How to solve the problem of FT in Singapore
-
The use of a foreign workforce in Singapore stems from 2 main factors:
1. Lack of local expertise
2. Cost of employing locals
The argument that foreigners are employed because Singaporeans do not want to do the job is a straw man argument. We have all seen Singaporeans who are willing to work as toilet cleaners, road sweepers and refuse collectors. The majority of Singaporeans are not a haughty lot. The truth is some jobs now pay too little as to make it impossible for Singaporeans to cover the costs of living in public housing, feeding themselves modestly and commuting to work. Foreign workers who are housed and fed by employers and whose only consideration is to send money back to their families are more open to these low paying jobs. Hence, the "unwanted jobs issue" is actually a misdirection of point 2.
To address point 1, let it first be acknowledged that a foreign education is often inferior to a local education. A Singapore educated polytechnic student is superior to a China educated graduate student both in terms of work attitude and in terms of exposure to industry wide practises. The problem is that employers are too fixated on paper certification and do not give enough credit to the quality of graduates from our world class educational system. As Singapore invests more in training local talent we will see more and more of this gap between capability and employabilty. Some foreign workers are indeed leaders in their field and possess training which cannot be easily replicated in local workers but these do not make up to 50% or more of the workers in an industry. If the interests of Singapore citizens are to be given equitable measure, MOM should at the very least, look into recommending a point based systems to HR managers as a guideline for employment. What is so bad about a basic assumption that employing Singaporeans is better than employing foreigners, especially in at a time where a long term financial crisis are staring us point blank in the face?
To address point 2, I have observed that talented foreign workers are not at all paid less that local workers of similar calibre and so the argument that locals professionals are paid more is moot. In fact, sometimes foreign talents are paid more because there is a prestige factor that goes with employing a foreign "talent". Therefore the issue of costs among the professional classes does not exist.This leaves the issue of foreign workers who are employed in low paying industries where there is a ceiling to the amount an employer can pay in order for the business model to work. In such a case, reduction of local living costs like reduction of transport charges do help but more can be done to creatively address these problems. For example, government can introduce tax breaks for companies who organize transport for their workers and who employ more Singaporeans. Other creative measures can be put in place if only one were to take the time to look into the various factors that increase the costs of employing citizens. This is a better approach to helping Singaporeans than to just simply give handouts.
As it stands the Foreign Talent/Worker situation has evolved from a situation that sacrifices national interests for expediency and cronyism. To do this at a time of plenty is excusable, to continue to do so going into a long term crisis that warrants early elections is dangerous.
Going into the elections, I believe whoever can address these points effectively and cogently will manage to gain more popular support. -
1 factor oni lah
SGreans no give birth, not enough ppl, so import ppl
or import ppl who can give birth -
How to solve the problem of FT in Singapore
Get rid of PAP regime.
SGreans no give birth
Since PAP regime created the stressful society, which causes low birth, we should get rid of PAP regime.
-
Originally posted by FireIce:
1 factor oni lah
SGreans no give birth, not enough ppl, so import ppl
or import ppl who can give birthYou know, its no use having a car if everywhere you go there is a traffic jam. Also, the whole growth model has now inverted. Now the fashionable thing to say is that we have too much people. Didn't you get the memo?
-
Originally posted by frakfrakfrak:
The use of a foreign workforce in Singapore stems from 2 main factors:
1. Lack of local expertise
2. Cost of employing locals
The argument that foreigners are employed because Singaporeans do not want to do the job is a straw man argument. We have all seen Singaporeans who are willing to work as toilet cleaners, road sweepers and refuse collectors. The majority of Singaporeans are not a haughty lot. The truth is some jobs now pay too little as to make it impossible for Singaporeans to cover the costs of living in public housing, feeding themselves modestly and commuting to work. Foreign workers who are housed and fed by employers and whose only consideration is to send money back to their families are more open to these low paying jobs. Hence, the "unwanted jobs issue" is actually a misdirection of point 2.
To address point 1, let it first be acknowledged that a foreign education is often inferior to a local education. A Singapore educated polytechnic student is superior to a China educated graduate student both in terms of work attitude and in terms of exposure to industry wide practises. The problem is that employers are too fixated on paper certification and do not give enough credit to the quality of graduates from our world class educational system. As Singapore invests more in training local talent we will see more and more of this gap between capability and employabilty. Some foreign workers are indeed leaders in their field and possess training which cannot be easily replicated in local workers but these do not make up to 50% or more of the workers in an industry. If the interests of Singapore citizens are to be given equitable measure, MOM should at the very least, look into recommending a point based systems to HR managers as a guideline for employment. What is so bad about a basic assumption that employing Singaporeans is better than employing foreigners, especially in at a time where a long term financial crisis are staring us point blank in the face?
To address point 2, I have observed that talented foreign workers are not at all paid less that local workers of similar calibre and so the argument that locals professionals are paid more is moot. In fact, sometimes foreign talents are paid more because there is a prestige factor that goes with employing a foreign "talent". Therefore the issue of costs among the professional classes do not exist and this leaves the issue of foreign workers who are employed in low paying industries where there is a ceiling to the amount an employer can pay in order for the business model to work. In such a case, reduction of local living costs like reduction of transport charges do help but more can be done to creatively address these problems. For example, government can introduce tax breaks for companies who organize transport for their workers and who employ more Singaporeans. Other creative measures can be put in place if only one were to take the time to look into the various factors that increase the costs of employing citizens. This is a better approach to helping Singaporeans than to just simply give handouts. As it stands the Foreign Talent/Worker situation has evolved from a situation that sacrifices national interests for expediency and cronyism. To do this at a time of plenty is excusable, to continue to do so going into a long term crisis that warrants early elections is dangerous.
Going into the elections, I believe whoever can address these points effectively and cogently will manage to gain more popular support.kill them
-
kill them
PAP?
-
Job Credit
-
low birth rate is a sign of developed countries...so one way is to downgrade singapore into a developing country instead... you don't see india complaining about low birthrate...
if we don't want to do that, than have to accept low birth rate is the trend now le....
-
Originally posted by frakfrakfrak:
The use of a foreign workforce in Singapore stems from 2 main factors:
1. Lack of local expertise
2. Cost of employing locals
The argument that foreigners are employed because Singaporeans do not want to do the job is a straw man argument. We have all seen Singaporeans who are willing to work as toilet cleaners, road sweepers and refuse collectors. The majority of Singaporeans are not a haughty lot. The truth is some jobs now pay too little as to make it impossible for Singaporeans to cover the costs of living in public housing, feeding themselves modestly and commuting to work. Foreign workers who are housed and fed by employers and whose only consideration is to send money back to their families are more open to these low paying jobs. Hence, the "unwanted jobs issue" is actually a misdirection of point 2.
To address point 1, let it first be acknowledged that a foreign education is often inferior to a local education. A Singapore educated polytechnic student is superior to a China educated graduate student both in terms of work attitude and in terms of exposure to industry wide practises. The problem is that employers are too fixated on paper certification and do not give enough credit to the quality of graduates from our world class educational system. As Singapore invests more in training local talent we will see more and more of this gap between capability and employabilty. Some foreign workers are indeed leaders in their field and possess training which cannot be easily replicated in local workers but these do not make up to 50% or more of the workers in an industry. If the interests of Singapore citizens are to be given equitable measure, MOM should at the very least, look into recommending a point based systems to HR managers as a guideline for employment. What is so bad about a basic assumption that employing Singaporeans are better than employing foreigners, especially in at a time where a long term financial crisis are staring us point blank in the face?
To address point 2, I have observed that talented foreign workers are not at all paid less that local workers of similar calibre and so the argument that locals professionals are paid more is moot. In fact, sometimes foreign talents are paid more because there is a prestige factor that goes with employing a foreign "talent". Therefore the issue of costs among the professional classes do not exist and this leaves the issue of foreign workers who are employed in low paying industries where there is a ceiling to the amount an employer can pay in order for the business model to work. In such a case, reduction of local living costs like reduction of transport charges do help but more can be done to creatively address these problems. For example, government can introduce tax breaks for companies who organize transport for their workers and who employ more Singaporeans. Other creative measures can be put in place if only one were to take the time to look into the various factors that increase the costs of employing citizens. This is a better approach to helping Singaporeans than just simply give handouts. As it stands the Foreign Talent/Worker situation has evolved from a situation that sacrifices national interests for expediency and cronyism. To do this at a time of plenty is excusable, to continue to do so going into a long term crisis that warrants early elections is dangerous.
Going into the elections, I believe whoever can address these points effectively and cogently will manage to gain more popular support.Well you made your points, i will deliver my opinion of what you said.
What i feel is that you failed to see the connection on how these low paying jobs are ultimately connected to the cost of living. If the costs of these jobs are increased, their employers would have to increase the cost of their services/goods to avoid affecting the quality or output . ( Say, 1 local cleaner compared to employing 2-3 foreign cleaners)
This would create a wave effect where salaries would have to be increased across all levels (Well, except for the CEO and minister levels) in order to afford the increase in cost of goods and services. Which, ultimately affects the decision of whether corporations(Both local and foreign) are willing to stay here or outsource.
While personally i don't mind having the cost of living increased in order for business to afford more local employees for base level work I do not think the majority of the people would be generous enough to accept that. They want both increased local employment rate and reduced cost of living, that's wanting to eat the cake without paying for it in my opinion.
While i have little actual knowledge of how good foreign education is(I'm assuming you're referring to China/India/Vietnam..etc) I disagree on the opinion that they are anywhere inferior to local graduates. I have foreign colleagues from Malaysia, China, Indonesia and Vietnam, i am quite impressed by their dedication to their work and the quality that they deliver. I am also quite pressured by the need to match their quality everyday.
Do not forget that it takes a certain level of skill and good attitude to leave the country of your birth to pursue jobs in foreign lands. Perhaps the overall quality really is quite bad in their original country, perhaps 1 in 10 really produce world class work. But those who chose to come out to work and are able to get employment is going to be the cream of the crop.
You are correct in point 2.
Employers aren't stupid, paying the foreign employee less than their local peers is going to create resentment. Why should the foreign employee deliver quality work if he/she are not treated as equals with their local peers?
But i think the prestige factor comes from applying Westerners, not from Asians.
But your suggestions for tax breaks sound like a workable idea. I would appreciate it greatly if you can split up the paragraphs for point 2 because it's a little hard to read it in detail.
-
ä½ åœ¨è¯´ä»€å¢¨???????????????????
-
low birth rate is a sign of developed countries
But Singapore is at the bottom level of low birth rate.
Low yes, but bottom?
193 
Singapore8.2 194 
Hong Kong (
People's Republic of China)7.6 195 
Macau ( People's Republic of China)7.6 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_birth_rate
-
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
But Singapore is at the bottom level of low birth rate.
Low yes, but bottom?
193
Singapore 8.2 194 Hong Kong ( People's Republic of
China) 7.6 195 Macau ( People's Republic of
China) 7.6http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_birth_rate
You're being a little too selective about your information aren't you? Notice that the highest birth rates are of unstable 3rd World countries ?
The CIA one for 2008 indicates that Taiwan has the same birth rate as Singapore and HongKong/Japan are far below us.With even some European countries with lower birth rates.
Even on the UN one, Hong Kong and Macau is still below us. They should be the more accurate comparsion because they're both island cities incapable of supporting large scale agriculture.
Blaming the PAP for every single problem is hardly indication of a progressive and mature society capable of handling democracy.
-
How to get rid of the foreigners? Increase productivity. Pay Singaporeans high wages to do the jobs nobody wants to do. Automate, robotize, mechanize.....
There are many ways to do it but with dishonorable despots in power, they will be for example, jealous of people paid high wages doing jobs that nobody wants to do... only they can take massive amounts of public money
-
Can't deny the fact that Singapore birth rate is at bottom in the entire world.
Minister salary is highest in entire world.
-
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
But Singapore is at the bottom level of low birth rate.
Low yes, but bottom?
193
Singapore 8.2 194 Hong Kong ( People's Republic of
China) 7.6 195 Macau ( People's Republic of
China) 7.6http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_birth_rate
So?
How many babies did you contribute?
-
Originally posted by skythewood:
So?
How many babies did you contribute?
My uncle got babies, but he got alot of babes, prc, thai, viet, malaysia babe, he contributed alot of babes here, thus the Foreigners increased. -
i contributed only 1 baby.
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
My uncle got babies, but he got alot of babes, prc, thai, viet, malaysia babe, he contributed alot of babes here, thus the Foreigners increased.haha, uncle is not you mah... you how many, or planning to contribute how many?
-
Originally posted by Kaimar:
i contributed only 1 baby.
good, that's a start! not sure if you plan for more, but no pressure there...
i no have any yet, planning 2 or 3, haha...
-
Originally posted by skythewood:
haha, uncle is not you mah... you how many, or planning to contribute how many?
If only i find a good lovely husband, i will contribute 3 or 4 to enjoy the tax free and babies incentives given by our govt. -
Originally posted by angel7030:
If only i find a good lovely husband, i will contribute 3 or 4 to enjoy the tax free and babies incentives given by our govt.Think some of the uncle here are single, you can try bah, haha
-
Originally posted by skythewood:
Think some of the uncle here are single, you can try bah, haha
huh, YAK!!! VOMitted my lunch out....Please lah, most are opposition you know, me dun wan to end up in ISD -
Originally posted by skythewood:
Think some of the uncle here are single, you can try bah, haha
-
Originally posted by eagle:
you interested ah? haha
-
Originally posted by FireIce:
1 factor oni lah
SGreans no give birth, not enough ppl, so import ppl
or import ppl who can give birth
I thought they import people is because SG dowan to do the lower paying jobs.... so they either have a choice to accept said lower paying jobs or they have no job lolPrice War - who can do the same job for lower pay .....?
