News

While it may be true that data is the lifeblood of an organisation, I am sceptical about the need for more data to tackle some of the challenges we face.   Labour economist Walter Theseira seems to suggest that researchers from our institutes of higher learning feel that having more data is needed to address the woes our workers face related to skills and capabilities ( , Nov 8). I don’t think it is true that the lack of data prevents researchers from knowing what kind of skills and capabilities deserve funding and support. It is true that it could be difficult for the institutes of higher learning to keep tabs on the skills and capabilities of their students once they complete their formal education and step into the workforce. But the pace of change in certain aspects of technology is too fast. Nokia and BlackBerry were good examples. Even if our institutes of higher learning were to harvest and analyse huge amounts of data, there is a likelihood that the funding and support programmes created based on this data could still become less useful, if not obsolete, within a short period of time. I suggest that researchers from institutes of higher learning be attached to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), in schemes similar to student industrial attachment programmes, but with a carefully calibrated scope and duration. This will let researchers experience first-hand the skills needed on the ground, and may help them in coming up with strategies and policies to help the Singaporean workforce. Such an arrangement is not a new idea. Employees in the civil service are seconded to other public agencies. Not every nook and cranny in the workforce requires in-depth data to design skills-centric support programmes to help workers. I hope the lack of data is not used as a reason for the lack of help.