TR EMERITUS

Lately, I have read widely from many socio-political blogs that our  government-linked companies (GLCs) are hiring foreigners first instead of considering   our local workers for such positions. So far, there is no official rebut  on this allegation from any government officer  yet. I do not have any statistics  to verify  the number of foreigners  currently working in our GLCs as such information is still unavailable from the  Ministry of Manpower website. As our GLCs contribute at least 60% of the total GDP in Singapore, the manpower strength they employ must be massive. Big GLC boys such as Singtel, DBS, Keppel Group, ST Group among others must  have at least 50,000 workers on its payroll if not more – making them  the second largest employer in Singapore. The government’s  civil service remains the largest employer of mostly local Singaporeans at the job front. So what is the reasonable ratio for GLCs when it comes to hiring foreign workers especially for jobs that most regular Singaporeans can perform? Employers now has no quota when it comes to hiring foreign professionals as the Employer Pass (EP) work permit allows a company to employ as many foreigners as he wants so long he is paid a salary of at least $2500 a month.  This EP work permit has actually deter many locals from being hired as employers continue to favour younger more skilful foreigners for the job. One out of  three workers in Singapore now is a foreigner. GLCs Not Only for Rank and File Jobs To be fair, GLCs have all along employ foreigners to run their rank and file  operation as local Singaporeans have shun away from such dirty low-end jobs. For example, the Keppel Shipyard is manned by at least 70% foreign workers as the work can be back breaking and hazardous.  Such work is  limited by the S-Pass quota system which only allows employers to employ a certain number of foreigners when they have locals on their payroll. Nevertheless, the shipyard has being grooming some foreigners to be engineers and foremen as they rose from the ranks. Such jobs surely can be performed by our older PMETs who may be struggling to find employment after being retrenched during the previous economic crisis.   No wonder our PMETs felt displaced and some have even resorted to emigrating to escape the discrimination right at their own door step. Sadly, many who have left,  have no choice but to venture abroad to look for work as they remained jobless for many years in their own country. It is also ironical that their skill sets and experience are more sought after abroad than at home.  The only sad part is that they have to live apart from their family members whereas our foreign talents can come and work here bringing their family members along. The foreign talent policy has been evolving for some time with a stronger focus and reiteration by then-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong in his 1997, 1998 and 2001 National Day rally speeches. He said that the government did not restrict foreigners to recruitment only for top rung prestigious positions but welcomed middle-level management, skilled workers and technicians too (Business Times, 25 August 1997 and Straits Times, 31 August 1997).  The push then was for a first-ever cosmopolitan city that is attractive to both foreigners and the local citizens. There would be equal opportunities for foreigners wanting to make Singapore their home. There was also this ambitious obsession by then-PM Goh Chok Tong in 1991 to achieve  a Swiss-standard lifestyle for all Singaporeans within a decade. GLCs Openly Advertising for Vacancies Abroad  Nevertheless, what irked many netizens is that  GLCs have now  resorted to blatantly advertising their positions in foreign newspapers without giving due consideration to our local citizens . A government-linked company, Keppel Offshore and Marine, for example, recruited Malaysians to work as managers and engineers, prompting a blogger to ask: “We produce over 1,000 engineers yearly, is there still a shortage?” It is unsure whether Keppel has advertised for such vacancies in our local papers before turning to foreign sources to staff its positions. One can only speculate that cost could be the chief factor here when GLCs decide to employ foreigners first over their local counterparts. GLCs are increasing under fire for not being productive and profitable enough when many manage just to survive especially during the previous financial crisis. We all know too well that there is not one local  GLC that has managed to transform itself into a giant conglomerate like South Korea’s Samsung or Taiwan’s Acer. GLCs are now run solely on a commercial basis, with a focus on bottom-line performance. They have not been used for social or employment-generation purposes. They compete with private firms and multinational companies and, in some cases, with each other. Many of them have been partially privatized and are listed on the local stock exchange (source: www.allbusiness.com). To reiterate this point of GLCs trying to keep its bottom line in check, a friend working in DBS told me that staff of  IT division was retrenched  with a golden handshake  few years ago and they were subsequently replaced with Indian programmers at the cost of $2500 a head – just nice for the coveted Employment Pass permit. It is estimated that DBS has hired at least a few hundred Indian programmers by now and many would have become PRs or even citizens. One can go down to DBS Tampines and witnessed the high number of Indian executives in ties  working there. There is even a  café below the tower that sells authentic Indian food catering to this foreign group of workers. Local IT specialists have also  find it increasingly difficult to find work especially in GLCs as such high-tech work is being dominated by foreigners. Local graduates have also shun from taking IT courses at the  local universities as they know that they can’t really compete with foreign programmers on salary alone. To make matters worse, foreigners sometimes are hire to handle recruitment at the GLCs and they will not hesitate to employ their own countrymen over our locals.  We all knew too well by now of the infamous Bread Talk incident whereby the foreign manager preferred to hire his own kind rather than local Singaporeans. A transitioning.org reader, who was recently hired, also told me that he is the only local working in  his department. Everyone  in his department: administrative staff, engineers, purchasers and even his boss are all foreigners.  The company he works for is a GLC. Conclusion Naturally,  Singaporeans will feel  particularly sored if a GLC is  hiring  foreigners  first without giving local Singaporeans the opportunity to be considered for such jobs.  It is akin to your family  members opening the home for a stranger to stay  with them but denying you the opportunity when you make that request.  The GLC is seen as owned by the country and Singaporeans will feel that they have a stake in the company. Most Singaporeans have shares in Singtel and will expect  such corporations to hire our local workers instead of turning to foreigners first to fill  vacancies. A comment made by smc_6767, in one of the Asiaone forum article, best summarised the feelings felt by most Singaporeans as they face extreme challenges getting re-employment even in their own state-sponsored GLCs: The place I work in get their staffs directly from foreign countries and don’t even bother to advertize in the newspapers so fellow Singaporeans can have a shot at the job vacancies. Even my friend who is a HR is doing the same thing for her company. They look for possible candidates overseas instead of trying to find them here. It upsets me that even the government companies are recruiting directly from overseas. PAP boasts that more jobs are created but unemployment rates also rise. Maybe this is why. I feel sad for my fellow Singaporeans.”    Unless the government is able to ensure that there is better protection for jobs meant for our locals, my fear is that there will be continued animosity against  foreign workers who are seen thriving in our midst.   Gilbert Goh  Read More →

Workers Party I refer to the Straits Time Insight report on Hougang Constituency published on 24 September 2010. Mr Eric Low said, “at every wake, he would send a blanket from the town council”. I would like to clarify that blankets and donations to families of deceased residents are given in my personal capacity as MP for Hougang to offer my condolences, not from the town council. He was further quoted to have invited me for the meeting of HUDC cluster privatisation, to which I have replied, “too busy and didn’t want to come”. Mr Eric Low had brought this up in a conversation when we met at a lunar seventh month dinner. Never had it crossed my mind that a brief casual conversation was actually an official and important invitation to a formal dialogue session and not a grassroots meeting. In any case as I understand it, the dialogue session was organised by the People’s Association (PA) and Mr Eric Low was invited as the Guest-of-Honour. I was not informed nor invited to the meeting by the PA. Next came the most intriguing point raised in the report, and I quote: “When the opposition lose in PAP wards, where do they go to? Do you see them in the PAP wards?” These words and the underlying meaning behind them show exactly the kind of political system we have in Singapore. Let me touch on the first point: “Where do they go to?” When a PAP candidate loses the election, he is appointed or will remain as “Adviser” to the grassroots organisations. He heads the Community Club (CC) and nominates or endorses members of the Residents’ Committee (RC) whose activities are co-ordinated and routinely administered by the PA which is funded by government budget. At the party level, he is in charge of the PAP’s branch in the constituency which is closely affiliated to the PAP Community Foundation (PCF). The PAP party office is usually located inside the premises of PCF, which is registered as a charitable organisation and runs pre-education classes for residents in the ward. The PCF premises are granted “concessionary rent” by the HDB. To summarise, when a PAP candidate loses the election, he goes to the CC under the umbrella of the PA and to his party office under the PCF, where he can conduct meet-the-people sessions in a proper office in air-condition comfort. Now, when a WP candidate loses the election, he has to, quite simply put it, ‘roam the streets’ if he wishes to continue extending his reach in the ward. When the WP narrowly lost in the 1997 General Election, the former Secretary-General of the Workers’ Party, JB Jeyaretnam, wanted to continue to meet the residents of Cheng San GRC weekly to hear their concerns. This was held in a coffee shop but the coffee shop was soon branded as a place used for political purposes. The second point: “do you see them in the ward?” makes a mockery out of our supposedly democratic political system. We see the PAP’s presence in every ward, be it in their own or in the opposition’s. Firstly, government initiated programs, such as Lift Upgrading Program and HUDC Estate Privatisation exercise, mandate the “Adviser” to play a central role. The adviser is to assist in implementing privatisation of HUDC estates by endorsing the Protem Committee members and interacting with residents through dialogue sessions, house-to-house visits, etc. In the case of HDB flat Lift Upgrading, the Adviser is to announce the precinct being selected, preside over the exhibition in the ward and oversee the LUP working committee. The elected MP has no say! Secondly, the PA assists the grassroots organisations, which include the RCs, Constituency Sports Club, CC etc to organise social and community events and the Adviser is invited as Guest-of-Honour. This gives a great opportunity to the Adviser to be seen and heard by the people in the ward. The Adviser is also invited to other functions such as lunar seventh month dinner organised by the residents and to functions organised by schools within the constituency. Thirdly, PCF, the charity arm of the PAP which offers nursery and kindergarten classes to residents, also invites the Adviser as the Guest-of-Honour for their graduation ceremonies. This is usually well attended by parents who live in the constituency. Finally at the national level, the Adviser is invited to events such as National Day Parade, official ceremony of governmental events or campaigns, as well as, events such as the F1 Race. As for WP, what options do we have? We have applied to Town Councils and CCs managed by the PAP to hold dialogue sessions and block parties for residents previously but these applications were promptly rejected. Given such limitations, we can only try to enhance our presence in the various wards through house-to-house visits. Unlike the PAP candidates who lost in the General Election, our candidates have to rely on our own limited resources amidst the constraints and obstacles hurled upon us. Therefore, I am surprised to hear such sarcasm from Mr Eric Low “where do they go to?” and “do you see them in the ward?” The PAP puts in overwhelming resources to have their presence felt and is equally determined in quelling the opposition’s presence. Singapore is supposedly at the crossroads of an era where many good things are happening in our country. We talk about the YOG competitive spirit and fairness. We talk about openness and democracy. We talk about empowering our people. But are we truly promoting the spirit of competition? Can we truly be open with our views? Are we truly empowered?   Low Thia Khiang, MP for Hougang  Read More →

An obviously peeved Low Thia Kiang, the WP MP for Hougang has lashed out at his "buddy" from PAP Eric Low for misquoting him in the press. In a recent interview with Straits Times, Eric Low, who is the PAP "adviser" for Hougang said Low Thia Kiang would send a funeral blanket from the Town Council at every wake. "I would like to clarify that blankets and donations to families of deceased residents are given in my personal capacity as MP for Hougang to offer my condolences, not from the town council," Low Thia Kiang said in a press statement released on the WP website. He continued about how he was misinterpreted and misquoted by his PAP counterpart in the Straits Times: "He was further quoted to have invited me for the meeting of HUDC cluster privatisation, to which I have replied, “too busy and didn’t want to come”. Mr Eric Low had brought this up in a conversation when we met at a lunar seventh month dinner. Never had it crossed my mind that a brief casual conversation was actually an official and important invitation to a formal dialogue session and not a grassroots meeting. In any case as I understand it, the dialogue session was organised by the People’s Association (PA) and Mr Eric Low was invited as the Guest-of-Honour. I was not informed nor invited to the meeting by the PA." Low went on to complain about the unfair treatment and humiliation that he, as the legitimate MP of Hougang who was voted by the residents, was subjected to by the PAP's grassroots organizations. The WP website is only updated like once or twice a month and Low Thia Kiang's "clarification" is the LONGEST article to date while he kept a complete silence on other important national issues such as the relentless influx of foreigners, sky-rocketing HDB flat prices and rising cost of living. Low Thia Kiang was conspicuous by his absence from the SDP's pre-election rally last Saturday. Perhaps he was too busy rubbing shoulders with his fellow PAP "Ah Hiangs" in Hougang to attend.     Pamela Tang Please join our Facebook page here and invite your friends to do so to create awareness of the current affairs affecting Singaporeans. Please use our online web form to contact us.  Read More →