Malaysia is kicking FT ass while Singapore is welcoming them
-
LOL,so true!!!Originally posted by HyperFocal:... don't be mistaken, we are totally different;
... Malaysia has a government...
... Singapore is run by Businessmen who says they are government... -
Subsidise oil??Originally posted by Lim Wei Ming:Its not really that Malaysia is cheap. Its their exchange rate. And they have lots of land so they can build landed property. Futhermore, their government subsidise their fuel and all. And better still, Singapore is just right across! And her dollar is strong! And her government excepts Malaysians! It doesn't get more perfect than this! Maybe its time we move to Malaysia.
You know how much it's costing to the govt in development cost? Actually for them, they just want the support, whether can the country progress economically is another issue..
In fact, Malaysia is already losing its edges because it's sandwiched by countries like India, PRC, Singapore, South Korea & Japan
Actually for me I dun need to bother, they lag not my biz -
More open?Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:Malaysians get the best of both worlds.
Earn Singapore money, spend in Malaysia.
Their country is also more open and less rigid than Singapore.
They used ISA on Hindraf ppl and yet no one here is making a noise?
-
The land is yours... anything happens you dun expect these FT to be safeguarding wat this land hasOriginally posted by fymk:If I have a son ...do you really think 10 k for his life is worth it when the country only favors FTs?
No thanks . No son of mine will ever need to do NS by legislation unless it is his very own choice to go to my country and be a citizen there.
and dun ever forget, your forefathers are once FTs to Singapore as well... we're just decendants to it -
As long they can provided a reasonable salary for locals like minimum wages and something like a lot of tax rebates
I don't see the need for FTs to take up poorly paid jobs etc -
1stly, this is not as broadstroke expulsion. only select group of foreginers will get the boot. u r generalizing like all foreigners are at risks.Originally posted by zanza:I
One of the main advantages Malaysia has is their low currency as compared to Singapore. With proper management, they can overtake Singapore in attracting foreign businesses simply because labour costs are so low there.
If they forcebly drive wages up, as they are now doing, they are taking away their main advantage against Singapore.
there are a lot of social issues tt surfaced with regards to foreginers working in msia w/out permit, particularly crime. it's high time they get some semblance of control.
one cld also argue tt it is an election ploy to get the locals worked up so vote BN.
malaysia is also not competing with singapore per se. i think both can co-exist. the pie is big enuf for the 2 countries. -
Is there anybody here think honestly that without FT/FW in Singapore... still can survive without any problem?
-
dun think we are advocating a zero tolerence policy agst FTs. i think we do need them in certain areas.Originally posted by neilbloz:Is there anybody here think honestly that without FT/FW in Singapore... still can survive without any problem?
there are many countries which are doing well with minimal FT. think Japan, scandinavian ctries....
here in sgp, i do get the impression any ah beng, ah lian and ah huat or muthu, ramasamy and abhijit can get in with little issue. -
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw99/90329ip.htm
Resentment towards foreigners growing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inter Press Service. March 29, 1999.
"ARE foreigners taking away jobs from the locals?" This is a question often asked during periods of economic downturn in Western countries which employ overseas workers and talent.
Today, Singaporeans are asking the same question, too.
Over the last two decades, this tiny island republic of three million people has grown to become South East Asia's most advanced economy. Singapore now has a living standard and a per capita income at par with many advanced Western countries.
It has thus attracted a large number of expatriate professionals to its shores in recent years.
There are an estimated 700,000 foreign workers employed here, a large segment of which is composed of unskilled labor such as house helps and construction workers mainly from Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines.
There is also an increasing number of foreign professionals both from Asia and the west working in the financial sector, information technology, mass communications, teaching and the bio technology fields.
Highly paid, they also get perks like subsidized housing, cars and schooling for the kids all extremely expensive in this city state. They are often better paid, and lead a more luxurious life than their Singaporean counterparts.
The Singapore government has been pushing the concept of a "global city", requiring foreign workers its shores to make its economy and industries internationally competitive.
In August 1997, the main theme of Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong's national day speech centered on the need to attract foreign talent to Singapore. But with the recession, which has trimmed work opportunities and caused layoffs among local professionals, resentment is growing towards this policy.
Earlier this month, government MP Tan Cheng Bock, during a parliamentary debate on the budget, urged the government to tone down its rhetoric on the value of attracting foreign talent to Singapore. He warned that this policy is not going down well with Singaporeans today.
Opposition MP, Chiam See Tong immediately lent support to Tan, saying he is merely voicing the concerns of Singaporeans. He cited a case of how a young Singaporean graduate from an Australian university, who applied at a private school for a teaching job, was rejected and the job given to an expatriate New Zealander.
Since Tan's call, there has been much debate in the media about the issue and the government has taken pains to reassure the Singaporean citizens that they will be given preference in employment against foreigners with similar qualifications.
Responding to Tan, Manpower Minister Lee Boon Yang said that it is tempting under the current economic conditions to press the government to stop, or at least reduce, the efforts to attract foreign talent to Singapore, "in order to protect our citizens and give them a better chance".
"We must be prepared to subject ourselves to the discipline of the market," said Lee. "For one local job protected on the short term, many more will be at risk in the future."
Lee defended the government's foreign talent employment policy by arguing that Singapore is now competing fiercely in the global market place. "We are now seeing the removal of geographical and regulatory barriers to the movement of people and capital. This changing world will not stop for us to catch our breath," he observed.
Prime Minister Goh reminded Singaporeans that the tiny republic can sustain its success "only if it has a critical mass of talents comparable to the best elsewhere".
While acknowledging that he understood the concerns of Singaporeans under the current economic crisis, he pointed out that the country has to compete in the global marketplace with countries whose populations are many times larger than Singapore's.
"As the number of our able people is unlikely to be proportionately higher than that of other countries, it would be difficult for us to compete with them for high value added industries and services. So we must try and increase our proportion of able people by drawing in able people from outside," Goh argues.
To support his argument he quoted figures from the Department of Statistics which show that without an increase in foreign manpower between 1994 and 1996, Singapore's growth in 1996 would have been 5.3 percent, instead of 7.5 percent.
"That means fewer jobs and less wealth would have been created for Singaporeans," he said.
"Over reliance (on foreign talent) is not a good thing," argued Yeo Mong Heng in a letter to the Strait Times, adding, "surely, we do not wish to be left high and dry, if these foreigners decide to walk out on us... It is best that the government nurtures its own core of local talent."
Political analyst Chua Lee Hoong observes that an open economy like Singapore imports foreign spare parts and raw materials for its factories to make goods for export, and no one questions it. But, when you import foreign labor to add value to your export product it is a different matter.
"There is one important difference between foreign workers and other foreign imports. The former are people. They walk, talk and share the same living space as Singaporeans. That is where politics comes in," argues Chua. "And, politics is harder to handle than economics." -
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071018085324AAmOElL&show=7
Importing foreign talent wholesale like what Singapore did has done more harm than good. I can cite a few examples:
- citizens feel disgruntled because the emphasis is placed too much on foreigners. For example, the number of university places for foreigners have increased thus forcing local talent to study overseas. This is despite the fact that the local has sacrificed more for the country (e.g. males spending 2 years serving the country, yet can't get a university place). Singaporeans are also forced out of the job market in some cases because companies prefer hiring foreigners who do not have reservist duties. We can spend millions of dollars subsidizing foreign students yet haggle when asked to increase the public assistance of $240/mth to the needy.
- the rapid increase in population density is unbearable for many. Singapore is now ranked 2nd behind Hong Kong, but unlike Hong Kong, we don't have many green spaces to turn to. Singaporeans are waiting longer for medical appointments, public transport is overcrowded, open spaces are getting more crowded. According to research using lab rats, you can only fit a certain number of rats in a cage before they go crazy. Similar symptoms have been observed in human beings. This is one of the contributing factors to the increase in mental illnesses.
- the wages for the low income citizens has stagnated because of the ease of hiring foreigners. However the cost of living has increased. 10 years ago, a bowl of noodles cost $1.50 and you earn $800 as a sales assistant. Today you still earn $800 but the bowl of noodles now costs $3.00. Life is getting harder.
Yes, Singapore is making economic progress but at what cost? Singapore was ranked 130th out of 178 countries for Happiness, 40th out of 41 countries for Libido, 30th out of 35 countries for Courtesy, 5th in the world for Prisoners Per Capita, 105th in the world for Income Equality, 154th for Press Freedom by Freedom House, and 15th out of 16 countries in the Asia Democracy Index.
- there are many other cons, please do some research on your own. -
http://badnewsonthedoorstep.blogspot.com/2007/11/our-foreign-talent-policy-is-short.html
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Our foreign talent policy is short-sighted
The front page of Weekend Today (17 November 2007) carried two headlines.
1) “Cracks in society are showing” – SM Goh raises concern as foreign talent stats hit new high.
2) “If only they were given the time”
Interestingly, I find that the second headline provides the answer to the issue raised in headline number 1.
In the first article, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong basically points out the problem that with the rapid influx of foreigners into Singapore, many of them are finding it hard to assimilate into Singapore society. I was not surprised. Are you?
It is common sense really. How can you expect people to adapt so quickly to a new society. The mainland Chinese may look like Singapore Chinese (and likewise the Indians) but he is more different from us that a local Indian or Malay culturally. I think you need years to achieve this kind of adaptation. Let me give you two personal examples.
Recently I received a marketing call from a lady who was obviously a mainland Chinese. She was trying to sell some services related to property. She asked if I could understand Chinese; and I answered yes. Then she launched into her sales pitch. But she was speaking so quickly and coupled with her mainland Chinese accent, I had difficulty following her. I asked her to slow down and she did Â… for a while; and then she reverted to her incomprehensible rapid-fire Chinese. In the end, I simply gave up.
On the other hand, I had an opportunity to meet a classmate of my son, an 18-year old China scholar who had been studying in Singapore for about four years. I had little difficulty communicating with him. His English, though a little different from ours, was perfectly comprehensible.
These two encounters with mainland Chinese clearly shows how difficult it is to make adjustment in just one area – the way we speak; and I am not even talking about learning a new language. This is particularly true for the adults. The bottom line is that they need more time. In the light of this, I wonder, is it wise to bring in foreign talents into our country in such huge numbers?
My own conclusion is that our governmentÂ’s foreign talent policy is short-sighted. Our economy is growing and our population growth is too slow. Answer? Bring in more foreigners lor.
On paper, it looks impressive. We are forward-looking. We anticipate problems before they arise. We act fast and grab the talents before the other developed countries do so. But I think it is short-sighted because it is basically a quick-fix solution which brings with it many long term consequences; some of which like the one mentioned by SM Goh, are quite predictable. There are probably many others. For example, our recent spats with the China-born athletes have also raised another problem related to their commitment to our country.
I think we should really re-look at our foreign talent policy. For a start, take a look at the problems faced by other societies that have adopted a similar policy; for example the UK and US. Are there lessons for us there?
We should also re-look at our assumptions. Just because they are from China and India, and we have a large Chinese and Indian population does not mean that they are like us. Singaporeans are very ‘westernised’. Our Chinese have been labeled as ‘bananas’ by the Taiwanese and mainland Chinese – yellow on the outside but white on the inside. Looks can be deceiving. -
http://singaporesundry.blogspot.com/2007/09/some-problems-with-foreign-talent_10.html
Monday, September 10, 2007
Some Problems with Foreign Talent Policy
There seemed to be too many foreigners living and working in Singapore these days. A decade ago, when you walked down the streets, you would probably hear familiar languages and dialects such as English, Chinese, Malay, Tamil, Hokkien, Teochew, Cantonese etc.
What do we have now? People speaking unheard of Chinese dialects, Myanmarese, and other very strange sounding languages which I have never heard of in my entire life. They bring along with them different cultures, habits and behaviour, many of which are pretty different from the typical Singaporean. It is even more contrasting if you compare them with our younger generation who are more westernized in terms of thinking and behaviour.
Opening the door more widely to foreign nationals who work with their special technologies, skills and knowledge will certainly cause both short-term and long-term social problems.
“Movement of people” essentially differs from “movement of goods” , the reason being that the former may cause a wide range of problems, from the minor conflicts in everyday life likely to arise in contacts between people from different cultures, to problems concerning the protection of human rights, and even problems bearing on quintessential question of race and nationhood.
You can argue that these new people will eventually assimilate into our society but how long would they need and to what extent are they able to do so? We must understand that not all people are able to change readily to adapt to changes around them and even if they do, they just might not or are unwilling to adopt some of our behaviours and habits, whether they are desirable or not desirable ones. Is the government going to make them sign something like a social contract, stipulating the list of things they need to do and the deadline of accomplishment?
“Movement of goods” is however much easier to handle. At a particular work field, we have standardized productivity and efficiency control systems in place. The quality assurance specialists would ensure everything pass the assurance test before the goods of consistent quality are being shipped out. Goods are easier to be controlled and manipulated but not people.
Crisis during Recession
Imagine now we have a recession and these foreign workers, who are presumably employed because they are cheaper to hire and/or they are more experienced than our local workers, decide to leave for a greener pasture. What they would leave behind is a massive black hole which might be disastrous for the employers who now have to employ the more expensive local workers to fill the gap thus pushing up their labour costs further up in a turbulent recession period.
And if these foreign workers are willing to stay, there is no guarantee that their employers would not terminate their services in an attempt to cut costs. A prolonged recession would probably generate mass unemployment not just among the local Singaporeans but also among foreign workers. These foreign workers will not disappear into thin air. Some may want to stay behind to seek other jobs and if they are desperate, may work illegally in some industries.
The government should understand fully the reliability of the local Singaporean workforce to mitigate any possible negative impact on domestic industries and labour market. It should control the influx of foreign workers more tightly especially now that we are passing the peak of economic boom and heading towards an unavoidable recession in a few yearsÂ’ time. -
http://www.littlespeck.com/informed/2006/CInformed-060712.htm
Singapore
Nation Building
A SingaporeanÂ’s views on obstacles that stand in the way.
By siew91, newsintercom
Jul 12, 2006
When MM Lee met Singaporeans working in Qatar this Jan, he reportedly said “If more Singaporeans worked abroad and their children forgot their roots, there will be no Singapore node to send them out .... They dissolve and disappear and there is no Singapore...”
“They become citizens of the world. What does that mean? Lost!” MM Lee appeared to be concerned over Singaporeans forgetting their roots. But then his policies have not encouraged roots building.
Singapore government has never actively encouraged local entrepreneurship, which would enable Singaporeans to have a stake in the country.
Instead, it favours foreign and state enterprises. All the state resources - labour, land, infrastructures and amenities, have been directed to promote these enterprises.
Recently, though the government has been promoting entrepreneurship, its efforts on this front cannot be compared with what it is doing to develop Singapore into some life sciences hub.
In the capital and talent intensive field of life sciences, Singapore government reportedly imported foreign talents (sometimes by paying them above-world-market rates) and provided capital subsidies to foreign firms to produce medical breakthroughs.
Dr. Linda Lim, a Singapore professor of strategy at the University of Michigan, said that it was not clear where Singapore benefitted since the jobs, profits and goods were produced overwhelmingly by and for foreigners.
She added that Singapore may be seen as a steward of the interests of non-Singaporeans.
The governmentÂ’s foreign talents policy also doesnÂ’t contribute towards nation building.
Many local talents feel discriminated against by their own government and have migrated abroad or intend to migrate.
On the other hand, the top foreign talents Singapore government tries to woo to settle here are doing so only to use Singapore as a stepping stone to the west.
Over the past five years, the middle and lower income Singaporeans are finding it difficult to identify with a nation where the government not only does nothing to prevent their income from dwindling but keep increasing their cost of living.
The governmentÂ’s tight control of the society too, is an obstacle to nationhood.
Intolerant of criticism and paranoid of opposition, the government has pre-empted many political opponents and private initiatives in civic activities.
The government should take heed of Dr. Lim’s advice, “A nation cannot exist in a political vacuum and the empowerment of stakeholders is necessary to engender the sense of ownership that can elicit the best performance from citizens as well as foreign talents.”
http://www.newsintercom.org/index.php?itemid=460 -
http://singaporekopitok.blogspot.com/2006/09/singapores-pro-immigration-policy-we.html
Saturday, September 02, 2006
Singapore's Pro-Immigration Policy - We have to reach outward to build within
Here's my 2-cents worth on PM Lee's National Day Rally speech about the importance of a pro-immigration policy to boost the talent pool here.
Well, the Government's valid point of view is to augment our country's competitiveness especially when we need to stay relevant to the burgeoning economies in China and India and to stay ahead of fast-growing competitors in our neighbourhood. What is critical in this push to attract foreigners to take up Singapore citizenship is that these immigrants will "top up" the talent pool here.
PM Lee mentioned Mustafa's Mr Mustaq Ahmad in his rally speech. Surely, more Mustafa shopping centres in Singapore will be nice. =)
The net gain of increasing the foreign talent pool to the well-being of our economy is said to be beneficial. (Top economists In the US have contended that immigration has been a net gain for American citizens. See the Independent Institutean "Open Letter on Immigration" signed by top economists and addressed to George Bush and members of Congress)
At the end of the day, the Government's intention is benign - ItÂ’s about making sure Singapore grows bigger, be it in terms of population or economic size. (see Kway Teow Man's thoughtful discussion at Singapore Angle)
Yet, whether it's packaged as 'pro-immigration', 'attracting foreign talents', or 'immigrants - not enough', any suggestion that Singapore needs to be more open to immigration have drawn and will continue to attract much flak.
The concern here appears to be simple and clear - attracting more foreigners will have serious implications on one's rice-bowl (livelihood), thus increasing the fear of retrenchment. To quote a concerned Singaporean who expressed his views on ST Forum, "the lesson to be learnt here is that Singaporeans have to compete with foreign talents in their quest for a job and the competition will intensify with more foreign talents". (ST Forum Online 29 Aug 2006) The opposition political party National Solidarity Party (NSP) has also jumped into the fray and argued for strict quotas on the number of talented foreign professionals allowed into Singapore. (See NSP press release on 22 Aug 2006)
Certainly, the concerns are not unique to Singaporeans. Around the world, immigration has become a hot political potato for politicians and voters in oft-said advanced democracies. In the US, critics are arguing for stricter immigration regulations to curb the rising influx of illegal immigrants. In Germany, millions of Turks continued to be called 'Gastarbeiters' or 'guest workers' without citizenship, despite many of them were born and bred in Germany. In the UK, public fears of migration are putting pressure on the government to impose control amid revelation that almost 600,000 Eastern Europeans have moved to the country to look for work. Furthermore, British authorities are realising the pitfalls of immigration laxity and are taking action against preachers of religious hatred who have not only fail to integrate into the local community, but have made use of years of lenient immigration and asylum policies to advocate racial-religious strife and violence against the nation-state.
Here's how I see it - the problem do not just boil down to jobs / bread-and-butter issues. There are serious nation-building considerations to be mindful of.
On one level, while Singapore celebrates ethnic and cultural diversity, the task of helping 'new citizens' integrate into the local community is an arduous challenge.
I stand corrected that no quantifier can accurately measure something as abstract as assimilation and patriotism. As top civil servant Chiang Chie Foo puts it, "there isn't a programme where you go through and you become transformed and integrated". For sure, how the 'new citizens' perceive events in their 'motherland' would have considerable implications for their successful assimilation into Singapore's local community.
On another level, anti-immigration views expressing the insecurities of the people cannot be ignored but has to be carefully managed. Xenophobia directed at foreigners or (in general) at people different from oneÂ’s self, can result in political campaigns for cultural purification and worse, aggression against the aliens (both 'new citizens' or otherwise).
Around the world, the anti-immigrant populist message of far right political parties continue to find resonance among the electorate, notwithstanding that it's more than half a century since the fascists inflicted much bloodshed with their murderous deeds during WWII.
Here in Singapore, we can ill-afford to have the Jean-Marie Le Pens and Pauline Hansons to tear the social fabric of our society that we have painstakingly nurtured over the 40 odd years of nationhood.
Undoubtedly, it takes more than a stroke of luck for the pro-immigration policy to work. Instead, the cohesion of our nation is a deliberate man-made endeavour. I understand that there are existing organisations such as the Hua Yuan Association which was set up to help new immigrants from China, to adapt to the nuances of local community.
Yet, while we demand new immigrants to blend in with society, Singaporeans have to also adopt an open heart to accept these new immigrants. The importance of grassroots activities cannot be overstated.
Indeed, while we reach outward to attract more 'new citizens', it must be noted that the task of 'building within' is an important ongoing challenge. -
ya sure, when cost in m'sia go up and their competitiveness falls overall, then you see whether they laugh or cry.
-
actually i kinda like malaysia's extreme way of doing so. afterall tis is their country n they want the locals to benefit even though it might bring a setback to their economy.
comparing to sg, the locals r now feeling living in a foreign land even they live here. n sometime i am wondering the government running the country like business organisation.
really Uniquely Sinkapore! -
Hyperfocal,
That was an excellent article.
It made me sad though. It assumes that it is a desirable human progression to become a businessman who reduces lives to statistics. -
... glad you found it informative...Originally posted by phil30k:Hyperfocal,
That was an excellent article.
It made me sad though. It assumes that it is a desirable human progression to become a businessman who reduces lives to statistics.
... I'm not very articulate, but these are articles I often come across which really mirrors my sentiments with regards the FT Policy... -
The govt should published the total no of foreigners coming to Spore to work.
In addition, they should also publish the total no of local migrating to
other countries rach year. -
MM Lee mentioned before that PRC national only used here as a stepping stone to go to other countries to live in. Is he not worried about this trend?Originally posted by HyperFocal:... glad you found it informative...
... I'm not very articulate, but these are articles I often come across which really mirrors my sentiments with regards the FT Policy... -
Everything goes to the extreme,it will backfire.Of coz we need foreign workers,but the issue is,do we need so many?Originally posted by neilbloz:Is there anybody here think honestly that without FT/FW in Singapore... still can survive without any problem?
Look at the jobscope that Foreign workers occupied now,Technicians also employ foreign workers,sales line also,food and beverage line also,transport lone also.Have our government give a deep thought of why the hell do we need so many foreigners?
Always,i see those PAP ministers argue that the job that foreign workers take up is becoz locals dont want to work these jobs.But,have those ministers try to understand why some jobs locals dont want?
Now many jobs require Singaporeans to work 12 hours,if our PAP ministers have to work 12 hours shift,will they want?And some jobs need to work 3 rotating shift,if our PAP ministers require to work 3 shift,will they want?
And out of this 3 rotating shift,the management can actually plan properly.Like some ppl like to work night shift,they can put these ppl to work all the way night shift.Or employ foreigners to work night shift.But no,the PAP government die die also want ppl to work 3 shift,damn fuking stupid!!!
If lets say army or police,i understand must work 3 shift.I have also work night shift and 3 shift before.But now,i just want to work daytime jobs.Ppl will change,thats why when comes to creating jobs,it must be flexible.If the PAP ministers want Singaporeans to work,they also must ask themselves,if they were require to work 12 hrs shift or 3 rotating shift,6 days a week,will the PAP ministers want to work or not? -
malaysia is talking about the FW not FT...espcially the FW without any skill...
-
... typical of FAP, they always take things to the extreme, then when things starts falling apart at the seams (eg. Public Transport System), they start calling out a Revamp (or U-Turn).... ke blakang puseng!Originally posted by drawer:Everything goes to the extreme,it will backfire.Of coz we need foreign workers,but the issue is,do we need so many?
Look at the jobscope that Foreign workers occupied now,Technicians also employ foreign workers,sales line also,food and beverage line also,transport lone also.Have our government give a deep thought of why the hell do we need so many foreigners?
Always,i see those PAP ministers argue that the job that foreign workers take up is becoz locals dont want to work these jobs.But,have those ministers try to understand why some jobs locals dont want?
Now many jobs require Singaporeans to work 12 hours,if our PAP ministers have to work 12 hours shift,will they want?And some jobs need to work 3 rotating shift,if our PAP ministers require to work 3 shift,will they want?
And out of this 3 rotating shift,the management can actually plan properly.Like some ppl like to work night shift,they can put these ppl to work all the way night shift.Or employ foreigners to work night shift.But no,the PAP government die die also want ppl to work 3 shift,damn fuking stupid!!!
If lets say army or police,i understand must work 3 shift.I have also work night shift and 3 shift before.But now,i just want to work daytime jobs.Ppl will change,thats why when comes to creating jobs,it must be flexible.If the PAP ministers want Singaporeans to work,they also must ask themselves,if they were require to work 12 hrs shift or 3 rotating shift,6 days a week,will the PAP ministers want to work or not?
... whole time, they are all about making U-Turns in whatever they do... starting with the orginal first biggest mistake; Stop at Two! Now we're all farking short of locals! And what happens? Import New Citizens via FT Policy...
... FAP doesn't keep mirrors in their homes... their Advisors tells them each morning every day, how GREAT they're are looking regardless of the mess.... -
I understand your sentiment, but i think employers will take foreign workers because there is no locals available at the time they need or maybe the locals don't want to take the job because salary to low or maybe as what you said 12 hours working time...so i think is not the PAP or gvt but the employers that we have to consider also otherwise their business will suffer...Originally posted by drawer:Everything goes to the extreme,it will backfire.Of coz we need foreign workers,but the issue is,do we need so many?
Look at the jobscope that Foreign workers occupied now,Technicians also employ foreign workers,sales line also,food and beverage line also,transport lone also.Have our government give a deep thought of why the hell do we need so many foreigners?
Always,i see those PAP ministers argue that the job that foreign workers take up is becoz locals dont want to work these jobs.But,have those ministers try to understand why some jobs locals dont want?
Now many jobs require Singaporeans to work 12 hours,if our PAP ministers have to work 12 hours shift,will they want?And some jobs need to work 3 rotating shift,if our PAP ministers require to work 3 shift,will they want?
And out of this 3 rotating shift,the management can actually plan properly.Like some ppl like to work night shift,they can put these ppl to work all the way night shift.Or employ foreigners to work night shift.But no,the PAP government die die also want ppl to work 3 shift,damn fuking stupid!!!
If lets say army or police,i understand must work 3 shift.I have also work night shift and 3 shift before.But now,i just want to work daytime jobs.Ppl will change,thats why when comes to creating jobs,it must be flexible.If the PAP ministers want Singaporeans to work,they also must ask themselves,if they were require to work 12 hrs shift or 3 rotating shift,6 days a week,will the PAP ministers want to work or not? -
The main difference between Malaysia and Singapore is (a) in 6 to 10 years, the dependency ratio of Malaysia would be a lot better than Singapore's. From this perspective, Malaysia is a lot stronger than Singapore. The only way to "rescue" the situation is to allow more young people into Singapore. Thats why you see only young foreigners in Singapore. (b) Malaysia has a lot more natural resources. Since they are used to kampong life style all these years, they survive better during recessions simply because they are more "detached" from the rest of the world. Many of them probably dont know how to take bank loans! On the other hand, Singapore, being a barren rock, has no choice but to integrate globally.