SINGAPORE: Of the nearly 60,000 new jobs created for the local workforce
between 2015 and 2018, about 50,000 went to Singaporeans and more than
9,000 went to permanent residents (PRs), Minister for Trade and Industry
Chan Chun Sing revealed on Thursday (Jan 16).... CNA
This statistics looked quite favourable to those who want more jobs to Singaporeans than to locals. When I look at the numbers it looks fine to me. Singaporeans are taken care of when new jobs are concerned. What about old or existing jobs are concerned? The main complaint is that Singaporean PMETs were sacked or asked to resign from their jobs and foreigners were hired to take their places. These are not new jobs, so would not be in the statistics I supposed. What is the number in such cases?
There is another number that I think is missing? What about employment of foreigners that are not PRs, foreigners that are foreigners but on employment pass and work permits? No, no new jobs created for them or these are not counted? Of course those that came under CECA schemes like inter company transfer would not be counted I supposed.
I have a question, what is the total number of jobs created in the period mentioned, ie including those that went to foreigners that are not PRs but EP and WP holders? Or what is the total number of additional number of people employed during this period, ie new employment, including Singaporeans, PRs, non PRs? How would these change the percentage of Singaporeans employed versus others ie PRs and non PRs?
And why only talked about 2015 to 2018, the years when there were some changes in govt policies after public outcry about the incessant inflow of foreigners by the thousands annually earlier and Singaporeans losing their jobs to foreigners? Selective selection of data is selective truth.
There are many ways to craft data and churning out numbers in statistics. What is the purpose of Pritam Singh asking the question? What is his intent? Simple, he wants to know if Singaporeans are being shortchanged in employment vis a vis foreigners, ie PRs and non PRs. Is this a bad intent, sinister intent? Any Singaporean who cares for fellow Singaporeans would want to know this, would want to ask such questions. Cannot meh? Wrong meh? What is wrong with asking such questions?
What is the intent to ask for the intent of Pritam Singh for asking such questions?
The true question Singaporeans must ask themselves (not ask the politicians) is this:
ReplyDeleteAre Singaporeans truly well-taken care of or well taken for a long ride?
Cannot tahan the arrogance!
ReplyDeleteSDP challenged the data in Court and the PAP said can challenged the PooBoo or Pooforma in Court.
ReplyDeleteWhy they insisted in Closed Hearings?
Nothing to be afraid that you are Right then no need to have closed hearings.
Why you insisted that the MOM data is correct and just because SDP do NOT furnish their data they throw out the case.
It's because SDP wants to challenge the REAL data that's why they challenged the MOM in Court.
You believe the Kee Chiu uttered from his mouth like Gospel Truths?
Why don't they simply break down the data or figures what's the actual employment data of local Singaporeans, PRs and Foreigners?
What's the BIG secrets?
They were supposed to furnish this as a form of transparency.
Now they used scared tactics that they must be the True Leaderships for the Civil Service to work.
So many laspes and they still considered themselves as competence?
Pui
There are a few valid reasons for closed door session, not open to the public.
ReplyDelete1. Got national secrets involved, national security.
2. Got underaged affected, so public cannot know.
3. Got sex and dirty sex, so cannot go public.
4. I dunno, so do not want to guess.
Rb for the 50000 jobs that went to sinkies how many went to real sinkies and how many went to recently converted sinkies from PR?
DeleteFirst Class leaders can do without over Reliance on the civil servants. Poor incompetent pseudo leaders cannot work without the civil servants at their beck and call.
ReplyDeleteHis unconvincing explanation has aroused more suspicions.
ReplyDeleteObviously, there must be something to hide. No doubt.
Lao Hero Bean: "The main complaint is that Singaporean
ReplyDeletePMETs were sacked or asked to resign from their jobs and foreigners were hired to take their places."
Uncle,
Your observation (actually) dovetails with the LABOUR ECONOMICS "Insider-Outsider" theory developed by Economics Professor Assar Lindbeck and Prof Dennis Shower.
Basically this is how it goes:
"Because the insiders are already employed, they are in a position of power and are ultimately uninterested in expanding the number of jobs available for those who are not already employed."
The consequences are many and ultimately lead to a long term economic UNEMPLOYMENT problem for the outsiders who are retrenched by the insiders known as hysteresis.
The retrenched PMETS or outsiders become PERMANENTLY unemployed or underemployed.
This is a very serious market failure which is deemed very inefficient and damaging for the economy in the long run by LABOUR ECONOMISTS.
Lao Hero Bean is trained as a political scientist and has the brain of that as well as the ability to think like an economist too.
Not bad.
Clap clap clap.....
And why only talked about 2015 to 2018, the years when there were some changes in govt policies after public outcry about the incessant inflow of foreigners by the thousands annually earlier and Singaporeans losing their jobs to foreigners?
ReplyDeleteRB
Hahahahhaha, RB you answer your question in your question as follows:
Because there were some changes in govt policies after public outcry about the incessant inflow of foreigners by the thousands annually earlier and Singaporeans losing their jobs to foreigners.
And to complement it, I add my answer as follows:
The changes in govt policies make the data show that 80% of jobs created went to Singaporeans and so Chan Chun Sing can report this good news lah. Hahahahahaha.
There are a few valid reasons for closed door session, not open to the public.
ReplyDeleteRB 9:14 am
One more reason, and perhaps the key reason is that PAP see SDP "no up.
Why?
Because PAP thinks SDP will still not be able to win any seats in coming election despite PAP making it a closed door session.
Close door session? So what?
What is the intent to ask for the intent of Pritam Singh for asking such questions?
ReplyDeleteRB
The intent of Chan Chun Sing is to tell (or rather hint to) Pritam Singh what's the point (WP in short form) of asking such questions when there is a high chance WP will lose Aljunied in coming election.
There's also a joke about WP. It's also called "What's the point"(WP) party. LOL
There's also a joke about WP. It's also called "What's the point"(WP) party. LOL
ReplyDelete11:39 am
I think the joke came about after ex WP SG Low Thia Khiang ever praised PAP as a competent ruling party.
So what's the point (WP)being in opposition and praising PAP as competent ruling party? LOL
ReplyDeleteNo point kpkbsssss lah!
No matter what the top top top leaders said and the siongness the masses are going through... the masses will still Kwai Kwai Kwai Kwai Kwai Kwai Kwai Kwai and die die die die die die die die vote for pap! It is the masses! It is the masses!
This is sg! This is Sg! SG is like that loong loong loong loong loong loong loong loong time ago liao! You don't know meh?
Hahaha Hahahahahaha.....
The main complaint is that Singaporean PMETs were sacked or asked to resign from their jobs and foreigners were hired to take their places. These are not new jobs, so would not be in the statistics I supposed. What is the number in such cases?
ReplyDeleteRB
I think the number in such cases are small lah, maybe only 30% or less of all Singaporean PMETs.
So even if these Sinkie PMETs vote opposition, the opposition will not be able to win also.
So what's the point for PAP to bother about these Sinkie PMETs?
The main complaint is that Singaporean PMETs were sacked or asked to resign from their jobs and foreigners were hired to take their places.
ReplyDeleteRB
I think it is because these Singaporean PMETs are too expensive vs their talents they have lah, as compared to a foreigner with equivalent talent.
If the Singaporean PMETs are really good, they will not be sacked or asked to resign from their jobs even if they are expensive.
And luckily for PAP, I think majority of Singaporean PMETs are good although expensive so they still have their jobs. And I, a true blue Sinkie in my late fifties already still keep my job at high pay despite having a boss who is a foreigner.
Hi 1155am
DeleteYou are 1o8% correct!
Hi 1206 pm
In your fifties and still keep your job with HIGH pay....very very happy to hear this. Very very good for you!
Cheers!
@RB,
ReplyDeleteI have gone through the MOM statistics website & can answer most of your questions:-
///The main complaint is that Singaporean PMETs were sacked or asked to resign from their jobs and foreigners were hired to take their places. These are not new jobs, so would not be in the statistics I supposed.///
Partially publicly available. Job losses are combined for Sinkies & PRs. There is no separate numbers for job losses of citizens versus PRs versus non-PR foreigners.
Old or new jobs don't matter -- as long as people hired, is counted as "job creation".
///What about employment of foreigners that are not PRs, foreigners that are foreigners but on employment pass and work permits?///
Publicly available.
///Of course those that came under CECA schemes like inter company transfer would not be counted I supposed.///
Counted as part of foreigner job creation. Publicly available.
///I have a question, what is the total number of jobs created in the period mentioned, ie including those that went to foreigners that are not PRs but EP and WP holders?///
Have. Publicly available.
///Or what is the total number of additional number of people employed during this period, ie new employment, including Singaporeans, PRs, non PRs?///
Have. Publicly available.
///How would these change the percentage of Singaporeans employed versus others ie PRs and non PRs?///
This one don't have. Only residents versus foreigners. Keechiu mention of 9000+ PR jobs created is the 1st time it's mentioned.
From this 9000 figure, you can go to the existing publicly available numbers to know the percentage between citizens, PRs, & non-PR foreigners, over the 4 years from 2015-2018.
///And why only talked about 2015 to 2018, the years when there were some changes in govt policies after public outcry about the incessant inflow of foreigners by the thousands annually earlier and Singaporeans losing their jobs to foreigners?///
This one you know I know lah!!!
Actually the policy changes were in 2012 but probably took a few years to have effect. I remember many SME bosses damn fucking tulan in 2012 onwards becoz a lot of S-Pass & Work Permit applications or extensions all rejected. Had to hear a lot of their jiao wey & cock & bull stories.
U said have then show us the number else get sodomize by readers here
DeleteAiyoh u so old already still need to be spoonfed haar?!?!
DeleteGrow some brain cells.
Dear redbean.
ReplyDeleteA suggestion from the ground.
Go and get the employment statistics from Certis Cisco.
- see how many Singaporean PMETs working in the security industry after being sacked by CECA Indians.
Talk so much for what? Not helpful! Waste time!
ReplyDeleteLet the results of the next GE do the talking lah!
Will Sg voters do a Sg Harapan?
@All
ReplyDeleteNext GE:
Spoilt votes - 3%
Oppo - 22%
PAP - 75%
Actually I will make much more $$$$$$$ from stocks if PAP less than 60%.
But either way I will ensure that I will continue making $$$$$$$$ while shaking leg at home.
WSG
BREAKING NEWS: TOC reported that "Chan says 50,000 jobs created for Singaporeans from 2015 to 2018 but didn’t mention increase of 87,000 new citizens during the same period."
ReplyDeleteOf the 50,000 new jobs mentioned by Chan to have gone to Singaporeans, he did not mention how many went to the true blue born-and-bred-in-Singapore Singaporeans vs the newly minted naturalized citizens, TOC added.
Is There A Crisis In Capitalism? - Part 1
ReplyDeleteBy Bill Gates
May 20, 2019
I’m a big fan of Paul Collier. A highly respected Oxford economist (and a knight!), he has spent his career trying to understand and alleviate global poverty. His book The Bottom Billion is still on the short list of books that I recommend to people, even though a lot has changed since it was published 12 years ago.
So I was a little surprised when I learned that Collier’s latest book isn’t about poverty at all. But when I saw that it was about something I’m also keenly interested in—the polarization we’re seeing in the U.S., Europe, and other places—I was eager to see what he had to say. I’m glad I did. The Future of Capitalism: Facing the New Anxieties, is an ambitious and thought-provoking book.
Collier wrestles with a tough problem. If you measure by things like GDP growth and lifespan, life is better for more people around the world than it has ever been. And yet many people are questioning the capitalist system that produced those gains. There’s an understandable sense that the system is in crisis.
Why is this happening?
Collier says we’re experiencing three big rifts: 1) a spatial divide between booming cities and struggling small towns; 2) a class divide between people who have a college education and those who don’t; and 3) a global divide between high- and middle-income countries on the one hand, and fragile states on the other.
Collier has a personal perspective on all three divides. He grew up in industrial Sheffield, England; now he makes his home in an upscale college town. Both of his parents left school when they were 12; he went to Oxford. He lives in a rich country, but because of his work, he spends a lot of time in some of the poorest places in the world.
As a result of the three trends, Collier says, capitalism is delivering for some people but leaving others behind. For example, he makes a point that should feel familiar to anyone living in London, New York City, or my hometown of Seattle. Highly skilled workers have a big incentive to move to cities, where they can get high-paying jobs. When all those big earners cluster in one place, more businesses sprout up to support them. This large-scale movement into the city drives up the cost of land, making it less affordable for everyone else. It is a virtuous cycle for a lucky few and a vicious one for others.
This all adds up to a compelling description of the problem. What should we do about it?
I found myself agreeing with a lot of what Collier has to say. I was especially struck by the central idea of his book, that we need to strengthen the reciprocal obligations we have to each other. This won’t directly address the divides, but it will create the atmosphere where we can talk more about pragmatic solutions to them. “As we recognize new obligations to others,” Collier writes, “we build societies better able to flourish; as we neglect them we do the opposite…. To achieve the promise [of prosperity], our sense of mutual regard has to be rebuilt.”
He looks at four areas where we can do this: the global level, the nation-state, the company, and the family. Globally, for example, he argues that we need to revitalize groups like NATO and the EU while also recognizing the need to help the world’s poorest people escape poverty (an area that is of special interest to me given the Gates Foundation’s work).
At the corporate level, Collier criticizes the notion that a company’s only responsibility is to make money for its shareholders. This sole focus on the bottom line, he argues, means many companies no longer feel responsible to their employees or the communities where they operate. This has been a big driver, he says, of “the mass contempt in which capitalism is held—as greedy, selfish, corrupt.”
Is There A Crisis In Capitalism? - Part 2
ReplyDeleteI agree that companies need to take a long-run view of their interests and not just focus on short-term profits. It matters how businesses are viewed in their communities and by their employees. I think the profit motive encourages companies to take such a broad view of their interests more often than Collier acknowledges, although there are plenty of exceptions. And when we want companies to act a certain way—for example to reduce pollution or pay a certain amount of taxes—I think it’s more effective to have the government pass laws than to expect them to voluntarily change their behavior.
If I had the chance, I would ask Collier more about this. I finished the book wondering if he thinks we can change the incentive structure so companies act differently. Or perhaps some companies don’t realize that their long-term interests require valuing things other than the bottom line. It would be fascinating to discuss with him.
I would also take Collier’s world/nation/company/family argument one step further. I would add a fifth category: community. We need to re-connect at the local level, where we’re physically close enough to help each other out in times of need. Churches can serve this purpose. So can community groups. Digital tools have also helped people connect with their neighbors, though I think there’s still more that could be done there.
With a complex subject like this, it is always easier to describe the problem than to solve it. The Future of Capitalism devotes a lot of time to how we might ease people’s anxieties, including more vocational training, support for families (what he calls “social maternalism”), and policies designed to make companies behave more ethically.
Although I don’t agree with all of Collier’s suggestions, I think he is right more often than not. Melinda and I will have more to say about inequity in our next Goalkeepers report in September. But to take just one example, I think the U.S. government needs more revenue to meet its commitments, and that means raising taxes on the wealthiest. Similarly, Collier makes a good case for raising taxes on the unearned income of high-wage workers in cities (like when the value of their land goes up simply because they can afford to live in a place where other well-off people want to live).
Ultimately, I agree with him that “capitalism needs to be managed, not defeated.” We should do more to curb its excesses and minimize its negative aspects. But no other system comes close to delivering the innovations and economic growth that capitalism has sparked around the world. This is worth remembering as we consider its future.
End.
Virus Alert, Not Alarm.
ReplyDeleteThe Wuhan corona-virus (similar to SAR) has spread to other parts of China. Official figures put the number of people infected with the virus as 50 to 60. However, WHO experts have put the estimated figure at 1,700 or more.
Singapore MOH tried to play it down regarding the 3 year-old girl from China, saying that she did not get the virus from the Wuhan cluster area. By so saying, in fact, Singapore MOH has unwittingly admitted that the infection was from another area. This indicates that the virus has spread to other parts of China.
Known cases have been reported in other countries such as Hongkong, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam. It is probable that the virus has also spread to many other countries but not recognized, identified or reported; or worst of all, played down or covered up.
For your own safety, it is better to take precautions by wearing masks in public and congested places and wash your hands frequently, especially before meals and when handling food.
Of the 50,000 new jobs mentioned by Chan to have gone to Singaporeans, he did not mention how many went to the true blue born-and-bred-in-Singapore Singaporeans vs the newly minted naturalized citizens, TOC added.
ReplyDelete6:00 pm
So what if Chan did not mention?
High chance PAP will still win big at coming election what, agree or not?
Singapore MOH tried to play it down regarding the 3 year-old girl from China, saying that she did not get the virus from the Wuhan cluster area.
ReplyDelete6:39 pm
Not to worry lah, most Sinkies will survive even if they are infected with the Wuhan corona-virus.
And not only survive but also vote to make PAP win big in coming election, despite the Wuhan corona-virus.
Farking Sinkie who sucked the balls of Foreigners
ReplyDeleteVirgo 49 4:11 pm
Hi RB, why your friend Virgo old but still so dirty one? What happen if his daughter read this then how?
Can ask him to wash his mouth with detergent or not?
Aiyo. Pls lah don't be a hypocrite lah!
DeleteLike that already called vulgar.
You NOT in NS yet? Our time they even cursed your Fathers and Mothers with exceptional flowery vocab.
Nowadays. Young Monsters new generation worse than our still cultivated oldies.
Young women spewed more vulgar words and showed more vulgar signs than us oldies.
They embarrassed. You be more embarrassed.
The boastful oldie who worked has to work not because he wanted to but because he has to.
Bite MORE than he can chew and too many liabilities still to fulfil.
This will be the new norm for today's generation as they are now been the new norm of Brought up monsters by the new order.
I found myself agreeing with a lot of what Collier has to say. I was especially struck by the central idea of his book, that we need to strengthen the reciprocal obligations we have to each other. This won’t directly address the divides, but it will create the atmosphere where we can talk more about pragmatic solutions to them. “As we recognize new obligations to others,” Collier writes, “we build societies better able to flourish; as we neglect them we do the opposite…. To achieve the promise [of prosperity], our sense of mutual regard has to be rebuilt.”
ReplyDeleteThis is quoted from DR Cut and Paste comment above.
One person for sure would disagree with this, ie Matilah. To him it is the law of the jungle and the fittest survived and gets richer, gets everything. The weak and poor and losers should be evaporated, not worth to live.
If politicians can be trusted, pigs can fly.
ReplyDeleteSinkies are very well taken care by papies.
But sinkies must learn to take care of themselves.
Not always depend on papies.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteOf the 50,000 new jobs mentioned by Chan to have gone to Singaporeans, he did not mention how many went to the true blue born-and-bred-in-Singapore Singaporeans vs the newly minted naturalized citizens, TOC added.
6:00 pm
So what if Chan did not mention?
High chance PAP will still win big at coming election what, agree or not?
===
It is ok to have this mindset, the resulting action in the ballot box is not ok. If a significant number of people like you believe in this inevitability and choose to vote PAP as thus to be in the PAP's "good books", then you all ignited a self-fulfilling prophecy as a circular proof to your belief. The only winner will be the ruling party.
In short, PAP won becuz I voted for them, therefore I might as well vote for them to gain some benefits and not lose out.
If this significant number of people, or swing voters, are brave and realize that they are their own destiny maker, then PAP would never have won in the recent 2 or 3 elections.
However, this may be the last election to have a significant power shift in the govt due to the successful population displacement with immigrants-new-citizens that benefit greatly from the currency exchange for their homeland, where they plan to return to after some years. These group that have no intention of staying for the long-term, are likely to vote for the incumbent.
I am assuming of course that these group of extractors the PAP will depend on to stay in power are short-sighted, self-centered in the ineffective way and irrational in their thinking when deciding who to vote. I hope to be wrong.
@ RB
ReplyDelete>> One person for sure would disagree with this, ie Matilah. To him it is the law of the jungle and the fittest survived and gets richer, gets everything. The weak and poor and losers should be evaporated, not worth to live. <<
Collier makes good points. "Capitalism" as we now experience it is broken due to cronyism and massive "pakat" of large corporations and sovereign governments.
Massive money printing by everyone has dislocated price signals and created labour arbitrage such that it is cheaper to hire workers from "cheaper" cuntries. And so the working man gets screwed and wage growth trends NEGATIVE, while non taxpaying corporations make obscene profits from cheap money and cheap labour.
In other words, as a salaried worker, YOU ARE SCREWED.
The Law of The Jungle is not my idea. It is just how things are now. I am so glad I'm out of the workforce and doing other things. To be competing for a job now IS DAMN TEROK.
We are entitled to our opinions, but we're not entitled to make up our own FACTS and pasd them off as "truth". Just look at the situation, and you tell me if the law of the jungle applies or not. Me? I like reality. Even if it's FUCKED UP.
Since corporations are making stupid money, the most LOGICAL thing to do is not to fight the trend. The simplest no-brainer is to hop on board the money-train and ride it until the money stops....which doesn't look like happening, even though at the back of everyone's mind is the likelihood of some sort of MAJOR CORRECTION.
If I was in the labour force now, my strategy would be to save as much as possible and INVEST (the money train lah) and GET THE FUCK OUT of the crazy brutal job market ASAP by becoming financially independent.
Young people, if you haven't heard of the FIRE Movement, I suggest you have a look.
Cheers!
With globalization and the new brand of "leadership not by examples" but by rewarding themselves at the expense of the workers/masses, the concept of work has become meaningless.
ReplyDeleteEven if pap win the next election, it does not mean that my vote for opposition is meaningless. History will record this. And my heart will be at peace.
ReplyDelete