What government can do to probably help Singaporean's criticism over foreigners

(30-05-2014, 11:25 AM)kagemusha Wrote:

(30-05-2014, 11:05 AM)Temperament Wrote: i think it's all boils down to what is the cost of training one doctor in NUS compare to what is the cost of importing one FT doctor?
What is the difference of expectations of a locally trained doctor to an imported FT doctor?
And blah.....
And so is with every other jobs in Singapore.

However the point of training cost is moot, given that we are taking in doctors from overseas. Do you expect less from a foreign doctor when you are visiting a hospital here in SG?
If you are expecting the same experience, then are we saying that the foreign doctors are as good.
And if they are as good, then if we find we are not able to train that many doctors due to cost, should we also consider to outsourcing the training to other places? After all cost is all that matters?

i think you have missed:-

Quote:But please don't forget the social cost to Singapore as a whole.
The social cost may be too much to bear for most Singaporeans.
i think it almost to the limit now.

(30-05-2014, 11:38 AM)kagemusha Wrote: ... is that are we disadvantaging our own citizens by holding perceive high entry standards in our universities, while allowing workers from other countries in with not that high standards into SG.

Somehow i do agree on this one. The education cirriculum is our system just make robots out of students. I have workers reporting to me, from Msia univ. They get same pay as the locals, yet later I found they have quiet a easy life in the uni. Look at our students, prohibited from moving on to higher studies if they fail chinese, english etc. At the end, many of these young children are eliminated from the edu system at young ages.

A very interesting discussion here.

There was a same discussion in Taiwan some years ago, and because of the political situation there, where the gov needs to delight the voters to get elected. They built 100 of universities to ensure everybody can enter into university.

At the end of the day, a zero mark from A-level equivalent can go to university. But after graduation, he works in petrol station and supermarket.

It is wasting of resources for the entire nation. The per capital income of Taiwan uses to be no 1 among the 4 dragons at 1990s. Today, it is the last one. A graduate from a so so university there earned the same price as our workers in a restaurant. The market is the one finally determinate the salary, not the gov.

A lot of Taiwanese has Masters or PHDs. Of course bachelor degrees no jobs.

SG is going that way for secondary schools. Failed also can promote to N levels then exit to ITEs.

4 dragons were relevant in the sweatshops era. That era over when PRC become THE sweatshop.

Personally I find TW service and media industries much better than SG. Don't know why never take off. Probably don't want PRCs to crowd the island. Even HK Chief Executive wants to curb 自由行 for PRCs.

(31-05-2014, 02:37 PM)liphuang Wrote: A very interesting discussion here.

There was a same discussion in Taiwan some years ago, and because of the political situation there, where the gov needs to delight the voters to get elected. They built 100 of universities to ensure everybody can enter into university.

At the end of the day, a zero mark from A-level equivalent can go to university. But after graduation, he works in petrol station and supermarket.

It is wasting of resources for the entire nation. The per capital income of Taiwan uses to be no 1 among the 4 dragons at 1990s. Today, it is the last one. A graduate from a so so university there earned the same price as our workers in a restaurant. The market is the one finally determinate the salary, not the gov.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(31-05-2014, 04:39 PM)opmi Wrote: A lot of Taiwanese has Masters or PHDs. Of course bachelor degrees no jobs.

SG is going that way for secondary schools. Failed also can promote to N levels then exit to ITEs.

I beg to differ on this, Singapore's policy is in fact the opposite of the Taiwanese route. Following the Taiwanese route would be the re-designation of all ITEs as universities where everyone graduates with a technical bachelor or master degree. The ITEs here provide training in different skillsets for those who may not suit the route towards universities.

Scrapping ITEs/N levels would translate to increased number of aimless and unskilled teenagers.

First, what is talent in the context of bringing in foreigners?
Someone/some knowledge we lack, and cannot produce locally quickly/fast enough?

>> The idea is actually to bring in foreigners who can create more jobs for the local but then it backfires, resulting in a lot of MNC bringing their own countrymen but still, there would be some lower jobs for local. Good thing or bad thing? Do you at least want our locals to have a job even though it pays lesser than the foreign talents?

Are we shooting ourselves in the feet by limiting our own ability to produce doctors by our high standards while maybe, just maybe, allowing some doctors from other countries which may not have the exacting standards that NUS have coming in to work as a doc? A backdoor of some kind?

>> Do you want a doctor of lower standard? Are you saying that even if a student cannot perform well, he can still finish his study as a doctor? Not sure for you but for sure, I do not want a sub-standard doctor that can kill you with wrong medicine or wrong diagnostic.

(30-05-2014, 10:22 AM)kagemusha Wrote: Warning : Please do not take this as a bashing thread.
Bashing government policies without offering viable alternatives equates to rubbish.

While I generally feel that foreigners are ok, there are some policies that I think, needs addressing.

First, what is talent in the context of bringing in foreigners?
Someone/some knowledge we lack, and cannot produce locally quickly/fast enough?

I admit there will always be a need, given that we need manpower to fuel the economy. The alternative of having slow growth is really not enviable. Looking at some European countries and US cities, where the people have no jobs, no money.... I don't think I want to go there.
We need to understand, while we can probably afford some slow growth, to go on long term is untenable. Others will move and catch up and if we cut ourselves slack and would our position be unrecoverable? No one knows but why take the chance.

However, are all talents that we bring in is something we lack or cannot produce quickly?

Case in point, I accompany my father to the public hospital for checkup. Cannot help but noticed that we have foreign doctors now.
My first thought, really, we lack of local doctors?
Maybe.... Is it due to difficulty getting into local university to study medicine that causes the shortage? As far as I know, there are always people applying to study medicine. But NUS only admits a certain number.
Are we shooting ourselves in the feet by limiting our own ability to produce doctors by our high standards while maybe, just maybe, allowing some doctors from other countries which may not have the exacting standards that NUS have coming in to work as a doc? A backdoor of some kind?

If lack of doctors, why not increase the intake and lengthen the number of years they need to serve in public hospital with no release clause/punitive clauses that really takes a hit at people's pocket like $1 million. After all, they want to be doctors due to "passion". Serving an additional 3-4 years should be able to tell if your "passion" is sustainable.

I get the same feeling about other workers. We have people that qualify for foreign universities but rejected by our own. While it is damn easy for foreigners to get a degree in their own country and come and take jobs here. We also know that people that moves out of Sg do not come back. Are we again shooting ourselves here?

Are we disadvantaging our own people because of our exacting standards?

I got the feeling that the current generation of policy makers do not think as far and thorough as their predecessor.

(31-05-2014, 09:08 PM)Some-one Wrote: First, what is talent in the context of bringing in foreigners?
Someone/some knowledge we lack, and cannot produce locally quickly/fast enough?

>> The idea is actually to bring in foreigners who can create more jobs for the local but then it backfires, resulting in a lot of MNC bringing their own countrymen but still, there would be some lower jobs for local. Good thing or bad thing? Do you at least want our locals to have a job even though it pays lesser than the foreign talents?

Are we shooting ourselves in the feet by limiting our own ability to produce doctors by our high standards while maybe, just maybe, allowing some doctors from other countries which may not have the exacting standards that NUS have coming in to work as a doc? A backdoor of some kind?

>> Do you want a doctor of lower standard? Are you saying that even if a student cannot perform well, he can still finish his study as a doctor? Not sure for you but for sure, I do not want a sub-standard doctor that can kill you with wrong medicine or wrong diagnostic.

(30-05-2014, 10:22 AM)kagemusha Wrote: Warning : Please do not take this as a bashing thread.
Bashing government policies without offering viable alternatives equates to rubbish.

While I generally feel that foreigners are ok, there are some policies that I think, needs addressing.

First, what is talent in the context of bringing in foreigners?
Someone/some knowledge we lack, and cannot produce locally quickly/fast enough?

I admit there will always be a need, given that we need manpower to fuel the economy. The alternative of having slow growth is really not enviable. Looking at some European countries and US cities, where the people have no jobs, no money.... I don't think I want to go there.
We need to understand, while we can probably afford some slow growth, to go on long term is untenable. Others will move and catch up and if we cut ourselves slack and would our position be unrecoverable? No one knows but why take the chance.

However, are all talents that we bring in is something we lack or cannot produce quickly?

Case in point, I accompany my father to the public hospital for checkup. Cannot help but noticed that we have foreign doctors now.
My first thought, really, we lack of local doctors?
Maybe.... Is it due to difficulty getting into local university to study medicine that causes the shortage? As far as I know, there are always people applying to study medicine. But NUS only admits a certain number.
Are we shooting ourselves in the feet by limiting our own ability to produce doctors by our high standards while maybe, just maybe, allowing some doctors from other countries which may not have the exacting standards that NUS have coming in to work as a doc? A backdoor of some kind?

If lack of doctors, why not increase the intake and lengthen the number of years they need to serve in public hospital with no release clause/punitive clauses that really takes a hit at people's pocket like $1 million. After all, they want to be doctors due to "passion". Serving an additional 3-4 years should be able to tell if your "passion" is sustainable.

I get the same feeling about other workers. We have people that qualify for foreign universities but rejected by our own. While it is damn easy for foreigners to get a degree in their own country and come and take jobs here. We also know that people that moves out of Sg do not come back. Are we again shooting ourselves here?

Are we disadvantaging our own people because of our exacting standards?

I got the feeling that the current generation of policy makers do not think as far and thorough as their predecessor.

I think you miss the point entirely.

First, foreigners bringing in jobs for locals? I think you meant foreign companies, not foreigners.... Foreign companies setting up shops here are what create jobs. Foreigners with investment capital setting up shops here, is what create jobs. Other than that, foreigners here takes up jobs.
Not saying that it is wrong, but like I was saying in other threads, S'poreans needs to be considered ahead of foreigners, but introducing some policies that gives Singaporeans the advantage.

Secondly, no.. I do not want doctors with a lower standard. Then again, how are the foreign doctors doing in Sg public hospital is anyone's guess. All I am saying is, the head should co-ordinate with the hand. If there are shortages in the industry, should not the universities consider relaxing its policies on admission to boost the shortages? Wasn't that's how SG did it in the past?

Isn't ironic that a local student gets accepted in US/UK to study medicine, yet gets rejected by local university? Worst still, the local hospital recruits foreign doctors from overseas. How is that enforcing the so call standards?

And I believe this is not restricted to the heathcare industry. This I believe may be just the tip of the iceberg. We are blindly accepting people with university degrees but not discerning enough. If we accept rubbish workers with dubious degrees, what is the impact to our economy?

I hold a degree but yet, when I managed people, I see for myself that some degree holders are not any better than non degree holders. What is more important is, do you have what it takes to get the job done. Non degree holders are disadvantaged because if you look at most jobs being advertised. Standard statements, degree holders only. Some of the jobs I believe may not even require that, but was just inserted in anyways.
Bear in mind, most of the foreigners that allowed to work in Singapore are degree holders. While non degree holders percentage will be higher for Singaporeans. Aren't we shooting ourselves here by denying local workers?

If we are able to tighten up the process of bringing in talented foreigners and not just any foreigners, I tend to believe it will ease some tensions that we are seeing now. Locals will have a fair chance to get good paying jobs and companies will be put more effort to screen people with potential and not just do job matching that fits description.

My mum was operated on by a Malaysian doctor (SGH, public hospital) and the results are pretty good. She can walk without any problems after so many years. And I did not miss the point. Yes, foreign companies create jobs and who own those companies like Microsoft, Intel, AMD, IBM? They are foreigners but as I have said: The idea is to create jobs but the jobs for locals are paid more lower than the foreigners and I this is the portion that people are unhappy about. But is that wrong? US companies would of course support their own people. Unfortunately, we don't have much SG companies and even if we have, due to cost-benefit, they would choose cheaper labour over more expensive labour.

(01-06-2014, 12:06 PM)kagemusha Wrote:

(31-05-2014, 09:08 PM)Some-one Wrote: First, what is talent in the context of bringing in foreigners?
Someone/some knowledge we lack, and cannot produce locally quickly/fast enough?

>> The idea is actually to bring in foreigners who can create more jobs for the local but then it backfires, resulting in a lot of MNC bringing their own countrymen but still, there would be some lower jobs for local. Good thing or bad thing? Do you at least want our locals to have a job even though it pays lesser than the foreign talents?

Are we shooting ourselves in the feet by limiting our own ability to produce doctors by our high standards while maybe, just maybe, allowing some doctors from other countries which may not have the exacting standards that NUS have coming in to work as a doc? A backdoor of some kind?

>> Do you want a doctor of lower standard? Are you saying that even if a student cannot perform well, he can still finish his study as a doctor? Not sure for you but for sure, I do not want a sub-standard doctor that can kill you with wrong medicine or wrong diagnostic.

(30-05-2014, 10:22 AM)kagemusha Wrote: Warning : Please do not take this as a bashing thread.
Bashing government policies without offering viable alternatives equates to rubbish.

While I generally feel that foreigners are ok, there are some policies that I think, needs addressing.

First, what is talent in the context of bringing in foreigners?
Someone/some knowledge we lack, and cannot produce locally quickly/fast enough?

I admit there will always be a need, given that we need manpower to fuel the economy. The alternative of having slow growth is really not enviable. Looking at some European countries and US cities, where the people have no jobs, no money.... I don't think I want to go there.
We need to understand, while we can probably afford some slow growth, to go on long term is untenable. Others will move and catch up and if we cut ourselves slack and would our position be unrecoverable? No one knows but why take the chance.

However, are all talents that we bring in is something we lack or cannot produce quickly?

Case in point, I accompany my father to the public hospital for checkup. Cannot help but noticed that we have foreign doctors now.
My first thought, really, we lack of local doctors?
Maybe.... Is it due to difficulty getting into local university to study medicine that causes the shortage? As far as I know, there are always people applying to study medicine. But NUS only admits a certain number.
Are we shooting ourselves in the feet by limiting our own ability to produce doctors by our high standards while maybe, just maybe, allowing some doctors from other countries which may not have the exacting standards that NUS have coming in to work as a doc? A backdoor of some kind?

If lack of doctors, why not increase the intake and lengthen the number of years they need to serve in public hospital with no release clause/punitive clauses that really takes a hit at people's pocket like $1 million. After all, they want to be doctors due to "passion". Serving an additional 3-4 years should be able to tell if your "passion" is sustainable.

I get the same feeling about other workers. We have people that qualify for foreign universities but rejected by our own. While it is damn easy for foreigners to get a degree in their own country and come and take jobs here. We also know that people that moves out of Sg do not come back. Are we again shooting ourselves here?

Are we disadvantaging our own people because of our exacting standards?

I got the feeling that the current generation of policy makers do not think as far and thorough as their predecessor.

I think you miss the point entirely.

First, foreigners bringing in jobs for locals? I think you meant foreign companies, not foreigners.... Foreign companies setting up shops here are what create jobs. Foreigners with investment capital setting up shops here, is what create jobs. Other than that, foreigners here takes up jobs.
Not saying that it is wrong, but like I was saying in other threads, S'poreans needs to be considered ahead of foreigners, but introducing some policies that gives Singaporeans the advantage.

Secondly, no.. I do not want doctors with a lower standard. Then again, how are the foreign doctors doing in Sg public hospital is anyone's guess. All I am saying is, the head should co-ordinate with the hand. If there are shortages in the industry, should not the universities consider relaxing its policies on admission to boost the shortages? Wasn't that's how SG did it in the past?

Isn't ironic that a local student gets accepted in US/UK to study medicine, yet gets rejected by local university? Worst still, the local hospital recruits foreign doctors from overseas. How is that enforcing the so call standards?

And I believe this is not restricted to the heathcare industry. This I believe may be just the tip of the iceberg. We are blindly accepting people with university degrees but not discerning enough. If we accept rubbish workers with dubious degrees, what is the impact to our economy?

I hold a degree but yet, when I managed people, I see for myself that some degree holders are not any better than non degree holders. What is more important is, do you have what it takes to get the job done. Non degree holders are disadvantaged because if you look at most jobs being advertised. Standard statements, degree holders only. Some of the jobs I believe may not even require that, but was just inserted in anyways.
Bear in mind, most of the foreigners that allowed to work in Singapore are degree holders. While non degree holders percentage will be higher for Singaporeans. Aren't we shooting ourselves here by denying local workers?

If we are able to tighten up the process of bringing in talented foreigners and not just any foreigners, I tend to believe it will ease some tensions that we are seeing now. Locals will have a fair chance to get good paying jobs and companies will be put more effort to screen people with potential and not just do job matching that fits description.