the "cheap" here implied a cheap way of working, certainly not
on wages which most think of, if you produce one in 1
hour, can you produce 1.5 in hours, or you can be multi skilled and
therefore able to do multi-tasking, eg the OMO, one man
operation Bus, the bus driver was renamed as bus captain, get more
paid for being productive in saving the cost of a Conductor, he
learns how to operate the bus alone, about the software, he clean
his own bus, he learn about handling emergency and how to handle
passengers. All these are upgrading in a way that make him more
important, skillful and build self confident.
But having said that, Cheap in term of
multi-tasking and productive can be exploit by employers
who look at it as their advantages, so, if a waiter, now
have to do washing plates, learn bartending, sweep and
clear rubbish, wash dishes etc etc and yet given the same paid,
that is exploiting of multi tasking and productivity, in another
words, the employers can alway turn around and said to the waiter,
these is what you labour chief said, dun blame
me, you need to be productive, if you dun like it, you can
leave. Therefore, the govt and labour have to ensure that
reward for productivity peoples must be recognised and prevent
employers from taking productivity as a tool for
exploitation.
I remember a Hong Kong actress who came to Singapore to star in
one of our dramas was commenting that in Hong Kong, they have
people specialized in getting ready the costumes, the make-up, etc.
But in Singapore, the artistes basically have to do almost
everything themselves
A jack of all trades, a master of none. That's the problem with
Singapore's way of thinking.
It is good to be self-sufficient, but NOT at the expense of your
skillset. If increased productivity means having to take over work
that is of no value to you, then it simply means exploitation of
the individual.
That's why Singapore media industry will NEVER beat Hong Kong or
Taiwan. Our artistes cannot focus on their skillset. That's why our
jobs are threatened by foreigners as well. We diversify too much so
much so that the core focus is not strong enough.
Notice, I say we diversify too much. Some diversification is
good, but over diversification will result in loss of focus (and
core skillset). That's why many businesses at most diversify to 3
main revenue streams. Having too many will stretch their expertise
too thin.
