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. 

Singaporeans, is this what you want? To drive investments away and together with it, the jobs as well?

Singaporeans, is this what you want? To drive investments away and together with it, the jobs as well?

Your noise will be heard far and wide.

The Government has to strike a balance. In striking this balance, they take into account 3 factors:

1. The needs of our industries and enterprises.

2. The needs of our workers of this generation.

3. The opportunities for our children in the next generations.

When you send the wrong signal and turn investors away, not only your jobs will be impacted, the good jobs the government wants to create for the young who are still in schools, and those yet to be born will be impacted as well.

There are Singaporeans with valid concerns to be addressed but there are far more people with a political agenda who, on a daily basis, are on social media to stir the negative sentiments such as pointing out the number of errant companies flagged for discriminatory hiring practices.

Tell you what, the fact that you even get to know that such discriminatory practices exist means that there is monitoring of the situation by the authorities. And yes, the process can be refined and that is being looked into.

Those who continue to stir the negative sentiments against foreigners are not doing Singaporeans any favour. Their agenda is political.

A business hub means being cosmopolitan

A business or regional hub that does not welcome foreign talents? Is it even logical?

Back in the early 2000s, then Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew told students in NTU this:

"If we do not attract, welcome and make talent feel comfortable in Singapore, we will not be a global city, and if we are not a global city, we will not count for much.

With modern transportation and communications, you either play in the big league or you're not a player."

Singapore needs access to global markets to earn our living

International trade is our lifeline. Our trade to GDP ratio is around 319%, one of the highest globally. This is how important international trade is to our economy, and therefore to Singaporeans. This is also why our FTAs are so crucial to us.

PM Lee said in a Facebook post :

Singapore needs access to global markets to earn our living, and Free Trade Agreements play a crucial role in letting us do so.

Our network of FTAs has benefited us enormously. They create investments and opportunities for our businesses, and jobs for our people. They have helped make us a leading global hub.

The misrepresentation of the effects of the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) with India has caused much unnecessary public concern.

Singaporeans are anxious about jobs, foreign competition, as well as the impact of the large number of foreigners working and living here. These are valid concerns which we will address. But if we put the blame on CECA, that will not solve our problem but instead make it worse.

It's meritocracy, not Chinese privilege!