Foreign Talent has been a contentious issue for the last 5 years and one can reasonably deduce that it will continue to be a top issue. In fact I think it has surpassed Defence as the No. 1 National Interest Issue.
There have been many arguments for and against both from locals as well as foreigners resident in Singapore and many of them have been off the mark. Within this forum, we do get forummers like Besotted, Shelltox who really on affordable foreign labour for business survival reason and others who wrongly feel that all FTs are bad. In the press, we see letters from FTs who seek equal access and treatment without realising the displacement of locals from employment and other aspects of society.
Here are some simplistic and erroneous views distilled over time from the Pro FT Camp
- foreigners tend to work harder, less choosy, less fussy, less arrogant etc.
- less pay conscious
- more committed
Simplistic and erroneous views from the Anti-FT Camp
- mercenary, parochial, indulge in nepotism,
- underqualified
The issues that need to be addressed are
1) is there a labour and skills shortage, in what sector, industry etc. If so, how are these identified and validated. What are operating mechanism and methodologies employed in determining these. Are there safety valves that prevent qualified and able singaporeans to be displaced erroneously.
2) is labour cost the main cost driver or has other cost drivers being addressed such as rentals etc
3) the existence of mechanisms to counter undesirable social impact and cost to nation building as result of large influx of foreigners
4) mechanisms to highlight the positive impact of large influx of foreigners to the quality of life and to country. Validation and comments by respected institutions and individuals and nothing from the compliant local press will go a long way towards this.
5) use of economics indicators rather than a composite of quality of life indicators may carry little value towards a country seeking an identity and reaching a state of harmony.
6) being less politically correct but being truthful would be better. Transparency in demography and its details will help address anguish and may allow greater buy-in.
There have been many arguments for and against both from locals as well as foreigners resident in Singapore and many of them have been off the mark. Within this forum, we do get forummers like Besotted, Shelltox who really on affordable foreign labour for business survival reason and others who wrongly feel that all FTs are bad. In the press, we see letters from FTs who seek equal access and treatment without realising the displacement of locals from employment and other aspects of society.
Here are some simplistic and erroneous views distilled over time from the Pro FT Camp
- foreigners tend to work harder, less choosy, less fussy, less arrogant etc.
- less pay conscious
- more committed
Simplistic and erroneous views from the Anti-FT Camp
- mercenary, parochial, indulge in nepotism,
- underqualified
The issues that need to be addressed are
1) is there a labour and skills shortage, in what sector, industry etc. If so, how are these identified and validated. What are operating mechanism and methodologies employed in determining these. Are there safety valves that prevent qualified and able singaporeans to be displaced erroneously.
2) is labour cost the main cost driver or has other cost drivers being addressed such as rentals etc
3) the existence of mechanisms to counter undesirable social impact and cost to nation building as result of large influx of foreigners
4) mechanisms to highlight the positive impact of large influx of foreigners to the quality of life and to country. Validation and comments by respected institutions and individuals and nothing from the compliant local press will go a long way towards this.
5) use of economics indicators rather than a composite of quality of life indicators may carry little value towards a country seeking an identity and reaching a state of harmony.
6) being less politically correct but being truthful would be better. Transparency in demography and its details will help address anguish and may allow greater buy-in.
