Tan Chuan Jin, We have a situation.

Tan Chuan Jin must have discovered that he has landed up in a shit hole when the lid on the problems of discrimination and victimization of Singaporeans in the job market was lifted. He must be cursing himself for the mess he has inherited. At least Boon Wan did know what he was in for and was prepared to have shit up to his neck in housing. Boon Wan is still struggling but unable to get them off. There were just too much shit and he too deep in shit. The housing problem has taken a life of its own and cutting any corners would cause pain in other corners.

Did Tan Chuan Jin know what he was in for? Before he knew anything, his little stuff is already half cooked. The discussion in Parliament and the peep into the problems were too revealing and frightening to know the whole truth. It seems that he had some preview to what was coming and had some serious discussion with Tharman and needing Tharman’s weight to move some boulders along the path.

There are high expectations from the citizens for Tan Chuan Jin to do a successful Herculean lift. Any half baked measures like in housing will not do. This problem is very serious and hit the citizens real bad and more and more citizens are feeling the pain. Can Tan Chuan Jin rise to the occasion to clear this shit or would he be sucked into the shit hole like Boon Wan?

The PAP, if it knows how much its fate in 2016 rests on how Chuan Jin tackle this issue, must also want him to do a good job and give him all the clout he needs. Tan Chuan Jin cannot fail or he would fail himself and the party. He has only a couple of years to clean up the shit as the smell is spreading too fast and wide.

For an Acting Minister, his task is the biggest and most difficult to unscrew. No lip service and no time to delay, no honeymoon years for this young man. All eyes are on him and the true blue displaced, victimized and discriminated Singaporeans are looking to him like the savior, The One that is coming to lift them up from their miserable existence.

Any foreign company operating here and stuffed by mainly foreigners has very little value add to the people and country except to raise the rentals of office space and property prices. They should not be allowed to be here as there is no gain for us. We are a multi racial country and we must not permit the practice of racism in the country and worst, against our very own citizens by foreigners. No organization must be allowed to practice racism in our country. Their licences must be cancelled with immediate effect if they are found guilty of this racist act.

The ball is now in Tan Chuan Jin’s feet. He can pick it up, blow the whistle or continue to play the game like them shiok, nothing wrong what. Have Singaporeans been led to the slaughter house with blinkers on?

Open letter to Acting Minister over Unfair Unemployment Practices at banks in spore

Complaint Against Unfair Unemployment Practices at Swiss Italian Private Bank

Dear Acting Minister,
It has been almost a month since our email dated 22 Feb 2013 was sent to your kind self. And it's extremely disappointing that we have not heard from you nor your ministry to date.

We sincerely hope you are not merely paying lip service to your own pledge in Nov 2011 to ensure that Singaporeans remain the core of our workforce in companies operating here.

Being accountable for what you have said, we would like to highlight the unfair unemployment practices against Singaporeans at a Swiss Italian private bank XXX Bank. We would like to know what actions are you or your ministry going to take to rectify the situation.

1) Until the middle of last year, almost all the Heads of Department/Section in the bank’s Wealth Management Department consist of foreign Indians:

Head of WMS (Malaysian Indian)
Head of Active Advisory (India Indian)
Head of Strategic Advisory (UK Indian)
Head of Investment Strategy (India Indian)
Head of Structured Product (India Indian)

It was only in May 2012 that a local was engaged by the bank as Head of Product Strategy. And that was the result of an unfortunate event further elaborated below.

Where is the hiring and developing of a Singaporean Core the TAFEP and the government have been advocating all this time?

2) Sometime in late 2011, an anonymous complaint letter against one of the India Indians was sent to the Monetary Authority of Singapore.

Instead of launching an investigation into the India indian, the bank shockingly chose to cover up for the latter and terminated the services of 2 Singaporeans. They then created the Product Strategy to take over some of the major responsibilities held by the India Indian in an effort to minimise the damage done.

Prior to that, the Singaporean Head of WMS was forced to step down after he openly questioned the competency of the same India Indian. The Deputy CEO, another India Indian, also reduced the Singaporean's responsibilities and remuneration, and this led to his resignation.

In all, it's disheartening that 3 Singaporeans lost their jobs simply because the management chose to shield one of their own kind.

Where is the protection afforded to Singaporeans against biased senior management who use unfair hiring/firing to favour their own countrymen in this case?

3) The bank has a discriminatory hiring practice, using every opportunity to recruit foreign Indians, whenever possible, for positions within the WMS department. It is not hard to understand why, given that the Deputy CEO is an India Indian.

Some examples: In Nov 2010, the bank went all the way out to recruit an India Indian for the position of Investment Analyst in the department.

Sometime in Mar 2011, another India Indian was also employed by the bank as an Advisory Associate in the same department when all these low level positions could have easily been filled by local Singaporeans.

Even the department’s risk manager is a new Singapore citizen who was previously an India Indian.

In fact, almost half the interns in the department during 2010 and 2011 are foreign Indians. Furthermore, if you exclude the investment advisors reporting to XXX HK (but based in Singapore), more than half the advisors ranked AVP and above in the department are foreign Indians too. This is clearly unacceptable.

We completely agree with Mr. Brenton Ong's letter to the ST Forum dated 28 Feb 2013 that many Singaporeans are unhappy with the "liberal recruitment of foreign professionals, managers and executives". In fact, almost 9 out of 10 Singaporeans now support curbs on foreign workers, especially PMETs.

In a ST article dated 25 Jan 2013, the Prime Minister was quoted as saying the PAP government is on the side of Singaporeans. Is it really true... then why are there so many foreigners performing jobs that can be easily filled by locals?

And in many cases, the foreign talent are not as "talented" as what the government paints them to be. They are simply here at the expense of Singaporeans, taking advantage of the government's lax pro foreigner policies.

As such, the PAP government especially the Ministry of Manpower must be held fully accountable (to what they have said) by investigating and penalizing firms with discriminatory employment practices and hiring/firing policies. Otherwise, we should vote for somebody else who can protect Singaporeans' jobs. Thank you.

The above letter is posted in TRE and CNA forum. I copied from the latter.

Foreign talents needed?

‘A TR Emeritus (TRE) reader posted a comment [Link] on TRE yesterday (19 Mar) highlighting that a Junior College (JC) is looking for English tutors for its international scholars.’

It is normal for a college to hire a good English tutor to teach English or GP. Wait a minute, the adjective English means the subject English and not a native English tutor. There is no requirement to engage a native speaking English tutor to teach the subject when a local Singaporean can do the job equally well. And don’t forget, many Singaporeans are technically native English speakers as English is the language they were borne with and spoken for their whole life in an English speaking environment. The criteria shall be good grades in English, trained or experienced in teaching the subject and not being English. Being English has nothing to do with being able to teach the language well.

The confusion with the term talent and ability has been so misleading, wishy washy that many Singaporeans have been conned and stupidly accept the presence of foreign talents. Allow me to give a simple example to illustrate the silliness of people at the top. If a photographer is assigned to take a picnic or dinner event, what camera shall he use? A point and shoot, a prosumer mid price camera, an entry point DSLR or a high end professional DSLR? If the result is to print 4R or 5R prints, actually any of these cameras with at least a 6 megapixel sensor is more than adequate for the job. Anything more, a DSLR, entry level or professional, is over killed. There is no need for the additional resolution and camera power. Most of the shots are point and shoot scenario. Even some difficult lighting situations would not be a problem with a point and shoot. There is no need for a foreign talent or super talent when a normal talent will be more than adequate to do the job. This does not take into account that many foreign talents fall short of being talent or are really worst off than local talents, or fakes. Many jobs can be done by any Singaporean.

In the case of the English tutor, what does this mean, only a native speaking English native can do or anyone proven to be good with good grades would be better able to do the job? Singapore in practice is an English speaking society and our understanding and command of the language are not inferior to native English speakers. You are looking at the professional level and not the Ah Lians in the shopping centres. If the ad is to engage native English, it is an insult to the abilities of all good English Language teachers here, and an insult to the person putting up the ad as well.

He knows not what he is doing. Still living in the 1950s and 60s. I hope I am wrong and indeed the college is not looking for native English tutors but just good English Language tutors. It could be just the way it is worded.

A national manpower audit is needed in the banking, finance and IT industry

‘Acting Minister for Manpower Tan Chuan-Jin talked about creating fair and inclusive workplaces for Singaporeans… one important aspect is to take a firm stand against discriminatory employment practices against Singaporeans (‘Minister Tan: We’re taking a firm stand against discriminatory employment practices‘)….

He broke down the frustrations of Singaporeans into three categories:

1. ‘hiring-their-own-kind’ practices

2. Undue Haste in the Recruitment Process

3. Lower-cost foreign professionals substituting Singaporean PMEs’

The above is quoted from an article in TRE about Tan Chuan Jin’s reply to Gerald Giam in Parliament. He also mentioned a few meetings he had with employers about the problem and Tharman was also involved. This showed that the matter was taken at very high level. But from what he had said, it appeared that MOM was just starting to scratch the surface of a huge problem that has remained buried for too long and not enough is being done.

What the MOM could do for a start is to do an audit of all the financial institutions on the breakdown of their PME staff and with Singaporean stated clearly as a separate group and not lumped together with PRs. The audit should also be extended to institutions and businesses that hired a lot of IT personnel. This act alone will show the employers that the govt meant business and it is time to clean up their dubious acts against Singaporeans or the Govt will do the cleaning for them.

Perhaps the MOM can make it more transparent by reporting a few companies that have been discriminating against Singaporeans in the workplace in the main media. Let’s give the main media a chance to do a patriotic act for once. I am repeating this word ‘Singaporean’ to be distinct from PRs. In fact it is opportune for the Govt to separate Singaporeans from PRs to give a clearer picture of the shit Singaporeans have been stuffed in their mouth without knowing in all official statistics.

Scratching a few pimples is not enough. The problem is massive and widespread and the Singaporeans demand more positive intervention from the Govt. The May Day protest Rally at Hong Lim must include this as a major issue.

Some people have asked what’s next after the protest Rally? Is it just to be there as a show of force or should the organizers work towards some kind of actions like a petition to the Hsien Loong. Don’t bother about a petition to the President. It is not in his terms of reference to meddle with such issues. He has more important tasks to take care of, like guarding our reserves. The MOM can talk, the protest Rally can talk, but what is urgently needed are concrete steps to stop the rot as it is hurting Singaporeans badly for too long.

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?