Reading the newspapers on a Monday morning can be rather depressing. You may get the feeling that we may not seem to be really serious about solving the problems that Singaporeans have.

Pre-school sites won’t go to highest bidder?

Let’s start with the article “Pre-school sites won’t just go to highest bidder” (Straits Times, Apr 15).

Rents up as much as 5 times in 5 years?

It states that “the competition for space has jacked up rents at HDB void decks to as high as $50,000 a month in newer estates … About five years ago, the average rent was just $10,000 to $20,000. This has contributed to higher fees. The average childcare centre fee has climbed from $572 a month in 2004 to more than $800 last year”.

What about existing sites’ rent?

So, “The Change, (is) to be implemented in the next few months”.

Whlist this policy change is a welcomed move, does it help all the centres that are already operating in existing sites?

Why not reduce the rents of existing centres too? Otherwise, it may take years for fees to be lower – with only new sites getting “not the highest bidder” rent.

HDB is the root of the problem?

The root of the problem is the high rentals charged by the HDB.

Will not giving to the highest bidder, translate into the HDB’s willingness to accept much lower rentals compared to the 2 to 5 times increase relative to about 5 years ago?

2 anchor operators get subsidies?

It was recently announced that private operators can also apply for the subsidies that parents get on fees, which was only applicable to PAP Foundation and NTUC operated centres.

Open subsidy to all?

This is unfair competition and should be opened up so that parents can choose to go to any centre to get the subsidy – not just some private operators that will be approved after their application.

How many approved already?

By the way, can we be given an update, as to what percentage of all private operators are now approved for the subsidy?

Healthcare more expensive because drug companies charge more?

Next, let me move on to the article “Govt will shoulder bigger share of health bills” (Straits Times, Apr 15).

It states that “That healthcare is more expensive here compared to other countries in the region is inevitable, she said, adding that international drug companies charge more for their products in Singapore compared to developing countries”.

Percentage of drug costs?

What is the proportion of the costs of drugs in patients’ bills, over the total costs in public hospitals?

As an analogy, it may be akin to saying that cars are very expensive because tire companies charge  higher prices for tires in Singapore!

Missing response to Medifund question?

I am also curious as to why the article reported the following question from the residents in the dialogue session, but not her response:-

“Another lamented that to tap Medifund – government aid for the low-income – one must have first “wiped-out” the Medisave accounts of family members.”

Overpaid for past BTOs?

As to her remarks that HDB BTO flats’ prices have been unpegged from resale prices since 2011, shouldn’t the Resale Levy of up to $50,000 be removed as some may have overpaid (due to the resale prices peg) for their BTO flats in the past. (“HDB BTO prices stabilised: Really – 3-room increased 25%?, Apr 10)

Remove Resale Levy?

Otherwise, it is like a double whammy – overpaid for first BTO flat and now also pay Resale Levy to buy second BTO flat!

History of national conversations?

As to the articles “A brief history of national conversations” and “Setting a new pace for the nation”, which said that “the committee had stressed continually that the conversation was not focused on producing policy recommendations or finding sacred cows to slay … the OSC should not be a “culling session” … “I don’t think we should start our Singapore conversation on the basis of looking for sacred cows to slay … I don’t think that would be a constructive exercise”" – we are now into our at least fourth national public consultation exercise since 1991.

So, after so many “national conversations” after so many years – why do we still have so many problems and issues?

How not to start a conversation?

Perhaps an analogy may help to explain – let’s have a conversation, but let’s not talk about or focus on “sacred cows”, “producing policy recommendations”, “not constructive exercise”, blah blah blah, etc – now isn’t that a great way to start a conversation!

Leong Sze Hian

Share this:

I refer to the article “Poorer kids don’t lag behind, new study finds” (Straits Times, Apr 6).

Poor children no worse off?

It states that “Children from low-income families are no worse off than their richer counterparts in most areas, such as reading and mathematical ability. The only area where they lag behind is their command of spoken English, a new study found.

Funded by the Ministry of Social and Family Development, the $100,000 project is one of the first longitudinal studies looking at children as young as four years old.”

Please see below for some statistics that may indicate that children from low-income families may be disadvantaged.

“More rich than poor students?

The proportion of students who came from lower-income
families was lower in medical school than at the
national level, while the proportion from high income
families was significantly higher than
at the national level. It can be observed
that while 32.3% of Singaporean households have a
monthly household income of < S$3,000, a significantly
lower proportion of medical students (21.9%) fall under
this range (p < 0.001). At the other end of the spectrum,
while 28.8% of Singaporean households have a monthly
income of > S$7,000, a much higher proportion (34.1%)
of medical students fall under this range (p < 0.001).” – This means that lower-income families are under-represented, relative to higher-income families." ("
How do needy medical students cope financially?”, Mar 30)

“Expenditure per ITE student: – 1% p.a. increase?

Government Recurrent Expenditure on Education per Student for ITE grew from $10,586 to $11,914, from 1997/98 to 2011/12.

This is an increase of just 0.9 per cent per annum over the last 14 years.

In contrast, inflation increased by about 1.94 per cent per annum over the same period.

So, does it mean that the real increase was negative, at about minus 1.0 per cent per annum?

As I understand that students in ITE, generally come from lower-income families, relative to university students, why have we been spending less over the years in real terms?” (“ITE students’ real growth in spending minus 1% p.a. last 14 years?”, Mar 24)

Education statistics debate in Parliament?

An old article on education statistics relating to children from low-income families:-

“I refer to the articles “School system ‘still best way to move up’”, “MPs speak for kids from poorer families” and “New chapter in the Singapore story” (ST, Mar 8).

These articles were page after page (four pages) of statistics cited by the Education Minister to more or less dismiss MPs’ concerns that kids from poorer families were disadvantaged. I do not think I have ever seen so many statistics given to support a position in a Parliamentary debate!

Unfortunately, I could not find a single statistic which in my view, is “statistically” relevant to the debate.

Irrelevant Statistics

Statistics that are quoted, by themselves, may be quite meaningless, unless they are on a comparative basis.

To illustrate this, if we want to say that Group A (poorer kids) is not significantly worse off than Group B (richer kids), then it may be pointless to just cite the statistics for Group A, without Group B’s.

Let me now get into the specifics of the statistics cited:

“How children from the bottom one-third by socio-economic background fare: One in two scores in the top two-thirds at PSLE”

“One in six scores in the top one-third at PSLE”

What we need to know for comparative purposes, is the percentage of richer kids who scores in the top two-thirds too.

“How children from 1 – to 3-room HDB flats fare: One in five scores in the top one-third at PSLE”

We need this data for different time periods, as the proportion of those living in such flats had changed over the years.  What we need to know is has this proportion who score well, changed in the last 5, 10, 20, 30 years, etc.

“… one in five scores in the top 30% at O and A levels… One in five goes to university and polys”

What’s the data for richer kids?

Since the proportion of the entire population going to university and polys has increased substantially, this clearly shows that poorer kids are worse off!

“These figures have remained constant even though the number living in 1 to 3-room HDB flats has fallen sharply over the years”

This statement may be “statistically” irrelevant, as all it may indicate is that the lower-income’s chances of performing better, on a relative basis, has remained stagnant.

“Top PSLE pupils- The top 5% come from 95% of schools… Every primary school has at least 10 pupils in the top third of the cohort”

This may be “statistically” of no relevance to the debate, as logically every primary school is made up of both poorer and richer kids.

Citing individual examples?

According to the articles:

“Education Minister Ng Eng Hen calls Hong Siang Huat “a living example of social mobility”.  He came from a poor family but is off to Britain on a government scholarship.”

The Minister was quoted as saying:

“My  parents had six children.  My first home as a young boy was a rental flat in Zion Road.  We shared it as tenants with other families”

Citing individuals who made it, may be of no “statistical” relevance, as what we need are the statistics as to the proportion of poorer kids to richer kids, who get scholarships, proportional to their representation in the population.

“More spent on primary and secondary/JC schools.  This means having significantly more and better teachers, and having more programmes to meet children’s specific needs”

What has spending more money, which what most countries do, got to do with the argument whether poorer kids are disadvantaged?

I think Straits Times journalist, Li XueYing put the crux of the debate in the right perspective:

“Dr Ng had noted that ensuring social mobility “cannot mean equal outcomes, because students are inherently different”, But can it be that those from low-income families are consistently “inherently different” to such an extent?”

Relevant statistics

Perhaps the most damning statistics that poorer kids are disadvantaged was the chart from the Ministry of Education (provided by the Straits Times), which showed that the percentage of Primary 1 pupils who lived in 1 to 3-room HDB flats and subsequently progressed to University and/or Polytechnic, has been declining since around 1986.

The statistics cited by the Minister Mentor, that in top schools like Raffles Institution, more than half of the students had fathers who were university graduates, in neighbourhood schools the figure hovered around 10 per cent, etc, was perhaps clearer statistical evidence, that the odds may be stacked against poorer kids.

As to: “… now ITE students in the bottom 15th percentile income bracket (per capita household income of up to $300) will receive $1,000 a year, up from $800 a year”, how significant is this extra help of about 55 cents to a total of $2.74  a day, for a student whose family is clearly struggling on less than $300 per person per month?

In summary, if not for the Straits Times’ reference to the MOE tertiary and Minister Mentor’s data, the entire debate may arguably be a good lesson on statistics for  Parliamentarians, on how to try to win a debate with entirely “statistically” irrelevant statistics!” (“A lesson in citing irrelevant statistics“, Apr 27, 2011)

So, arguably, perhaps for every $100,000 funded study that concludes that poor children are not really much worse off, there may be several more studies that may show otherwise.

Leong Sze Hian

Share this:

Thanks to reader who sent education statistics in 1987

After writing the article “University fees increased 7.5% p.a. last 26 years?” (Mar 30), a reader ES sent a 5 March 1987 Straits Times (page 10) article “Ministerial statement on higher fees for NUS, NTI” to the editor of TR Emeritus, as I had said in my article that I was not able to find the education statistics for 1987.

Tuition fee only $1,200 in 1986/87?

According to the article, the tuition fees at NUS in 1986/87 for non-Medicine courses was $1,200, and $1,300 for Medicine.

This year, the fees have increased to $7,650, $8,950, $10,800 and $23,050, for Arts & Social Science, Accountancy & Business Administration, Law and Medicine, respectively.

Increase of as much as 11.2% p.a.?

This translates into an annualised increase of about 7.1, 7.1, 8.5 and 11.2 per cent respectively, for the 27 years from 1986/87 to 2013.

Versus 1.95% inflation?

In contrast, inflation for the 26 years from 1986 to 2012, was only about 1.95 per cent per annum.

Versus only 1.4% Govt spending per student?

The article also said “Government was spending each year $14,400 to educate a student at the university level”. Now, Government Recurrent Expenditure on Education per Student for University was  $20,805 in 2012.

So, does this mean that “Government spending each year to educate a student at the university level”, only increased by an annualised rate of about 1.4 per cent over the 26 years, from 1986 to 2012?

Versus huge Budget surpluses?

Why did we accumulate billions of dollars of Budget surpluses almost every year, over the years, and spent so much less on university students, relative to tuition fees increase? (“Budget surplus: $3.9b or $36b?”, Mar 24)

Versus 6.8% p. a. GDP growth?

Moreover, GDP growth was about 6.8 per cent per annum, over the 26 years, from 1986 to 2012.

Why wasn’t GDP growth translated into more spending on university students?

No tuition grant?

Now what may be particularly interesting is that there appears to be no mention of any tuition grant in 1986/87.

Today, the tuition grant may be about $21,900 per year.

Tuition increased 12.6% p.a.?

So, if we factor in today ‘s tuition grant, does it mean that gross tuition fees may have ballooned at an annualised rate of about 12.6 per cent, from $1,200 in 1986/87 to $29,550 (tuition fee $7,650 + tuition grant $21,900) now in 2013?

Tuition grant like HDB Market Subsidy?

Or could it be that the tuition grant may be akin to the HDB Market Subsidy Pricing policy, which calls the price for new HDB flats as a “subsidised” price? – “Subsidised” tuition fee after the tuition fee grant?

By the way, when was the concept of “tuition grant” introduced?
Leong Sze Hian

Share this:

I refer to the article “Wooing Singaporean doctors home” (My Paper, Mar 4).

Few needy students get aid?

In this connection, according to the article “Cost of medical education, financial
assistance and medical school demographics in Singapore” by Ng C L, Tambyah P A, Wong C Y (2009), “21.9 percent (of medical students) came from families with a monthly
income of less than S$3,000, with another 26.2
percent from families with monthly incomes of
S$3,000–S$5,000″ but only “14.6 percent received
scholarships or bursaries”.

Why is it that the percentage who received  scholarships or bursaries was so low, relative to the percentage of lower-income families?

More than $100,000 in debt?

“A five-year medical course can cost
more than S$100,000 and pose a significant
financial burden for students.

More rich than poor students?

The proportion of students who came from lower-income
families was lower in medical school than at the
national level, while the proportion from high income
families was significantly higher than
at the national level. It can be observed
that while 32.3% of Singaporean households have a
monthly household income of < S$3,000, a significantly
lower proportion of medical students (21.9%) fall under
this range (p < 0.001). At the other end of the spectrum,
while 28.8% of Singaporean households have a monthly
income of > S$7,000, a much higher proportion (34.1%)
of medical students fall under this range (p < 0.001).” – This means that lower-income families are under-represented, relative to higher-income families.

Financial deterrent?

- “Young doctors in Singapore can potentially accrue over S$100,000 in debt
over the course of their undergraduate medical training.
This enormous financial burden is expected to have major
implications on the accessibility of medical school to
students from lower-income families. High tuition
fees may be an important deterrent for students from lower income
families. ”

Almost half of pay gone?

“A student who is in receipt of the various loan
schemes begins his or her house-officership with a debt
of more than $100,000. With a repayment period of ten
years and a prime interest rate of 5.88% per annum for the
DBS Bank and OCBC Bank as the basis of computation,
a young House Officer (HO) will be required to fork out
approximately $1,131 monthly for ten years in order to pay
off his loan. For a HO whose monthly take-home salary is
approximately $2,500, almost half of his earnings will go
towards the repayment of these education loans. This is
likely to have a significant impact on the quality of life of
these young medical graduates and their families.”

Stressed & low procreation?

“and also influenced their decisions on whether to have children.
Medical students who have higher levels of debt worry
more about their finances and experience higher levels of
stress.  Again, the societal implications of these findings
for Singapore need to be carefully considered.

Only 10.2% get help?

From our study, only 10.2% of medical students are on some form of
financial aid that does not require repayment in monetary
terms, such as scholarships and bursaries.

In the U.S. – 70%?

In the United States, a study of 118 medical schools revealed that 44%
of medical students received scholarships from medical
school or university sources alone, while 70% of medical
schools had fund-raising campaigns to increase the amount
of scholarship support available to medical students.”

Fees keep increasing?

“We are concerned about whether the level of debt will rise to a
level at which medical training is no longer economically
affordable for the less affluent Singaporean.”

Financial aid offset fees first?

Given the financial stress of medical students from lower-income families, I find it rather heartless to see from the university’s web site that – “Disbursement of Funds -

Upon satisfactory compliance of all terms and conditions of the scholarship/financial aid offer, funds in respect of the same will be credited to the student’s account with the Office of Financial Services. All bursaries will be disbursed in half on a semester basis and will only be disbursed if tuition fees are charged.

All fees due to the University will however be deducted from such proceeds prior to crediting” – Does this mean that a needy student who qualifies for financial aid like a bursary, will have his or her money used to offset any tuition fees outstanding first?

So, is it any wonder that you may meet needy students who may spend as many hours working part-time, than they spend studying?

A big thank you to those who have contributed more bursaries

As the data in the above article is now a few years old, hopefully things have improved. I believe they have improved a little – there are more bursaries now so that the figure is probably higher than the 10.2 per cent receiving financial aid, cited in the article.

The new list of bursaries available is at http://medicine.nus.edu.sg/corporate/education/medicine/adm_financial_assistance.aspx

I understand that one of the authors’ (of the article) family has actually contributed a bursary.

Perhaps it is a pity that the government does not make up the shortfall and we have to depend on concerned Singaporeans!

Tuition Grant for foreign students?

In this connection, instead of giving a Tuition Grant of up to $21,900 per foreign student and permanent resident (PR) student, why not use some of it to help needy Singaporean students more. (“Government subsidizes more than half of foreigners’ total tuition fees” and “Local universities ‘hiding’ tuition grant info of FT students?“, TR Emeritus, Mar 30)

How much in total do the Tuition Grants to all non-Singaporean students in the universities amount to in a year?

Leong Sze Hian

Reference:

“How many foreign students paying full fees?“, Mar 7, 2012

“What percentage of students in our universities are Singaporeans?“, Aug 16, 2011

“Foreign scholars: Missing statistics?“, Feb 22, 2012

Share this:

I refer to the article “Universities, polytechnics and ITE raise tuition fees” (Straits Times, Mar 30).

It states that “At polytechnics and the ITE, the fee increase will affect new and existing students. At the universities, only the incoming freshmen will be affected.”

For example, the tuition fees for the normal courses at NUS and NTU will increase to $7,650.

7.5% p.a. increase in fees?

As I understand that the fee was less than $1,000 in 1987, does it mean that fees have increased by about more than 7.5 per cent per annum, in the last 26 years?

Expenditure per University student: 2.3% p.a. increase?

In contrast, Government Recurrent Expenditure on Education per Student for University was an annual increase of only about 2.3 per cent from 1998 to 2012 (14 years), from $15,125 to $20,805. (Note: I am unable to find the data for 1987)

2% inflation?

Also, inflation increased by about 2 per cent per annum from 1987 to 2012 (25 years).

So, fees increased about 7.5 per cent per annum, versus Expenditure per Student at about 2.3 and inflation of about 2 per cent?

Budget surpluses?

Why did we accumulate billions of dollars of Budget surpluses almost every year, over the years, and spent so much less on university students, relative to tuition fees increase? (“Budget surplus: $3.9b or $36b?”, Mar 24)

6.6% p. a. GDP growth?

Moreover, GDP growth was about 6.6 per cent per annum, over the 25 years, from 1987 to 2012.

Why wasn’t GDP growth translated into more spending on university students?

Leong Sze Hian

Share this:

I refer to the Ministry of Education’s (MOE) Education Statistics Digest 2012.

Expenditure per ITE student: – 1% p.a. increase?

Government Recurrent Expenditure on Education per Student for ITE grew from $10,586 to $11,914, from 1997/98 to 2011/12.

This is an increase of just 0.9 per cent per annum over the last 14 years.

In contrast, inflation increased by about 1.94 per cent per annum over the same period.

So, does it mean that the real increase was negative, at about minus 1.0 per cent per annum?

As I understand that students in ITE, generally come from lower-income families, relative to university students, why have we been spending less over the years in real terms?

Versus GDP growth 5.6%?

Since GDP grew by about 5.6 per cent per annum over the same period, why are we under-spending by so much on a relative basis, on ITE and University education?

Accumulate reserves & surpluses?

Has the accumulation of our huge reserves and Budget surpluses over the years, been at the expense of our post-secondary students?

Expenditure per University student: 0.4% p.a. increase?

Government Recurrent Expenditure on Education per Student for University was only marginally more than ITE, with real annual increase of only about 0.4 per cent over the same 14 years (from $15,125 to $20,805).

So, even the marginally higher spending on University students is lagging GDP growth by about 5.2 per cent per annum.

Tuition fees increase?

In this connection, I understand that university tuition fees have been increasing at an annualised nominal rate of about 4 per cent, or real rate of about 2 per cent historically.

In this regard, have we been pushing the financing burden to students relative to negative or low real growth in Government spending on ITE and University students?

I had thought we were only stingy in spending in areas like healthcare, which at 1.6 per cent of GDP in the previous year is perhaps the lowest in the world, but it appears now that we may have been stinging on post-secondary education spending too.

Expenditure on foreign scholars?

In this connection, I believe we have been spending more than $100 million a year on scholarships for foreign students to study in our public universities. (“Foreign scholars: Missing statistics?“, Feb 22, 2012)

Leong Sze Hian

References:

(“How many foreign students paying full fees?“, Mar 7, 2012)

(“What percentage of students in our universities are Singaporeans?“, Aug 16, 2011)

Share this:

Govt’s preschool subsidy only for NTUC and PCF kindergartens?

Share this:

I refer to the article “PAP leaders: govt is delivering on ge promises” (Straits Times, Jan 19).

It states that “In housing, transport, education and healthcare, the Government had taken the initiative and moved ahead”.

Let’s look at some of the statistics that are related to the election promises and statements.

TRANSPORT

Public transport fares were increased again in October 2011. (“Formula almost guarantees fare increases“, Jul 29, 2011)

This was the ninth fare increase in the 11 years from 2000 to 2011. As it is arguable whether the 2010 change to distance-fares was actually an increase or decrease, it may actually have been the tenth increase.

If we can decide to spend $1.1 billion on buses to help the transport operators, why can’t we spend a single cent to keep fares from increasing?

EDUCATION

Miscellaneous fees in schools have been increased for all students.

Whilst the principle of further differentiating fees by citizenship is a valid one, why is it that when fees are increased – be it for university, healthcare, etc – fees for Singaporeans are also raised?

It appears that the estimated additional revenue from PRs and foreigners may be about 10 times that of the increase in miscellaneous fees for all students.

If that is the case, why not keep the miscellaneous fees for Singaporeans at the current level or, better still, reduce them? (“Why increase fees of local students? “, Jul 25 and “Foreigners’ school fees up, Singaporeans’ too? “, Jul 16)

HOUSING

With 5,500 letters of appeal on HDB in one year in just one GRC, how many letters of appeal were written for all the GRCs and SMCs? – About 99,000? (15 GRCs and 12 SMCs) (“5,500 letters of appeal on HDB in 2012 in 1 GRC?”, Jan 17)

This may indicate that Singaporeans’ housing problems appear to be continuing unabated.

HEALTHCARE

Instead of increasing Medishield deductibles and premiums from 1 March 2013 which affects the lower-income elderly more – if we really want to help, we could spend some money on Medishield.

After all, Medishield does not cost the Government any money, as it is a self- funding scheme paid by policyholders. (“MediShield: Deductibles increased by 5 times historically for elderly?“, Nov 12)

HELPING THE POOR

As to “help for the poor”, according to the CDCs’ annual report for FY2011, the number of applications for financial assistance was 72,700 for the whole year from 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2012.

Is this an all-time record high?

Giving the statistics for only nine months, may mask the stark reality that 72,700 families applied for social assistance under ComCare schemes in a year.

Missing statistics: Successful applications?

it may be somewhat odd, that the ComCare media release does not say how many of the applications were successful, like in the past.

For example, according to the reported statistics in February 2011, 39,500 or 71 per cent of approved applications for financial assistance under ComCare were successful, up from 42,100, or 67 per cent, in 2009. (“Saddest statistic ever: 200,000 families helped?, Aug 22, 2011)

$4b in 2007 for 5 years?

The GST rate increase from 5 to 7% in 2007 was accompanied by an offset package to help Singaporeans with the increase in GST, and which would cost the government $4 billion over five years. (“GST rate to rise to 7% from July 1“, Channel NewsAsia, Feb 15, 2007)

Now $3.6b for next 5 years?

Now five years later, the Government will be spending much less, at $3.6 billion over the next five years (2012 – 2016) under the new GST Voucher package.

Since the GST Offset Package was to help particularly lower-income families offset the GST increase, and considering that the population has increased and inflation has risen by about 19 per cent since 2007, and huge budget surpluses of about $10.5 billion over the last seven years, why are we spending less now?

More help for lower-income in 2007?

When the GST rate was raised from 5% to 7% in July 2007, a household in the bottom 20% had to pay additional GST of $370 per year, but received an offset package of $910 per year, in addition to permanent benefits of $1,000 per year. (“Budget debate round-up speech“, Mar 2, 2011)

Less help now?

So, let’s see how much less lower-income families will get now.

It’s GST Cash of $250 and GST U-Save Rebate of $260 (1 and 2-room HDB) and no Medisave top-up if there are no family members age 65 and above.

For example, family members age 65 – 74, 75 – 84 and 85 and above (staying in homes with annual value not more than $13,000) wiil get a Medisave top-up of $250, $350 and $450, respectively.

In any case, even if a lower-income family qualifies for a Medisave top-up, it can only be used for medical purposes, and is thus not cash that can effectively offset GST expenditure.

Also, in the past, Medisave top-ups were given to those age 55 and above. So, why is the age now increased to 65 and above?

So, are lower-income families effectively getting much less now under the GST Voucher scheme, compared to the previous GST Offset Package?

GST increase to help the poor?

Since the main reason given for increasing GST was to help the poor, why is it that lower-income families are now apparently getting less under the GST Voucher scheme? (“GST Offset much lower now for lower-income? “, Dec 31)

COST OF LIVING

If we really want to help on “the cost of living”, why do we keep increasing basic goods and services, like property tax for 3-room HDB flats and Service and Conservancy Charges (S & CC), etc? (“HDB rentals up 10%, but property tax up 118%?, Nov 27 and “Each town council different, but raise charges together?“, Oct 3)

FOREIGN WORKERS

The tightened foreign labour policies may not be reflected in the full yearly statistics which still show the rate of increase in the foreign workforce at 7.6 and 5.7 per cent in 2011 and 2010, respectively. (“S Pass increased 12.5% last 6 months“, Oct 1)

JOBS

More job seekers?

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

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)

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

WAGES

The real median income growth for workers (excluding Employer CPF Contributions) was negative in 2008, 2009, 2011, 2012 (June) and only 0.5 per cent in 2010. (“2012 real income declined – 2.3%?”, Nov 30), and I estimate that the real basic wage growth in the last 12 years or so (1999 to 2011), was negative for 4 of the 8 occupational categories in Singapore, and only around 0.5 per cent or less per annum for the other 4 categories. (“Workers’ rights: 12 years of near negative wage growth for almost all workers?“, Dec 9)

There may be little justification for much of the above pertaining to price increases, with tax revenues being up for the current year, budget surpluses of about $10.5 billion over the last seven years and an estimated over $800 billion in the reserves.

Leong Sze Hian

Share this: