Policy watch: Free flow of cheap labor

[SgParent]

http://forums.delphiforums.com/3in1kopitiam/messages?msg=65340.101
From: SgParent 11:31 pm
To: ALL (101 of 101)
65340.101 in reply to 65340.100
FIRST HAND ACCCOUNT : POPULATION DIALOGUE SESSION WITH MINISTERS
http://therealsingapore.com/content/first-hand-acccount-population-dialogue-session-ministers

THEREALSINGAPORE Thu, 10/11/2012 - 22:43

I was there at the dialogue session, it was so well orchestrated that it felt like a multi-level marketing "sales" event. It started with DPM Teo giving the presentation on fertility rates, immigration numbers etc and reinforced that immigration is needed to fill in the missing babies since 1980s. Charts, numbers and graphs were all used to appeal to the head to assure that infrastructure was being upgraded, immigration was calibrated etc. There was also an innovative use of an instant survey to ask a couple of questions.

Kicking off the questions was Dr Amy Khor with whether the two child policy was so successful to cause the problems today. It was textbook answer of that the policy was needed at that time etc etc and they changed it in 1987. Then came the questions fast and furious. Out of the 35 questions I estimated, about one or two thanked the government, the majority about twenty questions were harsh and upset with the government, the rest were relatively neutral. The quality of some of the questions were quite weak, either unprepared or too narrow in focus. But some were thought provoking and related, e.g. Would Singapore return to Malaysia in the future if we did not have enough Singaporeans ? Why are PRs allowed unlimited time to decide if they want to be Singaporeans or not? Why still have landed properties if there is so constrained land in Singapore? Make it non existent for everyone. Why are we still selling our property to foreigners and the highest bidders when there is such a crunch ? Now the urban planning says 6 million in Singapore, but similarly in the past, Singapore was designed for 4 million, now we have 5.3 million. Who will know if the government screw up again and increase it to 8 million ? Would the government be ready to accept non traditional families like lesbians and single moms ?

The mood was definitely not kind to the Ministers. Whenever someone said something supporting Singaporeans, the audience would clap and cheer. One young Singaporean even addressed Dr Amy Khor's clarification that he was okay with 10 million in Singapore, he quipped,"I am okay with 10 million in Singapore with the appropriate infrastructure, ten million SINGAPORE citizens!" to loud applause. Another guy at the end of his question even said," I will be more comfortable with a Singaporean lesbian and her kid, then a foreigner!" The final blow was from a small business owner that even chided the Ministers Grace Fu and Tan Jin Chuan calling them managers rather than leaders and not having conviction to set a path forward or vision (Grace Fu on non traditional families) and unsure what economic growth is for Singapore (Tan Jin Chuan, which led him to return with a lengthly merry ground defense of himself)
So much so that DPM Teo had to admit that we are so used to scoring 99 percent that when we score 75 percent we get upset.

To be fair, I have to give credit to the Ministers and organizers for staying an extra hour till 10.30pm to try to address all the questions. I think some of the audience members should reflect how they wasted their opportunity to ask in-depth questions. Only two suggestions were picked up, one possible re-zone of the land use to increase land for housing and a special needs person as an NMP in the future.

From my perspective, the most disturbing was the wrap up by DPM Teo, he asked three questions, where Singapore wants to be in the future? What is the definition of a Singaporean ? And how these two questions affect the population in Singapore. For the first question, he painted an appealing vision that now 50 percent of the world's population lives in urban cities, and the future even more will live in cities, and that Singapore wants to be one of the key global cities in the world - vibrant and dynamic and cosmopolitan. The answer to the second questions is that the Singapore identity is always in flux and we are a migrant society. Everyone of us have some relative or parent or grandparents that were immigrants to Singapore. And the third question, was the text book answer that we needed a core of Singaporeans with the values and mores for society but we need to continue to supplement with young dynamic immigrants who provide the economic drive and the foreigners will return home and not be a burden to our society. All of these questions and their answers are logical and true, but it begs the question....

IS THE SURVIVAL OF SINGAPORE OR THE SURVIVAL OF SINGAPOREANS ? The key focus for our existing government ?

I pondered on this question as I took the Somerset MRT train north bound to the suburbs at 10.50pm after the dialogue session and found the train packed including a group of merry Americans, a loving Filipino couple and a Malaysian watching Ipoh parody of Gangnam style.

Then I realized the message I got from the dialogue session and the path our current leaders are taking us down, and the sad reality being, "Singaporeans are essentially migrants helping the survival of Singapore for the next batch of migrants."


BOT TED

http://youarebetteroffted.blogspot.sg

 

[johnny333]

Then I realized the message I got from the dialogue session and the path our current leaders are taking us down, and the sad reality being, "Singaporeans are essentially migrants helping the survival of Singapore for the next batch of migrants."

I see this as a case of our selfish "leaders" protecting their own rice bowl at the expense of other Sporeans.
Our leaders should be looking at the welfare of Sporeans. By looking after Sporeans they will be looking after Spore.

Public servants should be banned from getting involved in outside bizniss activities. If they feel that money is more important than they shouldn't be in the gov't.

 

[SgParent]

From: SgParent 12:08 am
To: ALL (110 of 113)
65340.110 in reply to 65340.108
http://singaporenewsalternative.blogspot.sg/2012/10/only-19-of-expats-in-singapore-feel.html
Only 19% of expats in Singapore feel they have integrated well in local community
inSing.com, 25 Oct 2012
According to the study: “The number of expats who agreed strongly that they had integrated well in the local community in Asian countries including Malaysia (25%) Singapore (19%), Thailand (14%), and Hong Kong (11%) were much lower in comparison to many English-speaking countries such as Canada (44%), Australia (43%) and the UK (41%).”
The study was commsioned by HSBC and was conducted by research company YouGov.
5,339 expats were questioned via an online survey. Full story




They need a study to know that? Unbelievable

Of course if you are a REAL expat, with $$ to burn or talent to contribute, you will always find yourself welcomed and reciprocate the goodwill

On the other hand, if you are just a cheaperest foreigner, who dun mind getting abused/exploited/whatever, feeling at home is the last thing on your mind

 

[SgParent]

From: SgParent 5:18 am
To: ALL (114 of 114)
65340.114 in reply to 65340.113
http://therealsingapore.com/content/no-need-minimum-wage-asme
NO NEED FOR MINIMUM WAGE: ASME
THEREALSINGAPORE Thu, 10/25/2012 - 05:59


minimum wage

President of the Association of Small and Medium Enterprises (ASME) Chan Chong Beng believes there is no need to put in place a minimum wage.

He said more companies will raise wages of low-income workers within the next two years.

Mr Chan was responding to Professor Lim Chong Yah's call for a minimum wage scheme, should the wages of the lowest-paid resident workers remain stubbornly low in two or three years' time.

Prof Lim, who is the former chairman of the National Wages Council (NWC), made the suggestion at the Singapore Economic Policy Forum today.

Mr Chan felt the progressive wage model, championed by the labour movement, will be effective in helping to raise wages.

Under the progressive wage concept, wages will be gradually scaled up as workers become more skilled and productive.

Mr Chan also said low-wage workers are generally mobile and will move to a company that can pay them more.

Mr Chan said: "Workers are very fluid; they will move around and if the industry cannot pay workers the minimum (wage) of S$1000, they will go to another industry that has (a minimum wage of) S$1000."

Source: CHANNEL NEWSASIA

 

[enterprise2]

http://forums.delphiforums.com/3in1kopitiam/messages?msg=65340.101
From: SgParent 11:31 pm
To: ALL (101 of 101)
65340.101 in reply to 65340.100
FIRST HAND ACCCOUNT : POPULATION DIALOGUE SESSION WITH MINISTERS
http://therealsingapore.com/content/first-hand-acccount-population-dialogue-session-ministers

THEREALSINGAPORE Thu, 10/11/2012 - 22:43

I was there at the dialogue session, it was so well orchestrated that it felt like a multi-level marketing "sales" event. It started with DPM Teo giving the presentation on fertility rates, immigration numbers etc and reinforced that immigration is needed to fill in the missing babies since 1980s. Charts, numbers and graphs were all used to appeal to the head to assure that infrastructure was being upgraded, immigration was calibrated etc. There was also an innovative use of an instant survey to ask a couple of questions.

Kicking off the questions was Dr Amy Khor with whether the two child policy was so successful to cause the problems today. It was textbook answer of that the policy was needed at that time etc etc and they changed it in 1987. Then came the questions fast and furious. Out of the 35 questions I estimated, about one or two thanked the government, the majority about twenty questions were harsh and upset with the government, the rest were relatively neutral. The quality of some of the questions were quite weak, either unprepared or too narrow in focus. But some were thought provoking and related, e.g. Would Singapore return to Malaysia in the future if we did not have enough Singaporeans ? Why are PRs allowed unlimited time to decide if they want to be Singaporeans or not? Why still have landed properties if there is so constrained land in Singapore? Make it non existent for everyone. Why are we still selling our property to foreigners and the highest bidders when there is such a crunch ? Now the urban planning says 6 million in Singapore, but similarly in the past, Singapore was designed for 4 million, now we have 5.3 million. Who will know if the government screw up again and increase it to 8 million ? Would the government be ready to accept non traditional families like lesbians and single moms ?

The mood was definitely not kind to the Ministers. Whenever someone said something supporting Singaporeans, the audience would clap and cheer. One young Singaporean even addressed Dr Amy Khor's clarification that he was okay with 10 million in Singapore, he quipped,"I am okay with 10 million in Singapore with the appropriate infrastructure, ten million SINGAPORE citizens!" to loud applause. Another guy at the end of his question even said," I will be more comfortable with a Singaporean lesbian and her kid, then a foreigner!" The final blow was from a small business owner that even chided the Ministers Grace Fu and Tan Jin Chuan calling them managers rather than leaders and not having conviction to set a path forward or vision (Grace Fu on non traditional families) and unsure what economic growth is for Singapore (Tan Jin Chuan, which led him to return with a lengthly merry ground defense of himself)
So much so that DPM Teo had to admit that we are so used to scoring 99 percent that when we score 75 percent we get upset.

To be fair, I have to give credit to the Ministers and organizers for staying an extra hour till 10.30pm to try to address all the questions. I think some of the audience members should reflect how they wasted their opportunity to ask in-depth questions. Only two suggestions were picked up, one possible re-zone of the land use to increase land for housing and a special needs person as an NMP in the future.

From my perspective, the most disturbing was the wrap up by DPM Teo, he asked three questions, where Singapore wants to be in the future? What is the definition of a Singaporean ? And how these two questions affect the population in Singapore. For the first question, he painted an appealing vision that now 50 percent of the world's population lives in urban cities, and the future even more will live in cities, and that Singapore wants to be one of the key global cities in the world - vibrant and dynamic and cosmopolitan. The answer to the second questions is that the Singapore identity is always in flux and we are a migrant society. Everyone of us have some relative or parent or grandparents that were immigrants to Singapore. And the third question, was the text book answer that we needed a core of Singaporeans with the values and mores for society but we need to continue to supplement with young dynamic immigrants who provide the economic drive and the foreigners will return home and not be a burden to our society. All of these questions and their answers are logical and true, but it begs the question....

IS THE SURVIVAL OF SINGAPORE OR THE SURVIVAL OF SINGAPOREANS ? The key focus for our existing government ?

I pondered on this question as I took the Somerset MRT train north bound to the suburbs at 10.50pm after the dialogue session and found the train packed including a group of merry Americans, a loving Filipino couple and a Malaysian watching Ipoh parody of Gangnam style.

Then I realized the message I got from the dialogue session and the path our current leaders are taking us down, and the sad reality being, "Singaporeans are essentially migrants helping the survival of Singapore for the next batch of migrants."


BOT TED

http://youarebetteroffted.blogspot.sg

The future for Sinkies- prepare to pay millions for your shrunken flat, work till u drop and prepare to fight your way to work with the rest of the hordes everyday.

 

[bullfrog]

What is cheap cannot be talented; what is talented cannot be cheap.

Therefore cheap foreign talent is a self-contradiction.

 

[SgParent]

What is cheap cannot be talented; what is talented cannot be cheap.

Therefore cheap foreign talent is a self-contradiction.

What about the White Scums? They are not cheap and not talented.

 

[SgParent]

http://www.tremeritus.com/2012/10/31/our-childrens-education-going-to-the-dogs/
Our Children’s Education Going to the Dogs
October 31st, 2012 | Author: Contributions

I am shocked to hear that our MOE is still short of English and Humanities teachers.

As an ex-trained teacher with 10 years’ full-time experience, I was 20 years into my second career, earning $4K+ when I applied to rejoin teaching.

Would you believe the 3 interviewers, who included a Caucasian, offered me a measly $1.5K, which I, of course, declined. It was not just a paltry proposition. It was an insult to my profession (then).

That happened just before MOE launched its new scheme to welcome mid-career professionals – in the late Nineties.

Three years ago, I wrote to MOE asking them why I could not be considered a mid-career professional myself and accepted into the service, like all the rest before me. They said no. But I persisted. So they passed the question over to the “brand-new” Minister Heng Swee Keat. After seven months came the reply – negative.

As always, don’t ever expect MOE to give you any reason for any rejection. But hell, why? I want to know. Perhaps, they have something to hide. Why the thumbs-down then?

Are you suddenly bursting at the seams with teachers and allied educators in the schools today? If not, why then are you looking abroad for more of the same? Are your locals not good enough? Or is it because of my age? But if so, what about the 70-somethings you have still retained in some schools? Huh?

Besides, didn’t DPM Mr Tharman, launch the Flexi-Adjunct and Contract-Adjunct scheme just about 10 years ago to welcome back ex-teachers who were trained but either retired or quit the service? So, why the change of heart now? It’s not only befuddling. It’s damn condescending – especially when we know your hunting grounds stretch as far as Canada!

Like an old vintage car being cast aside in today’s race for technology and performance, I was being dumped – never mind my rich colonial pro-British past, and experiences that I was ever-ready to share. Lessons that I myself benefited from in studying English and Composition while singing God Save The Queen. But nobody wants it today, I guess.

What? All my blood, sweat and tears during those early formative years of our national history in the swinging Sixties shed for nothing? And to think an unprecedented 80 percent-and-above aggregate recorded for an entire 44-strong PSLE class was unheard of in those days.

Yet, I managed to achieve it. In a rural school, to boot. Where to spot even a library or supermarket was simply out-of-this-world!

And just because a younger, “new broom” is today in place as Minister , who knows next to nothing about our tempestuous and trying past, we have to give in? No way. Just you wait and see.

.

Scaramouche

Related: Why does MOE hire teachers from Australia when so many local PMETs jobless?



I thought the answer was already given? By offering $1.5k it is obvious what kind of teacher and what kind of teaching MOE has been looking for.

 

[SgParent]

http://www.sgpolitics.net/?p=7819
Employment of Foreign Talents: locals are undermined
November 1, 2012 by admin
Filed under: Current Affairs and Politics

(This article may NOT be reproduced in whole on any electronic media, blog, microblog, website, social media platform, or facebook page.)

By Jimmy Ho Kwok Hoong
01 November 2012

Cases of cost cutting by Singapore employers in their recruitment of foreign PMETs to replace their local workforce are becoming a trend.

Yet, employers are denying the actual reasons behind their hiring practices. Reasons like laziness, negative work attitude, refusal to work long hours and job hopping on the part of Singaporeans are often cited for the choice of employing foreigners over locals.

Whilst this may be true for some Singaporeans, it is also greatly exaggerated. Deep down, we all know it is mainly about dollars and cents. The current competitive global environment encourages this type of discrimination on the part of employers.

Once, the Vice President of a prominent bank, a foreign talent, was sourcing for a senior manager. During the interview, he queried his hopeful interviewee on his nationality and ethnicity. The candidate failed to win the job on that basis.

The tendency for foreign bosses here to build their own comfort zone by selectively hiring applicants on the basis of nationality rather than merit aggravates the employment situation for local Singaporeans.

With the government easing the approval for more foreigners to seek employment in the PMET sector, Singaporeans are feeling increased heat.

The government must be forced to nib the problem in the bud, as it will not do on its own accord.
Government has conflated and confused the separate issues of white collar and blue collar foreign workers

Singaporeans welcome menial job workers (such as general workers and construction workers, maids or nurses) who perform work generally shunned by them. However, they do not agree with the indiscriminate influx of PMETs that threatens their rice bowl.

Recent restrictions on the intake of menial workers to pacify Singaporeans who are unhappy with the inflow of PMETs is simply barking up the wrong tree. The government has mischievously conflated the two separate issues – that of foreign PMETs displacing local white collar workers, and that of low skilled foreign workers crowding the neighbourhood.

By deliberately conflating and confusing these two issues, the PAP government has thwarted serious discussion about the problem, and has used sentiments against foreign PMETs to accuse Singaporeans of being xenophobic. Singaporeans are not xenophobic. The government used sporadic xenophobic outburst from some irresponsible quarters to paint Singaporeans as xenophobic. Meanwhile, the real issues are unaddressed and sidestepped.

Due to the foreign worker levies imposed, companies and factories here are starting to face higher labour costs and the inability to fulfill their orders owing to the lack of manpower.

The Straits Times (dated Sep 26, 2012) quoted Mr Lim Hng Kiang, the Minister for Trade and Industry, as saying that economic growth will stall unless foreign workers are continued to be allowed in. I agree.

Singaporeans have attained a level of lifestyle such that they naturally avoid construction, cleaning, and even factory jobs, all of which could be undertaken by foreign workers.

The Middle East is doing just that, leaving their own people to handle the more “comfortable” white collar posts. Even our neighbour, Malaysia, is doing this along with several developed nations. Elsewhere, the government cares about their own people. There is nothing wrong with this arrangement.

We, however, must not allow white collar workers to come in indiscriminately just because we have to open our doors to blue collar (menial) workers.

During the PM Forum of Sep 23, 2012, Ms Sim Ann quoted an “ironical” situation where a housewife complained about the impact of new immigrants on our housing (HDB flat prices, etc), while an SME boss gave the feedback that restricting menial workers gave him headaches in his operation and costing.

To me, the requests of the complainants do not conflict each other. The housing issue concerning new immigrants belongs to the PMET sector, while menial workers do not compete in housing purchase (of HDB flats).

Also, why is it that when people talk about foreigners competing for our PMET jobs, the government points to construction workers and says that no Singapore man wants to do the work? This is clear and blatant sophistry on the part of the government, in sidestepping the real question and using a strawman argument to avoid addressing the legitimate issue.

The lack of focus in problem solving gets us nowhere, and entangles us with endless “chicken and duck” discussions. Sincerity needs to be present in a national conversation.
No reason for employers not to like FTs

If we ask the majority of large Singapore employers about the current FT policy, most will agree. Who won’t, if it lowers your production costs as an employer to engage foreign PMETs?

Flooding the Singapore market with foreign FTs will also increase the Singapore market size, and employers selling their products to consumers here will benefit in increased revenues.

We should look at the FT issue not through the employers’ eyes alone. The goal of Economics is, eventually, to improve the welfare of the nation, not just that of the employers.

The government thinks that lower costs (like lower labour costs) results in increased competitiveness and survival in the global arena, and hence creates more employment and better life for the Singapore people. But this is a superficial view.

The oversupply of FTs to our job market deprives locals of their jobs. New jobs created from economic expansion also goes to FTs, due to their lower pay expectations.

A good economic growth rate becomes irrelevant to a local Singaporean if he has to forgo his job to outsiders or needs to suffer a severe pay cut in order to remain employed. Hence, telling Singaporeans that FTs help grow the economy may not be that pleasing to their ears.

We have a tiny job market for our tiny citizenry. We can’t be opening our job market indiscriminately to international competition.

There are developing nations in Asia alone, whose workers, on average, draw one-fifth of our pay. Are we to half our pay (as they tripled theirs) to welcome competition? Can we survive on that in expensive Singapore?
Conclusion

If the influx of foreigners is not properly handled, Singapore will witness its people entering poverty, facing serious inflation and having their needs being deprived, including the need for an efficient transport, medical and educational system.

We must tackle the foreign worker issue using two separate platforms: one for the white collars (the jobs that Singaporeans want, need, and lack) and another for the blue collars (jobs shunned by Singaporeans, which can be outsourced to foreigners).

For lower menial jobs, the government may (like the Arabs) openly allow the intake but tackle its social impact in doing so. Where lower Singaporean jobs are affected by the intake, impose a minimum wage.

With continuation of the current FT policy in favour of employers, the property owners and the rich, our common folks will drift further and further apart from these people in well being and income distribution. In the end, the latter would have no choice but to fight a system which has previously been proven effective but is no longer relevant.

 

[Scrooball (clone)]

What is cheap cannot be talented; what is talented cannot be cheap.

Therefore cheap foreign talent is a self-contradiction.

If u keep saying this, PAP ministers will use this to explain why their wages should increase

 

[SgParent]

Singapore’s share in India’s trade fails to pick up
http://www.financialexpress.com/news/singapore-s-share-in-india-s-trade-fails-to-pick-up/1025471/

>
New Delhi: More than seven years after India signed the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) with Singapore, the latter's share in India's total trade has not picked up. The India-Singapore CECA came into existence in August 2005 and, from 2007-08 to 2011-12, Singapore’s share in India's total trade has actually declined from 3.74% to 3.2%.
...
<



Ah yes. Another outstanding example of going-with-the-flow GY's contribution to Singapore - signing useless trade agreement that mainly sees inflow of cheaperest foreigners but not inflow of $$

 

[SgParent]

If u keep saying this, PAP ministers will use this to explain why their wages should increase

Are you speculating that the White Scums are talented?

 

[mojito]

Ah yes. Another outstanding example of going-with-the-flow GY's contribution to Singapore - signing useless trade agreement that mainly sees inflow of cheaperest foreigners but not inflow of $$

Share of total trade may have decreased, but I am sure business profits have gone up by virtue of paying less tariffs! By signing the FTA, Georgie boy has helped to stem the outflow of valuable Sing dollars to greedy Indian bureaucrats. This will lead to the well documented trickle down effect to the economy as rich towkays spend their well deserved profits on KTV girls. Majulah PAP!

 

[SgParent]

Share of total trade may have decreased, but I am sure business profits have gone up by virtue of paying less tariffs!

You forgot to take medicine? Business profit gone up? Maybe. But how many Singapore company doing business in India?

Most likely they are some India Indian companies setup here on some government grant, employing India Indians on WP, EP or PR, doing such simple data entry job that even my youngest grandson can do when blindfolded

This will lead to the well documented trickle down effect to the economy as rich towkays spend their well deserved profits on KTV girls.

Well documented? Where?

Dun tell me it's Petir or some no class publication from Braddell Road Brothel.

 

[SgParent]

http://forums.delphiforums.com/3in1kopitiam/messages?msg=65340.127
From: SgParent Nov-5 3:07 am
To: ALL (127 of 133)
65340.127 in reply to 65340.126
http://www.soshiok.com/multimedia/photos/1618

Soon Heng Restaurant closes, no S'porean wanted job
Soon Heng Restaurant closes, no S'porean wanted job
One of S'pore's oldest curry fish head places closed last week as it can't get enough Singaporean workers to fill MOM quota.



Like that also true pink Singaporeans' fault?

The family has to close shop because
- they are embarrassingly arrogant and embarrassingly stingy, refusing to pay a fair remuneration to attract quality employees
- they are embarrassingly stupid, to follow the MOM rules religiously instead of copying the way MNC, SME are doing to hire more and more cheaperest foreigners
- they are embarrassingly bad in running a restaurant properly so why not spin their failure around the myth that Singaporeans are lazy, want a cushy job?

 

[SgParent]

http://forums.delphiforums.com/3in1kopitiam/messages?msg=65340.128
From: SgParent Nov-5 3:20 am
To: ALL (128 of 133)
65340.128 in reply to 65340.127
http://www.tremeritus.com/2012/11/05/expats-discusses-problems-with-pinoy-workers/
Expats discuss problems about pinoy workers
November 5th, 2012 | Author: Online Press

[The following postings were from singaporeexpats.com, highlighted by a TRE reader]

Comment #1:

It’s corruption… and another issue… Filipinos are just too nice. I mean, introducing real accountability into a management structure.

One of many examples that I’ve come across over the years. It’s a Manila based service desk. Client is a large MNC within offices from ANZ to India.

Australians are complaining bitterly that no one answers the phone. Finally, I fly to Manila. I get up so that I can be at the call center at 4:30 in the morning (Australia start of business, 3 hours ahead).

There are supposed to be two ANZ agents… there are none. There is one overnight agent, a dear. I ask her, “the ANZ agents are not here. Have you reported this?” No, she says… I didn’t want to get anyone in trouble.

I meet with the service desk manager. I ask him if he has reviewed the telephony login logs. Yes, he says. Then, I says, you must know the ANZ agents have not been at work, else you would have seen their logins.

Yes, he says, they are not logging in… I didn’t want to get anyone in trouble.

And folks, this is the essence of the issue for me. Great people, gentle people, and so hard to enforce accountability, so hard to get someone to kick another in the balls when it is so richly deserved.

I can’t say much about other aspects of Philippine employment, but I can say that it seriously affects the ability to create a premium product when the deficient are not being weeded out by managers who don’t want to offend or get someone in trouble.

Strong Eagle

.

Comment #2:

Yah, but sometimes, the cameraderie gets dirty .. like Strong Eagle mentioned

Some time ago, I tried to report a problem with a service, and the call center person, when she found out the complaint was about a ‘fellow citizen’ tried to not lodge the complaint and very clearly refusing to admit the mistake.

And when I insisted that she escalate her next level person had been breifed very well, she too refused to lodge the complaint ..

On and an on it went up to 4 levels up, and I gave up.

Wrote a complaint letter, the old fashioned way, and a ‘non-citizen’ of the person involved called back within 3 days, and was very apolegetic and insisted I provide more details .. and when I asked whether the whole gang will be advised to show more professionalism, the answer was startling .. ‘well, we cannot do much, all the above people are outsourced and not in Singapore .. we know, but our management does the dollar and cents and the cheaper staff come out winners .. ‘ or he too admitted ..

And by that time, my temper had gone down to negative numbers, and was in no mood to fight it out or ‘fix’ the people .. if I could ..

No offense to anybody .. but .. well… after paying 240 $ for the service that’s what I got, from a Semi-Govt agency in Singapore ..

ecureilx

.

Comment #3:

I’m guessing some people are waiting for my reaction.

* Yes, the tribe mentality kinda gets in the way. But from what I gather, it’s similar with Indians. That’s why a lot of Filipinos dislike Indians–they see so much of them in them. I have seen the enemy and the enemy is us.

* Most Filipinos value sentimentality over what’s right. It’s freakin’ annoying, especially if they’re taking advantage of the kinship bordering on abuse and exploitation.

* “We stick together” only works if they see you as one of them. Filipinos, however, have no problems throwing another Filipino under a bus if they perceive him as different. This also happens a lot in other countries when relationships go south. That’s how most Filipino illegal immigrants get caught–they stick together as fellow TNTs (“tago nang tago”–always hiding because they’re illegal) until they have a disagreement and one of them tips off immigration officers.

* Filipinos don’t take individuality from other Filipinos very well. Unless your very good looking, you’ll be perceived as weird and should be avoided. NB: They make leeway for foreign-born/half-foreign Filipinos and rationalize them by “oh, he was raised in a different environment.” But if you’re born, bred and raised in the Philippines and you act different? You’re a deviant, a pariah and a general bad person.

As you can see, I don’t go to “must defend my own kind at all costs!” mode. If it’s worth calling out, I will…

…unless I’m too lazy to do so.

nakatago

.

Comment #4:

I have counselled filipinos, and when I told them they can report their abusive employer / exploiting employer, the answer was “well, what if the MOM people close my boss company down and other filipinos loose their job .. ”

Yah, you are right there ..

You forgot to add “Bahala Nah …” and it does get on your nerves, like when a colleague couldn’t find a replacement job, when her employer went bust, she decided to pack her bags and go back, leaving all her credit cards, phone bills and all hanging, and she was broke .. pretty broke .. simply because “bahala nah .. ” and she went “maybe I am not lucky to work in Singapore .. ”

2 years later, her father is still covering her living expenses back home .. and she still refuses to even look for a job here .. even with her failed job seeking ventures in Middle-East and Korea ..

many years ago, when I was in Manila, a lot of people were very keen to know ‘Indians’, of course, due to the 5 – 6 thingy, they assume most if not all Indians are rich / wealthy / generous ..

ecureilx

.

[Source]: http://forum.singaporeexpats.com/ftopic90332-0-asc-30.html

 

[SgParent]

http://forums.delphiforums.com/3in1kopitiam/messages?msg=65340.130
From: SgParent Nov-6 10:49 pm
To: ALL (130 of 133)
65340.130 in reply to 65340.129
http://mysingaporenews.blogspot.sg/2012/11/my-eye-balls-rolling.html
My eye balls rolling

The MOM is tightening rules for the PEP or Personalised Employment Pass for top tier foreign talents working in Sin. According to the media, this pass was introduced in 2007 to attract highly skilled foreigners to Sin. Pardon me for the pun. The terms of the PEP are so generous and liberal that it must be a privilege to qualify for one. Now the change, effective Dec 1, only those who earn a fixed annual income of $144k qualifies. Well, for such an exclusive pass and privileges, this should be the case.

Why are my eye balls rolling? Oh, it was also reported that when the PEP was introduced, this group of highly skilled foreign talents needed only $3,400 monthly income to qualify. Wow, must be some kind of exclusive talents doing charity works here. A new lousy local graduate’s starting pay is already more than $3000. So all our local graduates must be exceptionally qualified talents ya?
...

 

[SgParent]

65340.132 in reply to 65340.131
http://www.tremeritus.com/2012/11/06/rebuttal-to-mti’s-reply-on-foreign-manpower/
Rebuttal to MTI’s reply on foreign manpower
November 6th, 2012 | Author: Contributions

With reference to the article “Singapore’s Foreigner Influx: Facts and Myths” (TR Emeritus, Nov 3) and the

TR Editorial “MTI: We are careful in bringing in foreign manpower” (Oct 7), I would like to make some remarks to MTI’s reply.

MTI: “Our experience and empirical data from developed countries show that economic growth is positively related to wage growth. The benefits of economic growth have filtered down to all groups, including lower-income households. From 2006 to last year, the 20th percentile saw real household income growth of 2.2 per cent per annum”

Real household income vs worker’s wages

Real household income for lower-income households may have grown in recent years because of a higher number of people working in each household, as more people may need to work in the household in order to survive – Why?

Because workers’ (not household) real median wage growth may have been negative over the last 5 years or so (negative in 2011, 2009, 2008, + 0.5% in 2010).

Longest work hours per week

Another reason why real household income appears to have increased is because we work the longest hours in the world.

Basic hourly wage vs gross wages

Yet the basic per hour wage has been declining. For example, to about $4 for cleaners, security guards, traffic wardens, etc. They earn more because they typically work 12 hours a day for 6 days a week.

Economic growth = Wage growth?

Singapore may be the exception rather than the rule, as to the experience of developed countries – economic growth in Singapore may not really have translated into real wage growth on a relative basis.

MTI: “The average unemployment rate for lower-educated residents also remained low: 3.4 per cent over that period, even as foreign employment grew at a faster rate. Economic growth is needed for the opportunities and benefits a vibrant economy brings. It will also provide us with the resources to assist lower-income households”

Unemployment rate

I understand that the unemployment rate does not include those who have given up looking for work after 6 months or more.

Also, if you include those on various training schemes which e2i , WDA, etc, will pay most of the fees to encourage you to attend – who may not counted as unemployed, discouraged workers (persons outside the labour force who were not actively looking for a job because they believed their job search would not yield results), some of the 153,600 or 14.4% of economically inactive residents in 2011 who intended to look for a job within the next two years of whom 110,800 had work experience, the ‘under-employed’ (those who are employed, but may only be able to get a part-time job, short-term contract, a much lower paying job, free-lancing other than as a matter of choice, etc, the number of ‘actual’ unemployed may be higher.

What “opportunities and benefits a vibrant economy brings” are we talking about, when real wage growth may have been negative against the relentless rise of HDB prices, electricity tariff, healthcare costs, etc, which arguably hits the lower-income most.

.

Leong Sze Hian

 

[SgParent]

http://forums.delphiforums.com/3in1kopitiam/messages?msg=65340.133
From: SgParent 8:53 am
To: ALL (133 of 133)
65340.133 in reply to 65340.127
“
SgParent says:
Like that also true pink Singaporeans' fault?

The family has to close shop because
- they are embarrassingly arrogant and embarrassingly stingy, refusing to pay a fair remuneration to attract quality employees
- they are embarrassingly stupid, to follow the MOM rules religiously instead of copying the way MNC, SME are doing to hire more and more cheaperest foreigners
- they are embarrassingly bad in running a restaurant properly so why not spin their failure around the myth that Singaporeans are lazy, want a cushy job?




Prepare for more propaganda from the Braddell Road Brothel to blame true pink Singaporeans and their children for any badly managed businesses, so that the White Scums can justify to continue the free flow of cheaperest foreigners



http://www.soshiok.com/multimedia/photos/1623
Eateries hit hard by foreign labour crunch
Eateries hit hard by foreign labour crunch
Small businesses are hit the hardest. Some are unable to find workers, despite putting up hiring signs for as long as two years.
Read related article

When the shutters come down on eateries
Soon Heng Restaurant closes, no S'porean wanted job
Job seekers 'have a lot of terms and conditions'
Eateries hit hard by foreign labour crunch
$3,000 to wash dishes: Sakae Sushi

Singapore, November 7, 2012

Last week, Soon Heng Restaurant, one of the oldest fish head curry restaurants here, shut for good because it could not hire enough workers.

Earlier this year, Sakae Sushi made the news when CEO Douglas Foo said the Japanese food chain had problems hiring dishwashers, despite the promise of a $3,000 salary.

A quick check in the heartland revealed that it isn't just the big players that are suffering. If anything, it is the owners of small businesses who seem to be the hardest hit.

In every district, there are signs seeking hawker assistants, but most can hire only Singaporeans or permanent residents (PRs).

This is a result of new measures introduced earlier this year in a bid to increase Singapore's productivity.

As of July 1, foreign employees cannot make up more than 45 per cent of staff in a service industry company. This is on top of the foreign worker levy, which can go up to $500 a month per worker, depending on the number of foreigners hired in a company.

Last week, both Acting Manpower Minister Tan Chuan-Jin and labour chief Lim Swee Say reiterated that the Government will not turn back on initiatives to limit the influx of foreign workers.

>> Read the full story here.

 

[SgParent]

http://www.tremeritus.com/2012/11/07/premium-employment-pass-salary-was-only-34000-a-year/
Premium Employment Pass: Salary was only $34,000 a year?
November 7th, 2012 | Author: Contributions

Leong Sze Hian

I refer to the article “MOM tightens criteria for premium employment passes” (Channel NewsAsia, Nov 7).

It states that “Starting next month, foreign professionals applying for a personalised employment pass (PEP) – which among other things, allows them to stay here continuously for six months while being unemployed – will have to meet more stringent criteria that includes a minimum annual fixed salary of S$144,000, up four-fold from the existing S$34,000 a year.

The validity of PEPs – which are non-renewable – will also be reduced from five years to three years.

The new criteria was put up recently on the Ministry of Manpower’s (MOM) website. The MOM said that the changes ensure that the PEP “remains a premium pass for top-tier foreign talent working in Singapore and is in line with recent moves to raise the quality of Employment Pass holders”.

I would like to applaud the MOM for further tightening the foreign labour policy.

$34,000 – “a premium pass for top-tier foreign talent”

However, I would like to take issue with creating and letting in this category of foreign workers all these years – How can a yearly salary of just $34,000 be called “a premium pass for top-tier foreign talent”? This monthly salary of just $2,615 is only about what a fresh graduate from the three local universities earn when they graduate.

Cheaper, better, faster than PMETs?

So, is it any wonder that so many Singaporean Professionals, Managers, Engineers and Technicians (PMETs) have been struggling competing against such “low-pay premium foreign talents”, who may be more experienced and qualified. but willing to work for relatively much lower pay?

Work for even lower pay?

As to “Those who are not eligible under the revised PEP criteria can continue to work and live in Singapore on an Employment Pass or S Pass, subject to the prevailing assessment criteria,” she (MOM spokesman) added”, this may lead to even fiercer competition with Singaporeans, as some may accept as little as $2,000 under the S-Pass in order to remain in Singapore.

Consequently, it may become even harder for Singaporean PMETs to compete in a slowing economy.

Jobs that we want?

I find some of new foreign labour policy and changes to be quite illogical. For example, why are we refusing to renew work permits when they expire (whilst letting in new permits in the same jobs at perhaps lower pay), in very low-pay jobs which most Singaporeans do not want, and yet at the same time allow “premium foreign talent” to stay for as little as $2,000 pay and take away jobs that most Singaporeans want?

Playing field worsen?

With regard to “The changes could come at a time when there is greater clamour for a PEP, he noted. “The fact that foreigners have to leave the country within a month of their Employment Pass ceasing, encourages a lot of people to apply for PEPs, particularly in the currently uncertain outlook,” Mr Hides added”, this may make the playing field even more unlevel against Singaporeans, as most employers may prefer to employ foreigners because they are stuck under the typical two-year contract with the same employer.

In this connection, the irony may perhaps be that PEPs being able to change employers, may actually make the playing field more level vis-a-vis Singaporeans, relative to Employment Pass holders.

Accept lower pay to stay in Singapore?

If you are an unemployed or under-employed PMET, I think you may face even harder times going forward, as some of the current 12,000 PEPs may be willing to and under pressure to work for lesser pay in order to remain in Singapore under an Employment Pass or S-Pass, as the 31 December, 2014 deadline approaches for them to qualify under PEP at an annual salary of $144,000 against the current $34,000.

In a sense, it is likely that the pressure for current PEPs to accept a much lower paying job may increase once the 31 December, 2014 passes, as they would then have only six months left to get a job to remain in Singapore.

Foreigners downgrading?

If we allow foreigners to downgrade from PEP to E-Pass to S-Pass or for that matter if it is allowed to Work Permit in order to continue to stay in Singapore, we may be making things worse for Singaporeans, particularly PMETs, as they may simply end up being willing to work for lesser pay.

.

Leong Sze Hian

Leong Sze Hian is the Past President of the Society of Financial Service Professionals, an alumnus of Harvard University, Wharton Fellow, SEACeM Fellow and an author of 4 books. He is frequently quoted in the media. He has also been invited to speak more than 100 times in 25 countries on 5 continents. He has served as Honorary Consul of Jamaica, Chairman of the Institute of Administrative Management, and founding advisor to the Financial Planning Associations of Brunei and Indonesia. He has 3 Masters, 2 Bachelors degrees and 13 professional qualifications. He blogs at http://www.leongszehian.com.