13th Death From H1N1:
Singapore’s Health Ministry reported on Tuesday the country’s 13th flu A/H1N1 related death case – a 80-year old Chinese man. (See MOH website)
Andrew Loh
The worst is over for the Singapore economy and the labour market has stabilised, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said in his National Day Rally speech. (Straits Times)
“Now the eye of the storm has passed…. Our labour situation has stabilised. Unemployment is not too high… Companies – some of them are hiring again, although still not in large numbers. Third quarter should be all right.” (PMO)
The Prime Minister’s reassurance brings little comfort to Nur (not her real name). What she faces is not unemployment through retrenchment but discrimination at the work place. Nur, 28, a single mother with a seven-year old daughter, works as an admin staff in a local company. In the last eight months, she was twice asked to leave her jobs as her employers did not want to extend her contract. Now Nur may again be asked to leave her third job this year.
You see, Nur is a kidney patient. She first discovered she had kidney problems in both her kidneys in 2005. Since then, she has had to visit the dialysis centre, run by the National Kidney Foundation, three times a week, each time spending four hours in dialysis treatment. She does this in the evenings, after work, on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. She starts work at 8.30am and finishes at 6pm. In order to be on time for her treatment, she leaves work half an hour earlier, at 5.30pm. It was this which her employers found disagreeable. “They told me that since I cannot be around all the time they cannot extend my contract,” Nur explained, visibly upset. With a four hour treatment, she sometimes ends up reaching home close to midnight, and has little time to spend with her daughter.
She works on a contract basis and has had to endure her contracts not being renewed several times this year, even though her employers did not find her work performance lacking.
Such experiences with employers have led her to lie during job interviews when she looked for new jobs. “If I tell them the truth, they will not hire me,” she says. And even when she is successful in her job applications, she would continue to make up excuses in order to go for her treatment. “I would tell them I need to fetch my daughter from school,” she says. . “I have to work because I need to give [money] to my mother and I have to take care of my daughter,” she adds.
Once, after she had been on the job for two months, she decided to tell her manager the truth – and she ended up losing her job.
So why doesn’t she make arrangements with the centre to start her dialysis later so that she doesn’t have to leave her workplace half an hour early? The problem is that dialysis sessions do not always start on time, Nur explains. For example, during the recent H1N1 outbreak, sessions at the centre were delayed as precautionary measures had to be adhered to. This meant that Nur would end her dialysis much later, almost around midnight.
“It is very tiring, you know?” she says. She explains that already with the travelling to the centre and then onwards to her home, the entire process would take a total of close to six hours. She goes to bed past midnight but has to wake up at 6.30am to prepare to go to work again.
In the last job which she was asked to leave, her employer recruited another person to replace her. To Nur, this showed that it was not because the company needed to cut staff to save cost or that her performance was unsatisfactory, but that the company was discriminating against her because of her medical condition. In fact, several of her former employers had given this as their reasons for not renewing her contract.
In August, her supervisor informed her that the company may not renew her current contract. When she asked if the company was unhappy with her performance, her supervisor said no, but did not elaborate further.
In desperation, Nur went to see her Member of Parliament during his Meet-The-People session. He promised to get back to her but did not. When she visited him a second time, she was told by the MP’s assistants, “Sorry. MP cannot help you.” She was then advised to look for a job herself.
Nur has tried looking for a 9-to-5 job but she has not been successful so far. With the current economic situation, her search is made harder.
Several weeks ago, she approached the Community Development Council (CDC) for help but was told that they were not able to find her a job. The CDC advised her to wait and that she will be informed if it comes across any available jobs for her.
As she shows me the fremitus or thrill embedded in her left arm, above the elbow, a device which makes it easier to locate small veins in patients, Nur explains that she hardly misses work. This is because as a contract worker, she only gets paid when she shows up at the office. “This is why I’ll force myself to go to work even when I’m sick,” she says.
For now, she is at her wits’ end. Nur yearns for stability in her job so that she can better manage her life, and care for her daughter. All she seeks is a fair opportunity from employers and for understanding. “Why won’t they give me an opportunity?” she asks.
——
If you’re an employer or knows anyone who may be able to provide Nur a job, please do drop us an email at: theonlinecitizen@gmail.com .
——
An estimated 116,600 residents were jobless in June.
—–
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
“I happen to think that trading something of value for something of value in return is a moral thing to do. Just think what the alternative would be.”
I didnt figure Godwin to be a bleeding heart socialist. Not every commercial transaction is a win win situation for example, pawn shops etc etc, but both parties agree to the transaction because of other hopefully rational pecuniary reasons.
An antique abacus for example ahem may not have any practical use in a modern world or society but a collector may appreciate its history, craftsmanship, previous ownership etc. hence pay far more than its “value” to its owner if they want to or pay the nominal fee (or value) to the owner. Is option A more moral to option B?
Based on my personal morals, yes if the owner of the abacus is sick and destitute, if not, no. But no one is forcing to the buyer to take option A.
Personally to me, as a third party, the value of the item is totally useless to me but I know more or less what is the value of the antique to the buyer and I engage in a counter offer to resell the item at a profit, thereby enriching myself and the seller. Not for morality’s sake mind you but the end result is that the seller and myself benefits.
Should “morality” be involved in commerce at all? Same thing for charity and corporations, they engage in charities for PR purposes. Not to mention employee morale and loyalty etc. Who wants bad PR? They dont do it out of “morality” which also cannot be defined clearly and varies from culture to culture. You know what, do you know that the wife of LABOR Australian PM Therese Rein runs a jobs agency for disabled people, a thriving business at that prior to him being PM; please compare this to our own PM and his wife.
The difference between private sector and public sector. The government compels u to do National Service for nobody’s benefit except their own (even that can be disputed).
I think Godwin has made a very good arguement over the last *starts counting* Damn, that’s 100 comments.
What he repeatedly highlights here is very true, I quote “Rubbish. What does “protection for employees with disabilities” translate to if not compelling employers to keep employed those whom they may not wish to employ?”
This holds true, the fact of the matter is that while we must acknowledge that people like “Nur” are in quite the fix, and do need help, nobody should go ahead and tell the employers/owners of businessess to go around hiring people like “Nur” JUST BECAUSE she has a long term illness. Why should anyone who put in capital and effort to start a business be told by others exactly who he/she should employ, even if he/she doesn’t want to? That said, firing someone with a “disability” like “Nur” simply because of her medical condition is utter nonsense. If she is able to fulfil her work obligations, which would include any working hours stated in her contract, then it is bullshit to fire her and hire somebody else simply because of her condition. Conversely, if she is UNABLE to fulfil those conditions, then why should the employer keep her on? It seems to be a very simple issue to me, either she can do it, or she can’t. Once we clarify which it is, it isn’t difficult to see who really is at “fault” here (Yes, I put those inverted commas there on purpose”)
This thread is now closed for comments because it is verging on the distasteful.
Some of you have even made derogatory remarks about Nur’s “disability”.
Those who made such remarks should be totally ashamed of yourself.