[Bigiron]

63% of resident PMET growth from 2014 to 2024 from local-born Singaporeans: Tan See Leng | The Straits Times
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/p...n-see-leng

[Bigiron]

To identify flaws and inconsistencies in the article titled *"63% of resident PMET growth from 2014 to 2024 from local-born Singaporeans: Tan See Leng"* from *The Straits Times*, we would need to analyze the content critically. While I cannot access the full article directly, I can provide a general framework for evaluating potential flaws and inconsistencies based on the title and common issues in such reports. Here are some areas to consider:

---

### 1. **Definition of Key Terms**
   - **Flaw**: The article may not clearly define what constitutes a "PMET" (Professionals, Managers, Executives, and Technicians). Without a precise definition, the statistics might be misleading or misinterpreted.
   - **Inconsistency**: If the definition of PMET changes over the 10-year period (2014–2024), the comparison might not be valid.

---

### 2. **Time Frame and Data Collection**
   - **Flaw**: The article claims data from 2014 to 2024, but if it was published before 2024, the data for future years would be projections, not actual figures. Projections can be inaccurate due to unforeseen economic or social changes.
   - **Inconsistency**: If the article mixes actual data (2014–2023) with projections (2024), it may present an incomplete or speculative picture.

---

### 3. **Source of Data**
   - **Flaw**: If the data is sourced from a single government agency or report without independent verification, it might lack transparency or be subject to bias.
   - **Inconsistency**: If the article does not cite the original data source or methodology, readers cannot assess the reliability of the statistics.

---

### 4. **Population Growth and Demographics**
   - **Flaw**: The article highlights that 63% of PMET growth comes from local-born Singaporeans, but it may not account for the overall population growth or changes in the proportion of local-born versus foreign-born residents.
   - **Inconsistency**: If the number of foreign-born PMETs grew at a slower rate due to policy changes (e.g., stricter immigration laws), the statistic might reflect policy rather than organic growth among local-born Singaporeans.

---

### 5. **Economic Context**
   - **Flaw**: The article may not consider broader economic factors, such as job market trends, industry shifts, or global economic conditions, which could influence PMET growth.
   - **Inconsistency**: If the article attributes PMET growth solely to local-born Singaporeans without acknowledging external factors, it may oversimplify the situation.

---

### 6. **Representation of Statistics**
   - **Flaw**: The 63% figure might be presented without context, such as the absolute number of PMETs or the baseline population size. For example, if the total number of PMETs grew significantly, 63% could represent a large absolute increase.
   - **Inconsistency**: If the article does not provide comparative data (e.g., PMET growth among foreign-born residents), the statistic might be misleading.

---

### 7. **Potential Bias**
   - **Flaw**: The article might have a political or ideological slant, emphasizing the success of local-born Singaporeans to support a specific narrative (e.g., the effectiveness of government policies).
   - **Inconsistency**: If the article ignores challenges faced by local-born PMETs (e.g., underemployment, wage stagnation), it may present an overly optimistic view.

---

### 8. **Missing Counterarguments**
   - **Flaw**: The article may not address potential criticisms or alternative interpretations of the data. For example, some might argue that PMET growth is concentrated in certain industries or regions, leaving others behind.
   - **Inconsistency**: If the article presents the statistic as universally positive without acknowledging limitations, it may lack balance.

---

### Conclusion
To fully assess the flaws and inconsistencies in the article, you would need to examine the full text, including the methodology, data sources, and context provided. However, based on the title alone, potential issues include unclear definitions, reliance on projections, lack of context, and possible bias. Always cross-check statistics with original sources and consider alternative perspectives to ensure a well-rounded understanding.

[Bigiron]

The article focuses on the growth of resident PMETs (Professional, Managerial, Executive or Technical) jobs in Singapore from 2014 to 2024. While it states that 63% of this growth came from local-born Singaporeans, there are some flaws and inconsistencies in the article's arguments and presentation of information.
 
Flaw 1: Oversimplification of the PMET Growth
 
The article emphasizes the contribution of local-born Singaporeans to PMET growth without providing a complete picture. It fails to address the following:
 
- Specific sectors: The article doesn't mention which specific PMET sectors are seeing the majority of this growth. Are these local-born Singaporeans primarily in high-demand fields like tech or finance?
 
- Overall PMET employment: The article only highlights the growth in PMETs, not the overall employment numbers. Are local-born Singaporeans actually making up the majority of PMETs, or just a larger share of the increase?
 
- Competition with Foreign Professionals: The article mentions concerns about foreign work pass holders taking up PMET positions, but doesn't adequately address how local-born Singaporeans are performing in these roles.
 
Flaw 2: Unclear Connection to "Us Versus Them" Mentality
 
The article claims that local-born Singaporeans make up the bulk of PMET growth, then goes on to address the issue of "us versus them" mentality. The connection between these two points is unclear. While acknowledging that Singapore is a nation of immigrants, the article does not directly link the PMET growth figures to the potential for divisive views.
 
Flaw 3: Limited Discussion on Underemployment
 
The article mentions underemployment as a concern but only briefly addresses it. A more in-depth analysis of the reasons behind underemployment, especially among local-born Singaporeans, would be helpful for readers.
 
Flaw 4: Lack of Specific Evidence
 
The article relies on statements made by the Minister for Manpower, Dr Tan See Leng. However, it lacks specific data and evidence to support his claims about PMET growth and the contributions of different groups.
 
Flaw 5: Unbalanced Presentation
 
The article primarily presents the perspective of Dr Tan, while other perspectives, particularly those of Mr Leong Mun Wai, are presented as critical of the government's policies. This creates an unbalanced portrayal of the issues at hand.
 
Inconsistency: Conflicting Statements
 
The article states that "many naturalized Singaporeans and permanent residents who count towards the overall figure of 382,000 in that period are married to local-born Singaporeans as well." This seems to contradict the "us versus them" narrative presented in the article. If naturalized Singaporeans and PRs are married to locals, are they really considered "foreign" in the context of PMET jobs? This point needs clarification.
 
Overall:
 
The article raises important questions about the state of PMET employment in Singapore. However, it presents a limited and potentially misleading perspective on the issue. A more comprehensive and nuanced analysis would be needed to provide a balanced understanding of the complex factors at play in the local labor market.

[Bigiron]

1.  Challenging the Narrative of "Us vs. Them"

- Question: Does the article's focus on local-born Singaporeans actually reflect a "us versus them" mentality, as Minister Tan suggests? Could this emphasis on "local-born" unintentionally create a divide?

2.  Demanding Clarity on "Foreign" Professionals

- Question:  If many naturalized Singaporeans and PRs married to local-born Singaporeans are counted towards the 63% growth, are they truly "foreign" in the context of PMET jobs?

3.  Exploring the Impact on Existing Residents

- Question: While the article focuses on the growth in PMETs, does it adequately address the potential impact on existing resident PMETs, particularly those who might be facing displacement or underemployment?

4.  Demanding Data and Evidence

- Question:  Beyond the Minister's statement, what specific data and evidence support the claim that local-born Singaporeans make up the bulk of PMET growth?

5.  Seeking a Balanced Perspective

- Question: While the article primarily presents the government's perspective, what are the views of other stakeholders, including those represented by Mr Leong Mun Wai, regarding the PMET growth and its impact on different groups?

6.  Exploring the Issue of Underemployment

- Question:  Does the article delve deeply enough into the issue of underemployment, particularly among local-born Singaporeans? What are the underlying causes and potential solutions to address this concern?

7.  Analyzing the Impact on Specific Sectors

- Question:  Which specific PMET sectors are seeing the majority of this growth? Are these sectors experiencing a shortage of local-born Singaporeans, and if so, why?

[lylcnn]

Proof that AI may not be that effective

[Tee tiong huat]

More subsidies, support for long-term care for seniors from July 2026. Long  term care insurance scheme CareShield Life will also undergo its first review.

[Bigiron]

63% growth in local-born Singaporean PMETs from 2014 to 2024, but this figure alone doesn't tell the whole story:
 
On Local-Born PMET Growth:
 
- Beyond Numbers: While the figure is positive, how does this growth compare to the overall PMET growth in Singapore? Is this growth rate significantly faster than in previous years? What are the key contributing factors to this growth? What sort of methodology are being used to collect such data?
 
- Quality of Growth: Does this increase represent a genuine rise in high-skilled, well-paying PMET jobs for local-born Singaporeans, or is it driven by an expansion in lower-tiered PMET roles? What is the overall impact on wages and career advancement opportunities for local PMETs?
 
- Geographical Distribution: Does this growth occur evenly across different sectors and geographical areas in Singapore, or are certain industries or regions experiencing a more significant surge in local-born PMETs?
 
On Immigration and PMETs:
 
- Impact on Foreign-Born PMETs: What is the impact of this local-born PMET growth on foreign-born PMETs in Singapore? Has there been a slowdown in the growth of foreign-born PMETs? Are there any concerns about potential displacement or limited opportunities for foreign PMETs?
 
- S Pass Qualifying Salary: How effective is the S Pass qualifying salary in protecting the interests of local PMETs? Is it sufficiently high to prevent foreign PMETs from undercutting local wages? Are there any proposed changes to the S Pass qualifying salary or other measures to ensure a fair playing field?
 
- Integration and Inclusivity: How is Singapore promoting inclusivity and integration within the PMET workforce, considering the diverse backgrounds of both local-born and foreign-born professionals? Are there any programs or policies aimed at fostering collaboration and understanding between these groups?
 
On Overall Labor Market:
 
- Future Skills Needs: With rapid technological advancements and changing industry demands, what are the future skills needs of the Singaporean PMET workforce? How is the government addressing the skills gap and ensuring that both local and foreign PMETs are equipped with the necessary skills for the future?
 
- Addressing Unemployment: The article mentions low underemployment, but what measures are in place to address the concerns of those who are underemployed or facing difficulty finding work? Are there any initiatives aimed at retraining or upskilling workers to meet the evolving demands of the job market?
 
- Long-Term Sustainability: What are the long-term implications of the current PMET growth trends for Singapore's economy and society? How can Singapore ensure a sustainable and equitable workforce for the future?