60% PMETs lacked relevant skills

‘In a statement yesterday (2 Apr), NTUC said that 60% of PMETs face difficulties in their jobs mainly due to a lack of relevant skills.
This is according to a survey NTUC conducted with 894 PMETs last year.
“We found that many face challenges pertaining to their current skill sets and knowledge,” said Mr Patrick Tay, assistant secretary-general and director of NTUC’s PME Unit.
The top 3 difficulties in their job, cited by PMETs in the survey, are:

1. IT challenges
2. Lack of relevant training or industry specific skill-set
3. Need to constantly upgrade their skills due to changes in regulations or market conditions’

The above report in TRE also quoted a 23 year old fresh graduate who was unable to get a job as well. ‘She said, “I know I have the certificate. I just finished my education, so I thought I should be okay, I should be getting a job. I did not know what was going on, I did not know what was wrong. So I decided that I needed to find somebody who can actually help me out and tell me where I was going wrong.”’

And what happened, she sought help and what did they do to help her get a permanent job? They helped to polish her resume and interview skills and that was it. What have these got to do with her skills set? And why is it that 60% of PMETs who were good enough to be employed as PMETs but got sacked and then no longer have the relevant skills. And all the jokers and fakes and dunno what from God knows where have the skills sets to be employed here, have the skills sets that our PMETs did not have?

You believe in that? You believe in the 3 reasons given above? You believe that the PMETs could only become taxi drivers and security guards and people from the 3^rd World are better trained than them, from the little villages or streets of 3^rd World countries? Excuse me, what does PMET meant? It means Professionals, Managers, Executives and Technicians! No skills set?

How did they become PMETs if they have no relevant skills set? The whole world, including 3^rd World countries knew what kind of skills sets needed to work in Singapore and could produce them to meet our needs but our world class education system could not produce people with the skills set needed by our employers!

How many of you believe in this kind of nonsense?

AIIB – Breaking the American stranglehold

The vice grip on the world’s economic system by the Americans has finally been breached with the birth of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank initiated by China. Despite all the threats, arm twisting and hogwash splashed all over by the Americans about transparency, fairness, accountability, environmental issues, the rest of the world broke free from the barriers erected by the Americans, like the fall of the Berlin Wall, to rush to join the AIIB as its founding members.

Britain took the lead by ignoring its former colony’s demand, the once Number One colonial power would not be bullied by the dictates of it’s ex colony. Its own national interest is paramount and no way would it be kept from being a founding member of AIIB. The run for freedom from the clutches of the Americans was quickly followed by more Europe countries and the semi colonies of America in the East. South Korea and Australia found a good excuse to join as well, leaving only the semi colony of Japan to hang on to the American bandwagon for its own fear of losing its grip on the Asian economies.

The fear mongering of the Americans and Japanese were simply fear mongering without an ounce of truth. The countries joining the AIIB are not colonies of China, led by a gun pointing at their heads, to join or be shot. They were not like the slaves of Africa being hunted and sold to slavery in the USA or like the Red Indians being led to a massacre. China would not be able to lead the AIIB if it does not play fair and accept the views and interests of all the founding members. This is the 21^st Century! The founding members have equal rights and votes to out vote China or, failing which, the AIIB will become a stillborn.

AIIB will set a new World Order on a more equitable basis where every country will have equal rights according to a set of rules and regulations decided by them, without a gun pointing at them. It would gradually and eventually replaced the flawed and unfair systems of the IMF, World Bank and ADB that were structured and designed to perpetuate American and Japanese dominance and control. The world will be a better place for small nations, and a more level playing field for all.

It is good that the Americans and the Japanese stayed out of the AIIB and allow the new organization and its members to decide the rules of the game without being spoilers and trying to lay imaginary obstacles to cripple the organization. The AIIB will set the new standard for an international organization respecting the rights of all its members fairly and equally.

Pax Americana is waning. Welcome to a new dawn to a New World Order. With 47 countries, including all the major western powers except the USA and Japan, it is a force to be reckoned with. The AIIB is an experiment. If successful, there will be two more AIIBs, one for Africa and another for Latin America, the African Infrastructure Investment Bank and the American Infrastructure Investment Bank.

Officialdom and fortune making升官发财

My learned friend reminded me of this old adage, 升官发财. This is a tradition in old dynastic China where the ambition of scholars, except the daft and idealistic ones, was to get an imperial appointment and get promoted or 升官. With promotion came the opportunity to become wealthy, ie 发财.

When the ambition of升官发财 was fulfilled, the scholar would have power and wealth, ie got 官 and also got 财, or got官财.  The two words, 官财 put together, read together, have another meaning, ie coffin.

This can be interpreted as the ability to buy and be buried in a coffin, a rare privilege of the rich and powerful. In another view, it is the end for the corrupt and powerful, they will meet their 官财 sooner, a matter of time. There is another saying, 不见官财不流泪, meaning many evil doers would not weep until they have seen their官财 or coffin, or after they have become officials and made their fortune, presumably from improper ways.

Chinese words are very meaningful in the ways they are written and combined in usage. A lot of wisdom from the ancient sages.

Update on mysingaporenews book

To date I am still short of a few hundred dollars to get the book printed.
I am renegotiating with the printers to print lesser copies at a lower
cost. Very likely I may have to cough up the balance to get it done.

I am quite confident that it can be done. Hopefully there will still be a
trickle of donations coming in to make up for the shortfalls.

Thanks everyone.

Redbean

Is the out of this world minister salary worth preserving?

One of the most controversial policies of LKY must be the high minister salary that he introduced as a compelling must do thing in his time. He made such a ‘convincing’ case for it that there was hardly anyone opposing to it. The country needs the best men and women in political leadership. The country is so big, the job is so big, the salary must be so big also or else no good men or women who need big money to satisfy their ego would want to serve the country. Of course these were his assumptions. His other unstated assumption is that good men and women would step forward to serve when the money is there.
 
As usual he used Richard Hu from Shell as an example to push his case. He assumed that everyone was as highly paid as Richard Hu when they stepped forward. The policy has been in force for two decades. Let’s take a look at LKY’s assumptions for this policy and whether it lives up to his expectation and effectiveness.
 
Look at all the ministers and MPs and ask yourself a simple question. Are they the top talents in the island and deserving of what they are being paid, in the millions? If yes, good, the policy has served its designed purpose in getting the best men and women to be in politics. If no, why? Are the best men and women stepping forward or backward from politics despite the big draw in monetary terms? If not, why? Maybe the carrot is not big enough. Maybe politics is just not their cup of tea even if the carrot is blown up another 10 times its size. Maybe, this is important, good men and women do not think money should be the reason to be in politics.
 
Again, if the policy is serving its purpose, keep it. If the policy is not getting the best men and women into politics, it is like saying we are overpaying the lesser than the best men and women by the millions to go into politics while the best men and women remained out of politics. Which is which? I am not even dealing with the situation when the best professional in whatever fields, earning millions, turned into a political dud but still being paid millions for becoming a misfit in a profession they were not trained for or neither have they the heart and instinct to do a good job.
 
If it is not working, not attracting the best men and women into politics, should good money, millions, continue to be paid to the ‘not the best men and women’ in politics? Should this policy or legacy be reviewed?
 
Are we getting value for money? What do you think? I heard some giggling.