wages report 2011

7/29/2019 Wages Report 2011

1/321

Report on Wages

in Singapore, 2011


2/321


3/321

MISSION

To provide timely and reliable

national statistical information on the labour market

to facilitate informed decision-making within the government and community-at-large

Statistical activities conducted by the Manpower Research and Statistics Department are governed by the

provisions of the Statistics Act (Chapter 317). The Act guarantees the confidentiality of information collected

from individuals and companies. It spells out the legislative authority and responsibility of the Director,

Manpower Research and Statistics Department. The Statistics Act is available in the Singapore Department

of Statistics website atwww.singstat.gov.sg.
http://www.singstat.gov.sg/http://www.singstat.gov.sg/http://www.singstat.gov.sg/http://www.singstat.gov.sg/


4/321

REPORT ON WAGES IN SINGAPORE, 2011 i

The Report on Wages in Singapore, 2011 is the twenty-sixth edition published by the

Manpower Research and Statistics Department of the Ministry of Manpower. This Report

presents the main findings of the Survey on Annual Wage Changes, 2011 and the

Occupational Wage Survey, 2011. For a more complete picture of income, we have

included data on the median gross monthly income from work from the Comprehensive

Labour Force Survey, average monthly earnings compiled by the Central Provident Fund

Board and starting salaries of graduates from various institutions of higher learning. The

National Wages Council (NWC) Wage Guidelines For 2012/2013 is also included in this

Report.

The Report consists of five parts, totalling 303 pages. Part I highlights the key survey

findings on total and basic wage changes, bonuses as well as the basic and gross wages

of common occupations. Part II provides explanatory notes on the uses and sources of

the various income, earnings and wage measures as well as the methodology, coverage,

concepts and definitions used in the surveys. Part III presents statistical tables giving

detailed breakdown of occupational wages by gender, age, industry and establishment

size. Also included in this section are the gross monthly income from the Comprehensive

Labour Force Survey, the average (mean) monthly earnings compiled by the Central

Provident Fund Board and the starting salaries of graduates from the various institutions

of higher learning. Part IV lists the occupations and industries for which wage data are

available. Finally, the NWC Wage Guidelines for the current and the preceding year are

included in Part V.

We hope this Report will meet the needs of users for comprehensive and up-to-date

wage data. The contents and presentation of the Report are reviewed regularly. We

welcome readers feedback to help us improve the Report. A Feedback Form page is

enclosed at the end of the publication for readers use.

We wish to thank the employers who had responded to the surveys as well as the Central

Provident Fund Board and the various institutions of higher learning for their contributions

to this publication. We are also grateful to those who have offered valuable comments

and suggestions to improve the Report.

TAN LENG LENG (Mrs)

Director

Manpower Research and Statistics Department

Ministry of Manpower

June 2012

PREFACE


5/321

CONTE

NTS

PAGE

PREFACE i

NOTATIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS v

LIST OF STATISTICAL TABLES vii

PART I : SURVEY FINDINGS

Annual Wage Changes, 2011 2Occupational Wages, 2011 47

PART II : EXPLANATORY NOTES

Uses And Sources Of Income, Earnings And Wage Data 63

Coverage And Methodology Of Survey 65On Annual Wage Changes

Coverage And Methodology Of 70Occupational Wage Survey

PART III : STATISTICAL TABLESOccupational Wages From Occupational Wage Survey T2

Median Gross Monthly Income From T185Comprehensive Labour Force Survey

Average (Mean) Monthly Earnings From T189 Central Provident Fund Board

Monthly Gross Starting Salary From T193Institutions Of Higher Learning

PART IV : LIST OF OCCUPATIONS AND INDUSTRIES FOR T201

WHICH WAGE DATA ARE PUBLISHED

PART V : NATIONAL WAGES COUNCIL (NWC) GUIDELINES


6/321

REPORT ON WAGES IN SINGAPORE, 2011 v

Notations

- : nil or negligible

s : suppressed as the number of actual observations covered are toosmall and to maintain confidentiality of information provided byrespondents

Abbreviations

AWS : Annual Wage Supplement

CPF : Central Provident Fund

CPI : Consumer Price Index

GDP : Gross Domestic Product

KPI : Key Performance Indicator

MOM : Ministry of Manpower

MTI : Ministry of Trade and Industry

MVC : Monthly Variable Component

NWC : National Wages Council

RAF : Rank-and-File

NRAF Non Rank-and-File

ULC : Unit Labour Cost

Cat A : Establishment was profitable and did much better than in the

previous year

Cat B : Establishment was profitable and did as well as in the previous year

Cat C : Establishment was profitable but did not do as well as in the

previous year

Cat D : Establishment incurred a loss


7/321

REPORT ON WAGES IN SINGAPORE, 2011 vii

Table Page

OCCUPATIONAL WAGES FROM OCCUPATIONAL WAGESURVEY

Occupational Wages by Sex

1 Median Monthly Basic and Gross Wages of CommonOccupations in All Industries (Overall)

T 2

1.1 Median Monthly Basic and Gross Wages of CommonOccupations in All Industries (Males)

T 12

1.2 Median Monthly Basic and Gross Wages of CommonOccupations in All Industries (Females)

T 20

Occupational Wages by Establishment Size

1.3 Median Monthly Basic and Gross Wages of CommonOccupations by Establishment Size in All Industries

T 28

Occupational Wages by Age and Establishment Size

1.4 Median Monthly Basic and Gross Wages of CommonOccupations by Age in All Industries T 40

1.4.1 Median Monthly Basic and Gross Wages of CommonOccupations by Age in All Industries (Establishments with25 199 employees)

T 56

1.4.2 Median Monthly Basic and Gross Wages of CommonOccupations by Age in All Industries (Establishments withat least 200 employees)

T 68

LIST OF STATISTICAL TABLES


8/321

REPORT ON WAGES IN SINGAPORE, 2011viii

Table Page

Occupational Wages by Industry

2 Median, 25th and 75th Percentiles of Monthly Basic Wagesof Common Occupations in All Industries

T 84

2.1 Median, 25th and 75th Percentiles of Monthly Basic Wagesof Common Occupations in Manufacturing

T 94

2.2 Median, 25th and 75th Percentiles of Monthly Basic Wagesof Common Occupations in Construction

T 99

2.3 Median, 25th and 75th Percentiles of Monthly Basic Wagesof Common Occupations in Wholesale and Retail Trade

T 102

2.4 Median, 25th and 75th Percentiles of Monthly Basic Wagesof Common Occupations in Transport and Storage

T 106

2.5 Median, 25th and 75th Percentiles of Monthly Basic Wagesof Common Occupations in Accommodation and FoodServices

T 110

2.6 Median, 25th and 75th Percentiles of Monthly Basic Wagesof Common Occupations in Information andCommunications

T 112

2.7 Median, 25th and 75th Percentiles of Monthly Basic Wagesof Common Occupations in Financial Services

T 114

2.8 Median, 25th and 75th Percentiles of Monthly Basic Wagesof Common Occupations in Business Services

T 117

2.9 Median, 25th and 75th Percentiles of Monthly Basic Wagesof Common Occupations in Education, Health and SocialServices

T 121

2.10 Median, 25th and 75th Percentiles of Monthly Basic Wagesof Common Occupations in Art, Entertainment, Recreationand Other Services

T 124


9/321

REPORT ON WAGES IN SINGAPORE, 2011 ix

Table Page

3 Median, 25th and 75th Percentiles of Monthly GrossWages of Common Occupations in All Industries

T 127

3.1 Median, 25th and 75th Percentiles of Monthly GrossWages of Common Occupations in Manufacturing

T 137

3.2 Median, 25th and 75th Percentiles of Monthly GrossWages of Common Occupations in Construction

T 142

3.3 Median, 25th and 75th Percentiles of Monthly GrossWages of Common Occupations in Wholesale and Retail

Trade

T 145

3.4 Median, 25th and 75th Percentiles of Monthly GrossWages of Common Occupations in Transport and Storage

T 149

3.5 Median, 25th and 75th Percentiles of Monthly GrossWages of Common Occupations in Accommodation andFood Services

T 153

3.6 Median, 25th and 75th Percentiles of Monthly GrossWages of Common Occupations in Information andCommunications

T 155

3.7 Median, 25th and 75th Percentiles of Monthly GrossWages of Common Occupations in Financial Services

T 157

3.8 Median, 25th and 75th Percentiles of Monthly GrossWages of Common Occupations in Business Services

T 160

3.9 Median, 25th and 75th Percentiles of Monthly GrossWages of Common Occupations in Education, Health andSocial Services

T 164

3.10 Median, 25th and 75th Percentiles of Monthly GrossWages of Common Occupations in Art, Entertainment,Recreation and Other Services

T 167


10/321

REPORT ON WAGES IN SINGAPORE, 2011x

Table Page

Wages of Major Occupational Groups by Industry

4 Median Monthly Basic Wages of Major OccupationalGroups by Industry

T 172

5 Median Monthly Gross Wages of Major OccupationalGroups by Industry

T 178

MEDIAN GROSS MONTHLY INCOME FROM COMPREHENSIVELABOUR FORCE SURVEY

6 Median Gross Monthly Income from Work of EmployedResidents aged Fifteen Years and Over by Nature ofEmployment and Sex (Total), 2001 2011

T 185

6.1 Median Gross Monthly Income from Work of EmployedResidents aged Fifteen Years and Over by Nature ofEmployment and Sex (Males), 2001 2011

T 186

6.2 Median Gross Monthly Income from Work of EmployedResidents aged Fifteen Years and Over by Nature ofEmployment and Sex (Females), 2001 2011

T 187

AVERAGE (MEAN) MONTHLY EARNINGS FROM CENTRALPROVIDENT FUND BOARD

7 Average (Mean) Monthly Earnings Per Employee byIndustry and Sex , 2006 2011 (Overall)

T 189

7.1 Average (Mean) Monthly Earnings Per Employee byIndustry and Sex , 2006 2011 (Males)

T 190

7.2 Average (Mean) Monthly Earnings Per Employee byIndustry and Sex , 2006 2011 (Females)

T 191

8 Active Central Provident Fund Members by Monthly WageLevel, 2001 2011

T 192


11/321

REPORT ON WAGES IN SINGAPORE, 2011 xi

Table Page

MONTHLY GROSS STARTING SALARY FROM INSTITUTIONS OF

HIGHER LEARNING

9 Key Statistics on Employment Outcome of Graduates fromInstitutions of Higher Learning, 2007 2011P

T 193

10 Employment and Monthly Gross Starting Salary ofUniversity Graduates in Full-Time Permanent Employmentby Degree, 2011P

T 194

11 Employment and Monthly Gross Starting Salary ofPolytechnic Graduates in Full-Time PermanentEmployment by Course, 2011P

T 196

12 Employment and Monthly Gross Starting Salary of Instituteof Technical Learning (ITE) Graduates in Full-TimePermanent Employment by Course, 2011P

T 200


12/321

ReportonWage

sinSing

apore,20

11

PARTI:

SurveyFi

ndings


13/321

REPORT ON WAGES IN SINGAPORE, 2011

Annual Wage Changes

The tight labour market continued to lift workers wages , despite the slower economic

growth in 2011. Total wages (including employer CPF contributions) in the private

sector rose by 6.1% in 2011, higher than the growth of 5.7% in 2010. Taking into

account the rise in consumer price index (CPI), the increase in real terms was 0.9% in

2011, lower than the gain of 2.9% in 2010. The corresponding figures when adjusted

using CPI excluding imputed rentals on owner-occupied accommodation were 1.9%

and 2.4%.

Excluding employer CPF contributions, total wages increased by 5.3%, slightly lower

than the gain of 5.5% in 2010. The increase in total wages in 2011 stemmed from a

basic wage growth of 4.4% and an increase of 6.9% in bonuses (also known as

annual variable component) paid out from 2.17 months of basic wages in 2010 to2.32 months in 2011. Weighed down by inflation, real total wages rose by 0.1% while

real basic wages declined by 0.8%, after increasing by 2.7% and 1.1% respectively in

2010 when inflation was lower.

Over the long term, real wage increases have been broadly in line withlabour productivity growth. From 2000 to 2011, real total wages (including employer

CPF contributions) increased by 1.6% per annum (p.a.) while labour productivity grew

by 1.7% p.a.

Wage Restructuring

As at December 2011, 86% of employees in the private sector was under some form offlexible wage system.

1This eased from 89% a year ago, after rising from 85% in 2009.

The slight decline was observed across both large establishments and small and

medium enterprises (SMEs), possibly reflecting the churn in firms entering and leaving

the economy.

Large establishments with at least 200 employees continued to lead, with nine in ten

(91%) of their workers having at least one key wage recommendation in their wage

system, higher than almost eight in ten (79%) in SMEs.

Having a narrow maximum-minimum salary ratio (involving 63% of workforce) remained

the most common recommendation adopted by the private sector. This was followed by

linking variable bonus to Key Performance Indicators (KPI) (52%) and having the Monthly

Variable Component (MVC) (35%) in the wage structure. In 2011, the coverage of

workforce with MVC and in establishments that had narrowed/were narrowing the wage

ratio were broadly the same as in 2010 (35% and 64% respectively), while the share of

employees with variable bonus linked to KPI declined from 57%.

1Establishments are considered to have some form of flexible wage system when their wage structure incorporates at

least one of the following key wage recommendation:i) implement variable bonus linked to Key Performance Indicators (KPI);ii) introduce the Monthly Variable Component (MVC) in wage structure; andiii) narrow the maximum-minimum salary ratio for the majority of their employees to an average of 1.5 or less.

HIGHLIGHTSON ANNUAL WAGE CHANGES, 2011


14/321

2 REPORT ON WAGES IN SINGAPORE, 2011

1 Introduction

1.1 This report examines the wage changes and extent to which employers

have adopted the recommendations of the National Wages Council (NWC) in 2011. The

findings are based on data from the Survey on Annual Wage Changes carried out from

December 2011 to March 2012 which effectively covered 4,568 private establishments

each with at least 10 employees. This yielded a survey response rate of90%.

2 Background

2.1 Singapores real gross domestic product (GDP) grew by 4.9% in 2011,

after expanding by 14.8% in 2010 (Chart 1). The consumer price index (CPI) rose by

5.2% in 2011, up significantly from the increase of 2.8% in 2010, but still below the 6.6%

in 2008. Excluding imputed rentals on owner-occupied accommodation (which do not

involve actual expenditures), the CPI increase was 4.2% in 2011, also up from 3.3% in

2010 but lower than 5.5% in 2008.

2.2 Despite slower GDP growth, employment creation remained strong in

2011. Total employment increased by 122,600 (or 3.9%) in 2011, slightly higher than thegains of 115,900 (or 3.9%) in 2010. Amid the strong employment creation, the

unemployment rate declined to a 14-year low of 2.0% overall, 2.9% for residents and

3.0% for Singapore citizens in 2011.

ANNUAL WAGE CHANGES,2011


15/321

REPORT ON WAGES IN SINGAPORE, 2011 3

Chart 1: Key Economic Indicators, 2000 2011

(A) Change in GDP, CPI and Employment

(B) Unemployment Rate (Annual Average)

Sources: Department of Statistics, MTI (GDP, CPI)

Manpower Research and Statistics Department, MOM (Employment, Unemployment)

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

GDP 9.0 -1.2 4.2 4.6 9.2 7.4 8.8 8.9 1.7 -1.0 14.8 4.9

CPI (CPI excl. Imputed rentals

on owner-occupied

accommodation)

1.3 1.0 -0.4 0.5 1.7 0.5 1.0 2.1 6.6 0.6 2.8 5.2

Employment 5.3 0.0 -1.1 -0.6 3.3 5.1 7.6 9.4 8.1 1.3 3.9 3.9

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Per Cent

(1.7) (1.0) (-0.3) (0.7) (2.0) (0.6) (1.1) (2.2) (5.5) (-0.4) (3.3) (4.2)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Overall 2.7 2.7 3.6 4.0 3.4 3.1 2.7 2.1 2.2 3.0 2.2 2.0

Resident 3.7 3.7 4.8 5.2 4.4 4.1 3.6 3.0 3.2 4.3 3.1 2.9

Singapore Citizen 3.9 3.9 5.1 5.4 4.8 4.4 3.7 3.1 3.4 4.5 3.4 3.0

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Per Cent


16/321


3 Wage Changes

Overview

Wages rose in 2011, driven by tig ht labour market

3.1 The tight labour market continued to lift workers wages, despite the

slower economic growth in 2011. Total wages (including employer CPF contributions) in

the private sector rose by 6.1% in 2011, higher than the growth of 5.7% in 2010 (Chart

2).

3.2 Excluding employer CPF contributions, total wages increased by 5.3% in

2011, after rising by 5.5% in 2010.2 The increase in total wages in 2011 stemmed from

a basic wage growth of 4.4% and an increase of 6.9% in bonuses (also known as

annual variable component) paid out from 2.17 months of basic wages in 2010 to 2.32

months in 2011.3

Chart 2: Change in Total and Basic Wages, 2000 2011

2 Average monthly earnings from CPF records rose by 6.0% in 2011, after increasing by 5.6% in 2010. This sourcecovers both full-time and part-time employees who contribute to the CPF and can be influenced by the changing mix ofworkers, variations in overtime and wages of new entrants and workers who changed jobs during the year. In contrast,the Survey on Annual Wage Changes, designed to capture change in wage rates paid to workers, covers only full-time

employees on the CPF scheme who are in continuous employment for at least one year. This survey is also the onlysource that provides breakdown of total wage changes into changes in basic wages and bonuses for various categoriesof employees.3

Basic wages and bonuses exclude employer CPF contributions.

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

Basic Wages 4.9 2.9 1.8 1.2 2.7 3.1 3.6 4.3 4.4 1.3 3.9 4.4

Total Wages 6.6 1.1 0.0 1.5 3.6 4.3 4.5 5.9 4.2 -0.4 5.5 5.3

Total Wages (incl. employer

CPF contributions)

8.1 5.2 0.0 0.8 1.6 4.3 4.5 6.6 4.9 -0.4 5.7 6.1

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Per Cent


17/321


Weighed dow n by inf lat ion, real wages rose sl ight ly

3.3 Taking into account the rise in CPI, real total wages rose by 0.1% while

real basic wages declined by 0.8% n 2011, after increasing by 2.7% and 1.1%

respectively in 2010 when inflation was lower. Including employer CPF contributions,

real total wages grew by 0.9% in 2011, lower than the gain of 2.9% in 2010. Whenadjusted using CPI excluding imputed rentals on owner-occupied accommodation, total

wages (including employer CPF contributions) grew in real terms by 1.9% in 2011, after

increasing by 2.4% in 2010 (Chart 3).

Chart 3: Annual Change in Real Total and Basic Wages, 2000 2011

Notes: (1) Real wage changes were deflated by Consumer Price Index (CPI) for all items. Figures in brackets refer to

real wage changes deflated by CPI less imputed rentals on owner-occupied accommodation.

(2) Basic wages exclude employer CPF contributions.

Grow th in real wages were broadly in l ine with pro duct iv i ty o ver the long term

3.4 With the slower GDP growth amid continuing strong employment

creation, labour productivity rose by 1.0% in 2011, significantly lower than the increase

of 11% in 2010, reflecting the volatility in year-to-year change in labour productivity

(Chart 4). Over the longer period from 2000 to 2011, labour productivity grew by 1.7%

per annum (p.a.) while real total wages (including employer CPF contributions)

increased by 1.6% p.a.

-5

0

5

10

Real Basic Wages 3.6 1.9 2.2 0.7 1.0 2.6 2.6 2.2 -2.2 0.7 1.1 -0.8

Real Total Wages 5.3 0.1 0.4 1.0 1.9 3.8 3.5 3.8 -2.4 - 1.0 2.7 0.1

Real Total Wages (incl.

employer CPF contributions)

6.8 4.2 0.4 0.3 -0.1 3.8 3.5 4.5 -1.7 - 1.0 2.9 0.9

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Per Cent

(3.2) (1.9) (2.1) (0.5) (0.7) (2.5) (2.5) (2.1) (-1.1) (1.7) (0.6) (0.2)

(4.9) (0.1) (0.3) (0.8) (1.6) (3.7) (3.4) (3.7) (-1.3) (0.0) (2.2) (1.1)

(6.4) (4.2) (0.3) (0.1) (-0.4) (3.7) (3.4) (4.4) (-0.6) (0.0) (2.4) (1.9)


18/321


Chart 4: Change in Labour Productivity and Real Total Wages, 2000 2011

Annual

Source: Department of Statistics, MTI (Productivity)

Note: Figures in brackets refer to real wages deflated by CPI less imputed rentals on owner-occupied accommodation.

Annualised from 2000 to 2011

Labour Productivity : 1.7% p.a.

Real Total Wages (incl. employer CPF contributions) : 1.6% p.a.

(1.7% p.a.)

Note: Figures in brackets refer to real wages deflated by CPI less imputed rentals on owner-occupied accommodation.

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

Labour Productivity 4.8 -4.5 5.7 5.9 7.4 2.9 2.0 0.2 -7.3 -3.6 11.1 1.0

Real Total Wages (incl. employer CPF

contributions)

6.8 4.2 0.4 0.3 -0.1 3.8 3.5 4.5 -1.7 -1.0 2.9 0.9

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Per Cent

(6.4) (4.2 ) (0.3) (0.1) (-0.4) (3.7) (3.4) (4.4) (-0.6) (0.0) (2.4) (1.9)


19/321


Overal l unit labour cost ro se

3.5 The unit labour cost (ULC) relates total labour cost (comprising wages

and salaries, benefits, employer CPF contributions, foreign workers levy and skill

development levy) to labour productivity.4 With slower growth in real value added and

increases in wages, employer CPF contributions and foreign worker levy, the overall

ULC rose by 3.4% in 2011, after declining by 2.2% in 2010.

Chart 5: Change in Unit Labour Cost, 2000 2011

Source: Department of Statistics, MTI

4Unit Labour Cost (ULC) measures the cost of manpower required to produce a unit of output. It is calculated by dividing

total labour cost over total output.

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

OverallULC

2.5 5.1 -3.7 -3.4 -3.8 1.4 1.8 6.2 4.1 0.8 -2.2 3.4

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

Per Cent


20/321


4 Total and Basic Wage Changes

Wage Changes by Type of Employees

Wage gain for RAF continue to lag non-RAF, though th e gap has narrowed

4.1 Wages rose for all three categories of employees in 2011. Junior and

senior management staff experienced higher increases in total wages (6.1% and 5.4%

respectively) than the rank-and-file (RAF) employees (4.7%). Compared to the previous

year, the gain in total wages were slightly higher for RAF employees, but lower for junior

and senior management. Consequently, while the wage gain for RAF continue to lag

the non-RAF, the gap has narrowed (Chart 6).

Chart 6: Total and Basic Wage Change, 2010 and 2011

Note: Non-rank-and-file comprise junior and senior management

Distribution of Establishments by Wage Change

More establ ishments raised w ages in 2011

4.2 Amid the tight labour market, the proportion of private establishments that

raised total wages of their workers increased to 68% in 2011 from 60% in 2010, though

the average quantum of wage increase in these firms at 6.6% was lower than 7.6% in

2010. The proportion that cut wages in 2011 (8.5%) was comparable to 2010 (8.2%),

with quantum of wage cut the same at 4.3%. The remaining 23% kept their wages

unchanged in 2011, down from 32% in 2010 (Chart 7).

3.9%4.4%

3.3%

4.0%4.5%

4.9%4.6%

5.1%

4.3% 4.3%

Basic Wage Change

All Rank-and-File

Non-Rank-and-File

JuniorManagement

SeniorManagement

5.5%5.3%

4.5%4.7%

6.7%

5.9%

6.7%6.1%

6.6%

5.4%

2010 2011

Total Wage Change

All Rank-and-File

JuniorManagement

SeniorManagement

Non-Rank-and-File


21/321


Chart 7: Distribution of Establishments by Total Wage Change and Extent of

Total Wage Change

Note: Figures may not sum up to 100% due to rounding.

Chart 8: Distribution of Establishments by Basic Wage Change and Extent of

Basic Wage Change

Notes: (1) s: Data suppressed due to small number covered.

(2) Figures may not sum up to 100% due to rounding.

Extent of Basic Wage Change ofEstablishments Which Cut or Increased Basic

Wages, 2000 - 2011

'00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11

Firms Which Cut Total Wages -2.9 -5.4 -7.0 -5.0 -4.6 -4.5 -3.4 -3.1 -5.5 -6.2 -4.3 -4.3Firms Which Increased Total Wages 8.3 5.4 4.8 5.2 5.9 5.9 5.8 7.5 6.6 4.8 7.6 6.6

-12.0

-8.0

-4.0

0.0

4.0

8.0

12.0

Per Cent

Extent of Total Wage Change ofEstablishments Which Cut or Increased Total

Wages, 2000 - 2011

s'00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11

Firms Which Cut Basic Wages -5 .8 -6 .6 -6 .0 -5 .2 -5 .6 -6 .2 -5 .2 -3 .5 -4 .9 -4 .8 -5 .6

Firms Which Increased Basic Wages 5.8 4.7 3.8 3.1 3.7 4.0 4.3 5.0 5.3 3.8 4.7 5.0

-12.0

-8.0

-4.0

0.0

4.0

8.0

12.0

Per Cent

Wage Cut No Change Wage Increase

40.5%

68.9%

1.4%

58.1%

0.8%

30.3%

20112010

Distribution of Establishments by Basic WageChange, 2010 and 2011


31.5%

68.1%

8.2%

60.3%

8.5%

23.4%

20112010

Distribution of Establishments by Total WageChange, 2010 and 2011

s


22/321


Distribution of Establishments by Profit Status

Majori ty of establ ishments were prof i table, thou gh prop ort ion dip ped sl ight ly

4.3 The majority of private establishments were profitable, though the

proportion dipped slightly, with the slower economic growth in 2011. 82% of privateestablishments reported that they were profitable, down slightly from 85% in 2010

(Chart 9). The proportion of profitable establishments was higher than the 79% in 2009

and the low of 65% in 2001 when economic conditions were weaker.

Chart 9: Proportion of Profitable Establishments, 2000 2011

4.4 In 2011, the share of private establishments that either outperformed

(Category A) or were as profitable as in 2010 (Category B) fell to 50% from 58% a year

ago. On the other hand, establishments that were profitable but did not do as well as in

the previous year (Category C) rose from 27% to 32%. The share of loss-making firms

(Category D) also increased from 15% in 2010 to 18% in 2011(Chart 10).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

8090

100

Per Cent

Profitable Firms 73.5 64.9 66.3 70.7 75.4 80.6 81.4 84.9 81.0 79.4 85.1 82.4

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011


23/321


Chart 10: Distribution of Establishments by Profit Status, 2010 and 2011

Per Cent

Notes: (1) Based on private establishments that disclosed their profitability status in 2010 and 2011.


Wage Change by Profit Status

Wage changes w ere correlated with p rof i tabi l i ty

4.5 The wage changes were correlated with profitability, as many firms have

restructured their wage system to tie wages more closely with business performance.

The more profitable Category A firms gave the largest total wage increase of 6.3%,

followed by Category B firms at 5.6% and Category C at 4.7%. Amid the tight labour

market and higher inflation in 2011, even the loss-making Category D gave a modest

wage increase of 3.4% (Chart 11).

23.2

34.6

27.2

14.9

16.6

33.8

32.0

17.6

0 20 40 60 80 100

Cat A: Firm was profitable and did much bette r than in theprevious year

Cat B: Firm was profitable and d id as well as in theprevious year

Cat C: Firm was profitable but did not do as well as in theprevious year

Cat D: Firm incurred a loss

2010 2011


24/321


Chart 11: Total and Basic Wage Change by Profit Status for All Employees,

2010 and 2011

Majori ty of prof i table establ ishments raised wages

4.6 The majority of profitable Category A (84%), Category B (76%) andCategory C (63%) establishments raised wages, while slightly over one in two (53%)

loss-making Category D establishments either froze or cut wages (Chart 12).

Cat A: Firm was profitable and did much better than in the previous year

Cat B: Firm was profitable and did as well as in the previous year

Cat C: Firm was profitable but did not do as well as in the previous year


Cat A Cat B Cat C Cat D

Basic Wage Change

2.0%

3.6%4.0%4.4%

3.1%4.1%

4.8%4.7%

Cat A Cat B Cat C Cat D

Total Wage Change

2.6%

4.0%

5.6%

7.0%

3.4%

4.7%5.6%

6.3%

20112010


25/321


Chart 12: Distribution of Establishments by Total Wage Change and Profit Status,

2011

Per Cent


Wage Change by Industry

All indu str ies gave wage increases

4.7 All industries gave wage increases to their employees in 2011

(Appendix-Table 1). Financial & insurance services employees had the largest total

wage increase (9.1%), while transportation & storage (7.4%), professional services(5.6%) and real estate services (5.5%) also had above-average increases (Chart 13). In

terms of basic wage increase, the financial & insurance services (7.4%) and

professional services (5.0%) were also in the lead. In contrast, administrative & support

services (total: 3.7%; basic: 3.5%), manufacturing (total: 4.1%; basic: 4.0%),

construction (total: 4.2%; basic: 3.9%) and accommodation & food services (total: 4.5%;

basic: 3.8%) had among the lowest total and basic wage increases.

5.810.3

83.9

4.3

19.4

76.2

9.6

27.5

62.9

17.0

36.0

47.1Cat A

Cat B

Cat C

Cat D



26/321


Chart 13: Total and Basic Wage Change by Industry, 2011

4.4

5.3

Quadrant 1Above-Average Total Wage Increase;Below-Average Basic Wage Increase

Quadrant 2Above-Average Total and Basic

Wage Increase

Quadrant 4Below-Average Total and BasicWage Increase

Quadrant 3Below-Average Total Wage Increase;Above-Average Basic Wage Increase

Total Wage Increase (%)

Basic WageIncrease

(%)

Financial & Insurance Svcs(7.4, 9.1)

Transportation & Storage(3.8 , 7.4 )

Professional Svcs(5.0 , 5.6 )

Real Estate Svcs(4.1, 5.5 )

Community, Social & Personal Svcs(4.2 , 5.0 )

Administrative & Support Svcs(3.5 , 3.7 )

Manufacturing(4.0 , 4.1 )

Information & Communications(4.5 , 4.6 )

Wholesale & Retail Trade(4.1 , 4.6 )

Accommodation & Food Svcs(3.8 , 4.5 )

Construction(3.9 , 4.2)


27/321


5 Annual Variable Component

Ann ual variable comp onent ros e in 2011

5.1 The private sector paid out an annual variable component (comprising the

annual wage supplement and variable bonus) averaging 2.32 months of basic wage in

2011, up 6.9% from the 2.17 months in 2010. Overall, the annual variable component

formed 16.2% of total wages in 2011, higher than 15.3% in 2010.

Chart 14: Annual Variable Component, 2000 2011

5.2 All three categories of employees received more bonuses in 2011. The

bonus payout was higher for non-RAF (2.63 months or 18.0% of total wages) than RAF

(2.06 months or 14.7% of total wages). Typically, the variable component would be

higher for management staff as a greater share of their pay package is flexible and tied

to performance.

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Proportion (All) 15.9 14.5 12.9 12.8 13.5 14.7 15.4 16.4 16.1 14.2 15.3 16.2

Quantum (All) 2.27 2.03 1.77 1.76 1.87 2.06 2.18 2.36 2.31 1.99 2.17 2.32

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

Proportion ofTotal Wage (%)

Months ofBasic Wage


28/321


Chart 15: Annual Variable Component as a Proportion of Total Annual Wages,

2010 and 2011

Annual VariableComponent in Months

of Basic Wage

2010 20112.17

(+9.0%)2.32

(+6.9%)

1.92(+6.1%)

2.06(+7.3%)

2.49(+11.7%)

2.63(+5.6%)

2.50(+12.1%)

2.62(+4.8%)

2.47(+10.8%)

2.67(+8.1%)

Notes: (1) Figures in brackets refer to percentage change in annual variable component over the year.(2) Non-rank-and-file employees comprise junior and senior management employees.

5.3 Despite the slower economic growth, the proportion of private

establishments that gave more than one month of annual variable component was

comparable to the preceding year (2011: 44%; 2010: 43%) (Chart 16). The share of

establishments which did not pay any annual variable component or paid less than one

month dropped from 38% in 2010 to 36% in 2011. The establishments which did not

pay bonuses gave their employees an average basic wage increase of 2.5% in 2011. Alarge majority (85%) of them were small establishments with less than 50 employees.

17.1%

17.2%

17.2%

13.8%

15.3%

18.2%

17.9%

18.0%

14.7%

16.2%

SeniorManagement

JuniorManagement

Non-Rank-and-File

Rank-and-File

All

2011 2010


29/321


Chart 16: Distribution of Establishments by Quantum of Annual Variable

Component Paid, 2010 and 2011


Annual Variable Component by Profit Status

Bonus payout l inked to p rof i tabi l i ty

5.4 The profitable Category A (2.41 months of basic wages), Category B

(2.44 months) and Category C (2.40 months) establishments paid about the same

quantum of bonus while the loss-making firms Category D gave about half of the

quantum at only 1.20 months (Chart 17).

Chart 17: Annual Variable Component by Profit Status, 2010 and 2011

Note: Based on private establishments that disclosed their profitability status in 2010 and 2011.

Months of Basic Wage

26.6

6.0

5.3

19.5

22.3

11.5

8.8

21.0

8.0

6.7

19.9

21.3

13.1

10.0

0 10 20 30 40

None

> 0 to 0.5 months

> 0.5 to < 1 month

1 month

> 1 to 2 months

>2 to 3 months

> 3 months

QuantumP

aid

2 01 0 2 01 1

2.47

2.30

1.84

1.08

2.41

2.44

2.40

1.20

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00

Cat A: Firm was p rofitable and did much better than inthe p revious year

Cat B: Fi rm was pro fitable and did as well as in theprevious year

Cat C: Firm was profitable but did n ot do as well as inthe p revious year


201 0 201 1

Per Cent


30/321


Annual Variable Component by Industry

Most indu str ies gave higher annual variable component

5.5 All industries except administrative & supported services paid higher

annual variable component than a year ago. Financial & insurance services which

typically has a high annual variable component in its wages, continued to give the

largest payout of 3.35 months in 2011, up by 1.5% from 3.30 months in 2010. In

contrast, administrative & support services continued to pay the lowest annual variable

component averaging 1.05 months, down by 3.7% from 1.09 months in 2010.

Table 1: Annual Variable Component by Industry, 2010 and 2011

Months of Basic Wage

Industry (SSIC 2010) Period Total RAF NRAF

Total2011 2.32 2.06 2.63

2010 2.17 1.92 2.49

Manufacturing2011 2.62 2.44 2.82

2010 2.60 2.47 2.76

Construction2011 1.59 1.36 1.82

2010 1.50 1.33 1.72

Services2011 2.31 2.01 2.65

2010 2.11 1.82 2.48

Wholesale & Retail Trade2011 2.19 1.91 2.54

2010 1.89 1.62 2.30

Transportation & Storage2011 2.88 2.88 2.90

2010 2.39 2.35 2.49

Accommodation & FoodServices

2011 1.20 1.08 1.42

2010 1.11 1.03 1.25

Information & Communications2011 2.39 2.40 2.38

2010 2.31 2.38 2.27

Financial & Insurance Services2011 3.35 3.28 3.37

2010 3.30 3.04 3.39

Real Estate Services2011 2.08 1.47 3.37

2010 1.66 1.17 2.79

Professional Services 2011 2.29 2.07 2.412010 2.17 1.88 2.35

Administrative & SupportServices

2011 1.05 0.92 1.61

2010 1.09 0.98 1.56

Community, Social & PersonalServices

2011 2.46 2.30 2.67

2010 2.37 2.29 2.45


31/321


6 One-off Special Payment to Rank-And-File Employees

6.1 On workers concerns over higher inflation in 2011, the NWC noted that

while government measures such as the Growth & Share package helps workers cope

with inflation, some companies may wish to further help their workers better cope with

the higher cost of living. In this regard, NWC has suggested that companies couldconsider giving a one-off special lump sum payment to workers.

Majori ty did not giv e one-off special payment to RAF

6.2 As at December 2011, only a minority (4.1%) of private establishments

with RAF employees had given/intended to give a one-off special payment to their RAF

employees while 5.1% was still considering whether to give. Close to one in five (19%)

reported that they had already taken into account the higher inflation in their built-in

wage increment. The remaining 72% did not give and had no plans to give a one-off

special payment (Table 2).

Large establ ishments mo re l ikely to give one-off special payment

6.3 Large establishments employing 200 or more staff were more likely to

give the one-off special payment. 13% of large establishments gave/intended to give

the payment, compared with only 3.6% for the smaller establishments.

6.4 Transportation & storage (9.9%) had the highest share of establishments

that gave/intended to give a one-off special payment, followed by community, personal

& social services (8.2%), administrative & support services (7.8%) and real estate

services (7.3%). On the flip side, information & communications (0.9%), construction

(1.3%) and professional services (1.7%) had amongst the lowest proportion of

establishments that gave one-off special payment to help workers cope with high

inflation (Table 2).

6.5 Financial & insurance services (42%), information & communications

(41%), professional services (28%) and wholesale & retail trade (22%) had above-

average proportion reporting they had already factored in the higher inflation in the

built-in wage increment, despite them having below average share that gave one-offspecial payment. In contrast, construction (11%) and accommodation & food services

(12%) had amongst the lowest proportion of establishments that help workers cope with

high inflation through built-in wage increment.


32/321


Table 2: Distribution of Establishments by Whether They Had Given A One-Off

Special Payment to RAF Employees, 2011 (As at December)

Per Cent

Establishment

Yes Considering

Whether toPay in NextWage

Review

Built-in WageIncrement

AlreadyFactored in

HigherInflation

Sub-Total

HadGiven

Not YetDecided

OnDetails

NoPlans to

Give

Overall 4.1 3.5 0.7 5.1 19.0 71.8

By Establ ishm ent Size

25-199 Employees 3.6 2.9 0.7 5.2 18.2 73.1

200 or More Employees 13.0 12.7 0.3 3.6 33.3 50.2

By Indust ry

Manufacturing 3.2 2.6 0.7 5.7 15.5 75.6

Construction 1.3 0.9 0.4 5.2 11.1 82.4

Services 5.0 4.2 0.8 4.9 21.6 68.5

Wholesale & RetailTrade

4.0 3.0 1.0 4.7 22.4 68.9

Transportation &Storage

9.9 9.9 - 1.9 16.7 71.5

Accommodation &Food Services

3.4 1.1 2.3 7.1 11.6 77.9

Information &Communications

0.9 0.7 0.2 4.2 41.1 53.8

Financial & InsuranceServices

3.5 3.5 - 0.1 42.4 53.9

Real Estate Services 7.3 7.1 0.2 2.4 30.0 60.3

ProfessionalServices

1.7 1.7 - 3.8 27.7 66.7

Administrative &Support Services

7.8 7.2 0.5 5.4 15.7 71.1

Community, Social &Personal Services

8.2 8.2 - 7.3 20.0 64.5

Notes: (1) Based on establishments with RAF employees.


(3) -: nil or negligible.

The most common pract ice was to give equal ly to al l RAF

6.6 The majority of private establishments that made a one-off special

payment gave to all their RAF (2.8% of all establishments with RAF employees). The

most common practice was to give equally to all their RAF (2.2% of all establishments

with RAF employees). Only 0.7% of establishments gave only to RAF earning low

wages (Table 3). 5

5Low-wage workers generally refer to local employees who earn around $1,500 or less per month on a full-time basis.


33/321


Table 3: Establishments That Had Given One-Off Special Payment to RAF

Employees by Type of Payout, 2011 (As at December)

Per Cent

Establishment Total

Paid to All RAF

PaidOnly To

Low-

WageRAF

Sub-total

With Low- Wage RAF No Low-WageRAF But

WithPayout

To OtherRAF

HigherPayout

for Low-WageRAF

EqualPayout

for Low-WageRAF

LowerPayout

for Low-WageRAF

Overall 3.5 2.8 0.1 2.2 0.2 0.3 0.7


25-199 Employees 2.9 2.4 0.1 1.8 0.2 0.3 0.5

200 or MoreEmployees

12.7 9.6 1.1 8.2 0.3 0.1 3.1

Notes: (1) Based on establishments with RAF employees.

(2) Figures may not sum up due to rounding.

Majori ty gave in the form o f a lump sum with m edian payout of $250

6.7 Majority of the establishments that made the one-off payment (low-wage

RAF: 82%, other RAF: 79%) gave in the form of a lump sum, with a median payout of

$250. The remaining minority (low-wage RAF:18%, other RAF: 21%) paid out in the

form of a proportion of employees basic salaries, typically averaging (median) 2.0

weeks of basic pay.

Table 4: Distribution of Establishments That Gave The One-Off Special Payment

to RAF Employees by Form of Payment, 2011 (As at December)

Per Cent

Low- Wage RAF Other RAF

Lump SumPayment

AsProportion

of BasicSalary

LumpSum

Payment

AsProportion

of BasicSalary

Overall 81.6 18.4 78.6 21.4


25-199 Employees 80.9 19.1 74.7 25.3

200 or More Employees 84.0 16.0 94.9 5.1

Note: Based on establishments that had given a one-off special payment to RAF employees.


34/321


Table 5: Median and Mean Lump Sum Payout, 2011 (As at December)

Dollars

Low- Wage RAF Other RAF

Median Mean Median Mean

Overall 250 307 250 349


25-199 Employees 250 290 250 344

200 or More Employees 300 363 300 364

Note: Based on establishments that had given a one-off special payment to RAF employees.

7 Wage Restructuring

7.1 This section of the report updates the progress of establishments inrestructuring their wage system to be more flexible and performance based. Data on

wage restructuring pertain to private sector establishments each employing at least 25

workers.

7.2 Tripartite partners have been working closely to promote the

implementation of flexible wage systems to ensure competitiveness. Specifically, firms

are encouraged to implement the following key wage recommendations:

(1) implement variable bonus linked to Key Performance Indicators (KPI);6

(2) introduce the Monthly Variable Component (MVC) in wage structure;

(3) narrow the maximum-minimum salary ratio for the majority of their employees

to average of 1.5 or less.7

Recognising that establishments may require different forms of wage flexibility to meet

their specific circumstances, employers may choose to implement only the

recommendations that are relevant to them.

6In the survey, establishments are considered to have implemented variable bonus linked to KPI, if they have formulated

and communicated to their employees, the KPI for the payment of the variable bonus.7

Establishments can decide on appropriate ratio for different jobs and industries. In the survey, establishments areconsidered to have implemented this recommendation if they have narrowed the salary ratio to 1.5 or less, decided to/inthe process of narrowing the salary ratio or all along have a maximum-minimum ratio at 1.5 or less.


35/321


8 Progress of Key Wage Recommendations

Large majori ty of emplo yees were und er some form o f f lexible wage system,

though proport ion eased sl ight ly f rom 2010

8.1 As at December 2011, 86% of employees in the private sector was under

some form of flexible wage system.8 This eased from 89% a year ago, after rising from

85% in 2009. The slight decline was observed across large establishments and small

and medium enterprises (SMEs), possibly reflecting the churn in firms entering and

leaving the economy (Chart 18).

8.2 Large establishments with at least 200 employees continued to lead, with

nine in ten (91%) of their workers having at least one key wage recommendation in their

wage system, higher than almost eight in ten (79%) of workers in SMEs.

8.3 One in six (17%) private sector employees were in establishments that

had a fully flexible wage system comprising all three key wage recommendations in

2011. Including employees in establishments with two recommendations (30%), some

46% of the private sector employees had wage systems that incorporated at least two

wage recommendations, slightly lower than the 49% in 2010 (Chart 18).

8.4 Transportation & storage (93%) and accommodation & food services

(91%) had among the highest share of employees with some form of wage flexibility,

while construction (76%) had the least (Appendix-Table 2).

8

Establishments are considered to have some form of flexible wage system when they have at least one key wagerecommendation incorporated into their wage structure.


36/321


Chart 18: Proportion of Employees by Number of Key Wage Recommendations

Implemented, 2004 2011

Per Cent

1 Wage Recommendations 2 Wage Recommendations All 3 Wage Recommendations

85.7

89.185.183.683.783.381.1

82.6

81.3

75.6

Jun04

Dec04

Jun05

Dec05

Dec06

Dec07

Dec08

Dec09

Dec10

Dec-11

46.4

48.845.345.046.046.1

49.2

39.1

47.343.5

Jun04

Dec04

Jun05

Dec05

Dec06

Dec07

Dec08

Dec09

Dec10

Dec-11

20.8 19.3 17.0 17.018.4

16.822.0

12.4

21.4

15.0

Jun04

Dec04

Jun05

Dec05

Dec06

Dec07

Dec08

Dec09

Dec10

Dec-11

73.4 75.078.8

94.3

76.9 78.681.9

72.9

68.372.1

63.1

90.1 89.988.6 90.790.489.7

85.0

90.2

89.2

Jun

04

Dec-

04

Jun-

05

Dec-

05

Dec-

06

Dec-

07

Dec-

08

Dec-

09

Dec-

10

Dec-

11

25-199 Employees 200 Employees

21.224.5 25.0

28.9

30.1

25.326.028.5

26.6 27.7

52.8

59.6

64.1

63.160.0 58.5 59.5 58.2

62.5

61.6

Jun

04

Dec

04

Jun

05

Dec

05

Dec

06

Dec

07

Dec

08

Dec

09

Dec

10

Dec-11

6.26.5

5.86.15.46.05.78.2

4.33.6

24.427.025.125.5

29.131.032.6

32.2

24.119.1

Jun

04

Dec

04

Jun

05

Dec

05

Dec

06

Dec

07

Dec

08

Dec

09

Dec

10

Dec-11

Overall

ByEstablishmentSize


37/321


Majori ty of establ ishments without key recommendations were sat isf ied with

f lexibi l i ty of their exist ing wage system

8.5 As at December 2011, 14% of employees in the private sector were

working in establishments that had yet to implement any of the key wage

recommendations (Table 6). The majority of them, representing 11% of all private

sector employees, were working in establishments that were satisfied with their wage

flexibility.

Table 6: Proportion of Employees in Establishments That Did Not Implement

Any of the Key Wage Recommendations, 2010 2011 (As at December)

Per Cent

Note: Figures may not sum up due to rounding

8.6 Overall, nearly all (97%) private sector employees were either working inestablishments with some form of wage flexibility (86%) or were satisfied with their wage

flexibility even though their establishments have yet to implement any key wage

recommendations (11%), same as in 2010 (Chart 19).

Period

Did NotImplement Any

Key WageRecommendation

Satisfied/Not SatisfiedWith Level of Flexibility

in Wage System

SatisfiedNot

Satisfied

Overall2011 14.3 11.2 3.12010 10.9 7.6 3.3


25-199 Employees2011 21.2 15.4 5.7

2010 18.1 12.1 6.0

200 or More Employees2011 9.3 8.1 1.22010 5.7 4.3 1.4


38/321


Chart 19: Proportion of Employees That Were Either Working in Establishments

With Some Form of Wage Flexibility or Were Satisfied With Their Wage

Flexibility Even Though Their Establishments Did Not Implement Any

Key Wage Recommendations, 2004 2011 (As at December)

81.3% 81.1% 83.3% 83.7% 83.6% 85.1%89.1% 85.7%

11.8% 13.2% 11.4% 11.8% 11.3%10.5%

7.6% 11.2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Satisfied Even Though Establishments Did Not Implement Any Key Wage Recommendations

With At Least One Key Wage Recommendation

8.7 The remaining establishments that were not satisfied with the flexibility of

their wage system but had yet to implement the taskforce recommendations employed

only 3.1% of the workforce, down from 3.3% a year ago (Table 7). Many of these

establishments that were not satisfied with their wage flexibility reported that they wouldnot be implementing the recommendations of the taskforce (Table 7). They employed

only 1.8% of the workforce and were mainly SMEs (77%).

Table 7: Proportion of Employees in Establishments Without Any Key Wage

Recommendations and Not Satisfied with Level of Wage Flexibility by

Intention to Implement Wage Recommendations, 2011 (As at December)

Per Cent

NotSatisfied

With WageFlexibility

Intention to Implement Wage

Recommendations

Yes No Not Aware

Overall 3.1 0.2 1.8 1.1


25-199 Employees 5.7 0.3 3.3 2.1

200 or More Employees 1.2 0.1 0.7 0.4

Notes: (1) Figures may not sum up due to rounding.(2) -: nil or negligible.

93.2% 94.7% 95.5% 94.9% 95.7%94.3% 96.7% 96.9%


39/321


9 Implementation of Flexible Wage Components

Narrowing m aximum -minimum salary rat io and l inking variable bon us to KPI were

more comm on than MVC

9.1 Having a narrow maximum-minimum salary ratio (involving 63% of

workforce) remained the most common recommendation adopted by the private sector.

This was followed by linking variable bonus to KPI (52%) and having MVC (35%) in the

wage structure. In 2011, the coverage of workforce with MVC and in establishments

that had narrowed/were narrowing the wage ratio were broadly the same as in 2010

(35% and 64% respectively), while the share of employees with variable bonus linked to

KPI declined from 57%.

9.2 Large establishments continued to lead in adopting the MVC and variable

bonus linked to KPI while SMEs fared better in narrowing the maximum-minimum salary

ratio.


40/321


Chart 20: Proportion of Employees by Key Wage Recommendations, 2004 2011

Per Cent

Maximum-Minimum Salary Ratio MVC Variable Bonus Linked to KPI

62.5

52.2

59.3

60.8

59.6 60.2 62.4 57.8 59.064.4

Jun04

Dec04

Jun05

Dec05

Dec06

Dec07

Dec08

Dec09

Dec10

Dec-11

34.834.734.733.834.7

37.236.039.4

33.532.9

Jun04

Dec04

Jun05

Dec05

Dec06

Dec07

Dec08

Dec09

Dec10

Dec-11

51.7

57.253.754.151.952.8

54.2

53.6

47.1

42.0

Jun04

Dec04

Jun05

Dec05

Dec06

Dec07

Dec08

Dec09

Dec10

Dec-11

66.0

57.462.4

57.557.656.8

52.147.8

67.2

62.2

59.9

58.162.562.163.7 64.860.8

55.5

62.456.6

Jun04

Dec04

Jun05

Dec05

Dec06

Dec07

Dec08

Dec09

Dec10

Dec-11


15.314.014.213.914.216.5

19.315.4

14.2

14.1

48.849.849.749.449.3

51.554.1

50.6

49.8

47.3

Jun04

Dec04

Jun05

Dec05

Dec06

Dec07

Dec08

Dec09

Dec10

Dec-11

29.0

26.129.1

33.831.4 31.5

34.2 36.4 35.837.3

68.0

54.1

62.3

68.1

70.567.5

64.668.0

66.9

71.6

Jun04

Dec04

Jun05

Dec05

Dec06

Dec07

Dec08

Dec09

Dec10

Dec-11

Note: Figures do not sum up to 100% as establishments can implement more than one key wage recommendation.

Variable Bonus linked to KPI

Large establ ishments mo re l ikely to l ink variable bon us to KPI

9.3 As at December 2011, three in every ten establishments (30%) had

adopted NWCs wage recommendation to formulate and communicate to theiremployees the KPI for the payment of variable bonus, down from 37% in 2010. The

adoption of the NWCs wage recommendation for employers to link variable bonus to

KPI was more prevalent in large establishments (57%).

9.4 By employee count, 52% of private sector employees were in

establishments that had variable bonus linked to KPI. Financial & insurance services

(80%), information & communications (74%) and professional services (70%) had

among the highest share of employees with variable bonus linked to KPI. On the other

hand, construction (21%), administrative & support services (30%) and real estate

services (35%) had significantly below-average proportions (Appendix-Table 3).

Overall

ByEstablishmentSize


41/321


Chart 21: Proportion of Employees and Establishments That Formulated and

Communicated KPI for Payment of the Variable Bonus, 2004 2011

Per Cent

Employee Establishment

42.047.1

53.6 54.2 52.8 51.9 54.1 53.757.2

51.7

Jun04

Dec04

Jun05

Dec05

Dec06

Dec07

Dec08

Dec09

Dec10

Dec-11

25.929.4 33.1 31.8 32.1 33.7

36.2 35.0 36.5

29.6

Jun04

Dec04

Jun05

Dec05

Dec06

Dec07

Dec08

Dec09

Dec10

Dec-11

26.129.1

33.831.4 31.5

34.2 36.4 35.837.3

29.0

54.1

62.3

68.170.5

67.564.6

68.0 66.971.6

68.0

Jun04

Dec04

Jun05

Dec05

Dec06

Dec07

Dec08

Dec09

Dec10

Dec-11


23.826.9

30.1 28.3 28.530.9

33.2 31.9 33.0

25.9

41.8

50.954.2

56.7 57.0

50.9

58.6 58.362.9

57.0

Jun04

Dec04

Jun05

Dec05

Dec06

Dec07

Dec08

Dec09

Dec10

Dec-11

Overall

ByEstablishmentSize


42/321


Maximum-Minimum Salary Ratio

Two in three private establ ishments had narrowed/were narrowing their

maximum -minimum wage rat io to 1.5 or less

9.5 Two in three (66%) private establishments had narrowed/were narrowingthe wage ratio for the same job to 1.5 or less in December 2011. This dropped slightly

from 68% in 2010, after increasing from 62% in December 2009. These establishments

employed 63% of the private sector workforce, a tad lower than 64% in 2010, but still

higher than 59% in 2009 (Chart 22).

Chart 22: Proportion of Employees and Establishments That Had Narrowed or

Were Narrowing the Maximum-Minimum Salary Ratio to 1.5 or Less,

2004 2011

Per Cent


52.2

59.3 60.8 59.6 60.262.4

57.8 59.064.4 62.5

Jun

04

Dec

04

Jun

05

Dec

05

Dec

06

Dec

07

Dec

08

Dec

09

Dec

10

Dec-11

47.1

56.5 56.553.0

58.061.6

57.762.3

67.6 66.3

Jun

04

Dec

04

Jun

05

Dec

05

Dec

06

Dec

07

Dec

08

Dec

09

Dec

10

Dec-11

47.8

57.6 56.852.1

57.562.4

57.4

62.267.2 66.0

55.560.8

63.7 64.8 62.1 62.558.1

56.662.4 59.9

Jun04

Dec04

Jun05

Dec05

Dec06

Dec07

Dec08

Dec09

Dec10

Dec-11


46.7

56.2 56.251.9

57.661.8

57.4

62.4

67.9 66.7

50.1

59.0 58.9 60.661.3 60.2 59.8

61.265.3 63.0

Jun04

Dec04

Jun05

Dec05

Dec06

Dec07

Dec08

Dec09

Dec10

Dec-11

9.6 On average, establishments had a maximum-minimum salary ratio of

1.51 for their rank-and-file (RAF) workers, slightly lower than the 1.52 of a year ago

(Table 8). The ratio was higher in large establishments (1.55) than the SMEs (1.47).

Expectedly, the maximum-minimum salary ratio was lower in establishments that were

narrowing or had narrowed the salary range at 1.40 in 2011, same as in the previousyear.

Overall

ByEstablishmentSize


43/321


Table 8: Average Maximum-Minimum Salary Ratio of the Rank-and-File,

2010 2011 (As at December)

Period

All Establishments

Total

Had narrowed

/ werenarrowing

Overall2011 1.51 1.40

2010 1.52 1.40


25-199 Employees2011 1.47 1.34

2010 1.48 1.34

200 or More Employees2011 1.55 1.45

2010 1.55 1.45

9.7 Junior management (1.61) continued to have a higher maximum-

minimum ratio than RAF (1.51) (Table 9). Similarly, the maximum-minimum salary ratio

for junior management narrowed from the year before (1.62).

Table 9: Average Maximum-Minimum Salary Ratio of Junior Management,

2010 2011 (As at December)

Period

All Establishments

TotalHad narrowed

/ were

narrowing

Overall2011 1.61 1.51

2010 1.62 1.48


25-199 Employees2011 1.54 1.41

2010 1.54 1.41


2010 1.67 1.52


44/321


Monthly Variable Component

MVC more comm on in commu nity, social & person al services, f inancial services

and transport & storage

9.8 As at December 2011, 16% of establishments had implemented MVC, up

from 14% in 2010. The coverage in terms of employees was higher at 35%, as large

establishments (35%) were more likely to implement MVC than smaller establishments

(13%) (Chart 23).

9.9 Community, social & personal services (58%), financial & insurance

services (54%) and transportation & storage (51%) had among the highest share of

employees with MVC, while information & communications (11%), construction (13%),

administrative & support services and wholesale & retail trade (both 26%) had the least

(Appendix-Table 3).

Chart 23: Proportion of Employees and Establishments With MVC, 1999 2011

Per Cent


9.6

37.2 34.7 33.8 34.7 34.7 34.832.9

27.924.7

17.322.4

33.536.0

39.4

Dec-99

Dec-00

Dec-01

Dec-02

Dec-03

Dec04

Dec05

Dec06

Dec07

Dec08

Dec09

Dec10

Dec-11

4.1 6.38.1 9.4

16.915.3 15.5 14.8 14.4 15.6

15.5

13.7

10.1 14.2

18.7

Dec-99

Dec-00

Dec-01

Dec-02

Dec-03

Dec04

Dec05

Dec06

Dec07

Dec08

Dec09

Dec10

Dec-11

16.514.2 13.9 14.2 14.0 15.3

51.5 49.3 49.4 49.7 49.8 48.8

14.2 15.4

14.110.49.38.5

6.53.9

19.3

50.649.8

47.3

43.2

39.436.4

15.0

27.3

54.1

Dec-99

Dec-00

Dec-01

Dec-02

Dec-03

Dec04

Dec05

Dec06

Dec07

Dec08

Dec09

Dec10

Dec-11


11.214.0 12.3 12.7 12.1 11.6 12.910.4

37.933.7 35.9 35.1 34.7 35.2

12.510.97.97.46.44.9

3.4

15.6

37.0 37.235.8

19.426.2

28.2 30.2

41.6

Dec-99

Dec-00

Dec-01

Dec-02

Dec-03

Dec04

Dec05

Dec06

Dec07

Dec08

Dec09

Dec10

Dec-11

Note: It is assumed that when an establishment introduces the MVC in its wage structure, it applies to all employees inthe establishment.

Overall

ByEstablishm

entSize


45/321


MVC as a Proportion of Monthly Basic Wage

Nearly 30% of w ages in MVC firms were variable

9.10 As at December 2011, establishments with MVC on average set aside

10% of monthly basic wages as MVC for majority of their employees, same as the year

before (Chart 24).

Chart 24: MVC as a Proportion of Monthly Basic Wage in Establishments With

MVC, 2000 2011 (As at December)

9.11 Establishments with MVC typically paid higher-than-average annual

variable component (3.18 months of basic wages in 2011) than non-MVCestablishments (2.01 months). Combining the annual variable component and MVC

(21% and 7.9% of total wages respectively), 29% of total wages were variable in MVC

establishments.9 Including non-MVC establishments, the variable share of total wages

amongst all private establishments was 21%, comprising an annual variable component

of 17% and MVC of 3.5% in 2011.

9The tripartite partners recommended a target of 30% comprising 20% in annual variable component and 10% in MVC.

2.6

3.84.0

5.4

6.8

8.1

9.09.2 9.7 9.6

10.0 10.0

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Per Cent


46/321


Triggers for MVC Cuts/Restoration

9.12 Companies which had put in place clear and appropriate triggers for MVC

cuts and restoration will be able to respond nimbly to business conditions without having

to negotiate with workers or unions at every point of a business downturn. As at

December 2011, about three in five (61%) employees in MVC establishments had

indicators/guidelines in their wage structure for the cut and restoration of MVC, up

slightly from 59% in 2010.

Table 10: Distribution of Employees With MVC by With/Without

Indicators/Guidelines for the Cut & Restoration of the MVC, 2010 2011

(As at December)

Per Cent

Period Yes No

Overall2011 61.2 38.8

2010 58.8 41.2


25-199 Employees2011 62.2 37.8

2010 61.7 38.3


2010 58.2 41.8


Abo ut three in f ive establ ishm ents had no intent ion of implementing MVC

9.13 As at December 2011, 16% of establishments had implemented MVC

while 0.7% had decided to or were in the process of implementation (Table 11). Another

10% were still assessing the system. About three in five (58%) establishments had no

intention of implementing while another 15% were unaware of the MVC. Nearly all

(91%) of the establishments which did not wish to implement or were not aware of the

MVC were SMEs.


47/321


Table 11: Distribution of Establishments and Employees in Establishments by

Intention to Implement MVC, 2011 (As at December)

Establishment

Per Cent

TotalWithMVC

Decided/ in theProcess of

Implementation

Still UnderConsideration

PreviouslyWith MVCBut Was

LaterRemoved

No Wishto

Implement

NotAware

ofMVC

Overall 100.0 15.6 0.7 9.9 0.9 57.8 15.1


25-199Employees

100.0 12.9 0.7 9.9 0.9 59.0 16.6


100.0 35.2 0.8 10.4 0.8 48.9 3.9

Employee

Per Cent

TotalWithMVC

Decided/ in TheProcess of

Implementation

Still UnderConsideration

PreviouslyWith MVCBut Was

LaterRemoved

No Wishto

Implement

NotAware

ofMVC

Overall 100.0 34.8 0.6 8.2 1.0 48.2 7.2


25-199Employees

100.0 15.3 0.8 10.3 1.2 58.2 14.2


100.0 48.8 0.5 6.8 0.9 41.0 2.1

Note: Figures may not sum up due to rounding.

10 Information Sharing

Majori ty of emp loyees were wor king in establ ishments that shared information

10.1 Overall, slightly over three in four (76%) employees were working inestablishments that shared information in 2011, same as in the previous year. The

corresponding percentage was higher in the larger establishments (87%) than the SMEs

(61%) (Chart 25).


48/321


Chart 25: Proportion of Establishments and Employees That Share Information

With Employees, 1999 2011 (As at December)

Per Cent

Information sh aring mor e prevalent among firm s with a flexible wage system

10.2 Information sharing continued to be more prevalent among

establishments with a flexible wage system. 64% of establishments with at least one

wage recommendation shared information with their employees compared with 49% of

establishments without any wage recommendations (Table 12).


Overall

ByEstablishmentSize

70.1 71.374.7 74.4

78.276.1 77.8

78.575.9 76.9 75.2 75.8 76.3

'99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11

53.3 54.2

59.3 58.8

63.9

58.562.8 63.2 62.5 63.5 60.8 60.2 61.3

'99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11

54.2 54.660.0 59.8

64.760.5

62.9 64.3 62.7 64.4 61.3 61.3 61.4

85.2 86.989.5 88.2 90.1 89.3 88.4 88.3

85.3 86.8 85.5 86.4 87.1

'99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11


50.8 51.7

57.2 56.661.7

55.760.1 60.7 60.2 61.3 58.2 57.8 58.8

76.5 77.983.3

79.083.4 82.2 81.9 81.0

77.179.7 79.4 77.8 79.2

'99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11


49/321


Table 12: Proportion of Establishments and Employees in Establishments That

Shared Information With Employees by Type of Wage System,

2011 (As at December)

Per Cent

All Establishments With at Least One WageRecommendation

No WageRecommendation

EstablishmentCount

EmployeeCount

EstablishmentCount

EmployeeCount

EstablishmentCount

EmployeeCount

Overall 61.3 76.3 64.3 79.3 49.4 58.8


25-199 Employees 58.8 61.4 61.7 64.5 48.3 49.8


79.2 87.1 81.5 88.5 63.7 73.6

10.3 Overall, one-third of private establishments (33%) shared information at

least annually, up slightly from 31% in 2010 (Chart 26). In terms of employees covered,

46% of employees were working in establishments that shared information at least

annually, same as in the previous year. The information sharing was more frequent in

large establishments than the SMEs (Table 13).


50/321


Table 13: Distribution of Establishments and Employees by Frequency of

Information Sharing, 2011 (As at December)

Establishment

Per Cent

AllEstablishments

By Establishment Size

25-199Employees


Total 61.3 58.8 79.2

Regularly 32.8 30.5 49.8

Annually 14.1 13.4 19.4

Half-yearly 6.2 5.9 8.0

Quarterly 8.3 7.1 17.3

Monthly 4.2 4.0 5.2

As and when necessary 28.4 28.2 29.1

Others 0.1 0.1 0.3

Employee

Per Cent

AllEstablishments

By Establishment Size

25-199Employees


Total 76.3 61.4 87.1

Regularly 46.4 32.4 56.4

Annually 14.7 13.8 15.4

Half-yearly 8.7 6.3 10.4

Quarterly 18.9 8.2 26.7

Monthly 4.1 4.2 4.0

As and when necessary 29.8 28.8 30.5

Others 0.2 0.1 0.2



51/321


Chart 26: Proportion of Establishments and Employees That Shared Information

at Least Annually, 1999 2011 (As at December)

Per Cent

ByE

stablishmentSize

Overall

24.6 25.827.9 28.4

30.5 32.533.3

35.9 37.032.7 31.2 31.9 32.4

47.5 46.5 48.543.5

48.053.4 53.9 52.8 55.0

55.8 55.7 56.7 56.4

'99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11


22.5 23.127.0 26.5

29.7 29.7 31.433.6 35.3 30.7 29.0 28.8 30.5

40.3 39.844.0 42.8

45.849.8 48.7 47.9 46.1 47.3 47.7 46.1

49.8

'99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11

36.4 36.5 38.1 36.239.8

43.8 45.4 45.947.5 45.7 45.3 46.2 46.4

'99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11

24.3 24.728.4 28.0

31.3 31.833.5 35.4

36.832.7 31.2 30.9 32.8

'99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11



52/321


11 Concluding Remarks

11.1 The tight labour market continued to lift workers wages, despite the

slower economic growth in 2011. Taking inflation into account, real wages increased

slightly in 2011, after growing more significantly during the economic rebound in 2010.

Over the long term, real wage increases have been broadly in line with labour

productivity growth.

11.2 A large majority of employees in the private sector were under some form

of flexible wage system in 2011, though the proportion has eased slightly from the year

before. More employees were working in establishments which have narrowed/were

narrowing the maximum-minimum salary ratio and have linked variable bonus to KPI

than those with MVC.


53/321


Appendix

Table 1: Total and Basic Wage Change by Industry, 2010 and 2011

Per Cent

Industry (SSIC 2010) PeriodTotal Wage Change Basic Wage Change

Total RAF NRAF Total RAF NRAF

Total2011 5.3 4.7 5.9 4.4 4.0 4.9

2010 5.5 4.5 6.7 3.9 3.3 4.5

Manufacturing2011 4.1 4.0 4.4 4.0 3.8 4.3

2010 4.9 4.3 5.6 3.6 3.3 3.9

Construction2011 4.2 3.6 4.9 3.9 3.4 4.4

2010 4.4 4.0 4.9 3.5 3.2 3.9

Services2011 5.6 5.0 6.3 4.5 4.0 5.1

2010 5.8 4.6 7.2 4.0 3.4 4.8

Wholesale & Retail

Trade

2011 4.6 4.3 5.0 4.1 4.0 4.4

2010 5.4 4.7 6.4 3.6 3.3 4.1

Transportation &Storage

2011 7.4 7.1 8.1 3.8 3.8 3.9

2010 2.5 2.2 3.5 2.9 2.7 3.3

Accommodation &Food Services

2011 4.5 4.5 4.4 3.8 4.0 3.4

2010 3.3 3.2 3.3 2.9 2.9 2.9

Information &Communications

2011 4.6 4.3 4.8 4.5 4.2 4.7

2010 4.7 4.7 4.8 4.0 4.0 4.0

Financial &Insurance Services

2011 9.1 8.1 9.4 7.4 6.0 7.7

2010 10.0 6.6 11.1 6.0 4.1 6.7

Real Estate

Services

2011 5.5 4.9 6.8 4.1 3.8 4.6

2010 4.8 4.0 6.4 3.3 3.2 3.6

ProfessionalServices

2011 5.6 5.2 5.9 5.0 5.0 5.1

2010 8.1 6.2 9.2 5.7 4.4 6.5

Administrative &Support Services

2011 3.7 3.5 4.4 3.5 3.4 3.9

2010 4.3 4.3 4.5 2.8 2.7 3.1

Community, Social& PersonalServices

2011 5.0 4.3 6.0 4.2 4.0 4.4

2010 7.0 6.9 7.1 4.3 4.3 4.3


54/321


Table 2: Proportion of Employees With Some Form of Wage Flexibility by

Industry, 2010 2011 (As at December)

Per Cent

Industry(SSIC 2010)

Period

Some Form ofWage

Number of Key Wage

Recommendations ImplementedFlexibility

(A) + (B) + (C) Three (A) Two (B) One (C)

All Industries2011 85.7 16.8 29.6 39.3

2010 89.1 18.4 30.5 40.3

Manufacturing2011 87.2 19.5 30.8 36.9

2010 89.3 18.5 32.1 38.7

Construction2011 75.5 6.7 11.3 57.5

2010 81.2 4.0 19.5 57.7

Services2011 87.6 18.0 33.6 36.0

2010 90.9 21.6 32.4 36.9

Wholesale & Retail Trade2011 88.4 10.8 37.0 40.6

2010 92.6 15.1 34.2 43.3

Transportation & Storage2011 92.8 26.6 38.3 27.9

2010 94.4 36.7 33.0 24.7

Accommodation & Food Services2011 90.6 29.5 19.7 41.5

2010 90.8 31.2 25.9 33.7

Information & Communications2011 88.9 2.4 40.0 46.5

2010 88.7 4.3 44.4 39.9

Financial & Insurance Services2011 86.7 29.0 38.9 18.8

2010 96.1 34.7 31.4 30.0

Real Estate Services 2011 82.5 16.2 27.4 38.92010 79.2 11.2 27.2 40.7

Professional Services2011 87.6 21.4 28.1 38.1

2010 83.6 19.3 31.8 32.5

Administrative & Support Services2011 83.8 14.4 16.1 53.3

2010 89.2 16.6 21.1 51.5

Community, Social & PersonalServices

2011 84.2 11.0 44.8 28.4

2010 92.1 16.9 38.8 36.3



55/321


Table 3: Proportion of Employees in Establishments by Key Wage

Recommendations and Industry, 2004 2011 (As at December)

Per Cent

Industry(SSIC 2010)

Period

WithMaximum-Minimum

SalaryRatio

With MVC

WithVariableBonus

Linked toKPI

All Industries

2011 62.5 34.8 51.7

2010 64.4 34.7 57.2

2009 59.0 34.7 53.7

2008 57.8 33.8 54.1

2007 62.4 34.7 51.9

2006 60.2 37.2 52.8

2005 59.6 36.0 54.2

2004 59.3 33.5 47.1

Manufacturing

2011 65.0 36.3 55.6

2010 60.9 36.1 61.42009 59.7 37.4 58.6

2008 55.7 33.4 55.1

2007 59.1 33.9 55.5

2006 57.4 35.0 56.2

2005 59.3 36.0 58.7

2004 56.2 37.3 52.6

Construction

2011 66.5 12.6 21.1

2010 69.1 13.3 26.4

2009 62.9 11.6 21.6

2008 61.0 11.8 25.5

2007 58.8 11.0 19.3

2006 54.4 8.8 20.62005 47.7 8.2 21.8

2004 60.2 12.4 24.1

Services

2011 60.4 39.3 57.4

2010 64.7 39.1 62.7

2009 57.5 39.0 59.6

2008 58.3 39.2 60.7

2007 65.1 40.7 58.4

2006 62.7 43.7 57.3

2005 61.9 41.3 58.1

2004 60.9 35.9 49.0

Wholesale & Retail Trade

2011 64.8 26.0 56.2

2010 71.7 24.2 61.1

2009 64.1 26.0 61.0

2008 62.4 27.9 65.8

2007 60.0 24.5 63.4

2006 57.5 27.9 58.2

2005 56.1 24.9 57.0

2004 58.7 22.3 50.4

Transportation & Storage

2011 67.6 51.0 65.8

2010 78.9 51.9 69.9

2009 69.8 47.6 66.7

2008 70.3 47.6 59.4

2007 75.1 48.9 56.8

2006 79.1 51.9 58.9

2005 77.0 46.9 60.32004 76.5 50.7 47.0


56/321


Industry(SSIC 2010)

Period

WithMaximum-Minimum

SalaryRatio

With MVC

WithVariableBonus

Linked toKPI

Accommodation & Food Services

2011 83.9 40.1 45.3

201080.3 40.9 57.92009 72.4 39.4 53.1

2008 72.9 46.8 57.1

2007 83.9 44.1 51.1

2006 82.3 50.3 53.6

2005 84.8 48.5 54.3

2004 78.7 35.3 37.4

Information & Communications

2011 48.5 11.1 74.0

2010 49.4 15.2 77.1

2009 51.6 14.1 75.9

2008 50.6 16.7 76.2

2007 54.3 22.7 77.9

2006 33.4 23.7 78.7

2005 31.3 17.8 74.7

2004 42.8 13.3 60.1

Financial & Insurance Services

2011 50.2 53.9 79.6

2010 49.8 57.9 89.2

2009 41.6 59.7 81.6

2008 48.6 62.6 78.3

2007 57.3 66.3 71.7

2006 61.5 63.6 77.5

2005 58.9 68.8 76.0

2004 52.5 57.8 70.7

Real Estate Services

2011 66.9 40.1 35.3

2010 63.1 32.5 33.3

2009 54.0 29.7 37.12008 45.8 25.6 48.6

2007 58.0 22.2 33.7

2006 74.2 31.0 39.8

2005 63.7 24.3 37.0

2004 71.8 21.8 28.6

Professional Services

2011 55.9 33.1 69.5

2010 54.3 33.3 66.4

2009 55.1 27.0 62.3

2008 46.4 29.0 58.2

2007 57.3 35.4 61.7

2006 48.9 35.8 55.2

2005 46.3 36.9 49.72004 46.6 30.3 54.1

Administrative & Support Services

2011 73.2 25.9 29.7

2010 83.0 20.5 40.1

2009 70.3 25.9 37.2

2008 74.8 18.9 30.8

2007 79.6 20.3 28.6

2006 69.9 17.3 24.9

2005 59.0 18.4 24.0

2004 63.2 6.9 11.8

Community, Social & Personal

Services

2011 38.5 57.8 54.5

2010 45.4 59.7 59.7

2009 35.1 62.6 54.52008 38.8 63.9 60.6

2007 57.2 69.3 63.1


57/321


Industry(SSIC 2010)

Period

WithMaximum-Minimum

SalaryRatio

With MVC

WithVariableBonus

Linked toKPI

2006 52.0 74.3 56.9

200566.0 69.2 67.62004 50.3 63.5 54.8


58/321

REPORT ON WAGES IN SINGAPORE, 2011

Attesting to the value of knowledge and skills, the median monthly gross wage

was the highest for managers at $6,630 in June 2011. This was followed by

professionals at $4,632 and associate professionals & technicians who drew a

median pay of $3,070. Clerical support workers ($2,097) and service & sales

workers ($2,000) were paid less. Among blue-collar occupations, craftsmen &

related trades workers ($2,377) and plant & machine operators ($2,015) were paid

more than cleaners, labourers & related workers ($1,020).

Wages tend to rise with age as workers gain experience. In June 2011, the pace

of wage increase with age was more pronounced among managers and

professionals. The link between age and wages was less obvious for lower-skilled

workers whose wages generally rose more gradually and peaked earlier. In fact,

wages of plant & machine operators and cleaners, labourers & related workers

were largely flat for younger workers before declining for those in their mid forties

onwards. Advancing age typically works against workers in physically demanding

manual occupations.

Higher value-added industries generally pay better. Specifically, financial services

and professional services were among the top three highest-paying industries

across many occupational groups in June 2011. In contrast, accommodation &

food services and construction were among the lower-paying industries.

Like in other countries, females in Singapore typically earn less than males. The

gender wage gap was narrower in white-collar occupations, with women in the

prime-working age of 35 to 39 earning close to or the same as men in clerical

support, professional, associate professional & technician and service & salesoccupations. Gender wage differential also varied with age, with the younger

cohorts having substantially lower wage differential than those older. With age,

females were more likely to take career breaks to care for their family which

reduced their work experience and hence pay, relative to men.

HIGHLIGHTSON OCCUPATIONAL WAGES, 2011


59/321


1 Introduction

1.1 This is a report on wages of common occupations in Singapore. It

examines wages of different occupations as well as similar occupations across different

industries and the impact of age and gender on occupational wages. As the occupational

wage data are based on aggregates of similar jobs, they can only serve as a guide for

expected wages of individuals, given that no workers and jobs are totally alike 1 and

wages are determined by prevailing market conditions.

1.2 The wage data are obtained from the Occupational Wage Survey, 2011 on

a representative sample of private sector establishments each with at least 25employees. The survey was conducted by the Central Provident Fund (CPF) Board on

behalf of the Ministry of Manpower. The wages captured refer to basic and gross monthly

wages (excluding bonuses and profit sharing) of full-time private sector employees who

contributed to CPF in the month of June 2011. With a response rate of 91%, the survey

covered an effective sample of 3,869 private sector establishments employing some

262,000 CPF contributors on a full-time basis. The survey concepts and methodology

are in Part II.

2 Monthly Basic and Gross Wages

2.1 With a median gross monthly wage of $6,630, managers was the highest

paid occupational group in June 2011, lifted by high-earning managing directors/chief

executive officers ($16,684) and company directors ($11,495). At the other end were

lower-paying managers, including restaurant managers ($2,813) and retail/shop sales

managers ($3,240).

2.2 Professionals came in second at $4,632, weighed down by the entry of

fresh graduates and the downward bias created by professionals who were promoted to

managerial positions and hence no longer classified as professionals. The occupationswithin this group ranged from the higher-paid university lecturers ($10,918) and lawyers

(excluding advocates & solicitors) ($8,400) to psychologists ($3,150) and social work &

counselling professionals ($3,1

wages report 2011

Documents