Productivity as a national concern — Gross National Distress

Productivity as a national concern

Productivity at the most basic level is defined as the relationship between output and input. Before trying to understand productivity consciouseness, I needed to first understand Singapore’s relationship with productivity. Due to the state’s stance on wealth creation, productivity played a key role in helping to achieve that objective.

According to Woon Kin Chung and Loo Ya Lee,

“The determinants of productivity and the reasons for its importance apply as much at the enterprise level as they do at the economy level. High productivity growth enables an enterprise to price its products competitively, sell more and enlarge its market share. As a result, its wealth will increase over time, which means that higher profit can be made and higher wages can be paid at the same time without compromising profit.”¹

Since there is a limit to which labour can grow, labour productivity is critical to GDP growth in the long run. Small countries such as Singapore rely heavily on the productivity of the labour force because of its limited resources. This is why Singapore has initiated several policies and plans to ensure the continued growth of productivity levels.

As mentioned in the Winsemius Report, “since the export industries will be producing quality products for the international market, the investment policy will have to aim at high productivity” and this could be achieved “through the usually long process of increasing productivity or through the introduction of shift systems.”²

This might have kickstarted Singapore’s love affair with productivity which began in 1967 after the National Productivity Centre was established. The centre had five goals.

To promote productivity consciousness in management, trade union leaders and workers.
To provide training facilities for management and trade union personnel in all productivity techniques, including general management, personnel management, supervisory training, management accounting, and industrial engineering.
Foster the further development of good industrial relations by training.
To render management consultancy services in the fields of general management, personnel management, supervisory development.³

Under the promotion programme section of A Productivity Code of Practice, Trade unions are to undertake the task of promoting “productivity consciousness” among members, thereby minimising absenteeism and practising economy in using raw materials and other production facilities. Productivity consciousness seems like an etiquette or mode of behaviour more than a mindset. Maybe it started out as etiquette and shapeshifted into a mindset.

Does productivity consciousness also obstruct the formation of other consciousness such as class and gender or does it operate in parallel? Apparently, workers were “disenchanted with productivity” in 1971 due to the National Productivity Centre not delivering what The Charter for Industrial Progress and the Productivity Code of Practice promised. One wonders if this meant that workers had not fully grasped “productivity consciousness” at this point.

The National Productivity Centre which was originally under the care of the Economic Development Board was now under the watch of the Ministry of Labour. With the Ministry of Labour now in charge, productivity was now seen as an issue that concerned labour. The board consisted of tripartite cooperation between trade unions, employers and the government. This cooperation is often mistaken as subservience to the whims of capital which it is.

The first National Productivity Campaign was launched in April 1975 by S.Rajaratnam who was the Minister of Foreign Affairs at the time. The catchy slogan for this campaign was “Productivity is Our Business”. These ideas were transmitted through television and radio, seminars and paraphernalia such as pamphlets, key chains, posters and car decals.

The focus of the National productivity Board then shifted towards promotion of productivity in the 1980s.This was when the board spearheaded and conceptualised productivity through a long term productivity campaign. Policies from this decade are largely dictated by the Economic Development Plan for the Eighties. This period was also deemed to be the second industrial revolution for Singapore. The first took place in the 1960s and focused on low skill wage labour employment. This strategy also relied heavily on foreign direct investments.

There was a growing concern towards the “human aspects” of productivity. However, this might not be what one expects of the term “human aspect”. The great concern was to create conditions for capital intensive investments that required advancement in technology and automation. The workforce had to adopt “new skills, right attitudes, develop good labour management relations and work well in teams.” The “human aspect” had to cater to the needs of potential investments from foreign firms. Unfortunately for the state, two reports based on the findings of the Ministry of Labour and Economic Development Board revealed several problems about the attitude of the Singaporean worker. There was work to be done with regards to the attitude and mindsets of the workers.

Job hopping seemed to be the top complaint of companies. Managerial and supervisory authority undermined for fear of causing resignations as a result of disciplining workers. Workers were also reluctant to work overtime. Nightshift was also avoided because of health concerns and missing out on their favourite television programmes(this is my favourite). Companies found that automation was not feasible because machines had to be operated continuously around the clock.

The workers were essentially developing mindsets that were to their own interests. These traits began to cultivate a culture of “individualism” in the Singaporean mind. This individualism did not however facilitate positive competition or innovation. It catered more towards the absolving of responsibility from the individual who was more than happy to do the bare minimum. In its quest to raise productivity, the state was met with resistance from the attitudes of the workers. One starts to suspect that productivity consciousness is like a piece of clothing, more specifically like a uniform, only worn during occasions of socialised indoctrination. The Singaporean knows how to wear it at opportune times and can take it off for the sake of self-interest.

This had to be corrected. The worker had to be convinced to adopt a better mindset if there was to be any progress beyond Singapore’s reliance on foreign capital.

During the National Day Rally in 1981, the then Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, made claims that “ the heart of the worker…that’s what productivity is about.”⁴ Productivity was a concept that the Singaporean mind had to digest and put into practice. During the launch of Productivity Month in November 1982, Lee Kuan Yew again stressed the importance of labour-management relations.

“All successful management have in common a man-centred philosophy. Healthy labour-management relations and good work attitudes amongst all workers depend on good management philosophy in which care and concern for the workers are high in management priorities. It is more important for management to have sincere concern for their workers than to provide increasing employee benefits.”⁵

A nationwide productivity movement was launched in 1981 to aid the development of a productive workforce, personnel management and industrial relations. This was intentionally labelled as a movement instead of a campaign because it was intended to be continuous.

To make the message friendlier or palatable, a mascot was conceived to give an identity to the movement. This mascot took the form of a bee and was named “Teamy”. A bee was selected because of its association with positive traits such as high productivity and teamwork. Simultaneously, having found no solution for its reliance on foreign capital, Singapore also began to look towards Japan as a source of inspiration in the 1980s.

In commemoration of the opening of the new National Productivity Board building in 1986, a mural with the eight doctrines of productivity was presented by the Japanese Productivity Centre.

Productivity symbolises one of the highest values that mankind should persistently pursue
Productivity is a concept which signifies a creative culture and brings about the material and spiritual welfare of the human race
Productivity helps to create peace, strengthens democracy, and generates co-operative efforts among a country’s government, business and, labour leaders
Productivity represents a basic code of behaviour that should govern the conduct of each and every kind of group or organisation, be it political, governmental, economic, social or familial
Productivity enhances the potential of human beings
Productivity restores the sanctity of labour
Productivity represents a model for individual growth and development
The basic concept of productivity is the vehicle by which the fruits of improved productivity lead to expanded employment opportunities and are fairly distributed among management, labour, and the consumer⁶

The Japanese managed to devise their own management systems that were quite different from the west and these systems seemed to have inspired higher productivity levels among the workers. This was a source of inspiration to the ruling body of Singapore. I believe that these “eight basic doctrines” are the true tenets of productivity consciousness but the state was having a hard time trying to inculcate these values into Singaporeans. The inability to do so might have resulted in the tightening of social control. This could have taken shape in certain ideas like “Asian Values”.

_{1. Woon Kin Chung and Loo Ya Lee. 50 Years of Singapore’s Productivity Drive. World Scientific, 26 Dec. 2017.
2. United Nations, A Proposed Industrialisation Programme for the State. United Nations Commissioner for Technical Assistance, Department of Economics and Social Affairs 1963.
3-4. Woon Kin Chung, and Loo Ya Lee. 50 Years of Singapore’s Productivity Drive. World Scientific, 26 Dec. 2017.
5. National Day Rally Speech, 1981.

6. Woon Kin Chung and Loo Ya Lee. 50 Years of Singapore’s Productivity Drive. World Scientific, 26 Dec. 2017.}