This time round there have been more professionals and executives retrenched. This is due to two factors.
Firstly, the proportion of professionals and executives in our workforce is now much higher than before, as a result of better education. The wage level of this group is much higher than that of the rank-and-file employees. So when companies need to cut wage cost, it makes a lot of sense to cut from where most of the money is paid to.
Secondly, companies now streamline their organisation structure, with less layers in the hierachy.
The signs of this taking place here had been there for some time. There had been numerous reports of the severe retrenchments that took place elsewhere. Still, when it happened here, many professionals and executives appear to be unprepared, and therefore have been most unhappy when they were retrenched. They have called the media to complain. They have also called the NTUC to ask for help!
This group had not considered it necessary to form a union before – they could do so under existing laws. On our part we have been pushing to widen the scope of representation, so that the existing unions can accept them as members. A tripartite agreement had been reach, but the realistically the law will not be amended until the second half of 2002. The plight and reaction of the professionals and executives show that we had been right all along: they do need a union! My regret is that it has taken so long to reach agreement.
In the meantime, many people are wondering how soon the recovery will take place. Many analysts are looking at statistics for the smallest detail, and quick to pounce on anything that supports the claim that recovery is at hand.
Let us not be lulled by such talk. The reputation of analysts has taken a severe beating in the past few years. We have to look at the hard facts. The current problems are not just cyclical. They are structural. At the same time the debt that many companies chalked up in the heady days of the technology bubble and mega-mergers are still there. Argentina has gone bust. Japan is working to stave off a collapse of their banks. And confidence post September 11 remains low and fragile.
The war against terrorism has gone on quite well. But it is not going to be easy to root out and destroy the terrorist organisations. Studies have now revealed that the terrorists network is like the Internet. You can shut down part of it, but it carries on because the other parts still function. Remember that when the war commenced, world leaders cautioned that it would be a long war. That remains the case.
So we must be prepared for more difficult times ahead, and be prepared to work harder to earn our living. For us Singaporeans it means strengthening our bonds, relearning our skills, being flexible in our attitude to jobs that are available. There are lessons we will learn, and from these lessons, we will then need to modify our social safety net.
I believe that in our review, we will realise that the family remains central to any safety net that we my devise.
So tonight I want to talk about one aspect of family.
Recently some youth rioted with dangerous weapons in a public bus. This caused some people to write to the newspapers.
One of them, Sim Chin Boo, wrote to TODAY, 22 December.
Violent youngsters a problem
I was alarmed when I heard that some 20 teenagers rioted with dangerous weapons on a public bus in broad daylight.
Before the latest incident, there were reports of assaults in hospitals, the MRT, schools, fast food outlets and other public areas. Many readers have also written to the media about the young blatantly displaying antisocial and even gangster-like behaviour.
It is time for the government and various authorities to assure Singapore citizens that they are doing all they can to cope with this problem."
Sim Chin Boo
Note that he looked to government for assurance!
On December 26, TODAY published a letter by Ms Julie Lim Siew Choo.
It’s about the children
I refer to Mr Sim Chin Boo’s letter, “Violent Youngsters a Problem” (Today, Dec 22).
I feel that such a problem does not surface overnight. It is about how we bring up our future generations. As couples have fewer children nowadays, they tend to lavish devotion and love on their children, so much so that they don’t teach them the right values.
We have almost eveything possible in terms of material needs here but we lack grace. Let’s commit ourselves to the proper upbringing of our children.
Julie Lim Siew Choo
Here was a sensible letter, pointing out the duty of parents. But it drew a longer letter by a Mr Yeo Kok Seng, published on December 28.
Family or Work: Which comes first?
Working parents have little time for children
I refer to Ms Julie Lim Siew Choo’s letter, “It’s about the children” (TODAY, Dec 26).
The problem with our youth are not caused by couples having fewer children and lavishing too much love on them.
The main cause lies with how families now have more working parents than before due to the rising cost of living.
Not long ago, a family could be supported comfortably by one breadwinner. The other parent would then have time to interact with the children and teach them the right values.
Today, although the average household income has increased in absolute figures, the buying power of money has been reduced.
Both parents have to work to make a living and time becomes a scarce resource that has to be shared between family and work.
The sad part is that, in Singapore, many employers do not care much about the personal lives of their employees.
They make them work longer hours to reduce operating cost to stay competitive, especially during bad times.
They are quick to reduce headcounts but not the amount of work.
And sadly, our Government does not do much to protect the white-collar workers, unlike many Western countries.
In those countries, white-collar workers are entitled to overtime pay or time-off. This is to ensure that companies do not exploit their workers, as it is more costly to pay overtime than to employ enough people.
Is this because Western cultures put the family first? Is that why legislation and regulations in the West are more family-oriented?
Until we change our mindsets concerning success and until we put family-oriented legislation in place, our ideals of a graceful society will just be a dream.
How can we achieve it when we do not even have time to teach our future generation the right values?
Yeo Kok Seng
Mr Yeo says that parents are doing the best they can. The problem is our cost of living, and the workplace is not family-friendly, and our laws do not help.
I circulate Mr Yeo’s letter to my colleagues and sought their comments. I received several interesting ones!
One colleague wrote:
Standard of Living
Although the cost of living has undeniably gone up over the years, the reason more families now have 2 working parents is due to their expectations of a higher standard of living. Not long ago, a family could be supported comfortably by one breadwinner. “Not long ago” families were content with one colour television, now not only is cable TV an essential, one “expects” desktops with Pentium 4 processors, multiple telephone lines, multi-spilt aircons, handphones etc. Children now enjoy not only tuition, but enrichment courses like swimming sessions, ballet lessons, piano classes, football/rugby camps, outdoor activities, have become the norm in the lives of our students. Where once a trip up to Malacca or Fraser’s Hill was a treat, we now expect holidays to Europe, the US or even into the deep interiors of the African continent. My dad started his own family with a 3-rm flat in Toa Payoh which he up-graded to a 4-rm flat in Jurong 15 years later. Unlikely will newly-weds be content with a 4-rm flat these days. Even if the buying power of our money has not diminished, there’s certainly a lot more “essentials” to purchase !!
What do you think? These days, many people are coping with the downturn, and they ask for financial help. Some of those who complain about high utility bills still keep their airconditioners running. Others show me their high handphone bills! It seems that such items are now considered essentials, and therefore cause the cost of living to rise!
Well, others point to the cost of housing. I agree it is much higher today than before. But one of my colleagues had this to say:
True -- housing cost is high but yet, affordable, if they are prepared to forego keeping up with the Joneses.
Take my hubby's family. Very poor. He's last of 10 children. Father was a hawker selling hardware/household items in stall at hawker centre. When I met him in 1992, he was living with father, eldest brother and wife plus two kids, and third sister (unmarried) in a three-room rental flat in Queenstown! Sleeping time saw several of them on the floor on mattresses in the living room. (Quite an eye-opener for a someone like me who's had many things handed to me on a platter) He was the only graduate among the siblings. His siblings had to work to help keep the family going.
The eldest brother uneducated, wife homemaker. He worked a low-end job for years, saving in CPF. He was finally able to save enough to pay downpayment for four-room HDB flat in Aljunied area in 1996 and moved in. The two kids went to local university (without all that unnecessary tuition!). Now both work in good jobs. Meanwhile, the unmarried sister does accounting work and saved enough to buy a small private flat, too! That only because of HDB rules and when that relaxed to allow her to buy resale HDB, she sold private flat and bought HDB.
All this while living frugally in three-room rental flat for decades. Upgrading came only in 1990s.
As for us, we could have afforded a private flat but we're both not prepared to pay that amount of money (for what we feel is a status symbol) when our HDB flat in Woodlands is good enough for us. We want to swim or play tennis, there's the very affordable University Guild House Membership. Owning HDB has allowed us to have more spending money and less headaches particularly in these times!
In other words, she is saying that our cost of living depends very much on our own expectations, and our choice. She related to me about the choice made by a family she knows:
We have a friend. Both he and his wife worked. The wife had a good job earning very good pay. But their three school-going sons told them several years ago that they were prepared to give up life's luxuries if mother would stay at home to take care of them. They didn't like it when both parents were not around, a maid taking care of them, etc. Family pow-wow and the decision was made, which they don't regret. Mother became a home-maker and they live today in a five-room HDB flat on the father's salary alone. They may not enjoy that once-a-year expensive overseas holiday and other luxuries, but they feel they have gained much more in precious family togetherness. And it doesn't mean having to live the life of a hermit. Eg, when they throw a Chinese New Year party for friends, it is not a lavish affair -- no need. Just a get-together with decent home cooked food. Angpows for children who visit -- just give what they can afford -- no need to be shy.
So is rising cost of living forcing both parents to overwork? I don't buy it. Not unless you belong to that group of families with very low-income. The breadwinner hardly earns enough to survive. Thus the other parent has to work to supplement the breadwinner's income.
But can both parents work and still have time for family? Yes, I believe. So long as parents communicate and have a firm understanding, help out one another. And one parent must work less. If both parents are hell-bent on pursuing a career right up to the very top, or earning as much money as they can get, then that's a road to disaster. If one parent (usually the wife) takes on a less hectic work schedule, she is able to ensure that children and spouse (very important) feel part of a family and part of a marriage. But it means lowering one's expectation of standard of living.
So this family made a choice. To them family is much more important. The choice means for them less material benefits. But does every family make such a conscious choice, and value family ties more than the material benefits? Sadly, no. One of my colleagues observe that some couples go off on holiday without their children, because it is too troublesome to bring them along! If the couple want to spend some time alone, I can understand it. But to say that it is too troublesome to bring the kids….?
Some of my colleagues said, “…..If only we have 5-day weeks!…..” I am not sure that the 5-day week is a solution. Anyway, I looked up, and found that already the dominant working pattern today is the 5-day week! More than one-third of employees work 5-day week. Others have alternate Saturdays off. They make up nearly half the workforce!
While I agree it is convenient to have a 5-day week with both Saturday and Sunday off, I do not think it is essential. Looking after children is an everyday responsibility, not a weekend job! A child in trouble on Tuesday cannot wait till the weekend for the guidance of the parent!
So it is a matter of how we make choices, and how we make use of our time. Another of my colleagues said:
…when a family is together, few know how to spend quality time. They end up in shopping malls and the kids are left to do their own thing to enjoy themselves. At home, when together the kids watch TV or hack into the computer. Rarely does the parent sit next to the child to work on the computer….
I asked my colleagues whether our kids are worse than kids in Western countries, where Mr Yeo Kok Seng say they have family-friendly laws. On reflection, they feel that despite our shortcomings, our kids are still better-behaved than kids in the West.
I am not sure what your views are. I hope I have provided you with something to talk about over dinner!
Happy New Year!
