Lina Chiam and her findings....

[MarrickG]

In September 2011, I asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Manpower for the breakdown of the percentage split between the number of local and foreign workers from 2009-2011 for the following industries:

(i) chemical industry

(ii) marine engineering industry

(iii) offshore engineering industry

(iv) aerospace engineering industry

(v) manufacturing industry and

(vi) the financial sector.

The rationale for asking such a question was to make sure that we are promoting the correct industry mix in Singapore. Beyond growing the GDP and wage level, I wanted to find out the cost of pursuing such growth. This is consistent with my maiden speech in Parliament where I promised Singaporeans that I would fight for sustainable growth.

DPM replied with the percentage breakdown of employment by residential status in the various industries as at end of 2009 and 2010. The details are provided in Table 1.

[The data for end 2011 is not available yet.]
Table 1: % Distribution of Employment by residential status in selected industries, 2009 - 2010 (as at December)

.........................|..... 2009 ............... |....... 2010
Industry.............| local ... foreign ... ...| local ... foreign
Manufacturing....| 52 ....... 48 ............ | 51........ 49
Chemicals..........| 22....... 78.............. | 27........ 73
Marine...............| 22 ....... 78............. | 23........ 77
Aerospace..........| 82 ....... 18 ............ | 74....... 26
Finance..............| 90 ....... 10 ............ | 88....... 12




My response is clear. I’m startled by the information. For the first time, I have in my hands, clear data showing that the manufacturing industry promoted by the Ministry for Trade and Industry has only 52% local content. What does this mean to you? For every dollar and every square metre of industrial land we allocate to sustain the manufacturing industry, only approximately 50% of the jobs created are local jobs.

What is more startling is the percentage of foreign content under the Marine and Chemicals industry. It implies that for every 10 jobs created, only approximately 2 go to Singaporeans and Permanent Residents (PR). The figure has remained relatively constant in 2009 and 2010. In comparison, in the Aerospace industry and the Finance industry, the local jobs created are far heavier weighted towards locals.

Does this mean we have to shift the focus of our growth to industries that have higher local content? Or does this mean we have to restructure the chemicals and marine industries? I do not have enough information at this point. However, I will press on and ask the government through my parliamentary role for more details. Questions I will ask in the near future comprise the following:

1) How the different industries have used scarce industrial land?

2) How the wage distribution has transformed over the years?

3) What was the percentage split between Singaporean, PR and Foreigner for the various industries in Singapore? I’m mindful that locals comprise Singaporeans and PRs.

In the meantime, I urge Singaporeans to give me their full support in uncovering the sustainability of our economic sectors. I hope we, both the incumbent government and the alternative voices in Parliament, can join hands to transform the industries we have in Singapore in double quick time for a more inclusive and sustainable growth.

By Lina Chiam, Non-constituency Member of Parliament

 

[bryanlim1972]

[The data for end 2011 is not available yet.]
Table 1: % Distribution of Employment by residential status in selected industries, 2009 - 2010 (as at December)

.........................|..... 2009 ............... |....... 2010
Industry.............| local ... foreign ... ...| local ... foreign
Manufacturing....| 52 ....... 48 ............ | 51........ 49
Chemicals..........| 22....... 78.............. | 27........ 73
Marine...............| 22 ....... 78............. | 23........ 77
Aerospace..........| 82 ....... 18 ............ | 74....... 26
Finance..............| 90 ....... 10 ............ | 88....... 12




My response is clear. I’m startled by the information. For the first time, I have in my hands, clear data showing that the manufacturing industry promoted by the Ministry for Trade and Industry has only 52% local content. What does this mean to you? For every dollar and every square metre of industrial land we allocate to sustain the manufacturing industry, only approximately 50% of the jobs created are local jobs.

What is more startling is the percentage of foreign content under the Marine and Chemicals industry. It implies that for every 10 jobs created, only approximately 2 go to Singaporeans and Permanent Residents (PR). The figure has remained relatively constant in 2009 and 2010. In comparison, in the Aerospace industry and the Finance industry, the local jobs created are far heavier weighted towards locals.

exactly why we need real opposition, instead of faux opposition from PAP backbenchers who are more interesting in preserving their $16k/mth allowance.

 

[mojito]

Table 1: % Distribution of Employment by residential status in selected industries, 2009 - 2010 (as at December)

.........................|..... 2009 ............... |....... 2010
Industry.............| local ... foreign ... ...| local ... foreign
Manufacturing....| 52 ....... 48 ............ | 51........ 49
Chemicals..........| 22....... 78.............. | 27........ 73
Marine...............| 22 ....... 78............. | 23........ 77
Aerospace..........| 82 ....... 18 ............ | 74....... 26
Finance..............| 90 ....... 10 ............ | 88....... 12

Anyone notice the large one-year change in the aerospace sector? Sinister...

 

[blur sotong]

Is local = Singapore PINK NRIC + PR i.e. Singapore BLUE NRIC?

If local = Singapore PINK NRIC only, please ignore the rest of the post.

If local = PINK + BLUE NRIC, what is the % component of the PINK NRIC and the BLUE NRIC that make up the "local".

Does anybody has the breakdown of the "local" content working in the IRs?

 

[wMulew]

Just because manufacturing has large numbers of foreigners = must eliminate is a very naive an simplistic view of the situation. Some points

1)Even if the % is not 50+ to 40+ percent but vice versa, it still constutite to a substantial amt of jobs available to workers.
2)The indirect jobs created to support such industries, the finance services, supply chain, etc.
3)The bulk of the manufacturing jobs cater to the lower educated. What will happen to this group if the industry is move out, does she want to make the situation for the poor even worse?

Don't be so blinded by your hatred for FTs as to condemn everything related to them. Closing down 1 factory doesn't just mean that 1 factory worth of workers will lose their jobs. It also means that whatever other businesses that were supporting them will be cutting back their staff due to loss of business. The effects can be very significant. Just look at the US and how they are trying to use all ways and means to force manufacturing out of China to move back to the US.

 

[Cruxx]

It's not a zero-sum game. Why must choose between manufacturing and services? And more pertinently, which idiot was it who suggested that we phase out or eliminate manufacturing altogether? Not Tan Jee Say, that I can be sure of.