'The Government has failed to cast a safety net and neglected the self-employed, the one-man operation and partnership businesses that do not have staff and are thus not getting any benefits.'

Mr Lim Ai Tiong, via SMS

'Companies that are struggling would still retrench staff to cut cost as the 12 per cent subsidy is not enough. They would rather save 88 per cent by retrenching.

However, thriving companies will benefit the most from the scheme although they don't need it and have no intention of laying off their staff in the first place.

Hence, the concern is whether the Job Credits scheme benefits the intended recipients? Also, how about workers who are on contract and have no CPF?'

Mr Hazman Jamil, via e-mail

'The Job Credits still does not address the crux of the problem. To save jobs, the Govt should do more than just spend.

The Government should impress on companies they should not simply retrench. Instead, go for company-wide pay cut first.'

Mr Peter Cheong, via SMS

'The scheme may help locals and permanent residents keep their jobs. My concern is for employees in companies making profits - can the 12% be reimbursed to them?

My company is not giving us appraisal bonus this year despite making profits. For this reason, Job Credits should be given only to ailing companies.'

Ms Sue Lim, via SMS

'My company employs 65 people. Sales have slowed in the past four months but we remain profitable. This Jobs Credit Scheme is most timely.

I will withhold this year's salary increment until the situation improves but my partner and l will share the 12 per cent with all our staff, with top performers getting more.

This becomes a win-win situation. The company stays afloat with improved cash flow and the employees get more to spend to help prop up the economy.

Mr John Ho, via SMS

'Certainly it is an extremely good idea to show the Government is doing something positive to keep jobs that has not been lost yet.

However, what is the Government going to do to help those who have already lost their jobs? The answer is: Absolutely nothing.

Mr Eric Woon, via SMS

'Despite the Jobs Credit, property tax and land rental rebates given by the Government, my employer is still cutting 20 per cent of our pay.

Some companies may end up enjoying good profits with all these cuts.'

Mr Jason Liang, via SMS

'The Jobs Credit Scheme of $4.5 billion could help employers cut wage bills in the short term, It is, however, more crucial for businesses to find strategies and solutions for their long-term survival and development.

I have a few suggestions:

1) Companies need to look for business opportunities positively and secure as many contracts and deals as possible.

2) Companies need to re-assess and re-evaluate traditional ways of operating a business. It is vital to innovate and reform when it comes to operational methods and processes to achieve cost efficiency.

Only when they are willing to do so can companies move forward speedily.

3) Employers must retain capable, loyal staff and maintain a high level of competitiveness to stay afloat.

4) It is vital for the Government to boost market demand and stimulate spending, especially in the area of public spending on major projects. This is so that it would keep up the multiplier effect, wherein each dollar injected into the economy would generate a bigger return. Further, it will simultaneously keep people who have real work to do.'

Mr Teo Kueh Liang, via e-mail

'Jobs Credit will only defer retrenchments for a while.

Companies will and can employ staff only when there are sales and most manufacturers here export their products to markets overseas. These markets are now too depressed.'

Mr Eugene Lim, via SMS

'The Jobs Credit scheme is creatively conceived, curtails companies' costs, creates calm and confidence and is carefully caring (it is not a handout). It's cool, so to speak.

In a nutshell, companies get a disguised CPF subsidy which helps to keep employees' CPF intact - it's a modern-day Robin Hood of sorts in reverse!

Jobs Credit will help to contain the retrenchment rate to a certain extent - for the time being.'

Mr Winston Chin, via SMS

The Budget is overly generous towards saving jobs. It is meaningless to spend so much money if the jobs will not be saved ultimately.

The jobless (and some other groups), on the other hand, get close to nothing from the Budget.

Let me give an example. A friend's brother has a semi-conductor factory, capable of producing a maximum of 600,000 mirco chips a month. He has 200 workers.

Before the Budget annoucement, he had intended to retrench 50 workers because of slow sales.

His monthly production output has dropped to only 10 per cent of his total capacity. With the Jobs Credit scheme, he still retrenched 40 workers; 10 workers fewer than plan.

By July 2009, if his order books do not show an improvement, he plans to retrench another 50 workers. And by the end of the year, he will sell the business rather than suffer heavy losses. By then, all his 200 workers woudl have lost their jobs. How much can the Scheme achieve to really save jobs?

The Budget also did not look into or help the following areas or groups:-

a. Self-employed people like remisiers, insurance agents, real estate agents, brokers, etc. How have they benefitted from the Budget? The answer is nothing.

These agents or brokers are paid a commission only if they bring in the sales to the company. If there are no transactions, there is no income.

They are not employees. They have no CPF contributions. Their company will ask them to leave if they have no sales. The Jobs Credit scheme does not offer any help to them to save their job.

b. PMETs. In this recession, this group is the hardest hit as they are the high income earners. They are professionals in their own area. If they have to be retrained for a different career, it will only be a temporary move.

Once the economy picks up, they will switch back to their original career, where pay and prospects are better. In other words, all the money spent on them on SPUR training will be wasted. Why not channel the money to other uses?

c. The 18,000 jobs the government agencies are recruiting for are not suitable for mid-career jobseekers.

For one, these are all entry-level positions, requiring the applicants to undergo basic or uniformed training (especially in the Police Force, SCDF and SAF).

A mid-career applicant who is 35 years or older will definitely not be selected, not unless these agencies modified their selection criteria and training courses to accommodate them.

Mr Wong Wai Leong, via e-mail