IF SINGAPOREANS feel they cannot afford to buy as many things as they could a few years ago, they are not imagining it, according to a survey by Swiss bank UBS.

The proof, so to speak, is in a burger.

The survey shows Singapore workers have to slog longer to earn enough money to bite into a Big Mac. Its price is equivalent to about 36 minutes' worth of work, 14 more than three years ago.

It is, however, just one ingredient in the survey which covered the prices of 122 goods and services.

While a burger index is hardly a scientific study of purchasing power, it does provide some meat to the argument that workers here are getting a tougher deal than those in some other countries.

Singapore's worsened placing on the burger index - a proxy for the cost of goods and services - highlights two possibilities: either that consumption has become more costly, or pay packets have become lighter.

Both are worrying trends which could have crept into the country, serving a double whammy to residents who are feeling the pinch from the downturn.

What accounts for the trend? Is it just a blip or here to stay? More importantly, what are the social and political costs if they persist?

Money not enough

THE UBS survey tracks prices and earnings of 73 cities this year, including Singapore. It started in 1971 with 31 cities, and has since been conducted every three years, with a growing list of cities.

Now, it includes Asian capitals such as Beijing, Kuala Lumpur and New Delhi along with key Western financial centres like London, New York and Zurich.

Price and wage levels are compared across the different cities with a standard basket of 122 goods and services and a set list of 14 professions.

In its latest survey done in March this year, the picture painted of Singapore is not a cheerful sight. It shows that the country is among First World economies in prices but not necessarily in wages.

Singapore is ranked the 24th most expensive city, moving up eight spots from the last survey in 2006. It is more costly than Chicago, Hong Kong and Sydney.

If rent is included, Singapore is even higher, at No. 15.

But there was no similar progress in wage levels. On the contrary, the average hourly gross wage dipped from US$7.30 (S$10.30) in 2006 to US$7.10 this year.

This led to Singapore slipping two notches to 40th position.

Interestingly, Singapore's wage level is just one rung above Moscow's. But in the price chart, Moscow is way down the list, at No. 56 - or 32 places below Singapore.

With pay increases not keeping pace with price hikes, purchasing power is squeezed. Singapore has declined 10 spots to the 50th position, behind cities like Bratislava in Slovakia, Johannesburg in South Africa and Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia.

Are the findings an accurate reflection of Singapore?

Not quite, says MP Seah Kian Peng, who also chairs the Government Parliamentary Committee for Community Development, Youth and Sports.

'The figures may be right, but the conclusion could be wrong,' he notes.

Rather than look at prices and wages in isolation, he says the key considerations should be: Do Singaporeans lead a better life than they did in the past, and are the poor taken care of?

'If the answer to both is yes, then moving up or down two notches becomes mere semantics,' he says.

He cites a recent government report which found that the salaries of the bottom 20 per cent of wage earners have risen. Their monthly wages increased from $1,200 in 2006 to $1,310 last year.

Like him, MP and labour leader Halimah Yacob questions the survey's validity.

While she is concerned by the findings of declining purchasing power, she wonders whether the indicators include government aid.

This covers a wide range, from the Workfare Income Supplement for low-wage earners, to rebates and subsidies in healthcare, education and housing. These 'are significant and help people to cope better', she says.

The scepticism of both politicians is shared by some analysts and political watchers, who believe that price comparisons across cities tend to be tenuous.

One key problem, they say, is the survey methodology which may not fully capture different consumption habits.

Varying prices

TO UBS, the strength of its survey is consistency.

'We measure the same goods across the cities and aggregate these prices in a goods basket that is the same for all the observed cities,' explains Mr Thomas Kaegi, UBS Wealth Management Research's head of macro-economic research for Asia-Pacific.

This enabled its researchers to compare cities on the same indicators.

Using one standard basket of 122 goods and services - from food to Internet connection costs - UBS determined the price levels in various cities.

With that same basket, it analysed the purchasing power of the cities' residents by how much their average incomes - based on 14 professions - can buy from that basket.

Mr Kaegi recognises its weakness - it does not take into account consumer patterns and taste buds that differ across countries.

For instance, veal steak, cheese and frozen pizza are among the 39 food items included in the basket of goods - but these imports from the West are not exactly standard fare for a typical Singaporean.

Diets aside, differences in culture and behaviour are also not captured.

Mr Kaegi observes that many Singaporeans would rather eat out at a hawker centre instead of buying food items and cooking at home, which is what people in Europe generally prefer.

Another example he cites is domestic foreign helpers, who are not included in the reference basket but whose services are widely used here.

'If Europeans were to employ domestic helpers, which they don't, it would make Singapore's price level lower,' he says.