Anecdotal evidence vs anecdotal evidence

ST Forum letters are almost always amusing, and this one by Priscilla Poh, containing nothing but anecdotal evidence based on a sample size of one, fits right in. I will leave you to read that letter, and instead focus on the few statements that raised more than a chuckle from me.

The public's disquiet over employers preferring to hire foreigners over Singaporeans because the former are cheaper is a misplaced conception. This is because there are hidden costs such as worker's levy, food and lodging, medical and insurance fees which employers will have to bear. When such hidden costs are added up, the total can be close or equivalent to the salary of a local worker.

I will assume the sample size of one (ie, Ms Poh's brother-in-law) is statistically significant, and will assume that he is also a fair employer who will not factor in the foreign workers' levy into his employees' wages. What Ms Poh has conveniently omitted is medical and insurance are also part of the cost of hiring Singaporeans, and if you add that up, the cost of hiring a local will still be higher. Unless Ms Poh or her brother-in-law provides their figures to the public, her point is very much arguable.

This is where a minimum wage will help to prevent exploitation of migrant workers and provide a level playing field in menial jobs.

Finally, unskilled or low-skilled foreign workers do not take jobs away from Singaporeans. How can the jobs be snatched away when they are jobs that Singaporeans have shunned in the first place?

This is the age-old chestnut about Singaporeans being picky about job offers. In the case of menial jobs, manual labour, and un/low-skilled labour, I agree with Ms Poh. Some sectors are dependent on migrant workers, such as construction. These are not attractive jobs for Singaporeans. But allow me to provide an anecdote of my own.

In our neighbourhood coffeeshops, we used to have locals working in the "coffee uncle/auntie" capacities; they are usually there from morning till night, taking your orders for drinks, bussing tables, etc. This phenomenon is slowly disappearing; the coffeeshop I frequent (due to its proximity to my flat) hire foreign workers to fill those positions now. Out of the four who usually take my drink orders, none are Singaporean.

Is this a case of McDonald's sweeping up employment for our senior citizens? I doubt it, but you can decide for yourself. And my anecdote is not any less relevant than Ms Poh's, since they are both anecdotes and we don't have any figures to pore over and prove one of us right. But I find her argument unconvincing.

Even then, I am not entirely worried about manual and low-skilled labour being filled by foreign workers, but when PMETs are struggling to find jobs, the sweeping generalisations that Ms Poh makes shows nothing but wilful ignorance, and a stubborn denial of the realities faced by locals in the job market.

Do I blame foreign workers? No. I blame the lax policies of the PAP government that allow our employers to openly exploit their employees, foreign and domestic, for monetary gain, and the apathetic complicity displayed by Singaporeans like Ms Poh to justify the continued propagation of these policies. Why blame foreign workers when they are not responsible for this issue?

Comments

[Mordoom]

Just two weeks ago, the counters where they sell ham and bacon in NTUC (Toa Payoh Central) has been manned by 2 PRC girls. They were initially staffed by some local aunties, who understands and speak english, is (sometimes) friendly and have no difficulties slicing and packing the products.

So, why did the PRC girls started working in the NTUC counter instead? The aunties "retire"?

Sigh