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?   

The Richest Man in the Cemetery

Steve Jobs, Apple’s legendary founder, is reported to have said on his death bed that he felt that his life had been an absolute waste even though he was judged to be an absolute success by every metric society used. His reasoning was simple, he had spent his time pursuing wealth and “success” which was at the cost of the time he could have spent with his loved ones. He said, “There’s no point being the richest man in the cemetery.”

I think of this at a time when earning a living has become exceedingly tough. If you’re like me, working on contract or part-time basis, its especially tough. The guys who used to give you lots of work can no longer do so in as much as they don’t have the business to give you the work.

My blue-collar existence vanished because restaurants are no longer allowed to have dine-in customers, hence there’s no need for service staff. My income from the white-collar existence is curtailed because nobody wants to meet, so I can’t “sell” the services. The media is also not interested in anything beyond the outbreak of infections in worker’s dormitories, hence there’s also not much prospect of drumming up publicity work. If I was to take a job as an “essential” worker in say, a hospital, the wife and kid would shoot me for putting them at risk.

In the meantime, bills need to be paid. While the banks are supposed to be more sympathetic, they still demand loan installment payments and so on. So, what can one do? In my case, it is a case of living very simply, staying in touch with the people who may be in the position to give you work so that they’ll remember to give you work once they can and also looking for other things that might earn you a few bucks. I’m blogging more than I used to. While what I earn of advertising revenue barely buys me a cup of cheap coffee, I keep the brain active and stop myself from rotting.

So, I am actually sympathetic to people who have been protesting against lockdowns and stay at home orders. I think of people who are demanding to go back to work. The desire to earn money isn’t just limited to “ruthless” billionaires who want more money. Worrying about money is a very common thing and I am living the frustrations of people who see their financial resources being depleted and the bills continuing to pile up.

However, I’m reminded of what Steve Jobs said. There’s a reason why businesses are not opening and why stay at home orders have been issued. With the exception of perhaps North Korea, countries around the world loosened up the restriction of movement of people because this brought prosperity and by extension more revenue for governments. So, when revenue hungry governments shutdown the movement of people and start dolling out cash, there has to be a good reason.

As Steven Jobs said, “There is no point being the richest man in the cemetery” and if you apply that to a state or national level, there’s no point having a roaring economy if you have a virus that cripples people.

Uganda’s President, Yoweri Museveni has described the current situation as being akin to being in a war, where you should be glad you focus only on the basics of survival. He’s right, the coronavirus has maimed and killed people and the only proven way that the virus has been kept in check has been through social isolation methods.

The statistics are very telling. In the USA, there are now 49,845 deaths as a result of the covid-19, that was in a matter three months. By comparison, the US lost 54,246 lives in the Korean War over a period of three years. Who is to say that the figures won’t rise further?

The best part of the coronavirus is that it’s a silent killer and you never know who might have it and who can give it to you. I remember discussing this topic with a Belgium fellow who felt that people were overreacting. My line to him was “How do you know I’m not infected and can’t pass it to you?” In such situations, a dose a paranoia is healthy survival.

Furthermore, its not just a case of “my body – my choice.” You might be healthy and fit but the fellow next to you may not be. If you get the virus, you may be able to survive but if you pass it onto other people, they may not be able to. Unwittingly, you became a case of death.

Then there are those who complain that Covid-19 kills less than the flue. Well, that may be true but then again death isn’t always the worst outcome. Studies have shown that those who have recovered end up getting infected again and being weakened – not exactly the best thing to keep the economy thriving.

Yes, stay at home orders are bad, especially when you have bills to pay. The alternative is worse. So, what do you do, except wait out the period and figure out how to tide things over? Losing patience could lead to losing more.