MP Jamus Lim Calls for Minimum Wage, Compassion in Policy
Key Points from His Maiden Speech
- Why the Gap Matters – Lim said poverty among low‑wage workers, the elderly, and single mothers is tied to “insufficient compassion” in how policies are made.
- Beyond the Progressive Wage Model – While Singapore already has the PWM, it only covers select industries. A “simple, across‑the‑board minimum wage” would level the playing field.
- Job Impact Forecast – He warned that any such minimum wage would probably “have a very limited effect” on employment numbers.
- Timing is Everything – With the economy still feeling the aftermath of Covid‑19, he admitted it’s not the right moment to push a new minimum wage into the mix.
- Ideas, Not Numbers – Rather than concrete figures, he pitched the concept for future study and policy brainstorming.
A Playful Take on Parliament’s Heated Debate
If your morning coffee was a bit too bitter, the debate over JAMus’s suggestions might have been a “sweet relief.” Picture this: the senior PAP ministers—think Tharman Shanmugaratnam and his crew—huddled like a detective team, trying to crack the mystery of how to make Singapore’s workers feel a little less “left out.” Jamus, the fresh MP from Workers’ Party, stepped up like the hero of a sitcom, tossing the idea of a plain, no‑fuss minimum wage into the ring.
Meanwhile, the back‑and‑forth of the Q&A felt like a back‑to‑back improv showdown. The PAP MPs’ questions were as sharp as a chef’s knife, probing whether a new minimum wage would hurt the economy, while Lim floated that the real issue is “lack of compassion in policy.” He didn’t dive into numbers—he left the audience with a thought experiment, a puzzle for policymakers to solve over coffee.
Bottom line? Jamus’s speech was more about stirring the pot than pouring a specific recipe. It’s a reminder that policies that feel compassionate can lift a nation’s spirit, especially when the rest of the world is still recovering from a global health crisis.
Vikram Nair: What is appropriate minimum wage for Singapore?
Singapore’s Minimum Wage Fête
In a lively Parliamentary pow‑wow, Mr. Vikram Nair of Sembawang GRC posed two tricksy questions to the economy maestro, Prof Lim. First, “What’s the sweet spot for a minimum wage in our island?” Second, “Can we point to a nation with a lower unemployment rate than ours that also runs on a minimum‑wage band?
Prof Lim, ever the thoughtful scholar, answered with a shrug. “Honestly? I don’t know the exact figure,” he confessed. “But let’s bring in a fresh, independent panel and let the evidence do the heavy lifting.” He added, “Past research suggests minimum wages barely touch unemployment—no dramatic chain reaction here.” The professor concluded his point by citing a whole heap of studies, a veritable “reams and reams” of data.
Later, Fellow WP MP Leon Perera from Aljunied GRC rose to counter the second query. He pointed out that even if a country flaunts a lower unemployment rate, that doesn’t automatically prove their minimum‑wage policy is the culprit. In other words, there are many moving parts in the economics puzzle.
Key Takeaways
- Prof Lim’s position: No definitive wage level yet, but open to an independent study.
- Evidence hints that minimum wages alone won’t drastically alter unemployment.
- Leon Perera’s insight: Unemployment rates and wage policies aren’t inherently linked; correlation isn’t causation.
With that, the session wrapped up, leaving the audience to ponder whether a new “minimum wage” music note truly holds a rhythmic tune for Singapore’s future economy.
Jamus Lim concedes minimum wage “not ideal” during recession
Ministry of Manpower Debate: Minimum Wage – A Boon or a Bane?
In a lively parliamentary session, Ms Gan Siow Huang (the Minister of State for Manpower) and Professor Lim clashed over whether a universal minimum wage would help the economy or hurt it. The discussion was peppered with practical concerns, witty banter, and a modest dose of philosophical musings.
Ms Gan’s Take on Compassionate Policymaking
Ms Gan opened the floor by echoing Prof Lim’s call for “compassion in policymaking.” She reminded everyone that the government’s approach is “more than a one-size-fits-all” and admitted that the resulting policies can get tangled:
“In fact, I think that is what the Government has been trying to do in many of the policies and as a result, sometimes our policies become very complicated, because we understand that there’s no one-size-fits-all policy that treats all problems.”
Her tone was gentle yet firm, especially when addressing the idea that a blanket minimum wage might not bring the anticipated job‑creation benefits.
Prof Lim’s Counterpoint
Professor Lim had originally suggested that the impact of a minimum wage on unemployment would be minimal. He was quick to point out, however, that the current economic climate— recession and stressed business owners—would make a sweeping policy risky for lower‑wage workers:
“I beg to differ. I think under current times, where businesses are being challenged and we’re in a period of recession, there is a very real risk that if we were to introduce a universal minimum wage across all sectors, many of our lower‑wage workers may lose their jobs.”
The professor also warned that “from low wage, they become no wage”—a reminder that well‑intentional policies can produce unintended knock‑on effects. He suggested the minimum wage could be rolled out after the storm has passed.
Other MPs weigh in
- Mr Zaqy Mohamad. He highlighted the difference between a Variable Pay Minimum (PWM) versus a universal minimum wage, stressing that PWM “is differentiated across sectors” and has been in the works since 2012.
- Ms Tin Pei Ling. She asked whether the policy should be withdrawn in a downturn and queried about cleaners’ wages in Sengkang Town Council.
- Dr Janil Puthucheary. He cut Prof Lim short, emphasizing the need for clear tactics for youth employment rather than abstract economic theory.
- Mr Sitoh Yih Pin. He added his own perspectives on that day’s debate.
Prof Lim’s Clarifications
When pressed on the substitution issue, Prof Lim explained that a universal minimum wage would prevent employers from “gaming the system.” He also noted that the Sengkang team is still determining its policy on cleaners’ wages.
Regarding youth employment, Prof Lim admitted he had no immediate policy proposal in mind, noting that the current recession context makes it hard to pinpoint solutions.
What’s the Bottom Line?
Although the debate sparked spirited arguments, one question remains at the core: a minimum wage that best serves the nation’s economic realities without stifling job growth. The answer will likely evolve as economic conditions shift and policymakers refine their approach.
Chiding from Speaker of the House
When the Ministry of Money Meets the Accountant’s Alarm Bell
In a recent parliamentary showdown, Professor Lim tried to convince the public that the government’s reserve funds—bigger than a grocery basket—should be put to work on things like education. But Accountant Mr Sitoh, seasoned in balance sheets for three decades, didn’t just say “no.” He said “stop! why would you let people gamble on low‑interest mortgage deals while we’re the ones saving for the future?”
Prof Lim’s “Golden Rules” of Fiscal Stewardship
- “We’re the guardians of the pot. Our job isn’t only to let it grow; it’s to spend it wisely when it matters.”
- “Investing in education now can pull in higher tax revenues later—you’ll pay for the money you spend in today.”
- “We can’t live in a perpetual ‘might‑be‑better‑tomorrow’ mindset.”
His call was simple: if the interest rates are low, swap out low‑return projects for something that promises a good return today.
Mr Sitoh’s Calm Confrontation
Mr Sitoh, with a smile, warned that his years of bookkeeping had seen the classic trap: “Loans are easy when rates are low, and that cheapness can lead to trouble.” He added that Singapore is the only country that has never needed to borrow during the pandemic — a point he made almost like a proud brag.
He also laid out a gentle truth: “Assuming tomorrow’s better than today is a gamble you might lose.” He laughed, “Having savings isn’t a sin. It’s a smart move.”
Professor’s Counter‑Punch and the Quickie Judge Joke
Professor Lim pressed back, saying that governments can indeed “over‑save” and that there’s never a guarantee of higher returns. He stressed that bundling low‑interest borrowing with high‑return projects is not a gamble but a strategy, “unless you’re suggesting Singapore’s young people aren’t worth investing in.”
Speaker Tan Chuan‑Jin chimed in, confiding, “I don’t think that was the point that was made,” snapping the debate before it could get any more heated.
Takeaway: Reserve Funds, Mortgage Choices, and the Future
- Reserve funds should be active, not passive, especially when they’re earning more in the future.
- Low interest rates can tempt civilians into cheap debt: watch the long‑term consequences.
- Saving wisely is not a bad idea—Singapore’s record proves it can work.
Was the debate a clash of generational finance philosophies or just a good old‑fashioned cold war between banks and accountants? Only time will tell.
