I refer to the article “Two-track labour market emerging” (Straits Times, Mar 16).
It states that “Track one: Local unemployment rose last year. There were more local workers – Singaporeans and permanent residents – who want to work but could not find work.
Employment change last year – 11,200 ‘local’ jobs
But even as unemployment rose, so did employment. Employers added 11,200 more local workers to their payrolls last year.”
How many ‘local’ jobs to S’poreans – 30,000 new PRs and 20,000 new citizens granted?
With an average of about 30,000 new permanent residents (PRs) and 20,000 new citizens granted per year, in the last decade or so – how many of the 11,200 locals’ employment change went to Singaporeans?
How many of the new PRs and new citizens granted last year were working – and thus re-classified as “local” workers in the workforce?
No more non-seasonally adjusted unemployment data?
As to “Last year’s 3 per cent resident unemployment rate is the highest since 2010, when Singapore was hit by the global financial crisis” – why is it that the labour market report no longer contains the non-seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for citizens and residents, and the number of unemployed citizens and residents?
4.1% unemployment rate, 92,300 unemployed S’poreans in June 2016?
Since the non-seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for citizens was 4.1 per cent in June last year and the number of unemployed citizens was 92,300, compared to the average annual unemployment rate for citizens of 3.1 per cent and 67,300 unemployed citizens in December last year – you can see that there may be a very big difference between the non-seasonally adjusted (4,1%, 92,300 in June) and the average annual data (3.1%, 67,300 in December).
Now only recently newly invented “average annual unemployment” data?
Why is it that the narrative in the labour market report and media reports now only focus on the average annual unemployment rate which I understand was until recently – never used to report labour data in the past?
Data so bad that become “unpublishable”?
Is it remotely possible that perhaps the non-seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for citizens and the number of unemployed citizens, may have gotten worse with the worsening economic downturn – such that these statistics may have become “unpublishable”?
No breakdown for Long-Term Unemployed?
Since the unemployed data can be broken down into citizens and residents -why can’t the Long-term Unemployed (17,000 residents) be similarly broken down too?
Leong Sze Hian
