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?

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?