- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
[h=2]Stagnant wages? It’s your own fault according to ST[/h]
July 20th, 2013 |
Author: Singapore
ACC
ST
Or so the government and its mouthpiece want you to believe.
I am referring to the recent onslaught of insults hurled at the Singaporean
PMETs (professionals, managers, executives and technicians) in a string of
articles published by our national mouthpiece, insinuating or blatantly accusing
us of not
deserving our wages; not being “hungry”
enough, and being “pampered,
mediocre, expensive and timid.”
Apart from being a self-corrective measure to counter the arguments of an
earlier, relatively critical (by Straits Times’ standards) commentary
“When
wages fail to grow along with economy,” these write-ups are yet another low
blow at ordinary Singaporeans to absolve the government of any blame for the
problems we face today.
Yet if we look at Straits Times reports on the job situation of our
PMETs from the 1990s, it becomes very apparent that the plight of today’s PMETs
is a result of myopic government policies since the 1990s, i.e. its
pro-immigration policy, the consistent kowtowing to businesses that fed off
cheap labor, and re-training that had failed to equip workers with the necessary
skills.
PMET Retrenchment in the 1990s
Amid concerns about how companies were “delayering” or removing middle level
executive positions due to technological advancements[1], employment pass
holders in Singapore increased from 50,000 in 1994 to 70,000 in 1997 while work
permit holders surged from 300,000 to 450,000 over the same period.[2]
As the floodgates opened wide, Singapore saw 10,956 workers being retrenched
in 1996 – a record since the 1985 economic recession during which 19,529 workers
lost their jobs.[3]
When many began to question if foreign workers were taking away the jobs[4],
then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong repeatedly justified the government’s decision
to import foreign workers in 1997 and 1998.
In his 1998 National Day Rally speech, he
said:
“We must continue to bring in international
talent…In today’s much harsher environment, some Singaporeans are questioning
whether this is still the right policy. Workers have asked union leaders why we
do not cut down the number of foreign workers here, and save jobs for
Singaporeans.
I know many Singaporeans are concerned about
their jobs. Architects are having a tough time and many of them cannot find
employment. Likewise lawyers and doctors. I have met recent graduates who have
applied for several jobs in the last two months but have not been called for a
single interview…
There will be more retrenchments before we
come out of the slump. But chasing away foreigners, hoping to free up more jobs
for Singaporeans, will only make our problems worse…”
And so in 1998, 29,000 workers lost their jobs, among whom 5,830 were PMETs.
The PMET job loss was three times higher than that of 1997.[5]
Amid the soaring PMET layoffs, a concurrent report made baffling claims that
there were more job openings for PMETs in September 1998, “due to an on-going
restructuring towards higher value-added and knowledge based activities.”[6]
In 1999, the Manpower Ministry revealed that there were 530,000 foreigners in
Singapore, among whom 80,000 were employment pass holders.[7] There were another
14,622 people laid-off in the same year, among whom 24% (3,509) were
PMETs.[8]
Retrenched PMETs in the 2000s: A Permanent Fixture?
From 1990 to 2000, Singapore’s total population surged by one million. Of
this, the number of citizens grew from 2.6 million to 3 million while that of
permanent residents grew from 109,872 to 287,477. The non-resident population
increased from 311,264 to 754,524 over the same period (source).
In the first half of 2000, 7,903 workers lost their jobs and about 24%
(1,896) were PMETs.[9] This trend persisted and worsened in the first half of
2001, when 38% of those axed were PMETs.[10] Over four years, the number of
unemployed degree and diploma holders aged 40 and above increased
three-fold.[11]
Despite all the schemes, retraining and skills upgrading to help PMETs,[12]
the jobless rate of PMETs continued to climb.[13]
By September 2002, unemployment hit a 15-year high of 4.8%. As many as 12,900
graduates could not land a job, doubling the number in 1998.[14] A resumé to a
human resource company reads, “I am a system engineer and I have been job
hunting for months. My last salary was $4,800 but I will work for
$1,800.”[15]
A total of 40,903 jobs were axed in 2002.[16]
Curiously, a 2003 report claimed that “The share of jobs for managers,
professionals and technicians, rose from 29.5 per cent in 1992 to 41.6 per cent
last year.”[17]
Yet thousands of degree holders could not land a job.[18] And middle managers
were also vulnerable, many mired in long-term unemployment.
So the question is: where did the increasing share of jobs for PMETs go
to?
Jobs Vanished? Or…
By March 2003, 89,400 people were out of job, and more than 50% were
PMETs.[19]
Reports claimed, yet again, that technological advancements were “leading to
the demise of droves of middle managers.”[20]
A former bank manager with an annual pay packet of $60,000 was unable to find
a job even though he was willing to go for a $1,000-a-month sales clerk
position. Some of his retrenched banker friends had become taxi drivers in
desperation.[21]
Another 55-year-old former bank assistant manager took a pay cut from $4,000
to $1,100 to become an assistant cleaning supervisor.[22]
In July 2003, two Nanyang Technological University (NTU) economists suggested
that foreigners took three out of four jobs created in the last
five years.
The government swiftly denied this and claimed that out of 10 new
jobs, nine went to Singaporeans and PRs and only one
to a foreigner (??!!).[23]
When some MPs demanded, rightfully, for a breakdown of the number of jobs
that went to citizens and PRs, this was what Acting Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen
said:
“What difference does it make? The ratio is
unimportant when jobs are created.”[24]
Effective from October 2003, the CPF rate was cut again from 36% to 33%.[25]
In December 2003, it was reported that 95,500 people were jobless, with a record
of almost three in 10 seeking jobs for at least six months.[26]
In the first quarter of 2004, PMETs again formed the biggest chunk (45%) of
the 2,962 laid off.[27] In 2005, an estimated 30,000 PMETs were out of job.[28]
According to a ST report dated 16 June 2005:
Employers have been lambasted for discriminating
against them [retrenched middle managers] in favour of younger, cheaper recruits
– essentially getting two, three energetic workers for the price of one …
prejudice against retrenched executives aged between 40 and 50 is real…[there]
is ample evidence of axed professionals who are ready to take huge pay cuts and
still are jobless.[29]
In December 2006, 8,100 PMETs were still unemployed.[30] This was despite MOM
figures which showed that PMET share of jobs had risen from 39% in 1996 to 47%
in 2006 and that 173,300 new jobs were created.[31]
Said Mr Sim, a retrenched IT manager who used to earn $7,500, “The pool of
people looking for the same job is quite big now, compared to previously.
There’s also competition from IT workers from China and India willing to do it
for much less.”[32]
In 2007, official figures showed that six in 10 of the new jobs went to
foreigners, up from five in 10 in 2006.
The report claimed that “this has more to do
with insufficient Singaporeans being available to fill the rising
number of new vacancies, according to the report giving a breakdown of jobs held
by citizens, permanent residents (PRs) and foreigners” (emphasis mine).[33]
So what happened to the 8,100 unemployed PMETs who needed a job?
Whose Fault?
According to employers, the Singaporean PMETs could only blame themselves, of
course.
Because local PMETs lacked the “skills relevant to the industries of the
day,” “Bosses in trading houses and the infocomm, hospitality and retail sectors
were thus hiring foreigners for middle management positions” (emphasis
mine).[34]
And hey presto! The “redundant” middle management positions that were
supposedly vanishing in droves in the mid 1990s and early 2000s made a
miraculous comeback.[35]
The only problem is these positions were not for Singaporeans, who, after
undergoing years and a myriad of skills upgrading, still did not make the cut in
the eyes of the employers.
Is it because, as former National Wage Council chairman Lim Pin said, “Worker
training is like trying to hit a moving target. The technology and skills
required today are likely to be different from those needed five to 10 years
from now”?[36]
Or is it simply because employers prefer cheaper foreign workers?
Today, our national mouthpiece is hinting that Singaporeans
do not deserve our wages. This is rubbing salt into wound because our
wages had been stagnant for years.
We know that there are around 128,100 S-pass holders with a qualifying salary
of $2,000 in Singapore in 2012. Their number has also grown by 14,200 from
December 2011 to June 2012 (see Chart below). I have raised this question in an
earlier blogpost and
I will ask it here again:
Are cheaper foreign workers taking away jobs from
Singaporeans?
Even Goh Chok Tong, who so strongly advocated bringing in foreign workers in
the late 1990s, wasn’t
sure anymore.
(Sources: MOM and DOS)
Source
Singapore Armchair Critic
* The author blogs at http://singaporearmchaircritic.wordpress.com/
ACC
ST
Or so the government and its mouthpiece want you to believe.
I am referring to the recent onslaught of insults hurled at the Singaporean
PMETs (professionals, managers, executives and technicians) in a string of
articles published by our national mouthpiece, insinuating or blatantly accusing
us of not
deserving our wages; not being “hungry”
enough, and being “pampered,
mediocre, expensive and timid.”
Apart from being a self-corrective measure to counter the arguments of an
earlier, relatively critical (by Straits Times’ standards) commentary
“When
wages fail to grow along with economy,” these write-ups are yet another low
blow at ordinary Singaporeans to absolve the government of any blame for the
problems we face today.
Yet if we look at Straits Times reports on the job situation of our
PMETs from the 1990s, it becomes very apparent that the plight of today’s PMETs
is a result of myopic government policies since the 1990s, i.e. its
pro-immigration policy, the consistent kowtowing to businesses that fed off
cheap labor, and re-training that had failed to equip workers with the necessary
skills.
PMET Retrenchment in the 1990s
Amid concerns about how companies were “delayering” or removing middle level
executive positions due to technological advancements[1], employment pass
holders in Singapore increased from 50,000 in 1994 to 70,000 in 1997 while work
permit holders surged from 300,000 to 450,000 over the same period.[2]
As the floodgates opened wide, Singapore saw 10,956 workers being retrenched
in 1996 – a record since the 1985 economic recession during which 19,529 workers
lost their jobs.[3]
When many began to question if foreign workers were taking away the jobs[4],
then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong repeatedly justified the government’s decision
to import foreign workers in 1997 and 1998.
In his 1998 National Day Rally speech, he
said:
“We must continue to bring in international
talent…In today’s much harsher environment, some Singaporeans are questioning
whether this is still the right policy. Workers have asked union leaders why we
do not cut down the number of foreign workers here, and save jobs for
Singaporeans.
I know many Singaporeans are concerned about
their jobs. Architects are having a tough time and many of them cannot find
employment. Likewise lawyers and doctors. I have met recent graduates who have
applied for several jobs in the last two months but have not been called for a
single interview…
There will be more retrenchments before we
come out of the slump. But chasing away foreigners, hoping to free up more jobs
for Singaporeans, will only make our problems worse…”
And so in 1998, 29,000 workers lost their jobs, among whom 5,830 were PMETs.
The PMET job loss was three times higher than that of 1997.[5]
Amid the soaring PMET layoffs, a concurrent report made baffling claims that
there were more job openings for PMETs in September 1998, “due to an on-going
restructuring towards higher value-added and knowledge based activities.”[6]
In 1999, the Manpower Ministry revealed that there were 530,000 foreigners in
Singapore, among whom 80,000 were employment pass holders.[7] There were another
14,622 people laid-off in the same year, among whom 24% (3,509) were
PMETs.[8]
Retrenched PMETs in the 2000s: A Permanent Fixture?
From 1990 to 2000, Singapore’s total population surged by one million. Of
this, the number of citizens grew from 2.6 million to 3 million while that of
permanent residents grew from 109,872 to 287,477. The non-resident population
increased from 311,264 to 754,524 over the same period (source).
In the first half of 2000, 7,903 workers lost their jobs and about 24%
(1,896) were PMETs.[9] This trend persisted and worsened in the first half of
2001, when 38% of those axed were PMETs.[10] Over four years, the number of
unemployed degree and diploma holders aged 40 and above increased
three-fold.[11]
Despite all the schemes, retraining and skills upgrading to help PMETs,[12]
the jobless rate of PMETs continued to climb.[13]
By September 2002, unemployment hit a 15-year high of 4.8%. As many as 12,900
graduates could not land a job, doubling the number in 1998.[14] A resumé to a
human resource company reads, “I am a system engineer and I have been job
hunting for months. My last salary was $4,800 but I will work for
$1,800.”[15]
A total of 40,903 jobs were axed in 2002.[16]
Curiously, a 2003 report claimed that “The share of jobs for managers,
professionals and technicians, rose from 29.5 per cent in 1992 to 41.6 per cent
last year.”[17]
Yet thousands of degree holders could not land a job.[18] And middle managers
were also vulnerable, many mired in long-term unemployment.
So the question is: where did the increasing share of jobs for PMETs go
to?
Jobs Vanished? Or…
By March 2003, 89,400 people were out of job, and more than 50% were
PMETs.[19]
Reports claimed, yet again, that technological advancements were “leading to
the demise of droves of middle managers.”[20]
A former bank manager with an annual pay packet of $60,000 was unable to find
a job even though he was willing to go for a $1,000-a-month sales clerk
position. Some of his retrenched banker friends had become taxi drivers in
desperation.[21]
Another 55-year-old former bank assistant manager took a pay cut from $4,000
to $1,100 to become an assistant cleaning supervisor.[22]
In July 2003, two Nanyang Technological University (NTU) economists suggested
that foreigners took three out of four jobs created in the last
five years.
The government swiftly denied this and claimed that out of 10 new
jobs, nine went to Singaporeans and PRs and only one
to a foreigner (??!!).[23]
When some MPs demanded, rightfully, for a breakdown of the number of jobs
that went to citizens and PRs, this was what Acting Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen
said:
“What difference does it make? The ratio is
unimportant when jobs are created.”[24]
Effective from October 2003, the CPF rate was cut again from 36% to 33%.[25]
In December 2003, it was reported that 95,500 people were jobless, with a record
of almost three in 10 seeking jobs for at least six months.[26]
In the first quarter of 2004, PMETs again formed the biggest chunk (45%) of
the 2,962 laid off.[27] In 2005, an estimated 30,000 PMETs were out of job.[28]
According to a ST report dated 16 June 2005:
Employers have been lambasted for discriminating
against them [retrenched middle managers] in favour of younger, cheaper recruits
– essentially getting two, three energetic workers for the price of one …
prejudice against retrenched executives aged between 40 and 50 is real…[there]
is ample evidence of axed professionals who are ready to take huge pay cuts and
still are jobless.[29]
In December 2006, 8,100 PMETs were still unemployed.[30] This was despite MOM
figures which showed that PMET share of jobs had risen from 39% in 1996 to 47%
in 2006 and that 173,300 new jobs were created.[31]
Said Mr Sim, a retrenched IT manager who used to earn $7,500, “The pool of
people looking for the same job is quite big now, compared to previously.
There’s also competition from IT workers from China and India willing to do it
for much less.”[32]
In 2007, official figures showed that six in 10 of the new jobs went to
foreigners, up from five in 10 in 2006.
The report claimed that “this has more to do
with insufficient Singaporeans being available to fill the rising
number of new vacancies, according to the report giving a breakdown of jobs held
by citizens, permanent residents (PRs) and foreigners” (emphasis mine).[33]
So what happened to the 8,100 unemployed PMETs who needed a job?
Whose Fault?
According to employers, the Singaporean PMETs could only blame themselves, of
course.
Because local PMETs lacked the “skills relevant to the industries of the
day,” “Bosses in trading houses and the infocomm, hospitality and retail sectors
were thus hiring foreigners for middle management positions” (emphasis
mine).[34]
And hey presto! The “redundant” middle management positions that were
supposedly vanishing in droves in the mid 1990s and early 2000s made a
miraculous comeback.[35]
The only problem is these positions were not for Singaporeans, who, after
undergoing years and a myriad of skills upgrading, still did not make the cut in
the eyes of the employers.
Is it because, as former National Wage Council chairman Lim Pin said, “Worker
training is like trying to hit a moving target. The technology and skills
required today are likely to be different from those needed five to 10 years
from now”?[36]
Or is it simply because employers prefer cheaper foreign workers?
Today, our national mouthpiece is hinting that Singaporeans
do not deserve our wages. This is rubbing salt into wound because our
wages had been stagnant for years.
We know that there are around 128,100 S-pass holders with a qualifying salary
of $2,000 in Singapore in 2012. Their number has also grown by 14,200 from
December 2011 to June 2012 (see Chart below). I have raised this question in an
earlier blogpost and
I will ask it here again:
Are cheaper foreign workers taking away jobs from
Singaporeans?
Even Goh Chok Tong, who so strongly advocated bringing in foreign workers in
the late 1990s, wasn’t
sure anymore.
(Sources: MOM and DOS)
Source
Singapore Armchair Critic
* The author blogs at http://singaporearmchaircritic.wordpress.com/
