing difficulties and not able to do so. In addition, productivity levels varies in different sectors. To require companies across the board to raise their wages uniformly resulted in some companies, especially SMEs, losing their competitiveness. This contributed to an economic recession.
14 The minimum wage system has the same short comings. It is a pro-worker, anti-business policy, as my colleague Denise Phua has rightly pointed out. What we want is a pro-worker, pro-business mechanism.
15 (In English ): Madam Deputy Speaker, from the high wage policy of 1979-1981, there are two key lessons to be drawn:
16 The first is that blunt instruments caused rigidities and should be avoided especially when our modern economy is so diversed. The second lesson is that wage increases should follow skills upgrading and productivity improvements, and not the other way round.
17 Minimum wage is blunt. It is unrelated to productivity and it will not easily be able to discriminate across sectors, across companies within the same industry. It has the same problems as the high-wage policy that even though was officially stopped, had generated a momentum that was hard to draw back.
18 I agree with the Member Mr Heng Chee How that it is not wise, “not clever” in his words, for us to try the policy of this nature. That is also why the Labour Movement champions sustainable growth through the economy becoming “Cheaper, Better, Faster” and inclusive growth through programmes like the IGP, both of which make sure that wage increases are underpinned by skills and productivity improvements.
19 Minister Lim Swee Say gave strong reasons why in Singapore we can have the "same-same" problems but a different and a better solution. I agree with him.
20 Mr Gan Kim Yong spoke briefly that the foreign workers levy would to be adjusted; if I did not hear him wrongly, I think he said it is going to go up further. Why? To tilt the balance in favour of low-wage workers in Singapore, our Singaporean low-wage workers. I thank him for supporting them.
21 Madam, several Members spoke on the widening income gap. Mrs Paulin Tay-Straughan while praising the Government’s efforts, wondered how it was possible for us to ensure that no Singaporean is left behind. Ms Audrey Wong spoke about the importance of preserving our social fabric. Mr Viswa Sadasivan expressed concern about the potential harms of different segments being marginalised. Ms Irene Ng talked about polarisation of society that could happen and how it would undermine trust.
22 Like them, I too am concerned. Some believe that the only way to close the income gap is to somehow hold back growth at the top, while trying to move up the bottom, so close the gap. But will this work?
23 In a stable society where education and job opportunities are fairly equitable, those who rise to the top are likely to be more skilful, more resourceful, more in demand, perhaps more hungry and sometimes more fortunate. If we deny them the opportunities here, there is no shortage of options outside of Singapore. But not so for those at the bottom.
24 Moreover, it makes no sense whatsoever to pull back some because their loss will not cause anyone to gain. In fact, the actions to slow down the top will likely slow down the bottom even more. So we could have a situation where we slow the top, but the bottom goes further down and what we have is a further widening of the income gap.
25 Madam, I think that while we want to be mindful, and we must always be mindful of the income gap, we must not forget something more fundamental. In fact, I think the Member Calvin Cheng pointed out that it is not relative poverty that is all-important, we have to look at absolute poverty. I agree with him that what we should not take our eyes off is the bottom-line for the low-skilled, low-wage, low-income Singaporeans. We should watch the bottom line for them. If we really want to help them, raise their skills, raise their productivity, raise their incomes in a sustainable way. That is being inclusive.
26 That is why I have provided five suggestions for the Government to consider. I shall not go through them again. I would like to point out that several Members have given other constructive ideas. Mayor Zainudin talked about the need to widen the reach of the best sourcing initiatives (BSI) to more sectors. Ms Audrey Wong expressed the hope that more Government agencies and companies could adopt the BSI. Mr Seng Han Thong talked about the taxi industry workgroups' own initiatives. Mrs Mildred Tan and Mr Terry Lee suggested that we bring training to the workers to overcome their time constraints. Ms Denise Phua talked about the importance of getting Singaporeans with mild disabilities on board as well. Mdm Ho Geok Choo shared some very heartwarming examples of how the grassroots leaders are taking initiatives and in so doing, demonstrate self-reliance.
27 I want to thank Minister Gan, firstly for saying that his Ministry will consider all our Workfare-related suggestions. I thank him and at the same time I urge him, where possible, please introduce them–or if he is going to accept the changes, accept them sooner rather than later. Next month will not be a bad idea.
28 So, Madam, in conclusion, let me just share what this debate has achieved. Firstly, I think it has shown that the issue of inclusive growth is very close to our hearts. And that is a good thing.
29 Secondly, I think there has been a consensus that we have, as a nation, made very good progress and this gives us hope that the inclusive society we want to create together, we want to build together, can be a reality. Ms Jessica Tan calls us the “improbable nation”. I think we should continue to repeat and continue to do things that other people think impossible because that is what makes us special.
30 Thirdly, I think at the same time, we all recognise that this effort of building an inclusive society is going to be long-term effort. I really like what Mr Yeo Guat Kwang said, “一步一脚印”. With one single step, you leave one imprint. I think what this means is that there is no shortcut. Only if you take a step, you can leave a print. I thank him for sharing that thought with us. If we take shortcuts, such as the minimum wage, a quick fix, we will eventually shortchange Singaporeans.
31 So, finally, I would just like to say that there has been no lack of ideas. I thank Members for heeding my call to be energetic, focused and constructive.
32 Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank you once again for allowing this debate. I ask all Members to give this motion your strongest support. Thank you very much.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House reaffirms its commitment to inclusive economic growth and calls on the Government to continue doing more to support low-skilled and low-wage workers so that all Singaporeans may share the fruits of our prosperity through better skills, better jobs and better incomes.
