- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
A rebuttal to Vikram Khanna’s BT article defending the need for foreign workers
February 11, 2010 by admin01
Filed under Bhaskaran Kunju, Columnists, Opinion
Leave a comment
http://www.temasekreview.com/2010/02/11/a-rebuttal-to-vikram-khannas-bt-article-defending-the-need-for-foreign-workers/
By Bhaskaran Kunju
Framing is a writing device that helps to put into focus a story or event in a manner that the writer wants the reader to be able to identify with. Every article that you read has been framed to put forward and emphasise a specific perspective.
A few days ago, Mr Vikram Khanna of The Business Times wrote an article, “The foreign-worker link in growth, productivity”. In it, he suggested that the media reports on the recent Economic Strategies Committee (ESC) report were incorrect in the analysis and coverage of the key recommendations. (read Vikram Khanna’s article here)
While Mr Khanna has taken issue over the framing of the story by the media, the reality isn’t far from what’s already been discussed in the media. Let’s get straight to the point on this.
In page one of the ESC report itself, under point 6 it is stated, “Our specific recommendations are summarised under three broad priorities. First, we have to boost skills in every job. We should develop an outstanding nation-wide system of continuing education and training, to give everyone the opportunity to acquire greater proficiency, knowledge and expertise, from the most basic jobs to the most complex. Employers and industry associations, unions and government will also have to work together to redesign and create better jobs. We recommend a progressive increase in foreign worker levies to incentivise companies to improve productivity.”
The direct recommendation and conclusion by the ESC in boosting skills in every job is to increase foreign worker levies. There are 3 conclusions that can be drawn from this: 1. Foreign workers are being used as cheaper alternatives to local workers by companies and this currently is/has been/will be a hindrance to the productivity levels that are being expected; 2. More should be done to train Singaporean workers as opposed to now, when the influx of foreign workers has made it easier to hire them instead of training locals; and 3. The level of skills possessed by foreign workers at the present is not up to the high standards that have been initially expected.
I am willing to concede there might be counter arguments over the conclusions drawn here, but I do believe they are on the mark. In the main press release, the ESC summarised this portion of the report as such, “Manage our dependence on the foreign workforce by raising foreign worker levies in a gradual and phased manner. Also raise the quality of the foreign workforce and encourage employers to retain skilled foreign workers by increasing the skilled levy differential.”
Mr Khanna actually seems to suggest that all foreign workers will be retained en bloc when he says, “incentives will be put in place for companies to retain foreign workers so that their skills, too, can be upgraded.”
As one can infer from the press release statement above and in careful reading of the report itself, it is only the skilled foreign workers who are to be retained. Of course it will also be untrue to suggest that there might be mass culling of foreign workers in light of the ESC report. This will be economical suicide. Which is why the ESC has recommended steps that will alter the current landscape gradually and over the long run.
Mr Khanna generally argues that an increase in foreign workers, or at least the current numbers are justifiable and are vital for the growth of Singapore. He cites a few lines from an Economic Review Committee (ERC) report from 2003 to assert the necessity of foreign workers.
He states, “But, first, let’s recall another report that was released almost exactly seven years ago, in February 2003, by the Economic Review Committee (ERC). This is what it said about foreign workers, on page 142: ‘Without foreign workers manning the night-shifts, there would be no day-shift jobs for Singaporeans. Production costs would go up and companies would be forced to move elsewhere, where workers are cheaper and more readily available.’ The ERC had a point, and it’s even truer today, when there are more ‘elsewheres’ for companies to move to than in 2003.”
But as he has correctly pointed this was 7 years ago. Logically the release of the latest ESC report automatically supersedes all such previous reports, as it is a revised outlook.
Furthermore the ERC was a precursor to the ESC. To point out the ERC, and its report, as a separate process is misleading as it gives the impression that there are conflicting views being put forth by the government. Also the ERC was set up in 2001, with its first and only report being published in 2003, at a time when the Singapore and global economic climate was much more different than it is now, even in terms of foreign worker numbers.
It is true of course that foreign workers are needed to supplement the labour force. This is a given in any economy. But the general consensus as derived by the media and the people from the ESC report is that there is a shift in perception by the government on how foreign workers are to be utilised and the management of their proportional numbers in the work force.
The main purpose of the ESC report is in fact on broader issues of maintaining the competitiveness of Singapore’s economy. The reinvestment in the labour force is a portion of the main crux of the ESC’s suggestion in keeping the labour pool on par with Singapore’s economic targets. Improving the skills of Singaporeans and the management of foreign worker numbers are the main suggestions put forth.
Couple that with the broad recommendation of reducing the reliance on foreign workers and the main idea of reducing foreigners being bandied about in the media is no longer incorrect as Mr Khanna had suggested.
It is however another question as to why just this portion would receive more coverage in the media ahead of the rest of the report. The reason is simple. It is of the biggest concern to the average Singaporean at present and at the individual level has more relevance.
Mr Khanna, has chosen to provide arguments that are heavily weighted in personal opinion and have little to do with the general consensus or the facts of the ESC. Even the Straits Times framed the story as ‘The Big Shift” in reference to the shift in foreign worker reliance by the government.
Mr Khanna worries that people might think that cutting back on foreign workers “will magically raise productivity”. Generally no one has made this leap in judgment. But the inverse that he is arguing, that is including more foreigners in the workforce means an increase in productivity is also wrong.
February 11, 2010 by admin01
Filed under Bhaskaran Kunju, Columnists, Opinion
Leave a comment
http://www.temasekreview.com/2010/02/11/a-rebuttal-to-vikram-khannas-bt-article-defending-the-need-for-foreign-workers/
By Bhaskaran Kunju
Framing is a writing device that helps to put into focus a story or event in a manner that the writer wants the reader to be able to identify with. Every article that you read has been framed to put forward and emphasise a specific perspective.
A few days ago, Mr Vikram Khanna of The Business Times wrote an article, “The foreign-worker link in growth, productivity”. In it, he suggested that the media reports on the recent Economic Strategies Committee (ESC) report were incorrect in the analysis and coverage of the key recommendations. (read Vikram Khanna’s article here)
While Mr Khanna has taken issue over the framing of the story by the media, the reality isn’t far from what’s already been discussed in the media. Let’s get straight to the point on this.
In page one of the ESC report itself, under point 6 it is stated, “Our specific recommendations are summarised under three broad priorities. First, we have to boost skills in every job. We should develop an outstanding nation-wide system of continuing education and training, to give everyone the opportunity to acquire greater proficiency, knowledge and expertise, from the most basic jobs to the most complex. Employers and industry associations, unions and government will also have to work together to redesign and create better jobs. We recommend a progressive increase in foreign worker levies to incentivise companies to improve productivity.”
The direct recommendation and conclusion by the ESC in boosting skills in every job is to increase foreign worker levies. There are 3 conclusions that can be drawn from this: 1. Foreign workers are being used as cheaper alternatives to local workers by companies and this currently is/has been/will be a hindrance to the productivity levels that are being expected; 2. More should be done to train Singaporean workers as opposed to now, when the influx of foreign workers has made it easier to hire them instead of training locals; and 3. The level of skills possessed by foreign workers at the present is not up to the high standards that have been initially expected.
I am willing to concede there might be counter arguments over the conclusions drawn here, but I do believe they are on the mark. In the main press release, the ESC summarised this portion of the report as such, “Manage our dependence on the foreign workforce by raising foreign worker levies in a gradual and phased manner. Also raise the quality of the foreign workforce and encourage employers to retain skilled foreign workers by increasing the skilled levy differential.”
Mr Khanna actually seems to suggest that all foreign workers will be retained en bloc when he says, “incentives will be put in place for companies to retain foreign workers so that their skills, too, can be upgraded.”
As one can infer from the press release statement above and in careful reading of the report itself, it is only the skilled foreign workers who are to be retained. Of course it will also be untrue to suggest that there might be mass culling of foreign workers in light of the ESC report. This will be economical suicide. Which is why the ESC has recommended steps that will alter the current landscape gradually and over the long run.
Mr Khanna generally argues that an increase in foreign workers, or at least the current numbers are justifiable and are vital for the growth of Singapore. He cites a few lines from an Economic Review Committee (ERC) report from 2003 to assert the necessity of foreign workers.
He states, “But, first, let’s recall another report that was released almost exactly seven years ago, in February 2003, by the Economic Review Committee (ERC). This is what it said about foreign workers, on page 142: ‘Without foreign workers manning the night-shifts, there would be no day-shift jobs for Singaporeans. Production costs would go up and companies would be forced to move elsewhere, where workers are cheaper and more readily available.’ The ERC had a point, and it’s even truer today, when there are more ‘elsewheres’ for companies to move to than in 2003.”
But as he has correctly pointed this was 7 years ago. Logically the release of the latest ESC report automatically supersedes all such previous reports, as it is a revised outlook.
Furthermore the ERC was a precursor to the ESC. To point out the ERC, and its report, as a separate process is misleading as it gives the impression that there are conflicting views being put forth by the government. Also the ERC was set up in 2001, with its first and only report being published in 2003, at a time when the Singapore and global economic climate was much more different than it is now, even in terms of foreign worker numbers.
It is true of course that foreign workers are needed to supplement the labour force. This is a given in any economy. But the general consensus as derived by the media and the people from the ESC report is that there is a shift in perception by the government on how foreign workers are to be utilised and the management of their proportional numbers in the work force.
The main purpose of the ESC report is in fact on broader issues of maintaining the competitiveness of Singapore’s economy. The reinvestment in the labour force is a portion of the main crux of the ESC’s suggestion in keeping the labour pool on par with Singapore’s economic targets. Improving the skills of Singaporeans and the management of foreign worker numbers are the main suggestions put forth.
Couple that with the broad recommendation of reducing the reliance on foreign workers and the main idea of reducing foreigners being bandied about in the media is no longer incorrect as Mr Khanna had suggested.
It is however another question as to why just this portion would receive more coverage in the media ahead of the rest of the report. The reason is simple. It is of the biggest concern to the average Singaporean at present and at the individual level has more relevance.
Mr Khanna, has chosen to provide arguments that are heavily weighted in personal opinion and have little to do with the general consensus or the facts of the ESC. Even the Straits Times framed the story as ‘The Big Shift” in reference to the shift in foreign worker reliance by the government.
Mr Khanna worries that people might think that cutting back on foreign workers “will magically raise productivity”. Generally no one has made this leap in judgment. But the inverse that he is arguing, that is including more foreigners in the workforce means an increase in productivity is also wrong.
