Belabouring the Labor(ious) Argument

Taken from here.

Mrs Josephine Teo:

How does Mr Low propose the Government allocate the foreign worker quota efficiently to businesses, without a levy mechanism? Would it be right for civil servants to pretend to know all about market demand and supply?

What about the social cost of foreign workers? Removing the levies is turning a blind eye to the social disamenities they create.


Mr Low Thia Khiang:

But I thought that's the job of the Government? … The member also says that I made comments, I accuse and criticise the Government but I have no alternative …

What solutions do they (the labour MPs) have? … Their views are the same as the Government's, maybe they don't even have their own views. They have enough resources so they have solutions, but I don't have solutions.


Please lor... What kind of 'act-blur' argument is this London School of Economics-trained economist and former EDB officer, Mrs Josephine Teo, making?

Civil servants pretend to know all about market demand and supply ALL THE TIME. There is nothing right or wrong about this... Some kind of 'pretending' or assumptions have to be made in order for policy analysis and formulation. If not, how do they arrive at levy amounts, land parcels for sale/allocation, hawker stalls for rent/sale, HDB flats for rent/sale, business subsidies/ aid/ (de-)regulations etc?

Eh... wait a minute... Why is she arguing on behalf of civil servants? She's not a civil servant. She's an MP and part of the labour union administration. O_o

She's merely arguing for the sake of arguing. Showing her 'bosses' that she's 'doing her job' with gusto by putting down the opposition in parliament. Anymore and she may break into her Upturn the Downturn song to complement the theme of 'doing her job'.

.................................................................

To employers and even the Government, the attraction of the foreign workers is precisely due to their abundance and attendant cheap prices. Using foreign workers is an obvious and quick solution. Read: EASY solution. So easy that I am surprised such a callous solution had come from our highly-educated/paid administration.

However, to everyone bearing the 'social cost' of these workers, it's not about price of the worker. It's about the numbers. So if the Government is serious about resolving this issue at its roots, it's not about picking a levy value. It's about directly controlling the number of foreign workers in Singapore. More like controlling the number of cars on the road through a COE system, rather than discouraging cigerette-smokers through taxing each packet. Coz price ain't gonna stop the addicted. They are just gonna pass on the 'cost' to someone/somewhere else.

If we are to control the number of workers, where do we stop? What is this 'magic' number?

This 'magic' number of foreign workers will be a product of the 'capacity' approach. In other words, not taking cue from employers' demand for foreign workers, but from the physical and social capacity of our tiny island to house these workers properly. Physical capacity includes the location of and number of dorm beds with attendant R&R/medical/everyday life facilities. Social capacity includes how the workers would stress our public systems and spaces during their off-days, i.e. inevitable interaction with locals. By doing so, the government is directly managing the social costs of introducing foreign workers into our system, and not hoping that, by the stroke of a pen, a levy will dissolve or 'pay for' the social costs.

It is common for governments to control the type and attendant number of foreign labour coming into the local market. Take the Australian Government for example. They control at the occupation-level, e.g. hairdresser, brick layer, doctors, engineers etc.

(Yes! Not all white collars 'talents' can freely enter Australia. Only the types Australia needs. In fact, most developed countries control the inflow of workers of any sorts tightly. Singapore is one of the rare countries in the world that welcomes anyone from low-skilled to white-collars earning only SGD2500 per month to super-skilled/rich individuals. In other words, we take in almost anybody as long as he is willing to work/invest here.)

Australia is very clear about what kind of labour it lacks and wants to make up through importation of foreign labour. Is that a government messing around with the free market and laws of demand and supply? Who cares! I think that is a government trying to do its job.