Population woes

[zarahsmom]

limlim,


in addition, it is also cheaper for us to manage local talents in many ways

-e.g. we get SDF grant for IT training (as much as 70% claim at the end of year)..
so let us say we need to send 10 staff to training that costs 3,000 sgd/head.. if all 10 staff are locals.. then we only have to pay 1,800 sgd each..
- there are also other government programs that provides grants to companies (SME/non-SMEs) if there are people programs designed for SCs

one such programmes, you can find here:
http://hcs.com.sg/v2/index.php/info/page/prime

now the government designed/developed these programmes for companies to benefit from.. however, as was the case for our company, nobody pays much attention to these programmes.. I was actually the one (a PR, not even an SC), who is driving the adoption of these programmes internally.. my question is.. how come no SC is promoting this internally, when SCs are the one who is getting more benefit out of it.

one of the challenges I face is that we are a global MNC.. these programmes are specific to Singapore only.. though the framework can also benefit the regional team.. most of our senior leaders kinda snub this idea, as they feel its too localised.. I do believe though that if there are enough locals helping me to promote the adoption of these programmes more senior leaders will \"listen\".. however no one wants to participate when it comes to formalising grievances and proposing solutions for it...

why are we whining over lunch time with khakis? and yet get so shy when it comes to voicing out our opinions in the board room?

[pirate]

limlim:

pirate:

(2) Let those SMEs that cannot adapt move out... Which in my view translates to \"I am not willing to make sacrifices. Let the other people (who work in those SMEs) make the sacrifices.\"

that is skewed reasoning.

If FTs are restricted to those real talents that can add value to the company,
either

1) The locals get better pay as he may cover higher responsibility or more duties.

2) The company benefits in the long run as they need to invest in efforts for more efficient running.

Also, you did not address the issue of companies who do not rely on FT but take the opportunity to hired FT at low cost when they can well afford to hired a local. The only reason? profit. Not survival.

And, you talked about companies with 50 locals and 1 FT moving out.. which is BS. More likely, the companies that are affected are those that employ 50FTs and 1 local. Are these companies add any significant value to local economy?

Ok. I omitted to mention

(3) I am not willing to make any sacrifice because nobody has to make any sacrifices.

Yeah, sure.

I know of companies that rely on FWs, but I don't know of many companies that rely on hiring cheap FTs. Which industries would they be in?

[zarahsmom]

pirate and 3boys,


take it easy on limlim guys… probably just venting frustration. i take it as an opportunity to also present my views from the other side (from the FW side)… i just hope that this don’t escalate to using "hateful" remarks (from either side).

[3Boys]

Here is an article for context --> http://www.npr.org/2011/06/09/137081954/union-workers-cry-foul-over-new-s-c-boeing-plant


Not only are countries fighting each other for industry, even states within the US fight each other for corporations. The (more) rigid labour conditions in Washington State drove Boeing to set up a plant in South Carolina. Boeing has strong historical links to Seattle, but if labour gets too tough, off they go. It's that simple.

[limlim]

3Boys:

What you are saying is that damn the companies, just make sure that Singaporeans stay employed, completely forgetting that it is the companies that employ Singaporeans. When they go, so how many Singaporeans lose their high value employment, not just in these companies but in related industries.

Show the statistics before you repeatedly use words like naive and narrow..

How many jobs are created? HOW MANY goes to citizens?

And, you failed to address the point on fraud.

Like I said, there have to be a proper balance.

Now the balance seems to be off. Too fast, too many, too little control, too little checks.

[zarahsmom]

limlim:

3Boys:

What you are saying is that damn the companies, just make sure that Singaporeans stay employed, completely forgetting that it is the companies that employ Singaporeans. When they go, so how many Singaporeans lose their high value employment, not just in these companies but in related industries.

Show the statistics before you repeatedly use words like naive and narrow..

How many jobs are created? HOW MANY goes to citizens?

And, you failed to address the point on fraud.

Like I said, there have to be a proper balance.

Now the balance seems to be off. Too fast, too many, too little control, too little checks.

hi limlim,
am not sure if this is fairly accurate..(at least for our industry and company) for reasons i have cited above.. there are controls and checks.. but not everyone is making effort for the implementation... the horse can be led to water, but cant be forced to drink the water.

[zarahsmom]

3Boys:

Here is an article for context --> http://www.npr.org/2011/06/09/137081954/union-workers-cry-foul-over-new-s-c-boeing-plant


Not only are countries fighting each other for industry, even states within the US fight each other for corporations. The (more) rigid labour conditions in Washington State drove Boeing to set up a plant in South Carolina. Boeing has strong historical links to Seattle, but if labour gets too tough, off they go. It's that simple.

totally agree with this.. in all of the companies I worked for, I have to constantly \"defend\" in my own way the talent pool in Singapore (against talent pools in China and India)... if I can prove that the competencies/skills in Singapore is higher (and thus worth the higher premium).. then we dont have to outsource IT helpdesks/network teams to India/China service providers)..

but everyone seems to be too busy to upskill or attend productivity programmes.. so really.. how to defend Singapore if we are all too focused on racial differences (who is getting more of what?)...

[3Boys]

limlim:

3Boys:

What you are saying is that damn the companies, just make sure that Singaporeans stay employed, completely forgetting that it is the companies that employ Singaporeans. When they go, so how many Singaporeans lose their high value employment, not just in these companies but in related industries.

Show the statistics before you repeatedly use words like naive and narrow..

How many jobs are created? HOW MANY goes to citizens?

And, you failed to address the point on fraud.

Like I said, there have to be a proper balance.

Now the balance seems to be off. Too much, too many.

Fraud of course needs to be dealt with. If you have a slam dunk case that MOM does not prosecute, then go to the press, or TRE or TOC by all means to publicise.

The number of Singaporean employees is not the only measure of a company's value. I know to your mind that is the only criteria, but you have ignored everything else I have posted.

I don't have to post statistics, I do not know how many Singaporeans are employed but such companies. To me, that is not the main criteria of a company's value. The fact is connectivity and cross talk is vital in complex industries. Singapore wants to set up an aerospace industry, it brings in big players like Rolls-Royce, Bell Helicopters. How many Singaporeans know or are trained to design and build jet engines or rotor blades? In the initial set up, and possibly for a while after, will not most of the top and mid-level techs and engineers be from overseas? By your criteria, these companies do not add value to our economy and should be slapped with restrictive hiring laws?

Then to support those large principal companies, I know of a small coatings company that was set up to produce sophisticated coatings for turbine blades that allow them to run at high temperatures. A small set up with less than 10 employees, mostly from overseas to begin with. You will say this company adds no value? If we chase them away, will RR and Bell not say, \"Hmmm, too tough for me to do business, no support system.\" Then what?

In your view, a high value industry like aerospace has no value to Singapore because the don't have a majority of Singaporeans hired?

I know what you will say, they are here because of other factors, they will stay even if we force a restrictive hiring practice on them. Show me that there is any merit in your proposal. You want to gamble on them up and leaving, tell them good riddance?

[3Boys]

zarahsmom:

3Boys:

Here is an article for context --> http://www.npr.org/2011/06/09/137081954/union-workers-cry-foul-over-new-s-c-boeing-plant


Not only are countries fighting each other for industry, even states within the US fight each other for corporations. The (more) rigid labour conditions in Washington State drove Boeing to set up a plant in South Carolina. Boeing has strong historical links to Seattle, but if labour gets too tough, off they go. It's that simple.

totally agree with this.. in all of the companies I worked for, I have to constantly \"defend\" in my own way the talent pool in Singapore (against talent pools in China and India)... if I can prove that the competencies/skills in Singapore is higher (and thus worth the higher premium).. then we dont have to outsource IT helpdesks/network teams to India/China service providers)..

but everyone seems to be too busy to upskill or attend productivity programmes.. so really.. how to defend Singapore if we are all too focused on racial differences (who is getting more of what?)...

Exactly, I am constantly fighting a rear-guard to defend our business in Singapore to the head-honchos in corporate, and we can only do our business drawing on a mix of Singaporean core partnered with top foreign talent to keep it going.

But people seem very blase about that. Put up the barriers they say, and those that live, live, those that die, die.

As if we can be so choosy, and to what purpose? They really feel it would result in a better outcome for the Singaporean PMET?

[lim72]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19906139


Quote: \"I could get an engineering graduate from top universities in China for a quarter, or a third of the pay that I would pay for a Singaporean.\" \"And he would be willing to work six day a week 10hours a day, how do you fight with that?\"