One of the biggest storms in the aftermath of the opening of
our new parliament came from the MP for Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC, Mr. Chong Kee
Hiong, who suggested Singaporeans be allowed to take two jobs. Mr. Chong’s speech
can be found at:
Mr. Chong, who works as CEO of Suntec Real Estate Investment
Trust (Suntec Reit) by day, was pillared for being out of touch with the lives
of ordinary Singaporeans. The common theme in the criticisms of Mr. Chong was
that he didn’t fully understand what we wanted, which a single and secure job
that paid well as opposed to having two jobs. A sample of the reactions to Mr.
Chong’s remarks can be found below:
https://www.straitstimes.com/forum/forum-taking-up-2-jobs-does-not-ensure-job-security
While I understand where the objections to Mr. Chong’s
remarks are coming from, I actually agree with Mr. Chong. Why do we the workers
have to be tied down to a single employer, especially in situations where working
lives are becoming increasingly shorter (in the name of being more productive)
and pay and other benefits are being reduced (in the name of profitability). Why
should employees be forced into an exclusive relationship when their employers
are not bound by the same rules?
I make this point as someone who worked two jobs for the
better part of five years. I worked for the liquidator by day and I had what is
known as a “permanent part-time” gig at the Bistrot. In fairness to both my
former employers, they knew that I was working for both jobs. The liquidator
gave his express permission for me to keep my part-time gig in the Bistrot and
the Bistrot owner knew that I was working in a full-time job during the day.
It was a little tiring to work both jobs in as much as I
would finish the office job between six and seven in the evening and only reach
the Bistrot by around seven thirty to eight and by the time I was finished with
everything I’d only be able to hit the sack at around one in the morning and
would have to wake up and leave the house by around 9:15 to get to work at 10
(which was a special privilege that I was granted by the liquidator).
However, working two jobs gave me the benefit of two incomes,
which meant that I had the security that I would not be stuck if I didn’t have
the other and my virtually nonexistent CPF (Singapore’s national savings scheme
and foundation of our pension system) grew quite fast. I also did my best to
ensure that both my employers benefited. I tried to entertain at the Bistrot
and if I met lawyers at the Bistrot, I’d often get in touch with them to link
them up with the liquidator for further business opportunities.
Things only started to go downhill when the demands of my day
job were such that I barely had time to work the night job and I was being constantly
reminded that the situation of two jobs could not last forever and it was
assumed I’d go with the job that provided a clear career path. In the end I
left the day job at a point when I was expected to be exclusive to the point of
being exclusive.
Now, as I look back, I realise that I was in a very privileged
situation in that I had an employer who allowed me to work a second job. While
Moonlighting is technically not illegal for people outside the civil service,
private companies generally discourage it and often place a clause somewhere in
the contract that prohibits it. More on the legal situation of moonlighting in
Singapore can be found at:
https://singaporelegaladvice.com/moonlighting-illegal-singapore/
I do understand that there are concerns about conflicts of
interest. Employers, particularly in the professional service area, should not
want employees in position of leaking information to competitors. However, this
exclusion on secondary jobs includes blue collar labour. Why, for example do
port operators expect Stevedores to work only in their port or restaurants
expect their line cooks to work only for them?
Why is there such a premium placed on exclusivity of employment?
Why do I have to depend solely on you for my survival, especially when I’m not
exactly a prime decision maker in the organisation? I’ve noticed that employers
have this weird obsession with tying down the employee in an exclusive. I remember
the reaction of an HR professional for a big bank telling “Oh like that ah,”
the moment I told him I was working two jobs. That reaction was “Loser.” By contrast,
when I was interviewed by an American, the reaction was “wow – that’s great,”
or “hey, you’ve got drive.”
Like it not, the job market is changing. One can either be
displaced by someone cheaper, especially when you have places like China and
India opening up and offering pools of cheap labour. Or if a job is not killed
off by cheaper labour, automation (in manufacturing) or artificial intelligence
(AI – the for boring repetitive stuff in the office) will do it. The Singapore
government talks about retraining and reskilling. However, in addition to that,
they should allow employees to develop alternative sources of income beyond
their standard employers.
The rules on allowing dual citizenship should also change. As
of now Singaporeans are not allowed to hold dual citizenship. The argument is
that Singapore is in a vulnerable geopolitical position and holding dual citizenship
would put people in a position of conflict of alliances.
However, we need to look at the fact that we are now living
in a different more globalized world than the world of the 1960s. The
government has shown that it has no qualms it has no qualms in doing what is
necessary to grow its population of new citizens to augment the skills of its
current population. So, the reverse question should be asked, why can’t the
citizens have two citizenships in case one of them doesn’t work out for them?
Let’s remember that exclusivity only works if it works for
both parties. It’s like men who play around yet expect their wives to remain
faithful and exclusive to them. How can this work out in the long run?
No comments
Post a Comment