I refer to the letter “More public holidays may be better” (TODAYonline, Feb 19).
I do not disagree with the writer that more rest equals increased productivity and morale. However, although an increase in the number of public holidays may at first glance appear to benefit the workforce, workers might in fact not benefit, while Singapore’s competitiveness as a global financial hub could be affected.
The writer to some extent rightly compared Hong Kong with Singapore to support his proposition.
But I will submit that a flexible leave system for religious and personal matters is a better solution, as it will provide our manpower with the option to plan and allocate their well-deserved breaks with their family.
With more public holidays, professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) may end up carrying forward their workload or work from home during the holidays.
Meanwhile, frontline and service staff will still have to work on public holidays. If this happens, it defeats the purpose of having more public holidays.
I believe a flexible system is a better solution than having more fixed public holidays, as it would enable our workforce to truly enjoy their holidays and would also support work-life balance and flexi-work initiatives.
The ongoing discussion on public holidays has not considered the practicalities and will ultimately result in expectation gaps among various stakeholders in society.
We must balance the wider interests of our workforce, our multicultural society and our status as a financial hub, in our search for a solution.
In my opinion, it is more constructive for employers to adopt a decentralised and flexible approach to achieve employee satisfaction on this matter of public holidays.
I do not disagree with the writer that more rest equals increased productivity and morale. However, although an increase in the number of public holidays may at first glance appear to benefit the workforce, workers might in fact not benefit, while Singapore’s competitiveness as a global financial hub could be affected.
The writer to some extent rightly compared Hong Kong with Singapore to support his proposition.
But I will submit that a flexible leave system for religious and personal matters is a better solution, as it will provide our manpower with the option to plan and allocate their well-deserved breaks with their family.
With more public holidays, professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) may end up carrying forward their workload or work from home during the holidays.
Meanwhile, frontline and service staff will still have to work on public holidays. If this happens, it defeats the purpose of having more public holidays.
I believe a flexible system is a better solution than having more fixed public holidays, as it would enable our workforce to truly enjoy their holidays and would also support work-life balance and flexi-work initiatives.
The ongoing discussion on public holidays has not considered the practicalities and will ultimately result in expectation gaps among various stakeholders in society.
We must balance the wider interests of our workforce, our multicultural society and our status as a financial hub, in our search for a solution.
In my opinion, it is more constructive for employers to adopt a decentralised and flexible approach to achieve employee satisfaction on this matter of public holidays.
