Pls read Bye Bye Singapore hello China

last SG · 2009-10-04T22:30:05+00:00

I'm a singaporean who hates racist hahaha! And who are you to ask me fanfagf? another idiot again? I have a lot of foreign friends and ofcourse I will defen...

Berries tan SG

MM Lee: Will we be last of the Mohicans?

Berries tan SG

Over 40? Don’t send us your resume’

Berries tan SG

Jobless in Korea, Singapore welcomes you

Berries tan SG

Review support for foreign students

Berries tan SG

Jobless migrant workers protest in Singapore again

Berries tan SG

Chinese netizens slam Gong Li's new citizenship status

Berries tan SG

Is bond-free S'pore scholarship just 'a stepping stone' for China students?

Netizens upset when China scholar slips out of S'pore, allegedly for US varsity

By Liew Hanqing
November 19, 2008

A NETIZEN is calling it a free lunch for China scholars - at Singapore's expense.

TNP PHOTO ILLUSTRATION: KELVIN CHNG

Many are outraged that a China student, here on a Singapore scholarship, had slipped out of Singapore quietly without completing his studies.

They were responding to a blog post which claimed that a first-year Anderson Junior College (AJC) student, a Chinese national here on a bond-free scholarship, went missing after skipping school for several days.

It is understood that he had used Singapore as a launching pad to move on to study in a US university.

The New Paper asked the Ministry of Education (MOE) how much such a scholarship is worth, but MOE would not disclose this information.

A source from AJC said the student had left without a word.

When queried by The New Paper, AJC principal Susan Leong confirmed that the student had packed up and left in August.

But, in a statement issued jointly with the Education Ministry, Ms Leong said AJC had contacted the boy's family in China when he was found missing, and the family had claimed the boy was with them.

AJC, however, said it has yet to establish contact with the boy himself, or confirm for themselves whether he was indeed with his parents.

Ms Leong said the JC was only in contact with the boy's mother.

She added: 'The college understands that the student had left without permission as his father had taken ill in China and he was unable to contact his family.'

But how did he find out that his father was ill when he could not contact his family? The statement did not address this question.

'The college has maintained contact with his mother since the incident happened, and will continue to monitor the situation and encourage the student to return to Singapore to resume his studies.'

Ms Leong declined to say more.

But some netizens are incensed that the student left without a word.

Security deposit
One netizen wrote: 'It probably deprived a Singaporean student the chance to study at the JC.

'Perhaps, to deter such runaways, a security deposit should be introduced?'

Another added: 'These foreign students go on to university if they pass their A levels. Now with just O levels, they can apply to foreign universities. Who are the 'quitters'?'

It is not known how long the student was in Singapore before joining AJC earlier this year.

Yet another netizen attributed the student's departure to youthful immaturity.

'It should be no surprise that these students might view this (Singapore scholarship) as a stepping stone (free lunch) for other plans,' he wrote.

'They simply lack the maturity, experience and understanding of the world as they are still young. Of course they will make selfish decisions.'

Key personnel from the various JCs make regular trips to China to woo potential scholars, who are selected based on merit. The scholars' education and lodging are paid for, and they also receive a monthly stipend for daily expenses.

Since the blog entry appeared last week, the link to the website has been circulated on numerous popular forums and blog aggregators, and has been fodder for the blogosphere.

Blogger Aaron Peng wrote that he was not surprised that the scholar left without permission.

'After they finish studying, they can just pack and go anywhere in the world... with the world-class education that the Singapore Government has given them for free!

'Who says there is no free lunch? There is, just not for Singaporeans.'

Added blogger Warren Tan, an AJC student: 'If it is indeed true that after so much investment (which is controversial in the first place) in foreign students, by our Government, these students can come and go so easily, we need to reconsider our policies.'

Other China scholars The New Paper spoke to said they felt the student was irresponsible for leaving without a word.

The New Paper asked MOE whether this was the first such incident of a student leaving without a word, whether the ministry had any measures in place to prevent such incidents from happening, and how much the student's scholarship was worth.

But MOE did not respond to these questions, issuing only the joint response with AJC.

Feng Quan, 16, a Jurong Junior College student from China on scholarship here, said he felt the student displayed a lack of integrity.

'Since he had already accepted the scholarship, he shouldn't have left without a word, whatever his reasons. The least he should have done was to seek the approval of the authorities.'

Very good deal
He added that he values the scholarship he was awarded, because 'it was a very good deal'.

He said: 'In China, for us to get into top universities like Tsinghua University or Beijing University, we have to work really hard, and there's no guarantee we can even get in.

'In Singapore, as long as we study consistently, we can get a place in a top local university, and Singapore has one of the best education systems in the world.'

Added schoolmate and fellow China scholar Zhong Jicheng, 18: 'The proper thing to do would have been for the student to write a letter explaining his decision to leave. It isn't right to just leave quietly.'

He added that the student should not have taken up the scholarship if he had the intention of leaving.

Like many of his peers, Jicheng said he plans to stay in Singapore for his undergraduate education. He hopes to pursue a degree in hospitality management here.

'I like studying here because it isn't too stressful like it is in China, and the education system is more flexible,' he said.

Source: http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/news/st...83992,00.html?

Berries tan SG

Accept sacrifices, cutbacks

Berries tan SG

S'poreans come first
Minister said the government will always consider their interests above foreigners.

CURBING the number of foreign talents who are prepared to immigrate here would be counter-productive to Singapore's long-term interests, said Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng on Monday.

'In today's globalised world, human capital is extremely mobile, particularly the talented and driven. Our current economic and social conditions make us an attractive immigration destination for many nationalities around the world,' he said.

'It is important that we leverage on our strengths and continue to attract talented people to settle here, as we drive towards building a knowledge economy.'

Mr Wong, who is also Deputy Prime Minister, made this point in his written response to a question from Nominated MP Kalyani Mehta in Parliament on Monday.

Prof Mehta had asked if the Government would tighten future immigration policies in view of the need for a rooted local populace in Singapore, noting that citizens comprise only 65 per cent of the total population.

The minister said given Singapore's low fertility rate, the resident population and workforce would decline rapidly if the authorities shut out immigrants or substantially reduce inflows.

'This would have serious repercussions on our ability to maintain our standard of living. Encouraging immigration is therefore a key strategy which we must continue to pursue,' he said.

'Beyond population imperatives, immigrants inject new ideas and dynamism into society. Many countries, such as the United States and Australia, have benefited greatly from having absorbed a diverse group of immigrants. Singapore itself is an immigrant society and we would not be where we are today if not for the contributions of our immigrants over the years.'

Mr Wong acknowledged that some Singaporeans may feel threatened by the number of immigrants that Singapore is absorbing.

'This is a natural human response. However, Singaporeans should be assured that this Government will always consider the interests of Singaporeans first,' he assured.

'This is reflected in the way our policies are crafted, from healthcare and housing to education and other social policies. While we welcome immigrants to our shores, our own people are always closest to our hearts.

'We will ensure that there remains a sizeable group of Singaporeans which will form the core of our society - people who are here for the long haul, who will stand fast in times of difficulty, but who will also be first to enjoy the fruits of our success.'

Singapore citizens and Permanent Residents (PRs) account for 75 per cent of the total population, with citizens making up 65 per cent, as at Jun. The remaining non-resident population comprises transient foreigners working, studying and living in Singapore.

Mr Wong said by far, foreign manpower accounts for the largest proportion of the non-resident population. These are foreigners who are here on a transient basis to take up jobs in sectors which Singaporeans are not able to fill.

'The size of our foreign workforce is not fixed. It depends on the state of our economy, and also on other global factors,' said the minister, explaining that over the last few years, there has been a strong demand for workers in sectors such as construction and marine, leading to an expanded foreign workforce here.

'Without them, our industries would have been handicapped and we would not have been able to achieve robust levels of growth,' he added.

'Overall, our flexible foreign workforce policies have enabled us to maintain a critical competitive edge over competing economies by allowing companies to expand their workforce quickly to capitalise on opportunities, at the same time creating more and better jobs for our citizens.'

http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking...ry_292731.h

Berries tan SG

Singapore students protest university censorship

Berries tan SG

Hold exit interviews for quitters? MP says move will give clearer idea of why people leave S'pore

By Benson Ang
September 17, 2008

SHOULD the Government hold exit interviews for Singaporeans who renounce their citizenship?

Or should it just quietly respect their decision, since they have made up their minds to leave?

This was raised yesterday in Parliament by Mr Lim Biow Chuan, MP for Marine Parade GRC, who suggested that the Government consider conducting exit interviews for Singaporeans intending to emigrate to find out why they want to do so.

Mr Lim, 45, who has friends who are planning to migrate, said: 'I wanted to know in principle whether the Government cares why people are leaving the country... What can they do to make these people reconsider?'

Companies have exit interviews to find out why employees are leaving and to gather feedback to improve the working environment for existing employees.

Mr Lim said: 'An exit interview can provide a good feel of the reasons why some Singaporeans decide to renounce their citizenship. They are likely to be more honest about their gripes with living in Singapore.'

He said that an exit interview may help the Government find out which specific policies that people are unhappy with. It might also help them identify policies which they may wish to refine.

The Government's answer, delivered by Senior Minister of State Ho Peng Kee, is that it does ask why people want to renounce their citizenship. (See report at right.)

Mr Lim said he was 'reasonably satisfied' with this answer, adding: 'I don't have any concrete suggestions right now, but I just wish we could do more to encourage people not to renounce their citizenship.'

Most Singaporeans interviewed by The New Paper felt exit interviews would not help to find out why people choose to emigrate.

Unlike career switch
A human resources director, 41, who did not want to be named, said: 'Leaving a country permanently is a very different decision compared to changing careers or switching to another company.

'In a corporate situation, we can try to accommodate them, such as giving them more suitable working hours or putting them in a different department.'

'But people leaving the country would have already made up their minds, so there is no way to retain them.'

Mr Daryl See, a polytechnic lecturer in his 50s, said it might be difficult to interview people who want to leave.

He said: 'The decision to emigrate is a long-term one. Usually, a person only decides to renounce citizenship after living in another country. So it's difficult to interview them.'

Other Singaporeans criticised Mr Lim's proposal as taking the wrong approach to the issue of emigration.

Political observer and businessman Zulkifli Baharudin, 48, said: 'If people have made up their minds, let them be. I'm not going to try to convince them to stay.'

He said exit interviews would not help uncover the gripes of Singaporeans because 'they will just give a politically correct answer'.

'They probably will have discussed the real reasons with their friends and family. Those reasons are not something you can get from an interview.'

For Mr Baharudin, the battle is already lost once a Singaporean decides to renounce his or her citizenship.

'People shouldn't even think about leaving. You take Singapore for what it is. If you are unhappy with something, then stay and find a way to fix it.

'If you start rationalising and negotiating your loyalty, then I think the country will have no future,' he said.

'Citizenship is a privilege, and it should be treated with honour.'

Source: http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/news/st...76938,00.html?

Berries tan SG

ant scholars, will pay dollars - A*Star offers cash for every new scholar referred

By Liew Hanqing
September 05, 2008

KNOW of a potential scholar?

NEW SCHEME: A*Star says that this plan was introduced to reach out to a wide pool of local and foreign talent. PICTURE: AFP

Refer him to us, and if he is accepted, we'll give you $500.

A new scheme introduced last week by the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*Star) promises that to its current scholars.

It announced the scheme through notices sent out to its current scholars last week, urging them to refer qualified colleagues, friends or relatives to apply for A*Star's graduate scholarship programmes.

These programmes pay for the scholars' graduate education at top international universities, including Harvard University, the University of Cambridge and Stanford University.

One of the agency's scholarships, the National Science Scholarship (PhD), supports up to five years of a scholar's PhD studies.

A spokesman for A*Star said the referral scheme was introduced to reach out to a wider pool of talent, both local and foreign.

'This will ensure that our scientific talent base continues to be diverse, international and world class,' she said.

She added that the referral fee was to reward their scholars' efforts in recommending their peers and to defray any costs they incur in communicating with them.

The scheme is currently open only to A*Star scholars. Those who make referrals are required to direct the potential candidate to the A*Star website to fill in an online application form.

They must then notify their respective scholarship officers about the referral.

The referrer will receive the referral fee once the candidate accepts the scholarship and formally begins the A*Star scholarship PhD programme.

The scheme has received mixed responses from A*Star staff The New Paper spoke to, and from netizens who posted on an online forum thread about the scheme.

A researcher at A*Star, who declined to be named, said she felt the scheme was not a good idea.

Said the researcher, who is not an A*Star scholar: 'It cheapens the whole system, and makes it sound like what some bank would do.

'Choosing to become an academic is a very individual thing. I don't understand why somebody else should profit from it.'

Sceptical
A netizen, who posted a copy of the A*Star notice sent out to scholars on a popular online forum, was sceptical about the scheme.

He wrote: 'Given this information, would anyone now believe any A*Star scholar who says good things about A*Star's scholarships?'

Others, however, welcomed the scheme.

Said a current A*Star scholar pursuing her PhD overseas: 'I don't think it's a bad idea; many companies do it. It's ultimately up to the candidate to decide for themselves.

'The scholarship board will presumably hold the candidate to the same standards as any other applicant.'

She added she felt it would be prudent to impose some type of limit on the number of referrals per person.

On whether she felt it would be a good idea to open the scheme to non-scholars as well, she said: 'Perhaps, if there are sufficient rules against A*Star decision-makers referring people, or staff referring family members, for example.'

Responding to the forum thread posted online this week, a netizen said there was 'nothing wrong' with the scheme.

'Many companies pay employees for referrals. Some are willing to pay up to thousands for key positions.'

Source: http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/news/st...75574,00.html?

Berries tan SG

Tuesday, 23 December 2008, 7:49 am | 3,297 views

The writer of this article wishes to remain anonymous.

For the coming batch of fresh graduates, there will be no doubt that employment will be the biggest worry on their minds. With the financial crisis, companies will be facing serious cash flow problems due to stricter lending policies by the banks. Not only are the banks (one of the biggest employers in the past) cutting the number of graduate hires, corporations in other industries will also be doing the same. In addition, retrenched workers will inevitably be fighting for a smaller number of jobs with fresh graduates.

There are serious implications to the graduate glut this employment season. For one, we are sure that many graduates will be forced to take on temporary contract assignments. What about the graduates who fail to find any decent employment? Are they expected to work on temporary assignments for say, $6 – 7 dollars an hour? How will this pay enable them to pay for sustainable support for their retiring parents and their marriage plans?

A decision to take on an undergraduate degree programme is an expensive one. The opportunity cost is 3 to 4 years of experience and wages applicable to an A level holder or a diploma holder. Assuming the prospect works for $1500 a month for that 3 to 4 years (including a compounding rate of 4% to take into consideration inflation rate and real growth rate of money), the amount could be up to $73,000. Along with this opportunity cost, we add the tuition fees of approximately $30,000 for a 3 to 4 year course in a local institution and we discover that the real cost of undertaking a graduate programme is about $100,000 SGD. With this amount of investment, how do you expect any graduate to even consider marriage, child birth or taking care of retiring parents? To add to this amount, we know to consider that a tuition loan charges the graduate interest soon after his graduation, therefore the expected amount might increase even more!

As an undergraduate leaving school in the coming month of May, I worry about landing a job and facing the huge tuition loan ahead. At the age of 24, I also wonder how long before I can even start thinking about getting married and having my first child. In this light, I can confidently say that the birthrate will not increase. The quality of life, which is heavily dependent on job security, will be affected. With more stress and uncertainty, our work efficiency will also be affected.

The process of graduate recruitment is at best, at a crawling pace. The graduates and the retrenched are now fighting for a smaller pool of jobs. I wonder if the government will address this pressing issue soon. On a final note, finding employment, to a graduate, is not just about finding financial independence. It is the answer to one’s social and emotional security, the solution to retire their tuition loans and the only tool to start a family and to support their retiring parents.

———–

About the author

The writer is a first class honours student from a local university with double majors in Banking and Finance and Marketing. He remains jobless at the point of writing this essay. Graduate recruitments programmes usually end around November to early January period.

Berries tan SG

Sunday, 15 June 2008, 11:06 pm | 548 views

Leong Sze Hian

I am somewhat puzzled by the statistics on university admissions.

Surely, what is more important is the number of applicants, rather than the number of applications, since many may apply to all three universities.

What is the break-down of the applicants for Singaporeans, permanent residents (PRs) and foreigners?
Since 20 per cent of the three universities’ total offering of 14,700 places this year is reserved for foreigners, does it mean that the places for Singaporeans and PRs is 11,760?

Therefore, what Singaporeans may like to know is what percentage of Singaporeans and PRs who apply, will be offered places?

This may be a more meaningful figure than saying that “25 per cent of the graduating cohort would be offered places, compared to 23 per cent last year”.

The Ministry of Education said in July last year that the actual number of foreign students admitted was 4,218.

Since the three local universities provided 14,685 places last year, dividing 4,218 by 14,685 gives a foreign students enrolment of 28.7 per cent.

So, was the foreign students admitted last year 20 or 28.7 per cent of the total intake?

What was the first-year intake percentage of Singaporeans after adjusting for PRs?

What is the break-down of the percentage of Singaporean and PR polytechnic graduate applicants, and foreigner applicants, who are admitted?

Is the admission success rate of Singaporean polytechnic graduates lower than foreigners?

So, I think in order to clear up the confusion on university admissions, what Singaporeans may really want to know is what is the actual percentage of Singaporeans, PRs, and foreigners admitted, instead of the number of applications, applicants or the number offered places ?

References:

Charlene Sng’s letter “Uni entry still hard for most poly graduates” (ST, May 26)

Khoo Lih-Han’s letter “Govt should subsidise private courses” (ST, May 16)

Patrick Sio’s letter “Universities should be clearer about entry criteria” (ST, May 16)

“Smaller cohort, but universities getting more applications” (ST, May 14)

“University education: Economics of choice” (ST, May 17).

Employment: Who actually get jobs?

I refer to the articles “More jobs created, but number of jobless still up” (ST, May 1) and “Jobs for Singaporeans: WP challenged to act on its words” (ST, May 2).

I would like to point out the following worrying employment trends :-

Another quarter of record employment growth – employment grew by 68,400 in the first quarter, but the seasonally adjusted resident (Singaporeans and PRs) unemployment rate increased from 2.4 per cent in the last quarter of 2007 to 2.9 per cent this quarter. This increase of 0.5 per cent is higher than the 0.3 per cent overall unemployment rate increase, from 1.7 in December to 2.0 in March.

Despite employment growing by 68,400, the number of seasonally adjusted unemployed residents grew to 54,400.

In 2006, 52 per cent of jobs created went to residents, of which 37 per cent went to citizens.

In 2007, the percentage of jobs created that went to residents declined to 38 per cent. Of this, what percentage went to Singaporeans ?

Has this trend of declining jobs for citizens persisted in the first quarter of 2008 ? What is the percentage of jobs to residents, and to citizens, for the first quarter ?

A record 46,900 became PRs, in the first nine months of 2007, and 7,300 became citizens in the first half of 2007. Has this trend persisted since 1 October 2007 for new PRs, and 1 July 2007 for new citizens, to the quarter ended 31 March 2008 ?

How many of the new jobs for residents, went to such new residents ?

Labour stakeholders like NTUC should analyse the cause of the above worrying trends for Singaporean workers, explore what can be done to reverse or slow down the trend, and how to mitigate the effect and implications on citizens?

In this connection, according to the Department of Statistics’ Monthly Digest of Statistics April 2008, the ratio of job seekers placed in employment to job seekers attended to at Career Link Centres, has declined from 29 per cent in 2006, to 28 and 24 per cent in 2007 and March 2008, respectively.

Also, the total population in Singapore is growing at it’s fastest rate since 1990, at 4.3 per cent, compared to the resident (citizens and PRs) population growing at only 1.6 per cent since 1990.

GST increase statistics

I refer to the article “An exclusive club to help the needy” (Today, May 24).

The North-West Community Development Council is asking companies and individuals to donate $100 or more each month towards the North-West Food Aid Fund, because demand for food packages from the needy has more than doubled since December, as inflation hit another 26-year high, at 7.5 per cent in April.

There have also been media reports of hospitals raising funds to help needy patients pay for their medical fees.

Since the reason given for raising the Goods and Services Tax (GST) by another two per cent, was to help the poor, aren’t the CDCs and hospitals getting more money to help the poor?

In this connection, I understand that GST collections after the two per cent increase is estimated to be $ 1.9 billion, which is more than the initial estimate of about $1.5 billion because of a booming economy.

Moreover, in addition, I understand that co-operatives in Singapore have had healthy surpluses, of which up to 20 per cent are contributed to the Central Co-operative Fund under the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS).

Some of these funds are also available to help the needy.

What are the statistics on how the increased GST collections have been used to help the poor, on a comparative basis, before and after the GST hike?

Berries tan SG

Tuesday, 25 August 2009, 11:10 pm | 6,144 views

Announcement:
We apologise for not updating this website the last couple of days. TOC is taking a few days’ break. We’ll be back soon.

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.

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.

——

Berries tan SG

Tuesday, 9 December 2008, 8:01 am | 3,392 views

Gerald Giam / Senior Writer

On 4 December at a National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) forum for employers and unions, NTUC chief Lim Swee Say and Acting Manpower Minister Gan Kim Yong were both reduced to imploring employers to retrench foreign workers before Singaporean workers, in order to minimise job losses for the latter, who make up a sizeable bloc of voters in every general election. This is a truly sorry state of affairs in Singapore’s employment landscape.

Firstly, it appears the government has taken a cold, utilitarian attitude towards foreign workers. It is as if these workers are soulless machines, who should be simply discarded when they are no longer needed. In fact, each of these workers is probably the sole breadwinner whose remittances support a large extended family back home.

Secondly and more importantly for Singaporeans is the fact that if the government has to beg employers to retrench foreigners first, it implies that their policies so steeply favour foreigners, such that if left to market forces, employers would naturally want to shed Singaporeans first.

Mr Lim said it “makes business sense” to release foreigners first during a downturn if a Singaporean could do the same job equally well. His reasoning is that when the economy recovers, it will be easier to source for foreign labour than compete for local talents with business rivals.

The Minister evidently has never been a business owner himself. If both can do the job equally well, it will make better business sense to axe the Singaporeans first, since they carry the extra loaded costs of reservist duty (for men), maternity leave (for women), employer CPF contributions and paid childcare leave (for both). In addition, family responsibilities and higher costs of living compel Singaporeans to ask for higher wages to meet their living expenses. They will also be less willing to work overtime or commute to far flung factory locations as this will take away time from their families (or their second jobs, in many cases). Foreign workers, who are here without their families, have less reason to make such demands. It should therefore be the government’s duty to its citizens to ensure that the total cost of hiring a foreign worker is not lower than the cost of hiring a Singaporean.

The government’s argument is that foreigner workers — referring to blue collar workers, not “foreign talent — provide low cost labour for our companies in good times, preventing these companies from uprooting and moving to lower cost countries like China and Vietnam, which will result in even more Singaporean job losses.

While this argument sounds good to the ears on the surface, it obscures the fact that no matter how lowly we pay our workers, the cost base of Singapore is still much higher than in China and Vietnam, or even Malaysia. Human resources firm ECA International Asia recently reported that Singapore has leapt 27 places up the global rankings of the world’s most expensive places to live in.

For most companies with operations here, the highest business expense after wages is office rentals. High rentals are caused in part by the government allowing “market forces” to run amok in the 1990s and property prices to rise so steeply that it has rendered our economy uncompetitive. Of course, the government will not admit that rentals make us uncompetitive — they will insist that our wages are the culprit. Nevertheless, even wages, while kept low for blue collar workers, have risen significantly over the past few years for senior managers and “foreign talent”, and this undoubtedly accounts for a large portion of companies’ wage bill.

The pittance paid to foreign workers has effectively suppressed the wages of Singaporean blue collar workers. At the end of the day, not only do Singaporeans lose out in wages and jobs, but so do foreign workers, whose living conditions and low salaries (after deducting the government levy) leave much to be desired for a developed country like Singapore which claims to uphold migrant worker rights.

The only ones who benefit are the corporations and their shareholders — and of course the people whose bonuses are tied to the country’s GDP growth rate, not the unemployment rate.

——

Note: You can click on the writer’s name to access all previous articles by the same writer.

——-

Berries tan SG

S'pore event, why give to China charity?

By Benson Ang
September 03, 2008

CHARITY begins at home, they say. But should it also remain at home?

READY, SET, GO: SGX chief Hsieh Fu Hua (right) at the launch of Bull Charge 2008 in June. ST FILE PICTURE

That's the issue on the boil in the financial district after the Singapore Exchange (SGX) listed a foreign charity as one of its beneficiaries for its annual charity fun run this year.

SGX will, for the first time, allocate part of the funds raised by Bull Charge 2008 to the China Youth Development Foundation (CYDF), a government-affiliated welfare group in China.

The Charge, now in its fifth year, will be held at the Padang on 24Oct.

SGX, a public-listed entity, is the stock exchange in Singapore, which has more than 700 listed companies on it.

Last year's event, then called The Bull Run, raised $3.5 million, which benefitted 14 charities.

The CYDF introduces education to rural, poverty-stricken areas in China. It targets dropouts, poor children and children of poor migrants who have escaped the notice of the city government.

It launched Project Hope in 1989 to ensure that the children have the opportunity to attend school.

Why a China charity?

Said a SGX spokesman: 'The Bull Charge has benefited from the generosity of overseas listed companies over the last four years.

Chinese listed companies
'To date, Chinese companies have formed the most significant group of contributors. Thus, for our first overseas charity, we selected one from China.'

Li Heng Chemical Fibre Technologies, a Chinese company listed on SGX, contributed $100,000 to the event, according to The Business Times, one of the partners of Bull Charge 2008.

The other partners are Central Singapore Community Development Council, Channel NewsAsia and PricewaterhouseCoopers.

This year's run will also benefit 18 Singapore charities, such as the Autism Association and Sunlove Home.

Most people The New Paper spoke to were supportive of the decision to include the Chinese charity.

Mr Teo Cher Koon, managing director and president of ISDN Holdings, a public-listed engineering company, said: 'I believe that SGX may be trying to create more attention for Singapore businesses in the Chinese market.

'Although China might look rich, it is still poor in terms of its per capital income.'

Still, at least one has questioned SGX's decision.

A consultant, who only wanted to be known as Mr Yeo, is sceptical.

He said: 'The Chinese are so rich, and don't need the money. The old man in Telok Blangah might benefit from it a lot more.'

Other businesses, while supportive, are hesitant of SGX's decision.

Said Mr Clifford Tan, 55, a restaurant owner: 'I'd be supportive if I know the money is used for the right purpose. But behind the scenes, how do we know what's going on?

'It's just that China is so far away.'

Source: http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/news/st...75352,00.html?

Berries tan SG

Tuesday, 30 June 2009, 11:58 am | 4,215 views

The following is a letter to the Straits Times forum page by Gilbert Goh.

I refer to the article “Migrating Singaporeans” (ST 27 June).

I am currently residing in Sydney Australia and felt that SM Goh Chok Tong’s speech needed a response from those who are living abroad.

Having work and live for the past two years abroad, let me reiterate that it is so much different from working back home.

I worked for about a year in China in 2007-2008 and has found the experience liberating. Though work has to be done, it is not the same as Singapore which is often stressful and taxing. Let me just say that thee is still a life after work when you are abroad. The same could not be same back home. Many laboured long hours at work and suffer the consequences of not spending enough time with their loved ones. Lax labour laws favouing the employers also do not give workers enough say on their job scope.

It is no secret that the lifestyle one leads back home is not very balanced and after a while, one begins to look for a better place to spend his life with. Many I know left Singapore in search of greener pasture both in terms of a more balanced lifestyle and better career opportunities.

It is also well known that our employers are biased against older workers preferring them to be at least below forty years of age. The influx of foreigner workers competing for employment have also given Singaporeans the added incentive to search for work abroad. The job market during past few years has become an employer’s market pushing many more Singaporeans to look at alternatives.

Personally,I was unemployed for close to 1 1/2 years during the Sars period and during that period, I began to earnestly look for an alternate place to work and reside – one that does not discriminate against age. I realise that things will be very diffcult for someone who is above aged 40 years old and not very skilled. My family took the plunge last year when we were offered a 4-year work visa in Australia and have never look back. Many back home envy our so-called second chance at having a life again – abroad.

Though I appreciate SM Goh Chok Tong’s intention to try to help local Singaporeans settle down in their own country after graduation, i am afraid that his efforts will be in vain unless employment opportunities improve especially for those age above 40 years old. We also need to work less and play more.

Berries tan SG

Tuesday, 7 July 2009, 8:17 am | 4,695 views

The following is a letter to the Manpower Minister, Mr Gan Kim Yong, by Mr De Souza Jose Socrates on the 6^th of July. The minister has not replied to him. We thank Mr De Souza for allowing us to publish the letter here – without edit.

Dear Mr Gan,

It is with much disappointment in the government’s and with your ruling party’s policies that I am writing to you.

When I was shopping around for clothes on this GSS at Suntec City’s Levi’s branch, to my surprise, I noticed that all but one staff working at the outlet were filipino nationals. So I decided to probe a little further and to my ultimate surprise, they were very open and proudly declared to me that they got this job while here on social visit passes.

They also further told me that most of them working in Levi’s other outlets also obtained this job (sales assistant) the same way and their sole purpose were to obtain permanent resident visas so they could bring their family over to live and work in S’pore. Some also said they were merely using S’pore as a stepping stone to migrate to other western first world nations! And this is just the tip of the iceberg as Levis is not the only company to have this pratice. Guardian Pharmacy, Watsons, Tenchi Digital Lifestyle and countless other deparmental stores also have large foreign labour on their ranks.

Which leads me to ponder on the current ongoing global economic crisis and the unemployment situation in S’pore. Your ministry just announced over the past week that the labour market here is still soft and that we can also expect more retrenchments to come. During this period of hardship for many S’poreans, why is your ministry still allowing more foreign labour (also desired by many of your fellow minister collegues) and especially those on social visit passes to easily obtain jobs in S’pore? Dosen’t the ICA also probe with each application made for work permits as to how they managed to get the jobs? Don’t tell me that these are jobs shun by fellow S’poreans? One will just find it hard to believe!

One also just need to take a stroll down Geylang especially along Lor 16 and 18 and find that most coffeeshop assistants working are chinese nationals and the porportion of S’porean workers supposed to be regulated by legislation just isn’t there and dosen’t tally up! Needless to mention the vices that are taking place there on a daily basis. Vietnamese women would be seen sitting at Lim Beng Coffeehouse harrassing male patrons aggrasively for their sexual services.

We, as the citizens of S’pore, really need to be asking ourselves whether we do indeed have a first world government who have a heart for our people? We are not asking for more welfare to be disbursed, (which in itself is not a dirty word) but for the government to be treating us in a more humane way which is expected of a first world government in the first place! Your party have lost interest in our people’s well-being while in pursuit of even more greedy economic development and ties with PRC, India etc. I am deeply saddened by what I see and would hope there would a change in the politcal situation which reflects the situation by and large that we are in today. I don’t think we would fall for the welfare payouts only during election time nor the nine more Non-constituency seats created for the oppostition. With this note, I end by hoping that a political tsunami like March 8th 2008 in Malaysia would take place here in S’pore to serve as a form of ‘punishment’ for the PAP government!

Berries tan SG

Saturday, 16 May 2009, 12:03 am | 3,509 views

Have you been rudely treated at a Meet The People Session? Please write in to us. We’ll be happy to hear your views. Email us at : [email protected] .

The following is a letter by LAWRENCE LOH KIAH MUAN published in the online version of the Today newspaper, 13 May 2009, “MP had no empathy”.

It started with Member of Parliament (MP) Seng Han Thong being set on fire. Then came MP Denise Phua who was threatened by a rag-and-bone man. Recently, MP Cynthia Phua was subjected to a display of violence by a constituent.

Although these incidents are disturbing and a cause for concern, I wonder whether the constituents are solely to be blamed.

Allow me to relate my personal experience.

In February 2001, my older son died in a naval accident whilst serving National Service. In that year, my younger son was due for enlistment. A friend, a very active grassroots member, suggested that I approach my MP, for help in exploring the possibility of getting an exemption for my younger son. I was reluctant but he went ahead to fix an appointment for me at the Meet-The-People Session (MPS). I subsequently relented and he accompanied me there. It was in March 2001. That was my first appearance at a MPS, and it was to be my last.

I waited until midnight before I could meet the MP. Prior to this, he was given the case paper which detailed the objective of the meeting and the circumstances of my case.

When I entered the room, his first remark was “Yes, what can I do for you?”. There was no attempt at offering a word of sympathy or condolence. I then related my situation and said that both my wife and I were very traumatised.

His next remark “What traumatic, after two months, you won’t be traumatic?”. With that, I decided to end the meeting. And with that, my respect for him hit ground zero. I was too stunned and grief-stricken to react. Someone who was less-controlled and less-measured than me could have flown into a rage and become violent.

MPs are elected or appointed to serve the constituents. People who attend the MPS are those who have real problems and need help. In a lot of instances, they are stressed, distressed and troubled. What they need is a caring soul, a helping hand, a gentle voice, and words of hope and encouragement. To dispense these, MPs need good interpersonal skills and a high EQ. Arrogance, a patronizing, chiding and belittling attitude, aloofness and lack of empathy will only trigger acts of rashness and violence. Many of our politicians have a high IQ, some are scholars. However, a high IQ is not the only attribute needed in a political career. A high EQ is equally, if not more critical, especially when it comes to dealing with the constituents.

In my case, I would have felt good if my MP could have been a warm and caring person. If he could have been empathetic, consoling and helpful. All these qualities can only come from the heart, not from the mind.

How many of our MPs can stand up and be counted for this?

« Previous Page Next Page »