[Bigiron]

Analysis:
Okay, let's analyze the document " for potential flaws and inconsistencies.

Potential Flaws and Inconsistencies

1. Tension Between Open Economy and Local Job Security (Paragraphs 2 & 3):

Potential Flaw: The document states Singapore welcomes global talent to create good jobs for Singaporeans, but the data shows a disproportionate growth in foreign Employment Pass (EP) and S Pass holders (38,000) compared to resident PMET employment (382,000). While the resident PMET growth is higher numerically, a growth of 38,000 could suggest displacement or increased competition for local workers, especially in specific sectors.

Inconsistency: The claim that the strategy has "demonstrated results" could be questioned. While overall PMET employment has increased, it doesn't explicitly address if the quality of those jobs for Singaporeans has improved (e.g., salary, career progression). It is also unclear if these additional PMET jobs were mainly for residents, or were also filled by Employment Pass and S Pass holders.

2. Foreign-Owned Firms and Higher-Paying Jobs (Paragraph 4):

Potential Flaw: While foreign-owned firms provide jobs, the claim that they employ "six in ten residents earning a gross monthly income above $12,500" can be misleading. It doesn't specify what kind of employment resident are working in and the percentage of resident that the monthly income earned is.

3. Benchmarking Qualifying Salaries (Paragraph 5):

Potential Flaw: Benchmarking salaries to the "top one-third" might inadvertently lead to salary inflation, making it more expensive for local companies to hire talent. It also doesn't guarantee improved job quality or career progression for local workers.

Inconsistency: The intention of ensuring "the quality of foreign workers improves in tandem with resident wages" is not explicitly explained. How does benchmarking salaries necessarily improve the quality of foreign workers or directly benefit resident wages? It seems to suggest that higher wages automatically equate to higher quality, which may not be true.

4. COMPASS Framework (Paragraph 6):

Potential Flaw: The COMPASS framework awards points for developing a local pipeline, but there's no guarantee this translates into actual hiring of locals. Companies might simply meet the point requirements without genuinely prioritizing local talent. It's susceptible to being a tick-box exercise.

Lack of Transparency: The point system of COMPASS seems vague, and the selection criteria may not be fair for smaller companies to complete with the large international companies.

5. Career Conversion Programmes (Paragraph 8):

Potential Flaw: CCPs reskilling and upskilling can take time and money for the locals, and this could cause potential cost-of-living presssure.

General Concerns/Omissions:

Job Security: The document doesn't explicitly address job security concerns for Singaporean workers in the face of increasing global competition and automation.

Long-Term Strategy: While the document touches on various initiatives, it lacks a clear articulation of a long-term strategy to ensure Singaporeans remain competitive in the global job market.

The types of sectors foreigners are hired in are very specific, it may be inaccurate for the government to extrapolate it's overall effect.

In summary:

The document presents a somewhat optimistic view of Singapore's employment landscape, but it glosses over potential flaws and inconsistencies that require further scrutiny. The tension between attracting foreign talent and protecting local job security, the effectiveness of various initiatives, and the long-term implications of current policies all warrant further investigation. The limited sector to which foreigners are employed in also raises questions on the extrapolation to it's overall effect.

[Sharexchange]

Too many Ah tiong and Ceca imported and fed by companies thru loop holes everywhere

[Sharexchange]

More coming...GOV going to hire foreigners for SCDF...one come amd their families all come apply PR

[Wy:Nox]

They always repeat the same motherhood statement that FTs create good jobs for locals but never once have any data in the last 10 years to prove if 1 FT created 10 Director or VP level jobs. It’s merely empty talk from their side as usual.