Level the playing field for locals and foreigners in employment...by Leong Tze Hian

FuckSamLeong

Alfrescian
Loyal
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
1,837
Points
0
One thing is certain. Singaporeons have the cards stacked against them by this Government!

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/08/level-the-playing-field-for-locals-and-

foreigners-in-employment/
Level the playing field for locals and foreigners in employment
Tuesday, 25 August 2009, 11:10 pm | 124 views
Leong Sze Hian was invited by BlogTV to pen an article for them. We publish it below.

Before we talk about whether Singaporeans deserve to have more privileges than PRs and foreigners, perhaps we could first ask whether there may be any areas whereby foreigners or PRs have “more privileges” than Singaporeans?

Employers which employ foreigners, do not have to contribute CPF. So, the employer saves up to 14.5 per cent of the salary.

Employ a female on the S-Pass or work permit, you don’t have to worry about the four months maternity leave if you employ a Singaporean lady. As I understand it, the conditions of the S-Pass and work permit forbids them from becoming pregnant.

If you employ a Singaporean male, he has up to 40 days of reservist liability in a year. In contrast, employing a foreign or PR male, eliminates this problem.

Since those on say work permits are stuck with the same employer for up to three years, the employer may not have a turnover problem – Singaporean employees can resign anytime.

So, is the playing field level in employment, for Singaporeans, vis-à-vis foreigners?

In this regard, I think Singaporeans may not even be asking for “more privileges”, but just a more level playing field.

Moreover, since foreigners do not have to make their own employee’s CPF contribution of up to 20 per cent, their disposable income may be more than a Singaporean worker.

This may be one of the reasons why the wages of lower-income, lower-skilled jobs may have been declining over the years.

For example, cleaners that used to earn about $800 a month a few years ago, now only earn about $650.

As Singaporeans typically have families to feed, mortgages to service, relative to foreigners or PRs who may generally be here alone, Singaporeans may find it more difficult to accept lower paying jobs, for the simple fact that it may not be enough for their basic needs relative to foreigners and PRs.

The manpower regulations require employers to insure all foreign workers for at least $5,000 of medical insurance cover.

However, there is no such requirement for Singaporean workers.

So, in some companies, we have the abnormality of foreign workers being insured, whereas Singaporeans are not.

This is another example of “less privileges” rather than “more privileges”.

PR siblings (below age 35) qualify to buy resale HDB flats. However, Singaporean PR siblings (below age 35) do not. Why is it that in this aspect, even PRs may have “more privileges” than Singaporeans?

I think what may really irk Singaporeans, may not be so much about how much more or less privileges there are, but rather how many Singaporeans these “privileges” policies may be affecting.

In order to answer this question, we need for example, the break-down of the unemployment statistics into Singaporeans and PRs, instead of lumping them together as residents; HDB flats purchased by PRs relative to citizens, etc.

PRs who have no jobs may be able to more easily return to their home country, sell their HDB flats, etc, but Singaporeans generally have no choice but to find work and stay in Singapore.

We may also need to be more discerning in examining the statistics when we ask for more privileges, as sometimes, when say PRs and foreigners have to pay more for medical fees relative to Singaporeans, it may be Singaporean employers, Singaporean households, who may be bearing the brunt of the fees increase, as they are the ones paying for their foreign/PR employees, domestic maids, non-Singaporean spouses and relatives.
One thing is certain.


For example, when fees increase for foreigners and PRs, but remain the same for Singaporeans, it may not be “more privileges”.

Instead, it may be a greater financial burden for some Singaporeans, unless increase in fees for foreigners and PRs, means lower fees for Singaporeans.

An alumnus of Harvard University, Leong Sze Hian has authored 4 books, been quoted over 1000 times in the media , host of a radio show on money matters and a daily newspaper column, has been a Wharton Fellow and invited to speak more than 100 times in more than 20 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 Indonesia and Brunei.
 
Re: Level the playing field for locals and foreigners in employment...by Leong Tze Hi

The more you don't want them to do, the more they want to do...

That's what PAP stands for...
 
Re: Level the playing field for locals and foreigners in employment...by Leong Tze Hi

Which is most insulting when the plea is made by Sporns in their own fcuking cuntry and the govt is the BEST PAID in the world. When will the 66% wake up their fcuking idea and unite with the 33% to overthrow the traitor Familee!
 
Re: Level the playing field for locals and foreigners in employment...by Leong Tze Hi

Which is most insulting when the plea is made by Sporns in their own fcuking cuntry and the govt is the BEST PAID in the world. When will the 66% wake up their fcuking idea and unite with the 33% to overthrow the traitor Familee!

They are in a perpectual, 'purple haze', when the 'piper' calls the tune, when the symbol is flashed at 8.22pm; they stand erect & respond to HIS MASTER's VOICE.

They shop with the 'mark' of a 'tick', and each & almost everyday of their lives; they are reminded of being a "MEMBER".

We need providence to wake the 66.6%...and that will not be pleasant!:(
 
Re: Level the playing field for locals and foreigners in employment...by Leong Tze Hi

An excellent article....
 
Re: Level the playing field for locals and foreigners in employment...by Leong Tze Hi

Good Article. Finally someone who talk sense rather then shoot random bullshit out of his ass.

I totally agree with the CPF issue. I've been advocating to have employer's share of PR CPF to be put into a pool and split between the citizens instead of going to the PR. On the other hand, for FTs who do not have CPF, the employer will still need to pay that "CPF" amount and put into the same pool to be divided among citizens
 
Level the playing field for locals and foreigners in employment

Before we talk about whether Singaporeans deserve to have more privileges than PRs and foreigners, perhaps we could first ask whether there may be any areas whereby foreigners or PRs have “more privileges” than Singaporeans?
STprntsml300220.jpg

Employers which employ foreigners, do not have to contribute CPF. So, the employer saves up to 14.5 per cent of the salary.

Employ a female on the S-Pass or work permit, you don’t have to worry about the four months maternity leave if you employ a Singaporean lady. As I understand it, the conditions of the S-Pass and work permit forbids them from becoming pregnant.

If you employ a Singaporean male, he has up to 40 days of reservist liability in a year. In contrast, employing a foreign or PR male, eliminates this problem.

Since those on say work permits are stuck with the same employer for up to three years, the employer may not have a turnover problem – Singaporean employees can resign anytime.

So, is the playing field level in employment, for Singaporeans, vis-à-vis foreigners?

In this regard, I think Singaporeans may not even be asking for “more privileges”, but just a more level playing field.

Moreover, since foreigners do not have to make their own employee’s CPF contribution of up to 20 per cent, their disposable income may be more than a Singaporean worker.

This may be one of the reasons why the wages of lower-income, lower-skilled jobs may have been declining over the years.

For example, cleaners that used to earn about $800 a month a few years ago, now only earn about $650.

As Singaporeans typically have families to feed, mortgages to service, relative to foreigners or PRs who may generally be here alone, Singaporeans may find it more difficult to accept lower paying jobs, for the simple fact that it may not be enough for their basic needs relative to foreigners and PRs.

The manpower regulations require employers to insure all foreign workers for at least $5,000 of medical insurance cover.

However, there is no such requirement for Singaporean workers.

So, in some companies, we have the abnormality of foreign workers being insured, whereas Singaporeans are not.

This is another example of “less privileges” rather than “more privileges”.

PR siblings (below age 35) qualify to buy resale HDB flats. However, Singaporean PR siblings (below age 35) do not. Why is it that in this aspect, even PRs may have “more privileges” than Singaporeans?

I think what may really irk Singaporeans, may not be so much about how much more or less privileges there are, but rather how many Singaporeans these “privileges” policies may be affecting.

In order to answer this question, we need for example, the break-down of the unemployment statistics into Singaporeans and PRs, instead of lumping them together as residents; HDB flats purchased by PRs relative to citizens, etc.

PRs who have no jobs may be able to more easily return to their home country, sell their HDB flats, etc, but Singaporeans generally have no choice but to find work and stay in Singapore.

We may also need to be more discerning in examining the statistics when we ask for more privileges, as sometimes, when say PRs and foreigners have to pay more for medical fees relative to Singaporeans, it may be Singaporean employers, Singaporean households, who may be bearing the brunt of the fees increase, as they are the ones paying for their foreign/PR employees, domestic maids, non-Singaporean spouses and relatives.

For example, when fees increase for foreigners and PRs, but remain the same for Singaporeans, it may not be “more privileges”.

Instead, it may be a greater financial burden for some Singaporeans, unless increase in fees for foreigners and PRs, means lower fees for Singaporeans.

An alumnus of Harvard University, Leong Sze Hian has authored 4 books, been quoted over 1000 times in the media , host of a radio show on money matters and a daily newspaper column, has been a Wharton Fellow and invited to speak more than 100 times in more than 20 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 Indonesia and Brunei.

http://theonlinecitizen.com/
 
Last edited:
Re: Level the playing field for locals and foreigners in employment...by Leong Tze Hi

Even if the playing field is absolutely level, I am still in favour of capping the number of foreigners (including PRs) at 20% (possibly even lower) of the total population. This is because of the limited resources on this tiny island. There is a reason why property prices have shot up astronomically. And it is certainly of no help that HDB prices are based on market subisidies rather than real subsidies.

I wish there was some research done on the full impact of the influx of foreigners. Sadly, I think this will never happen as you will no doubt recall the case of the two NTU economic professors.

It is one thing to try to attract the wealthy to Singapore but quite another when the numbers attracted are crowding out the less well-off off the edge of the cliff.
 
Re: Level the playing field for locals and foreigners in employment...by Leong Tze Hi

This is more of a side issue since you brought up the issue of the 2 NTU dons. I wish that Leong could put together a case like theirs. The govt tends to take an issue when there is a clear conclusion or a remark that is eye-catching like Bilveer Singh and Mutalib also dons. 99% of the people who read the articles by these dons know what the conclusion are but can't recall the details but know that at the time of reading, it backed the findings.

Leong's style tends to follow the actuarial style where there are a lot of figures and facts but the final conclusion does not stand out.

Clearly he spends alot of time in his research but he never seems to hit the bullseye in his article or fails to clearly spell out the political point. He expects people to draw their own conclusion.

He should start off by making a strong and clear case and point out where the Govt has misrepresented the issue, hidden the appropriate facts. At the end of the article, to reinforce that clear findings in an emotive manner.

Seah Chiang Nee who article was recently in TOC always makes an eye-catching intro but the findings are obvious. If he is afraid of a confrontation or lawsuit, he might want to follow Seah's style - there is impact by an indirect suggestion but it does not wake the sleeping dogs.





I wish there was some research done on the full impact of the influx of foreigners. Sadly, I think this will never happen as you will no doubt recall the case of the two NTU economic professors.
 
Re: Level the playing field for locals and foreigners in employment...by Leong Tze Hi

Leong's style tends to follow the actuarial style where there are a lot of figures and facts but the final conclusion does not stand out.

Clearly he spends alot of time in his research but he never seems to hit the bullseye in his article or fails to clearly spell out the political point. He expects people to draw their own conclusion.

Perhaps intentional?
 
Re: Level the playing field for locals and foreigners in employment...by Leong Tze Hi

Even if the playing field is absolutely level, I am still in favour of capping the number of foreigners (including PRs) at 20% (possibly even lower) of the total population. This is because of the limited resources on this tiny island. There is a reason why property prices have shot up astronomically. And it is certainly of no help that HDB prices are based on market subisidies rather than real subsidies.

Sorry... The liberal FT policy has already done too much financial damage to country

Chenghu cannot reverse or curb the influx of foreigners for fear of a property price crash/slump.

Many young sinkaporeans will be negative geared if property devalues too much

Like how this caused Tung Chee Hwa to step down as the HK SAR Chief Exec, PAP will lose their seat if sinkaporeans become negatively geared
 
Re: Level the playing field for locals and foreigners in employment...by Leong Tze Hi

You are right. By the way, its negative equity and not negative geared. The latter refers to an intentional state of play usually for tax purposes.
Chenghu cannot reverse or curb the influx of foreigners for fear of a property price crash/slump.

Many young sinkaporeans will be negative geared if property devalues too much

 
Re: Level the playing field for locals and foreigners in employment...by Leong Tze Hi

By the way, its negative equity and not negative geared. The latter refers to an intentional state of play usually for tax purposes.

Thanks for the correction. My finance knowledge is getting rusty

From wiki:
Negative equity occurs when the value of an asset used to secure a loan is less than the outstanding balance on the loan

Exactly what I mean will happen to sinkaporeans when the property price dips due to fall in demand

So love your FTs like how PM and MM tell you to ok?
 
Re: Level the playing field for locals and foreigners in employment...by Leong Tze Hi

Sorry... The liberal FT policy has already done too much financial damage to country

Chenghu cannot reverse or curb the influx of foreigners for fear of a property price crash/slump.

Many young sinkaporeans will be negative geared if property devalues too much

Like how this caused Tung Chee Hwa to step down as the HK SAR Chief Exec, PAP will lose their seat if sinkaporeans become negatively geared

All this can be solved if the banks are not allowed to foreclose homes that are affected. Only a non-pappy party wil do this which in effect gives back Singapore to Singaporeans. As long as pappies are in power this will never happen and sinkies will continue to falter in their aspirations.
 
Re: Level the playing field for locals and foreigners in employment...by Leong Tze Hi

All this can be solved if the banks are not allowed to foreclose homes that are affected.

Doesn't even have to come to this. Imagine married couples working their arses off to pay off a 1million mortgage for a 500k home?

Gahmen is the ultimate land owner and regulator. If they fuck up property prices they are effectively fucking up the lives of citizens.
 
Re: Level the playing field for locals and foreigners in employment...by Leong Tze Hi

I understand that this is a major issue for the Govt since 1995. Around that time, property prices fell drammatically and many foreigners had gone under. There were representation by various chambers of commerce etc.

I thought it odd that again foreigners had more pull than locals.

Thanks for the correction. My finance knowledge is getting rusty

From wiki:


Exactly what I mean will happen to sinkaporeans when the property price dips due to fall in demand

So love your FTs like how PM and MM tell you to ok?
 
Re: Level the playing field for locals and foreigners in employment...by Leong Tze Hi

1 million to tell us the obvious and another 1 million to sign on the dotted line.
 
Re: Level the playing field for locals and foreigners in employment...by Leong Tze Hi

In 1995 circa, MAS gave directions to the bank not to top properties that are in negative equity. Riots would have taken place despite the fact that 14% of population are in private property.

All this can be solved if the banks are not allowed to foreclose homes that are affected. Only a non-pappy party wil do this which in effect gives back Singapore to Singaporeans. As long as pappies are in power this will never happen and sinkies will continue to falter in their aspirations.
 
Re: Level the playing field for locals and foreigners in employment...by Leong Tze Hi

I refuse to buy into this debt web of a vicious cycle created by Leegime called property boom and bust.Of course I am talkin about HDB lah.

Suppose say if tomorrow all HDB holes worth $500,000/ are now valued 50K---who looses?Pray please tell.....Of course you would talk about the burden of $500,000 mortgage committed.But SG is not US.In SG you lease HDB from the gahman.And of course the gahman technically equates to all its people.So it would merely tantamount to only paper adjustment.Nothing more and nothing less.But the people overall gains.

There are precedents.Gahman in other countries had written off debts owed to them by its people if its burdensome for their masses.
 
Back
Top