Serious Ravi talk cock, Shitty Times repeats cockshit wholesale

Confuseous

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Joined
Dec 30, 2010
Messages
12,730
Points
113
I have been thinking about Ravi Menon’s letter and how bereft of hard data it was. ST chose to write a news story on it (leaving a key point out) when it should have nailed down some more facts. Anyway, my 2 cents here.
I thank Mr Raymond Koh Bock Swi for his thoughtful letter (Workforce composition in banks needs to be examined, Aug 15). I have asked my team to reach out to him for further views and suggestions.
Protecting and growing Singaporean jobs, especially in current economic conditions, is a top priority. The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) established a $125 million package earlier this year to encourage financial institutions (FIs) to retain, train and hire Singaporeans.
(What is the update on this? Sounds like a lot of money. Which FIs have taken it up and what has been the result?)
We want to see a strong Singaporean core complemented by high-quality and diverse foreign talent in every major FI.
(How does MAS define the Singapore core - with PRs or without? How diverse is diverse? What is your definition of a major FI?)
MAS closely monitors these FIs' workforce profile by locals (citizens and PRs separately ) and foreigners, broken down by seniority, business function, qualifications, and so on.
(Since MAS has the statistics, can we see them as well? Is it correct to assume that locals is used interchangeably with Singapore core?)
MAS engages FIs' senior management on their workforce profiles and plans to grow the Singaporean core. We will intensify these engagements.
(What does “intensify engagements’’ mean? Do you have a team which looks at employment issues in FIs?)
While not yet where we want to be for every FI, the picture across the sector as a whole is better than often portrayed. (Where DO we want to be for every FI?)
MAS estimates that citizens make up 70 per cent of the sector's workforce, (of how many?) with PRs making up another 14 per cent. Singaporeans are well represented across business functions, but we need to improve the local proportion in areas like technology and risk management. (What are the proportions for both?)
MAS estimates that Singapore citizens account for about 70 per cent of senior management roles in retail banks' local functions.
(Define senior management and what proportion are retail banks compared to rest of industry? What are “local’’ functions and how big is this part of work in a retail bank?)
Across the entire sector, the proportion is about 43 per cent, reflecting Singapore's role as an international financial centre.
(Again, we need to know how big retail banks are to make sense of the above statement. Why does MAS pick only the retail banks’ local functions to highlight local employment? If 43 per cent is a reflection of Singapore’s role as an international financial centre, could you tell us what diversity is like in other international financial centres in the world)
As our financial sector attracts more regional and global HQ functions, it creates more good jobs and opportunities for Singaporeans.
(More regional and global HQ functions as compared to what? Does this mean if not HQ functions, there would be fewer job opportunities? Please elaborate)
But it also means a higher proportion of foreigners in senior management in these functions as FIs understandably draw from a global talent pool to fill these positions.
(Can we have an idea of the proportion of foreigners in senior management in these regional and global HQ functions?)
Even so, a good number of Singaporeans have assumed regional leadership roles. More Singaporeans are taking on overseas positions, typically a prerequisite for these leadership roles. MAS has been working with FIs to develop a strong local leadership pipeline, and the industry is making progress.
(What is a good number?)
My colleagues and I are committed to growing the Singaporean core in the financial sector. We do this by working with our FIs to develop Singaporeans: building critical skills, broadening capabilities, gaining international exposure, and ensuring equal opportunity to take on the many good jobs and leadership roles that our financial centre will continue to create.

Ravi Menon
Managing Director
Monetary Authority of Singapore

Bertha Henson FB
 
As the debate about the number of foreigners in Singapore continues to take centre stage, it has now been reported that Singaporeans only occupied 43 per cent of the senior management positions in the entire banking sector. In other words, foreigners hold the other 57 per cent which means that out of 10 senior bankers in Singapore, one would expect 6 to be foreigners.

This is despite the fact that the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) is insisting that it is working with financial institutions to develop a strong local leadership pipeline and that the industry is making progress.

To be fair, there is absolutely nothing wrong with having foreigners in our banking sector. As a globalised country, we should be welcoming those with unique contributions to make to our country. The issue of foreigners only becomes an issue if they are taking up jobs that locals are equally qualified to do at the expense of that local not having employment.

Looking at trends, we do seem to be reaching that point and therein lies the concern that as the number of foreign PMETs increase in Singapore, there appears to be a somewhat corresponding increase in local PMET unemployment.

Using the government’s own rationale, foreign talent should complement local talent. Yet, are we currently in a situation where foreigners are not complementing locals, but in actuality, replacing them?

Looking at the percentage of board members in Temasek Holdings and now at the figures released by MAS, can the authorities categorically say that all of the foreigners in those positions are fulfilling roles that locals are not equipped to take up?

Can it really be that locals are so ill equipped that they cannot fulfil the majority of top roles in such sectors? If so, is there something wrong with our education system that we are producing people who are not equipped to meet our country’s economic needs? Is there a training gap? And if so, why so? Surely, the Government with all its highly hailed foresight should have been able to predict the economic trends that affect our country and prepare locals accordingly
?

Instead of reviewing policies periodically, has the use of foreigners become a short term and lazy way to plug the gaps?

In looking at the issue of foreigners in Singapore, it is too simplistic to be binary. Not all high level jobs can be done by locals. Foreigners are also needed to reflect Singapore’s position in the world as an international city. The question therefore is – have we reached a bottle neck point where foreigners are simply hired without much thought being given into whether or not such foreign hires have been hired at the expense of a local with the same skill sets?

Looking at the figures, we might have well reached the point.

Either the Government has not set out an education system that meets our country’s employment needs or it is using foreigners as a lazy way to plug the employment gap. Neither is particularly reassuring.

Ghui
 
I can't believe people are still debating about this.

They gave you their game plan. Keywords: 'Strong Singapore core'. :wink:

popwhitepaper1.jpg
 
It was a cryptic message. The core (as in the core of an apple)
is thrown away. :geek:
 
Back
Top