Unbelievable, they really practise this

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
#31
Let's not argue on this.
There are various instances in various scenarios that are headed by different HR practises being mentioned in this thread.

I believe in both scenarios as I have encountered both, being in a position to hire and formerly being hired.

Cheers.

Reply
#32
Let's wake up and fact the facts.
As an employee, you are at the mercy of your hiring manager/the human resource folks/how well the company is doing.
They will totally decide your fate. You exist in the company in order for the company to make money.

And since nearly all MNCs here are headquartered in their country of origin and not Singapore, the top executives here are merely following orders from the top, i.e. budget allocation/headcount/etc etc (in other words, we are totally pathetic)

There is no point in crying foul, instead, take personal responsibility in your life and make it work for you.


Reply
#33
Fully agreed.
At the end of the day by "hook or by crook" you have to sink or swim with whatever DNA you are bestowed. It only seems unfair why you have better DNA. But someone may say the same thing to me. So they say it's better to be born "lucky" than smart. It can mean you are born into the Royal family and me the "Slum Family"
Nevertheless, "by hook or by crook" you sink or swim with your given DNA.
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
#34
(05-11-2011, 10:29 AM)Big Toe Wrote: Let's wake up and fact the facts.
As an employee, you are at the mercy of your hiring manager/the human resource folks/how well the company is doing.
They will totally decide your fate. You exist in the company in order for the company to make money.

And since nearly all MNCs here are headquartered in their country of origin and not Singapore, the top executives here are merely following orders from the top, i.e. budget allocation/headcount/etc etc (in other words, we are totally pathetic)

There is no point in crying foul, instead, take personal responsibility in your life and make it work for you.

Just a caveat though to the logical point you made. What you said would be most valid if this island is a colony of some other sovereign state. The natives or immigrants to the island will have no rights and deserve none.

But this island of course is not a colony but a sovereign nation with its own laws and citizens. To continue to function like a colony would not be appropriate. Cool
Reply
#35
(05-11-2011, 10:17 PM)kichialo Wrote:
(05-11-2011, 10:29 AM)Big Toe Wrote: Let's wake up and fact the facts.
As an employee, you are at the mercy of your hiring manager/the human resource folks/how well the company is doing.
They will totally decide your fate. You exist in the company in order for the company to make money.

And since nearly all MNCs here are headquartered in their country of origin and not Singapore, the top executives here are merely following orders from the top, i.e. budget allocation/headcount/etc etc (in other words, we are totally pathetic)

There is no point in crying foul, instead, take personal responsibility in your life and make it work for you.

Just a caveat though to the logical point you made. What you said would be most valid if this island is a colony of some other sovereign state. The natives or immigrants to the island will have no rights and deserve none.

But this island of course is not a colony but a sovereign nation with its own laws and citizens. To continue to function like a colony would not be appropriate. Cool

Precisely. S'pore is the only country which practise this. Name me another country which also has such practice .
Reply
#36
Singapore is voted the easiest place to start a business. Singapore's laws are so very pro-business that the workers of Singapore have been "colonised'' by business owners and the Singapore's ELITES. Actually it happens since not long after Independent day. Only now it getting worse and worse. So that's why i say by hook or by crook we have to survive by our own devices. But 60% of population is still happy. What can we do?
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
#37
(05-11-2011, 10:51 PM)Temperament Wrote: But 60% of population is still happy. What can we do?

You can offer alternative solutions to make Singapore less business friendly and yet attract investment and provide employment. If your solution can at the some time bring down the cost of education, healthcare, transport etc, that will even be better. While you are at that, try also to make sure our budget continued to be balanced and we continue to spend reasonably on defence such that we our neighbours do not start to entertain ideas. All these will make the 60% of us even happier.
Reply
#38





http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?fil...&sec=focus


Singaporeans are alienated on their own turf


Expatriates from the West and the region are giving special preference to their own nationals during recruitment and promotion at the expense of Singaporeans.

THE winds of political change may now be blowing across Singapore’s workplaces in favour of locals who face recruitment discrimination from foreign managers.

The problem involves expatriates – who hail from the West and the region – giving special preference to their own nationals during recruitment and promotion.

The Ministry of Manpower has drawn up new guidelines to try to stem it from developing into a national crisis.

It is a timely move in view of an expected downturn in the coming year – and a new wave of retrenchments.

This measure is the latest aimed at placating public unhappiness. Earlier, the government has been reducing the admission rate of foreigners into Singapore.

The number of permanent residency permits has been cut – although not in numbers that many Singaporeans want to see.

Pro-business Singapore is one of the most open cities in the world for foreign professionals.

With its liberal immigration, thousands have flocked here from Malaysia, Philippines, India and other countries in the past decade.

Many ended up running companies or becoming human resource managers or recruitment agents.

In previous downturns, some bosses were known to have used the excuse of job shedding to bring in more relatives or friends.

“It’s about time the government looks into foreign-owned companies dead set on hiring their own kind,” a Singaporean professional said.

“Many of the Indian IT shops here do so.”

For sometime now, this is also practised by Filipino and Malaysian executives who recruit their own nationals, bypassing qualified locals.

(A trickle of retrenchments has been reported in a few sectors, although the overall employment picture remains good.)

A union leader recently said that in previous recessions in 1986 and 1998, “Singaporeans were retrenched first and foreigners stayed. (It should be) the other way round,” he complained.

“The government should look after Singaporeans more seriously when the crunch comes.”

For some less-than-professional foreigners, the Asian culture of protecting kith and kin and “our own people” comes into play.

“When they took office, some immediately wired their friends or relatives and got them into the company,” a local IT engineer said.

Sometimes, even when there was no vacancy, he said, they would conspire to force out some unlucky Singaporeans and had them replaced.

The new guidelines were described in a large newspaper headline that appealed to foreign managers: “Don’t discriminate against Singa*censored*poreans!”

They followed an increasing number of complaints, according to a news report – 51 in the first nine months of this year.

One of the guidelines required that job advertisements do not exclude Singaporeans, as an increasing number had tended to do.

One company early this year wanted an “Architectural Structu*censored**censored*ral coordinator”, listing these requirements: a Diploma in civil engineering, three years relevant experience, and “preferred Indian citizenship”.

Following an angry public reaction, it apologised. The guidelines also called for recruiting firms to develop their Singaporean employees for higher level jobs.

Employers will also be encouraged to work with educational institutions, career centres and recruitment agencies when seeking Singaporean recruits.

For several decades, the trade unions here have been relatively tame, long conditioned by Lee Kuan Yew’s leadership. Strikes are forbidden and industrial action frowned upon.

But with the changed politics, no one can predict how long this will last.

According to the Minister of State for Manpower, Tan Chuan Jin, one of the People’s Action Party’s (PAP) fresh leaders who announced the guidelines, hinted that things might not be the same for long.

The tripartite government-union-employer relationship could get “noisier” he said, adding that it was something “we will take in our stride”.

With Singapore increasingly dependent on imported workers – and foreign managers – striking a balance is no longer an easy task, but Tan declared: “Discriminatory practices have no place in Singa*censored*pore.”

Last month in a rare public disagreement, Singapore’s two main groups, one representing workers and the other employers, disagreed publicly over the curb on foreign workers.

The unions, affiliated to the ruling party, wanted more measures to reduce employers’ dependency on foreign labour because it suppressed local wages and led to domination by foreigners.

The employers’ federation, however, issued a statement declaring that any restrictions would increase costs and make businesses less competitive.

Singaporeans have been a little relieved by the move, but most reserved their judgment to await results.

The younger set of Singaporeans is cynical.

“We must be the only country that needs to plead with foreigners living among us to not displace us,” one blogger said.

“Why did the government allow the situation to deteriorate to the extent that Singaporeans are discriminated against in their own country?” asked Tracy Tan.

“This is pathetic. No other government would allow this to happen.”

Others praised the Manpower Ministry for issuing the warning.

Patriot Wong added: “Singapo*censored*reans are not anti-foreigners. We welcome talented foreigners who come with their skills and expertise.

“However, many employers are taking advantage to hire foreign workers at the expense of Singa*censored*poreans with the excuse of lowering their business costs.”



Reply
#39
(05-11-2011, 11:22 PM)touzi Wrote:
(05-11-2011, 10:51 PM)Temperament Wrote: But 60% of population is still happy. What can we do?

You can offer alternative solutions to make Singapore less business friendly and yet attract investment and provide employment. If your solution can at the some time bring down the cost of education, healthcare, transport etc, that will even be better. While you are at that, try also to make sure our budget continued to be balanced and we continue to spend reasonably on defence such that we our neighbours do not start to entertain ideas. All these will make the 60% of us even happier.
Very good suggestions. Let us bring suggestion to WP's LOW T. K. PAPAYA will definitely shoot it down. Maybe we still have some hope among the 60% population changing their mind if LOW T. K. really can persuade the PAPAYA to try Durian. Durian pow chiat one.

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
#40
One consolation, NS will be exclusively reserved for Sporeans, " FTs " are banned forever .
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)