Need to Change the PAP
-
There are forumers asking questions like "Is voting out some of the 'heavyweight' PAP candidates at the next election effective? " or "Do the Opposition have 'capable' people to manage?"
I think these concerns are real.
However, I have a few questions to ask of my own:
1) Did LKY know whether his ministers can run the economy when he won the first elections under the PAP banner?
2) Did the Malaysian public know whether the Pakatan Rakyat can govern states like Selangor, Penang, Perak before voting them in?
3) Did anyone of us know what our future will be the moment we finish University/Polytechnic/ITE?
All the above are accomplished by trial and error. There will be hiccups and mistakes, but remember once changes had been initiated every one will experience it depending on the intensity.
Given the chance to govern for the last 40 over years and screwed up so badly in terms of the welfare of Singaporeans, why don't vote out some of the so-called 'heavyweights' of the PAP and show to them how bad they have been.
There is nothing to fear in "changing" these so called helicopter view persons. The only thing needed is to bear with some the newly elected Oppositon MPs, be patient with them so that they can learn the ropes fast and keep proposing ideas to do away with some of the elitist policies that are existing now. If the Opposition parties hold the majority in Parliament, then with one big swoop all the grievances could hopefully be settled.
Vote to see changes in your life.
-
People can talk so much, at the end of it the votes count. Lee kuan Yew no longer a model to look up too. He is obsolete. An old machine making lots of noise need to be replaced or just dispose.
-
The fear of change is so inherent in the voters that a large change is most unlikely.
Perhaps the only change that will come is when Singaporeans become a minority. That will be a sad day.
-
YPAP member Genesis Shen “thankful” that Temasek and GIC are generating income for programmes which “benefit” Singaporeans
Temasek Review
February 27, 2010 YPAP member Genesis Shen has expressed his concerns about the government spending “generously” on the middle and lower income families as announced in the recent Budget speech made by Finance Minister Tharman.
In a comment posted on the YPAP Facebook, Genesis, currently a law undergraduate at NUS wrote that it may affect the PAP’s long term policy of fiscal prudence:
[Source: YPAP Facebook]
Genesis claimed that the Singapore Budget has been “reliant” on the “Net Investment Income Contribution” from Temasek Holdings and GIC which have continuously generated income for “programmes” which benefit Singaporean families.
He did not quote any examples of such programmes which are funded directly from Singapore’s two sovereign wealth funds.
Genesis also seemed to be ignorant of the fact that Temasek Holdings and GIC have lost billions of dollars in failed overseas investments which could have been better used to help needy Singaporeans.
As expected, his one-dimensional, unimaginative and sycophantic comment to please his political masters have attracted similar expressions of “support” from other PAP members and supporters.
Ibrahim Hassan added the Budget signifies that the PAP is listening to the people:
“It is indeed heartening to note that the Government has finally decided to tighten the tap on immigration by increasing the foreign worker levy. This will level the playing field for our low-wage workers, and give them added incentive to compete with the foreign workers, who will eventually cost more for companies to hire.…..Although more can be done to tighten immigration flow, particularly at the middle-income brackets, this latest measure signifies a bold move in the right direction. The Government is listening to the ground.”
Chioh Hui Leong praised the PAP for a “great job” done:
“Do not worry, I am sure with a higher educated population, Singaporeans are better equipped with knowledge for them to be more independent. Remember how we are when we are kids compared with these kids nowadays? They know so much things than us when we were young. We are already facing a global recession for the past year, if the govt still thinks that now is not the time, I wonder when exactly will the Time come?? Great job!”
When asked by the media about their views on the Budget, all the PAP MPs interviewed were equally “impressed” by the Budget and sang in unison in support of it.
In the eyes of these PAP members and supporters, it does appear that the PAP can do no wrong.
If this is indeed the case, then why did the PAP now reverse its policies to “slow” the intake of foreigners after telling Singaporeans repeatedly over the last few years that we cannot do without them?
How does it explain the billion dollar losses suffered by Temasek Holdings and GIC?
Actually, Singaporeans cannot really expect the PAP MPs or the YPAP for that matter to speak otherwise. After all, they are paid $13,000 a month just to keep their mouth shut.
As for Genesis and co, the safest way to move up the PAP hierarchy is to parrot whatever its leaders say.
-
Who would give him/herself such a name as Genesis (which mean "birth" or "origin")?
-
Dear Citizens,
The most basic important question to ask is "Do we need to Change the Govt for the sake of following a changing trend" Young peoples dun understand politics, they can mess up the whole society here, and that will be diseaster for all. Please don't misguide them.
As for middle age, is there a big problem in this society that you need to change the govt to improve?? Ask yourself truly, can we improve without a change of govt?
And as for the old age, you should be grateful of what the govt or LKY had all along provided you with a saving, family like, peace and harmony society that allow you to enjoy a golden age retirement with rich assets at your finger tips.
No one in this world is free from taxation, be it big or small in taxation, tax revenues is the basic needs of governing, the differences of governing then lies in the usage and execution of the tax collected. If you look at your surrounding neighbour countries, they may paid less tax, but what condition are they in now. Since our industrialisation till becoming a developed, these countries did not move much. You see the same old house, same old road, same old road side beggars, stalls and same old poor standard of living. Their rich dun even bother to get the lower class out of their poverty state. And if you want fact and reality, just compare it, and then come and tell me if we really need to change the Govt just because some old uncles and aunties who cannot make much in life wanted to get you influenced and join their sorrow in hell. Think ya.
Angel
YPAP
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
Dear Citizens,
The most basic important question to ask is "Do we need to Change the Govt for the sake of following a changing trend" Young peoples dun understand politics, they can mess up the whole society here, and that will be diseaster for all. Please don't misguide them.
As for middle age, is there a big problem in this society that you need to change the govt to improve?? Ask yourself truly, can we improve without a change of govt?
And as for the old age, you should be grateful of what the govt or LKY had all along provided you with a saving, family like, peace and harmony society that allow you to enjoy a golden age retirement with rich assets at your finger tips.
No one in this world is free from taxation, be it big or small in taxation, tax revenues is the basic needs of governing, the differences of governing then lies in the usage and execution of the tax collected. If you look at your surrounding neighbour countries, they may paid less tax, but what condition are they in now. Since our industrialisation till becoming a developed, these countries did not move much. You see the same old house, same old road, same old road side beggars, stalls and same old poor standard of living. Their rich dun even bother to get the lower class out of their poverty state. And if you want fact and reality, just compare it, and then come and tell me if we really need to change the Govt just because some old uncles and aunties who cannot make much in life wanted to get you influenced and join their sorrow in hell. Think ya.
Angel
YPAP
Your presence is not appreciated here. YPAP is not doing well for having a filthy brain member like you.
-
PAP: Change or take the risk of being replaced.
-
The ‘Labia Majora’ and ‘Labia Minora’ of a Taiwanese 'hum' will never be able to change its daily habit of spouting its garbage twice a day - as it need to draw all the attention to itself as the resident 'Attention Seeking Whore'.
Is it any wonder that it will insist on hanging loose its labia in any forum ?
-
time to embrace change. but be prepared that if the new govt is crap, we have to live with it for some time. i am ready for change - if the pap is out and the new govt is better, it means we made a right choice. if the pap is out and the new govt is worse, then it means we know which is the right choice in the next election. if sg can collapse just because the pap is out of business, that means the structures under the pap govt are weak and cannot withstand change.
-
Nothing last forever.
-
Interesting title 'PAP need to change' and that is exactly what they should be doing after so many screw ups.Getting a new goverment in such a hurry may not solve anything or could even be bad,getting more opposition in is going to change somethings but very little.Restructuring the PAP leadership is better in my opinion + a Coaltion goverment. with PAP holding more than half the power.
-
Anchua Kong? UNKER
-
Maybe even members within the party itself are not happy with the direction the country is going.
But no choice lah, have to vote according to party lines.
-
Their salary is in proportion with their happiness in the Party.
-
i think we needed a change but not drastic.
i am never a PAP supporters but my elder mothers and siblings are.
they are contented and invested heavily in the PAP projects such as ridiculous high price HDB flats. and shares of govt link companies.
the last thing on their mind is surprises.
we need to be rational in judging what kind of changes is necessary.
a democratic society need at least 2 party as a makeshift weight to counterbalance any policy that are anti democratic or against the wishes of singaporeans. No national socialist country can thrive. neither do we want to depends on state driven policy that could only strifle the intelligence of singaporeans. singaporeans are efficient workers but are dumbass when come to general knowledge. which many still think china is third world society , which in the first place, they only miggle around the third class china nationals that would only consider coming to singapore.
ministers such as Mr. mah, Mr lim NK, WKS , Mr George should really work harder and held accountability for their mistake and error in tacking such as HDB inflation, dropping reputation of home team, and how in the first place, we should stop the diplomats from leving singapore and failure so far to press charges against him.
-
Somethings in life you can change them for the better, PAP is NOT one of them.
Dogs trained to fight can't be retrain into family pets.
-
Originally posted by reyes:
i think we needed a change but not drastic.
i am never a PAP supporters but my elder mothers and siblings are.
they are contented and invested heavily in the PAP projects such as ridiculous high price HDB flats. and shares of govt link companies.
the last thing on their mind is surprises.
we need to be rational in judging what kind of changes is necessary.
a democratic society need at least 2 party as a makeshift weight to counterbalance any policy that are anti democratic or against the wishes of singaporeans. No national socialist country can thrive. neither do we want to depends on state driven policy that could only strifle the intelligence of singaporeans. singaporeans are efficient workers but are dumbass when come to general knowledge. which many still think china is third world society , which in the first place, they only miggle around the third class china nationals that would only consider coming to singapore.
ministers such as Mr. mah, Mr lim NK, WKS , Mr George should really work harder and held accountability for their mistake and error in tacking such as HDB inflation, dropping reputation of home team, and how in the first place, we should stop the diplomats from leving singapore and failure so far to press charges against him.
Some of them really cmi.
I don't mind paying them top dollar if they really take care of citizens and run their ministries well, but some of them have been creating massive screw ups in the last few years.
-
Got an interesting old joke from another site. Enjoy
While walking down the street one day an MP is tragically hit by a truck and dies.
His soul arrives in heaven and is met by St. Peter at the entrance.
"Welcome to heaven," says St. Peter. "Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts, you see, so we're not sure what to do with you."
"No problem, just let me in," says the MP.
"Well, I'd like to, but I have orders from the higher ups. What we'll do is have you spend one day in hell and one in heaven. Then you can choose where to spend eternity..."
"Really, I've made up my mind. I want to be in heaven," says the MP.
"I'm sorry, but we have our rules."
And with that, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell.
The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a green golf course. In the distance is a clubhouse and standing in front of it are all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him.
Everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to greet him, shake his hand, and reminisce about the good times they had while getting rich at the expense of the people.
They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster, caviar and champagne.
Also present is the devil, who really is a very friendly guy who is having a good time dancing and telling jokes.
They are all having such a good time that before the MP realizes it, it is time to go.
Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the elevator rises...
The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens in heaven where St. Peter is waiting for him, "Now it's time to visit heaven."
So, 24 hours pass with the senator joining a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They have a good time and, before he realizes it, the 24 hours have gone by and St. Peter returns.
"Well, then, you've spent a day in hell and another in heaven. Now choose your eternity."
The MP reflects for a minute, then he answers: "Well, I would never have said it before, I mean heaven has been delightful, but I think I would be better off in hell."
So St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell.
Now the doors of the elevator open and he's in the middle of a barren land covered with waste and garbage. He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags as more trash falls from above.
The devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his shoulders.
"I don't understand," stammers the MP. "Yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and clubhouse, and we ate lobster and caviar, drank champagne, and danced and had a great time. Now there's just a wasteland full of garbage and my friends look miserable. What happened?"
The devil smiles at him and says, "Yesterday we were campaigning...
Today, you voted." -
Originally posted by 4sg:Got an interesting old joke from another site. Enjoy
While walking down the street one day an MP is tragically hit by a truck and dies.
His soul arrives in heaven and is met by St. Peter at the entrance.
"Welcome to heaven," says St. Peter. "Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts, you see, so we're not sure what to do with you."
"No problem, just let me in," says the MP.
"Well, I'd like to, but I have orders from the higher ups. What we'll do is have you spend one day in hell and one in heaven. Then you can choose where to spend eternity..."
"Really, I've made up my mind. I want to be in heaven," says the MP.
"I'm sorry, but we have our rules."
And with that, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell.
The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a green golf course. In the distance is a clubhouse and standing in front of it are all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him.
Everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to greet him, shake his hand, and reminisce about the good times they had while getting rich at the expense of the people.
They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster, caviar and champagne.
Also present is the devil, who really is a very friendly guy who is having a good time dancing and telling jokes.
They are all having such a good time that before the MP realizes it, it is time to go.
Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the elevator rises...
The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens in heaven where St. Peter is waiting for him, "Now it's time to visit heaven."
So, 24 hours pass with the senator joining a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They have a good time and, before he realizes it, the 24 hours have gone by and St. Peter returns.
"Well, then, you've spent a day in hell and another in heaven. Now choose your eternity."
The MP reflects for a minute, then he answers: "Well, I would never have said it before, I mean heaven has been delightful, but I think I would be better off in hell."
So St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell.
Now the doors of the elevator open and he's in the middle of a barren land covered with waste and garbage. He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags as more trash falls from above.
The devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his shoulders.
"I don't understand," stammers the MP. "Yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and clubhouse, and we ate lobster and caviar, drank champagne, and danced and had a great time. Now there's just a wasteland full of garbage and my friends look miserable. What happened?"
The devil smiles at him and says, "Yesterday we were campaigning...
Today, you voted."Yeah, this joke has been around for quite a while.
Good for a laugh but the underlying message is undeniable.
-
GLC Employee AL: What do we do with a government that operates on failures?
Temasek Review
The Singapore government preaches about materialism and performance under all odds.
Like in all cases, performance relies on morale. How does the PAP, expects us to go the extra mile, to work harder, to excel when we’re being paid crap? When the cost of living is not manageable, when most of us are at the “Hand to Mouth” state? When our minds are not at peace thinking about our future, or are we machines to work relentlessly without feelings?
Our bread and butter being threatened by so many issues, being afraid we might be left with just breadcrumbs to deal with. In the battlefield, if you shatter the enemies’ morale, the battle is as good as won. Morale is a catalyst for productivity, and let no one tell you otherwise.
The value of materialism which the government upholds with such valor has not been helping anyone at all. It separates us, each man fighting for his place among the top 5% of Singapore which is “physically and mentally endowed”.
This “fighting” does not create growth, but merely a social gap between citizens and an income gap which rewards only the “elites”. The growth of a few individuals, acts only as a morale destroyer for those hanging in the lower rungs of society.
Materialism makes those up there, want to stay there and go higher, and the only way to do that is to keep pushing those already low, lower.
We all know that the Singapore government has a system in place, which makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. How can there be true growth and productivity in this system? This is not a classic case of wanting more for less, but wanting gold for copper.
The government has made a system, preached ideals and has expectations which all contradict each other, an epic failure. It’s like wanting a person to move left, right and back all at once. Have they done anything to fix it? I don’t think so. That means a failure every day they don’t. How long has this been going for? Years, that means 365 failures X the number of years. A government that operates on failures.
“Applause please”
Its pretty annoying when we’re overworked, underpaid, fatigued and frustrated, and some “PAPimp” ministers who don’t even have a clue about wha thet majority of Singaporeans are going through, comes along yapping about how we should live our lives and do our jobs.
Actually we should be the ones teaching them how to do their jobs, and deciding how much they get paid. Technically speaking they are serving the public, that makes us their bosses right?
So if we’re bosses and our staff are not performing as promised what should we do? What must we do, if even after all these decades, their PERFORMANCE is not only not up to standard, but actually deteriorating? What if they’ve made too many human errors in their years of service? What should we do, when our staff orders us around, when they arrogantly tell us how to run the business after all these failures? Are we still going to keep them in our payroll?
There are 82 PAP MPs in parliament now and seriously, who knows what they’re there for? Maybe we should cut the amount of manpower we have in the government and give them the wages majority of us get.
The rationale, “Oh! I know! Lets make Singapore attractive for Singaporeans who have migrated elsewhere! And to make this country to keep in pace with other countries where THE GOVERNMENT IS AFRAID OF ITS PEOPLE AND NOT THE PEOPLE AFRAID OF THE GOVERNMENT!”.
I would love to see the looks on their faces when these cowards look at each other with the phrase “overworked and underpaid” grabbing them by their nuts. When we, the people of this country start showing them who’s boss, and the time is coming soon.
The math is pretty simple: The lower the wages and the higher the cost of living, the lower the morale. The lower the morale, the lower the level of productivity. Not, rocket science at all. If the government still can’t figure it out they don’t deserve their salaries and positions. We should just fire them.
This is a quote from a 62 year old man I’d like to share with you guys and finish up this piece:
“How to retire, you tell me? Need to work until die la, some more cut my pay but need to work the same. Never mind! You cut my pay $300, I work $300 less. Mai Chup Siow!”
-
The Real Political Change That Singapore Needs
By Dr Wong Wee Nam
sgpolitics.net
When the President opened the new session of the 11th Parliament last week, he said, “Our political system is not set in stone. Singapore politics must evolve over time, as the world and our society change. It must respond to new circumstances and goals and continue to deliver good government to Singapore.”
For the optimists, this statement gave a glimmer of hope that our political system is evolving for the better.
A few days later, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong gave a glimpse of what is to come when he outlined three principles that will guide the changes to be made to the political system. One, they must be fair to all political parties. Secondly, they should result in a strong and effective Government after an election; and thirdly, they must ensure that diverse views are represented in Parliament. Without the details, all these sounded reasonable.
However when Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong fleshed out the details in Parliament, anyone who had wished for a more democratic system and a system that could produce better political leaders ended up with nothing to celebrate about.
True, the number of seats for the opposition would be increased to nine with the extension of the NCMP scheme, 3 more single seats will be up for grabs, and the size of some 6 member GRCs would be reduced. But these are not drastic changes. They are mere tweakings of the existing system. However, the media and the PAP would like Singaporeans to see these as huge concessions.
Why the Change?
On the surface of it, the PAP government appears very magnanimous. Losers now get to have 9 seats when previously they could only have three. Smaller parties and independents now get to contest 3 more single seats. And the sizes of the GRCs are going to be reduced when all of us thought that they would be increased. Nevertheless, all these are nothing but to tell the skeptics to stop complaining about the unevenness of the playing field since the PAP has become so generous.
The PAP has never been known to give concessions to the opposition. With draconian laws still in place and demonstrations by even one person now illegal, and filming of such acts could lend one into trouble, it is obvious they are not becoming more democratic than what they were before.
However, recently there has been a lot of public discontent on various issues and the grumbling citizens feel that their problems are inadequately aired. People now feel that there is the need for more opposition voices in Parliament. The PAP is probably thinking that by giving all these token concessions, the voters, particularly the younger generation, who are now more outspoken and more ready to make changes, would be appeased.
Whether the voters will buy into this or not is left to be seen.
Recently, there too has been talk of opposition unity and a lot of discussions on the ground to get the opposition parties to come together and contest the election as a united front. In fact the focus of many opposition members has been on winning a GRC in order to make a psychological breakthrough. The opposition parties realise they are too small in terms of resources, manpower and candidates to take on the PAP effectively without coming together.
Now with these changes, it is probably the PAP’s hope that all the small parties would stop talking about opposition unity and go it alone. Perhaps the stronger candidates from the various opposition parties will now go for the single seat wards, leaving the GRCs to be contested by weak teams. It is better for the PAP to have nine fragmented NCMPs in Parliament than to have five strong, duly-elected, unified opposition Members of Parliament.
Will these changes halt all the talk about opposition unity and send the opposition parties back to their fragmented stage? It is difficult to say.
What the Opposition Parties Need To Realise
However one thing is clear. The opposition parties must realize that they are like small market stalls struggling to make a living by scrambling against each other for morsels and yet have to compete against a giant hypermarket at the same time. With such an uneven contest, it is inevitable that Parliament will end up overwhelmingly dominated by the PAP with a motley bunch of 9 opposition MPs/NCMPs each with his/her own disparate views acting as discordant accompaniments — just like bells and cymbals in an orchestra.
In such a parliamentary composition, the PAP will always look like the only party capable of governing and the opposition will always look fragmented and not capable of providing an alternative.
No matter what, NCMPs and NMPs will always be seen as objects of PAP’s creations. They will never have the status and dignity as elected members of Parliament.
The last Malaysian General Election should serve as a good lesson for our opposition parties. In the past, they were fragmented and bickered against each other and did not make much headway against the ruling party. Then in the last GE, they decided to fight the Barisan Nasional as a united front. Now they are truly an alternative, capable of ruling the country should the time come.
Thus, these changes that the PAP intends to introduce will not change the status quo. In fact, it will entrench the PAP even more. Unless the opposition parties realize this and get their act together, they would be consigned perpetually to the role of political bridesmaids.
The Change that is Needed
Sadly for Singapore and Singaporeans, the changes proposed will do nothing to improve their democratic aspirations. The lives of Singaporeans will not be less controlled, the climate of fear will not go away, and our citizens will remain politically immature and apathetic.
Rather than tweaking the electoral process to appease voters as opposed to giving them a choice, what Singapore needs is a system that can help us produce plenty of good political leaders and not worry about the dearth of it all the time.
Instead of constantly stressing of the need for “our leadership team” (read PAP) to continually self-renew by inducting new leaders and mollycoddle their entry into Parliament, we should create an environment where young people with leadership qualities can bloom and come forth naturally.
For Singapore to succeed in future, we need to have strong political leaders, and strong political leaders can only be forged and emerge by fighting the electoral battles by themselves. Strong leaders will provide strong governments. For this reason, GRCs should be done away completely. Any political worth his salt should not be afraid to face the electorate and try to carry the ground by himself.
The right change to be made then is to provide an environment where the young are taught to have a sense of service to the country, to have a sense of justice, to have an independence of mind and to be imbued with a spirit to right wrongs and to allow ideas to contend so that leaders will naturally surface. The right change to be made is to remove the climate of fear that discourages political participation so that all these idealism can be expressed freely.
To ensure political participation, we need to make sure that people with leadership qualities will be able to fight an election fairly and also not ostracized for his political conviction. For this you need a free and fair press, a civil service that is seen to be neutral and an electoral process that does not catch a candidate by surprise by not giving him ample time to prepare.
How about fairness to the young candidates who wish to contest the general election? Would the hefty election deposit required be reduced to allow more young people, who are yet to be settled in their career to join in the fray? Would the government set up a Political Arbitration Court, so that employees who are victimised by their employers for their political affiliations can get their problems redressed? How about the Political Donation Act? Not only is a young candidate hampered by hefty deposits, victimized by employers, he would also will have difficulty getting donations. It does not need a clever man to know which party’s candidate will get donations easily now that donors can no longer remain anonymous.
We should be fair to all candidates who are willing to come forward to serve in what I consider to be the highest form of national service. If we can encourage the growth of political talents by treating everyone of whatever political affiliations fairly, there would not be any need to feel anxious about strong political leaders not emerging in future.
Then there would not be any need to keep thinking about how to keep the PAP entrenched in perpetuity in order to save Singapore.
-
PAP: Change or take the risk of being replaced
Get in more stronger opposition is more effective.To demolish PAP totally is not possible as this is LL land lah.
-
U.S Labor Dept: Singapore has steepest productivity decline and lowest increase in hourly wages in 2007 – 2008
Temasek Review
March 3, 2010
According to a shocking press release from the U.S. Department of Labor last year, Singapore experienced the steepest decline in productivity among 17 developed economies in the world in the years 2007 – 2008.Not only that, it had the lowest increase in the hourly compensation per unit labor cost and one of the highest increase in manufacturing unit costs as well.
The detailed article was not reported by the Singapore media. Neither was it mentioned by Finance Minister Tharman last week which would have greatly embarrassed the PAP government.
Steepest productivity decline
Among the 17 countries, the Republic of Korea and the United States had the largest increases (1.2 per cent each) while Singapore had the steepest decline (-6.6 per cent):
Second highest increase in manufacturing costs
Singapore has the second highest increase in manufacturing unit costs when the figures are expressed in national currency units at 7.5per cent after Denmark’s 8.3 percent:
Lowest increase in hourly wages
Hourly compensation in manufacturing increased in 2008 in all 17 economies. The largest increase was in Norway (+ 5.6 percent), followed by Spain (+4.8 percent).
Singapore has the lowest increase at only 0.5 percent:
Second highest increase in the number of manufacturing hours
In 2008 total manufacturing hours worked fell in 9 economies with the greatest decline in the United States at -3.9 per cent. Denmark has the largest increase at +2.7 per cent followed by Singapore at +2.6 per cent as shown by the chart above.
Analysis
Singapore’s dismal performance in labor productivity is a direct result of the PAP’s short-sighted liberal immigration and pro-foreigner policies which help companies take the easy way out keeping labor costs down artificially by employing cheap foreign workers instead of investing in innovation and research to boost productivity.
As noted in the graph below, Singapore’s labor productivity took a plunge from 2004 onwards when the inflow of foreigners started to pick up:
[Source: Kojakbt, 3in1kopitiam forum moderator]
This coincided with the beginning of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s tenure when he announced his ambitious plan to increase Singapore’s population to 6.5 million people by 2030 via immigration.
Foreigners now make up more than a third of Singapore’s workforce. The proportion is probably higher in the manufacturing which accounts for the low increase in hourly wages and second highest increasing in the number of manfacturing hours.
As foreign workers, especially those who are unskilled, are usually poorly trained, they contribute partially to the increase in manufacturing costs.
Instead of coming up with a comprehensive policy to reduce Singapore’s reliance on foreign workers, boost productivity rates and to safeguard the interests of Singapore workers, the PAP chose the easy way out by opening the floodgates to foreigners which temporarily help to keep labor costs low and keep the GDP growth figures artificially high.
(An unknown percentage of the PAP ministers’ multi-million salaries is pegged to GDP growth – the higher the figure, the more money they bring home.)
The few measures put in place such as the foreign worker levy and dependency ratio hardly deter companies from hiring foreign workers.
It doesn’t help that Singapore has an extremely lax criteria for PR application. The Home Affairs Ministry revealed last year that two out of every three PR applicants are successful, an astonishing high rate for a developed nation.
The Professionals/Technical Personnel & Skilled Worker scheme (or simply PTS scheme) is the easiest and most assured route to Singapore PR. It’s estimated that more than 90% of the people obtain their Singapore Permanent Residence through this scheme.
The key requirement under this scheme is that a foreign worker must be working in Singapore for at least six months on either an Employment Pass, Entrepreneur Pass, or S Pass.
Since the dependency ratio lumps both citizens and PRs as “resident” workforce, a company can circumvent the rules by simply getting earlier arrivals of foreign workers to apply for PRs and transferring them into the “resident” pool, thereby freeing up slots to employ more foreigners.
Theoretically, it is therefore possible for a company based in Singapore to employ 100 per cent foreigners with no Singapore citizens on its payroll.
The foreign worker levies for various types of visas are also ridiculously low, amounting to no more than a couple of ten of dollars. Even with the recent hike in foreign worker levy, it is still more “profitable” for companies to employ foreigners as they do not have to pay them CPF. Besides, the slightly increased labor costs can be easily transferred to the workers and consumers.
The PAP government has to accept full responsibility for Singapore’s low productivity rate. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong now wants to increase Singapore’s productivity to 3 per cent per annum. How is this possible when our productivity rate has been decreaasing for the last three years with the largest dip of 6.6 per cent in 2008?
DPM Teo Chee Hean still got the cheek to give himself a pat on his back by praising the “progress” made by previous productivity drives:
“We have made good progress in the past in our productivity drive and that is why we have been able to move our economy forward and have good jobs for many Singaporeans. But this is a constant effort and we have to renew and re-double our efforts,” he was quoted as saying in Channel News Asia on 28 February 2010.
What “progress” is DPM Teo referring to when Singapore’s productivity has grown by only 0.7 per cent in the last decade? What “good jobs” did the PAP create for Singaporeans when they have to compete with directly with foreigners who cost much less than them? Does he know what he is talking about? Can Singaporeans trust him to chair the National Productivity and Continuing Education Council to spear-head Singapore’s productivity drive as outlined in the Budget?
The crux of the problem lies in Singapore’s export-based economy and its perennial addiction to foreign labor, compounded by the fact that it still has not managed to make a successful transition from a manufacturing to knowledge-based economy.
Unless Singapore’s structural and political economy is completely revamped, there is no way Singapore can ever hope to boost its productivity, let alone increase the wages and decrease the working hours of its long-suffering workers which will lead to other social problems such as low birth rates, exodus of local talents to greener pastures overseas and an eventual erosion and loss of national identity.
The PAP should realize that it is the biggest stumbling block to reforming Singapore’s obsolete, uncompetitive and monopolistic state-capitalist economic system. We are doomed to mediocrity so long it refuses to relinquish its tight-fisted control over Singapore’s economy and allows the private sector to grow and flourish independently.
