• Leong Sze Hian
• 11:48AM May 4, 2011

The Ministry of Manpower in Singapore has announced an increase in the salary thresholds for employment pass and S-pass workers.

Malaysians form the largest component of non-Singaporean workers in the island republic. However, there are no statistics available on the breakdown of Malaysians holding the different categories of permits, such as employment pass, S-pass and work permits.

The reason given for raising the salary thresholds is to make it harder for employers in Singapore to recruit higher-skilled foreigners such as Malaysians, whom many Singaporeans have complained are competing with the local citizens for the higher paying jobs.

Raising the salary threshold may not alleviate the problems that Singaporeans may face competing with foreigners like Malaysians, as long as employers are allowed to have unlimited hiring of employment pass foreigners and up to 25 percent of the total workforce for S-pass.

Unfair competition against Singaporeans?

How does a Singaporean graduate compete with a younger Malaysian graduate who may be more qualified and experienced, and is willing to work for a much lower wage?

Since employers do not have to make Central Provident Fund (CPF) contributions for foreigners, hiring a Malaysian on a Q1 employment pass at the new minimum salary of S$4,000 (RM9,713) will enable the employer to save S$640 (RM1,554) a month.

Since foreign male workers like Malaysians do not have national service reservist
obligations, the employer does not have to worry about the up to 40 days of reservist training in a year.

Since most foreign female workers may be single and not pregnant when they arrive in Singapore, local employers may be less concerned about the four months of maternity leave and salary costs.

Also, foreigners generally cannot change employers during their typical two-year contract period. So, less turnover problems too for the Singaporean employers.

Increase in minimum wage

By giving employers of existing employment pass holders a one-time renewal of up to two years to meet the salary thresholds, foreigners like Malaysians are effectively being given a 11 and 12 percent pay increase for S-pass and Q1 pass respectively.

However, the locals – Singaporeans and permanent residents – only had a 0.5 percent real median wage increase last year, and negative real median wage increase in 2009 and 2008.

In effect, the minimum wage for foreigners like Malaysians, on employment pass and S-pass, has been increased, even though there is no minimum wage for the locals.

According to the Singapore Ministry of Manpower’s 2010 Labour Market Report, the rate of change in the growth of foreign workers in Singapore last year was about four times more than that for locals, at 59,700 for foreigners and 14,400 for locals, compared with 2009.

These figures may indicate that the playing field may not be level for Singaporeans vis-a-vis foreigners like Malaysians.

Employers can hire 100 percent Malaysians?

It is not uncommon to see a Singapore employer hiring entirely non-Singaporeans, because under the foreign worker quota rules in Singapore, a company can have unlimited employment of permanent residents and employment pass holders.

This can be up to 25 percent of S-pass workers and 50 percent of Malaysian work permit holders in certain sectors, such as the services sector.

For other work permit holders, such as those from China or India, the quota in the services sector, for example, is much lower, at generally 10 percent, compared with 50 percent for Malaysians.

To illustrate this: A company can have 100 percent Malaysian permanent residents, 100 percent employment pass Malaysians, 100 percent mixture of Malaysian permanent residents and employment pass holders, 50 percent Malaysian permanent residents with 25 percent S-pass and 25 percent Malaysian work permit holders.

Are there any developed countries in the world that allow the unlimited hiring of foreigners, like Malaysians, on a monthly salary of just S$2,800 (RM6,801) – which is quite low as it is only around the 55th percentile of wages for locals in Singapore?

Finally, how can a foreign worker who only earns S$2,800 – which is 37 percent less than the average wage of S$4,474 (RM10,869) in Singapore, be called “foreign talent”?

Most Singaporeans may have no issue with highly-skilled and highly-salaried foreigners coming to work in their country.

However, they are concerned about the almost unrestricted hiring of lower-paid and arguably not much higher-skilled foreigners, be they Malaysians or others, who may be competing unfairly with Singaporeans for jobs.

Share this:

• Leong Sze Hian
• 3:47PM Apr 30, 2011

COMMENT All nine opposition parties – that have announced that they will be fielding candidates in what is expected to be the first general elections in decades whereby all 87 constituencies in Singapore will be contested – have raised the issue of helping lower-income Singaporeans who have seen hardly any real increase in incomes in the last 10 years or so, as shown in data from the Singapore Ministry of Manpower and the Singapore Department of Statistics.

Over the past few elections, the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) had formed the government as early as nomination day, because of walkovers that gave the PAP the majority in Parliament even before polling day.

PAP’s elections record is arguably one of the best in the world:

1965 to 1983 – won all parliamentary seats since independence

1984 – won 72 out of 74 seats

1988 – won 76 out of 77

1991 – won 77 out of 81

1997, 2001, 2006 – opposition only won two seats

The last two presidential elections were also walkovers in favour of PAP.

This year, as in previous elections, the media has gone on overdrive in the days leading up to polling, to put up stories about how much help the needy in Singapore have been, or will be getting in the near future.

Helping needy with 27 cents?

In this connection, I would like to refer to the article ‘$3m scheme to help 30,000 needy’ (Singapore Straits Times, April 21).

The report says, “(The government) is giving out $3 million worth of discount vouchers – three times the value dished out last year – to about 30,000 low-income members”.

Last year, Singapore’s National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) gave vouchers to its needy union members’ families that were about three times less than this year, i.e. S$30 (RM73).

This works out to about 8 Singapore cents (19 sen) a day per family (S$30 divided by 365 days) for last year, and about 27 Singapore cents (66 sen) per day for this year, to each needy union member’s family who successfully applies.

Since NTUC union membership fees are S$117 (RM285) per annum, one way of looking at it, may be that if you are a needy union member family, you got about 25 percent  (S$30 vouchers divided by S$117 (RM285) membership fee) of your union dues back in the form of discount vouchers last year, and will get about 85 percent back this year.

Why the delay?

The article adds, “The vouchers will be given out by Aug 1. These vouchers will be valid from Aug 1, 2011 till Jan 31, 2012”, citing the NTUC’s web site.

So, when warehouse coordinator Mohamed Ansary Ismail, age 43, who is the sole breadwinner supporting his wife and three teenage children on his S$1,500 (RM3,653) monthly wage, and whose monthly grocery bill is only about S$150 (RM365), was reported to have said, “Normally I try to watch what I spend and stick to the basics like rice and sugar.

“But I can afford to splurge a bit more on my family when I receive the vouchers – and am glad of the helping hand”.

I wonder if he knows that he can only use the vouchers in three months time from Aug 1.

Hopefully, he has not jumped the gun and informed his children already, they may perhaps suffer momentary disappointment when he reads the fine print upon receiving his vouchers.

Can and should needy families in Singapore have to wait for more than three months, when the vouchers could have been effective immediately?

Incidentally, with 580,000 union members, NTUC’s revenue from membership fees alone is about S$68 million (RM166 million) per annum.

If there are 30,000 needy union members’ families out of NTUC’s 580,000 members alone, one can imagine how many needy families there are across Singapore, since the total number of Singapore resident workers is 1,990,700, as of December, 2010.

With NTUC’s profits from its 12 social enterprises over the three-month period until the vouchers are redeemable, not to mention money from fund raising, like the S$6.9 million (RM16.8 million) raised under NTUC’s U Care Fund this year alone, it is hard to understand why the delay till Aug 1 to cash in the vouchers.

Share this:

• Leong Sze Hian
• 1:22PM Apr 23, 2011

I refer to the front page headlines story “Foreign workers help create good jobs for S’poreans: PM” (Singapore Straits Times, Apr 21) and “Foreign workers help to create more good jobs for Singaporeans: PM” (Channel News Asia, Apr 21).

The former reads, “In his speech, Mr Lee (Hsien Loong, right) noted that six in 10 of the employees are ‘Singaporeans and permanent residents’. Singapore residents also take up two-thirds of the managerial and professional positions, he added.”

The front page headlines story on Singapore’s Chinese daily Zao Bao on April 21 was also on Lee’s remarks at the opening of a S$3.7 (RM9) billion wafer plant, that foreign workers help to create jobs for Singaporeans.

Given the remarks at the end of the Singapore Straits Times article that “the government’s foreign worker policy could emerge as a hot-button issue this election as some believe that it has hurt residents’ job prospects and depressed wages”, I find it somewhat strange that even at this eleventh hour before the Singapore general election on May 7, Singapore’s prime minister is still using ‘Singaporeans and permanent residents (PRs)’ statistics.

For instance, “six in 10 of the employees are ‘Singaporeans and permanent residents’, could mean just one Singaporean and five PRs.

As to “Singapore residents also take up two-thirds of the managerial and professional positions…”, it could also mean, say, one-third Singaporeans and one-third PRs.

Also, according to the CNA report, since “in the technician and manufacturing jobs, two-thirds are foreign workers”, it could mean that as little as one percent of the one-third are Singaporeans and the balance 99 percent are PRs.

Meaningless statistics?

So, the bottom line is that the Singapore PM’s statistics may not tell us much about jobs for Singaporeans, because of the 1,200 workers in the new wafer plant, 480 are foreigners, and as many as 716 could be PRs, with just one Singaporean manager, one Singaporean professional, one Singaporean technician and one Singaporean in a manufacturing position.

So, the $64,000 question may be, how many are actually Singaporeans?

To illustrate the frivolity of the data, if half the locals are PRs, it may mean that only 30 percent of the total work force are Singaporeans, with one-third of the managers and professional positions and one-sixth of the technicians and manufacturing jobs being Singaporeans, respectively.

Surely the data breakdown of the locals into Singaporeans and PRs should be available, as it is only 1,200 people who are all employed in just one company in the island state.

The finance minister has the figures, but not the PM?

If Singapore’s finance minister can present ‘Singaporean only’ workers’ incomes and ‘Singaporean only’ households’ incomes in the budget statement in Singapore’s Parliament in February, albeit that it was one of the very rare occasions that ‘Singaporean only’ statistics  were disclosed, why is it that the Singapore PM can’t now?

Well, your guess is as good as mine!

100 percent foreign staff?

Under the Singapore Ministry of Manpower’s (MOM) employment policies, an employer may be able to hire entirely non-Singaporeans, because under the foreign worker quota rules, a company can have unlimited employment of PRs and employment pass holders (EPs), up to 25 percent of S-pass workers and 50 percent of Malaysian work permit holders in certain sectors like the services sector. For non-Malaysian work permit holders like those from China or India, the quota is much lower at generally 10 percent.

To illustrate the above with some examples, a company can have 100 percent PRs, 100 percent EPs, or 100 percent mixture of PRs and EPs,

Alternatively they may comprise 50 percent PRs and EPs, with 25 percent S-pass, 15 percent Malaysian work permit holders and 10 percent China/India work permit holders, etc, as well as an unlimited number of foreign university interns on typically six-months stay in Singapore, who do not need to be subject to any of the foreign worker quotas.

Share this:

• Leong Sze Hian
• 2:14PM Mar 5, 2011

Singapore public hospitals in the past did not have a policy of not allowing subsidies when an injured worker, such as a Malaysian permanent resident (PR), is hospitalised in a subsidised ward.

Somewhere along the line, the policy changed to deny subsidies for industrial accidents, resulting in workers having to bear huge medical expenses in excess of the S$25,000 (RM59,728) cap that employers in Singapore are responsible for.

So, for example, if your medical bill is S$150,000 (RM35,838), you will have to foot the balance S$125.000 (RM298,658) yourself.

Is it fair for a worker who, through no fault of his own, is burdened with large medical bills arising from an industrial accident?

Shouldn’t workers have rights to medical expenses arising from a work-related accident? Did Singapore’s unions or parliamentarians object to such an erosion of workers’ rights?

Since the subsidy in class C hospital wards is 80 percent, an injured worker may have to pay up to five times more, out of his own pocket, when his hospitalisation and post-hospitalisation expenses exceed the cap of $25,000 (RM59,728).

In contrast, if you are a Malaysian on a work permit or S-pass, instead of a PR, Singapore employers are responsible for your entire medical bill if you are hospitalised. Singapore employers are required to insure foreign workers, like Malaysians, for S$15,000 (RM35,838) of medical expenses, but have unlimited liability for their foreign workers’ medical bills.

Of course, what usually happens is that the Singaporean employer may cancel the injured Malaysian worker’s work permit so that he will be deported, to avoid having to pay for the worker’s medical expenses.

Hospital bill ‘upgraded’

It is a little known fact that if you are a Malaysian PR who stays in a Singapore public hospital’s intensive-care unit (ICU) for, say, two months under C-class, which is the cheapest ward class, but opts to upgrade to a higher ward class for a few days after discharge from ICU, you will be billed the higher class charges for the entire duration of your stay in the hospital.

Is it fair for patients to be billed the higher charges for their entire hospital stay, when they only stayed in a higher class ward at the end of their hospitalisation?

The Ministry of Health in Singapore should step in to review this unfair practice by hospitals.

Since Malaysians in Singapore who are not PRs  are not entitled to any medical subsidies in public hospitals, they will be billed the full unsubsidised amount when they are hospitalised in the non-subsidised B1 and A class wards.

Share this:

• Leong Sze Hian
• 2:22PM Feb 5, 2011

As the debate rages in Malaysia, on how to move the country forward, particularly in economic development – will 1Malaysia work? Is it enough? What else should Malaysia focus on?

Arguably, Singapore’s economic miracle has been due in no small way to its policy of attracting foreign talent, even at a very young age, to Singapore on fully funded scholarships.

Many Malaysians arrive in Singapore every year under such scholarship schemes.

Should Malaysia also do it in a big way, like what the island republic has done?

What lessons, if any, are there to be learned from Singapore’s experience? Well, one aspect of the recently released Singapore Census 2010, which I think no media has talked about, is what the profile of permanent residents (PRs) may mean for its citizens.

While I must confess at the onset, that this article is entirely speculative, and rather deficient in statistical veracity (unlike my normal pieces), I think it reflects the sentiments of many Singaporeans in the coffee shops, blogs and so on.

According to the article, “Foreigner numbers mirror economic figures” (Singapore Straits Times, Jan 13), almost half of the PR population last year were degree holders, compared with 18 percent of Singaporeans.

Does this mean that, generally, it may be harder for Singaporeans to compete with PRs for jobs because more of them have received higher education?

Will a similar problem occur if Malaysia adopts an open foreign talent policy like Singapore?

In this connection, Singapore’s Ministry of Manpower (MOM) issues a pass to allow foreigners (including Malaysians) into Singapore for a year to hunt for a job.

Are there any developed countries in the world that allow foreigners to stay for a year to compete with citizens for jobs?

Of course, such foreigners also contribute to Singapore’s GDP growth.

When the MOM was asked as to how many foreigners have been issued with such passes, it declined to reveal the figure.

From my experience, if a request for a statistic is declined, the number may be quite a huge. Because if it’s not a large number, why not reveal it?

PRs – cheaper, better, faster?

The famous quote “Cheaper, better, faster” of Singapore’s National Trade Union Congress secretary-general and cabinet minister, ironically may be really true, in the context of PRs and such graduate foreigners here to look for jobs, because generally, they may be more “hungry” and have no dependants in Singapore to support, or heavy financial commitments like a home mortgage.

If you think this is bad enough for adult Singaporeans, the recent statistics that about 60 percent of top ‘O’ Level students are foreigners may have undesirable repercussions for Singaporean students as well.

By the way, how many of the balance 40 percent of top students are Singaporeans, if we take away the PRs?

Grapevine talk has it that some Singaporean students may be less motivated to study and do well in school because they feel that their chances of beating their “genius” foreign classmates may be quite slim.

Is this perhaps an unintended consequence of giving out so may scholarships to attract the best foreigners (including Malaysians) to Singapore to study – push up our academic standards, help to enhance our workforce competency, grow our GDP?

If Malaysia adopts a open foreign talent policy like Singapore’s, will it push up Malaysian schools’ academic standards, help to enhance workforce competency and productivity and grow Malaysia’s GDP faster too?

Share this: