The Work I Do Is Deemed "Non-Essential" By Singaporeans—And I Agree

On Sunday, 14 June, national newspaper The Straits Times (ST) published on its Sunday edition, a survey on what types of jobs are considered essential and what are not.

Image Credit: Yan Neng Facebook

The top five essential jobs named were doctor/nurse, cleaner, garbage collector, hawker, and deliveryman, in this order.

In the next column, the top five non-essential jobs listed were artist, telemarketer, social media manager/PR specialist, business consultant, and human resource manager.

The findings drew flak from artists who defended themselves and their contributions during a pandemic-stricken world.

While I wouldn't consider writing articles/ blog posts like this as art, writing in and of itself is... I suppose, art.

However, what I had done previously as a community manager at a renowned chair company, and a manager of content at a local travel agency, is considered the third most non-essential job.

Essentially, this means everything I do for a living is considered non-essential.

At first, I didn't think much of the survey, but after days of seeing my artist friends talk about it with mixed emotions on social media, I decided to pen my thoughts on this for whatever it's worth.

So, here we go.

First Thoughts And Reactions

I found out about this when an acquaintance, who is a teacher and a part-time hobby artist, shared the newspaper clipping on his Instagram Stories.

He was sort of upset, as were my other friends who felt that the poll definitely trivialised the works of actual artists.

Then the second wave of emotions came in: memes and /s tweets of how the ST staff designing the infographic must have felt.

Following that, it was the wave of people who agreed with the poll on how 'art' is non-essential and that artists should accept the fact and stop complaining.

Finally, the wave of acceptance/ awakening. Some artists themselves stepped up to rationalise the poll and calming down fellow artists who were triggered by the poll.

I think I didn't feel extremely strongly about it because I do not consider myself an artist, however, I did feel just a bit sad that social media managers/ PR specialists are considered non-essential.

Anyway, I decided to find out the context of the poll before coming to any sort of conclusion.

I will break down the article in three parts. The introduction, the actual stats, and the "balanced" arguments.

The Introduction

In journalism, the most important information or the 'hook' is usually in the first sentence or first paragraph. For this article, the journalist listed the top five essential jobs and said, "[...] these are the jobs that Singaporeans consider most essential in today's society."

The pandemic has shown that doctors and nurses are indispensable; cleaners and garbage collectors are necessary to ensure our streets are kept clean so viruses will not spread or breed; and without hawkers, how are we going to enjoy our Singaporean dishes in the comfort of our homes?

The kicker comes in the next paragraph, exposing the reality of how Singaporeans truly feel about the jobs when asked if they would do those jobs themselves.

Over half of the respondents of the survey said they do not want to be garbage collectors and 42% of them also said they would turn down cleaning jobs.

The third paragraph in the article sums up the takeaway of the survey: Singaporeans ranked occupations such as business consultant and human resource manager as the five most "non-essential" jobs, yet these are highly sought-after roles they want to do.

The Actual Stats

Consumer research firm Milieu Insight commissioned the survey of 1,000 people and the article goes on to share the other findings.

I'll quickly sum up those findings here, including what was mentioned above:

• Top 5 most essential jobs are the most undesirable jobs.

• Top 5 most non-essential jobs are the most desirable jobs.

• 2 in 3 respondents say impressions of essential workers have "improved a lot" or "improved a little" since COVID-19 happened.

• 17% of respondents said they are more interested in working as essential workers now.

• 17% of respondents said they are more open to having their children take up jobs as essential workers now.

• Half of the respondents would still not take up work as a construction worker, cleaner, or security guard even if salaries were tripled.

• "Nonetheless, respondents said that salary is very important, which suggested that for many, salary and the nature of a job go hand in hand." (Quote from the article.)

• 37% of respondents said the most important attribute of a job is if it matches their interests.

• About 22% of respondents ranked salary as the second-most important attribute of a job.

• Respondents aged 16 to 24 are more likely to view jobs such as lawyer, HR manager, and PR specialist as more essential than respondents aged 55 and above.

• "Younger people are also less likely than older people aged 45 and above to consider cleaning and garbage collection jobs as essential." (Quote from the article)

The "Balanced" Arguments

To make survey articles more interesting and more credible, journalists will tend to ask experts or people with authority for their opinions.

At least what I learned in journalism is that, news should be unbiased and factual, and when necessary, consist of facts and opinions from verified sources.

This article is peppered with supporting statements that further explain some of the statistics, or at least provide some perspective on them.

For example, on how people choose jobs, National University of Singapore (NUS) sociologist Vincent Chua said that there "is [a] 'social prestige' attached to the job", whether or not it is essential.

This explains why even though HR managers and PR specialists are non-essential, they are seen as more desirable.

Former managing partner at Accenture and an executive at several commercial and non-profit boards, Willie Cheng, said that the results of the survey "reflect Singapore's increasingly class-conscious society."

He pointed out that manual labour is "frowned upon in our knowledge society"... whatever "knowledge society" means.

Cheng also highlighted that the survey perpetuates the perception that those jobs are mainly done by migrant workers whose "availability has helped depress wages further".

He added that the survey shows that the attractiveness of a job does not always mean that it offers better pay.

Insufficient salary can cause one to feel dissatisfied at work but it isn't a motivating factor. Cheng considers achievement, recognition, and the nature of the work and progression as motivators.

I could go on to summarise these supporting statements, but honestly, you don't need experts to tell you all of these, right?

Here's my TL;DR: Singaporeans prefer more glamorous jobs than jobs that require them to do manual labour. Why? Because menial jobs tend to offer drastically lower salary, which would likely mean a lower quality of life, than those considered more glamorous.

Do any of these statements say artists are not essential or that doctors and nurses are better?

Just A Matter Of Semantics Or Taken Out Of Context?

This well-written blog post I stumbled upon while trying to find the full content of the article had put it this way: "So coming back to the article itself, perhaps it's wiser to have things defined as an immediate essentials vs non-immediate essentials rather comparing it as essentials vs non-essentials."

However, the author felt that ST's article was "insensitive" but speculated that it "might also be an agenda to push for another round of minimum or universal basic income... which will surely be raised from the opposition during the election rally not any longer from now."

There are more sentiments on the ground that The Online Citizen (TOC) has kindly compiled in their article here, if you'd like to read.

My Internet friends have also shared that ST could have better defined what is "essential" and what isn't.

Some have said that it wasn't necessary for them to show what are the top five most non-essential jobs because it doesn't contribute positively to the images of those professions.

Now, in an article published 16 June by Mustsharenews, one of the respondents who took the survey came out to share his experience.

Image Credit: Mustsharenews

According to his Facebook post, he was not informed of the purpose of the survey but it came off as a "government survey".

However, he said that the survey did clarify the meaning of "essential" and he took the survey with the definition in mind.

He also defined what is considered an artist to him—"a pure artist and a designer".

This survey respondent then updated his post, adding that he's a writer, and while he doesn't think he's essential "in today's context and climate", he believes his work is "valuable".

Whether or not my work is essential has no bearing on the value my work brings. The survey asked for "essential" and I did the survey keeping "essential" in mind.

On the same day, ST also published an article to address how the survey was conducted.

The reason ST commissioned the survey was because they wanted to shine a light on the importance of essential workers and "the discrepancy between their value to society and what they earn" during this COVID-19 situation.

And, that MPs had asked in Parliament "for more to be done" to boost wages of workers working in essential roles in the long-term.

It quoted the same definition of "essential" as the one the survey-respondent-writer gave.

Now that the dust has settled, what is the moral of the story?

ST should not have put that survey behind a paywall.

All jokes aside, I do think that the infographic was definitely taken out of context.

Since more people only saw the infographic by itself, or chose to only see the infographic, it triggered a vocal group in a society that uses more social media than reads the news.

The initial article should have also included the survey's definition of "essential" and perhaps, the voices of dissonance wouldn't have been so loud.

So, honestly, I'm not angry, and the initial article was pretty standard journalism stuff. But with full context, the whole saga could've been avoided and people would've been more understanding.