Leong Sze Hian / Senior Writer
In this special series of Uniquely Singapore, Leong Sze Hian takes a look at the 5 stars of our flag and how it relates to certain issues. This first article focuses on “Progress”.
I refer to the Ministry of Manpower’s (MOM) report, “Focus on older people in and out of employment”, released at the end of July.
67 per cent of older workers (age 50 and over) worked as production, cleaners, labourers and related workers.
According to the MOM’s Report on Wages in Singapore 2007, the lowest paid category of workers, was the group comprising cleaners, labourers and related workers, with a median gross pay of $ 968.
The annualised wage change for this group was zero, from 1997 to 2007.
In the case of cleaners, labourers and related workers, the wages were largely flat in the earlier age groups, before declining for those in their 40s onwards to a low of 0.63 for the 60 - 64 age group.
Since the median gross pay for this group was only $ 968, does it mean that older workers are paid even less ?
The gender wage difference was 30.8 per cent for the age 35 - 39 group.
Does this gender wage gap occur for the older age group too ?
So, how much less are elderly women workers paid ?
With 469,000 employed residents age 50 and over being employed in June 2007, it means that about 314,230 (67% of 469,000) elderly Singaporeans work as production, cleaners, labourers and related workers.
And since elderly workers constitute 26 per cent of the resident workforce, it means that about 17 out of 100 (314,230 divided by 314,230 divided by 0.26) workers are elderly production, cleaners, labourers and related workers.
If we include such workers who are younger than 50, how many Singaporeans are cleaners, labourers and related workers, who earn a median gross pay of only $ 968 ?
The long term unemployment rate for older workers at 0.9 per cent is about double that of younger workers, at 0.4 - 0.7 per cent.
27 and 10 per cent of older workers are self-employed and part-time workers, respectively, compared to 4 and 4.8 per cent respectively for younger workers.
66 per cent of older workers cited their reason for working as needing money for current expenses. 12 per cent worked for their future financial security, and only 16.3 per cent worked for non-monetary reasons.
In June 2006, 76 per cent of economically inactive residents mainly relied on income support from family members.
In the MOM’s second quarter employment report released at the end of July, the non-seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for residents increased by 54 per cent from 2.6 in March to 4.0 in June, compared to 1.8 to 2.9 for the overall (including foreigners) unemployment rate.
The above statistics may indicate an urgent need to address the plight of older Singaporean workers ; for a review of policies to reverse these alarming trends, particularly in the light of calls not to increase wages to cope with inflation because of the fear of wage-inflationary pressures, relative to productivity growth.
Glowing and repeated reports of good job growth and economic growth may mask some of the underlying issues that older Singaporeans face.
Finally, if residents comprise 69 per cent of the total number of employed, why is it that 95 per cent of the unemployed are residents ?
If we make an adjustment for permanent residents (PRs) in the residents statistics, what percentage of the unemployed are Singaporeans ?
———-
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
Thank you for the article. It would be logical for residents (PR and citizens) to be the ones largely unemployed as foreigners who are unemployed would not be able to remain in Singapore (perhaps that is what you are implicitly stating).
In any case, I find that the distinction of a born-here Singaporean from that of PRs and ‘naturalised Singaporeans’ has been so effectively blurred out that it would be impossible to determine the ‘true’ facts and figures. Even if we were to separate the PR and citizen figures (which, if I’m not mistaken, are never released anywhere at all), the number of citizens being ‘absorbed’ would need to be monitored as well.
In the grand scheme of things, an independent party would need to monitor the figures released on the number of Singaporeans being naturalised each year and apply this figure to the citizen count as published by the authorities for a true picture to even begin to be indicative. And even then, I am not sure where we can get the PR vs Citizen breakdown.
Nay impossible for the average joe to accomplish on top of managing the lightning pace of Singapore life – specifically engineered to be so?
I don’t see any progress at all.
5yrs ago, when GST was 5%, my basic pay for an admin post was 1.3k.
Now when GST is 7% and plus inflation, the same pay for the same job is still 1.3k.
I wonder about the definition of “progress”.
Jackson,
When PAP talks about progress, they are always referring to their own pay pockets.
“They had not got richer, Singapore has”.
To them, Singapore = PAP, and PAP = Singapore. Only they matters to them. The rest of us are just digits.
Using this understanding of theirs, we can see that Lee Kuan Yew is not lying when he said Singapore will be finished in 5 years if we vote in the oppositions. When translated to non-PAP language, he actually meant “PAP will be finished in 5 years if we vote in the oppositions.”