By Leong Sze Hian and SY Lee
We refer to the article “More workers report positive outcomes from national skills training framework” (Straits Times, Jun 11).
The article states that “A greater proportion of workers reported receiving a pay raise – 19 per cent did so last year, four percentage points more than the year before”. So, does it mean that despite this year’s 4 percentage points improvement over the year before – 81% did not get a pay raise?
Such “satisfaction” type surveys like the one conducted by Workforce Development Agency (WDA) may be quite meaningless, unless they are supported by the statistics of the outcomes. For example, if you ask workers – what is the most important desired outcome of training – arguably, the answer may be an increase in their pay.
So, let’s look at some recent job and wage statistics.
Last 6 years’ negative real wage change
The annual change in real total wages (including employer CPF contribution) was dismal, for the last 6 years from 2008 to 2013, at -1.7, -1.0, 2.9, 0.9, 0.4 and 2.9%. (Source: Ministry of Manpower’s report on wage practices 2013)
The real total wage change (excluding employer CPF contribution?) was even worse at, -2.4, -1.0, 2.7, 0.1, -0.8 and 2.9%, respectively.
The real basic wage change was equally bad, at -2.2, -0.7, 1.1, -0.8, -0.1 and 2.7%, respectively.
So, does this mean that the cumulative annualised real basic wage change from 2008 to 2013 was about slightly less than 0?
150,000 or 114,100 earning less than $1,000 in 2012?
The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) told The Straits Times that there were 117,500 local full-time workers earning $1,000 and below last year, down from 150,000 in 2012.
The above statistics given by MOM are puzzling, because the total number working full-time and earning less than $1,000 was 114,100 in 2012, according to the MOM’s Labour Force in Singapore 2012 (Table 25, page 126).
Earning less than $1,000 increased 3%?
Now that we know from news reports that the number of full-time workers earning less than $1,000 was 117,500 last year – does it mean that it actually increased by about 3% from 114,100 in 2012?
There was an increase of about 3.4 per cent for 2012, from 2011′s 110,400 (in spite of NWC recommendations and not even accounting for inflation).
The number of locals (full-time and part-time) earning less than $500 and between $500 and $1,000 was 51,300 and 186,700, respectively in 2012. This means that a total of 238,000 locals (full-time and part-time) earned less than $1,000.
Yet another recommendation for less than $1,000 workers?
The National Wages Council (NWC) has recommended in its annual wage guidelines that workers earning less than $1,000 each month should get a pay hike of at least $60 , which follows its previous recommendations in 2012 and 2013 that these workers receive minimum pay hikes of $50 and $60.
6 in 10 followed the guidelines?
It further added that while more firms followed the guidelines last year – about six in 10 compared to three in 10 in 2012. The National Trade Union Congress (NTUC) noted that they still lag behind the nine in 10 unionised firms.
8 in 10 will follow the guidelines?
Why do the above statistics seem to differ from that reported on the same day in the Business Times (“Minimum $60 pay rise for low income“, May 31) – “As at the end of last year, almost eight in 10 employers in the private sector had given or said that they intended to give a raise to workers earning less than $1,000 a month, up from six in 10 in 2012″?
What we need to know is the percentage of workers earning below $1,000 who received the recommended increase, instead of what proportion of employers or unionised companies who were surveyed accepted the recommendations or said that they intended to do it?
In this connection, the last time that the specific statistic was available last year for 2012, was that more than 70% who did not get the recommended increase.
So much for yet another survey?
union workers
If you remember last year, only 3 in 10 workers earning less than $1,000 received the at least $50 increment recommended by the NWC in 2012. (see here)
“Spin doctoring”?
This starkly sobbing statistic has to be seen in the “spin doctoring” context that it was reported in the media that while eight in 10 companies in the unionised sector accepted the recommendations and boosted the pay of their low-wage workers by at least $50 in 2012, but only three in 10 non-unionised companies followed suit.
If not for the MOM report which came out just a few days after the media reports last year – we wouldn’t be the wiser that 8 in 10  and 3 in 10 non-unionised (implying unionised is so much better?) – actually means in totality only 3 in 10 of ‘less than $1,000′ workers got the $50!
63% of employers won’t increase pay more?
It was reported that “While 37 per cent of employers surveyed said they would give staff larger salary increments, the rest said they would not change pay levels” (“OCBC gives staff $3m in Wage Credit payouts”, Straits Times, May 19).
Does this indicate that the Wage Credit scheme may be a failure?
1 in 3 no pay increase?
As if it isn’t bad enough that about 2 out of 3 employers indicated that they would not increase pay more because of the Wage Credit scheme – Of the Singaporeans eligible for the Wage Credit scheme, two-thirds received pay rises last year, which the first tranche of the Wage Credit Scheme payouts is helping to fund this year.
Does it mean that 1 out of 3 Singaporean workers who earn less than $4,000 did not get any pay rise at all?
So what is MOM and WDA going to do about the statistics that has been mentioned above and the findings from the survey?

Other workforce statistics that you might want to know about. 

  • Real median income change from 2008 to 2013 was only about 1.0 per cent per annum. For the 20th percentile – the real change per annum for the last 10 years was only about 0.3 per cent
  • Real growth in graduates’ starting pay negative? The real growth in university, polytechnic and Institute of Technical Education (ITE)  graduates starting pay has been negative in the last 7 years or so.
  • Widespread age discrimination? The labour statistics also indicate widespread age discrimination – with real pay decreasing as workers get older from their mid-thirties in age – particularly for the lower-wage occupations like cleaners and service workers.
  • PMETs – hard to find jobs? PMETs may be finding it harder to get a job, as 34% of those laid off – could not find a job after 12 months.
  • PMETs had highest redundancy rate? The problems of PMETs may also be compounded by their highest redundancy rate – PMETs were more vulnerable to redundancy, with 7.3 made redundant for every 1,000 PMETs, compared to production and related workers (5.7 per 1,000) and clerical, sales and service workers (2.8 per 1,000).
  • Unemployed and under-employed? I understand that there are about 70,000 unemployed and long-term unemployed locals, more than 200,000 who have indicated that they would like to return to the workforce, tens if not hundreds of thousands of under-employed (getting much lower pay than their last drawn pay), etc.
  • Impact of foreign workers? To what extent has our liberal foreign labour policies and huge influx of foreign workers – contributed to the woes of Singaporean workers as highlighted by the above statistics?
  • 53% are Singaporeans? In this connection, with 38% of the workforce being foreign workers – If we assume that about 15% of the “locals””workers are permanent residents, then the percentage of Singaporeans in the total workforce, is about 53%.
  • Less than 50% are Singaporeans? If we make an adjustment for new citizens, does it mean that less than half the workforce were not “truly” Singaporeans?
  • 260,800 “locals” jobs increase vs 451,934 new citizens/PRs? What percentage of the increase in the resident labour force of 260,800 from 2007 to June 2013 were Singaporeans, against the estimated 451,934 new citizens and new PRs granted in the 7 years to end 2013?
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

High HDB prices driven by speculators, hurting genuine home seekers

See Leong Kit’s letter to Today which was rejected for publication.

年长者坐轮椅够不着水槽取水不便 社工轰死板条规剥夺年长者生活自主

住在乐龄公寓的一名年长者,因必须坐轮椅,要使用普通高度的水槽,开水龙头取水就十分不便。 然而, 根据建屋局规定,如果要装修降低水槽高度,在屋契到期(或住户逝世),还要回归原样,大约就要花费八千元。社工叶静慧对于这种死板不懂变通的建屋局条规就感到非常不合理,质问为何无法弹性变通,方便行动不便的老人家,也有能力独立生活。 叶静慧在脸书分享,一名住在乐龄公寓,坐轮椅的年长者够不到厨房水槽,因此平日要盛水煮水,都很不方便。要喝水的话,只能拿社工或看护者在逢周二和周四装的水。 “如果周末时想拿些热水的话,这名老人家还要特地到楼下的咖啡店买。” 她说,老人家不可能负担得起八千元,来重新装修降低厨房水槽,而且在归还公寓时还要回归原样。“拜托,这是乐龄公寓!”叶静慧对于死板的建屋局规则感到愤怒,认为这形同剥夺了老人家生活自主的能力。 五天需喝社工储备的水 叶静慧认为,乐龄公寓却无法应对轮椅使用者的需求,这是很荒谬的。“你可想象有五天你必须喝同样的水,而且不能随意泡茶泡咖啡吗?正因为那些条规,老人家的家园才为她带来困难!” 她续而质问,有多少体弱老人独自受苦?何以我们要继续忽视他们?而正是我们的冷漠忽略,让这些老人家被贴上导致看护成本高涨的因素。 “难道是因为他们穷吗?乐龄保健是很复杂的,需要全方位的探讨。我们以智慧国为荣,且炫耀可以推出建国一代配套,但是贫困体弱的人,却没有发言权,继续承受着不必要的痛苦。” 为此,她呼吁制定政策这和国会,应该正视这些问题,必须进行政策和结构的改革,把尊严和生活自主还给这些老人家。“如果这些原因还不足,那么再想想我们必须减轻长期看护的成本。” 叶静慧在贴文中也感谢热心人士提供各种建设性意见,“我知道还有很多在基层付出的社工也在积极争取,希望政策制定者能听见社工们的心声,作出改变。感谢大家。”…

Government “study” on extended families – a policy expectation on social care?

By Howard Lee Media today reported that the government has embarked on a…

As the televised cabinet minster speeches draw to a close, still nothing specific

A prime time televised speech by Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat…