Unhappy Riches

It is sad that Singaporeans don't feel happy. According to a recent Gallup Poll, not only are Singaporeans emotionless, they feel less positive compared to people in countries where war is, or at least recently has been, the norm.

Actually, it is not difficult to understand this result. Singapore is a goal-oriented high performing country with an almost religious bent on efficiency, in terms of the economy, education, healthcare, finance, infrastructure, and whatever else it feels it must be first in, which just about includes everything. We have been brought up with a siege mentality - either we make the island succeed as a nation or we are consigned to the dustbin of history, easily absorbed by our neighbours, Malaysia or Indonesia. If this were to happen, we would be consigned to the backwaters, controlled by others where discrimination is the constant monotonous tune.

No, we don't want that, and therefore, we strived hard and succeeded. But success breeds success, and soon, we find ourselves condemned to a life of ever striving after the best. There is just no going back. Yes, we became rich, materially, but something had to give. And what gave was a simpler lifestyle where people and not money, matters more, where the simple things of life will suffice on the happiness index.

But it is not really our fault. As they say, we are victims of our circumstances. Perhaps now that we know how miserable we are compared to the rest of the world, we can engineer a lot more happiness and emotions among ourselves. It is ironic that we have to do this because we thought that our strivings for a better life will give us happiness, but it turned out to have the opposite effect. Is happiness and economic growth inversely related? Maybe someone economist or sociologist somewhere at sometime studied this and has the answer. In characteristic fashion, we need to study this carefully so that we can tune the system to yield more happiness though not at the expense of economic growth and efficiency.

Given Singapore's track record, I have no doubt that this can be done. Then we can share the formula with the Gallup organization.

A time and a season

Eat with Your Family Day. I hadn't notice there there is such as day, even though, from what I read, this started out in 2003. And it isn't because I wasn't a father 7 years ago. I was one and still am. But perhaps it hadn't been publicized enough to catch my attention all these years. But now that it has, I am disturbed.

What does the existence of such as day tell us about life in Singapore? Isn't having at least one meal everyday together with the family a given? You mean to tell me that having dinner with the family during the weekdays has become a rare occasion, so rare that it has to be celebrated once a year? What are we all doing during the weekdays that a family cannot sit together, particularly in the evenings, to enjoy a meal as a family? It should be a routine, so much so that it isn't anything to remark about, and certainly not something that you would think of designating a day in the year to celebrate. Yes, you celebrate birthdays, anniversaries, etc., but celebrating when a family has a meal together? Its unbelievable, and this probably can only be found in Singapore. A Google search of the term "Eat with your family day" returns only Singapore related websites! (But of course, Singapore probably wasn't where it originated).

It appears that in Singapore, this is the price we pay for our unrelenting search for progress and creature comforts. In the process, we seem to have put our families on the back burner (that's where the number of kids issue comes in - see my last post). So OK, some say that's a fact of life, but can't we even spend one weekday having a meal together as a family? If the answer is yes, then this "Eat with Your Family Day" (EWYFD) is superfluous. Probably good for the restaurant business, but superfluous. If not, we have lost the meaning of life and love. Some would say, we have lost our souls. We have become nothing more than a production line worker churning out the next productivity statistic.

People talk about Work-Life balance. Going by the mere existence of EWYFD, we know that its basically all talk. Surely the proponents of Work-Life balance did not have EWYFD in mine as an objective?

My call to all Singaporeans is this: when the clocks strikes 6pm (or whenever your stated end of the day working hour may be), leave the office promptly and head home immediately. If the boss casts a disapproving  eye at you, wave goodbye in return. And if your colleagues look perturbed, show them the clock and remind them that they have an equally, if not more, important obligation to the family. Better yet, time the air-conditioner to shut off  at the end of the workday hour. Any boss that penalizes sensible action should be hung out as bad examples. We shouldn't want to celebrate organisations that are family-friendly. It is more important to highlight those that are anti-social family-unfriendly, if only to show them the error of their ways. There is no end to making money. But, like wise King Solomon said, there is a time and season for everything.

Do your math

I am alarmed to read in MyPaper (22 April 2010) that some of our local undergraduates are taking anti-sleep pills to force themselves to stay awake. Why are they doing this? Well, according to the report, these undergraduates need the time not only to study, but they also need it to attend to businesses that they are running at the same time. The report doesn't say what these businesses are, but the impression given is that these businesses are not part time pursuits meant to defray livings costs and school fees, etc., something which is quite common in tertiary level education. Rather, the impression is that these businesses are serious enough to be careers in the making. The focus appears to be to build a business that will generate a steady income (lots of it too) by the time these young people turn 30. That's when they say they will stop the sleep-reducing drug and lead a more normal life, while enjoying the fruits of the sleep-deprived labour.

It isn't wrong to have ambitions early in life, and it isn't wrong to want the good material things in life early either. But when that is the overriding consideration, at the risk of long term damage to one's health, then you really need to reflect on what you are doing. Young people, they always think they can live forever and they throw caution to the wind. They should remember what a wise man once said. Paraphrasing him, "What does it profit a man if he should gain the whole world and loses his own life/health?"

Young man, there is yet time to 'make it', but don't die making it now. The Mathematics just doesn't add up.

Unkind Cut

Firing a staff is never ever easy to do. I have only ever fired 2 people in my working life so far. The first one, being the first one, I didn't handle well at all. The second one I left it to my superiors, because the case involved theft.

Because I messed up the first one, the whole department turned against me. Before, they had been more than kind to me, leaving me little things on my table, like some food, for me to enjoy. I also always joined them for lunch, where lunch was in the factory as many did not want to venture the long distance to the nearest foodstall. So to all intents and purposes, I had a good thing going with my department. Until my superior called me in and told me about the bad times and that I should 'release' one staff from my department. Who it was going to be he left up to me to decide. Yeah, he wasn't going to hold the blood soaked knife, I had been volunteered to do it.

The choice was a difficult one since all of them had been as hardworking as the other. Some were absolutely essential as they operated key systems. Thinking back, I couldn't work out rationally who should go. It was entirely arbitrary, really. There wasn't an issue about favouritism. Call it a roll of the dice if you would. One went. She wasn't shown the door immediately. She was informed, and during the notice period, I notice knife-edged stares everyday I showed up for work. It was uncomfortable, to say the least.

In restrospect, I should have protected my staff more. And even if a staff had to be fired, I should have shown more concern about the staff's future plans. And I should have talked to the rest of the department to seek their understanding and not kept quiet about it all. It was the worst way to release a staff, particularly one who has worked there for more than 10 years.

Needless to say, I never ate with them anymore. I left voluntarily not long after. But this incident still haunts me to this day. I hope that people do not repeat my mistakes. In this retrenchment 'season', let the one in charge show greater compassion and sensitivity. It's somebody's life, livelihood and family we are talking about.

See
10 ways to be a good manager during recessions
Gilbert Goh's Letter in Today's (23 Marh 09) Voices section (page 18)

Love and law

For the voyeur amongst us, the story titillates. For the family of the woman, it was a tragedy, non more so than the 2 children who will not see their mother for 10 months. For the youth, it may have brought on psychological scars. Hopefully, these scars will heal so that another tragedy might not happen.

I am referring to the case of a 32 year-old woman, formerly a school teacher, who was jailed for 10 months for having sex with an under-aged boy, now 15. No, there was no rape involved. It was reportedly a consensual affair. But the newly minted law on these matters made this consensual affair a crime - whether the 'perpetrator' (read: the older person) is a man or a woman. Newspapers have given this story enough coverage that it does not need recounting here. On its own, this story isn't all that remarkable. Woman teachers have been reported elsewhere to have engaged in the same sort of activity before. See for example, Buffalo, Lamar CISD, Mary Kay Letourneau, etc.

While the woman has been 'put away', and the teenager probably receiving psychiatric counseling, the woman's 2 children will be the real victims in the long run. They require counseling too, though I am not aware how old they are now. And if the family were to break up because of this, then it will be a double tragedy. This is really a mess, and on hindsight, could all have been avoided if the woman's family had been more sensitive to her needs.

It is too late to say 'I told you so', but if there is a lesson to be learnt her, it is that everyone, including teachers, need attention, that nothing should be taken from granted. Are we engaged in something that takes up all of our time to the exclusion of everyone and everything? This is an obsession, and obsessions are no good. If you want to get married and have children, then you are obliged to stay married and bring up the kids. Why should somebody else's interests rank higher than your own family's? The simple straightforward answer is, it shouldn't.

Love others as you would yourself. If you cannot love your own family, what right have you to go around doing charity for others?

Finding the Equilibrium

Generally, people look out for themselves before anyone else. The exceptions are probably their own child, their parents and perhaps their own 'flesh-and-bloods' siblings. So when a rule comes into play that will advantage some and disadvantage others, then that rule will not likely work out the way it should. One of these is the additional month of leave for mothers that the PM announced in the National Day Rally speech delivered last Sunday. I don't know, but this time, the PM has probably talked 'too much' to the ah-soh and not balanced it with consulting employers, especially those that run a 'tight ship', which will likely become even more lean and mean in the months ahead, given the less than rosy economic outlook.

The economy is sputtering worldwide - in the US, in Japan and possibly in Europe. With China dependent on the US for its exports (it is, after all, its largest customer that can absorb its humongous volumes of exports), it will mean lower production in the months ahead. The sub-prime problem continues to bring down Banks and Finance houses that two years ago was inconceivable, to the benefit of Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWF) managed by some Middle Eastern countries and that tiny red dot of an island called Singapore.

In this environment, can employers be expected to engage in such largesse of extending 4 months of maternity leave to its employees? Even if the cost of that fourth month is borne by the government so that the employer can bring in some standby staff at no additional cost to itself, it will still be on the losing end. Not everyone is born equal, and not everyone knows the company's business like its employees. The stand-in staff will have to learn the business and the operations of the person she is temporarily replacing first before she can become effective (and equivalent to the person whom she is replacing). By the time that proficiency kicks in, it is time to cede back the position to the person who has been away for those 4 months. There are intangibles that money just can't buy in the short term and money is therefore a necessary but not sufficient solution.

I would expect that with this extended maternity leave kicking in, it will get even more difficult for the women employees in any organisation, particularly the Small and Medium-sized Enterprises. The young and energetic, who are the target lot that the government is encouraging to bear more children, would still not want to bear children. After at least 12 years of going through the Singapore school system (and more if they are graduates), who would want to give up recouping the time, money and effort expended? Having children young goes against all rational thinking. The priority must first be to make enough money, then think about marrying and then having babies. That's the incontrovertible truth about life in Singapore, although it is not uncommon today to have the baby first and then marriage. The young probably do not earn enough yet to make the tax burden onerous at all, so its a non issues as far as taxes go. The increasingly consumption-based tax regime has also made the tax burden more bearable, not to mention the generous tax breaks that everyone seem to enjoy nowadays.

So the women who will really will gain the most are the older set, probably in the late twenties and early thirties. But therein lies the irony. At that age, many would already have established themselves in the company and thus becoming less readily replaceable. With their skills and experience, they are not easily replaced - at least not in the short time of four months. And that's where employers will bear the most anguish. So what is the logical course of action, as far as employers go?

1. Never employ women who are more interested in the family than the workplace.
2. Never train nor promote women to a level where they are hard to replace.
3. And, obviously, never employ a pregnant women. The risks have just gone up a notch. (I imagine that there will be an additional question on recruitment forms asking job seekers (apply to females only, obviously) to declare that they are not pregnant, besides the obligatory 'I am not a bankrupt'....etc.)

The only way these various financial incentives can work is when a women, on balance, can earn more money giving birth to a child compared to what they can earn in a full time job. This is not likely to happen, or if it does, then nobody will be working (and I am not referring to the surrogacy industry).

So what can be done. If women really want a longer maternity leave, they should be given a longer one. 4 months is disruptive. Why not go on a one year maternity? That way, the stand-in staff can put to good use what she has taken perhaps a month or more to master for a longer period. The business suffers less disruption, the mother can really take care of the child without prematurely exiting the industry and the stand-in staff can be more useful. Who is going to pay for the absence? Let's make a 4-4-4 deal - the employer bears the 4 month bill at reduced pay (40% of regular salary), the employee takes 4 month no-pay leave and the government ante's up the balance 4 months. (What's that? tax payers will be screaming bloody murder?).

Frankly, if you want to do something that will make a difference, it is no point taking 'baby steps' by just upping by a month more. You need to be bold, like what some other countries are doing - giving one year maternity leave. But of course this can be a threat to the mother, who would rightly worry whether she has a job to return to at the end of one year. But in Singapore, this problem can probably be legislated away.

The other suggestion is to establish a national registry for 'transient' women workers who are willing to work part-time on stand-in basis. This registry will list their skills and experience, and their availability for employment. Employers can then tap on this registry to find the right stand-in person who can take over the job of a 'maternatied' woman. This will go a long way towards alleviating the problem of getting the right stand-in person who can be productive from day one.

To generate more babies, it is important not only to help the women, but also the employers. A one sided solution, even with the largesse of the government, will not go very far. This is what Economists call equilibrium. Without it, the 'market' will make its own adjustments, which may bring more grief than help to the womenfolk.

Image source: morgueFile.com. Author: Kevin Rosseel

Baby load

One of the greatest burdens of having a baby in Singapore is not about money. Rather, the problem is how to ensure that that baby grows up to become a government scholar or at least one who isn't ranked in the last 10 in class. This is the real challenge that parents are forced to face in Singapore society - and it isn't pretty. It doesn't matter if a child is scholarship material or not, parents naturally want their child to do well, no, extremely well, in school. To that end, it is common knowledge that almost every school going kid in Singapore has a private tutor on top of their school teachers, to pile them with additional school work and supplementary exercises. Kiasu parents want to ensure that their child does not fall too far behind the rest of the students in the school, whose parents would most likely also have have engaged a private tutor for the same reasons.

And the problem is a real one. Let's get one thing straight. Not everyone can be first in class. No every can get a scholarship. In fact, those who do so are the exception. The rest of us are the ordinary boys and girls who get by. But the competition to be that exceptional student is such that reality is often suspended over fantasy. And this fantasy is often an expensive affair. One has to shell out more than a $100 per subject per student per month. Multiply that with 3 or more subjects and you're really out of pocket by a couple of hundred $$. Multiply that with 3 or 4 kids and you begin to understand the problem with money. But money, really, is not the only problem. The problem is the mental anguish and superhuman effort parents need to put in to ensure that their child do do well. And time really is not on our side, not when we need to work those hours to earn enough to pay the tutors and the additional enhancement lessons during weekends. I know of a parent who has a somewhat wayward (but academically capable) son. In spite of all his effort and that of his wife, he just couldn't get his son to 'do the right thing' in school. In his word, he was '....getting so tired of supervising and managing his son' that he was about to just give up. This mental challenge and anguish, if multiplied 3 times would kill any parent. Which explains why a couple doesn't desire more than 2 kids, no matter how much the financial incentives dangled in front of them by the government. You either kill your child's interest and young lives with after-school tuition after tuition, or your own sanity trying to manage the child, or, heaven forbid, both.

That is why the government's incentive programmes, which have largely revolved around financial help, haven't really worked. The latest reported replacement birth rate in Singapore is 1.2, hardly enough to replace ourselves in the long run. So long as this pressure cooker environment persists in Singapore, the government can forget about increasing the birth rate. It may as well do what it has silently been doing for some time now in increasing the population - import foreigners and make than locals - eventually. But then, the children of these foreigners will eventually still need to join the junior rat race, so that will then lead us back to square one - rationalizing whether having more than 2 kids in this pressure cooker environment is desirable at all.

Image source: morgueFile.com. Author: manuere

Child-free

'Child-free' - I heard someone say some days ago. That is said in the same spirit as 'freedom', 'liberating' and 'care-free'. It wasn't something that the couple feels that something is missing from their lives. Rather, because of being 'child-free', they can enjoy their marital bliss. Come to think of it, why get married anyway? They can plan to sail here during this long weekend, and fly there during their annual breaks in March, September and December. There is no need to worry about the child being too young to travel, or the exam periods of the older ones in March and September because they are 'free' of any child.

That's the life many couples would look forward to (again, why marry?). At the same time, they can climb the corporate ladder unhindered, to reach that earnings level that a condo and a car becomes a reality early in life. So what's there about kids that one must have one when marriage is a done thing? Why indeed? Today, sex without children, though not an exact Science, is easy. Perhaps the only reason why an ambitious couple would want kids have to do with money again - the baby bonus and tax reliefs. If that is the primary consideration, I wouldn't want these people to be my father and mother. For I will be a product conceived in cash and borned for profit. That would mean early introduction to a life of 'education' which end is to generate 'wealth' - pre-K 'education', followed by K1/K2, Primary, Secondary, JC and culminating in a good U degree. And through all these years, there'll be no lack of tuition classes, enhancement classes, etc. And all to what end? So that the child can grow up to become successul money generating machines, just as their parents are.

That's the Singapore, unfortunately, that I am witnessing today. I do not know what will become of us tomorrow. Except that amidst all these madness, I know of people who, instead of profiting from the government to bring kids into the world, would spend a lot of their hard-earned money to bring children into the world through in-vitro. There is no way to justify such expenses, in terms of dollars and cents (sense too). Its a totally losing proposition. Yet I know of parents who have done so and have run up huge debts. But they have no regrets doing so. Being 'child-free' was not an option, even if it meant financial hardships. I would rather be a child of such parents, deprivation notwithstanding.

Image source: morgueFile.com. Author: Ettore

Oil oil I need less

Oil, petrol, gasoline, fuel, you name it. Its on the mouth of everyone these days. As the price of oil soars into the US$135 range, the world is getting to be a much more expensive place to live in. Some in the US are even practising a 4-day work-week in order to save on the power needed to drive the office air-cons, lighting, and other electrical appliances. These, together with the saving in gasoline otherwise needed to travel to and from work, can add towards quite a bit of savings. But not all companies and not all countries can afford to do this. For some, it is not in the culture to do it. Work-weeks are still 5 1/2-day affairs. Even for Singapore, the civil service only went 5-day a couple of years ago.

But I think the Americans have a point. Not about working less in a week. It's about 'firing' up the office and burning tar one day less in a week. And this is where telecommuting really comes into its own. Its nothing new. Some businesses already practice it, but it hasn't become as pervasive as, say, the Internet, which has become part and parcel of doing business in the office today - at least in countries or cities that has the requisite infrastructure to support it. But it is usually such cities that burn up the most fuel in the offices and on the roads. Why not have a 4 in-office days and 1 out-office day? You still work on the out-office day, but you do it from home.

A lot can be done at home nowadays that is otherwise done in the office today. E-mailing, hold meetings using teleconferencing tools, collaborate on a document or a plan the budget using the collaboration features built into Lotus Notes, or MS Office, Zoho Office, or even Google Docs and Spreadsheets. What's that? There are some things that you need to do face to face? Yeah, so do it during the 4 in-office days, or if not possible, meet at the cafe so that the whole office or building doesn't have to be lighted just for 5 people. Today, even education and training can be done the e-way. E-learning is an established pedagogy, one which will be increasingly used because of its sheer efficiency and convenience.

Some would argue against these, stating that it merely shifts the cost of doing business from the employer to the employee. The employee has to pay for the electricity that powers the home computer, the broadband connection to the Internet, and even the extra expenses incurred using the home toilet more often. But I would counter this with pointing to the savings in travelling time, travelling expenses, being stuck in the jam and risking accidents on the roads. Its not all that bad a deal, actually. What's more, it will bring greater work-life balance back to one's life, and possibly increase the birthrate (don't ask me what the connection is). So there is a lot to be said for a 4+1 work-week.

Image source: morgueFile.com. Author: Clara Natoli

Great Singapore Squeeze

Well, I HEARD that SMRT finally put a couple of hundred more trains on their rails this week. But yesterday, the East-West train that I took at 7.30am and 6pm was more packed than usual. I don't know why. And I don't know why SMRT decided that this isn't the real times to increase its trains. It decided instead to up train numbers from 12-2pm so that people had an easier ride to go for lunch! And it decided that 7.45pm onwards was where the evening crowd was. I suppose it pays to work late in Singapore - work-life balance notwithstanding, and I suppose lunch is too important a ritual to hold anyone back. Going by its warped logic, and frankly, waste of resource from 12-2pm, many of us who go home on time to join the family for dinner cannot get relief any time soon. And I thought that the 700 extra trains would relief the kind of crush we are experiencing at our more family-friendly hours. Sigh....It really depends on who runs the schedule at the train company, and right now, that person is a sadist. He/she must never have taken the train during the REAL hours - probably to save himself from the other GSS - Great Singapore Squeeze.

Well, what to do? They are the only provider of train services on that stretch of road. I can only complain on this blog (and perhaps write to the press), but I suspect that many others will do that also. Now, I just hope that SMRT won't raise fares on their 'improved' services - improvements that many of us are not experiencing at all. Does any of the members on the PTC take the train during these hours, I wonder? I hope they won't go by mere numbers when they are called upon to make the decision whether SMRT (or for that matter, SBSTransit) should up fares based on the increased number of trains on the tracks. They should hop on a train during MY rush hours to experience the kind of Singapore Squeeze that many of us are STILL experiencing now. Well, probably good for bonding and getting up close and personal, but I detect a certain reluctance on everyone's part to bond and be personal on a crowded train.

Sigh, sigh and sigh...

 

Image Source: morgueFile.com. Author: Nathan Nel

Where's the beef?

I understand that many blogs are profitable - some insanely so - that the owner(s)/writer(s) live off these blogs. Some of these profitable blogs have professional content, which gives value to readers in that particular field of interest, others are filled with inane - tantalizingly so, even bordering on the pornographic. These, I suppose, give value to readers and lookers too.

This blog isn't one of these profitable ones. It is more a labour of love. 5 years ago, after I left my last job and began my current one, I promised myself, and rather bravely told some others, that I wanted to do some writing. And I mean serious writing. Well, I somewhat achieved that, having a piece of work published in a digital media. But, sadly, it was a one-off thing, as I found that my current work demands just as much effort and time as my last, maybe even more. I used to move around more in my last job, but I now push more 'papers' across my desk. Sigh. Blogging is more of a personal thing but about writing no less. I have taken pleasure in doing so for the last 2 and a half years. My first post goes back to 24 July 2005, when Singapore was in the midst of its greatest controversy over the National Kidney Foundation's practices.

But blogging does 'suck' away a lot of my time, so much so that I have a whole backlog of things that remains undone. Some of these have to do with more writing (of another 'more serious' genre) and others having to do with another type of creative writing. I have always read voraciously, but have slackened in this 'department' also.

What is the occasion for this reminiscing? Simply because I just cross my first US$100 in Adsense earnings. US$100.70 to be exact as of this writing and Google will be sending me a check (cheque) towards that amount. You earn US$100 after 2+ years of effort? That's hardly 11 cents a day, and all this time, Google's stock has skyrocketed to well over US$600 a share. (For the un-initiated, Google owns Adsense). Worst, US$100 was worth more 2 and a half years ago, so my earnings actually depreciated while my blogging effort remained unabated. Inflation has eaten away a whole chunk of value. How I wished I would be paid in Euros or Aussie dollar instead of the once almightly Dollar. Talk about a losing proposition. But I console myself that my blogging is a labour of love, so monetary gain is secondary.

Let me go think about how I would want to spend US$100. Probably a luxury dinner for the family. At least I can tell my child how difficult it is to earn a living as he gobbles down my 2+ year's worth of labour...


Source image: www.morguefile.com

Made in Singapore

When the issues of procreation comes up in Singapore, maids and work-life balance are often mentioned in the same breadth. Many see these two as prerequisites for bearing children, not love nor a desire to share with each other the joys of an offspring. Carrying on the family lineage must be the last thing on most young Singaporean couple's mind nowadays. It is common to see them getting a public-housing apartment and moving away from the parents. With the absence of parental nagging, the impetus to 'go multiply' for the sake of the family name will be absent.

Don't get me wrong. I am making no judgement either way about a couple setting up house without the parents, nor even about getting that public housing apartment on marriage. Most young couples do that. I was one of them in my time, and our parents do not stay with us although we have room. The story is a long but amicable one.

Often a couple thinks that if they are to bring anyone into the world, they must be ready to provide the best for that youngling. So many couples work and strive to climb that corporate ladder to this end, or so they pretend that that is why they are doing so. But they forget that biology is not on their side, at least not on the women's side. Many think that the women can still give birth way past thirty. Yes, you can, but many never factor in issues of post-natal problems after the first child, which may put a stop to the possibility of conceiving a second time, much less a third time. Furthermore, there are the issues of providing care for that first child that may wear out the couple, so much so that they will probably have second thoughts about a second child, which leads me on to the issue of maids and work-life balance.

Many women argue that the discrimination, real or imagined, that they face at work when they get pregnant (or hear about other women's experience) is a total put-off. The problem is real and often difficult to resolve. The government is willing to throw money at the problem, to make the financial loss more bearable for the employer. But lets be frank - pregnancy of a female staff is never a good thing for business. We are not talking about losing an employee's time, but also experience and expertise in her work. It is even more difficult to replace staff the higher up they are. If it were possible, what reason would the pregnant women keep her position, except the law and some dispute resolution parties? Really, we have dug ourselves into a hole by being so successful with our educational system and the largely equitable opportunities thereafter. I am not sure that aggressive economic growth is consistent with biological plenty.

Well, I have no solution to offer except that something has to give. That is the hard choice that we are faced with in Singapore today. We have seen that money, on its own, cannot solve this problem.

Now, about the maid...

Priorities in life

In a bid to sustain the standard and way of life that Singaporeans have become used to, very often, both husband and wife, mother and father, MUST hold down a job in ultra-competitive Singapore. I remember a time (my time) when the wife stays at home to raise the kids while the man brings home the bacon. But of course, that is a bygone era. With both male and female getting equal educational opportunities and career options in Singapore, it just doesn't make any sense for the wife to stay at home when she can be more productive, for home, country and vacations, holding down a job that provides more of the good material things in life, not to mention the spa holidays for relaxation and re-charging of the spirit and soul from time to time.

But the cost has been found to be in the declining birth rate among Singaporeans. We are already in crisis because apparently, we are not reproducing enough to replace ourselves. In time to come, we might just become extinct, to be replaced by migrants from other lands, just as our parents and grandparents themselves were migrants in Singapore in their time. So who are we building our homes for anyway? Does all this even make sense when we cannot reproduce enough of ourselves? I think we must come around to changing our expectations of what should be before this reversal will take place. Importing people will only go so far because in time to come, they will be just as unproductive as they assimilate and, inevitably, adopt the Singapore way of family and working life.

I argue that in Singapore, every couple should strive to work towards a single breadwinner family, the sooner the better. This means that Singaporeans must radically change their priorities. So instead of acquiring a car and a condo first, they must ensure that one of them earns enough to support the rest of the family - children and, preferably, grandparents included. Many would protest that this is impossible to do in Singapore, but really, with the re-arrangement of priorities, it can be done. I often marvelled that my father, with a salary not exceeding $500 a month, managed to raise 5 kids with the help of a very shrewed and thrifty wife. They knew where their priorities lay.

Some of you will not be convinced because you'd say, that was thirty years ago. Society has changed, and the standard of living has changed and all that. I can only say that I have done it. My wife doesn't work. She stopped working 4 years ago. I am the sole breadwinner, and by God's grace, we live in a condo. And I am just a salaryman, not even near one of the many millionaires that are sprouting up on the island these days. I just do not drive a car. That saves a lot of money, so I am told by people who do own a car. Well, I do have to live with the vagaries of public transport, including figuring out the pysche of Singapore taxi drivers. But its a trade-off that I have gotten used to. I can take my family on overseas vacations not once, but twice a year. And no, I do not try to supplement my income on 4-D and Toto. I don't make a cent from the stock market either because I am not good at it at all. If nothing, all my small and infrequent investments in equity have lost money.

So I am not convinced that, Singaporeans, when presented with a choice between family and work, work (the rice-bowl) must necessarily always come first. It is a matter of priorities. You can live relatively comfortably in Singapore without both husband and wife working. This is a myth that must be slain here and now.

What are your priorities?

Image source: http://www.northcoastchurch.com/

Pity the worker ants

I used to work in the old Pidemco Centre, just beside OCBC Building. It has since been demolished. Every day, I would get off the train at Raffles Place MRT and walk the rest of the way. That must be 5 years ago.

Last Friday, I had some business in Shenton Way in the morning, so I made my way to Raffles Place MRT again before I disembarked for my destination. I was shocked. So many people were just pushing past me as I walked out of the MRT station. What was the hurry, the seeming eagerness to get to that desk in the office? They've got all day in the office ahead of them, up to 7 or 8pm for many. There's enough time yet to take a more leisurely walk to the office, surely?

I am glad I am not one of these worker ants anymore. No wonder people speak of stress and the hectic way of life in Singapore. But I believe that all of these are due to our own making. For that, we cannot blame anyone nor wallow in self-pity. The choice actually is ours to make. If we let others make it for us, then we are of all people not to be pitied. You can be pitied only when the choice is not yours to make.

Image source: http://aesrg.tamu.edu/