Total Factor Productivity (TFP)’s Contribution to GDP Growth in Past 10 Years

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me take Parliamentary Question No 4.

Between 2008 and 2018, Singapore's Total Factor Productivity (TFP) grew by 0.5% per annum. This is about 12% of our GDP growth of 4.5% per annum over the same period. Since 2016, TFP growth has increased to 0.9% per annum or around 27% of GDP growth.

Singapore's TFP performance was stronger than or comparable to most OECD countries. Between 2008 and 2018, France's TFP rose by 0.3% per annum, while Finland's TFP growth was 0% per annum. TFP growth in Germany and in the United States were similar to ours, at about 0.5% per annum.

The pick-up in our TFP growth in recent years can be attributed to our economic restructuring efforts, which are important to raise productivity and to transform our industries through innovation and internationalisation. Initiatives like SkillsFuture to upskill our workers and support lifelong learning would have also contributed to this.

Transforming our economy and raising TFP are long-term efforts. We are making progress, but we must continue to focus on these areas in the years ahead, building on the strong tripartite partnership between Government, employers and the Labour Movement.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. A few supplementary questions for the Minister of State for Manpower. The first question pertains to the data that was shared. The Parliamentary Question seeks information for each of the ITMs – I understand Minister of State said that the ITMs are launched in different years so it would be more useful to provide data in a certain manner. But, there is information provided for Singaporeans, PRs and foreigners between the years 2015 and 2018. Within these years, which ITMs is the Minister of State referring to vis-à-vis the numbers: 39,000 Singaporeans, 8,600 PRs and 28,500 foreigners. So, which ITM is the Minister of State referring to?

The second question is the statistics for Adapt and Grow, regarding the 93,000 locals. I understand "locals" would mean PRs and Singaporeans. Can the Minister of State confirm that? Can he also share the number of Singaporeans and PRs on Adapt and Grow between these years.

My third question pertains to how information on the ITMs is presented. The roadmaps are not consistent in terms of jobs for Singaporeans, PRs or foreigners, for example. I will give you an example. Construction ITM, if you go on the respective YouTube channels and you see reference on construction, it is very clear, good jobs for Singaporeans, no two ways about that. You go to the Retail ITM, they talk about a future-ready workforce and a professional and skilled workforce. Ostensibly, this would mean a whole range, beyond Singaporeans. Infocomm and Media ITM talks about creating new PMET jobs, 13,000 new PMET jobs and it goes on. So, every ITM is different; understandably so, but will the Ministry in future, in going forward, present that data very clearly for each ITM? PRs, this many; Singaporeans, this many. And there are obvious reasons for this. The conversation becomes more fact-based and you do not have a corrosive conversation about Singaporeans losing jobs to foreigners and so on.

Sir, I thank the Member for his questions. The ITMs relate to all the 23 ITMs that you asked for. As I mentioned earlier, the ITMs were only launched in 2016 with the majority of them coming on stream in 2018. The data is still preliminary, so it will take time. It is more meaningful and impactful to measure them as we talked about medium term and long-term developments. Many of these developments are transformative, we are transforming industries, we are transforming companies, doing job redesign, so, it will take time. But the initial indicators look promising. But I do agree and that is why we have not gone into detail yet because it will take some time to stabilise the data.

Currently, MOM provides employment statistics by local-foreigner breakdown in broad sectors: Manufacturing, Construction and Services in our annual market labour report. Those are already available; data between local and foreigner breakdown.

Currently, we need to also follow industry classification of employment statistics which follows statistical standards aligned to international convention and ensures compatibility with employment statistics that we have published in previous years so that it becomes meaningful. It is not just meaningful to put out statistics but you have to also put out comparability. So, we are making progress, but there is still a lot of work to do as we transform. It will take time for data to stabilise and it is something that we can look to and study how we can present this better in the medium and long term. So, I take the Member's point.

Sir, perhaps I can ask three further questions on this matter of ITMs. Firstly, have the ITMs made any impact on our economic growth and our job creation? Secondly, have the economic growth and job creation benefited Singaporeans? And thirdly, have the economic growth and job creation benefited Singaporeans more than foreigners?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me address Mr Liang Eng Hwa's three questions holistically. That is the reason why I think it is useful for us to consider both the ITM question and the Total Factor Productivity question together, because all these questions pertain to our strategies to grow our Singapore companies and create good jobs for Singaporeans. Mr Pritam Singh alluded to this issue of the benefits – in fact, asked by Mr Liang Eng Hwa as well – the benefits of our growth towards Singaporeans and on Singaporeans.

Let me take the second question first, which is fundamental. Have economic growth and job creation benefited Singaporeans? And more importantly, as Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked, have economic growth and job creation benefited Singaporeans more than foreigners?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the short answer to both questions is a resounding yes. This Government puts Singaporeans at the heart of everything we do. We pursue growth not for growth's sake alone. We pursue growth so as to improve the lives of Singaporeans. I believe Singaporeans understand and support the Government's position.

At the same time, we must acknowledge the anxieties that lie behind the Members' questions.

Responsible political leaders must try to allay those anxieties, not prey on people's fears for political advantage. We have all met Singaporeans who are concerned about the future, especially in times of economic uncertainties. Some may have been displaced and are looking for a new job, others may still be employed but are wary and worry whether they are ready for the future.

In short, we have many Singaporeans who worry whether tomorrow will be better than today.

To all fellow Singaporeans, I will say this: we understand your worries and we will walk this journey with you. The Government will always have your backs. This is why we have invested so much in SkillsFuture and programmes like Adapt and Grow and the Professional Conversion Programmes. This is why continuing education has been our priority. If we take 20 years to prepare for our first job, it is not enough for us just to assume that the next 30, 40 years of our career lifespan, we do not need any fresh new injection of training and skills.

We do all this to help Singaporeans to prepare for future jobs so that those currently employed can remain future-employed. And as I have always said when I was in NTUC, we are not satisfied to put today's unemployed into today's job. Neither are we satisfied to put today's unemployed into tomorrow's job. We want to prepare tomorrow's unemployed, put them into tomorrow's job, ahead of time.

We are also aware that mature Singaporeans in the middle of their careers may be more anxious about the future. Many of them may not have done any upgrading since they started working 20 years ago after their studies. And I want to assure this group of Singaporeans that the Government will do more to support them in staying skilled and employable, not just for now but also for the future. We will talk more about this in the Budget. It is not just about lifelong employment; it is about lifelong employability.

The crux of the Members' questions is this: have we gotten the local-foreigner workforce balance right, not just in terms of quantity but also in terms of quality? These are questions that the Government and our economic agencies constantly ask ourselves. Too few foreign workers, especially PMETs with skills required for our growth sectors, mean that our businesses cannot seize the opportunities out there and, in the process, create better jobs for all Singaporeans. Too many and there will be a push-back, especially if Singaporeans feel unfairly treated. It is a never-ending balancing act with difficult trade-offs. I often ask Singaporeans when I meet them: if we can only bring in one more foreigner to complement the Singapore workforce – one more – who will we bring in? Someone who is above our national average or someone who is below our national average?

The most memorable answer that I have ever been given was by a young student. He told me, "Minister, Sir, the answer is simple. Bring in the above average one to grow the economy, but below me." This summarises the fears, concerns and aspirations of our people.

We know we need the above average foreigner to complement our domestic workforce so that we can build a more competitive economy and to provide better jobs and better pay for all Singaporeans. But we also know that foreigners will compete with us and we need to provide some safeguards for our people. This is an evergreen challenge. How do we grow our existing companies and bring in new investments that can create good jobs for Singaporeans?

Let us suppose a Singaporean worker is earning $5,000 today. And we have an option to bring in a new investment that will create two new jobs: one paying $7,000 and another paying $10,000. The Singaporean can only get the $7,000 job today because he does not yet have the skill or experience for the $10,000 job. Should we take the investment?

The Singaporean may feel frustrated. He may think that he is being unequally treated because the foreigner earns more than him now. We understand these sentiments. We also want the $10,000 job to go to the Singaporean. But if we do not accept that investment for this reason, it will go elsewhere and both the $7,000 and $10,000 jobs will disappear from Singapore. The Singaporean will continue to earn $5,000 and he will have fewer opportunities to rise to a higher paying job. But what is even more important is that his son or daughter currently in school receiving one of the best education in the world will not be able to aspire to the $7,000 or $10,000 job. So, which is the better outcome and what should we do and do right by Singaporeans, not just for this generation but for the next?

Now, is this story very far-fetched? No. It has happened before. Indeed, in every generation throughout our history as an independent nation. We can learn from how the previous generations deal with this challenge and dilemma. In the 1970s, this happened when we went out to attract the electronics industry. Over a span of three years, the first three semi-conductor companies in Singapore – National Semiconductor, Fairchild Semiconductor and Texas Instruments – created more than 7,000 jobs, but our people did not get the best paying jobs immediately. They certainly did not get all the best paying jobs immediately.

Indeed, many of our Pioneer and Merdeka Generation Singaporeans worked under higher paying foreigners. This was because, at that point in time, we lacked the skills and experience to take the highest paying jobs. But we did not reject those investments as a result. Instead, we worked hard. We learned, upgraded our capabilities, but at no time did we fear. And in time, we took over many of these higher paying jobs, including the better trained and educated children of the Pioneer and Merdeka Generations. Many of those early engineers and technicians went on to become senior executives in this sector and, in turn, they mentored a new generation of Singaporean technicians and engineers in the semiconductor industry that we have today.

Today, the same thing is happening in the ICT and software industries. ICT and software will underpin many other industries that we desire to have in the future – banking, finance, advanced manufacturing, artificial intelligence, precision medicine and so forth. They all need highly specialised skills and knowledge.

When global companies like Google, Grab and Facebook invest here, the reality is that we do not have enough Singaporeans with the relevant skills and experience to fill all the jobs they are going to create. We have raised our intake of Computer Science students in our Universities in recent years, but there is a limit to further increases. Not every student has the interest or aptitude to study computer science and we also need to groom talent in other sectors for our economy.

Young Singaporeans who are coming out from Universities and Polytechnics to join these new companies are better educated and have much better opportunities than the previous generations before them. Colloquially, as we say, our future generation does not need to take over the jobs of the previous generation, earning the salaries of the previous generation. So, do we go out and attract these investments like Google, Grab and Facebook not just for this generation, but, more importantly, for the next generation?

What should our choice be? I say we go for it. Land the investment first, just as our previous generations did in the electronics industry. Create those jobs in Singapore first. Otherwise, we will lose the $7,000 job and we may never get the $10,000 job. Work hard, train our people, upgrade our skills to take over that $10,000 job as soon as possible. But do not exploit the sentiments to create envy, anger and frustration towards that foreigner who is now taking the $10,000 job.

I ask the House, frankly, do we agree with this approach? Do we hold that we should reject the investment on the grounds that the investment will result in more foreigners in Singapore and some earning more than Singaporeans in the same company? Would we reject the investment from Google, Grab and Facebook?

I think most Singaporeans understand and accept why we cannot reject such investments on that basis. Singaporeans are fair-minded. What Singaporeans want is a fair chance to get that $10,000 job as time goes by, if not as soon as possible. What Singaporeans do not want are unfair employment practices where Singaporeans are passed over for non-meritocratic considerations. The Government understands these concerns and we stand together with fellow Singaporeans on this matter.

This is why MOM has the Fair Consideration Framework and is continually updating the system to ensure a fair, level playing field for Singaporeans. This is our commitment to Singaporeans. MTI and our economic agencies will watch over the enterprises to get them to train up and groom Singaporeans as part of this commitment to Singapore. I believe the vast majority of our companies know the deal. They play ball. They groom Singaporeans not just because we asked them to but because it makes business sense for them to localise and avoid concentration risks for business continuity as well as to grow the Singapore eco-system and win the support and respect of fellow Singaporeans and for generations of Singaporeans to come. That is how successful enterprises have done well in Singapore.

However, we do know that there are some black sheep amongst the enterprises. Their employment practices must change. If not, we will come down hard on them. They know this. We have taken actions against them and we will not hesitate to do so again.

Businesses also understand the need to be responsible employers. They keep asking the Government to relax the foreign workforce controls because they want to expand their businesses. They tell us that they cannot get enough Singaporeans to do all the jobs available. Our answer to them is simply this: work with us. Help us to manage the sense of fair play and opportunity for all Singaporeans. Our businesses understand this and they are responding.

This Government is on the side of all Singaporeans. We will grow our economy and attract investments to create many good jobs for Singaporeans. We will continue to devote resources to help our people stay competitive through lifelong learning and skills upgrading so that they can continue to stay relevant and move into higher paying jobs.

Unlike other countries, Singapore does not need to fear competition and Singaporeans do not need to fear competition. We know we have to remain open to the world. We know that a Singapore that is closed in cannot survive. We have the resilience to overcome challenges and the means to help ourselves. And this is important. We have the means to help our workers. Not every country can say that. Not many countries have the political mandate, the political will or the necessary resources to do that for their workers. That is why their workers push back against global integration, trade liberalisation and so forth.

But we are different. And we can continue to distinguish ourselves through our tripartite partnership to make sure that our workers are never left behind, that while we seize these new opportunities, our workers will have every opportunity to get that $10,000 job as soon as possible. So long as we have the drive and stay united as one people, building on the strong tripartite partnership, we will win together as Team Singapore.

Overall, this balanced approach has worked for Singaporeans. Between 2015 and 2018, local employment increased by nearly 60,000 for the whole economy. The PMET share of local employment increased to 57%, one of the highest rates in the world. It means that for every 100 locals in the workforce, 57 of them are in PMET jobs, one of the highest in the world. And the trend is continuing to grow in that way because we understand the aspirations of our next generation. If 70% of our people are going to graduate with degrees and diplomas, you can see the tremendous pressure on the aspirations for the next generation.

Our youth unemployment is amongst the lowest amongst the advanced economies, a testimony to the fact that our education system is providing the right foundation for our people to take up those jobs that are being created in the new economy. This is not something that happens naturally in every country. In fact, in many other countries, many of them in the Asia Pacific, you will see youth unemployment as one of the most significant challenges for those countries.

What about growth in earnings? Growth in real average monthly earnings for employed local workers was 3.2% per annum during this period, higher than the 2.4% per annum in the preceding three years, higher than most advanced economies such as the US, which is 0.5%; Japan, 0.8%; Germany, 1.2%. We are at 3.2%.

But let us not be complacent. It requires a lot of hard work, and a lot of hard work on the Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs) as well.

ITM is a system that we put in place for us to pool together companies, trade associations, unions, Government, research institutions – all five partners – coming together to transform the industries. Because the old way of competing just by increasing the factor input of labour and capital can only go so far.

The next lap of our economic development will require us to increase our productivity, not through the injection of capital and labour, but through innovation, the revamp of our business model, internationalisation, the economies of scale that we can achieve through expanding our economy, not just in Singapore but beyond. All these are important work for us to work together to use the ITM as the platform to raise the total factor productivity so that our workers can continue to enjoy sustainable real wage growth in the years going forward.

So, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I hope that I have given a comprehensive answer on the questions that both Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked. The answer is yes. We have done the right things by getting that balance right and the Government will continue to calibrate this balance carefully. That balance is struck by considering three factors: the needs of our industries and enterprises, the needs of our workers of this generation and the opportunities for our children in the next generation. If we get this balance right, as we strive for this Goldilocks balance, we must firmly reject extreme positions, one extreme position being to open the floodgates and drown Singaporeans. But neither can we take the other extreme position to close our borders and reject foreigners in our workforce.

Above all, in this House, we must firmly reject efforts to stoke anti-foreigner sentiments by spreading falsehoods or creating invidious comparisons out of context. This is not the kind of politics we want – with far-right parties in the European continent stirring hate and fear against foreigners for political advantage.

This is not how Singapore transformed ourselves from Third World to First, and this is not how a confident and capable Singapore should face the future. Yes, the future will pose many challenges. But the future will also pose many exciting opportunities. We will continue to work with Singaporeans to steer the Singapore ship through the stormy seas and we will make sure that we will not allow opportunists to stir fear and hatred amongst ourselves.

The real competition is not between the Singaporean versus the PR here versus the foreigner here. The real competition is Team Singapore comprising Singaporeans, PRs and foreign workers here, competing with the rest of the world to give our fellow Singaporeans the best chance possible to win not just in Singapore but across the entire globe, that the wages of our Singaporean workers will continue to grow faster than the rest of the other people in other countries. On that note, let us work together to go through these difficult moments.

I have two supplementary questions for the Minister of State for Manpower and one supplementary question for the Minister for Trade and Industry.

Firstly, on the massive number of jobs created because of the ITMs. My two questions – firstly, as we create all these jobs, how do we ensure we level the playing field to ensure that the firms that create these jobs consider Singaporeans fairly? The second question is: now that we have the Fair Consideration Framework (FCF) as well as other employment pass criteria in place and the FCF has started since 2014, is MOM considering reviewing it and looking at tighter measures to ensure that recalcitrant companies who do abuse that, are watched carefully?

For the Minister for Trade and Industry, can I have his assurance – and I also urge him – that as we plan our strategies to attract investments and as we plan our winning moves for the future, can we ensure that our various economic agencies put Singaporeans – not just jobs for Singaporeans but quality jobs for Singaporeans – front and centre in all their strategy papers?

Mr Deputy Speaker, our manpower policies have benefited many Singaporeans over the years. We have also benefited from the international trade flows and international flows. As shared by the Minister for Trade and Industry earlier on, the calibrated flow of foreigners to supplement our workforce has also been useful, especially as it takes time to build skills that emerging industries need. I use the term "calibrated workflow" because we know – and the employers also know – that it cannot be free flow. We use a combination of policy levers to manage the outcome of foreign manpower and to safeguard good employment outcomes for our people. For example, we raised the S Pass minimum qualifying criteria in 2019 and 2020 as well as the Employment Pass minimum qualifying criteria in 2017. This helps us keep pace with rising local wages and enhance the foreign workforce complementarity to the local workforce.

We are also reducing the Services sector dependency ratio ceiling (DRC) and S Pass sub-DRC over 2020 and 2021 to push businesses to become more manpower-lean and improve job quality. As a result, local PMET employment, as the Minister has shared, has risen. The PMET share of local employment rose from 54% in 2015 to 57% in 2018. Citizen unemployment is 3% in 2018 and has averaged 3.1% since 2015. We have also seen growth in median income at 3.8% per annum since 2015, which is higher than the 3.3% in the preceding three years.

So, I think it is important that as we look at these outcomes, while we talk about headline outcomes, it is also the individual work that we do on the ground, like the Adapt and Grow where we manage, support and help job-match Singaporeans to all these new jobs. These are also important aspects in which all these things play a role on how we upgrade our workers, how we invest in them, how we put in place infrastructure to ensure that our workers are trained to sufficiently perform in these jobs. It is this combination of small efforts that we have on the ground that contributes to the overall outcomes.

To the Member's question on how to keep the playing field fair, Sir, we also take a firm stand against employers that discriminate against Singaporeans. Just last week, the Minister for Manpower announced plans to update the Fair Consideration Framework and businesses that deliberately exclude qualified Singaporean job seekers will suffer stiffer penalties.

But Members will have to wait, unfortunately, because the Minister will announce more details next week. I think it is important that when it comes to job growth, we remind ourselves that we are squarely focused on Singaporeans. But we must not be blind to the needs of businesses as well and how good jobs are created today. So, I hope that Members in this House, too, will agree that we all need to be honest with our people that the competition for jobs and for investments is out there; it is international. We want to secure the best outcomes for Singaporeans by not shutting out foreigners but by giving our people the best available support to develop themselves and ensure that businesses practise fair employment and give Singaporeans a fair chance.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I just have four supplementary questions for Minister Chan. Firstly, on Total Factor Productivity (TFP), does MTI monitor the outliers of TFP – those countries which are performing above the OECD average on TFP – to look at patterns that we might possibly be able to learn from? For example, there is a fair bit of academic evidence – not conclusively, of course – to suggest possibly that the R&D share of GDP could actually be an indicator of TFP growth and high TFP contribution. Is that something that MTI looks at – the outliers of TFP and what we could learn from them?

Secondly, in terms of the health of the economy, which the Minister spoke about, what is MTI's sense looking at forward economic indicators, such as PMI, confidence indicators, the totality of forward-looking indicators in terms of whether the economic growth is going to improve or actually stagnate or decrease in the first quarter of this year, looking at the forward-looking indicators that we have?

Thirdly, the Minister also spoke about PMETs and I think one problem that many Members of the House do come across in our work is this phenomenon of under-employment of PMETs who lose their jobs for whatever reason in their 40s or 50s and end up taking a job at a substantially lower pay which may or may not fully utilise the qualifications they have. Would the Minister consider looking into creating an under-unemployment indicator to measure how we are doing in terms of under-employment? There is currently a time-based under-employment indicator, but that just measures part-time work. Will some thought be given to a measure of under-employment in terms of pay and qualifications, so that at least we know how well we are doing on this front, going forward, given that this may be a structural issue that Singapore and other economies face as well?

Lastly, the Minister spoke about youth unemployment. What is the Minister's sense of how we are trending in terms of the time taken for our youth who come out of Universities, Polytechnics, ITEs on the time that they take to find permanent employment, as opposed to contract employment, as opposed to internships? Anecdotally, we do hear that there are some challenges there. For example, one resident I encountered said that his daughter, who graduated from one of our Autonomous Universities six months ago, is still looking for a job. Of course, that is just one data point, but what is the trend that the Minister sees on this front, going forward?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if you do not mind, maybe let me complete the answers for Mr Patrick Tay's question, and then, I will go on to the four supplementary questions from the Member Mr Leon Perera.

Mr Patrick Tay asked whether the economic agencies will put Singaporeans front and centre in our search for investment and the creation of quality jobs. The answer is Y-E-S, in capital letters. Yes, we do that. We have always done, we are doing that and we will continue to do that. Yes.

Let me just share a bit about the work of EDB, ESG and so forth.

People have asked me, "Why do we not go and take all the investments that are queuing up at our doors?" And that is a simple way to do so. But for every investment that we take into Singapore today, we not only consider the land constraints, the carbon constraints, the energy usage and all that kind of things but, most importantly, as the Member has said, we ask ourselves – is this going to create a good job for Singaporeans? Can our Singaporeans take on this job? If not now, if not immediately, can it be in the near future? If not this generation, can it be the next generation, in the fastest possible time? And we have always abided by that principle. Because what is the point of creating the jobs in Singapore if Singaporeans do not have the chance of ever doing it? What is the point of having a good job in Singapore if Singaporeans never have a chance to do it? But how long will it take? It depends.

Edwards Lifesciences, making heart valves. When they wanted to make heart valves, they needed seamstresses. We do not have many seamstresses in Singapore anymore. We went out to search for many homemakers who at least still know how to sew. Train them. Heart valve is not a joke. Each one is $20,000 to $30,000, with high quality control. So, we look at the job and see whether Singaporeans can do it.

I will give Members another example on the other side of the spectrum. ExxonMobil and Shell, they have been in Singapore for decades. Today, we are very proud, the Heads of ExxonMobil and Shell operations in Singapore are both Singaporeans. But they did not get to the top job to head the ExxonMobil and Shell operations in Singapore in one step. Mr Gan Seow Kee and Ms Goh Swee Chen went around the world, took on various appointments in ExxonMobil and Shell, acquired the skills and experience and, today, these top jobs are helmed by Singaporeans. We are very proud of them.

But we never feared, because when ExxonMobil and Shell first came to Singapore, we were far away from taking any of those top jobs. But today, we have people there. So, that is my assurance to Mr Patrick Tay and all the brothers and sisters in the Labour Movement. You have an ex-Secretary General as Minister for Trade and Industry now.

To the four questions that Mr Leon Perera asked, first, outliers. Indeed, we look at all the outliers. We look at everyone that does better than us and ask ourselves: why are they doing better than us? But I want to caution against reading too much into some of the statistical anomalies. Because, statistically, the TFP is a residual, after you take away the capital and the labour inputs. In fact, as an example, during the Global Financial Crisis, when we rebounded from the Global Financial Crisis, that particular year, our TFP was over 9%. It cannot be accounted for by all the labour and input factors. It is probably accounted for, largely, by the growth momentum and economies of scale, not even just by R&D and so forth.

But we are highly cognisant of the fact that, going forward, for us to improve our productivity, we need to emphasise much more on research and development, and not just research and development but the translation of the outcomes of research and development into commercial enterprises. And we are going to do that. That is why I talked about, just now, the revamping of our business models, internationalisation and so forth. All these will add up to strengthen our Total Factor Productivity beyond a residual of what can be accounted for by capital and labour inputs. So, that is the answer to the first question.

The second question: do we look at forward indicators? Of course. MTI looks at all sorts of indicators and, definitely, forward indicators. But having said that, the Member asked what is the outlook for the economy this year. We can take a leaf from the economic performance last year. How did we avoid a recession last year? Last year, a large part of our economy was actually under the water. The downturn in the global electronics cycle has hit our Semiconductor and Electronics sectors. The structural and cyclical factors have also pulled down our performance in the Retail sector.

On the other hand, there are three sectors, three shining examples holding up the economy – Banking and Finance, Professional Services, ICT. By design – this is a design feature of our economy – we have diversified our economy. And because we have diversified our economy, we have avoided the extremes of either recession or very sharp ups and very sharp downs. That is how we have to continue to navigate carefully. Diversification gives us resilience but diversification also comes with a cost. When the global electronics cycle goes up, if we have just depended on the global electronics cycle, we might get a 20% growth in that sector. But that is not sustainable. So, we have diversified our economy as we matured over the years and, today, our performance is much more stable, providing a stable platform for us to continue to invest to create good jobs for Singaporeans tomorrow. That is the answer to the second question.

To the third question, let me amplify what I have just said. We spent 20 years of our life preparing for the first job. We spent 20 years of training and education preparing every Singaporean child for the first job. But let us ask ourselves, how much do we invest in the next 40, 50 years for the subsequent second, third, fourth, fifth job? This is a challenge which the whole world is waking up to, but not the whole world has the means and the organisation to tackle this. We will announce more plans to tackle this in the Budget.

We know that people in their 40s and 50s, including those in the ICT sector, they need a skills top-up, they need a refresh. In fact, when I was in Switzerland some years back as the NTUC Secretary-General, I learned one thing from the Swiss. They never plan to top up their skills at 55 and 60 years old to extend the career lifespan of their people. They told me it is too late. The correct approach is that every 10 years or so, if we can afford it and have the organisation, we should top up the skills of each and every one of our workers. This is the same thing I challenged the Public Service to do. Even if someone wants to join the Public Service for 50 years, we cannot assume that the same skill sets will be necessary and sufficient for the 50 years.

Continuous training must be in our DNA and then we can get into lifelong employability and not lifelong employment. So, we will do more because we understand and I would say that we would start with the 40s and 50s but, if we have the chance, to extend it to even the 30s, as time comes.

Youth unemployment. It is a theoretical argument as to how to calculate under-employment. But what is even most important is not how we calculate under-employment. What is most important to get people out of under-employment is to grow the job opportunities for them to go on and take on better-paying jobs. This is why, in MTI's strategy, we are spending so much effort to strengthen the mid-sized companies, so that they can create more and better-paying jobs, more opportunities, for the rest of Singaporeans who are not in such high-paying jobs to get into those jobs.

So, yes, we will look at how to get the statistics but I will go beyond what the Member suggested. And, in fact, we have done that. We will go beyond to make sure that we create those good jobs to pull Singaporeans out from the lower productivity sectors, so that they can enjoy the good wage growth that is commensurate with our economic growth. That is our promise to all Singaporeans.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Sir, my original Parliamentary Question really was a question seeking data. The Minister for Trade and Industry spoke of the local PMET share going up from 54% to 57%. My question really is, can we expect in future, either by way of Parliamentary Question or by the Government on its own accord, dividing that into Singaporeans and PRs? If the Government's approach is, "No, we are not going to provide that data", can the Minister please share that detail with us here? Because it is pointless for us to keep asking for the data if the Government is not going to provide it.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not think we have anything to hide. We have just shared the data.

Sir, if that is the case, then for the 60,000 local jobs, how many were for Singaporeans and how many went to PRs?

We can get the Member the numbers but let me say this. What is the point behind the questions? First, has local unemployment increased with all these efforts? The answer is a resounding no. Our people are getting good jobs. Are our wages going up? Yes, and it is faster than many other countries. Those are the proof points to show that we are doing right by Singaporeans. I am always very cautious about this constant divide – Singaporeans versus PRs. The insinuation seems to be that somehow Singaporeans are not benefiting. I have just spent the last half an hour explaining and sharing with this House how we are working hard to make sure that Singaporeans do so.

It is not the data. It is the point of the question. And I would like to remind this House, the ultimate competition is not pitting Singaporeans against the PRs; it is about Team Singapore comprising Singaporeans and PRs, and even the foreign workforce complementing, competing to give Singaporeans the best chance possible.

How many of the increased jobs go to Singaporeans? Enough for us to keep the unemployment rate at the level which many countries would say it is fiction. And that is how we have done it.