Foreign workers a boon: Dr Hen
-
Foreign workers a boon: minister
By LEE U-WEN
THE secret of Singapore's strong job growth, according to Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen, is not to rely solely on locals to fill the vacancies. Instead, it was the ministry allowing businesses here to readily tap foreign workers to meet their needs that has proven to be the Republic's key competitive advantage, said Dr Ng in Parliament yesterday.
'If we had relied on our limited manpower supply, growth would be slower and fewer jobs would be created. This is the experience in other countries that tend to close their labour markets,' he told the House.
Some MPs were concerned that the government's recent moves to relax the rules on hiring foreign workers had dented opportunities for locals. But Dr Ng reassured them this was hardly the case.
'The unemployment rate among local polytechnic diploma-holders has fallen from 5.6 per cent in June 2004 - before the introduction of the 'S' pass (for foreign skilled workers) - to 3.4 per cent in June 2007. Last year, we saw a 47 per cent increase in the number of job vacancies requiring at least a diploma qualification,' said Dr Ng.
To further boost productivity, MPs such as Josephine Teo (Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC) suggested that foreign worker access could be linked to industry upgrading and re-development efforts. Another suggestion was to have employers show that they had put in enough effort to hire locals before being allowed to hire foreigners.
Dr Ng disagreed with both ideas. 'It would be both ineffective and counter-productive to tie foreign worker quotas to specific outcomes. Doing so would restrict the growth of companies, especially in this tight labour market, and in turn reduce job opportunities for locals.'
The solution, then, is a three-pronged effort. First, re-create more jobs to boost workers' value and productivity. Second, get companies to upgrade. Lastly, develop a 'first-class Continuing Education and Training (CET) system to help our workforce stay ahead', said Dr Ng. As such, the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund will be topped up to $3 billion. More CET centres, too, will be developed to benefit adult learners, while an Institute for Adult Learning will also be set up to conduct research and develop new training methods.
-
re-create more jobs to boost workers' value and productivity... for the foreigners again?
-
Dear forummers ,
i need your help to provide me some info for the following on sg employment for sg'reans:
1) How many percentage of citizens between ages 24 to 64 were not working in 2006 ?
2) What is the proportion of new jobs going to foreigners/PRs for 2004, 2005 and 2006? Is there a trend of new jobs going to PRs/ foreigners from 2004 to 2006? What is the figure you imagine for 2007?
3) How many percent of all jobs (as at December 2006) are held by PRs/foreigners ? Is it disclosed for 2007?
4) What is the percentage of workers in manufacturing who are foreigners/PRs as at December 2006?Any idea? to some who are safely employed, they may not care enough to think about the questions. but there are those who are facing real challenge competing for jobs with influx of foreigners. Personally, I cannot say this is good or bad. just neutral. like this safe mah.
I am doing a research on the very interesting singaporean employment statistics for 2004 to 2008.
thankyou many many in advanced.
regard
RDM.
-
I have no answers for the above. Maybe you can check with the MOM ? But I cannot guarantee there you will get your answer.
I just like to contribute to this forum to reveal what i notice working in several companies in singapore.
a. IT departments of big companies are virtually dominated by foreigners. I say this based on my involvement in 4 of the world's largest companies i have worked for. Their department 'design' is similar. They seem to hire about 80% - 95% or more foreigners, based on my personal assessment.
b. The skillsets are not difficult to learn. just 3 months, a person with sound fundamental IT skills can be productive and start to take over the job.
c. What is a talent? Can there be so many Talent shortage? Are IT engineers such talents that so many is needed that locals cannot be trained to do the same? I believe and am convinced that a Talent is more than an IT consultant or engineer. A talent is someone rare. there are so many IT people around the world and many countries supply so many of them that they are everywhere. Assuming this is so-called talent, then, the word 'talent' has become 'cheaper'.
d. foreigners come and go. continued dependence on foreigners has the problem of creating a black hole of dependence. Overtime the dependence has not sloweddown simply because of ease in which these can come in. I must say its benefitial to business. But in what way ? Salary wise?
e. how do you measure the loyalty of foreigners who convert to citizen? I ask because i am not aware what system can ensure a new citizen is more loyal than a born citizen. Mas is a indon convert. This may be a biased example, but then that is a point that should not be ignored as well.
Is business the ultimate deciding factor for national development?
If so, I am quite disappointed.
The citizens , however, in my view, is the ultimate decider. Balance is key. This is the only way to avoid Complacency.
Selamat, I hope you will be caught in less than 6 months. somehow, i have a lot of confidence in our leaders who will certain do a good job, as proven by their track record.
-
Originally posted by Reddressman.:
Dear forummers ,
i need your help to provide me some info for the following on sg employment for sg'reans:
1) How many percentage of citizens between ages 24 to 64 were not working in 2006 ?
2) What is the proportion of new jobs going to foreigners/PRs for 2004, 2005 and 2006? Is there a trend of new jobs going to PRs/ foreigners from 2004 to 2006? What is the figure you imagine for 2007?
3) How many percent of all jobs (as at December 2006) are held by PRs/foreigners ? Is it disclosed for 2007?
4) What is the percentage of workers in manufacturing who are foreigners/PRs as at December 2006?Any idea? to some who are safely employed, they may not care enough to think about the questions. but there are those who are facing real challenge competing for jobs with influx of foreigners. Personally, I cannot say this is good or bad. just neutral. like this safe mah.
I am doing a research on the very interesting singaporean employment statistics for 2004 to 2008.
thankyou many many in advanced.
regard
RDM.
I believe you can calculate/estimate to a very close percentage of out from the stats board info like the calculations I did for you, and proven by the news article you post, if you really put your heart into it. Either that or you could still go to any Meet the MP session as I have already told you and ask the MP to help you get the data. Or you could call MOM for your data.
It is your research afterall, you should do the effort, and not post in the forum to ask others to do for you. You are being very similar to another forumer whom when I challenged him to do research, told me that he's researching by questioning in this forum.
FYI, for question 3 (Is it disclosed for 2007?), your CNA news article and another recent news article posted by fishbuff (on number of locals employed) have the answer.
-
statistics, especially goverment statistics, is what you make of it really .....
remember the case a few years back of two NTU econs professors who published a paper saying that the majority of jobs created in Singapore are going to foreign workers and not Singaporeans ? ....
they were blasted down so fast, their heads were probably still spinning ......
i don't know what happened to those two professors, i wonder if they are still teaching there .....
so ... was it a case of the goverment telling us what they want us to hear, or the goverment choosing only to listen to what they want to hear ? .....
-
If more and more are on contract,
I am sure the retrenchment rate will also go down simply because contract staff cannot be retrenched as obviously as permanent employees, for example, 3 month-renewable contracts, when employer wants to 'retrench', he says no extension after 3 months. Is that any difficult thing to do?
how right/wrong is it to say the above?
-
Originally posted by balance_else_complacent:
If more and more are on contract,
I am sure the retrenchment rate will also go down simply because contract staff cannot be retrenched as obviously as permanent employees, for example, 3 month-renewable contracts, when employer wants to 'retrench', he says no extension after 3 months. Is that any difficult thing to do?
how right/wrong is it to say the above?
part of the rationale to having a perm or a contract staff depends a fair deal on how crucial the job is.
if the job is a support role and has no critical impact of the business, then a contract job it is. however, if the job is a criticial component of the business function and it needs a level of continuity, then it is most likely a perm job. there will be other factors but they are mainly business operation decisions that decides. it is very distruptive and costly to train and re-train, so most companies will not want to be in this situation.
there is no hidden agenda.
-
Originally posted by weiqimun:
part of the rationale to having a perm or a contract staff depends a fair deal on how crucial the job is.
if the job is a support role and has no critical impact of the business, then a contract job it is. however, if the job is a criticial component of the business function and it needs a level of continuity, then it is most likely a perm job. there will be other factors but they are mainly business operation decisions that decides. it is very distruptive and costly to train and re-train, so most companies will not want to be in this situation.
there is no hidden agenda.
you are giving a "in an ideal situation..." statement.
i am talking based on facts and reality.
your answer is too obvious.
-
Originally posted by balance_else_complacent:
you are giving a "in an ideal situation..." statement.
i am talking based on facts and reality.
your answer is too obvious.
duh....it is not an ideal situation. it is reality.
i work in one.
u mean companies operate to appease the gahmen? gv me a break.
-
instead of everyone being put on a permanent job, now the job role will play a determinant role.
by taking out a mix of roles that can either be sub out or put on a contract basis, the company saves a lot a SG&A and enhance positive operating profit by going on this model.
this is reality now, like it or not. tt's why job security is a thing of the past.
to suggest there is some conspiracy theory behind this is just ludicrous.