Misplaced smugness is not appreciated

In the comment & analysis page of the Today paper there is an article by a Charles Tan Meah Yang, writing from London about his feel of the social political scene here. He is an Investment Analysis working in London and should be above average in IQ and what he said must be worthy to be given prominence in the main media.

He raised two points, 1, Singaporeans should stop making emotionally charged, one sided complaints if they are unwilling to offer pragmatic suggestions/solutions and defend them vigorously against scrutiny. 2, politicians need to avoid making unilateral decisions without due communication to the electorate; they too must be prepared to justify and defend their policies instead of waving off concerns.

I fully agree with his second point but totally disagree with his first. His premise is that Singaporeans can complain but must also come out with a solution. This is flawed in many ways and smell of misplaced smugness. In the first place, most people that complained are your average citizens and you cannot expect them to be able to come up with a coherent and workable solution to national issues. And why should they when they are not paid to do so while the people in charge are full time doing the job, with all the information, supporting staff and resources and being handsomely rewarded?

He quoted an example of a chat with a taxi driver and concluded that the people are complaining but not able to give a solution. But that is exactly the point. If the people can provide the solution, there is no need to employ all the super talents with super talented pay. He unconsciously admitted that feedback is important to the Govt and that is exactly what the people are doing, feedback, kpkb when it hurts, complained to let the Govt know.

Does anyone really think that the men in the street, not on the job, without the information and resources, could do a better job or do the job for the ministers and his ministries? And if he cannot provide the solution he should shut up? Who then is going to provide the feedback to the Govt? This reminds me of what someone said, if one is going to comment about politics, one must join a political party. What crap! It is the job of the people who are paid to do the job to do a good job especially when they demanded out of this world salary. It is the right of the people to comment, to kpkb and to curse and swear when things are not right or hurting them.

Did I make my point clear? Is this logic so difficult to understand? Any minister that still talks cock and demand a solution from the people that complain needs to be knocked hard on his head. This kind of smugness is not appreciated and unwarranted. You want me to give you a solution to do the job for you, pay me the consultancy fee. There is no free lunch. What you take the people for?

REACH – 9 in 10 support tighten foreign workers

‘REACH announced today (18 Mar) that in a telephone poll, close to 9 in 10 of respondents were supportive of measures to tighten foreign worker inflow.’ This is the findings of the Govt feedback website. What is laughable is that though a tightening of foreign workers is desirable, it misses the main issue of the citizen’s pain. It is not foreign workers that the Singaporeans are angry about. It is jobs at the PMET level that qualified and experienced local PMETs have been booted out and replaced by foreigner that really matters. While the people were kpkb about foreign talents, the Govt apparently refused to engage on this and kept talking about foreign workers when many of the jobs at these level were shunned by the locals. The local PMETs want to be employed and are angry for being replaced.

In another article by Reuter, I quote, ‘Citigroup (C.N), the largest banking employer in Singapore, said more than 80 percent of its nearly 10,000 staff in the city-state were Singapore citizens or permanent residents.’ This is likely the case in many banks including local banks. Even Jollibee when faced with a boycott, sang the same song, that 79% of its employed are Singaporeans and PRs. What is the problem with these statements? PRs are not citizens, not Singaporeans. How many of these employed are Singaporeans? The statistics must be broken down to reflect the actual number or percentage of Singaporeans that are employed at PME level. The country does not belong to PRs.

The Govt must be serious in tackling this discrimination against Singaporeans in the work place. Two things the Govt can do, 1, imposed a quota on Singaporeans versus others at PME level, and 2, all GLCs and Govt agencies, including ministries must hire a Singaporean to head the HR dept or division. This is to ensure more transparency and to protect Singaporean interests. These are the minimum the Govt can do to protect its citizens. If the Govt cannot even do this, it has failed in is duty to protect its people and it is time for a change of Govt.

Following these, the MOM and Tafep must investigate and take the errant employers to task with heavy fines and curtailing their privileges to hire foreigners. Forget about the shit that foreign companies will scoot and move out from this city. Hiring foreigners is only a small part of the whole picture of the attractiveness of Singapore as a business centre and HQ. There are many anecdotes of foreign companies bringing in inexperience young graduates to be trained by the locals and subsequently be promoted to boss over the same locals.

The whole employment policies on hiring foreign talents at PME and top management level need an overhaul. We cannot keep filling these positions with foreigners, including PRs, and hollow out our local talent pool. Eventually no local talents can fill these positions. The Govt is doing the people a disservice if this is allowed to continue like it is now.

Fair hiring policies for hiring locals

There is a small column on the front page of ST yesterday with this clip, ‘Governments around the world must ensure citizens get a fair shot at landing jobs in the face of competition from foreign workers. As Singapore grapples with this delicate balancing act, a team of Straits Times correspondents examines how the authorities in Britain, Australia, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Thailand and Indonesia are dealing with this thorny issue.’

It is amazing but good that the main media is starting to show an interest in the unfair practices in the job market against the citizens. Does this mean that they were not interested before, did not know that there is a big problem here, or not told to cover this topic? Anyway, now that they are interested, let’s hope they will do more investigative journalism to reveal the plight of the jobless or underemployed PMETs here and give a helping hand to Gilbert Goh in Transitioning.org. Businesses and employers that discriminate against Singaporeans must be exposed and taken to task. After all these PMETs are fellow citizens or could be their friends or friend’s friends or some distant relatives. But no, these PMETs are mostly remotedly linked to some of the correspondents or not at all. Among the correspondents that wrote on the subjects were Jonathan Eyal, Jonathan Pearlman, and Li Xueying from HongKong. I presume Lee Seok Hwai, Tan Hui Yee and Zakir Hussain are Singaporeans.

What did they discover? All the countries practises a similar policy of citizens first to the extent of being protectionist. They believe in looking after their citizens first and foreigners last. How silly of them, no wonder their countries are not as progressive as Singapore. They are losing all the great talents from the whole world. Did I hear that some foreign talents in Singapore are going to scoot when the Govt is going to tighten hiring of foreigners? Would they be welcome in these countries mentioned? Would these countries open their arms in eager expectation to welcome these foreign talents?

Some of the comments in the articles were: ‘Britain operates one of the strictiest foreign labour control regimes in the industrialized world.’ In HongKong there were three hurdles to cross and a Supplementary Law to regulate the inflow of foreign workers so that the job prospects and wage levels of local workers would be protected. And ‘Australia has a varied arsenal of weapons to protect the interests of local job applicants against foreign competition….The President of the Migration Institute of Australia, Ms Angela Chan, said the requirements for sponsoring foreigners were “very tough” and were designed to compel employers to try to hire locals.’ In Taiwan, ‘Locals over foreigners’ is written into Law. ‘Article 42 of the Employment Services Act, which took effect in 1992, says, “no employment of foreign workers may jeopardize national’s opportunity in employment, their employment terms, economic development or social mobility.’

In Thailand, ‘A 1973 decree…forbids foreigners from working in 39 fields, including hair cutting and shoemaking. Neither can a foreigner be a tour guide or a lawyer. Medical professionals must take a test in Thai before being allowed to practice. Indonesia also has strict laws to restrict foreign white collar workers to specific sectors and permits need to be renewed annually. There were only 55,000 foreigners working in Indonesia in 2011.

What does all this information mean? These countries are protectionists and thus unprogressive. No wonder Singapore is number One, the fastest growing global city. And foreigners working here have all the blessings from the Govt. This one no country can beat. And we have a MOM and Tafep. Now who are these organizations protecting? I believe they are protecting the Singaporeans and PRs. And I also believe the MOM knows exactly the practices of the above mentioned countries and must have designed our foreign talent policies in line with their practices.

Singapore and Singaporeans are number One. Would the media go on a crusade to save jobs for our PMETs? Or would these reports be a one off case and nothing will be mentioned again and local PMETs continue to be cast aside while foreign talents take all the plum jobs from them?

Is National Conversation meant to be serious?

The Natcon has been a govt initiative to discuss about the future of the country and the well being of the people. I think this is the agenda. And I think this is a very serious matter and should include bread and butter issues. Or should the Natcon be about painting a wonderful future, a fantasy land to feel good about? Should the problems facing the people, especially the young people that are going to live the future be of a major concern and topic in the Natcon?

What do you think? Should serious bread and butter issue be raised and discussed?

Japan in a mood for war

Under the revived hawkish leader PM Abe, Japan is geared to return to militarism and is calling for war. It is going to tear away all the pacific treaties signed with the Americans after the defeat in WW2. The cries of war are all over Japan. Japan will fight to keep the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands it seized from China at all cost. There is a new tension, a romanticism of old Imperial Japan that once ruled East Asia.

Japan is a small country relative to China but is threatening China once again. It chased Chinese surveillance ships at Diaoyu/Senkaku, arrested Chinese fishing boats, nationalized the Islands as Japanese territories, scrambled fighter jets to intercept non military aircraft from China. It is boosting its defence expenditure to acquire more military aircraft and ships. Wherever Abe stepped foot on, he is calling for tougher actions to defend the Islands and accusing China of provocations. It even tried to convince the Obama regime to join force to fight China. It is trying to convince the Asean countries that China is the enemy.

Japan is still caught in the memories of the 19th and 20th Centuries when, despite its smallness in size, could raid and invade neighbouring countries that were poor and underdeveloped, including a broken China that was bankrupt of everything except a sea of poor peasants. Under those circumstances, Japan, like the Europeans powers, with their huge military hardware and soldiers, could look superior to the rest. It conquered Korea, Manchuria, Southeast Asia and almost the whole of China.

China was weak and had no resources to fight a war, no finance, no modern industries, no modern armies, a corrupt leadership under a dying Manchu Dynasty and an inexperienced bunch of revolutionaries. But China fought with all the handicaps and weaknesses to prevent the country from being taken over by the invading Japanese. The Japanese could control some major cities but not the Chinese people in the whole country. In a war of attrition, Japan could never subdue and rule China even at it poorest and deplorable condition.

The China today is a renewed nation with resources, finances and all the industries, including war industries, and the three armed military services with modern weaponry and a central united command. Japanese must be in delusion to think that it still can fight China when the cards are stacked differently this time, in favour of China. A war between Japan and China would tell a completely different story.

The reality today is that Japan is a small country, small in every aspect, even the military forces vis a vis China. No matter how much Japan militarized and armed its people, it is still a small country to China. It is now a mismatch that only the Japanese hawks refuse to see. A small country like Japan wants to go to war with China and thinking of winning?

The new China and new Chinese are no longer poor hungry peasants and rag tag soldiers. There is a new vibrancy and spirit in these new people who believe in a new destiny. As far as China is concerned, Japan is no longer a threat. Period.

All the hawkish calls in Tokyo are just a make belief, a drumming up of national pride and arrogance but refusing to admit the new reality. Japan is no longer in the same league as China. It would even have problems attacking Korea and could be the other way. It would not be able to run through Southeast Asia like it used to do. Vietnam would simply stop it in its path.

Japan, Abe and all the hawks and rightists leaders are dreaming in the past. The world has changed. Japan is a small country and cannot be a big power that it used to be. Those days are over. The earlier that Japan recognizes this hard truth the better it is for the Japanese to live under the new world order and be a respectable world citizen, without having wild thoughts of going to war. This time it would not be Hiroshima and Nagasaki being flattened. The whole of Japan will be waste land and the casualties will make Japanese a threatened life form.