By Terry Xu

A news article writes – “Singapore is too fixated on producing professional, managerial, executive and technician (PMET) jobs for Singaporeans, and this mindset creates a problem”, said economics professor Linda Lim at a population-policy forum.

I would like to ask everyone to think back to the days of schooling where the teacher discusses with their class on the professions available for students to take up. Engineers, Doctors, Manager, Lawyers, Dentists, Scientists, Teachers are some are the professions which I remember having to fill up the blanks, but I do not recall fishmonger, florist, waitress, chef, to say a few as part of the local syllabus. The bulk of the education syllabus would probably give an impression that the students are gearing to become managers, bankers or maybe even a scientist. Perhaps there is a mentality cultivated since young to shun lowly jobs such as bakers and craftsman and aiming for highly rewarding jobs such as Engineers and Accountants.

Does Singapore advocate respect for different occupations in schools regardless of the pay and status?

One interesting practice we could adopt from American schools is the career day where children bring their parents in to talk about their jobs. Children could learn from the exposure to respect the different occupations from the exposure and not to link pride to the salary of the job but the sense of professionalism in it. (Although the harsh reality of life in Singapore would teach them else wise)

In our society, it seems that occupations such as food hawker, butcher, carpenter, service technicians are reserved for those who have ‘failed’ the national education system. Is it wrong to say that people has to go for these occupations after they find themselves not being able to progress along the official education syllabus in Singapore? In fact, is there any proper route of advancement for people who aspire to work in these industries? Or is there any proper accreditation for professionals in such industries?

In Ministry of Manpower’s report on wages in 2011, a baker earns on average S$1,900 while a carpenter earns about S$1,600. Given the stagnant if not declining salary of the ‘low skilled’ workers and the prevalent social perception of the occupations. In view of such reality in Singapore, which parent would offer advice to their kids to take up such occupations? And who would aspire to take up an occupation that would be belittled by the rest?

The government needs to really step in to ensure that salaries of the ‘low skilled’ workers are reasonably paid for. Companies, which employ low skilled workers, would definitely complain on this but before such complains are accepted as they are. There should be a serious look at the basis of complain. Are such companies meeting difficulties in paying their staffs or they are more concerned about the profits? Companies that are unable to provide for reasonable salary should be allowed to give up its market share to those companies with new business models, which could do so.

In Singapore, we see a lot of instances of out-sourcing where the ‘low-skilled’ workers bear most of the tedious work assigned but gain tiny share of the profit after multi level cuts. Whereas In many countries, such as Australia, certain professions such as plumbing and construction are often run as a sole proprietor where all the profits go to the owner who is most cases, as the worker him/herself along with a few other staff.

And bear in mind that such workers are considered as professionals in Australia instead of the low-skilled workers that we choose to tag them to, plausibly to justify the low salary that they draw. Such as the ‘low skilled’ health care practitioners ‘wrongly’ labelled in the footnote of the Population White Paper.

Apart from low pay, the lack of unions representing rights of the professions can be seen as one of the reason for their predicament. Basic welfare for workers such as retail sales and service staff especially nurses are appalling in retrospective of the long work hours and leave that they receive since they have to work during public holidays and weekends as well.  In the early days of Singapore, there had been a strong labour  movement filled with unions of all sorts of trade fighting for the rights of workers , (ie. street hawkers, production operators and etc) till the clampdown of union leaders during the arrests of the 1960s.

The unions have now been consolidated into a union known as National Trade Union Committee (NTUC) where there has been limited effect of what the Tripartite Guidelines has made towards the well being of such workers in their work place in recent years.

To encourage more locals in taking up the ‘low skilled’ jobs, the government could look at a few ways. One would be looking at how to implement minimum wage scale based on the different industries or look into providing help to low-skilled workers of certain industries to run their own business and services. Ultimately there must be measures to help such workers to reach higher income for their families and to improve the image of such professions so that people would be proud to take up.

The government should also take serious look at the overgrown outsourcing trend in Singapore, a major reason for the salary crunch on low skilled workers apart from the use of foreign workers.

If living expenses is going to keep rising and salary remains to be stagnant for certain industries especially for the ‘low skilled’ jobs. It will continue to be an escalating problem that such occupations would not be filled by the locals. Giving yet another justification for Singapore to bring in more foreigners.

You May Also Like

公民组织吁废集选区制 以政治中立组织取代人协

本地非政府组织思想中心(Think Centre)再次呼吁,应废除集选区制度,并以较为政治中立的组织取代现有的人民协会。 思想中心于周二(11日)发声明,将集选区制度称为“一把不利于新加坡政治发展的双刃剑”。 比起集选区制度,思想中心建议恢复单选区制度,确保每位议员,都是根据他们所获得的选民委托,被送入国会,而不是仰仗其他政治强人的高民望。 思想中心也补充,“目前集选区制度,也不合逻辑、不公地与市镇会运作绑定在一块。过去的种种事件和批评足以证明,这样的安排形同在绑架选民,也强化恐惧政治。” 不仅如此,思想中心还强调,那些由人民协会运作或相关联的基层组织,也大多由被指定的代表跟进,而不是替代政党的当选议员。 这也意味着,分配给非行动党选区的拨款,并非都由当选议员所管理。 与此同时,被委任的市长一职,其职务常常与当选议员重叠,造成当选议员的困扰和分配工作上的冲突。 “这无疑是在浪费纳税人的钱,因为他们的工作范围过于模糊,无法保证他们所花费的开销。” 选举局独立赢公民信任 另一方面,思想中心也主张将选举局从总理公署独立出来,其中必须由社会各个阶层代表,如专业、民间团体、非政府组织、志愿福利组织代表成立委员会。 “独立的选举局能加强新加坡人对政治的信心和信任,能在未来举办选举时,秉持着中立和客观的态度,消除现任执政政府与部门的利益冲突。”…

津贴病患专科预约等半年 读者失望医疗服务仍未优先国人

英语媒体《今日报》一名读者,针对津贴病患在公共医院预约专科预约,排期等候时间过长的情况,投函表达失望。 名为郑存斐(译音)的读者指出,卫生部高级政务部长蓝彬明,刚在上周在国会指出,病患预约到医院看专科的受津贴病人的等候时间中位数从2013年的28天,缩短到今年上半年的22天。 然而,郑先生的个人经历却发现事实不尽如此。 社区健康辅助计划(Chas)下的诊所,基于郑先生的慢性颈部疼痛,将他转介给樟宜医院。作为新注册的津贴病患,他在本月20日,前往樟宜综合医院预约专科看诊。 然而,令郑先生感到惊讶的是,预约已经排期到2019年五月23日,足足要180天后才能见到专科医生。 郑先生表示,无法相信津贴病患的预约排期要等那么长时间,还再次向柜台职员确认。 柜台建议到其他公共医院试试 “柜台告诉我,该医院的颈椎科看诊预约都满了,建议我到其他的公共医院试试。但我拒绝了,因为我住在淡滨尼,最靠近的医院就只有樟宜医院。” 前提是,郑先生的转介信有效期限,也必须有六个月之久。 ”工人党议员毕丹星曾询问,当卫生部终止公共医院为外国病患服务,那么会否把本地津贴病患预约排期提前?对此蓝彬明部长回答:满足国人的医疗需求乃是公共卫生机构的首要任务。“ 然而,经历上述不便,令郑先生对部长的说辞感到怀疑。他认为,预约看诊的优先权,理应让给年长者。如”默迪卡一代“等。 他也指出,这种过长的预约看诊等候时间,问题早已存在一段时日。…

S’porean boss arrested in Thailand for recklessly driving his Porsche knocking down Thai policeman

Thai media The Nation reported that a Singaporean businessman, Simon Ong Chin…

Fifth COVID-19 death: 86-year-old Singaporean woman with no recent travel history to affected regions

The fifth person to die of COVID-19 in Singapore is an 86-year-old…