- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
[h=2]MOM employment statistics include full-time NSFs[/h]
October 4th, 2013 |
Author: Contributions
With the claimed low resident unemployment of 3%, it is actually much higher
if we regard national service as NOT employed. This is in line with other
countries where conscription is not counted as employed. However, NSF is defined
as “employed” by MOM’s definition.
For our young (15-24 yrs), we have unemployment of 8.9% in 2012. If we do
count national service as “unemployed”, that would be adding between 30-50k more
headcounts into the unemployment data. That would double the resident
unemployment from 60k to 110k.
THE RESIDENT UNEMPLOYMENT IS POTENTIALLY AT 6%. Just by looking at MOM’s
definition alone.
REFERENCE
1) Employment Definition is found on page A2, in Appendix A.
2) Unemployment by Age (Chart 10) can be found on page 14.
Click to enlarge
http://www.mom.gov.sg/Publications/mrsd_singapore_workforce_2012.pdf
Do you think it is accurate to compare Singapore’s unemployment rate with
that of other developed countries when other countries do not have NSFs to add
into their ‘employed’ labour figures?
PM Lee said that Singapore’s unemployment rate of 3% was “safe” comparing it
with other countries that have 6~8%. In fact, Singapore could have an
unemployment rate as high as 6% if you take out NSFs.
And if so, why are NSF not paid a salary with proper CPF contribution if they
are “employed”?
Is the MOM playing with statistics to give Singaporeans a false sense of
security?
Singapore Singaporeans
With the claimed low resident unemployment of 3%, it is actually much higher
if we regard national service as NOT employed. This is in line with other
countries where conscription is not counted as employed. However, NSF is defined
as “employed” by MOM’s definition.
For our young (15-24 yrs), we have unemployment of 8.9% in 2012. If we do
count national service as “unemployed”, that would be adding between 30-50k more
headcounts into the unemployment data. That would double the resident
unemployment from 60k to 110k.
THE RESIDENT UNEMPLOYMENT IS POTENTIALLY AT 6%. Just by looking at MOM’s
definition alone.
REFERENCE
1) Employment Definition is found on page A2, in Appendix A.
2) Unemployment by Age (Chart 10) can be found on page 14.
Click to enlarge
http://www.mom.gov.sg/Publications/mrsd_singapore_workforce_2012.pdf
Do you think it is accurate to compare Singapore’s unemployment rate with
that of other developed countries when other countries do not have NSFs to add
into their ‘employed’ labour figures?
PM Lee said that Singapore’s unemployment rate of 3% was “safe” comparing it
with other countries that have 6~8%. In fact, Singapore could have an
unemployment rate as high as 6% if you take out NSFs.
And if so, why are NSF not paid a salary with proper CPF contribution if they
are “employed”?
Is the MOM playing with statistics to give Singaporeans a false sense of
security?
Singapore Singaporeans
