Showing posts with label Immigrants. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Immigrants. Show all posts
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Speaker's Corner - Singaporeans vs Foreigners
ALEX TAN'S TALK IS TODAY, AT 5 PM, AT SPEAKERS CORNER
Hi Mr Tan Kin Lian
I will be conducting a speech on the topic "Singaporeans" at the Speaker's Corner on the 2nd day of Chinese New Year.
Date and Time: 15 February 2010 5 pm
http://www.facebook.com/inbox/?ref=mb#/group.php?gid=153492722129&ref=ts
Your support would be highly honored and appreciated.
Yours sincerely
Alex Tan
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Migrant and foreign workers
The following terms have been used to describe the foreigners who are now working in Singapore:
foreign talent
foreign workers
foreigners
migrant workers
immigrants
Previously, the word "foreign talent" was commonly used by our political leaders, mainstream media and even by the common people. I have spoken a few times against the use of this term, as it is inappropriate and demeaning to Singaporeans.
I found that the mainstream media has started to use the term "foreigners". While this is more appropriate, I still find that it is an unnecessary distinction. If we have to use a term, perhaps "immigrant" would be more appropriate. It implies a willingness of these workers and their families to make a future in Singapore.
Tan Kin Lian
foreign talent
foreign workers
foreigners
migrant workers
immigrants
Previously, the word "foreign talent" was commonly used by our political leaders, mainstream media and even by the common people. I have spoken a few times against the use of this term, as it is inappropriate and demeaning to Singaporeans.
I found that the mainstream media has started to use the term "foreigners". While this is more appropriate, I still find that it is an unnecessary distinction. If we have to use a term, perhaps "immigrant" would be more appropriate. It implies a willingness of these workers and their families to make a future in Singapore.
Tan Kin Lian
Saturday, January 16, 2010
FOREIGN TALENTS “FT” vs FOREIGN TALENTS POLICY “FTP”
Mr TAN Kin Lian
I like to suggest that you create a LABEL on “Foreign Talents” and “Foreign Talents Policy” in your website. I discover that there are a lot of mis-communications on “Foreign Talents” and “Foreign Talents Policy”.
FOREIGN TALENTS “FT” vs FOREIGN TALENTS POLICY “FTP”
With the discussion and reaction of some Singaporeans, it may seem that Singaporeans are not welcoming foreigners. I think this is a wrong description of Singaporeans.
Many of us, including myself, used to work overseas one time or another. We were foreign talents, once upon a time. We also have a lot of foreigners’ friends. I think Singaporeans are warm people. As a Singaporean, I am looking forward to Singapore Government to make a clear statement of what is their FTP. For example, what category of talents we are attracting and why. For example, what are the level of influx Singapore can absorb. The possibility lack of clear deliberation of FTP could result in Singaporeans calling for explanation. This is understandable because they are many foreigners living among our midst and doing the same job we used to do.
Some may have over-reacted, but many could be just striving understand what is FT and FTP. Unfortunately, calling for explanation and rationale could be seen as unwelcoming FT. This is sadly not the case for Singaporeans.
Maybe, MR TAN could help to elaborate what is Government’s FTP; alternatively, you can help Singaporeans to raise intelligent questions for the Government to answer them. I really hope that local breed and bred Singaporeans to live in harmony with FT in our midst. Even if Singaporeans do not agree with Government’s FTP, we cannot conclude that Singaporeans do not live alongside FT. Singaporeans want to welcome foreigners, but at the same time they need a FTP that fit the need of social and economics objectives of Singapore.
Demographics is an important fabrics of the society, and I think FTP should be deliberated clearly and convincingly to Singaporeans at large. This is the best way to cultivate sense of belonging to this little land we are living in, and the best way to welcome and integrate FT among our midst. I like to conclude that it is good to have FT coming to our country. Singaporeans at large just want to know who are these FT and in what level of influx Singapore can absorb – socially and economically.
Once again, I think you could be the person who has sufficient depth of knowledge and grace for this subject matter. Thank you.
CASHEW NUT
I like to suggest that you create a LABEL on “Foreign Talents” and “Foreign Talents Policy” in your website. I discover that there are a lot of mis-communications on “Foreign Talents” and “Foreign Talents Policy”.
FOREIGN TALENTS “FT” vs FOREIGN TALENTS POLICY “FTP”
With the discussion and reaction of some Singaporeans, it may seem that Singaporeans are not welcoming foreigners. I think this is a wrong description of Singaporeans.
Many of us, including myself, used to work overseas one time or another. We were foreign talents, once upon a time. We also have a lot of foreigners’ friends. I think Singaporeans are warm people. As a Singaporean, I am looking forward to Singapore Government to make a clear statement of what is their FTP. For example, what category of talents we are attracting and why. For example, what are the level of influx Singapore can absorb. The possibility lack of clear deliberation of FTP could result in Singaporeans calling for explanation. This is understandable because they are many foreigners living among our midst and doing the same job we used to do.
Some may have over-reacted, but many could be just striving understand what is FT and FTP. Unfortunately, calling for explanation and rationale could be seen as unwelcoming FT. This is sadly not the case for Singaporeans.
Maybe, MR TAN could help to elaborate what is Government’s FTP; alternatively, you can help Singaporeans to raise intelligent questions for the Government to answer them. I really hope that local breed and bred Singaporeans to live in harmony with FT in our midst. Even if Singaporeans do not agree with Government’s FTP, we cannot conclude that Singaporeans do not live alongside FT. Singaporeans want to welcome foreigners, but at the same time they need a FTP that fit the need of social and economics objectives of Singapore.
Demographics is an important fabrics of the society, and I think FTP should be deliberated clearly and convincingly to Singaporeans at large. This is the best way to cultivate sense of belonging to this little land we are living in, and the best way to welcome and integrate FT among our midst. I like to conclude that it is good to have FT coming to our country. Singaporeans at large just want to know who are these FT and in what level of influx Singapore can absorb – socially and economically.
Once again, I think you could be the person who has sufficient depth of knowledge and grace for this subject matter. Thank you.
CASHEW NUT
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Apply foreign worker levy to other jobs
Hi Mr Tan
The large immigration of foreigners into Singapore is one of the most divisive issues in Singapore today. There are many Singaporeans who are unhappy and bitter about the large number of FT that have been allowed into Singapore. They feel threatened by these foreigners as many of them have proven themselves to be as hardworking and capable as Singaporeans. Their salary expectations are significantly lower. A fresh graduate from NUS for example expects to earn $2,500 to $2,800. A graduate of similar calibre from China or India is willing to work for between $1,500 to $1,800.
The large gap in salary expectations has led to large amount of economic pressure to employ foreigners rather than Singaporeans. The common thinking among many Singaporeans who are employees is that businesses are greedy and immoral. In the pursuit of profit, they would sack their own countrymen and employ foreigners.
The truth however is a lot more complex. All businesses have to operate in a competitive global environment. Consumers value goods based on quality and price; they do not take into account who made them. Within Singapore, if you employ only Singaporeans while your competitors use foreigners, you will not be able to compete. Outside of Singapore, you will lose to global competitors who are willing to use the cheapest source of labour to produce their goods. Hence ultimately if you use a Singaporean only policy to run your company, then your business will most likely fail.
Recently, in response to negative sentiment on the ground, MOM has begun to tighten the issue of the various types of passes. Many speculate that this is window dressing ahead of a widely anticipated election. Regardless of the intent, this is not a viable long term strategy. This is because technologies like the Internet have made it very easy for business to cross national boundaries. As such, if MOM persists with a policy of not allowing foreigners into Singapore, the Singapore economy will eventually be hollowed out.
The emergence of an abundance of cheap and capable foreign labour means that the income of Singaporean workers WILL fall over the next 5 to 10 years. The unemployment rate among workers who are Singapore citizens will also rise. There is no known economic theory or policy which can stop or reverse this. This fall will continue until a new equilibrium is reached. This equilibrium is such that the income of Singaporean workers is comparable to that of workers from India and China. Here it should be noted that there is no magic economic law which states that the income of Singaporean workers must always be higher than those from India and China.
This unpleasant economic truth needs to be communicated to Singaporeans so that they can understand and accept the new economic reality. If the economic reality is hidden behind half-truths like “job redesign” and “productivity improvement”, then the bitterness and resentment will be even greater then the truth is known. I label “job redesign” and “productivity improvement” as half truths as they are completely ineffective ways of addressing the problem. This is because any training or re-design improvements that you do for Singaporeans, you can also apply foreigners. Singaporeans are not so special so that the training or job re-design can only apply to them.
Open and honest communication is also necessary so that Singaporeans do not make the wrong decisions based on unrealistic expectations. At present, there is a property boom in Singapore. Many Singaporeans are borrowing large sums of money to buy property in anticipation of “More Good Years” and the ability to sell the property at a higher price. Eventually the property bubble will burst and there will be a sharp decline in prices. If we superimpose this against higher unemployment and lower wages, then we are setting the stage for a very painful and bitter period for Singaporeans.
Other than open and honest communication about the future, what we also need are policies which moderate or slow the expected decline in income. Also useful would be policies which help people cope and adjust. The following is a policy recommendation which will address many issues simultaneously.
The root of the problem is the salary gap between Singaporeans and foreigners. In recognition of this gap at the low skill level, MOM has implemented a foreign workers levy for maids and other foreigners that work in Singapore under the work permit system. Given the success of this policy, it would now be timely to extend this levy to those in Singapore under the employment pass or permanent resident scheme. The successful implementation of the foreign workers levy for so many years suggest that if it were applied to the employment pass/permanent resident scheme, it would not “chase away the talent”.
With the money collected from the levies, we can then move to restructure the CPF scheme. The Employer CPF contribution can slowly be reduced to 0%. This would be replaced by payment made from the levies collected from foreigners working in Singapore. As the number of foreigners in Singapore increases, this CPF contribution would increase.
By implementing a policy like this, we put substance into the nice-sounding policy announcements that “foreigners are in Singapore for the benefit of Singaporeans”. It would help heal our society which is increasingly being polarized along the lines of Singaporean and Foreigner. Also we moderate the narrowing of the wage gap between Singaporean and Foreigner in a manner that is least painful to Singaporeans.
Aurvandil
The large immigration of foreigners into Singapore is one of the most divisive issues in Singapore today. There are many Singaporeans who are unhappy and bitter about the large number of FT that have been allowed into Singapore. They feel threatened by these foreigners as many of them have proven themselves to be as hardworking and capable as Singaporeans. Their salary expectations are significantly lower. A fresh graduate from NUS for example expects to earn $2,500 to $2,800. A graduate of similar calibre from China or India is willing to work for between $1,500 to $1,800.
The large gap in salary expectations has led to large amount of economic pressure to employ foreigners rather than Singaporeans. The common thinking among many Singaporeans who are employees is that businesses are greedy and immoral. In the pursuit of profit, they would sack their own countrymen and employ foreigners.
The truth however is a lot more complex. All businesses have to operate in a competitive global environment. Consumers value goods based on quality and price; they do not take into account who made them. Within Singapore, if you employ only Singaporeans while your competitors use foreigners, you will not be able to compete. Outside of Singapore, you will lose to global competitors who are willing to use the cheapest source of labour to produce their goods. Hence ultimately if you use a Singaporean only policy to run your company, then your business will most likely fail.
Recently, in response to negative sentiment on the ground, MOM has begun to tighten the issue of the various types of passes. Many speculate that this is window dressing ahead of a widely anticipated election. Regardless of the intent, this is not a viable long term strategy. This is because technologies like the Internet have made it very easy for business to cross national boundaries. As such, if MOM persists with a policy of not allowing foreigners into Singapore, the Singapore economy will eventually be hollowed out.
The emergence of an abundance of cheap and capable foreign labour means that the income of Singaporean workers WILL fall over the next 5 to 10 years. The unemployment rate among workers who are Singapore citizens will also rise. There is no known economic theory or policy which can stop or reverse this. This fall will continue until a new equilibrium is reached. This equilibrium is such that the income of Singaporean workers is comparable to that of workers from India and China. Here it should be noted that there is no magic economic law which states that the income of Singaporean workers must always be higher than those from India and China.
This unpleasant economic truth needs to be communicated to Singaporeans so that they can understand and accept the new economic reality. If the economic reality is hidden behind half-truths like “job redesign” and “productivity improvement”, then the bitterness and resentment will be even greater then the truth is known. I label “job redesign” and “productivity improvement” as half truths as they are completely ineffective ways of addressing the problem. This is because any training or re-design improvements that you do for Singaporeans, you can also apply foreigners. Singaporeans are not so special so that the training or job re-design can only apply to them.
Open and honest communication is also necessary so that Singaporeans do not make the wrong decisions based on unrealistic expectations. At present, there is a property boom in Singapore. Many Singaporeans are borrowing large sums of money to buy property in anticipation of “More Good Years” and the ability to sell the property at a higher price. Eventually the property bubble will burst and there will be a sharp decline in prices. If we superimpose this against higher unemployment and lower wages, then we are setting the stage for a very painful and bitter period for Singaporeans.
Other than open and honest communication about the future, what we also need are policies which moderate or slow the expected decline in income. Also useful would be policies which help people cope and adjust. The following is a policy recommendation which will address many issues simultaneously.
The root of the problem is the salary gap between Singaporeans and foreigners. In recognition of this gap at the low skill level, MOM has implemented a foreign workers levy for maids and other foreigners that work in Singapore under the work permit system. Given the success of this policy, it would now be timely to extend this levy to those in Singapore under the employment pass or permanent resident scheme. The successful implementation of the foreign workers levy for so many years suggest that if it were applied to the employment pass/permanent resident scheme, it would not “chase away the talent”.
With the money collected from the levies, we can then move to restructure the CPF scheme. The Employer CPF contribution can slowly be reduced to 0%. This would be replaced by payment made from the levies collected from foreigners working in Singapore. As the number of foreigners in Singapore increases, this CPF contribution would increase.
By implementing a policy like this, we put substance into the nice-sounding policy announcements that “foreigners are in Singapore for the benefit of Singaporeans”. It would help heal our society which is increasingly being polarized along the lines of Singaporean and Foreigner. Also we moderate the narrowing of the wage gap between Singaporean and Foreigner in a manner that is least painful to Singaporeans.
Aurvandil
Treat immigrants fairly and well
Many Singaporeans disagree with the recent policy of the Government to allow a big influx of foreigners into Singapore for whatever reasons, i.e. to boost our economic growth or to compensate for our low birth rate. This has created a lot of problems for the locals, which has not been properly recognized, i.e. competition for jobs, over-crowding and other social problems.
Some have suggested measures to differentiate between "old" and "new" citizens, between citizens and permanent residents and so on. I think that it is better to adopt a policy of treating everyone equally, as far as possible, in the daily lives.
We have to remember that many immigrants have made big sacrifices to come to live and work in Singapore. Some have borrowed and paid large sums of money to migrate to Singapore. If we accept them, it is our duty, as decent people, to treat them fairly and well. We should not deny them the right to have proper housing and fair wages. If they become permanent residents and citizens, they should be entitled to the usual benefits that are given to residents.
We should get away from the bad policy of differentiating different groups of people according to their residency status, graduate status, type of housing, income levels and other "rules". This causes disputes and unhappiness, pits one group of people against another group and will result in a fractious society.
We have to recognize a severe disadvantage placed on our male citizens in having to serve two years of full time National Service and the continuing liability of being called up regularly for in-camp training. We need to find ways to reduce or remove this disadvantage.
Tan Kin Lian
Some have suggested measures to differentiate between "old" and "new" citizens, between citizens and permanent residents and so on. I think that it is better to adopt a policy of treating everyone equally, as far as possible, in the daily lives.
We have to remember that many immigrants have made big sacrifices to come to live and work in Singapore. Some have borrowed and paid large sums of money to migrate to Singapore. If we accept them, it is our duty, as decent people, to treat them fairly and well. We should not deny them the right to have proper housing and fair wages. If they become permanent residents and citizens, they should be entitled to the usual benefits that are given to residents.
We should get away from the bad policy of differentiating different groups of people according to their residency status, graduate status, type of housing, income levels and other "rules". This causes disputes and unhappiness, pits one group of people against another group and will result in a fractious society.
We have to recognize a severe disadvantage placed on our male citizens in having to serve two years of full time National Service and the continuing liability of being called up regularly for in-camp training. We need to find ways to reduce or remove this disadvantage.
Tan Kin Lian
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Views of an unemployed, mature worker
Dear Mr. Tan,
I want to thank you for speaking out for the unemployed people, especially those who are in their middle aged and are unfortunate to be retrenched. I am one of these people. I worked for more than 10 years in a foreign company who decided two years ago, to relocate to China.
It was a big shock to me. I had all along thought that I had a steady job with a large company. But, life is so unpredictable now.
At first, I thought that it would be not difficult for me to find a similar job. After all, I worked hard and had kept up to date with technology. I also had accumulated a wealth of experience that could be applied to other manufacturing companies.
This was not the case. I had difficulty in finding another job, even though I was prepared to take a 50% reduction in salary. Somehow, things do not work out. The human resource managers probably felt that I would not stay long with a big reduction in salary. I never got the chance.
Fortunately, I had some savings, so I am not in debt. But I had to cut down on my expenses drastically, including giving up my car. But, the rejection of my countless applications for a job was difficult to take at first. By now, I got used to being rejected and declined.
It is quite unkind of people to pass remarks that the unemployed are unskilled and not hardworking. This may be true for some people, but it is not true for many others, such as me. When I was younger and during good times, I always had the confidence that I could always have a job, with my skill and education. But not any more.
For people posting unkind remarks, I can only say, "your time will come". Only then will you realise why people like Mr. Tan is asking for employment practices to be changed and for the available work to be shared fairly among the willing workers. There is no point in having people with jobs working long hours, neglecting their families, while other people are unemployed.
Mr. Tan, thank you for suggesting this idea of sharing job opportunities. I hope that the leaders will pay attention to it. It is a good idea.
I want to thank you for speaking out for the unemployed people, especially those who are in their middle aged and are unfortunate to be retrenched. I am one of these people. I worked for more than 10 years in a foreign company who decided two years ago, to relocate to China.
It was a big shock to me. I had all along thought that I had a steady job with a large company. But, life is so unpredictable now.
At first, I thought that it would be not difficult for me to find a similar job. After all, I worked hard and had kept up to date with technology. I also had accumulated a wealth of experience that could be applied to other manufacturing companies.
This was not the case. I had difficulty in finding another job, even though I was prepared to take a 50% reduction in salary. Somehow, things do not work out. The human resource managers probably felt that I would not stay long with a big reduction in salary. I never got the chance.
Fortunately, I had some savings, so I am not in debt. But I had to cut down on my expenses drastically, including giving up my car. But, the rejection of my countless applications for a job was difficult to take at first. By now, I got used to being rejected and declined.
It is quite unkind of people to pass remarks that the unemployed are unskilled and not hardworking. This may be true for some people, but it is not true for many others, such as me. When I was younger and during good times, I always had the confidence that I could always have a job, with my skill and education. But not any more.
For people posting unkind remarks, I can only say, "your time will come". Only then will you realise why people like Mr. Tan is asking for employment practices to be changed and for the available work to be shared fairly among the willing workers. There is no point in having people with jobs working long hours, neglecting their families, while other people are unemployed.
Mr. Tan, thank you for suggesting this idea of sharing job opportunities. I hope that the leaders will pay attention to it. It is a good idea.
Monday, September 21, 2009
The dubious value of "talent"
The word "talent" has been mis-used in Singapore. Through the influence of our leaders, many people believe that "talent" is needed to create wealth and jobs. It has also been mis-used to justify attracting "foreign talents" to work and be citizens in Singapore on more attractive terms than those given to locals, e.g. exemption from national service.
"Talent" is not a magic wand. Most wealth and jobs are actually created by honest and diligent work and not be "talent". We need well trained and competent people in all types of occupations; they do not need to be described as "talent".
During the past two decades, the highest earnings are taken by "talents" in the financial sector, i.e. the people who were supposed to create wealth through wealth management and innovation in financial products.
We now learn that this is false wealth that was created through taking high risks, excessive leverage and building asset bubbles. It caused the collapse of the global financial system and had to be bailed out by trillions of public funds. Can "talent" be equated to the ability to take big gambles at somebody else's expense?
There are truly some good examples of talented people who build big businesses around the world, e.g. the founders of Microsoft, Google, Apple, AliBaba, Virgin, Nokia. However, most of them build their success through hard work and access to large markets in America, Europe or China. It will be difficult for these businesses to be built from a small market base, like Singapore.
We should not have "talents" to create asset bubbles and cream off the profit, leaving the high cost to be borne by our future generations. Let us avoid using the word "talent" to describe the creators of false wealth.
Tan Kin Lian
"Talent" is not a magic wand. Most wealth and jobs are actually created by honest and diligent work and not be "talent". We need well trained and competent people in all types of occupations; they do not need to be described as "talent".
During the past two decades, the highest earnings are taken by "talents" in the financial sector, i.e. the people who were supposed to create wealth through wealth management and innovation in financial products.
We now learn that this is false wealth that was created through taking high risks, excessive leverage and building asset bubbles. It caused the collapse of the global financial system and had to be bailed out by trillions of public funds. Can "talent" be equated to the ability to take big gambles at somebody else's expense?
There are truly some good examples of talented people who build big businesses around the world, e.g. the founders of Microsoft, Google, Apple, AliBaba, Virgin, Nokia. However, most of them build their success through hard work and access to large markets in America, Europe or China. It will be difficult for these businesses to be built from a small market base, like Singapore.
We should not have "talents" to create asset bubbles and cream off the profit, leaving the high cost to be borne by our future generations. Let us avoid using the word "talent" to describe the creators of false wealth.
Tan Kin Lian
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Foreign Talents in Singapore
Dear Mr. Tan,
I refer to the Business Times article about "Foreign Talents in Singapore", 17 September.
While it may be true that Singapore's GDP growth rate has gone up notches, the question is who benefited from the higher growth rate? If you get paid more so that you can pay for the same food that cost more, use the same road that cost more to drive on, rent the same house that now cost you more to rent, ... then it is just inflation.
If the higher growth means you work harder to get higher pay so that you can buy more of something you don't need, eat more and then has to go swimming everyday to get rid of the calories, then the higher growth just translates to wastage.
If all said, people are happier than before then it is all right, but are they?
Heng Chee Meng
I refer to the Business Times article about "Foreign Talents in Singapore", 17 September.
While it may be true that Singapore's GDP growth rate has gone up notches, the question is who benefited from the higher growth rate? If you get paid more so that you can pay for the same food that cost more, use the same road that cost more to drive on, rent the same house that now cost you more to rent, ... then it is just inflation.
If the higher growth means you work harder to get higher pay so that you can buy more of something you don't need, eat more and then has to go swimming everyday to get rid of the calories, then the higher growth just translates to wastage.
If all said, people are happier than before then it is all right, but are they?
Heng Chee Meng
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Singapore has no future
Comment posted in my blog (edited):
It is hard to compete with "foreign talents" when Singapore men have to do National Service for two years and will be called up each year for reservist training.
The Government expects Singapore males to be supermen - tie their hands behind their back, add weight on their legs and ask them to compete with "foreign talents".
What kind of Government treat its citizens as slaves - give them no choice and no rights. Now, the Government ask "foreign talents" to be new citizens - no need for National Service until the second generation. When it is time for the second generation to do National Service, they will leave Singapore.
Singapore has NO FUTURE.
It is hard to compete with "foreign talents" when Singapore men have to do National Service for two years and will be called up each year for reservist training.
The Government expects Singapore males to be supermen - tie their hands behind their back, add weight on their legs and ask them to compete with "foreign talents".
What kind of Government treat its citizens as slaves - give them no choice and no rights. Now, the Government ask "foreign talents" to be new citizens - no need for National Service until the second generation. When it is time for the second generation to do National Service, they will leave Singapore.
Singapore has NO FUTURE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
:.
