- Joined
- Dec 30, 2010
- Messages
- 12,730
- Points
- 113
Open letter to Acting Minister over Unfair Unemployment Practices at banks in spore
Complaint Against Unfair Unemployment Practices at Swiss Italian Private Bank
Dear Acting Minister,
It has been almost a month since our email dated 22 Feb 2013 was sent to your kind self. And it's extremely disappointing that we have not heard from you nor your ministry to date.
We sincerely hope you are not merely paying lip service to your own pledge in Nov 2011 to ensure that Singaporeans remain the core of our workforce in companies operating here.
Being accountable for what you have said, we would like to highlight the unfair unemployment practices against Singaporeans at a Swiss Italian private bank XXX Bank. We would like to know what actions are you or your ministry going to take to rectify the situation.
1) Until the middle of last year, almost all the Heads of Department/Section in the bank’s Wealth Management Department consist of foreign Indians:
Head of WMS (Malaysian Indian)
Head of Active Advisory (India Indian)
Head of Strategic Advisory (UK Indian)
Head of Investment Strategy (India Indian)
Head of Structured Product (India Indian)
It was only in May 2012 that a local was engaged by the bank as Head of Product Strategy. And that was the result of an unfortunate event further elaborated below.
Where is the hiring and developing of a Singaporean Core the TAFEP and the government have been advocating all this time?
2) Sometime in late 2011, an anonymous complaint letter against one of the India Indians was sent to the Monetary Authority of Singapore.
Instead of launching an investigation into the India indian, the bank shockingly chose to cover up for the latter and terminated the services of 2 Singaporeans. They then created the Product Strategy to take over some of the major responsibilities held by the India Indian in an effort to minimise the damage done.
Prior to that, the Singaporean Head of WMS was forced to step down after he openly questioned the competency of the same India Indian. The Deputy CEO, another India Indian, also reduced the Singaporean's responsibilities and remuneration, and this led to his resignation.
In all, it's disheartening that 3 Singaporeans lost their jobs simply because the management chose to shield one of their own kind.
Where is the protection afforded to Singaporeans against biased senior management who use unfair hiring/firing to favour their own countrymen in this case?
3) The bank has a discriminatory hiring practice, using every opportunity to recruit foreign Indians, whenever possible, for positions within the WMS department. It is not hard to understand why, given that the Deputy CEO is an India Indian.
Some examples: In Nov 2010, the bank went all the way out to recruit an India Indian for the position of Investment Analyst in the department.
Sometime in Mar 2011, another India Indian was also employed by the bank as an Advisory Associate in the same department when all these low level positions could have easily been filled by local Singaporeans.
Even the department’s risk manager is a new Singapore citizen who was previously an India Indian.
In fact, almost half the interns in the department during 2010 and 2011 are foreign Indians. Furthermore, if you exclude the investment advisors reporting to XXX HK (but based in Singapore), more than half the advisors ranked AVP and above in the department are foreign Indians too. This is clearly unacceptable.
We completely agree with Mr. Brenton Ong's letter to the ST Forum dated 28 Feb 2013 that many Singaporeans are unhappy with the "liberal recruitment of foreign professionals, managers and executives". In fact, almost 9 out of 10 Singaporeans now support curbs on foreign workers, especially PMETs.
In a ST article dated 25 Jan 2013, the Prime Minister was quoted as saying the PAP government is on the side of Singaporeans. Is it really true... then why are there so many foreigners performing jobs that can be easily filled by locals?
And in many cases, the foreign talent are not as "talented" as what the government paints them to be. They are simply here at the expense of Singaporeans, taking advantage of the government's lax pro foreigner policies.
As such, the PAP government especially the Ministry of Manpower must be held fully accountable (to what they have said) by investigating and penalizing firms with discriminatory employment practices and hiring/firing policies. Otherwise, we should vote for somebody else who can protect Singaporeans' jobs. Thank you.
http://forum.channelnewsasia.com/sh...fair-Unemployment-Practices-at-banks-in-spore
Complaint Against Unfair Unemployment Practices at Swiss Italian Private Bank
Dear Acting Minister,
It has been almost a month since our email dated 22 Feb 2013 was sent to your kind self. And it's extremely disappointing that we have not heard from you nor your ministry to date.
We sincerely hope you are not merely paying lip service to your own pledge in Nov 2011 to ensure that Singaporeans remain the core of our workforce in companies operating here.
Being accountable for what you have said, we would like to highlight the unfair unemployment practices against Singaporeans at a Swiss Italian private bank XXX Bank. We would like to know what actions are you or your ministry going to take to rectify the situation.
1) Until the middle of last year, almost all the Heads of Department/Section in the bank’s Wealth Management Department consist of foreign Indians:
Head of WMS (Malaysian Indian)
Head of Active Advisory (India Indian)
Head of Strategic Advisory (UK Indian)
Head of Investment Strategy (India Indian)
Head of Structured Product (India Indian)
It was only in May 2012 that a local was engaged by the bank as Head of Product Strategy. And that was the result of an unfortunate event further elaborated below.
Where is the hiring and developing of a Singaporean Core the TAFEP and the government have been advocating all this time?
2) Sometime in late 2011, an anonymous complaint letter against one of the India Indians was sent to the Monetary Authority of Singapore.
Instead of launching an investigation into the India indian, the bank shockingly chose to cover up for the latter and terminated the services of 2 Singaporeans. They then created the Product Strategy to take over some of the major responsibilities held by the India Indian in an effort to minimise the damage done.
Prior to that, the Singaporean Head of WMS was forced to step down after he openly questioned the competency of the same India Indian. The Deputy CEO, another India Indian, also reduced the Singaporean's responsibilities and remuneration, and this led to his resignation.
In all, it's disheartening that 3 Singaporeans lost their jobs simply because the management chose to shield one of their own kind.
Where is the protection afforded to Singaporeans against biased senior management who use unfair hiring/firing to favour their own countrymen in this case?
3) The bank has a discriminatory hiring practice, using every opportunity to recruit foreign Indians, whenever possible, for positions within the WMS department. It is not hard to understand why, given that the Deputy CEO is an India Indian.
Some examples: In Nov 2010, the bank went all the way out to recruit an India Indian for the position of Investment Analyst in the department.
Sometime in Mar 2011, another India Indian was also employed by the bank as an Advisory Associate in the same department when all these low level positions could have easily been filled by local Singaporeans.
Even the department’s risk manager is a new Singapore citizen who was previously an India Indian.
In fact, almost half the interns in the department during 2010 and 2011 are foreign Indians. Furthermore, if you exclude the investment advisors reporting to XXX HK (but based in Singapore), more than half the advisors ranked AVP and above in the department are foreign Indians too. This is clearly unacceptable.
We completely agree with Mr. Brenton Ong's letter to the ST Forum dated 28 Feb 2013 that many Singaporeans are unhappy with the "liberal recruitment of foreign professionals, managers and executives". In fact, almost 9 out of 10 Singaporeans now support curbs on foreign workers, especially PMETs.
In a ST article dated 25 Jan 2013, the Prime Minister was quoted as saying the PAP government is on the side of Singaporeans. Is it really true... then why are there so many foreigners performing jobs that can be easily filled by locals?
And in many cases, the foreign talent are not as "talented" as what the government paints them to be. They are simply here at the expense of Singaporeans, taking advantage of the government's lax pro foreigner policies.
As such, the PAP government especially the Ministry of Manpower must be held fully accountable (to what they have said) by investigating and penalizing firms with discriminatory employment practices and hiring/firing policies. Otherwise, we should vote for somebody else who can protect Singaporeans' jobs. Thank you.
http://forum.channelnewsasia.com/sh...fair-Unemployment-Practices-at-banks-in-spore
