I refer to the article “Towards a broader meritocracy” (Straits Times, Apr 20) and “Cabinet: More left-of-centre now, helping the lower income” (Straits Times, Apr 19).

Shift from centrist to the left?

It states that “The Cabinet has shifted to the left in how it views social policy and helping the lower income, Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam said.“If I compare our thinking in Cabinet, or the weight of thinking in Cabinet, when I first entered politics about 11 years ago, I would say the weight of thinking was centrist but there were two flanks on either side of it.

“There were some who were a little right-of-centre, and there were some a little left-of-centre,” he said. “Now I would say the weight of thinking is left-of-centre. You still get diversity of views in Cabinet, but the centre of gravity is left-of-centre.”

Focus on lower-income Singaporeans and older folk?

Mr Tharman said the current team in charge is clearly “focused on upgrading the lives and improving the lives of lower-income Singaporeans and older folk too”.”

Not “focused” all these years?

So, do the above remarks mean that we were “not focused” or “less focused” on “upgrading the lives and improving the lives of lower-income Singaporeans and older folk”, in the past?

“Statistical” evidence?

Well, like they say “talk is cheap – let the numbers do the talking!”. So, I cracked my head to think about what statistics may help to answer this question of “focus”.

Big thank you to ES

Sometimes, life works in strange ways – a reader, ES, had just sent me some Budget documents from 1975 with the remarks “Not sure if they are of use to you”. (Note: ES is also the kind soul who sent me the 1987 university education statistics (“No such thing as “tuition grant” before?“, Apr 2) when I said I could not find the tuition fees in 1987 in an earlier article)

Social spending statistics?

Back to the “focus” issue, I think perhaps a good measure may be how much we spend on social spending in the past and recently. This would be a good indicator as to how much we have done in “upgrading the lives and improving the lives of lower-income Singaporeans and older folk”.

Social spending in the past?

In 1975, government spending on Social and Community Services (Education, Health and Others) was $676 million. Dividing this by the population then of  1.8 million (assuming 80 per cent of the total population of 2.25 million were citizens (no breakdown of population in the Budget report)) gives a per capita social spending of $376.

Fast forward to 2012, government spending (operating expenditure) on Social Development was $17.5 billion. Dividing this by the citizen population of 3.29 million gives a per capita spending of $5,319.

This works out to a 7.4 per cent per annum increase in social spending per capita, over the 37 years from 1975 to 2012.

4.4% p.a.  real growth in social spending?

As I estimate that inflation over the same period was about 3 per cent, does this mean that the real growth in social spending was about 4.4 per cent per annum?

6.9% p.a. GDP growth disappeared to … ?

Since GDP for the same period grew by 6.9 per cent per annum, from $26.1 billion in 1975 to $305.2 billion in 2012, it would appear that social spending may not have grown in tandem with good GDP growth.

Why is this so?

Where did all the GDP growth and Budget surpluses go to – accumulating the Reserves – at the expense of “lower-income Singaporeans and older folk“?

Clearly “no focus”?

Perhaps this may “statistically” support the remarks that we “did not focus” or “had less focus” on “upgrading the lives and improving the lives of lower-income Singaporeans and older folk”, in the past.

What about present “focus”?

Now, let’s turn to the present and recent times, to see if “statistically” – “the current team in charge is clearly “focused on upgrading the lives and improving the lives of lower-income Singaporeans and older folk too”", holds up.

Report card – fail?

Unfortunately, it may not appear to be doing so too, because

Social spending decreased?

“GOVERNMENT OPERATING EXPENDITURE – Social Development (Education, healthcare, community development, etc)  – decreased from $17.7 $17.5 billion, from 2011 to 2012.

GOVERNMENT DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURE – Social Development – decreased from $3.7 to $3.5 billion, from 2011 to 2012.

And we have not even adjusted the above figures for inflation last year – which means that we may actually have spent even less!

In this regard, the CONSUMER PRICE INDEX increased by 4.6 per cent, from 108.2 to 113.1, from 2011 to 2012.” (“Social spending decreased from 2011 to 2012?“, Mar 19)

The motion cannot stand?

Hence, like they say in a debate – Can the motion “”the current team in charge is clearly “focused on upgrading the lives and improving the lives of lower-income Singaporeans and older folk too”" – still stand?

I rest my case!

Leong Sze Hian

Share this:

During my talk on “Statistics and the Marxist Conspiracy” at Function 8 on 9 April, I met Vernon who subsequently sent to me, through Function 8, the link to the paper

“Singaporean University Graduates in the New Century: Over-educated but Under-skilled?” (24 July 2004), by Stephen J. Appold, Department of Sociology, National University of Singapore.

According to Vernon, Dr Appold left NUS shortly after the publication of the paper.

I have reproduced extracts from his paper which you may find interesting reading.

Non-graduates income rose relatively more than graduates?

“The supply of educated labor increased even faster than the rapidly
expanding demand.
Not surprisingly given the more rapid growth of supply than demand, although most resident
Singaporean’s income has improved over the last 20 years, university graduates as a group have fared
less well than some other groups. In 1980, the median income of university graduates was almost six
and a half times as high as the median income for the work force as a whole (and over three times as
high as those who had a secondary school diploma). By 1990 the ratio had declined to 3.2 times as
much as the overall median and 2.76 times as high as those with secondary school diplomas. By
2000, the median earnings for university graduates was just over twice that of the labor force as a
whole and 2.14 times as high as those with secondary school diplomas. The median income of those
with university degrees rose 1.42 times during the 1990s; that of those without any formal education
at all – those frequently held to be most disadvantaged by economic restructuring and by globalization
– rose 1.47 times. The position of university graduates in the labor market is significantly less
elevated than it was when expectations were formed in adolescence and at the beginning of many
graduate’s careers.”

Older graduates were more likely to be unemployed?

“Contrary to the expectation based on the theory outlined at the beginning of the paper and contrary to
popular perception, however, the incomes of graduates are rising less rapidly than that of those
without any education. The income disparity between professionals and blue collar workers has
narrowed over the past several decades (Ho, 2000). Rising Singaporean income inequality is,
therefore, not necessarily due to differences in education (Department of Statistics, 2000).

Despite the up and down trend in the rate of
retrenchment, professionals, managers, executives, and technicians (the most relevant category for
which data were reported) comprise an increasing proportion of those being retrenched. In 2002 they
were over one-third of those retrenched, up from less than half that in 1995. Moreover, this same
group makes up an increasing proportion of those on short-term layoff and of those whose
employment contracts were terminated. Those retrenched from these high-skill occupations were
barely more likely to be rehired than those lacking qualifications. In the past, professionals and
managers were often thought of as “trusted” employees. They appear to be increasingly treated as
proletarianized labor.
As of June 2002, for example, the unemployment rate (this includes but is not limited to those
who have been retrenched) was twice as high for graduates under 30 as it was for those who were
older. On the other hand, while young graduates tended to find employment quickly (median period
of unemployment five weeks), the median duration of unemployment for those in their 30s was over
three months and for those in their 40s and 50s it approached half a year. Approximately one-sixth of
the unemployed graduates had been so for 40 weeks or more. The time to re-employment does not
include those who have withdrawn from the labor force.”

Retired due to retrenchment?

“In the U.S. being retrenched is a significant
contributor to retirement (Shapiro and Sandell 1985). The table suggests that may be true in
Singapore also.”

Imported more foreign graduates than Singaporean graduates?

“Degrees granted to Singaporeans by foreign institutions added another 16,060 for a total of
approximately 96,470 local graduates.
The heavier representation of non-natives in professional positions than in managerial jobs
is consistent with Kanter’s (1977) thesis on the function of social similarity in organizations.

The major source of university graduates during the 1990s, however, has been immigration.
An estimated 147,000 graduates were added by the immigration of permanent residents and nonresidents.

Nevertheless, non-residents contributed just over one-fifth of the university graduates in the work
force in 1980 and 1990. By 2000, that proportion had risen to one-fourth with almost half of the
university graduates in Singapore being non-citizens.”

Increasingly more foreign PMETs?

“In
1980, 12 percent of managerial jobs were filled by non-citizens (permanent residents and nonresidents)
and 12 percent of professional and technical jobs were filled by non-citizens. In 1990, there
was little change in those percentages, 17 and 13 percent, respectively. By 2000, however, the change
was substantial. Twenty-seven percent of managerial jobs, 38 percent of professional jobs, and 20
percent of technical jobs were filled by non-citizens.10 While permanent residents supplied only seven
The Singapore Department of Statistics does not publish statistics on the number of daily
commuters from Johore and they are not included in the employment figures. The Malaysian
government estimates that 40,000 commute daily to jobs in Singapore. They include 27,103 nonskilled
workers, 10,235 skilled workers, and 2,832 professionals (Straits Times, 2001). They may be
important to manufacturing and other sectors.
Similar conclusions could be drawn from a study of incomes. In 1982, non-Singaporeans
(permanent residents and non-residents) accounted for nine percent of the paid labor force but 40
percent of those earning $3,000 or more per month (at the time, the top 2.6 percent of the wage
distribution). In 1988, non-Singaporeans made up 10 percent of the paid labor force but 25 percent of
those earning $3,000 or more per month (at the time, the top 5 percent of the wage distribution). In
1982 non-Singaporeans were just slightly over-represented among those earning less than $400 per
month but by 1988 non-Singaporeans comprised 34 percent of those earning less than $400 per month
(by then 14 percent of those employed). Unfortunately, data for more recent years has not been
published.
18
percent of labor force, they comprised 12 percent of the managers (almost half of the proportion
occupied by non-citizens) and 18 percent of the professionals (again, almost half of the proportion
occupied by non-citizens).”

Need for foreign PMETs not justified?

“By one measure, the university educated migrants are not needed in
the Singapore labor market at all. Less controversially, they are not needed in the large number in
which they are found. While cases of a shortage of persons with particular types of training or with
specialized work experience do arise, such shortages do not appear to be the major contributors to the
importation of foreign educated labor. Nor is the reliance on foreign graduates necessarily the result
of a shortage of work experience. If migrants were used to fill senior positions requiring experiencebased
skill that younger natives did not have the opportunity to gain, the migrants would be
significantly older than natives in the same occupational groups. The reliance on foreign graduates is
not necessarily the result of a shortage of specialized training. Non-resident graduates are overrepresented
in sectors that are not expanding rapidly and they are over-represented in sectors, such as
manufacturing, construction, and business services, which have well-developed domestic university
programs meant to meet labor force needs.”

Aggressive recruitment of PMETs overseas?

“Despite the high employment growth, a surplus of university graduates were chasing the available
jobs with the predictable effects: soft average salaries, the downward filtering of graduates into the
less-desired jobs, and the proletarianization of educated labor. Nevertheless, university-educated
migrants were actively recruited from abroad. At the same time, residents of two of the world’s
largest producers of human capital, China and India, were willing and able to leave their own
countries for opportunities elsewhere. The migrants smoothed the overall age distribution (of
residents) somewhat but their numbers created a higher level of job competition for everyone, even if
the younger cohorts of university graduates – who should have benefitted the most from the sectoral
shift – were perhaps the most stressed. The disproportionate placement of the migrant graduates in
high value-added sectors where wages were strong indicates that migrants enjoyed a favorable place
Singaporeans are sensitive to the difference between credentials and knowledge. Jack
Neo, a local film maker and actor, has played two different immensely popular film characters who
had skill and intelligence but lacked the required pedigree to get ahead in their careers.

in the labor queue and that migrants provided a combination of skill and work motivation that could
not be found locally.”

Dependence upon immigration – uniquely Singaporean?

“Despite the unemployment of university graduates, the need for highly-skilled foreign labor
does not appear to have slackened and the competition from non-natives in the labor market (and in
the classroom) has become a contentious topic of discussion.”

“The high level of dependence upon immigration to solve the dilemmas of
patronage and productivity may be uniquely Singaporean.”

My gut feel is that the labour issues and problems that we have today may arguably already be evident, about 9 years ago in Dr Appold’s paper.

Like they say, perhaps “the writing was already on the wall”, but we may simply have been blind!

Leong Sze Hian

References:

“Hire locals first: Half the story?“, Mar 30

“More educated Singaporeans, but less pay?“, Mar 28

“Graduates’ real starting salaries minus 0.4% p.a. last 6 years?“, Mar 22

Share this:

I refer to the article “Govt agencies told: No age bias in hiring” (Straits Times, Apr 11).

“An oversight”?

It states that “The ministries have corrected what they said were “an oversight”.

Once-off, many times, long time?

Is this “oversight” a once-off event?

How many times have this “oversight” occurred in the past?

Was this an ongoing “oversight”?

If so, for how long has this been going on?

How many have “oversight”?

How many ministries and agencies had this “oversight”?

Do some private employers have “oversight” too?

How many employed, despite “oversight”‘?”

As to “They added that the errors did not stop them from hiring older security guards”, how many over-55 security guards were employed last year?

What was their percentage over the total number employed last year?

What percentage of the security guards employed now are over 55?

“Oversight” in other jobs too?

Was this “oversight” applied to just security guards, or other jobs as well?

What is the percentage of all employees and contract staff who are over 55?

Encouraged to work beyond 65?

As to “”There is no statutory age upon which employees are required to stop working, it (MOM) added”

“The Government is encouraging older workers to keep working and wants firms to continue to hire them, so government agencies have to lead by example,” he said”, I have a relative who reached 65, and expressed his wish to continue working. But he was rejected by his employer, a government agency.

I also understand that denial of requests to continue working beyond 65 may be the norm, rather than the exception.

In this connection, what percentage of those who request to work beyond 65 are successful?

What percentage of all employees are over 65?

No age, gender, marital status, race?

As to “The Public Service Division (PSD) – the civil service’s human resource arm – yesterday pledged to continue supporting Tafep’s guidelines.

“We do not ask for information such as age or date of birth, gender, marital status, race and religion in our job application forms” said Mr Tan Hoe Soon, a PSD director”, how many ministries and agencies also do not ask for all this information?

Monkey see, monkey do?

Or monkey see don’t do, monkey don’t do?

How many private employers also do not ask for all this information?

What percentage of private employers do not ask for all this information?

Guidelines without statistics quite useless?

What’s the point of guidelines, when there are no statistics as to the extent to which they are being adhered to? Using surveys of arguably small sample sizes of generally large companies to indicate that all is well with guidelines, which may have practically little or no legal consequences for non-adherance, may not be the best way forward.

Any more “future oversights”?

After all, perhaps one can always explain it by way of just “an” or “another  oversight”?

Leong Sze Hian

Share this:

I refer to the Department of Statistics’ (DOS) Monthly Digest of Statistics Singapore March 2012, released on 3 April 2013.

According to the report, Labour and Productivity – Employment Services – New Registrants was 39,383, 40,131 and 2,255 for 2011, 2012 and February 2013, respectively.

Placements were 14,323, 19,580 and 1,044, for the same periods, respectively.

Job placement rate now 49%?

This works out to a job placement rate of 36, 49 and 46 per cent, respectively.

Previous Job placement rate just over 10%?

However, according to previous Monthly Digest of Statistics, the ratio of Job Seekers Placed in Employment to Job Seekers Attended To was 14, 18 and 12%, for 2011, 2012 and December 2012, respectively.

More or less job seekers?

Job seekers dropped from 100,504 to 24,500?

According to recent media reports, “between January and November 2012, the number of people approaching the CDCs for training and employment assistance was 24,500, a 3 per cent drop compared to the same period in 2011.

The success rates of those being placed into employment has also been higher in 2012. 11,800 were placed into jobs between January and November 2012, compared to 10,100 for the same period in 2011″

However, according to the Department of Statistics’ (DOS) Monthly Digest of Statistics Singapore June 2012, job seekers attended to by the CDCs and e2i, was 99,608 and 100,504, in 2010 and 2011, respectively, and job seekers placed in employment was 17,732 and 14,223, respectively. (“Easier to get jobs?“, Sep 7 and “Latest statistical highlights: Job placement rate drops to 14%, Jul 17)

“Job seekers attended to” changed to “New Registrants”?

It would appear that the Monthly Digest of Statistics has now been changed to “New Registrants”, instead of  ”job seekers attended to”. This change has resulted in a dramatic increase of the job placement rate from 14 and 18 per cent in 2011 and 2012, respectively, to 36 and 49 per cent.

What is the definition and difference between “New Registrants” and  ”job seekers attended to”?

Was this change announced to anybody?

Job placement rate increase 172% (by magic)?

So, this change has literally “by the stroke of a pen” increased the job placement rate in 2011 and 2012 by 157 per cent (36 divided by 14) and 172 per cent (49 divided by 18), respectively.

So, how is it possible that 100,504 job seekers attended to by the CDCs and e2i in 2011, has dropped dramatically to only 24,500 job seekers approaching CDCs in 11 months (excluding e2i?)?

The latest statistics indicate that in the six months from June to November 2012, the number of job seekers attended to was 57,992. Thus, it may appear that the total for the full year of 2012 may end up to be even higher than 2011′s 100,504.

Declining job placement rate?

Similarly, the 11,800 were placed into jobs between January and November 2012, seems to be much lower than the 14,223 placed in employment for the full year of 2011.

Job placement rate improved from 14 to 48%?

If we take the CDCs’ statistics in media reports, the job placement rate (for 11 months) is 48 per cent, but if we take the DOS’s previous statistics, the placement rate for the 12 months in 2011 was only 14 per cent?

History of “magic” improvement in statistics?

I wonder how many times and how many statistics in the history of Singapore may have “magically” improved too, like that illustrated above?

Leong Sze Hian

Share this:

I refer to the article “Hire locals first” (Straits Times, Mar 30).

Employment Pass decreased?

It states that “EP numbers did rise in that period (2007 to 2012), as they have in every year except last year, when they fell by 1,600.”

The chart shows that EP holders increased from 99,200 in 2007, to 173,800 in 2012.

Why never count S-pass?

But, this may be just half the story, because the the number of S-Passes went up to 142,400 from 113,900 in the previous year.

In fact, the Manpower Minister noted that “some are workers who were downgraded from EP to S pass”, but said the rise in S-Pass numbers is nonetheless “cause for concern” and that the Government is reviewing the S-Pass framework.”

Total employment passes increase?

So, the total number of employment passes (EP and S-pass) actually increased by nine per cent from 289,300 to 316,200.

How can a one per cent drop in employment passes and a 25 per cent increase in S-Passes be said to be a first-time ever drop in employment passes since 2003? (“Employment pass numbers down: Really?”, Jan 31)

S-pass impact PMETs more than EP?

Moreover, a more significant half of the story, may be that the competition for jobs and depression of wages for PMETs, may arguably be due more to the S-pass than the EP.

Employment pass become PRs?

So, another half of the story may be that since there are about 30,000 new PRs now in a year, and about 259,000 PRs were granted over the last five years or so, some of the employment pass holders may also  simply have become PRs.

Real wage increase?

As to another chart which showed that the salaries of various categories of PMETs had increased from 2009 to 2012, such as low-level PMETs at over $30,000 a year, it may also be just half the story. What was the real increase after adjusting for inflation for the period? Was it negative annualised growth in salaries? (“More educated Singaporeans, but less pay?”, Mar 28)

Priority to Singaporeans?

With arguably, just half the story on the statistics impacting PMETs, how can we figure out how and whether we are giving priority to hiring Singaporeans?

Leong Sze Hian

Share this:

I refer to the article “More than half of employees in Singapore planning to leave jobs: Survey”( Straits Times, Mar 28).

More than 1 in 2 want to resign?

It states that “More than one in two (56%) employees in Singapore are planning to leave their jobs within the next two years because of unsatisfactory compensation”.

“the figure rises even higher among those aged 18 to 34″ (“Compensation Woes Driving Singaporeans To Seek New Opportunities”, TR Emeritus, Mar 28).

Why?

I was rather tickled by the above in my mind, and was wondering whether there may be any statistics which may help to explain this rather strange phenomena of the majority of workers planning to leave their jobs because the pay was not enough.

Well, the Department of Statistics has just released its  Statistics Singapore Newsletter (SSN), on the same day as the above news report.

74% tertiary educated?

According to the Educational Profile of Singapore Resident Non-Students, 2002-2012, “more than 70 per cent of Singapore resident non-students aged 25-29 years and 30-34 years were tertiary educated.”

In contrast, less than 20 per cent among those aged 60-64 years, and 65 years and over had tertiary qualifications.”

More educated Singaporeans?

This means that there has been a persistent trend of Singaporeans becoming more educated over the years.

“Between 2002 and 2012, there was a marked increase in the proportion of the population with tertiary qualifications.

University graduates constituted 26 per cent of the resident non-student population aged 25 years and over in 2012, up from 15 per cent a decade ago.

Persons with diploma and professional qualifications also accounted for a larger share of the resident non-student population at 14 per cent in 2012, up from 8.9 per cent in 2002.

Overall, the tertiary educated accounted for 40 per cent of the resident non-student population aged 25 years and over in 2012, up from 24 per cent in 2002.” – This means that in the last decade, the proportion of tertiary educated residents increased by about 67 per cent.

131% increase in tertiary educated?

As to “Among the resident non-student population aged 35-44 years, the proportion with tertiary qualifications also increased significantly from 26 per cent in 2002 to 60 per cent in 2012″ – it means that the increase was even higher, at 131 per cent, for those aged 34-44 years.

Upgrade! Upgrade?

Could the above be attributed to the consistent rhethoric to Singaporeans to upgrade themselves?

With regard to “Over the last decade, the mean years of schooling rose for every age group, reaching 13.6 years for the age group of 25-34 years, 12.7 years for the age group of 35-44 years, 10.3 years for the age group of 45-54 years and 6.9 years for the age group of 55 years and over in 2012″ – it is further evidence that Singaporeans are spending more time in school to get higher qualifications.We have always been told over the years that we must continue to upgrade and that PMET jobs would pay more – arguably, the axiom was perhaps the more educated you are, the more pay you can expect.

This issue is perhaps underscored by Professor Linda Low’s remarks “Pointing out a sentence in the Government’s January Population White Paper, which said that Singaporeans “aspire to be in higher-skilled and more rewarding work”, Prof Lim said that this is already a value judgment by the authorities” (“Executive-focused society in Singapore ‘is bizarre’“, New Paper, Mar 25).

Pay increase?

Unfortunately, this does not seem to be the case if we look at the wage statistics. For example, the estimated real median wage growth per annum was about 0.4 per cent, from 2000 to 2012. (“Real wage growth p.a. in 1990s was 16 times more than last 12 years?, Mar 5)

The stark reality may be that if half of the workers (median) had estimated real median wage growth per annum of only about 0.4 per cent for the last 12 years, and 74 per cent of those aged 25 to 34 in the last decade are tertiary educated – may mean that the axiom that more educated means more pay may be a fallacy.

I also find it rather puzzling as to why the above data does not include the tertiary educated who are below 25 years old. So, if we include this group, does it mean that the proportion of tertiary educated may be even higher than 74 per cent?

Trade grew 7.4%?

In the same  Statistics Singapore Newsletter (SSN), according to Singapore’s Merchandise Trade Performance, 2003-2012, “Over the past decade, Singapore’s trade rose significantly from S$516 billion in 2003 to reach S$985 billion in 2012 in nominal terms, achieving a compound average growth rate (CAGR) of 7.4 per cent.

Today, the value of Singapore’s merchandise trade is 2.85 times its gross domestic product (GDP).”

6.2% GDP growth?

During this same period. from 2003 to 2012, GDP growth was about 6.2 per cent per annum.

Did pay grow too?

So, the question that Singaporeans may want to ask is where has all the good GDP and trade growth over the years gone to, since it appears that they have not been translated into better wage increase for more educated Singaporeans?

Foreign labour & immigration policy?

Arguably, we may have managed to grow the economy with our liberal foreign labour and immigration policies. But at what price? – Hundreds of thousands of Singaporeans may be paying the price in recent years. (“Social Health: Only 1 positive out of 9 – shocking?”, Mar 28)

Leong Sze Hian

Reference:

“Graduates’ real starting salaries minus 0.4% p.a. last 6 years?”, Mar 22

“Polytechnic graduates’ real pay dropped 16%?“, Jan 10)

Share this:

I refer to the article “Over 90% of fresh grads from 2012 cohort employed” (Channel NewsAsia, Mar 22).

Salary increased?

It states that “The median gross monthly salary for those in full-time permanent employment was S$3,050.

The mean gross monthly salary for this group was S$3,260.”

$2,700 in 2006?

According to Nanyang Technological University’s (NTU) ClassAct Issue 51, June 2007, “NTU graduates from the Class of 2006″ had “a mean gross monthly salary of $2,700″.

In this connection, according to www.salary.sg, “Channelnewsasia.com (said) this is higher than both NUS and SMU“.

Salary grew 3.2%?

This means that starting salaries for NTU grew by about 3.2 per cent per annum, from 2006 to 2012.

Real salary minus 0.4%?

Since inflation was about 3,6 per cent per annum for the same 6-year period from 2006 (CPI 91.3) to 2012 (CPI 113.1), does it mean that the real increase in salaries per annum was about minus 0.4 per cent?

Median worse than mean?

Since my above calculations are based on the mean salaries because I cannot find the data on the median salaries in 2006, is the real growth in the median salaries even worse than the mean salaries?

Real median salary increase – 2.9%?

As those who landed full-time permanent jobs last year earned a median gross monthly salary of $3,050 – up from $3,000 in 2011, which is an increase of 1.7 per cent – after adjusting for inflation of about 4.6 per cent last year, the real salary increase is about minus 2.9 per cent last year.

Now have median and mean salaries, but only mean in the past?

Why is it that media reports now report both the median and mean salaries now, but only the mean salaries in the past?

Was it because the Graduate Employment Survey reports only reported the mean in some of the previous years?

Polytechnic graduates negative real increase was worse?

In this connection, it would appear that the negative real increase in university graduates’ salaries, is not as bad as that for polytechnic graduates. (“Polytechnic graduates’ real pay dropped 16%?“, Jan 10)

Foreign workers?

To what extent has the liberal issuance of Employment passes which have a minimum salary of  $3,200 (previously $2,800) and the S-Pass which has a minimum salary of  $2,200 (previously $1,800), contributed to the drop in real salary growth of both university and poly graduates?

Graduate Employment Survey should report real salaries?

I would like to suggest that the annual Graduate Employment Survey report the starting salaries of graduates in real terms too, instead of just the nominal increase.

Leong Sze Hian

Share this:

I refer to the Department of Statistics’ MONTHLY DIGEST OF STATISTICS SINGAPORE, FEBRUARY 2013.

Social spending decreased?

GOVERNMENT OPERATING EXPENDITURE – Social Development (Education, healthcare, community development, etc)  – decreased from $17.7 $17.5 billion, from 2011 to 2012.

GOVERNMENT DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURE – Social Development – decreased from $3.7 to $3.5 billion, from 2011 to 2012.

Since we seem to keep hearing the rhetoric that more will be done for Singaporeans and social spending, why is it that both Government Operating and Development Expenditures for social spending decreased?

And we have not even adjusted the above figures for inflation last year – which means that we may actually have spent even less!

In this regard, the CONSUMER PRICE INDEX increased from 108.2 to 113.1, from 2011 to 2012.

Gas Tariff grew 14%?

The Price Index of the Gas Tariff grew by 14% from 114.7 to 131.0, from 2011 to 2012.

Electricity Tariff grew 7.5%?

The Price Index of the Electricity Tariff grew by 7.5% from 126.9 to 136.4, from 2011 to 2012.

Govt surplus increase?

GOVERNMENT FINANCE – Surplus – grew from $27 to $36 billion, from 2011 to 2012. Why is it that social spending is down whereas the surplus is up?

Govt debt increase?

GOVERNMENT DEBT grew by about 9% from $354 to $385 billion, from 2011 to 2012.

Real Average Earnings grew minus 2.3%?

The AVERAGE MONTHLY NOMINAL EARNINGS PER EMPLOYEE grew by 2.3% from $4,334 in 2011 to $4,433 in 2012.

After adjusting for inflation which I understand was 4.6% in 2012, the real growth was minus 2.3%.

Does this mean that the real growth for AVERAGE MONTHLY NOMINAL EARNINGS was even worse than the minus 2% for the real median wage growth last year? (“Yet another year of negative real wage increase?“, Jan 31)

Singaporeans dropped from 86.1 to 61.8%?

The proportion of Singaporeans in the total population declined from 86.1% (1990) to 74.1 (2000) and 61.8% (2012).

Non-Residents grew from 10.2 to 28.1%?

In contrast, the proportion of Non-Residents grew from 10.2% (1990) to 18.7 (2000) and 28.1% (2012).

PRs grew from 3.7 to 10.0%?

Permanent Residents (PRs) grew from 3.7% (1990) to 7.1 (2000) and 10.0% (2012).

Singaporeans’ growth rate 0.9%?

In Average Annual Growth terms, Singaporeans grew by just 1.7, 1.3 and 0.9% in 1990, 2000 and 2012.

Non-Residents growth rate 7.2%

In contrast, Non-Residents grew by 9.0, 9.3 and 7.2%, respectively.

Permanent Residents (PRs) grew by 2.3, 9.9 and 0.2%, respectively.

Non-Singaporeans grew from 13.9 to 38.2%?

Total population grew from 3.05 to 5.31 million?

Singapore’s total population grew from 3.05 million (1990) to 4.03 (2000) and 5.31 million (2012).

Job placement rate just over 10%?

The ratio of Job Seekers Placed in Employment to Job Seekers Attended To was 14, 18 and 12%, for 2011, 2012 and December 2012, respectively.

Productivity continues to decline?

Labour Productivity was 1.3 in 2011, – 2.6 in 2012, and – 2.2, – 1.6, – 3.8 and – 2.5 for 2012Q1 to Q4, respectively.

Unit Business Cost increase?

Unit Business Cost Index of Manufacturing continues to increase from 105.8 in 2011 to 110.1 in 2012, and 113.7 in 2012Q4.

Unit Labour Cost increase?

Unit Labour Cost Index of Overall Economy continues to increase from 114.6 in 2011 to 119.3 in 2012, and 129.9 in 2012Q4.

Govt rates & fees increase?

Government Rates & Fees continues to increase from 103.3 in 2011 to 123.8 in 2012, and 129.1 in 2012Q4.

Business Expectations down?

General Business Expectations is low at – 10, – 11, – 11, – 10, for 2011Q3, Q4, 2012Q3 and Q4, respectively.

New Orders Received down?

New Orders Received was negative, at – 20 and – 9, for 2012Q3 and Q4, respectively.

Cessation of companies increase?

CESSATION OF COMPANIES increased from 15,134 in 2010 to 19,007 in 2011.

CPF Due to Members increase?

Total Amount of CPF Due to Members grew from $208 to $233 billion, from 2011 to January 2013.

CPF Withdrawn to Contributed ratio 45%?

The ratio of CPF Amount Withdrawn to Amount Contributed was about 45% in 2012. Does this mean that for every dollar of contributions, only about 45 cents is being withdrawn now? At this rate, CPF may continue to be a good source of low-interest funding for the Government.

Singaporeans have low spending power?

Private Consumption Expenditure continues to be low, at about 35% for 2011 and 2012.

In contrast, I understand that Hong Kong’s is about 60%.

Pawn Shop Loans increased 45%?

Amount of Pawn Shop Loans increased by 45% from $4.9 to $7.1 billion, from 2011 to 2012.

Looking at the above statistics, to what extent has the rapid growth in foreigners contributed to low productivity, negative real wage growth and low job seekers’ placement rate, etc, in recent years?

Leong Sze Hian

Share this:

I refer to the article “New licensing rule to raise standards of cleaning firms” (Straits Times, Mar 13).

Licensing of cleaning firms?

It states that “general cleaners in offices or food and beverage establishments must earn at least $1,000 a month.”

So many schemes to raise cleaners’ pay?

The issue of declining pay for cleaners and other low-pay jobs has been going on for many years.

So many initiatives, schemes and programmes have been implemented over the years to address this problem, that I have lost count.

Some of the schemes announced in the past were:-

“Full-time cleaners now earn about $1,000 a month on average, compared to about $750 before the (Town Councils’ cleaners’) scheme was launched in 2008” (“Cleaners’ pay up $250 to $1,000: Congratulations?“)

“Progressive wage concept initiative to raise the wages of cleaners” (“Measure wage targets in hourly pay, not gross total“, Jun 20)

“Unprecedented move by a group of officials from unions, cleaning companies and the Government would raise the pay of cleaners by 23 per cent” (Oct 19)

“Contracts would only be awarded to cleaning companies awarded the Clean Mark Accreditation” (“Parliament: Replies that never answer the question?“, Nov 14)

“The National Trades Union Congress ( NTUC) has set a target to raise 10,000 cleaners’ monthly salary to at least $1,000 by 2015″ (“NTUC: Wages need to account for standard of living?“, Dec 20)

Mr Tan, the cleaner

Now that yet another scheme has been announced, I thought we could try to take a journey back in time and imagine that we have a cleaner named Mr Tan.

Mr Tan earned $1,277 in 2000, as the median gross wage of cleaners and labourers then was $1,277.

His pay declined over the last 12 years or so, to just $815 in 2012. (“New proposed cleaners’ pay starts from $1,000“, Straits Times, Oct 19)

39% drop in pay after 12 years?

When he heard about the latest licensing of cleaning firms to increase cleaners’ pay to at least $1,000, he sighed. Because even when his pay is increased to $1,000, after adjusting for inflation of about 29.1 per cent in the last 12 years, in real terms, his pay of $1,000 would be about 39 per cent less than what he earned in 2000.

51,000 local cleaners?

So, how many Singaporeans are there like Mr Tan – “About 51,000 Singaporeans and permanent residents (PRs) are cleaners, as are 17,400 foreigners”.

Nobody wants to work as a cleaner?

So, does this statistic not put to rest the repeated rhetoric that we have been told over the years that Singaporeans don’t want to work as cleaners?

He could not understand why invariably, whenever the foreign workers’ levy was increased, presumably to encourage employers to employ Singaporeans like him, the employers reduced the wages of foreign workers which also led to a reduction in his pay. (“cleaners that used to earn about $800 a month a few years ago, now only earn about $650″, BlogTV, Aug 25, 2009)

As one gets older, earnings tend to decline?

According to the Ministry of Manpower, in 2007 (“Unanswered questions about CPF changes“, Aug 24 2007, theonlinecitizen), for workers aged 55 and above, 18,600 earn gross monthly income of under $500, 64,000 earn less than $1,000, and 46,400 earn below $1,500. This means that 42 per cent of elderly workers earn less than $1,000 then.

The statistics indicate that the older one gets, the larger is the proportion who earn less. For example, those earning less than $500 and $1,000, jumped from 8,600 and 36,600 to 18,600 and 64,000, respectively, from age 50-54 to age 55 and above.

This means that those who crossed from age 50-54 to age 55 and above, who earned less than $500 and $1,000, increased by 116 and 75 per cent respectively.

Why is it that it would appear that as one gets older, earnings tend to decline?

How long has this trend been persistent, and has it continued to today?

How many older workers in menial jobs?

The proportion of older workers who are in menial jobs is quite high. 54,300 age 55 and above workers were cleaners, labourers and related workers, and 35,600 were plant and machine operators and assemblers. About 49 per cent of workers aged 65 and older were cleaners, labourers and production line operators.

How much longer must low-wage workers like Mr Tan have to wait before they get a decent pay?

So many low-wage workers?

How many low-wage workers are there like Mr Tan? – “about 12 per cent of residents, or 238,000 workers, earn less than $1,000 a month for full-time and part-time work. And  6.4 per cent of full-time resident workers, or 114,100, earn less than $1,000″.

Leong Sze Hian

Share this:

I refer to the article “Report findings show local employment rose faster in 2012” (Channel NewsAsia, Mar 15).

Locals’ employment increased?

According to the Ministry of Manpower’s (MOM) Labour Market 2012 report, “Local employment rose by 58,700 or 2.9%, substantially higher than the gains of 37,900 or 1.9% in 2011. Amid the tightening in foreign manpower controls, the growth in foreign employment eased to 70,400 or 5.9% in 2012 from 84,800 or 7.6% in 2011.”

Still more jobs to foreigners than locals?

So, the proportion of foreigners to locals in the rise in employment was still higher for foreigners – at about 55 per cent foreigners to 45 per cent locals.

Breakdown for locals?

Also, what is the breakdown for locals into Singaporeans and permanent residents (PRs)?

If say the percentage of PRs is about 20 per cent of the locals, then the jobs that went to Singaporeans may be about only 36 per cent.

What jobs, pay?

What is the breakdown of the type of jobs and the pay?

Proportion of foreign workers still rising?

As to “In December 2012, locals accounted for 66.4% of persons employed in Singapore (excluding FDW). Foreigners formed the remaining 33.6%, compared with 32.8% in December 2011″ – this means that the proportion of foreigners continues to increase from 32.8 to 33.6%.

If say 20% of the locals are PRs, then about 47% of persons employed may be non-citizens.

30,000 new PRs and 25,000 new citizens?

The above may need to be seen in the context that the Population White Paper said that there may be as many as 30,000 new PRs and 25,000 new citizens granted per year going forward, whilst we are waiting for the release of the PRs and new citizens’ statistics for 2012. How many of the “locals” jobs went to new PRs or new citizens?

Unemployment rate fell for residents, but not citizens?

With regard to “With high employment creation, the annual average unemployment rate remained at a low of 2.0% for overall and 3.0% for citizens in 2012, unchanged from 2011, while the resident unemployment rate dipped to 2.8% from 2.9%”, does it mean that more Singaporeans were unemployed relatively to residents, because the unemployment rate fell for residents but not for citizens?

Redundancies increase 10%?

In respect of “Reflecting the impact of economic slowdown and restructuring, some 11,010 workers were made redundant in 2012, up from 9,990 in 2011″ – this means that redundancies rose by 10%.

PMETs had higher redundancy rate?

With regard to “Two in three or 67% of residents made redundant were previously holding PMET jobs, disproportionately higher than the PMETs’ representation in the resident workforce (52%) – does this mean that PMETs had a relatively higher redundancy rate?

Job vacancies fell 15%?

In respect of “On a non-seasonally adjusted basis, there were 43,900 vacancies representing 2.2% of manpower demand in December 2012, down from 51,700 or 2.7% a year ago” – this means that vacancies fell by about 15% for the year.
Unemployment rate increased for tertiary educated?

With regard to “Unemployment decreased over the year for residents with post-secondary or lower qualifications, but increased for the tertiary educated” – this means that for the more educated – their unemployment rate increased.

Degree holders more likely to be unemployed?

In respect of “degree holders formed the largest group among the unemployed residents at 16,300 or 32% in December 2012″ – does this mean that the more educated you are, the more likely it may be for you to be unemployed?

Only higher educated had increase in unemployment rate?

Of the 5 Education categories, only Degree and Diploma & Professional Qualification had an increase in their unemployment rate.

So, does this mean that the more educated you are, the more likely it may be to be unemployed from a relative trend perspective, relative to the lesser educated?

Unemployment rate increased for older workers?

Of the 3 categories By Age, the unemployment rate went down for only the Below Age 30.

Does this mean that from a relative trend perspective, it may be worse off to be older?

Long-term unemployed among total unemployed increased?

As to “11,400 unemployed residents, making up 0.5% of the resident labour force in December 2012 had been looking for work for at least 25 weeks, similar to 11,500 or 0.5% a year ago. However, their share among unemployed residents rose over the year from 21% to 23%” – this means that there were more long-term unemployed relative to total unemployed residents, because the proportion of long-term unemployed among unemployed residents increased from 21 to 23%,

Degree holders – largest group among the long-term unemployed & increase in long-term unemployment rate?

With regard to “With their increase in long-term unemployment rates, the tertiary-educated residents made up six in ten of the long-term unemployed residents in December 2012 (diploma & professional qualification: 20% or 2,300, degree: 39% or 4,400)” – this means that degree holders were the largest group among the long-term unemployed and also had an increase in long-term unemployment rates.

Only higher educated had increase in long-term unemployment rate?

Of the 5 Education categories, only Degree and Diploma & Professional Qualification had an increase in their long-term unemployment rates.

So, does this mean that the more educated you are, the more likely it may be to be long-term unemployed from a relative trend perspective, relative to the lesser educated?

Short work-week/ temporary layoff increased 644%?

In respect of “a higher average of 3,050 workers per quarter were placed on short work-week/ temporary layoff in 2012, up from 940 in 2011 and 410 in 2010″ – this means that the trend of putting workers on short work-week/ temporary layoff increased by 644%, from 2010 to 2012.
PMETs more likely to be placed on short work-week/ temporary layoff?

Since “Slightly more than one in two (52%) were PMETs, followed by production & related workers (43%). Only a small proportion (4.8%) were clerical, sales and service workers” – PMETs were relatively more likely to placed on short work-week/ temporary layoff.

Work hours increase?

As to “Total weekly paid hours worked per employee averaged 46.2 hours in December 2012, unchanged from September 2012 and marginally above 46.1 hours in December 2011.

Overtime hours increase?

Weekly paid overtime hours broadly followed the same trend, averaging 3.8 hours per week in December 2012, unchanged from a quarter before, but slightly up from 3.6 hours in December 2011″ – this means that work hours and overtime hours both increased in the year.

Highest overtime hours in 4 years?

Also, the 3.8 overtime hours is at a 4-year “december” data high from 2008′s 3.5 hours per week.

Leong Sze Hian

Share this: