ST Forum: Letting athletes train in lieu of NS not feasible

From the Straits Times Forum on 3 Dec 2009 [link]:

Letting athletes train in lieu of NS not feasible

I REFER to Mr Lee Seck Kay's letter last Thursday, 'Let top male athletes train in lieu of NS'.

The Ministry of Defence, in consultation with the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports, considers top male athletes' requests to defer their national service (NS) on a case-by-case basis.

Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports Vivian Balakrishnan had explained this arrangement in his reply to Nominated Member of Parliament Joscelin Yeo's question on this issue. Athletes who are preparing for and competing in major international competitions may be allowed to delay NS enlistment for a certain period.

Those granted such deferments in the past included swimmer Sng Ju Wei and sailor Maximilian Soh. Like everyone else, these individuals still have to do NS after their deferment period.

NS ensures Singapore's national security and survival. This is the basis of the Enlistment Act, which mandates that all NS-liable males are to be enlisted at the earliest opportunity on turning 18 years of age. The suggestion put forth by Mr Lee, to let top athletes train full time in lieu of NS, goes against this core principle.

We thank Mr Lee for his feedback.

Koh Peng Keng
Director, Sports Division
Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports

I'm surprised at the shoddy reply given by Koh Peng Keng from MCYS. Nowhere in the Enlistment Act does it state that all NS-liable males are to be enlisted at the earliest opportunity on turning 18. All it says is that if you do get called up, you have to register. The SAF council has the option of not calling you up.

It is no secret that Singapore award citizenship status to sportsmen under the foreign talent scheme. None of them have ever been enlisted despite being eligible (all male citizens and PRs between 16 1/2 and 40). The same goes for the many foreign talents who were given scholarships by government organizations such as A*STAR. I know many male scholars who had to take up Singapore citizenship in their 20s in return for receiving their scholarship awards. They were never asked to serve NS. As far as I know, A*STAR guarantees their male scholars that they do not have to serve NS if they take up citizenship.

Uncontroversial issues

Over the years, starting from the old Sintercom forum, which was shut down in 2001, and soc.culture.singapore, I've been involved in numerous online arguments with people. While I find some of the issues to be thought-provoking and interesting, many of them should have been decisively settled by sheer weight of logic and evidence. I am tired of arguing over the same things again and again, so I will be starting a series of posts to discuss some uncontroversial issues on which I have very strong views. I consider them uncontroversial because it is no longer possible for a well-informed rational person to sustain an argument over them. This does not mean that they won't touch some raw nerves. Nevertheless, arguments will continue because some people will hold on to their positions for irrational and emotional reasons.

In some sense, the series of posts will be a repository of arguments that I have used for nearly a decade. In my opinion, my arguments are still good and I have not found the need to change them.

Here is a list of uncontroversial issues that I will like to discuss:

1. Mother tongue and ethnicity
2. Foreign students in Singapore universities
3. Gender equality and national service
4. Homosexuality and the consequence of legalizing it
5. The scholarship system
6. Promoting bilingualism in Singapore
7. Racism in Singapore

Hopefully, I will like to finish discussing all of them before the year is over.

ST: Spore's population is 4.84 million

From the Straits Times on 17 June 2009:

SINGAPORE'S population grew 5.5 per cent last year to reach 4.84 million, due largely to the influx of foreigners. The number of residents, that is, Singapore citizens and permanent residents (PR), rose 1.7 per cent to 3.64 million in June last year, said a report released by the National Population Secretariat (NPS) on Wednesday. There were 79,167 new PRs in 2008 - up 15, 540 from 63,627 the previous year and 20,513 new citizens, an increase of 3,179 from 17,334 over the same period. More than half of the new residents aged 20 and above had at least post-secondary education which shows that Singapore continues to attract talented foreigners. With more foreigners settling in Singapore, NPS said it has become 'more important' to help them integrate. NPS also said that Singapore continues to face the long-term demographic challenge of low fertility and ageing population. Singapore's total feritility rate of 1.28 in 2008 remained below the replacement level of 2.1. The proportion of residents aged 65 years and above also continues to increase to 8.7 per cent last year from 6.8 per cent in 1998. These trends underscore the need to 'continue working on long-term strategies to build a sustainable population, in spite of the economic downturn', added NPS. NPS also continues to engage thousands of Singaporeans who are overseas for work and studies through its Overseas Singaporean Unit to help them stay connected with home. As of June last year, there were more than 180,000 Singaporeans overseas.

Wow, over 50 percent of the new PRs over 20 in Singapore have at least post-secondary education and the ST calls our foreign talent policy a success in attracting talented people.

On the other hand, over 80 percent of each P1 cohort in Singapore go on to attend ITE, Polytechnic and Pre-University.

We the people of Singapore must be uber-talented.

And to the talents in Singapore Press Holdings, keep up the good work in nation-building.

ST: English test for foreign front-line staff? Bosses say 'no'

From the ST on 25 May 2008:

English test for foreign front-line staff? Bosses say 'no'

Many not keen on imposing test, citing current labour crunch in service industry

By Jamie Ee Wen Wei and Dhany Osman

Should there be an English entry test for foreign workers in front-line service jobs?

Judging from the response of employers and human resources experts contacted by The Sunday Times, the answer seems to be no. In fact, most say that such a test may pose more problems than it solves.

The idea of an entry test was mooted amid a brewing debate in the Forum page of The Straits Times over the issue of foreign front-line staff and their English proficiency.

Letter writer Jaggi Kumar, who suggested the test, wondered why it is not in place, since a similar test was imposed on foreign maids.

Introduced by the Ministry of Manpower three years ago, the English entry test for first-time maids was designed to ensure that they have basic numeracy and literacy skills to do household tasks and adapt to life here.
A check by The Sunday Times with employers revealed that most were not keen to impose a similar test on service workers, though the idea did find a few backers.

Among them was Mr Yeo Guat Kwang, president of the Consumers Association of Singapore and co-chairman of the Customer-Centric Initiative, which helps local companies to raise their service standards.

He said: 'If we have it for maids, I don't see why we can't have it for service staff too.'

Mr Tan Yew Kiat, general manager of fashion chain bYSI, believes that a test would improve service standards and help new foreign workers understand what is expected in their work.

Is it really necessary?

But industry players not sold on the idea worry that the test may shrink the pool of workers and worsen the labour crunch faced by the booming industry.

'Singapore cannot afford to say 'no' to foreign workers. I think if we introduce this, the number coming in will be reduced by 80 per cent,' said Mr Heinz Javier Colby, general manager of Novotel Clarke Quay Hotel which has about 30 foreign front-line officers.

Ms Elim Chew, director of streetwear chain 77th Street, felt the language problem is actually 'minor'. She said: 'If we put more obstacles, then it will be harder to get workers. This will raise costs, which will be passed on to consumers.'

There is one foreign front-line worker for every three Singaporeans employed by her company.

Mr Edward Tan, human resources director of department store chain Metro Private Limited, which employs foreigners from Malaysia, China, the Philippines and Myanmar, also wondered if there is an over-emphasis on English.

'If some stores are in the suburbs, having staff who can speak Mandarin or dialects may be more appropriate,' he said.

Mr Josh Goh, corporate services manager of recruitment company The GMP Group, agreed, noting that English speakers may not necessarily deliver better service.
'Implementing such a rule will eliminate those able to give good service but not privileged enough to learn the language.'

His company has recruited more than 100 workers from China for the service industry since hiring rules were relaxed last year.

That said, employers agree that English skills are good to have. In fact, given a choice, most companies would prefer to hire English speakers, said employment agencies.

The reality, however, is that it is hard to find such people, especially when the industry is turning to non-traditional sources like China.

'Some know English, but it is still hard to understand them because of their pronunciation,' said Mr Daniel Low, director of Wilm Management, a recruitment company. It has recruited more than 200 Chinese workers for service-sector companies this year.

Those who do speak English well also expect higher salaries. Often, they also prefer to work in Western countries where the pay may be better, said employment agents.

Training efforts

Still, employers agree that more can be done to train staff to communicate better. Some employment agencies and service-sector firms have started in-house English training programmes.

On a national level, there is also help offered by the Singapore Workforce Development Agency (WDA), which companies like Sakae Sushi are tapping into.

Mr Douglas Foo, chief executive officer of Apex-Pal which runs the Japanese-food chain, said all his workers have to go through the Employability Skills System under the WDA. Under this, there are courses to upgrade English proficiency.

A few weeks ago, Mr Foo said his company hired its first batch of 10 Chinese workers. They are undergoing a three-month English course.

But not all companies may have in-house or external training. Smaller enterprises, noted industry experts, are often hard-pressed to say yes to training.

'Operation costs are going up. Their margins are already very slim,' said the Singapore Retailers Association's executive director Lau Chuen Wei.

Another issue is time. Mr Justin Ng, director of human resources company AICG, said: 'Most employers require their foreign staff to work long hours. By the time they finish, they are too tired to attend any courses.'

Among his clients, only 30 per cent require their foreign staff to go for language training.

When Metro started a computer-based English training course four years ago, it became a hit with its foreign staff.

But after a few years, the department store faced another problem. Some workers, after receiving training, left for better jobs.

Others have suggested that the Government extend subsidies for training to foreign workers as well. Currently, training subsidies are limited to Singaporeans and permanent residents.

Still, in the light of the current situation, most feel that the onus is on companies to train their foreign staff to communicate effectively.

Those which do not may soon lose their competitive edge, said Ms Caroline Lim, director of the Institute of Service Excellence at the Singapore Management University. 'After some time, customers will stop going to their shops. This is when the companies will start feeling the pinch.'

The presence of non-English speaking PRC staff has increased significantly in Singapore retail shops and many people, especially the non-Mandarin speaking ones, are getting annoyed by it. What the authorities have to bear in mind is that there is silent social compact between the major ethnic groups in Singapore that, despite the Chinese majority in Singapore, we do not use Mandarin as the national inter-ethnic language very much like Malay is the decreed lingua franca in Malaysia. There is nothing wrong with learning Mandarin, or Malay for that matter, but we shouldn't expect our fellow non-Chinese Singaporeans to learn it just to buy their groceries.

While it is true that most non-English speaking PRC staff are found in the heartlands, where there are a large number of Mandarin speakers, what fails to be noticed is that, because of our national policy to disperse minorities, there are Malay and Indian Singaporeans living in the same heartlands. How do they feel? There is no avoiding of these non-English speaking foreign staff.

Bond breakers

A couple of months ago, I was asked by a professor J in the office building to review the credentials of a graduate school applicant X from my alma mater, the National University of Singapore. X is a 4th year Electrical and Computer Engineering student and should have completed his studies by now. Prof. J handed me the dossier file containing X's application materials - his transcript, resume, statement, recommendation letters, etc. I went through all of them. His application was pretty solid. Straight A's in his engineering classes according to his transcript. Top 5 in his cohort, said one of his professors in his recommendation letters. I don't even know why Prof. J asked me to look over his application.

Then, I noticed that X was from the PRC. More specifically, X is an MOE scholarship holder (as stated in his resume), the kind that is obliged to serve out his/her bond in Singapore for 6 years after graduation in exchange for a tax-money sponsored university education in Singapore. What on earth was he doing, applying to go to graduate school in the US immediately after graduation when he has signed a 6-year contract with the MOE? As far as I know, the bond does not allow its signee to undertake any postgraduate studies overseas unless he/she obtains Singapore citizenship. If the ECE department accepts X's application, there is no way they will defer his entry for 6 years. So, the only logical conclusion is that X is going to break his bond and come to the US for graduate school. Applying to graduate school is not cheap and something you do on a whim as it involves doing the GRE, TOEFl and getting people to write recommendation letters.

The irony is, for people like X who will probably 'break' his bond and mind you, not fulfill the terms of his contract, i.e. not pay the financial penalty of not serving out his bond, the Singapore government will stay silent, very very silent. By letting someone like X go, at least 100 to 150 thousand dollars of Singaporeans' tax money spent subsidizing his eduction has gone down the drain. Where is the accountability so often trumpeted by our civil service?

On the other hand, in contrast, when one of our PSC/EDB scholars does not serve out his/her bond but pays back the money to the government, plus a little bit more, the national broadsheets scream bloody murder and an esteemed, very senior civil servant, who is more likely than not to be aware of MOE scholarships for people like X, threatens to award scholarships only to females and foreigners because they are supposedly less likely to break their bonds. (Guess what? Someone in this university, who used to be an undergraduate scholarship holder from the organization formerly chaired by the aforementioned civil servant, is a female non-Singaporean bond-breaker.) We have to bear in mind that the government is financially compensated in this case and terms of the contract are indeed fulfilled to the letter, whereas for people like X, there is a clear monetary loss.

The hypocrisy of it all...

Sunday Times: Making S'pore a 'brain gain' city

From the Sunday Times on 18 May 2008:

Making S'pore a 'brain gain' city
To stay ahead globally, Singapore - like many other countries - is trying to attract talent, but efforts will be hampered if locals don't welcome them
By Warren Fernandez, Deputy Editor

Imagine if you could read the minds of people around the world to fathom what they were thinking about most.

What do you think it would it be? Global warming and the dangers climate change poses for their children?

Rising oil prices? Rising food costs?

Democracy? Human rights? Freedom?

Family? Relationships? Sex?

Well, the international polling organisation Gallup sought to find out with its first World Poll. It bills this as a 'window into the minds of six billion people in over 140 countries', or 95 per cent of the world's adult population.

And the answer?

'What the whole world wants is a good job,' Gallup chairman and chief executive officer Jim Clifton wrote in an article titled 'Global Migration Patterns and Job Creation', published last October.

'That is one of the single biggest discoveries Gallup has ever made...

'If you and I were walking down the street in Khartoum, Teheran, Berlin, Lima, Los Angeles, Baghdad, Kolkata or Istanbul, we would discover that on most days the single most dominant thought carried around the heads of most people you and I see is, 'I want a good job'.

'It is the new current state of mind, and it establishes our relationship with our city, our country and the whole world around us.'

Now this might well seem blindingly obvious, hardly something you need to poll six billion people to discover. After all, didn't then prime minister Goh Chok Tong declare in 2001 that the election then was all about 'jobs, jobs, jobs'?

Gallup's Mr Clifton, however, believes the discovery is 'game changing', to borrow one of Mrs Hillary Clinton's pet phrases.

Writing in the Gallup Management Journal, he argues: 'Humans used to desire love, money, food, shelter, safety and/or peace of mind more than anything else. The last 25 years have changed us. Now we want to have a good job.

'This changes everything for world leaders. Everything they do - from waging war to building societies - will need to be done within the new context of the human need for 'good jobs'...

'Everything leaders do must consider this new global state of mind, lest they put their cities and countries at risk.'

This too will sound familiar in Singapore, where the economic imperative has always been primary. Only in recent years have other concerns such as the need to boost creativity and enterprise, encourage environmental sustainability and strike a work-life balance gained in importance, without quite displacing economic priorities.

But the significance of the Clifton thesis lies in his view that in the face of the new global state of mind, countries and cities will have to compete for what he calls 'brain gain' to stay ahead.

'Brain gain is the 'big-bang' theory of economic development. The challenge leaders face is how to trigger brain gain in their cities,'' he adds, referring to a society's ability to draw talented people, whose exceptional abilities and knowledge have a sort of multiplier effect on its economy.

He calls such people 'stars'. By this he does not just mean intellectually bright people, but includes innovators, entrepreneurs, superstars (like brand-name chefs, architects, musicians, actors and artists) and super-mentors (political leaders, philanthropists and others who take on the challenge of developing their communities).

The more of these stars a city or country can attract and keep, the better its prospects.

The United States, he notes, has streaked ahead of Japan and Germany - which many pundits said in the 1980s would soon rule the world - because it has been singularly successful at drawing such stars from around the world.

Similarly, those predicting that China's economic juggernaut would edge past the US before long might be 'colossally wrong' as they fail to factor in the big unknown - whether China is politically and socially prepared to be a talent magnet like the US.

Singapore, with its long history of immigration, going back right to its founding in 1819, is the quintessential 'brain gain' city. It has always drawn in people from the region with the wit and the will to create a better life for themselves and their families, and in the process, for the wider community too.

In recent years, Singapore has been experiencing another wave of 'brain gain' with many more stars heading here, giving the place an even more cosmopolitan feel.

This point was brought home to me last Sunday evening, as I watched a video of a recent trip by my wife and her father to his ancestral village in Chaozhou, in southern China.

It was his first visit since he had journeyed to Singapore in the 1930s as a seven-year-old boy. Taking in the scenes of the village, reminiscent of Singapore in the 1960s and 1970s, you could not help but be struck by how very differently life would have turned out for him and his family had he not made that fateful boat trip.

Later, he met and married a fellow Teochew here, and they had five children. My mother-in-law often recounts how she climbed over the school gates in the wee hours of the morning just to make sure that her daughters got a place in a good English-speaking mission school, which laid the foundation for their successful careers today.

Yet, their story is by no means unique. Just about every family in Singapore has a similar tale. It is the Singapore story, of migrants heading to this island with big dreams, just as they continue to do to this day.

Given this backdrop, it never ceases to amaze me how strong the antipathy towards foreigners is among some Singaporeans. The issue continues to simmer and sour the ground, and is easily whipped up.

The latest incarnation of this is the angst over sweet young China waitresses giving beer-lady aunties in heartland kopitiams a run for their money.

Then, there is also the endless carping about the latest wave of immigrants filling service sector jobs although they struggle to speak English.

Let me ask a pointed question: Just what sets the Singaporean Chinese woman today apart from the 'China girls' some speak so condescendingly about other than the fact that the forebears of one got here earlier than the other?

And are those language snobs who lament in their choice Singlish that new immigrants cannot speak 'proper English' very different from the old colonialists who turned up their noses at the 'uncultured and uncouth' early immigrants - in other words, your parents and mine - to these shores?

Given our immigrant history, Singaporeans should really be more gracious, and show more compassion and understanding towards newcomers to the island, to help them settle in.

They don't speak English? Well, they will soon learn, as their children surely will.

Being open and embracing towards newcomers is not only the decent thing to do, but it might also be in our own self-interest.

As Mr Clifton puts it: 'Today's explorers migrate to the cities that are most likely to maximise innovation and entrepreneurial talents and skills. Wherever they can freely migrate is where the next economic empires will rise. San Francisco, Mumbai and Dublin have become hotbeds of job creation. This phenomenon has occurred in other hot cities from Austin to Boston and Seoul to Singapore.'

The Government will have to do its part to woo talent here, adding that critical buzz to the city, and tackling issues such as rising housing costs, lack of office space or school places. But these efforts alone will not be enough, unless Singaporeans make those drawn here feel welcome.

So the next time you feel like letting fly against the growing number of foreigners here, remember this - you and I are the products of an earlier wave of immigration and 'brain gain'.

warren@sph.com.sg

This is such a blatant one-sided piece of propaganda from one of the Straits Times' finest. I don't know where to start but as the Fox will be out of the house for the rest of the day, he shall postpone his comments on this article to a later time. There is certainly one thing we are sure of: someone knows which side his bread is buttered...

ST: Staff crunch spells last orders for tze char stalls

Got this from the Straits Times (2 Apr 2008)

Staff crunch spells last orders for tze char stalls
By April Chong

MR HUANG Hui Liang, 40, served up his last plate of braised noodles at his tze char stall in Tampines in February.

Four months earlier, his brother had also called it quits at his Bedok stall.

Such stalls, fixtures in heartland coffee shops, whip up restaurant-style dishes - fish-head curries, soups, stir-fried greens and fried rice - for dine-in or takeaway customers.

The brothers had the same problem: They could not find enough Singaporeans who wanted to work for them - not at the rates they were willing to pay anyway.

No hard data is available, but those who lead coffee-shop trade associations say many tze char stalls are shutting down.

The way out, it would seem, is for these stalls to hire foreign workers willing to stand for hours over hot woks for less pay, but labour rules forbid these stall holders from doing this.

So although these tze char stalls are kings in the coffee shops in terms of the size of their stalls and their menus, many claim they are not doing royally.

For starters, their ability to whip up so many dishes from scratch makes them more labour-hungry than the average one-dish stalls that sell only, say, fishball noodles or chicken rice.

Tze char stalls typically need seven employees - two cooks, two kitchen helpers who assemble the ingredients, a server, someone to take the orders and collect money, and a dish-washer, or some variation of this formula.

The Manpower Ministry (MOM) allows only Singaporeans and permanent residents to be hired.

Mr Huang said he can pay $1,000 for a kitchen helper, and twice that for a cook.

He concedes the work is hard. The 12-hour work days typically start in the morning, with going to the market and preparing the food. More stalls now open for lunch and take a break before re-opening from 5pm till midnight.

He said his brother tried to get around the shortage of workers by hiring five foreigners illegally. He was caught and fined last year.

Aside from the difficulty in finding workers, he was also up against rising food costs; his rent was also going up from $5,000 to $6,500.

The average rent for a noodle stall is about $2,000.

Mr Huang said his operating costs left him out of pocket for six months last year. In better months before rising costs came along, he made between $1,500 and $4,000 a month.

His problem is common, said Mr Christopher Tan of the Foochow Coffee Restaurant and Bar Merchants Association, whose members account for a fifth of the 2,000 coffee shops here.

He said a growing number of tze char stalls run by association members had shut down in recent years, though he could not say how many.

Mr Wee Jee Seng of the Kheng Keow Coffee Merchants Restaurants and Bar-Owners Association, which represents about 300 coffee shops and stallholders here, confirmed the trend.

In the last five years, the associations have appealed to MOM at dialogues to reconsider its stance against foreign workers but have always received a firm 'no'.

A MOM spokesman told The Straits Times there were no plans to liberalise this rule and, as the stalls were small, they could be operated by the licensee with family help.

Veteran labour Member of Parliament Ong Ah Heng pointed out a difficulty with liberalising the hiring policy: 'If you open up the regulations, another 10,000 foreign workers will come in.

'Of course, they do contribute to the economy, but it will become a social problem that we cannot afford.'

The stallholders say that MOM's call to rope in family members does not solve the numbers problem.

Mr Ong himself has met a couple who could no longer cope with running their stall when the wife became pregnant.

Industry associations have suggested, for example, tapping senior citizens and housewives and offering them flexible work hours.

To this, Mr Kenneth Lee, 46, who is also short-handed at his Toa Payoh coffee shop, said he had few such takers even when he offered the 'market rate' of $5 an hour.

Sometimes, with this group, it is not only about the money. Housewife Ang Guat Khim, 54, who used to earn just above $1,000 preparing drinks, said she quit because she could not bear standing nine hours a day.

MP Ong said tze char stallholders simply have to pay more to entice Singaporeans to do the job.

Some tze char operators have hatched other solutions - not all legal - to get around their problem.

One is to hire foreigners on the sly. A chef from China, for example, will work for $1,800 a month, against a Singaporean's asking wage of $3,000.

Last year, 341 employers in the food and beverage sector were caught hiring foreigners illegally; 1,544 foreigners were arrested.

Another ruse: 'Borrow' foreign workers from their landlords - as coffee shop owners have been allowed since last July to hire a limited number of Chinese nationals.

The landlords do try to help, because the fortunes of the coffee shop are tied to that of the resident tze char stall, especially if it is one that pulls in the crowds with good food.

Coffee-shop operator Wee Jui Ho, 63, said he suffered a 60 per cent drop in business at his drinks stall when his tze char tenant closed shop last December because of a worker shortage.

He has not been able to find another tze char tenant, and will now try running the tze char stall himself. But he has no experience in this area and is aware that if he fails, he will have to end his 30-year-old coffee-shop business as well.

There is only so much coffee-shop owners like him can do. They could ask tze char stalls to pay better salaries but, as the coffee-shop merchant association's Mr Tan says: 'It's very hard to raise wages without raising the prices of the food, and this comes at a risk of losing customers.'

I'm shocked beyond words. How dare this MP Ong Ah Heng suggest that the reason why stall owners cannot find enough Singaporean workers is that they don't pay enough?

But seriously, this is a real problem. Tze char stalls are facing a real problem in getting workers because they are not allowed to hire foreign workers. On the other hand, when I was back in Singapore, I saw plenty of PRC waiters and waitresses in Chinese restaurants everywhere. It seems doubtful to me that restaurants in Singapore are not allowed to hire foreign workers. Isn't it unfair that tze char stalls are denied access to foreign labour while bigger establishments like Chinese restaurants aren't? The rationale for it is that MOM believes tze char stalls can get by with family members.

Excuse me, but don't the top honchos in MOM realize that families are getting smaller nowadays? Or that a tze char stall is a 7-man operation? Why should restaurants be given the cost-lowering advantage of hiring foreign workers but not their tze char counterparts?

To be fair, labour restrictions should equally applied both tze char stalls and restaurants. On the other hand, not too many foreign workers should be allowed into the food and beverage industry. One possible solution would be to fix the total number of foreign workers in the industry. This can be easily accomplished by issuing a fixed number of work permits for the industry every year and then letting restaurant and stall owners to bid for these work permits the same way aspiring car owners bid for COE in Singapore.

Come to think of it, maybe we should try that for other industries in Singapore.

ST Forum: Help grads who do as well as foreign talent

From the Straits Times on 20 Feb 2008:

Help grads who do as well as foreign talent

RECENTLY, I befriended a group of scholars from China studying at my alma mater, Nanyang Technological University (NTU). They were in their late teens and were attending foundation courses in English and maths before starting their undergraduate studies. In their five-year sojourn at NTU, they will be given free lodging and a monthly allowance of $500 each. Needless to say, they do not have to pay for their tuition fees. When they graduate, they must work in Singapore for six years as part of their 'payback'' bond.

A highly conservative calculation of their five-year tenure at NTU suggests that each will cost the Government or NTU some $70,000. That is, $30,000 for their five-year tuition fees, including the charges for their foundation courses, and some $40,000 for hostel accommodation and their monthly stipends. I graduated from NTU five years ago, with a good honours degree.

I was in the top 15 per cent of my cohort - and performed better than some of these scholars. While studying at NTU, I had to work as a pizza delivery boy to earn my allowance. Upon graduation, I had to start paying off a $24,000-student loan.

Why are Singaporeans like me not treated as considerately as such scholars? My study loan took five years to pay off after I started working. The China scholars receive financial support, a free education and start their working lives debt free. Their six-year bond is seen as a contribution to Singapore.

Am I not contributing as much, if not more? Non-scholar Singaporeans are not treated in quite the same way as foreign talent, regardless of how well we perform. The disparity is disheartening.

Don't Singaporeans like me who have done well deserve some relief? True, local scholarships are available. But not every Singaporean who graduated well, gets one.

Can the NTU or the Education Ministry tell me why graduates like myself don't deserve some relief or reward for doing as well as, or better than, some of the foreign talent?

Zhou Zhiqiang

At first glance, in a cynical cold-blooded way, a foreign talent policy that provides extra benefits to talented foreigners would make sense. After all, Mr Zhou is presumably a Singaporean and there is no need to be equally generous to people like him even if he is as capable as his foreign friends. To paraphrase an overeducated hawker I once knew, he is a captive of the system. So, because he is a Singaporeans, the government takes him for granted.

Yet, this is not the way to draw in young mobile foreign talents. Yes, generous scholarships to foreign students are a way to get these people to come. That's not difficult. The problem is, how do you get them to stay. Any foreign talent worth his/her salt will be able to infer that the reason he/she is a beneficiary of Singapore's generous foreign talent policy is that he or she is a potential immigrant i.e. not a Singaporean. Of course, it remains his/her advantage to stay a potential immigrant.

Don't get me started on the unfairness of it all to Singaporeans. How does the government expect Singaporeans to show goodwill towards their country when they can see that the system rewards bright talented foreigners better than it does bright talented Singaporeans. No bloody wonder we lose 1000 of our brightest every year. Yes, it is true that most of the 1000 leave Singapore because of better opportunities elsewhere but those 1000 too would have friends and family in Singapore. They may even care and feel outraged that the government treat those friends and family so shoddily. It is also this discriminatory policy that might push Singaporeans like Mr. Zhou to join the exodus.

The Goatherd And The Wild Goats

A GOATHERD, driving his flock from their pasture at eventide, found some Wild Goats mingled among them, and shut them up together with his own for the night. The next day it snowed very hard, so that he could not take the herd to their usual feeding places, but was obliged to keep them in the fold. He gave his own goats just sufficient food to keep them alive, but fed the strangers more abundantly in the hope of enticing them to stay with him and of making them his own. When the thaw set in, he led them all out to feed, and the Wild Goats scampered away as fast as they could to the mountains. The Goatherd scolded them for their ingratitude in leaving him, when during the storm he had taken more care of them than of his own herd. One of them, turning about, said to him: "That is the very reason why we are so cautious; for if you yesterday treated us better than the Goats you have had so long, it is plain also that if others came after us, you would in the same manner prefer them to ourselves."

ST: It's S'pore's gain even if 30-40% of immigrants settle here: MM Lee

This recent Straits Times article caught my eye. The MM said that it is Singapore's gain even if 30 to 40 percent of immigrants settle here. He also acknowledged that many PRC and India students use Singapore as a stepping stone to the West. Well, it certainly took him some time to catch on to what most ordinary Singaporeans have known for a long time.

I was back in Singapore a couple of weeks ago. Feeling nostalgic, I took out my copy of Commencement 2004, which stated who graduated with what degree in 2004 from NUS. As I thumbed through the pages of the booklet, I saw that majority of the first class honours graduates from the Engineering and Science faculties had very Chinese Singaporean surnames (Lim, Tan, Teo, etc). Mind you, these faculties are where the PRC and India scholars are concentrated. Also, first class honours are usually given to the top 3 to 10 percent of the cohort (depending on the specific course of study).

Given that foreign students make up 20 percent of the NUS undergraduate body, you should expect PRC and India scholars in the Engineering and Science faculties to be grabbing the majority share of the top honours. After all, we are told that for every one local undergraduate on scholarship studying in a university in Singapore, we have two foreign undergraduates also on scholarship. Surely, it would not be unreasonable to expect our foreign undergraduate scholars perform academically. If undergraduate scholarships are given out on the basis of pure academic merit, then we should expect the ratio of foreign to local first class holders to be 2 to 1. Yet, this is not even true in the faculties in which the foreign students are concentrated.

This clearly demonstrates the strong anti-local bias in our foreign talent policy. Good local students, who study the same subjects as equally able foreign students, are given much less financial incentives to enroll in our local universities, unlike their foreign counterparts. What more can I say?