Welcome Home !!!

SPOR: 259,040 new PRs granted last 5 years, but more than 86,730 gave up?

I refer to the report “Real growth in household incomes over past 5 years despite higher inflation: MOF” (Channel NewsAsia, Dec 26).

Real incomes have risen?

According to the the Ministry of Finance’s second issue of the Singapore Public Sector Outcomes Review (SPOR), “Real incomes have risen in the past five years, driven by good economic growth and a tight labour market.”

However, the above is based on “Real Median Monthly Household Income per Household Member (including Employer CPF Contributions) among Resident Employed Households (in 2009 dollars)”. What is the outcome, if we use the income excluding Employer CPF Contributions?

In this regard, the real median income growth for workers (excluding Employer CPF Contributions) was negative in 2008, 2009, 2011, 2012 (June) and only 0.5 per cent in 2010. (“2012 real income declined C 2.3%?”, Nov 30)

In the past, I understand that the labour data did not have two data sets ((including and excluding Employer CPF Contributions). It is only in recent years that we tend to see outcomes given solely on the basis of “including Employer CPF Contributions”.

In the section on “Population Growing at a slower Pace“, I cannot find any mention of the increase in the foreign population, although there is a graph showing the increase for citizens, permanent residents (PRs) and foreigners.

It also said “The number of new citizens and permanent residents each year depends on various factors, including the number of applications and the profile and calibre of applicants. Applicants are assessed on whether they can contribute to and integrate well into our society, as well as their commitment to sinking roots in Singapore”.

259,040 new PRs granted last 5 years?

Although the number of citizens grew by 5.1% from 3.13 million in 2007 to 3.29 million in 2012, how much of this growth was due to the 92,310 new citizenships granted during this period?

Foreign population grew 47.5%

In contrast, the foreign population grew much more by 47.5% from 1.01 to 1.49 million, and PRs grew by 17.8% from 450.000 to 530,000.

The graph on page 24 of the SPOR report indicates that the total number of PRs granted was 259,040. So, with 259,040 new PRs granted, why did the PRs population only grow by 80,000? Even if we assume that all the 92,310 new citizens were all PRs, which is not possible because some become new citizens without being PRs first, we are still missing 86,730 PRs. Could it be that more than 86,730 PRs gave up their permanent residency? And of course PRs who leave may sell their HDB flats for a profit and withdraw their CPF too.

So, what does this tell you about “Applicants are assessed on whether they can contribute to and integrate well into our society, as well as their commitment to sinking roots in Singapore”?

Productivity measures are not working?

With productivity growth failing miserably at 0.2, C 7.3, C 3.6, 11.1 and 1.0, from 2007 to 2011, why are we still repeating the consistent rhetoric that the lower-income’s wages can only go up with productivity growth?

Can replace 70% of income when retire?

As to “An MOM-commissioned study confirmed that for those who work consistently, the CPF system will provide adequately for retirement, provided they choose their housing prudently and use their CPF savings wisely. Among entrants to the workforce today, the median male earner should be able to replace 70% of his wages when he retires”, from the graph in the study, it appears that real earnings start to decline from around age 38, for males at the 50th percentile for earnings.

So, my understanding is that at age 55, which is the age used to compute the Income Replacement Ratio (IRR), the real earnings would be about the same as that at around age 33.

So, does this mean that we are assuming that one would be earning at age 55, the real earnings equivalent of what one earned at around 33? Had the study not used age 55 earnings for the retirement age of 65, the drop in real earnings growth may continue to age 65. (“Retirement study: High IRR?, Nov 15)