Yee Jenn Jong is upset with transparency for Workers' Party

The double standard is very pronounced.

WP calls for freedom of information and transparency and accountability but don't want these for themselves.

Isn't it precisely because Parliament does not sit until next year that the report of a matter as important as this should be posted on Parliament website? This is especially so when WP had given their side of the story at their press conference.

Where exactly does Yee Jenn Jong stand on this matter of integrity, seeing that he is so busy defending the leadership?

Indeed, what is the position of the other leaders in the party, the elected MPs in particular, now that all knew that their top leadership sat in Parliament with full knowledge of the lie and did nothing about it?

Do they agree with the actions of their leader which can be seen to be complicit in Raeesah's lies?

We have no intention of legalising drugs. We must decide what works for Singapore, and not just follow what others are doing.

We cannot afford to be complacent. We know from our experience that once a society becomes hooked on drugs, it takes huge effort and a long time to wean off the addiction.

We will face challenges in future because first, the trend in many countries is to legalise drugs, in particular cannabis, for recreational use. Many of these countries have been unable to control their domestic drug situation and have decided to legalise drugs, in a bid to regain some control over the situation. Some countries have also lured been by the economic benefits of regulating the recreational use of drugs.

Whatever the motivation, these countries have advocated for a harm-reduction approach, which encourages “safer” use of drugs.

But this can easily go awry, despite their best intentions.

Singapore has our own case study. In 2002, Subutex was introduced as a legal prescription for treating opioid addiction. But some people started abusing Subutex as an alternative to heroin, injecting themselves to get a “high”. Within a few years, the number of Subutex abusers and Subutex-associated deaths increased significantly. At the same time, Subutex abusers were discarding their needles in public areas. Young children and the elderly were at risk of getting hurt from the needles, or worse, contracting some disease. We decided to put a stop to this. In 2006, Singapore listed Subutex as a controlled drug, and CNB mounted swift operations to wipe out Subutex from our streets.

We learnt a painful lesson from Subutex. We are under increasing pressure, both externally and internally, for us to consider legalising drugs. But we have no intention of doing so. We must decide what works for Singapore, and not just follow what others are doing.

Second, our youths today are frequently exposed to alternative lifestyles on social media. Drug use may be glamourised, giving the impression that using drugs is harmless, or even cool. Based on annual surveys conducted by the National Council Against Drug Abuse (NCADA), the attitudes of youths towards drugs are gradually becoming more liberal. This is a very worrying trend. We must push hard against it, to prevent our children and grandchildren from becoming the next generations of drug abusers.

CNB therefore needs to strengthen our national drug education efforts. Continue to find new ways to reach out and engage the population.

But the rest of us have a part to play too; to correct misinformation about drugs, to speak up against drug abuse within our social circles, to say “no” to drugs.

Collectively as a nation, we must continue to understand, believe in, and support Singapore’s zero-tolerance approach towards drugs.

- Excerpt of speech by PM Lee at CNB's 50 Anniversary

Yaw Shin Leong is sticking to his assertion that he was advised to stay silent

 

Yaw Shin Leong is sticking to his assertion that he was advised to stay silent.

"Whoever involved would know what happened. After staying silent for the past 10 years, I am not resurfacing this for any reason other than to put on record that accountability was done."

That's his response to WP's statement denying that they advised him to stay silent.

Yaw Shin Leong said he was advised by Low Thia Khiang and Sylvia Lim to stay silent.

If you keep covering up, the past will soon catch up with you.

Yaw Shin Leong (also known as Amos Rao) wrote:

Moments ago, an ex-WP cadre pointed to me the video recordings of Workers’ Party chief Pritam Singh’s press conference held on Dec 2, 2021. At the 9.35 mark, Pritam commented that:

‘Yaw Shin Leong did not account himself to the party after the allegations were made. I think he did not address the media, did not address the party. The party was willing to give him some space to get himself organized, but this just went on and it went on, to a point where it was unreasonable conduct and this was not acceptable. And so, the party took the decision to fire him, to sack him.”

The above is not true. Even before the allegations have surfaced, I accounted the situation candidly to WP Secretary General LTK. When the allegations surfaced, I immediately accounted to both WP Secretary General LTK and Chairman Sylvia Lim. And I was advised to stay silent.

I placed party first before self and to minimize the fallout, I kept silent and resigned from WP CEC. My intention was to give WP CEC a blank cheque to paint the narrative required. To facilitate the process, I travelled out of Singapore voluntarily.

On 14th Feb 2012, I was expelled from WP for 'breaking the faith, trust & expectations of the party and people'. I am okay with this narrative, but I am not okay with what Pritam said, for I did account myself.

I am not entertaining any media queries and will leave the above as it is.

https://www.facebook.com/100010303231730/posts/1585679971785429/

First Raeesah Khan, then Workers' Party lied to the whole nation

First Raeesah lied to the entire nation.

Then the WP Leadership also told 'untruths' to the entire nation to cover up their role in the persistence of the lies.

They had told Raeesah to continue with the narrative she had given to Parliament and that if Ms Khan and WP can get away with it, there was no need to clarify the lie. She was asked to 'take the information to the grave'.

One lie after another.

What being a leader means according to PM Lee Hsien Loong

 

M Ravi says Lim Tean steals clients' money

 

It is not about having more types of wealth taxes per se: Indranee Rajah

The Government is constantly looking for ways to be able to supplement our revenue but to do that in a way that strikes the right balance.

On wealth taxes, Second Minister for Finance Indranee Rajah said that it is not about having more types of wealth taxes per se.

Rather, what matters is having wealth tax policies that work in the context of each jurisdiction. She was responding to WP Jamus Lim's proposal of a wealth tax.

"Take, for example, Switzerland, which has a net wealth tax, estate duty and property-related tax. In total, their wealth tax revenue is about 1.9% of GDP. This is comparable to Singapore's wealth tax revenue at about 1.8% of our GDP," she said.

The Government will continue to review the wealth tax.

"The question has never been one of whether we want to tax wealth but a practical one, of how to do so effectively such that it cannot be avoided easily," she said.

"At the end of the day, I think we do not have any issue with wealth taxes per say. We just want to make sure that whatever we put in place actually works."

"It must be remembered that wealth can move. Talent, both Singaporean as well as foreign, can move. Companies can move.

So, we have to tax in a way that is competitive and allows people and companies to generate revenue in order to encourage them to stay here and that revenue can then be used and reallocated and distributed."

Governing a country responsibly is not easy especially in uncertain times: Chan Chun Sing

Governing a country responsibly is not easy especially in uncertain times.

Education Minister Chan Chun Sing shared some thoughts in his opening address and keynote speech at the 8th Singapore-China Forum on Leadership.

To avoid irrelevance, mindsets , systems, processes have to evolve with changing circumstances: Chan Chun Sing

Opening Address and Keynote Speech by Mr Chan Chun Sing, Minister for Education and Minister-in-charge of the Public Service at the 8th Singapore-China Forum on Leadership.

Nothing is set in stone. Change is the only constant. To avoid irrelevance, mindsets , systems, processes etc have to evolve with changing circumstances.

What worked in a set of circumstances may not work in different circumstances.

 

To protect its cohesion and unity, every society needs to define its own identity and be able to refresh its social consensus on values and viewpoints as these evolve: Chan Chun Sing

In an inter-connected world, our society is also exposed to ideologies and movements that originated from other parts of the world, with different contexts and values systems.

"Some segments of our population may be influenced by such external forces without a full and critical appreciation of our local context or history," Education Minister Chan Chun Sing said.

"This has ignited the contestation of ideas and ideologies in society, resulting in more and deeper divides among the citizenry.

To protect its cohesion and unity, every society needs to define its own identity and be able to refresh its social consensus on values and viewpoints as these evolve," he added.

It is so easy to be the opposition in Singapore. Jamus just claims credit.

 

It is so easy to be the opposition in Singapore..

The Progressive Wage Model is the brainchild of Lim Swee Say and Tripartite partners have been working since 2012 to implement the models for the various sectors.

But who remembers Lim Swee Say or gives him credit for it?

The model, despite it making a big difference to workers, in fact came under criticism all because it is from the ruling party.

Then came Jamus from WP who declared that the model was along the lines that the WP has been fighting for. And for good measure, he added the 'make your vote count' tag to his post..And fans were delighted. "Ya, thank you, WP, well done, this is why we need more opposition".

And then we have PSP Leong Mun Wai taking credit for conversations that apparently were started by him. It's as though before LMW appeared on the scene, no one gave a dime about PMEs.. And of course fans cheered and went "Thank you Sir. This is why we need more opposition."

Hello, Mr Leong. These engagements or conversations started more than a year ago in August 2020. It didn't start because you made a speech in Parliament.

It's so easy to be Opposition in Singapore. Leong Mun Wai just claims credit.

The hard work was done a year ago that began with first engaging thousands of PMEs through dialogues, feedback channels and surveys. This is then followed by engaging stakeholders, namely, the employers through SNEF.

The recommendations were the outcomes of many, many engagements and much hard work.

It did not just happen because Leong Mun Wai made a speech and some Facebook posts.

But why are we not surprised that Leong is so quick to claim credit?

Rule of law and separation of powers: Shanmugam

The Workers' Party came to give a lecture on rule of law and separation of powers and this is what Law Minister Shanmugam said in his response.

Rule of law and separation of powers are fundamental to Singapore's success, and indeed, survival as well.

But it also takes courage and political will to deal with real problems instead of offering soaring rhetoric.

Facebook is Jamus' research tool

 Something is clearly wrong when Facebook is your tool to guage foreign interference.

𝗟𝗲𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗠𝘂𝗻 𝗪𝗮𝗶'𝘀 𝘄𝗼𝗲𝘀 : 𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝗲𝗻𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝘁𝗼𝗼 𝗺𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝘁𝗼𝗼 𝗱𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗰𝘂𝗹𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱

𝗟𝗲𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗠𝘂𝗻 𝗪𝗮𝗶'𝘀 𝘄𝗼𝗲𝘀 : 𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝗲𝗻𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝘁𝗼𝗼 𝗺𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝘁𝗼𝗼 𝗱𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗰𝘂𝗹𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱

PSP Leong Mun Wai was the one who took parliamentary debate past midnight insisting 'not enough information'.

But he was also the one who told National Development Minister Desmond Lee there was too much to read when the minister encouraged him to read the industry transformation map for the construction industry.

And now he complains about not being able to understand the amendments. So does he understand what he is opposing?

What happens when a leadership and a people forget the constraints we face? Lee Kuan Yew

A reminder of how we can go down, and go down very quickly.

Because we have had success for the past 50 years , some have forgotten that we are an improbable nation. Perhaps they do not even understand what it means to be an improbable nation, a small island without any natural resources.

In fact, success has turned to arrogance when people think companies have no choice but to come here to do business.

In any parliamentary debate, the outcome is either Singapore wins, or Singapore loses.

Parliament is a place to further the interests of Singapore and Singaporeans, not a place to further the political agendas of any political party.

Global companies are here to play the global game. They are not here to serve the Singapore market. They are here to serve the region and the world. They want to bring together an international team. That is our value proposition to them and that is why they find Singapore attractive. If they cannot bring in an international team, why would they find Singapore attractive?

Would you turn away a company that has 69 high end jobs for Singaporeans because they want to bring in 31 foreigners?

PSP Leong Mun Wai calls for a 30% quota on foreign talents.

PSP calls for a 30% quota. On top of that, they want a 10% on nationality. They also want top management positions to be ringfenced for Singaporeans.

PSP's policies will make the environment so hostile, that no foreign investor will consider Singapore to build any new business. They will also yurn Singapore into a mediocre country with their protectionism.

When companies come here, they hire Singaporeans and also foreigners. But they are also committed to training Singaporeans to take over more jobs.

Dr Tan See Leng said in his speech in Parliament:

"Indeed many companies tell us that they prefer to hire locals over foreigners, so long as they can find the skills here. Even if there is initially a shortage of skills, many are willing to develop local talent to fill these roles

Take for example PayPal.

When it first started, it had to rely more heavily on global talent for specialised technical skills and more senior roles that required managing regional teams.

However, PayPal committed to hire and train 150 Singaporeans across tech and business roles over 3 years."

The PAP Government's strategy is to attract good investments here first to entrench the jobs here even if we do not have enough local talent. We train up our people. In this way, they create good jobs not just for current Singaporeans but also future Singaporeans.

Because we welcomed Mizuho Bank in the early 2000s and allowed them to employ 60% foreigners, today, more Singaporeans have access to good jobs in the bank.

Populism is always shortsighted, focuses only on the present and uses an emotional argument. But thankfully, Singaporeans are mostly rational, reasonable and pragmatic because ultimately, it is about them and their children's future.

Job creation is not a simple matter of getting rid of the foreign workers, and all the jobs will go to Singaporeans.

Job creation is not a simple matter of getting rid of the foreign workers, and all the jobs will go to Singaporeans.

THE PAP Government helps the Singaporean worker remains competitive and employable through training, upgrading, and lifelong learning, so that he has the skills to match the jobs on offer.

The PSP has focused only on numbers.. Not once have they encouraged the worker to upgrade themselves or pick new skills. It shows that they do not have a real concern for the Singaporean workers.

The Singapore economy requires 3.4 million people to support the entire breadth and depth of activities.

The local workforce is just 2.3 million. Get rid of the 1.1 million (tens of thousands) foreign workers, and YOU will be jobless.

By remaining open and providing businesses with the access to global expertise, the Government has anchored many good jobs for Singaporeans that could have gone elsewhere.

𝐏𝐒𝐏 𝐝𝐨𝐰𝐧𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐣𝐨𝐛𝐬, 𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐲 𝐮𝐩 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐱𝐢𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬.

Between 2010 and 2020, EP and S pass holders grew by about 110,000.

𝐁𝐮𝐭 𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐏𝐌𝐄𝐓 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐲𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐰 𝐛𝐲 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝟑𝟎𝟎,𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐝.

The PSP assumes that if we reduced the number of foreigners here; then all these jobs will automatically go to Singaporeans.

In a Facebook post, Leong Mun Wai said that we can get rid of 'tens of thousands' of workpass holders and he thinks Singaporeans can fill these jobs.

"But that thinking is fatally flawed," Lawrence Wong said.

"First, we already have more than 25,000 PMET vacancies today, with many companies still looking to hire.

With so many companies having difficulties filling these vacancies, how would we find people with the relevant skill-sets to take on the additional “tens of thousands” of jobs that Mr Leong thinks can be created by getting rid of the foreigners?"

Chan Chun Sing and the closure of Yale-NUS College

Why weren't the student body and staff consulted?

Education Minister Chan Chun Sing said it was because the discussions involved the senior leadership of the two universities and with their respective boards on sensitive issues of strategy and finances.

Minister Chan said:

"𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐘𝐍𝐂 𝐬𝐭𝐮𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐚𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐝𝐨𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐇𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐫 𝐒𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐬𝐭𝐮𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐍𝐔𝐒. 𝐋𝐢𝐤𝐞𝐰𝐢𝐬𝐞, 𝐛𝐨𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐮𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐞𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐝𝐨𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐞.

But we accepted this because we saw value in having a liberal arts college in our tertiary system.

YNC hoped to raise over $300m to reach an endowment fund size of around $1 billion 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐧𝐬.

This would have reduced the burden on the annual operating income of fees and government subsidies. 𝐘𝐍𝐂 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐝𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐮𝐭𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐬, 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐧𝐨 𝐟𝐚𝐮𝐥𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐞𝐭.

Transitioning to the New College will give us economies of scale, and reduce costs to some extent. This was a relevant consideration, but not the main motivation for the change." (end of quote)

What we also learn from an article from Yale Daily:

45% of each intake at Yale-NUS are foreign students.

The article wrote:

"Yale-NUS required resources from the Singaporean government, and many of the funds financed the education of foreign talent. According to a previous article reported in the News at the time of Yale-NUS’ conception, the government of Singapore was meant to finance the college for at least its first decade, but administrators also tried to build up an endowment. Officials hoped the endowment would be on par with those of Williams College and Amherst College, which were valued at about $1.5 billion at the time, according to a 2008 Ministry of Education report.

𝐁𝐮𝐭 𝐘𝐚𝐥𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐚𝐩 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐝𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐫 𝐩𝐨𝐨𝐥 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐝𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐭 𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐲 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐔.𝐒.-𝐛𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐦𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐚𝐦𝐩𝐮𝐬, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐍𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟏. While the Singaporean government funded the college’s construction and subsidized most of the costs in its first decade, the college aimed to be funded by one-third government subsidy, one-third tuition and other fees and one-third gifts and endowments by 2030, according to The Octant." (end of quote)

So we can gather from what Mr Chan said and from the article from Yale Daily that Yale did not want to fund the college.

So here's what it is:

The Singapore government funded the construction of the college and subsidised the very expensive cost of education at Yale-NUS.

And almost half the enrolment in the college are international students with an education financed by the Singapore's taxpayers. That's a very high proportion of foreign students.

Yale did not want to contribute funds to this college.

Well, looking at these facts, it makes perfect sense to merge Yale-NUS with USP to form a new college for economy of scale, to make education more affordable (and therefore more inclusive) to Singaporeans.

NUS is a leading university. There's no reason why a merge college cannot do well or even better.

Education Minister Chan Chun Sing's reply to the question on the impact of the merger of Yale-NUS and USP (University Scholars Programme) on academic freedom:

𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐚𝐲, 𝐘𝐚𝐥𝐞-𝐍𝐔𝐒 𝐂𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐞 (𝐘𝐍𝐂) 𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐠𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐜𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐟𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐨𝐦 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐟𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐍𝐔𝐒 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐘𝐍𝐂.

1. First, there had been similar concerns about a perceived lack of academic freedom when YNC was established. They proved unfounded.

In fact, few believed then that YNC would live up to its ambition. Even fewer would own it. It is perhaps ironic, and a testimony to NUS and YNC’s efforts all these years, that YNC is now seen as a paragon of academic freedom in Singapore.

2. 𝐘𝐍𝐂’𝐬 𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐜𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐟𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐨𝐦 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭 𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐍𝐔𝐒’𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐜𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐟𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐨𝐦, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐝 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐍𝐔𝐒 and other Autonomous Universities (AUs) also have 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐚 𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡, 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐧 𝐩𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐭 𝐭𝐨𝐩𝐢𝐜𝐬, 𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐘𝐍𝐂.

𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐥𝐲-𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐤𝐞𝐝 𝐠𝐥𝐨𝐛𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲, and attract distinguished scholars. It would be grossly unfair to faculty members in NUS and other AUs to suggest that their teaching or research is in any way less rigorous, of lower quality or less free than that of YNC faculty.

Progressive Wage Model (PWM) is the brainchild of Lim Swee Say

Let's understand.

Mr Lim Swee Say designed the PWM because he really cares for the low wage worker. He described it as a 4-in-1 model.

He believes that low wage worker must be paid decent wages and that's the minimum. However, he did not want the minimum wage to stagnate and become the maximum wage for the worker.

He believes that workers CAN upskill and become more productive. He believes that even low wage worker CAN have career progression.

The PWM was birthed out of his convictions.

So you see, the minimum wage has been with us since 2012. It is not a universal or national minimum wage. It is a sectoral minimum. A sectoral min wage is carefully negotiated in consultation with all stakeholders. It is thus not set at an arbitrary level. It is set at a sustainable level without loss of employment.

Please share with others what you learn so that all can better appreciate the amount of efforts made to uplift our low wage workers. The effort is a never-ending one.

Workfare Income Supplement is effectively a negative income tax.

Helping low wage workers...,

Workfare costs the government $850m a year and benefit almost half a million workers.

In 2 years' time, this will be increased to $1.1 billion. This will allow the payout amounts to be raised and the qualifying age for Workfare to be lowered from 35 to 30.

Workfare is effectively a negative income tax.

If you're looking for a minimum wage that pays workers for what their work is worth, it has to be the sectoral minimum wage and not a national minimum wage.

If you're looking for a minimum wage that pays workers for what their work is worth, it has to be the sectoral minimum wage and not a national minimum wage.

A sectoral minimum wage pays a worker according to the skills he/she brings to the sector. This is why different sectors have a different sectoral minimum wage because jobs in different sectors require different skills.

As the sectoral min wage is carefully negotiated by tripartite partners, it is sustainable as it takes into account the interests of all stakeholders .

All these make the PWM superior to a national or universal min wage.

A national minimum wage does not pay workers according to what their work is worth because it has to be kept low in order for it to apply to all sectors without loss of employment.

It is pitched at the lowest level of skills. That's the only way for it to apply to every sector. This means only workers with the lowest level of skills are paid for their work. The rest are underpaid.

The Progressive Wage Model has been with us for many years now.

Since it was implemented for the cleaning sector, it has been expanded to other sectors including landscape, security and lift and escalator sectors. More sectors are included with works in the pipeline.

The PWM is hard work. It does not just end with a model. Tripartite partners continue at it by meeting and updating it, agreeing on wages for subsequent years so that even the minimum wage for particular sectors does not stagnant.

Why all the hard work when you could just settle for a national minimum for everyone and leave it at that? In the words of union leaders, it is a moral obligation.