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
