http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sg_Review/message/1455?unwrap=1
Mellanie Hewlitt
The Truth Behind Singapore's Public Policy Administration
Singapore Review
21 Jan 2005
Government led "Family Friendly" benefits and "Flexi-work"
arrangements often look good only on paper but find very limited
application outside of the civil service in the real pressure
filled world of private sector firms and MNCs. This was the bitter
lesson learnt by Ms Lim Ai Ling when she attempted to cash-in on
her "Family Friendly Benefits" and instead opened a can of worms.
Ms Lim found to her horror that a "Flexi-work" public policy does
not mean flexi-work arrangements in practise.
Ms Lim's mistake is quite understandable. Many of us assume that
public policies are more than mere rhetoric and take them at face
value especially when they are enthusiastically reported in the
local government owned papers. We mistakingly assume that a "Family
Friendly" public policy translates into more quality time with our
loved ones. But the truth is hard to swallow in Singapore. Few
realise that most of the policies are mere publicity stunts devoid
of actual substance and one relies on them at his or her own
peril.
To be fair, many firms and Multinational Companies (MNCs) will
endorse these government led "family friendly" % "flexi-work"
packages as part of their standard employee welfare program. But
they are also faced with budget constraints and the constant
pressure of keeping costs down and achieving a larger workload with
the same (or even smaller) number of workers.
Family Friendly = More Time With Family = Less Time in Office
What the PAP and Singapore's highly paid ministers fail to realize
is that we cannot eat our cake and have it. For every choice made
there is an underlying opportunity cost. Most private sector MNCs
have already optimized workflows and streamlined work protocols so
only very little room is available for further rationalization
exercises. In a fast moving work place like this, the opportunity
cost of implementing a family friendly work environment translates
into;
a) Shorter Work hours;
b) Lighter work loads;
c) Employing more staff to do the same amount of work;
d) Increased labour costs and head-count;
e) And ultimately a less competitive Singapore work force (and
infrastructure).
The logic behind the above is part of Introductory Economics 101;-
When a company is given fixed (and limited labour resource units),
if one factor of production is increased while the others remain
constant, the overall returns will relatively decrease after a
certain point.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/d1/diminish.asp
The bottom line is that many department heads, and employers are
unwilling to accept the above costs which will ultimately eat into
the net profit and overall financial performance of a firm. The
accepted norm in Singapore's MNCs is to "over leverage" on fixed
labour resources so that the department is actually operating on
the declining segment of the Total Productivity curve. Needless to
say this is an inefficient allocation or resources as the mix of
resource units are not optimized. But this is of no consequence to
most department heads as their only sole objective (to the
exclusion of all else including worker welfare) is to keep labour
costs down.
In this flawed strategy, worker welfare (and Family Friendly
Benefits) are interests that directly conflict with the
balancesheet / P&L needs of the company (and the state).
Unfortunately, the same flawed strategy is adopted by the Singapore
government albeit on a larger scale. On a small island with no
natural resources, the only "resource" which is saleable in order
to attract foreign investments is HUMAN LABOUR. But if this is the
case and the average worker should be of prime importance to the
overall well being of Singapore Inc, Management should implement
more friendly work policies. Instead, the average worker is
exploited and they seem to be intent on killing the goose that lays
the golden egg.
Past examples of the PAP Government's "Family Friendly" policies
include;
Cutting Employer's CPF: Implementing across the board wage
reductions (in the form of unilateral cuts to employers CPF
contribution). This was a policy which the PAP government imposed
harshly with the full knowledge that government census figures
showed that most Singaporeans workers are still dependent on CPF
contributions to pay-off their mortgages. See:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sg_Review/message/618 and also
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sg_Review/message/638
No CPF Restoration in Good Times: During a subsequent economic
recovery, this same government did not restore Employers CPF
contributions. The ministers of cause restored their own salaries
(though it was highly questionable if they ever took a wage cut in
the first place. See
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sg_Review/message/1234 But the buck
literally stopped before it reached the average Singapore
worker.
Singapore is a very expensive place to call home. Its ok if you are
just "passing through" as an expat, but the story is different if
you try settling here for good. See:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sg_Review/message/1074
Singapore Workers Over Paid; Inspite of para (3) above, this same
government also came to the rather far-fetched conclusion that
Singapore workers were more well paid than their counterparts in
the US, UK and Australia (see:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sg_Review/message/577
Singapore Workers Cannot Retire: Contrary to the assertions of the
government in para (4) above, it is a fact that Singaporean workers
will not have enough in their savings to retire on. See:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sg_Review/message/1413
State Enterprises Live Off Workers: Decades of huge hidden fiscal
surpluses enrich the Singapore government and state enterprises but
impoverish the private sector and tax payers. See Far Eastern
Economic Review:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sg_Review/message/1153
Its a Crime Not To Top-Up CPF; This same government has made a
crime if you do not top-up your CPF. Only in Singapore is it
possible to be taken to court if you owe yourself money. See:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sg_Review/message/1305
The list goes on and on but for the sake of brevity we will stop
here. From the above mix of policies the overall picture is clear.
Actions speak louder than words. In the grand scheme of things of
the PAP government, there is no place for workers welfare and
"Family Friendly Benefits". Of cause it would be political suicide
(even in Singapore) to publicly admit this truth so in true PAP
tradition policies are drafted and the government controlled press
is enlisted to show case to the public that worker's welfare
feature prominently in the ruling party's priorities.
Of cause the problem here is that there maybe afew kind
unsuspecting souls who actually swallow this entire sales pitch,
hook line and sinker, which brings us bad to the sad story of Ms
Lim Ai Ling.
Then again, with Human Labour as Singapore Inc's only available
product, do you honestly believe that management of Singapore Inc
will endorse policies which will degrade the quality and standard
of its sole product (and life line)? This government's unspoken
stand on bread and butter issues is that the welfare and well being
of the average worker is subordinated by those of the "larger" and
more "pressing" concerns of the state. Like the usual Stalin and
Marxist model, the average Singaporean worker is expected to make
sacrifices for the "larger good" of the state.
This perspective also sits well with the government's current
anti-labour policies which favour labour representation by a sham
labour union (NTUC). The existence of strong and real labour union
representation would not agree with a management strategy which has
the objective of keeping Singapore Inc's sole product price
competitive (i.e.cheap) and attractive. There is a negative
correlation between quality of life and attractiveness of Singapore
Inc's prime product.
In order to placate workers, what we get from "Management" of
Singapore Inc are a series of measures which look good on paper but
were never intended to see real actual application in the real work
place in the private sector. This also explains the reason why
there is the very conspicuous absence of any real bona fide labour
union representation here.
see: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sg_Review/message/1399
With unemployment rates remaining at 4.5% p.a. (which sit strangely
beside reports by the local press of a local economic recovery),
the status quo in the job market is decidedly in favour of the
employer. Unlike other developed countries like the US, UK,
Australia etc, Singapore is not a welfare state, so in the absence
of real tangible labour union representation the employers hold all
the cards on the negotiation table. In view of the current
conditions desperate workers with mortgages to pay are willing to
accept lower pay, longer work hours and more stressful work
conditions.
The Singapore government has never been a strong proponent of human
rights (and free speech) so this Stalin/Marxist styled mentality in
public policy administration is also hardly surprising. However,
this imperfect state of affairs might be easier to accept if
Singapore's Ruling Elite also led by example. But this was not the
case as Singapore's current ministers have conveniently exempt
themselves from the same policies on wage restraint which they
cavalierly impose for the rest of the population.
see: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sg_Review/message/1373
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sg_Review/message/1360
What happens if the average unsuspecting worker takes the "Family
Friendly" and "Flexi-work" policies of the PAP government at face
value and attempts to actually see these policies through to actual
implementation? Ask Ms Lim Ai Ling who was finally retrenched for
all her efforts.
We circulate below article from Lim Ai Ling which should be read
keeping in mind the overall larger "labour friendly" policy mix of
the Singapore Government. There is more than meets the eye in the
shady world of public policy implementation and there is a lesson
to be learnt in this for all would-be believers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today
20 Jan 2005
Lim Ai Ling
HERE'S WHY FAMILY-FRIENDLY BENEFITS DON'T FARE WELL HERE
--------------------------------------------------------
I refer to the report, "Flexi-work arrangements still limited" (Jan
1
.
It's not surprising that the family-friendly benefits did not fare
well in
Singapore.
I was in the IT line. I had tried to ask my former employer, a big
local
company, for a flexi-work deal so I could spend more time with my
son.
I asked to work from home, but my request was turned down.
Then I tried asking to work four extended days in a week with one
day off,
another proposal that was turned down.
This is unlike in the United States or the United Kingdom, where
employees
have been able to persuade employers to let them use the Internet
to work
from home, as noted in the News Comment, "From home to work with a
mouse
click" (Jan 14).
Finally, I was asked to accept a retrenchment package while I was
pregnant
with my second child.
My manager told me it was the best arrangement as, with the money,
I could
stay home and look after my kids!
Letter from Lim Ai Ling
