One Set of Statistics - Two Interpretations ?
-
How many ways can one interprete a set of Official Statistics ?
http://www.mom.gov.sg/MOM/CDA/0,1858,968------------,00.html
If stellar-rated Acamedicians, who are apolitical and neutral, can misinterpret statistics put out by the Ministry, can we believe the political bias of the Minister of Manpower in defending a politically sensitve issue that "out of every 5 Singapore jobs, 4 jobs are given to Foreigners" ?
NTU wrong, 9 in 10 new jobs went to S'poreans
By Sue-Ann Chia
SINGAPORE -- Acting Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen said on Thursday that Nanyang Technological University economists were way off the mark by claiming that most new jobs created in the past five years had gone to foreigners.
The economists had said that three in four jobs had gone to foreigners, but the minister revealed that, in fact, nine in 10 new jobs went to Singaporeans and residents, and only one went to a foreigner.
He called a press briefing on Thursday, after the findings by the NTU team comprising former National Wages Council chairman Lim Chong Yah, Dr Tan Khee Giap and Dr Chen Kang were reported in the media.
Dr Ng said he was disappointed by their report and did not mince his words when he criticised them for failing to verify their figures with his ministry or the Department of Statistics before going public with 'sensationalistic' claims.
Researchers were duty-bound to check, he said, adding: 'If your findings show something different or if it stands out, you want to be careful not to be sensationalist even if your figures are right.
'But if your figures are wrong, it is irresponsible, it is unprofessional to put out those figures and then when the damage is done, to expect others to check those findings.'
He also made public another set of Government figures, some released for the first time.
Between the high-growth years of 1992 and 1997, there were 474,800 new jobs created - almost double the 250,000 figure cited by the NTU team.
For every five jobs created, two went to residents and three to foreigners - quite different from the NTU team's claim that four jobs went to residents, and one to a foreigner.
Then, during the downturn from 1997 to 2002, only 102,000 jobs were created, Dr Ng said, not 187,000 as claimed in the NTU report.
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/latest/story/0,4390,202545,00.html?
It is odd that there are unpublished statistics of 474,800 new jobs being created during the period between 1992 to 1997.
Yet the statistics from MOM shows average annual job vacancy at only 350,093 for the whole period of 1991 to 2002 - see statistics on MOM web site below.
http://www.mom.gov.sg/MOM/CDA_PopUp/1,1135,4023-----4275_3031---3928----,00.html -
Foreigners took 3 out of 4 new jobs in past five years
By Edna Koh
THREE out of four new jobs in the past five years went to foreigners. And that's a sharp contrast from the previous five years, when Singaporeans and permanent residents got four out of every five new jobs.
The reversal is cause for concern and action, say Nanyang Technological University (NTU) economists.
They think that the Government should not only take a hard look at Singapore's dependence on foreigners, but also try harder to match Singaporeans to new jobs here.
'We should review this policy of dependence on foreign workers... to see if we can fine-tune or adjust it,' said NTU's Professor of Economics Lim Chong Yah at a media briefing. 'Otherwise, we could have an economic rebound with very little impact on the unemployment situation.'
Singapore has about 800,000 foreign workers, from unskilled to those in high-end jobs, and a jobless rate of 4.5 per cent or nearly 90,000 workers as at March.
The Government has long argued that using foreign workers, especially in highly-skilled positions, is vital to keeping the Republic's economy competitive.
While not disputing this, the academics suggested that more Singaporeans could be filling some of the jobs currently held by foreigners.
The NTU dons suggested that the recently announced statutory board for continuing education and training should also act as a one-stop job-matching agency.
Said NTU Associate Professor Tan Khee Giap at a media briefing to release NTU's bi-annual forecasts for the Singapore economy: 'The foreign workforce buffer is meant to be flexible.
'If we fully exploit this flexibility, we micro-manage it well, the unemployment problem can be mitigated.'
Still, this will work only if Singaporeans are willing to change their mindsets and adjust their expectations.
More than half of public bus drivers here are foreigners, as are many auditors, young lawyers, bank officers, electricians and hairdressers.
Prof Tan said: 'Something can be done if we job match properly. But if Singaporeans don't want to take up the jobs, then some businesses can't be viable.'
The academics found that between 1992 and 1997, when total employment rose by 250,000, Singaporeans and PRs filled four out of five new jobs created.
But from 1997 to 2002, not only did total employment rise by a smaller 187,000, but just one in four jobs went to Singaporeans and PRs.
Yesterday, Prof Lim, former chairman of the National Wages Council, also said that in the light of recent lay-offs, the flexible wage system should be re-examined to see if it was still working well and being implemented closely.
'My suggestion is that it's worth looking at the efficacy and effectiveness of a flexi-wage system,' he said, adding that although the system had contributed a lot, he wondered if it had done enough to curtail retrenchments.
At the same time, he said that contrary to the prevailing view, Singapore should keep the use of the Central Provident Fund rate as a weapon to fight recessions.
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/topstories/story/0,4386,202423,00.html? -
Some how i am not surprised at the NTU finding, but I am indeed shock to hear a minister questioning the researcher's professionism without himself validating the literature.
I've a feeling that the professor's position in NTU will be in peril. Short of becoming another Dr.Chee, these acedemics have my fullest respect for untaking such controversial and politically sensitive subject.
Kudos to them !
If anyone wants to find out if NTU's research is closer to reality then the gov would dare admit, then try do a simple headcount at your own office. -
Strange, my office in an international IT firm has a ratio of 1:10 FTs to locals. Seems the gov was spot on...
-
IT firm maybe...
what about other industries?
what is the average?Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Strange, my office in an international IT firm has a ratio of 1:10 FTs to locals. Seems the gov was spot on... -
me in F&B industry.....nowadays its almost all FTs from rank and file all the way up.
might not be so good for this nation if it goes on like that.
-
coming from a layman's point of view, i really dunno who to believe, and it's not like the consequence of who i believe really matters. i mean, what can we do? yeah call me weak and not making a stand and all that, but i have a business to run and mouths to feed. (probably very typical singaporean attitude from me here, which is rare)
gun, u seem to have a better idea on who is more correct with the figures. how is that so? have u done homework too, or all u have done is counting the strength in your company for the past 10 years (since 1993, as the report stated)? -
it is not a typically singaporean attitude.. it is good business sense...
if you hire a singaporean male, you have to pay the guy and then sometimes get disrupted as he goes to play soldier...
you hire a foreigner and if he delivers the same thing a singaporean male can, costing less and without the reservist disruptions, who would you hire?
this is not nationalism or whatever... it's just good business sense!Originally posted by jOhO:coming from a layman's point of view, i really dunno who to believe, and it's not like the consequence of who i believe really matters. i mean, what can we do? yeah call me weak and not making a stand and all that, but i have a business to run and mouths to feed. (probably very typical singaporean attitude from me here, which is rare)
gun, u seem to have a better idea on who is more correct with the figures. how is that so? have u done homework too, or all u have done is counting the strength in your company for the past 10 years (since 1993, as the report stated)? -
We don't need numbers to prove it. Just by working and looking around you can see an increasing number of foreigners in all positions from low labour to top management.
I'm in the manufacturing industry and about 80% production line workers are foreigners. This number has been steadily increasing over the years.
What's new I think is that more positions in back office & operations, diploma level jobs, are given to foreigners.
The academics are just doing their job, but then so is the politician, it's his job to cover the government's as$. Good la, it's fun to make the ministers squirm and sweat sometimes. -
bear:
so if it's good business sense to (using ur example) to employ a foreigner becos of certain reasons, then why is the goverment blamed for this? becos in the first place they allow foreigners in?
it may sound like i'm sticking up for the govt, but a very far-fetched analogy woud be: if my mum brought home 100 lollipops, MUST i go eat them all up? (seeing as i hate sweet stuff, no less!)
choco:
well i don't doubt ur figures and in fact quite believe them. however we must ask ourselves why businesses are employing more foreigners AND why more foreigners are accepting the jobs. is it becos singaporeans cannot do the job well? is it becos singaporeans DO NOT WANT to do that kind of work?
i do agree that the low wage that foreigners (low-level jobs) demand is a "market spoiler" but sometimes we can come down to basics. wat is the diff between a foreigner and a singaporean when it comes to why one can accept a lower pay and one cannot? both are humans, both need a roof, and food and water. just that one has higher expectations and needs a "better life". disclaimer: these are purely generalisations.
ok then we have those over-paid expats that seem like they sit or their ass and do nothing machiam collecting royalty like that. the company that pays them is usually some big MNC from overseas. of course they will put their "kaki lang" there. who are we to dictate who should hold those high end positions when the company doesn't even belong to singapore?
anyway back to the point, i dun see the govt letting foreigners in to work an extremely bad thing. it takes two to clap, the govt lets them in, but they still have to be employed. and anyway cmon, it's not like any kuching kurak fella can come in and work as he pleases. i'm sure there are some procedures to go thru to regulate such things?
and if the govt were to stop all this becos singaporeans are in need of jobs, the businesses are gonna complain becos singaporeans demand such a high pay, and job hop around like nobody's business. not happee only quit. i really can't see singaporean coolies out there doing wat the bangalars are doing with our new circle line, can u? i will even put my head out and say even i won't work as a coolie if push came to shove. would u see ur son or brother or father being a coolie if push came to shove? if yes then u steady! but hear me when i say that won't be the typical singaporean attitude. -
I agree with your "general" assessment of Singaporean mentality - when applied to the manufacturing industry. In production line employment, most Singaporeans are job hoppers. Foreigners stay on longer. Perhaps they have higher level of tolerance. They're usually single, with low cost of living and most money is spent back home. It's difficult to earn low wages and yet live & play in Singapore. Something has to be done to correct the average cost of living here.
The general trend of Singapore employees now is that they try to change their mentality & lower expectations but I think employers are already too used to having a large supply of foreign workers and don't see hiring local as a priority. There was a suggestion of micro-managing employment and job matching. Not sure if that's a worthy use of resource. Perhaps alittle more time is needed for market adjustment.Originally posted by jOhO:and if the govt were to stop all this becos singaporeans are in need of jobs, the businesses are gonna complain becos singaporeans demand such a high pay, and job hop around like nobody's business. not happee only quit. i really can't see singaporean coolies out there doing wat the bangalars are doing with our new circle line, can u? i will even put my head out and say even i won't work as a coolie if push came to shove. would u see ur son or brother or father being a coolie if push came to shove? if yes then u steady! but hear me when i say that won't be the typical singaporean attitude. -
Well, if the unemployment of local SIngaporeans gone out of control, the current government would be in trouble.
-
Sadly the Singaporean is left high and dry when it comes to jobs, our high cost of living here means that when it comes to money, we will always end up deficit.
So if the local takes the same pay as an FT, he will actually end up poorer as the cash he earns has less spending power here and he has to support an expensive life here.
That's why they demand higher pay.
Bascially the govt. interests are going to conflict. They want us to have bigger families yet raising even a kid is so expensive, and now they want us to be less choosy and accept lower pay. No wonder their calls usually fall on deaf ears, it just won't fly far like that. Unless they expect Singaporeans to lower their standard of living, so much for the great Singapore being a world class city eh? Maybe only for FTs to come and earn bucks that is.
Anyway, FTs are not the problem, it is the unlevel playing field that the local starts out with that leaves him disadvantaged. He cannot demand a lower pay because that would compromise his standard of living (and these people are not those who want to live in style but just to scrape on by comfortably)
Consider all the stuff we have to pay off, CPF, the like... like that how can? Even using SBS "transit" now cost some more when they have to take two buses and train to get around compared to one bus before thanks to SBS myopic planning that is designed to hurt the consumer and save their hides. -
In my opinion, I believe that the NTU statistics is telling the truth.
-
While I can understand that different interpretations or analysis of one set of statistics can result in 2 different conclusions being drawn, the huge discrepancy in the results obtained by the NTU lecturers and the MoM is nothing short of startling. I might be jumping the gun here, but IMO this is no longer a case of different interpretations or analysis, but someone is lying, and lying through his teeth at that. Who? I don't want to speculate, but which of the 2 sides in this case has something to gain from giving 1 interpretation, and which side has nothing to gain?
As for claims that Singaporeans demand more than foreigners, can Singaporeans honestly have ALL the blame heaped on them? Look at the cost of living here. We spend our money here, we get married here, we have kids here. The foreigners take our money, get married and have kids where things cost much less than here and each S$ they earned can stretch further. Can Singaporeans get by by asking less?
The mentality of the average Singaporean has to change, no doubt about that. But Singaporean workers demand a certain amount because they need to feed themselves and their dependents here, the FTs don't. At the rate wages are going down but is not reciprocated by a similar fall in the cost of living, how long can even those who are working, carry on? -
[quote]Originally posted by jOhO:
yeah call me weak and not making a stand and all that, but i have a business to run and mouths to feed. (probably very typical singaporean attitude from me here, which is rare)
Running a business itself isn't a cup-of-tea for the "weak", so don't undersell yourself in this respect
Any businessman's ultimate obj is to enrich themselves, that is basis of capitalistist nature. The difference comes when a businessman starts to decide the priority of his venture: For the good of his own enterprise or for the larger cause. We see the good, bad & evil easily in today's media-intense world. From Enron, Pan Electric, Microsoft to even the Slim10 pill case, it is the own making of any businessman's decision and luck.
But area of private enterprise control should end somewhere. This is where public institutions like the government and its statutory boards like MOM or EDB should come into play where powerful private-funded institutions can be monitored and regulated with conscience effort to prevent things from getting out of hand.
From environment protection, to worker's right, to national interest, this is where a governemnt role should be.
I do not see that being played out on equal footings by the Singapore gov. We know what GLC is, what Temasek Holdings represent and how NTUC or it labour unions behavour.
So that goes back to your own question which you yourself can only answer. Are you a businessman 1st or a "gentleman" ?
Its Your call.
With reference to your query whether homework was done on my observation abt Singapore's employment trend. I think you need not look further than what the MOM Acting Minister himself had said abt NTU's finding:
[color=brown]"The real figure (1992~97), is that of the 470,000-odd jobs created, 2 went to Singaporeans and 3 went to foreigners. 60% of the jobs went to foreign workers, which means, that in a high growth environment when Singapore was doing well, we needed the foreign workers because there were so many jobs created that there were not enough Singaporeans to fill them..."
Source : MOM site
well, the figure maybe different from NTU's, but its enuf to show how dependent Singapore has become on foreign workforce, during both good and bad times.
Why ?
This goes back to principle of how you run your own enterprise:
"call me weak and not making a stand and all that, but i have a business to run and mouths to feed."
Later.[/color] -
Actually i think the true number is probably between the NTU figures and that of the Man Power Ministry.
I think we would already had a serious jobless problem and the associated social disruption if the figures are as bad as the NTU researchers suggest. There would already be rallies and demostrations if the jobless issue is so out of paced regardless of whatever laws are in place. The word of law cannot hold back hungry men who have nothing to do when they're jobless.
But i doubt the Man Power Ministry's figures are even close to the truth, if the people could ask the exact figures on how they came to their conclusion of 9 out of 10 new jobs go to Singaporeans there would probably be some numbers they somehow "neglected" to factor in. -
I interpret this as a very dangerous sign:
Singapore is hitting a wall in its development, where the costs of living have been jacked up so high that it is no longer economical to employ Singaporeans in Singapore.
And the situation will not improve. We can only take comfort in the fact that Singapore remains a stable environment in a region with much political strife and uncertainty, with the threat of terrorism extremely pronounced in nearby countries like Indonesia. However, how long can this remain the case? People in Indonesia and Phillipines are sick and tired of such news. Arroyo in Phillipines may be criticised in other areas, but the fact is that she has done a rather good job of cleaning up her country politically. Even in handling of the recent crisis in Manila, Arroyo has above all tried to ensure stability in Phillipines and a show of fairness for the military personnel involved.
Back in Singapore, we see more foreigners everywhere we turn. It is more often than not that we see a foreigner when we ride in the MRT. In schools, we have Thai, PRC, Hongkong, Vietnamese, Indonesian and Malaysian children. Like it or not, Singapore IS open to foreigners and like it or not we MUST compete with foreigners for jobs in Singapore. The pseudo- Unions in Singapore are not making life alot better for us the lowly minions of Singapore, nor are they going to change any time soon.
As we face increasing competition, the government continues to see its role as making Singaporeans THINK they are well-off, rather than doing anything concrete.
In conclusion . . .
If current trends continue, we're all fu*kin screwed.
Btw, if the 'recession' doesn't clear up in at the VERY most ONE year, we won't be facing a recession anymore, its gonna be a 'depression'. But I doubt Singapore will LOOK LIKE its actually are doin so badly. For one, theres an elections in between, the government will probably pump money somewhere useful for once to try to create a nicer economic image. . .
my two cents -
The arrogant tone of the ACTING Minister of Manpower took a more conciliatory note AFTER the two Academicians apologized for their “error” in interpreting MOM’s data that were posted “incompletely” on their website.
It seems that data are withheld from the MinistryÂ’s website, as certain data are considered sensitive and secret.
Can we speculate as to the reason why this was done ?.
Now that the "other data" has been released, are we getting the full facts of the situation, considering that basic data and statistics are considered by the Government to be “SENSITIVE” and should be kept “SECRET” ?
If one is to look at the employment situation in Singapore, and breaking it into the various specific components, we can clearly see where the heavy reliance of Foreign Talent will lie.
We can identify the various sectors into two distinct White and Blue Collar sectors; and with each sector further broken into Managerial, Supervisory, and Worker levels, and then again into the various sectors of the Economy – such as Finance, Retail, Service, Maintenance, Public Works, Manufacturing – Food, Ship Building and Repair, Consumer Products, Electrical and Electronics.
There is certainly a heavy reliance on Foreign Talent in the Money World - especially with SingaporeÂ’s attempt to be one of the financial hubs in the Money World.
With the merging of banks over the last three years, structural change have occurred that resulted in many retrenched Singaporean Workers – both Managerial, Supervisors, and Workers.
How many of these have been reemployed by new Financial Institutions that have been licensed to set up new offices in Singapore over the same three years of the Singapore Banking System being restructured ?
How many of these new Financial Institutions that set up shops bring along their own in-house talents from their original home office ?
With our Singapore Government abhorring the reliance of legislations to protect Singapore Citizens right’s to a job, it is more then likely that these new Financial Institutions - that set up shop in Singapore - would have kept their own financial trading skills and knowledge “In-house”.
The Manufacturing and Shipbuilding-Repair industries have seen Singaporeans manning managerial and supervisory positions, and a large dependence of “lower wage” foreign workers from Malaysia, Indonesia, Myanmar, Thailand, Bangladeshi, and PR China.
Over the last twenty years, the Singapore Government has pushed our wages higher, with each annual wage increment review, forcing industries and services to abandon work procedures that are heavily dependent on low wage-workers.
The policy was to encourage the introduction of higher value added products and work processes, so as to bring our worker into a higher plane of skill.
While this policy is laudable, Singapore do not enjoy some features that are commonly found in the other industrial nations of Asia, Europe and USA; and that is population size that gives their home industries a large domestic market to keep the gears moving and to remain responsible to its own homeland.
Even with the big brand names – such as Motorola, Nokia, Ericsson, Ford, Nissan, Honda, Toyota, Volkswagen, Mercedes, Volvo, and others – these industrial nations have also seen their own leading manufacturers move overseas to lower cost centers of production.
While most of these brand names have moved to lower cost centers of production, they still employ a sizeable number of workers in their home operations; and also employ their own nationals to look after the interests of these national companies that moved overseas.
While the Singapore Government legislate against Singapore Companies from being too dependent on Foreign Workers – insisting that there should be at least five Singaporean Workers before any number more than five foreign workers will be approved – there is no legislations that will require any Foreign Investors to employ a proportionate numbers of locals at a pre-determined ratio of foreign talents.
This legislation weighs against Singapore Companies as it hits at their dependence on low skilled labor, while the same legislations do not apply to ANY companies who need Foreign Talent above a certain wage level.
We can see many foreign “talents” in low wage jobs that do not pay enough for the high “Swiss” Standard of Living that the Government has created for us – with its accompanying high Cost of Living.
At the same time, we can also see many foreigners with “real Talent” in jobs that are in the “higher wage levels” – which the Singapore Government “WELCOMES”, as the Government believe that One such Foreign Talent can create ten jobs for Singaporeans.
Sadly, it is not clear what kind of jobs have been created with the employment of such “high value” Foreign Talent. -
Sometimes I wonder if Singapore has jumped the shark, it seems that like our general populace, we are also coming extremely myopic when it comes to planning for the future. Everybody seems more interested in covering their own butt nowadays at the expense of the rest.
-
From the Straits Times, Monday, 4 August 2003
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/topstories/story/0,4386,203063,00.html?
Appeal for more foreign workers data
Information will help Singaporeans figure out what skills they need and better understand foreign talent policy
By M. Nirmala
FAR from dying, the controversy sparked by a flawed report on foreign workers by two university dons has raised more questions, suggesting that the foreign talent issue continues to unsettle many people.
The ripples of the saga persisted over the weekend as Singaporeans and analysts alike said they want more information, rather than less, on a subject as sensitive as foreign workers data during a time of rising unemployment.
It was the predominant view in e-mails received by The Straits Times since the furore started on Thursday, as well as in interviews with 35 PAP and opposition MPs, professionals and ordinary Singaporeans.
They felt that the subject of foreign workers still needs time for Singaporeans to accept when they are worried about jobs and wage cuts.
Many also wondered why the Ministry of Manpower did not come out earlier to reveal the news that nine out of 10 new jobs created between 1997 and 2002 went to Singaporeans.
These figures were made public only when Acting Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen debunked the claim by the two Nanyang Technological University economists that foreigners took three of every four new jobs in those years.
Mr Charles Chong, MP for Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC, said he was 'pleasantly surprised' by the ministry's figures.
'But I would like to see how MOM worked out this data so that I can tell my constituents the Government is doing a good job.
'I would not keep it a secret and for political mileage, I'd brag about it,' he said.
Dr Ng explained on Saturday that it was sensitive data and that information on specific sectors or nationalities were being held back for reasons of national interest.
The two dons, Associate Professor Tan Khee Giap and Professor Chen Kang, well known for their accurate Singapore gross domestic product forecasts, later retracted their findings, admitted their 'honest error' and apologised to Dr Ng.
However, many Singaporeans, including Dr Amy Khor, MP in Hong Kah GRC, felt that figures showing which sectors are taking in foreign workers would be useful to Singaporeans. The information would help them see whether they have the right skills or are pricing themselves out of the sector.
Said Dr Khor: 'Information can be given in a transparent way which will help the situation and not compromise national interests.'
Another MP, Mr Tan Soo Khoon (East Coast GRC), spoke for most of the 35 people interviewed when he said people were still trying to understand the wide gap between the Government's figures and those of the NTU economists.
'Given the present unemployment situation... I think people feel that the truth is somewhere in between and hence more convincing is needed,' he said.
Several also said they would like to know the breakdown in the nine in 10 jobs going to the resident workforce, compared to one going to a foreigner.
How many of the nine are Singaporeans, how many are permanent residents and how many became PRs only recently, was one question repeatedly being asked, showing the depth of concern over foreign workers in the economy.
This, despite many illustrations and examples given by the Government to show that foreign talents create, rather than take away, jobs.
MPs Inderjit Singh (Ang Mo Kio GRC) and Dr Wang Kai Yuen (Bukit Timah) said their anecdotal evidence show MOM's figures to be correct.
As MPs, they have seen and been told of more foreigners not getting employment passes and work permits.
However, as businessman Archie Teo, 28, said: 'We can't validate which set of statistics is accurate. But that's not the point. A Pandora's Box has been opened.'
-- Additional reporting by Tanya Fong -
With the refinement and creative use of the propaganda machinery, the Ruling Party has always stretched the most mileage out of any events to project its own success in Government.
The battle to win SARS was portrayed to be similar to the IRAQ War, with Ministers being "embedded" within and monitoring events in the Hospitals.
Would it not be seen to be surprisingly reckless - (for the Minister or Minister of State) - to shuttle between hospitals, to become possible carriers, if they are "embedded" within the hospitals ?
Other tems used by the US Military, and quoted often by American News Agency became cliches that were liberally used by the Government, to identify themselves with the success that the USA had in the War in Iraq.
For the Government to deem information to be so secret that it cannot see the light of day, it is either too negatively sensitive that confirms all present "gut feelings" that Singaporeans are losing jobs to foreigners, or that the present jobless circumstances have not been "sanitized" for the local consumption of those embarrassing data that are politically sensitive to the Government.
If the statistics are positive, there will be little urging for the Government to gloat over the data.
Those figures will be constantly repeated for at least a few weeks.
We have recently seen CNA telecast of LKY's speech at the Trade Union Conference that went on for at least two to three weeks; while "Little" Lee's performance at the revolt of the Trade Union Leaders against the NTUC Secretary General only last one evening telecast and no more.
Sensitive data to remain secret ?
The data is sensitive to whose interest ? -
Jobs row prompts calls for more economic disclosure
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw03/030805bl.htm
Bloomberg
August 5, 2003
SINGAPORE
A DISPUTE over whether most of the new jobs created in Singapore are being filled by foreigners has prompted some economists to call for the city-state to make more detailed economic data available to the public.
As the island nation of 3.2 million citizens and 800,000 foreigners battles near-record unemployment following the economy's worst quarterly contraction on record, economists want to know just how many of the few new jobs created are going to Singaporeans.
The government doesn't publish the figures on specific sectors or nationalities because the data is considered sensitive, Sunday's Straits Times newspaper reported, citing Ng Eng Hen, Singapore's Acting Manpower Minister.
``We're a first class country, and we are publishing incomplete data,'' said Song Seng Wun, regional economist at GK Goh Holdings Ltd. in Singapore, referring to the jobs figures and the Indonesian trade data.
Last month, Singapore Trade and Industry Minister George Yeo said the government would publish more detailed trade data, including the figures for trade with Indonesia. That decision came after Indonesia said it wanted the figures made public to bolster its efforts to combat smuggling. The trade data had been kept secret since 1974, under an agreement with Indonesia's then President Suharto.
Economists are asking for more details on Singapore's performance after the March outbreak of SARS stalled tourism and business travel to Asia. Singapore's economy contracted at an annual 12 percent pace in the second quarter, the worst on record. The seasonally-adjusted unemployment rate was 4.5 percent in June, unchanged from March and close to a 15-year high of 4.6 percent in September 2002. The jobless rate this year may exceed 5.5 percent, the government has said.
`A Full Picture'
``Singaporeans and people who follow the economy need to know the whole set of data,'' said Manu Bhaskaran, Singapore- based head of economic research at Centennial Group Inc., an advisory group based in Washington DC. ``Manpower data is one of the most important sets so you can get a full picture of the economy. It's vital that data is released.''
Against that backdrop, a study by Singapore's Nanyang Technological University -- which found that in the past five years, three out of four new jobs in Singapore went to foreigners on work permits because employers prefer cheaper foreign workers -- became front-page news across the city.
Acting Manpower Minister Ng disputed the study, saying nine out of 10 new jobs in Singapore went to citizens and permanent residents in the period.
Ng said the university study -- which was published on July 30 and based on publicly available labor statistics -- was ``irresponsible,'' and ``unprofessional,'' according to a report by Singapore's Business Times on Aug. 1.
`Inappropriate Data'
Late on Friday the Ministry of Manpower distributed copies of a letter signed by the authors of the study in which they acknowledged that the Ministry's figures were correct.
``We now appreciate that we had used an inappropriate data set,'' said Chen Kang and Tan Khee Giap, associate professors at the university, in their letter to the Acting Minister. ``Our figures were based on the data in the Labour Force Survey posted on the Ministry of Manpower website,'' they said, adding that this does not include many foreign workers in the construction industry and workers who commute from Malaysia.
Granted, some economists say the information provided is adequate.
``For the day-to-day work of a brokerage economist, Singapore's data is quite useful and transparent,'' said Nizam Idris, an economist at IDEAglobal in Singapore. ``For academic research, you have to do your own surveys to supplement government data. That holds true in every country.''
The Singapore government expects the economy to expand by 0.5 percent to 2.5 percent this year, and its success in tackling SARS were widely praised by foreign investors.
Still, some say a more detailed breakdown would help them analyse the nation's performance and ability to handle future economic shocks. ``In terms of better describing the Singapore economy and the contribution to growth, it would be a lot more useful,'' said GK Goh's Song. -
Row over foreign employment drags on
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw03/030805to.htm
TODAY
August 5, 2003
By Derrick A Paulo
THE storm over the jobs issue may have subsided but the confusion has yet to clear up.
The focus, though, is no longer on the NTU report, which had claimed that three out of four new jobs in recent years went to foreigners. It is on the Ministry of Manpower's counter-claim that foreigners snagged only one in 10 jobs between 1997 and 2002 and which has yet to convince the population.
There are a few reasons why the doubts - and the confusion - remain.
First, the very definition of what constitutes a foreigner has muddled the issue. When Acting Minister of Manpower Dr Ng Eng Hen rebutted the initial NTU report, he had said: "Nine new jobs went to the locals and one to foreigners."
However, this was meant to refer to the resident population, which consists of citizens and permanent residents (PRs). A truer picture of the job situation here would distinguish between citizens and PRs, said analysts.
"The very nature of foreign talent is that they do not come here unless they have jobs, and they don't normally get PR status until they have jobs," said Associate Professor Bilveer Singh of the Department of Political Science at the NUS.
He added that the distinction between citizen and PR is an important one because "citizens have responsibilities and obligations that PRs will never have, such as National Service."
It also suggests why many Singaporeans had questioned MOM's statistics, which said that, of the 102,000 jobs created from 1997 to 2002, 10,200 went to foreigners.
Even this figure disguises the trends in job flow for foreigners.
"A net value like 10,200 may look relatively small but there may be a much larger number in terms of the actual amount of hires in gross terms," said Mr David Cohen, MMS International's senior regional economist.
The increase in foreigners holding jobs here came in spite of the net departure of around 70,000 foreign construction workers, suggesting that another 80,000 foreigners came to Singapore to make the numbers.
According to the MOM, one reason why the NTU report was "way off the mark" was because it had not included on-site construction workers and daily commuters from Malaysia.
But, the job shedding in the construction and manufacturing industries means that the replacement foreigners were headed mostly for white-collar jobs, as the NTU economists had suggested.
"One way to look at it is to look at the blue-collar sector. Fewer jobs were created there, and even the Economic Review Committee said the manufacturing jobs that were lost are gone forever," said Mr Nizam Idris, deputy head of research at IDEAGlobal.
For instance, the biomedical industry represents a growth sector that mainly hires skilled workers from abroad rather than Singaporean labour, said Mr Cohen.
This explains why some Singaporeans still cling to anecdotal evidence, as the loss of 70,000 on-site construction workers is not as noticeable as the addition of 80,000 foreign household residents.
"The anecdotal evidence speaks for itself. When you go to the condominiums, you would probably see more foreigners with their families than before," said Mr Song Seng Wun, regional economist with GK Goh Research.
It is not just anecdotal evidence that has fuelled the debate. A check with the Department of Statistics reveals that there were 112,000 more foreigners in Singapore last year than in 1997. On the surface, the discrepancy between 10,200 and 112,000 is alarming.
However, there are several reasons for this, a labour economist at the National University of Singapore said, as not every foreigner in Singapore holds an employment pass. Some of them might be on study permits as international students or live as dependents of primary employment pass holders.
There were about 50,000 foreign students here last year but it is not known what the figure was in 1997. Still, the large increase in the foreign population is "an interesting piece of data," said Mr Nizam, and one that should be looked at further.
Until then, the efforts by academics and analysts to make sense of MOM's figures remain purely speculative, said the NUS labour economist.
And the issue of foreign talent and job creation is a hot topic here, said analysts. "This is an issue that can get emotional," said Dr Singh. "And we don't want to be irrational. It is not good for Singapore.
"There are no easy answers. If we turn off the foreign talent tap, it won't be good for us in the long run. And if we sacrifice the citizen, it won't be good at the ballot box." -
So how about foreign talents bar-top dancers, gay PR officers for Singapore's statutory boards & bungy jumping promoter ?
With these vacancies field up by them, I think this can help satisfy the different wishes of the gov and pple.
Gov got its fetish for "foreign talents" and creating a "kinder & gentler nation" image, while avg Singaporeans gets entertained by a profession that few local prefers.
Happy now ?