By Leong Sze Hian
I refer to the article “Report findings show local employment rose faster in 2012” (Channel NewsAsia, Mar 15).
Locals’ employment increased?
According to the Ministry of Manpower’s (MOM) Labour Market 2012 report, “Local employment rose by 58,700 or 2.9%, substantially higher than the gains of 37,900 or 1.9% in 2011. Amid the tightening in foreign manpower controls, the growth in foreign employment eased to 70,400 or 5.9% in 2012 from 84,800 or 7.6% in 2011.”
Still more jobs to foreigners than locals?
The proportion of foreigners to locals in the rise in employment remains higher for foreigners at about 55 percent of foreigners to 45 percent of locals.
Breakdown for locals?
What is the actual breakdown for locals into the two different groups of Singaporeans and permanent residents (PRs)?
If the percentage of PRs is about 20 per cent of the locals, then it would signify that the jobs that went to Singaporeans may be about only 36 percent.
What jobs, pay?
What is the breakdown of the type of jobs and the pay for the job?
Proportion of foreign workers still rising?
As to “In December 2012, locals accounted for 66.4% of persons employed in Singapore (excluding FDW). Foreigners formed the remaining 33.6%, compared with 32.8% in December 2011″ – this would mean that the proportion of foreigners have been continuing increasing, from 32.8 to 33.6%.
If say 20% of the locals are PRs, then it would mean that about 47% of persons employed may be non-citizens.
30,000 new PRs and 25,000 new citizens?
The above may need to be seen in the context of the Population White Paper. It was said that there may be as many as 30,000 new PRs and 25,000 new citizens granted per year going forward, whilst we are waiting for the release of the PRs and new citizens’ statistics for 2012. How many of the “locals” jobs went to new PRs or new citizens?
Unemployment rate fell for residents, but not citizens?
With regard to “With high employment creation, the annual average unemployment rate remained at a low of 2.0% for overall and 3.0% for citizens in 2012, unchanged from 2011, while the resident unemployment rate dipped to 2.8% from 2.9%”, does it mean that more Singaporeans were unemployed relatively to residents, because the unemployment rate fell for residents but not for citizens?
Redundancies increase 10%?
In respect of “Reflecting the impact of economic slowdown and restructuring, some 11,010 workers were made redundant in 2012, up from 9,990 in 2011″ – this means that redundancies rose by 10%.
PMETs had higher redundancy rate?
With regard to “Two in three or 67% of residents made redundant were previously holding PMET jobs,disproportionately higher than the PMETs’ representation in the resident workforce (52%) – does this mean that PMETs had a relatively higher redundancy rate?
Job vacancies fell 15%?
In respect of “On a non-seasonally adjusted basis, there were 43,900 vacancies representing 2.2% of manpower demand in December 2012, down from 51,700 or 2.7% a year ago” – this means that vacancies fell by about 15% for the year.
Unemployment rate increased for tertiary educated?
With regard to “Unemployment decreased over the year for residents with post-secondary or lower qualifications, but increased for the tertiary educated” – this means that for the more educated – their unemployment rate increased.
Degree holders more likely to be unemployed?
In respect of “degree holders formed the largest group among the unemployed residents at 16,300 or 32% in December 2012″ – does this mean that the more educated a resident is, the more likely it may be for him or her to be unemployed?
Only higher educated had increase in unemployment rate?
Of the 5 Education categories, only Degree and Diploma & Professional Qualification had an increase in their unemployment rate.
So, does this mean that the more educated a resident is, the more likely he or she may be to be unemployed from a relative trend perspective, relative to the lesser educated?
Unemployment rate increased for older workers?
Of the 3 categories By Age, the unemployment rate went down for only the Below Age 30.
Does this mean that from a relative trend perspective, it may be worse off being older?
Long-term unemployed among total unemployed increased?
As to “11,400 unemployed residents, making up 0.5% of the resident labour force in December 2012 had been looking for work for at least 25 weeks, similar to 11,500 or 0.5% a year ago. However, their share among unemployed residents rose over the year from 21% to 23%” – this means that there were more long-term unemployed relative to total unemployed residents, because the proportion of long-term unemployed among unemployed residents increased from 21 to 23%,
Degree holders – largest group among the long-term unemployed & increase in long-term unemployment rate?
With regard to “With their increase in long-term unemployment rates, the tertiary-educated residents made up six in ten of the long-term unemployed residents in December 2012 (diploma & professional qualification: 20% or 2,300, degree: 39% or 4,400)” – this means that degree holders were the largest group among the long-term unemployed and also had an increase in long-term unemployment rates.
Only higher educated had increase in long-term unemployment rate?
Of the 5 Education categories, only Degree and Diploma & Professional Qualification had an increase in their long-term unemployment rates.
So, does this mean that the more educated you are, the more likely it may be to be long-term unemployed from a relative trend perspective, relative to the lesser educated?
Short work-week/ temporary layoff increased 644%?
In respect of “a higher average of 3,050 workers per quarter were placed on short work-week/ temporary layoff in 2012, up from 940 in 2011 and 410 in 2010″ – this means that the trend of putting workers on short work-week/ temporary layoff increased by 644%, from 2010 to 2012.
PMETs more likely to be placed on short work-week/ temporary layoff?
Since “Slightly more than one in two (52%) were PMETs, followed by production & related workers (43%). Only a small proportion (4.8%) were clerical, sales and service workers” – PMETs were relatively more likely to placed on short work-week/ temporary layoff.
Work hours increase?
As to “Total weekly paid hours worked per employee averaged 46.2 hours in December 2012, unchanged from September 2012 and marginally above 46.1 hours in December 2011.
Overtime hours increase?
Weekly paid overtime hours broadly followed the same trend, averaging 3.8 hours per week in December 2012, unchanged from a quarter before, but slightly up from 3.6 hours in December 2011″ – an interpretation of this statement means that work hours and overtime hours for workers had both increased in the year.
Highest overtime hours in 4 years?
Also, the 3.8 overtime hours stated for December 2012 is at a 4-year “december” data high since 2008′s 3.5 hours per week.