Body in suitcase: Pakistani men were selling tissue paper here

[CityFarmer]

My question is did they come into SG with a work permit to sell tissue?

In Singapore, this is how the employment market is like:

If you put an ad seeking for worker, any tourist is free to apply. We are one of the very very few countries in the world that allows any tourist to apply for jobs here. That is why all my contacts and friends who are in HR say that whenever they put up a job ad, foreigners will usually outnumber locals (PRs and Singaporeans).

Singaporeans need to know that for every job opening here, they are competing not only against fellow citizens, PRs, foreigner workers (S-pass or E-pass). They are also competing against any tourist who happens to be in Singapore and scouring the want ads.

We also issue work permits for PRCs to peddle sex here. So, it is not surprising for us to issue permits for South Asian men to sell tissue paper here. Forged credentials are also easy to obtain in South Asia, and it takes a long time before the relevant authorities can discover that they are fakes. Which by then, some of these South Asians would have already left.

Tourists on social visit pass are not allowed to seek employment here. You statement seems baseless to accuse Singapore is doing it.

The same for the permit to sell tissue paper for South Asia men.

Please provide grounds for the statements, otherwise it will be removed, and warning will be issued.

Regards
Moderator

Dear investor101,

You passed the test, and the moderation closed.

I am glad you clarify further on the "work permit to sell tissue", and a thank you from moderator for the initiative.

Regards
Moderator

[investor101]

Pls read my post carefully. Those who are working here on social pass ie tourist are not allowed to perform any form of work LEGALLY. Technically going for interview is not work. Way to close this loophole in future is probably to make sure those interviewees have WP attached. The loophole was due to the fact that WP was attached to the company so they can interview first and apply WP later

From the development of the last few posts on this thread, I am surprised that a number of Singaporeans are still unaware that tourists can apply for jobs here, and that tourists can be direct competitors for jobs. I guess we all learnt something.

This is one reason why redundancies amongst Singaporeans in their late 30s and 40s are increasing, and why a growing number of Singaporeans are becoming taxi drivers while they still have about a good 15 years left in their PMET careers, if they were not made redundant.

Allowing any tourist to apply for S-Pass and E-Pass jobs allow the economy to keep its workforce perpetually young, but I wonder at what cost it is done for our own citizens?

There is probably no such work permit to sell tissue, any more than there work permits issued to foreigners to sell sex. Foreigners who sell sex are usually here on work permits to work as masseurs or public entertainers in pubs, KTV lounges, etc.

The Pakistanis probably are here on 1 month's social pass, during which they are free to do what they want, which includes regular job hunting like any other Singaporean jobseekers, selling sex, selling tissue, beg professionally, or whatever profession you can think of.

Take this as a wake up call. Your jobs are not secured. High chance of you being made redundant in your late 30s. It used to be from the 40s, now I think late 30s.
Source: http://www.tremeritus.com/2014/06/16/67-...old-above/

Better that you start early to invest and build up a viable source of alternative income to safeguard yourself.

The word 'legal' is a two-step word.

Step 1: pass the law
Step 2: enforce the law

For many, if Step 2 cannot be done, the law is ignored. People are taking us as fools. You followed the recent story about HDB laws against short-term subletting of flats?

Turns out that most people ignore those laws simply because HDB's enforcement cannot keep up with the sheer volume of people who flout the law. Not to divert the thread into a different story, just to remind us that for most people, it is only considered legal if enforcement of the law is swift.

http://www.propertyguru.com.sg/property-...ort-term-r

For the murder case, there is probably no work permit issued to sell tissue paper. They are most likely here on social visit passes - aka tourists. Foreigners who sell sex [on the sly] here are most likely on work permits working as masseurs or public entertainers in pubs. If you know who they are, you can report them to IRAS, since the likelihood of them not paying taxes on their prostitution trade is high.

[Riderr2000]

From the development of the last few posts on this thread, I am surprised that a number of Singaporeans are still unaware that tourists can apply for jobs here, and that tourists can be direct competitors for jobs. I guess we all learnt something.

This is one reason why redundancies amongst Singaporeans in their late 30s and 40s are increasing, and why a growing number of Singaporeans are becoming taxi drivers while they still have about a good 15 years left in their PMET careers, if they were not made redundant.

Allowing any tourist to apply for S-Pass and E-Pass jobs allow the economy to keep its workforce perpetually young, but I wonder at what cost it is done for our own citizens?

...

Take this as a wake up call. Your jobs are not secured. High chance of you being made redundant in your late 30s. It used to be from the 40s, now I think late 30s.
Source: http://www.tremeritus.com/2014/06/16/67-...old-above/

Better that you start early to invest and build up a viable source of alternative income to safeguard yourself.

I fully empathize with you, and I also share your concerns about being made redundant.

However I do not in general support a policy that is overly protectionistic - globalization is here to stay, and implementing policies that prevent the best suited person for the job just limits our long term potential.

I fully agree with your last comment that "Better that you start early to invest and build up a viable source of alternative income to safeguard yourself" - but I extend this to acquiring skills to remain employable. Wouldn't you rather have policies that help citizens remain employable through ensuring they are better than the foreigners, over simply preventing the onset of competition?

Bringing it back to the investment theme of this forum, I would want to own a business staffed by the best persons for the job, at a cost that the business can sustain, over a company that is hamstrung by policies preventing the employment of the best talent.

When someone is "made redundant" it either means that
(1) the business cant support that function, (2) the cost of the function is higher than the value that function brings, or (3) there is a better way of fulfilling that function. As a investor in a business, would we not expect our companies to make decisions thats good for the business, and not overpay for resources, including human resources? Assuming that there are policies that increases costs by 20% due to pensions, redundancies, overcapacity, inability to get rid of underperforming staff - how will these policies affect your decision to invest in that company.

Assuming then that we will invest in a company that is more competitive, how does that impact our views on preventing foreigners to compete for Singapore jobs?

In my view, the government should be taking care of its citizens - thats for sure - but not in a manner that impedes the ability of its businesses to compete in a highly competitive environment.

[sgd]

not only tourist going to compete for your job everybody else in asean, soon come 2015 there will be establishment of AEC Asia economic community an Asean free trade agreement.

AEC comprises the following five core elements:

Free flow of goods
Free flow of services
Free flow of investment
Freer flow of capital
Free flow of skilled labour

http://therealsingapore.com/content/must...flow-pmets

[egghead]

sgd, you highlighted your concerns but what do you think of Riderr2000's post? Anything you agree or disagree with?

not only tourist going to compete for your job everybody else in asean, soon come 2015 there will be establishment of AEC Asia economic community an Asean free trade agreement.

AEC comprises the following five core elements:

Free flow of goods
Free flow of services
Free flow of investment
Freer flow of capital
Free flow of skilled labour

http://therealsingapore.com/content/must...flow-pmets

[sgd]

I cannot agree with that what's going to happen to our people you bring low cost in definitely low cost will win out.

My own current job is also soon to be exported the function is still the same but at the higher level they think it's cheaper for the function to operate from overseas even though we been profitable for many years so how does having better skills come in to play? I see the excuse is always about improving margins and it's never enough there needs to be a balance but always never the case jobs will usually go to where it's cheaper but not necessary better.

I agree with invest101 you need to build your nest egg I disagree with rider having better skills makes a difference, it's the cheaper that makes a difference.

Years ago at another mnc I offhand comment to my manager my pay was very low his reply to me that in their thailand office they can find someone with equal skillset like mine my pay here can support 1.3 person there, win already lor so what could I say? how to fight with low cost?

[flinger]

I disagree with some of Riders points and here are my reasons.

1. I agree protectionist policies do harm, but I also want to highlight that business are in general profit centric, besides the PR they do about looking after the employees etc... ultimately you are a statistic to them when compared to profit margins. Its the fact.

So without adequate policies that protect the employees from businesses that are purely looking at it from the margins perspective, no matter how skilled the employee is, they are at the losing end if the business can play with the policies and the configuration to get the best deal for ever increasing profit margins.


2. If a business says I need highly skilled people and there is no one in Singapore that can do the job, shouldn't the business be training people so that they can take on the job in the long run? They want to do business in Singapore because of the incentives , the infrastructure and other benefits they get by being in Singapore, but they don't want to hire and train Singaporeans?

3. "When someone is "made redundant" it either means that
(1) the business cant support that function, (2) the cost of the function is higher than the value that function brings, or (3) there is a better way of fulfilling that function."

This is untrue, as based on my experience and observations, profits matter most, they will cut the employee as they can replace with a worker who is lower costs even if it hurts the quality, next they replace with a foreigner because its cheaper than a local and they can justify as they can play with the policy.

The employee can be highly skilled and can improve the productivity, but the easier and cheaper solution is to replace with low cost foreigner than go the productivity route.

I can list many other reasons, but the gist is , if the govt does not enact policies that protect employees, the business will do whatever it takes to make profit the easiest way. Employee welfare is PR only, ultimately its the profits that count.

I fully empathize with you, and I also share your concerns about being made redundant.

However I do not in general support a policy that is overly protectionistic - globalization is here to stay, and implementing policies that prevent the best suited person for the job just limits our long term potential.

I fully agree with your last comment that "Better that you start early to invest and build up a viable source of alternative income to safeguard yourself" - but I extend this to acquiring skills to remain employable. Wouldn't you rather have policies that help citizens remain employable through ensuring they are better than the foreigners, over simply preventing the onset of competition?

Bringing it back to the investment theme of this forum, I would want to own a business staffed by the best persons for the job, at a cost that the business can sustain, over a company that is hamstrung by policies preventing the employment of the best talent.

When someone is "made redundant" it either means that
(1) the business cant support that function, (2) the cost of the function is higher than the value that function brings, or (3) there is a better way of fulfilling that function. As a investor in a business, would we not expect our companies to make decisions thats good for the business, and not overpay for resources, including human resources? Assuming that there are policies that increases costs by 20% due to pensions, redundancies, overcapacity, inability to get rid of underperforming staff - how will these policies affect your decision to invest in that company.

Assuming then that we will invest in a company that is more competitive, how does that impact our views on preventing foreigners to compete for Singapore jobs?

In my view, the government should be taking care of its citizens - thats for sure - but not in a manner that impedes the ability of its businesses to compete in a highly competitive environment.

[investor101]

From the development of the last few posts on this thread, I am surprised that a number of Singaporeans are still unaware that tourists can apply for jobs here, and that tourists can be direct competitors for jobs. I guess we all learnt something.

This is one reason why redundancies amongst Singaporeans in their late 30s and 40s are increasing, and why a growing number of Singaporeans are becoming taxi drivers while they still have about a good 15 years left in their PMET careers, if they were not made redundant.

Allowing any tourist to apply for S-Pass and E-Pass jobs allow the economy to keep its workforce perpetually young, but I wonder at what cost it is done for our own citizens?

...

Take this as a wake up call. Your jobs are not secured. High chance of you being made redundant in your late 30s. It used to be from the 40s, now I think late 30s.
Source: http://www.tremeritus.com/2014/06/16/67-...old-above/

Better that you start early to invest and build up a viable source of alternative income to safeguard yourself.

I fully empathize with you, and I also share your concerns about being made redundant.

However I do not in general support a policy that is overly protectionistic - globalization is here to stay, and implementing policies that prevent the best suited person for the job just limits our long term potential.

I fully agree with your last comment that "Better that you start early to invest and build up a viable source of alternative income to safeguard yourself" - but I extend this to acquiring skills to remain employable. Wouldn't you rather have policies that help citizens remain employable through ensuring they are better than the foreigners, over simply preventing the onset of competition?

Bringing it back to the investment theme of this forum, I would want to own a business staffed by the best persons for the job, at a cost that the business can sustain, over a company that is hamstrung by policies preventing the employment of the best talent.

When someone is "made redundant" it either means that
(1) the business cant support that function, (2) the cost of the function is higher than the value that function brings, or (3) there is a better way of fulfilling that function. As a investor in a business, would we not expect our companies to make decisions thats good for the business, and not overpay for resources, including human resources? Assuming that there are policies that increases costs by 20% due to pensions, redundancies, overcapacity, inability to get rid of underperforming staff - how will these policies affect your decision to invest in that company.

Assuming then that we will invest in a company that is more competitive, how does that impact our views on preventing foreigners to compete for Singapore jobs?

In my view, the government should be taking care of its citizens - thats for sure - but not in a manner that impedes the ability of its businesses to compete in a highly competitive environment.

Here are my views:

Protectionism:
Every government has a legal and moral obligation to put its citizens first. That is what we elected a government for, and that is what it means to be a citizen. If citizens are not put first, then what is the point of even being a citizen, or doing National Service?

Putting citizens first is not just making political speeches. It is also about putting in effective and laws that are swift to step in when foreign managers make a deliberate effort to find fault and terminate citizen employees, so that he can replace citizen employees with his own nationality.

So far, I do not know of such laws are in place. If the foreign manager is determined to fire you, you are gone. The laws we have would at most help you get your severance pay.

Employability

Our current way of dealing with employability is to help retrenched PMETs find lower-paying jobs that do no match their expertise and skill-sets. Many are now working as security guards, taxi-drivers or trying their luck selling insurance.

Anaedoctal stories abound about foreign managers firing Singaporeans to bring in their own people.

No amount of training of employability will work, if the end game is to get citizens to accept the injustice of being fired simply because they are citizens [and therefore being more expensive or of the wrong nationality].

From what I see, employability is just a term to get citizens to accept the fact they are going to be terminated simply because they are citizens [which nearly by default, makes them more expensive and troublesome to hire - maternity leave or NS reservist issues].

I am okay with employability being about skills training to move employees up the ladder, not sideways or down the ladder.

Also, I am not sure why the foreigners are better than citizens. I have worked and traveled in a number of ASEAN and South Asian cities. Many of their schools there are poorly funded, overcrowded and they do not use any of the advanced teaching methods in Singapore. There are also much fewer tuition centres there. Universities in ASEAN and South Asia are also much less recognized for their quality as compared to NUS or NTU, or even against our younger universities such as SIM or SMU.

So, what are the odds that graduates from such universities or public schools in 3rd World countries equal or better than our own citizen graduates? That they are cheaper, able to work better with their own kind, or that as a whole, they are really better than Singaporeans?

Again, from anaedoctal stories, it seems the 'better' often just means cheaper or share the same nationality as the manager/director.

[CityFarmer]

Also, I am not sure why the foreigners are better than citizens. I have worked and traveled in a number of ASEAN and South Asian cities. Many of their schools there are poorly funded, overcrowded and they do not use any of the advanced teaching methods in Singapore. There are also much fewer tuition centres there. Universities in ASEAN and South Asia are also much less recognized for their quality as compared to NUS or NTU, or even against our younger universities such as SIM or SMU.

So, what are the odds that graduates from such universities or public schools in 3rd World countries equal or better than our own citizen graduates? That they are cheaper, able to work better with their own kind, or that as a whole, they are really better than Singaporeans?

Again, from anaedoctal stories, it seems the 'better' often just means cheaper or share the same nationality as the manager/director.

You are right on the observations, but miss out one important point, the attitude, the attitude of staying hungry.

I saw Chinese with high qualification, taking time with their own money to polish their English in British Council Singapore, just to make sure not losing out on presentation skill.

I saw Singaporean with high qualification, reluctant to take time to attend Business Chinese lesson in SCCIOB, with subsidies.

Of course, they are more hungry Singaporean nowaday, but we need to aware that it is still much less in ratio compare with those from "3rd World countries".

One last point, Singapore education does give Singaporean an edge, but diminishing over time, thus the importance of lifelong learning.

[touzi]

Universities in ASEAN and South Asia are also much less recognized for their quality as compared to NUS or NTU, or even against our younger universities such as SIM or SMU.

The irony is that one of reasons for the international recognition of local U is that the faculty consist of staff from all over the world, (including Singapore of coz). Guess what would have happened if they limit it to locals.

So, what are the odds that graduates from such universities or public schools in 3rd World countries equal or better than our own citizen graduates? That they are cheaper, able to work better with their own kind, or that as a whole, they are really better than Singaporeans?

The odds may not be that low because they have a much larger population, but that is besides the point. Important thing is can they be employable in the eye of the companies. If they are, then they complement the local workforce. If they are not as good as us, then they work under us. In order to be a team leader or manager, you must have people under you. You can have some staff overseas, but if majority of them are based overseas you are risking your position. That is the reality of corporate politics.

One thing though, I would like gahmen to consider is study if it is feasible to have a limit on the intake from each country. This will prevent the feeling of being overwhelmed by a particular culture.