Hrdc Has No Business Teaching Businesses How To Spend Their Money

---

 

From Roslan Sharif
I refer to your news report dated June 24 entitled “HRD Corp clears the air on micro-credential fee”.
To quote the HRD Corp chief executive officer’s posting on LinkedIn: “The imposition of the RM300 fee per employee for each training should not burden employers as the levy will be included in the course structure within the ceiling limit for each scheme.” The key word here is “included”.
-ADVERTISEMENT-Ads by 
What the foregoing means is that they will abolish the RM300 fee per trainee but will conveniently transfer the said fees to the training fees to be paid to the training providers by the employers; and the training providers will have to pay HRDC a 4% commission, which will now increase as the base has increased.
This is just a rebranding exercise where the intended revenue for HRDC remains. This is another classic case of “old wine in a new bottle with new labelling”.
To quote another paragraph from the same report: ”This will ensure the costs are not unnecessarily transferred to employers and will not impact the overall number of employees trained.” The key word is “unnecessarily”, meaning that HRDC will continue to unilaterally decide what is necessary.
One does not need to be an English language pundit to decipher the hidden, sublime and embedded play of words that are employed by the CEO. I would warn the employers’ associations and bodies to be cautious of the possible manoeuvre and slick attempts as well as public relations stunts.
The employers’ associations and relevant bodies are forewarned that they should only approve and agree to HRDC’s rehashed procedures after they have sighted the actual amended circular and not rely on verbal briefing contents furnished by HRDC.
The contents of what is briefed may not necessarily be translated accurately into a circular for obvious reasons.
Once bitten twice shy. Trust, like respect, must be earned. Currently, there is an obvious trust deficit.
Again, HRDC is reminded that apart from Malaysian employer associations, there are foreign associations to contend with, for example, AmCham, EuroCham, Jactim, MGCC, KoCham, MIBC, MFBC, Mataac, MCC, and others.
These bodies are responsible for protecting the interests of foreign direct investments. Thus, please do not send them the wrong message or signal.
It must be reiterated yet again that the money belongs to the employers and HRDC has no business to teach the businesses how to spend their money on the required training and development of their employees.
Employers conduct an analysis on training needs in accordance and in compliance with individual market needs and requirements.
Each employer will tailor the training needs in accordance with the needs of their industries.
The human resource professionals in each of these organisations are adept at determining the developmental and training gaps of their talents. There is absolutely no need for HRDC to try to teach them.
Paramount and pertinent to this issue is that HRDC should not employ compulsion and force in dealing with the employers as it will most certainly backfire and will have counter-productive effects.
No scheme should be compulsory and employers must be given the choice to opt in or opt out of micro-credential programmes.
Even if HRDC has and will continue to consult and engage the employers, have they been given the right to make decisions that have financial implications on the employers and stakeholders?
HRDC should put their money where their mouth is and cease to hoodwink and rob the employers. - FMT
Roslan Sharif, a human resources director, is an FMT reader.
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.

---