Leong Sze Hian
I refer to the Report of the Economic Strategies Committee released on 1 February.
It states that
“The majority of households have seen significantly higher real incomes over the decade, with median incomes rising by over 20 percent. Increases have also been seen at the lower end of the income ladder. At the 20th percentile of employed households, real incomes per capita have grown by about 10 percent over the last decade”.
According to the Department of Statistics’ Report on the Household Expenditure Survey 2007/08 released in December 2009, the Average Monthly Household Income of the poorest 20% decreased from $1309 to $1274 while the next two quintiles increased from $2778 to $3476 and $4207 to $5480 respectively, from 1997/98 to 2007/08.
This is a per annum increase of – 0.3, 2.3 and 2.7% respectively for the above mentioned three quintiles.
After adjusting for inflation at 1.4% per annum, the real increase was – 1.7, 0.9 and 1.3% respectively.
So, how do we reconcile the above data to the statement that “the majority of households have seen significantly higher real incomes over the decade”?
How can a -1.7 to 1.3% real increase in income be described as “significantly higher”?
According to the Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, “significantly” means “in a way that is easy to see or by a large amount”.
To make things worse, the Average Monthly Household Expenditure of the three quintiles increased by 0.4, 2.3 and 1.7% respectively for the same 10 year period. In other words, the increased expenditure of the low and middle income classes may offset the already very insignificant increase in incomes.
To make things even worse for the poorest 20%, their Expenditure at $1,760 in 2008, was 38% more than their Income of $1,274.
Clearly the majority of Singaporeans have not enjoyed the benefits of the ‘significant’ increase in overall household incomes, yet this statement was found on page 4:
“Household incomes went up fastest between 2006 to 2008, coinciding with the period when the foreign workforce was growing most rapidly”
An analysis of the Ministry of Manpower’s (MOM) 72-page report “Significant progress for low wage workers since 2006″, indicates that the wages of the 20th percentile of full-time employed residents increased by just $6 per 2 years, or 0.25% per year after adjusting for inflation.
Perhaps the word “significant” has a different meaning in so far as income statistics are concerned in Singapore?
Even if we were to take into account government transfers, as the statement below suggests:
“This (household incomes) does not include the benefits derived from Government transfers (net of taxes), such as the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) and enhanced housing grants for lower income households”,
the cash to CPF ratio is 1 to 2.5 for WIS. So, with the bulk of the WIS going to CPF, there is very little cash that can be considered as income that workers can actually use. The lack of spending power amidst an abundance of ‘unusable income’ is reflected again in the ‘enhanced housing grants’, which also may generally have lagged behind the increase in HDB prices.
According to the article “Singapore aims to ease fears over immigration” (Financial Times, Jan 31),
“Singapore will seek on Monday to reassure multinational companies that plans to tighten immigration curbs will not affect the city state’s openness to relocation by white-collar expatriates.
In a report to be presented on Monday, the review committee will say that the focus of reductions in the flow of foreigners must be on relatively unskilled blue-collar immigrants, who work mainly in the service, construction and transport industries, rather than on workers concentrated in the financial sector and professions such as law and accountancy”.
This may be of little comfort to Professional, Managers, Engineers and Technicians (PMETs) who cheered the recent announcement that the foreign workforce will be scaled down, as it may appear now that some of their problems, like over 40 year old PMETs having the highest long-term unemployment rate, may not go away so soon after all.
Going forward, the key measure of the success of the recommendations may be not so much an increase in productivity per se, but whether wages, particularly that of the lower-income, will rise “significantly” relative to the rising cost of living in Singapore.
Perhaps the word “significant” has a different meaning in so far as income statistics are concerned in Singapore?
Probably taken to mean “difference is statistically significant” which given a large sample size, will be “significant”.
Scary, they don’t even blink when they lie!
technically, they did not lie.
the govt use increase compounded over 10 years
while mr leong look at increase per year.
mr leong’s issue is with the word ‘significantly higher’
which suggests that singaporeans benefitted alot.
10%, 20% sounds impressive.
But if we look at the per annum increase, it is misleading to say ‘significantly higher’.
it’s about presentation of data, not truthfulness of the data.
if u can read the numbers, u can see past the presentation.
A lie is a lie. No matter how much of a good cover up it is, it is still a lie.
This is the same as knowingly putting a white cup in the dark and saying that it is a black. Technically, it is right too. And technically, they did not lie.
However, ethically, it is an obvious misrepresentation of data. Knowing something that it is not, but saying otherwise, is obviously a lie.
If one can simply compound a figure over 10 years and call it significantly higher because it is 20%, then one should probably compound it over 50 years and say that we have progress superbly by 1000%.
Things do not work this way. Despite the so-called 20% increment in salary, I find money being less usable. Things are much more expensive than it was and the amount I am bringing in grows slower than the amount I am giving out. Life is harder.
So, obviously, an increment in salary does not mean an improvement of livelihood. Contrary, I would not mind to have a reduced salary of 20% if everything becomes 50% cheaper.
Hope this is clear.
Who verifies the statistics?
who are these people , if any?
singapreans do not question?
or they BoChap thinking its not their problem?
So self-fish?
Its the People.
Do they bother to question?
Do they even bother at all?
significant at a 50% confidence level and 50% significance level i guess, so basically they’re just flipping a coin.
pay did not increase, but cost of living shot so high! Look at the pay of a part-timer for example, 10 years ago was $5, now still $5. Yet we go hawker centre eat a bowl of fishball noodles? Previously was $2, now $3.50, sometimes even $4 or $5!
Why Why Why???