Blurred defocused abstract background of people walking on the street in Orchard Road in Singapore – Crowded city center during rush hour in urban business area zebra crossing – View from building top (Photo by View Apart from Shutterstock.com)

On Thursday (5 March), global integrated communications consultancy firm Ruder Finn released a research report on the socioeconomic impact of the COVID-19 outbreak in Singapore and Hong Kong.

The study, which is a collaboration between Ruder Finn and Consumer Search Group (CSG), analysed surveys conducted in the week of 24 February of 512 workers in Singapore and 525 workers in Hong Kong.

Based on the study, there is a strong contrast in reactions of the employees in Singapore and Hong Kong towards the Covid-19 outbreak. Specifically, Singaporean workers are more satisfied with the perceived support received from their employers compared to their Hong Kong counterparts.

A majority of workers felt positive perception towards the support level given by their companies, with over 60 per cent agreeing that adequate support was provided to them. On the other hand, the figure is only 38 per cent for Hong Kong workers. Figure 1 shows that in Singapore, only 5 per cent of workers thought that employer support was lacking, whereas the figure is 20 per cent in Hong Kong.

In Singapore, pay cuts for senior management has been announced by some public and private sector companies and organisations and voluntary unpaid leave has been made an option for workers. Despite this, the public and private sectors are still generally functioning as usual.

The study also sheds light on the minute differences in perception between younger and mature workers towards the support level given by their employers. In Singapore, 63 per cent of mature workers (aged at least 50 years old) felt that they were adequately supported by their employers whereas the figure is 58 per cent for younger workers (between ages 18 and 29).

Across all age groups, there are more workers in Singapore compared to Hong Kong who perceived their companies’ support positively. As shown in Figure 2, only 36 per cent of mature workers and 42 per cent of younger workers felt adequately supported by their employers.

“It is a challenging time for all, in light of this epidemic, and support from employers will contribute towards strengthening employees’ psychological resilience.  We must work together to support each other, stay flexible and provide accurate information to give people the confidence to move forward,” Executive Director of CSG, Simon Tye remarked.

Companies in both Singapore and China adopted varied measures to provide support to their employees. In Singapore, the bulk of workers felt adequately supported by their employers because they provide clear communication surrounding business continuity plans (52%), increased hygiene standards in the workplace (53%), health and hygiene guidelines (57%), and hand sanitizer (63%).

On the other hand, In Hong Kong, more than half of workers felt they received adequate support from their employers with the flexibility of being able to work from home (51%), flexible working hours (54%), as well as the provision of face masks (57%), as shown in Figure 3.

Furthermore, there are also differing levels of optimism found between Singapore and Hong Kong with regards to the spread of Covid-19 and the economic impact. Based on Figure 4, 25 per cent of Singapore residents felt that the outbreak will negatively impact the economy whereas the figure is close to 60 per cent in Hong Kong.

Also, Figure 5 shows that less than 30 per cent of Singapore residents felt that Covid-19 impact on the economy will be substantially worse than SARS, whereas 47 per cent of Hong Kong residents felt so.

In addition to this, 45 per cent of Singapore residents placed less trust in social media as a source of information about Covid-19 in comparison the 51 per cent of residents in Hong Kong. Figure 6 shows that social media is a source of misinformation for 55 per cent of Singaporeans.

With regards to the duration of Covid-19, 71 per cent and 72 per cent of residents in Singapore and Hong Kong are optimistic that the outbreak will taper off by the end of Q2 this year, as shown in Figure 7.

“The gap in perception between employees from the two cities could mainly be attributed to the differences in approach when providing support. Employers must prioritise employees, listen to them and build bi-directional internal communications channels,” commented Elan Shou, Executive Vice President and Asia Director at Ruder Finn.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

TAFEP puts up full page ad showing how it ensures fair employment opportunities for 20 S’poreans

Last Tuesday (11 Feb), the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment…

“非丧失能力至无法工作” 心脏衰竭中年男申请提出公积金被拒

采访:许渊臣  报导整理:北雁 “我不是要跟政府讨福利金,只是想拿出我自己的钱自救都不行,我感到无助,新加坡政府怎么了?” 拿不起超过五公斤的物品,外出四小时就会感到身体疲累,站了15分钟就会开始头晕。患有心脏衰竭,左心室只剩下37巴仙功能的沈佳泉,想向中央公积金局申请领取公积金以支持日后的开销时,当局却以他不符合资格为由,拒绝其申请。 事件主人公,56岁的沈佳泉之前曾工作一段时间,也有3000新元收入,但是在2014年开始,他的身体健康状况出现了问题。 手术后无法长时间工作 那时起他开始翻覆发烧,有时体温甚至烧到摄氏40度;身体也容易感到疲惫,走路或久站都会气喘吁吁。 起初还不以为意,一直到一次在太太陪同下要过天桥去找中医检查时,差点因为喘不过气而昏厥,才惊觉身体状况已出问题;中医建议沈佳泉立即去于医院检查。医生指他的心脏出现衰竭现象,也建议他进行手术。 正常人的左心室射出率(LVEF)在55至70巴仙,但手术后就只剩37巴仙,且不能提重物,否则心脏会痛。“医生要我把一切都放慢下来,不能做太激烈的运动。” 他在手术的两年后,重新开始工作,也尝试了开私召车等兼职工作,但是因为心脏问题,也无法赚取过多收入。在2017年已停止工作。 仅靠妻子工作收入 经济拮据…

“When the day is finished”

Kirsten Han / As a little girl (and even now), I loved…

看不见的“廉价”客工 拿命为新加坡的繁荣拼搏

新加坡大量引进廉价劳工,至2017年12月,外籍劳工总数约为136万人,绝大多数从事“肮脏、劳累和危险”的3D职业,填补了劳力结构上的空缺,也降低工资成本,对经济增长扮演重要角色。 本国劳工受到劳工法令等保障权益,但是我国客工遭剥削问题长期引来人权组织诟病,他们被招工代理征收昂贵中介费导致债务缠身、拖欠薪资、扣留护照甚至暴力和性侵事件,都藏在新加坡经济繁荣的表象下。 客工并不在劳工法令保护范围,也不受工时限制局限,甚至有雇主假冠客工“经理”虚名,实则规避付加班费的责任。普遍这些客工教育程度不高,加上雇主往往扣留护照或克扣薪资加以挟持,使得客工唯有容忍唯命是从。 2016年6月,孟加拉籍移工拉曼就为了遵守上司的指令,让自己遭受无可挽回的代价。当时,他被指示清理双溪登雅一处蓄水缸,入口沙井非常狭小,拉曼也反映缸中有异味,但是被上司斥责在找借口不想做,拉曼唯有硬着头皮接下任务。 拉曼和同事携带卤素灯下井,就在拉曼打开卤素灯时,不幸发生了,卤素灯电源与缸中气体产生反应,引起爆炸。拉曼的同事被震出外面,但是困在缸里的拉曼顿时被火海包围,造成73巴仙严重烧伤,昏迷3个月。 阿曼经历一系列手术,重建他的眼、鼻和耳朵,移工经济人道组织(HOME)为他众筹得1万5千新元。 社区行动网络(CAN)负责人、社运分子范国瀚在其脸书揭露,当拉曼准备出院时,他的同事曾有意说出真相,却被老板勒令回家,这是企图掩盖事实的一贯做法。 再者,执法单位对知情者的保护极少,出头帮受害者,往往会被雇主施以其他形式的惩罚,例如更多的工作量、被革职等等。 受害客工索偿,却被要求测谎 “人资部在询问拉曼时,似乎把拉曼被当作骗子般,即使他经历严重身心灵创伤,都是他自己造成的错。”人资部甚至要对他进行测谎,相信是为了确认他不是为了骗取工伤救济金。对待本地劳工肯定不会动用测谎仪。 范国瀚感叹,本地政府、救济组织在回应客工争取权益时,往往抱有“假定弱势者想欺诈体制”的防卫心态,可是从不关心这些客工的想法。 即使“福利诈欺”在新加坡的个案并不显著,但有者仍捍卫对客工抱持怀疑态度,可避免“资源被浪费”和维持体制公平,是务实的做法。当这些真正面对困境的客工伸出手求救时,往往是这种“务实”态度形成阶级对立的歧视,让这些客工的声音被忽视。…