Janice Heng
Singapolitics
Saturday, Jul 06, 2013
One strand of public unhappiness over foreign labour policy has been the idea that some bosses simply prefer foreign professionals, managers and executives (PMEs) to Singaporean ones.
The Government is moving to tackle this, by obliging employers to give local candidates fair consideration. But a disquieting question arises: what happens if Singaporeans aren't good enough to win a fair fight?
Plans to make firms give Singaporeans a fair chance were mentioned in this year's Budget debate, and came up again at an Our Singapore Conversation session last Saturday. Participants were asked their views on measures such as having to state why a foreigner is required for the post, or having to show that no local candidate can be found.
Acting Manpower Minister Tan Chuan-Jin said the Government was looking at adjustments to "add in some level of process" in hiring.
Meanwhile, the Government is also looking to raise the minimum threshold for Employment Pass salaries, which should ensure that local and foreign PMEs compete on quality rather than price.
A commentary by managing editor Han Fook Kwang last Sunday, however, raised the point that firms might have good reason to prefer foreign candidates as workers here might lack hunger and skills.
Of course, this is not an argument against the upcoming measures. Firms should indeed have to make unbiased assessments of Singaporean candidates, rather than dismiss them as inferior. But if firms give Singaporeans a fair chance yet still find them lacking - what then?
There is an arguable obligation for any Government to ensure good job opportunities for citizens, and place limits on competition from foreign jobseekers. But as Mr Tan pointed out, this cannot extend to pure labour market protectionism.
On Saturday last week, he cautioned that levelling the playing field should not mean jeopardising the economy's openness and dynamism.
Balancing citizen aspirations and economic openness is only possible to a certain extent. If and when a perceived excess of foreigners can no longer be explained by hiring bias, Singapore will have to make a choice.
It can bite the bullet and adopt some form of "affirmative action" for Singaporean workers. Or it can accept that Singaporeans have had their chance on a level playing field, and the best person should get the job.
The first option is chosen at the expense of quality and at the risk of losing foreign investment, as well as engendering a complacent labour force. The second leaves citizens in the lurch.
Of course, the dilemma would be averted if Singaporean PMEs turn out just as capable and hungry as their foreign counterparts. Whether or not this is currently the case, our best bet is to try and make it so.
When it comes to raising our labour force's capabilities, there is much the Government can do: from the usual upgrading and training, to reforming the education system to encourage critical thinking, initiative, and other skills prized by employers.
But when it comes to hunger, the onus is on workers. The hunger for a job should not just be expressed in demands to be spoonfed. It should spur self-improvement, hard work, and the willingness to broaden one's diet - for there are many worthy jobs that are not office-bound.
If all else fails and we end up facing that dilemma, perhaps a little tough love would be in order. After all, the unemployment rate in Germany and China - two countries whose citizens were said to be hungrier - is around twice that of Singapore's. Tougher conditions might eventually make for a tougher breed of Singaporean PMEs.
How long that will take is an open question. We might have to wait for a new generation which grows up in conditions other than full employment, where being able to get a job is no longer taken for granted.
But change can also happen one worker at a time. When, for instance, a university student on exchange realises that his peers in Europe are worrying about finding any job at all after graduation, and that perhaps he should do the same.
Or when a job seeker waiting for an interview looks at his foreign counterpart in the same room, who might have better qualifications or a willingness to work harder for the same pay, and feels not bitterness, but the urge to out-compete.
Yes, governments are obliged to provide job opportunities. But the job itself is something to be fought for.
Singapolitics
Saturday, Jul 06, 2013
One strand of public unhappiness over foreign labour policy has been the idea that some bosses simply prefer foreign professionals, managers and executives (PMEs) to Singaporean ones.
The Government is moving to tackle this, by obliging employers to give local candidates fair consideration. But a disquieting question arises: what happens if Singaporeans aren't good enough to win a fair fight?
Plans to make firms give Singaporeans a fair chance were mentioned in this year's Budget debate, and came up again at an Our Singapore Conversation session last Saturday. Participants were asked their views on measures such as having to state why a foreigner is required for the post, or having to show that no local candidate can be found.
Acting Manpower Minister Tan Chuan-Jin said the Government was looking at adjustments to "add in some level of process" in hiring.
Meanwhile, the Government is also looking to raise the minimum threshold for Employment Pass salaries, which should ensure that local and foreign PMEs compete on quality rather than price.
A commentary by managing editor Han Fook Kwang last Sunday, however, raised the point that firms might have good reason to prefer foreign candidates as workers here might lack hunger and skills.
Of course, this is not an argument against the upcoming measures. Firms should indeed have to make unbiased assessments of Singaporean candidates, rather than dismiss them as inferior. But if firms give Singaporeans a fair chance yet still find them lacking - what then?
There is an arguable obligation for any Government to ensure good job opportunities for citizens, and place limits on competition from foreign jobseekers. But as Mr Tan pointed out, this cannot extend to pure labour market protectionism.
On Saturday last week, he cautioned that levelling the playing field should not mean jeopardising the economy's openness and dynamism.
Balancing citizen aspirations and economic openness is only possible to a certain extent. If and when a perceived excess of foreigners can no longer be explained by hiring bias, Singapore will have to make a choice.
It can bite the bullet and adopt some form of "affirmative action" for Singaporean workers. Or it can accept that Singaporeans have had their chance on a level playing field, and the best person should get the job.
The first option is chosen at the expense of quality and at the risk of losing foreign investment, as well as engendering a complacent labour force. The second leaves citizens in the lurch.
Of course, the dilemma would be averted if Singaporean PMEs turn out just as capable and hungry as their foreign counterparts. Whether or not this is currently the case, our best bet is to try and make it so.
When it comes to raising our labour force's capabilities, there is much the Government can do: from the usual upgrading and training, to reforming the education system to encourage critical thinking, initiative, and other skills prized by employers.
But when it comes to hunger, the onus is on workers. The hunger for a job should not just be expressed in demands to be spoonfed. It should spur self-improvement, hard work, and the willingness to broaden one's diet - for there are many worthy jobs that are not office-bound.
If all else fails and we end up facing that dilemma, perhaps a little tough love would be in order. After all, the unemployment rate in Germany and China - two countries whose citizens were said to be hungrier - is around twice that of Singapore's. Tougher conditions might eventually make for a tougher breed of Singaporean PMEs.
How long that will take is an open question. We might have to wait for a new generation which grows up in conditions other than full employment, where being able to get a job is no longer taken for granted.
But change can also happen one worker at a time. When, for instance, a university student on exchange realises that his peers in Europe are worrying about finding any job at all after graduation, and that perhaps he should do the same.
Or when a job seeker waiting for an interview looks at his foreign counterpart in the same room, who might have better qualifications or a willingness to work harder for the same pay, and feels not bitterness, but the urge to out-compete.
Yes, governments are obliged to provide job opportunities. But the job itself is something to be fought for.
