Singapore

Singapore should have minimum wage, says economist Lim Chong Yah
The former National Wages Council chairman goes "On The Record" about what led to his thinking on income inequality and his
arguments for why the Government should still consider implementing a minimum wage.

SINGAPORE (/NEWS/SINGAPORE)
Singapore should have minimum wage, says economist Lim Chong Yah

Former chairman of the National Wages Council Lim Chong Yah. (Photo: World Scienti c Publishing)

By Bharati Jagdish (/author/7531720)

10 Jun 2017 08:34AM
(Updated: 10 Jun 2017 11:25AM)

SINGAPORE: Eminent economist and academic Lim Chong Yah is perhaps best known for serving as chairman of
the National Wages Council (NWC) for almost three decades.

In 2012, he made headlines for suggesting what has been dubbed wage shock therapy - hiking the pay of the
lowest-paid workers by 50 per cent over a period of three years and a voluntary freeze, for three years, on further
pay increases for those earning more than S$1 million per year.

His proposals were met with mixed responses.

Five years on, he stands by them, and maintains that the Government should consider implementing a minimum
wage.

Lim recently crystallised his thoughts in the book Lim Chong Yah: An Autobiography, Life Journey of a Singaporean
Professor. In it, he also describes his childhood and the seeds of what led to his thinking on income inequality.

He went On the Record with Bharati Jagdish, and spoke rst about growing up in Malacca, where his father was a
shopkeeper, and what it meant to grow up without his mother.

Advertisement
 Ofcial938LIVE
On the Record - Eminent Economist, Lim Chong Yah Share

554
Cookie policy

Lim Chong Yah: In my childhood years, my mother passed away suddenly when I was eight years old. So, I had a
tough time having to look after myself without the bene t of a mother. That could have a ected my attitude to life
later on. Life then was very tough, particularly during the Japanese Occupation of Malaya. During the occupation,
we could not export our rubber, our tin or other products, neither could we import, because there was the allied
blockade of Malaya.

There was a food shortage, a shortage of everything, and it may have contributed to make life very, very tough for
all of us during that period of our ownlocal history.

Bharati Jagdish: I understand you had to farm rice, tapioca and vegetables to help your family earn an income.

Lim: Yes, I learnt farming, or what you call today, horticulture. I learnt to survive. I used to call it the
university of hard knocks that I was thrown into, without having applied to join.

Bharati: Would you say you are better for it?

Lim: I think so. Im steeled by it. I thought I later became a stronger person, hopefully, a better person.

Bharati: To what extent is this the factor that led you to talk about issuessuch as income inequality?

Lim: It must have. It must have. I saw a lot of people along the streets of Malacca, and often because of the lack of
food, they developed paunchy stomachs. A few days later, I could see them one by one dropping dead. Dead. That
gave me - a little boy - a very, very tough impression. Why should we human beings establish ourselves a world
where people have to starve to death? Was there a way out? It kept bothering me throughout my life. And when I
studied economics, that became uppermost in my mind.

Bharati: I understand you had the potential of getting a cabinet post in the Malaysian government, but you chose
instead to go down this path of academia. Why?

Lim: When Tun Abdul Razak was the prime minister, and Tun Tan Siew Sin was the minister for nance, they

invited me to return to Kuala Lumpur with the view to become a cabinet minister, a minister for land and land
settlements, which meant new villages. I was very apprehensive. I know my lack of ability to be a politician.

Bharati: What speci c abilities did you think you lacked?

 Lim: I thought you need people who are made of stronger and sterner stu to be in political leadership,
particularly at that time. I thought I did not qualify. So I disquali ed myself from that very thoughtful invitation.

Bharati: Do you regret that at all?

Lim: I always thought that I might stand a chance to be an educator, a writer, and maybe, maybe a minor professor
to change the world slowly that way.

IMPROVING THE CPF SYSTEM

Bharati: Youve tried to do this in some ways through your work. In 1986, you set up a study group on the Central
Provident Fund (CPF) and you did a report to analyse the CPF withdrawal age. That was a result of the adverse
public reaction to the Government's suggestion in 1984 to increase the age of CPF withdrawal from 55 to 60. In
your report, you said the withdrawal age should remain at 55. You also said that there ought to be an insurance
policy for catastrophic illnesses - we are seeing that to some extent today - and you also had a section on the
implementation on the minimum sum scheme.

Some Singaporeans still question the CPF scheme though. Its for retirement funding, but those who have nancial
problems in the here and now often say they want access to these funds. In fact, some of our listeners say theres
no point thinking about funding their retirement when they cant make ends meet today.

Lim: That is not the purpose of the CPF. When the CPF started o , the objective was for retirement. It was a kind of
Singapore pension fund. Of course we need to have old age funds. Which developed countries do not have that?
Even developing countries have old age funds. There are problems with pension funds in some countries however.
It might sound good, but may not really be.

Maybe I should mention the Chinese pension fund for academics. I am told by one of my colleagues who retired
here. He said that in China, they have to retire at a certain age. But when they retire, the academic would get the
same pay, their last-drawn pay, throughout their lives. That's interesting and shocking news. That means your
current pay would be kept purposely low. It's a rather unusual arrangement. Thats why I am in favour of our
system. Improve our system. Keep our system, but improve it.

Bharati: What improvements can you suggest at this stage?

Lim: In my view, it may not be that satisfactory as a real pension programme because the sum for quite a lot of
people would be still very, very minuscule; very, very small to take care of their old age. That is the snag in that
report. Look into the adequacy of the minimum sum for those who could not contribute large sums of money so
they can get higher annuities.

Bharati: How do you think this can be achieved?

Lim: You need another study group to look into this.

Bharati: Dont you have any ideas?

Lim: I have my own ideas, which if I have the opportunity, I would develop.

Bharati: What are your ideas?

Lim: For the time being, I would rather keep it under discussion between myself and some of my colleagues.

Bharati: Why dont you want to disclose your ideas at this point?
 Lim: It's still too early. I am still contemplating, studying the best possible option, being quite unhappy that the
annuities are still very, very low for a large number of people. They can be just quite meaningless.

Lim Chong Yah at his book signing. (Photo: World Scienti c Publishing)

FAITH IN GOOD GOVERNMENT

Bharati: Some analysts have commented that there is too much of a strain on CPF funds. The money can be used
for housing, for education, which some see as a good thing, but others see that as a reason for the funds dwindling
and hence not being su cient for retirement. What is your standpoint on this?

Lim: Housing is a great asset, a great development for us. I think that is one of our greatest achievements - public
housing. A huge number of people, a large percentage, probably about 80 to 90 per cent of our population are living
in public housing, subsidised public housing. And the Government in the past 10 or 20 years or so, has put in more
and more money, rightly so, to upgrade the environment, and to upgrade the public housing programme. So much
so that it's di cult to di erentiate between public housing and expensive private condos - and CPF has played a
very major critical role in raising money for such a development to take place.

Bharati: You say housing is a great asset, but today the Government has pointed out that at the end of the 99-year
lease, the homes may just have to be returned to the State and that as ats near the end of their lease periods,
naturally, their prices will come down correspondingly.

Lim: Yes. I don't think the authorities would just take back in that kind of ruthless and uncaring manner. I doubt
very, very much so. I think there is no need to worry about that.

Bharati: Why are you so con dent that this is the way it would pan out?

Lim: There are no indications to the contrary.

Bharati: You have that much faith?

 Lim: Yes, that much faith in good government. We have a good Government, and we have to ensure we have good
and responsible government.

ROOM FOR RESPONSIBLE DIFFERENCES OF VIEWS

Bharati: Youve had your own run-ins with the Government though. And when you declined to elaborate further on
your ideas to improve CPF earlier, I was reminded of something you mentioned in your book. You talked about the
problems you had in publishing the CPF Study Group report in the 1980s.

Lim: Yes, I couldn't understand it myself. Why one minister rung me up and said it's better not to publish the
report. I couldn't understand.

Bharati: You wondered what could have caused them to be sensitive about it. But you took matters into your own
hands and you published it anyway.

Lim:Yes, because one minister passed the buck to another minister, another minister passed the buck to another
minister. I decided just to publish it, as a special volume of the Singapore Economic Review publication, because I
was the editor and it was a publication of the Economic Society of Singapore.

I was the president so I decided to use that vehicle to publish the book, partly because a lot of the book had already
been published in The Straits Times. One very resourceful journalist somehow got hold of a copy of the report. We
didn't even know. We in the university didn't even know how she got it. Then it appeared in the front page of The
Straits Times almost daily. Partly because of that, we took the initiative to publish on our own.

Bharati: Now that you look back, why do you think the Government took objection to publishing it rst?

Lim: It's an enigma! I do not know. A complete misunderstanding, or maybe ultra-sensitivity? I am not so sure.

Bharati: This was not the only time something like this happened to you. There was another book you wrote with a
few others, Policy Options for the Singapore Economy. The Education Ministry was against your publishing that
book as well.

Lim: That book, when it was written, was sent to many ministries. I thought that maybe I should show di erent
chapters relevant to di erent ministries. Some of the civil servants would reply in writing. Sometimes just by
telephone and say: Congratulations, it's a good chapter. We have no amendments to suggest. But there was a call
from MOE suggesting that we should not publish. Up to today, I do not know the reason, nobody told us the reason.
I suspected there were things on which they didn't agree with me.

Bharati: Such as?

Lim: I was proposing a compulsory education system. At that time we didn't have compulsory education.

Bharati: Today we do.

Lim: It came from the book. Actually, the then-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong invited me to the Istana for lunch
and he said congratulations, we have agreed to introduce your idea of a compulsory education system. So he gave
me a very simple yong tau foo lunch. I still remember that. So it was good enough to invite me to lunch. But that
was a lapse of about 20 years from the publication.

Bharati: You have said that you were not expecting consensus for your suggestions and you believe di erences in
views are normal. But doesnt it seem as if in saying, don't publish this book, they were afraid of the ideas being
discussed openly. How did it feel to have your ideas suppressed and to only be thanked for some of them 20 years
 later?

Lim: I don't know. I am an academic living in a democratic society. In a democratic society, I strongly believe that
we should have some room for responsible di erences of view, responsible discussions on subjects that the country
faces.

So I just exercised my responsibility by publishing anyway. It doesn't mean that whatever you say, whatever you
wish, should become policy. I think that is fallacious thinking. You express your views. That doesn't necessarily
mean that that must be the view by the Government.

Bharati: But the fact that there were attempts to ensure that your ideas were not made public ... the publisher in
this case was McGraw-Hill, and you had signed a contract, but even they wanted to pull out. In your
autobiography, you said that your purpose in bringing out the problems you faced in getting your books published
is not to show that you had been proven right when the Government accepted some of your suggestions, but to
highlight how sensitive it was to make public policy suggestions.

But its concerning that there were attempts to suppress the views.

Lim: At times, probably with hindsight, there was a lot of excessive sensitivity on di erences of views on
important matters. I was concerned, but we have evolved, we have changed, there is much less Government trying
to tell us what not to think about, what not to say. Very much less. We have improved with the years.

Bharati: There might be much less of that today, but some feel it's still not good enough. To what extent do you
believe there still is a culture of fear of being shut down by the Government?

Lim: I hope the fear would disappear with time.

Bharati: It can only disappear if the Government sets the tone for it. What do you think needs to happen for the
Government to realise it needs to engage more openly with academics and activists in society and to be open to
ideas that oppose its own, that these ideas could actually have some merit?

Lim: It really depends on your concept of democratic society. There is no doubt we have an electoral democracy.
Except we should also, in my view, allow enough room for interchange of views. They may not be the same views,
but in the last ve to 10 years, I feel that the Government goes out to seek views. In a very controlled manner, but
still, having said that, there are certain issues we should not deal too much with.

I agree completely with the Government on matters of religion, matters of race - we should be much, much more
careful.

Bharati: Careful sure, but if we are too careful, if we don't talk more openly about such issues, how can we truly
resolve the underlying problems?

Lim: But it can go out of control. It might contribute to destabilise our society and create disharmony.

Bharati: But why not work towards discussing di erences, even on those subjects, responsibly, rather than
avoiding deeper discussions on those subjects?

Lim: Such issues, very sensitive issues, can go out of control. If there is discussion, they should be done in a much
more discreet manner, and contribute to racial and religious harmony and understanding, tolerance and stability.

Bharati: Of course, hate speech should be arrested immediately. But if there is no honesty in discussion, which is
the risk if you control the discussion too much, what is the point?
 Lim: We can, in a very controlled way, among certain responsible sections of the population. They can discuss,
bring up those issues among themselves. They can talk and discuss, but for a public discussion on religion, I do not
think we have reached that level where we can talk freely without

Bharati: You don't trust Singaporeans to be able to do this?

Lim: I trust all Singaporeans but freedom has a limit, and the uppermost concern is for the public good. If we talk
far too freely, we might say bad things about another person's religion, andwe might end up having inter-
religious problems in the country.

Bharati: As I mentioned earlier, of course hate speech should not be allowed, but why assume that's the way it is
going to go?

Lim: It's a preventive, preemptive measure; a precaution.

Bharati: Some activists have said that too much of that may not serve us well in the long run in terms of creating a
deeper understanding.

Lim: I am not quite sure. I still think with racially, religiously sensitive issues, there must be limits but a topic like
minimum wage, I think it should be and it is discussed quite freely and openly.

Bharati: Beyond race and religion, you mentioned how the Government has been making an e ort to do more
public consultations and dialogue sessions, but some still feel that all this is like a "wayang", paying lip service,
and that their ideas are not taken seriously. What do you think?

Lim: I really believe that its fallacious to think that whatever people say should become public policy. People
should reconsider that expectation. It reminds me of a story of people praying to God. They say: "You know I pray
to God for this and for that, but that is never granted." If God were to grant the wishes of everybody, there would
be pandemonium. Some people may say: Dear God, could you remove the eye of my neighbour. He is nasty, he is
very cruel.

Mr Lim Chong Yah (left) with his autobiography. (Photo: World Scienti c Publishing)
 STANDING BY WAGE 'SHOCK THERAPY' AND MINIMUM WAGE

Bharati: You have made suggestions over the years that have not been taken up yet, even though they made
headlines. In 2012, you suggested hiking the pay of the lowest-paid workers earning less than S$1,000 per month
by 50 per cent over a period of three years. You also suggested voluntary restraint, for three years, on further pay
increases for those earning more than S$1 million per year.

Lim: My intention is to have growth with equity, which is to have inclusive growth. In technical terms, the Gini
coe cient, which is used to measure income inequality, should not be allowed to deteriorate too much. So at that
point in time, when I raised that issue, it was deteriorating to a fairly uncomfortable level.

Having said that, the Government has taken quite a lot of measures to transfer income, a large number of
measures - in one form or another - to help the lower-income groups, so much so that our Gini coe cient has
improved a lot.

Bharati: In fact, the Gini coe cient went down from 0.463 in 2015 to 0.458 in 2016 - Singapore's lowest score in
10 years. So do we still need those measures?

Lim: But there is much to be desired. It is still high if you look at the Gini coe cient without the Government
interfering through taxation and through transfers.

Bharati: The gures Ive given you dont take into account Government transfers and taxes. The numbers are
0.409 in 2015 and 0.402 in 2016 after accounting for transfers and taxes.

Lim: We should not ignore the numbers before taking transfers and taxes into account. Because if the gap between
two is wide, it means two things: People depend on the Government for transfers and for support. Secondly, you
have to increase taxes and nd other sources of revenue, which can be very burdensome to society as a whole and
will make our economy uncompetitive. My suggestion is - approach it direct.

Bharati: This year, the NWC recommended an increase of S$45 to S$60 for low-wage workers earning a basic
monthly pay of up to S$1,200.

Lim: NWC does not (and wisely so) use the term Gini coe cient because it's di cult for the general public to
understand, but the objective is the same. They try to raise the incomes of the lowest-income groups, and in a very
exible wage guideline system.

Bharati: But is it too exible? Will companies really comply unless they are unionised companies or public sector
entities?

Lim: That is the problem. The problem of implementation. The compliance rate is very low. That's why I came up
with the minimum wage proposal.

Bharati: Which the Government is against.

Lim: I hope the Government would change its mind. I still think we should have it.

Bharati: But things have changed since you called for a minimum wage here. We now have schemes like the
Progressive Wage Model which applies to the security, cleaning, and landscaping industries. What do you think of
this model?
 Lim: As long as it is not very rigidly implemented. We should still leave a lot of room to management to manage
the payment system. If you do it too rigidly, it might not be as preferable than to have a much more exible way.

Bharati: But you just agreed that if any scheme were too exible, there would be a problem with compliance.

Lim: Minimum wage is di erent from the compulsory payment of wages when people acquire certain
quali cations. Are they relevant? Do they raise the productivity of the company? If they do, so be it. If they don't,
do you still want to give them wage increases by law? So there needs to be some exibility in such schemes as the
Progressive Wage Model.

Bharati: Why do you stand by minimum wage considering these other models that have been introduced and the
arguments against minimum wage have been spelled out several times by the Singapore Government? That it could
increase the cost of production, could negatively impact the economy, it might actually result in a lower rate of
employment because companies may re some workers and divert their wages towards funding the minimum
wage for the remaining workers. And it could cause companies to have reduced pro ts or even go bankrupt?

Although several studies have shown that none of this has happened in several countries that have implemented
the minimum wage, the Government here maintains there are better options than minimum wage.

Lim: One can discuss the minimum wage issue until kingdom come. There are pros and there are cons. Most
nations in the world, developed countries in particular, have introduced the minimum wage system. There were
studies showing that with the introduction of the minimum wage, it would not damage the economy, provided the
minimum wage level is linked to the national productivity level. In other words, it cannot be too high, neither
should it be too low that it becomes irrelevant.

In our case, we are very blessed that we have the NWC that can study whether we are going too far in having the
minimum wage.

If it's say, S$1,000, how many people would be a ected? Preferably, the minimum wage should be implemented at
a time when there is a booming economy than when there is fear of a slowdown or recession. The timing is
important. The quantum, too, is important.

Channel NewsAsia Follow

@ChannelNewsAsia

It would not damage the economy, provided it's linked to

productivity: Lim Chong Yah makes a case for minimum wage
cna.asia/2sMuQzH
11:22 AM - Jun 10, 2017

11 16
 Bharati: You say it ought to happen at a time when the economy is good, but what happens if the economy turns
bad? The minimum wage may not be sustainable anymore.

Lim: Thats why one mustn't put the minimum wage too high. That can create unemployment. These things have
to be discussed.

Bharati: How do you guard against wage stagnation?

Lim: The NWC needs to study this regularly. We are a command economy after all, and the rms in the public
sector and in unionised companies in the private sector will follow the guidelines even if its not legislated. The
other companies have to consider that they would lose their workers, if all the other companies, or most of the
other companies, raise pay and reward their workers for good work.

Bharati: But if you believe that market forces would determine fairness in wages, why even suggest a minimum
wage?

Lim: Because there needs to be a fair starting point. Beyond that, we have to remember we are a market-oriented
economy.

Bharati: Do you still stand by your suggestion of a moratorium for three years on further pay increases for those
earning more than S$1 million per year?

Lim: Yes. There is this concernthat if you leave market forces to handle top executive pay, you may, in the long
run, end up in a spiralling e ect on the economy, making ourselves uncompetitive. One leads to the other. If the
top executive pay is so much, S$3 million, he nds it di cult not to pay his number 2, number 3, and there is that
escalation tendency that might lead the economy in the long run, to go into the region of being uncompetitive, like
in many developed countries. My rst preoccupation is we must have the ability to compete in the global economy.

Bharati: Some might say that having a moratorium on pay increases would make us uncompetitive. Talent may not
want to stay here.

Lim: I think it's a sensible moderate recommendation. I nd that a few top employers (I don't think I would name
them) even say that "my pay would stop at S$1 million and I don't want to have more". There were a few! If not, to
address income inequality, taxes may have to go up. That will make us uncompetitive and make them not want to
stay here.

Bharati: You said it should be voluntary, but really, do you think people would do this voluntarily?

Lim: You don't need to legislate this. The whole thing is based on the market mechanism. You only need moral
suasion. If the NWC were to recommend it, and Government were to endorse it, it could work. We have a highly
responsible and responsive society. It can work in Singapore, because we have a unique tripartite system.

Bharati: But again, you said earlier that NWC guidelines arent always implemented which is why you suggested a
minimum wage.

Lim: Yes, but these are very small groups of people in the country. If Government says: "Have this moratorium",
can you imagine any one of them would not follow? I doubt very much.

Bharati: You have a lot of faith in humanity.

Lim: I have a lot of faith in Singapore.


 The former NWC chairman's autobiography, Lim Chong Yah: An Autobiography, Life Journey of a Singaporean Professor, was
launched earlier this year. (Photo: World Scienti c Publishing)

SHOULD NWC HAVE MORE TEETH?

Bharati: You have said that the NWC should indeed only issue guidelines rather than legislation, but you also
bemoaned the fact that companies may not implement the guidelines and recommendations if they are not
legislated.

Lim: Yes, because if you have a law it can be very rigid. Right from the word go, we did not believe in regulating
wages by law because we are running a market-oriented economy. There must be a lot of exibility in
implementation. If companies are stubborn, and if workers nd that their pay is so low relative to the pay of the
other comparable companies, they would move there - provided we make sure there are job opportunities all the
time. They would move. The companies would be forced to shut down because they wont have good workers.

Bharati:You said minimum wage is a di erent kettle of sh. There must be a fair starting point. But beyond that,
some might say why then even issue other wage guidelines, or suggest increases to the pay of low-income earners
and a temporary freeze on the pay of high-income earners? Why not trust that market forces will determine
salaries for both low- and high-income workers? You seem to believe in the e ectiveness of that.

Lim: Its again about the foundation. Firms in the public sector and in unionised companies in the private sector
will follow the guidelines. Moral suasion may not always work that well with other rms in the private sector. But
we have to have a balance between recommending measures and allowing the command economy to work.

Bharati: You are a proponent of maximum employment even if it means lower pay. During one recession, you
suggested employers CPF contribution rate for older workers be decreased so that jobs would not be lost.

Lim: Yes, that is to ensure we continue to have maximum employment, full employment, to make sure we remain
a very competitive economy.

Bharati: While we have seen a partial restoration of CPF cuts, some wonder if therell ever be a full restoration,
especially for older workers who will need their funds for medical care and for retirement.

Lim: Yes, that is why at one point, I also called for a restoration. This is something that needs to be calibrated
every few years. After all, we are in a command economy and to ensure employment, if during a recession, we need
to reduce CPF contributions to increase workers chances of employment, to prevent them from losing their jobs, it
has to be done. But we also need to restore the cuts in better economic times.

DO WE NEED REDUNDANCY INSURANCE?

Bharati: Lately, we have been seeing rising redundancies and some have suggested redundancy insurance. What do
you think of that?

Lim: I don't think so. I am not very sure whether they should pay for insurance policies to take care of

redundancies. But we have this system, which other countries may not have, which is a exible wage system. It's
exible in the sense that when the economy is doing well, when the companies are doing well, they can pay
workers more. But when the whole world economy is doing badly, when we have recessionary pressures, the
companies can cut their pay. The variable component can go down.

Bharati: Why are you against redundancy insurance?

 Lim: I am not against redundancy insurance. I am against making it compulsory. I am not so sure that is a good
concept.

Bharati: Why do you have misgivings about it at this stage?

Lim: My fear is what I see in the Western countries. I have been trying to fathom why is it that a lot of them have
an unemployment rate of 10 per cent or above. I think it is the rigidity of the wage system, and the rigidity of the
hiring and ring system. When you hire a worker in some of these countries, you cannot re them. Its extremely
di cult to re a worker. So they have become very, very cautious in hiring people. So they always employ part-
time people. So in implementing anything, you have think about whether it would have an unintended e ect.

We are human beings. We always try to go for a better system, but in our search for a better system, we have also
to take precautions that we are not opting for a less superior system.

POLICY OPTIONS FOR TODAY'S SINGAPORE ECONOMY

Bharati: Earlier, we mentioned a book you wrote many years ago, Policy Optionsfor the Singapore Economy. What
might you include in a similar publication if you were looking at the country's economy today, considering that we
are in a world where technology is taking over functions that humans performed previously and jobs are being lost
and businesses a ected?

Lim: It's a very interesting and insightful question. Capital taking over from labour has concerned the minds of
thinkers for a long, long time. You create technological unemployment.

By the way, when we restructured the economy in1979 to 1981, we tried to change the economy from a highly
labour-intensive to a knowledge-intensive new economy, in a very, very short period of three years. And the
method, the modus operandi, was substitution of capital for labour. That means we mechanised, computerised.

Bharati: It's not new.

Lim: Completely not new. We succeeded. The GDP was not a ected. The employment level was not a ected at that
time. It's interesting to know.

Bharati: But considering we are at a very di erent stage in our development, surely that cant happen today.

Lim: Today our GDP per capita income is very, very much higher. So today, in terms of the substitution of capital
for labour, what has to be done, has been done. The room for that kind of substitution is much, much more limited,
much more di cult to carry out that kind of restructuring in the circumstances of that time.

Bharati: So considering these limitations, what do you think the approach should be today?

Lim: We should still try to raise our productivity through the substitution of capital for labour. You can include
digitisation and better organisation. These are the perennial concepts. They are there always. We will always try to
have better organisation, better arrangements, and the production process and more substitution where it's
necessary.

You would not get into trouble if there are more and more investments taking place. But if you have an inadequacy
of investment, your unemployment level goes up. You get into trouble. You get into a high-level equilibrium trap
very quickly. It's stuck there. You have to make sure that people, foreign companies still nd Singapore a good
place to invest.
 Our own companies, Singaporeans too, would want to start new rms, new factories, new methods of productions
and expand their own production process.

Source: CNA/dl/nc

Tags
Lim Chong Yah (/action/news/8396414/search?query=Lim%20Chong%20Yah)
minimum wage (/action/news/8396414/search?query=minimum%20wage) NWC (/action/news/8396414/search?query=NWC)
National Wages Council (/action/news/8396414/search?query=National%20Wages%20Council) Singapore (/news/singapore)
Singapore Government (/action/news/8396414/search?query=Singapore%20Government)

Get the ChannelNewsAsia newsletter in your inbox

8 Comments Sort by Oldest

Add a comment...

Roland Yeo
Whether you agree or disagree with the man, LCY is a genuine and sincere person. A gem to have and am glad that he chose to stay in Singapore
instead of our neighbour.
Like Reply 7 Jun 9, 2017 7:40pm

Augustine Teo Madrid, Spain

Hello yah yah, i read your books in 70s.
No one wants to listen to you now.
The deserving people who should enjoy min wage are already dead long time ago.
Its because we have a loose work immigration policy that a minimun wage is pertinent now and right now.
His is a forseeable problem that our govt neglected.
By today's living standard, "old aunie and old uncle " at the bottom end of employment should be taking home $1700-$1800. Justlike others, part of the
salary can go to medisave which will be necessary at later stage of our lives without depending too much on those on and of handouts by the govt.
Like Reply Jun 9, 2017 8:22pm

Lawrence Lin
MWM is not the right way, i belive the PWM is the right path as it ties salary growth with increase productivity and qualification.

as for MWM, it is legislative and far too rigid, afterall why stop at $1800? why not ask for $8000?

come every election, every party can just keep promising more and more...

the ripple effect is that, all those currently making $8000 will ask for $80000 and those making 1 million can ask for 100 million dollars.
monetary inflation will burst through the roof!

before long, we will all discover we are all holding billions of dollars worth of banana notes like ZIMBABWE.
Like Reply Jun 10, 2017 4:08am

Load 6 more comments

Facebook Comments Plugin

From the Web Recommended by (http://www.outbrain.com/what-is/default/en)