The Straits Times had reported that, “Mr Khaw declared in Parliament last month that he wanted new flats in non-mature estates to cost four times the annual median salary of a buyer – down 30 per cent from the current 5.5 times. This would return prices to what they were before the property bull run of the last six years, he said.”

Mr Khaw had said that, “BTO pricing will be brought down to four times annual median incomes “quite soon” … It’s not something for the next century.”

The Straits Times had also reported that, “The cheaper flats would have to come with restrictions to differentiate them, so that current flat owners would not see their values plummet overnight.” The Straits Times had reported on possible restrictions such as by, “Selling a cheaper class of flat on a shorter lease such as 60 years, as opposed to the current 99 years (which) would be the easiest way,” “extend(ing) the number of years that a buyer has to stay in his new flat before he can sell it” or by selling the flats back to HDB.

First, I applaud the move to reduce the price of new flats from 5.5 times the current annual median salary to four times.

However, I disagree with the approach – why do flat owners have to put up with “restrictions” for new flats, to purchase new flats which are finally more priced at a more appropriate level, than when they were overpriced at 5.5 times?

The government had (somewhat) admitted that they had pursued flawed policies over the past few years, when they had “used a market-based approach to price its Build- To-Order (BTO) flats … (which) resulted in soaring new flat prices as the resale market spiked 80 per cent over the last six years.”

But why should Singaporeans bear the costs of inappropriate pricing policy pursued by the Housing & Development Board? If “restrictions” are put in place to reduce the worth of the flat, what difference would it make to reduce the prices of the new flats?

The inherent problem is that prices had ballooned, because of two factors – first, over-speculation and second, wages which did not grow in tandem with the rise in housing prices. In terms of over-speculation, the government took too long to put in effective policies to curb the growth of prices.

However, for the purpose of this article – why did the government not address the lack of growth, or the stagnation of wages, in the discussion of housing prices – when they have pegged the housing prices to median incomes?

Below, I will show you 3 charts. In Chart 1, you can see that the Housing Price Index had grown immensely from 2001 to 2011. (I couldn’t locate the link for this chart on the government’s website anymore, but could locate it on my previous article.)

Chart 1

In Chart 2, you can see that the HDB Resale Price Index has also grown immensely from 2002 to 2012. I am not able to locate the housing price index for new flats.

Chart 2 (Source: Department of Statistics Singapore)

Now, take a look at Chart 3. You can see the change in median gross monthly income. There wasn’t much growth.

Chart 3 (Source: Ministry of Manpower Income)

In Chart 4, you can see the change in annual wages. Again, growth plateaued.

Chart 4 (Source: Ministry of Manpower Income)

The charts speak for themselves. Whereas housing prices grew tremendously, wages remained stagnant.

Back to the question – why should the people shoulder full responsibility for housing prices which inflated because of bad government policies? Why should the people have to bear with “restrictions”? The people have been warning the government of ballooning housing prices for years, but this has fallen on deaf ears, or if they were heard, the government had reacted far too slowly.

Granted that some Singaporeans and other residents in Singapore were party to the growth of housing prices, due to their price speculation of private and resale housing prices. But the flaw in this was that the government allowed HDB prices to be pegged to private housing and to be dragged upwards.

What the government should have done was to have clear markets, and ensure that the prices of public housing was not led astray. The government did not responded when it needed to.

And now, the government expects the people to bear the brunt of the government’s mistakes.

But more importantly, if indeed housing prices are to be brought down from 5.5 times that of the annual median salary to four times that, why is it that the government has only devised the solution to “restrict” the type of housing we are able to buy?

Why didn’t the government devise the solution to uplift our wages instead?

Problematically, our wages were left to be stagnant while housing prices soared. Not only that, our wages were eroded in their value by inflation. Most worryingly, as I had written previously, Singapore’s wage levels and purchasing power is the lowest among the developed countries, even as we are one of the richest. This is preposterous.

There is a lot of room for our wages to grow, because they have been forcefully deflated. And if the government is not willing to pursue this, then it is in no position to force Singaporeans to have to compromise with “restrictions” forced on us.

Prices of public housing have to come down, either through pushing prices down, increasing wages, or a combination of both. But until both approaches are used, the government should not force Singaporeans to compromise on their standard of living simply because of poor government planning and the chronic depression of wages.

How to read the chart:

Why Are Singaporeans’ Wages So Low?

(1) The Government Owns Some of the Largest Singapore Companies

1. By some estimates, the government owns 40% to 60% of the Singapore economy.
2. Some of the largest companies in Singapore are Singapore companies. (http://www.asiaone.com/Business/News/Story/A1Story20120423-341447.html)
3. The government owns Temasek Holdings. Temasek Holdings own majority shares in these Singapore companies.
4. Singapore is the main market for the Singapore companies (their international forays haven’t been very successful).
5. To maximise earnings, Singapore companies need to earn from the people in Singapore.
6. To maximise earnings, companies need to increase prices, and SUPPRESS THE GROWTH OF WAGES.

(2) The Increase in Prices is Faster than the Growth in Wages

1. Prices increase faster than the growth in wages, so the real growth in wages is lower, or stagnated (source link).

(3) Singapore Workers Have No Collective Bargaining Power for Their Wages

1. The government controls unions in Singapore. Unions are not independent.
2. Unions do not protect Singapore workers. Singapore workers do not have collective bargaining power.
3. THUS NO ONE FIGHTS FOR WORKERS’ WAGES & WORKERS’ WAGES REMAIN LOW.

(4) Government’s Policy Sets Low Wage Limits to Employ Foreigners

1. The minimum wage limit for companies to employ work permit holders, S Pass holders and Employment Pass holders is $800 (for the Singaporean worker), $2,000 and $3,000 respectively. This is the de facto minimum wage for workers with lower qualifications, diploma holders and degree holders, respectively. The wages of Singaporean workers are depressed to this level.
2. Companies will choose to employ foreigners who are willing to accept a lower wage.
3. SINGAPOREAN WORKERS WILL HAVE TO ACCEPT A LOWER WAGE to be competitive and employed.
4. This is also why wages have not increased beyond this level.

(5) The Real Reason Why the Government Wants to Increase the Number of Foreigners

1. The government wants to increase the number of foreigners to increase the size of the market – double the market size.
2. This will increase their revenue and profits.

(6) CONCLUSION

1. The money earned by Temasek Holdings go into the reserves.
2. But do we really know where all the money goes to?

WHY IS IT OUR GOVERNMENT PAYS THEMSELVES THE HIGHEST SALARIES IN THE DEVELOPED WORLD?

AND WHY IS IT OUR GOVERNMENT PAYS SINGAPORE WORKERS THE LOWEST SALARIES IN THE DEVELOPED WORLD?

You can also share this chart on Facebook here.

Straits Times Says Salaries Are Low Because of High Inflation

The Straits Times on Saturday carried an article which wanted to convince Singaporeans to believe that the reason our starting salaries have remained stagnant is because of inflation.

The article stated that, “rising prices, more so than competition from foreigners, are to blame for starting salaries flatlining in recent years.” Really, what do you think of this, readers?

For readers who have been reading this blog, you would know that I do not believe that we should think that foreigners are the cause of this country’s problem, nor should we blame them. As I’ve explained several times, the reason is with bad government policies, so rightfully we should blame the government.

I’m not one to believe in blaming, but for the intention of this article, let’s look at who we need to blame.

Why Did The Straits Times Write The Article?

First, what is the purpose of Straits Times’ article? When I read the article, the glaring question in my mind was – why did The Straits Times even put out this article? What was its purpose?

There was no clear conclusion at the end of the article. Sure, so now we know that The Straits Times claimed that inflation is the main reason for stagnating salaries, what does The Straits Times believe the government should do? What plans are there for the government to ameliorate rising inflation, or who should we blame?

As I’ve said, if the reason for stagnating salaries would be attributed to the influx of foreigners, rightfully, we would need to blame the government for bad policies. However, if the reason is due to rising inflation, who should we blame?

For the rest of the article, I hope to ask the reader some questions, so that we are able to have a better self-understanding to the most pertinent issue that surrounds Singaporeans at the moment.

But Who Caused Prices to Increase?

Think about it – what are some of the greatest rises in prices? Housing and cars? Who caused the prices of houses and cars to rise? The rich people? Ok, fine – but rising prices are finally starting to slow down this year, so why can prices suddenly slow down? Very obviously, because of new policies introduced in Budget 2013. So, who then caused prices to come down? – the government. Can you still blame the rich people for causing prices to go up? They are still buying the houses and cars, but why are prices coming down (slightly)? Because of government intervention which has introduced additional costs to purchase housing and cars, which has driven down price speculation. So, we should thank the government right? My question is this – the government had known that costs were ballooning out of control for the past few years now – if they could intervene to control the rise in prices, why did they not do so earlier? And if they did not do so earlier when they could, who is in fact the cause of the high inflation in Singapore?

Prices did not just start to rise out of nowhere. The prices rose because the government wanted to invite the rich to come to the Singapore. The government wanted the rich to come and spend on big budget items – housing and cars – so that the government can earn revenue from them. And in order for the government to be able to earn from them, the government wants prices to keep rising. Is there any surprise why the government didn’t want to introduce decisive policies to prevent price speculation, until this year when they were finally forced by the people to do so, and only because ordinary Singaporeans were priced out of buying housing and cars?

The Real Reason for Suppressed Salaries – Companies Did Not Want To Give Higher Salaries

Now, back to the article – The Straits Times had wanted us to believe that inflation was the cause of our salaries which have stagnated. If it was true that inflation is the main cause, who then is to be blamed for high inflation? Yes – the government.

But this is all on the premise that the assumption that the article made was true – that inflation caused stagnating salaries. If you look at the article and the chart below that The Straits Times had created, you can see that for the lowest growth in starting pay, the salaries had remained the same in 2008 and 2012.

Now, if salaries had stagnated because of inflation, how does this chart even explain how that has happened? Logically, if salaries had stagnated because of inflation, what The Straits Times should show is that salaries should have increased from 2008 to 2012, and then show in a third column how the increase in inflation has thus eroded the starting pay, shouldn’t it?

But what The Straits Times had shown is that salaries had remained the same in 2008 and 2012! Even without factoring inflation into the equation, any lay person can tell you this – salaries stagnated because salaries remained the same! Companies did not want to give higher salaries, simple as that.

What was The Straits Times trying to do create a false impression that inflation was the cause of stagnating salaries? What formula or calculation did The Straits Times use to prove that stagnating salaries are more likely due to inflation than other causes? I don’t see any. Was The Straits Times pulling fast one on us? Obviously.

Companies Did Not Want To Give Higher Salaries Because The Government Allowed Them Not To

Next, the question I want to ask is – do you know why companies did not want to give higher salaries? In the article, Kelly Services’ Mark Hall explained why – “By increasing the minimum salary of a Q1 Employment Pass holder, graduates may gain some bargaining power.” Amidst the truth that The Straits Times wanted to brush over, we are back to the real cause – companies wouldn’t pay Singaporeans higher salaries because they don’t have to – the policies were set at a bar where they need not increase the salaries of Singaporeans. They could simple employ someone else who would be willing to accept a lower salary, so Singaporeans were forced to accept lower wages.

But more importantly, do you know why the government isn’t interested in setting a policy that would increase the salaries of Singaporeans?

The Government Doesn’t Want To Increase Salaries Because They Own Singapore Companies

Because of this – do you know which are the largest and richest companies in Singapore? Do a search – you will find that most of them are Singapore companies.

Next, do you know who controls these companies? Do a search again – go look up the annual reports of these companies. You will find that Temasek Holdings has, directly or indirectly, majority stakes in them or that these companies have stakes in one another. And who owns Temasek Holdings? The government.

Now, do you know why the government doesn’t want salaries to increase? The largest companies in Singapore are owned by the government – these companies’ main market is in Singapore. They have hardly made significant inroads into the other international markets, so for the large part, they still rely on the Singapore market for their revenue and profits. Now, who makes up the Singapore market? You got it – Singaporeans (who for now, make the majority).

How Do Companies Increase Revenue and Profits?

If you are a company, what are two ways you increase your revenue and profits? First, you increase prices. According to The Straits Times, inflation has been going up faster – so prices are increasing.

And what is the other way to do it? Reduce, or suppress salaries.

Now, if you follow the logic here, the Singapore companies’ main market is in Singapore, so really, they can only earn from Singaporeans. So, as a Singapore company, you need to increase prices and you need to suppress salaries. If our salaries are being suppressed, who is doing it? Who controls these Singapore companies? Who employs the largest group of Singaporeans in Singapore? It doesn’t take too much time to draw two and two together, does it?

In an article that I’ve published on Saturday (link), I presented charts which showed that even though Singapore has the one of the highest GDP per capita in the developed economies, our people have the lowest wages among the developed economies, but not only that, we have one of the highest prices! – What this means is that even though we are one of the richest countries in the world, Singaporeans have the lowest purchasing powers in the economically developed countries. How can that be?

That can be because the government wants it to be that way. The only way that the government can, and know how to earn money, is from Singaporeans – since the Singapore companies haven’t made significant inroads into the international markets. So, Singaporeans have to be on the chopping board.

THIS IS WHY OUR SALARIES HAVE REMAINED DEPRESSED – BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT HAS DEPRESSED IT.

At the end of The Straits Times article, I found myself scratching my head as to why The Straits Times would want to write that article. When I told my friend about this article, he remarked – the government wants to say this, so that they can employ more foreigners. And he’s right.

Why Does The Government Wants Foreigners?

Now, do you know why the government wants to employ more foreigners? If you cannot bring your companies into the international market to earn more from other people, what do you do? Right – you bring them into your country. We are talking about another 2 to 3 million people, on top of the Singaporeans – the market size will double.

If Singaporeans are not creating enough babies to increase the size of the market, then we need to import people in to increase the size of our market.

This is the reason why the government needs foreigners – it needs revenue and profits. Not only that, it needs rich foreigners who are able to spend.

It’s very sad indeed that in Singapore, the people are looked at as two things by the government. We are either workers who should produce for the Singapore companies, or consumers who should spend for the Singapore companies. Amidst all these, we aren’t really seen as citizens – and this is why the government is so resistant towards providing social welfare for the people – because there are no citizens in Singapore. Providing support for the poor simply does not generate enough revenue back for the government, they think. There are only workers and consumers. There is no democracy. There is only capitalism. We’ve only gotten one of the two ideologies of freedom, and not the one that would benefit us. We got the short end of the stick.

Singaporeans Are Not Against Government. We Just Want To Be Treated Fairly

But no one is telling the government that they cannot earn so much money. Fine and well, earn enough as long as we know that whatever we are helping to produce for the economy, we get the returns back. In another article (link), I’d presented charts to show how we aren’t – where income inequality in Singapore is the highest among economically developed countries and where our government subsidises the lowest proportion of our healthcare bills as well.

Not only is the government increasing prices and suppressing our salaries so that they can earn more from us, they are also limiting how much they need to give back to us, so that they can save more for themselves.

Singaporeans are not against the government earning money. What Singaporeans want is that the government share with Singaporeans the wealth so that for what we’ve put in for the country, we can at least receive an acceptable standard of living back. If the government wants to keep saving for a rainy day, then when does the government want to give the money back? 2080?

This government is horrendously rich – they are hundreds of billions of dollars rich. What are they saving for? So that when the PAP MPs retire, they are able to live in big bungalows while Singaporeans still fear if they are able to buy their own housing?

What is the government keeping the money away from us for? I can think of no reason except for this – greed.

The Straits Times reported yesterday that PM Lee Hsien Loong had said that, “for incomes to rise, the economy must grow … Everyone would like their lives to become better and one important way of doing that is to make sure your pay goes up, especially with low-income workers. And for the pay to go up, the economy has to grow.”

The Straits Times also said that this made “clear the centrality of economic growth which has been disputed by some who are worried about foreign workers and inequality.” Essentially, what is being said is that Singaporeans should prioritise Singapore’s economic growth, and put aside our concerns of over-crowding and income inequality.

• So, should we stop thinking that Singapore’s income inequality is that high, and that we should stop asking the government to increase our wages?
• Is it true what PM Lee had said that as long as the economy grows that we will have higher wages?

Let’s take a look.

In the charts below, I will compare the following:

• GDP per capita
• Wage levels
• Price levels
• Domestic purchasing power

I will compare these indicators with two different sets of countries (developed vs developing economies). Note that except for GDP per capita which is based on the countries, the comparison is based on the cities. I am unable to locate the GDP per capita for the cities.

The data source for GDP per capita is taken from the Human Development Report 2013. All the rest are taken from UBS Prices and Earnings report. The 2012 report did not include Singapore in the report but I had managed to locate the 2011 report, which did include Singapore. You might perhaps understand why Singapore was omitted in the 2012 report after reading this article.

Comparison with Other Developed Economies

In this first set of comparison, I will compare the indicators with a select group of developed economies.

Chart 1 shows the GDP per capita of the developed countries. You can see that Singapore has the highest GDP per capita.

Chart 1

Now, according to PM Lee, if the economy does well, so will our incomes right? So, let’s take a look at Chart 2. Chart 2 shows the wage levels of the cities, with New York = 100.

Chart 2

You can see that even though Singapore’s economy is doing very well and we are the richest country, we actually have the second lowest wage level among the cities compared!

So, when PM Lee says that, “for incomes to rise, the economy must grow”, is that even true? Obviously, not.

In Chart 3, you can see the price levels. What is shocking is that even though Singapore has the second lowest wage level, we actually have quite a high price level – we have the fifth highest price level.

Chart 3

Which means that if you look at Chart 4, because we earn such a low wage and prices are so high in Singapore, we actually have the lowest purchasing power, as compared to the other developed economies.

Chart 4

In sum, what you can see here is that even though Singapore is the richest country and has the strongest economy, by per capita, we earn comparatively much lower wages, and because prices are so high, we have a severely eroded purchasing power.

Comparison with the Developing Economies

In the next set of comparison, I will compare the indicators with a select group of developing economies.

In Chart 5, you can see that Singapore has a much higher GDP per capita than all the other countries.

Chart 5

In Chart 6, you can see that our wage level is higher as well, but more importantly, even though Singapore’s GDP per capita is nearly 4 times higher than the next highest country and 7 times higher the third highest, our wage level is barely twice as high as the second and third highest city!

Chart 6

In Chart 7, you can see the price levels of the cities. Note that price levels in Kuala Lumpur is actually half that of Singapore.

Chart 7

Finally, and more importantly, when you look at Chart 8, you can see that Singapore’s purchasing power is similar to the next highest city – Kuala Lumpur. This is even though our GDP per capita is nearly 4 times higher than Malaysia!

Chart 8

Singaporeans, We Are Being Cheated

What’s going on here?

• Even though Singapore is the richest country in this comparison, we are paid the lowest wages among the developed economies. Among the developing economies, their peoples are paid comparatively higher wages even though the country is much poorer.
• Even though Singapore is the richest country, we have the lowest purchasing power among the developed economies. Not only that, when compared to the developing economies, our purchasing power is the same as that of Kuala Lumpur.

What the F is PM Lee Hsien Loong talking about when he says that, “for incomes to rise, the economy must grow”?

If this is indeed the case, what has happened to the past two or three decades of economic growth? Where has all the supposed wage growth that PM Lee is presumably talking about gone to? Why is it that even though Singapore’s economy was growing so strongly and that we are the richest country, that our wages are the lowest in the developed economies (as compared to countries in this comparison)?

Not only that, why is it that even though we are the richest country, we have the lowest purchasing power among the developed economies and our purchasing power is almost on par with that of the other developing economies.

For a country so, so F-ing rich, why are we able to afford only a standard of living which is only on par with the developing economies?

Behind all the glamour and blink-blink, have we been had, Singaporeans?

Last year, the government said that they had hoped to increase productivity by 30% in the next 10 years so that our wages will increase by 30% as well. As I had written previously, this proposal was doomed to fail because:

1. Singapore’s productivity growth did not even reach an average of 2% annually over the past decade. In fact, Singapore’s productivity growth had been dropping decade-on-decade for the past 3 decades. How did the government intend to miraculously grow productivity by 3% annually for the next decade?
2. Also, Singapore’s wage growth had never kept pace with productivity growth in the past decade so even if productivity growth did miraculously grow by 30%, our wages wouldn’t have grown by as much.

So, after one year of telling people that we need to grow our productivity, so that wages will grow – knowing how it will not work at all – the government has finally changed tack and said, well, we would need to grow the economy.

Of course, when you increase productivity, you would be able to grow the economy. So, is PM Lee saying one and the same thing? Well, he could be.

Old Wine In New Bottle: Still Not Interested to Increase Our Wages

More importantly, the government is trying to repackage what they had been saying. The government would be thinking – you know what? People might not understand what productivity growth means and if we keep saying that and they don’t see results, they will know that we are lying to them. Let’s say something else. Maybe let’s say if the economy is growing, their wages will grow? Maybe they will buy into that?

And wa-la – economic growth for wage growth. Whereas last year, the government came out with some statistics, no matter how erroneous, thrown together to explain how productivity growth will lead to wage growth, I don’t see any statistics this time.

Perhaps PM Lee will show some statistics on the May Day Rally on Wednesday, but I wouldn’t think too much of the statistics, if there were to be any. The statistics that I have presented here are already very clear. Whatever the government wants to show us, you can trust that it is not going to work, because it didn’t.

As I had discussed before, the government gets to decide how much wages can grow. When the government comes out with fanciful concepts of how if we grow this, wages will grow, or if we do that, wages will grow, it will not. The only way wages will grow is if the government DECIDES to grow our wages. It’s all in the government’s hands.

So, it’s a matter of whether they want to or not. They have insisted that they do not want to implement a minimum wage. As said, Singapore is one of the few countries which still does not have a minimum wage. All the Asian Tigers and even Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia have minimum wages to protect their people.

There are a few countries without the minimum wage law but which pay their workers well – the Nordic countries and Switzerland – but this is because they have very strong and independent unions which fight for their workers’ wages and are not lackeys. You can read more about it here (link).

I have also discussed here (link) before that Singapore has the highest income inequality among the economically developed economies.

So, what is PM Lee trying to tell us when he knows jolly well that even if the economy grows, that our wages wouldn’t grow in tandem. And what is The Straits Times trying to tell us when they tell us not to focus on income inequality but on economic growth, when our income inequality is so dire! (Please read the link)

Holding Singaporeans Ransom to Our Wages

Do you know what the government is doing? The government is holding us ransom. Essentially it is this, the government is saying – you know what, you want to have higher wages? Well, we don’t feel like it. We will pay ourselves high wages but you can stay as low as we want you to be. And you know what, if you want high wages, well we can raise it. But – only if you increase productivity for us. Can’t do it? Well, we know. Guess what, let’s try growing the economy. You know what, if you can do it, we will increase your wages. How about that?

So, you might say – but you have the power to increase our wages if you WANT to!

But, the government would say – precisely, I have the power. So, now what? Do you want to work hard for us or not? If you don’t, you will not get any increase. If you do, well, let’s think about that when we come to that, shall we?

The Straits Times reported today that, “heritage experts say Tuesday’s vandalism of the Cenotaph points to a growing disconnect between Singapore’s younger generation and the significance of national monuments. This is understandable, considering that the public’s consciousness of national monuments fades with time … (and that) it gets harder passing down memories after two or three generations.”

Photo credit: The Straits Times

Certainly, there is historical significance to which we need to value our country’s culture and history. However, let me ask three questions:

• What is our government doing to retain Singaporeans’ sense of rootedness to our history and culture? How many historical buildings or monuments has the government demolished? 
• What are our schools’ priorities? How relevant is conserving the students’ sense of value and appreciation to our culture and heritage, as compared to the strident focus on excelling academically and in CCAs?
• How has the government chosen to rewrite history according to their political legitimacy and hegemony, such that our understanding of history has become severely impeded and fundamentally changed?

Acting Minister for Culture, Community & Youth Lawrence Wong wrote on his Facebook page, that, “The defacement of any National Monument is unacceptable and the Police are currently investigating the matter. This is a disrespectful and deplorable act.”

Mr Wong had also said that, “Many have come out to strongly state our disapproval against the act.” Indeed, The Online Citizen (TOC) had also released a statement which stated that, “the very act is an insult to those who have shed blood, sweat and tears to liberate our nation from oppressors. The Cenotaph commemorates those who lost their lives during the World Wars.”

TOC added that, “This action is nothing short of defacing the graves of our pioneers, those who have given up their very lives for the people of this nation. Under no circumstances is it excusable.”

I find this very ironic. Mr Wong might call the “the defacement of any national monument” as being “unacceptable”, “disrespectful” and “deplorable”. When TOC talks about how this “is nothing short of defacing the graves of our pioneers”, doesn’t this bring to mind how “the government is planning to drive a highway” through the Bukit Brown Heritage Park. To paraphrase TOC, here at Bukit Brown are also “the graves of our pioneers … who have given up their very lives for the people of this nation”.

Thus when Mr Wong called on the “defacement” as being “deplorable”, can the same be said about how the government’s plans to “deface” Bukit Brown, or how the government has “defaced” many of our heritage in Chinatown, Kampong Glam and the demolishment of many other buildings with historical significance in Singapore?

Of course, in pragmatic Singapore, we have learnt not to hold too much sentimental value to historic buildings. Otherwise, where do we put our Gucci or Prada shops? Or the Mercedes car showroom?

But the larger question is this – why do some people get to define what heritage is, and what can be considered a national monument, whereas some people have to suck their thumb at seeing their heritage be demolished? Who gets to define what is defacement? Is the scribbling of the word, “Democracy”, on the Cenotaph considered to be a more dire defacement than the mass “defacement” of Chinatown into a tourist destination, losing nary a sense of what its history was at all about?

It is unfortunate, as well, that The Straits Times had chosen to frame this incident as a “growing disconnect between Singapore’s younger generation and the significance of national monuments”. The Straits Times had perhaps conveniently neglected the expression of the word, “Democracy”.

True, Singaporeans have a growing disconnect with our history – but this is to be expected of a government which is party to this in its blatant focus on economic growth, having selectively prioritised the preservation of cultural heritage with economic value and neglected the rest. This brings to mind how the government “is preparing for a bid for the Singapore Botanic Gardens to be listed as a UNESCO World Heritage site” even as Singaporeans are calling for a greater discussion as to what other heritage should also be considered, such as Bukit Brown and Tiong Bahru.

Another interpretation to this episode is that the “vandal” had felt that the sacrifice of the soldiers in World War I and II to free Singapore so that we could achieve statehood and democracy has come to nought, as this country is now ruled by politicians who are economic plundering from Singapore anyway. Have we truly been freed?

Indeed, on two large plagues at the Cenotaph, it reads, “they died so we might live”. One wonders if they have died in vain, and what they had wanted us to live for and if we truly have lived.

Do you remember when Member of Parliament (MP) Seng Han Thong who in December 2011 had been asked about the SMRT train breakdowns that he had remarked, “I noticed that the PR mentioned that some of the staff because they are Malay, they are Indian, they can’t converse in English good, well enough, so that also deters them, from (sic) but I think we accept broken English.”?

According to Yahoo Singapore, “Under Singapore’s Sedition Act, among other things, it is an offence to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the Government; and to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore.”

Now, take a look at one of the two comics below, that Demon-cratic Singapore’s Leslie Chew had been arrested for.

Credit: Demon-cratic Singapore

Which expression would you consider to be more racist and which would be more likely to “promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore”? I will leave that judgment to you.

But I would venture to ask this – if both expressions are considered to be of similar gravity, why wasn’t MP Seng arrested? Why was only Chew arrested? Or, if you would consider MP Seng’s offence to be more serious, why was he not arrested and why was he let off?

In this article, I would like to look into the approaches taken to address MP Seng’s and Chew’s expressions.

Apparently, a mysterious person had filed a complaint “about one of Chew’s cartoons”, though he was eventually investigated for two. It is still not known what the complaint was about, and why two cartoons were investigated, since only one was filed a complaint on. So, this is all we know about Chew so far.

Is MP Seng Han Tong Above The Board, Above The Law? 

What about MP Seng? According to AsiaOne, “Mr Zaqy, MP for Chua Chu Kang GRC, posted on Facebook: … ”I certainly agree that the comments were unwarranted and I was personally disappointed that Malay and Indian SMRT staff were singled out. Having read the transcript, I think he meant to paraphrase someone else and that the first postings online omitted that fact … However, I don’t think this changes the fact that it was said and that we should be more sensitive especially in public forums.”" AsiaOne added that, “Mr Zaqy told The Straits Times that Mr Seng could have been more understanding towards the sensitivities of the Malay community, which had recently recovered from racially-fuelled incidents.

According to Yahoo Singapore, “MP Halimah Yacob said that … she was ‘disturbed by the remarks which are inappropriate and unfair … I can understand your anger and frustration at such a simplistic and insensitive articulation of the probable cause for the communication failure that had occurred,” she said, addressing the public at large.”

What do you think? Should MP Seng’s expression be considered seditious and should the disaffection voiced out by others warrant his arrest?

Yet, instead of arresting MP Seng for investigation and questioning as Chew had been, other MPs stepped up to try to explain MP Seng’s actions. Xinmsn had reported that then Law and Foreign Affairs Minister K Shanmugam had, “said (that) he has known Mr Seng for many years, adding that he works hard on the ground and helps everyone. Mr Shanmugam said it’s unfair to label Mr Seng as racist.” AsiaOne had reported that another MP, “Mr Zainal Sapari, MP for Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC, defended Mr Seng, saying in his Facebook post that it was not in his nature to make such comments.”

MP Seng also released a statement of apology on his Facebook page, which says that, “In my interview with blogtv.sg, I made a regrettable mistake in my language, which may be misconstrued as me saying that people speak bad English because of their ethnicity. I sincerely apologise to all Singaporeans, who have been offended by this error. 

“Singaporeans of all ethnicities and backgrounds speak varying standards of English. My own Chinese-educated background gives me a special empathy for the non-English-speaking sections of our society. We should all be tolerant of people of different standards of linguistic ability.

“The point I was trying to make is that this should not prevent people from trying to communicate, especially in times of emergency.

And the matter was then considered closed.

Chew vs MP Seng: Different Stokes for Different (Normal) Folks

Was MP Seng arrested? The intensity of uproar and disaffection generated by MP Seng’s comments had definitely overwhelmed that which Chew had thus far been able to only feebly muster. Yet, there were vastly different responses as to how the they were treated.

• Chew was arrested on one mysterious complaint. MP Seng was not after an ensuing uproar. 
• Chew was investigated. Other MPs spoke up for MP Seng.

Similarly, if there were other individuals who spoke up for Chew, can the matter be considered closed as well?

Is The Singapore Government Practicing Double-Standards?

Inherently, these are the following problems that can be seen from a comparison of these two expressions:

1. Are politicians above the law? Why was MP Seng not arrested but why was Chew so quickly arrested such that at one point, 10 policemen were searching in his home? 
2. What can be considered seditious and what can be considered to “bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the Government; and to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore.” Did only Chew’s comics bring about feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes” and was thus arrested, and did MP Seng not have, and was thus not arrested? Certainly, we would disagree with the outcomes of the events.
3. What does it say when MPs are allowed to speak up for one another and let the matter go, when the state would come down heavy-handedly on individuals?

I don’t think I need to elaborate further on this, because many of us would have come to our own conclusions.

Power Over The People

It is sickening and appalling that the law can be used as subjectively as it is – it all depends on who you are, to determine whether you can use it, and who you are to determine whether it should or should not be used on you.

Quite obviously, this hasn’t been the only issue of double-standards from our government and of our law. You would still remember when in the Punggol East By-Election 2013 that The Straits Times had conducted an election poll, even though, “according to the Parliamentary Elections Act, no person is allowed to publish exit polls between the time that the writ for an election is called until the close of Polling Day. (according to Yahoo Singapore)” Yahoo Singapore had also mentioned that in contrast, “in 2011, Joseph Ong Chor Teck was arrested for conducting an exit poll on the then-Temasek Review Facebook page.” Yet as had happened in the past, an individual would be arrested but larger establishments seemed to be let off. Yahoo reported that, “the Elections Department has confirmed an ongoing police investigation into … The Straits Times”, but until now, nearly 4 months later, The Straits Times had still not been brought to justice. Meanwhile, it seemed again that an apology would work – “Straits Times editor Warren Fernandez on Sunday apologised for the lapse and said the paper would cooperate fully with the police.”

In fact, do you see a trend here?

• If you are an individual, for whatever small ‘offence’ that the state ‘considers’ you to have made, you will be arrested.
• If you are the government or part of the larger establishment (which is linked to the government), your peers from the establishment will speak out for you, you can apologise and the matter will be laid to rest.

What does this reek of?

ELITISM: Meritocracy to Protect the Elites

ELITISM. This is what our meritocracy is about.

So, what happens if you have power?

• If you are in power, you will be protected.
• If you are in power, you are above the law.
• If you are in power, you can apologise and your apology will carry A LOT, A LOT of weight.
• If you are in power, you have friends in power who will speak out for you and what they say will carry A LOT, A LOT of weight.
• If you are in power, we don’t really want to get you into trouble. We will protect your ass.
• If you are in power, you can do whatever you want and we will have your back – because we are in power together.
• If you are in power, we have the intellectual to discuss issues and come to a logical, sensible understanding and you shalt not do wrong (because, hey, that’s what we say and you know what, we are in power together).
• If you are in power, you are a human being with complexities and we need to understand who you are before we make any judgment about you.
• If you are in power, it is easy for you to use the law against someone.

And what happens if you are an ordinary Singaporean?

• If you are ordinary, you will be arrested for every little thing you do, as long as we constitute it as ‘wrong’.
• If you are ordinary, when you do what we constitute as wrong, you are horribly wrong – you will lose your personality and be known as silo-identity criminal-like person.
• If you are ordinary, you do not have the intellectual capability to discuss issues – ordinary Singaporeans should not discuss racial and religious issues. You won’t be able to handle it. We can. Not you.
• If you are ordinary, does it matter who speaks up for you? Do you have friends like us who can speak up for you and let the matter rest?

The list can go on and on.

“Based on Justice and Equality”? No. Based on Elitism and Meritocracy 

Basically, what this episode has shown is that in Singapore, the government has a lot more power than the people. The government practices double-standards. If you are in government, you can do wrong but you will be spoken up for, you can apologise and you will still be in power.

But if you are a normal-stream Singaporean, the government gets to decide whether you are wrong and will arrest you. You don’t get to decide.

There really isn’t any fairness and equality in Singapore. So what if our pledge says, “based on justice and equality”? The government doesn’t believe it. They kept insisting on pledging on a principle of meritocracy that isn’t even enshrined in the pledge.

And in Singapore, meritocracy breeds elitism. You are in the express-stream. Elitism breeds people who let power get into their heads and think that they can do whatever they want and twist the law to protect themselves.

Basically, the law in Singapore is there to protect their power. We know this – the law is intentionally loosely-worded so that when convenient, the law can be used against ‘normal’ Singaporeans who threaten their power.

What I am saying is not new. Can the government and the courts use it against me? Well, they can. And they might win and have a high chance of winning. But what can I do? I can fight my case. I can plead my innocence.

But I will be at the mercy of the elites. They have the power so they get to define what is right or wrong.

Our Government Has Lost Its Bearings. It Has To Change.

Now, for some of you, you might still want to think – don’t malign our government. Don’t malign our courts. Sure, our government and courts has done what is right. They have and sometimes, I am proud of them.

But in times like this, they have not. And it is their responsibility to uphold themselves to the rule of law. As someone on my Facebook had questioned, “rule of law, or rule by law”?

Our government is not above the law. Politicians are not above the law. They are elected by us to serve us. They are elected by us to listen to us. What this means is that we should be asked to speak, so that they would be able to listen and to facilitate our needs – not to deny our right to speak, not to repress our expressions and not to prevent us from thinking in ways that are different.

And if the government cannot hold themselves responsible, then it is up to us – Singaporeans – to hold the government responsible. At the next general and presidential elections, we need to vote to ensure that we have a representative government who will abide by the following:

• Protect and enshrine our individual rights, whether you are a ‘normal’ Singaporean or a politician 
• Do not go overboard and abuse their power
• Encourage a diversity of opinions – this will generate more ideas to propel Singapore forward
• Listen to the people and facilitate people’s needs

Again, there are many more that I could write. But I would need to detail each and every act that the government would need to do only because the government has lost its bearings, and we would need to hold them by the rein. If our government has the principles of justice, equality and fairness held up in esteem, we won’t need to teach them these. They would know what is right.

Unfortunately, this government has proven itself unworthy. It has to change.

This article is a continuation of Part 1 of this article.

Singapore Workers Have No Unions and No Collective Bargaining Power

It is a fallacy for workers in Singapore to imagine that they have the same bargaining power as companies, or that workers have any significant bargaining power. The last time someone tried to exercise their bargaining power rights, the SMRT bus drivers were charged, jailed and deported.

The problem? We simply don’t have unions. Wait – let me take that back. We simply do not have strong, independent unions unfettered by governmental control. The NTUC is a union, yes in name, but in function? – It’s really a corporation disguised without the interests of workers at heart.

In the 1700s when America embarked on industrialisation and capitalism, workers were working long hours – 18 hours straight – and paid miserable wages. The unions formed, stepped in and started negotiating for the rights and welfare of the workers. Work hours were much reduced and wages increased significantly. Now, a majority of the countries in the world have minimum wages now – even in neighbouring Malaysia and Indonesia. However, some commenters believe that the imposition of a minimum wage might be seen as artificially intervening in free market economics – if the market could regulate itself to find an optimal wage-price-profit balance, this is suggested as being more desirable.

Is this the approach that Singapore has taken? Well, it is the approach the government SAYS that it would like to take. If so, it hardly explains why Singaporeans have a much lower purchasing power as compared to most other East Asia economies. If Singapore is so rich by per capita GDP, why then do Singaporeans have such low purchasing powers, even when compared to other developing economies, several times poorer than Singapore? Is it because even as the wages of Singaporeans are that high that prices continue to rise even much faster?

The flipside of not having a minimum wage law, and even more worryingly so, no strong unions, is that without any significant bargaining power by the workers, a government with capitalistic intentions which has majority stakes in the largest companies in Singapore will necessarily depress wages and increase prices to increase the profitability of their own companies and this is what is happening to Singapore.

On the other hand, there are some of the few countries in the world without minimum wage laws which are actually the most equal societies in the world – the Nordic countries and Switzerland. Unlike Singapore, there are very strong unions in these countries and even without minimum wage laws, what works is that the workers have strong collective bargaining power which allows them to be compensated more fairly in their work contributions, even in the absence of minimum wage laws.

What then is the problem for Singapore workers? Singapore workers are trapped in a corundum where not only do we not have strong independent unions, we do not have a minimum wage law to protect us as well – Singapore workers are left to hang by the companies. When there are only companies and workers in the picture, capitalistic greed will mean increasing profits at the expense of workers’ rights and wages – when companies control raw materials and the modes of production, they monopolise the control over these modes and would be able to determine how much prices and wages to set. Workers who do not have control over these modes and who exist individually simply do not have enough standalone might to challenge the companies for their silo rights. The development of workers’ unions, historically, had arose out of this context, where workers learnt to collectively organised themselves, so that they would be able to stand on equal footing with companies, with thus a similar bargaining power, and collectively, to ensure that their rights are protected as well.

As stated, in Singapore, unions have been rendered useless. Or rather, after the government arrested union members of the Singapore Association of Trade Unions in Operation Coldstore in 1963, and where NTUC had then pandered towards the government’s interests, the effectiveness of unions in Singapore had since dissipated  This explains the state of the ineffectiveness of NTUC, its redundancy (in terms of worker protection) and thus the continued depression of wages of Singaporeans in the last decade.

Market Economics to Grow Wages? Not When Market Economics Are Controlled by Government

The aim of this article is to provide an overview for readers to understand Singapore’s chronic state of the depression of workers’ wages. The government might have tried to skew the discourse by claiming that they believe in allowing for market demand-supply economics to shift wages to an optimal level. But the government has never explained how this works because they know that the market demand-supply economics are under their control and determined by their policies – they wouldn’t want to explain it. If the government’s focus is to increase the profitability of the Singapore companies owned by them, it is unsurprising how wages are not increasing and thus why they have remained silence on how market economies have been ineffective, through their own planning and intervention.

If there were independent unions in Singapore, they would be able to bargain collectively for the workers. If there were independent media owners in Singapore, they would highlight the plight of workers and force the government and companies to respond accordingly. If there were independent courts in Singapore, they would charge companies for unfair practices and discriminatory practices and the government for being negligent towards workers’ rights. Unfortunately, the Singapore governing ecosystem is all tied to the government and thus Singaporeans are rendered incapacitated in their ability to advocate for their own rights.

The Internet: The New Opportunity for The People’s Consolidation of Their Power

Yet, is the situation as dire? What the government had not learn to control is the Internet. The Singapore government is an Internet buffoon. The Internet poses as possibly the only malfunction, but a very key one, in a tightly controlled Singapore ecosystem where the people are able to regenerate themselves and organise themselves into movements that had gained such traction and momentum that the government was forced to backtrack on the Singapore Population White Paper 2013, and Budget 2013 took on a more decisive turn towards some semblance of social welfarism, however minute.

Online advocacy through the flourishing of alternative news websites and investigative journalism, coupled with key influencers in the know who have constantly put out insider news and information have resulted in a constant outflow of the ‘truths’ which has rallied Singaporeans’ support towards the injustice of workers’ treatment and rights, and a gradual ground-up advocacy towards the government.

The government might still have a control over the tight networks and legal obstacles that they might have put in place. But the government did not know how to plug the Internet and will never now be able to do so unless the Internet becomes obsolete. The social progression of things to come will naturally develop among the people a renewed channel for the consolidation of their power, which will prove to be a worthy force that the government would need to reckon with.

Onwards Singapore.