Singapore is known to be among the most foreign labour friendly country in the world. The Government's explaination of "strutural unemployment" is baffling. The "asset enhancement" policy which translated into infallable and overinflated land price has effectively kept Singaporeans slogging in Singapore.
Singapore is known to be among the most foreign labour friendly country in the world. The "Foreign Talent" policy is still highly controversial, with the review by 2 highly regarded Nayang Technological University (NTU) Economics Professors, that the policy created more work vacancies for foreigners than Singaporeans.
The study was derived from the Singapore Ministry of Manpower's (MOM) database. The subsequent "rebuttal" by Minister for Manpower, Dr Ng Eng Hen, gave another set of data, which was again controversial, as it considered Permenant Residents (PRs) of the country as "citizens".
While the grammatic emphaisis puts the citizens down as "non-talents" subtly, the Government is adament in pursuing the policy, despite mixed findings, and subsequent poor economic performance,which Singapore has hardly recovered from, since 1997, despite more liberal import of "talents".
The Government's explaination of "strutural unemployment" is baffling, when MOM and MOE set the quotas for various courses in the Polytechnics and Universities. Meaning that manpower resources have been "planned", if not for failure.
Singaporeans now have to compete with foreigners, on almost equal footing, except that the Singaporean male has to serve National Service, and the subsequent 13 years of reservist duties.
Singapore is also noticaby more expensive compared to all neighbouring countries. Hence while earning an almost equal nominal wage, Singaporeans are earning a much lower real wage compared to foreigners.
While Singapore is known and touted to have among the best institutions of education (world class), Singaporeans have been told that they are not as good as those trained overseas. An irony.
While the high profile failures in foreign CEOs in big Singapore companies failed to make an impression in the policy, there have also been many cases of foreigners using fake qualifications and multiple identities to obtain work in Singapore.
The Government Linked and Temasek group of companies' policy of "localisation" also effectively puts the work opportunities created overseas by Singaporeans' CPF and taxes into the hands of foreigners.
Temasek being not required to file reports, makes it impossible to gauge how any benefits or profits from these ventures, which do not provide employment for Singaporeans, broad-based, is being distributed to the citizens.
The most recent case of "localised" DBS-Dao Heng (Hong Kong), where the Hong Konger CEO scrapped safe boxes with valuables in them, have put Singapore in bad light, despite having no Singapore hand in the incident.
The state "subsidised housing" arm, the HDB has just been hived off to Temasek Holdings, for an undisclosed sum. "Subsidised" HDB units which cost S$50,000 per unit to construct, are being sold at S$190,000 and above to citizens. This effectively saps savings and retirement funds.
Singaporeans who find work overseas and wish to let out their units whole, do not get the lease period counted into the occupancy years (a minimum of 5 years occupancy is required to sell your HDB flat).
The "asset enhancement" policy by then Prime Minister Goh, which subsequently translated into infallable and overinflated land price in Singapore was designed to and has effectively kept Singaporeans slogging in Singapore.
The combined policies of localisation, and "asset enhancement" have effectively kept Singaporeans in Singapore, but making it difficult for them to find work at home, through easy (and encouraged) employment of foreigners, through the "foreign talent" policy, to be enhanced by the "S" pass route, which allows foreigners with non-specialised skills to work in Singapore.
Sources and Relevant Links:
Sg.Review Manpower and Housing policies : Singaporean's triple whammys 23 Dec 2004
