TR EMERITUS

PAP MPs who flouted circuit breakers rules were not charged or fined or issued warnings, or even questioned. It's as if nothing happened at all - while ordinary Singaporeans are fined on the spot for committing the same offence! I wonder if the AGC is also investigating this, like it is now investigating the Liew case. It can go after someone for a private Facebook post, and someone who holds a private, indoor Skype chat. Sometimes, I don't understand how the AGC operates, and how prosecutorial decisions are made. So, if the AGC takes action against the Liews, should it also not take action against PAP MPs? How does the system work? I don't understand.   Andrew Loh      Read More →

Chong Kee Hiong 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 here. 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 here. 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 here. 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?   Tang Li *Although I’ve been based mainly in Singapore for nearly two decades, I’ve had the privilege of being able meet people who have crossed borders and cultures. I’ve befriended ministers and ambassadors and worked on projects involving a former head of state. Yet, at the same time, I’ve had the privilege of befriending migrant labourers and former convicts. All of them have a story to tell. All of them add to the fabric of life. I hope to express the stories that inspire us to create life as it should be.      Read More →

Ms Parti Liyani I am so glad to read that an Indonesian maid has finally been acquitted by our High Court of theft that she didn't commit and I am so proud too of the professionalism, seriousness and thoroughness that the High Court judge went about his work. It must reinforce the confidence that people, both locals and foreigners, have in our judiciary system. This is truly a heartwarming story when David has beaten Goliath. I certainly hope that the lower court judge who heard this case be properly counselled with appropriate actions. If we aspire to be a trusted, respected, relevant and successful international Adjudication Centre, then the attitudes and professionalism, in fact, the whole eco-system of all in our judiciary starting from the most senior person all the way down to the most junior person must always, forever be to strive for excellence. Excellence in services, excellence in trust and confidence and excellence in outcome, each and every time. If we believe that we can achieve and are willing to work hard enough towards achieving it, we can. For the former employer, I hope that they have the decency to publicly apologise to her now that this news has gone public and properly compensate her for the unfairness, the anguish, the shame and loss of income that she has suffered throughout that duration. That least, they owe her. Think.   Simon Lim      Read More →