I will refer you to the answer I gave earlier , if a majority of the public feel that they are not benefiting from how things are then they really wouldnt care if all the MNC's up and leave.JR8 wrote:An MNC has to pay an FT maybe double+ (fully costed) what a local would get in that same role: Presumably they are currently willing to do that for a very good reason.
Solution: Force MNC to hire locals
Result: MNC decides operating a business/subsidiary in SG is no longer viable, and hence leaves, taking ALL jobs with it.
I am reminded of Ayn Rand's book 'Atlas Shrugged'.
Given how much effort the gahmen put into attracting MNCs I'm not sure that correlates with The Plan.Barnsley wrote:I will refer you to the answer I gave earlier , if a majority of the public feel that they are not benefiting from how things are then they really wouldnt care if all the MNC's up and leave. Where all the companies would relocate to I do not know.
T
this policy is not forcing companies to hire locals, it is forcing companies to look for locals first before hiring from outside. I think this is perfectly fair and practiced by several countries (like Canada).JR8 wrote:Given how much effort the gahmen put into attracting MNCs I'm not sure that correlates with The Plan.Barnsley wrote:I will refer you to the answer I gave earlier , if a majority of the public feel that they are not benefiting from how things are then they really wouldnt care if all the MNC's up and leave. Where all the companies would relocate to I do not know.
T
Perhaps more effort should be made by the gahmen to publicise how much tax the MNCs pay? You know, try and reduce the sour-grapes/kiasuness from the vocal-locals*. Though the cynic in me also considers that the gahmen find it convenient having a 'bete de jour' ('beast of the day' i.e. target for current popular displeasure. Better than than have them bash the government eh?).
I know from when I worked in finance here, that the company was very sensitive to local circumstances, and how the latter changed. We relo'd units from Tokyo to Hong Kong (and back again!), and from Singapore to HK and India. At least once a year it was reviewed what if any departments could be relo'd to materially more cost effective locations than Singapore, or outsourced, and so on.
If your operation is say institutional banking, then you look for a regional base. It doesn't really matter if it's say SG, KL, BK, or maybe DUB. Refer further how physical pit-trading no longer exists - it has all gone computerised and 'upstairs' to the corporate offices, but it matters little precisely where those offices are located.
It's helpful if it has reasonable time-zone presence (not many people enjoy working nights), an ability to hire educated and intelligent local staff to work with the required P and S-Pass imports (hopefully there will be locals within those skill-levels too), and decent IT/comms infrastructure. That said, private client banking is another matter, as in that case you need a posh office in a convenient city-centre area, where the local clients can come visit for meetings.
I think the gahmen better take care. If this policy forces MNCs to hire locals just to 'get quota' then it might make SG a relatively less attractive place. So in future, the pressure to leave will grow, and if you have a dynamic and growing company, looking for a base in Asia-Pac, what might they see, a requirement to hire a lot of 'collateral baggage' they don't want and can't afford?
* can I 'TM' that one, as an expression for anti-FT locals ...
Because the preferential hiring of particular nationalities by MNCs who have senior management of that same nationality is a very common practise.JR8 wrote:If the incentive to hire locals is already there, why do MNCs have to now be forced to prove they've scanned the market to check for candidates? Surely if they wished to hire far cheaper local staff, they'd simply would do so.
Just because there are hordes of particular nationality in MNCs doesn't mean they have been hired by ignoring locals.Addadude wrote:Because the preferential hiring of particular nationalities by MNCs who have senior management of that same nationality is a very common practise.JR8 wrote:If the incentive to hire locals is already there, why do MNCs have to now be forced to prove they've scanned the market to check for candidates? Surely if they wished to hire far cheaper local staff, they'd simply would do so.
I have seen it happen so often in companies I've worked in/interacted with and it's so blatant it's not funny.
So many MNCs have been taking the piss with their hiring policies for years that it's hardly surprising the gahment has decided to push back.
It doesnt matter if there are discremanatory hiring practises or not .....Wd40 wrote:
Just because there are hordes of particular nationality in MNCs doesn't mean they have been hired by ignoring locals.
Its like there are hordes of Bangladeshi cleaners in HDB blocks, doesn't mean they were hired by disadvantaging Singaporeans.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest