Our services centres are open for customers with appointments. Please use our online services (e.g. eServices, web chat, website) or make an appointment if you’re unable to use our digital services. Find out the latest update on work pass services.
Skip to main content

Part-time workers do get workfare payouts

  • The Straits Times (06 March 2013) : Part-time workers do get workfare payouts
  • The Straits Times (27 February 2013) : Tap part-time workforce to ease labour crunch


Part-time workers do get workfare payouts
- The Straits Times, 06 March 2013
 

  1. We refer to the commentary by Dr Tan Khee Giap (published in the Straits Times on 27 February 2013, "Tap part-time workforce to ease labour crunch").
  2. Prof Tan suggested expanding the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) scheme to cover part-time work, and for the wage supplements to be linked to part-time workers' hourly wage. We wish to clarify that part-time workers already receive WIS today. WIS is given to eligible Singaporean workers earning an average gross monthly income of not more than $1,900 a month. This covers both full-time and part-time workers, and covers employees and self-employed persons. The amount of WIS given to a full-time and a part-time worker of the same profile is also the same, if both of them earn the same monthly wage.
  3. On the suggestion to peg WIS to hourly wages, MOM had considered the option. Today, an employee's eligibility for WIS is determined automatically based on the monthly CPF contributions that employees receive, without the need for the employee to apply. If we used hourly wages, workers or their employers would need to inform the Government of their hours worked before they can qualify for WIS. This would be onerous to implement and could also result in some workers not receiving WIS if they and/or their employers fail to provide such information before they can receive WIS.
  4. Prof Tan also proposed that the Government should regularize a part-time Singaporean workforce. We agree that having more flexible work arrangements will benefit Singaporeans such as housewives, retirees and students, who prefer alternative working arrangements. We also agree that more can definitely be done to reduce the mismatch between available jobs and workers' expectations and needs. MOM is working together with the Singapore Workforce Development Agency (WDA) to do more on this front.

Tap part-time workforce to ease labour crunch
- The Straits Times, 27 February 2013 

Budget 2013 is best understood in tandem with the Population White Paper.

The latter spelt out the underlying population trajectory for Singapore. In fact, what the White Paper did not say, but which is clear to me, is that a larger population is not a target; it is an inevitable outcome if Singapore is to aim to remain a thriving city despite its ageing and shrinking workforce.

This is because Singapore's economy is well on the restructuring path towards a more labour-intensive services economy.

Over the last decade (2003- 2012), value-added in goods-producing industries has been declining from 33 per cent to 29 per cent, while value-added in services-providing industries has steadily increased from 63 per cent to 69 per cent.

The services sector is less amenable to automation and other labour-saving technological improvements. As a result, Singapore needs a relatively bigger labour force over time, comprising both resident and non-resident blue- and white-collar workers.

Such a trend of restructuring from manufacturing to services is irreversible in the longer run as the experiences of developed economies have shown, especially when citizens desire higher wages, which have to be supported by higher value-added industries.

Budget 2013 is full of measures such as productivity incentives to help companies continue on this restructuring path, especially those targeted at small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). It also gives incentives to employers to favour locals over foreigners as employers will have to pay higher levies and face stricter quotas if they want to hire foreigners, but will enjoy subsidies for wage increases if they hire locals.

The move to give incentives to companies to hire locals is in line with the push by the Government to attract more female and older Singaporeans back to work. This is a good initiative, but there is a mismatch between available jobs and workers' expectations. More can be done to reduce that gap.

For example, the Government can make it a policy to regularise a part-time Singaporean workforce by incentivising or even mandating companies to give decent pay commensurate with productivity to part-timers and to adopt flexible work scheduling.

This is one way to mitigate the rapid rise in the number of blue- collar foreign workers. Such a regularised part-time Singaporean workforce can boost additional household incomes and reduce income disparity.

In fact, the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) scheme can be expanded to cover part-time work. Rather than calculate wages on a per month or pro-rated basis, wage supplements can be linked to an hourly living wage. The Government can then augment part-time workers' hourly wage, once the part-time Singaporean worker is certified by the Workforce Development Agency (WDA) as productive, with feedback by employers on good performance track records.

Some large and multinational corporations are able to attract consistent and productive part-timers thanks to their work environment and scheduling. Preliminary industry survey findings by the Asia Competitiveness Institute at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy suggest that raising hourly wages to certain levels can help other companies such as SMEs do likewise.

A regularised part-time worker scheme can also be justified or perceived as an internship or on-the-job training, which should be encouraged especially in services sectors among university, polytechnic and the Institute of Technical Education students.

Efforts to tighten the foreign labour market must be undertaken together with measures to raise employment rates of locals by creative measures to draw out potential workers such as housewives, retirees and students, who may be willing to take up part-time work.

There have been suggestions that the Government cap the number of foreigners at present levels. As business associations have warned, this will have an impact on business growth. Job creation for Singaporeans and the vibrancy of Singapore would be affected as SMEs and MNCs plan to relocate in anticipation of a severe labour crunch. Infrastructure build-up would be delayed, timelines for the additional 200,000 units of public housing may not be met and prolonged low gross domestic product (GDP) growth would mean a Government Budget revenue squeeze.

The Population White Paper warned that a stagnating economy would lead to migration of younger Singaporeans. The more educated and wealthier may indeed migrate. But my concern is that in a stagnating economy, the vast majority of Singaporeans would be trapped at home with mediocre jobs as most have only one effective business language: English, or worse, Singlish.

They would not be effective or competitive in emerging economies which are Chinese-speaking, including mainland China and Taiwan. Neither would they be effective in Indonesia or Malaysia, or be able to compete with Europeans and Americans, who have a much better command of English.

The best way to give the majority of monolingual Singaporeans a chance to make a good life is to give them home-ground advantage by making Singapore itself a vibrant cosmopolitan city. This requires modest workforce growth via greater use of indigenous labour and some immigration.