Chuan Jin’s Singapore core in employment flawed

Chuan Jin said a lot in Parliament about building a Singaporean core and giving Singaporeans a fair chance in employment. Unfortunately he is still stuck with the group think and a position that appeared good in theory but seriously flawed in practice. Let me quote him, “it is about making sure that the playing field is level and maintaining meritocracy as a cornerstone of our society. This will send a clear signal that the government expects firms to recruit and develop their staff on merit, and not on the basis of nationality and social ties.”
 
Talking about meritocracy in a vacuum is a very unenlightened position to take. Chuan Jin’s emphasis in ensuring a level playing field and meritocracy is seriously flawed. Can anyone see what I am seeing and why I said it is flawed?
 
In the first place Singapore is a sovereign state with first responsibility to ensure that its citizens come first when employment opportunities are concerned. The Govt owes it to the citizens to be gainfully employed and not to foreigners. Our citizens need a job to survive, to live and to pay for all the high costs of living. There could be some compromises when foreign companies set up business here but they should not dictate their wants. After weighing all the factors, employing Singaporeans first must still be advantages to them than to bring in their ‘special and irreplaceable’ talents that no Singaporeans can do better. I don’t believe there are many such creatures around. I think Chuan Jin should not accept such shitty excuses unless it is very specialized and technical skills are involved and not a matter of know who or a matter of preference.
 
A corollary to the sovereign state is that ensuring a level playing field for citizens and non citizens is not acceptable. Ensuring a level playing field is for citizens competing with citizens, likewise in meritocracy. Why should our citizens be competing on a level playing against foreigners in our own country when citizens not only must have privileges but also responsibilities that are abnormal than in many countries? Our citizens should demand a playing field that is in their favour and no need to apologise for it. The citizens deserve to be treated with special favours and advantages for being citizens.
 
Meritocracy cannot be practiced blindly and not be seen as stupidity. Only a fool will practice meritocracy with the world’s talents to choose from against the limited number of talents in his own country. If meritocracy is practiced to the hilt as the cornerstone of our society and talents from around the world can replace the citizens on merits, we can replace everyone in the country including the whole cabinet and the President. With 7b people to choose from, at least 100m will be better and more meritocratic than every Singaporeans in every job and should replace every one of them. Tio boh? Off the cuff, there must be at least 10m people who are more talented than the whole cabinet or parliament. Should they come and replace them all?
 
One more point, not every job requires top talents or the best of talents. Not every job requires straight As or first class honours or a Ph D. Many jobs can be done by a decent and good employee who is competent enough to do what is required. Many HR practitioners will tell you that not the best candidate or the best qualified is given the job. In many instances, the second or third best would be deemed good enough and a better fit.
 
As an example, a good HR practitioner with a first degree would be equally as competent as another with a first class honours or Ph D in a SME. The higher or better qualifications are redundant or extravagant for the job, and may be more costly in the long term. So it is not necessary that the more meritocratic should deserve to replace the less meritocratic. Only a certain level of skills, knowledge and competency are needed. You don’t replace a Singaporean with a foreigner because he is more qualified or over qualified. Meritocracy in this sense is misplaced and obtused.
Maybe I shall put it even more simply. When a good Taiwan made bike that cost $700 can do the job, why should one buy a European made bike that cost $2000 that may be a little better and more prestigious? In choosing the latter it is indulgence, extravagance and absolutely unnecessary, definitely nothing to do with meritocracy or getting the best.
 
Do not blindly practise meritocracy with no consideration to citizenship. Do not insist on a level playing field for citizens to compete with non citizens in our country. The citizens did not vote you to compete on a level playing field with foreigners. Remember what you promised to do for the voters? Do not utter carelessly about level playing field and meritocracy without thinking.
 
This is our country and the citizens deserve better and first priority in employment. If the govt cannot think through this, cannot see through this, what can I say? What kind of govt are we having, serving the interests of citizens or foreigners? To hell with a level playing field! To hell with meritocracy! This is a country and there is a citizenry to consider and to take care of.
 
The Govt must send a clear signal to employers, both Govt, local and foreign, that employing Singaporean is top priority and must not be conveniently compromised by lame excuses.
 
PS. A jobless citizen still needs to pay for a roof over his head, household expenses, children expenses, conservancy bills, cost of living expenses, medical bills, and many other social and financial obligations. He can't get by without a job.

Making health care more affordable

Another crap exercise is going on. So far the solutions thrown out are as good as what the pimps and prostitutes can offer. In fact the pimps and prostitutes may offer crap solutions, but they came with some pleasure added to soften the impact. So, let’s listen to the rubbish that is being spewed around. Make the young pay more or pay upfront so that when they are old they need to pay lesser or not at all. Soon they will say let’s pay forward from the moment a child is born to make it affordable.
 
Is this a real solution, serious solution, to making health care more affordable? Why are they not thinking about reducing the exorbitant charges and fees? The solutions did not bother about the overcharging and the ever increasing charges that could be slammed at the helpless patients. The sick got in not knowing how much to pay and the bill will come after, at the discretion and mercy of the medical professionals. And the patients just have to pay up. Is there any difference from allowing someone to fill up a blank cheque?
 
This kind of solution is exactly a carbon copy of the HDB solution. If 15 year repayment is not affordable, stretch it to 30 years. If this is still not affordable, stretch it to 45 years. And if still not affordable, get both spouses to pay, and get the father, mother and children to pay also can. Sure affordable.
 
See, the pimps and prostitutes cannot do worse with this kind of brilliant solutions.

The overflowing tea cup

The call for allowing more foreigners into this island has not subsided, instead in some corners the voice is getting louder. We must aspire to be a global and cosmopolitan city, with the best of the rest of the world coming here to give it the buzz. Sounds pretty exciting and positive huh, a vibrant and rich city with a rich blend of culture and lifestyle from people all over. In big countries, the rich city is like a centre or heart of the country, a nucleus of sort. In our case, we will be a global city and also a global country, as the country is in the city or the city the country.

Now what is left of the country for the people? Where is the place for the citizens, or what is in it for the people when the city/country becomes homes to foreigners?

Many of these advocates for a cosmopolitan city of foreigners are just talking through their asses. There must be an optimum or desirable percentage of foreigners to keep a city vibrant without the citizens losing their place or right of existence. The percentage of foreigners could vary for cities in big countries to those in small countries and to those where the city is the country itself. A city like New York or London could have a bigger proportion of foreigners and still would not lose its perspective and place as a part of the USA or UK. A city in a small country with a relatively smaller population would be hard pushed to have a big foreign population without undermining the interests and character of the country. A city like Singapore, which in all sense a city country, would be under great pressure to have 50% or 60% of its population made up of foreigners. Pushing this limit to 70% or more is critical and could put the citizen’s interest in jeopardy. Where are we now? State secret?

What is the desirable or optimal percentage of foreigners should this city state allow in to be comfortable socially, politically and with no compromise to our sense of security? Have we already long exceeded our comfort zone and should be culling the foreigners now instead of foolishly and unthinkingly asking for more foreigners to be let in? Though there are some quarters internally that are rooting for more foreigners, the call for the incessant influx of foreigners is mostly from foreigners themselves. They have no vested interests as citizens of the city state and what is good to them is not necessary good for the citizens and worse, often bad, very bad for the citizens.

When the tea cup is full, it is silly to keep filling it up. We are already overpopulated for our own comfort except for the views of people who think it is good and desirable to live like mice in a small enclosed space. We have also exceeded the safe or comfort zone in the percentage of foreigners vis a vis our citizens. We are already a minority in our own country. Is that not scary? The citizens must have the final say on this.

In whose benefits are the calls for more foreigners into our city home? Is it for the general good of citizens, for the good of a small group of citizens, or for the good of foreigners? The people, non citizens, or citizens who treat this city state as a hotel, will be all for more foreigners. They have no stake or interest in the well being of the citizens except for themselves and their short sighted immediate comfort and good. The citizens’ interests can be sacrificed or ignored.

Please, the tea cup is overflowing. Unless we have a bigger cup, a swimming pool, talk some sense and spare a thought for the citizens that are being squeezed out of their island city state. Foreigners should stop prescribing what they think is good for Singaporeans. We know what is good or bad for us.

Rumour of early snap election

There are some noises that an early poll could be called judging from the visits by ministers to residents. I can’t confirm this but are there reasons for an early premature poll? It is something that would be frown upon as a waste of money and time of the people when the last GE was slightly more than two years back. The calling for a snap poll must need a very good reason to do so. And looking at the sentiments today and the revelations of so many flaws in the system, it cannot be a good time for the PAP right now. Unless my perception is wrong and the PAP thinks that the ground is sweet again. Who knows?
 
There could be a few reasons for the PAP to want to call an early election. LKY is looking more like a physical burden to himself and to his constituency, and it is best to remove the obvious and put in a younger MP to do what an MP is supposed to do. It is also a good time for him to take a really good rest, to reminisce and romanticise his youth, and to bask under the glory before it is gone.
 
It would also be an opportune time to retire all the oldies in the team and bring in a few more eager beavers as several of the dropped ministers are just waiting to be released to the private sector to make their millions. It is agonizing to see them sitting at the back rows in Parliament and trying to bear with the new faces and their out of depth speeches. It is time to set free the tortoises, turtles and birds for them to lead their lives anew, like an act of acquiring merits in Buddhism.
 
Then there are some that are seen more like burdens to the team than assets and it is best to release them as well before they do more harm and damages.
 
But these are still not good enough reasons to risk an early poll. In a time like this when there are obvious anger and unhappiness over so many outstanding issues, unless something can be done to take away the sting, to make the people happy again with a battery of populist policies or handouts, no way will there be an early poll.
 
Ya, maybe this will be the key for a surprise poll. Christmas may come early, snow in June, and Hsien Loong could act as the lovable Santa Claus with bags of goodies for everyone, to lift away the dark clouds and brighten up the sky. Without a slew of positive policies that are people centric, that would benefit the people substantially and not just feeling good for the moment, a snap poll is definitely out of question.
 
Now let’s watch what Hsien Loong is going to say and do in his National Day Rally for a clue to substantiate this rumour. Please don’t accuse me of spreading this rumour. It is something that I heard on the ground. And it is something to think about and talk about.

How to keep the public service corruption free?

Actually there are a hundred and one things to do to keep corruption in govt services in check. We have the world’s most effective corruption prevention formula that may seemingly be legalising corruption by paying out front so that there is no more temptation to want to take more to risk losing everything. This formula would have removed a large chunk of those that may be tempted to corrupt, leaving only a smaller number of potential rogues in the system.

Next, our civil service was not born yesterday. It has been in operation for more than 48 years, even in colonial times, with well tested systems in place. And these systems and procedures have been constantly refined and improved to tighten up the loose ends over the years. By now, anything that can be tightened or enhanced to prevent corruption must have been worked into the system with tomes of manuals on operating procedures. It is unlikely that a mosquito could fly through the layers of mazes set up by the ministries to keep the mosquito out of the system. We have a very robust system of checks and controls. Believe me it is true.

To add to the checks and control there is the annual audit team to comb through the activities to make sure that all is in order. And the latest audit did reveal quite a number of lapses. And this is good as any discovery will mean that things can be captured and rectified.

And there is the fear CPIB to cast its shadow over anyone thinking crooked. This could be the last barrier to keep corruption out. If this fails, that nothing can hold anymore.

Chee Hean has replied to Low Thia Khiang’s queries on the recent spate of corruption involving senior govt officials, the reason for failure is never about the system but about the slack in maintaining and upholding the system. There seems to be an inability to follow standard and approved procedures or deliberately violated to abet corruption, or simply negligent on the part of the officers or their superiors. The flaws seemed to be the ease in circumventing a robust and tight systems of checks and controls. Why?

The causes of all the corruption cases are nothing sophisticated and bizarre that cannot be prevented. What could be the main contributor to the rise in corruption is lack of accountability. No heads will roll or at most a slap on the wrist would be considered the gravest punishment. How then could discipline and abiding to proper procedures be enforced when there is no fear factor? How would anyone not be tempted to take risk when the consequences are as good as no consequences?

A simple recommendation to ensure compliance to procedures is to make the officer directly accountable for his action. There can be flexibility for the officers on the ground to make exceptions but the officer must be directly responsible for his actions and be punished duly for not observing approved procedures or approving to override standard procedures. He decides and if things fall apart, his head rolls. Who ever authorises such actions, and if it leads to abuses or corruption in the system or process, shall be punished accordingly. And the minimum punishment could be demotion or if worse, dismissal and facing prosecution. When officers know that they will have to own up for their decisions, they will take more care to protect themselves and in the things they decide or approve.

The heads of dept, division or ministries must be the one ultimately responsible for the infringements and corruption appropriate to the authority he is bestowed with. When accountability and responsibility are well defined, the officers responsible would have to be very careful of their own actions and discretions. Without the will to punish anyone appropriately for corruption, it is only an open invitation for the officers to corrupt.

No matter how robust and well designed the checks and control systems are, without the will to enforce and take violators to task, it is as good as a system full of holes.