Should the govt mandate a wage hike for low wage workers?

The above was the topic for discussion in the Talking Point programme of CNA this week. It was interesting to how the different sides presented their for and against arguments to raise pay for low wage workers and how the issue of productivity seemed to be a natural instinctive reaction to the pro govt view. The need to raise productivity was the most important position for the pro govt representative. No productivity, no need to talk about pay hike.

I would like CNA and its programme hosts, Dominic Loh and Daniel Martin, to have a similar programme, this time to discuss raising Ministerial Pay and the issue of productivity thrown in. It will be nice to see if productivity is an issue and a fundamental reason to be used before any pay hike for ministers and for that matter, the President.  Was or should productivitybe an issue or a primary factor in raising Ministerial Pay?

I think CNA’s viewership will be instantly raised if such a topic is being put on air.

Completing a cycle of change

The poor peasant Chinese were pouring out of China about a hundred years ago. They were driven out of their motherland to seek work to feed themselves. Staying back in China was not an option. Jobs were scarce and earning a living was tough going.

By mid 1950s onwards, they were still poor. Poverty and going hungry were the normal then. Things started to improve in the 70s onwards. Life was more bearable and food was not so scarce. The common mode of transportation was the bicycle.

For the Chinese that headed out to Singapore, the 70s and 80s were times of rapid growth. They were getting richer and faster and living was less of a challenge. Buying a home and a car were the norms. Bicycles were discarded for the four wheels with a roof, a prestigious symbol of success.

Fast forward to the present, some Chinese are returning home as jobs were in abundance and livelihood is no longer such a big challenge. Singaporeans too are marching back to China when job opportunities were more challenging in the island.

In China, the Chinese are building homes like Singapore did in the 60s and 70s and buying properties, and property speculation became a national past time. Bicycles were swopped for the four wheel status symbols. More people are getting rich faster.

Singaporeans are downsizing and buying smaller and smaller homes with more money to pay. Cars are getting out of reach and more Singaporeans are taking to public transport and bicycles. The story will come full circle when Chinese Singaporeans start to return to China in hoards, to seek jobs and better living conditions, to buy bigger homes and be car owners once again.

PS. The super rich are having a good laugh at such articles. Get out of my elite and uncaring face.

Who caused these problems?

To many Singaporeans, there is no problems in Singapore. Everything is just fine. We are the best in many things, the 4th best country in the world, desired by people paid on company expenses to live here. Foreigners are queuing up to come here and if they can’t get in, they will pay to smuggle themselves in, legally or illegally.

Then there are some corners of the island there are voices complaining about so many problems. Let’s hear the problems.

1. Wide income gap

2. High property prices

3. High cost of living

4. High prices of cars

5. High medical fees

6. Jams and congestion

7. PMETs having unemployment problems

8. Lack of local talents

9. Lack of babies

10. Too many oldies

11. Not enough savings for retirements

12. Not enough good people going into politics and the best is just so so.

13. Not enough talents in finance, medicine and legal services

14. Too many foreigners

15. Transportation problems

16. Housing problems

17. Not enough hospitals

18. Oldies need to work in their 70s and older.

19. Some more problems?

I don’t believe that I could list out so many major problems within a couple of minutes. Are they real or imaginary?

If these problems are real, who caused them? Did we pay too much to too many super talents to have these problems?

Singaporeans will be top priority!

"We are trying to seek the maximum advantage for Singapore and Singaporeans," so said the Prime MinisterThe headline stated: "S'poreans will always be top priority: PM Lee"



Mr Fish has written an article in his blog, Feed Me To The Fish on this bo pian logic. He has said all there is to be said. I will just add a few points to highlight this twisted logic that is disadvantaging many Singaporeans, our children. One thing, giving a new citizen a pink IC and called him Singaporean and let him have all the privileges, including top jobs and even sitting in Parliament is bull. To me it is deceit. Applying this concept, we can have 2 million additional Singaporeans, new citizens, to enjoy the maximum advantage taken from the original Singaporeans. And the excuse, they are Singaporeans, look, pink IC. A Singaporean, by law, is a Singaporean. Losers cannot argue against such brilliant logic and reasons.



The next thing, any policy depriving Singaporeans from housing/university places, medical benefits etc etc for whatever shitty reasons is anti Singaporeans when new citizens are allowed to take maximum advantage over original Singaporeans. With new citizens and PRs having the choice of selling off their properties at a profit and move on, the Singaporeans will end up buying the inflated price housing to stay for good is not something that is advantageous to Singaporeans. Singaporeans ended up as suckers, especially those barred from pubic housing for shit reasons and shit logics.

And licenses were issued to foreigners, including PRs, to compete with Singaporeans for small business like agencies etc etc. Maybe this is a sadistic way to make the Singaporeans work harder and become more competitive.



I must say that many Singaporeans, especially the elite, are maximising their advantages as Singaporeans, but some corners of Singaporeans are being greatly disadvantaged if the govt cares to look and cares to know. And turning foreigners into new citizens in hordes is definitely not pro Singaporeans. A Singaporean disadvantaged is a Singaporean disadvantaged. Need proof? Does the govt know that many Singaporeans are disadvantaged by its policies? No?

A by election for regime change

There are many angles to look at this by election. At the very basic level will be a fight of personality and acceptance between the two candidates. At the next level will be a contest between the ruling party and the opposition, represented by the WP. It is very encouraging to see the opposition parties closing ranks on this issue, to stand together and not to be a spoilt brat by being the third party. But don’t worry, a third party will appear if things are as predictable as before. There will be clowns standing up for all the wrong reasons to mess up the fight.

Another big issue is the agenda for regime change. The vibes in cyberspace have been loud and clear, that a regime change is what they want. They are fed up of the ruling party for being what it is, refusing to change its attitude of talking down to the people and thinking it knows best. What it wants to do, it will do regardless of how painful it is to the people and regardless of how the people scream and shout.

The population explosion and all its unpleasant consequences of high inflation, high cost of living, congestion, high property and car prices, foreigners taking over the plum jobs of locals, are very painful to the citizens. Given foreigners a pink IC does not make that person a Singaporean, albeit legally. If that be the case, the whole govt can be foreigners or new citizens tomorrow. This disturbing policy has risen to a level that is seeing xenophobia starting to raise its ugly head. It has never been like that before. Singaporeans are proud of its migrant history and always welcome foreigners here. But when too many foreigners are getting on their nerves, it becomes anger.

How would this translate into an election issue? To quote a financial adviser, Tan Kay Kerng, ‘We need to have an official representative of the people and not to have a caretaker group of people who are looking after us.’ This statement sums up the attitude and mindset of the PAP. It wants to rule the people, be the master of the people, think for the people, telling the people what to do and what cannot do, and they will call the shot. Whether the people like it or not, they will do it. More immigrants needed. Period. Don’t bug me. We have decided. We will not change course. We are master. We know best.

Would the Hougang residents elect an MP to tell them that it is govt policy and they will have to live with it, vote for all govt policies and not against any? Or would they vote for a representative, their representative, to represent them, their views, their unhappiness, what they want done, in parliament? Do they want a govt that will decide everything for them in a ‘we know better’ and ‘it is good for you’. Or would they want a govt that will listen and make policies that the people want? Do they want to elect a master or a servant to serve them in parliament?