Foreigners raised Singaporean wages challenged by Jeyaretnam

Fcukpap SG

Foreign Talent Benchmark should be established and the burden is on the government to work out, explore and monitor...

We are a nation in waiting for the day HE goes....no empire or dynasty could last forever...its very near

Atobe SG

cos she talking for the sake of talking

She ?

The Taiwanese 'hum' is asexual - and impregnate itself with its own cum.

It is not a surprise that it must cum twice a day in this Speaker's Corner simply to allow its ‘Labia Majora’ and ‘Labia Minora’ to flap in a public display - just to attract attention to itself as an 'Attention Seeking Whore'.

soul_rage SG

I would suggest everyone in this forum to ignore that imbecile (aka angel7030 or whatever) who cannot decide if IT is a he or she.

It is just here to make a fool of itself, in its attempt to offend other forum members, and throw any meaningful discussion off-course.

Attempts to respond to it is a mere insult to one's own intelligence. Therefore I urge everyone to just ignore ANY posting made by the most shameless forum member so as not to give it pleasure in attaining its objective.

That's my last posting in reference to it. It will not exist in my world from today onwards

Coming back to the discussion.

I think that the Finance Minister's attributing of the increase of household income by 20% to the credit of foreigners is a TOTAL insult to the locals.

Does he mean that locals cannot increase their income due to their own hard work, and productivity, and has to rely on foreign labour for that increase?

There are many factors that contribute to the increase in household income. Such statements coming from a high level minister is very irresponsible and demonstrates his lack of knowledge.

speak SG

http://flowerpod.com.sg/forums/redirect.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fbusiness.asiaone.com%2FBusiness%2FOffice%2FAsk%2FStory%2FA1Story20090506-139724.html

Applicant-unfriendly S'pore

In the case of one prominent Singapore government job, I got through the application and writing-test stages, but after an eight-hour assessment, I was rejected. What shocked me was the rejection e-mail, which coldly stated: 'We are unable to provide feedback, so please do not contact us.' ...

In foreign countries, during job applications that require multiple stages, applicants are encouraged to call for feedback even if they are successful. In a top bank in London where I applied for a job, I was constantly in touch with a human resource officer who had personally given each candidate her direct line to 'call any time, just in case'.

http://flowerpod.com.sg/forums/redirect.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.straitstimes.com%2FST%252BForum%2FOnline%252BStory%2FSTIStory_373658.html

Job seekers with foreign-sounding names have it tough

I have a friend working as an assistant HR manager in a mid-sized engineering firm. What she told me shocked me to the core. She said whenever her company places a recruitment advertisement for any position, its inbox is flooded with resumes - mostly from citizens of the Philippines, Thailand, Myanmar and China. Only about 10 per cent are from Singapore citizens or PRs.

Since my friend's team do not have time to sift through each and every curriculum vitae, they just delete any e-mail from a foreign-sounding name. I was shocked as my name sounds foreign too. I started to write as the first line of any cover letter I sent: 'I am a PR, living and working in Singapore for X years now.' But then, some do not even get to read the cover letter at all.

http://flowerpod.com.sg/forums/redirect.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.expatsingapore.com%2Fforum%2Findex.php%2Ftopic%2C47866.0.html

Employer who will base a new employee's salary on his previous salary irrespective of the market value

Frankly this practice of Singapore companies demanding previous salary slips when they hire new employees is as immoral and dishonest as the candidates themselves inflating their previous salaries. In normal countries, the new salary would be pre-determined for lower-levels, or by negotiation and mutual agreement at the higher-end. Not what I hear is the local practice of X% more than what was on your last payslip...

It's not the employers business how much I earned in the previous job, instead if the employee wants X and the company is OK with that then end of story. If the company only wants to pay Y then they could negotiate. Using the pay slip as some kind of reference is not right.

source: flowerpod

speak SG

attn

- taunting and provoking people is my forte/strength - don't fall into the trap

- the best solution is to ignore her - leave her alone - to rot and decay

- don't respond anything she posted

speak SG

We were tipped off by a reader who worked as a HR manager in China who received 78 resumes from PRC NTU students on government scholarships for positions in Shanghai, some of whom are on the Dean’s List.

The stunning revelation sparked a series of discussion threads in Singapore’s blogosphere with many netizens lampooning the ruling party for its pro-foreigner policy.

Some questioned why locals have to serve National Service while foreigners are given free scholarships to study at Singapore universities sponsored entirely by taxpayers’ monies.

Shutterx from Hardwarezone forum wrote:

“for 4yr engrg prog, what each china student gains and does not hv to contribute back:
[figures are approx]

4yrs of full school fees = $33k * 4 = $132,000
on-campus housing = $10,320
4yrs of living allowance = $23,200
3 air tickets of $500 each = $1500
TOTAL = $167,000

meanwhile, every SG kkj must go thru NS/ICT/RT to ’serve the nation’ and pay ur CPF/income tax…ur life is cheaper

may I suggest that our govt gives them FREE s’pore woman, FREE wedding dinner and a FREE flat, maybe more of them will stay here.”

gwzc wondered why local scholars are publicly shamed for bond-breaking while PRC scholars are allowed to get away “scot-free”:

“I still remember last time got some scholars break their bonds to join the private sector. tio flame and shame on national news like no tomorrow. now leh?? how many of these tiongs had come here on taxpayers’ monies/ tution grants/ scholarships to snatch places in our universities then run back to their countries when they finish their studies??”

Tsuteki summed it up nicely:

“1 thing can say Local is dirt and FT is treasure. full stop”

Over at Channel News Asia forum, netizens are equally incensed.

paladin126 wrote it’s true that the Singapore government has sponsored the tertiary education of PRC students:

“It is quite true that Sing Govt sponsor education of PRC students and gives them allowance of $500 per month. When I was in uni, my allowance from parents was less than that, and I just served NS. The next statistics we need is the percentage of PRC student who leave without fulfilling their bond because they have to work in Singapore for 3 years after their sponsored education.”

Molvis felt the government should have invested on its own citizens:

“Don’t be stupid….do you really think they will be grateful? Such money should be spent on Singaporean instead.”

Damnit added:

“Many using Singapore as a stepping stone including getting Singapore passport to apply for PR/Citizenship elsewhere. And the worse part is that the Singapore Government acknowledges this fact but hopes that many will fail and so “forced” to stay in Singapore. How did we as a nation end up being so pathetic? Don’t need Ah Tiongs to tell us we are stupid, our Gov. policy on this matter speaks for itself.”

Most of the comments are directed at the PAP rather than the PRC scholars. Some Singaporeans claimed that they would have done the same if they were in their shoes. After all, who doesn’t want a free lunch in this world?

Unfortunately, it appears that the PAP leaders are still blissfully ignorant of the reality on the ground.

PAP’s strongman Lee Kuan Yew said in an interview with the National Geographic magazine lately that it is a “good thing” that Singapore has welcomed so many Chinese immigrants (mainly from China) who are more “hard-driving” and “hard-striving” than locals.

Despite the desperate attempts of the PAP to attract mainland Chinese to study, work and live in Singapore, an increasing number are shunning the island state for other countries after witnessing for themselves how shabbily it treats its own citizens.

In a Gallop poll done in July last year, the top three emigration destinations for college Chinese students are United States, South Korea and France. Singapore was not even featured within the top five.

soul_rage SG

The stunning revelation sparked a series of discussion threads in Singapore’s blogosphere with many netizens lampooning the ruling party for its pro-foreigner policy.

Some questioned why locals have to serve National Service while foreigners are given free scholarships to study at Singapore universities sponsored entirely by taxpayers’ monies.

Shutterx from Hardwarezone forum wrote:

“for 4yr engrg prog, what each china student gains and does not hv to contribute back:
[figures are approx]

4yrs of full school fees = $33k * 4 = $132,000
on-campus housing = $10,320
4yrs of living allowance = $23,200
3 air tickets of $500 each = $1500
TOTAL = $167,000

meanwhile, every SG kkj must go thru NS/ICT/RT to ’serve the nation’ and pay ur CPF/income tax…ur life is cheaper

may I suggest that our govt gives them FREE s’pore woman, FREE wedding dinner and a FREE flat, maybe more of them will stay here.”

gwzc wondered why local scholars are publicly shamed for bond-breaking while PRC scholars are allowed to get away “scot-free”:

Tsuteki summed it up nicely:

“1 thing can say Local is dirt and FT is treasure. full stop”

Over at Channel News Asia forum, netizens are equally incensed.

paladin126 wrote it’s true that the Singapore government has sponsored the tertiary education of PRC students:

Molvis felt the government should have invested on its own citizens:

“Don’t be stupid….do you really think they will be grateful? Such money should be spent on Singaporean instead.”

Damnit added:

Unfortunately, it appears that the PAP leaders are still blissfully ignorant of the reality on the ground.

To further elaborate,

An overseas scholar has to serve 6 years in Singapore (their supposed bond), in whichever company they can get a job in, before they are considered to have paid off their scholarship.

However, there is very little consequence in breaking this 'bond'. The only consequence is that they are not allowed to come back to Singapore should they not complete 6 years, which, to me, isn't much of a problem. Who cares about a small little island?

That said, I do agree that the PRC students are not to be blamed. It's us cheapening our image, that has resulted in lowering ourselves as a good destination to be at.

angel7030 SG

Perhap peoples here do not understand the important of our diminishing and old age population issue. Because peoples here don't think far with a narrow mind. With only a fraction of babies in comparing to the baby booming time, what can you visualise by year 2025 or 2030 , if we do not attract people here, companies would not be able to get people, our population would be just 2 millions and reducing, we would all went back to selling Otah, manufacture bata shoes and paint brushes and most probably i would became an old aunty selling papayas again.

Thus , it is of no choice that we have to attract foreigners here, and if u want to attract, you better get the younger ones with good potential. In order to compete with other countries to attract them, you have to let go a bit of slack in your rules and regulations, otherwise no one is coming. Once they are in, even if they move out later, we do expect them to do business with us in near future, but what we are hoping is not a 100% retention, but a mere 60% retention rate will be good enough, when they build their family here, bring their loves one in, our population increased, our economy willl have enuf people to mend it. The ultimate reaping part will be their decendents, who will be true singaporeans by 2030 serving NS.

Nobody like stranger to come to their house, but if the house is going to be empty soon, we need to get or adopt someone in to take care, the govt understand that this policy is not going to be a popular one, in fact, it has been one of the most unpopular one, but is there another choice?, as govt, they can alway abolish this policy to make citizens happy and vote for them, but that is not the way out for Singapore, the govt bite the bullet with this policy to the extend that they can even forgo seats in the parliament just to get the population in check and hopefully a future for Singapore in a long term view.

We hope that laymen and laywomen on the street understand this implication of old age and diminshing population isssue. If you are in your 50s, dun be so selfish to look at your own situaiton, think for the future of your generation, and to create a better generation for your youngs, is something a mature and gracious society citizens willl do, they build the furture for their youngs, not destroying it. And to do that, we have to solve the problem at the nick of the buds, not until the flowers had blosom, then it might be too late. Let welcome those foreign students.

Atobe SG

Another daily routine display of idiocy and irrelevance of the Taiwanese 'hum' to exercise its ‘Labia Majora’ and ‘Labia Minora’ - simply to attract attention to the itself as the resident 'Attention Seeking Whore'.

Annilator47 SG

as again your miscule mind dose not seem to have the flexability to think "out of the box"

basically theres 2 ways to adress this problem: 1 is the above mentioned, the second way is a gradual increase while still keeping the ratio in check, stable jobs and citizenship also would have the same effect in not only retaining the people here, but also encourage them to have more, however failure to address this root is the present cause,by jump starting and pumping the population with a flood foriegners here is not going to cut it, in reality as you have witness yourself, the effect is reverse, making it more for the worse.small doses of foriegners intake in long gradual years do indeed do some good for the country, but flooding it in a short period of time would have a very vastly negative effect, which would also in turn affect productivity and efficiency of work, work quality would also be adversly affected.

many years ago when the productivity bee appeared , singapore was then quite a productive country,i was also a little proud back then as a citizen, but as time goes by, when the system start to go awary, i also am starting to lose faith in the country i used to believe in.obviously you have not gone thru a vicous cycle when you constantly have to make ends meet, but in a different manner, every time when you upgrade to a better educated level, the standard of living goes up again and you have to claw up your way for a few yearsto reach that level , but just again when you reach it, it goes out of your reach by a few years again.

i beleive i am not the only one having this problem at hand at the moment. so why don't you try this kind of like when to you it can be optional and can be shoved down to your face? i for one do not have this option to choose, it is being shoved to my face time and again.

βέτά SG

as again your miscule mind dose not seem to have the flexability to think "out of the box"

What do you expect from a secondary school drop out earning her living through the immoral earnings of prostitutes?

speak SG

Written by Ng E-Jay
26 Feb 2010

Budget 2010 which was unveiled in Parliament by Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam on Monday went to great lengths to emphasize the need to raise productivity in Singapore.

It was proposed that the government spend $5.5 billion over the next 5 years at measures to retrain workers and help companies improve their business operations. The government intends to spend further $1.5 billion on research and development, and will nurture industries and companies it thinks has the greatest chance of innovating and succeeding globally.

The solution, it appears, is based on greater government intervention in the private sector and increased micromanagement of the economy.

But the same has been tried before, way back in the 1990s when productivity had begun to stagnate after two decades of high growth, and again in the early part of this decade, with initiatives spearheaded by bodies such as the Economic Review Committee. The proposals laid out in Budget 2010 seem like a tired re-run of the schemes devised in yesteryears.

Why then is the government confident that it will succeed this time round? As the old saying goes, insanity surely is doing the same thing over and over again and hoping for different results.

Perhaps it is time to question whether excessive government intervention in the economy is the true killer of productivity growth, and whether the latest slew of measures will have the unintended consequence of further retarding the ability of Singaporeans to innovate and think out of the box.

Entrepreneurship, innovation, creativity and risk-taking are attributes developed not under the umbrella of a watchful and powerful regime that controls where the money flows and decides who should get what benefits and under what conditions.

Those are qualities developed in the free market where competition amongst peers is the main driver of higher output and productivity.

What is conspicuously absent in the productivity debate is the fact that after more than four decades of nation building under the PAP, Singapore as a country has become less entrepreneurial and less productive.

The bedrock of any dynamic economy lies in its small and medium enterprises, the mom and pop businesses, the heartland shops, stalls and emporiums that cater to folks from all walks of life.

In Singapore however, Government-Linked Corporations (GLCs) which account for 60% of the economy have crowded out many small players and stifled innovation.

Worse, because they are run not by seasoned businessmen but by bureaucrats from the establishment circles, wastage and poor allocation of resources build up over time, and the lack of drive and creativity puts an ever increasing dampener on the whole economy.

The suffocating entrenchment of GLCs in our economy must be drastically reduced before Singaporeans can break free from the economic chains that inhibit the full expression of their creative drive.

We are getting nowhere with the current productivity debate because the government has refused to acknowledge the root cause of poor productivity growth and the proposed measures will only serve to entrench the status quo and deepen our problems.

Ultimately the problem lies with what the PAP has done to, and will continue to do to, our minds.