We refer to the article ”Parliament: ‘Singaporeans first’ policy will not benefit economy: Amy Khor” (Straits Times, May 27).
“Singaporeans first” not good for economy?
It states that “A manpower policy that advocates hiring ‘Singaporeans first’ will not benefit the economy in the long term, said Senior Minister of State for Manpower, Amy Khor in Parliament on Tuesday. Such a policy might result in employers feeling “constrained and unable to hire the best person for the job”, she added.
That could ultimately hurt Singaporeans, if companies’ manpower needs are unmet and they eventually decide to move out of the country. ”We are in fact putting the interests of Singaporeans first when we say that we want to grow the economy and job opportunities.
But we need to be practical about how we go about doing it,” said Dr Khor. Compelling employers to hire local professionals, managers and executives (PMEs) who might not have the right skills is likely to “introduce significant labour market rigidity”, she added.
“Level playing field”?
Instead, the Government’s approach has been to maintain a level playing field, and help equip Singaporeans with the skills they need to fill “quality jobs”.
How can we say that “the Government’s approach has been to maintain a level playing field” – when employers do not have to pay CPF for foreigners, foreigners do not have National Service reservist liability, female work permit holders cannot get pregnant, foreigners are stuck with the same employer for 2 years, etc?
Foreign workers’ levies $6b?
With the increase in foreign worker levies from 1 July to $300 – $700 a month for the service sector and S-Pass from $315 – $550, we estimate that the foreign worker levies’ revenue in a year may increase to about $6 billion. This may increase further as the levies increase again from 1 July 2015, by as much as $100 monthly.
Against this humongous amount – which may arguably be an inherent bias to increase the foreign workforce (because of the huge levy revenue) – we are only spending a few hundred million dollars a year to help older low-income workers under Workfare (most of which goes to CPF), and just $102.4 million a year under ComCare to help financially stressed Singaporeans whose jobs and wages may have been affected by our liberal foreign labour policies in the first place.
260,800 “locals” jobs increase vs 451,934 new citizens/PRs?
As to “help equip Singaporeans with the skills they need to fill “quality jobs”, what ”quality jobs” are we talking about when real basic wages have hardly increased in the last 15 years or so.
No need degree?
Is the current rhetoric that “a degree is not so important” in any way related to the trend in the statistics that the more educated you are, the easier it may be to lose your job, the harder it may be to find another job, the longer it may take to find another job, the steeper the pay cut, etc?
Widespread age discrimination?
The labour statistics also indicate widespread age discrimination – with real pay decreasing as workers get older from their mid-thirties in age – particularly for the lower-wage occupations like cleaners and service workers.
PMETs – hard to find jobs?
PMETs may be finding it harder to get a job, as 34% of those laid off – could not find a job after 12 months.
PMETs had highest redundancy rate?
The problems of PMETs may also be compounded by their highest redundancy rate – PMETs were more vulnerable to redundancy, with 7.3 made redundant for every 1,000 PMETs, compared to production and related workers (5.7 per 1,000) and clerical, sales and service workers (2.8 per 1,000).
What percentage of the increase in the resident labour force (citizens and PRs) of 260,800 from 2007 to June 2013 were Singaporeans, against the estimated 451,934 new citizens and new PRs granted in the 7 years to end 2013?
133,033 new citizens = more than 50% not “Singaporeans”?
If we make an adjustment for the 133,033 new citizens granted from 2007 to 2013 – what percentage of the workforce are not originally Singaporeans – about 50% or more?
As if the above was not bad enough, during the same period the number of foreign workers increased by 470,000. In other words, for every 1 job growth that went to locals (not even “true blue” Singaporeans”) – about 2 jobs went to foreigners.
If indeed the foreign workers’ growth rate is declining rapidly, why is it that the “true blue” Singaporean workforce seems to be declining to become less than 50% of the total workforce?
The “rhetoric” vs the “statistics”?
What’s the point of the repeated rhetoric over the years that the influx of foreign workers will be curtailed, when the statistics may seem to indicate otherwise?
S Y Lee and Leong Sze Hian