Why NMP Calvin Cheng has got it all wrong

Opinion — NMP Calvin Cheng’s idea of having different levies for different industries may be well-intended, but his proposed solution on the issue of foreign workers in Singapore should definitely not be adopted.

Speaking during the budget debate, Mr. Cheng suggested that different foreign levies should be imposed for different industries in Singapore. Particularly, industries that have an inelastic supply curve of foreign workers — such as those of the construction and cleaning sector — should be imposed the highest foreign levies so that these firms may be pushed to increase their productivity and hire more locals.

Other industries, such as the manufacturing sector, should be dealt with in a more “gentler” manner, giving them more time to upgrade themselves.

Despite his well-intended solution, Mr. Cheng has undoubtedly perceived the situation incorrectly.

Firstly, the average and ordinary day-to-day Singaporean surely is not worried about foreign workers from Bangladeshi or China filling up positions in the construction or cleaning sector. In fact, many Singaporeans are thankful that these foreign workers are present to carry out the menial tasks of clearing the rubbish chutes or constructing a new building under the hot afternoon sun — a task that most Singaporeans deign not to do.

The average working Singaporean is definitely more concerned about the influx of foreign workers from India, China or even neighboring Philippines taking their jobs in the middle-class sectors away from them, simply because they are more willing to work the exact same hours, carrying out similar or even more tasks, for much lower pay.

I know of a mother earns a meager $1,200 a month works long hours a day, standing as a food promoter in a shopping mall for hours on end, in order to feed two of her children who are still schooling. Her husband lost his job as a salesman several years ago and has been unable to find a job since. She takes home barely above a thousand dollars every month after CPF, and lives from hand to mouth without any savings.

Fear of falling prey to a serious bout of illness concerns her everyday, but the major worry on her mind now are the workers from China that her boss is steadily employing across different branches, may soon come to eventually replace her one day. These foreign workers who are very willing to take home an income of $900 a month, able to stand for longer hours, and who are much younger and youthful — these are the exact source of worry for ordinary, day-to-day middle class Singaporeans who face the very brute reality of losing their income and jobs.

This scenario is being repeated across most middle-class jobs affecting the everyday Singaporean. Local call centers are hiring Filipino or Indian workers by the dozens, most who are willing to also work more for less, sacrificing the average Singaporean in the process. Simply call the helpline of your credit card company and the high chance is that a non-Singaporean will pick up the phone. This has definitely its resonance even in the upper management levels.

IT is these hardworking, humble and ordinary Singaporeans that the foreign levies should protect the most — certainly not by imposing a much heavier foreign levy on Bangladeshi rubbish chute cleaners or construction workers from China.

Because of their lower cost of living back home, most of these workers are willing to work more for less, because less here simply means, well, more back home. For $900 a month the average Filipino can live very well off back at home, but this is definitely not the case for the mother of two who needs to feed her primary school children and pay for their textbooks in Singapore.

The foreign levies should therefore really make it more expensive to hire these foreign workers who are causing the hardworking and average Singaporeans to lose their jobs in the middle-class sectors. The formula that the highest foreign levies should be imposed on the sectors that have the most inelastic dependence on foreign workers should not be adopted, for if it were all the middle-class working Singaporeans will be left exposed — and vulnerable to a very real threat of losing their jobs.

Singaporeans will end up having to sacrifice their income by being willing to be paid less in order to remain competitive. And these are the Singaporeans who bleed the colors of our country, and who serve national service for more than 2 years of their life, returning every year for in-camp training — Singaporeans for whom, Singapore is their one and only home.

And this is done not by imposing the highest levy on the Bangladeshi rubbish cleaner.

–

Productivity is certainly the buzzword of the Budget. Simply because it is an elegant and easy to understand word that fits in snugly into any formula to boost our economy.

For whoever can argue against the claim that “increasing productivity” is a bad thing?

But the question that should be asked in the face of Mr. Cheng’s solution is: whose productivity?

Mr. Cheng’s suggestion that the heaviest foreign levy should be imposed on the foreign cleaners and construction workers so that they may be pushed to “increase their productivity” should be considered against the backdrop of this question.

What difference does it make if the Bangladeshi worker beneath our HDB blocks can clear 20 rubbish bins per hour as opposed to 10 previously?

Surely, this is less important than increasing the productivity of say, Singaporeans in the manufacturing sector through a series of restructuring or training to increase their efficiency/workload management?

And while taxing these demand inelastic industries for foreign workers so that firms will “employ Singaporeans at a faster rate” sounds like a good suggestion, the question should be asked: exactly how many Singaporeans will want to clean rubbish chutes or carry bricks to construct new expensive condos in the city area?

–

Many of the buzzwords and propositions in the Budget are good-sounding.

“Increase productivity” and “hiring more Singaporeans” are but two of the many.

The challenge then is for the Singaporean to think through these proposals and examine them for what they are truly worth. It is without a doubt then only will we shatter the fallacious perception that these propositions are the infallible truth for all Singaporeans to subscribe to.