- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
[h=2]PM, if we control varsity intake to prevent jobless grads, why then
the libe
"We don't want too many Sinkie grads such that foreign
grads have to compete with them for jobs....hahahahahaaa.." - the guy in the
centre, belching out his trademark larf.
ral immigration policy?[/h]
October 14th, 2012 |
Author: Contributions
Don’t PAPpy leaders say the darnedest things! So we need to be prudent on our
university intake because we don’t want too many jobless grads out in the
streets. But isn’t our liberal policy to accept immigrants doing exactly
that?
Boyoboy-oboy. Why are we paying our leaders so high to make such
self-slapping comments?
Prudence to guide rise in local varsity enrolment
By Elgin Toh
The Straits Times
Wednesday, Oct 10, 2012
http://www.asiaone.com/News/Latest+News/Edvantage/Story/A1Story20121009-376557.html
AUCKLAND – Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has indicated that even as the
Government moves to increase university enrolment in Singapore, it will do so
with prudence to ensure graduates have jobs.
Speaking at a dialogue with New Zealand businessmen, he said countries
that wantonly “churned out” graduates simply created a different and worse
problem for themselves: graduate unemployment…
.
But the Government needs to strike a balance between that aim and
employability, he made clear.
“An unemployed university graduate is a much bigger problem than somebody
who’s got, say, a polytechnic diploma or some other qualification which is
practice-oriented, which enables him to go and find a job and be productive,” he
said.
Varsity intake policy a sign that govt cannot generate enough jobs
for grads
Yeah, isn’t that the real truth? The PAPpy govt is unable to create enough
jobs, so it puts a quota on how many Sinkie grads we should have. Never mind the
number of foreign grads PAP wants is infinite.
But it was no thanks to the many policies of the PAPpy govt, costs of living
and doing business in Singapore have gone sky high. We had a good sustainable
growth in the 1970s to the 1980s. Somehow, we lost that and are no longer able
to sustain such phenomenal growth. I wrote about that here – Prof
Lim Chong Yah from PAP camp, thinks like PAP
Why it worked then:
Prof Lim’s suggestion as above worked in the last century was due to several
factors, which unfortunately, are missing today. In other words, he is trying to
cook up a well-known super successful dish, minus the ingredients that made that
dish successful.
Here are factors which were present then, which are no longer present
today.
1. Industrialisation – The 1970s and 1980s was the period of
industrialisation for Singapore. Both the light and heavy industries powered us
from the developing world to the developed world we know today.
In the heavy industry sector, our ports, ship building and repair industries,
oil refineries and petrochemical plants, as well as construction business, were
the core drivers. That was supplemented by the light industries, especially
electronics, and the logistic sector to support both the heavy and light
industries.
Many blue collar workers were needed. Pipe fitters, electricians, welders,
machinists, crane operators, technicians etc. We could up their salaries then
because of high demand for such jobs. All we need was to have these blue collar
workers trained in specific skills, even multi skills. With those skills, came
pay raises.
During that era, we could do it. Today, what growth in these industries is
there for further upgrading of skills? Any upgrading is marginal and would not
benefit the companies or the workers in a monumental way as it did last century.
Today, the skills are already there, unlike when there was a huge shortage of
such skills then.
2. We were the shoppers’ paradise – During the 1970s and
80s, Singapore was able to attract tourists with big bucks. That helped our
economy. Wasn’t it because of the steady flow of tourists last century, that
helped SIA and our airports to be what they are today? Imagine if we weren’t
able to attract tourists then.
We were known as the “shoppers’ paradise” – even along Orchard Road! We could
do it then because rental was cheap. That allowed many businesses to thrive.
Furthermore, since cost of living was low, admin and sales staff did not demand
much and did not cost much to businesses in terms of wages, unlike the blue
collar workers who demanded much higher pay because of their skills and nature
of work, including facing industrial safety hazards.
Today, no thanks to high rentals and costs, upping salaries of lower staff
without any value added would only burden these business owners. Furthermore,
how much value added can you get from sales staff with training? Not that you
need specific technical skills in retail sales that you could justify meaningful
pay increases.
3. Sane level of cost of living then – In the last century,
we had a saner level of cost of living. Housing was affordable. Medical costs
were also affordable. Transport costs was much lower. Food was much cheaper. You
could earn $400 a month and still get by comfortably, with money to spare for
your leisure needs.
Any slight increase in your pay, even $20, was immediately converted into
tangible benefit. That extra few dollars a month could get you a long way, like
spending some quality time with your family, watching a movie or two more every
month. Alternatively, you could save it over a year and it would be translated
into a tidy lump sum which you could spend a lavish gift on your spouse for your
wedding anniversary.
Such was the quality of life for Singaporeans in the 1970s or 80s, when we
were still considered a developing country!
Today, even a $100 wage increase would be eroded with the ever increasing
high cost of living.
4. Retirement was taken care by CPF – A chief and very
important reason why Prof Lim’s idea worked then, but not now, is that there was
retirement plan that worked well. Since HDB prices were much saner then, only a
small portion of the CPF was used to fund the repayment loans. By the time you
hit age 55 in the early 1990s or so, you would have had a tidy sum and could
retire comfortably.
Sadly, this cardinal principle of all developed countries, ie have a sound
retirement fund at point of retirement, is no longer true today. With insane HDB
prices, your retirement fund will never be enough when you retire at 60 or 65,
let alone 55.
Again, any small incremental wage increase of even $20 per month then, would
be translated into a mountain of wealth when you hit retirement age.
Today, with the minimum sum that is required to be retained in your CPF at
age 55, even with a $200 pay raise, you may not get to see that money at
55.
The article I wrote above continues with suggestions how to reduce the cost
of living and businesses, or at least slow down the escalating costs.
On immigration
So if the idea is to keep the number of grads at a sustainable level, so that
we won’t have an excessive number of jobless grads in the market, why then are
we importing foreigners like nobody’s business?
My argument is that we should only accept immigrants with the skills where
Singapore is short of. However, our immigration policy is non-transparent and
the idea is just to absorb any Tom, Dick and Harry to make the numbers. The only
consideration is the race demographics.
This “any immigrant will do” appears to be a crude way of raising govt
revenue through GST. For sure, everyone has to eat, drink, buy clothes, live
under a roof, travel, etc. By getting the volume of immigrants govt wants, it
appears that these people would be raising the GST amount collected.
We should have a standard transparent system of immigration, accepting only
people with the skills we want. Like for example, Canada – Comparing
Canada’s high standard for PR approval to S’pore’s suka suka policy.
Conclusion
We have lost our competitiveness this century. Unlike the 1970s and 1980s,
costs of doing business and cost of living is very high. I have put up
suggestions how that could be addressed in the link I gave (Prof
Lim Chong Yah from PAP camp, thinks like PAP).
At the same time, we should be looking at the selection process of our
immigration policy.
Finally, Lee Hsien Loong’s remark that we should be prudent on our university
entry standards so that we won’t have jobless grads is laughable. That’s due to
the fact that we keep accepting immigrants to such a level our own grads have
been displaced from their jobs.
I am not against immigration or foreigners. I am against the “anyone will do”
immigration policy, where there is no transparency and no system to ensure we
only accept the ones with the skills we want.
The problem is not that we will have too many grads from our universities.
The problem is the immigration policy of “anyone will do”.
.
Barrie
* The writer blogs at http://wherebearsroamfree.blogspot.com/
.
Editor’s note: In the 70s and 80s, Singapore can afford
to utilize a “cheap labour” strategy to continue to attract foreign investments
because we hardly have any competitions. In those days, cold war was on. The
communist bloc was off limits to the capitalistic western investors. Even China
was not fully open. After 1989, the iron curtain came down. Eastern communist
countries turned capitalistic and craved for western investors. China’s reform
began to speed up in the early 90s after the June 4th incident in 89 began to
recede.
Suddenly Singapore has multitude of competitions. It’s sad that all these
years, our economy did not truly transform to one that is driven by innovations
and productivity, like those in developed western nations. Our govt leaders
somehow stay complacent and continue to use the old economic doctrine of “cheap
labour” to attract investments. And when Singapore’s cost began to increase, we
import even more “cheap labour” from 3rd world countries to compensate. We seem
to be out of ideas on what to do.
the libe
"We don't want too many Sinkie grads such that foreign
grads have to compete with them for jobs....hahahahahaaa.." - the guy in the
centre, belching out his trademark larf.
ral immigration policy?[/h]
Don’t PAPpy leaders say the darnedest things! So we need to be prudent on our
university intake because we don’t want too many jobless grads out in the
streets. But isn’t our liberal policy to accept immigrants doing exactly
that?
Boyoboy-oboy. Why are we paying our leaders so high to make such
self-slapping comments?
Prudence to guide rise in local varsity enrolment
By Elgin Toh
The Straits Times
Wednesday, Oct 10, 2012
http://www.asiaone.com/News/Latest+News/Edvantage/Story/A1Story20121009-376557.html
AUCKLAND – Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has indicated that even as the
Government moves to increase university enrolment in Singapore, it will do so
with prudence to ensure graduates have jobs.
Speaking at a dialogue with New Zealand businessmen, he said countries
that wantonly “churned out” graduates simply created a different and worse
problem for themselves: graduate unemployment…
.
But the Government needs to strike a balance between that aim and
employability, he made clear.
“An unemployed university graduate is a much bigger problem than somebody
who’s got, say, a polytechnic diploma or some other qualification which is
practice-oriented, which enables him to go and find a job and be productive,” he
said.
for grads
Yeah, isn’t that the real truth? The PAPpy govt is unable to create enough
jobs, so it puts a quota on how many Sinkie grads we should have. Never mind the
number of foreign grads PAP wants is infinite.
But it was no thanks to the many policies of the PAPpy govt, costs of living
and doing business in Singapore have gone sky high. We had a good sustainable
growth in the 1970s to the 1980s. Somehow, we lost that and are no longer able
to sustain such phenomenal growth. I wrote about that here – Prof
Lim Chong Yah from PAP camp, thinks like PAP
Why it worked then:
Prof Lim’s suggestion as above worked in the last century was due to several
factors, which unfortunately, are missing today. In other words, he is trying to
cook up a well-known super successful dish, minus the ingredients that made that
dish successful.
Here are factors which were present then, which are no longer present
today.
1. Industrialisation – The 1970s and 1980s was the period of
industrialisation for Singapore. Both the light and heavy industries powered us
from the developing world to the developed world we know today.
In the heavy industry sector, our ports, ship building and repair industries,
oil refineries and petrochemical plants, as well as construction business, were
the core drivers. That was supplemented by the light industries, especially
electronics, and the logistic sector to support both the heavy and light
industries.
Many blue collar workers were needed. Pipe fitters, electricians, welders,
machinists, crane operators, technicians etc. We could up their salaries then
because of high demand for such jobs. All we need was to have these blue collar
workers trained in specific skills, even multi skills. With those skills, came
pay raises.
During that era, we could do it. Today, what growth in these industries is
there for further upgrading of skills? Any upgrading is marginal and would not
benefit the companies or the workers in a monumental way as it did last century.
Today, the skills are already there, unlike when there was a huge shortage of
such skills then.
2. We were the shoppers’ paradise – During the 1970s and
80s, Singapore was able to attract tourists with big bucks. That helped our
economy. Wasn’t it because of the steady flow of tourists last century, that
helped SIA and our airports to be what they are today? Imagine if we weren’t
able to attract tourists then.
We were known as the “shoppers’ paradise” – even along Orchard Road! We could
do it then because rental was cheap. That allowed many businesses to thrive.
Furthermore, since cost of living was low, admin and sales staff did not demand
much and did not cost much to businesses in terms of wages, unlike the blue
collar workers who demanded much higher pay because of their skills and nature
of work, including facing industrial safety hazards.
Today, no thanks to high rentals and costs, upping salaries of lower staff
without any value added would only burden these business owners. Furthermore,
how much value added can you get from sales staff with training? Not that you
need specific technical skills in retail sales that you could justify meaningful
pay increases.
3. Sane level of cost of living then – In the last century,
we had a saner level of cost of living. Housing was affordable. Medical costs
were also affordable. Transport costs was much lower. Food was much cheaper. You
could earn $400 a month and still get by comfortably, with money to spare for
your leisure needs.
Any slight increase in your pay, even $20, was immediately converted into
tangible benefit. That extra few dollars a month could get you a long way, like
spending some quality time with your family, watching a movie or two more every
month. Alternatively, you could save it over a year and it would be translated
into a tidy lump sum which you could spend a lavish gift on your spouse for your
wedding anniversary.
Such was the quality of life for Singaporeans in the 1970s or 80s, when we
were still considered a developing country!
Today, even a $100 wage increase would be eroded with the ever increasing
high cost of living.
4. Retirement was taken care by CPF – A chief and very
important reason why Prof Lim’s idea worked then, but not now, is that there was
retirement plan that worked well. Since HDB prices were much saner then, only a
small portion of the CPF was used to fund the repayment loans. By the time you
hit age 55 in the early 1990s or so, you would have had a tidy sum and could
retire comfortably.
Sadly, this cardinal principle of all developed countries, ie have a sound
retirement fund at point of retirement, is no longer true today. With insane HDB
prices, your retirement fund will never be enough when you retire at 60 or 65,
let alone 55.
Again, any small incremental wage increase of even $20 per month then, would
be translated into a mountain of wealth when you hit retirement age.
Today, with the minimum sum that is required to be retained in your CPF at
age 55, even with a $200 pay raise, you may not get to see that money at
55.
of living and businesses, or at least slow down the escalating costs.
On immigration
So if the idea is to keep the number of grads at a sustainable level, so that
we won’t have an excessive number of jobless grads in the market, why then are
we importing foreigners like nobody’s business?
My argument is that we should only accept immigrants with the skills where
Singapore is short of. However, our immigration policy is non-transparent and
the idea is just to absorb any Tom, Dick and Harry to make the numbers. The only
consideration is the race demographics.
This “any immigrant will do” appears to be a crude way of raising govt
revenue through GST. For sure, everyone has to eat, drink, buy clothes, live
under a roof, travel, etc. By getting the volume of immigrants govt wants, it
appears that these people would be raising the GST amount collected.
We should have a standard transparent system of immigration, accepting only
people with the skills we want. Like for example, Canada – Comparing
Canada’s high standard for PR approval to S’pore’s suka suka policy.
Conclusion
We have lost our competitiveness this century. Unlike the 1970s and 1980s,
costs of doing business and cost of living is very high. I have put up
suggestions how that could be addressed in the link I gave (Prof
Lim Chong Yah from PAP camp, thinks like PAP).
At the same time, we should be looking at the selection process of our
immigration policy.
Finally, Lee Hsien Loong’s remark that we should be prudent on our university
entry standards so that we won’t have jobless grads is laughable. That’s due to
the fact that we keep accepting immigrants to such a level our own grads have
been displaced from their jobs.
I am not against immigration or foreigners. I am against the “anyone will do”
immigration policy, where there is no transparency and no system to ensure we
only accept the ones with the skills we want.
The problem is not that we will have too many grads from our universities.
The problem is the immigration policy of “anyone will do”.
.
Barrie
* The writer blogs at http://wherebearsroamfree.blogspot.com/
.
Editor’s note: In the 70s and 80s, Singapore can afford
to utilize a “cheap labour” strategy to continue to attract foreign investments
because we hardly have any competitions. In those days, cold war was on. The
communist bloc was off limits to the capitalistic western investors. Even China
was not fully open. After 1989, the iron curtain came down. Eastern communist
countries turned capitalistic and craved for western investors. China’s reform
began to speed up in the early 90s after the June 4th incident in 89 began to
recede.
Suddenly Singapore has multitude of competitions. It’s sad that all these
years, our economy did not truly transform to one that is driven by innovations
and productivity, like those in developed western nations. Our govt leaders
somehow stay complacent and continue to use the old economic doctrine of “cheap
labour” to attract investments. And when Singapore’s cost began to increase, we
import even more “cheap labour” from 3rd world countries to compensate. We seem
to be out of ideas on what to do.
