Jan 24th, 2008
Attract foreign talents or retain local talents?
Email This Post
Print This Post
MM Lee has a very upbeat assessment regarding the foreign talent policy. He feels that even if just 30 percent to 40 percent of foreign talents who come into Singapore eventually stay, Singapore would benefit tremendously.
Well, that is a fair statement to make except that I don’t exactly have the necessary statistics to agree with him. Do we actually have such a high rate of foreign talents who choose to make Singapore their home, or do most of the foreign talents take Singapore as a nice, sheltered parking lot?
Besides, is it easier to convince a foreign talent to make Singapore their home, or is it easier to convince local talents not to make somewhere else their home? The CIA World Factbook stated Singapore’s net migration rate in 2002 to be an estimated 26.11 migrants per 1,000 population. It’s a sobering figure.
Of those, this figure appears to be extraordinarily high and I have no idea how it’s computed but there is no doubt that a good deal of Singaporeans are giving up their pink ICs and red passports. I have to say that I do not know the exact demographics of Singaporeans who migrated but I do think they are probably highly-educated, talented folks who are either attracted to better opportunities elsewhere or are just too sick and tired of life in Singapore. If you are not highly-educated nor talented enough, you are probably too busy with just making ends meet, let alone consider migration.
It’s perhaps much more effective to stem the emigration rate compared to increasing immigration rate and hoping immigrants will stay. Those who choose to emigrate probably lived in Singapore for a large part of their life. They would have made many friends here and they probably have many cherished memories of times in Singapore too. Would it be easier to persuade these people to stay compared to foreigners who are new to Singapore shores? The foreign talents probably feel more of an emotional attachment to their own hometown than to Singapore.
One might argue that Singapore is a state made up of immigrants and that if my logic above holds, there should be no Singapore today. That may be true, but the immigrants of yesteryear are usually poor and less educated than immigrants of today. The modern Singaporean immigrant is highly educated, probably well-to-do and certainly very mobile. It will take much more to convince these people to stay compared to the immigrants of the past.
However, encouraging Singaporeans not to emigrate is not exactly easy either. While emotional ties might be a useful leveraging tool, there’s only so much that can be leveraged without corresponding tangible actions addressing the reasons why these Singaporeans choose to migrate. Sometimes, it might not be in the interest of the government to address these issues. Perhaps the key consideration for the government really isn’t a question of whether it is more effective to attract foreign talent or retain local talent but rather, which option doesn’t disrupt the status quo.
Loading ...
Why can’t we do both since both is beneficial?
Retain Local Talents. Because Locals grow up here.Just take a look at all the children of our Civilian servant and you will noticed a worrying trend not to mention they are NOT talent at all.
These Quitter, let them quit but retain the ones who does not have the benefit of a prestige parent but were forced by lack of opportunities to seek greener pastures (ie taxpayer scholarship that can be afforded by their millionaire parent given to undeserving scholars[own child]). Reduction of imported Competition can do much to help the economy.
We can have both if all talents are treated fairly.
But, come on, we have eyes to see what is really happening here. There is this popular saying among us Singaporeans: NS for Singaporeans and jobs for foreigners. This is just one aspect. Of course, there are many other aspects to this FT/LT issue. As one minister said before, “the relationship is not so simple” for another issue, it can be said for the same here.
.
We have been talking too much on this already. As long as the fairness is not addressed, this ding dong will go on for quite awhile.
.
As for the percentage of 30 - 40%, we need to look at the stats (if they have it). FT have many grades, from the smartest (top) to the normal (bottom). Where do that percentage come from? There is a big difference between the top 30%, the middle 30% and the bottom 30%.
.
I am talking too much already …
Loading comment…
To retain local talents, the political scene must change and societal controls must loosen and move with the times. The PAP knows this, and as a political party that intends to rule for perpetuity that always put its own interests ahead of the nation’s, will put this as lowest priority. Not until it is forced to anyway. In the mean time inporting foreigners (not talents) is a subtle way of telling locals the PAP govt will not be held hostage by the people’s demands.
My opinion is that PAP does not put its own interests of the nations. What it does is that it has the opinion that their party is the best one for the job (which party doesn’t). Because of that opinion, their aim is to ensure that PAP will always the number one party. They arguably might even implement national policies that are to their advantage. But that to me is not so much as putting their interests first, but a means to ensure that the nation’s interest is always taken care of well by the people who can which in their opinion is them.
When one surrenders Singapore citizenship one is given a form to fill in. This is supposedly to gauge the reasons for giving up citizenship.The staple ones are there…children’s education, job opportunities, etc. It is debatable however that such basic surveys will provide the real motivations for emigrating. If the government is serious about this outflow of talent it need look no further than the reasons why many of the bright young people that they try to persuade to take up government scholarships or to join the PAP have not responded postively. The PAP must do some real soul searching….it is no longer the political party that it was….because it has become a corporate organisation replete with all the capitalist traits. It has embraced in full monethism which ironically, one of its founding members S Rajaratnam criticised. It has become imperial and arrogant thinking that it has an eternal mandate from heaven to govern. It has also become petty and vindictive forgetting that it has to serve all citizens and not only those that have voted for them or who do their bidding. The young people leaving are only doing what they have been schooled to do..to look out for themselves first as the government seems to be taking the stand that if you do not help yourself its just bad genes, work ethic or bad luck… Based on anecdoctal evidence, one major difference between the emigrant today and that of yesteryear is that today’s are younger ( many are single or married with very young or no children ) and better educated ( probably all are teriary educated and majority have overseas degrees )
Many left Sg to seek happiness and not money.
Those who emigrate have the sort of attributes (age, talent, capital, etc) which qualify them for their new home countries. But what use is all this when one is not happy? And no form can reflect why one chose to leave.
And what of those who would like to leave but cannot?
“I have to say that I do not know the exact demographics of Singaporeans who migrated but I do think they are probably highly-educated, talented folks who are either attracted to better opportunities elsewhere or are just too sick and tired of life in Singapore.”
Actually, I’ve seen published ICA statistics which show that most Singaporeans who have gone overseas are actually in Asia.
Also, the government’s FT policy often discriminates against bright young locals. I gave an example here.
Loading comment…