(1) SDP is trying to gain some cheap political mileage - by playing up this POFMA saga to stoke the sentiment of Singaporeans - where the facts point out that SDP's chart that show the local PMET employment go down is false.
(2) In Parliament, Mr Chee said total employment across the 23 ITM sectors grew by 19,500, excluding foreign domestic workers.
This comprised an increase in employment of Singapore citizens by 39,300, an increase in employment of PRs by 8,600 and a decrease in employment of foreigners by 28,500.
(3) There is nothing wrong for MOM to attach the true facts against SDP false claim via POFMA when SDP is clearly misrepresenting the true facts - as local PMETs are going up in 2018 and 2019.
(4) SDP is clearly trying to stoke negative sentiment by presenting false facts on the emotional issue of local PMET employment - to gain votes.
(5) This shows that SDP cannot be trusted as a political party.
13 seconds ago
(1) MOM should take this opportunity in High Court - to debunk SDP's false claim by producing all the facts and statistics --- and convincingly prove SDP as a dubious political party.
1 hour ago
Huh??
To demand that justice be served in a transparent manner, through a public /open hearing court proceedings is to :
"stoke the sentiment of Singaporeans" in your opinion?? LOL!
15 seconds ago
@XYZ
@XYZ
(1) An open court is best for all.
(2) The fact has been laid out - and SDP will have to prove MOM's fact is wrong.
(3) If SDP cannot prove MOM's fact is wrong - then SDP's fake news will be exposed.
1 hour ago
"And he misinterpret that asking for an open hearing is to stoke the sentiments of Singaporeans. He really works very hard to be stupid... "
---------------------
LOL... This stupid self-avowed COMMIE @Sebastian just loves to demonstrate his low IQ
to members of public. LOL
Er.. stupid.
@Ricky wrote:...
"BY PLAYING UP (this POFMA saga)"..
Ricky's comment (his choice of words --- "by playing up"), he was alluding to the SDP's moves to demand that the case be heard in an open court.
LOL... stupid low IQ Sebastian reads, but he cannot understand what he was reading. LOL! 😂
3 hours ago
@My Opininon
I think I rebutted you on this before but so many fools, so little time.
Did Halima run as a Malay candidate for her GE battles? If yes, then what's the issue now? She is suddenly unacceptable as a Malay?
PS: I don't support the Reserved President but try to argue factually. I know it's hard when it's easier to just slime.
3 hours ago
What about fake papsident news?
5 hours ago
Especially when Ricky I wrote that he supports an open hearing, XYZ still misinterpret? LOL
5 hours ago
@XYZ
LOL -- again the pedophiliac tried to twist others words.
Ricky I wrote that "(4) SDP is clearly trying to stoke negative sentiment by presenting false facts on the emotional issue of local PMET employment - to gain votes."
And he misinterpret that asking for an open hearing is to stoke the sentiments of Singaporeans. He really works very hard to be stupid...
LOL
XYZ is a self-admitted anti-democratic ROYALIST who crave for the glory days of medieval kings with absolute powers. Maybe he DESIRES a power figure to spank him and keep him in place... LOL
16 hours ago
@ricky l you are so naive to serve Pap.
21 hours ago
LOL.. I have no time to spare to rebut point by point, against the entire heap of gibberish nonsense posted by this stupid low IQ COMMIE @Sebastian. LOL
But anyone reading his silly arguments will be struck by his obvious LACK of proper understanding of the fundamental function /role of the Courts system.
Eh stupid. The Court does not (& should not) get itself involved in the POLITICAL quarrel/spat (between SDP & PAP) ---- over the issue of which time period intervals, should the SDP "appropriately" choose to examine data, and to use the results of those data to pivot their POLITICAL arguments.
Err.. NO, that is NOT what the Judiciary is set-up to do. Stupid.
LOL... Even my 10 yo. nephew understands this simple fact about the role of the Courts. And this 50+ yo. Sebastian, eat rice for more than 50 YEARS, still does not understand that?? LOL
Again, COMMIE Sebastian keeps proving my assertion about him correct and true --- that he is a stupid low IQ idiot. LOL! 😂
22 hours ago
@XYZ SDP's assertion, (which MOM accused them of POFMA violation) is predicated on a data set from 2010-2015 (a different time period). ------------ From SDP post - “The SDP’s proposal comes amidst a rising proportion of Singaporean PMETs getting retrenched”.
When they are referring to "amidst a rising ...", it implies current, not 5-10 years ago! Especially when they referred to CURRENT (2019) articles. NOW shown that they are caught lying, they claimed that its a different time period?
Unless it's your nephew, who remains at 10yo for 5 years. then no difference which time period.. Since 10 years from now, he will still be 10yo.
LOL -- or you can stretch your timeline from your "medieval days"....
22 hours ago
@XYZ Our statement is based on a Straits Times (ST) report PMETs make up rising share of retrenched locals (15 March 2019). The report states: “Professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) made up about three in four or 76 per cent of the locals – Singaporeans and permanent residents – who were retrenched last year, the highest figure in at least a decade.” (Emphasis added.)
In a separate report by Yahoo! (3 October 2019), DBS senior economist Mr Irvin Seah was quoted, saying: “PMETs continue to form a much larger share of retrenched workers compared to their proportion in the workforce.” (Emphasis added.) ----------------------------------------- IF you had bothered to read SDP argument, they were using a report from 2019. And their IMAGE of the dropping local PMET employment vs rising foreign PMET employment is GONE. Are they admitting that their position is wrong and started shifting?
Lots of shifting the goalposts... why does that looks like someting XYZ always do??? .... OMG ... you got a tap-mouth link with SDP as well?
23 hours ago
@XYZ
LOL -- so in using a outdated set of data (I remember you did something similar), how is MOM wrong?
And SDP only digs out those "data" AFTER their lies were called out. They were looking for "facts" that support their lies.
----------------------------------- LOL -- IF SDP made an assertion, then it is SDP responsibility to prove that the stats was wrong. How many times do I have to educate you on that? Hey, you remember ONCE that I said that AU has "super" which is an annuity scheme and you claimed that I was wrong. Cos AU annuity has a lump sum withdrawal clause which CPF lacks so cannot be compared. And demanded that I proved it.. LOL
So one set of standards for us mere mortals and another for OTHERS? Is that it?
23 hours ago
@XYZ
LOL -- NOW you can see my posts?
GO READ AGAIN.. slowly this time. Here, let me help you put it together
Ricky I (1) SDP is trying to gain some cheap political mileage - by playing up this POFMA saga to stoke the sentiment of Singaporeans - where the facts point out that SDP's chart that show the local PMET employment go down is false. (1) MOM should take this opportunity in High Court - to debunk SDP's false claim by producing all the facts and statistics --- and convincingly prove SDP as a dubious political party.
------------------------- XYZ: To demand that justice be served in a transparent manner, through a public /open hearing court proceedings is to : "stoke the sentiment of Singaporeans" in your opinion?? LOL!
--------------- Given that his followup post was THREE HOURS before your post, you cannot claim that you reply before his follow-up, right? Or you didn't read his follow-up post and decided to answer?
SDP was TRYING to stoke Singaporean sentiments by CLAIMING that local PMETs are being disadvantaged vs the foreign PMETs.
Ricky's comment (his choice of words --- "by playing up"), he was alluding to the SDP's moves to demand that the case be heard in an open court. --------------- WHICH is only your warped opinion. Like your "communism cannot mix with democracy because it cannot change its constitution" argument. Remember how you were thrashed on that?
He was referring to SDP attempt to play up FAKE stats and then trying to martyr themselves. a. In the first place, SDP put an image of falling local PMET employment vs rising foreign PMET employment. b. Their article states that "many of us knows friends and family displaced by foreigners". And their "policy" was "Hire Singaporean first, RETRENCH Singaporean last" (caps by ME). c. When their "facts" were questioned by MOM, they claimed "we can't be wrong because we used ST reporting on MOM stats" - which did not state local vs foreign PMETs numbers. d. Then, in a twist, they claimed that MOM used retrenchment stats when they "clearly was talking about unemployment". e. But their rebuttal used .... retrenchment stats... ... ... "clearly was talking about unemployment"?
That was the background of Ricky I comments. In FACT, in a reply to his own post, he believes that an open hearing is BEST for all parties.
So ... how did you get the message that he thinks that an open hearing is bad?
do ... you ... need ... me ... to ... type ... slower ... again?
LOL -- first XYZ admits that he is ANTI-SOCIAL, then he implied that he is ANTI-DEMOCRATIC by longing for the days of medieval CHRISTIAN kings (god-kings) appointed by God.
you know MANY ROYALISTS suffers from a genetic defect from inbreeding, right? Like you having a 10yo "nephew" with your sister who never grows beyond 10 yo in 5 YEARS. So maybe that's why your brain keep resetting and burning out every day.
23 hours ago
" In Parliament, Mr Chee said total employment across the 23 ITM sectors grew by 19,500, excluding foreign domestic workers. This comprised an increase in employment of Singapore citizens by 39,300, an increase in employment of PRs by 8,600 and a decrease in employment of foreigners by 28,500. " ---------------------------
@Ricky, first of all, (even ASSUMING the MOM's data is true), the MOM's assertions are based on the data set from 2016-2018.
SDP's assertion, (which MOM accused them of POFMA violation) is predicated on a data set from 2010-2015 (a different time period).
Since it was the MOM which calls out SDP of spreading "falsehood" in the first place, therefore it is incumbent upon the MOM to demonstrate with actual verifiable facts, that what SDP wrote was "not true". The MOM cannot simply just claim that SDP is spreading falsehood, by being intellectually dishonest, to compare the parameters based on (another) data set over a DIFFERENT time period interval.
The SDP maintains that their assertion is a FACT, basing on self-evident data set they claimed they obtained from what were reported in the State-owned media.
It is the MOM which has to prove in Court, that the statistics & figures, over the time interval from 2010-2015 (which the SDP had based their assertions on), are "made-up" or deliberately twisted to arrive at an intellectually "dishonest" conclusion (ie. deliberate falsehood).
Get it now? LOL. stupid.
yesterday
"And he misinterpret that asking for an open hearing is to stoke the sentiments of Singaporeans. He really works very hard to be stupid... " ---------------------
LOL... This stupid self-avowed COMMIE @Sebastian just loves to demonstrate his low IQ to members of public. LOL
Er.. stupid. @Ricky wrote:... "BY PLAYING UP (this POFMA saga)"..
Ricky's comment (his choice of words --- "by playing up"), he was alluding to the SDP's moves to demand that the case be heard in an open court.
LOL... stupid low IQ Sebastian reads, but he cannot understand what he was reading. LOL! 😂
yesterday
@My Opininon
I think I rebutted you on this before but so many fools, so little time.
Did Halima run as a Malay candidate for her GE battles? If yes, then what's the issue now? She is suddenly unacceptable as a Malay?
PS: I don't support the Reserved President but try to argue factually. I know it's hard when it's easier to just slime.
yesterday
What about fake papsident news?
yesterday
Especially when Ricky I wrote that he supports an open hearing, XYZ still misinterpret? LOL
18 hours ago
its a serious bulldozed law & in high public interest, how can it be heard in chambers ?? -- sdp is right. it must be heard in open court.
10 hours ago
Only people with something to hide will have the case heard in chambers - clear and simple, so that the public will not know what happened!
By retrospectacled-blog-blog on
18 hours ago
Why court cases involving PAP must always be behind closed doors?
8 hours ago
As an ordinary singaporean, I want to know about this case too since pofma is quite confusing. Hearing this case in open court is certainly in the public interest.
9 hours ago
The case – scheduled for Thursday at 10am – is to be heard in chambers, which is not open to members of the public and media, before Justice Ang Cheng Hock.
After case, right hand shake right hand, left hand shake left hand. and case close. there is no transparency at all.
11 hours ago
The case – scheduled for Thursday at 10am – is to be heard in chambers, which is not open to members of the public and media, before Justice Ang Cheng Hock ,,, something to hide ? Don't forget GOD is watching .
9 hours ago
Heard in chambers means the public only hears what they want us to hear?
6 hours ago
Salute to SDP. That's the real Singapore Spirit. Other oppo parties pls unite and charge!
16 hours ago
To Everyone in this Website, Especially PAP, Opposition Parties & All Singaporean,
To know Real local PMET Unemployment Rate & find bad employers that purposely cause local PMET Job Losses , Proofs can be found easily, which various government agencies, like Ministry of Education (MOE), Ministry of Manpower (MOM), Income Tax Authority (IRAS), CPF Board, MAS & etc., need to work together & apply successful industrial practices of other developed nations :==>
(1). Check the educational certificates that are submitted to relevant authorities, by people that need to submit such documents for official registration of certain jobs with strict professional requirements, with MOE .
MOE can apply its huge local & oversea educational related networks to check whether the owners of such submitted educational certificates, are real graduates of these universities, like check the submitted IDs & GRADUATE SERIAL NUMBERS on the submitted educational certificates with the relevant universities .
* EXAMPLE :=> If an original/photocopied Degree in Chemical Engineering from National University of Singapore (NUS) has GRADUATE SERIAL NUMBER, say C-2000, & with its graduate name, say “ John Aw “, on it, then in official NUS graduate records, the name of the graduate in Chemical Engineering faculty in NUS with GRADUATE SERIAL NUMBER, C-2000, MUST be “ John Aw “, NOT any other person’s name, with the PICTURE on the submitted ID of such person look closely same in official NUS records too .
(2). Check with IRAS & CPF Board on whether the recorded employees are actual salaried staff of these companies during their official employment period that are registered with relevant authorities & companies of interest . Neutral AUDITORS recognized by MAS, can check the employer’s records too .
* EXAMPLE :=> If a qualified Mechanical Engineer, say his name is “ Alex Ou “, was working with a building contractor, “ ABC “, from the date 1/2/2010–31/1/2012 for a building project, then “ Alex Ou “ was still the salaried staff of this company, ” ABC “, in this time. BCA, MOM & client that employed this building contractor definitely have such official labour records too .
IRAS & CPF Board also have the Tax Record & CPF Record of “ Alex Ou “ for paying Income Tax & CPF Contribution from 1/2/2010-31/1/2012 respectively, as employee of company, “ ABC “, & if such official labour records from BCA, MOM & client don’t match with records of CPF Board & IRAS, it shows BIG SCAM .
(3). Qualified employees of companies that involve in certain jobs that compulsorily need employees of such qualification, go to register with relevant authorities personally, before their employment start & need to inform relevant authorities if they leave the jobs & any “ BAD THINGS “ in their jobs .
* EXAMPLE :=> Qualified Project Managers & Civil Engineers go to MOM & BCA for registration as key Qualified Persons (QPs) in building projects & appointed Officers from MOM/BCA, not automatic computer system, register them as key QPs for the jobs officially, as well as, tell the QPs what need to be aware & upheld, like need to inform the MOM/BCA if they leave their jobs & strictly follow Government laws in their jobs, even under pressure from top management of their employers to BREAK the LAWS to serve the employer’s benefits .
(4). In developed countries, effective computer systems in relevant authorities are set up to CHECK any DISCREPANCIES with the employment period of qualified professionals registered with relevant authorities .
* EXAMPLE :=> If a qualified Aerodynamic Engineer was registered as employee for a company from the date 1/2/2010-31/1/2012 for a certain aviation job, then the computer system will lock out any registration of this Aerodynamic Engineer’s name in this period by any other companies . . . Later, key government officers will check for there any SCAM .
(5). In developed countries, Professional Bodies formed by qualified professionals in certain fields, are given with “ SEMI-AUTHORITY “ to MONITOR & OVERSEE the Professional Ethics & Conducts in their respective industries on BEHALF of relevant authorities & take required action .
Qualified professionals in such Professional Bodies have worked in their respective industries for many years & know many IN-DEPTH PROBLEMS in their industries well, as compare to officers of relevant authorities that often DON’T have the required working experience & relevant training in relevant private sectors, like civil servants that graduate with Non-engineering degrees often don’t know the complex technical backgrounds of engineering & high tech industries .
(6). Singapore Government set up specialized units in various ministries to handle such Problems, like make constant raids or, sudden checks on suspected work places by relevant authorities, due to public “ WHISTLE BLOWING “ & Complaints .
Any COMMENTS from you PEOPLE out there ? ? ?
7 hours ago
A foreigner is an investor as an employer with business operation in Singapore is interested to maintain the business over a period of 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 or 30 years. Is it possible? Yes, if the business is profitable after paying tax most of the financial or calendar year. A Permanent Resident as an employer would have the same or similar reasons to do the same as the foreigner. The naturalised Singaporean and the Singapore born Singaporean employer would share similar aspirations as the Permanent Resident and the foreigner. When employers have this intention and the interest, they are looking at Singapore as their own home, they find it worthwhile to live in Singapore in the long term.
Why they gave up their aspirations and cease their businesses in Singapore? The most important reason is profit. Profit would the basis to sustain the business operations for 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 or 30 years.
When employers ceased business operations in Singapore, the natural result is employees of all nationalities lose their jobs. Employees and employers cannot fulfil their plan to call Singapore home.
The most affected would be Singapore born Singaporean. Singapore is their only home.
Singapore economic, fiscal and financial policies are causing employees and employers to fail to call Singapore as home.
(2) In Parliament, Mr Chee said total employment across the 23 ITM sectors grew by 19,500, excluding foreign domestic workers.
This comprised an increase in employment of Singapore citizens by 39,300, an increase in employment of PRs by 8,600 and a decrease in employment of foreigners by 28,500.
(3) There is nothing wrong for MOM to attach the true facts against SDP false claim via POFMA when SDP is clearly misrepresenting the true facts - as local PMETs are going up in 2018 and 2019.
(4) SDP is clearly trying to stoke negative sentiment by presenting false facts on the emotional issue of local PMET employment - to gain votes.
(5) This shows that SDP cannot be trusted as a political party.
To demand that justice be served in a transparent manner, through a public /open hearing court proceedings is to :
"stoke the sentiment of Singaporeans" in your opinion?? LOL!
@XYZ
(1) An open court is best for all.
(2) The fact has been laid out - and SDP will have to prove MOM's fact is wrong.
(3) If SDP cannot prove MOM's fact is wrong - then SDP's fake news will be exposed.
---------------------
LOL... This stupid self-avowed COMMIE @Sebastian just loves to demonstrate his low IQ
to members of public. LOL
Er.. stupid.
@Ricky wrote:...
"BY PLAYING UP (this POFMA saga)"..
Ricky's comment (his choice of words --- "by playing up"), he was alluding to the SDP's moves to demand that the case be heard in an open court.
LOL... stupid low IQ Sebastian reads, but he cannot understand what he was reading. LOL! 😂
I think I rebutted you on this before but so many fools, so little time.
Did Halima run as a Malay candidate for her GE battles? If yes, then what's the issue now? She is suddenly unacceptable as a Malay?
PS: I don't support the Reserved President but try to argue factually. I know it's hard when it's easier to just slime.
LOL -- again the pedophiliac tried to twist others words.
Ricky I wrote that "(4) SDP is clearly trying to stoke negative sentiment by presenting false facts on the emotional issue of local PMET employment - to gain votes."
And he misinterpret that asking for an open hearing is to stoke the sentiments of Singaporeans. He really works very hard to be stupid...
LOL
XYZ is a self-admitted anti-democratic ROYALIST who crave for the glory days of medieval kings with absolute powers. Maybe he DESIRES a power figure to spank him and keep him in place... LOL
But anyone reading his silly arguments will be struck by his obvious LACK of proper understanding of the fundamental function /role of the Courts system.
Eh stupid.
The Court does not (& should not) get itself involved in the POLITICAL quarrel/spat (between SDP & PAP) ---- over the issue of which time period intervals, should the SDP "appropriately" choose to examine data, and to use the results of those data to pivot their POLITICAL arguments.
Err.. NO, that is NOT what the Judiciary is set-up to do. Stupid.
LOL... Even my 10 yo. nephew understands this simple fact about the role of the Courts.
And this 50+ yo. Sebastian, eat rice for more than 50 YEARS, still does not understand that?? LOL
Again, COMMIE Sebastian keeps proving my assertion about him correct and true --- that he is a stupid low IQ idiot. LOL! 😂
SDP's assertion, (which MOM accused them of POFMA violation) is predicated on a data set from 2010-2015 (a different time period).
------------
From SDP post - “The SDP’s proposal comes amidst a rising proportion of Singaporean PMETs getting retrenched”.
When they are referring to "amidst a rising ...", it implies current, not 5-10 years ago! Especially when they referred to CURRENT (2019) articles. NOW shown that they are caught lying, they claimed that its a different time period?
Unless it's your nephew, who remains at 10yo for 5 years. then no difference which time period.. Since 10 years from now, he will still be 10yo.
LOL -- or you can stretch your timeline from your "medieval days"....
Our statement is based on a Straits Times (ST) report PMETs make up rising share of retrenched locals (15 March 2019). The report states: “Professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) made up about three in four or 76 per cent of the locals – Singaporeans and permanent residents – who were retrenched last year, the highest figure in at least a decade.” (Emphasis added.)
In a separate report by Yahoo! (3 October 2019), DBS senior economist Mr Irvin Seah was quoted, saying: “PMETs continue to form a much larger share of retrenched workers compared to their proportion in the workforce.” (Emphasis added.)
-----------------------------------------
IF you had bothered to read SDP argument, they were using a report from 2019. And their IMAGE of the dropping local PMET employment vs rising foreign PMET employment is GONE. Are they admitting that their position is wrong and started shifting?
Lots of shifting the goalposts... why does that looks like someting XYZ always do??? .... OMG ... you got a tap-mouth link with SDP as well?
LOL -- so in using a outdated set of data (I remember you did something similar), how is MOM wrong?
And SDP only digs out those "data" AFTER their lies were called out.
They were looking for "facts" that support their lies.
-----------------------------------
LOL -- IF SDP made an assertion, then it is SDP responsibility to prove that the stats was wrong. How many times do I have to educate you on that?
Hey, you remember ONCE that I said that AU has "super" which is an annuity scheme and you claimed that I was wrong. Cos AU annuity has a lump sum withdrawal clause which CPF lacks so cannot be compared. And demanded that I proved it.. LOL
So one set of standards for us mere mortals and another for OTHERS? Is that it?
LOL -- NOW you can see my posts?
GO READ AGAIN.. slowly this time. Here, let me help you put it together
Ricky I
(1) SDP is trying to gain some cheap political mileage - by playing up this POFMA saga to stoke the sentiment of Singaporeans - where the facts point out that SDP's chart that show the local PMET employment go down is false.
(1) MOM should take this opportunity in High Court - to debunk SDP's false claim by producing all the facts and statistics --- and convincingly prove SDP as a dubious political party.
-------------------------
XYZ: To demand that justice be served in a transparent manner, through a public /open hearing court proceedings is to :
"stoke the sentiment of Singaporeans" in your opinion?? LOL!
---------------
Given that his followup post was THREE HOURS before your post, you cannot claim that you reply before his follow-up, right?
Or you didn't read his follow-up post and decided to answer?
SDP was TRYING to stoke Singaporean sentiments by CLAIMING that local PMETs are being disadvantaged vs the foreign PMETs.
Ricky's comment (his choice of words --- "by playing up"), he was alluding to the SDP's moves to demand that the case be heard in an open court.
---------------
WHICH is only your warped opinion. Like your "communism cannot mix with democracy because it cannot change its constitution" argument. Remember how you were thrashed on that?
He was referring to SDP attempt to play up FAKE stats and then trying to martyr themselves.
a. In the first place, SDP put an image of falling local PMET employment vs rising foreign PMET employment.
b. Their article states that "many of us knows friends and family displaced by foreigners". And their "policy" was "Hire Singaporean first, RETRENCH Singaporean last" (caps by ME).
c. When their "facts" were questioned by MOM, they claimed "we can't be wrong because we used ST reporting on MOM stats" - which did not state local vs foreign PMETs numbers.
d. Then, in a twist, they claimed that MOM used retrenchment stats when they "clearly was talking about unemployment".
e. But their rebuttal used .... retrenchment stats... ... ... "clearly was talking about unemployment"?
That was the background of Ricky I comments.
In FACT, in a reply to his own post, he believes that an open hearing is BEST for all parties.
So ... how did you get the message that he thinks that an open hearing is bad?
do ... you ... need ... me ... to ... type ... slower ... again?
LOL -- first XYZ admits that he is ANTI-SOCIAL, then he implied that he is ANTI-DEMOCRATIC by longing for the days of medieval CHRISTIAN kings (god-kings) appointed by God.
you know MANY ROYALISTS suffers from a genetic defect from inbreeding, right? Like you having a 10yo "nephew" with your sister who never grows beyond 10 yo in 5 YEARS. So maybe that's why your brain keep resetting and burning out every day.
This comprised an increase in employment of Singapore citizens by 39,300, an increase in employment of PRs by 8,600 and a decrease in employment of foreigners by 28,500. "
---------------------------
@Ricky, first of all, (even ASSUMING the MOM's data is true),
the MOM's assertions are based on the data set from 2016-2018.
SDP's assertion, (which MOM accused them of POFMA violation) is predicated on a data set from 2010-2015 (a different time period).
Since it was the MOM which calls out SDP of spreading "falsehood" in the first place, therefore it is incumbent upon the MOM to demonstrate with actual verifiable facts, that what SDP wrote was "not true".
The MOM cannot simply just claim that SDP is spreading falsehood, by being intellectually dishonest, to compare the parameters based on (another) data set over a DIFFERENT time period interval.
The SDP maintains that their assertion is a FACT, basing on self-evident data set they claimed they obtained from what were reported in the State-owned media.
It is the MOM which has to prove in Court, that the statistics & figures, over the time interval from 2010-2015 (which the SDP had based their assertions on), are "made-up" or deliberately twisted to arrive at an intellectually "dishonest" conclusion (ie. deliberate falsehood).
Get it now? LOL. stupid.
---------------------
LOL... This stupid self-avowed COMMIE @Sebastian just loves to demonstrate his low IQ
to members of public. LOL
Er.. stupid.
@Ricky wrote:...
"BY PLAYING UP (this POFMA saga)"..
Ricky's comment (his choice of words --- "by playing up"), he was alluding to the SDP's moves to demand that the case be heard in an open court.
LOL... stupid low IQ Sebastian reads, but he cannot understand what he was reading. LOL! 😂
I think I rebutted you on this before but so many fools, so little time.
Did Halima run as a Malay candidate for her GE battles? If yes, then what's the issue now? She is suddenly unacceptable as a Malay?
PS: I don't support the Reserved President but try to argue factually. I know it's hard when it's easier to just slime.
After case, right hand shake right hand, left hand shake left hand. and case close. there is no transparency at all.
To know Real local PMET Unemployment Rate & find bad employers that purposely cause local PMET Job Losses , Proofs can be found easily, which various government agencies, like Ministry of Education (MOE), Ministry of Manpower (MOM), Income Tax Authority (IRAS), CPF Board, MAS & etc., need to work together & apply successful industrial practices of other developed nations :==>
(1). Check the educational certificates that are submitted to relevant authorities, by people that need to submit such documents for official registration of certain jobs with strict professional requirements, with MOE .
MOE can apply its huge local & oversea educational related networks to check whether the owners of such submitted educational certificates, are real graduates of these universities, like check the submitted IDs & GRADUATE SERIAL NUMBERS on the submitted educational certificates with the relevant universities .
* EXAMPLE :=> If an original/photocopied Degree in Chemical Engineering from National University of Singapore (NUS) has GRADUATE SERIAL NUMBER, say C-2000, & with its graduate name, say “ John Aw “, on it, then in official NUS graduate records, the name of the graduate in Chemical Engineering faculty in NUS with GRADUATE SERIAL NUMBER, C-2000, MUST be “ John Aw “, NOT any other person’s name, with the PICTURE on the submitted ID of such person look closely same in official NUS records too .
(2). Check with IRAS & CPF Board on whether the recorded employees are actual salaried staff of these companies during their official employment period that are registered with relevant authorities & companies of interest . Neutral AUDITORS recognized by MAS, can check the employer’s records too .
* EXAMPLE :=> If a qualified Mechanical Engineer, say his name is “ Alex Ou “, was working with a building contractor, “ ABC “, from the date 1/2/2010–31/1/2012 for a building project, then “ Alex Ou “ was still the salaried staff of this company, ” ABC “, in this time. BCA, MOM & client that employed this building contractor definitely have such official labour records too .
IRAS & CPF Board also have the Tax Record & CPF Record of “ Alex Ou “ for paying Income Tax & CPF Contribution from 1/2/2010-31/1/2012 respectively, as employee of company, “ ABC “, & if such official labour records from BCA, MOM & client don’t match with records of CPF Board & IRAS, it shows BIG SCAM .
(3). Qualified employees of companies that involve in certain jobs that compulsorily need employees of such qualification, go to register with relevant authorities personally, before their employment start & need to inform relevant authorities if they leave the jobs & any “ BAD THINGS “ in their jobs .
* EXAMPLE :=> Qualified Project Managers & Civil Engineers go to MOM & BCA for registration as key Qualified Persons (QPs) in building projects & appointed Officers from MOM/BCA, not automatic computer system, register them as key QPs for the jobs officially, as well as, tell the QPs what need to be aware & upheld, like need to inform the MOM/BCA if they leave their jobs & strictly follow Government laws in their jobs, even under pressure from top management of their employers to BREAK the LAWS to serve the employer’s benefits .
(4). In developed countries, effective computer systems in relevant authorities are set up to CHECK any DISCREPANCIES with the employment period of qualified professionals registered with relevant authorities .
* EXAMPLE :=> If a qualified Aerodynamic Engineer was registered as employee for a company from the date 1/2/2010-31/1/2012 for a certain aviation job, then the computer system will lock out any registration of this Aerodynamic Engineer’s name in this period by any other companies . . . Later, key government officers will check for there any SCAM .
(5). In developed countries, Professional Bodies formed by qualified professionals in certain fields, are given with “ SEMI-AUTHORITY “ to MONITOR & OVERSEE the Professional Ethics & Conducts in their respective industries on BEHALF of relevant authorities & take required action .
Qualified professionals in such Professional Bodies have worked in their respective industries for many years & know many IN-DEPTH PROBLEMS in their industries well, as compare to officers of relevant authorities that often DON’T have the required working experience & relevant training in relevant private sectors, like civil servants that graduate with Non-engineering degrees often don’t know the complex technical backgrounds of engineering & high tech industries .
(6). Singapore Government set up specialized units in various ministries to handle such Problems, like make constant raids or, sudden checks on suspected work places by relevant authorities, due to public “ WHISTLE BLOWING “ & Complaints .
Any COMMENTS from you PEOPLE out there ? ? ?
Why they gave up their aspirations and cease their businesses in Singapore? The most important reason is profit. Profit would the basis to sustain the business operations for 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 or 30 years.
When employers ceased business operations in Singapore, the natural result is employees of all nationalities lose their jobs. Employees and employers cannot fulfil their plan to call Singapore home.
The most affected would be Singapore born Singaporean. Singapore is their only home.
Singapore economic, fiscal and financial policies are causing employees and employers to fail to call Singapore as home.