Let me attempt a comedic long-winded reply in the style of @
Willamshakespear:
" Oh, buckle up and grab your popcorn, because we’re about to embark on a thrilling journey through the dense jungle of bureaucratic musings, where common sense is as rare as a unicorn sighting in Toa Payoh. You see, the debate about whether the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) in Singapore is responsible for unfair hiring practices is like debating if Singapore has enough shopping malls – utterly pointless and bound to trigger a national existential crisis.
Let’s dive headfirst into the labyrinthine quagmire, shall we? First off, the MOM – that bastion of regulation, protector of the proletariat, and undoubtedly the inspiration for George Orwell’s “1984” – is being accused of... wait for it... unfair hiring practices. Yes, the same MOM that has more rules and guidelines than a hypochondriac's medicine cabinet, is now in the dock for allegedly letting bias slip through the meticulous nets of its guidelines.
But come on, let’s be real. If there’s one thing MOM does well, it’s creating forms. You want a form to hire, fire, retire, or inspire? MOM’s got you covered. There’s a form for every conceivable hiring situation. Need to hire a unicorn to run your start-up? Just submit Form 234C-UN3 and wait for a cosmic alignment. The idea that such an institution could be responsible for hiring bias is as far-fetched as saying Singapore’s got an issue with cleanliness.
Now, let’s consider the plight of our dear overworked HR departments. These unsung heroes, bless their souls, are caught in the Sisyphean task of navigating MOM’s ever-growing stack of policies. The notion that they could somehow slip in a biased hire under MOM's hawk-eyed scrutiny is like suggesting that you could smuggle durians into a cinema without anyone noticing. It’s not just improbable; it’s hilariously absurd.
Imagine, if you will, an HR manager, eyes bloodshot from pouring over MOM’s Employment Act, stumbling upon a loophole so minuscule that even an ant would need a magnifying glass. They leap at the chance to hire their cousin’s best friend’s former roommate’s cat, who happens to be an “exceptionally talented” keyboard-walker. Of course, MOM’s extensive vetting process – which could put an FBI background check to shame – somehow misses this egregious breach of ethical hiring. Oh, the drama!
And let’s not forget the job seekers. Ah, the beleaguered souls trudging through the swamp of job applications. They navigate the minefield of competency questions, personality tests, and LinkedIn profile grooming. To suggest that MOM’s stringent guidelines do not offer a fair chance is to ignore the hours spent by these individuals perfecting the art of humility in cover letters, where “I am honored to apply” really means “Please, for the love of kopi-o, hire me!”
In the grand theatrical production that is the hiring process, MOM is not the villain twirling its mustache and plotting discrimination from the shadows. If anything, it’s the overly enthusiastic stage manager, bustling about with clipboards and megaphones, ensuring that everyone, from the leading man to the backstage coffee machine, is treated with equal parts care and paperwork.
So, dear critic of MOM’s hiring practices, let’s pause and take a breath. Perhaps the real issue isn’t with MOM’s policies, but rather with our expectations that bureaucracy could somehow be the villain in this piece. After all, if MOM was really out to be unfair, they’d probably make us fill out a form just to complain about it.
And on that note, let’s raise our pens to bureaucracy – the tireless crusader against common sense. Cheers! "
P.S. - Courtesy of ChatGPT, knn of course my England is not that superb, LOL.
--------------