Singapore Expats Forum

Firms must try to hire Singaporeans first from Aug 2014

Discuss about any latest news or current affairs in Singapore or globally. Please DO NOT copy and paste news articles from other sources without written permission.
katbh
Reporter
Reporter
Posts: 598
Joined: Thu, 04 Oct 2007
Location: Singapore

Postby katbh » Thu, 26 Sep 2013 11:07 am

What I want to know is really, where are all these Singaporeans going to come from. With ultra low unemployment, where are the people to do these jobs. And don't tell me a taxi driver can do them....
My experience is only in my industry and I know that when we try to hire (any we only advertise in Singapore) we get NO Singaporean applicants - but plenty from the rest of Asia. We do not need to advertise outside Singapore. The rest of Asia reads the job ads in Singapore. And no, they are not here banging on our doors with a SVP - it is all done remotely.
It would be so much easier to hire local, but how - no applicants.

User avatar
Barnsley
Manager
Manager
Posts: 2066
Joined: Tue, 10 Jun 2008
Location: Pasir Ris
Contact:

Postby Barnsley » Thu, 26 Sep 2013 11:14 am

katbh wrote:What I want to know is really, where are all these Singaporeans going to come from. With ultra low unemployment, where are the people to do these jobs. And don't tell me a taxi driver can do them....
My experience is only in my industry and I know that when we try to hire (any we only advertise in Singapore) we get NO Singaporean applicants - but plenty from the rest of Asia. We do not need to advertise outside Singapore. The rest of Asia reads the job ads in Singapore. And no, they are not here banging on our doors with a SVP - it is all done remotely.
It would be so much easier to hire local, but how - no applicants.


Not sure how they work out the unemployment rate here....

I agree where are all the people going to come from to fill the jobs.

maybe singapore will work out a way to give birth to work ready individuals instead of having to wait 20yrs.
Life is short, paddle harder!!

User avatar
Wd40
Director
Director
Posts: 3788
Joined: Tue, 04 Dec 2012
Location: SIndiapore

Postby Wd40 » Thu, 26 Sep 2013 4:12 pm

AngMoG wrote:
Wd40 wrote:
AngMoG wrote:
Wd40 wrote:For employment purposes, PR = Singaporean. I dont see that changing with regards to this rule.


I wouldn't bet on that. There is no mention of PRs, I'd assume they do not get access to the national job bank. But who knows, we'll have to wait and see until they clarify.


They dont want to remove the sting from the move. If they use the word PR in the 1st release itself, then those TRE types, will just pounce on it and ignore the rest of the article.

Since they haven't specifically mentioned that PRs are excluded, its fair to assume that PR = Singaporean as was always the case for employment purposes.


Good point...


This is what I meant by what local thinks about PRs

http://www.tremeritus.com/2013/09/26/bu ... are-local/

PNGMK
Director
Director
Posts: 4852
Joined: Thu, 21 Mar 2013

Postby PNGMK » Thu, 26 Sep 2013 4:20 pm

jwop2800 wrote:Some of the points mentioned by other forum members on this new hiring rule are true to an extent.
This new rule came about because of many cases of employers hiring employees based on race and nationality instead of merit.
There are always bad apples out there.
I would like to know the forum members' opinion on how to prevent or solve this kind of problems if you all disagreed with the new hiring rule.


You can't solve it. The problem is Singaporean's are being put in a protected class of hire because of many factors that are NOT the employers fault.

touchring
Member
Member
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu, 12 Feb 2009

Postby touchring » Thu, 26 Sep 2013 5:00 pm

PNGMK wrote:
jwop2800 wrote:Some of the points mentioned by other forum members on this new hiring rule are true to an extent.
This new rule came about because of many cases of employers hiring employees based on race and nationality instead of merit.
There are always bad apples out there.
I would like to know the forum members' opinion on how to prevent or solve this kind of problems if you all disagreed with the new hiring rule.


You can't solve it. The problem is Singaporean's are being put in a protected class of hire because of many factors that are NOT the employers fault.




Foreigners with PRs are treated similarly with Singaporeans with respect to employment and becomes part of the "protected class". Of course not everyone can qualify to become a PR. ;)

In my opinion, Singapore wants skilled immigrants, not temporary economic refugees that can't get a good job in their own country.

User avatar
sundaymorningstaple
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 34265
Joined: Thu, 11 Nov 2004
Location: Still Fishing!
Contact:

Postby sundaymorningstaple » Thu, 26 Sep 2013 5:12 pm

It's easy to spot the locals on here. They have some strange believe that most EP holders here are economic migrants. You couldn't be further from the truth.

Granted there are those who do fit that description no doubt, but I think, if you were to actually find out the truth, rather than just spouting TRE nonsense, you would find that the majority have been headhunted from their countries and jobs or they were sent here by their home offices to crank up or help their subsidiaries here.

A lot who were headhunted here fell in love with the place and decided to stay rather than return to their parent companies in their own countries. A little investigation on your part would do you a world of good instead of coming on here sounding somewhat intellectually handicapped for not doing your homework first, but just listening to hearsay by the idiots on TRE and their ilk.

AngMoG
Reporter
Reporter
Posts: 609
Joined: Wed, 17 Apr 2013

Postby AngMoG » Thu, 26 Sep 2013 5:16 pm

touchring wrote:Foreigners with PRs are treated similarly with Singaporeans with respect to employment and becomes part of the "protected class". Of course not everyone can qualify to become a PR. ;)

In my opinion, Singapore wants skilled immigrants, not temporary economic refugees that can't get a good job in their own country.


That statement goes down a slippery slope. Not everyone wants to stay in Singapore forever - but that does not necessarily make them 'economic refugees'. At some point, the home country or another country may beckon the skilled professional for whatever reason.

You have both skilled professionals and not-so-skilled ones among the immigrants - and among the locals as well. Some want to make Singapore their home, but others may only want to stay a limited time (be it months or years). Some of the latter make the rational decision that they intend to stay long enough to get security and job flexibility in form of a PR. That does not mean that they do not give back to the country in one form or another.

User avatar
Wd40
Director
Director
Posts: 3788
Joined: Tue, 04 Dec 2012
Location: SIndiapore

Postby Wd40 » Thu, 26 Sep 2013 5:26 pm

Yeah, those people on TRE have this big misconception that FTs are cheap and compete with the locals on pay. On the contrary FTs make more money than the locals and rightly so as they have to pay exorbitant amounts on rent.

So this logic that FTs are not good in their own country get jobs in Singapore, doesn't hold any water. Why would employers pay FTs more if Singaporeans could do the job?

katbh
Reporter
Reporter
Posts: 598
Joined: Thu, 04 Oct 2007
Location: Singapore

Postby katbh » Thu, 26 Sep 2013 5:33 pm

But I also think something of relevance should be pointed out. A lot of Singaporean Citizens hold residency in other countries and many, despite the prohibition, hold dual citizenship. They need to question how they would like to be treated in those countries. One would hope that those countries treat them as new residents. Most other countries do not have such a clear and nasty line drawn between being a resident and being a citizen.

The other fact is that MANY Singaporeans study outside Singapore. How were they treated when they were there. I assume they too would have met the same racist rednecks we see on TRE. Did they like the feeling. I suspect not. But the majority of the population in those countries are not rednecks and would just treat them as a new resident of their great country.

Perhaps Singaporeans need not only to learn to be more gracious but also more empathetic. No point in have Primary School class names as P1Empathy, P2 Grace etc... if they do not act this way.

I love Singapore and Singaporeans (no matter whether they are EP, PR orCitizens, Chinese, Indian, PRC etc) except the racist rednecks - who seem to be coming out of the woodwork more and more in recent times.

Where has the lovely welcoming Singapore gone?

User avatar
sundaymorningstaple
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 34265
Joined: Thu, 11 Nov 2004
Location: Still Fishing!
Contact:

Postby sundaymorningstaple » Thu, 26 Sep 2013 5:45 pm

^^This. Ain't it the truth!

touchring
Member
Member
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu, 12 Feb 2009

Postby touchring » Thu, 26 Sep 2013 5:58 pm

Wd40 wrote:Yeah, those people on TRE have this big misconception that FTs are cheap and compete with the locals on pay. On the contrary FTs make more money than the locals and rightly so as they have to pay exorbitant amounts on rent.

So this logic that FTs are not good in their own country get jobs in Singapore, doesn't hold any water. Why would employers pay FTs more if Singaporeans could do the job?



I wouldn't bother to read the opinions on TRE as posters many have grievances against the government. As usual, Singaporeans are timid and do not dare to criticize the government directly, so they target the weakest link - working foreigners.

I used to employ EP holders in one of my past work so I can share a couple of reasons which I think employers prefer FT to Singaporeans given equal caliber and skillset:

1). Foreigners, especially singles that are new in Singapore with no local social life can devote more time to their work - meaning more overtime. On the other hand, locals that have got young families to take care of or church activities can devote less energy and time to their work.

2). EP binds the FT to the company to some extent and reduces job hopping, which is notorious among some Singaporeans.

3). Bodyshops makes it very easy to hire FT on demand.

4). FT don't need to serve NS or RT so there's no disruption - which is costly to the company.

5). Companies don't need to pay CPF for FT - but of course the extra wage goes to rental.
Last edited by touchring on Thu, 26 Sep 2013 6:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
sundaymorningstaple
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 34265
Joined: Thu, 11 Nov 2004
Location: Still Fishing!
Contact:

Postby sundaymorningstaple » Thu, 26 Sep 2013 6:15 pm

touchring wrote:
Wd40 wrote:Yeah, those people on TRE have this big misconception that FTs are cheap and compete with the locals on pay. On the contrary FTs make more money than the locals and rightly so as they have to pay exorbitant amounts on rent.

So this logic that FTs are not good in their own country get jobs in Singapore, doesn't hold any water. Why would employers pay FTs more if Singaporeans could do the job?



I wouldn't bother to read the opinions on TRE as many have grievances against the government. As usual, Singaporeans are timid and do not dare to criticize the government directly, so they target the weakest - working foreigners.

I used to employ EP holders in one of my past work so I can share a couple of reasons which I think employers prefer FT to Singaporeans given equal caliber and skillset:

I still do employ both locals & foreigners and I'm the HR Manager in a 200 man locally owned SME.

1). Foreigners, especially singles that are new in Singapore with no local social life can devote more time to their work - meaning more overtime. On the other hand, locals that have got young families to take care of or church activities can devote less energy and time to their work.

First of all, your first statement is totally incorrect. Most locals DON'T have young families. With a TFR of 1.13, most are still single as well and living with mommy and daddy and have heaps of disposable income. The FT have to pay enormous rents to offset your CPF contributions. Most FT earn more but have to pay out on inflated housing costs if the company isn't paying it. Surely you have been to the quays. If so you will know your statements are totally off base. You think that only locals are religious, izzit?

2). EP binds the FT to the company to some extent and reduces job hopping.

Who's fault is that? Yours. Not ours.

3). Bodyshops makes it very easy to hire FT on demand.

This is incorrect. I know I worked in that industry for 7 years.

4). FT don't need to serve NS or RT so there's no disruption - which is costly to the company.

Instead the employer has to pay inflated salaries so that the FT can pay for inflated housing costs, school fees, Medical Insurances and so forth, much more costly than an employee's service to the nation. Additionally, the NS reservist gambit doesn't hold a lot of water as I've written letter numerous times to get employees deferred from reservists duties (both High and Low key) and even for the MD of my previous company as well. Granted eventually that catches up at some point but the costs can be minimised. So that doesn't hold water either. Additionally, most have to pay for home leaves as well for the FTs. FT are actually a lot more costly to a company than hiring a local but the problem is you have to hire 2 or 3 locals to get the same amount of work that you get from one FT.

5). Companies don't need to pay CPF for FT - but of course the extra wage goes to rental.

And schooling, and home leaves, and shipping of effects both ways. Maybe you want to go back and redo your homework?


touchring
Member
Member
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu, 12 Feb 2009

Postby touchring » Thu, 26 Sep 2013 6:31 pm

sundaymorningstaple wrote:
touchring wrote:
Wd40 wrote:Yeah, those people on TRE have this big misconception that FTs are cheap and compete with the locals on pay. On the contrary FTs make more money than the locals and rightly so as they have to pay exorbitant amounts on rent.

So this logic that FTs are not good in their own country get jobs in Singapore, doesn't hold any water. Why would employers pay FTs more if Singaporeans could do the job?



I wouldn't bother to read the opinions on TRE as many have grievances against the government. As usual, Singaporeans are timid and do not dare to criticize the government directly, so they target the weakest - working foreigners.

I used to employ EP holders in one of my past work so I can share a couple of reasons which I think employers prefer FT to Singaporeans given equal caliber and skillset:

I still do employ both locals & foreigners and I'm the HR Manager in a 200 man locally owned SME.

1). Foreigners, especially singles that are new in Singapore with no local social life can devote more time to their work - meaning more overtime. On the other hand, locals that have got young families to take care of or church activities can devote less energy and time to their work.

First of all, your first statement is totally incorrect. Most locals DON'T have young families. With a TFR of 1.13, most are still single as well and living with mommy and daddy and have heaps of disposable income. The FT have to pay enormous rents to offset your CPF contributions. Most FT earn more but have to pay out on inflated housing costs if the company isn't paying it. Surely you have been to the quays. If so you will know your statements are totally off base. You think that only locals are religious, izzit?

2). EP binds the FT to the company to some extent and reduces job hopping.

Who's fault is that? Yours. Not ours.

3). Bodyshops makes it very easy to hire FT on demand.

This is incorrect. I know I worked in that industry for 7 years.

4). FT don't need to serve NS or RT so there's no disruption - which is costly to the company.

Instead the employer has to pay inflated salaries so that the FT can pay for inflated housing costs, school fees, Medical Insurances and so forth, much more costly than an employee's service to the nation. Additionally, the NS reservist gambit doesn't hold a lot of water as I've written letter numerous times to get employees deferred from reservists duties (both High and Low key) and even for the MD of my previous company as well. Granted eventually that catches up at some point but the costs can be minimised. So that doesn't hold water either. Additionally, most have to pay for home leaves as well for the FTs. FT are actually a lot more costly to a company than hiring a local but the problem is you have to hire 2 or 3 locals to get the same amount of work that you get from one FT.

5). Companies don't need to pay CPF for FT - but of course the extra wage goes to rental.

And schooling, and home leaves, and shipping of effects both ways. Maybe you want to go back and redo your homework?




I guess I wouldn't reply on every single point as there are 2 sides to a coin.

I won't put the blame on either foreigners or Singaporeans because at the end of the day, who created the system?

The Singapore government.

Singaporeans are also the result of the system - the indoctrination from young from both education and the media that Singapore is first in everything and the spoon feeding creates an entire generation of people with unrealistic expectations.

But eventually, if it's broken, it has to be fixed at some point in time. The government knows this, and the new regulation is not merely populist, even if portrayed as such.

Singapore is strategically located, has good security, is compact (especially important with high oil price), has good demographics mix in a predominantly Muslim area, and doesn't need to have constantly high economic growth to ensure survival of the country.

During World War II, a fifth to a quarter of all men in Singapore were killed. Singapore had just as many foreigners then as it had today. I believe many fled and went back to their country. That didn't destroy Singapore.

A recession that bursts the housing bubble won't destroy Singapore. All of Iceland's banks went bankrupt during the subprime crisis, it didn't destroy Iceland.

Of course, to a ruling party, if the economy goes, there goes the elections.
Last edited by touchring on Thu, 26 Sep 2013 6:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

katbh
Reporter
Reporter
Posts: 598
Joined: Thu, 04 Oct 2007
Location: Singapore

Postby katbh » Thu, 26 Sep 2013 6:45 pm

I agree with SMS totally.

There is just no argument. People would employ locally if they could. It is easier and cheaper - simple as that.

But they can not hire locally.

And if Singaporeans keep being nasty to 'foreign' talent......

And what is it with the word 'foreigners' anyway. It is bandied around her and used as an insult. Good way to welcome people.

User avatar
Wd40
Director
Director
Posts: 3788
Joined: Tue, 04 Dec 2012
Location: SIndiapore

Postby Wd40 » Thu, 26 Sep 2013 6:55 pm

touchring wrote:

I guess I wouldn't reply on every single point as there are 2 sides to a coin.

I won't put the blame on either foreigners or Singaporeans because at the end of the day, who created the system?

The Singapore government.

Singaporeans are also the result of the system - the indoctrination from young from both education and the media that Singapore is first in everything and the spoon feeding creates an entire generation of people with unrealistic expectations.

But eventually, if it's broken, it has to be fixed at some point in time. The government knows this, and the new regulation is not merely populist, even if portrayed as such.

Singapore is strategically located, has good security, is compact (especially important with high oil price), has good demographics mix in a predominantly Muslim area, and doesn't need to have constantly high economic growth to ensure survival of the country.

During World War II, a fifth to a quarter of all men in Singapore were killed. Singapore had just as many foreigners then as it had today. I believe many fled and went back to their country. That didn't destroy Singapore.

A recession that bursts the housing bubble won't destroy Singapore. All of Iceland's banks went bankrupt during the subprime crisis, it didn't destroy Iceland.

Of course, to a ruling party, if the economy goes, there goes the elections.


But lots of people(LOCALs) suffered. Lots of them lost their lifetime of earnings. Didn't they? Is that what you want?
Last edited by Wd40 on Thu, 26 Sep 2013 6:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.


  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “Latest News & Current Affairs”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest