A deeper understanding of the “Foreign Talent†issue
-
A deeper understanding of the “Foreign Talent” issue
January 17, 2010
By Lawrence Pek
Clearly, there has been a lot of unhappiness on the grounds with the huge influx of foreigners into Singapore in the last 18 to 24 months, even though PM Lee has addressed this issue (well, sort of), I would like to dwell further with a deeper analysis of certain repercussions of these misguided policies.
Value Added – Currently, clearly we have many foreigners in the service sectors, from 7-11 to waitresses to masseurs. The quality of Foreigners is both unclear and not scrutinized. Are they doing work that Singaporeans cannot do (special skills, experience or relationships) – or just competition with locals for local jobs (hawker centre, petrol kiosks and 7-11).
Cheap vs. Cheaper – Even though it is true that foreigners are willing to accept cheaper salaries, please consider 2 things in the long run:
1. Will they continue to accept the same low wages in 3 to 5 years? They will not, for 2 simple reasons – if they 30% cheaper than the local Singaporeans now, they will want to price themselves 5 to 10% cheaper than a local Singaporeans, these foreigners are not stupid, they want to be “cheaper” and not simply just “cheap”
2. What will the government do about the high unemployment rate for the local that was displaced? e.g. If you bring in a cheaper 25 years old PRC girl to work in 7-11 to replace a 35 year old Singaporean woman (or man) – then what will he or she do, once she or he is replaced? Can that local find a higher valued job (higher salary with higher function) – Isn’t it clear that MOM just created a problem by doing this?
Structural Unemployment:
Please allow me to use this to clarify pt 2, this comes about rarely, but it is a bitch to handle for any Minister of Manpower. Simply, there is a job mismatch – there are plenty of job vacancies to go about, but the quality of the people simply cannot perform what these jobs require…the market has changed and companies now require skills and knowledge workers in very specific or niche or high (high is not niche) areas. Then there is a clear and definite for that company to import foreign talent in order to perform the tasks at hand. But locally, MOM and MOE need to look at re-training and re-educating the local manpower to perform these task.
Why? The reason is one of valued added and sustainability. If MOM and MOE can realize that there are no short cuts to structural unemployment, then they need to bite the bullet to retrain locals, because the locals stays and with a higher skilled workforce, Singapore as an economy will be more cutting edge and more competitive.
What happens when the Music Stops?
With 36% foreigners now in Singapore, regardless of whether they are PRs or even New Citizens – will they be there when the going gets tough in Singapore or will they leave for their homeland (China, India, Vietnam…). Singapore is NOT HOME, they WILL LEAVE and then WHAT DO WE DO?
Who will fill the void and what will happen to our economy? There is a further perspective, if you have a small group of 100 and 10 leave, the 90 people should be able to cover and manage, but if you have a group of 10,000 and 1,000 leaves (same 10%), the balance 9,000 cannot and will not want to cover and manage the gap.
The Brain Drain issue
This is not a new phenomenon; there are many Singaporeans (even though they keep their passports) who will never come back here. Artists, Musicians, Scientists and lastly, people like myself, self-made business men. I have so many friends now in US, Europe and China now, they simply will not come back anymore; their reply is very simple, Singapore no longer provides the environment for their (or their kids) development. Their value in these foreign countries is higher than in Singapore. They already feel there is no more reason, no more space for them to come back anymore. Given the new demographics in their homeland now, I doubt if any of them are inclined to ever come back.
Conclusion
In summary, the key message that I would like to convey is that of Sustainability – Yes, it is true that the local bred and born has 2 main issues, which is driving the influx of foreigners. We are not willing to breed, and we are no longer as hardworking or have higher expectations in terms of our employment benefits.
However, we cannot take the short cut route and look at the short terms benefits in terms of GDP growth. Rather than bringing the foreigners and creating a unstable society (trust me, there are many pissed off people), why is it that we cannot bite the bullet and try to brain storm ideas to increase birth rates, to control wages for locals.
Unfortunately, it is true that I am not a full time labor officer at MOM, so I am not privy to lots of internal discussions or data, which I am sure, has led our urban planners to decide on the current course of actions. However, I do not think that I am wrong in my assessment above and I do would like an opportunity to be proven wrong.
As a last word, to these scholars and ministers, I would like to implore your better judgments on 2 fronts. Please trust us to understand your predicament and we will do our best to understand the issues, which we understand is our issues, anyway. Please do not be so insecure in your policy making, talk to us and make us understand, we are your people and responsibility.
http://www.temasekreview.com/2010/01/17/a-deeper-understanding-of-the-foreign-talent-issue/
-
FT ther will always be comings and going. if this group of FT were to leave, so be it. there will always be another group that will come to take their place. its not as if there werent any replacements if they were to depart for their home countries. a weak point to argue for FT scheme.
-
even before FT swamped Spore, there are a lot of malaysians that come to work and then settle down here for good in the 80s and 90s.
-
I continue to Detest the choice of words - Foreign Talent on individuals with nothing more than a regular migrant worker....
-
Originally posted by Rooney9:
FT ther will always be comings and going. if this group of FT were to leave, so be it. there will always be another group that will come to take their place. its not as if there werent any replacements if they were to depart for their home countries. a weak point to argue for FT scheme.
Does that also imply Singapore is a bus stop
Kind Regards
Genie
-
singapore is a laksa stall with flies buzzin around it
-
Originally posted by Arapahoe:
I continue to Detest the choice of words - Foreign Talent on individuals with nothing more than a regular migrant worker....
As I mentioned before, we are abusing the term "Foreign Talent", when these are nothing more than mere foreign labour.
Coming back to the original article, I have to agree, that once one leaves Singapore and go to a more developed place, one starts to see more problems with the current strategy of Singapore. For one, I have not seen a country where 1/3 of the population is made up of foreigners. This will most definitely have substantial consequences to Singapore as a society, and to the ordinary folks like you and me.
2nd, there is also an issue with relativity. To me, relative to me, less than 5% of the actual foreign talent are really foreign talent. Coz they cannot match my achievements and skillset. The remaining 5% are at most on par with me.
That's how my brother views FT as well. To him 99% are foreign labour.
-
There is no need for a deep understanding in the issue of foreign talent, like it or not, they are here to stay, and coming more...if you said you blame the FT, i would said you blame the govt for inviting them in, FTs are innocent, and if you said you blame the govt, I would said you blame the Singaporeans, govt is innocent, Singaporeans voted the govt which under the consituition, Singaporeans mandated the govt to act on their behalf. This is a fact, even a 1 year old kid also understand, nothing too deep or chim to understand.
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
There is no need for a deep understanding in the issue of foreign talent, like it or not, they are here to stay, and coming more...if you said you blame the FT, i would said you blame the govt for inviting them in, FTs are innocent, and if you said you blame the govt, I would said you blame the Singaporeans, govt is innocent, Singaporeans voted the govt which under the consituition, Singaporeans mandated the govt to act on their behalf. This is a fact, even a 1 year old kid also understand, nothing too deep or chim to understand.
Comparatively with a 1 year old kid you are an adult with a 1 year old mind other than poo and drink milk. There is really nothing much.
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
There is no need for a deep understanding in the issue of foreign talent, like it or not, they are here to stay, and coming more...if you said you blame the FT, i would said you blame the govt for inviting them in, FTs are innocent, and if you said you blame the govt, I would said you blame the Singaporeans, govt is innocent, Singaporeans voted the govt which under the consituition, Singaporeans mandated the govt to act on their behalf. This is a fact, even a 1 year old kid also understand, nothing too deep or chim to understand.
hello, the election dept is under the ruling party, so how sure are you the election is fair. So what crap about mandating??? ha huh???? Many areas in Singapore are made up of GRC, walkover GRC. Even Taiwanese political critics know that before election starts the ruling party already won -
"Mandate" Now Are you a scholar of The Constitutional Law?
"If political parties put up candidates for elections, or if money bags and godfathers sponsor candidates, to whom is the presumed electoral mandate given: to the party, the godfather or the elected public political office-holder?
Are the voters voting for the candidates of their choice, or for the political parties or the godfathers sponsoring them? "
To sum it all........
" the relationship between electoral systems and the nature of the mandate, in terms of the threshold of support or majority required to determine the scope of the mandate. In other words, how representative of the electorate is the mandate? Is it based on a narrow majority, or a plurality? Whose voices does the mandate reflect, especially in a winner-takes-all, zero-sum electoral system, like the first-past-the post system?"
"This is also why for certain mandates, special majorities are required to ensure spread and representative ness of the electoral mandate than would otherwise be the case with mandates based on simple majorities."
Do you honestly think every few years Singaporean go and vote and automatically it is a free hand for the next few years? because an electoral mandate was established during the election? without looking at the existing social agreement?
"the electoral mandate is not an end in itself; it goes beyond settling the question of who gets the mandate and his/her relationship with his/her constituents."
References from
Centre for Advanced Social Science (CASS)