U-Turn on Jobs Credit Scheme

[scroobal]

When the Jobs Credit Scheme was first announced during the Budget Speech in Parliament, comments were noted from 3 categories of people and seen in the media over the next few days. The 3 categories were

1) SPH journalists were full of praise for it
2) Business owners expressed their delight in interviews
3) Man in the street who was interviewed felt the same

It even resulted in identifying and highlighting the team from MOF that came out with it. In general it was viewed as innovative and bold.

Its appears to have gone pear shaped since the Parliament debate began.

Forget about the opposition MPs and NMPs. 3 PAP MPs expressed doubts about it. Ngiam Tong Dow the long standing Finance Mandarin categorically stated that it is the wrong approach. Labour Chief Lim Swee Say is now spinning a different line and has changed tack on what Jobs Credit Scheme is all about.

2 PAP MPs want mechanisms to ensure that jobs are indeed protected when money is received by the businesses.

Questions?
1) Did the local press get it so wrong. Did they have a reading of the ground?
2) Why did everyone without exception felt it was good and then changed their mind
3) Why no PAP MP other than NTUC Labour MPs come out in support for it?

 

[tonychat]

Questions?
1) Did the local press get it so wrong. Did they have a reading of the ground?
2) Why did everyone without exception felt it was good and then changed their mind
3) Why no PAP MP other than NTUC Labour MPs come out in support for it?

YOu still dunno what is sinkie behavior? That is the exact sinkie behavior.

 

[The_Latest_H]

The state press also forgot to mention that Barack Obama suggested it in America during the election period against McCain, saying that the federal governments would give US$2k to US$3k to companies for every employee retained or retrained.

It was later scrapped once the stimulus package negotiations started in the earnest in the week before his swearing in- because Democrats realise how fuzzy the process would become- in the same way what we are discussing now with such a similar(some say copycat?) scheme the PAP wants.

My reckoning is that these younger civil servants, Tharman's trusted young 'uns, could have possibly did spend the whole night thinking and firming up on that idea- but instead of really burning midnight oil to create the Job Credits scheme from scratch, they could have just gone to Barackobama.com and download it from that website and then just adapted the suitable parts that could be applied in Singapore.

In that sense, whether did they work hard, or whether did they just download, and waited for it to complete, is a question by itself. And whether are they as creative as SPH claims them to be is also another question by itself.

 

[SIFU]

YOu still dunno what is sinkie behavior? That is the exact sinkie behavior.

what a fucking lame post from thai loser..:oIo:

 

[denzuko1]

When the Jobs Credit Scheme was first announced during the Budget Speech in Parliament, comments were noted from 3 categories of people and seen in the media over the next few days. The 3 categories were

1) SPH journalists were full of praise for it
2) Business owners expressed their delight in interviews
3) Man in the street who was interviewed felt the same

It even resulted in identifying and highlighting the team from MOF that came out with it. In general it was viewed as innovative and bold.

Its appears to have gone pear shaped since the Parliament debate began.

Forget about the opposition MPs and NMPs. 3 PAP MPs expressed doubts about it. Ngiam Tong Dow the long standing Finance Mandarin categorically stated that it is the wrong approach. Labour Chief Lim Swee Say is now spinning a different line and has changed tack on what Jobs Credit Scheme is all about.

2 PAP MPs want mechanisms to ensure that jobs are indeed protected when money is received by the businesses.

Questions?
1) Did the local press get it so wrong. Did they have a reading of the ground?
2) Why did everyone without exception felt it was good and then changed their mind
3) Why no PAP MP other than NTUC Labour MPs come out in support for it?

They are too pai say to admit the problem when it was brought out by LTK, worse still they shot him down for raising valid concern. That's why they need a day for things to settle down and people forget what happen. Now PAP is the one who find all these problems and solve it, not opposition.

What a bunch of fuck up morons. And Lui still wonder why neticens are so hard on them?

 

[Perspective]

3) Why no PAP MP other than NTUC Labour MPs come out in support for it?

There was one - Jessica Tan.

Perhaps there was some grassroots and unions "revolt" when some of the concerns by opposition MPs (especially LTK), NMPs (especially Siew) and PAP MPs expressed reservations and they heard the debates.

You know, the PAP doesn't just control such large bodies by legislation. To an extent yes, but that cannot be all. A balancing act is sometimes performed by them especially if the noises are loud.

This is why we no longer hear about the compulsory annuity scheme.

 

[silverspoon]

never hear doesn't mean it is gone...they are just waiting for an opportunity to bring it back up again.....

once a blood sucker..always a blood sucker

There was one - Jessica Tan.

Perhaps there was some grassroots and unions "revolt" when some of the concerns by opposition MPs (especially LTK), NMPs (especially Siew) and PAP MPs expressed reservations and they heard the debates.

You know, the PAP doesn't just control such large bodies by legislation. To an extent yes, but that cannot be all. A balancing act is sometimes performed by them especially if the noises are loud.

This is why we no longer hear about the compulsory annuity scheme.

 

[newyorker88]

never hear doesn't mean it is gone...they are just waiting for an opportunity to bring it back up again.....

once a blood sucker..always a blood sucker

Thanks for the update on Annuity crap. Almost forgotten liao. hahahaha

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Scrobal

The problem is basically this. The job credit scheme cannot prevent job losses. What it does is it reduces the severity of possible job losses. IE instead of a loss of ten jobs, say only five are lost. That is however hard to explain. Personally I am all for the job credits scheme in combination with other schemes :_))) with a greater emphasize on loosening and guranteeing credit.




Locke

 

[SneeringTree]

Dear Scrobal

The problem is basically this. The job credit scheme cannot prevent job losses. What it does is it reduces the severity of possible job losses. IE instead of a loss of ten jobs, say only five are lost. That is however hard to explain. Personally I am all for the job credits scheme in combination with other schemes :_))) with a greater emphasize on loosening and guranteeing credit.

Locke

I'll hold my peace and wait for the results if the government releases the following information:

1) No. of Foreign Talents vs Singaporean workers
2) No. of Foreign Talents vs Permanent Resident workers
3) The wage differential for FT, Sinkies and PRs in similar jobs
4) Clear and unambiguous Key Performance Indicators of the Jobs Credit Scheme (And no, saying the Jobs Credit Scheme will help "slow down" retrenchment is not good enough a measurement of its success).
5) State which are the biggest beneficiary companies of the Jobs Credit Scheme

 

[kakowi]

When the Jobs Credit Scheme was first announced...

In matters where the livelihood of the peoples are concerned, the PAP is normally quite careful and seek extensive feedback before making a final decision, even if their feedback mechanism is only intended to flesh out the points of disagreement and determine the counterpoints

If I remember correctly, the Budget was brought forward and that the team worked through the night to come up with the details.

If that is indeed the case, then the due process was not followed and as a result, dissenting point of views were not analyzed for substance.

Hence the backtrack because the decision-making process was not rigorous enough.

.....

As to why most agree with the decision and now some change their tack, well that is the drawback of our current system and not just our system but any system where power resides in the few and all want a slice of that power.

Which means: -

For the PAP MPs - power resides in influencing the PAP elite that they were the right choice either by agreement or judicious disagreement

For the media - power resides in the economic environment in which they operate

For the opposition MPs - power resides in influencing the people that they have value
​

As such, each operates within their sphere of desires.

And the whole cacophony of voices, in this case, results in something good for the voters.

 

[silverspoon]

any way,

for company that is making profits, this will means more money for the boss.

for company that is Not making profits, this does not mean they will save jobs.

my company still continues to retrench and also pay cuts...

in short,

this job credit does nothing for the ordinary employees

 

[scroobal]

Dear Scrobal

The problem is basically this. The job credit scheme cannot prevent job losses. What it does is it reduces the severity of possible job losses. IE instead of a loss of ten jobs, say only five are lost. That is however hard to explain. Personally I am all for the job credits scheme in combination with other schemes :_))) with a greater emphasize on loosening and guranteeing credit.
Locke

Actually my post is the picture painted by the press and the subsequent concerns expressed later within the party and other observers. (Just read it again)

Job Credit is a political solution as it targets Singaporeans and PR at the expense of otger foreigners such as EP and Work permit Holders. Any political party would have done that and it is the right thing to do.

The error was in projecting it as the footprint of their rescue plan and the Press for taking it to town as such. Even PAP MPs thought that was the case until Lim Swee Say stepped a couple of notches and accepted its purposes.

The issue of generating demand and sustaining economic activity to a credible level is still pie in the sky. 80% loan guarantees does not guarantee demand. In fact most people are no longer seeking loans for expansion but to handle cash flow. The banks will look at the books and aim for cash flow and that is where the issue is. They certainlly are not going to risk 20% of their principal.

I suspect that we will be back in parliament within the next 6 mths and watch the space on GST and a strategy of pushing spending money to the masses. The time honoured fiscal policy of massive public spending on infrastructure that led to the new deal in the US and the Snowy Mountain Projects in Australia cannot be emulated here as the massive bulk of workers are WP and EP holders with remittance. That money is not going get people thru the doors of Modestos or Gan's hair saloons.

Yes, do agree with what you have written as well.