PAP in 2016: Reduced Majority or Voted OUT?

31st March 2013

None of us are paid a single cent for contributing our opinions to TR Emeritus (TRE). But every day you will read many many articles and opinions contributed by the so-called common people of Singapore. These people are compelled by their patriotism to voice out what they deemed as the incompetence of the PAP in governing Singapore at this point in time.

What remarkable feat the previous PAP had achieved is no longer good enough to supersede the elitist mentality of the current PAP leaders; who are threatening to destroy the identity of Singaporeans with their incessant pursuit of bringing in foreigners to boost the GDP just so that they can justify their high paying salaries. They have lost the morality to govern Singapore, in doing so has brought much injustice to the future of our children and to the lives of Singaporeans; sons and daughters of Singapore’s soil. Let me give you an example of one of their injustices:

One of my mentors is a burly man quite well known in the education sector. I won’t name him but this is what he said to me “Pam, we need to push the Government to look after the elderly in Singapore. I don’t believe in their bull-shit about a welfare state. I don’t believe in their logic of pushing everything about looking after the parents to their children. The children have their own family to look after and with the increasing costs of living, they are not equipped to look after their parents who are growing old. The Government should make it compulsory that Singaporeans who are 60 years and above receives free medical treatment no matter what their sickness is. This cost is peanuts to the Government if you look at the billions they have thrown away at Shincorp, UBS plus many others. They should also give a monthly pension to the elderly for their living expenses. (This I gather it must be because the Govt. is holding back all the senior citizens CPF monies)

I feel gutted to see so many old people collecting rubbish and becoming cleaners. They were parents to someone once. Don’t you want your own parents to have an easier lifestyle when they grow old? Remember, they once went through so many hardships just to raise you up. Don’t confuse filial piety with what they deserve from the state for all the contributions they had made during their younger days. The PAP is very good in putting wool over our eyes and coming up with skewed statistics in order to justify their actions.

If you had been observant enough, Singaporeans anger and frustrations are actually directed at the PAP. We have actually NO quarrels with the “Foreign Talents” but some of them like Sun Xu, Li Yeming and a few pinoys just don’t have a shred of common courtesy to know where they are before opening their blabbering mouths. So isn’t it very “calling a spade a spade” to say that it REALLY is Singaporeans against the PAP now with everyone looking forward to GE2016?

There are just too many comments posted on TRE and the Social Media shouting out the war cry “Vote Wisely n Vote out the PAP in GE2016” every day. Can this momentum be carried over to the year 2016??

So what do you think it’s going to happen in GE2016? Remember, Singaporeans have very short memories. Wong Kan Seng let Mas Selamat escaped in 2008 and yet he was voted back into Parliament in GE2011. Mah Bow Tan screwed up the whole housing market and yet again, he was voted back into Parliament in GE2011. Dr Vivian Balakrishnan with his infamous outburst  ”How much do you want? Do you want three meals in a hawker centre, food court or restaurant?” and yet spent hundreds of millions on the Youth Olympic over budget; was voted back into Parliament in GE2011. Don’t forget that at the height of these controversies, Singaporeans were very much heated up and asked for these Ministers to resign. They ignored the “noises” and yet were voted back into Parliament. In a way, we Singaporeans actually deserved to be treated this way by the PAP.

Now we are all heated up again because of the White Paper on the Projected 6.9 million Population target. The GE is 3 years from now. Can all these anger and frustrations be brought forward to 2016? Will the PAP come out with some election goodies and all will be forgiven? Will PM Lee bow down and kowtow this time to Singaporeans and his PAP will be returned to power in a Landslide Victory? I cannot predict the future nor do I have any statistics to show because I basically write from the heart. Based on past Singaporeans behaviour, there is a VERY high tendency that PAP will not be voted out come GE2016. Even losing the 2/3 majority will require a huge united effort by Singaporeans.

However, I do see some slight differences now. TRE and the Social Media are going to be the guiding light in keeping the fire burning in us till 2016. They are going to constantly remind us that all is not well in this small but precious country of ours. I won’t be surprised if TRE and the Social Media unite on the morning of Polling Day for GE2016 and remind every voter to look at the face of his/her child before going out to vote.

• YES, look at your children’s face and see what kind of future you want for them.
• YES, look at your parent’s face and tell yourself besides filial piety, you can make their lives better,
• YES, look at an old person struggling in life and see for yourself if that is going to be YOU when you grow old.
•  

THANKS to TRE and the Social Media as we have been awakened to the PAP’s:

HYPOCRISY (“We do not condone corruption” aka AIM saga)

ARROGANCE (Teo Chee Hean’s reply to Sylvia Lim “Not in our interests”)

ELITISM (Lim Swee Say’s “We are deaf to all the noises”)

SHEER STUPIDITY (Baey Yam Keng’s “Town Councils are NOT Public Institutions”)

Let’s hope Singaporeans have learnt our lessons and come GE2016, we WILL vote out the PAP or at least reduce their 2/3 majority !!!

Pamela Lin

Source: TRE

Inside story of why S’poreans aren’t taking jobs with decent pay

29th March 2013

Lately, there has been news of business owners complaining about Singaporean workers, that they reject perfectly fine jobs even with decent pay, lets say about $2500-$2700. But they are actually withholding information.

In the contract enclosed, we see that the business owner has drawn up a contract that gives 10 days of medical leaves per year, not to be taken more than once a month and also 7 days of entitled annual leave which is only available after 1 year of service with the company. This is far below the usual number of days given.

The company also offered two schemes of payment to the employee, one with employer CPF contribution and one without. Not sure if this is even legal, but it was promised that choosing the one without employer’s CPF contribution would result in higher take-home pay for the employee. Also, while not seen in the picture, should the employee decide to terminate the contract early, he/she is required to pay the company one month of salary as compensation.

The point I’m trying to make here is that while employers claim to give their workers decent pay and that it is locals who are choosy, they might actually be withholding information about the contract and job conditions which can be both unfair and exploitative.


.

Anonymous

Source: TRE 

Ngiam Tong Dow: Let's get our young talent job ready

27th March 2013

The good NTD has again hit the nail on its head. He is so eloquent I am going to reproduce his speech deliver yesterday to the EDB Society here.

OF ALL the proposals floated in the recent White Paper on Population, the best idea in my view is the suggestion that we develop a Singaporean core in the workforce.

This would not have been possible in 1960, when many workers barely finished primary school.

Today, 60 per cent of school cohorts go on to tertiary education at universities, polytechnics or Institutes of Technical Education.

Our four universities and six polytechnics confer degrees or diplomas on some 30,000 graduates a year across the knowledge spectrum.

These young minds offer us the perfect platform for building up a Singaporean core. Though they may have outstanding academic achievements, they may not all be job ready. Just as our full-time national servicemen have to complete Basic Military Training to be battle ready, similarly, we need to train and induct trainees before putting them to work.

Much more effort needs to go into giving our well-educated young talent the necessary support to help them build on their core competence, so they can perform at the workplace and truly become part of a sterling Singaporean core. This cannot be left to the whim and fancy of individual companies.

I would therefore suggest that the $3.6 billion set aside by the Ministry of Finance for the Work Credit Scheme (WCS) to support wage increases for those for those earning up to $4,000 a month be used instead to pay the salaries of young cadets for one year. At the end of the year, the employer can decide to offer them jobs or release them back to the market.

The employer will be required to reimburse MOF half the stipend paid to those who are rejected for whatever reason. This clawback is necessary to ensure that HR departments organise training and induction programmes with serious intent to retain suitable cadets.

In my view, only the medical faculties of universities run proper internship programmes. Others do not. It is fine to say that trainees have to learn on the job. Far too often, I have seen young cadets virtually left to their own devices. In time, they become frustrated and even cynical.

The key performance indicators of the CEO, head of human resource and other operating departments should measure how well they train their charges. For example, KPIs should track the number of new cadets they induct successfully into their organisation each year. The Board Member chairing the Nominations or Remuneration Committee should have oversight of the whole process of identifying and developing talent for their organisation.

On the supply side, university dons will have to be proactive in seeking out training positions for their fresh graduands. Their responsibilities as teachers do not end simply with the conferment of degrees. They will have to get in touch with prospective employers, understand their needs, and teach their students to have the skills, knowledge and aptitude to meet the needs of business and industry.

There will be kinks. From time to time, accusations of favouritism and nepotism will be made. I believe that only an open and transparent system funded from the WCS can raise the core competences of the Singaporean workforce.

On a personal note, I would like to say that my civil service career flourished because I was fortunate to have (the late former finance minister) Mr Hon Sui Sen and (the late former deputy prime minister) Dr Goh Keng Swee as mentors in my formative years. They were truly selfless men.

Unless we make an all out effort to raise Singapore's core competences, we will slide back to be a stagnant backwater as we were in danger of becoming in the 1950s.

When we started out in the early 1960s to industrialise our economy, the average educational level of workers was barely that of the Primary School Leaving Examination. So Singaporeans had to be satisfied with low-skilled, low-wage jobs sewing garments, assembling transistor radios and knitting hair wigs.

By concentrating on industrial training, we were able to upgrade to higher skills - precision engineering involving miniature ball bearings, watch movements and constant speed drives.

As we stepped up enrolment in universities and polytechnics, we were able to attract knowledge-based industries such as petrochemicals, pharmaceuticals, repair and maintenance and soon, manufacture of Trent aircraft engines.

Our growth trajectory was rising smoothly from labour-intensive to skilled and knowledge-based activities, until the global financial crisis struck.

We got cold feet, backed away from manufacturing and promoted softer options such as regional headquarters, logistics hubs, casino tourism and wealth management.

At this inflection point, we reverted back to labour-intensive activities. A million foreign workers were brought in to man low-skilled and low-wage economic activities, straining our housing and transport infrastructure. Instead of punching above our weight, we performed below our knowledge potential. Today, we have thousands of young graduates becoming property agents or relationship managers selling esoteric products.

Importing cheap labour to man service industries is a dead end for Singapore. With so many hungrier and smarter people out there, our gentry debates work-life balance and outsources whatever chores we find disagreeable to do ourselves. We have acquired gourmet taste but have no clue how to fry an egg.

In recent years, Singaporeans have fallen into the bad habit of kicking the can down the street. If Singapore, once so rich with promise, fails, I would place it squarely at the door of our political, administrative and business elite.

It is a hard judgment. Unfortunately it is true.

I have been pointing out for as long as I can remember that our leaders lack courage. Sure they did some seemingly courageous things but that is I think only because the old man insisted. These leaders have been drifting away from substance to form. My first impression of the drift was the early SAF recruitment adverts when the second generation took over. Then most people do not agree with me but now that they are slipping in a hurry people are trying to convince me about what a few of us already know for years.


 Source: Blogging For Myself

Singapore government is continuing to practice a form of eugenics

26th March 2013


Some of the island republic's children are wanted more than others

Not having learned its lessons from the 1960s, Singapore is continuing to practice a form of eugenics, encouraging high-income parents to have more children while discouraging low-income parents from doing so despite the fact that native-born Singaporeans have one of the lowest total fertility rates in the world.

A Singapore physician, John Hui Keem Peng, recently wrote a letter to the Straits Times in which he reminded us all of the existence of the Home Ownership Plus Education (HOPE) Scheme. This ironically named scheme provides support to low-income families, but only if they don't have more than two children. Cash incentives are given out to couples to fund ligation or vasectomy procedures.

In his letter, Hui wrote that he had come across a patient whom he had seen for problems arising from complications of an abortion she underwent a week earlier. Here is an excerpt from the letter:

"During the consultation process, it became clear to me that she was hurting not just physically, but also emotionally. She told me that this was not her first abortion, but her third. As she fought back tears, she explained that she "had to" go through with the procedure as she was on the Home Ownership Plus Education (Hope) Scheme.

"The scheme provides financial and material benefits to young, low-income families that choose not to have more than two children. Once they have more than two children, they are no longer eligible for the benefits. I am sure my patient is not the only young parent in anguish, and there are probably many others like her.

While the Hope scheme was conceived to help lower-income parents cope with the high cost of living, we might have inadvertently lost a number of Singapore citizens through abortions because of the conditions attached to it. Should we discriminate against lower-income couples by penalizing them for having more than two children?

Shouldn't we complement the scheme instead by putting in place programs that help them build stronger marriages and become better parents? If they decide they are unable to raise their children, why not provide them with services to facilitate adoption? After all, there are many childless couples in the long queue to adopt children. I am sure the scheme was initiated with good intentions. The question we must now ask is: Can we do better?

John Hui Keem Peng (Dr)

The Straits Times has also highlighted Singapore's policies on abortion in a feature published on March 17 ('Experts feel the law could be changed to make those seeking abortion think harder and longer'). The article states:

There is mandatory pre-abortion counseling if the women are Singapore citizens or permanent residents; have passed the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE); have at least some secondary education, and have fewer than three children.

There is no counseling for foreigners, rape victims or Singaporeans with three or more children, and those who have not passed the PSLE. If they seek an abortion, they get it right away.

Although one may understand why there is no mandatory counseling for rape victims, what is the rationale behind not counseling those who have not passed the PSLE? (A reading of The Straits Times' article suggests that "mandatory counseling" should be interpreted as "trying to persuade you not to have an abortion.")

In the absence of justification from the relevant body who came up with this policy, one can only conclude that while Singapore is very eager to persuade more highly-educated mothers not to have abortions, they don't really care about the poorly-educated. There is a strong suggestion that the policymakers have ascribed different values to the offspring of different Singaporeans even before birth.

This level of social engineering is hypocritical at best - especially at a time when the government is desperately finding different ways to cajole Singaporeans into having babies - and despicable eugenics at worst. It is equally hypocritical at a time when the government has agreed to expand the country's population by 30 percent to 6.9 million by 2030, with immigrants making up nearly half of that figure.

Why are policymakers discouraging low-income, poorly-educated Singaporeans from having children at a time when they are encouraging the arrival of tens of thousands of foreign immigrants? Is Singapore's Total Fertility Rate (TFR) not dismal? Are we not plowing money into more and more "pro-family initiatives"?

Is this just the ugly laziness of a nation that does not want to be responsible for children that may need more help and support from the state? Do we really believe that every child is precious, or are some children more precious than others?



 
Source: Asia Sentinel 

(Kirsten Han blogs for Asian Correspondent, where another version of this appeared recently.)

 

Singapore's old order ready for fall, says ex-public servant Tan Jee Say

24th March 2013


Opposition candidate says ruling People's Action Party may lose the 2016 elections in a backlash against influx of foreign workers.

Singaporean Tan Jee Say in Causeway Bay. Tan ran unsuccessfully against the People's Action Party in 2011. Photo: Jonathan Wong

Encouraged by recent electoral gains, opposition candidate Tan Jee Say believes the ruling party's long-held grip on government could come to an end in Singapore's next general election.

The former senior civil servant, who ran unsuccessfully in the election two years ago, intends to take part in the poll expected to be held in 2016, and believes the opposition is ready to run the city state.

"I will be contesting in the general election. It is a possibility for the opposition to take over the government in 2016," he said on a recent visit to Hong Kong.

Very much a product of the ruling People's Action Party's (PAP), which has been Singapore's ruling party since 1959, Tan appears an unlikely opposition candidate.

From 1985 to 1990, he was the principal private secretary to then Singapore Deputy Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong, who was prime minister from November 1990 to August 2004. From 1979 to 1985, Tan was a civil servant in Singapore's Ministry of Trade and Industry. From 1973 to 1976, he studied politics, philosophy and economics at Oxford University on a Singaporean government scholarship.

"I am grateful to the government for giving me a scholarship and career, but gratitude is not servitude. It doesn't mean blind loyalty," said Tan, who worked for financial institutions like Standard Chartered Bank after leaving public service.

For the upcoming general election in 2016, Tan said: "I will probably join a broad-based political party that will cater to the interests of the widest section of people."

The Workers' Party is the biggest opposition party in Singapore's Parliament, with nine seats out of 99, while the PAP holds 80 seats. Tan declined to say if he would join the Workers' Party or return to the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), where he unsuccessfully ran as a candidate in the general election in May 2011. Two months later, Tan left the SDP to contest unsuccessfully in the country's presidential election in August 2011.

If the PAP failed to win a parliamentary majority in the next election, one possible scenario was a coalition of opposition parties forming a new government, he said. "The opposition today is more ready than the PAP in 1959 to form a government."

Although a civil servant for many years, Tan said he had disagreed with some of the government's policies.

In the 1980s, Tan opposed then prime minister Lee Kuan Yew's social-engineering scheme of encouraging university graduates to marry each other, and giving them incentives for having children. His parents, who were immigrants from Hainan , China were not graduates, Tan said. "If that rule came in my time, I would never have been given a chance to succeed."

As a civil servant in 1979, one of his jobs was to help the government reduce the city state's reliance on migrant workers.

"Now there is a high influx of foreign workers. The current problem started from 2003, when the Singaporean government decided to have casinos. It's not the way to develop the economy. In 2004, when Lee Hsien Loong took over as prime minister, he lifted the floodgates that allowed a massive influx of foreign workers for the casinos and related services," Tan said.
He related an incident where a middle-aged woman approached him while he was campaigning two years ago. The woman, a waitress in a restaurant, told him: "Five years ago, I earned S$1,500 a month as a waitress. How come I now earn only S$800? (HK$4,900)?"
There were many young waitresses from China at that Singapore restaurant working for S$800 per month, Tan recalled.

Last month, Tan was a speaker at a rally attended by several thousand Singaporeans - the biggest demonstration in the tightly-controlled nation since its independence in 1965 - to protest against immigration.

The PAP last year lost two by-elections to the Workers' Party, which also won seven seats in the 2011 general election, the largest win by an opposition party in decades.

Recently, Tan said, a few current PAP members of parliament privately bemoaned that this string of electoral setbacks and the recent demonstration did not bode well for the party.

 

 

This article first appeared in the South China Morning Post print edition on Mar 24, 2013 as Opposition 'ready to take over' in Lion City

 

 

 

Source: South China Morning Post

 

Tan Jee Say: Hong Kong & Singapore : similar population issues but different approaches to solve them

23rd March 2013

Hong Kong & Singapore : similar population issues but different approaches to solve them

by Tan Jee Say

 

Like Singapore, Hong Kong faces the twin problems of an ageing population and a low fertility rate. But unilke Singapore, Hong Kong does not set population targets to deal with the issues. In fact, it doesn't really have an economic or industrial policy, so its 'talent scheme' is not used up as the administrators do not know what criteria to use to give priority. Achieving economic growth is not an issue as China could easily boost tourist numbers by approving more cities than the current ten to issue permits to their residents to visit HK as independent travellers. HK's priority is to improve basic infrastructure first particularly housing and transport and to do more to push the economic frontier further outwards by integrating more deeply with southern China.

This difference in policy approach came out strongly in my discussion with Professor Lui Tai Lok, Head of Sociology Department at Hong Kong University. We were joined in the discussion by his two colleagues Prof James Wang and Ng Cho Nam from the Department of Geography which teaches the subject of urban population. They explained to me the phenomenon of mainland Chinese women coming over to HK to deliver babies which helped boost the birth rate, but nevertheless HK still wanted to rein in the numbers. I asked how HK deals with jobs or industries that local people shun. I was told there are few such jobs or industries left; shipyards and factories had long left HK and two years ago, the minimum wage was introduced to restrain demand for low end workers and it has succeeded in forcing the pace of automation. For example,  dish washers have moved up to become waiters and waitresses, compelling firms to automate dish washing.

Healthcare system

I was glad to have met the three professors who were helpful and candid in explaining HK's experiences in dealing with its population problems. I was grateful to an old Malaysian friend Prof Chan Li Chong for arranging this discussion. I was recently reconnected with him after nearly 40 years when we first met in London where we were active in the activities of FUEMSSO (Federation of UK and Eire Malaysian and Singapore Students Organisations). He is currently the medical professor in HKU. I asked him about the HK healthcare system. He was full of praise for it. He proudly described HK as a capitalist city with a highly socialist healthcare service. Healthcare is virtually free ("just pay US$10 a day and treatment is free") and standards of care are excellent. Chris Patten, the last Governopr of HK, improved it by leaps and bounds. There were conspiracy theories that the British wanted to use up HK's surplus reserves before departing the territory in 1997 and to leave behind an expensive healthcare system that the subsequent administration would not be able to sustain. They were proven wrong. Today, 16 years later, the heathcare system remains vibrant and provides an excellent free and universal service to all members of the public. How I wish we could have a similar service in Singapore so that the healthcare cost concerns of Singaporeans would be put to rest. Perhaps Prof Chan could do Singaporeans a great favour by persuading his old friend and Singapore Prime Minister to adopt a similar healthcare system in Singapore. Prof Chan knew the PM well from their undergraduate days together at Trinity College Cambridge.

Later in the afternoon, I had tea with George Yeo. It was our first meeting since I joined opposition politics two years ago. We chatted like old friends. He asked me to convey his best wishes to our mutual friend and his former grassroots leader Dr Ang Yong Guan. George now spends his time in HK and travels frequently to China for the Kerry group. He seemed to enjoy his new role and responsibilities. I urged him to return to public service. He smiled. It was a relaxed conversation. I then walked the short distance from Island Shangri La Hotel to Asia Society to attend a lecture by Prof Daniel Freeman on "The Stressed Sex : Man, Woman and Mental Health". I now know and have a lot more things to talk with Yong Guan when I return to Singapore.

The next day, I attended lunch at Jardine Penthouse. It was hosted by Giles White, General Counsel of the Jardine Group, for special guest Sir Ivor Crewe, Master of University College Oxford. We talked on a wide range of subjects including of course, the rise of Asia and China and the implications for the world.

Prof Chan Li Chong and TJS standing beside the statue of Dr Sun Yat Sen 

who was a medical graduate of HKU.

With Prof Lui Tai Lok in his office at the Department of Sociology HKU.

With George Yeo in the lobby lounge of Island Shangri La Hotel on 20 March 2013.

With Prof Daniel Freeman, guest speaker on "The Stressed Sex : 

Man, Woman and Mental Health" at Asia Society.

Lunch at the Jardine Penthouse. L-R : Sir Ivor Crewe, Giles White and TJS, 21 March 2013.

Source: Tan Jee Say facebook page

* Jee Say was a Presidential candidate in the 2011 Presidential Election. The article first appeared on his facebook

More and more recruitment consultants and/or head-hunters are non-Singaporean

23rd March 2013

Recent years, I have seen more and more recruitment consultants and/or head-hunters who are non-Singaporean. It can be a single man SOHO shop to an international global HR firm, more and more are flooding in. This makes me wonder why this has become an increasing trend in Singapore.
This month I was in town and I took a recruitment magazine called HeadHunt and did a simple tabulation as follows and it confirms my suspicion that we are having so many foreigners are being recruited as consultant/head-hunter.
I would like to bring a special attention to a statement made by foreigner recruiter named Ben from VoltAsia who wrote: “If you are an experienced C&B candidate and looking for your first role in Singapore, this could be your chance.” Isn’t this an open invitation to anyone whom has no experience in Asia to apply for this job?
As such, I would like to raise the following questions:

1. Is Singaporean giving such job a miss because we lack the skill-sets to handle recruitment activities and client management?
2. What value does this foreigner hired as recruitment consultant/head-hunter brings?
3. Is this due to the reason that hiring manager or human resource manager is only willing to deal with their own kind, i.e. race, nationality?
4. Is this the reason why we are seeing more foreigners in Singapore because these foreigners are bringing in their network of friends overseas and giving Singaporean PMETs a miss deliberately?
5. Can MOM provide a statistic of EAs with further breakdown on the number of Singaporean placement vis-à-vis Foreigner placement done by the agencies
6. Can MOM provide a statistic on the percentage of foreigners (type of passes) and PRs working in EAs in Singapore vis-à-vis the number of Singaporean hired as recruitment consultants/head-hunter? Are all CEI Certified?
7. Why are foreign recruitment agencies located overseas allowed to source for candidates for their client’s Singapore operation?

S/N	Name of Agencies	Position Posted	Names of Consultant	FT	Local*	Remarks
1	HAYS	Quantity Surveyor	Joanna Reld	1
		Logistics Process Manager	Jon Tay		1
		Senior Commercial Lawyer	Clifford Wong		1
		Asia Shared Services Change Manager	Grant Torrens	1
		Regional C&B Manager	Vargin Yeke	1
		Project Manager	Kevin Immerman	1
		Head of Compliance	Ella Ngiam		1
		Internal Auditor	Will Russell	1
		FX Operations Head	Mark Spary	1
		Finance Change Manager	Shalynn Ler	1
Total HAYS				7	3	70% foreigner
2	IPS Search	Marine Manager/ Casualty Underwriter/ Account Manager	Malcolm Rozario	1
		Regional Director/ Underwriting Assistant/ Financial Accountant	Pinky Tan		1
		Product Manager/ Investment Manager/ Private Clients Manager	Richard Burfitt	1
Total IPS				2	1	67% foreigner
3	Michael Page	Regional Facilities Manager	Hasan Khan	1
		VP HR, APAC	Franck Johnson	1
		Marketing Manager	Andrew Davis	1
		Recruitment Consultant	Antoine Lamy	1
		Experienced Project Manager	Julien Raze	1
		Sales Executive	Hayley Cole
		General Manager	Adam Faulkner	1
		Regional Finance Manager	Ken Lim		1
Total Michael				6	1	86% foreigner
4	VoltAsia	Regulatory Compliance Executive	Siti Ridwan		1
		Regional Supply Chain Finance Manager	Yanni Maat	1
		Regional Voice Engineer	Charlene Ong		1
		Director, C&B	Ben Batten	1		If you are an experienced C&B candidate and looking for your first role in Singapore, this could be your chance.
Total Volt				2	2	50% foreigner
5	REED	C&B Manager	Ajitha Ranasinghe	1
		Senior Regional Compliance Manager	Paul Zhong		1
		Key Account Manager	Serene Tan		1
Total REED				1	2	33% foreigner
6	DRAKE	Senior Recruitment Consultant	Russell Harrison	1
		Financial Analyst	Geraldine Tay		1
		Business Development Manager	Jayson Ong		1
		Senior Operations Manager	Hayden Tan		1
		Engineering Sales Manager	David Gan		1
Total DRAKE				1	4	20% foreigner
7	Vertical Talent	Senior Procurement Specialist	Cedric Tay		1
		Key Account Manager	Pamela Baltazar	1
		Tanker Operator	Ananya Sinha Roy	1
		Global Business Analyst	Simon Triggs	1
Total Vertical				3	1	75% foreigner
8	Swiss inx	Investment Manager	Charanjiy Narang	1
		Department Head	Bryan Ong		1
Total Swiss				1	1	50% foreigner
9	GMP	Junior Analyst	Julie Wong		1
		Compliance Manager	Helen Lau		1
		Credit Analyst	Kit Yee		1
		Securities Operations Analyst	Sarah Kuan		1
		Regional FA	Ho Pang Ming		1
		Claims Manager	Jasmine Zhang		1
		Key Account Manager	Nicole Lim		1
		Senior Project Engineer	Grace Lee		1
		IT Infrastructure PM	Law Yi Fang		1
		HR Manager	Joanne Lee		1
Total GMP				0	10	0% foreigner
10	Recruitplus	Cloud Solution Architect	Alkie Liew		1
		L&D Manager	Rain Kuek		1
Total Recruit				0	2	0% foreigner
11	Chris Consulting	Strategic Business	Maricel	1
		Wealth Advisor	Linda		1
		Private Trust Services	Chris Leong		1
		Retail & Marketing Manager	Rosabel		1
Total Chris				1	3	25% foreigner
Grand Total (all agencies above)				24	30	44% foreigner
Source:- 07 Mar – 20 Mar 2013, HeadHunt Magazine
*Note: On the column “Local”, I am not able to establish if they are Singaporean or PR.

The above is further proof that PMET jobs that Singaporean can perform are being taken up by foreigners because of the loose unchecked open policies implemented by our ruling government.

From this magazine alone, 24 PMET jobs are being given to foreigners for reason/s unknown to us except the EAs, employers and our government. All I know is that one does not need to be a rocket or nuclear scientist to qualify.

Please feel free to comment and/or sent this to relevant authorities for their comments.


For Singaporean

PAP MP Ong Teng Koon ignored request for a dialogue on Population White Paper

23rd March 2013

PAP MP Ong Teng Koon

My friends & fellow constituents, 

Ong Teng Koon has outright IGNORED our several requests to hold a dialogue 

to explain his reasoning behind the "yes" vote on the PWP. 

We recommend one and all who are interested in the future of this country to go down to Blk 366 

(Woodlands - Beside Causeway Point)  on MONDAY (25th MAR 2013) to pay him a visit. 

Time to back all the "tough" words on FB with some action.

Each & everyone is encouraged to bring a friend (for moral support) and question him on the issue.

The recommended question will be, "Why did you vote 'yes' on the PWP? 

Was it out of your own free will or was the sentiments of the people in your constituency conveyed in this vote? 

Did you consult the people at all?"

And there is only 1 right answer, "Yes, I conduct a poll which included ALL 40K of the constituents 

& the ground sentiment was 'yes'."

Any other answer, including trying to explain the "benefits" of the PWP is to be rejected; 

he should have explained it before he voted 'yes' on it.

Remember, the MPs job is ONLY to be a MESSENGER of the people; 

NOT to decide for us! Time for us to perform our obligation as citizens of this country 

who have taken an oath (NS) to protect it!

"Pressure" has accomplished SEVERAL things worldwide (South African Apartheid, 

Israel-Palestine Occupation, LGBT Rights, Women's Rights, Minorities Rights, Conviction of War Criminals etc)

Now its time for the people of Singapore to be heard! 50 years of being quiet is enough.

See you all there, lets be heard as 1 voice!

Majulah Singapura! 

Sammel Nigel

Singaporeans VS the PAP

23rd March 2013

During GE2011 and beyond, many of us became keyboard warriors; hoping to raise some awareness for those in power that our country is not well. Just an apology from PM Lee prior to GE2011 and everything is back to normal. I can’t help feeling that the PAP elites had turned deaf AND dumb again. We are again being treated as “noises”.

Something just clicked during the Punggol-East by election. With the Prime Minister showing up to campaign for Dr. Koh, Singaporeans still voted out the PAP.  They said it was a by-election effect and quickly put up the 6.9 Million White Paper and push it through in Parliament.

Everybody was furious at what happened. The netizens were providing figures and facts that the increase in population is not justifiable. Seventy seven of the PAP MPs never listened to their constituents, not even Dr Lily Neo and voted AYES during the motion. For the 77 PAP MPs like Baey Yam Keng, Chan Chun Sing, Tan Chuan Jin and Tin Pei Ling who voted AYES; it becomes obvious that $15K a month is enough to sell your soul. Looking on the bright side, it could be the one and only 5 year’s term that they can be making this kind of income.

Then Mr Gilbert Goh organised the Hong Lim protest and close to 5,000 people turned up. So it begins…. Singaporeans no longer want to sit behind their keyboards anymore. They are more than willing to vote the PAP out, they are more than willing to participate IN PERSON to show solidarity with fellow Singaporeans to send a message to the ruling party. In fact, the real war has begun with the target set for GE2016. Everyone has been shouting this war cry “VOTE THE PAP OUT IN GE2016’.

I am very happy to read from some comments in my previous post “Can the PAP really be voted out in 2016?” that there are some elderly people and some rich people who had never voted for the PAP. Kudos! Keep it up!

Slowly but surely it has awaken a lot of parents to the fact that they have to stand up NOW for their children. They cannot wait till they see their own children slogging like slaves just to service their housing and car instalments every month. They DO NOT want to see their sons after serving their NS, not making enough money to set up a family. They DO NOT want their daughters to only look out for rich men to marry in order to have a comfortable life. They DO NOT want their children to have to migrate to other countries in order to make a living.

As a woman, I know how mothers feel to have your children staying far from you in another country. A child that you have brought up from a baby to where he/she is today. Remember all those sleepless nights when the child is running a fever? I have a friend who received a call from her son’s school informing her that there was an accident involving her son. Tears fell from her eyes immediately when she put down the phone without knowing the true extent of it. She rushed to the school immediately only to find out that it was a minor accident. This bond can never be taken from the mummy’s heart!

These type of mothers won’t let their children suffer in the future. If push comes to shove, they will make sure their husbands and all their relatives vote out the PAP come GE2016. Never underestimate a mother’s love for her children!

I know of many men who keep to themselves, biting their lips just so that their children can live a normal life in Singapore. Making sure that their children do not miss out on some of the things that other kids possess but not their own children.  I have a friend named Sebastian who thinks of every means to save money from the time he opens his eyes in the morning till he sleeps at night. He is drawing $2.2k a month and his wife is not working due to a prolonged illness.

He told me that with the constant increase in costs of living, he can’t save enough to give his children a normal life. He cries sometimes on his own when his family is not around him. He doesn’t want them to feel the pain he is going through. It was his wife who told me this when she found him crying one night by accident. These men are the real heroes. Gritting their teeth to bring up their family.

For all those PAP ministers, MP and sympathisers who come here anonymously to read, you should understand the actual pain some of your country men are going through.  These are the real heroes; those 5,000 Singaporeans who stood under the rain on Feb 16 are the real heroes and not you. My advice to you is to give us value for all the money you are paid. Show us that you have not gone to sleep like the previous bunch while still drawing an obscene amount of salary. Be real heroes to your fellow citizens so that your own children can be proud of you one day when they find out what you had done during this period.

As far as I can I see, the names of the 77 PAP MPs will forever be recorded in our short history for passing a motion that the majority of Singaporeans are against. In the future, all the young ones will just have to do is to google it and I’m sure wikipaedia will tell them everything. So be prepared, you WILL be judged by history and DO NOT ever think what you are doing now to your fellow countrymen will be forgotten.

Lee Kuan Yew is recognised as the Prime Minister who built Singapore through his sheer determination and guts. Goh Chok Tong will always be remembered as the Prime Minister who promised us Swiss Standard of Living but couldn’t deliver. Now, how would the history books remember Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong……hmm I wonder?

Source: Pamela Lin

SDP: ‘Fundamental shifts’ in healthcare financing system?

23rd March 2013

Healthcare systems expert Dr Jeremy Lim recently questioned Health Minister Gan Kim Yong’s commitment to “fundamental shifts” in healthcare costs in Singapore.

During the recent Budget debate in Parliament Mr Gan said: “The review of our healthcare financing system will be extensive, and will involve fundamental shifts.”

He added that the Government will “take on a greater share of national spending, from the current one third to about 40 per cent and possibly even further”.

He added that the Government will “take on a greater share of national spending, from the current one third to about 40 per cent and possibly even further”.

While the SDP applauds these steps which bring Singapore closer to where we were in the 1980s, we share with Dr Lim the concern that there is a need to go beyond incremental steps to real fundamental shifts.

As Dr Lim pointed out that the one important question to ask in the healthcare cost debate is whether healthcare in Singapore is affordable to the extent that it gives the people “peace of mind”.

Unfortunately, the Minister for Health continues to miss the point by simply tweaking the fundamentally flawed 3M system (Medisave, Medishield and Medifund). He announced that Medisave would henceforth be allowed to be used for health screening and certain disease treatments.

Singaporeans should remember that Medisave funds are taken from our CPF savings. Even if its usage is liberalised, users continue to expend their own retirement income leaving them with insufficient savings for the future. Medisave is also used to pay for our children’s and elderly parents’ hospital bills when they fall ill.

All this adds to the financial burden of the people while the Government cuts back its share. This is not the way forward to a sustainable system where Singaporeans’ healthcare needs are taken of at an affordable rate.

(Read also Medisave or Medispent?)

As Dr Lim correctly notes, the SDP does not advocate a system where the Government shoulders all of the cost and users pay nothing.

Our plan calls for Singaporeans to pay an average of $600 a year (taken from our CPF) into a fund called the National Health Investment Fund (NHIF) which is a universal, national health insurance scheme based on the principle of risk pooling to ensure that all Singaporeans have peace of mind about their health.

The Government also pays into the NHIF for those who cannot afford the payments.

There are also different copayments for outpatient treatment for acute conditions and for serious hospitalisations which are capped. Such a single-payer system is streamlined and cleaner than the complex current 3M system, requiring less bureaucracy and, therefore, administrative costs.

Most important, the SDP plan treats healthcare as a basic right of Singaporeans rather than a commodity to be purchased when one falls ill. Such an approach undergirds the difference between the SDP’s and PAP’s systems, the former is people-centric while the latter is profit-oriented.

The last thing that we want to worry about when we or our loved ones fall ill is whether we can afford the medical treatment.

Will we have peace of mind to fully recover and continue to lead productive and meaningful lives without financially burdened by the medical expenses? The SDP National healthcare Plan: Caring For All Singaporeans was designed specifically to answer this question.

.

Paul Tambyah
for the SDP Healthcare Advisory Panel