The following article was published in the Straits Times on 15 August 2003.
Explaining the big picture to the little guy
By Chua Mui Hoong.
Straits Times, 15 August 2003
FROM THE GALLERY
IT WAS a case of a mismatch between facts and perception when Parliament yesterday debated the issue of whether foreigners are taking jobs away from Singaporeans.
For even as Acting Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen trotted out tables showing that just one in 10 new jobs went to foreigners, MPs were on their feet asking the same question in various ways: Why doesn't the reality on the ground square with the data?
So although Dr Ng said that there were jobs but Singaporeans did not want them, union leader and Nominated MP Nithiah Nandan said the feeling on the ground was different.
'Many Singaporeans feel that they have not been taken for jobs for various reasons. Even when retrenchment occurs in a particular factory or workplace, Singaporeans are given the pink notice, foreigners are still working.'
Dr Wang Kai Yuen (Bukit Timah) said that despite ministry quotas and levies to restrict the supply of foreign workers, 'Singaporeans seem to be the first to go, last to be hired', especially in manufacturing jobs.
The controversy over foreign workers arose after two economists said on July 30 that three in four new jobs created in the last five years went to foreigners, based on official data. The Manpower Ministry rebutted the findings a day later, saying the wrong data sets had been used. The correct figure is one in 10.
As MP S. Iswaran (West Coast GRC) aptly put it, the episode was a matter of facts versus perception: The facts showed foreigners don't take away many local jobs, but the perception, along with concerns about the accuracy of government data, continues to linger.
Dr Ng's approach to the whole issue is right: Focus on job creation, not on disagreements about who got the jobs. In other words, enlarge the pie rather than fight over who gets to share a shrinking one.
But that is not the only message Singaporeans want to hear in a climate of retrenchment, wage cuts, 4.5 per cent unemployment and nearly 90,000 jobless. They want job security for locals.
Beset by anxieties, they find it hard to understand the big picture. With their eye firmly on the big picture, official explanations risk not connecting with workers.
The retrenched worker won't care that 95 out of 100 others still have jobs or that new jobs will come, eventually. To him, the unemployment rate now is 100 per cent.
Nor is it just the 90,000 jobless who are feeling the heat. As Singapore is close-knit, many would know someone who has been retrenched or had his wages cut. The anxiety can colour all perceptions.
In short, there's a difference between the bird's eye view of things and the worm's eye view.
So even while ministers paint the big picture, they must remember that the ordinary worker sees only a part of it, and that they must explain the big picture in terms the person who sees it only in part can understand.
For though the economic forces buffeting Singapore are global, politics and sentiments remain decidedly local.
The same mismatch between how reality appears on the ground and how planners view it came through during the lively debate on the North-East Line, as MPs Charles Chong and Michael Lim (Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC), Cynthia Phua (Aljunied GRC) and others grilled Transport Minister Yeo Cheow Tong on the rationale behind transport operators' decisions to keep Buangkok station closed and to scrap bus services that duplicated the NEL route.
The big picture, again, was clear: NEL serves 160,000 people a day and expands the nationwide network.
But on the ground, commuters putting up with longer journeys and higher costs fumed. Dr Lim pressed Mr Yeo for clarifications, and wondered how a bus-NEL-bus journey could be construed as being a smoother ride than a single bus trip.
What MPs wanted was not a restoration of services per se, but more consultation and sharing of information before decisions were made.
This would, as Mr Chong put it with some irony, 'eliminate the need for MPs to have late night dialogue sessions and early morning bus rides' after the event.
Similarly with the Government's foreign-worker policy: Many Singaporeans agree with the policy overall, but they need to feel a sense of job security. They want to feel locals will get a bit more protection. They need their fears assuaged.
Ministers need two kinds of leadership: technical leadership to marshal the resources to do the job, as well as emotional leadership to shrink the gap between reality and perception.
As Dr Ng said in April: 'If the problem needs fixing and surgery is required, for goodness' sake, get a good anaesthetist, minimise the pain.'
There are plenty of surgeons who can fix problems, but where are those who can minimise the feeling of pain?
Friday, August 15, 2003
Thursday, August 14, 2003
Why it helps to keep doors open to foreign workers
Why it helps to keep doors open to foreign workers
By Chua Mui Hoong.
14 August 2003
Straits Times
SOFTWARE engineer Bob Simoni, 39, lost his job - to an Indian worker he had helped to train. He is furious at losing his job at Toshiba America to a foreign worker and wants Congress to do something to restrict foreign visas.
His story is told in the latest issue of Business Week. Bob is American, but the same story may well unfold here.
Some workers here say foreigners take away local jobs, and want to cap the number of foreigners allowed to work here, or make it harder for employers to use foreigners.
Government officials argue that foreigners create more jobs and say too-stringent restrictions will hinder employers' flexibility to respond to competition.
The issue has come to the fore in recent weeks, after two university economists said three in four new jobs created in the last five years went to foreigners. This was dismissed by the Manpower Ministry, which cited previously classified data to show that in fact, nine in 10 new jobs went to residents here.
Unease over the open-door policy to attract foreign talent has been simmering since it became a high-profile issue in Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong's National Day Rally speech in 1997.
A year later, a Forbes Research survey found that one in four Singaporeans believed foreign talent took away job opportunities.
A 2001 Gallup poll showed that while four in five thought foreign talent contributed to Singapore's success, 68 per cent also believed foreigners compete for jobs with Singaporeans.
A Straits Times survey conducted last month found that three in four believe reducing the number of foreign workers will help jobless Singaporeans. This belief was more prevalent among the less educated: 77 per cent of those with primary education and below, compared to 64 per cent of graduates.
The composite picture that emerges: Singaporeans, many of them immigrants or children of immigrants themselves, think the country's open-door policy has helped in the past. However, they would prefer a half-closed-door policy from now on, believing this will help save jobs for citizens.
Underlying such thinking is the conviction that foreigners take away local jobs.
But is this the case?
To the average worker who sees only what happens in his workplace, the answer is obvious: Send the foreigners home, and the boss will have to hire Singaporeans.
However, such a move would spell ruin for the economy as a whole.
When discussing the foreign worker issue, it is important to look at benefits to the economy as a whole, rather than to individuals.
One study on the contribution of foreign talent to the Singapore economy was the 2001 econometrics study by Ministry of Trade and Industry economists. It attributed 40 per cent of Singapore's gross domestic product growth in the 1990s to foreign talent.
Unfortunately, the lack of detailed data - for example, breakdowns of the foreign worker population here by sector, education, occupational class and wage level over the years - obscures the debate, with the result that more heat than light tends to be generated when talking about foreign talent.
In the absence of local data, one can look to studies outside Singapore, to answer the question whether immigration brings net benefits, or net losses, to society.
First, is it true that immigration causes Singaporeans to lose their jobs, or depresses their wages?
Intuitively, the argument makes sense, especially if large numbers of unskilled workers enter a country competing for jobs.
But the reality is different. Numerous studies show that immigration has very little impact on wage and unemployment levels of locals.
Harvard labour economist George Borjas concluded in a 1990 survey: 'The methodological arsenal of modern econometrics cannot find a single shred of evidence that immigrants have a sizeable adverse impact on the earnings and employment opportunities of natives in the US.'
In 1997, the US National Academy of Sciences found that 'the weight of the empirical evidence suggests that the impact of immigration on the wages of competing native workers is small'.
Such 'empirical studies' look at actual wage data of workers in areas with large numbers of immigrants.
One well-known case study in labour economics is the 'Mariel boatlift': Between May and September 1980, 125,000 Cubans were allowed to emigrate to Miami from the port of Mariel in Cuba. Overnight, Miami's unskilled labour force went up 16 per cent.
If immigration lowers wages, wages of Miami's unskilled workers would fall relative to wages of unskilled workers in other states. This did not happen. Instead, wages of unskilled Miami workers rose relative to those of other cities studied, while the unemployment rate was lower than in these cities.
The reason for the absence of adverse effects? As economies are dynamic, some Miami residents moved elsewhere, while employers who needed low-skilled workers were attracted to Miami. Result: more jobs for the low-skilled.
The Mariel example reminds us that labour markets are flexible, and that people and employers respond by moving to other jobs or other cities when there is an increase in foreign workers.
At the national level in the US, there is some evidence from a 1997 National Research Council (NRC) report that immigration accounts for half the fall in wages of high-school dropouts. However, as this group is small, accounting for less then 10 per cent of the workforce, it is better to help this group with education and skills training, than curb immigration overall.
This is because even though low-skilled workers may lose out, most other groups in society gain from immigration. Gains come in various forms. Users of goods and services produced by immigrants gain in the form of lower prices. (Think how much more you would have to pay for domestic services or renovation or construction work without Filipino, Bangladeshi and Thai workers.)
Employers of immigrants gain as their costs go down, and they enjoy higher returns to capital.
With more people in the economy, aggregate demand - demand for goods and services as a whole - increases, and this boosts growth. Also, immigration raises the total number of taxpayers.
To recapitulate: The losers are those who compete with immigrant workers and experience a corresponding loss in income. The winners are those who use immigrant services, workers with skills complementary to immigrants (for example, supervisors of construction workers), and employers.
Overall, the consensus among economists is that the net gains outweigh the losses. The NRC report found that immigration yields a net gain of about US$10 billion (S$17.6 billion) a year, a drop in the ocean for an economy of US$10 trillion. In fact, the biggest economic impact of immigration is distributional: The biggest impact lies not in causing job losses, but in lowering incomes of the low-skilled, while raising real incomes of the rest.
In other words, immigration can contribute to wage inequality. This explains why immigration is such a sensitive topic all over the world, not only in Singapore.
In Europe, the immigration picture is complicated by the welfare state, as all the gains of immigration can be wiped out if foreign workers use up a lot of welfare benefits.
An article in The Economist in November last year cites a study by Britain's Home Office which estimated that the foreign-born population paid 10 per cent more to the government than it received in expenditure. (In Singapore, the proportion is likely to be higher, given curbs on foreigners' consumption of subsidised social services.)
The 1997 NRC study found that first-generation migrants imposed an average net fiscal cost of US$3,000 while the second generation yielded a fiscal gain of US$80,000 - which helps explain why Singapore is so keen to lay out the red carpet to persuade qualified foreign workers to take up permanent residence and raise their families here.
US Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan told Congress back in 2000: 'The benefits of bringing in people to do the work here, rather than doing the work elsewhere, should be pretty self-evident.'
For Singapore too, the lesson is clear: Gains from an open-door policy outweigh the costs. We have to keep the doors open, but help the minority who lose out from this policy.
Mr Simoni does not realise it, but the truth is that if the Indian can't come to the job in America (or Singapore), the job will move to India.
By Chua Mui Hoong.
14 August 2003
Straits Times
SOFTWARE engineer Bob Simoni, 39, lost his job - to an Indian worker he had helped to train. He is furious at losing his job at Toshiba America to a foreign worker and wants Congress to do something to restrict foreign visas.
His story is told in the latest issue of Business Week. Bob is American, but the same story may well unfold here.
Some workers here say foreigners take away local jobs, and want to cap the number of foreigners allowed to work here, or make it harder for employers to use foreigners.
Government officials argue that foreigners create more jobs and say too-stringent restrictions will hinder employers' flexibility to respond to competition.
The issue has come to the fore in recent weeks, after two university economists said three in four new jobs created in the last five years went to foreigners. This was dismissed by the Manpower Ministry, which cited previously classified data to show that in fact, nine in 10 new jobs went to residents here.
Unease over the open-door policy to attract foreign talent has been simmering since it became a high-profile issue in Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong's National Day Rally speech in 1997.
A year later, a Forbes Research survey found that one in four Singaporeans believed foreign talent took away job opportunities.
A 2001 Gallup poll showed that while four in five thought foreign talent contributed to Singapore's success, 68 per cent also believed foreigners compete for jobs with Singaporeans.
A Straits Times survey conducted last month found that three in four believe reducing the number of foreign workers will help jobless Singaporeans. This belief was more prevalent among the less educated: 77 per cent of those with primary education and below, compared to 64 per cent of graduates.
The composite picture that emerges: Singaporeans, many of them immigrants or children of immigrants themselves, think the country's open-door policy has helped in the past. However, they would prefer a half-closed-door policy from now on, believing this will help save jobs for citizens.
Underlying such thinking is the conviction that foreigners take away local jobs.
But is this the case?
To the average worker who sees only what happens in his workplace, the answer is obvious: Send the foreigners home, and the boss will have to hire Singaporeans.
However, such a move would spell ruin for the economy as a whole.
When discussing the foreign worker issue, it is important to look at benefits to the economy as a whole, rather than to individuals.
One study on the contribution of foreign talent to the Singapore economy was the 2001 econometrics study by Ministry of Trade and Industry economists. It attributed 40 per cent of Singapore's gross domestic product growth in the 1990s to foreign talent.
Unfortunately, the lack of detailed data - for example, breakdowns of the foreign worker population here by sector, education, occupational class and wage level over the years - obscures the debate, with the result that more heat than light tends to be generated when talking about foreign talent.
In the absence of local data, one can look to studies outside Singapore, to answer the question whether immigration brings net benefits, or net losses, to society.
First, is it true that immigration causes Singaporeans to lose their jobs, or depresses their wages?
Intuitively, the argument makes sense, especially if large numbers of unskilled workers enter a country competing for jobs.
But the reality is different. Numerous studies show that immigration has very little impact on wage and unemployment levels of locals.
Harvard labour economist George Borjas concluded in a 1990 survey: 'The methodological arsenal of modern econometrics cannot find a single shred of evidence that immigrants have a sizeable adverse impact on the earnings and employment opportunities of natives in the US.'
In 1997, the US National Academy of Sciences found that 'the weight of the empirical evidence suggests that the impact of immigration on the wages of competing native workers is small'.
Such 'empirical studies' look at actual wage data of workers in areas with large numbers of immigrants.
One well-known case study in labour economics is the 'Mariel boatlift': Between May and September 1980, 125,000 Cubans were allowed to emigrate to Miami from the port of Mariel in Cuba. Overnight, Miami's unskilled labour force went up 16 per cent.
If immigration lowers wages, wages of Miami's unskilled workers would fall relative to wages of unskilled workers in other states. This did not happen. Instead, wages of unskilled Miami workers rose relative to those of other cities studied, while the unemployment rate was lower than in these cities.
The reason for the absence of adverse effects? As economies are dynamic, some Miami residents moved elsewhere, while employers who needed low-skilled workers were attracted to Miami. Result: more jobs for the low-skilled.
The Mariel example reminds us that labour markets are flexible, and that people and employers respond by moving to other jobs or other cities when there is an increase in foreign workers.
At the national level in the US, there is some evidence from a 1997 National Research Council (NRC) report that immigration accounts for half the fall in wages of high-school dropouts. However, as this group is small, accounting for less then 10 per cent of the workforce, it is better to help this group with education and skills training, than curb immigration overall.
This is because even though low-skilled workers may lose out, most other groups in society gain from immigration. Gains come in various forms. Users of goods and services produced by immigrants gain in the form of lower prices. (Think how much more you would have to pay for domestic services or renovation or construction work without Filipino, Bangladeshi and Thai workers.)
Employers of immigrants gain as their costs go down, and they enjoy higher returns to capital.
With more people in the economy, aggregate demand - demand for goods and services as a whole - increases, and this boosts growth. Also, immigration raises the total number of taxpayers.
To recapitulate: The losers are those who compete with immigrant workers and experience a corresponding loss in income. The winners are those who use immigrant services, workers with skills complementary to immigrants (for example, supervisors of construction workers), and employers.
Overall, the consensus among economists is that the net gains outweigh the losses. The NRC report found that immigration yields a net gain of about US$10 billion (S$17.6 billion) a year, a drop in the ocean for an economy of US$10 trillion. In fact, the biggest economic impact of immigration is distributional: The biggest impact lies not in causing job losses, but in lowering incomes of the low-skilled, while raising real incomes of the rest.
In other words, immigration can contribute to wage inequality. This explains why immigration is such a sensitive topic all over the world, not only in Singapore.
In Europe, the immigration picture is complicated by the welfare state, as all the gains of immigration can be wiped out if foreign workers use up a lot of welfare benefits.
An article in The Economist in November last year cites a study by Britain's Home Office which estimated that the foreign-born population paid 10 per cent more to the government than it received in expenditure. (In Singapore, the proportion is likely to be higher, given curbs on foreigners' consumption of subsidised social services.)
The 1997 NRC study found that first-generation migrants imposed an average net fiscal cost of US$3,000 while the second generation yielded a fiscal gain of US$80,000 - which helps explain why Singapore is so keen to lay out the red carpet to persuade qualified foreign workers to take up permanent residence and raise their families here.
US Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan told Congress back in 2000: 'The benefits of bringing in people to do the work here, rather than doing the work elsewhere, should be pretty self-evident.'
For Singapore too, the lesson is clear: Gains from an open-door policy outweigh the costs. We have to keep the doors open, but help the minority who lose out from this policy.
Mr Simoni does not realise it, but the truth is that if the Indian can't come to the job in America (or Singapore), the job will move to India.
Shutting out foreigners not a solution to job creation - Acting Manpower Minister
Shutting out foreigners not a solution to job creation - Acting Manpower Minister
14 August 2003
Channelnewsasia
Singapore is not cracking down on foreign workers, despite the high unemployment.
Acting Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen said the Government was already doing enough to protect locals.
And shutting out foreigners is not the solution to creating more jobs.
Dr Ng said this in his first ministerial statement in Parliament on Thursday.
Why doesn't Singapore tighten up on foreign workers, and protect more jobs for Singaporeans?
Well, Dr Ng said enough was already being done.
There is a dependency ceiling, which caps how many foreigners a company can hire, and a foreign worker levy to make them more expensive and tilt the playing field in favour of Singaporeans.
Dr Ng said: "We cannot force companies to hire more Singaporeans by depriving them of foreign workers...This will discourage them from growing their business here.
"Beyond a certain point, companies will relocate in order to survive, or if they are unable to relocate they will close down. Our economy will shrink and Singaporeans will lose even more jobs."
Dr Ng also argued protecting local workers does not mean less unemployment.
France and Germany, for example, both protect their workers well, but both have unemployment rates of more than 9 percent.
Jobs, he said, will return when the economy picks up.
And really, Dr Ng said, the unhappiness over foreigners getting jobs - is all in the timing.
In the good times, of high economic growth and strong job creation, from 1993 to 1997, 60 percent of new jobs went to foreigners - but very few Singaporeans complained because there were plenty of jobs to go around.
Then came the difficult years from 1998 to 2002, when the Asian financial crisis and terrorism took their toll.
This period saw fewer jobs created. But more importantly much fewer of the new jobs, less than 10 percent went to foreigners.
Despite handing out detailed tables on job creation, some in the House still had their doubts.
Mr Low Thia Khiang, MP for Hougang, said: "In the minds of the public - what went wrong, and how do we know the figures presented by the minister are correct?"
Dr Ng said: "If people still doubt our figures after all the explanation, there's really nothing I can do. But I know what I can do. I can bring jobs back and that's what I'll do."
14 August 2003
Channelnewsasia
Singapore is not cracking down on foreign workers, despite the high unemployment.
Acting Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen said the Government was already doing enough to protect locals.
And shutting out foreigners is not the solution to creating more jobs.
Dr Ng said this in his first ministerial statement in Parliament on Thursday.
Why doesn't Singapore tighten up on foreign workers, and protect more jobs for Singaporeans?
Well, Dr Ng said enough was already being done.
There is a dependency ceiling, which caps how many foreigners a company can hire, and a foreign worker levy to make them more expensive and tilt the playing field in favour of Singaporeans.
Dr Ng said: "We cannot force companies to hire more Singaporeans by depriving them of foreign workers...This will discourage them from growing their business here.
"Beyond a certain point, companies will relocate in order to survive, or if they are unable to relocate they will close down. Our economy will shrink and Singaporeans will lose even more jobs."
Dr Ng also argued protecting local workers does not mean less unemployment.
France and Germany, for example, both protect their workers well, but both have unemployment rates of more than 9 percent.
Jobs, he said, will return when the economy picks up.
And really, Dr Ng said, the unhappiness over foreigners getting jobs - is all in the timing.
In the good times, of high economic growth and strong job creation, from 1993 to 1997, 60 percent of new jobs went to foreigners - but very few Singaporeans complained because there were plenty of jobs to go around.
Then came the difficult years from 1998 to 2002, when the Asian financial crisis and terrorism took their toll.
This period saw fewer jobs created. But more importantly much fewer of the new jobs, less than 10 percent went to foreigners.
Despite handing out detailed tables on job creation, some in the House still had their doubts.
Mr Low Thia Khiang, MP for Hougang, said: "In the minds of the public - what went wrong, and how do we know the figures presented by the minister are correct?"
Dr Ng said: "If people still doubt our figures after all the explanation, there's really nothing I can do. But I know what I can do. I can bring jobs back and that's what I'll do."
Tuesday, August 12, 2003
UPDATE 1-Cost-cutting Singapore set to reduce pensions
UPDATE 1-Cost-cutting Singapore set to reduce pensions
By Jacqueline Wong
12 August 2003
Reuters News
SINGAPORE, Aug 12 (Reuters) - Singapore is expected to cut compulsory contributions to the state-run pension scheme as it grapples with structural unemployment and loss of competitiveness to countries that offer cheaper labour, analysts said on Tuesday.
In a clear sign an announcement on this delicate issue is imminent, union chief Lim Boon Heng said pension contributions by employers to the scheme were too high and needed to be adjusted to lower wage costs.
Singapore's trade unions and wages council are run by officials with strong affiliation to the government and are usually supportive of wage and employment policies aimed at promoting the city state's economic competitiveness.
Lim, who is also a minister in the Prime Minister's Office, said the current compulsory employer contribution rate of 16 percent of salaries to the Central Provident Fund (CPF) was onerous for firms in trouble or heading into the red.
"As expected, government officials are emerging to provide hints on the expected changes," said Jimmy Koh, head of treasury research at United Overseas Bank, who expects the prime minister to provide details in a speech due on Sunday.
The National Day Rally speech, Singapore's equivalent of a state of the union address, is likely to detail government moves to reform wages, among other issues.
"Foremost would be a cut in employer's CPF contributions, one of the most direct and swift ways of cutting wages and lowering business costs," Koh said.
Under the pension scheme, employers contribute 16 percent of wages and salaries to the plan while employees put in 20 percent of their monthly pay check.
In January 1999 in response to the economic downturn caused by the Asian financial crisis employer contribution rates to the CPF scheme were lowered to 10 percent, while the employee rate remained at 20 percent.
The cuts were then restored in stages to bring the level of employer contributions back to 16 percent by January 1, 2001.
PART OF RESTRUCTURING
Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong said lowering costs is critical to gaining new investment and jobs. The country also faces a threat from the migration of white collar jobs to India, the Philippines and Thailand, Goh said.
Analysts said a cut in pension contributions would also have a short term impact on the job market, where the unemployment rate, which stood at 4.5 percent at the end of June, has been forecast to climb to 5.5 percent for the rest of 2003.
"There is a very high level of foreign worker participation in Singapore, that's why the issue is so sensitive," said Song Seng Wun, economist with GK Goh.
"At least if you bring (CPF) costs down, they (Singaporeans) become a bit more employable as the cost ratios come off."
Song said foreign workers, such as crane drivers at port operator PSA Corp, earned three times less than Singaporean counterparts, boosting their attractiveness to employers.
But some analysts noted that a cut in pensions may be hard to justify, especially as the economy was already poised for recovery.
"If you look at foreign investments, we haven't done too badly at all, which shows that people are discriminating - they come to Singapore for certain types of production but not for the rest," said Choy Keen Meng, visiting fellow of the National University of Singapore's economics department.
"I'm not sure if tackling the wage part of it will actually do the job of making us competitive," Choy said, citing other components to business costs such as land prices.
By Jacqueline Wong
12 August 2003
Reuters News
SINGAPORE, Aug 12 (Reuters) - Singapore is expected to cut compulsory contributions to the state-run pension scheme as it grapples with structural unemployment and loss of competitiveness to countries that offer cheaper labour, analysts said on Tuesday.
In a clear sign an announcement on this delicate issue is imminent, union chief Lim Boon Heng said pension contributions by employers to the scheme were too high and needed to be adjusted to lower wage costs.
Singapore's trade unions and wages council are run by officials with strong affiliation to the government and are usually supportive of wage and employment policies aimed at promoting the city state's economic competitiveness.
Lim, who is also a minister in the Prime Minister's Office, said the current compulsory employer contribution rate of 16 percent of salaries to the Central Provident Fund (CPF) was onerous for firms in trouble or heading into the red.
"As expected, government officials are emerging to provide hints on the expected changes," said Jimmy Koh, head of treasury research at United Overseas Bank, who expects the prime minister to provide details in a speech due on Sunday.
The National Day Rally speech, Singapore's equivalent of a state of the union address, is likely to detail government moves to reform wages, among other issues.
"Foremost would be a cut in employer's CPF contributions, one of the most direct and swift ways of cutting wages and lowering business costs," Koh said.
Under the pension scheme, employers contribute 16 percent of wages and salaries to the plan while employees put in 20 percent of their monthly pay check.
In January 1999 in response to the economic downturn caused by the Asian financial crisis employer contribution rates to the CPF scheme were lowered to 10 percent, while the employee rate remained at 20 percent.
The cuts were then restored in stages to bring the level of employer contributions back to 16 percent by January 1, 2001.
PART OF RESTRUCTURING
Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong said lowering costs is critical to gaining new investment and jobs. The country also faces a threat from the migration of white collar jobs to India, the Philippines and Thailand, Goh said.
Analysts said a cut in pension contributions would also have a short term impact on the job market, where the unemployment rate, which stood at 4.5 percent at the end of June, has been forecast to climb to 5.5 percent for the rest of 2003.
"There is a very high level of foreign worker participation in Singapore, that's why the issue is so sensitive," said Song Seng Wun, economist with GK Goh.
"At least if you bring (CPF) costs down, they (Singaporeans) become a bit more employable as the cost ratios come off."
Song said foreign workers, such as crane drivers at port operator PSA Corp, earned three times less than Singaporean counterparts, boosting their attractiveness to employers.
But some analysts noted that a cut in pensions may be hard to justify, especially as the economy was already poised for recovery.
"If you look at foreign investments, we haven't done too badly at all, which shows that people are discriminating - they come to Singapore for certain types of production but not for the rest," said Choy Keen Meng, visiting fellow of the National University of Singapore's economics department.
"I'm not sure if tackling the wage part of it will actually do the job of making us competitive," Choy said, citing other components to business costs such as land prices.
Saturday, August 9, 2003
Figuring out the differences in jobs data
Figuring out the differences in jobs data
By Tan Tarn How.
9 August 2003
Straits Times
THE saga of the foreign worker job statistics is far from over.
After economists from the Nanyang Technological University announced their findings on Wednesday last week - that three in four new jobs created from 1997 to 2002 went to foreigners, Acting Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen issued a swift rebuttal the next day.
He released conclusions drawn from classified data: that out of 10 jobs created, nine went to residents and only one to a foreigner.
The economists stood by their findings - for a day.
On Aug 1, in a letter of clarification to the acting minister, they acknowledged that an 'honest error of interpretation' had led to their conclusion.
They also enclosed an appendix - using data released by the Ministry of Manpower - to show that, if employment change in the construction sector is not taken into account, about half the new jobs created during the same five-year period went to foreigners.
But this ratio is still way off the one given by Dr Ng when he rebutted their first set of findings last week.
The next day, Dr Ng explained that he had come down hard on the economists in order to drive home the point that, contrary to the NTU report, Singaporeans still benefit from job creation.
This Wednesday, labour chief Lim Boon Heng urged Singaporeans to stop being fixated on the ratio, and focus instead on solving the unemployment problem.
Letters to the press and analysts continue to say, however, that they want the ministry to explain its numbers, be more open and clear up all doubts about which sets of figures are accurate.
The problem with the MOM's figures is that they cannot be validated independently - by academics and non-Government economists - because the data is classified.
The ministry's stand is that it is in the national interest to keep the resident-vs-foreigner job statistics confidential.
Revealing them would give other countries leverage, as they would then know how dependent Singapore is on their labour.
Economists, however, say that nationality figures are not necessary. All they want is a distinction between local and foreign, and this, they maintain, would not compromise national interest.
Is it possible to use purely public information to get close to the nine-in-10 figure derived by MOM using classified data?
Not likely, because it would require making too many assumptions about the ratios of workers in different sectors.
And there are other complications to consider:
When does an apple become a durian?Both MOM and the NTU dons' figures contrasted foreigners with 'Singapore residents', the latter being citizens and permanent residents combined.
As a result, when MOM says that 90 per cent of new jobs went to residents, it is still a mystery how many of them were non-citizens.
Another pertinent point for many is: How many of the residents were already PRs when they landed the job, and how many were foreigners who were given PR status later?
Feedback received by The Straits Times on this point suggests that the idea of PRs also disturbs Singaporeans, who see them as johnny-come-latelys into the home team.
Different sectors, different figures?In the eyes of the NTU economists, it was pointless to include jobs that Singaporeans are not interested in. So the construction sector was excluded.
But what of shipbuilding workers and domestic maids? They too are mostly non-Singaporean.
If you use a database that excludes shipbuilding and construction workers, but includes domestic maids, the ratio becomes 6:4. In other words, six out of 10 new jobs went to Singaporeans.
What's more important: snapshot or flow?
Both the NTU dons and MOM's researchers derived their figures from comparing 'snapshots' taken at three points in time: 1992, 1997 and 2002.
The number of new jobs created is obtained by comparing the number of people with jobs in each year with the equivalent figure for the earlier year.
Some people argue, however, that such a method is less meaningful to the job seeker. What he wants to know is the number of jobs available within a time frame, and the chances of a Singaporean getting one.
In short, what's the 'flow' of jobs - both created and lost - within a certain period?
The resulting ratio can be quite different from that shown by a simple 'snapshot'.
Take the example of a company with 100 workers, 80 of whom are residents and 20 foreigners.
Let's say it restructures by laying off 50 people and recruiting 100 new ones. Let's also say that at the end of it, its workforce is made up of 120 residents and 30 foreigners in total.
That means there's been a net increase of 40 residents, and 10 foreigners. In other words, four new residents were employed for every new foreigner. This is the snapshot view.
But there are many different flow permutations of foreigners and locals that can give the same final net increases of 40 residents and 10 foreigners.
The table above right gives two examples. In one possible situation, the company retrenches five residents and recruits 45 new ones. It also recruits 55 foreigners, after retrenching 45 of them.
In such a scenario, from the residents' perspective, the recruitment figures do not look good because they only got 45 of the 100 new positions created.
On the other hand, the retrenchment figures look very good for residents because only five of them lost their jobs, compared to 45 foreigners.
The multiplicity of ways of looking at the figures doesn't just stop there.
You can also arrive at the same net increases of 40 residents and 10 foreigners if the company recruits 70 residents after retrenching 30, and retrenches 20 foreigners before recruiting 30.
In this case, from the residents' point of view, the recruitment figures (with seven in 10 people hired being residents) look better.
But the retrenchment figures, with three out of five of those losing their jobs being residents, don't look so good.
So one snapshot picture can actually mask a wide range of flow situations on the ground.
The layman will say that he prefers to know the latter, as this is a better gauge of how easy or difficult it is for him to get a job.
Unfortunately, however, flow statistics are not available. This is because the snapshot view is the norm used internationally by statisticians and economists.
By Tan Tarn How.
9 August 2003
Straits Times
THE saga of the foreign worker job statistics is far from over.
After economists from the Nanyang Technological University announced their findings on Wednesday last week - that three in four new jobs created from 1997 to 2002 went to foreigners, Acting Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen issued a swift rebuttal the next day.
He released conclusions drawn from classified data: that out of 10 jobs created, nine went to residents and only one to a foreigner.
The economists stood by their findings - for a day.
On Aug 1, in a letter of clarification to the acting minister, they acknowledged that an 'honest error of interpretation' had led to their conclusion.
They also enclosed an appendix - using data released by the Ministry of Manpower - to show that, if employment change in the construction sector is not taken into account, about half the new jobs created during the same five-year period went to foreigners.
But this ratio is still way off the one given by Dr Ng when he rebutted their first set of findings last week.
The next day, Dr Ng explained that he had come down hard on the economists in order to drive home the point that, contrary to the NTU report, Singaporeans still benefit from job creation.
This Wednesday, labour chief Lim Boon Heng urged Singaporeans to stop being fixated on the ratio, and focus instead on solving the unemployment problem.
Letters to the press and analysts continue to say, however, that they want the ministry to explain its numbers, be more open and clear up all doubts about which sets of figures are accurate.
The problem with the MOM's figures is that they cannot be validated independently - by academics and non-Government economists - because the data is classified.
The ministry's stand is that it is in the national interest to keep the resident-vs-foreigner job statistics confidential.
Revealing them would give other countries leverage, as they would then know how dependent Singapore is on their labour.
Economists, however, say that nationality figures are not necessary. All they want is a distinction between local and foreign, and this, they maintain, would not compromise national interest.
Is it possible to use purely public information to get close to the nine-in-10 figure derived by MOM using classified data?
Not likely, because it would require making too many assumptions about the ratios of workers in different sectors.
And there are other complications to consider:
When does an apple become a durian?Both MOM and the NTU dons' figures contrasted foreigners with 'Singapore residents', the latter being citizens and permanent residents combined.
As a result, when MOM says that 90 per cent of new jobs went to residents, it is still a mystery how many of them were non-citizens.
Another pertinent point for many is: How many of the residents were already PRs when they landed the job, and how many were foreigners who were given PR status later?
Feedback received by The Straits Times on this point suggests that the idea of PRs also disturbs Singaporeans, who see them as johnny-come-latelys into the home team.
Different sectors, different figures?In the eyes of the NTU economists, it was pointless to include jobs that Singaporeans are not interested in. So the construction sector was excluded.
But what of shipbuilding workers and domestic maids? They too are mostly non-Singaporean.
If you use a database that excludes shipbuilding and construction workers, but includes domestic maids, the ratio becomes 6:4. In other words, six out of 10 new jobs went to Singaporeans.
What's more important: snapshot or flow?
Both the NTU dons and MOM's researchers derived their figures from comparing 'snapshots' taken at three points in time: 1992, 1997 and 2002.
The number of new jobs created is obtained by comparing the number of people with jobs in each year with the equivalent figure for the earlier year.
Some people argue, however, that such a method is less meaningful to the job seeker. What he wants to know is the number of jobs available within a time frame, and the chances of a Singaporean getting one.
In short, what's the 'flow' of jobs - both created and lost - within a certain period?
The resulting ratio can be quite different from that shown by a simple 'snapshot'.
Take the example of a company with 100 workers, 80 of whom are residents and 20 foreigners.
Let's say it restructures by laying off 50 people and recruiting 100 new ones. Let's also say that at the end of it, its workforce is made up of 120 residents and 30 foreigners in total.
That means there's been a net increase of 40 residents, and 10 foreigners. In other words, four new residents were employed for every new foreigner. This is the snapshot view.
But there are many different flow permutations of foreigners and locals that can give the same final net increases of 40 residents and 10 foreigners.
The table above right gives two examples. In one possible situation, the company retrenches five residents and recruits 45 new ones. It also recruits 55 foreigners, after retrenching 45 of them.
In such a scenario, from the residents' perspective, the recruitment figures do not look good because they only got 45 of the 100 new positions created.
On the other hand, the retrenchment figures look very good for residents because only five of them lost their jobs, compared to 45 foreigners.
The multiplicity of ways of looking at the figures doesn't just stop there.
You can also arrive at the same net increases of 40 residents and 10 foreigners if the company recruits 70 residents after retrenching 30, and retrenches 20 foreigners before recruiting 30.
In this case, from the residents' point of view, the recruitment figures (with seven in 10 people hired being residents) look better.
But the retrenchment figures, with three out of five of those losing their jobs being residents, don't look so good.
So one snapshot picture can actually mask a wide range of flow situations on the ground.
The layman will say that he prefers to know the latter, as this is a better gauge of how easy or difficult it is for him to get a job.
Unfortunately, however, flow statistics are not available. This is because the snapshot view is the norm used internationally by statisticians and economists.
Wednesday, August 6, 2003
Stats saga obscures important trends
Stats saga obscures important trends
By Chua Lee Hoong
6 August 2003
Straits Times
IS THE ratio one to three, nine to one, or something else altogether?
Last week, economists from the Nanyang Technological University (NTU) threw the nation into a flap when they declared that for every four new jobs created between 1997 and last year, three went to foreigners and only one to locals.
The average citizen went into a tizzy, not because he disbelieved the ratio, but because it seemed to affirm what his eyes had been telling him for several years - the increasing presence of non-citizens in the city-state.
The Government went into a tizzy too. The ratio must be wrong: How could it have striven so hard to create jobs, only to have the bulk of them going to foreigners?
Government statisticians went into high gear, eventually coming out with their own ratio: nine out of 10 jobs went to locals in that period.
Out on the streets, however, few people are buying that 1:9 ratio outright. Most are saying that 'the truth is somewhere in between'. For a start, they note, the nine locals do not mean just citizens, but permanent residents too.
In my view, however, the question is not which version is right. It's what you learn from the saga.
It's entirely possible that both versions are equally right. As some wag once said, statistics are like bikinis: they are used to conceal strategic parts. It's up to you how you position them.
In the current controversy, the crucial issue is which data set - which denominator - you use.
The NTU team used data from the Labour Force Survey, which covers private households and does not include construction workers, nor the large number of workers who commute daily from Johor and elsewhere to work here.
The Ministry of Manpower (MOM), on the other hand, used employment change data compiled from the Central Provident Fund, work permit, employment pass and other administrative records, some of which are classified data. Construction workers and commuters are included.
If the MOM had retained classified data but left out the construction workers and commuters, it's probable that the ratio would have been around 1:1 for jobs going to locals and foreigners.
After all, there was a contraction of 77,000 construction industry jobs from 1997 to last year. Assuming about 90 per cent went to foreigners, that means 70,000 foreign workers left Singapore during this period.
The MOM says only 10 per cent of the 102,000 jobs created in that period went to foreigners. That means a net increase of 10,200 foreigners. The gross increase, however, would be 80,200, if you factor in the numbers from the construction sector.
Unfortunately, the MOM hasn't provided any sectoral breakdown nor shown the mechanics of how it arrived at its 9:1 ratio, so citizens are none the wiser.
Between the NTU data and MOM data, which is preferable?
It depends on your objectives. The NTU study aimed to focus on job substitution between locals and foreigners. In other words, in which sectors or jobs are foreigners most likely to be competing with locals, and what can be done about it.
They left out construction workers and those who commute from neighbouring countries. Not all may agree that this was the right thing to do, but you could argue that it's not an unreasonable move: These workers are in jobs which locals mostly don't want.
The NTU study, don't forget, was part of a regular half-yearly economic projection. The press conference that the dons held was not to announce the foreign worker ratio per se, but their growth forecasts.
These forecasts saw the economy rebounding by year-end to grow 1.3 per cent this year, and near 5 per cent next year - but with no immediate attendant recovery on the job front. Employment will continue to shrink in this quarter, for nine consecutive quarters in total since mid-2001.
Their prognosis, in short, was none other than the jobless recovery that we're hearing a lot of nowadays.
The reminder was useful, as it highlighted the harsh realities that Singapore will face in the coming years.
Indeed, as the saga over job statistics unfolded, some of the more important trends and factors about the economy risked being obscured.
One is the prospect of 'easy' jobs. If nine in 10 jobs went to locals, as the MOM says, the average Singaporean is going to assume that the comfy jobs in manufacturing that he is used to will be his always.
Yet, the very same NTU economists are recommending that Singapore should re-orientate more workers away from manufacturing and towards the service sector, and hire more foreigners in the manufacturing sector instead.
The reasoning is compelling: Service sector jobs are non-tradeable and harder to be moved offshore. Singapore will always need nurses, mechanics, bank officers, law clerks, chambermaids and hairdressers, during good times and bad. In these areas, the Government should accord priority to citizens, say, by capping the number of work permits given out to foreigners.
The manufacturing sector, by contrast, is more subject to cyclical swings. If workers in these factories are mostly foreigners, they can be sent home during a downturn without causing a surge in local unemployment statistics.
In such a scenario, foreign workers become a buffer in the labour market, hired when times are good, and sent back to their home countries when times are bad. They are in Singapore not because they are here to take our jobs, but because we give jobs to them.
This is a far cry from now, when service industries hire lots of foreign workers, simply because they are cheaper.
So one important question thrown up by the saga is: Has the time come for a paradigm shift in Singapore job creation? Yes, I say.
By Chua Lee Hoong
6 August 2003
Straits Times
IS THE ratio one to three, nine to one, or something else altogether?
Last week, economists from the Nanyang Technological University (NTU) threw the nation into a flap when they declared that for every four new jobs created between 1997 and last year, three went to foreigners and only one to locals.
The average citizen went into a tizzy, not because he disbelieved the ratio, but because it seemed to affirm what his eyes had been telling him for several years - the increasing presence of non-citizens in the city-state.
The Government went into a tizzy too. The ratio must be wrong: How could it have striven so hard to create jobs, only to have the bulk of them going to foreigners?
Government statisticians went into high gear, eventually coming out with their own ratio: nine out of 10 jobs went to locals in that period.
Out on the streets, however, few people are buying that 1:9 ratio outright. Most are saying that 'the truth is somewhere in between'. For a start, they note, the nine locals do not mean just citizens, but permanent residents too.
In my view, however, the question is not which version is right. It's what you learn from the saga.
It's entirely possible that both versions are equally right. As some wag once said, statistics are like bikinis: they are used to conceal strategic parts. It's up to you how you position them.
In the current controversy, the crucial issue is which data set - which denominator - you use.
The NTU team used data from the Labour Force Survey, which covers private households and does not include construction workers, nor the large number of workers who commute daily from Johor and elsewhere to work here.
The Ministry of Manpower (MOM), on the other hand, used employment change data compiled from the Central Provident Fund, work permit, employment pass and other administrative records, some of which are classified data. Construction workers and commuters are included.
If the MOM had retained classified data but left out the construction workers and commuters, it's probable that the ratio would have been around 1:1 for jobs going to locals and foreigners.
After all, there was a contraction of 77,000 construction industry jobs from 1997 to last year. Assuming about 90 per cent went to foreigners, that means 70,000 foreign workers left Singapore during this period.
The MOM says only 10 per cent of the 102,000 jobs created in that period went to foreigners. That means a net increase of 10,200 foreigners. The gross increase, however, would be 80,200, if you factor in the numbers from the construction sector.
Unfortunately, the MOM hasn't provided any sectoral breakdown nor shown the mechanics of how it arrived at its 9:1 ratio, so citizens are none the wiser.
Between the NTU data and MOM data, which is preferable?
It depends on your objectives. The NTU study aimed to focus on job substitution between locals and foreigners. In other words, in which sectors or jobs are foreigners most likely to be competing with locals, and what can be done about it.
They left out construction workers and those who commute from neighbouring countries. Not all may agree that this was the right thing to do, but you could argue that it's not an unreasonable move: These workers are in jobs which locals mostly don't want.
The NTU study, don't forget, was part of a regular half-yearly economic projection. The press conference that the dons held was not to announce the foreign worker ratio per se, but their growth forecasts.
These forecasts saw the economy rebounding by year-end to grow 1.3 per cent this year, and near 5 per cent next year - but with no immediate attendant recovery on the job front. Employment will continue to shrink in this quarter, for nine consecutive quarters in total since mid-2001.
Their prognosis, in short, was none other than the jobless recovery that we're hearing a lot of nowadays.
The reminder was useful, as it highlighted the harsh realities that Singapore will face in the coming years.
Indeed, as the saga over job statistics unfolded, some of the more important trends and factors about the economy risked being obscured.
One is the prospect of 'easy' jobs. If nine in 10 jobs went to locals, as the MOM says, the average Singaporean is going to assume that the comfy jobs in manufacturing that he is used to will be his always.
Yet, the very same NTU economists are recommending that Singapore should re-orientate more workers away from manufacturing and towards the service sector, and hire more foreigners in the manufacturing sector instead.
The reasoning is compelling: Service sector jobs are non-tradeable and harder to be moved offshore. Singapore will always need nurses, mechanics, bank officers, law clerks, chambermaids and hairdressers, during good times and bad. In these areas, the Government should accord priority to citizens, say, by capping the number of work permits given out to foreigners.
The manufacturing sector, by contrast, is more subject to cyclical swings. If workers in these factories are mostly foreigners, they can be sent home during a downturn without causing a surge in local unemployment statistics.
In such a scenario, foreign workers become a buffer in the labour market, hired when times are good, and sent back to their home countries when times are bad. They are in Singapore not because they are here to take our jobs, but because we give jobs to them.
This is a far cry from now, when service industries hire lots of foreign workers, simply because they are cheaper.
So one important question thrown up by the saga is: Has the time come for a paradigm shift in Singapore job creation? Yes, I say.
Saturday, August 2, 2003
NTU economists - We made honest error
NTU economists - We made honest error
By Rebecca Lee and Sue-Ann Chia.
2 August 2003
Straits Times
Minister's reply: Academics' mistake with jobs data should not diminish their standing
THE Nanyang Technological University economists yesterday admitted they had made an 'honest error' in their findings that three out of four new jobs created in the past five years went to foreigners.
In a letter to Acting Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen, they said that they now accept the 'veracity' or truth of the Manpower Ministry's own numbers which showed the figures to be the opposite - that nine in 10 jobs created went to Singaporeans.
Their explanation was met by an immediate reply by Dr Ng who said he accepted that it was an honest error of interpretation. He added: 'This error should not diminish the standing you currently enjoy in the academic and professional circles.'
His words were in stark contrast to the forceful criticism he heaped on the two, Dr Tan Khee Giap and Dr Chen Kang, on Thursday when he reacted to their findings which they gave out at a press briefing on Wednesday.
Dr Ng called them 'irresponsible' and said they had brought damage to their credibility for putting out such controversial findings without first seeking to verify them with the ministry.
But all that appeared to be water under the bridge in last night's letter, when he said: 'I hope this incident will not deter your future research efforts and contribution to academia, business and society.'
The exchange of letters between Dr Ng and the economists was released by the Government last night, signalling its determined attempt to end a controversy that left Singaporeans anxious about jobs even edgier, as the flood of e-mail to this newspaper indicated, and the academic community abuzz over their colleagues' threatened standing.
In their letter, the NTU economists told Dr Ng: 'Let us assure you that we had set out to conduct our research study honestly, professionally and with academic rigour.'
They added that after their discussions with the ministry's statisticians, they realised that they had ignored two factors that caused their numbers of new jobs created to be at odds with the ministry's figures, which are based on published employment data from administrative records.
The economists said they had based their figures on data from the Labour Force Survey posted on the MOM's website.
This data, which is drawn from a survey of households, did not include many foreigners in construction who live on work sites and commuting workers from Malaysia.
'Also, the limitations in a household survey... make the error range for the ratio to be too large to draw meaningful conclusions,' the two wrote.
'We now appreciate that we had used an inappropriate data set and did not realise the implications of these caveats on our findings.'
They enclosed a technical note on the discrepancies.
They conceded that the appropriate way to arrive at the local to foreign worker ratio is to use 'the hard data' the ministry relied on to arrive at the figure of nine in 10 jobs going to Singaporeans, a classified ratio it had not revealed before.
On Thursday, when they still stood by their findings despite Dr Ng's forceful rebuttal, the economists said they had arrived at their conclusions without the benefit of classified data that enabled the ministry to arrive at its own ratio.
Last night, the two made no mention of their beef over the classified nature of such data, other than to note the ministry released the ratio figures on Thursday.
The economists ended their letter, saying 'We very much regret the controversy created among members of the public due to our honest error of interpretation which led to the conclusion' of the three out of four new jobs going to foreigners in the past five years.
In his letter, Dr Ng said: 'I therefore accept your explanation that you have made an honest error of interpretation.'.
By Rebecca Lee and Sue-Ann Chia.
2 August 2003
Straits Times
Minister's reply: Academics' mistake with jobs data should not diminish their standing
THE Nanyang Technological University economists yesterday admitted they had made an 'honest error' in their findings that three out of four new jobs created in the past five years went to foreigners.
In a letter to Acting Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen, they said that they now accept the 'veracity' or truth of the Manpower Ministry's own numbers which showed the figures to be the opposite - that nine in 10 jobs created went to Singaporeans.
Their explanation was met by an immediate reply by Dr Ng who said he accepted that it was an honest error of interpretation. He added: 'This error should not diminish the standing you currently enjoy in the academic and professional circles.'
His words were in stark contrast to the forceful criticism he heaped on the two, Dr Tan Khee Giap and Dr Chen Kang, on Thursday when he reacted to their findings which they gave out at a press briefing on Wednesday.
Dr Ng called them 'irresponsible' and said they had brought damage to their credibility for putting out such controversial findings without first seeking to verify them with the ministry.
But all that appeared to be water under the bridge in last night's letter, when he said: 'I hope this incident will not deter your future research efforts and contribution to academia, business and society.'
The exchange of letters between Dr Ng and the economists was released by the Government last night, signalling its determined attempt to end a controversy that left Singaporeans anxious about jobs even edgier, as the flood of e-mail to this newspaper indicated, and the academic community abuzz over their colleagues' threatened standing.
In their letter, the NTU economists told Dr Ng: 'Let us assure you that we had set out to conduct our research study honestly, professionally and with academic rigour.'
They added that after their discussions with the ministry's statisticians, they realised that they had ignored two factors that caused their numbers of new jobs created to be at odds with the ministry's figures, which are based on published employment data from administrative records.
The economists said they had based their figures on data from the Labour Force Survey posted on the MOM's website.
This data, which is drawn from a survey of households, did not include many foreigners in construction who live on work sites and commuting workers from Malaysia.
'Also, the limitations in a household survey... make the error range for the ratio to be too large to draw meaningful conclusions,' the two wrote.
'We now appreciate that we had used an inappropriate data set and did not realise the implications of these caveats on our findings.'
They enclosed a technical note on the discrepancies.
They conceded that the appropriate way to arrive at the local to foreign worker ratio is to use 'the hard data' the ministry relied on to arrive at the figure of nine in 10 jobs going to Singaporeans, a classified ratio it had not revealed before.
On Thursday, when they still stood by their findings despite Dr Ng's forceful rebuttal, the economists said they had arrived at their conclusions without the benefit of classified data that enabled the ministry to arrive at its own ratio.
Last night, the two made no mention of their beef over the classified nature of such data, other than to note the ministry released the ratio figures on Thursday.
The economists ended their letter, saying 'We very much regret the controversy created among members of the public due to our honest error of interpretation which led to the conclusion' of the three out of four new jobs going to foreigners in the past five years.
In his letter, Dr Ng said: 'I therefore accept your explanation that you have made an honest error of interpretation.'.
Economists - Be more open about job data
By Rebecca Lee and Sue-Ann Chia
2 August 2003
Straits Times
They call for the Manpower Ministry to be more forthcoming with figures to prevent inaccurate studies
THE dispute over just how many new jobs have gone to foreigners has prompted several economists to call for greater transparency in government data, especially labour figures.
Government agencies should be more forthcoming with information and statistics, so that researchers do not have to grope in the dark, risking producing findings that are incomplete or inaccurate.
The economists were reacting to the controversy sparked by the Manpower Ministry's (MOM) forceful response to two Nanyang Technological University (NTU) economists for publishing wrong data that claimed more new jobs were being filled by foreigners than Singaporeans and residents.
Refuting the NTU report which showed that foreigners had taken up three in four new jobs in the last five years, the MOM made public for the first time classified information that out of 10 jobs created, nine went to residents and only one went to a foreigner.
The ministry had previously not revealed the exact foreign worker to local worker ratio.
And the NTU economists' very defence was that their findings were based on public data from MOM's website and they were not privy to confidential sources from which the ministry derived its ratio of foreign to local workers.
The fracas over figures has prompted several economists to question the lack of relevant public data available for meaningful labour research as it is a well-known fact that the MOM considers foreign worker figures and some employment data official secrets.
Labour economist Pang Eng Fong told The Straits Times: 'There clearly is a concern out there that there is some job displacement. When times are bad, these sorts of issues will surface and it is politically sensitive.
'If they (the Government) want a proper discussion, they ought to provide researchers with the proper figures.'
Another university labour economist, Dr Hui Weng Tat, added: 'It is not clear why the MOM is not able to divulge these figures, as compared to other countries which make them public information.'
During international conferences, he said other labour economists were able to present accurate findings on their country's foreign worker numbers, but the Singapore team would have to preface its research by saying its findings were only an estimate.
And while the NTU report has been dismissed as wrong, economists and several readers - in e-mail messages to The Straits Times - called on the ministry to provide more numbers on how many foreign workers there are to make the picture clearer.
GK Goh economist Song Seng Wun feared, for example, that without more detailed breakdowns on which sectors the foreign workers are in, the public would still go by anecdotal evidence.
The dispute
THE NTU economists said that three in four jobs created in the past five years had gone to foreigners, but the Manpower Ministry then revealed that, in fact, nine in 10 such jobs had gone to Singaporeans and residents.
By Rebecca Lee and Sue-Ann Chia
2 August 2003
Straits Times
They call for the Manpower Ministry to be more forthcoming with figures to prevent inaccurate studies
THE dispute over just how many new jobs have gone to foreigners has prompted several economists to call for greater transparency in government data, especially labour figures.
Government agencies should be more forthcoming with information and statistics, so that researchers do not have to grope in the dark, risking producing findings that are incomplete or inaccurate.
The economists were reacting to the controversy sparked by the Manpower Ministry's (MOM) forceful response to two Nanyang Technological University (NTU) economists for publishing wrong data that claimed more new jobs were being filled by foreigners than Singaporeans and residents.
Refuting the NTU report which showed that foreigners had taken up three in four new jobs in the last five years, the MOM made public for the first time classified information that out of 10 jobs created, nine went to residents and only one went to a foreigner.
The ministry had previously not revealed the exact foreign worker to local worker ratio.
And the NTU economists' very defence was that their findings were based on public data from MOM's website and they were not privy to confidential sources from which the ministry derived its ratio of foreign to local workers.
The fracas over figures has prompted several economists to question the lack of relevant public data available for meaningful labour research as it is a well-known fact that the MOM considers foreign worker figures and some employment data official secrets.
Labour economist Pang Eng Fong told The Straits Times: 'There clearly is a concern out there that there is some job displacement. When times are bad, these sorts of issues will surface and it is politically sensitive.
'If they (the Government) want a proper discussion, they ought to provide researchers with the proper figures.'
Another university labour economist, Dr Hui Weng Tat, added: 'It is not clear why the MOM is not able to divulge these figures, as compared to other countries which make them public information.'
During international conferences, he said other labour economists were able to present accurate findings on their country's foreign worker numbers, but the Singapore team would have to preface its research by saying its findings were only an estimate.
And while the NTU report has been dismissed as wrong, economists and several readers - in e-mail messages to The Straits Times - called on the ministry to provide more numbers on how many foreign workers there are to make the picture clearer.
GK Goh economist Song Seng Wun feared, for example, that without more detailed breakdowns on which sectors the foreign workers are in, the public would still go by anecdotal evidence.
The dispute
THE NTU economists said that three in four jobs created in the past five years had gone to foreigners, but the Manpower Ministry then revealed that, in fact, nine in 10 such jobs had gone to Singaporeans and residents.
NTU dons admit 'error of interpretation'
NTU dons admit 'error of interpretation'
By Andrea Tan
2 August 2003
Business Times Singapore
MOM accepts explanation; says error should not mar researchers' standing
(SINGAPORE) Nanyang Technological University (NTU) economists Chen Kang and Tan Khee Giap have accepted the Ministry of Manpower's figures and explained how their own erroneous conclusions came about.
'We very much regret the controversy created among the members of the public due to our honest error of interpretation which led to the conclusion that three-quarters of the new jobs created in the last five years had gone to foreign workers,' Dr Tan and Dr Chen said in a letter to Acting Minister for Manpower Ng Eng Hen which was released late last night.
'We have realised after discussion with the statisticians in the Ministry that there are two factors that caused our figures to be at odds with the MOM figures which are based on published employment data from administrative records.' Dr Tan and Dr Chen - who are well-known economists - had unveiled their startling findings on Wednesday at a news conference to announce NTU's latest bi-annual forecast for the Singapore economy. Their numbers do not include jobs in the construction industry.
The Ministry of Manpower promptly called a media briefing the next day to clarify the numbers. MOM said nine in 10 new jobs, including those in the construction industry, went to Singaporeans and permanent residents from 1997 to 2002, contrary to Dr Tan and Dr Chen's claims.
Dr Ng had on Thursday described the NTU team's findings as 'way off mark', and their work as 'irresponsible' and 'unprofessional'. Dr Ng had also said: 'I think all researchers have a duty to verify the figures first of all, especially if their findings are quite contrary or quite alarming. It is standard practice.'
However, in a letter to Dr Tan and Dr Chen yesterday, Dr Ng said he accepted the duo's clarification that they had set out to conduct the study 'honestly and with academic rigour'.
Dr Ng said he accepted the NTU economists' explanation that they had made an 'honest error of interpretation'. 'This error should not diminish the standing you currently enjoy in the academic and professional circles,' Dr Ng said. 'I hope this incident will not deter your future research efforts and contribution to academia, business and society.'
Dr Tan and Dr Chen said their findings were based on data in the Labour Force Survey posted on the MOM website which did not include foreign workers living on work sites and commuter workers from Malaysia.
'Also, the limitations in a household survey (on which the Labour Force Survey is based) makes the error range for the ratio to be too large to draw meaningful conclusions,' Dr Tan and Dr Chen said yesterday. 'We now appreciate that we had used an inappropriate data set and did not realise the implications of these caveats on our findings.
'We thus acknowledge that the appropriate way to compute the local worker:foreign worker ratio is to use the hard data that MOM had relied on to derive the numbers it released on July 31. We accept the veracity of these MOM numbers.'.
By Andrea Tan
2 August 2003
Business Times Singapore
MOM accepts explanation; says error should not mar researchers' standing
(SINGAPORE) Nanyang Technological University (NTU) economists Chen Kang and Tan Khee Giap have accepted the Ministry of Manpower's figures and explained how their own erroneous conclusions came about.
'We very much regret the controversy created among the members of the public due to our honest error of interpretation which led to the conclusion that three-quarters of the new jobs created in the last five years had gone to foreign workers,' Dr Tan and Dr Chen said in a letter to Acting Minister for Manpower Ng Eng Hen which was released late last night.
'We have realised after discussion with the statisticians in the Ministry that there are two factors that caused our figures to be at odds with the MOM figures which are based on published employment data from administrative records.' Dr Tan and Dr Chen - who are well-known economists - had unveiled their startling findings on Wednesday at a news conference to announce NTU's latest bi-annual forecast for the Singapore economy. Their numbers do not include jobs in the construction industry.
The Ministry of Manpower promptly called a media briefing the next day to clarify the numbers. MOM said nine in 10 new jobs, including those in the construction industry, went to Singaporeans and permanent residents from 1997 to 2002, contrary to Dr Tan and Dr Chen's claims.
Dr Ng had on Thursday described the NTU team's findings as 'way off mark', and their work as 'irresponsible' and 'unprofessional'. Dr Ng had also said: 'I think all researchers have a duty to verify the figures first of all, especially if their findings are quite contrary or quite alarming. It is standard practice.'
However, in a letter to Dr Tan and Dr Chen yesterday, Dr Ng said he accepted the duo's clarification that they had set out to conduct the study 'honestly and with academic rigour'.
Dr Ng said he accepted the NTU economists' explanation that they had made an 'honest error of interpretation'. 'This error should not diminish the standing you currently enjoy in the academic and professional circles,' Dr Ng said. 'I hope this incident will not deter your future research efforts and contribution to academia, business and society.'
Dr Tan and Dr Chen said their findings were based on data in the Labour Force Survey posted on the MOM website which did not include foreign workers living on work sites and commuter workers from Malaysia.
'Also, the limitations in a household survey (on which the Labour Force Survey is based) makes the error range for the ratio to be too large to draw meaningful conclusions,' Dr Tan and Dr Chen said yesterday. 'We now appreciate that we had used an inappropriate data set and did not realise the implications of these caveats on our findings.
'We thus acknowledge that the appropriate way to compute the local worker:foreign worker ratio is to use the hard data that MOM had relied on to derive the numbers it released on July 31. We accept the veracity of these MOM numbers.'.
Friday, August 1, 2003
MOM - NTU economists' findings 'totally flawed'
MOM - NTU economists' findings 'totally flawed'
By Anna Teo
1 August 2003
Business Times Singapore
It says residents filled 90% of new jobs; researchers had figure at a low 25%
(SINGAPORE) Contrary to claims that foreigners snagged three out of four new jobs in the last five years, 90 per cent of jobs created in the period went to Singaporeans and permanent residents, the Ministry of Manpower said yesterday.
Refuting the findings and conclusions by Nanyang Technological University economists Chen Kang and Tan Khee Giap as 'totally flawed', the ministry pointed to another set of figures that present a different picture of the job market in the past decade: Far more jobs were created in the first five-year period, when the economy was booming, with 60 per cent of the new jobs going to foreigners.
On the other hand, the latter 1997-2002 period saw far fewer new jobs - 102,000, rather than the NTU team's finding of 186,900 - but nine in 10 went to local residents, ie Singaporeans and PRs.
Meeting reporters yesterday morning to clarify the numbers, Acting Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen described the NTU team's findings as 'way off mark', and their work as 'irresponsible' and 'unprofessional'.
Dr Ng said: 'I think all researchers have a duty to verify the figures first of all, especially if their findings are quite contrary or quite alarming. It is standard practice.'
In response, Dr Chen and Dr Tan - two well-known economists who regularly consult for various ministries, including MOM - said their figures were derived entirely from 'public domain statistics' published on MOM's website. They gathered from a ministry official yesterday afternoon that the figures cited by Dr Ng are partially from classified sources to which they have no access, they said.
The ministry then called another press conference in the evening to shed light on the matter. Elizabeth Quah, divisional director in MOM's manpower planning and policy division, told reporters that Dr Chen and Dr Tan declined to meet ministry officials yesterday afternoon to discuss their methodology and data sources.
Dr Tan said Dr Chen and himself were unable to meet MOM officials yesterday, but intend to do as soon as possible.
Ms Quah and her colleagues surmised that the NTU team used data from the Labour Force Survey, which covers private households and does not include construction workers living at worksites, nor the large number of workers who commute daily from Johor and elsewhere to work here.
That is the wrong data source to use for analysing job creation trends, said Tan Leng Leng, director of manpower research and statistics at MOM. The correct source is the employment change data compiled from the CPF, work permit, employment pass and other administrative records.
The employment change data - from which the figures cited by Dr Ng are derived - are also publicly available and cover all sectors and industries, though the figures do not have any sectoral breakdown.
But while it is apparent how the NTU team derived their findings (see graphic), even if their data source is wrong, MOM's Mrs Tan concedes the ministry does not disclose details on the local-foreign composition of the workforce. In other words, it would not be possible to derive the foreign-local ratio from published data.
The ministry officials maintain, however, that the NTU economists should have been aware of the data limitations of the labour force survey, especially if they intended to make policy recommendations based on their findings.
At a briefing on Wednesday to announce their latest economic forecasts, Dr Chen and Dr Tan called for a review of Singapore's foreign worker policy and suggested that the government micro-manages the labour market and actively match Singaporeans to new jobs. But, Dr Ng said yesterday, the data shows that foreign workers have 'served their purpose' as a buffer in both good times and bad, 'and our policy is correctly crafted in that sense'.
'In good times when there are plentiful jobs, they serve to meet demand. In difficult times, they serve to moderate wages and increase the economic pie.' For instance, between 1992 and 1997, almost 500,000 new jobs were created but 'there were only 200,000 Singaporeans for the jobs', he noted. MOM's Ms Quah said the ministry regards it as 'important to set the record straight' as the NTU team's findings are 'of great concern and interest to the public, especially in this difficult employment market'.
The government welcomes inputs from all quarters on national policy, she added, 'but when one's findings would alarm the public, it would have been entirely reasonable to double-check... if their findings were right or not'.
Dr Tan and Dr Chen last night stood by their findings. They said the use of employment change data - which includes the construction workforce which is predominantly foreign - should have further skewed the numbers against resident employees.
Responding to remarks that they should have realised their findings did not reflect reality - how could the resident employment have risen by only 46,000 over five years from 1997-2002 - Dr Tan told BT: 'We did not find it odd because in bad times, employers would want to switch to cheaper foreign labour.' Also, many Singaporeans still shun particular jobs held mainly by foreigners. 'As professional economists who take a committed interest in the well-being of Singapore, we have never been sensational and will always be professional in our work,' the two economists said.
By Anna Teo
1 August 2003
Business Times Singapore
It says residents filled 90% of new jobs; researchers had figure at a low 25%
(SINGAPORE) Contrary to claims that foreigners snagged three out of four new jobs in the last five years, 90 per cent of jobs created in the period went to Singaporeans and permanent residents, the Ministry of Manpower said yesterday.
Refuting the findings and conclusions by Nanyang Technological University economists Chen Kang and Tan Khee Giap as 'totally flawed', the ministry pointed to another set of figures that present a different picture of the job market in the past decade: Far more jobs were created in the first five-year period, when the economy was booming, with 60 per cent of the new jobs going to foreigners.
On the other hand, the latter 1997-2002 period saw far fewer new jobs - 102,000, rather than the NTU team's finding of 186,900 - but nine in 10 went to local residents, ie Singaporeans and PRs.
Meeting reporters yesterday morning to clarify the numbers, Acting Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen described the NTU team's findings as 'way off mark', and their work as 'irresponsible' and 'unprofessional'.
Dr Ng said: 'I think all researchers have a duty to verify the figures first of all, especially if their findings are quite contrary or quite alarming. It is standard practice.'
In response, Dr Chen and Dr Tan - two well-known economists who regularly consult for various ministries, including MOM - said their figures were derived entirely from 'public domain statistics' published on MOM's website. They gathered from a ministry official yesterday afternoon that the figures cited by Dr Ng are partially from classified sources to which they have no access, they said.
The ministry then called another press conference in the evening to shed light on the matter. Elizabeth Quah, divisional director in MOM's manpower planning and policy division, told reporters that Dr Chen and Dr Tan declined to meet ministry officials yesterday afternoon to discuss their methodology and data sources.
Dr Tan said Dr Chen and himself were unable to meet MOM officials yesterday, but intend to do as soon as possible.
Ms Quah and her colleagues surmised that the NTU team used data from the Labour Force Survey, which covers private households and does not include construction workers living at worksites, nor the large number of workers who commute daily from Johor and elsewhere to work here.
That is the wrong data source to use for analysing job creation trends, said Tan Leng Leng, director of manpower research and statistics at MOM. The correct source is the employment change data compiled from the CPF, work permit, employment pass and other administrative records.
The employment change data - from which the figures cited by Dr Ng are derived - are also publicly available and cover all sectors and industries, though the figures do not have any sectoral breakdown.
But while it is apparent how the NTU team derived their findings (see graphic), even if their data source is wrong, MOM's Mrs Tan concedes the ministry does not disclose details on the local-foreign composition of the workforce. In other words, it would not be possible to derive the foreign-local ratio from published data.
The ministry officials maintain, however, that the NTU economists should have been aware of the data limitations of the labour force survey, especially if they intended to make policy recommendations based on their findings.
At a briefing on Wednesday to announce their latest economic forecasts, Dr Chen and Dr Tan called for a review of Singapore's foreign worker policy and suggested that the government micro-manages the labour market and actively match Singaporeans to new jobs. But, Dr Ng said yesterday, the data shows that foreign workers have 'served their purpose' as a buffer in both good times and bad, 'and our policy is correctly crafted in that sense'.
'In good times when there are plentiful jobs, they serve to meet demand. In difficult times, they serve to moderate wages and increase the economic pie.' For instance, between 1992 and 1997, almost 500,000 new jobs were created but 'there were only 200,000 Singaporeans for the jobs', he noted. MOM's Ms Quah said the ministry regards it as 'important to set the record straight' as the NTU team's findings are 'of great concern and interest to the public, especially in this difficult employment market'.
The government welcomes inputs from all quarters on national policy, she added, 'but when one's findings would alarm the public, it would have been entirely reasonable to double-check... if their findings were right or not'.
Dr Tan and Dr Chen last night stood by their findings. They said the use of employment change data - which includes the construction workforce which is predominantly foreign - should have further skewed the numbers against resident employees.
Responding to remarks that they should have realised their findings did not reflect reality - how could the resident employment have risen by only 46,000 over five years from 1997-2002 - Dr Tan told BT: 'We did not find it odd because in bad times, employers would want to switch to cheaper foreign labour.' Also, many Singaporeans still shun particular jobs held mainly by foreigners. 'As professional economists who take a committed interest in the well-being of Singapore, we have never been sensational and will always be professional in our work,' the two economists said.
NTU wrong, 9 in 10 new jobs went to S'poreans
NTU wrong, 9 in 10 new jobs went to S'poreans
By Sue-Ann Chia
1 August 2003
Straits Times
Economists' claim that foreigners filled four out of five new jobs is way off the mark, says minister
ACTING Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen said yesterday that Nanyang Technological University (NTU) 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 yesterday, 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.
During that period, nine in 10 new jobs went to residents, and only one to a foreigner - again, a reversal of the NTU team's claim.
The economists called for a re-look at Singapore's dependence on foreigners, but Dr Ng defended the Government's foreign worker policy.
'As we look at our figures, our policies are correctly crafted,' he said.
'Foreign workers serve as a useful buffer. In good times, when there are plentiful jobs, they serve to meet the demand. In difficult times, they serve to moderate wages and increase the economic pie.'
Yesterday, the NTU economists stood by their findings.
In a statement signed only by Dr Tan and Dr Chen, they said they had studied statistics available in the Manpower Ministry's website.
'If our findings are not reflective of the actual situation, then the Ministry of Manpower has a duty to revise its statistics on the website,' they said.
'As professional economists who take a committed interest in the well-being of Singapore, we have never been sensational and will always be professional in our work.'
They also said that the figures revealed by the minister yesterday came from sources they did not have access to.
But ministry officials called a second press briefing yesterday evening and insisted that there was no way a properly conducted study of available data could have arrived at the NTU team's conclusions.
'Data in the public domain clearly provides an entirely different picture if used correctly,' said Ms Elizabeth Quah, director of the manpower policy and planning division.
She said the ministry was disappointed that the NTU economists refused to meet officials yesterday to explain their methodology and data sources.
But as the issue was of 'great concern and interest to the public, especially in this difficult employment market', the ministry felt it was best to explain how the discrepancies could have arisen.
Mrs Tan Leng Leng, director of manpower research and statistics, said the figures used by the NTU economists missed two factors: the construction industry and Malaysians who commute to Singapore to work.
Another figure, which should have set off 'alarm bells', was the low increase in residents' employment, which the NTU report put at only 46,100 for the last five years.
As a general rule of thumb, about 30,000 people join the workforce each year - after deducting those who retire, stop working or are retrenched. Multiply that by five years and the total should be 150,000.
What it all added up to, Ms Quah said, was that the NTU findings were 'totally flawed'.
'It is important for the public to understand the true picture and why the NTU team is wrong,' she said.
By Sue-Ann Chia
1 August 2003
Straits Times
Economists' claim that foreigners filled four out of five new jobs is way off the mark, says minister
ACTING Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen said yesterday that Nanyang Technological University (NTU) 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 yesterday, 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.
During that period, nine in 10 new jobs went to residents, and only one to a foreigner - again, a reversal of the NTU team's claim.
The economists called for a re-look at Singapore's dependence on foreigners, but Dr Ng defended the Government's foreign worker policy.
'As we look at our figures, our policies are correctly crafted,' he said.
'Foreign workers serve as a useful buffer. In good times, when there are plentiful jobs, they serve to meet the demand. In difficult times, they serve to moderate wages and increase the economic pie.'
Yesterday, the NTU economists stood by their findings.
In a statement signed only by Dr Tan and Dr Chen, they said they had studied statistics available in the Manpower Ministry's website.
'If our findings are not reflective of the actual situation, then the Ministry of Manpower has a duty to revise its statistics on the website,' they said.
'As professional economists who take a committed interest in the well-being of Singapore, we have never been sensational and will always be professional in our work.'
They also said that the figures revealed by the minister yesterday came from sources they did not have access to.
But ministry officials called a second press briefing yesterday evening and insisted that there was no way a properly conducted study of available data could have arrived at the NTU team's conclusions.
'Data in the public domain clearly provides an entirely different picture if used correctly,' said Ms Elizabeth Quah, director of the manpower policy and planning division.
She said the ministry was disappointed that the NTU economists refused to meet officials yesterday to explain their methodology and data sources.
But as the issue was of 'great concern and interest to the public, especially in this difficult employment market', the ministry felt it was best to explain how the discrepancies could have arisen.
Mrs Tan Leng Leng, director of manpower research and statistics, said the figures used by the NTU economists missed two factors: the construction industry and Malaysians who commute to Singapore to work.
Another figure, which should have set off 'alarm bells', was the low increase in residents' employment, which the NTU report put at only 46,100 for the last five years.
As a general rule of thumb, about 30,000 people join the workforce each year - after deducting those who retire, stop working or are retrenched. Multiply that by five years and the total should be 150,000.
What it all added up to, Ms Quah said, was that the NTU findings were 'totally flawed'.
'It is important for the public to understand the true picture and why the NTU team is wrong,' she said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)