Exclusivity Should be a Two-Way Streak

 

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:

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/parliament/videos/september/debate-on-president-s-address-chong-kee-hiong-on-benefits-of-13071436

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?   

You’re Lucky We Let You Live

I usually don’t have much to say about Singapore Elections. The results, like any libel trial involving our senior political leaders, is a forgone conclusion. The ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) is an expert at using the vast powers and resources of incumbency to its advantage and our opposition remains fragmented and too filled with different egos to focus on the main prize. Furthermore, if you work on the principle that elections are not won by opposition but lost by governments, the PAP government, while having made some serious mistakes, has yet to do enough to lose the election.

Having said that, it’s been unfortunate that a member of the ruling party has decided to put display a very disturbing attitude towards ethnic minorities. The background is as simple. Dr. Tan Wu Meng, a member of parliament (MP) for the ruling party took issue with the playwright, Alfian Sa’at.

I must admit that I’ve never read Alfian Sa’at’s works. However, from what I’ve heard of him, he’s by no means a violent revolutionary nor has he ever suggested that he’d support any damage to Singapore. What he has been is critical of certain government policies and certain members of high society. In short, Mr. Sa’at is not much different from the rest of us when it comes to discussing politics. He is merely more vocal. He was described by Professor Tommy Koh, one of our most respected diplomats as a “loving critic” of Singapore.

Dr. Tan, however, decided that Mr. Sa’at was not a loving critic but a dangerous “anti-Singaporean” and when Dr. Pritam Singh, leader of the Workers Party (the only opposition party with seats in parliament), defended Mr. Sa’at in parliament, Dr. Tan decided to go for the proverbial jugular and in doing so, put on display one of the worst displays of “Chinese Privilege” ever seen:

Dr. Tan’s point is this simple – he, as part of the ethnic Malay minority in Singapore was ungrateful for the fact that Chinese majority Singapore had given him an education and allowed him to make a living. The argument was simple, had he been born as an ethnic minority elsewhere, he wouldn’t live the life he lives or even been allowed to live.

Nobody denies that ethnic minorities don't have it easy. In Southeast Asia, the ethnic Chinese minorities, particularly in Indonesia and Malaysia have had to live with, at best legal discrimination or been at the wrong end of a violent mob, as happened to Indonesia’s Chinese back in 1998.

While Singapore’s ethnic Malays have not been on the wrong end of violent clashes, Dr. Tan misses the point. Just because ethnic minorities get it worse elsewhere, it doesn’t make treatment of our own ethnic minorities right nor does it make Dr. Tan’s attitude correct.

For a start, the attitude of “You the ethnic minority are lucky” goes against the ethos of what Singapore is supposed to be. I cannot stress enough that the ruling party, which Dr. Tan is a part of wrote our national pledge as “Regardless of Race, Language or Religion.” Our national pledge is based on us being “Singaporean” first rather than our ethnicity or faith.

Sure, racial prejudice does exist on a personal level and you can’t expect these prejudices to vanish overnight. There is no doubt that ethnic minorities will have to deal with personal prejudices on a personal basis. However, you’d expect that elected representatives of the people would have a duty to combat such prejudices in the public sphere rather than to use the fact that ethnic minorities are just that and to use that as a threat.

Mr. Sa’at was educated in Singapore and makes a living here. Isn’t that the right of every citizen of Singapore? Why is that even an issue?

I am sure that there are plenty of issues that one can take up with Mr. Sa’at but the fact that he’s an ethnic minority that had the good fortune of being able to receive an education and make a living in Singapore should not be one of them.

The leader of the ruling party should demonstrate that we are serious about being “regardless of race, language or religion” and make Dr. Tan pay with his seat in Parliament. There should be no room for politicians to use the race card in a progressive society.