The FCF scheme is modeled upon what is done in other countries - it is nothing new, why reinvent the wheel? The UK has a similar system which I am very familiar with, having first started working in the UK as a Singaporean before naturalizing as a British citizen many years ago. I have taken the time to read the details on both systems and see just how different or similar they are - and I did uncover one major difference. Given how much has been said already about the issue, I shall just focus on this one major difference between the two countries.
1. A company has a vacancy and needs to hire a highly skilled professional - the company is unsure whether such an individual can be identified within the home market (ie. people in the job market already present in Singapore, looking for work and have all the necessary paperwork to allow them to work in Singapore already).
2. The firm must then advertise this vacancy on a new "jobs bank" website, created under the FCF, administered by the Singapore Workforce Development Agency.
3. This ad must run for at least 14 days.
 |
| Will FCF help unemployed Singaporeans? |
4. After 14 days, if the company still cannot find a suitable candidate to fill the post from within the home market, the company can then apply for an employment pass (EP) to fill the post with a foreign national. This does tantamount to the employer saying to the MOM, "see see? I got look hah, I look already hah, but cannot find leh, chur boh leh, gwa chur bueh tiok leh. Bo lang suitable leh, so have to hire foreigner loh. Can I have an EP please?"
5. MOM checks that the job has indeed appeared for at least 14 days on that jobs bank website and processes the application for the EP. It costs the employer S$330 to pay for the foreign worker levy.
Now let's compare this to how it works in the UK and whilst the process actually starts off very similarly, it then becomes quite different quite quickly. Here's how it works in the UK:
 |
| The system in the UK is very different. |
1. A company has a vacancy and needs to hire a highly skilled professional - the company is unsure whether such an individual can be identified within the home market (ie. people in the job market already present in UK, looking for work and have all the necessary paperwork to allow them to work in UK already).
2. If this position is not covered under the list of short occupations (which allows employers to skip this process altogether), then the employer must advertise the vacancy for a single continuous period, with a minimum closing date of 28 calendar days from the date the advertisement first appeared. All jobs advertised to settled workers must be advertised using 2 of the permitted methods. Firstly, mandatory advertising online through the Jobcentre Plus Universal Jobmatch service (for jobs based in England, Wales and Scotland) or through Jobcentre Online for jobs based in Northern Ireland (unless one of the exemptions below applies); and one other permitted method (such as a national newspaper or professional journal).
Don't forget that because we have freedom of labour within the EU, this means that the home market can be defined as the whole of the EU rather than just the local area (eg. South Somerset, the Scottish Borders, Central Bournemouth or North Manchester) where the job is available.
3. The ads must run for at least 28 days.
5. The government official administering that test will ensure that the job vacancy has indeed been advertised for a minimum of 28 days in the appropriate channels. They then go one step further and check the recruitment process: the employer would have to provide information of all the applicants from within the home market and they will be subjected to checks to prove that none of the candidates did indeed fulfill the minimum basic requirements for the job. This is a detailed check that involves a lot of paperwork - the employers have to submit a lot of supporting evidence to prove their case. This process is taken very seriously by the relevant government departments.
 |
| It is not easy to pass this Resident Labour Market Test. |
6. If the company passes the test, they still have to check if the get to sponsor a migrant worker for the post, because there is a limited quota for for these applications of "restricted certificate of sponsorship". These vary for each category of skilled workers - but the monthly quota in each of these categories is 1725 (please note that this is for the UK - a country much bigger than Singapore). Even if the company passes all the tests and gets to this stage and discovers that the quota for the month has been reached, the company has no choice but to delay the application until the next month (which inadvertently forces them to continue searching for a suitable candidate from within the home market).
7. If a company gets this far in the process and finally is given the green light to sponsor a migrant worker to fill the post, then it needs to pay a fee of between £371 to £494 ( S$742 to $988) to the home office to process the "restricted certificate of sponsorship". This fee does not include any other incidental expenses, such as lawyers fees - did I mention the lawyers? Not everyone is an expert in what the law states in this area, it is always safer for companies to consult a legal expert to help you with the application. They can tell you exactly what you can or cannot do so you don't waste your time pursuing an application that is not permitted under the current law!
8. After all this, the employer finally gets the right to legally employ the foreign worker. Phew.
Given how complex, tedious and expensive this process is, it is designed to encourage companies to keep trying to find a suitable candidate from within the home market. If it is simply not possible, then fine, the door is still open for the employer to hire a non-EU national for the job, but it is a far more difficult process than in Singapore. What this means in practice is that when you do come across a non-EU foreign national from say Japan, America or Singapore working in the UK, it means that these people are usually very highly skilled experts in their industry who command a very high salary, otherwise their employers wouldn't go to such lengths to secure them a work permit in the UK.
 |
| Highly skilled professionals can easily get work permits anywhere. |
Therein lies the main difference between the UK and Singapore - in Singapore, as long as the employer lists the job for 14 days on that new jobs bank website, there's really nothing to stop them from getting that EP for that foreigner. Whereas in the UK, advertising the job for 28 days is but the first and easiest step, the main hurdles to cross are the Resident Labour Market Test and the monthly quota for work permits issued. So whilst it may seem on the surface that there are similarities between the Singaporean and British systems, in reality, the FCF scheme is going to be as ineffective as a paper umbrella in a typhoon without the checks and quotas that are built into the British system.
As for the Singaporeans who are quick to pour scorn on FCF, well... it is only coming into force almost a year from now, in August 2014, so the government does have plenty of time to revise it, refine it and fine tune it between now and August 2014. One does hope that they will do just that before I do wonder why they would announce a half-baked plan riddled with so many flaws, only to be mocked by the very people this scheme is trying to help? Yeah they can get the local papers to print all kinds of positive stories, but there's no denying the fact that it's yet another monumental cock up by PAP. No sir, we are not that easily fooled. Again, it is just extremely bad PR and planning on the part of the PAP - not only do they need better PR consultants, they need better planners when it comes to redefining their labour laws.
 |
| Salah, salah, salah! |
The FCF may look as if it is based on systems implemented in countries like the UK, but it simply doesn't go far enough to have any real impact on the job market in Singapore. In it's current form, the FCF is simply going to create a new jobs website (as if there aren't enough in Singapore already, duh). None of this is going to change the way employers in Singapore pick foreigners over Singaporeans - the FCF is designed to show stupid PAP voters that the government is doing something to help Singaporeans when really, they couldn't be more happy with the status quo. Is there any logic at all or am I just trying to make sense of a huge mistake that arose from their sheer incompetence?
I have this theory: the government expects Singaporeans to put up with this inherently unfair system out of a sense of patriotism, the same way Singaporean men are expected to make big sacrifices by doing NS without being rewarded by the system. Maybe the government simply expects employers to hire Singaporeans out of patriotism, the same way everyone else is expected to express and show this patriotism in all other aspects of life in Singapore. Will this work? I doubt it - previous generations of Singaporeans have been only too willing to trust the PAP, but as the island gets more and more crowded, as the population races towards 6.9 million, it's every man for himself.
Anyway, I was done with the PAP a long time ago and lost faith in them even back in the 1990s. The simplest solution is simply to leave and seek greener pastures. As for those of you who are still in Singapore waiting for miracles to happen, I say, life is too short man, way too short to wait. I just got news that my aunt in Singapore passed away today and that just reminds me how short life is. I still remember when I was visited her house after school and she made me ku lo yuk ... If you have anything to add to the discussion on FCF, please feel free to leave a comment below. If you have made it this far, I invite you to read the many interesting and insightful comments left below by my readers.
PS. I have just finished shooting my latest vlog post, on a far more lighthearted subject. Akan datang, I just have to find time to edit it now... Look out for it sometime in the coming week :)
I have to say that your comparison of the two really sheds a lot of light on the large extent to which the "new" rule or act is barely theory but can still be circumvented if the employer wants to employ foreigners. Look at the example of the new university which is to be built in Singapore, Singapore University of Technology and Design. Initially, when job-hunting, I looked through the ad online, and then contemplated applying for a generalist position there, until I saw an ad being posted on an overseas website(outside of Singapore). At that point, I was thinking, most universities in the USA and Canada always advertise internally and regionally first before putting their ads on international or national portals such as select organizations(the Modern Language Association, the American Psychological Association and so on, depending on the department and discipline), but this new university in Singapore is already concurrently doing this alongside the local ads......Is academia and higher education really so taboo for Singaporeans such that no Singaporean wants to do a Master's or PhD in something? I even have people from high school telling me when I was back temporarily that if I were to search for a job outside of academia, it would be preferable to say that I was 'drifting' rather than doing a PhD or Master's because people will not employ you after that! Seriously, was the issue even about graduate studies then, when it was about job-hunting and the CV? I hate to say this, but at the end of the day, this ad for SUTD(what a name....almost synonymous with STD) will probably end up becoming a real scam with those lesser universities like NTU and Uni-SIM, the former which employs a majority of PRCs in various departments, and the latter which really uses a lot of graduate degree holders to teach something of specialized nature to an adult crowd.
ReplyDeleteHi Kev. I am just amazed how wrong they got this when all they needed to do was copy what has worked in other countries rather than try to come up with a brand new system - maybe you can tell us how it's done in Canada, is it similar to what we do here in the UK?
DeleteThe resident labour market test is pretty detailed and it depends on the employer proving that sure there may be people qualified to do the job I am advertising in the home market but they're not interested in it. So take for example what you highlighted in your comment above: if they're looking for an associate professor in modern linguistics at Falmouth University (in Cornwall, like at the extreme end of SW England) - there could be plenty of suitable talent in big cities like London but they won't be interested in relocating to a place like Falmouth for work (it's really in the middle of nowhere man) .. so they then have to prove that all the applicants who did respond (be it locals to Falmouth or those who are willing to relocate to Falmouth from within the EU) did not meet the minimum requirements for the job and so it's usually using the twin factors of distance/relocation to justify passing that tricky test. It's a lot harder to use that excuse for a city like London - that's when work permits are limited for those who are so highly skilled they just waltz in or if it's for those under the shortage occupations list.
As for STD... I mean SUTD, well, as the population of Singapore grows towards 6.9 million, you're going to need more universities, so we will see a hierarchy of universities in Singapore lah and there will be a pecking order in Singapore amongst the universities with NUS being at the top of the pile and the newer ones being at the bottom. So the smart ones will go to NUS and the not so smart ones will go to the newer universities and waste their money there.
Actually, I have been away from Canada since 2011, so it is not fair to comment, since my impressions would be based on something quite far back. RBC(Royal Bank of Canada) got into some trouble with the citizens over some outsourcing allegation this year, and Canadians lobbied against the bank for this. Obviously, in a country like Canada which prides itself on being multicultural and not discriminating against someone based on race, gender and age, or even nationality, this outsourcing, allegedly in the name of cutting costs, became quite a big uproar.
DeleteThere is something fairer about the way Canadian companies and organizations employ foreigners, if we compare that to the case of Singapore. In the case of Singapore, I think many have complained that certificates and skills can be falsified, while in the case of Canada, even prior to immigration and obtaining a visa, whether a worker's permit or even a PR permit, anyone has to make sure that his or her certificates are notarized by a certified lawyer or notary, and needless to say, any kind of certificates from countries like China and India are subject to intense scrutiny because of the high degree of fraudulence involved. I do not think that Singapore does that kind of vetting in its desperation to get so many foreigners in indiscriminately, and that accounts for a shortfall when that happens(with foreigners who fail to deliver on the goods).
Well Kev, surely the onus would be on the employer to check the certificates/credentials of any prospective employee - who would wanna be in a position where you hire someone, spend time and energy training them up only to discover 3 or 4 months later that they are incompetent and cannot deliver (because they had presumably made up half their CV)? It's one thing to bluff your way through an interview and cheat on your CV, it's another thing to then be put in charge of a project you have absolutely no idea how to run...
DeleteI think that the problem that gets compacted is when the ones hiring and in the top positions of authority and decision making in the company are also foreigners, and they are willing to use their position to allow those of their nationality to get in, regardless of skills level. There are cases of people falsifying their skills and certificates, and if not, simply not being truthful, and it surprises me nonetheless considering that Singaporeans are willing to put up with it.
DeleteWell, Kev, I refer you to my little anecdote below which I have written in response to thisismyvoice's comment - s/he is the kind of Singaporean who will put up with a 'plastic pail solution' and s/he represents the majority of Singaporeans. Those of us (ie. you and me) who are not fooled by 'plastic pail solutions' have long left Singapore.
DeleteJust to elaborate further on the UK employment rules on hiring foreigners (I also got a job in the UK as a foreigner):
Delete(i) Each employer has a rating akin to our credit worthiness rating, and this rating determines the extent they can or cannot employ foreigners (they are held accountable for each foreign hire). It also determines the number of foreigners the institution/company can employ. So if your employer is one of those private degree awarding schools located in 'who-knows-where' offering courses that are not accredited except in some God forsaken part of the world, your employer will have very little chance in employing foreigners. In contrast to Singapore, you see those dubious private schools employing foreigners left, right, and centre. In the UK, polytechnics turned universities also have less chance of employing foreigners compared to more established and reputable universities.
(ii) Each job advert stipulates two sets of criteria - 'Essential' and 'Desired'. IF a local candidate fulfills ALL the 'Essential' criteria, s/he MUST be employed even if a foreign candidate fulfills the 'Essential' AND 'Desired' criteria. So the employer must make a case that NO local candidates fulfill the essential criteria when the job was advertised for 28 days. In contrast to Singapore, the BEST candidate gets the job regardless of nationality. See the difference?
Lastly, the onus should be on an *independent* body or the govt to assess the authenticity of the qualifications of the foreign candidate NOT the employer. The reasoning is simple - there is a conflict of interest in having the employer do this.
PAP always 'bastardize' all quasi-effective policies from other countries to make them a mockery of an example in Singapore. Look at our labour unions - compare with the labour unions in democratic developed countries. Look at voting in democracies, look at voting in Singapore.
Hi Tom. I expect nothing less than such incompetence on the part of the PAP. What I am disappointed in however, are the Singaporeans who gladly sit back and accept this bullshit. It's piles after piles of bullshit from the PAP and they just sit there and swallow that bullshit. Incroyable. That's why you and I are in the UK now and no longer in S'pore.
DeleteThanks for the comparison, it is very informative. I agree that FCF does not look effective. However, I am of the opinion that having something is better than nothing. Besides, I think the real bite will come on how they implement the other part of the new rule, the part where action will be taken where there is disproportionately low level of Singaporean PMEs or when companies received repeated complaints.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment - let me tell you a little story to illustrate a point I want to make in response to your comment.
DeleteYears ago when I was on holiday, I checked into the guest house only to find that there was a leak - there was this drip, drip, drip coming down from the ceiling. So I marched down to the front desk, complained and the lady came with me to the room and had a look at the leak. She returned two minutes later with a big plastic pail and I asked her if she was going to fix it. And she said, "I am fixing it now, aren't I? I give you a pail." And I said that no, I was not satisfied with just a pail, I was not going to put up with water dripping into a pail in the middle of the room all night long - she had to give me a new room or get someone in to deal with the leak. The pail was simply not good enough - like, was I going to have to empty the pail every few hours? Even in the middle of the night? . There was a serious problem and she was not taking my complaint seriously enough - I was not going to be satisfied with some gesture that wasn't going to solve the root of the problem.
You get the idea. I think this FCF's new website is just a pail in the face of a leak coming through the ceiling - it's not going to fix the problem, you need far more decisive actions to STOP the influx of foreign workers by placing local Singaporeans at an advantage over locals (as in the UK) such as by doubling the foreign worker levy, to discourage employers from using foreign labour and forcing them to use Singaporeans instead.
This FCF is as useful as a plastic pail when you have a serious leak in the room, with water coming through the ceiling. The woman at the guest house didn't take my complaint seriously enough (I gave her hell believe you me, don't mess with me bitch) - and the government isn't taking the locals seriously. The question is: will you Singaporeans have the resolve to give the PAP hell over this, or will you gladly accept the plastic pail in the spirit of "plastic pail solution better than no solution lah..."
Yes, it does seems like the PAP govt is once again up to its favorite game of wayang. The voters should be prepared to give its politicians hell in 2016 when the scenario you painted materialized. In the meanwhile, those voters for whom the scheme is supposed to help should cross-examine the ministry and minister in charge for the loopholes and give them hell! If you don't help yourself, no one would. I like to believe that our PMET are no easy pushovers.
DeleteActually I disagree Gary, it's not so much the PAP I have given up hope on, it's the Singaporean voters I have long given up hope on. They had every opportunity to kick the PAP out at the last election but look what happened - they still loyally voted for the PAP when it mattered. Sigh. I will talk further about this in my next post.
DeleteI can empathize with your frustration with foreigners but your comparison is biased. Singapore unlike UK, we have no natural resources. We have only good governance, good infrastructure, good education, good healthcare and business friendly environment. If Singapore is to make employment of foreigners difficult similar to UK, many of our local businesses will suffer with the shortage of labor. Foreign investments will avoid Singapore due to the unfriendly business environment and jobs availability for Singaporeans will fall. This is actual feedback from local businessmen. Look at countries around you who tried to follow the western ways. Indonesia is struggling after being betrayed by the IMF. The ways of the west are falling behind. Their wealth are declining. UK and EU are saddled with debt. Businesses are moving away from the west to Asia. Even the US government is forced to shut down due to differences from political parties. Hence, please think carefully of what you are asking.
ReplyDeleteYou are wrong on so many levels that you have won a prize! I am going to dedicate a post to you, where I am going to take your extremely salah statement above, rip it apart and prove to you that you've been feeding yourself lies just to avoid the hard truth that you're being constantly screwed by the PAP and will continued to be screwed by the PAP for the coming years.
Delete1. What the heck is it with natural resources? Loads of other small countries have no natural resources, but it doesn't give their governments the right to treat their locals like second class citizens. In my forthcoming article, I will give you loads of examples of countries where this is not the case.
2. Singaporean businesses are addicted to cheap foreign labour, if you tighten up the restrictions on hiring cheap foreigners, not that much will happen - they will actually be forced to employ more locals. It'll be just like back in the 1980s when Singaporean businesses were NOT addicted to cheap foreign labour and I was around back then - it wasn't such a bad place. No freaking PRCs around then.
3. Foreign investors will decide if Singapore is worth investing in based on individual opportunities being available - rather than based on the availability of cheap labour. What kind of bullshit logic is that? Singapore is a centre of BRAIN power, not a source of cheap labour for crying out aloud. You want sweatshop factory cheap? Go to India, go to Vietnam, go to Cambodia. I work in asset management for crying out aloud and I can tell that you know absolutely SWEET FUCK ALL about finance. Duh. What the fuck do you know about foreign investments to begin with you dumfuck?
4. You were speaking to local businessmen? Don't make my ass laugh. What the fuck do you know about business?
5. Indonesia is so fucked up by corruption they have fucked themselves up - they don't need any outside help from anyone to fuck up, Indonesians are more than capable of fucking up on their own accord.
6. What the fuck are you talking about UK and EU saddled with debt? Some governments have gotten into problems like in Italy, Greece and Spain - but not everyone is in trouble. There are plenty of countries like Germany, Sweden, Denmark and even the UK who are doing reasonably well despite the global recession and there are regional variations even within a country like the UK which is very big. You have some areas which are booming and others which are depressed - even in Singapore, are you telling me that everyone is living in Sentosa Cove and driving sports cars? Some of your HDB flats look fucking depressing and I see quite miserable looking Ah Sohs and Ah Peks working in food courts, clearing trays and plates even though they are in their 70s. Singapore is booming for some but is everyone reaping the benefits?
7. Business are moving from the west to Asia? BWAHAHAHAHA YOU ARE A FUCKING IDIOT. You talk like some neighbourhood chapalang secondary school drop out who knows absolutely FUCK ALL about world economics. Get the fuck out of my elitist uncaring face and fuck off back to your parents' HDB flat you fucking moron. Listen you idiot, even if businesses do move to Singapore, they'll be hiring some bright young scholar like Sun Xu and they won't be hiring dumbass Singkies like you. Happy now? Song bo liddat?
8. The US government shut down has nothing to do with their economy (which is booming in plenty of sectors - but the US is a huge country with huge regional variations).
9. Please, think carefully of what you're saying cos fuckwit retards like you should just worship the PAP even as they fuck the hell out of your ass and all your children's asses.
Oh I thought I was so good when I started and I thought I wasn't going to swear but fuck it, it's my fucking blog and I will fucking swear if I fucking want to. Fuck the lot of you PAP supporters who think that any change to the status quo in Singapore would rock and sink this ship - you're just too fucking stupid to think for yourselves and you believe the PAP's fucking bullshit. You deserve what you fucking get.
Delete