An inspiring Tale
-
GROWING up in the eastern Chinese town of Wenzhou, Mr Cai Wendong went to school and fished in his spare time.
When he finished junior high, he found work as a pipe fitter in a shipyard. Life was hard, but predictable. Then some friends decided to work in Singapore and he went along. Life changed forever for the happy-go-lucky youth.
He arrived in Singapore in 1998. He did not mean to stay, but did. He met and married compatriot Fuang Ying, 31, in Singapore. Their first child, daughter Jia Ling, was born last month.
Today, he is a Singapore permanent resident, an officer in a shipyard and the proud owner of a four-room Housing Board flat.
He is living the foreign worker's 'Singapore dream'.
Mr Cai, 29, said the comforts and conveniences here - the lack of crime, low unemployment rates and the 'civilised ways' of the people - made him realise early on that this was his ticket to a better life.
His Singapore sojourn began in 1998 with a six-hour journey by bus to Shanghai for a job interview with Keppel Shipyard.
He was offered a job on the spot and was thrilled with the promise of earning three times more than in China. He declined to reveal his starting pay, but The Straits Times understands the industry norm for such a worker is around $600 a month.
He loved his job at Keppel's Tuas shipyard where he had to fit pipes that carry water, oil and gas into the hull of ships.
The safety culture impressed him. 'We all feared accidents in shipyards back home,' said Mr Cai.
In Singapore, each worker has body shields, helmets, safety shoes, goggles and gloves.
Singapore also felt like home - many people spoke Mandarin and Chinese food was plentiful.
But the early years were also fraught with anxiety. As an economic downturn gripped Singapore in the early 2000s, he worried constantly about losing his job.
'I used to feel sad when my friends were sent back after their contracts were not renewed,' said Mr Cai. 'I hoped that would never happen to me.'
He warded off retrenchment the only way he knew how: by throwing himself into his work.
To impress the bosses, he and some co-workers would work through lunch, chalk up overtime often and offer to work on weekends too.
At the same time, he began enrolling in courses.
'I was young and wanted to learn more,' he said. He upgraded sufficiently to join Ngee Ann Polytechnic and is now on the last stretch of a three-year diploma course in marine and offshore technology. All his fees were paid for by his company.
With the economy looking up and rapid promotions coming his way - he is now in charge of 30 workers - Mr Cai has learnt to relax a little.
He shares an easy camaraderie with his colleagues and staff, and counts Indians, Bangladeshis and Filipinos among his good friends.
'I love roti prata and Indian movies,' he said, breaking into a Bollywood tune.
As a boss, he dishes out the same advice to rookies that his boss once gave him.
'I tell them that when you are young, it is good to attend courses and learn as much as you can,' he said.
The same drive to excel spills over to his recreation. Last year, he took top honours at a swimming and running biathlon for Keppel employees, despite taking up swimming only after coming to Singapore.
His mother has moved here to help look after the baby. 'That way, my wife and I can concentrate fully on our jobs,' he says. His wife works in an electronics factory.
Building up a nest egg is also important, now that he has a family.
Like every employee in his company, he received 7.2 months' bonus this year, much of which went into the bank. He tries to save at least $1,000 every month.
He wants his daughter to grow up in Singapore and go to university some day.
He hopes she can enjoy a life of comfort that he and his working-class wife never had.
'But for that, we must keep on working.'
Straits Times 28 April -
Straits Times. LOL
I was wondering if it was from the ST and it turns out that I was right! LOL -
i give respect to this china man
never say die attitude -
Why inspiring? Because he is PRC?
Ah Neh from Kolkata can also do the same. In fact, any FT can. It don't matter if he's black or white. -
Singapore is gonna get pawn by more of this kinda ppl in the future ...Sometimes u gotta wonder wat attracts them here...i think its the english education , good infrastructure and the fact that there is the existence of chinese ppl here...Like us...
-
Propaganda
-
how many singaporeans can survive on $600 a month starting pay?
take away transport and you don't even have enough for food. -
lucky
-
These are the kind of FTs I appreciate or have a good opinion of. They come, they contribute, they add value. Also, they are grateful for the oppurtunity given here.
However, this is more than what I can say for some FTs. -
In my class (republic poly),there's a couple of china girls ...Always speaking chinese to us sg chinese ...But we always purposely reply in english...
-
hm i think its good for him
but for local people hard to survive on such low pay.... -
“It’s not that the elderly don’t want to retire, many simply cannot afford to,” said Rick Lim in a letter.
He was responding to a government backbencher who had asked why the senior citizens could not just retire early and enjoy life, and he wondered if their expectations of life were too high.
Lim wrote: “Are the senior citizens working as cleaners because they are saving to purchase a condominium or a luxury car, or is it because they need to feed themselves and their families?”
This is the other face of prospering Singapore, which has one of the worldÂ’s fastest ageing populations.
Recently, a student from China who was interviewed said that he found it strange to see so many cleaners were elderly, compared to poorer China where they would be enjoying their retirement.
Blame it on globalisation, insufficient safety net or poor education when they were young (probably all together) but it has made old age synonymous – rightly or wrongly – with poverty and hardship.
This is why some Singaporeans who are 45 or older are not looking forward to the prospect of living in one of the worldÂ’s richest nations in 20 yearsÂ’ time.
The reason? By then they will be joining the unappealing ranks of the cityÂ’s greying population (aged 65 or more) even as the city moves upwards.
Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew painted the exciting scenario recently of a fast-developing Singapore moving “into the upper half of the First World. We can do this in the next 10-20 years.”
Even today growing old is not a good thing. Many employers consider 45-year-olds as over the hill, preferring to replace them with younger, cheaper workers.
(Making things worse is the large influx of foreign workers who are ready to accept lower salaries.)
The majority of aged workers are lowly skilled and make up the bulk of SingaporeÂ’s struggling class. In recent years, their income has either stagnated or declined, while the rich got richer.
This affects their ability to save for retirement, despite their mandatory Central Provident Funds.
Only 27% of Singaporeans between 25 and 75 said that they have sufficient funds to retire, compared with 61% of Thais and 47% of Malaysians, according to an insurance company survey.
Today one in 12 Singaporeans are 65 or older; by 2030, this will become one in five.
Like elsewhere, this age group has more than a higher rate of homeless and poor, the depressed, and the desperately sick. Many are becoming victims of cheating or crime; suicide rates are high.
In a post-mortem of the 2006 election, leaders of the ruling PeopleÂ’s Action Party attributed its large 9% drop in popularity to older votes.
If it is true, it doesnÂ’t augur well for its future because this base of senior citizens is growing very quickly.
The decision to increase its 5% Goods and Services tax (GST) to 7% will be an added blow to Singaporeans, especially the elderly low-income or retirees group.
To mitigate the impact, the government is offering GST credits of up to S$1,000 (RM2,296) to all over 21 years old, that will be apportioned according to income and home value.
In addition, the 2007 Budget also gave Singaporeans a bonus of up to S$1,000 to all Singaporeans who make S$100,000 (229,600) or less, with those over 55 getting the lionÂ’s share.
Two-thirds will be in cash and the rest in Medisave for healthcare.
But it is jobs that remain the bugbear for the seniors because many employers are reluctant to employ – or keep – people over 50.
Lee Seck Kay says that government efforts to keep elderly people gainfully employed are failing, citing a friend who was retrenched from a foreign oil company.
“When he applied to a local one, he was told that at 55 he was too old. They were looking for someone below 48,” he added.
Citizens over 55 are given discounts for public transport and entertainment places (non-peak hours), far short of what the public wants.
These Singaporeans have spent a lifetime working hard to build Singapore up, whether as coolies or managers, and should be looked after during their sunset years, many believe.
Singapore is one of the most expensive places in Asia to retire in, observes a grandmother of two. “The old should be enjoying their time, not working as cleaners.”
Singapore has the worldÂ’s highest rate of public home ownership. It may be establishing a new trend of downgrading, owners selling their flats for smaller ones to free up cash for retirement.
A newspaper reader, Lee Chin Wai, notices that official figures show potential up-graders (the opposite) still outnumbering down-graders by three to one.
If one rules out migration, this ratio could drop to one-to-one by 2017.
A retiree suggested the government dip into its reserves to pay each Singaporean over 65 a monthly S$200-S$300 (RM459-RM689) for the rest of his life so that he can enjoy his sunset years – an unlikely event.
(This article was publised im The Star on Saturday, Mar 3, 2007) -
ok so?
Someday you will tell a tale about me here too.
Homosexual psychologist living happy in XXXXXXplace with her partner and having true freedom of speech.
-
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
I would have preferred article about Singaporean start up and succeeded. That would be more inspiring. This article completely detach the reality of what it takes to succeed in Singapore, asking Singaporean to lower their expectation. Work hard rather than work smart. How to move to the next level if we continue to work more? There is only 24 hours a day and there is only so much you can give in a life time.
GROWING up in the eastern Chinese town of Wenzhou, Mr Cai Wendong went to school and fished in his spare time.
When he finished junior high, he found work as a pipe fitter in a shipyard. Life was hard, but predictable. Then some friends decided to work in Singapore and he went along. Life changed forever for the happy-go-lucky youth.
He arrived in Singapore in 1998. He did not mean to stay, but did. He met and married compatriot Fuang Ying, 31, in Singapore. Their first child, daughter Jia Ling, was born last month.
Today, he is a Singapore permanent resident, an officer in a shipyard and the proud owner of a four-room Housing Board flat.
He is living the foreign worker's 'Singapore dream'.
Mr Cai, 29, said the comforts and conveniences here - the lack of crime, low unemployment rates and the 'civilised ways' of the people - made him realise early on that this was his ticket to a better life.
His Singapore sojourn began in 1998 with a six-hour journey by bus to Shanghai for a job interview with Keppel Shipyard.
He was offered a job on the spot and was thrilled with the promise of earning three times more than in China. He declined to reveal his starting pay, but The Straits Times understands the industry norm for such a worker is around $600 a month.
He loved his job at Keppel's Tuas shipyard where he had to fit pipes that carry water, oil and gas into the hull of ships.
The safety culture impressed him. 'We all feared accidents in shipyards back home,' said Mr Cai.
In Singapore, each worker has body shields, helmets, safety shoes, goggles and gloves.
Singapore also felt like home - many people spoke Mandarin and Chinese food was plentiful.
But the early years were also fraught with anxiety. As an economic downturn gripped Singapore in the early 2000s, he worried constantly about losing his job.
'I used to feel sad when my friends were sent back after their contracts were not renewed,' said Mr Cai. 'I hoped that would never happen to me.'
He warded off retrenchment the only way he knew how: by throwing himself into his work.
[b]To impress the bosses, he and some co-workers would work through lunch, chalk up overtime often and offer to work on weekends too.
At the same time, he began enrolling in courses.
'I was young and wanted to learn more,' he said. He upgraded sufficiently to join Ngee Ann Polytechnic and is now on the last stretch of a three-year diploma course in marine and offshore technology. All his fees were paid for by his company.
With the economy looking up and rapid promotions coming his way - he is now in charge of 30 workers - Mr Cai has learnt to relax a little.
He shares an easy camaraderie with his colleagues and staff, and counts Indians, Bangladeshis and Filipinos among his good friends.
'I love roti prata and Indian movies,' he said, breaking into a Bollywood tune.
As a boss, he dishes out the same advice to rookies that his boss once gave him.
'I tell them that when you are young, it is good to attend courses and learn as much as you can,' he said.
The same drive to excel spills over to his recreation. Last year, he took top honours at a swimming and running biathlon for Keppel employees, despite taking up swimming only after coming to Singapore.
His mother has moved here to help look after the baby. 'That way, my wife and I can concentrate fully on our jobs,' he says. His wife works in an electronics factory.
Building up a nest egg is also important, now that he has a family.
Like every employee in his company, he received 7.2 months' bonus this year, much of which went into the bank. He tries to save at least $1,000 every month.
He wants his daughter to grow up in Singapore and go to university some day.
He hopes she can enjoy a life of comfort that he and his working-class wife never had.
'But for that, we must keep on working.'
Straits Times 28 April
[/b] -
the government's policy is lowering the pay scale of my industry and this post is just rubbing salt on my wounds. its easy for you if its not affecting your market value.Originally posted by SumOne:These are the kind of FTs I appreciate or have a good opinion of. They come, they contribute, they add value. Also, they are grateful for the oppurtunity given here.
However, this is more than what I can say for some FTs.
i am faced with the fact that
A - i will have to work for a lower pay due to the policy of the government
B - get into another industry with less destructive competition from FTs
C - migrate -
Lee Kuan Yew said with reference to people earning more than $1 million dollars... and himself $2.7 million dollars, his son $2.5 million and daughter in law, unknown... he said: “if you don't pay them adequately and their families suffer... it is as simple as that...”Originally posted by fs3704l:the government's policy is lowering the pay scale of my industry and this post is just rubbing salt on my wounds. its easy for you if its not affecting your market value.
i am faced with the fact that
A - i will have to work for a lower pay due to the policy of the government
B - get into another industry with less destructive competition from FTs
C - migrate
on the other hand... for the rest of us it is? Have Kill In Error... no chance of letting off...
http://www.newsintercom.org/index.php?itemid=496 -
That is the effect of globalisation. In the same way Hong Kong and Singapore took manufacturing jobs away from the Europeans in the 70s, so cheaper economies are luring businesses away from us. If Singapore companies do not hire foreign workers who are able and willing to work harder for less, these jobs will simply move to China ir India. More Singaporeans will lose their jobs.Originally posted by fs3704l:the government's policy is lowering the pay scale of my industry and this post is just rubbing salt on my wounds. its easy for you if its not affecting your market value.
i am faced with the fact that
A - i will have to work for a lower pay due to the policy of the government
B - get into another industry with less destructive competition from FTs
C - migrate
In a globalised world, you have to watch your productivity. Customers are price conscious. If you cannot produce the same product or offer the same quality of service at a price lower than that of your foreign competitors, you lose your job.
So you say your market value has diminished because of foreign competitors. Perhaps it is because you have priced yourself out of the global market. Asking the government to protect local jobs by installing barriers against global competition is self-defeating. Singapore has done well by relying on the global market. We have no significant domestic market. If you try to protect jobs for locals by keeping the foreigners out, they will move the jobs elsewhere. If you block cheaper foreign goods into Singapore, they can do the same to yours and with a small domestic market, Singapore will come out the loser. Protectionism is a lose-lose situation for us.
France tried that and look what it has done to their economy. Here's a quotation from the Telegraph. Read about why Frenchmen are flocking to the UK for work:
" Economic data published last week illustrated yet again a familiar EU correlation: countries with high tax and protectionism pay for it with mass unemployment. While workers may be happier, pace the Swedish minister, there are far fewer at work. In France, unemployment has jumped to a five-year high of 10 per cent. In Germany, unemployment is now higher than at any time since the Weimar Republic."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/03/30/do3002.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/03/30/ixop.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,,2051463,00.html -
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
Rubbish! That's the kind of bullsh|t the gov wants you to believe. We will lose our jobs to China or India if we don't let in cheap foreign labour to bring down our labour cost (steal our jobs), but the labour force isn't homogenous (just look around Beijing for the English translations), the infrastructure isn't the same (our infrastructure framework, ports, telecommunication, public utilities, transport, etc), geographical framework is different (only summer in Singapore, unlike other countries which might have winter affecting productivity).
That is the effect of globalisation. In the same way Hong Kong and Singapore took manufacturing jobs away from the Europeans in the 70s, so cheaper economies are luring businesses away from us. If Singapore companies do not hire foreign workers who are able and willing to work harder for less, these jobs will simply move to China ir India. More Singaporeans will lose their jobs.
In a globalised world, you have to watch your productivity. Customers are price conscious. If you cannot produce the same product or offer the same quality of service at a price lower than that of your foreign competitors, you lose your job.
So you say your market value has diminished because of foreign competitors. Perhaps it is because you have priced yourself out of the global market. Asking the government to protect local jobs by installing barriers against global competition is self-defeating. Singapore has done well by relying on the global market. We have [b]no significant domestic market. If you try to protect jobs for locals by keeping the foreigners out, they will move the jobs elsewhere. If you block cheaper foreign goods into Singapore, they can do the same to yours and with a small domestic market, Singapore will come out the loser. Protectionism is a lose-lose situation for us.
France tried that and look what it has done to their economy. Here's a quotation from the Telegraph. Read about why Frenchmen are flocking to the UK for work:
" Economic data published last week illustrated yet again a familiar EU correlation: countries with high tax and protectionism pay for it with mass unemployment. While workers may be happier, pace the Swedish minister, there are far fewer at work. In France, unemployment has jumped to a five-year high of 10 per cent. In Germany, unemployment is now higher than at any time since the Weimar Republic."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/03/30/do3002.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/03/30/ixop.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,,2051463,00.html[/b]
Say two brands of car maker exist, Hyundai and Mercedes. Why is it that Hyundai is price sensitive and Mercedes is not price sensitive? One is an elastic demand, whereas the other is inelastic. Elastic being, demand is price sensitive. Inelastic being, demand is not price sensitive.
Asking Singapore to compete on labour cost with China for these low level manufacturing job is downright stupid.
Japan has always adopted a protectionist attitude (e.g. rice, beef, insurance, automobiles, etc) towards it's domestic economy, it has a corporate tax rate 30% (22% with structured offsets for small enterprises) , yet it is still able to maintain a low natural rate of unemployment of 4.0%
France's unemployment rate is only about 1.5% off from it's natural rate of unemployment (which means full employment) (which is around 8%), which isn't as shocking as what you make it out to be. Since the 1980s, when Globalisation wasn't such a big buzz word then, the unemployment rate of France has been around 8%-11%. Some of these European countries has a high natural rate (full employment) of unemployment, because of their generous social security benefits, they can afford not to work if they are being paid less than their social security benefits. The government ensures that they maintain an average level of livelihood if their pay is less than the social security. The government cares about it's citizens. Spain, Finland, Germany, Belgium and Italy has a similar natural rate of unemployment, but you don't hear of people starving to death in the streets or major revolutions to overthrow the governments. Perhaps if our government demands less pay for their work, we might be able to afford a higher natural rate of unemployment, where anyone above 65 can retire peacefully.
You are quite the propaganda parrot.
Polly want a cracker???
You better stick to paraphrasing replies taken from other websites about diabetes in your own forum. -
Haha...frog in the well speaking of things about which you have absolutely no clue. Thank God our government understands the economy far better than the likes of you who will only drive the nation from the first world to the third.
Here's what a commentator says of France:
"Why are things so different today in the United States -- and so different among Muslim young men in France? That is where economics comes in.
People who are less in demand -- whether because of inexperience, lower skills, or race -- are just as employable at lower pay rates as people who are in high demand are at higher pay rates. That is why blacks were just as able to find jobs as whites were, prior to the decade of the 1930s and why a serious gap in unemployment between black teenagers and white teenagers opened up only after 1950.
Prior to the decade of the 1930s, the wages of inexperienced and unskilled labor were determined by supply and demand. There was no federal minimum wage law and labor unions did not usually organize inexperienced and unskilled workers. That is why such workers were able to find jobs, just like everyone else, even when these were black workers in an era of open discrimination.
The first federal minimum wage law, the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931, was passed in part explicitly to prevent black construction workers from "taking jobs" from white construction workers by working for lower wages. It was not meant to protect black workers from "exploitation" but to protect white workers from competition.
Even aside from a racial context, minimum wage laws in countries around the world protect higher-paid workers from the competition of lower paid workers.
Often the higher-paid workers are older, more experienced, more skilled or more unionized. But many goods and services can be produced with either many lower skilled workers or fewer higher skilled workers, as well as with more capital and less labor or vice-versa. Employers' choices depend on the relative costs.
The net economic effect of minimum wage laws is to make less skilled, less experienced, or otherwise less desired workers more expensive -- thereby pricing many of them out of jobs. Large disparities in unemployment rates between the young and the mature, the skilled and the unskilled, and between different racial groups have been common consequences of minimum wage laws.
....France's unemployment rate is roughly double that of the United States and people who are unemployed stay unemployed much longer in France.
Unemployment rates among young Frenchmen are about 20 percent and among young Muslim men about 40 percent.
There is no free lunch, least of all for the disadvantaged."
(http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4472)
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/917 -
Dun talk so much. Tell me where r u working now and how r u related the ppl in the stories. If not, please shut up and keep all this to urself!Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Haha...frog in the well speaking of things about which you have absolutely no clue. Thank God our government understands the economy far better than the likes of you who will only drive the nation from the first world to the third.
Here's what a commentator says of France:
"Why are things so different today in the United States -- and so different among Muslim young men in France? That is where economics comes in.
People who are less in demand -- whether because of inexperience, lower skills, or race -- are just as employable at lower pay rates as people who are in high demand are at higher pay rates. That is why blacks were just as able to find jobs as whites were, prior to the decade of the 1930s and why a serious gap in unemployment between black teenagers and white teenagers opened up only after 1950.
Prior to the decade of the 1930s, the wages of inexperienced and unskilled labor were determined by supply and demand. There was no federal minimum wage law and labor unions did not usually organize inexperienced and unskilled workers. That is why such workers were able to find jobs, just like everyone else, even when these were black workers in an era of open discrimination.
The first federal minimum wage law, the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931, was passed in part explicitly to prevent black construction workers from "taking jobs" from white construction workers by working for lower wages. It was not meant to protect black workers from "exploitation" but to protect white workers from competition.
Even aside from a racial context, minimum wage laws in countries around the world protect higher-paid workers from the competition of lower paid workers.
Often the higher-paid workers are older, more experienced, more skilled or more unionized. But many goods and services can be produced with either many lower skilled workers or fewer higher skilled workers, as well as with more capital and less labor or vice-versa. Employers' choices depend on the relative costs.
The net economic effect of minimum wage laws is to make less skilled, less experienced, or otherwise less desired workers more expensive -- thereby pricing many of them out of jobs. Large disparities in unemployment rates between the young and the mature, the skilled and the unskilled, and between different racial groups have been common consequences of minimum wage laws.
....France's unemployment rate is roughly double that of the United States and people who are unemployed stay unemployed much longer in France.
Unemployment rates among young Frenchmen are about 20 percent and among young Muslim men about 40 percent.
There is no free lunch, least of all for the disadvantaged."
(http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4472)
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/917
-
double post
-
Originally posted by SpeedStar:And Om, u are not even come close to tell us or discuss with us with ur so call statistics and theory. U dun deserve my respect altot I know u r elder than me. I shall rest my case in this thread.
-
If you are always going to harp and fight about wage cost, it's not answering the question of whether we should simply aim to move manufacturing away from being the largest industrial sector and shift to a more ideas-based economy, less affected by low-skilled workers and their comparative home remittance advantage.
-
If i work thru lunch, my employer is going to kpkb me say I don't take care of my health, get sick, claim mc, cost the company even more money.
Work on weekends? Are you kidding me? Open the office, switch on air con, lighting, just so 2 people can work on weekends? Save the earth first lar. -
aiya...only the they need to eat rice and all these ma...the rest, eat grass la!!Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Lee Kuan Yew said with reference to people earning more than $1 million dollars... and himself $2.7 million dollars, his son $2.5 million and daughter in law, unknown... he said: “if you don't pay them adequately and their families suffer... it is as simple as that...”
on the other hand... for the rest of us it is? Have Kill In Error... no chance of letting off...
http://www.newsintercom.org/index.php?itemid=496
jiak cao!!