Government determined to increase population to 7 mil in 2030.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
(20-03-2013, 09:30 AM)egghead Wrote: Should "someone" report this to MOM or should the victims themselves do so? Do you expect people to name the company without any evidence to defend himself against potential law suit?

Difficult. This sort of allegation usually comes from two sources. First source is usually the employees within the company who notice that the hiring manager seems to recruit a particular nationality or race. I have heard many of such cases but it is hard to proof and what incentive do they have to 'sabo' their own company and possibly lose their jobs?

Second, from the 'victims' themselves. Again, there is usually a lack of tangible proof, especially if the manager is not idiotic enough to write this down in the JD.

Right now, the onus of proof is on plaintiff and the bar is very high.
You can count on the greed of man for the next recession to happen.
Reply
(20-03-2013, 09:47 AM)LionFlyer Wrote:
(20-03-2013, 09:30 AM)egghead Wrote: Should "someone" report this to MOM or should the victims themselves do so? Do you expect people to name the company without any evidence to defend himself against potential law suit?

Difficult. This sort of allegation usually comes from two sources. First source is usually the employees within the company who notice that the hiring manager seems to recruit a particular nationality or race. I have heard many of such cases but it is hard to proof and what incentive do they have to 'sabo' their own company and possibly lose their jobs?

Second, from the 'victims' themselves. Again, there is usually a lack of tangible proof, especially if the manager is not idiotic enough to write this down in the JD.

Right now, the onus of proof is on plaintiff and the bar is very high.

At some point, the government needs to use some street intelligence, and not let unprofessional employers get away because they are good in their paperwork.

If the onus of proof is so hard for the plantiff, then I will have to take it that the government is either not interested to protect the interests of the citizens, or that the government has directly aligned its own self-interests with that of the foreigners, against its own citizen.

Ever tried to siam NS or keng reservist? Do you see the government tripping over its own two feet trying to determine if you are telling the truth or trying to smoke out?

It's the same attitude when dealing with employers or hiring managers who do good paperwork to mask their trails of wanting to hire their own kind.

(20-03-2013, 09:27 AM)sgd Wrote:
(20-03-2013, 09:05 AM)investor101 Wrote:
(20-03-2013, 08:23 AM)sgd Wrote:
(20-03-2013, 12:12 AM)investor101 Wrote:
(19-03-2013, 11:54 PM)Bibi Wrote: The Fairly prominent company must be sbi. State bank of India. They even buy condos for their management employees to stay.

Not sure if it is this company. Could be some other company.

However, there is talk that once an Indian national PMET becomes manager, it is likely that most non-Indian nationals in the department would be retrenched or 'restructured' so that the manager can bring in more of his own countrymen.

Lots of stories about such happenings, especially in the IT and banking sector. Any bros care to verify?

Yup verified. And you are right the joke is on us because we brought this upon ourselves.

Just several years ago one day my ex indian national boss at a previous company called me up to help him vett thru a list of interviewees for job positions, he wanted to get suitable people with compatiable background for the positions and gave me a thick sheaf of resumes, as I went thru it I saw that every single applicants are indian nationals that he selected there were 2 applicants who were singapore born indians but there were no malay no chinese no eurasians obviously shows what kind of race he prefers and back then I worked then in a multinational american company suppose to be an equal opportunity employer so much for meritocracy.

I hear this is common practice in india hiring their own village cousins. These PMET that the government bring in are practicing india office politics in singapore.

Not only that, there's a lot of unfair practices that discriminate against singaporean job applicants who have not completed their national service obligations aka reservist. It seems like if during interviews(if the interviewer is a foreign manager) you say you have not completed reservist they may not hire you on grounds that taking 2-3 weeks a year for your reservist is disruptive. But when these people go back to india for vacations they frequently take 3 weeks to 4 weeks off for vacation citing india is so big we need to travel back and forth to visit relatives.

You see this kind thing everywhere in singapore today. I'm not against foreigners but I see many of these PMETS are like that, not all but many. And we are expected to give way to them.

Hope someone reports them to MOM.

Singaporeans are often doing themselves and fellow Singaporeans a big disservice when they are too timid to name the boss and company specifically.

Descriptions such as 'prominent company' or a 'a big bank building in the east' really does not help in any way.

While a man can have many qualities, the most important qualities is still courage. Without courage, none of the other qualities really matter. The guy will simply stonewall from fright, flee or give lots of 'rational reasons' why he won't rise to the occasion at the critical point.

The foreigners didn't come for the construction workers or bankers jobs only. They are coming for all our jobs. Don't be a traitor and sell out your own countrymen.

I had a friend who once took great pride in retrenching his own Singaporeans and replacing them with 'cheaper' or 'more capable' foreigners. Until one day, it happened to him and the boss replaced him with a foreigner too. We all wanted to laugh at him, but I think no need to, since what goes around eventually comes around.

is not we want to sell out our own countrymen but we also lan lan ... you report maybe he kanna sack they bring another one in he may also be like that back to sq 1 and everybody will know you become the whistle blower. Or worse they let him off with a stern warning and he will marks you from then on. Your appraisal / increment all has to go thru him he can play you like anything you will need to find another job because you are screwed.

the only thing that we commoners can do is to vote, after all is said and done everything that we discuss and complain here is useless they have more than two-thirds majority and can do anything they want 7 8 10 millions also can. Are you tired already? Then please vote properly when the time comes so that there is no 2/3 majority in parliament that is wielded by any single party.

No one right or wrong. I also understand the fears of the HR, who have their own families to think about.

But given the sort of circumstances and the hole we dig ourselves into, I won't be surprised one day when war comes, hardly any Singaporeans will report back to camp to risk their lives to protect the country.

They will also come up with lots of rational reasons why they should stay far away instead.
Reply
(20-03-2013, 10:04 AM)investor101 Wrote: At some point, the government needs to use some street intelligence, and not let unprofessional employers get away because they are good in their paperwork.

That is exactly right - at some point. I'm not sure if MOM has the authority to conduct investigations into a company for such malpractice without a formal complaint.

And if the victim does not have the courage to lodge a complaint or feel troublesome or whatever other reasons, and then say it must be the G's fault, and let's have courage to vote them out, I say "huh"
Reply
And again, let's try to recall when did this foreign talent ideology and cosmopolitan utopian started and when Singaporeans migrating overseas were "deserters"?

Policies takes time to fruition but all of us pay for the mistakes. That's why policy makers are so important. It is counterproductive to keep slamming them but consider how we can improve the selection process. Remuneration is one attribute to consider but it cannot be the most important. That is why it failed.
Before you speak, listen. Before you write, think. Before you spend, earn. Before you invest, investigate. Before you criticize, wait. Before you pray, forgive. Before you quit, try. Before you retire, save. Before you die, give. –William A. Ward

Think Asset-Business-Structure (ABS)
Reply
(20-03-2013, 07:33 AM)investor101 Wrote:
(20-03-2013, 07:05 AM)Temperament Wrote: Is your blood thicker or your water? Human beings are all the same. You look after your own kind first. The problems is Papies looking after themselves so well to the exclusion of the ordinary citizens; until the ordinary citizens realise they can't breathe anymore.
What's the use of having the Papies who look only after themselves?
There is a limit to everything even though Singaporeans are famous for the 4Ks.
i think the Papies can't survive even one term in HK. or maybe Taiwan.
Is it time to change brothers?
imo, only.

I not so sure if Singaporeans are known for looking after our own kind. We are taught from young about meritocracy, about hiring the best possible candidate, even if the candidate is a foreigner.

We followed this idea of meritocracy, and we expanded that meaning to include not just 'better', but also 'cheaper' candidate. So, we gave the jobs to the foreigners.

The cruel joke is on us, when the number of foreigners in the company, including managerial level, reach a critical mass. The foreigners start behaving like they own the place, and use their authority to fire locals.

Only then, we discovered how many people were laughing at us and thinking what idiots we were, for being so naive about meritocracy. We can boast about how much meritocracy has build up Singapore to be First World and how croynism has led places like India to still be Third World. But the foreigner will point out that in Singapore, it is the foreigners from 3rd World who has our jobs, while more and more First World educated Singaporeans are now driving taxis and working as security guards.
Ah! Once you are in the Papies, Meritocracy is a Dirty Word. They can do not wrong.
Reminder:
The problem is Papies looking after themselves so well to the exclusion of the ordinary citizens; until the ordinary citizens realise they can't breathe anymore.
WB:-

1) Rule # 1, do not lose money.
2) Rule # 2, refer to # 1.
3) Not until you can manage your emotions, you can manage your money.

Truism of Investments.
A) Buying a security is buying RISK not Return
B) You can control RISK (to a certain level, hopefully only.) But definitely not the outcome of the Return.

NB:-
My signature is meant for psychoing myself. No offence to anyone. i am trying not to lose money unnecessary anymore.
Reply
$169B sulpus mainly from land sales are not reported to the citizens



According to the Singapore government’s latest budget statement (Singapore Budget 2013 - Overall Budget Balance), the government’s budget surplus was SGD 3.86 bn (SGD 3.61 bn before Net Investment Return Contribution (NIRC) and top ups to endowment and trust funds) for 2012. However, according to the “Monthly Digest of Statistics Singapore” (http://www.singstat.gov.sg/publications/...sfeb13.pdf) published by the Department of Statistics (DOS), the same is reported as SGD 36.26 bn (Table 14.1 on page 77 in the section on Public Finance). This would represent almost 12% of GDP.

Difference between DOS Monthly Digest of Statistics & Budget?

The footnote below the table seems to indicate that the difference arises because the SGD 36 bn budget surplus is based on International Monetary Fund (IMF) standards whose definition of “revenues and receipts” is broader than that used in the Singapore budget. The wording of the explanation in the document is as follows: “Note : Presentation format of the table follows that of the National Summary Data Page (NSDP) for Singapore, which disseminates the data prescribed by the International Monetary Fund’s Special Data Dissemination Standards (SDDS). Data in the table represent a broader definition of Government revenues and receipts than the fiscal position presented during each year’s Budget under Singapore’s Constitution as it includes the revenues and receipts accruing to both the Government’s current and past reserves.”

IMF Standards?

The next two notes under the table:-

“Accrues to both current and past reserves and does not reflect budget fiscal position of the current term of government.

Includes land sales and capital receipts (which accrue primarily to past reserves) in additional to taxes and other revenues.”

seems to suggest that the IMF standards include revenues from land sales and capital receipts (which accrue primarily to past reserves). Our understanding is that the Singapore budget does not include revenues from land sales while return on reserves is only to the extent of NIRC (seehttp://www.cpf.gov.sg/imsavvy/infohub_article.asp?readid=%7B965551822-9862-9257013200%7D).

Large difference in Revenue?

So, when you compare the budget figures as presented in the Monthly Digest with that presented in the budget (Singapore Budget 2013 - Overall Budget Balance), you see this difference in the revenue line (around SGD 82 bn as per IMF standard versus SGD 55 bn in the budget statement). Table 14.3 (page 78) of the Monthly Digest shows that the “operating revenue” of the government is almost the same as the total revenue shown by the government in the budget document. Table 1 shows the differences.

Table 1: Comparison of revenue, expenditure and surplus numbers presented under the budget and DOS documents

Reported under
SGD bn Singapore budget IMF standards
Operating revenue 55.18 54.28
Land sales / return from reserves Not included 27.97
Total revenue reported 55.18 82.25
Operating expenditure (4) 37.21 34.81
Development expenditure 12.9 12.46
Others (1) 0 1.86
Total expenditiure 50.11 49.13
Lending minus repayments (2) Not included -3.14
Special transfers excluding top ups 1.47 Not reported (3)
Reported budget surplus 3.6 36.26

Notes:

1. Others included in IMF standards to account for difference between reported expenditure in Table 14.1 and reported operating and development expenditure in Tables 14.4 and 14.5

2. Not explained as to what this is in the IMF standards reporting. This increases the budget surplus due to it being negative

3. Assume this does not need to be netted off under IMF standard

4. IMF Standards represent a narrower definition of Government expenditure (such as some transfers to endowment funds) in the Budget

Sources: Singapore Budget, DOS Monthly Statistical Digest

Higher surplus in every year

Comparing the budget surpluses reported under IMF standards for past years (http://www.singstat.gov.sg/publications/...os2012.pdf) with the government’s figures reported in the budget documents, one would find that the surplus reported under the IMF standard in the statistical yearbook is much higher in every year for which data is available (Table 2)

Table 2: Comparison of surplus/deficit numbers presented under the budget and statistical documents for past years

SGD bn Singapore budget (1) Under IMF standard (2) Difference (2)-(1)

2005 1.49 18.02 16.53
2006 -0.06 18.34 18.4
2007 7.66 35.08 27.42
2008 0.24 21.79 21.55
2009 -0.82 2.91 3.72
2010 0.98 28.25 27.27
2011 4 26.62 22.62
2012 3.86 36.27 32.41
Total 169.92

Sources: Singapore budget documents, DOS Statistical year book

Table 2 shows that if you include land sales and return on reserves, the government actually made a surplus of SGD 187 bn cumulatively during the eight years 2005-2012 compared to SGD 17.35 bn reported in the budget document.



Conclusions (and questions)?

1. The Singapore government’s fiscal position as reported in the government’s statistical bulletin which are prepared under IMF guidelines is significantly stronger than that reported in the budget statement. Interestingly, while the statistical bulletin carries a foot note that the revenue numbers are different from those reported in the budget, the budget report does not seem to have a similar note that the revenues presented there are a “narrower” definition and that it excludes capital receipts.

2. Comparing with other countries?

Why is the surplus/deficit reported in the budget statement the official number that makes the headlines? One would assume that the IMF prescribed method to present the deficit/surplus would be a more representative and comparable number for countries globally. As an example, if you look at Hong Kong’s budget statement for year ending March 2012 (http://www.try.gov.hk/internet/pde_ca12.pdf), you see that the revenue and surplus (page 7 of the report) include capital receipts (page 13) and is consistent with the headline numbers reported (e.g.Hong Kong 2011-12 Budget Surplus Exceeds Estimate, among others). Hence it appears that the reported budget number of Singapore only shows a part of the surplus – it seems to include operating revenue, operating expenses and development expenses (which are probably capital in nature) but not capital receipts.

3. 7th highest budget surplus in the world?

If we take Singapore’s 2011 budget surplus of around SGD 26 bn or around USD 20 bn (including capital receipts), Singapore would have had the seventh highest budget surplus in the world, according to Wikipedia data (List of government budgets by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). It would have been ahead of even the oil rich United Arab Emirates, which reported a surplus of USD 17.9 bn and just behind gas rich Qatar (USD 23.1 bn). Note that even based on the government’s reported surplus, Singapore is a respectable seventeenth on this list. This picture of fiscal strength is not consistent with what the government has said recently. For example, the population white paper says “For society as a whole, a declining old-age support ratio would mean rising taxes and a heavier economic load on a smaller base of working-age Singaporeans.” While the statement may be appropriate, does it have significant implications if we are in such a strong fiscal situation? The point on rising taxes has also been used during the debate on the white paper to justify the need to have a large working population.

Ever have substantive debate in Parliament?

It may help if Parliamentarians can propose a debate in Parliament on the budget surplus of SGD 36 bn in 2012 if the IMF standards are used (in the DOS monthly digest), vis-a-vis the SGD3.9 bn in budget document.

This may help to enable Singaporeans to have a clearer picture of our revenues, expenditure and surplus, and the implications for Singaporeans and the future of our country.

Authors’ note: The authors have used the term “IMF standard” to refer to the “International Monetary Fund’s Special Data Dissemination Standards” as mentioned in the DOS statistical report.


By NG (Concern citizen) and Leong Sze Hian

EXPOSED: Budget surplus $3.9b or $36b? | The Real Singapore
Reply
(26-03-2013, 11:55 PM)pianist Wrote: $169B sulpus mainly from land sales are not reported to the citizens

Aiyoh! What do you mean not reported to citizens? If those lazy citizens bother to read the budget website, e.g. Revenue Vs Expenditure Estimates, will not anyhow make such an accusation.

If I recall correctly, Parliament has also debated several times on definition and why govt adopted more conservative definition of revenue, i.e. excluding capital receipts unlike Hong Kong. If one is a value investor, would you wish that you company adopt conservative or aggressive accounting policies? Wink
Reply
(27-03-2013, 06:02 AM)HitandRun Wrote:
(26-03-2013, 11:55 PM)pianist Wrote: $169B sulpus mainly from land sales are not reported to the citizens

Aiyoh! What do you mean not reported to citizens? If those lazy citizens bother to read the budget website, e.g. Revenue Vs Expenditure Estimates, will not anyhow make such an accusation.

If I recall correctly, Parliament has also debated several times on definition and why govt adopted more conservative definition of revenue, i.e. excluding capital receipts unlike Hong Kong. If one is a value investor, would you wish that you company adopt conservative or aggressive accounting policies? Wink

you also dunno anything, you are just blindly following and without questioning whatever the government is spooning out to you.

And do stop trying to moderate the threads.
Reply
(27-03-2013, 08:30 AM)sgd Wrote: you also dunno anything, you are just blindly following and without questioning whatever the government is spooning out to you.

And do stop trying to moderate the threads.

A warning please - no personal attacks.

And do try to tone down the political discussions as they can get heated.

Thank you.
My Value Investing Blog: http://sgmusicwhiz.blogspot.com/
Reply
I'm gonna stick my neck out and say HitandRun is right. Nothing to do with the person or opinions, but we have to be objective

The issue has been discussed at length. Makes sense that governments should not use land sales as revenue to balance their budget. I would be surprised and skeptical if companies sell fixed assets to fund their operations, unless they are developers or asset traders. Look at the Chinese local governments facing budget crisis because land sale has been curbed.

What doesn't make sense is a small technical detail that they changed which is to transfer reserves from government entities horizontally rather than vertically. That was just before HDB was privatised. And that was how the reserves of HDB was being raided.
Before you speak, listen. Before you write, think. Before you spend, earn. Before you invest, investigate. Before you criticize, wait. Before you pray, forgive. Before you quit, try. Before you retire, save. Before you die, give. –William A. Ward

Think Asset-Business-Structure (ABS)
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 47 Guest(s)