Forum Index
this forum welcomes all forumers who appreciate decent and well thought out views and discussions. all forumers are encouraged to accept that different forumers have different views and often there is no absolutely right or wrong views.
Menu
 Forum IndexHome
FAQFAQ
MemberlistMemberlist
UsergroupsUsergroups
RegisterRegister
ProfileProfile
Log in to check your private messagesMessages
Log inLogin/Out

Quick Search

Advanced Search

Links
mysingaporenews
Singapore River Tour
Singapore Education
Singapore Orchids
littlespeck
ypapforum
Singapore Hosting
Sample Link 2
Sample Link 2

Who's Online
[ Administrator ]
[ Moderator ]


Google Search
Google

http://www.phpbb.com
Job Loss Watch
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 25, 26, 27
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> Singapore Current Affairs
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13961
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2019 8:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CECA - Unequal Treaty

Twelve years ago on 29 June 2005, PM Lee triumphantly went to India to sign the free trade agreement,the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement or CECA, with the Indian government. At the official dinner hosted by the Indian PM for him in New Delhi, PM Lee happily announced that a “New India” is emerging....

Cleverly hidden clauses


In the agreement, Chapter 9 provides for the movement of people between the 2 countries.
In particular, it provides very laxed rules for the so-called “intra-corporate transfer” of employees, encompassing some 127 different type of professionals described in Annex 9A: IT professionals, architects, civil engineers, electrical engineers, doctors, biochemists, pharmacists, lecturers, accountants, auditors, financial analysts, psychologists, career advisers, etc.
In Article 9.5, Clause 1, it talks about providing a “long-term temporary entry” to “intra-corporate transferees”. In fact the name itself should have raised a red flag to PM Lee. How can an entry be simultaneously “temporary” but yet “long-term”?

The clause stated that “each party shall grant temporary entry to an intra-corporate transferee of the other party, who otherwise meets its criteria for the grant of an immigration visa, for an initial period of up to two years or the period of the contract, whichever is less. The period of stay may be extended for period of up to three years at a timefor a total term not exceeding eight years”.

Bottom line is an “intra-corporate transferee” can stay up to 8 years before he is “rotated” out of the country.
And the person shall be exempted from any labour market testing or economic needs testing, as specified in Article 9.3:

“Neither Party shall require labour market testing, economic needs testing or other procedures of similar effects as a condition for temporary entry, in respect of natural persons upon whom the benefits ofthis Chapter are conferred.”

That is to say, economic needs testing like Singapore’s fair consideration framework which ensures fair hiring of Singaporeans cannotbe applied to “intra-corporate transferees”.

To top it all, CECA Article 9.6 even allows the “intra-corporate transferees” to bring in their spouses or dependents to work too:

“A Party shall, upon application, grant the accompanying spouses or dependents of the other Party the right to work as managers, executives or specialists, subject to its relevant licensing, administrative and registration requirements.”
In cases where their spouses or dependents are not professionals, they shall be allowed to work in other areas:
“Such spouses or dependents can apply independently in their own capacity (and not necessarily as accompanying spouses or dependents) andshall not be barred by the Party granting them the right to work from taking up employment in a category other than that of managers, executives, or specialists solely on the ground that they as the accompanying spouses or dependents are already employed in its territoryas managers, executives or specialists.”

India IT companies exploiting the “intra-corporate transfer” loophole

Hence with CECA, Indian IT companies like Wipro or Infosys can exploit the “intra-corporate transfer” loophole, to move large number ofIndian IT workers into Singapore since CECA does not set any quotas.

They do not have to hire a single Singaporean in their Singapore-based subsidiaries.

Before the PAP govt notices, tens of thousands of Indian IT workers have already quietly entered Singapore with many of them working and settling in the East side of Singapore, creating their own enclaves.
In recent months, driven by higher unemployment among Singaporean PMETs as well as discriminatory hiring complaints from Singaporean workers, the PAP govt started to slow down the approvals of Indian IT professionals to work here....



The above is part of an article posted in theindependent.sg on 4 May 2017 by a Voltaire.

The most dangerous and most unequal part of this Agreement is Chapter 9 on the Movement of people between the two countries. 127 professions were highlighted, now 128 with the recognition of Indian nursing degrees in the upgraded CECA in 2018. See Annex 9 below for the list. The free movement of people apparently looks so innocuous and fair on paper. But in practice and in reality it is something else.

Millions and millions of Indians would be moving into Singapore to work freely. On the other hand, NOT a single Singaporean would want to work in India. OK I might have exaggerated, maybe 1 or 2 Singaporeans would want to work in India and be paid in rupees. What, for earning rupees and in jobs that paid 10% of what it would be paying in Singapore?

Look at the picture above of the Indian masses in Singapore's Chennai Business Park in Changi, oops I mean Changi Business Park. It is the same in MBFC aka Mumbai Financial Centre in Marina Bay.

From the pictures you will know how serious CECA has turned jobs in Singapore into jobs for Indians from India, not for our PMETs. Who are the big employers of Indian nationals? GLCs? Are GLCs giving good jobs to Indian nationals and sacking Singaporeans in the process, causing undue financial hardship to Singaporean and their families?

A picture tells a thousand words.

When Tan Chuan-Jin was still Manpower Minister, he said this in parliament: (He is no longer a minister)

“We have also heard of situations where Singaporeans were retrenched or made to resign in the name of down-sizing, only to realise later that their positions were given to foreigners, who were coincidentally from the same countries as the business heads.”

“Let me be quite blunt. Would thesepractices not sound discriminatory? Would any respectable progressive company endorse these practices? If this hiring is indeed because they care only about choosing familiar candidates and not about hiring the ‘best man for the job’, then such practices have no place in Singapore’sworkplaces. Discrimination will not and cannot be tolerated.”

Annex 9A LIST OF PROFESSIONALS
1 System Designer & Analyst 2 Network System & Data Communication Analyst 3 Software Engineer 4 Computer and Information Systems Manager 5 Computer Operations and Network Manager 6 Application Programmer 7 Systems Programmer 8 Multi-media Programmer 9 Network System & Database Administrator 10 Database Administrator 11 Information Technology Auditor 12 Information Technology Security Specialist 13 Information Technology Quality Assurance Specialist 14 Building Architect 15 Interior Architect 16 Landscape Architect 17 Town Planner 18 Civil Engineer (General) 19 Dredging Engineer 20 Dock and Harbour Construction Engineer 21 Structural Engineer (General) 22 Building Construction Engineer 23 Sewerage & Sanitary Engineer 24 Soil Mechanic & Piling Engineer 25 Trenchless Technology Engineer 26 Quantity Surveying Engineer 27 Transportation and Highways Engineer 28 Electrical Engineer (General) 29 Electromechanical Equipment Engineer 30 Electrical Traction Engineer 31 Power Generation & Distribution Engineer 32 Lift Engineer 33 Electronics Engineer (General) 34 Telecommunications Engineer 35 Computer Engineer 36 Computer Systems Engineer 37 Computer Applications Engineer 38 Computer Hardware Design Engineer 39 Semi-conductor Engineer 40 Audio & Video Equipment Engineer 41 Instrumentation Engineer 42 Mechanical Engineer (General) 43 Industrial Machinery & Tools Engineer 44 Marine Engineer 45 Ship Construction Engineer 46 Naval Architect 47 Aeronautical Engineer 48 Automotive Engineer 49 Air-conditioning & Refrigeration Engineer 50 Chemical Engineer (General) 51 Chemical Engineer (Petroleum) 52 Chemical Engineer (Petrochemicals) 53 Manufacturing Engineer (General) 54 Production Engineer 55 Automation Engineer 56 Robotic Engineer 57 Biomedical Engineer 58 Biochemical Engineer 59 Biotechnology Engineer 60 Materials Engineer 61 Industrial Health, Safety & Environment Engineer 62 Petroleum & Natural Gas Engineer 63 Metallurgist 64 Quantity Surveyor 65 Ceramics and Glass Technologist 66 Food and Drink Technologist 67 Dairy Technologist 68 Leather Technologist 69 Textile Technologist 70 Oil Technologist 71 Pulp, Paper, Paint and Plastics Technologist 72 Biologist (General) 73 Botanist 74 Zoologist 75 Anatomist 76 Biochemist 77 Physiologist 78 Neurologist 79 Medical Pathologist 80 Clinical Pathologist 81 Veterinary Pathologist 82 Pharmacologist 83 Animal Scientist 84 Microbiologist 85 Bacteriologist 86 Immunologist 87 General Physician 88 General Surgeon 89 Specialised Surgeon 90 Anaesthetist 91 Psychiatrist 92 Obstetrician & Gynaecologist 93 Paediatrician 94 Endocrinologist 95 Dermatologist 96 Ophthalmologist 97 Cardiologist 98 Radiologist 99 Industrial Physician 100 Medical Service Physician (School) 101 Public Health Physician 102 Dentist (General) 103 Specialised Dentist 104 Veterinarian 105 Veterinary Epidemiologist 106 Pharmacist (Dispensing) 107 Other Pharmacists 108 University Lecturer 109 Polytechnic Lecturer 110 Accountant 111 Cost Accountant 112 Company Secretaries (who are Accountants) 113 Taxation Professionals (who are Accountants) 114 Auditor (Accounting) 115 Career Adviser 116 Financial Analyst 117 Credit Analyst 118 Fund Manager 119 Treasury Manager 120 Market Research Analyst 121 Advertising Account Executive 122 Economist 123 Sociologist 124 Anthropologist 125 Historian 126 Political Scientist 127 Psychologist
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13961
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2019 9:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Irresponsible retrenchment and irresponsible hiring




Irresponsible retrenchment of Singaporeans, especially the seniors and PMETs, has reached a crisis proportion. It is a very serious affair for senior Singaporeans to be retrenched, dismissed or sacked under false excuses when finding another job at their age is almost impossible. The end result is financial difficulties and family hardship when there is no income and the paltry payout from CPF is unable to sustain a normal way of life in this most expensive city in the world.




Added to this is the irresponsible hiring of Indian nationals to replace the Singaporeans that were irresponsibly retrenched. Many Singaporean and non Singaporean CEOs have been adopting this foul practice to fire Singaporeans and replaced them with more Indian nationals. I am not mincing my words.




The pervasive presence of Indian nationals in the ‘Chennai’ Business Park in Changi and ‘Mumbai’ Financial Centre in Marina Bay is a stark reminder of the pathetic state of affair affecting seniors and PMEs in Singapore. This reminds me of what an ex MP said about the blackout in Little India. Wonder what he would say if he visits the above two places and some corners of East Coast Park.




Let me first deal with the 62 year retirement age issue. Some Singaporeans are still thinking that 62 is the retirement age in Singapore. No, 62 is the minimum retirement age, something like the minimum sums in CPF savings, ie it is only a minimum and can be raised and raised. Here is a statement from MOM.




‘In accordance with the Retirement and Re-employment Act (RRA), the minimum retirement age is 62 years. Your company cannot ask you to retire before that age.



You have this protection if you:



Are a Singapore citizen or Singapore permanent resident.




Joined your employer before you turned 55.




Employees who turn 62 can continue to be employed in the organisation if they meet the eligibility criteria of re-employment.







Employers must offer re-employment to eligible employees who turn 62, up to age 67, to continue their employment in the organisation. The re-employment age was raised from 65 to 67 on 1 July 2017 to help older workers who wish to continue working as long as you are willing and able.’







Yes, employer cannot ask an employee to retire because of his age and must offer the employee post retirement employment up to 67, as in 2017. This age limit has actually been removed in practice and can be above 70 or more. In de facto, there is no retirement age in Singapore today. Several politicians and govt appointees have worked way pass their 70s and still gainfully employed in govt services or GLCs.







To the many PMEs they may think this has nothing to do with them. The Employment Act protection is for the workers only. Not true. MOM has extended its services to PMETs who need assistance when they are

irresponsibly retrenched. The NTUC, the representative of workers, has also set up a unit called U PME Centre specifically to assist professionals, managers and executives that were irresponsibly retrenched.




The Govt and MOM did not go to sleep when this monumental problem is staring them straight in their faces. As each day passes, more and more seniors and PMEs are losing their jobs and unemployed and in financial difficulties. They need help desperately and the Govt and MOM and the NTUC cannot look the other way. They are Singaporeans whose jobs have been taken over by the presence of hundreds of thousands of foreigners, particularly Indian nationals.




PMEs that are wrongly or irresponsibly retrenched or lost their jobs can go to U PME centre or the MOM to seek assistance. If these failed, they can petition the Prime Minister for help, to intervene into their plight when their rice bowls are affected. Seniors and PMEs have families to feed and dependents to take care of. If not manage properly this could turn into a political crisis for the govt.




What if all else fails? Well, the GE is around the corner. The elected Govt is supposed to take care of the people especially in providing good jobsfor them, not handouts and pittance subsidies that could not last the next day.

Irresponsible CEOs causing Singaporeans to lose their jobs and to replace them with Indian nationals must be put on notice that they cannot get away with crimes against the seniors and PMEs. Such malpractices must be put to an end immediately.
PS. Heng Swee Kiat's budget speech spoke about more restrictions on S pass and dependent pass for foreigners to deal with this problem. Hope it is not just lip service.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13961
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Wed Feb 20, 2019 8:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Brochez given front page attention in the media




He is so cute, so famous and so clever. Now they are calling him a pathological liar. I disagree. I think he is a genius, at least in the land of the blind where the one eye jack shines. This half baked, unqualified, probably did not have any respectable qualifications, could easily cheat and con a nation of well educated first world daft administrators is a lesson to be discussed seriously, not just slamming him as a pathological liar and let the thing rest. Harvard should use this as a case study for stupidity in public administration.




I quote this from thenewpaper, ‘He used fake degrees to get teaching jobs in Singapore, cheated on blood tests to hide his HIV-positive status, and leaked the data of 14,200 people with HIV.’ And this did not include his employment as lecturers in the polytechnics and he did so well, was so highly regarded that he was allowed a clinic to practice child psychology or something like that. How could he conned so many people in the polytechnics is beyond words.




Wait a minute, this is a genius that Singapore is looking for, someone without any degrees and can do the job. If not because of his HIV status, I would highly recommend him to be employed as a lecturer in the university, maybe a professorship to teach how to con the daft and get away with it.




Singapore does not believe in degrees but in ability. Brochez is exactly the kind of talent Singapore is looking for, and a foreigner, and an angmoh to make him more likeable, and so cute looking to and could be the darling of many women here, if not because of his HIV and biased for the males.




Did Singapore learn anything from this episode? Is the govt still very happy with the 2m foreigners that were tagged as foreign talents here? No need to verify their certificates? How many are like this Brochez, with

fake degrees but very clever and can do the job?




Is Singapore becoming a paradise for fakes and cheats? If only 20 percent of those employed here are using fake degrees, how many are out there? The probability is that at least 50 percent are fakes.




So what now, conduct COI or do nothing? I bet they will do nothing because the exposure of this scam can be so very embarrassing. And to expose all the fakes hired in high positions could be so embarrassing. So they will pretend that nothing is happening and all is well, and bring in more ‘foreign talents’ and also tell the people no need degrees, can do the job ok oredy.




Below is a comment by Cheryl Gupta posted in TRE about this so lovely Brochez.

This is a city in decline, degenerating and spiraling down the tunnel into the third world of fakes and cheats. All cheats and fakes please come. You are better than the daft Singaporeans with good and expensive degrees from out world class universities. I see so many of them in Raffles Place and Marina Financial Centre.


To be fair, while Brochez is probably not a saint (he faked his bloodtest and lied about his educational qualifications), it is quite another thing to accuse him of stealing the data (which he did not have direct access to) and leaking the data into the internet (evidences?), while calling him a pathological liar so as to discredit him.
To be clear, I am not saying that Brochev did or did not leak the data. However, I would like to see concrete evidences that he had leakedthe data. I don’t think it is right that we conclude that Brochev leaked the data to be the Gospel Truth simply because our government said so. If we looked at the list at the beginning of this article, it is not altogether obvious that the government is always telling the truth.
At the end of the day, these events may merely be distractions to focus attention away from the incompetency and un-accountability of the government in failing to ensure proper security of medical records.

Cheryl Gupta
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13961
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2019 8:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

DBS Vickers Securities - Restructuring or Retrenchment

'The equities trading business is critical to DBS and we have no plans to shut it down...exploring different models with a view to delivering a stronger customer proposition with minimal employee impact.' This is a quote from Business Times when DBS was asked about the rumour that it was closing down its equity business.

In the townhall meeting, DBS told the remisiers that they would not be doing equity business anymore and the Company would speak to everyone of them to try to fit them into another job in DBS according to their experience and qualifications subject to its policy on employing employees after retirement age and market practices.

The above two paragraphs when read superficially brought a little hope to the remisiers that all is not lost and maybe they could still be reemployed in some capacity in DBS. The devil is in the details, so they said and I would like to look into the statements and see how meaningful or how meaningless they are to the remisiers, told to look forward to a new journey. By the way, the person that crafted these clever replies would be highly sought after as a potential politician.

In the townhall meeting, DBS spokesman said DBS Vickers Securities would not be closed down. But all the remisiers will no longer be engaged in equity trading but redeployed into other areas if found suitable. The equity business would be taken over by the bank. This simply means that remisiers cannot trade in equities anymore despite their years of experience in this trade, ie made redundant. And the business they built over several decades would be taken over by DBS.

There will be minimal impact on employees, remisiers are not. Most of the employees, ie support staff in equity trading are likely to be absorbed by the banks to continue what they were doing. The remisiers would be like a clean sheet of paper, newbies, as their wealth of experience would no longer be relevant as they would not be doing what they were doing in the last 20 or 30 years. What do you think they can do in DBS when their only experience is equity trading? Would there be comparable jobs that pay them the same as what they were as remisiers when they have no relevant experience? What would be the likely jobs for them, customer guides in the banking hall, security guards, cleaners?

Another critical factor is age. Remember, retirement age is 62 in DBS though MOM specifically said that this is only the Minimum Retirement Age. Many of the remisiers are in the 60s, 70s and even 80s. How many would be found useful enough to be offered reemployment in DBS and if found suitable, likely to be on a one year contract, maybe renewable. Without this restructuring, the remisiers are looking to a lifelong employment in equity trading as long as they could churn up enough business to justify their existence. Very likely the majority of those above 62 would face unemployment, unsuitable and too old to be working. Those in the late 50s or early 60s could see a similar fate as 62 is around the corner.

In reality, this restructuring exercise would see many remisiers being jobless, not only the oldies but also those below 60s, if they could not find a job that fit their experience and qualifications unless they are willing to take anything that DBS is offering.

There will be minimal impact on employees of DBS Vickers Securities but maximum impact on the pool of remisiers. This is a retrenchment exercise in a different guise. Many of the remisiers will join the statistics of the unemployed PMETs. DBS could look very generous by offering a one year contract to a few remisiers to show how caring DBS is as an employer, but for how long and what kind of jobs and what kind of remuneration?

Let me summarise. DBS is telling the remisiers that they cannot practise their trade and all their clients and business would be taken over by the bank. Period. Many remisiers would be made jobless and a few could be offered jobs that are not comparable to what they were doing and not paying what they were getting as remisiers. They too would lose their jobs in a matter of time.

See the small prints or what is in between the lines? With the GE around the corner, this could be an issue for the opposition to kick around and DBS would be on the lips of everyone
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13961
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 2019 8:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Retrenchment of DBS remisiers – The Story continues

The pitch for DBS remisiers to join other broking houses has gone up another level. Red carpets, refreshment, wines and generous hospitality came with offers to bring every DBS remisiers into their folds are a great contrast to the way DBS so casually wanted to retrench all its remisiers, offering

those that they found suitable, with good job fits, subject to market practices on retirement age, jobs they have not done for the past 20 or 30 years. Remisiers being offered new jobs would likely be treated like fresh graduates entering the job market. DBS has circulated a list of job vacancies and many remisiers found themselves out of circulation due to the qualifications needed. Needless to say, the older remisiers would be out of contention because of age. Some of the offers by the broking houses are just too good to resist and made the remisiers feel so wanted.

The remisiers have been with DBS for a very long time and DBS is home. Many have grown very fond of DBS and would not want to move to another broking house. Many would want to be with DBS till they are no longer contributing positively to the DBS bottom line when they have to part company with DBS unwillingly.

The remisiers are asking for a meeting with Piyush Gupta to discuss whether this restructuring could be modified and the remisiers could still stay with the DBS family and continue with their trade. The objective of the meeting is to seek an amiable settlement with both sides looking good, comfortable and honourable, with little acrimony after the retrenchment exercise.

If this is not possible and does not fit into DBS’s plans for the future, maybe, in recognition of their long service and their contribution to DBS’s revenue in the past and present, and also for taking over their client base and the business developed over the years, DBS may think it is appropriate and fair to want to consider offering some kind of compensation to them.

The contribution of remisiers may be small today relative to DBS’s huge profits of billions every quarter, but still substantial. On the average, each remisier could have contributed at least a million or more to DBS revenue, easily more than $400m in total in the last 20 or 30 years. And this is all without taking a single cent from DBS as salary, no staff benefits, no annual leave, no staff insurance, welfare etc etc.

The client base and business conscientiously and tirelessly developed by the remisiers over the years cannot be worthless, unappreciated and NOT compensated. There is value in the client base and business. All the broking houses are eyeing DBS remisiers with great anticipation. Is it fair banking practice for DBS not to compensate the remisiers when taking over their client base and their business?

Would DBS live up to its reputation as a good employer, the best employer, a caring employer, and in all fairness, offer a compensation package to the remisiers due to this unilateral decision by the bank in the interest of the bank?

At the moment, other than the offer of trying to find employment for some younger remisiers, subject to job fit, DBS is not talking about any other form of compensation, just bye bye to the remisiers and wish them all the best in a new journey to nowhere. Some of the remisiers may have to call it a day. Some, if not able to find alternative employment or offers from other broking houses, may face joblessness, premature retirement, and even financial difficulties if they have families and children to look after.

The ball is now in the DBS’s court. Would DBS be so cold, heartless, mean and calculative to retrench all the remisiers that have contributed so much and for so many years to DBS with nothing but fresh air? Did DBS remember that during hard times, when they needed remisiers, they paid remisiers to join DBS? DBS even paid the big remisiers just to retain them and not to join other broking houses. Now that the stock trading business is not desirable by DBS, is it fair for DBS to wipe its hands clean and tell the remisiers to go under the excuse of restructuring?

On another note, this retrenchment exercise would contribute to the unemployment statistics of PMEs when it is totally unnecessary but because DBS has a new business model that it claims does not need remisiers.

Is DBS a good employer, caring employer, the best employer? Is DBS a fair and honourable business partner? These questions would be answered by how DBS treats the remisiers that are in the process of being retrenched.

Would there be an amicable settlement with DBS and with the remisiers parting company with good feelings for DBS and goodwill, and with DBS living up to its reputation as a great and responsible company, a good business partner and a good employer?

To be continued.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13961
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2019 8:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A Singaporean genius in our midst
Brochez was just an unfortunate scapegoat among the millions that have come to our shore to test their intelligence against the daft Singaporeans and was caught. With every Brochez there are hundreds of thousands out there that are still happily employed by the daft to work here and be paid handsomely to do jobs they are not qualified to do. But never mind, in Singapore’s new culture encouraged by the top leaders, no need qualifications, can do the job would be good enough to be employed. Fakes, fake certificates, well, not really an issue as long as you are clever enough to fake it real good. Even if you are caught, they would find excuses to excuse you for cheating.
Singapore knows that this is the Achilles Heel but is willing to live with it. If not they would have taken serious measures to stop the big gap, like the gap between two outstretched legs. This is the new normal in Singapore, all foreigners that claimed themselves to be talented and can cheat, and lie and fake would be welcomed with open arms with good jobs to replace the daft Singaporeans aka PMETs. Cheating with fake certificates and credentials are par on course for foreigners here.
The geniuses, aka the cheats and fakes, used to be foreigners. Today we have a Singaporean, yes a Singaporean that had got away with engineering jobs in 38 firms with forged engineering certificates when his highest standard passed is PSLE. If this is not a genius, what else is? And think of all the daft armed with degrees from world best universities could be conned by a PSLE graduate cum laude, is something that Singapore can crow about and be proud of. Obviously this Singaporean genius passed with flying colours during the numerous interviews with our highly qualified engineers, proving that he was indeed a civil engineer with wide experience for the jobs. Oh, I nearly forget, he claimed to have a certificate for First Class Civil Engineering from NUS! I think it is this certificate, first class and from NUS that must have really impressed the interviewers.
Now that he is caught and charged, all he got was 2 years 11 months jail. What message would the 2 years 11 months be sending out? The heavy jai sentence may be because he is a Singaporean. This must be most encouraging news for the fakes and cheats of the world to come here to try their luck to outwit the daft Singaporeans. Cheating, faking certificates or forging certificates are not serious crimes. And the trade off for this little risk are free food and lodging and free medical care in the biggest landed property in Changi instead of good jobs that could pay $9,000 pm. This is what this genius Chin Ming Lik was paid by some of the 38 companies he worked in.
This guy is so brilliant, must respect him for impressing the daft and highly qualified graduates and employers. His name must be engraved in the Hall of Fame of the Cheats, Fakes and Liars. Going forward he should apply for engineering jobs but declared that he has no qualification but can do the job of civil engineers. And with his record of working in 38 companies, that would be enough proof that without an engineering degree he is just as good as any engineer. Get it?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13961
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2019 8:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Foreigners - How many more to bear before the problem goes out of control?
Referencing an editorial published in Chinese-language daily Lianhe Zaobao on Feb 22, Mr Chee said that the number of S Pass and Work Permit holders in the services sector has increased by 34,000 in the last three years.

“The editorial hit the nail on the head by observing that if we do not control the total number of foreign workers, it will affect the employment outcomes of local workers and lead to socio-political problems in Singapore,” he said. “We have seen this happen in other countries.”

This, he said, was the key reason why the Government proceeded with the tightening.

“On balance, we decided that it was better to make a move now to moderate the overall number of foreign workers in Singapore before the problem gets out of hand,” he said. “As the Zaobao editorial said, the DRC tightening is necessary bitter medicine.”....

Also known as the Dependency Ratio Ceiling (DRC), the quota tables the maximum permitted ratio of foreign workers to the total workforce that a company can employ.

The DRC for that sector will be further cut – in two stages – from the current 40 per cent to 35 per cent by 2021.




The S Pass sub-DRC will be lowered from 15 per cent to 10 per cent eventually in 2021.

Above are quoted from Channel News Asia articles.

The above are measures that the govt is going to take. Does the govt know how easy it is to overcome these changes and restrictions? Would the govt also be tightening the approval of foreigners to become citizens? If not, then they simply apply to be citizens like they used to do over the last few decades and no one is wiser with all the foreigners now becoming part of the statistics as locals.

What about the DRC, does the govt know that many companies in Chennai Business Park in Changi employed almost 90 or 100% foreigners, mostly from India? Or the govt is still sleeping, never been to that part of Singapore or simply does not want to know? Turn to look away? The enclaves of Indian nationals in Singapore, in companies and in private housing estates are so stark that no one can miss them and nothing is being done to it? Would the few comments in Parliament make any difference or just end in Parliament once Parliament goes into recess?

Look at the numbers from MOM below. No one knows what is happening? Everyone on holiday, never read these reports for so many years? Or because their balls are stuck in the CECA and afraid of being sued by India?


'The latest foreign workforce numbers released by MOM last week, however, showed that the number of foreign PMETs in Singapore has continued to rise.

The latest figures show that even though the number of foreign PMETs on Employment Pass (EP) has decreased slightly in the last 2 years from 192,300 to 185,800, the total number of foreign PMETs (such as those on EP and S Pass) has been increasing.

In 2013, the total number of foreign PMETs was 336,000. This number rose to 349,000 in 2014, 366,500 in 2015, 372,000 in 2016, 372,100 in 2017 and finally, 381,300 last year.

In 2018, the number of foreign PMETs on EP decreased by 1,900 compared to 2017 but the number of S Pass holders shot up by 11,100 in 2018, reaching a new high of 195,500.' Posted in theindependent.sg

The total number for foreign PMETs has been going up and up, from 349,000 in 2014 to 381,300 in 2018. The most painful thing is that more and more Singaporeans PMETs are being retrenched. What does this say for the pro Singaporeans or pro foreigners policy? Singaporeans, you die your business, foreigners can come and take over your place and your jobs.

Who voted the govt to do this to Singaporeans?

There is no lack of good jobs for Singaporeans, counting the 381,300 jobs given to foreign PMETs and probably another 200,000 given to new citizens. There is no good reasons why Singaporeans PMETs should be retrenched, formed the bulk of retrenched workers and with many young Singaporeans partially employed ie on part time or short term contract jobs.

This is a very serious problem affecting ordinary Singaporeans, not the millionaire politicians.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> Singapore Current Affairs All times are GMT + 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 25, 26, 27
Page 27 of 27

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group. Hosted by Vodien Internet Solutions