Commentaries
Where are the “good jobs”, Prime Minister?
By Andrew Loh
The current debate over jobs – who should these go to – stems from some murky and dubious claims by different sides. Let’s take a look at two simple issues – how many jobs have gone to Singaporeans and foreigners; and what kinds of jobs these are.
Ten years ago, in 2003, three economists from the Nanyang Technological University (NTU), released a report which said that “three out of four new jobs in Singapore were taken up by foreigners in the last five years.” (See here.)
The three were former National Wages Council chairman, Professor Lim Chong Yah, Dr Tan Khee Giap and Dr Chen Kang.
“Out of four jobs created, only one job went to a Singapore resident, three jobs went to the intake of foreign workers,” Professor Lim the NTU’s Nanyang Business School said then.
The NTU report drew a sharp response from the then Acting Minister for Manpower, Ng Eng Hen, who said that the academics were “way off the mark”.
“If your figures are wrong, it is irresponsible, unprofessional to put out those figures. In this particular case, the NTU report, their findings are way off the mark. I do not know how they got their figures and what their methods are,” said Dr Ng.
He described the claims by the NTU economists “sensationalistic”.
Dr Ng said that in fact “nine in 10 new jobs” had gone to Singaporeans and residents, and “only one went to a foreigner.”
Five years later, in 2008, the view that the majority of jobs created went to foreigners was again in the spotlight – confirmed, in fact, by the Manpower Ministry itself.
The Straits Times initially reported it thus:
But for some reason, the Straits Times changed that report – both the headlines and its content – to this:
“S’pore adds record number of jobs in 2007, a third filled by foreigners”.
How did “6 in 10 new jobs go to foreigners” become “a third filled by foreigners”?
It prompted blogger Mr Brown to quip then: “I still don’t know how 6-in-10 equals one third though. But I dropped C Maths at A Levels, so I missed out on the Singapore Mainstream Media Math module.”
[Read the two different Straits Times reports here: “6 in 10 new jobs go to foreigners OR a third filled by foreigners?”]But more seriously, the spin on data and statistics adds to the frustration felt by Singaporeans throughout the years. Indeed, numerous stories of Singaporeans facing job discrimination at the workplace or in looking for work had started to emerge then. These were especially from those in the so-called PMETs group – the professionals, managers, executives, technicians.
However, instead of being aware and taking the complaints seriously, government ministers and Members of Parliament from the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) ridiculed Singaporeans and dismissed their cries as from a “mollycoddled” lot and such like.
The spin from the Government and its mouthpiece continued.
And in 2008, even as its own studies show that 6 in 10 jobs were going to foreigners, the Prime Minister insisted that “foreigners do not take jobs away from locals.” He added that foreigners “are not here to steal our jobs, but to help us enlarge the economic pie.”
It was a line which he repeated in 2011, this time saying that not only do foreigners not take away jobs from S’poreans but that in fact foreigners “help create good jobs for S’poreans”.
But again five years later, he was to say something which seemingly contradicted this.
From foreigners “are not here to steal our jobs” to “they are… about to steal your lunch”, it is quite a leap in a short period of time.
But even if we grant that most jobs indeed go to Singaporeans, the deeper and more important question is: are these “good” jobs, as the Prime Minister claimed?
This is where, once again, researchers seemed to have called the Government’s bluff.
The results of a study on this by the National University of Singapore’s Social Work Department, released in September 2013, showed that in fact “85 per cent” of those surveyed “said these jobs are not paying enough for them to support a family.”
“Among the reasons is the fact that about 90 per cent of the one million jobs created in the last decade are from the services sector, which observers say are lowly paid to begin with,” Channel Newsasia reported.
That in itself is a damning indictment of the apparent failure of the Government in its labour policy, and it is worth repeating:
“Among the reasons is the fact that about 90 per cent of the one million jobs created in the last decade are from the services sector, which observers say are lowly paid to begin with.”
It is a situation which many Singaporeans have experienced and known about for several years now. The NUS study is only an empirical or academic confirmation of this.
And this is where the issue of anger and frustration comes in.
Singaporeans’ cries fell on deaf ears until the situation was so bad the Government risked a political backlash if it did not heed the unhappiness. And so it acted – sheepishly, unfortunately.
Its promise to curb the foreigner numbers still saw our overall population increasing to 5.4 million the past one year, with foreigners making up a substantial 40 per cent of the equation.
And then there is its latest attempt at appeasement – the “Fair Consideration Framework”. This in fact is the clearest confirmation yet that the problem of discrimination against Singaporeans at the workplace is wide-spread and perhaps even entrenched.
Indeed, the examples of such discriminatory practices by businesses and companies have been and are continually being highlighted by social media and blog sites.
The current Acting Manpower Minister has called on Singaporeans not to “stoke hate and ill will”, while some others have criticised such complaints and complainants for going overboard and exhibiting xenophobic behaviour.
But to point the finger at these and label these only allow the Government to get away with its propaganda of spinning information to its whims and fancies.
While of course we do not condone hate speech against anyone, whether local or foreigner, we must also not condone the spin that is being put out by the Government and its mouthpieces.
We must realise that it is important to call the Government out on this each time it happens so that the voices of Singaporeans are not whitewashed away with euphemisms, half-truths, and semantics.
For example, when the government says: “We are creating so many jobs that we are worried that we do not have enough workers to go and fill them”, we need to ask, “What kinds of jobs are these?”
It is in asking these questions that we may get some answers.
Otherwise, we will be no wiser and mistake lame frameworks for epochal changes.
In 2003, the then Acting Manpower Minister, Ng Eng Hen, disputed NTU economists’ findings that “three out of four new jobs in Singapore were taken up by foreigners”, a finding which was later confirmed by the Manpower Ministry itself in 2008.
10 years later, in 2013, the current Acting Manpower Minister, Tan Chuan Jin, comes up with a “Fair Consideration Framework” to make sure S’poreans are “fairly considered” for jobs.
It is not even to make sure that Singaporeans get the jobs they are qualified for – but only for them to be “considered fairly” for these jobs.
10 years – and a lame framework is all we can come up with to protect Singaporeans in the workplace, and 90 per cent of jobs created are in only one sector (the services sector) and these do not even pay enough for S’poreans to make ends meet.
Can we really blame Singaporeans for being angry?
Time to ask PM Lee this: Where are the “good” jobs, Prime Minister?
And while we are at it, it is time also for the Government mouthpiece, the Straits Times, to stop putting out stupid headlines like this which disparage Singaporean workers.
![](https://theonlinecitizen.s3.ap-northeast-2.amazonaws.com/uploads/2023/03/26202010/TOC_newlogo_small.webp)
Commentaries
Lim Tean criticizes Govt’s rejection of basic income report, urges Singaporeans to rethink election choices
Lim Tean, leader of Peoples Voice (PV), criticizes the government’s defensive response to the basic living income report, accusing it of avoiding reality.
He calls on citizens to assess affordability and choose MPs who can truly enhance their lives in the upcoming election.
SINGAPORE: A recently published report, “Minimum Income Standard 2023: Household Budgets in a Time of Rising Costs,” unveils figures detailing the necessary income households require to maintain a basic standard of living, using the Minimum Income Standard (MIS) method.
The newly released study, spearheaded by Dr Ng Kok Hoe of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (LKYSPP) specifically focuses on working-age households in 2021 and presents the latest MIS budgets, adjusted for inflation from 2020 to 2022.
The report detailed that:
- The “reasonable starting point” for a living wage in Singapore was S$2,906 a month.
- A single parent with a child aged two to six required S$3,218 per month.
- Partnered parents with two children, one aged between seven and 12 and the other between 13 and 18, required S$6,426 a month.
- A single elderly individual required S$1,421 a month.
- Budgets for both single and partnered parent households averaged around S$1,600 per member. Given recent price inflation, these figures have risen by up to 5% in the current report.
Singapore Govt challenges MIS 2023 report’s representation of basic needs
Regrettably, on Thursday (14 Sept), the Finance Ministry (MOF), Manpower Ministry (MOM), and Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) jointly issued a statement dismissing the idea suggested by the report, claiming that minimum household income requirements amid inflation “might not accurately reflect basic needs”.
Instead, they claimed that findings should be seen as “what individuals would like to have.”, and further defended their stances for the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) and other measures to uplift lower-wage workers.
The government argued that “a universal wage floor is not necessarily the best way” to ensure decent wages for lower-wage workers.
The government’s statement also questions the methodology of the Minimum Income Standards (MIS) report, highlighting limitations such as its reliance on respondent profiles and group dynamics.
“The MIS approach used is highly dependent on respondent profiles and on group dynamics. As the focus groups included higher-income participants, the conclusions may not be an accurate reflection of basic needs.”
The joint statement claimed that the MIS approach included discretionary expenditure items such as jewellery, perfumes, and overseas holidays.
Lim Tean slams Government’s response to basic living income report
In response to the government’s defensive reaction to the recent basic living income report, Lim Tean, leader of the alternative party Peoples Voice (PV), strongly criticizes the government’s apparent reluctance to confront reality, stating, “It has its head buried in the sand”.
He strongly questioned the government’s endorsement of the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) as a means to uplift the living standards of the less fortunate in Singapore, describing it as a misguided approach.
In a Facebook video on Friday (15 Sept), Lim Tean highlighted that it has become a global norm, especially in advanced and first-world countries, to establish a minimum wage, commonly referred to as a living wage.
“Everyone is entitled to a living wage, to have a decent life, It is no use boasting that you are one of the richest countries in the world that you have massive reserves, if your citizens cannot have a decent life with a decent living wage.”
Lim Tean cited his colleague, Leong Sze Hian’s calculations, which revealed a staggering 765,800 individuals in Singapore, including Permanent Residents and citizens, may not earn the recommended living wage of $2,906, as advised by the MIS report.
“If you take away the migrant workers or the foreign workers, and take away those who do not work, underage, are children you know are unemployed, and the figure is staggering, isn’t it?”
“You know you are looking at a very substantial percentage of the workforce that do not have sufficient income to meet basic needs, according to this report.”
He reiterated that the opposition parties, including the People’s Voice and the People’s Alliance, have always called for a minimum wage, a living wage which the government refuses to countenance.
Scepticism about the government’s ability to control rising costs
In a time of persistently high inflation, Lim Tean expressed skepticism about the government’s ability to control rising costs.
He cautioned against believing in predictions of imminent inflation reduction and lower interest rates below 2%, labeling them as unrealistic.
Lim Tean urged Singaporeans to assess their own affordability in these challenging times, especially with the impending GST increase.
He warned that a 1% rise in GST could lead to substantial hikes in everyday expenses, particularly food prices.
Lim Tean expressed concern that the PAP had become detached from the financial struggles of everyday Singaporeans, citing their high salaries and perceived insensitivity to the common citizen’s plight.
Lim Tean urges Singaporeans to rethink election choices
Highlighting the importance of the upcoming election, Lim Tean recommended that citizens seriously evaluate the affordability of their lives.
“If you ask yourself about affordability, you will realise that you have no choice, In the coming election, but to vote in a massive number of opposition Members of Parliament, So that they can make a difference.”
Lim Tean emphasized the need to move beyond the traditional notion of providing checks and balances and encouraged voters to consider who could genuinely improve their lives.
“To me, the choice is very simple. It is whether you decide to continue with a life, that is going to become more and more expensive: More expensive housing, higher cost of living, jobs not secure because of the massive influx of foreign workers,” he declared.
“Or you choose members of Parliament who have your interests at heart and who want to make your lives better.”
Commentaries
Political observers call for review of Singapore’s criteria of Presidential candidates and propose 5 year waiting period for political leaders
Singaporean political observers express concern over the significantly higher eligibility criteria for private-sector presidential candidates compared to public-sector candidates, calling for adjustments.
Some also suggest a five year waiting period for aspiring political leaders after leaving their party before allowed to partake in the presidential election.
Notably, The Workers’ Party has earlier reiterated its position that the current qualification criteria favor PAP candidates and has called for a return to a ceremonial presidency instead of an elected one.
While the 2023 Presidential Election in Singapore concluded on Friday (1 September), discussions concerning the fairness and equity of the electoral system persist.
Several political observers contend that the eligibility criteria for private-sector individuals running for president are disproportionately high compared to those from the public sector, and they propose that adjustments be made.
They also recommend a five-year waiting period for aspiring political leaders after leaving their party before being allowed to participate in the presidential election.
Aspiring entrepreneur George Goh Ching Wah, announced his intention to in PE 2023 in June. However, His application as a candidate was unsuccessful, he failed to receive the Certificate of Eligibility (COE) on 18 August.
Mr Goh had expressed his disappointment in a statement after the ELD’s announcement, he said, the Presidential Elections Committee (PEC) took a very narrow interpretation of the requirements without explaining the rationale behind its decision.
As per Singapore’s Constitution, individuals running for the presidency from the private sector must have a minimum of three years’ experience as a CEO in a company.
This company should have consistently maintained an average shareholders’ equity of at least S$500 million and sustained profitability.
Mr Goh had pursued eligibility through the private sector’s “deliberative track,” specifically referring to section 19(4)(b)(2) of the Singapore Constitution.
He pointed out five companies he had led for over three years, collectively claiming a shareholders’ equity of S$1.521 billion.
Notably, prior to the 2016 revisions, the PEC might have had the authority to assess Mr Goh’s application similarly to how it did for Mr Tan Jee Say in the 2011 Presidential Election.
Yet, in its current formulation, the PEC is bound by the definitions laid out in the constitution.
Calls for equitable standards across public and private sectors
According to Singapore’s Chinese media outlet, Shin Min Daily News, Dr Felix Tan Thiam Kim, a political analyst at Nanyang Technological University (NTU) Singapore, noted that in 2016, the eligibility criteria for private sector candidates were raised from requiring them to be executives of companies with a minimum capital of S$100 million to CEOs of companies with at least S$500 million in shareholder equity.
However, the eligibility criteria for public sector candidates remained unchanged. He suggests that there is room for adjusting the eligibility criteria for public sector candidates.
Associate Professor Bilver Singh, Deputy Head of the Department of Political Science at the National University of Singapore, believes that the constitutional requirements for private-sector individuals interested in running are excessively stringent.
He remarked, “I believe it is necessary to reassess the relevant regulations.”
He points out that the current regulations are more favourable for former public officials seeking office and that the private sector faces notably greater challenges.
“While it may be legally sound, it may not necessarily be equitable,” he added.
Proposed five-year waiting period for political leaders eyeing presidential race
Moreover, despite candidates severing ties with their political parties in pursuit of office, shedding their political affiliations within a short timeframe remains a challenging endeavour.
A notable instance is Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, who resigned from the People’s Action Party (PAP) just slightly over a month before announcing his presidential candidacy, sparking considerable debate.
During a live broadcast, his fellow contender, Ng Kok Song, who formerly served as the Chief Investment Officer of GIC, openly questioned Mr Tharman’s rapid transition to a presidential bid shortly after leaving his party and government.
Dr Felix Tan suggests that in the future, political leaders aspiring to run for the presidency should not only resign from their parties but also adhere to a mandatory waiting period of at least five years before entering the race.
Cherian George and Kevin Y.L. Tan: “illogical ” to raise the corporate threshold in 2016
Indeed, the apprehension regarding the stringent eligibility criteria and concerns about fairness in presidential candidacy requirements are not limited to political analysts interviewed by Singapore’s mainstream media.
Prior to PE2023, CCherian George, a Professor of media studies at Hong Kong Baptist University, and Kevin Y.L. Tan, an Adjunct Professor at both the Faculty of Law of the National University of Singapore and the NTU’s S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), brought attention to the challenges posed by the qualification criteria for candidates vying for the Singaporean Presidency.
In their article titled “Why Singapore’s Next Elected President Should be One of its Last,” the scholars discussed the relevance of the current presidential election system in Singapore and floated the idea of returning to an appointed President, emphasizing the symbolic and unifying role of the office.
They highlighted that businessman George Goh appeared to be pursuing the “deliberative track” for qualification, which requires candidates to satisfy the PEC that their experience and abilities are comparable to those of a typical company’s chief executive with shareholder equity of at least S$500 million.
Mr Goh cobbles together a suite of companies under his management to meet the S$500m threshold.
The article also underscored the disparities between the eligibility criteria for candidates from the public and private sectors, serving as proxies for evaluating a candidate’s experience in handling complex financial matters.
“It is hard to see what financial experience the Chairman of the Public Service Commission or for that matter, the Chief Justice has, when compared to a Minister or a corporate chief.”
“The raising of the corporate threshold in 2016 is thus illogical and serves little purpose other than to simply reduce the number of potentially eligible candidates.”
The article also touches upon the issue of candidates’ independence from political parties, particularly the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP).
It mentions that candidates are expected to be non-partisan and independent, and it questions how government-backed candidates can demonstrate their independence given their previous affiliations.
The Workers’ Party advocate for a return to a ceremonial presidency
It comes as no surprise that Singapore’s alternative party, the Workers’ Party, reaffirmed its stance on 30 August, asserting that they believe the existing qualifying criteria for presidential candidates are skewed in favour of those approved by the People’s Action Party (PAP).
They argue that the current format of the elected presidency (EP) undermines the principles of parliamentary democracy.
“It also serves as an unnecessary source of gridlock – one that could potentially cripple a non-PAP government within its first term – and is an alternative power centre that could lead to political impasses.”
Consistently, the Workers’ Party has been vocal about its objection to the elected presidency and has consistently called for its abolition.
Instead, they advocate for a return to a ceremonial presidency, a position they have maintained for over three decades.
-
Opinion4 days ago
Singaporean voters and the ‘Battered Wife Syndrome’
-
Diplomacy3 days ago
India PM Narendra Modi meets with PM Lawrence Wong; Four MoUs signed
-
Food3 days ago
NTU stall food prices questioned after parent pays S$6.30 for meal
-
Politics2 days ago
PAP adopts SDP policies after criticizing them: Dr Chee urges Singaporeans to see through tactics
-
Civil Society5 days ago
CIVICUS Monitor labels Singapore as ‘repressed’ for crackdown on civic freedoms
-
Opinion6 days ago
Is the shuttle bus service at Marine Parade town cluster just a S$1 million political ad campaign?
-
Economy4 days ago
IRAS reports S$80.3 billion in tax revenue for FY2023/24, a 17% increase from the previous year
-
Parliament4 days ago
Workers’ Party to question Govt on Mobile Guardian breach and entry of extremist preacher in upcoming parliamentary sitting