http://yoursdp.org/index.php/news/singapore/449…
Is the WIS effective in the first
place?
Friday, 14 January 2011
Singapore Democrats
Income disparity has been widening for the past 10 years. The
poorest of our poor have seen their incomes diminish for just as
long. Then just before the next general elections PAP MPs pop up one by one to talk about the plight of
low-income workers.
Singaporeans were treated to this spectacle in Parliament on
Monday where no less than 15 MPs took to the floor to express their
concerns about the poor. But not a single one of them came up with
a proposal to level up society.
Instead they attacked the idea of Minimum Wage while extolling
the virtues of their party’s Workfare Income Supplement (WIS)
scheme.
If Minimum Wage is such a bad idea and WIS
such a good one, why is there the necessity to repeatedly promote
one over the other? This week’s 5-hour parliamentary denunciation
of Minimum Wage is not the first time the Government is attacking
the policy. Nor, one suspects, will it be the last.
Indeed why the anxiety over the WIS
scheme? Could it be because it is not effective? Let’s look at some
indicators:
•WIS was implemented in 2007. In 2008, the average household
monthly income change for the poorest 10 percent barely registered
a pulse – 0.1 percent increase from the previous year. Compare this
to a 6.3-percent-increase for the richest 10 percent of families in
Singapore.
•In 2009, those living in 1- and 2-room flats, the poorest segment
of society, saw their median household incomes plunge by 13.8
percent from 2008. These households include those with no working
persons. Even those 1 and 2-room households with working
persons saw their median incomes decrease by -8.9 percent. Compare
this to those living in condominiums and private houses, the
decrease was only -1.1 percent.
•Among households with working family members, the poorest 10
percent in our society saw a decline of -3.8 percent decline in
average wage per household member – the biggest drop compared to
the rest of the population (see here).
If WIS is as effective as the PAP makes it out to be, why are lowest of our low-income
workers seeing their household incomes fall – and for that matter
fall the most drastically – even after its implementation?
The rationale is problem
Not only is the effectiveness of the WIS
in question, the rationale of the scheme does not address the
problem: That wages, especially those in the lower-income groups,
are suppressed and workers are not paid their due. The rationale of
WIS, as stated on the Manpower Ministry’s
website, is:
‘The Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) Scheme was introduced in
2007 to supplement wages, encourage older low-wage workers to work
regularly and build up their CPF savings.
(emphasis added)
’
The problem is as the name of the scheme suggests: It is only a
supplement to a worker’s income. When an entity needs supplements,
it means that its basics are not met.
This is where the Singapore Democrats make our fundamental
objection to the PAP’s scheme: Every
Singaporean, old or young, who puts in full-time work must be paid
a wage that would allow him/her to meet basic living expenses –
housing, food, transportation, medical care – and have something
left over for retirement.
Something is seriously wrong with an economic system when
workers working full-time cannot earn enough to meet their basic
needs and have to resort to supplementing their wages through
income schemes.
In Singapore, workers are paid inadequately (meaning they are
exploited) and then they are told that they can apply for
supplements.
Why can’t there be legislation to prevent such exploitation? Do
workers not have a right to demand salaries that are the bare
minimum, commensurate with the cost of living, to allow them to
live in dignity and security? After all, our ministers make the
same argument for themselves, with the difference that they want
much more than they will ever need in life.
The SDP’s proposal of Minimum Wage makes
the crucial difference – we want Singaporean workers to be paid
what they are entitled. They should not have to apply for
supplements.
We will discuss the merits of the Minimum Wage and respond to
the PAP’s criticism of it in a subsequent
post.
Be our Supporters:
http://www.facebook.com/yoursdp
