Quantcast
Channel: The Real Singapore - Opinions
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 5115

MOM says Unemployment low but Citizen Unemployment is higher than PRs

$
0
0

Unemployment rate “broadly unchanged”

According to the Channel NewsAsia news report “Unemployment low at 1.9%; more locals employed in December” (Jan 30) – “For the whole of 2014, the overall unemployment rate was 2 per cent, with residents at 2.7 per cent and citizens at 2.9 per cent, broadly unchanged from the previous year.”

Singaporeans’ unemployment worse than PRs

To say “broadly unchanged from the previous year” – ignores the fact that the unemployment rate for citizens was much worse than PRs on a relative basis, because it remained at 2.9 per for 2013 and 2014, whereas the residents’ unemployment rate fell from 2.8 to 2.7 per cent (Employment Situation 2014 page 2).

Overall unemployment rate actually increased

Also, the overall unemployment rate increased from 1.9 to 2.0 per cent, but there was no mention of this deterioration in the news report.

150th Press Freedom ranking media reporting

Instead, our 150th Press Freedom ranking media only highlighted the improvement in the unemployment rate in the last quarter – “The overall seasonally adjusted unemployment rate was at 1.9 per cent for the month, while the resident unemployment rate fell to 2.6 per cent from 2.8 per cent, and the citizen unemployment rate fell to 2.6 per cent from 2.9 per cent” – without even mentioning that it was over the quarter.

Thus, giving the erroneous impression that the unemployment rate had improved for the year, until you read lower down in the news report about the employment rates for the whole year.

Well, quite a lot of people may not read the entire article, but just glance the top part.

No. of unemployed actually increased

According to the report – “On average, 61,200 residents including 53,900 Singapore citizens were unemployed in 2014. The corresponding figures in 2013 were 59,800 and 52,900.”

So, the number of unemployed actually increased.

Again, there was no mention of this deterioration in the news report.

New PRs & new citizens

Foreign employment continued to grow by 34,000. Local employment grew by 94,900. But why is there no breakdown of the local employment into Singaporeans and PRs?

If we make an adjustment for the 30,000 new PRs and 25,000 new citizens granted in a year – how many of the “local” jobs went to true-blue Singaporeans?

No breakdown into citizens and PRs

Why is there also no breakdown of the 2,267,100 locals in employment into Singaporeans and PRs? If we add the PRs to the 1,355,700 foreigners in employment – the percentage of non-citizens can’t be 33.3 per cent as indicated in the report.

MOM can’t count

In fact, whoever wrote the MOM report probably can’t count as it is 37.4 per cent foreigners and not 33.3 per cent (1,355,700 foreigners divided by the total of 3.622,800 in employment).

More than 50% not Singaporeans anymore?

If the percentage of “locals” who are PRs is 20 per cent – the number of PRs is 453,420. This would mean that the percentage of non-citizens is 50 per cent.

Tags: 
Wrap Text field: 

And if we adjust for new citizens – perhaps more than half the workforce are already not true-blue citizens.

“Sustained increase in income”

“The ministry also said there was a “sustained increase” in median income for Singaporeans over the last five years.

Low-wage workers also saw an increase in income during the period, MOM said. Income (including employer CPF contributions) at the 20th percentile of full-time employed citizens rose by 26 per cent from S$1,468 in 2009 to S$1,856 in 2014, or 4.8 per cent per annum. The increase after adjusting for inflation was 8.1 per cent or 1.6 per cent per annum.”

0.5% real increase 

Actually, the real increase in income last year (excluding employer CPF contribution) for the 20th percentile was only 0.5 per cent, from $1,613 to $1,639 or just $8.

So, a real increase in income of $8 for the year is a “sustained increase”?

Of course, there is also no mention of this “pathetic” statistic in the news report.

0.7% real increase last decade

The real increase per annum for this group was only 0.7 per cent from 2004 to 2014. This is a real increase of only $85 for the 10 years or about $8 a year.

And this is also called a “sustained increase”?

Part-time and all workers’ statistics disappeared?

Moreover, unlike in the income statistics many years ago which had the statistics for full-time, part-time and all workers (full-time and part-time) – we now only get the income of full-time employed workers.

Could it be that the part-time and all workers’ statistics are so bad that they can’t be disclosed?

Win battles lose war

TRS Contributor

 


Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 5115

Trending Articles