Fiona Lim
I refer to the Straits Times article “Singapore ‘must join the war for talent” (11th Dec 2009).
Singapore government’s unabashed enthusiasm for the State’s alliance with foreign capital does not present itself more clearly than the recent ST article which saw the government reinforcing the so-called necessity of a battle for foreign talents.
Such a liberal open-door policy towards foreigners surely adds to the attraction of Singapore as a hotspot for investors and of course, this will be beneficial for the economy. But will this step necessarily be a boon, not only for the MNCs, but also for the Singaporean masses? Will there be a substantial or negligible trickle-down effect for the locals with such a policy?
In response to the mounting local fear of increased competition in the job market, Mr Shanmugam points out that “investors are also rational” and that jobs will be handed to locals whenever possible.
Personally, I become extremely skeptical whenever there is an argument made to the appeal of rationality simply because rational decisions are not always the best ones. An investor’s rationality probably lies within the frameworks of profit-making, cost-benefit analysis (I do not believe I’m making a bold assumption here). Following such an assumption, a rational investor would hire the most productive workers bearing the lowest price tags.
myself in the shoes of an unemployed Singaporean looking for a job and is competing with a fairly high number of unemployed ‘foreign talents’ desperate to make a career on our sunny shores, the statement issued by the Law Minister would hardly be assuring to me.
The increased competition an unemployed would face with a rising influx of foreigners is real, and unless appropriate regulating measures were to be in place, Singaporeans would be getting the shorter end of the stick.
Similar to certain states’ protection of their native industries against the harmful effects of heavy foreign imports, the implementation of slight protectionist measures will also mitigate the negative consequences which otherwise the locals will be burdened with.
So far, there has been little statistical information provided regarding the inadequacy of local strength in terms of filling job positions which apparently necessitates the trenchant pursuit of foreign talents.
That being said, is there really a dearth of so-called ‘talents’ in Singapore? And if so, should not more funds be directed towards the nurturing of this pertinent segment of society instead of the easy solution of importing resources? Given the oft-touted foresight of our government, would not a more profound investment in Singaporeans be a more worthy panacea?
With all these questions in mind, the government’s engagement in a war for foreign talents looks to be little more than a whitewashed attempt at accruing a higher GDP at the expense of the public.
Related posts:
- Set higher standards for foreign sports talent
- Foreign Talent policy: of principle and practice
- TOC Special Feature: Foreign Talent policy remains contentious, and for reason too
- How Singapore appreciates a PRC talent who tried to integrate
- Money doesn’t attract ‘talent’: It merely attracts greed
i know of FW who works for few years can on his own applied for PR. i rem well years ago, u need company to sponsor or gurantor on top of merit of the applicant.
thus, this influx……..
The stupidity of our current line of leaders continues to amaze me. We have an idiot who shouts stupid slogans and does nothing else; after 40+years of nation building (by our dear NSmen), we have gone in the last few years from country to nation to city to hotel for foreigners. Now we have a war that should have been fought 40+ odd years ago.
Everyone herein would agree Singapore has limited resources, none in fact save the people. So why did we embark on a crusade 40+ years back to restrict our only resource? The apologists would say no one can foresee the future, we have compelling reasons back then, blah, blah. Wrong answer. Resources are always limited in any situation, any country — some just have more limitations than others. There are both correct and incorrect actions to be taken against compelling reasons — some are easy & short-sighted, some are hard & long-sighted. It is the duty of the leaders to work within those limitations and succeed. Period. Have Singapore done so? Where is the “war” against our declining birth rate? 30 years ago, 20 years ago, 10 years ago? Actually, which of our high-paid ministers is current RESPONSIBLE for TFR now? Quietly assigned to another project after the debacle od 2008 Baby Bonus shceme? Cost us like 250m, right? Campaign is in full swing to integrate the “foreigies” but not a beep on our local birth rate. WHICH MINISTER? Pls stand up, NOW.
The fact that our TFR is still running to the bottom of 225 countries, even with the large influx of foreigners in last few years, shows that our Generals are simply using a wrong strategy. Wrong strategies usually cost a country unnecessary casualties and ultimately the war. Ask ourselves honestly, isn’t that happening now? Forget the bashing of “for” or “against” the ‘foreigies’ for the moment – reflect on our situation.
On no one can foresee the future, the world is changing, etc, etc, etc, etc… Is anyone suggesting that a general can go to war by adopting a strategy he thinks is best, whether the outcome is a win or lost doesn’t matter because his strategy is “sound” and no one can foresee whether the battle/war will be won in the “future”? If win, he heah; if lose, he said no one can foresee the future. Alamak, like that even a 5-year-old kid can lead us into battle; why do we then need someone being paid US$2m a year who can’t win within the limitations at his disposal? If our general(s) hasn’t got the skills to win wars with rifles (aka local talents), does that give them the right to demand for atomic weaponry (aka FTs)? This type of mentality is only nurtured by people that grew with a silver spoon in their mouths — always taking the easy way, the short-cut in life. Unfortunately, the majority of true-blue Singaporeans don’t have that privilege – that doesn’t mean we should be reduced to “cheaper, better, faster” fodder…
So, no, this question of war for talents is not the main crux facing Singapore in a fast-changing world. It is the quality of our Leadership.
I don’t see PAP going all over the world to search for talent. Maybe for a few Sports men/women, Mediacorp star search or A*Star scientists. Or giving out scholarships and giving citizenship to movie stars who are not based here.
If they help citizens to start families and give free education, there will be a lot more local talents.
PAP is now functioning as a profit making private company. To get talents with minimum outlay, open the land for them. Why would they want to spend money and time nurturing own talents? Citizens who are not talents are liabilities. These are but commodities to them.
Just had dinner at chinatown. Haven’t been there for quite awhile. People’s park complex, at the foyer, use to be just a foyer, now, every inch of space can and has been converted to retail space! Wow!
And the people manning the stalls are chinese nationals. Well, i guess they are “talented” hawkers import from china. Nothing against them. They are also fellow workers.
The wet market proprietor the wife and i patronise, a singaporean. He is holding 2 jobs. Day time sell chicken at the wet market, night time drive taxi as a relieve driver to make ends meet.
And there are more similarly “qualified” singaporeans……jobless. i wonder if you offer them a retail space and charged reasonable rents, would they willing to take up? My feel is yes!
Owners of development, their priority is to the share holders, Reits. i do not know how much they are paying to the sg gov. And then they price the rentals accordingly. i.e. EXHORBITANT! And the common worker is being pushed to the cliff. Call out to heaven, the Gods are silent. Here on earth, the Union is “nonexistant”.
How many bowls of noodles they need to sell day and night, weekdays and weekends just to pay the rental? There are many noodle stalls, so competition force them to priced their noodles. But the owners of development, are embolden by the current PAP gov. It’s the policy.
i used to shake my head when reading reports of unions in the west calling for strikes. But now, i understand. The common worker has no recourse in the second gilded age (aka, LKY’s golden period).
a couple of readings if you are interested:
The War for Talent Is Back
http://discussionleader.hbsp.com/sutton/2007/04/the_war_for_talent_is_back.html
FIGHTING THE WAR FOR TALENT IS HAZARDOUS TO
YOUR ORGANIZATION’S HEALTH
http://resources.greatplacetowork.com/article/pdf/warfortalent.pdf
Obviously the writer failed to understand the word called “competition”.
Singapore is an island with a small population and when couples married, they refused to procreate. As the working population gets older, their skills become out-dated and they are less productive. At the same time, they do not want to lower their expectations.
A responsible government has to look after the interests of the nation as a whole and anticipate the problems lying ahead in 20 or 30 years’ time. Who is going to feed these older and unproductive population in 20 years’ time? How is Singapore going to prevent businesses from shifting away to other countries?
The answer or solution is : bringing in foreign talents and foreign workers to Singapore and persuade them to sink their roots here. In a way, Singapore has a good bargain : many of these foreign talents were trained by their own countries and yet Singapore ends up reaping the benefits of their skills. Where on earth could one get such a good deal?
58) My Views on December 16th, 2009 4.29 am
“Singapore is an island with a small population and when couples married, they refused to procreate.”
Why do couples refuse to procreate? Could it be the high expenses of raising a family in Singapore + the fact that wages have not risen but have depressed?
Wouldn’t importing large amounts of foreigners exacerbate this problem? It is not a solution.
“As the working population gets older, their skills become out-dated and they are less productive. At the same time, they do not want to lower their expectations.” and “Who is going to feed these older and unproductive population in 20 years’ time?”
Funny you should mention this. I quote this exchange
Lily Neo :
“Sir, I want to check with the Minister again on the strict criteria on the entitlement for PA recipients. May I ask him what is his definition of “subsistence living”? Am I correct to say that, out of $260 per month for PA recipients, $100 goes to rental, power supply and S&C, and leaving them with only $5 a day to live on? Am I correct to say that any basic meal in any hawker centre is already $2.50 to $3.00 per meal? Therefore, is it too much to ask for just three meals a day as an entitlement for the PA recipients?”
Vivian Balakrishnan :
“How much do you want? Do you want three meals in a hawker centre, food court or restaurant? ”
I am so confident that this Government who pegs it’s pay to GDP is doing all this for my best interests.
“How is Singapore going to prevent businesses from shifting away to other countries?”
You can’t. If you carry out the “cheaper, better, faster” model to get businesses to stay here, it doesn’t seem sustainable. It is much more cheaper to run a business in places like China and India or even our surrounding countries. Our only advantage now is infrastructure. But that advantage will erode in time and where will that leave us?
“The answer or solution is : bringing in foreign talents and foreign workers to Singapore and persuade them to sink their roots here.”
Become citizens and be treated with 2nd class status? I think not.
“many of these foreign talents were trained by their own countries and yet Singapore ends up reaping the benefits of their skills.”
You may have got this inverted. Singapore gives out scholarships like nobody’s business to foreign students who get trained here and treat this country like a springboard to countries like the US. Wow that’s a lot of benefits.
@59) My Views on December 16th, 2009 4.29 am
So, boring reasonings, views, logic, etc..etc… Must have seen these before somewhere, like some A-level composition.
“…Singapore is an island with a small population and when couples married, they refused to procreate…..”
Ahem, the “first” familee even stopped at 3 (officially on record to best of knowledge). U mean they can’t afford to have more, meh? Where is the social responsibility then? What about their next generation? How much kids they produced? Just above the national average?
“…. As the working population gets older, their skills become out-dated and they are less productive……”"
Outdated is the word. How else to explain the de-aspiration of the national pledge, the downgrading of country to city (or motel for transient workers) as one ages? Where is the the example to Retrain themselves, become cheaper, faster, better (and to stop talking rubbish)? The walk the talk?
“…. At the same time, they do not want to lower their expectations….”.
Right, that is how we now hold the world record for highest paid ministers….
“….. A responsible government has to look after the interests of the nation as a whole and anticipate the problems lying ahead in 20 or 30 years’ time. ….”
It is unfortunately that Singapore is quite a young nation, err… city(?) — only 40+ odd years since independence. So, we only have limited experience in long-term planning, and I am talking like 10, 20 30 years stuff, not 1,2 or 5 years kiddies. The biggest and very obvious FAILURE in our short history is the sustainability of our nature birth rate — all this time under the control of the ruling party. They had at least 15+ years to rectify the issue since its impact was “finally realised” in the 1980s. They didn’t. Instead they chose to go for the “cheaper, faster, stupid” option of importing manpower (aka “talents”). Is this responsibility? Do we need another 20-30 years before realising we got screwed–AGAIN?
“….How is Singapore going to prevent businesses from shifting away to other countries?….”
Great, soliciting for ideas on blogs for national issues that million-bucks ministers are supposedly paid to answer. Let me remind you that we don’t have minimum wage laws is because it was feared that that will make Singapore less competitive and drive businesses away. Well, now we DON’T have min wages laws AND still businesses are driven to China, India, etc. Are we screwed or what? It shows the current batch of ministers are clueless on how improve the lot of Singaporeans as a whole. Well, except to squeeze their own people even more…. CLUELESS, I repeat.
“….many of these foreign talents were trained by their own countries and yet Singapore ends up reaping the benefits of their skills. Where on earth could one get such a good deal? …”
You are right here, because there is and never will be such good deal in the whole world, If there is, I would expect places like USA, Australia, Canada, Britain, etc. to have more pulling power for foreign talents. As such, USA only has 12.6% (2008) foreign-born population (recently amended to 1-in-6?), Canada about 19-20%, Australia = 23%, UK = 10%. Singapore = 36%. What deal are you talking about? Go ahead, submit this brilliant idea to the Nobel Prize committee and see if you can win the best economic policy of the century award for Singapore.
Empty views indeed…. (but hey, nothing personal right? I just don’t see your views as conforming to the ground situation.)
It is very difficult to estimate what kind of ‘talents’ you will need. YOu can do forward planning, or scenario planning, or whatever you call it. But if you’ve ever done this for your company, you will know that it is easy to get it wrong.
The importance of an ‘open door’ policy is precisely because it confers flexibility. There will be a supply of needed talents. If it’s closed door, then it will be very difficult for companies to find the needed talents here, especially given the very small pool of talents here. When that happens, MNCs will close shop and move elsewhere, and local companies will wither and die.
And even if we have ‘closed door’ policies, don’t think you’ll be immune from competition then. The competition will be a regional one. The best and brightest amongst us Singaporeans will be attracted to other business centres, such as Bangkok, while the job prospects here increasingly dims. Those ambitious and smart enough will want to go overseas, and compete for jobs there, not stay here.
This is the reality. Take it from a middle-aged, slightly burnt out, and definitely graying and fattening man! :p
Dear Phillip, Tang Li
I am afraid you have bought totally and utterly into the PAP argument that all talent is foreign and that ALL talent is good mindlessly repeating the PAP mantra that FT brings economic growth.
Yes my dear Phillip FT does bring economic growth basically by lowering wage or keeping wage costs suppressed at all LEVELS. Median wages have dropped, has the starting pay for PMET or Grads move a tick up in the last ten years ? Taking starting saleries for grads in the civil service with a 2/1 degree or good GPA has it gone up or stagnated ?
Lacking necessary skills ? Well if Skilled PR’s comprise less than 10% of your population I suppose you might have an argument but if SKILLED PRs comprise 1/3 its wage suppression by any sane argument
Locke
Maybe our govt is not happy that there are not many successful born & bred Singapore entrepreneurs. That is why they are punishing us in bringing more FTs so to force Singaporeans to abandon the idea of becoming a salaried worker & become their own boss?
As for low production rate, we can always tweak the policy to allow single woman to have children. I remember MM Lee did suggest this option before.
I think we overlook the fact that everyone works hard because they want a comfortable retirement and reap the benefits of their work. All the foreigners who come here work for that goal. When citizens and foreigners alike see that singapore is a terrible place to retire or raise a family, they will all refuse to start families and move out. In fact, the more talented the person, the higher his/her demands for open spaces, benefits, welfare and civil liberties.
“Why do couples refuse to procreate?”
It’s not about what government can or cannot do. Too often, people source for political solutions to sociological problems. Only simpletons would believe that you can make people procreate, speak English, be courteous, by just campaigning. Singaporeans are reluctant to start families because the economics are just not favourable. Why should my wife and I share our house and money with another person? It’s crude but that’s the values we are imbued with. Of course people express it in more euphemistic terms. Heard of “I wanna concentrate on my career first?”
Hi everyone,
Please keep your comments to 500 words or less.
Thanks!
ok
singapore will go down eventually. anyway, the pap is stubborn and always believe its method is the best solution, because pap can see ‘long term’.
so egoistic party will meet its end soon
@67) theonlinecitizen on December 16th, 2009 3.40 pm
Yeah, right, thk for the reminder. Must remember to cut the afterburner once I start writing…
Decent of TOC to consider my suggestion at #54) too.
61) Philip on December 16th, 2009 12.15 pm
“….It is very difficult to estimate what kind of ‘talents’ you will need….”
1) Maybe if the govt stop running around like a headless chicken and trying to make Singapore into a jack of all hubs, then we will know what talents to invest in. Look at HK… no need for F1 even. BTW, Donald Tsang is paid like 3x LESS than our top guy.
2) I wonder how top-notch CEOs of world-class corporates position their scarce resources 5, 10, 15, 20 years into the future? People like Chip Goodyear. Say, isn’t our ministers’ pay pegged to that of the private sector???
3) By your arguments, other countries are obviously successful in estimating the kinds of talents needed for the same planet as ours. After all, the talents we are attracting must be trained somewhere, right? Maybe what we really need is a FT that can tell us how to “estimate” the right type of talents to focus our limited resources in without need to import large numbers of foreigners. Of course that person must be cheaper, faster, better than our current rate of US$2.05m.
“…The importance of an ‘open door’ policy is precisely because it confers flexibility….”
This is absolutely true. However, every apologist using this line of thought conveniently forgot to mentioned the second half of the concept — that accountability comes with the flexibility. For example, 40 years ago you want the flexibility to tune the birth rate to suit the economical plans; now there should be accountability for the missing local workers that we so desperately need.
This is reality, even if some would act blur….
the PAP has govern us for many years, for better or worse, they brought us to where we all now. However it is clear in the last few years, they have clearly shown that they no longer have any idea how to run or even manage the country or city, depending on the minister perspective.
While opposition remains a wildcard, I think we should ask ourselves, are we better today as compared to 5 years ago, if so vote PAP, if not vote opposition.
#71,
Shouldn’t you ask yourself will you better off in next 5 yrs? If yes, vote PAP, if not vote opposition. Do you vote for your future prospect or past achievement?
What do you think of next 5 yrs on our housing price, career, education, medical fee, transportation fee, our kids etc etc.
That is why Singapore is always among the top three most competitive nation in doing business.
Despite the option, it is not as easy as it seems to just get a job abroad. As Singaporeans, our jobs are taken up by foreign “talents” (real and otherwise) with increasingly low pay. Our roots are here currently, however shallow, and the ‘benefits’ we should be getting as citizens are all based here.
Say we go abroad in pursue of a job, there is no guarantee that we would be granted a permit as easily as foreign counterparts in our country. I’m not even pessimistic about working and living abroad in future (once I finish my part-time degree and build up a decent resume), but why should I be myopic about the future of the nation I was born and raised in? It is not complaining as much as it is expressing from the individual viewpoint about how things could have been better off in Singapore.
And then we look at the older generation and what they have to do to survive; people who helped made this nation what it is today but are neglected by both society and the government from whose support they gathered their current power, and I wish we were more of a welfare nation. At least towards the elderly and needy. Instead of spending $10m on integrating foreigners. :\
Let’s get low skilled foreign workers here so that we can exploit their situations.
Let’s get low skilled foreign workers here so that low skilled Singaporeans can compete to see who is willing to get the lower wage contest. Thus low skilled Singaporeans can be exploited too. All is fair.
Let’s get low skilled foreign workers here, so that we can brew more discriminating instincts amongst us. Labeling children by introducing class (paper result based) system is not enough, classing us into different races is not enough, classing us into different economic worth is not enough.. Let’s instill more of this great virtue by exploiting other countries’ woes, let’s bring their men here to clean our mess and rubbish (good education is too long a process), let’s bring their women here to serve our average income earning family (mostly) like a modern slave, let’s close one eye on these poor women coming to better their lives – to be exploited by various people to be prostitutes, KTV gals, hostesses etc. Our local men need to exercise their purchasing power of the flesh trade often, it is very healthy.
Oh, in the meantime, let’s allow high skilled foreign workers to reap the benefits of our economical power. Let the highly talented foreigners be well rewarded here while we get the feeling of being reaped off. It’s ok.. it’s only a feeling.
Let the highly talented foreigners enjoy the streets clean by their lowly skilled counterpart. In return, do praise us for exploring exploitations freely at many levels and areas of our daily lives.
What a plan eh? What a marvelous plan!
//My views
Not procreating is a direct response to dictatorship.
HK and Taiwanese and many other countries have children.
Why do we have less?
especially when we are supposed to be in paradise.
Unless we are not in paradise but a perpetual mindless grind.
for those of you who thinks that MYviews is from the pigs’ camp, I agree with you.
The fact that he/she is sprouting invalidated pap sh@t goes to show 2 things:
1. the pigs are so lazy that they even bother to come up with new ideas,
2. the pigs have NO ideas at all.
They are just trying to prolong the time that they can squeeze a 2 million salary a year from the Singaporeans.
All self interest- pure greedy self interests from the pigs.
Refer to Comment (76) by mon.
“Not procreating is a direct response to dictatorship.
HK and Taiwanese and many other countries have children.”
Every country at different stages of its development need to implement different policies. Singapore’s “Stop At Two” policy had transformed an island without natural resources to a First World country.
With the huge wealth created, the next logical strategy is to increase the population base and bring the nation to the next higher level of growth.
Hong Kong and Taiwan were very different cities with strong support from the UK and US then. Singapore on the other hand even had to pay for the water imported from Malaysia and created Temasek when foreign investors were not keen to set up plants in Singapore.
Singaporeans are an apathetic bunch. They even extend their apathy to familial relations. Mention starting a family and most Singaporeans will balk at the cost, as though a baby can be measured based on X amount of $. So no, it’s not a sign of defiance. It’s the good old apathy. Again, our state religion is money.
//My Views
//Every country at different stages of its development need to implement different policies. Singapore’s “Stop At Two” policy had transformed an island without natural resources to a First World country.
as if not procreating is the reason for the existence of sky-crappers in Singapore!
I wonder why Singapore is a first world city. There are not many world famous invention. Who else is well known except LKY? What intellectual contribution have we made to the world that actually change the world?
All the other 4 dragons didn’t need this kind of draconian measures.
Only Singapore has LKY mad enough to implement this kind of policies.
IN addition, if life is so good for most people, you should see people procreating like the Taiwanese and HKer and the south Koreans, to pass on the good fortune.
We are not seeing that.
The only reason is life is not as good as all the govt statistics claimed.
That is indicated by the fact that we earn the least among the 4 dragon by far and we have the least retirement monies and we have been saving the hardest.
All the govt statistics are a flash in the pan. An exercise they do to deceive themselves and Singaporeans that life is that good when it is not.
As if the US or UK would hand monies to the HK and Taiwanese? Please don’t kid yourself.
The Taiwanese in general don’t even speak English , maybe until recently. Why would US give them aid?
HK is a rented place and UK should have taken whatever it could from the place but it is richer than Singapore now.
Why should you expect the person who rented your place to treat the place nicely?
Self delusion is not an answer!
What about the south Koreans?
They are fighting with the North Koreans. It didn’t stop them from prospering.
In all the 3 countries/city, the citizens have more monies in retirement than Singapore.
//My views
//Singapore on the other hand even had to pay for the water imported from Malaysia and created Temasek when foreign investors were not keen to set up plants in Singapore.
Ask the Malaysian if the water sold to Singapore is not subsidy.
PAP buy it at 3cents and sold it to us at 90 cents.
I think they even realised that sand sold by them to us is a subsidy, that’s why they are not selling to us at a low price anymore.
misplaced ego!
The price of water was contracted when the agreement was signed between Singapore and Malaysia. The issue of subsidy does not arise.
Raw water purchased from Malaysia cannot be consumed by Singaporeans as it has to be treated – thus further costs are incurred.
//sick views ala My Views
//The price of water was contracted when the agreement was signed between Singapore and Malaysia. The issue of subsidy does not arise.
Tell that to the finance minister.
the cpf lowest interest rate for special acct was set up long time ago. IT is an agreement between Singaporeans and the govt.
Yet the govt is lowering that. Check out the minister’s speech. He mentioned about govt losing out in the guarrantee.
The contract of 3 cents is a joke from the point of view of the Malaysians especially when they actually have no enough water in some states.
No subsidy. my foot! Oh… it is a gift from Malaysia to Singapore.
You want other examples of the sick manipulation of govt of the same type, I have lots to give.
//Raw water purchased from Malaysia cannot be consumed by Singaporeans as it has to be treated – thus further costs are incurred.
Yeah… but the cost of treatment is 80 cents?
50 cents?
What a joke.
90 cents is also the price that was sold to the Malaysians I think.
//My Views
//A responsible government has to look after the interests of the nation as a whole and anticipate the problems lying ahead in 20 or 30 years’ time.
Yeah, and the current and past government for failing to solve the following problems have demonstrated their irresponsibility:
1. population replacement problem
2. freak flooding incident
3. poison incident and the confusing grading system
4. the mismanagement of the charity sectors. (the number of charities that cock up are really incredible)
Yeah, the pigs @ parliament are really irresponsible.
My Views
post #78 on December 20th, 2009 3.49 pm
////With the huge wealth created, the next logical strategy is to increase the population base and bring the nation to the next higher level of growth.////
how, by urging the retrenched to be “cheaper, better, faster”? when wages shrink, what are you growing?
i would like to hear your views on that, thanks. :P
Refer to (87) by [mice is nice].
“how, by urging the retrenched to be “cheaper, better, faster”? when wages shrink, what are you growing?
growing?
i would like to hear your views on that, thanks.”
Increasing the pie for all – I thought this had been mentioned times and again?
By making the cake bigger for every one! What do you think the PM, MM, SM and ministers were doing when they flew all over the world? Surely they could not be accumulating air mileages for future free tickets!
My Views
post #88 on December 27th, 2009 4.04 am
////Increasing the pie for all – I thought this had been mentioned times and again?////
thanks for the quick reply, but what is the reality for most people in 2008 & 2009? not sure if its been mentioned many times, but the reality does not reflect what has been said.
////By making the cake bigger for every one! What do you think the PM, MM, SM and ministers were doing when they flew all over the world?////
is the cake bigger? for whom, how many? do all have a bigger cake, if not why so? how many retrenched in the recent past are made to live on a smaller “cake” (remunerations) in retail & service sector now? the results show for themselves, got MM, SM & PM, come economic downturn, S’pore is still hit hard like the rest of the world. so there the point of having extra “top calibre” brains is moot, isn’t it?
////Surely they could not be accumulating air mileages for future free tickets!////
it may be far fetched, but nothing is impossible.
//My Views
//Increasing the pie for all – I thought this had been mentioned times and again?
if the salary decreases, how could the size of the pie increase?
IT is more like staying at the same point.
//By making the cake bigger for every one! What do you think the PM, MM, SM and ministers were doing when they flew all over the world? Surely they could not be accumulating air mileages for future free tickets!
How could the air tickets have cost them in the first place? They were paid using public funds.
With the kind of services they get on board, I don’t think any mileage can claim them anything better or the same.
I really don’t think LKY/LHL/Goh GT is flying for our sake.
I think they just want to receive royal treatment on board.
And I also don’t see any results from their flying.
it is like that time, when LKY declared that he got so much business for Singapore from Shell and Shell had to step in to correct him.
And I also don’t think any foreigners who listened to them got anything out of listening to lky.
The only tangible thing is perhaps getting some monies for their banks etc.