Majority of Jobs Created in 2009 went to Permanent Residents and not citizens
February 1st, 2010 | 
Author: By John Ong
The Ministry of Manpower has recently released the 2009 employment statistics. As expected, the statistics for employment creation is broken down by residents, which comprise of Singapore citizens (SCs) and Permanent Residents (PRs), and foreigners
According the preliminary figures, the unemployment rate among residents, who include citizens and permanent residents, fell from 5 per cent last September to 3 per cent in December. (read article here)
The state media is quicked to jumped to the conclusion that the unemployment rate of Singapore citizens has decreased as well with Chinese paper Lianhe Zaobao putting up a most misleading headline – “100 per cent employment for Singaporeans.”
Over the years, true Singaporeans, i.e. Singapore citizens, have been asking for employment statistics for Singapore citizens, and not residents which distorts the actual employment situation faced by SCs on the ground.
However, MOM has stubbornly refused to publish these statistics for unknown reasons, except for an occasional paper which was published in 2008 – “Employment of Singapore Citizens, Permanent Residents and Foreigners,1997 to 2006″.
If MOM could publish an occasional paper which breaks down employment statistics by SCs, PRs and foreigners, surely it will be able to do so on a regular basis?
If MOM is unable to breakdown the statistics, here is an analysis to show that the majority of jobs created in 2009 went to PRs and not SCs.
From 2004 to 2006, an average of about 49,000 persons were granted permanent resident status in Singapore. This translates to a total of 147,000 new PRs from 2004 to 2006.
Based on MOM’s occasional paper, it can be computed that PRs gained a total of 62,500 jobs from 2004 to 2006.
Therefore, on average, about 62,500/147,000 = 42.5% of the new PRs found jobs/were in employment from 2004 to 2006.
In 2008, 79,167 persons were granted permanent resident status. The figure for 2009 has not been released yet. However, with government aggressive population augmentation strategy, we can safely assume that it will be higher than last year, and a consecutive estimate of 80,000 persons is assumed.
Assuming that the proportion of new PRs who found jobs/in employment in 2009 remained at 42.5%, it can be calculated that the number of jobs created for PRs in 2009 = 42.5% X 80,000 = 34,000.
With 43,000 jobs created for residents in 2009, the number of jobs created for SCs is only a measly 9,000, compared to 34,000 for PRs.
It is clear why MOM refuses to publish employment statistics for SCs only.
Nevertheless, we acknowledge that the above analysis is only an estimate. PRs could be losing jobs if all employers choose to keep all the SCs while letting the PRs go during the financial crisis.
No jobs could be created for PRs if employers refuses to hire them. However, it is common knowledge that the above scenarios are highly unlikely, especially when male SCs are subject to the annual In-Camp Training (ICT) liability of up to 40 days, and PRs enjoy similar treatment as SCs in government assistance schemes, such as the Jobs Credit.
We certainly welcome MOM, or Minister Gan Kim Yong to clarify. However, we will only believe in the hard figures broken down by SCs and PRs, and not any meaningless stories or anecdotes. Alternatively, we also welcome The Straits Times, or Today to do an alternative analysis to convince Singaporeans otherwise.
About the Author:
This article has been contributed by a reader who is writing under the pen name of John Ong. An engineer by training, he strongly believes that all Singaporeans have the right to be heard and the time is now for all of us to do the right thing.
Posted in Opinion
The very reason for insisting on not releasing the breakdown between Singapore Citizens and PRs clearly suggest they have something they do not want us to know.
Thought PAP is always about being open and transparent and yeah didnt they urge us to be Honest recently?
Please walk the talk leh.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
i am disgusted by Mark Lee’s boast about laughing all the way to the bank and raking in cash.
but what he blurted out about most of his workers are from China and therefore need cash to bring home their bonuses makes me flabbergasted why he can’t employ a fairer mix of sporeans and foreign workers. how come `MOST’ are from China. You mean MOM allows uncalibrated indiscriminate inflow of foreign workers?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I agree fully with your article. Weel done.
While I welcome getting highly educated top talents to Singapore as it is beneficial to our country. I wonder why we allow low and middle level people to come here.
SUnday Times 31 Jan highlighted PR Peter Breitkreutz, a 43 year old Australian. His wife is from China. He was granted PR in 2008, a bad year for the job market. He works in the financial industry and is in direct competition with many Singaporean candidates for the same job. I have nothing against him ….it is too bad that his case was highlighted in the papers. The fact that he has to buy a 5-room flat and not a private condo is clear evidence that he is not a top talent that our country should attract.
Minister for Manpower is sleeping in their job or simply “bo chap” to meet his target of attracting foreigners. Shouldn’t the MOM set more stringent criteria that at the same time protects Singapore citizens.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Further to what I have written, Australia gives very low points to immigrants above 35 years of age trying to apply for PR. And, Singapore allows this guy who is 43 to get PR in Singapore…..is there logic or reciprocity.
At age 43, he is competing with Singaporeans in the same age group of 40-50 who are most vulnerable in losing their job.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I am not interested in how the foreigners/PR fare/progress/perform on our little precious island. Every job taken by a foreigner/PR is a job lost for Singaporean, unless the job taken by foreigner is able to further create QUALITY job opportunities for Singaporean (not foreigners/PRs). I am only interested to know how my fellow country folks are doing/living and whether opportunities are abound for Singaporeans.
Our gov keep publishing employment in terms of resident, and this implies that something is very dubious or need to be hidden.
I am waiting for our gov/MOM to confidently announce that “100 per cent employment for Singaporeans.” or a Singaporean employment figure somewhere near 100%, with QUALITY JOB OPPORTUNITIES ABOUND.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I apply for job, I’m told I’m too old
I ask why, but am chided for being too bold
Is it my colour? Is it my race?
Is it my sex? Is it my face?
Is it my attitude? Is it my productivity?
Is it I’m rigid ? Is it I lack creativity?
No, no, dear girl. I use all these as excuses
Because pai seh to say that outsiders are cheaper.
They produce cheaper, they wait cheaper, they service cheaper, they clean cheaper, they drive cheaper, they tuition cheaper, heck, they even screw cheaper.
Using productivity is just a guise,
Saying ‘foreigners attitude is better’ is good noise
How else can we justify ourselves without lies
And curb you bastard Singaporeans voice
We know your salaries have not gone up
And food, medical & transportation costs big bucks
But so long as there are zillions in our cups
Do we care if the rest of you natives are fucked.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
how is the pigs going to ask for 3 million pay a year if they don’t do window dressing in pay?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The term residents should be removed. But then if they really released citizens and PRs.. then well. they be voted out immediately or killed in public and on sight.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1/2/10
Sad such things are happening in our Modern Singapore and looks like the PAP government today is a government for PRs and Foreigners, and their so-called Foreign Talents Policy have really worked out well but at the expense of the local born Singaporean like us especially the local born Chinese who have been dislodged of their bread & butter (the other minority races have not been that badly affected especially the Malay and Indian who are still doing well especially the Indians).
Regards
Andrew Chuah
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Quote:SUnday Times 31 Jan highlighted PR Peter Breitkreutz, a 43 year old Australian. His wife is from China. He was granted PR in 2008, a bad year for the job market. He works in the financial industry and is in direct competition with many Singaporean candidates for the same job. I have nothing against him ….it is too bad that his case was highlighted in the papers. The fact that he has to buy a 5-room flat and not a private condo is clear evidence that he is not a top talent that our country should attract.
UnQuote:
Why are we DOING NATIONAL SERVICE!?!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
當局一次又一次讓統計數字來矇騙人民！
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Andrew Chuah, you are a stupid little man! It is a well known fact that because of the influx of foreigners, especially the PRC’s, people are hiring those who can speak Mandarain, especially these FTs or citizens who speak mandarin. So where on earth did you get your facts that indians and malays are doing well, and as you quote ‘especially the indians’?
You are a really stupid man. I’ve read your racist comment all over the post in the past but i have never bothered to comment but what you did now sir, was to twist the whole truth to suit your racist mind. The day our modern singapore have true democratic government, you’re going to be cursing and swearing because the word ‘regardless of race, language or religion’ will no longer be an aspiration but reality. You’re no different from LKY who believes in divide and rule. People like you do not belong to the ‘modern singapore’ but the medieval times!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
2009 may be a special situation due to jobs credit scheme which led to many foreigners applying for PR, thus the surge in PR may be larger than estimated.
However, as these new PRs had jobs prior to conversion so they may not be getting the new jobs created in 2009 (unless they switched jobs)
nevertheless,a good try by the author,though we await the day when more statistics are revealed. As they say, you can run,but you can’t hide
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Honestly, how many of you hope the old LKY dies in a year?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If you look at IBM & HP, 2 large employers in Spore in the IT industry, you will find that they employ a large no of PRs from India, lots of IT personnel there, overwhemingly so. Similarly, for the large foreign banks that base their global IT hubs in Spore mainly in the Changi/Tampines hub corridors, they also employ lots of Indians who are on Spore PR status.
Not forgetting the lower end retail sector that employs China & Philippines nationals.
And the manufacturing industries where some Jap companies seem to favor China engineers.
MOM should stop lying and provide real figures instead when your boss, the PM has already stated that Spore PRs are NOT citizens.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Why would one wish for LKY to die? I dont.
I merely wish for all the leaders to receive retribution for all the bad deeds they have done and if they did good they should be recognised but not by giving them millions of dollars.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
我觉得作者的第一个计算是有瑕疵的：
62,500/147,000 = 42.5%
6万2500个工作是所有本地永久居民得到的工作，不是单单2004年至2006年新的永久居民所得到，所以下面的推论，就比如扭曲……至少没有以理服人。
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@mon, i do. I don’t mean to sound like a monster but i do wonder if people will celebrate or we will be forced to mourn his death?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
66% of PAP supporters have been deceived and cheated,
by a bunch of PAP “dafts”.
It is time to wake up and face reality and…….
Vote Out the PAP, in the coming GE.
Do you want out Country Singapore, to be invaded and
conguered by FTs???
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
And GCT was the “talent’ who started it all FAST & FURIOUS on the quiet. And then he recently said to US that if we don’t accept FTs and foreigners too, “We WILL go the way of the dinosaurs”!!! Didn’t he???
To US the Charles-Cheong and so pappies views is that, they the ELITES are to be paid MANY TIMES higher than 1ST World Western economies. And we ARE to accept WITHOUT QUESTION OF this necessity as without doing so PAP won’t find ‘top-talent’ to govern US effectively. And as for US as ‘less-mortals”, we are to be no more than on par with FTs, FTs and foreign workers at 3RD world income levels to do pappy & pappies’ will AND ALSO we are to BE… CHEAPER, BETTER & FASTER too despite of lower income and higher HDB prices!!! We GET ‘their’ IDEAS???
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
And their IDEAS and SUGGESTIONS are so solid haw!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Sad such things are happening in our Modern Singapore and looks like the PAP government today is a government for PRs and Foreigners, and their so-called Foreign Talents Policy have really worked out well but at the expense of the local born Singaporean like us especially the local born Chinese who have been dislodged of their bread & butter (the other minority races have not been that badly affected especially the Malay and Indian who are still doing well especially the Indians).
Regards
Andrew Chuah”
Hey Malays and Indians not that badly affected?? Are u kidding me? Tell me, its A LOT easier living in Singapore being a Chinese than it is being a Malay or Indian. I give u one simple example to think about. If you do not speak English you would still get by here speaking Mandarin, but tell me how about those speaking only MALAY or TAMIL??? Minorities have to be BILINGUAL. I dont know where u get those ideas from, and I really do want to hear about it, for it may be something i missed. Dont look at others by race. Look at them being Singaporeans.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well, at the speed the govt is going in granting new citizenship to foreigners, I am afraid that local bred singaporeans will be facing even tougher time to go on their livelihood here. Why is the ruling party doing this cruel to the people who trusted them into power?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
” From 2004 to 2006, an average of about 49,000 persons were granted permanent resident status in Singapore. This translates to a total of 147,000 new PRs from 2004 to 2006. ”
how many HDB flats do you need to house 49,000 PRs a year? 6 PRs can squeeze into 1 flat right? so that’s about 8166 flats a year?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Spore PR are not Singapore citizens – why are you continuing to lie and lie by lumping them together in statistics to mislead the public?
if you have nothing to hide, why the lack of transparency?
there will be retribution – swift and surely if there is a divine above!! They have eyes. You can lie to men but someone above is seeing all your actions and recording all this.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Now it’s becoming a MIW trend. Negative statistics will not be made public. Apart from citizen’s employment rate, think national reserves, HDB construction costs, losses in Temasek and GIC, CPF…. the pile of skeletons just got higher.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What are you hiding MOM??
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The media and newspaper keep reporting Job market boomz . Those jobless , cleaners, sweepers ,insurance agents etc are looking at themselves thinking they are the only one taking low pay jobs but in fact , everyone is getting low low pay job .
The garman is trying to play this game but we have waken up because of internet . We shall use our power to vote them out .
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
singapore PR is a singapore citizen that doesn’t need to do NS right?
question: is a PR similar to a citizen?
answer: assume it is BETTER to be a citizen. if that is the case, why did the government panic and quickly announce MORE differences in healthcare benefits etc for PRs? unless they can’t defend the notion that citizens have substantially more benefits – then they do an emergency change of benefits to pacify the people.
implication: the government panicking to change the benefits system with such urgency implies that they are unable to confidently defend their position and have take some semblance of action before they are taken to task on this matter in a public debate.
further question: after the emergency changes to PR benefits, are citizens really substantially better off in Singapore? or did those small changes not amount to much? can government policy still defend itself in the face of public debate?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Singapore PR is at a higher status than local Singaporean.
Except for certain ‘cost’ incurred while living in SG which
can be cover by extra working hours.
Isn’t it better to become Singapore PR?
Can i demote my Singapore citizen to Singapore PR?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Why is it all along that we already know this but just afraid to admit that it was actually PRs taking the job?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
31/1/10
Hi TCC & Sispecho-Good to hear from you. I am not a racist or like Lee Kuan Yew and his so called divide and rule, and I standby what I have written.
The local Singaporean Chinese have been dislodged by those from China and this is very true direct competition, unlike the other races ie Malay and Indians (the latter are doing very well, perhaps another reason is they are well looked after as they are well represented by these numbers of Ministers in the PAP Cabinet-Full Ministers).
I am no racist nor am I creating disharmony among the races, I am just an Ordinary Singaporean in our Modern Singapore society (the real disharmony is now being created by those Chinese from China and we have read so many incidents on TR).
Regards
Andrew Chuah
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1/2/10
Hi ABD-Good to hear from you “why must we do National Service(NS)” and my answer is let us all continue to do NS (I did mine) and show the PAP government when comes to this coming General Election, we are the real boss and we call the real shot. Let us have no regrets and pray for a good opposition leader to emerge and lead and unite all the Singapore Opposition parties and he or she must come from the Ordinary Singaporean preferably local born Chinese. We must continue to honour our unwritten and informal Social Contract and send a very clear message to the PAP that we want to right this wrong ie the new Cabinet must been based on our racial composition and not solely what we have now ie these number of Cabinet Ministers (Full Ministers) from the Indian ethnic.
I am no a racist nor am I want to cause racial disharmony among the races.
Regards
Andrew Chuah
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It’s hard to find another government that actively make it harder for it’s ppl…. why do they hate their citizens so much as to ‘do them in’?
What is more baffling is why are those who are holding the shorter end of the stick voting these same party into government time and again. Maybe singaporeans just love pain.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“@mon, i do. I don’t mean to sound like a monster but i do wonder if people will celebrate or we will be forced to mourn his death?”
A very easy way to answer your question is to do a survey on the sales of champagne and other alcoholic beverages for the month of his death and compare it with other months before his death. We can do a statistical analysis and compare the mean sales and we can get empirical evidence of how love or hated is he by Singaporeans. But of course this will be academic as once he is gone the Papist will know what will happen to them. Who wants to see grassroot leader being dragged through the gutters?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi Andrew Chuah, I am a local born Chinese Singaporean. I understand the frustration of the foreigner issue. But I see that as as an issue across all the races and not merely Chinese from China alone. By picking on a particular race, you ARE already racist though you might not undertand the meaning of the word.
You might have your personal experiences which we all have had. Still, each race is different and their impact on our society is different.
Let me illustrate some examples. Most of our original Tamil Indian friends are facing integration challenges from new Indians of non-Tamil origin, which are no less than the challenges faced by Chinese. Indian proportion here has also increased to about 10% now, indeed their proportion grew more than the Chinese. Indians also have a tendency to employ their own countrymen in the job market, a practice not normally seen in Chinese or other races. They are also a more direct competition (or ‘dislodged’ in your words) in white collar jobs as they speak better English than the Chinese, which are usually confine to blue collar customer serving roles. However, very few of our Tamil friends are in white collar jobs previously, so you can imagine the tension within their community.
I have had good and bad encounters with people of all races, lets just keep this ‘foreigners/citizens’ issue to just that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
GENTLEMEN-
In this FIRST WORLD CITY STATE of SINGAPORE previously known as TEMASEK,
NEWBIES required and OLDIES are DISCARDED that is the message that LKY & Co.is sending.A vicious cycle where the fittest survive and the weak,elderly and hopeless are left in the streets to eke out a living.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Look, at my workplace (european mnc), within the last 2 months there was 4 new hires.
1 pinoy, 1 PRC, 1 indian, 1 indian PR
you tell me where are the jobs going to.
if ur job is safe from FT or u trust pinky’s rubbish about singaporeans first, continue to vote pap.
if u are on the ground, u will see pinky, old fart are all just trying to pull wool over singaporeans eyes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1/2/10
Hi PeterL-Good posting and well said. The PAP today is unlike the PAP of yesterday and is for Permanent Residents, new citizens ie Chinese from China. With the General Election round the corner, we the local born Singaporeans, can still call the shot ie our votes and let us show the PAP but we must bring back the good old days where there were real equality, justice and fair play as per our unwritten and informal Social Contract which I firmly believed has disappeared on the pretext of so called Elitisms and Meritocracy-take a deeper look at what I meant and I know what I am talking about (ok, we must know our facts and figures, and history and then we can make a better tomorrow for our Modern Singapore of today).
Regards
Andrew Chuah
Ps: Am I a racist…..No.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
singaporeans continue to accept statistics that uses Residents.
thats it. I have had enough of you singaporeans.
totally BOCHAP. Totally APATHETIC.
I give up on singaporeans.
injoy your future.
u deserve it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To Andrew Chuah,
I’ve read your post on many issues and I must say, I think you don’t realize that you are racist.
You believe Singaporeans must be governed by the Chinese. And you have this idea of an unwritten social contract that the Chinese must be in the majority, whereas, the Malays and Indians and Eurasians must form the small percentage.
You have also mentioned in your previous posts that you are uncomfortable with Indian races now having a higher percentage of representation in the government.
Don’t you realize All people should have equal rights?
And by the way, Malays/Chinese/Indians….we are all related anthropologically as we are from the Mongoloid stock. So Race is irrelevant. We are different because of our culture, but that is the spice of life. If everyone is the same…life would be very boring.
What is relevant is the ability of the person to perform his duty. It has nothing to do with race.
At first, I felt insulted when I started reading your posts….but now I feel sad for you. Sad, because you claim to be banker but yet you are so ignorant.
Please,…vote for the person who has the interest of ALL Singaporeans regardless of race.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dear all, as long as the Old Fart is still in the Cabinet, he will carry on with all his nonsense and will never give a damn to all the sheeps, donkeys and Dafts no matter what we complain.He will always right and will not be accountable even if he and his daughter in law lost all our monies in the GIC and Temasek Holding. A very good example is the position they are still holding presently.No head roll and still drawing million of dollars salary. This can only happen in Singapore. So the only way out is to vote them out in the coming Election.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What to do?? If the foreigner have no job, they will soon march on the streets of Orchard Road. Singaporean has no gut to do that lah, as police will sure arrest the Singaporean.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
全民就业(full employment)
20th century British economist William Beveridge stated that an unemployment rate of 3% was full employment. Other economists have provided estimates between 2% and 7%, depending on the country, time period, and the various economists’ political biases.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Lets not fight among ourselves. The real enemy is ourselves. We let these buggers run the GOV. We gave them 66% of the votes. We allowed ourselves and our children to be slaves to the GOV. We have become 3rd class citizens. What can be worse off? Let us stop the ROT and vote a PROTEST VOTE this election. Waste no time and waste no effort to spread the word to all your friends and relatives to throw in A PROTEST VOTE. VOTE these USELESS, MONEY SUCKERS, ARROGANT, IVORY TOWER FALSE PRIESTS out of PARLIAMENT.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Assuming that the proportion of new PRs who found jobs/in employment in 2009 remained at 42.5%, it can be calculated that the number of jobs created for PRs in 2009 = 42.5% X 80,000 = 34,000.
With 43,000 jobs created for residents in 2009, the number of jobs created for SCs is only a measly 9,000, compared to 34,000 for PRs.”
2009 approved PRs not mean they all started to work in Singapore in 2009.
Most PRs need to work 2~4 years before they got their PRs.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
That explains why I have been job hunting for the past year with no success despite only in my 30s. I know what I have to do in the coming election.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Andrew Chuah
Thanks for addressing my concerns.. Appreciate it… I am not Chinese, so for one i am not familiar with your argument that Singaporean Chinese are dislodged by the Chinamen. I really am curious as to know how this is so…
I think the dislodgement effect is not only felt by the Chinese, but also the other races as well.. In short, Singaporeans (and in my argument esp the minorities) feel the heat.
My only guess for the basis of that argument is built upon the attack on the status of the Singaporean Chinese by LKY’s branding of the CHinamen to be of a purer breed of Chinese (with the hardworking, pragmatic values), which make them hardy enough to survive in the tough times (he keeps Romantic references to Singapore’s tough colonial past of Chinese immigrants) to bring Singapore to the next level. In short, Singaporean Chinese are thus dislodged from their seat of superiority.
Take note by that argument itself we have included an ethno-centric perspective with Racial Overtones.
If You are reading this, i want u to know that by replying, you might perhaps help a fellow Singaporean to better understand the situation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The cost of everything under the sun in spore is driven up by the pap govt to a level that without foreign workers, spore is doom.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The cost of everything under the sun in spore is driven up by the pap govt to a level that without foreign workers, spore is doomed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Recently, the National Research Foundation chose 11 young scientists from 220 applicants from all over the world for their second batch of scientists to develop Singapore into a center of research.
The news release from NRF didn’t mention the birth country of the successful applicants and I think none of them are from Singapore. And before any of you say that it’s because the selection panel favored foreigners, you might like to know that the successful candidates were chosen by a group of distinguished international scientists, including a Nobel prize laureate.
It goes to show once again, like that Chinese girl from Malaysia being the top scorer in the recent exam results, the reason why the government is so liberal in giving PR to people not born in Singapore.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
# Andrew Chuah
Have you heard Depeche Modes’ – ‘Try Walking In my Shoes’? That’s a good place for you to start.
Since you are not an Indian and from your statements seem to know nothing about them, please just stick to representing your race and your personnel problem.
Stating that Indians have more representation & doing very well is one of the most sweeping statements I’ve read recently. Just because you don’t know of Indians who have got retrenched & have difficulty finding a job or another job (one major cause is because we don’t speak Mandarin & of course, let’s not forget that are not from the colour of the majority) doesn’t mean we are doing well.
During the times when you were enjoying your jobs with not much competition, we Indians, with similar or higher qualifications, and asking for less pay, did not get the job because…?
Pray let me educate you yet further. The Indian representatives you speak of consist of Tamils, Sri Lankans, Sikhs & mixed. Interestingly most are also married to non-Indians. So please do Singaporean Indians a favour and don’t add insult to injury by stating that all Indian Singaporeans are having a cosy life and being taken care of. If you have not read ‘Animal Farm’, you should.
Mr Chuah, just because Singaporean Chinese are feeling discriminated, doesn’t mean that Indians are not. It’s just that we have lived with this for a longer period of time and our voices have been and still are small and often ignored for the majority to take notice.
Mr Chuah, may I suggest that in future, you stick to talking about things you know. Do ‘try walking in my shoes’ before you ever get the urge to generalise about a Singaporean Indian again. Don’t insult yourself by talking about things you don’t know.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This means almost 80% of local citizens either jobless or working as cleaner , sweeper or self employed insurance agent .
Garman still have 2 years to remedy the problem or else we will exercise our voting power to get the opposition in . no choice .
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The article has a good point. I strongly urge the Government to publish employment figures separating Singapore citizens from PRs.
The major responsibility of the Government is to its citizens.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I hereby declare i am a citizen with degree and used to command 7500 per month. I am jobless for 1 year.
I am a statistic.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
After 6 months to a year, Jobless Citizen you would have been removed from the active workforce statistic. Hence you are not a statistic in the workforce anymore. That is how statistician compiling government data do to report lower unemployment figure.
Actually with the media collaborating with the govt and the understatment of unemployment figure, it makes individuals FEEL MORE BITTER. It will make him WONDER WHY MORE PEOPLE ARE FINDING JOBS BASED ON MEDIA REPORTS BUT “I STILL CANNOT FIND A JOB”. It will make him feel more depressed particularly if he is older than 45 years of age as his self worth is destroyed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think the idea of lumping PRs and Citizens together is a policy decision made by some self serving actual decision makers[At that point in time Singaporeans but born in another country]…and also to assist their ex-country foreign born citizens to get into singapore easier…
Or it could be due to this over-rated “elite” education which contribute to the weight of decision of the “elite” policy/decision makers in lumping PR and us all togetner…
http://www.theamericanscholar.org/the-disadvantages-of-an-elite-education/
Xianz…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2BjJbKQkgc
It hurts…i will never ever be fool again. Once a fool is bad enough but twice…NEVER!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
FOREIGNER ACTION PARTY.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Singaporeans are Singaporeans.
Permanent residents are (anything but) permanent residents.
PAP is in its best denial mode when it consistently refuses to acknowledge the distinction.
Calling all Singapore citizens who have suffered under PAP’s Prosper-thy-foreign-neighbours policies: kick out these asses!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
3/2/10
Hi Incredulous & Timid Singaporean Girl-Good to hear from both of you and your arguments which I always welcome.
There is no such a thing as a Singaporean race (in Malay “bangsa Singapore” and this is only a myth and the word and meaning of Singaporean simply means “nationality”).
I have as much rights as anyone of you here to write and I standby what I am writing, and I am not offended being blasted as all of us have been badly dislodged ie local Chinese lost their jobs to those from China, local Indian lost their jobs to those from India, and the Malays lost their jobs to those from Mynmar but interms of numb ers, the local Chinese suffered the most as the competition is so hot and so keen.
Timid Singaporean girl, yes, I know those Indian Ministers have Chinese wives but they have nothing to do with their appointment and these Indian Ministers must have social responsibilties towards their fellow Indians in our society and cannot just because we have Chinese wives, we must totally ignore our fellow Indians and listen to our Chinese wives and help the local Chinese (I don’t buy such arguments)
Regards
Andrew Chuah
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It’s kinda sad…working in an Employability centre, out of 10 applications each day I’m looking at around 9 unemployed locals’ applications…ranging from younger than me to older than me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well, like what so man people has said….
If the case is jobs went to singaporeans and not PR, don’t you think they will announce it as such, since their bravado in the past are like this….and they love to make themselves sound good in the best possible ways…with praises about “It is thanks to us”
however, when it is sad issues sue as TH’s lost…GIC’s lost….everything became vague….
so all in all, the more they try to hide, the more truth will appear
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
hmm… notwithstanding that it’s mainly speculative, the analysis is interesting.
i wonder though… there was also data that unemployment rate of residents is also down, that should also mean that unemployment rate amongst SCs have also gone down. so even if most of the jobs are indeed going to PRs, it doesn’t necessarily mean that SCs aren’t benefitting from the improving economy. right?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Singaporeans , please never say no jobs . Plenty of taxis for you to drive , plenty of cleaning jobs ib hawker centre , plenty of road for you to sweep .
We have plenty of jobs , go get it and after 1 year , apply for HDB flat and get married and have babies .
Please don’t be too choosy , just work hard and will be enough for GOOD life. can go travel every year and celebrate all festive seasons .
Don’t forget to bring your familees to restarant for shark fin or abalonies .
As our MM said ” SIngapire next 50 years will be golden ”
AS PM said ? SIngaporeans come first , you will never be left behind ”
But if ask MTB , he will say ” I dunno way like that one “
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
hey pty are u a foreigner? well even if you are not, u are one big son of bitch. Do singaporean students study so hard just to be a road sweeper? why don’t you ask your ur dead grandpa to sweep the roads and clean up scraps at hawker centre instead. =)
I admit that I am immature with my words but at least i know what my fellow singaporeans are going thru. Unlike you,selfish and ignorant.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ trump
Don’t be so rude, pty was saying the truth. There are plenty of jobs but Singaporeans like you are choosy and picky and look down on those menial jobs. You’re just a bunch of losers. You only know how to bitch and bitch. You’re spoiled and you’re f*cked up. So what is wrong in being a road sweeper when you’re hungry? Did you see those Haitians guys fighting each other for food, water and medicine? My grand pa came from China with only the clothes he had on his back and worked in a pig farm and did he bitch like you? He didn’t because he knew very well that back in his old country, he would be lucky enough to have one meal a day consisting of plain rice porridge and with some peanuts if he was lucky.
Yes, I agree with you that you’re a very immatured person and you should appreciate the fact that at least you manage to go to school. So why won’t you grow up and appreciate what the government has done for us. You’re not only stupid but also a very selfish person. Don’t you know that we are surrounded by 200 hostile neighbors and their plan is to repossess their countries back from the Chinese and Indians even when they were born in these countries. Of course, I’m talking about Malaysia and Indonesia. It got nothing to do with seized mentality, it has got to do with reality.
So shut the f*ck up, open your eyes and grow up, you dumb stupid motherf*cker!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Timid Singaporean Girl and Andrew Chuah
Both of you should be ashamed of yourselves. We’re all Singaporean irrespective of whether we’re of Indian or Chinese or Malay ancestry. Example, if we meet each other in any foreign city, we could always recognize each other not because of the color of our skin but because of our Singlish. A Chinese Singaporean is closer to a Indian Singaporean or a Malay Singaporean than a Chinese from PRC or Indioan from India or an Indonesian. Why? Because we share the same Singapore values. And the only time we might mistaken each other is a Malaysian, who is our cousin. Other than that, we’re totally Singaporean.
As I had said before and repeating it here again, there are plenty of jobs available for us in Singapore but we are spoilt. We only want to choose a job that we think is good enough for us in term of pay and “face” wise. So don’t blame the govt in allowing the non English speaking Chinese from PRC or the Indians from India and elsewhere to come to Singapore to work at what we considered as “dirty” jobs. And I’ll like to ask you that if we don’t allow the FT’s to come, how many of us Singaporean would want to work in the hot sun at construction sites or sweep the streets for the kind of money they are paid? The answer is none. Actually, you guys are of not much difference to those selfish white Aussies who don’t like those Indian kids working in their country for peanuts and resort to beating and even killing them. At least, we can compliment ourselves that we ain’t as barbaric and as uncivilized as those racist Aussies who resort to violence and murder.
So let’s be proud of our country. And remember that should we go to war, our enemy won’t give a shit about our skin color but the uniform we wear. We’re all Singaporeans. We either swim together or drown together, there is nothing in between.
Majulah Singapura!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I am sorry, but I think the analysis in this article is RUBBISH for the following reasons.
1. How can you assume that the number of PRs in 2009 is 80,000. There is absolutely no basis for that assumption.
2. Even if your assumption were true, the assumption that the proportion of new jobs going to PRs is the same is OUTRAGEOUS! Just because the PRs took 42.5% of the new jobs in 2004-2008, DOES NOT MEAN that they will take the same number of new jobs in 2009.
3. The article does not take account of the financial crisis. The recession might have reduced the number of new jobs, might have reduced the number of PRs and might even have caused some E pass holders to be retrenched and leave Singapore. Why does you analysis not take into account these factors?
4. Your article is taking about NEW JOBS that were created. And their distribution amongst PRs and Singaporeans. Surely, such an analysis requires you to take into account the number of new Singaporeans entering the job market every year. If there are 100 jobs created in a year, and the population of Singapore increases by 100 (of which 60 are foreigners and 40 are singaporeans who enter the job market), a statistic that says that 60% of the new jobs went to foreigners DOES NOT prove that singaporeans are prejudiced when seeking new jobs. a singaporean could be just as equally competitive, but there may not be enough singaporeans for the new jobs created.
5. linked to number 4, has your article considered the presence of foreigners on the CREATION of new jobs. perhaps, the presence of foreigners increases the size of the economy (the more people, more food courts, more shopping malls, more services etc) and therefore increases the jobs.
I am not an economist so I may be completely off-track. But my humble opinion is that the stats in this article are nonsense. I would very much appreciate if someone could clarify these points, or show why they are not applicable to the argument Mr Ng is trying to make.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I am sorry, but I think the analysis in this article is RUBBISH for the following reasons.
1. How can you assume that the number of PRs in 2009 is 80,000. There is absolutely no basis for that assumption.
2. Even if your assumption were true, the assumption that the proportion of new jobs going to PRs is the same is OUTRAGEOUS! Just because the PRs took 42.5% of the new jobs in 2004-2008, DOES NOT MEAN that they will take the same number of new jobs in 2009.
3. The article does not take account of the financial crisis. The recession might have reduced the number of new jobs, might have reduced the number of PRs and might even have caused some E pass holders to be retrenched and leave Singapore. Why does you analysis not take into account these factors?
4. Your article is taking about NEW JOBS that were created. And their distribution amongst PRs and Singaporeans. Surely, such an analysis requires you to take into account the number of new Singaporeans entering the job market every year. If there are 100 jobs created in a year, and the population of Singapore increases by 100 (of which 60 are foreigners and 40 are singaporeans who enter the job market), a statistic that says that 60% of the new jobs went to foreigners DOES NOT prove that singaporeans are prejudiced when seeking new jobs. a singaporean could be just as equally competitive, but there may not be enough singaporeans for the new jobs created.
5. linked to number 4, has your article considered the presence of foreigners on the CREATION of new jobs. perhaps, the presence of foreigners increases the size of the economy (the more people, more food courts, more shopping malls, more services etc) and therefore increases the jobs.
I am not an economist so I may be completely off-track. But my humble opinion is that the stats in this article are nonsense. I would very much appreciate if someone could clarify these points, or show why they are not applicable to the argument Mr Ng is trying to make.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
More jobs that are suitable for local PMETs are being offered to foreigners.
Visit : http://job-search.jobstreet.com.sg/singapore/job-opening.php?location=70000&nationality=46&job-source=1&src=22
Will someone from TR please do some investigations on this when there are employers who kept shouting “Singaporeans are choosy and lazy” when jobs such as those reflected on Jobstreet website are being offered DIRECTLY to foreigners by DIRECT EMPLOYERS and recruitment agencies.!!!!!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This is the most rubbish analysis that I have seen in a while.
The author does not seem to know that the PREREQUISITE for Singapore PR is someone must have a job in Singapore. One has to work at least 12 continous months in Singapore before getting the PR. So, even for arguments sake, it is assumed that 80K PRs were taken in 2009, most of them will have a job in Singapore anyway (barring non-working spouse and children). They will convert from foreigners to PRs.
If a PR is retrenched and then takes a new job the ultimate effect is nil as there is a minus and subsequently a plus. The only way the PRs can affect the job market is if their PR children (new graduates) or spouses (not working before) take up jobs. But given the difficult economic climate and age profile of the PRs (how many will have 22+ children?) that number will be very small.
The starting point of the analysis should be the number of foreigners and Singaporean graduates joining the workforce and then work out how that distribution pans out.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dear seoissbiss (who posted twice on 3rd Feb 2010 11.27pm and 11.30pm),
Thank you for your comments and the opportunity to clarify. I don’t know where you are coming from, and I do not appreciate the name-calling of my article as “RUBBISH” in your humble opinion. Like I said in the article, this is an estimate, an estimate based on past statistics as the relevant department has refused to publish the current data. It can be easily proven incorrect if the relevant department shows us the numbers, and I reiterate, the official numbers. Anyway, here’s a point to point rebuttal to your questions.
1. The official data on number of new PRs in 2009 is not out yet. Therefore, we have to rely on an assumption, in this case, 80,000 – which is very close to the number of 79,167 in 2008. It is up to the reader to decide if this number is an underestimate, overestimate, or just right and you can redo the whole analysis. Anyway, just be on alert for the next 1 month as the “results” for 2009 will be out very soon.
2. I repeat, this is an estimate based on historical data as MOM has refused to release the current numbers. Why don’t you try to get from them and show to all of us here at TR?
3. My analysis is based on new PR’s historical share of new jobs created. Therefore, I would have taken into account the number of new jobs created. As for other factors, if you can show me the official numbers and your preferred methodology, I can consider doing it for you.
4. Going by your argument, isn’t it very scary that SCs are only getting 9,000 jobs, when there are tens of thousands of them entering the labour market?
5. MOM has published the numbers separately for foreigners and residents, so there isn’t a need to go into considering the foreigners here. I don’t get your point on the presence of foreigners creating of new jobs. Are you trying to say that the type of jobs foreigners create is more likely to go to SCs, PRs, or foreigners themselves?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dear nimo (who on 4th Feb 2010 8.17pm),
Thank you for your comments and the opportunity to clarify. First, let me tell you that I do not appreciate the name-calling of my article as “RUBBISH”, although I can see that it could be a technical misunderstanding on your part. So allow me to clarify.
The so-called employment change/creation published by the authorities is based on the difference in employment level compared to the previous year. You can refer to MOM’s official explanatory notes. Holding everything constant, if 1 foreign worker convert to a PR, then it will be no change for SCs, +1 for PR and -1 for FW.
Going by the huge number new PRs expected in 2009, common sense tells us that a large share of the employment gain of +43,000 could be attributed to the PRs, regardless of whether they were already in a job in Singapore. I’m not sure why you find the conclusion so unbelievable.
Also, I would like to correct your incorrect argument that one has to work at least 12 continuous months in Singapore before getting the PR. To quote a TR article:
“The ease of getting Singapore PR is illustrated by the plethora of schemes offered by the Immigration and Checkpoint Authority (ICA) to attract foreigners to become Singapore PRs.
There is a Landed Permanent Residence scheme which gives a grant period of 2 years for applicants not yet working in Singapore to find employment in the country (http://www.entersingapore.info/sginfo/immigration.php)
For Hong Kongers, there is a special “approved-in-principle (AIP)” for Singapore PR which enables them to obtain Singapore PR without even stepping foot on Singapore!”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
First of all, John, I didn’t mean rubbish personally. I don’t have anything against you. The point I was trying to get across is that the statistics you used to make your argument are incorrect and so the point you are making “Majority of Jobs in 2009 went to PRs and not citizens” is not proved.
Leaving all the other objections aside, I still have 3 major problems with your essay.
1. You cannot estimate that just because PRs took 42% of the jobs in the preceding years, they took that percentage of the jobs in 2009. The argument that MoM has not released any stats doesn’t change the fact that there is no basis for that assumption. Also, given the financial crisis and the fact that there was massive retrenchment and the number of jobs created decreased means that you cannot rely on the ceteris paribus assumption.
2. Even if we were to assume that PRs too majority of the NEW jobs created in 2009, this does not answer my question on the number of new SCs entering the job market every year. I reiterate my example, if the economy grows such that a 100 jobs are created in year X and there are only 40 new SCs entering the job market, then naturally the other 60 jobs will go to foreigners. Thus, majority of the jobs will go to foreigners.
Perhaps the argument should be why the employers in Singapore are relying on just importing more people, rather than making the current employees more productive.
I appreciate the analysis presented. But I just don’t agree with the conclusion that you have reached. I just hope that either you can respond to my criticisms or we can agree to disagree. Honestly, no hard feelings.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
More of this John Ong and TR.
Using govmin data to draw conclusions that are reasonable (not “rubbish” and can be only contradicted if govmin releases more data.
I don’t see why yr assumption of 42% is unreasonable in the absence of data.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dear seoissbiss (who posted on 5th Feb 2010 8.53 am),
Thank you for your clarification. May I know why are you so sure that the statistics I have used are incorrect? Do you access to official statistics to prove that I’m wrong? The basic point here is that in the absence of official statistics, I have made used of historical data to make an estimate. I’m not claiming to be absolutely right. It’s up to the reader to decide if the estimate is reasonable. And it would be best if MOM reads this and decides to show us the numbers.
Addressing your 3 points:
1. I respect your decision not to accept the 42%, and leave it to my readers to decide for themselves if this is reasonable. Do you expect 4 in 10 new PRs to be in jobs, or none of them to be in jobs? If none of them are in jobs, why are they still given PRs?
2. In my reply to nimo, I have explained that so-called employment change/creation published by the authorities is based on the difference in employment level compared to the previous year. So we just look at the net employment numbers. We were in a recession year in 2009 and therefore, your hypothetical example of more jobs being created than what SCs could take up will not hold. Anyway, I never said that Singaporeans are prejudiced when seeking new jobs.
On your point of productivity, that’s never what my article is for. The main point of my article to correct mainstream media’s slant with headlines such as “Big gains in jobs, mostly for locals.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Wah lao, you all commenters really so cham meh? Many kena retrenched ah? Many got kick by foreign ah? Don’t sian people la. If no job, go out look for job la. Got time talk here, then you not serious look for job leh.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
John,
This is my second time posting the following same ideas. My first didn’t go through. Probably, my comments are too sensitive for TR to stomach. So much for advocating vibrancy.
Here goes. You’re looking at the figures from the perspective of PRs. I’m curious what the outcome will be like if you focus on citizens instead. That is, you can try to start with citizens, then finally arrive at the number of “new jobs” acquired by citizens.
Another thing, you forgot about replacements. You only focus on “new jobs”. Every year, people retire from the workforce. At the same time, “majority of” PRs leave for greener pastures. I tend to say “some”, but that won’t do justice to the claims of many here, who like to allege that most (if not, all) of them will eventually leave. You’ll need new entrants to replenish them and the retirees.
If you factor in replacement, there’ll be more than 43000 posts. It’s highly dubious that all the 34000 PRs you estimated went for “new jobs”. So, it’s debatable whether “new jobs” landed with PRs or citizens.
In any case, I won’t worry about the distinction between “new job” and “old job”. A job is after all a job. A job in an “old” existing MNC/SME is the same as a job in a “new kid at the block” MNC/SME.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
this discussion is getting a bit technical for the layman, and i see no value at all since it is neither right nor wrong.
WHAT I DISLIKE MOST IS THE TITLE which gives an air of finality :
“Majority of Jobs Created in 2009 went to Permanent Residents and not citizens”
Quite clearly the writer himself said that he was making some basic assumption and doing an extrapolition which, arguably, is not unreasonable for many people.
However the title of the article is in serious contradiction to the intention. Who wrote the title? Was it John Ong or the Tr editors? I think it is very inrresponsible to use such title for the article. A much better title would be “Did the majority of jobs …. ?” and leave it open ended. TR need to buck up its deplorable editing style.(this is not first time).
zero
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I feel disgusted with some of the fast-food chain that put the non-english speaking as their front liners. These people need to at least have basic english speaking skills. I was very annoyed when my questions regarding their went unanswered. I am not sure if I need to learnt Mandarin to order for MEals not them learning english instead. I was so annoyed that I need to ask if there is anyone working there who can speak english. I know, the two FT was not happy, and not even a word of sorry from them when they hand over the meal to me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Most of these entrepreneur employers are from Malaysia Indonesia HK and China.
They are snobbish employers, expect to pay Singaporeans dirt cheap while they live in luxury in their own countries.
They pay cheap and employ foreigners, because they know Singaporeans cannot survive low pay.
Singapore does not need all these S & M entrepreneurs, in fact Singapore is over flooded with them e.g. food & retail services.
These are the services that IRAS could not expose to their illegal dealings.
These foreign entrepreneurs come to Singapore, employ foreigners and profits back to their countries, what does Singaporean benefits from them?
If Singapore are to clampdown on all these foreign entrepreneurs, then, there would be no shortage of workers.
We do not need all these FTrash & PRubbish to work for Snobbish foreign employers at the expense of Singaporeans.
These are all the benefits that the STUPID gahmen is providing to non Singaporeans.
Foreign entrepreneurs come and starts a company, money back to their own countries.
FTrash & PRubbish finds work in Singapore, money back to their own countries.
What they have in common are they only left their shits behind for STUPID gahmen to clear.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0