Often, I have remarked on how important it is to own your career. And never was it more apparent a few years ago, when I came upon a Facebook post by a self-styled entrepreneur, who claimed to be the kind of boss who sends his employees for skills upgrading. He further asserted that it is the employer's responsibility to do so. Now, in all fairness, this fellow's English is less than ideal, which may account for the fact that he sounds like an obnoxious virtue-signaller. (Of course, him actually being obnoxious may be the main reason he sounds obnoxious.)
That was his assertion, and now this is mine, and I recognize that this may be an unpopular opinion, but here goes. Your career is not, and should not ever be, your employer's responsibility, no matter what they may claim. It is yours. Letting - or worse, expecting - your employer to take care of your career, is tantamount to abdicating that responsibility.
Would it be nice if your employer took care of the costs associated with pursuing your professional training? Of course. It's also potentially dangerous to allow your employer to determine what parts of your game to upgrade. You, and you alone, should be deciding the direction in which you train. And if your chosen direction does not align with that of your company, perhaps it's time you parted ways. Remember, your career will span more than one company. The company you are currently a part of, is but another step in the journey. It's not the entire journey.
Be the Captain of your ship.
If I'm going to upgrade my skills, I want to be the one to decide which skills to upgrade. Think of your career as a ship, of which you are Captain. Not your employer, not your wife, not your mother. You.
Then again, perhaps I speak from a position of privilege. I've spent my entire career ensuring as much as possible that I am not beholden to any one employer beyond the terms of our contract. And I have the luxury of knowing I have a healthy bank balance, and other income, to pay for the costs of my decisions. Everything I say assumes that you enjoy similar privileges - that you are not in a position where you are underqualified and therefore at the complete mercy of your employer in order to stay employed.
And if that's the case, if indeed you are in that kind of position, you should absolutely eat whatever your employer graciously gives you, and be properly grateful for it, peasant.
Your Employer's Responsibility
Getting back to the subject of your skill upgrades being the employer's responsibility...
Employers control many things. In particular, they control whether or not you are employed at their company. They, to some extent, control your working conditions, and whether or not you are able to pay your bills. The more people they employ, the more they control. Thus, it's almost inevitable that employers tend to develop some kind of Big Brother complex (or, as I like to call it, the Chinese Towkay Syndrome). That is not a slight against their character; put that amount of power in anybody's hands, it's almost guaranteed to happen at some point. Employers are only human, after all.
However, regardless of their feelings towards how much control they have over your career, your career is yours and yours alone.
Your employer does have responsibilities. Managing your career is not one of them. Employers determine company direction. They manage the business. They drive profits. And if your career progression has a large bearing on the aforementioned, then sure, it is the employer's responsibility to ensure you succeed. Not because of you. Because it benefits the company, which the employer is responsible for.
However, in isolation, you don't matter. In the context of the entire company, your career is a drop in the proverbial ocean.
Your career is a drop in the ocean.
Let's, for a moment, switch the context to that of the programmer, a role I'm most familiar with. A programmer has an influence on product quality. A programmer may be able to lead entire teams. A programmer may even be able to indirectly drive profitability. But the most control programmers have, is over what technologies they master, what skills they pick up, and what industry experiences they acquire.
Our careers are only thing we can have control over. How does it make any sense to cede that control to someone else? Someone that, I may add, has less skin in the game than you do. If you're not good enough, your employer suffers a temporary setback. But your employer can replace you just like that. You, on the other hand, are a hundred times more affected by your own professional success, or lack thereof. Depend on your employer to upgrade your skills and send you for training? What, are you insane or simply just spineless?
Learn what makes sense to you. Steer your career in directions that you want to go.
Final words
Relying on another person to "take care of you" is a sure recipe for calamity. Expecting someone else to care more than yourself about your own career, is nothing short of folly. Never ever make the mistake of thinking that your career is in someone else's hands.
On the very first day of this year, I began the daunting and emotionally-wrenching process of clearing out my apartment.
For context, this was one of the final parts of a journey that began in 2015, when the Singapore Government decided to reclaim the land on which my apartment building stood, which meant that I would be relocated and suitably compensated. COVID-19 turned out to be a two-year spanner in the works. In the tail end of 2023, the new homes were finally completed and we could begin moving over.
So yes, I now have a new home which I just moved into.
The surroundings of my spanking new home.
That wasn't the end of the story, however. I still had to clear out my old apartment and return it to the Government. This meant that all the furniture, appliances and unwanted rubbish in the apartment had to be properly disposed of. Removals company were quoting me an outrageous fee for this service. Some asked for SGD 400. One quote even went up to SGD 750.
I mean, ultimately, it's just money. But still.
An ex-schoolmate had some Bangladeshi workers he knew, who were looking to make a quick buck during the public holidays. He hooked us up, and we made a date for the first of January.
How it went
Honestly? They showed up on time, did the job without fuss, and finished in maybe three hours. At the end of it, the big-ass pine dining table, computer desk, queen-sized bed and mattress, three single beds were all dismantled and cleared. My old washing machine, refrigerator (now that was a nightmare) and other miscellenous bits of furniture were removed. And finally, everything that wasn't nailed down, was taken out in garbage bags.
They toiled, strained, and grunted. But at the end of it, it was done. Done.
Clearing out the old place.
And they charged me a hundred Singapore dollars each, which I paid. Happily. Without haggling. Because I've been a freelancer before, and I absolutely fucking hate it when people ask me to justify my price. No, bro. My price is my price. You get to take it or leave it, but you don't get to question it.
Thus, this being the standard I set with regard to naming my price, it seemed only reasonable to extend others the same courtesy when the roles were reversed.
Was it too expensive?
This led to a question that people inevitably asked when I told them. Is this too expensive? After all, they were charging me for a full day's work, which they finished in three hours.
Let's examine the facts, then.
Firstly, remember that the typical removals company would have charged me more than double what these guys cost me, for less work.
Secondly, it was the New Year's Day, a public holiday. Many people asking this question would actually get paid overtime if they were recalled in to work on this day. In a full day's work, as a software developer, I estimate that I earn more than double what these guys were charging me. On that evidence, I saw no reason to begrudge them this.
The last point is major for someone who works with software. I'm not concerned about the fact that they worked three hours but charged me for an entire's day work, at all. Good for them; we should all aim to be this productive. The staggering amount of work they did in these few hours would have taken me an entire day. And I was more than happy to not have to sit around an entire day waiting for them to be done. It's a failure of several employers I see, a trait of The Chinese Towkay Syndrome, to value the efforts of someone by how long they work.
This is a syndrome that begrudges people money unless these people sweat buckets for that money. This obsession with having people work hard for your money, is pure foolishness. That is akin to judging the monetary worth of a software product by the number of days it took to produce it!
Get a beast of burden.
This is why I feel that Singaporeans generally make poor employers. They bitch a lot about how they're undervalued and exploited at work, but once the shoe's on the other foot, they become the exploiters with tragic alacrity, becoming the very assholes they constantly rail against. You want hard work as opposed to results? Get a fucking camel. I don't know what else to tell you.
Why would I feel inclined to pay less just because someone took less time to do the job? FFS, I'm a software developer. In our world, we believe in results, not perspiration. You generally want to encourage people to work faster, not necessarily harder, and definitely not longer hours, to produce the same result. Paying them less for it is counterintuitive, or at least it is for people who engage in logic for a living.
Are there migrant workers who could have done it for less? Maybe. Probably. But these are the ones I was handed. They did the job for less than I would have paid otherwise. They got paid well for their trouble. We both benefited from the arrangement, and everything else is just noise.
Conclusion
We should measure the value of things by work done, not by hours worked. There is a stark difference. Quantity does not equate to quality.
The COVID-19 situation has been going on for years now, and one of the many effects it has had, is on employment. Working from home, in particular, has been a bit of a sore spot, specially for Boomer bosses, the kind I used to refer to as those suffering from the Chinese Towkay Syndrome.
So imagine the outrage last month when the Singapore government announced that employees should not be required to go to clinics for an MC if they came down with COVID-19 symptoms, and instead be allowed to stay home for isolation and recovery. Because if there's a super-infectious disease running rampant in society, the last thing you want is for infected individuals to have one more place they can spread it.
These perturbed employers were, like, what if employees abuse that privilege? What's going to stop them from simply pretending to be sick?
Well, I have a couple things to say about that. First and most obviously...
Faking MCs has nothing to do with COVID-19
Does anyone seriously think that if an employee was determined to malinger, said employee couldn't simply get sick leave from any clinic? This employee would not even need to be particularly good at acting sick. Sick leave gets offered even on the occasions I consult a doctor for something minor, without me even asking for it.
Consultation.
Why, then, does COVID-19 make a difference? Because the employee wouldn't need to make the effort of going to the doctor and pay the consultation fee? That's a pittance and we know it.
If you have employees you can't trust, you are the problem
Think about it. What kind of idiot hires people that he or she can't trust? If you doubt the integrity of the people working for you, stop wasting each other's time and get rid of them.
And if you can't trust your employees because on principle, you can't bring yourself to trust people to be professional without your oversight, then where does the problem lie, exactly? Hint: you'll find the answer in any reflective surface.
You're looking at the problem.
My boss trusts me not to malinger - because he knows I would keep working if at all possible. Because I work from home, and just because something prevents me from getting to the office, it won't stop me from giving my utmost. And if something does stop me from working, it won't be anything short of a broken leg or, well, something potentially debilitating like COVID-19.
Finally...
It's tragic that there seems to be a general lack of trust between employers and employees. Sure, employers seek people to get as much work done for as little as possible. And employees want to be paid as much as possible for as little work as possible. The two extreme positions are diametrically opposed. But there's a happy middle ground where the two should meet, and this mutual mistrust is unhealthy.
You can't go through life suspecting that everyone's out to take advantage of you. That's no way to live.
It's official. Singapore's default of working from home was over as of the 5th of this month. When the news broke, I swear the sound I heard was Boomer Bosses cheering in unison all around the island, with delirious jubilation.
Because, even with the COVID-19 pandemic claiming millions of lives, companies closing and jobs being lost, we all know who has really suffered the most - Boomer Bosses. Otherwise known as employers suffering from the Chinese Towkay Syndrome. Imagine their world collapsing around them as the employees they used to micromanage no longer being required to drag their asses into the office every morning and hang onto their every word. Imagine their consternation at having little to no control over what their employees were up to during office hours now that they were no longer under watchful eye... and still being legally required to pay them. Oh, the humanity!
Unacceptable!
Cheap shots at Boomer Bosses aside, the remote working issue is an interesting one, and it's not quite as cut-and-dry. There are those who want to continue working from home in some capacity, and there are those who want to get back to the office ASAP. And both positions are equally valid, depending on context.
The case for remote working
Easier to juggle personal tasks. Ever had a dozen tiny tasks that wouldn't take much time, but you just couldn't get to because you weren't at home? Get an extra bottle of detergent. Pick up the latest free face mask from a nearby vending machine. Top up your refrigerator's supply of M&Ms. Sure, you could do all that one your way home to the office or even on the weekend, but in the mad rush of day, things get forgotten and remembered only when it's inconvenient.
No commute. That sounds petty, but it's really a big one because it all adds up. Not financially; unless you're a habitual cab rider, the savings are negligible. No, I meant in terms of time.
No more getting up early to catch the bus or dealing with traffic on
the way home. Time you could spend getting more shit done.
Along with not commuting or even stepping out
of the house, the need for make-up, hair gel and nicely-pressed shirts
is significantly reduced. Your breath can stink; no one at the office is
going to be smelling it. For the record, I'm not recommending that last
one. Personal hygiene is called "personal" for a reason - whether or
not you're alone is no reason to be neglecting it.
And speaking of personal hygiene, years of slumming it in the most dilapidated, disgusting office restrooms known to Man has taught me never to take for granted the privilege of being able to use your own home toilet.
No need to dress up.
Breaks.When no one is watching you, it's far easier to get a
short nap or a coffee break. This may sound a lot like slacking off, and
in many cases, it is. However, bear in mind that the typical
programmer's job has very little to do with sitting in front of a
terminal and typing. The typing part is mostly implementation of a
solution... a solution that may have been conceived away from the
keyboard. As almost all of programming requires a thought process, a
programmer may be working even while not at a terminal. Often, it's not
even conscious or voluntary. We're not actively trying to think about
work, but that's usually when the solution comes. So breaks are a part
of the process... and said breaks are easier to take when you don't have
non-programmers watching and silently judging you.
Music. Related to the last point, sometimes playing music or listening to a podcast can aid concentration. Again, that's easier to do when there's no one around. Really, nobody needs to know that you listen to Justin Bieber. Sure, in an office environment, you could use headphones... but then you wouldn't hear the phone ring or be able to respond to people trying to get your attention.
The case for returning to the office
Drawing the line. Working from home can be a pain in the ass. You don't really get that neat separation between home and office. I feel the constant nagging urge to mop the floor, do the laundry, scrub the bathroom... and sometimes it interferes with the work process. I imagine it's worse for people who have kids. And sometimes the reverse happens - I actually end up putting in significantly more hours at work than I would otherwise do at an office, simply because the line separating work and home is just too thin.
Distractions!
Communication. Remote working gets lonely. The lack of face-to-face interaction, while nice at first, eventually turned out to be pretty grating after a few months. I guess I'm more of a social creature than I ever gave myself credit for. Yes, technically, communication can be carried out online. But screens of text and video calls just don't quite do it. People communicate more than with just words. Hand gestures, body language - these are dimensions that don't translate well over video call. Also, online communication turns some people into assholes. There are some really brave souls who talk a whole lot more shit online than they would when they're within physical punching distance.
A lot of software development work is in the thought process. Working independently is one thing, but sometimes devs need to confer. Bounce ideas off each other. Sometimes when I get stuck, explaining the problem to another dev helps with the mental constipation. Sure, there are whiteboard tools online. Call me old-fashioned, but nothing really beats being there. You don't have to deal with internet lag, for one. Also, I write a whole lot faster (though admittedly not necessarily more legibly) than I type.
Reminding the boss you still exist.Out of sight, out of mind, as they say. Relationships with those in authority may suffer, especially if you were building up a beautiful working relationship pre-pandemic. People have short memories.
Utilities. An alarming number of people seem to think that the boss saves on electricity, water and internet access if less people come to the office. That's utterly ridiculous. Whether two people are in the office or twenty, the lights still have to be on, and the air-conditioning costs just as much. And unless your company owns the building, rent still needs to be paid. Just because you incur those costs by working from home doesn't mean your employer saves on those costs. But this segues nicely into my point - not working from home saves you having to pay extra for utilities, especially if you're the sort who needs the air-conditioning turned on all day.
Implications of remote working
One common fear is that your employer may start wondering about replacing you - after all, if your job can be done just as well remotely, what's the next logical step? Cheaper offshore talent. Some programming work, especially grunt programming work, falls under this category. Also, possibly, most of office work - the kind that focuses on the ability to use a computer rather than human interaction - falls under this category.
In reality, it's far less straightforward. Offshore talent comes with its own drawbacks, such as time-zone differences, language barriers and cultural clashes. Also, the more traditional-minded employers prefer to see people hard at work, or at least pretending to do the jobs they are paid to do.
Worried about remote working?
But yes, that's not an unreasonable fear. Should you be afraid? Well, that really depends. Take my situation for example.
One - I'm reasonably secure in my position - my job is to deliver working software solutions and while no one is irreplaceable, I like to think that I deliver enough value to justify the current work arrangement. Two - my superior isn't a micromanaging Boomer Boss. Three - I'm the only person in that department and working in the office adds zero value to the quality of my work. Four - I don't actually need the money.
But that's my situation and my job; statistically, the vast majority of office workers don't have it that good. It would be disingenuous to pretend otherwise. So chances are, if your situation is like the majority of the working population, you do have plenty to worry about. But you have no cause to be embarrassed. There's no shame in being unexceptional.
If your physical presence at work is your biggest - or worse, only - significant contribution to what would otherwise be any other office job, then yes, you are absolutely right to be afraid of losing your position. Scratch that; you should be terrified. And you absolutely should go back to the office and be grateful to still have a job, even if it's one you have to protect by parking your butt at an office desk. You gotta do what you gotta do; again, there's no shame in it.
But if you don't like being in this position, then you'll need to work on yourself so that eventually, you won't be in this position. Otherwise, suck it up, dude. There are worse things in life than having to go through a nine-to-five grind at the office.
All in all
For most office work, the future is remote work. We can slow progress, but only for so long. Internet is not a luxury; it is now a necessity. As many have learned.
Still, physical presence does have its place. It's simply not as importance as it once was, because it's no longer the only option. We now have alternatives. Just bear in mind that remote working is merely one of these alternatives and not a blanket solution. At the end of the day, whatever mode one chooses, it has to make sense to both the business and the employee.
Recently, there's been a big hoo-ha on Facebook, with the utterances of "thought leader" Delane Lim whining commenting about how unreasonable young interviewees are in light of the COVID-19 pandemic situation tanking Singapore's economy. He said something to the effect of youngsters not being "hungry enough". Now, much ink has already been spilled on behalf of this guy, so I won't add to it.
However, the term "hungry" did bring back some unpleasant memories. Back in 2013, I worked for a CEO whose favorite catchphrase was the admonishment "not hungry enough". And guess what - that very same boss got hauled to court in 2017 for not paying vendors and staff salaries. Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.
Of all the stupid things to say, huh?
Bosses - can't live with 'em, definitely can't live without 'em. To be fair, not all of them have been utter douchebags, but even the best of them have produced some truly appalling, mind-boggling and cringe-worthy quotes. Today I have the dubious pleasure of sharing some of the most jaw-dropping words I've ever heard said by a superior at work.
Be warned that I might get a little vulgar here...
1. The Instigator
Sometimes Managers get cheeky. They say things that they think will provoke a reaction out of you, or sting your pride, in order to spur you on, get extra performance out of you. Y'know, mind games.
Whose code is this?
One such Manager probably thought he was being clever by urging me to take more ownership of the module I had been put in charge of.
"Do you really want someone else to touch your code?"
Sadly, that didn't work. You see, it isn't even my code. Legally, any code I write belongs to the company. Because I wrote it on company time, using company equipment. So as long as I deliver, I don't really have any fucks to give as to who handles the code after it's been checked into the repository and deployed. If it's me, great. If not, also great.
2. The Paternal
You know the old Chinese Towkays I've complained about in the past? Well, they don't literally have to be old Chinese Towkays, but they tend to share certain unsavory aspects of the Chinese Towkay Syndrome. That is, at some level, they see themselves as some kind of Godfather-figure.
"I like to think of my staff as family."
Oh hell, no. I'm your employee, not your goddamn relative and don't you ever forget it.
Granted, some bosses who say things like that, do that with the best of intentions. Maybe they just want a more open, less formal, work culture. More cynically, maybe people who reciprocate and see you as family are easier to manipulate into going the extra mile.
We are family!
Family do favors for each other. Family puts up with shit that other people won't. Fuck all that. End of the workday, I want to leave the office and go back to my actual family. You can fantasize about being my brother/father/son all you want. I will not be returning the compliment.
3. The Bravo
Sometimes, at the workplace, you're issued some highly classified equipment and the onus is on you to keep it safe. At one time, I was put to work on a module and that involved having to log in with an OTP which was supplied by an RSA token. I took to keeping it in my locked drawer because taking this damn thing around only increased the chances of me losing it.
A Manager saw me doing that, and this is what he had to say.
"You should take more care. I wear the security dongle around my neck so that if someone wants to take it, they'll have to literally chop my head off."
Oh, wow. You know what I would do if someone gave me a choice between giving them the security token, or getting my head chopped off? I'd give it to them. Hell, I'd even pay for their cab fare.
Don't get ahead of yourself.
Then again, perhaps that Manager was just a better man than I am. Someone who's willing to die for this crummy job.
Um, no thanks. Why? Because, like any other normal, sane and rational human being, I kind of value my life more than this job or a security token that costs maybe 70 SGD.
4. The Redundant
Here's some context. It was 7PM, and the team was in a meeting trying to iron out a process to speed work up. We were all hungry, tired, and some of us had kids at home who needed attention. The Manager came up with this beauty.
"Do you want to know what I think?"
Gee, I dunno. What are we supposed to say to that? "No thanks, please keep your opinion to yourself"?
Shush, mate.
Honestly? FFS, nobody wants to know what you think. What is this, TCP/IP? If you've got something to say, spit it out, pronto or stop wasting our goddamn time. Jesus!
5. The Amnesiac
I saved the best for last, because this one definitely takes the prize. It came during a code review. My CTO was in the middle of telling me how disgusting my code was, and how it could be done better. OK, fair enough. If my code's not good, I can take criticism like a champ.
Except he did one better. Halfway through changing the code, he paused and said,
"There's no way this could ever work. Are you sure you tested it?"
He then went on to lose his cool, lecture me about integrity, and about not declaring something "done" until it was tested.
Why doesn't this shit work?
You see, the problem was that while screwing around with the code I'd written, he changed the function call to use an integer instead of an object as an argument. The function itself accepted an object as a parameter. So yes, of course, naturally the code wouldn't work. Because he'd just changed it himself five seconds ago.
What was he suggesting - that I somehow took the trouble to fake twelve motherfucking screenshots of the entire module working just so I could avoid actual testing? Look - being an asshole is practically a requirement for a boss in order to get shit done. Just don't be a stupid asshole.
Yeah that's pretty stupid...
I know, right? Maybe we should stop thinking of Managers, employers and the like as better than us. They're in positions of authority, yes. That doesn't mean they don't say stupid things. In fact, they're probably even more prone to it since some of them don't seem to think they're capable of it.
If nothing else, this will hopefully help any Managers reading this to understand how saying certain things can be counterproductive. Your subordinates are supposed to respect you. And it's really difficult if you say things that scream retard.
The first month of 2020 kicked off with a Parliamentary tussle when Minister Chan Chun Sing provided statistics on how employment in Singapore had increased by nearly 60,000 between 2015 and 2018. MP Pritam Singh challenged him to provide a breakdown across all industry sectors in the Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs); and furthermore, to provide breakdowns for the data between Singaporeans and Permanent Residents (PRs) because up to that point, Singaporeans and PRs had been categorized under a single group. Minister Chan responded with the following (rather defensive) rebuttal, which, incidentally, led to an amusing slew of memes around his retort "what is the point behind the question?"
"We can get you the numbers. But let me say this. What is the point behind the question? First, has local unemployment increased with all these efforts? The answer is a resounding 'no'. Our people are getting good jobs. Are our wages going up? Yes, and it's faster than many other countries. Those are proof points to show that we are doing right by Singaporeans.
But I'm always very cautious about this constant divide, Singaporean versus PR. The insinuation seems to be that somehow Singaporeans are not benefiting."
While I probably wouldn't have put it that way, I'm inclined to agree that while a breakdown would certainly provide more information, it's pedantic at best for the purposes for which this data was intended - to track how well the ITMs are doing. I assume that MP Pritam Singh was making the request out of purely academic interest, and admittedly viewing that data for the Infocomm and Media sector would be very interesting for me personally.
There is also the small matter of the other point that Minister Chan raised. Singaporean unemployment had gone down. But seeking the data in order to establish whether or not PRs were benefiting more than Singaporeans comes across as - dare I say it? - petty and small-minded.
Foreigners in the tech sector
In certain segments of Singaporean society, there's been a fair amount of resentment towards foreigners due to the perception that they steal jobs that rightfully belong to "true-blue born and bred" Singaporeans. Hence the inclination to check if more higher-paying jobs are being occupied by foreigners than locals.
And you know what? They probably are. So what? Do people honestly imagine that these higher-paying jobs could be just as easily done exclusively by local talent? Without a certain amount of foreigners coming in to fill those positions, the global tech companies such as Facebook, Google, Amazon, IBM and Microsoft would have significantly less incentive to set up shop here. And that means the opportunities I've had for the past few years would be non-existent. I would probably still be sweating it out for cheap local bosses - you know, the kind who pay you just 3,000 SGD a month and expect your immortal soul in return.
Modern-day slavery.
Sure, I may not be earning as much as many foreigners. But I'm earning way more than I used to. Sometimes, comparing what you have now with what you used to have, makes a heck of a lot more sense than comparing it with what others have. With the former, you at least see progress. With the latter, you'll never be happy because your aspirations (what others have) will exceed your abilities (what you can get).
Simply put, I don't care who's doing better than me. I only care that I'm doing a lot better than I used to.
In my workplace
When I tell people that I'm the only Singaporean developer in a team full of foreign developers, they're quick to jump and point to unfair hiring practices and foreigners being favored over locals, and that someone like me is being hired only to satisfy the quotas for local workers and increase the allotted quota for foreigners.
Firstly, that's rubbish. The foreigners I work with are on Employment Passes, which are not subject to foreign headcount quotas at all.
Secondly, Singaporeans have been interviewed for the job before. Exceedingly few of them made it. And if I'm an example of a Singaporean who survived that interview process, I shudder to think how shit unqualified the others must be if they didn't.
Thirdly, administration-wise, it is actually easier to hire a Singaporean than a foreigner. Employment Passes take time to get approved. And if candidates need to go through Government security screening, foreigners take roughly twice the time it takes for a local.
Lastly, of all the Singaporeans who actually got the job, very few stayed past one year. Apparently it was too much work for too little pay. I happened to have come from worse conditions; ergo I was happy to stay. Also, many Singaporeans have been conditioned to look down on contract positions and any position that has no potential for them to rise through the ranks. It helps that I've never wanted a higher-ranking post, because accepting that increase in responsibility for just a little bit more pay just never made any practical sense to me. I suspect quite a few people want those jobs not because they actually want them, but because they've been conditioned to think that they should want them. Because of "Career Progression" or some such bullshit.
So, no. In my organization's case, it's not that companies don't want to hire locals. It's more that locals are either disinterested or unqualified for my position.
Sure, there are always going to be people who deride this news, and label it Wayang. And they do have a point - it seems to be the smaller companies that bear the brunt of the investigations.
But you see, it is precisely these smaller companies that flout these regulations because they have a more intense need to. The bigger ones - the really huge ones - have too much to lose by not following the laws of the land. And they're less concerned about squeezing every drop of blood and sweat from their employees. Facebook is more interested in invading our privacy for profit. Google is more interested in tracking our every move and appearing not to be evil. As for Apple, they've got child labor in China sweatshops - quite legally too, as it happens - why would they waste time screwing over a relatively paltry number of Singaporeans on this tiny island?
So, if one of these mega-corporations doesn't want to offer you that cushy five-figure salary, it's probably not because they have any preference towards foreigners. It's more likely that you're just not good enough. These huge tech companies have very stringent acceptance criteria, and it's rarely a case of where you're from, but how qualified you are. More often than not, that describes a foreigner. And they're hardly going to break a sweat over losing prospective hires to employment regulations in Singapore, because there's an exceedingly long line of talented people who want to join their ranks.
Talent in various shapes and forms.
The other reason I want these mega-corporations around, is because I have relatively recent, very unpleasant memories of working for local employers with an exceedingly strong affliction of The Chinese Towkay Syndrome. Back then, in the tech sector, it was an employer's market and these bosses were as exploitative as they come. The presence of large multi-national tech corporations with a plethora of employee benefits and higher wages, keeps these guys honest because they're no longer the biggest or only game in town. And if this means that a big chunk of higher-paying jobs are going to foreigners, so be it.
Why employers seem to prefer foreigners
The common misconception seems to be that foreigners are better workers - more diligent, more knowledgeable, more accommodating, more everything. And, of course, cheaper. Undoubtedly, some of them are. But that's not where their true value lies.
Foreigners are generally only able to work in Singapore if issued a pass of some sort - a Work Permit, S Pass or Employment Pass. When employment ends with an organization or the pass has expired, they have a limited time to stay in Singapore to find another employer willing to take them on. Things get complicated fast if they have family here, perhaps children studying in local schools.
Therefore, since their continued employment exists at the pleasure of their employers, foreigners are generally more obliging. Also, if they're here alone with not many family and friends, there's not much for them to do in their spare time and they're usually more than happy to take on extra work.
Eat shit, and like it.
Simply put, a foreigner will put up with demands that a local won't. They'll eat shit, and smile while they do it. Locals are far more likely to walk away if it gets too hot in the kitchen, because we can. Foreigners simply don't have that luxury.
So for those who like to complain about the lack of Home Ground Advantage, this is your Home Ground Advantage. And it's no small one. In fact, its so big that many companies would rather not deal with it. If you need proof of this, take your average docile foreigner and issue him or her PR status, and see how swiftly their attitude changes when their stay is no longer directly dependent on the goodwill of their employer.
Should the data be released to the public?
Absolutely! Do it!
Assuming that disgruntled Singaporeans actually find evidence that more PRs are occupying higher paying jobs than Singaporeans, just what are they going to do about it? Move out of Singapore to greener pastures? If they actually had the ability to thrive elsewhere, I suspect they would have done it already, as opposed to squawking on Social Media.
Just go.
No, this is Singapore and we are a nation of Champion Grumblers. The late great Lee Kuan Yewsaid so himself. The Government should have faith that we'll accept the reality of the situation and get back to work. We complain excessively, of course, but when push comes to shove, we ultimately choose the most sensible and pragmatic option. Let's not ever change that.
Those that don't want to accept the reality of Globalization have the option of leaving. And they should. At the very least, it will give them a taste of what it's like to be a foreigner somewhere else and be the ones eating shit while those countries' locals complain about them for a change.
In closing
Singaporeans are a competitive lot. We hate losing. And we especially hate losing out. That's a good thing.
However, being competitive is meaningless if we are not also competent. Aim high by all means; though if something is out of reach, better yourself in order to reach it. Demanding that the Government make things easier ("fairer") for us is one thing, but let's not abandon our responsibility for our own career development.
Does that mean I think that the noise-makers on Social Media clamoring for more transparency from the Government ought to tone it down a notch, then?
Oh heavens, no. Not a chance.
Sure, the Government's job would be a lot easier if we all simply went along like mindless sheep, but here's the thing: governance isn't meant to be easy. Anyone going into governance thinking that it's easy is under a severe delusion and needs to be disabused of it ASAP. Governance requires character of sterling quality. Running things for a few million loud complainers isn't easy... but neither is maintaining good standing and friendly relations with countless other nations with far larger populations and longer histories, some of whom have nuclear warfare capabilities. If a would-be Governor can't cope with the former, he or she has no business at all attempting the latter.
So keep holding their feet to the fire, you lovably noisy malcontents. Just don't forget to help the Government do their jobs by keeping yourselves employable. Because if all we're good for is raising a fuss on Social Media, Minister Chan Chun Sing's stated dream of locals one day taking those high-paying jobs may never come to fruition.
When we talk about tech companies, names like Google, Microsoft and IBM come to mind. But tech companies cover a wide range - from infrastructure to software. They also come in a large variety of sizes and service models. It's best to examine your planned career path and make your decisions based on those.
Tech Start-up
Companies that have yet to turn a profit or arrive at any kind of critical mass.
Company Size. These are typically really small, numbering less than ten employees, though large startups (such as Uber) aren't unheard of. We're, at this moment, speaking of the really tiny operations.
Service Model. B2B or B2C.
Pros
Experience. If you're starting out in your career, this is an excellent way to get your feet wet. The ungodly working hours and the tendency of the employer to throw everything your way will ensure that - as long as your attitude remains positive. Also, mentioning that you've survived "startup culture" is almost always a positive with potential employers. If nothing else, you've proven you can weather storms. Importance. Companies like to say "everyone is important in our organization". This is bullshit. There's always dead weight in corporations above a certain size. But in a tiny startup, this is true because there's no way for it to be false. Every person actually matters. It's a minimal headcount. This is a huge chance to make a difference.
Sauntering to
work like this!
Informal. There's little to no red tape because it's more trouble than it's worth at this point. Sure, there are rules... but also a great amount of flexibility. If you need to take urgent leave or even just a couple hours off, there's generally little to no paperwork and the approving party is more amenable to it. And the lack of a dress code basically means you can waltz in rocking your shorts and slippers every damn day.
Cons
Pay and benefits. Typically not great. It's a startup and they're surviving on raised funds. This means belt are always tightened.
Environment. Along with belts being tightened, being in a startup also typically means that your office is going to look like somebody's storeroom.
Workload. If you're a fan of coming in on time and leaving on time, don't count on it with a startup. Here, due to lack of manpower, everyone gives way more than the prescribed eight working hours a day, bosses included. Working in a startup is hell for your work-life-balance.
Stability. Or lack thereof. A company that is in danger of going under anytime due to lack of funding, isn't the safest bet in the world. You've been warned.
Verdict. Try this at least once in your career. Especially early in your career. If the start-up fails, you'd have gained valuable experience. If it succeeds (and that's a tremendous if) you can take a healthy chunk of credit for bringing it past startup stage. Either way - much to gain, fuck-all to lose.
Software Vendor
These are small companies that make software or websites for other companies. They may have gotten past the startup phase, but survival is a constant struggle.
Company Size. Small or medium.
Service Model. B2B
Pros
Responsibility. Everyone manages clients and builds software at the same time. This is really good for leveling up different aspects of your game simultaneously.
Informal. There are rules. Those rules are also negotiable, because at this point, the company hasn't grown large enough that making occasional exceptions on a case-by-case basis would pose any sizeable problem. That said, it really depends on who's in charge. Some SMEs have a serious case of Chinese Towkay Syndrome and like to act like they have a few thousand employees under them.
Domain Knowledge. Doing work for several different clients, all from different industries and backgrounds, can make the developer well-versed in a large variety of industries. This is always useful, particularly in the event that you want to consider being a software developer in that particular industry.
Direct contribution to profits. Since the profits come off doing lots of low-margin work, your value is determined by how many clients you manage to bill on your watch regularly.
Cons
Repetitive work. Doing different versions of the same thing day in, day out, can make you feel like you're stuck in a Hamster Wheel of Doom.
Standard of work. By that same token, doing work for so many clients invariably means that the projects are small. And simple. Things you'll eventually outgrow.
Pay. The pay is not that much better than that of a startup. The company can pay more, but you have to constantly prove yourself because your performance is directly linked to profits. This can prove exhausting in the long run.
Like a very leaky boat at sea.
Stability. They're more stable than the average startup, which doesn't mean much. A bit of upheaval in the tides of the economy will see them scramble to cut the dead weight.
Verdict
A decent (but entirely optional) training choice early or in the middle of your career. Don't stay beyond a few years. Get the experience you need and move on.
Tech Multinational Company
These are typically the big players whose head office is often not in Singapore.
Company Size. Large. Sometimes huge.
Service Model. B2B or B2C.
Pros
A great environment.
Environment. Big spaces, janitorial services, posh business locations.
Pay and benefits. Your remuneration is likely to be competitive. You may even get dental.
Professional visibility. Google. Facebook. Microsoft. These ring a bell? They should, because they're B2C and just about everyone has heard of them. If they're purely B2B, like Cloudflare or Atlassian, then maybe not. But those in the tech industry would have heard of them, and that's no small thing. Working in a tech MNC opens new doors.
Stability. Big tech companies tend to be big for a reason. They've weathered storms, and in all likelihood, will probably be around long after you're gone.
Cons
Politics. At any large corporation, you get people jostling for position and all that juvenile shit.
Your expendibility. Again, in a large company, your contribution doesn't have as much impact. Their attitude is more along the lines of "you're lucky to be working for us" rather than "we're lucky to have you on board". There are small companies with the same attitude; then again, we aren't talking about those wannabes, are we?
Red tape. A company of that size doesn't have the luxury of making exceptions for extenuating circumstances. Everything will be strictly by the book, unless you're personally very important to the organization.
Verdict
Move on when the time is right, but this makes a great addition to any resume. If you do decide to stay for the long haul, there's always the chance of a promotion and increased benefits.
There is a troubling culture among the more traditional types of companies today, a mentality I like to call the Chinese Towkay Syndrome.
Back in the day, making a living was hard, and if someone found steady employment, the boss of the company inevitably felt that they were doing their employees a favor by letting them stay on. The "favor" part was especially hard to argue against though, since many of these towkays were in the habit of employing family or friends in positions they were woefully underqualified for. Believe it or not, this practice still exists today!
The positive aspect of this was that employers felt that they were responsible for the careers and lives of their employees, and thus acted with caution and prudence.
King of the castle.
The negative aspect, of course, was that they let this go to their heads. They started thinking that they needed to rule everything with an iron hand, and that their word was law. They felt the need to ensure that every minute that the company paid for the worker's time, was spent working. Being at the head of a company, even if that company in question is a tiny kuching kurap specimen, does lend itself to a certain amount of hubris. (Though personally, if my company was still a minnow in this tiny pond after thirty years, I'd be a little less cocky about being a boss.) That attitude, unfortunately, trickles down to senior management fairly often.
This syndrome seems to be especially prevalent among the kinds of companies that have lasted the last few decades or so, and among the Chinese. Hence the term Chinese Towkay Syndrome. This is probably unfair, of course. Malays and Indians are not immune to hubris. Hubris is not a racial thing. But Chinese make up the majority on this island, therefore the term sticks.
So, anyway, this tends to manifest itself in...
Treating employees like children
Ever had your clock-in and clock-out times monitored? That's normal.
Ever had your lunch breaks counted, and been reprimanded if you consistently took longer than an hour? That's normal too. How much time does one reasonably need to get food into your body, right?
Having toilet breaks monitored too? That's when a line has been crossed. That's when you've started treating your employees like wayward children who will abuse the system at every opportunity if you don't lay down the law. Seriously, some people need a longer time to move their bowels. Are you planning to factor that into the year-end appraisal?
That's not the only example, of course.
As desktop support, I've had to write scripts for HR to determine who's taking MC or urgent leave on Mondays, Fridays, before or after public holidays, and flag the people doing so for possible misuse of benefits. Or monitor the emails of employees to ensure that they aren't involved in idle chit-chat.
LUMPAR - "Let's Understand, Most People Are Ridiculous." I coined that acronym sometime last year, and it couldn't be more apt now. Nothing screams "ridiculous" louder than spending time and resources on making sure people spend every minute typing at the keyboard... especially if the people in question are web developers. Forget everything you've watched in the movies. This is not how web development works. Typing code into the system only accounts for about ten percent of the entire process - something the typical layperson doesn't know. Which, of course, is one of the many reasons why I never want to work for laypeople again. But that's another story for another time.
Treating employees like wayward
children.
Here's the thing. You are hiring people do do certain jobs that require a certain amount of experience and expertise. If you treat your employees like children who must be constantly monitored for every little thing, they are going to act like children. They are going to find every loophole in your precious system and abuse the hell out of it. Hey, you already think they are children. You think so little of their professionalism that you feel the need to micro-manage them. What have they got to lose? Your respect?
Why not try trusting them to be adults instead, and act like professionals? It's a company you're running, not a kindergarten. What's the point of demanding that they work? Just so you can feel the company is getting its money' worth? That's dumb. It's ultimately output you're paying for, isn't it? There's no point in employees coming in early and leaving late, and constantly keeping their eyes glued to the computer screen and fingers making contact with the keyboard, if the work isn't done. Obsessing over input rather than output paints an unflattering picture of your ability to prioritize things that matter.
My home as an example
Apparently, the workplace is not the only place Singaporeans display symptoms of the Chinese Towkay Syndrome. Singaporeans are famous for being especially nit-picky where rental is concerned. We have something of a reputation for being the worst landlords (and landladies) ever.
Last year, my tenant moved out because he had finally completed the purchase of his own apartment. Before he left, he shook my hand and told me I was probably the most fuss-free landlord he had ever encountered. I was flattered, but thought that was probably a coincidence.
Coincidence? Oh hell, no. I was about to learn otherwise.
Over the weeks, I reviewed a few prospective tenants. One of them asked me how many times a week they could use the washing machine and the air-conditioning. I gave him a funny look that suggested I thought it a crazy question. What, do I look like I have the time to monitor how many times a week they use the machine or turn on the air-conditioning? I'm a working professional, for God's sake. I have better things to do. And constantly watching people to ensure they don't use any more water or electricity than they're supposed to, is a lot of work. It's a time-consuming exercise that will save me maybe a measly thirty bucks a month.
I also got asked some things like whether or not they were allowed to cook, bring friends over, smoke, and whatnot. My response was, typically, as long as they didn't trash the place or burn it down, we were good.
Later on, I even got asked whether they could put stuff on the shelves in the bathroom. My response, by that time, was an exasperated sigh. Look man, if you don't put stuff on the shelves, what else would you use those goddamn shelves for?
By then, the visitors had a pretty good idea I didn't suffer from Chinese Towkay Syndrome. Unfortunately, it appeared that a lot of Singaporeans did. Somehow, after taking so much crap from their bosses at work, being the boss of their own homes seemed to have gone to their heads. Everything I took for granted and relied on my prospective tenants to exercise their own judgement in, other landlords insisted on controlling. I was told that my relaxed stance towards tenant behavior was almost unheard of. I kid you not; there were some prospective tenants who didn't turn up for viewing as soon as they learned I was Singaporean. Yes, our reputation is that bad.
Net result: all of the prospective tenants expressed interest after the visit. They didn't even quibble over the price!
Almost a year later, in addition to paying the rent on time, my tenants are helping me sweep the floor, take out the trash, and clean the bathroom. Without being asked! See what happens when you treat people like adults? They exceed your expectations.
To conclude...
I'm aware that not all cases turn out this happily. People are a mixed bag. My sister thinks that I just got lucky and found a bunch of guys that, after having horrible experiences with other landlords, learned to appreciate a good thing when they saw it. She may have a point there. But I firmly believe that the more you try to control people, the harder it gets for everyone involved.
Long story short: Learn to let go, towkays. Lighten up. Nobody's impressed.
It was about three years ago when I joined a company as an in-house web developer. I was reporting to a younger guy, who was my manager. The CEO invited us out for lunch, and we all engaged in some small talk.
The CEO asked if we were married, with kids. My manager was. I wasn't, and informed him as such.
Perhaps I was being oversensitive, but I detected a certain change in the CEO's expression, and sensed that he was displeased with what he heard. This brought to mind some dialogue I had heard once, in the movie Hercules, starring the electrifying one, Dwayne Johnson.
Hercules: I wanted nothing! King Eurystheus: Precisely! Your sin, Hercules, was that you had no ambition! I can deal with an ambitious man! He can be bought! But a man who wants nothing has no price!
In here, King Eurystheus explains to a chained Hercules why he murdered his family and set him up for those murders.
A man who wants nothing has no price.
I had no wife, no kids. Accountable to no one but myself. The fact that I was willing to take orders from someone younger and less experienced, showed that I had no ambition to speak of. None that lay in his company, anyway. I could not be bought, not with the currency he had. And since I could not be bought, I could not be controlled. This made me a far more risky prospect than my manager.
Can't be strung along.
My CEO's mental gears were probably busy turning, calculating just how far I could be counted on.
Later on, the relationship between the CEO and I deteriorated somewhat. There were other factors involved, but this was probably the first crack.
Many bosses want a certain amount of leverage over their employees. For some, it's friendship. For others, it's money. Or the promise of a promotion. This makes employees easier to motivate, or more cynically, to manipulate. I call this the Chinese Towkay Syndrome. They pay you, and therefore they want to own you.
There was nothing this particular boss could do to make me stay on if I decided I was tired of his crap, nothing he could do to squeeze that last ounce of productivity from my old bones. To some extent, people become bosses because they like being in control.
I was that wild card. That one random variable.
The Wild Card.
I understood this principle. And my concession to this was, from then on, whenever questions of this nature were asked, I would take great pains to mention that I am currently in debt servicing a huge thirty-year loan for my apartment's mortgage. That should be leverage enough for the average boss. It changes nothing - if I want to leave, I'm confident enough in my ability to land another job. But perception is everything, and if this gives my employers the impression that I can be controlled, I'm more than willing to play along.
It's been three years. But better late than lever. (hur hur)
T___T
