You need to have the right papers, right experience and the right skills set to be hired. Many PMETs are no longer employable because they don’t have the skills set to be employed. What are the skills set that is needed for one to get hired or to be suitable for a job, especially a high paying one?
Should I ask Lim Swee Say? He just said, or ‘believes that his successor is the "right person" for the job.’ Ok, he did not say Chan Chun Sing has the right skills set for the job of Secretary General of the NTUC. He said he believed. Actually not much different, just semantics. 'Kar ki kong, kar ki song'.
Chan Chun Sing’s background was a general in the army, a soldier. He had a stint as a minister in the Ministry of Social and Family Development, nothing to do with labour or workers or trade unions. Now what would the skills set be like for someone to fill Swee Say’s position in the NTUC? What are the job specs or job description? What kind of work experience that are related to this job?
Other than being a general, and a minister with some relevance in management and making policies at ministerial level, there is totally no relationship in Chan Chun Sing’s experience and training to the job of Secretary General of NTUC. In all counts, ask the recruitment specialists, they would throw his resume out. No relevance, no skills set for the job. Even if he produces a MBA would not be of much relevance.
So, how come a person of a diverse background, with unrelated job experience, be the ‘right person’ for the job? This analogy is not to say that Chan Chun Sing is not a super talent? He is a super talent and touted to be the next PM. But if you were to use the same reasoning to dismiss those PMETs who have lost their jobs, it makes his appointment and being the ‘right person’ for the job a bit funny isn’t it?
How could a sweeping statement like no skills set be good enough to rubbish all the PMETs as no longer employable but a person with Chan Chun Sing’s military background, nothing to do with workers and trade unions, be suitable, have the skills set for the job?
What is wrong with the skills set myth? It is only applicable to PMETs. Or super talents are exceptions? Luckily this position is not thrown to an international recruitment agency to find the right candidate. I am pretty sure Chan Chun Sing’s resume will not match anything for the job. No skills set!
What do you think? Got myth or no myth? Why no one says got not skills set? This is what they used to say, head I win, tail you lose.
PS. No disrespect to Chan Chun Sing. Just using this example to show the silliness of the no skills set myth. If a recruitment agency wants to reject him for the job, it is so easy to use the no skills set myth and it sounds so logical. Did anyone say political appointments no need to talk about skills set, even for million dollar jobs?
http://mysingaporenews.blogspot.sg/2015/05/the-myth-of-skills-set.html
Should I ask Lim Swee Say? He just said, or ‘believes that his successor is the "right person" for the job.’ Ok, he did not say Chan Chun Sing has the right skills set for the job of Secretary General of the NTUC. He said he believed. Actually not much different, just semantics. 'Kar ki kong, kar ki song'.
Chan Chun Sing’s background was a general in the army, a soldier. He had a stint as a minister in the Ministry of Social and Family Development, nothing to do with labour or workers or trade unions. Now what would the skills set be like for someone to fill Swee Say’s position in the NTUC? What are the job specs or job description? What kind of work experience that are related to this job?
Other than being a general, and a minister with some relevance in management and making policies at ministerial level, there is totally no relationship in Chan Chun Sing’s experience and training to the job of Secretary General of NTUC. In all counts, ask the recruitment specialists, they would throw his resume out. No relevance, no skills set for the job. Even if he produces a MBA would not be of much relevance.
So, how come a person of a diverse background, with unrelated job experience, be the ‘right person’ for the job? This analogy is not to say that Chan Chun Sing is not a super talent? He is a super talent and touted to be the next PM. But if you were to use the same reasoning to dismiss those PMETs who have lost their jobs, it makes his appointment and being the ‘right person’ for the job a bit funny isn’t it?
How could a sweeping statement like no skills set be good enough to rubbish all the PMETs as no longer employable but a person with Chan Chun Sing’s military background, nothing to do with workers and trade unions, be suitable, have the skills set for the job?
What is wrong with the skills set myth? It is only applicable to PMETs. Or super talents are exceptions? Luckily this position is not thrown to an international recruitment agency to find the right candidate. I am pretty sure Chan Chun Sing’s resume will not match anything for the job. No skills set!
What do you think? Got myth or no myth? Why no one says got not skills set? This is what they used to say, head I win, tail you lose.
PS. No disrespect to Chan Chun Sing. Just using this example to show the silliness of the no skills set myth. If a recruitment agency wants to reject him for the job, it is so easy to use the no skills set myth and it sounds so logical. Did anyone say political appointments no need to talk about skills set, even for million dollar jobs?
http://mysingaporenews.blogspot.sg/2015/05/the-myth-of-skills-set.html
