Democracy is not a populist whore
But unfortunately, the SDP is. With ‘champions’ like these, democracy needs no enemies.
The ‘podcast’ starts off with a rant against the PAP, using the same old accusations and assertions that attempts to stir up anger and hate. The really funny part was when CSJ immediately went on to claim that they would offer alternative policy proposals, rather than just criticising the PAP, because ‘they believe in being constructive’.
I believe these proposals are rubbish, and I will explain why, and thus provide the reasons why I hold the SDP with particular disdain.
Essentially, the ‘policy proposals’ outlines in the podcast are a reiteration of suggestions outlined in a previous media release criticising the plans to allow a casino here in Singapore, and now, in their manifesto.
- Empower the people
- Cease Government control of businesses
- Introduce minimum wage
- Provide retrenchment entitlements
- Employ Singaporeans first
As I have argued before, points 3, 4 and 5 are in direct contradiction to point 2. Since then, I’ve had time to think over my arguments and refine them, and hopefully I can articulate them more effectively here.
Ensuring a minimum wage for the lowest of the low-skilled employee guarantees that prosperity is shared by all. Legislation is needed to prevent Singaporean workers from being exploited and ensure that employees be paid fair wages for their work commensurate with the cost of living.
Coyote of Coyote Blog (an economist and small-business owner) lists 4 negative unintended consequences that will arise as a result of a rise (in our Singaporean context, would be the establishment of) in minimum wage levels:
- The jobs just go away
- The jobs get outsourced
- The jobs get automated away
- Prices go up to customers
Underlying this policy is the assumption that there is an objectively ‘fair’ wage. This is as socialist as one gets without waving a red flag that has sickles and hammers on it. I don’t need to spend any more time on this issue, as there is already extensive literature on this issue. I would just like to point out that when 2 parties come to an agreement on what each should get in a transaction, it is usually unnecessary for the state to intervene.
A minimum wage would hurt the very people that CSJ claims he wants to help. It is the low-skilled, low-waged who would be priced out of the labour market immediately due to minimum wage legislation.
Businesses that cannot afford the minimum wage would either close down or transfer the jobs to countries where the labour is cheaper, and thus exacerbate the unemployment problem in Singapore.
Where keeping the business operational is possible, but automation is a cheaper and available alternative to labour, machines will take the place of humans.
Most importantly, the increase in business costs will pass on to consumers. This is in effect, double the damage to the poor, as any increase in costs of living will make up a greater percentage of household expenditure of the low-waged, as opposed to those with high-income.
Of course, this then becomes a new justification for a ‘fair’ wage, supposedly ‘commensurate with the cost of living’. It doesn’t take a genius to realise that this becomes a vicious cycle of leapfrogging, with each round of increase in the cost of living being used to justify an increase in minimum wage, which in turn drives an increase in the cost of living, ad infinitum.
Under the SDP proposal, the Government will pay all retrenched workers their full salary for the first six months. This amount would be reduced to 75 percent during the next six months, and further reduced to 50 percent in the third six months. Each worker will be allowed to reject only up to three job offers in the one-and-a-half years following which the retrenchment entitlement ceases.
The first question that comes to mind of course, is that who would be paying for this scheme. Given that the most common complaints about the PAP is that they stand for ‘Pay And Pay’, how would the SDP be able to convince taxpayers to fund a system of retrenchment benefits that would last 18 months for each individual?
Personally I am against any attempt to raise taxes or fees. The state under the PAP is cumbersome enough as it is, we hardly need any new justification for more money to be given to the government, regardless of who is in power. Which brings me to my next point.
Assume that somehow that funding the entitlements does not entail any additional cost to the taxpayer (maybe call in the supposed billions that CSJ accused the government of loaning out).
And then, assume that that the administration of these funds somehow does not require any increase in bureaucratic red tape, which again is already a common complaint.
And then, assume that the requirement of keeping tabs on the employment status of those on the entitlements to prevent them from becoming dole bludgers does not result in an increase in government intrusion into the lives of private citizens. And so on, and so on.
You get my point.
The PAP’s foreign talent policy adds to the burden of Singaporeans by indiscriminately allowing foreigners to seek employment here. The SDP will push for a Singaporeans First Policy, which will insist that employers retrench foreign workers first and only lay off Singaporean workers as a last resort. In addition such a policy will require the Government and employers to employ foreigners only if locals cannot be found for the job.
Of all the crackpot policies that they have suggested, this one is the craziest, and most offensive. Firstly, on what grounds does CSJ accuse the PAP of ‘indiscriminately allowing foreigners to seek employment here’? As far as I can see, there is plenty of discrimination. Only certain and specific classes of ‘foreigners’ are allowed to work in Singapore. How much more discriminatory can it get?
In addition, making Singaporean’s harder to sack also makes them less appealing to employ. Businesses would resist and reduce hiring of Singaporeans just to avoid this stupid policy dragging them down. Couple this with the technically unimplementable ‘employ foreign only if local cannot be found’ proposal, it would be as though we are giving business owners a big middle-finger.
Lastly, what’s up with the stupidest line ever given to justify such blatantly nativist and racist rhetoric?
‘At the moment the PAP is using vulnerable foreigners to make vulnerable locals even more vulnerable’
It’s amazing how this line is simultaneously the least coherent and yet the most offensive in the podcast. Offensive because he assumes that Singaporeans are stupid enough to fall for that claptrap (but unfortunately he could very well be right), and also because his self-righteousness is most hypocritical.
For all his talk of freedom, CSJ conveniently neglects to talk of the freedoms he wishes to take away from those who would wish to seek a better life here in Singapore. For all his talk about democracy and dynamism, he forgets to say that the reason why America has been so successful is because Lady Liberty welcomes immigrants to the shores of New York City, telling them:
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.
Why the SDP is especially odious
Anyone else notice that all their proposals would substantially increase the size, power and scope of government? So all that talk of ‘cease Government control of business’ is just hot air, isn’t it? Ok, let us assume that they get their wish of privatising all GLCs. But after that, what? In the end, all those extra regulations and legislation is just Government control of the economy in another form. So how? As Singaporeans say, lan-lan lor. Too bad, who ask you so stupid vote for SDP?
On top of that, the last most critical flaw in these proposals, is that they skew the incentives such that entrepreneurship becomes much less attractive than being a salaried worker.
Yes ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls. You heard me right. CSJ and his merry band of fools at the SDP want all Singaporeans to remain indentured slaves for the rest of their lives. Rather than try to encourage people to become business owners, they’re trying to encourage us to become 9-5 drones at the office. And he talks of freedom! Pfeh.
So based on my analyses, we can come to either 1 of 2 conclusions about CSJ and the SDP:
- they are extremely incompetent, proposing policies without any or insufficient analysis of the full impact of their suggestions
- know full well that their proposals are crackpot and unworkable, but are calculated precisely to inflame and arouse the anger of the electorate
Personally I’m betting on number 2, given the sheer amount of inflammatory material in the podcast, but those of you who disagree, feel free to leave your comments.
And lastly, to those who seem to have a problem with me criticising the SDP, or the ‘Opposition’: my criticisms of the Government have always been of their socialist and communitarian tendencies. That being the case, how can I, on principle, let the so-called ‘Opposition’ and the SDP get away with the very same flaws that I criticise the PAP for?
There is no ‘give chance’ here. You are either right, or wrong. And in this case, CSJ and the SDP are wrong, very very wrong.
Wannabe Lawyer ? Blog Archive ? Wannabe Lawyer says SDP imbecilic
Coyote Blog: Case Studies on the Minimum Wage
Coyote Blog: Physics, Wealth Creation, and Zero Sum Economics
Pew Hispanic Center Report: Latino Labor Report, 2004
e pur si muove ? Blog Archive ? Elections, RadioSDP and SingPass
Singapore Watch ? SDP Podcast?
mrbrown: L’infantile terrible of Singapore: Look! We so clever political party because we now got podcast!
Atypical Singaporean: Possibly the first Singaporean Political Podcast
Singapore Rebel Urges Free-Speech Podcasting - Forbes.com
Stupid Dumbass Party
SDP - SDP says casino idea imbecilic (18 April 2005)
SDP - Democrats launch historic RadioSDP (4 Aug 05)
SDP - What We Stand For
SDP - Manifesto: The Economy
