a community of singaporeans

One CNA Report But Two Different Set of Numbers

Posted by theonlinecitizen on January 12, 2007

Thanks to Pseudonymity for bringing up this apparent disparity in his blog here.

Yesterday, CNA broadcasted/posted a report titled Middle class wage stagnation could lead to social instability.

One version of the report says 123,000 jobs were created last year and economists estimate some 70 percent of these jobs went to foreigners. (See also SEW’s post)

In the other version of the same report, it’s 124,000 jobs were created last year and economists estimate some 45 percent of these jobs went to foreigners.

There are no other changes in the report except for this one line.

So which is which – Did 70% of 123,000 OR 45% of 124,000 jobs go to foreigners last year??


6 Responses to “One CNA Report But Two Different Set of Numbers”

  1. article19 said

    Have a look at the news report…CNA has edited it yet again!!!

  2. sarek_home said

    With the following Parliament Q&A as reference, the “Manpower Ministry data shows that 124,000 jobs were created last year and 45 percent of these jobs went to foreigners” is likely to referring foreign workers as foreigners and Singaporeans and PRs as locals.

    If 30% of jobs go to Singaporeans, then we have the following breakdown:

    – Singaporeans 30%
    – PRs 25%
    – Foreign Workers 45%


    Parliament No: 10
    Session No: 2
    Volume No: 81
    Sitting No: 11
    Sitting Date: 2006-04-03
    MPs Speaking: Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim;Dr Ng Eng Hen;Mr Low Thia Khiang

    Column No : 1718


    12. Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim asked the Minister for Manpower in light of the most recent Labour Market 2005 report (a) what is the percentage of the 63,500 jobs that were added in 2005 for local people, that went to Singapore citizens and permanent residents respectively; (b) what is the percentage distribution of the 49,800 jobs that were added in 2005 for foreign workers, with respect to sectors, salary range, education requirements and skill sets; and (c) what are the factors leading to high foreign employment gain in 2005.

    Dr Ng Eng Hen: Sir, we do not have a breakdown of local employment data by Singapore citizens and permanent residents. We collect them as locals. We have started collecting data, but it is too premature to release to the public. It is not precise enough and we need to double check the figures.

    We have the breakdown of foreign employment gain by sectors, but not by salary, education requirements and skills sets. But of the 49,800 jobs created last year that went to foreigners, 46% were in the services sector, about 40% were in the manufacturing sector and 13% were in the construction sector.

    More jobs were created for both locals and foreigners last year, in tandem with the strong economic growth. While the job gains for foreigners were high, ie, 49,800 or 44% of all jobs created, they were less than for locals. For locals, it was about 56%. In recent years, more jobs have gone to locals, ie, Singaporeans and PRs, every year, in both good and difficult times.

    Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, I would like to seek a clarification from the Minister. Is there any reason, whether historical or statistical, that we classify PRs and citizens together as one category called “locals”? Would it be clearer to actually segregate the two categories?

    Dr Ng Eng Hen: Sir, we have followed international convention. That was the first metric on which we collected data. In that sense, we never needed that finer granularity or sensitivity when we produced data.

    But I take the hon. Member’s point. It may be instructive for us to see, in terms of the number of jobs created for locals, how many went to citizens and PRs. Our look at preliminary data when we started trying to get them from a number of sources – this is not the precise way to do it and, therefore, I am reluctant to give the exact figure until we have clear data – was that neither group was over-represented. In other words, the proportions of Singaporeans and PRs were equally represented in terms of jobs created.

  3. Dr.Huang said

    Let me hazard a guess.
    Initially it was 70%, then someone got upset.

    Called up some other people, then in a closed door meeting ( with doors not unlocked), made the “spoken to” realise their folly.

    The “spoken to” retracted their pronouncement and then it was 45%.
    Deja vu?

    Just my active imagination. Must be the ginseng I took just now.


  4. quitacet said

    how MiniTrue.

  5. Danny said

    Aside from civil service, the government does not create jobs. It create investment friendly policies for investors. Investors create jobs not government. Don’t be misled by them

  6. singapore Sightseeing places To visit

    One CNA Report But Two Different Set of Numbers

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: