Violating the sanctity and security of the heartland

The govt encourages the people to sub let their HDB flats to earn extra income. Many have taken advantage of this new avenue to ease their financial burden and obligation, and that is good. One or two rooms can be sublet out and the retirees can live on this new source of income to live through their retirement years.

When one gets into detail, this sub letting policy could become a bane to the average Singaporean families. Our rapid progress and changes in our lifestyle have altered the characteristics of our society. We have new small nuclear families. The three generation or two generation families are no longer the norm. Singaporean families are either very young, the newly wed, or small new nuclear families of one or two kids, and the solitary or two retiree families. The number of people occupying a flat is relatively small, mostly 2 to 4 persons per unit regardless of flat size.

How would the subletting policy affect the life of the average HDB dwellers? Subletting of one or two rooms would normally add a couple of people into an unit of flat, unlikely to be more than 4. A small presence of a few strangers living in a floor of HDB flats would be quite comfortable for everyone. The problem comes when 6 or 8 or more move into a flat. Some owners are subletting their whole flat to foreign tenants, and depending on flat size, it is quite normal now to have more than 6 tenants in a HDB rental flats. Quite often it could be more than 10 as the tenants find it economical to share the cost of rentals. The more the merrier.

The modest HDB flats are homes to the Singaporeans. They returned after a hectic day at work to seek comfort, security and solace within their four walls. The sense of home, security, familiarity, belonging and a safe sanctuary have been taken for granted as part and parcel of HDB dwellers’ life.

How would a floor of 6 or 8 units of flats, occupied by retirees or young families feel when 6 to 10 burly foreign men moved in? How would the parents feel when they are all out at work and leaving only a few retirees and young children at home, with 6 to 8 foreigners living next door when they have no clue of who they are and what are their characters?  And what if the foreigners would make the common corridor as an extension of their flats since there are so many of them, and the young and old, and the women folks would now have to walk pass these foreign men, under the stare of their wandering glare?

There are personal safety concerns for the retirees, the women and the young children. There are also security concerns of their homes when the adults are out at work, often leaving behind empty flats, and the foreigners would know who would be at home and who would not be at home. Very likely 99% of the foreigners are decent and honest people and there is nothing to worry about. The problem comes with the 1%.

Have the HDB and the govt, the police, think through this social, safety and security problems of the Singaporean HDB dwellers when a big number of foreigners moved in to live side by side with them? It is no joke for the feeble retirees, young children and women to be straddling pass big burly foreigners in the sanctuary of their HDB homes daily. It is no joke for the parents with young children alone at homes and knowing the presence of many foreigners next door when the parents are not at home.

This violation of the HDB sanctuary, the homes of the average Singaporeans by the presence of big numbers of foreign men, construction workers or manual workers, is unacceptable and unwelcome for the well being of the HDB dwellers. When they are small in numbers, things are manageable. When the number is big, especially a large number of men in a unit, and with the neighbouring units often empty or left with young children, young daughters and wives and retirees, it is not only undesirable, but poses serious safety and security risks.

The Govt and the HDB must review this policy of having too many foreigners, especially men, in a unit of HDB flats. The sanctuary of the HDB as homes for the average Singaporeans must be protected and not violated by this subletting policy. There must be more control and restrictions on the number of foreigners allowed to live in a flat in the midst of Singaporean families, in the heartland.

Singaporeans must feel safe and at ease with their homes, their dependents at home, when they are out at work, and also to feel safe at home, in peace and without having to worry about so many foreigners next door and what if they have bad intentions.

This is not a terrorist issue but a very basic right of the people, to live and feel free and safe in the heartland.

China’s inexplicable policies in the South China Sea

China’s claim in the South China Sea using the 9 dashed lines is a natural progression from its strengthening economic and military power. After being cut into pieces like a water melon, with its land and islands seized by foreign powers, China is reasserting itself to regain control of what it had lost during the years of foreign invasion of China.

China is reclaiming and rebuilding the islands in the South China Sea and turning them into habitable islands with facilities for commerce and human industry.  Its fishing boats and coast guards are in the waters in the South China Sea. And it is being accused of being an assertive and aggressive power when its fishing boats are being arrested and towed away by little countries making counter claims to the islands in the South China Sea. Who are the aggressive and assertive countries? Who are the countries that are arresting fishing boats from other countries and blowing them up?

What is inexplicable is that China, being a super power, could easily chase away all the small little patrol boats of the Asean countries that are threatening the Chinese fishing boats, arresting them if needed to, including arresting the patrol boats,  instead of allowing Chinese fishing boats to be detained and blown into piece  and Chinese fishermen arrested.

Does China believe in the 9 dashed lines and that its fishing boats are fishing in Chinese waters? If so, then China must enforce and protect their safety from foreign patrol boats. By not doing so, China is indirectly saying that the Chinese fishing boats are fishing in other country’s waters and therefore illegal and rightly detained by other countries. If they are in Chinese waters and they could be arrested and Chinese coast guards could not do anything about it, it is a sign of weakness, unable to protect its own fishing boats and fishermen.

China has two options, enforces its claim over the islands if it really believes they belong to China and protect its fishing boats and fishermen. If it does not believe so, or believes that the waters are disputed seas, then it should keep its fishing boats out of the disputed areas. This is only the right and respectable thing to do. Allowing its fishing boats to fish in disputed water is debatable. Unable to protect its fishing fleet makes China look hopeless and weak as a super power. In both instances China is looking very bad to the world.

What does China really believes? It is either right or wrong, the claimed South China Sea region is either Chinese territories or it is not.  If yes, make sure the competing claimants know and to protect their fishing boats. If not, do not cause trouble by allowing its fishing boats into the area and to be arrested and blown apart.

What are the Chinese leaders thinking? China must not be wishy washy and invite trouble and ill repute to itself without a clear position and a clear policy to deal with the other Asean states or to allow its fishing boats to be harassed and arrested like illegal fishing boats committing a crime in other country’s territorial waters. China must not only act tough but also be clear and must respect other country’s territorial waters if it wants others to respect its territorial waters.

Anyone, China or Asean states making claims in the South China Sea would have to safeguard their claims legally and by force if necessary. The Vietnamese, Indonesians, the Malaysians and the Philippines are doing so, sending out their naval vessels to enforce their claims. China too must do so if it is serious in its claims and arrest vessels in the disputed areas when others are also doing the same.  Failure to do so is not only a sign of weakness but weakening its claims by default, an act or acknowledgement that the disputed area does not belong to China.

Pope Francis’ weapons of love to fight terror

I am not sure how real is this call by Pope Francis in dealing with terror after the Brussels bombing.  First thing, what are the weapons of love in the Pope’s arsenal? Would he be sending his followers to go around with an olive branch to the terrorists and hug them and kiss them, and showering them with love?

The first problem I think his followers will face is to find the terrorists. Who are the terrorists that he can show love to? Not everyone is a terrorist. Would his followers be hugging everyone they met, everyone from the refugee camps or the ghettos in Brussels and all over Europe? Or will they flock to the Middle East in a crusade of love?  Would the Pope lead by example, when the faith is strong as a mustard seed? How to execute this plan of love?

Humans have had some success in offering love to wild beasts. But there is one condition, that is, the beasts must be caged first. And after they have responded positively to love, they must still be caged or put on a leash.

What is the moral of the story? Trust the beasts or trust God? Should the beasts be set free after receiving all the love? The Americans did the right thing in Guantanamo, lock them up first. But the Americans did wrong by not giving them love. If the Americans had learnt from the Pope by using the weapons of love, the result could be different. The Pope spoke too late.

Donald Trump will remind the Pope of the vicious snake story,  that the snake bit the old woman who carried it home to nurse. When asked angrily, why, by the old woman, the snake replied that she should know better. A snake is a snake, and will bite.

Amen.

Home coming for the Barisan Socialis

Uh, not exactly. But in a way, we are seeing the return of the Barisan Socialis, or at least the next generation of the descendants of the Barisan Socialis politicians making a come back to Singapore politics. We have seen the Puthucheery, the Ong Ye Kung and now the Murali. And I think there were another few that came in earlier if my memory is clear.

This is a very unique phenomenon in Singapore where the first generation of politicians, the fathers, were fighting for life and death in the poltical arena. We know who won and who were sent to jail. Today we are seeing the children of the jailbirds being courted by the PAP and invited to join the PAP, and to contest in GEs, to be MPs and even minister, akan datang.

What is the story? Hsien Loong making amends, for the bad blood of the early generation of politicians? When papa was a politician, Barisan Socialis or PAP, the children would be good politicians too, a new political breed, to extend the political life of the PAP?

When they started, they slept in the same bed. Then they broke up and threw punches at each other. Today they are making up. How would the story end? The scions of the Barisan Socialis are joining the ranks of the PAP. So they said, no permanent enemies. Political necessity would decide who should sleep with who.

The enemies are in bed and safe. The latest development following the one year anniversary of LKY commemoration is showing up the cracks among friends, or those supposedly to be on the same side. Wei Ling is having a bout with Janadas with gloves off. It is Round One and everyone is waiting for Round Two and Three. Yes no permanent enemies and no permanent friends as well. The schism within the ruling party and the establishment are starting to show.

With the big tree fallen, would the monkeys start to scatter?

Don't Layoff in Singapore, Choose De-Employment.

by MIKOspace/Michael Heng

A New Talent Solution as the Recession Looms

Few companies will miss the obvious signs of impending business doom. Declining orders, falling sales, narrowing profit margins, increasing relative costs, inventory build-up, fewer competitors, fewer customers and increasing difficulties in accounts receivables.

    

Layoffs in Singapore reached a 5-year high with weakening job vacancies since the 2009 global recession triggered then by the banking and currency crisis.  Nearly 16,000 lost their jobs in 2015; mostly middle-aged executives with degrees and higher-skilled workers.  Most of them also did not find a job within 6 months from their layoff.

A careful analysis revealed that about 71% of the layoffs were skilled and experienced professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs), ages from 40-49 years old, up from 66% in 2014, even though PMETs made up only 54% in the workforce.  Also, an increasing number (44%) of the higher educated – degree-holders – lost their jobs when compared to just 41% in 2014.

Embracing De-Employment as the New Normal

Given the demo-psychographics of the talents most susceptible and vulnerable to layoffs, de-employment becomes an innovative, empowering and integrative human resource management (HRM) solution best suited to manage talents long before their layoffs are deemed necessary. 

The steady 2015 unemployment rate in Singapore last year at 2.9% for Singaporeans, and 2.8% (2.4% in 2014) when included Permanent Residents (PR) belie the looming onslaught of layoffs expected in 2016 given the weakening global economic conditions and persistent low oil prices. 

A company facing high risks of layoffs to happen sometime in the next 6-9 months can manage the risks by adopting a strategy of de-employment. Embarking on the de-employment journey, the company prepares its employees as it enters into a joint-employment relationship with a “Surrogate Employer”. 

A Surrogate Employer (SE) reinforces the corporate culture concurrently as the company engages the competitive forces that are affecting the business.  On the one hand, the SE empowers the company’s recovery strategy by focusing on its core competencies to restore and grow their bottom line whilst pursuing vigorous costs reduction. On the other, the SE augments the company’s talent management team by assuming responsibilities for the strategic re-configuration of its talent pool leading to whatever necessary re-calibration and re-sizing in order to service the increasingly difficult marketplace more successfully.      

The goal of de-employment is business recovery with a particular emphasis on key talent retention, redevelopment and excess talent deployment. Strategy and talent management are the twin challenge of the de-employment strategy.  Strategy focuses largely on the external competitive space, and talent management in de-employment involves radical and fundamental internal organizational re-structuring. 

Organisational re-structuring aims at reducing layers and widening job scope through job re-design, job merging, job sharing and jobs elimination. This deploys a lean thinking approach to eliminate wasteful cost drivers and, more importantly, the retooling of talent through re-skilling, redevelopment and redeployment for and in anticipation of business recovery.

Important HR tools like shorter work week, wage/benefit cuts, working online/off-office, mandated vacation and outsourcing workers to other companies can be attempted, but recognize that these are merely short-term measures that merely postpone the inevitable.        

What is crucial in a de-employment strategy is to assure continual smooth business operations without the often disruptive effects and morale-depressing sentiments from layoff exercises.  This means the transfer of the entire (or most of the) workforce – including a large number of prospective redundant and excess workers – to the SE, who is now tasked with the mission to assure continuous income flows, not necessarily at their previous levels, to those workers who are not needed by the company either on a full-time or part-time basis.  This way, the company can reduce its labour-related costs immediately paying only for talents that it actually needs. The other redundant and excess talents are engaged by the SE to work in other companies.        

The de-employment strategy promotes income assurance in the participating workers, instead of job security.  Layoffs would be a thing of the past.  They will be continually engaged rather than occasionally employed.  Their works are assignments as they perform them not always at physical workplaces but at designated service-hubs or centres, which may be virtual or through social media cyberspace or on the internet. They are not controlled through adherence to some fixed reporting times but managed through agreed performance milestones or indicators.  They also commit to at least 100 hours of continuous learning and development per year, so as to be empowered and eventually become truly independent to pursue their desired career experiences.

Companies participating in de-employment no longer worry about layoffs as bad times loomed. They retain their relevant key talent on a full-time or part-time basis as mutually agreed with the SE.  Talents with flexible skills are able to work at more than 2 service-hubs or centres to multiply their income streams.  And they can work at their own pace and place without infringing the legal restrictions on working hours or working during holidays and rest days.   

The SE is essentially a community of talents who are well educated, skillful and experienced (like PMETs, for example).  Their SE provides such portable benefits as CPF, medical, dental, vacation leave and various other welfare benefits usually enjoyed by regular employed workers. They can seize available opportunities for multiple enhanced income streams from assignments to various SE clients.  Their skill-sets are continuously revised, upgraded and re-calibrated to ready them for future jobs which are yet unknown.   

The crucial difference between de-employment and HR out-sourcing is that the SE is contractually part of the company, instead of its outsourced labour contractor. The SE and the company have joint coaching and mentoring responsibilities for their talents. Their relationship entails regular feedback and communications with each other and with their talents. In this manner, de-employment assures the sustainable relevance of talents to the companies. They are also co-decision makers with regard to talent engagement, deployment and redistribution. Talents can be converted from de-employment status to direct employment status in accordance with agreed conditions. 

De-employment is the best alternative to layoffs by maximizing returns on human capital and talent.  Workers should not simply be discarded in layoffs as some useless garbage in a business downturn. For sure, surviving soldiers are not killed when battles are lost. Instead, they are systematically collected, re-organised, retrained, re-equipped and re-motivated to await mobilization for the next battle that would hopefully bring forth eventual victories and success.  

Corporate sustainability and business success depend on the strategic leverage of the human talent. Leaders know that the human talent is the highest and most decisive form of technology that makes the key difference in successful strategy.