1 00:00:03,369 --> 00:00:05,710 Speaker 1: You're listening to AC N A podcast. 2 00:00:07,019 --> 00:00:10,640 Speaker 1: How many of these non comlete clauses have you dealt with? 3 00:00:10,648 --> 00:00:10,930 Speaker 2: Well, this 4 00:00:10,939 --> 00:00:13,289 Speaker 2: is a very common thing. It's our bread and butter. 5 00:00:13,300 --> 00:00:15,989 Speaker 2: We joke dryly that this keeps the teams of our 6 00:00:16,000 --> 00:00:19,229 Speaker 2: lawyers employed and that's why I always gently tell business 7 00:00:19,239 --> 00:00:22,129 Speaker 2: owners and legal compliance and hr people, 8 00:00:22,235 --> 00:00:25,204 Speaker 2: please don't just go online and copy paste something and 9 00:00:25,215 --> 00:00:28,694 Speaker 2: just catch all and Google something and what we call 10 00:00:28,784 --> 00:00:32,694 Speaker 2: a Frankenstein a document out, right? If it matters to you, 11 00:00:32,705 --> 00:00:35,333 Speaker 2: then you really need to get proper legal advice to 12 00:00:35,345 --> 00:00:37,485 Speaker 2: make sure that it is crafted correctly. 13 00:00:39,259 --> 00:00:42,720 Speaker 1: Hi, everyone. It's Tiffany with Gerald here on the work 14 00:00:42,729 --> 00:00:45,759 Speaker 1: it podcast. We've been getting some lovely messages from you 15 00:00:45,770 --> 00:00:47,990 Speaker 1: and we've written back to some of you as well. 16 00:00:48,130 --> 00:00:51,130 Speaker 1: Keep those messages coming. We are at CN A podcasts 17 00:00:51,139 --> 00:00:54,990 Speaker 1: at mediacorp.com dot SG. One listener wrote in to say 18 00:00:55,069 --> 00:00:58,750 Speaker 1: that she hardly listens to podcasts and recently Gerald, she 19 00:00:58,759 --> 00:01:00,759 Speaker 1: got hooked on our content. 20 00:01:00,849 --> 00:01:04,259 Speaker 1: Yeah. Wow. Wow. Wow. I remember also recently getting hooked 21 00:01:04,269 --> 00:01:07,349 Speaker 1: onto podcasts while doing my morning runs. Usually I listen 22 00:01:07,360 --> 00:01:09,800 Speaker 1: to music but I think maybe the time can better 23 00:01:09,809 --> 00:01:13,110 Speaker 1: spend listening to some content and you know what, 30 minutes, 24 00:01:13,120 --> 00:01:15,440 Speaker 1: 20 minutes is just nice for our six Commuter run. 25 00:01:15,449 --> 00:01:18,389 Speaker 1: So happy that one more person finds our podcast useful. Yeah, 26 00:01:18,400 --> 00:01:21,419 Speaker 1: this same listener also has an a ma question for you. 27 00:01:22,440 --> 00:01:25,309 Speaker 1: Call her Samantha because she would prefer to remain anonymous. 28 00:01:25,430 --> 00:01:28,339 Speaker 1: So Samantha asks, how do you work in the team 29 00:01:28,349 --> 00:01:32,349 Speaker 1: where often bosses and even coworkers talk in a way 30 00:01:32,360 --> 00:01:36,529 Speaker 1: that's just up in the air with no tangible outcomes 31 00:01:36,540 --> 00:01:39,279 Speaker 1: in a meeting, Samantha. You know, it must really feel 32 00:01:39,290 --> 00:01:41,779 Speaker 1: so frustrating for you because it sounds like you're the 33 00:01:41,790 --> 00:01:43,900 Speaker 1: only person there who really wants to work. 34 00:01:44,949 --> 00:01:47,230 Speaker 1: So, yeah, I mean, I'm happy to unpack that later 35 00:01:47,239 --> 00:01:50,169 Speaker 1: for us. But let me get to our main discussion today. 36 00:01:50,180 --> 00:01:53,519 Speaker 1: Tiffany last week, I asked you about a topic related 37 00:01:53,529 --> 00:01:57,360 Speaker 1: to our podcast today about non competition clauses in your 38 00:01:57,370 --> 00:02:00,239 Speaker 1: employment contract. And how long is it? Yeah. So when 39 00:02:00,250 --> 00:02:02,519 Speaker 1: you asked me that question, I remember my reply to 40 00:02:02,529 --> 00:02:04,709 Speaker 1: you was, I know I have one but I, 41 00:02:04,815 --> 00:02:07,035 Speaker 1: I don't know how long it is and I don't 42 00:02:07,044 --> 00:02:09,975 Speaker 1: remember because I'm not looking for another job. So I 43 00:02:09,985 --> 00:02:13,024 Speaker 1: figured I'll pull that contract out when the time comes. 44 00:02:13,324 --> 00:02:16,085 Speaker 1: But for anyone who doesn't know what this is very quickly, 45 00:02:16,095 --> 00:02:19,835 Speaker 1: a non-compete clause can be found in employment contracts and 46 00:02:19,845 --> 00:02:22,913 Speaker 1: restricts employees from working with a competitor for a certain 47 00:02:22,925 --> 00:02:24,595 Speaker 1: time after termination. 48 00:02:24,839 --> 00:02:27,460 Speaker 1: So the duration could range from three months to even 49 00:02:27,470 --> 00:02:30,139 Speaker 1: two years. So a couple of days ago, I did 50 00:02:30,149 --> 00:02:31,910 Speaker 1: look through my contract again. Not that I was looking 51 00:02:31,919 --> 00:02:34,448 Speaker 1: for a job boss. If you're listening, it's really for 52 00:02:34,460 --> 00:02:39,500 Speaker 1: research purposes. My clause is three months, three months. I 53 00:02:39,508 --> 00:02:40,410 Speaker 1: don't have any sense of 54 00:02:40,529 --> 00:02:42,410 Speaker 1: how that feels like because I never had that in 55 00:02:42,419 --> 00:02:45,589 Speaker 1: my employment contracts in the past. Yeah. But I think 56 00:02:45,600 --> 00:02:47,869 Speaker 1: authorities in Singapore are actually working on a set of 57 00:02:47,880 --> 00:02:52,100 Speaker 1: guidelines regarding such clauses in employment contracts. Personally, I think 58 00:02:52,110 --> 00:02:54,520 Speaker 1: it's important to take note of this because I think 59 00:02:54,529 --> 00:02:56,110 Speaker 1: a lot of us we gloss over 60 00:02:56,360 --> 00:02:59,490 Speaker 1: the contracts we got over it because we don't take 61 00:02:59,500 --> 00:03:02,449 Speaker 1: note of this during the employment contract signing. Right? But 62 00:03:02,460 --> 00:03:04,160 Speaker 1: I think the question that most of us really want 63 00:03:04,169 --> 00:03:06,728 Speaker 1: to know with regard to these clauses is, are these 64 00:03:06,740 --> 00:03:10,418 Speaker 1: non compete clauses necessary? Should they be removed from our 65 00:03:10,429 --> 00:03:13,380 Speaker 1: employment contracts? And also what type of clauses must we 66 00:03:13,389 --> 00:03:16,509 Speaker 1: be more careful about? This is a really important topic. 67 00:03:16,520 --> 00:03:18,869 Speaker 1: Serious topics will be brought in a lawyer. We brought 68 00:03:18,880 --> 00:03:22,750 Speaker 1: in Jonathan Yuan, head of commercial litigation and employment disputes 69 00:03:22,758 --> 00:03:25,299 Speaker 1: at Raja and Tan Asia. Welcome Jonathan. 70 00:03:25,559 --> 00:03:28,289 Speaker 1: Hey, hi guys. Good morning. So Jonathan in your career 71 00:03:28,300 --> 00:03:32,000 Speaker 1: so far, how many of these noncom complete clauses have 72 00:03:32,008 --> 00:03:32,500 Speaker 1: you dealt 73 00:03:32,508 --> 00:03:32,859 Speaker 1: with? 74 00:03:33,000 --> 00:03:35,149 Speaker 2: Well, this is a very common thing. It's our bread 75 00:03:35,160 --> 00:03:37,940 Speaker 2: and butter. We joke dryly that this keeps the teams 76 00:03:37,949 --> 00:03:41,539 Speaker 2: of our lawyers employed because of the amount of conflicts 77 00:03:41,550 --> 00:03:44,649 Speaker 2: that these types of clauses generate and the conflicts generally 78 00:03:44,660 --> 00:03:46,940 Speaker 2: fall into employers attempting to 79 00:03:47,145 --> 00:03:50,304 Speaker 2: force these clauses, what we call in our industry, restrictive 80 00:03:50,315 --> 00:03:53,475 Speaker 2: covenants against employees who are about to leave or who 81 00:03:53,485 --> 00:03:56,455 Speaker 2: have just left or employees who come to us and say, hey, 82 00:03:56,464 --> 00:03:59,205 Speaker 2: just like you said, Tiffany, I'm thinking of leaving my job. Not, 83 00:03:59,214 --> 00:04:00,964 Speaker 2: you know, not that you are thinking of leaving your job. 84 00:04:01,524 --> 00:04:04,095 Speaker 2: That's right. Yes, yes, yes. I turn of phrase. 85 00:04:05,789 --> 00:04:07,979 Speaker 2: But when an employee says, hey, I'm thinking of leaving 86 00:04:07,990 --> 00:04:10,729 Speaker 2: my job. And for the first time, perhaps in 18 months, 87 00:04:10,740 --> 00:04:12,940 Speaker 2: 36 months, they pull out their contract, they dust it 88 00:04:12,949 --> 00:04:15,300 Speaker 2: from the drawers and then they say, what's this clause 89 00:04:15,309 --> 00:04:17,269 Speaker 2: that says that I can't work for a competitor for 90 00:04:17,279 --> 00:04:20,399 Speaker 2: 12 months and suddenly they say, oh, but I'm already 91 00:04:20,410 --> 00:04:24,019 Speaker 2: through my final round interview with this other company. I'm 92 00:04:24,029 --> 00:04:26,019 Speaker 2: not sure is that a competitor? But at the same time, 93 00:04:26,029 --> 00:04:27,279 Speaker 2: I don't want to talk to hr and then they 94 00:04:27,290 --> 00:04:30,859 Speaker 2: will report me to management. So that creates a certain 95 00:04:30,869 --> 00:04:33,209 Speaker 2: level of uncertainty. And this is not a common 96 00:04:33,500 --> 00:04:36,399 Speaker 2: topic just to Singapore. It's all over the world. In fact, 97 00:04:36,410 --> 00:04:40,609 Speaker 2: as early as last year and this year, other jurisdictions 98 00:04:40,619 --> 00:04:43,739 Speaker 2: like the UK and the US, they've enacted restrictions on 99 00:04:43,750 --> 00:04:46,519 Speaker 2: non compete clauses and everyone famously now knows that the 100 00:04:46,529 --> 00:04:49,829 Speaker 2: US FTC has sought to ban clauses, but the moment 101 00:04:49,839 --> 00:04:51,959 Speaker 2: they applied to be it. The Immigrant Chamber of Commerce 102 00:04:51,970 --> 00:04:52,399 Speaker 2: sued them 103 00:04:52,730 --> 00:04:54,450 Speaker 2: and saying that the ban was void. 104 00:04:54,519 --> 00:04:54,690 Speaker 1: I 105 00:04:54,700 --> 00:04:57,190 Speaker 1: thought that they had already gone through it and no 106 00:04:57,200 --> 00:05:00,609 Speaker 1: American contracts can have the non-compete clause in it. Yeah. 107 00:05:00,619 --> 00:05:03,059 Speaker 2: So it's a lot more nuanced than that. You can't 108 00:05:03,070 --> 00:05:06,579 Speaker 2: have it from 1st December onwards. But for those who 109 00:05:06,600 --> 00:05:08,380 Speaker 2: have had it before 110 00:05:08,674 --> 00:05:10,885 Speaker 2: they are able to continue. But in any event, the 111 00:05:10,894 --> 00:05:13,105 Speaker 2: entire thing is still up in the air. The process 112 00:05:13,113 --> 00:05:15,105 Speaker 2: is our American lawyer friends always joke with us and 113 00:05:15,113 --> 00:05:17,363 Speaker 2: said a lot of things are resolved through the courts 114 00:05:17,515 --> 00:05:20,734 Speaker 2: there and it will slowly wind its way through the 115 00:05:20,744 --> 00:05:23,644 Speaker 2: American judicial system. And then finally to have some kind 116 00:05:23,654 --> 00:05:24,535 Speaker 2: of form at the end 117 00:05:24,940 --> 00:05:28,579 Speaker 2: to see how American contracts subject to American law will 118 00:05:28,589 --> 00:05:31,390 Speaker 2: be interpreted these types of clauses. But in Singapore, our 119 00:05:31,399 --> 00:05:34,299 Speaker 2: courts are much more incompetent and our courts have already 120 00:05:34,309 --> 00:05:36,920 Speaker 2: had a long history of dealing with these clauses. Actually, 121 00:05:37,000 --> 00:05:39,010 Speaker 1: before we get into the technical side of it, actually, 122 00:05:39,019 --> 00:05:41,220 Speaker 1: I'm very curious. I, I look through your linkedin profile. 123 00:05:41,230 --> 00:05:43,558 Speaker 1: You moved firms as well. Did you ever have 124 00:05:43,670 --> 00:05:47,140 Speaker 1: non-compete clause? No. So in the law industry, there's no 125 00:05:47,149 --> 00:05:48,519 Speaker 1: non compete clause. Is it? 126 00:05:48,750 --> 00:05:51,368 Speaker 2: Well, I think it's very difficult part of the difficulty 127 00:05:51,380 --> 00:05:55,540 Speaker 2: of enforcing non compete clauses is that it actually has 128 00:05:55,549 --> 00:05:58,558 Speaker 2: to balance two important things. One is the ability of 129 00:05:58,570 --> 00:06:02,369 Speaker 2: the company or the firm to protect their legitimate proprietary interests, right? 130 00:06:02,640 --> 00:06:06,309 Speaker 2: Their secrets, their know how and the amount of effort 131 00:06:06,320 --> 00:06:08,220 Speaker 2: they have invested in that employee, right? 132 00:06:08,779 --> 00:06:12,820 Speaker 2: But on the other hand, there's that equally valuable aspect 133 00:06:12,829 --> 00:06:16,880 Speaker 2: of human mobility that will lead to human innovation development 134 00:06:16,890 --> 00:06:17,630 Speaker 2: in society. 135 00:06:18,220 --> 00:06:21,579 Speaker 2: And if you were to push the needle to one 136 00:06:21,589 --> 00:06:25,079 Speaker 2: side or the other, then it would speaking philosophically upset 137 00:06:25,089 --> 00:06:27,630 Speaker 2: the balance of society and the courts have this very 138 00:06:27,640 --> 00:06:31,988 Speaker 2: difficult task of balancing it. Now, why is it so 139 00:06:32,000 --> 00:06:36,769 Speaker 2: difficult to put this on working professionals in particular doctors 140 00:06:36,779 --> 00:06:40,359 Speaker 2: and lawyers? And I speak very, very generally. And that's 141 00:06:40,369 --> 00:06:43,549 Speaker 2: because in these fields and in many other fields as well, 142 00:06:44,279 --> 00:06:48,219 Speaker 2: a lot of the equity of the departing employee is 143 00:06:48,230 --> 00:06:51,890 Speaker 2: actually personal equity. So let me, let me just let 144 00:06:51,899 --> 00:06:54,219 Speaker 2: me just pose this question back to you. OK, Tiffany, 145 00:06:54,510 --> 00:06:57,988 Speaker 2: you go to your dentist, let's call him doctor X 146 00:06:58,320 --> 00:07:01,630 Speaker 2: and Doctor X practices at a certain medical chain. And 147 00:07:01,640 --> 00:07:04,219 Speaker 2: one day doctor X tells you, hey, Tiffany, I'm going 148 00:07:04,230 --> 00:07:06,859 Speaker 2: off to leave this chain and I'm going to open 149 00:07:06,920 --> 00:07:11,339 Speaker 2: a dental clinic and it's going to be in location X. Yeah. 150 00:07:11,880 --> 00:07:15,040 Speaker 2: And Tiffany, you've been seeking treatment from this dentist for 151 00:07:15,049 --> 00:07:15,690 Speaker 2: the last 10 years, 152 00:07:15,730 --> 00:07:19,179 Speaker 1: definitely follow this dentist because I know that this dentist 153 00:07:19,190 --> 00:07:21,660 Speaker 1: can offer me the service and can calm me down. 154 00:07:21,700 --> 00:07:22,700 Speaker 1: I mean, that's right. 155 00:07:22,709 --> 00:07:22,890 Speaker 2: So 156 00:07:22,899 --> 00:07:25,910 Speaker 2: your relationship with that service provider is a very personal 157 00:07:25,920 --> 00:07:26,179 Speaker 2: one 158 00:07:26,190 --> 00:07:28,140 Speaker 1: and you can't just say, oh then sorry, you cannot 159 00:07:28,149 --> 00:07:28,790 Speaker 1: be a dentist. 160 00:07:28,799 --> 00:07:29,459 Speaker 2: Exactly 161 00:07:29,470 --> 00:07:30,510 Speaker 1: like you serve out 162 00:07:30,790 --> 00:07:31,760 Speaker 1: compete clause. 163 00:07:31,769 --> 00:07:34,920 Speaker 2: Exactly. So sometimes employers say, let us put in a 164 00:07:34,929 --> 00:07:37,970 Speaker 2: non compete clause that is as extensive as possible. Let's 165 00:07:37,980 --> 00:07:41,079 Speaker 2: throw in all the bells and whistles. And by competitor 166 00:07:41,089 --> 00:07:43,019 Speaker 2: they open chat G BT or they go to Google 167 00:07:43,029 --> 00:07:45,799 Speaker 2: and they say let's define competitor as widely as possible. 168 00:07:45,809 --> 00:07:48,440 Speaker 2: So for example, if you sell a beverage with caffeine 169 00:07:48,450 --> 00:07:49,600 Speaker 2: in it, and then you say, well, 170 00:07:49,829 --> 00:07:54,390 Speaker 2: anyone that works in beverage with caffeine industry, sub slice segment, 171 00:07:54,399 --> 00:07:57,750 Speaker 2: but also in the beverage segment and in the yogurt segment. 172 00:07:57,760 --> 00:07:59,940 Speaker 2: And in the anything liquid that goes into your mouth 173 00:07:59,950 --> 00:08:02,089 Speaker 2: segment is defined as a competitor. 174 00:08:02,779 --> 00:08:02,850 Speaker 1: I 175 00:08:02,859 --> 00:08:04,899 Speaker 1: mean, you have to, you don't have to be 176 00:08:04,910 --> 00:08:05,730 Speaker 2: a lawyer 177 00:08:06,059 --> 00:08:06,489 Speaker 1: to, 178 00:08:06,920 --> 00:08:10,809 Speaker 2: to realize that that is completely unenforceable and it is arbitrary, 179 00:08:10,820 --> 00:08:12,989 Speaker 2: it is unfair. But let me now toss the question 180 00:08:13,000 --> 00:08:13,589 Speaker 2: back to you. 181 00:08:14,480 --> 00:08:17,570 Speaker 2: If you were an employer, imagine both of you. Well, Jared, 182 00:08:17,579 --> 00:08:20,799 Speaker 2: you run your own business, right? And you let's say, 183 00:08:21,109 --> 00:08:23,660 Speaker 2: have a very special project that you're doing and you 184 00:08:23,670 --> 00:08:26,750 Speaker 2: went out and you hired a very special person, design 185 00:08:26,760 --> 00:08:30,260 Speaker 2: something custom for this. And let's say in your industry, 186 00:08:30,269 --> 00:08:34,419 Speaker 2: there are only two or three players making it somewhat oligopolistic. 187 00:08:34,429 --> 00:08:37,729 Speaker 2: You invest hundreds of thousands of dollars, millions of dollars 188 00:08:37,739 --> 00:08:40,439 Speaker 2: into this project and and it's led by this brain 189 00:08:40,450 --> 00:08:42,010 Speaker 2: trust that you have hired 190 00:08:42,890 --> 00:08:46,599 Speaker 2: and in your restrictive covenant you say that you my 191 00:08:46,609 --> 00:08:50,520 Speaker 2: dear special hire. If you leave me before three years 192 00:08:50,679 --> 00:08:53,939 Speaker 2: or for a period of 12 months after you can 193 00:08:53,950 --> 00:08:56,049 Speaker 2: do anything you want. But you may not work for 194 00:08:56,059 --> 00:09:00,250 Speaker 2: my competitor, competitor B and competitor C because these competitor 195 00:09:00,260 --> 00:09:01,358 Speaker 2: B and C are 196 00:09:01,780 --> 00:09:06,080 Speaker 2: competing with us in this, for example, direct biotech bid 197 00:09:06,090 --> 00:09:09,030 Speaker 2: to get a contract from the Singapore government to develop 198 00:09:09,039 --> 00:09:13,478 Speaker 2: something and the terms are very set. Now, in that case, 199 00:09:13,489 --> 00:09:17,599 Speaker 2: because of the very high resolution of the definition of 200 00:09:17,609 --> 00:09:18,299 Speaker 2: the catchment, 201 00:09:18,830 --> 00:09:21,489 Speaker 2: it is going to be held to be valid against 202 00:09:21,500 --> 00:09:24,390 Speaker 2: that person because the courts are going to be saying, look, 203 00:09:24,400 --> 00:09:26,739 Speaker 2: it's really unfair that your employer spend so much time 204 00:09:26,750 --> 00:09:29,468 Speaker 2: effort money on you to do this one job, you 205 00:09:29,479 --> 00:09:32,630 Speaker 2: have this one job, right? And then you quit this 206 00:09:32,640 --> 00:09:35,539 Speaker 2: one job and then you go to the same competitor 207 00:09:35,549 --> 00:09:39,469 Speaker 2: that is pitching against you for this same job, right? 208 00:09:39,479 --> 00:09:42,059 Speaker 2: You can't slap a non-compete on a, I don't know, 209 00:09:42,070 --> 00:09:44,039 Speaker 2: let's say a gym trainer. Yeah, say, 210 00:09:44,250 --> 00:09:46,590 Speaker 2: hey, you can't work for any other gym in the 211 00:09:46,599 --> 00:09:49,400 Speaker 2: CBD for 18 months after this. I mean, that's nonsensical. 212 00:09:49,409 --> 00:09:50,640 Speaker 2: Then what do you expect the guy to do? I mean, 213 00:09:50,690 --> 00:09:50,869 Speaker 2: so 214 00:09:50,880 --> 00:09:51,250 Speaker 1: you're saying 215 00:09:51,260 --> 00:09:53,890 Speaker 1: that for somebody like Gerald who owns a business, if 216 00:09:53,900 --> 00:09:56,669 Speaker 1: they want to add a non-compete clause, it will make 217 00:09:56,679 --> 00:09:59,200 Speaker 1: more sense for them to be a bit more specific 218 00:09:59,429 --> 00:10:00,710 Speaker 1: about what are the 219 00:10:00,799 --> 00:10:05,169 Speaker 1: parameters that this non compete clause will cover whereas somebody 220 00:10:05,179 --> 00:10:07,429 Speaker 1: who is like maybe running like a service provider like 221 00:10:07,440 --> 00:10:10,349 Speaker 1: your gym, your dentist, you know, somebody that's providing a 222 00:10:10,359 --> 00:10:14,890 Speaker 1: service to customers might not be able to invoke such 223 00:10:14,900 --> 00:10:16,460 Speaker 1: a clause in the, in the 224 00:10:16,630 --> 00:10:17,090 Speaker 1: courts. 225 00:10:17,659 --> 00:10:20,640 Speaker 2: Now, this is not to say that employers don't have rights, 226 00:10:20,919 --> 00:10:24,280 Speaker 2: but I think the courts are leaning towards other ways 227 00:10:24,289 --> 00:10:26,880 Speaker 2: to protect these rights. There's also another clause known as 228 00:10:26,890 --> 00:10:31,159 Speaker 2: a confidentiality clause. OK. And that confidentiality clause is something 229 00:10:31,169 --> 00:10:34,619 Speaker 2: that basically states that whatever you learn from the company 230 00:10:34,630 --> 00:10:37,460 Speaker 2: or the secrets that you've been entrusted with. Let's say 231 00:10:37,469 --> 00:10:39,669 Speaker 2: you are a marketing manager in the firm that sells 232 00:10:39,679 --> 00:10:40,359 Speaker 2: perfume and 233 00:10:40,609 --> 00:10:44,010 Speaker 2: you now know the perfume price points, how much you 234 00:10:44,020 --> 00:10:47,020 Speaker 2: buy it from which supplier you can't take that and 235 00:10:47,030 --> 00:10:50,750 Speaker 2: use that information against the company after you leave. Now, 236 00:10:50,760 --> 00:10:53,479 Speaker 2: then the court say, well, confidentiality clause is sufficient to 237 00:10:53,489 --> 00:10:55,340 Speaker 2: protect the employer's interest. And why do you need a 238 00:10:55,349 --> 00:10:58,728 Speaker 2: non competition clause? Right? You can still go and work 239 00:10:58,739 --> 00:10:59,710 Speaker 2: for a competitor 240 00:11:00,010 --> 00:11:02,650 Speaker 2: as long as you don't divulge the secrets that you 241 00:11:02,659 --> 00:11:05,070 Speaker 2: learned during the course of work with your previous employer. 242 00:11:05,080 --> 00:11:07,669 Speaker 1: But, but then, you know, I also wonder about whether 243 00:11:07,679 --> 00:11:09,900 Speaker 1: that's realistic or not because most of the time, many 244 00:11:09,909 --> 00:11:12,890 Speaker 1: times employers hire someone and they know they bring that 245 00:11:12,900 --> 00:11:16,119 Speaker 1: person in for their networks and their expertise. I mean, 246 00:11:16,130 --> 00:11:17,869 Speaker 1: if there's no noncompeting clauses, 247 00:11:18,239 --> 00:11:21,840 Speaker 1: then I think sometimes it's confidentiality can also like, it's 248 00:11:21,849 --> 00:11:23,460 Speaker 1: like a rubber band. I see it. You know, how 249 00:11:23,469 --> 00:11:26,239 Speaker 1: much can you stretch? And at some point of time, 250 00:11:26,250 --> 00:11:29,159 Speaker 1: employers when been hiring, they always go for what you 251 00:11:29,169 --> 00:11:31,119 Speaker 1: are able to bring. Right? I mean, if I were 252 00:11:31,130 --> 00:11:34,309 Speaker 1: to give an example, the recruitment agencies in Singapore, a 253 00:11:34,340 --> 00:11:37,010 Speaker 1: lot of them, they have clauses like that non compete 254 00:11:37,020 --> 00:11:40,219 Speaker 1: for six months, one year because the relationship they have 255 00:11:40,229 --> 00:11:43,260 Speaker 1: with the companies for recruitment, it's pretty personal. 256 00:11:43,530 --> 00:11:45,840 Speaker 1: So a lot of them when I speak to some 257 00:11:45,849 --> 00:11:48,069 Speaker 1: of them, they do tell me that, oh, I can't 258 00:11:48,080 --> 00:11:50,580 Speaker 1: move because I've done recruit my whole life. But I'm 259 00:11:50,590 --> 00:11:52,949 Speaker 1: kind of stuck here because if I want to move now, 260 00:11:53,309 --> 00:11:54,820 Speaker 1: I got to sit out here or if I move, 261 00:11:54,830 --> 00:11:58,080 Speaker 1: I cannot bring any of my clients over. So there 262 00:11:58,090 --> 00:12:02,348 Speaker 1: are some industries where non-compete clauses are very 263 00:12:02,359 --> 00:12:03,090 Speaker 1: necessary. 264 00:12:03,099 --> 00:12:05,820 Speaker 2: That's right. And that's why the whole point is not 265 00:12:05,830 --> 00:12:08,339 Speaker 2: the general principles because the three of us have agreed 266 00:12:08,349 --> 00:12:09,819 Speaker 2: that these general principles are 267 00:12:10,219 --> 00:12:13,070 Speaker 2: acceptable on both sides. I think, as we always say 268 00:12:13,080 --> 00:12:14,960 Speaker 2: in our industry, the devil is in the details, right? 269 00:12:14,969 --> 00:12:17,369 Speaker 2: And it goes on to the granular. So Gerald coming 270 00:12:17,380 --> 00:12:19,319 Speaker 2: back to your point, you give the example of the 271 00:12:19,330 --> 00:12:22,830 Speaker 2: recruitment industry and I have seen cases and fought cases 272 00:12:22,840 --> 00:12:25,299 Speaker 2: that have gone either way and you know what difference 273 00:12:25,309 --> 00:12:28,309 Speaker 2: it makes, the difference it makes is in the specificity 274 00:12:28,320 --> 00:12:30,839 Speaker 2: and in the carefulness in which the clause was drafted. 275 00:12:31,330 --> 00:12:35,500 Speaker 2: Because if the employer says, for example, Mr Tan, you 276 00:12:35,510 --> 00:12:37,659 Speaker 2: will be given these sets of clients 277 00:12:38,200 --> 00:12:41,340 Speaker 2: and you are to grow them, right? OK. If you 278 00:12:41,349 --> 00:12:45,059 Speaker 2: leave and go and join another competitor, you are not 279 00:12:45,070 --> 00:12:48,049 Speaker 2: allowed to touch any of these clients. So this then 280 00:12:48,059 --> 00:12:50,669 Speaker 2: comes under a different clause called a non solicit clause. 281 00:12:50,679 --> 00:12:52,270 Speaker 2: Maybe we should have started off with this right? that 282 00:12:52,280 --> 00:12:54,869 Speaker 2: there are these three clauses that are like the triumph 283 00:12:55,030 --> 00:12:59,098 Speaker 2: of employment restrictions. The number one, the non compete clause 284 00:12:59,109 --> 00:13:02,219 Speaker 2: which ostensibly prevents you from working for a competitor or 285 00:13:02,229 --> 00:13:04,468 Speaker 2: in the competing industry. And number two, the 286 00:13:06,789 --> 00:13:10,849 Speaker 2: soliciting means to take, to invite to pull over your colleagues, 287 00:13:10,859 --> 00:13:15,210 Speaker 2: your fellow employees and more importantly, your customers. Yes, the 288 00:13:15,219 --> 00:13:20,309 Speaker 2: third pillar is the confidentiality clause. So amongst these three clauses, 289 00:13:20,320 --> 00:13:23,010 Speaker 2: the courts have been looking at them and I think 290 00:13:23,159 --> 00:13:26,450 Speaker 2: as a practitioner, it trenches we get the sense that 291 00:13:26,460 --> 00:13:29,919 Speaker 2: the courts are going to well and have been putting 292 00:13:29,929 --> 00:13:32,510 Speaker 2: non-compete clauses under much greater scrutiny. 293 00:13:33,250 --> 00:13:37,119 Speaker 2: And I think that is why our own minister has basically, 294 00:13:37,130 --> 00:13:39,390 Speaker 2: and mom has basically said that they will be issuing 295 00:13:39,400 --> 00:13:43,320 Speaker 2: guidelines soon. We are all waiting with bated breath. But 296 00:13:43,330 --> 00:13:45,450 Speaker 2: I think we would say that it's not going to 297 00:13:45,460 --> 00:13:48,280 Speaker 2: depart too far from what the courts have already established 298 00:13:48,289 --> 00:13:50,830 Speaker 2: because the courts have established quite a robust framework in 299 00:13:50,840 --> 00:13:51,760 Speaker 2: determining whether 300 00:13:52,030 --> 00:13:54,140 Speaker 2: non-compete clauses are valid or not. 301 00:13:54,210 --> 00:13:55,179 Speaker 1: So what 302 00:13:55,190 --> 00:13:57,650 Speaker 1: are some cases that you have seen being thrown out 303 00:13:57,659 --> 00:13:57,770 Speaker 1: of 304 00:13:57,780 --> 00:13:58,409 Speaker 1: courts? 305 00:13:58,690 --> 00:14:02,809 Speaker 2: Well, we've recently had the unfortunate case which was splashed 306 00:14:02,820 --> 00:14:06,010 Speaker 2: all over the news where Shopee sought to prevent a 307 00:14:06,020 --> 00:14:10,098 Speaker 2: former employee from accepting employment with Byte Dance. The ex 308 00:14:10,229 --> 00:14:13,549 Speaker 2: employees last role was head of operations for Shopee Brazil, 309 00:14:13,559 --> 00:14:16,090 Speaker 2: a market in which this Tik Tok shop did not operate. 310 00:14:16,570 --> 00:14:18,859 Speaker 2: So, one of Shay's main arguments was that the ex 311 00:14:18,960 --> 00:14:22,109 Speaker 2: employee was allegedly privy to confidential information as he had 312 00:14:22,119 --> 00:14:26,869 Speaker 2: participated in regional operations meetings. But the judge deemed that 313 00:14:26,880 --> 00:14:31,090 Speaker 2: the non compete clause was unenforceable as the commercially sensitive 314 00:14:31,099 --> 00:14:31,869 Speaker 2: information was 315 00:14:32,320 --> 00:14:36,020 Speaker 2: protected by a confidentiality agreement. So the court is basically 316 00:14:36,030 --> 00:14:38,830 Speaker 1: saying you already have one agreement. Why do you need, 317 00:14:38,840 --> 00:14:39,179 Speaker 1: do we 318 00:14:39,239 --> 00:14:39,989 Speaker 1: need to do this? 319 00:14:40,000 --> 00:14:44,549 Speaker 2: Because the second one, the non-compete actually imposes a disproportionate cost, 320 00:14:44,559 --> 00:14:47,630 Speaker 2: not just on the individual but society as well. So 321 00:14:48,530 --> 00:14:52,330 Speaker 2: in crafting non-compete clauses and that's why I always gently 322 00:14:52,340 --> 00:14:56,770 Speaker 2: tell business owners and legal compliance and hr people please 323 00:14:56,780 --> 00:14:59,719 Speaker 2: don't just go online and copy paste something and just 324 00:15:00,169 --> 00:15:03,000 Speaker 2: catch all and Google something and what we call a 325 00:15:03,010 --> 00:15:07,969 Speaker 2: Frankenstein a document out, right? Yeah, if it matters to you, 326 00:15:07,979 --> 00:15:10,570 Speaker 2: then you really need to get proper legal advice to 327 00:15:10,580 --> 00:15:11,739 Speaker 2: make sure that it is craft 328 00:15:12,007 --> 00:15:15,666 Speaker 2: correctly. And as we discussed briefly just now how you 329 00:15:15,677 --> 00:15:20,497 Speaker 2: slice the definition of a competitor is crucial, right? And 330 00:15:20,507 --> 00:15:22,536 Speaker 2: I think one of the biggest mistakes we see when 331 00:15:22,546 --> 00:15:26,406 Speaker 2: we do health checks for companies through their documentation and 332 00:15:26,416 --> 00:15:28,406 Speaker 2: we do that very frequently is that we find the 333 00:15:28,416 --> 00:15:31,606 Speaker 2: same clause that applies to the coffee auntie that applies 334 00:15:31,617 --> 00:15:34,367 Speaker 2: to the first year graduate that joins all the way 335 00:15:34,377 --> 00:15:35,117 Speaker 2: up to the ceo 336 00:15:35,364 --> 00:15:38,994 Speaker 2: same clause, the same words and maybe sometimes they change 337 00:15:39,033 --> 00:15:40,174 Speaker 2: for the junior employee 338 00:15:41,854 --> 00:15:41,914 Speaker 1: something 339 00:15:42,244 --> 00:15:45,333 Speaker 2: else. Exactly. And you want to ask yourself if it 340 00:15:45,513 --> 00:15:50,023 Speaker 2: is important to you to protect that slice of proprietary information. 341 00:15:50,033 --> 00:15:51,323 Speaker 2: I think you need to put a little bit more 342 00:15:51,333 --> 00:15:55,473 Speaker 2: effort into defining the job score of each people. So, 343 00:15:55,484 --> 00:15:57,143 Speaker 2: you mean, we have to go through every contract and 344 00:15:57,153 --> 00:15:58,823 Speaker 2: slice it differently for each tier 345 00:15:58,911 --> 00:16:01,731 Speaker 2: of people. And then the answer is yes. Yes. I mean, 346 00:16:01,741 --> 00:16:02,791 Speaker 2: if it's important to you, 347 00:16:02,801 --> 00:16:05,611 Speaker 1: then if you're going to use it against your employee 348 00:16:05,620 --> 00:16:06,851 Speaker 1: later on, you better start. 349 00:16:06,901 --> 00:16:08,130 Speaker 2: Exactly. I 350 00:16:08,431 --> 00:16:08,460 Speaker 1: said, 351 00:16:08,750 --> 00:16:11,731 Speaker 2: you know, but I, I think, and I joke about 352 00:16:11,741 --> 00:16:13,630 Speaker 2: this all the time as lawyers are a bit like 353 00:16:13,640 --> 00:16:16,010 Speaker 2: dentists and no offense to dentists. But I always tell 354 00:16:16,020 --> 00:16:18,531 Speaker 2: my dentist, I love you, but I, I always try 355 00:16:18,541 --> 00:16:20,431 Speaker 2: not to see you as much as possible. Right. So, 356 00:16:20,481 --> 00:16:22,330 Speaker 2: I think in the same way, 357 00:16:22,599 --> 00:16:26,010 Speaker 2: ah, a lot of people don't want to involve lawyers 358 00:16:26,020 --> 00:16:28,419 Speaker 2: right at the beginning because of, I don't know, fear 359 00:16:28,429 --> 00:16:30,940 Speaker 2: or because of cost or whatever. But I think as 360 00:16:30,950 --> 00:16:33,599 Speaker 2: you said, right on point, if it matters to you, 361 00:16:33,609 --> 00:16:36,460 Speaker 2: then you need to take the time, effort and resources 362 00:16:36,469 --> 00:16:40,270 Speaker 2: to think through it properly rather than slapping a clause 363 00:16:40,280 --> 00:16:42,940 Speaker 2: from an old template or because my predecessor used it. 364 00:16:42,950 --> 00:16:44,559 Speaker 2: So I just copy, paste the whole thing and then 365 00:16:44,570 --> 00:16:46,020 Speaker 2: to ask yourself a simple question, 366 00:16:46,450 --> 00:16:50,020 Speaker 2: if I have a confidentiality clause and I also have 367 00:16:50,030 --> 00:16:52,239 Speaker 2: a non solicit clause. And I also have this non 368 00:16:52,340 --> 00:16:55,090 Speaker 2: competition clause. How do they all work in concert with 369 00:16:55,099 --> 00:16:55,710 Speaker 2: each other? 370 00:16:56,330 --> 00:16:59,630 Speaker 1: So if companies want to have these sort of like 371 00:16:59,640 --> 00:17:04,229 Speaker 1: three overarching different type of clauses, how would you as 372 00:17:04,239 --> 00:17:07,560 Speaker 1: a lawyer advise them, take what out or how do 373 00:17:07,569 --> 00:17:07,709 Speaker 1: you 374 00:17:07,795 --> 00:17:10,824 Speaker 1: change certain things in the three clauses? 375 00:17:10,834 --> 00:17:13,175 Speaker 2: And, and I think that's a great question because very 376 00:17:13,185 --> 00:17:16,395 Speaker 2: often at our level, we're involved in high stakes negotiation 377 00:17:16,405 --> 00:17:20,255 Speaker 2: for senior management and senior management when they come, they 378 00:17:20,265 --> 00:17:22,114 Speaker 2: know they are worth. So they will probably have their 379 00:17:22,125 --> 00:17:25,344 Speaker 2: own lawyers as well. And I know this situation isn't 380 00:17:25,354 --> 00:17:27,004 Speaker 2: applicable to everybody. I mean, you can't go for a 381 00:17:27,015 --> 00:17:29,055 Speaker 2: job interview with your lawyer and to say 382 00:17:30,050 --> 00:17:31,989 Speaker 2: my lawyer is going to negotiate my contract, 383 00:17:32,859 --> 00:17:34,469 Speaker 2: but I think you should still take your contract and 384 00:17:34,479 --> 00:17:36,310 Speaker 2: run by a lawyer and just to get a sense 385 00:17:36,319 --> 00:17:39,099 Speaker 2: of perspective as to what things like. But when we 386 00:17:39,109 --> 00:17:42,079 Speaker 2: act for employers and we do this, not just for 387 00:17:42,089 --> 00:17:45,800 Speaker 2: high level employees, but for even mid-level employees, we say, look, 388 00:17:45,810 --> 00:17:47,899 Speaker 2: let's start off first with the jobs that matter to you, 389 00:17:47,910 --> 00:17:50,520 Speaker 2: meaning that if this person, person acts were to leave 390 00:17:50,530 --> 00:17:53,560 Speaker 2: your organization and go to somewhere else and do the 391 00:17:53,569 --> 00:17:56,688 Speaker 2: same role and hit the same customers, will this be 392 00:17:56,699 --> 00:17:58,719 Speaker 2: detrimental to you? And if the answer is yes. And 393 00:17:58,729 --> 00:17:59,599 Speaker 2: how do we stop that? 394 00:18:00,300 --> 00:18:02,930 Speaker 2: How do we protect you better? Do we protect you 395 00:18:02,939 --> 00:18:07,310 Speaker 2: by way of armoring up your confidentiality clause by your 396 00:18:07,319 --> 00:18:08,930 Speaker 2: non solicit clause or do we do it by a 397 00:18:08,939 --> 00:18:12,109 Speaker 2: non competition? Is it feasible? And so these things take 398 00:18:12,119 --> 00:18:13,239 Speaker 2: time to work through? 399 00:18:13,569 --> 00:18:16,750 Speaker 1: I, I'm just thinking, ok, at the point of applying 400 00:18:16,760 --> 00:18:20,680 Speaker 1: for the job, right, then we negotiate the pay package 401 00:18:20,689 --> 00:18:24,150 Speaker 1: and everything and then they give me the contract oftentimes 402 00:18:24,160 --> 00:18:27,010 Speaker 1: I'm not going to be looking through you say, bring 403 00:18:27,020 --> 00:18:29,459 Speaker 1: your lawyer friend along or have a lawyer friend. Look 404 00:18:29,469 --> 00:18:32,069 Speaker 1: at it even if my lawyer friend flags up clause 405 00:18:32,079 --> 00:18:34,489 Speaker 1: number 13 is not going to be beneficial for you 406 00:18:34,500 --> 00:18:36,219 Speaker 1: because it's the non-compete clause. 407 00:18:36,790 --> 00:18:38,910 Speaker 1: I go back to the company and I said, could 408 00:18:38,920 --> 00:18:41,229 Speaker 1: you please take it out? I can tell you from 409 00:18:41,239 --> 00:18:43,540 Speaker 1: the worker's point of view. 10 out of 10 hr 410 00:18:43,550 --> 00:18:46,640 Speaker 1: is going to go sorry, this is a templated contract. 411 00:18:46,650 --> 00:18:48,359 Speaker 1: So either you take it or you leave it. So 412 00:18:48,459 --> 00:18:49,829 Speaker 1: somebody like myself, what can 413 00:18:49,839 --> 00:18:50,430 Speaker 1: I do then 414 00:18:50,439 --> 00:18:52,969 Speaker 2: can I say something quite bold? I think that a 415 00:18:52,979 --> 00:18:56,140 Speaker 2: lot of employees don't realize their worth. And I think 416 00:18:56,150 --> 00:18:58,649 Speaker 2: part of it, I'm not saying that all employers are malignant. 417 00:18:58,660 --> 00:19:01,000 Speaker 2: I'm saying that a lot of hr people are just 418 00:19:01,010 --> 00:19:04,119 Speaker 2: running on inertia. This is what the template I have 419 00:19:04,130 --> 00:19:06,130 Speaker 2: my predecessor use it. I'm using it. And 420 00:19:06,459 --> 00:19:09,989 Speaker 2: if you think about it, this response, oh, this is 421 00:19:10,000 --> 00:19:13,329 Speaker 2: the standard template. Isn't that such a disingenuous answer? I mean, 422 00:19:13,339 --> 00:19:15,599 Speaker 2: it's like it's a thoughtless answer. It is not a 423 00:19:15,609 --> 00:19:19,438 Speaker 2: thinking person's answer and you should ask and say, well, why, 424 00:19:19,739 --> 00:19:22,030 Speaker 2: I mean, I'm not sure why I need to have 425 00:19:22,040 --> 00:19:25,219 Speaker 2: a non compete. And part of this is your own 426 00:19:25,229 --> 00:19:26,719 Speaker 2: interaction with the company 427 00:19:27,410 --> 00:19:30,349 Speaker 2: that then allows you to understand the culture of this company. 428 00:19:31,209 --> 00:19:33,329 Speaker 2: And you have to ask yourself, do you really want 429 00:19:33,339 --> 00:19:36,550 Speaker 2: to work for a company? If you talk to the 430 00:19:36,560 --> 00:19:38,630 Speaker 2: hr and you don't get any headway, maybe you talk 431 00:19:38,640 --> 00:19:41,150 Speaker 2: to your new potential direct report boss. And he says, 432 00:19:41,160 --> 00:19:42,629 Speaker 2: you know what, Tiffany just suck it up. 433 00:19:43,199 --> 00:19:45,280 Speaker 2: This is the way we've always done things around here, 434 00:19:45,290 --> 00:19:49,380 Speaker 2: red flag, red flag, right? So I think employees should 435 00:19:49,390 --> 00:19:52,969 Speaker 2: not put themselves down into a box too often. They 436 00:19:52,979 --> 00:19:57,089 Speaker 2: should respectfully but genuinely question why certain bits of their 437 00:19:57,099 --> 00:19:59,479 Speaker 2: contract should or should not be there at the end 438 00:19:59,489 --> 00:20:02,310 Speaker 2: of the day. It's a negotiation between two parties, right? 439 00:20:02,319 --> 00:20:05,379 Speaker 2: Willing buyer, willing seller. Likewise, if you're the employer 440 00:20:05,849 --> 00:20:08,939 Speaker 2: and then you have this employee that's challenging every clause 441 00:20:08,949 --> 00:20:11,579 Speaker 2: in your contract, you know, and then you're thinking, do 442 00:20:11,589 --> 00:20:13,630 Speaker 2: I really want this person, I mean, she hasn't even 443 00:20:13,640 --> 00:20:17,129 Speaker 2: started and she's already questioning everything and tearing my contract apart. Now, 444 00:20:17,140 --> 00:20:19,560 Speaker 2: of course, what the employer understands. Well, maybe it should 445 00:20:19,569 --> 00:20:21,899 Speaker 2: have been written better, I suppose at the end of 446 00:20:21,910 --> 00:20:25,229 Speaker 2: the day, it's about the way you communicate your queries, right? 447 00:20:25,250 --> 00:20:29,109 Speaker 2: Instead of being antagonistic and confrontational, be respectful and 448 00:20:29,469 --> 00:20:32,630 Speaker 2: truly genuine, of seeking an answer to find a compromise 449 00:20:32,640 --> 00:20:33,189 Speaker 2: can be reached. 450 00:20:33,199 --> 00:20:33,459 Speaker 1: I think 451 00:20:33,469 --> 00:20:35,099 Speaker 1: the key word here is a compromise. I like what 452 00:20:35,109 --> 00:20:39,119 Speaker 1: Jonathan said about not coming across as confrontational. I think 453 00:20:39,130 --> 00:20:41,680 Speaker 1: most job seekers at that stage feel that they have 454 00:20:41,689 --> 00:20:44,679 Speaker 1: very little to negotiate on because they really want to 455 00:20:44,689 --> 00:20:46,379 Speaker 1: secure the job, right? They just want to get the 456 00:20:46,390 --> 00:20:48,609 Speaker 1: employer to say yes, sign off the contract. But 457 00:20:48,979 --> 00:20:51,839 Speaker 1: I think if today we would exercise what Jonathan said 458 00:20:51,849 --> 00:20:55,260 Speaker 1: about that worth that we have and seek to maybe 459 00:20:55,290 --> 00:20:59,199 Speaker 1: make the contract better to compromise. That's very ideal. But 460 00:20:59,209 --> 00:21:01,879 Speaker 1: the real side of me again, go back to many 461 00:21:01,890 --> 00:21:05,079 Speaker 1: employers who really would just say, you know what, 462 00:21:05,650 --> 00:21:07,560 Speaker 1: I'll just give it a contract to another person, the 463 00:21:07,569 --> 00:21:10,609 Speaker 1: next other better player who would accept whatever I put. 464 00:21:10,680 --> 00:21:13,359 Speaker 1: So I think it's like the whole market, everyone needs 465 00:21:13,369 --> 00:21:16,199 Speaker 1: to move together with this same mindset. And it would 466 00:21:16,209 --> 00:21:18,829 Speaker 1: really shape the need for employers to look at contracts, 467 00:21:18,989 --> 00:21:22,000 Speaker 1: not just merely as templates, but really as something that 468 00:21:22,060 --> 00:21:24,659 Speaker 1: they should do properly for every employee 469 00:21:24,670 --> 00:21:27,880 Speaker 2: that's Right? Because the contract is just a written embodiment 470 00:21:27,890 --> 00:21:29,719 Speaker 2: of the rules of a relationship, right? 471 00:21:30,109 --> 00:21:32,649 Speaker 2: An employment relationship is not just any relationship. It is 472 00:21:32,660 --> 00:21:36,890 Speaker 2: a very special relationship because it's a prenup, it's not 473 00:21:36,900 --> 00:21:41,250 Speaker 2: just a prenup, it's a prenup, plus the ongoing terms 474 00:21:41,260 --> 00:21:44,829 Speaker 2: of engagement. Right? You do the dishes on Monday and 475 00:21:44,839 --> 00:21:47,040 Speaker 2: you drop the kids off on Wednesdays and I'll pick 476 00:21:47,050 --> 00:21:49,339 Speaker 2: them up on Thursdays and things like that. Right. Make 477 00:21:49,349 --> 00:21:52,290 Speaker 2: things clear and to make things clear. And I think 478 00:21:52,300 --> 00:21:54,250 Speaker 2: employers should seek that clarity. 479 00:21:54,569 --> 00:21:58,310 Speaker 2: Employees should seek that clarity. I think communicating respectfully is 480 00:21:58,319 --> 00:22:01,129 Speaker 2: the issue. If you were to raise something in a 481 00:22:01,140 --> 00:22:04,349 Speaker 2: respectful query to a company and then you immediately stomped 482 00:22:04,359 --> 00:22:05,630 Speaker 2: on and shut down. 483 00:22:06,349 --> 00:22:08,329 Speaker 2: Then I think your term red flag is a good 484 00:22:08,339 --> 00:22:12,160 Speaker 2: way to express the situation. If you're an employer, why 485 00:22:12,170 --> 00:22:14,260 Speaker 2: would you start a relationship with someone that you want 486 00:22:14,270 --> 00:22:16,959 Speaker 2: to trust? You want to groom, you want to make 487 00:22:16,969 --> 00:22:19,379 Speaker 2: as a revenue earner for yourself and put them in 488 00:22:19,390 --> 00:22:19,859 Speaker 2: such a 489 00:22:20,099 --> 00:22:23,989 Speaker 2: power imbalance and make them resentful and hurtful. Right? From 490 00:22:24,000 --> 00:22:26,040 Speaker 2: the very word go. And I don't think that that's 491 00:22:26,050 --> 00:22:28,800 Speaker 2: the right way for employers to also approach employees. 492 00:22:28,810 --> 00:22:28,959 Speaker 1: Yeah, I 493 00:22:28,969 --> 00:22:32,389 Speaker 1: think I want to reiterate that point, right? Because there 494 00:22:32,400 --> 00:22:34,280 Speaker 1: are so many employers who are not like that, they, they, 495 00:22:34,290 --> 00:22:36,119 Speaker 1: they make people feel like you have to fit in 496 00:22:36,130 --> 00:22:38,489 Speaker 1: rather than we want to start a relationship. I like 497 00:22:38,500 --> 00:22:41,239 Speaker 1: what Jonathan said, I only wish more employers are like that, 498 00:22:41,250 --> 00:22:43,899 Speaker 1: you know, really valuing the relationship of an employee 499 00:22:44,219 --> 00:22:47,500 Speaker 1: in this day and age of employee engagement. I think 500 00:22:47,510 --> 00:22:50,400 Speaker 1: it really starts off even at the point of signing 501 00:22:50,410 --> 00:22:53,420 Speaker 1: the contract, the way employees feel like they have a say, 502 00:22:53,430 --> 00:22:55,738 Speaker 1: the experience is personalized to them. I think that really 503 00:22:55,750 --> 00:22:56,879 Speaker 1: goes a very long way. 504 00:22:57,250 --> 00:22:59,149 Speaker 1: I think very quickly, I want to talk about what 505 00:22:59,160 --> 00:23:01,859 Speaker 1: is likely going to be also in the guidelines that 506 00:23:01,869 --> 00:23:04,550 Speaker 1: the Ministry of Manpower say that they're going to put out. 507 00:23:04,560 --> 00:23:06,430 Speaker 1: So they, they, they're going to put out something together 508 00:23:06,439 --> 00:23:09,719 Speaker 1: with the tripartite alliance about this whole non-compete clause. I 509 00:23:09,729 --> 00:23:11,770 Speaker 1: know Jonathan early on you say that it will be 510 00:23:11,780 --> 00:23:14,660 Speaker 1: something quite similar to what the courts are already exercising 511 00:23:14,670 --> 00:23:17,239 Speaker 1: at this point of time, which is common sense. But 512 00:23:17,250 --> 00:23:20,099 Speaker 1: let's say, for example, I'm a worker and I feel 513 00:23:20,109 --> 00:23:23,139 Speaker 1: that it is unfair for me, the guidelines are out. 514 00:23:23,199 --> 00:23:24,849 Speaker 1: Then what can I do? Like, do I go to 515 00:23:24,859 --> 00:23:27,109 Speaker 1: the alliance to complain again? I mean, 516 00:23:27,319 --> 00:23:29,640 Speaker 1: I'm a little bit skeptical because I think that guidelines 517 00:23:29,650 --> 00:23:33,219 Speaker 1: are just kind of nice to have but hard to enforce. 518 00:23:33,280 --> 00:23:35,770 Speaker 2: Well, actually, I think my mom friends should buy me 519 00:23:35,780 --> 00:23:37,369 Speaker 2: breakfast for speaking up for them. 520 00:23:38,520 --> 00:23:41,379 Speaker 2: But uh you know, um well, there, there is the 521 00:23:41,390 --> 00:23:43,780 Speaker 2: law and then there are guidelines and as far as 522 00:23:43,790 --> 00:23:47,810 Speaker 2: the Singapore government is concerned, guidelines are enforceable and a 523 00:23:47,819 --> 00:23:51,040 Speaker 2: lot of employers don't understand this. They flout these guidelines 524 00:23:51,050 --> 00:23:53,849 Speaker 2: because they just think that oh, it's, they use the 525 00:23:53,859 --> 00:23:54,849 Speaker 2: word guidelines, 526 00:23:55,055 --> 00:23:58,704 Speaker 2: the the law guide me. Yeah, its good to have 527 00:23:58,714 --> 00:24:01,844 Speaker 2: not need to have, right? So the mom takes a 528 00:24:01,854 --> 00:24:04,505 Speaker 2: different approach. The mom says, well, we give you guidelines 529 00:24:04,515 --> 00:24:06,444 Speaker 2: and we call them guidelines for reasons because we are 530 00:24:06,454 --> 00:24:09,104 Speaker 2: here to guide you and this is something that we 531 00:24:09,114 --> 00:24:12,814 Speaker 2: will investigate you on, right. So the mom has been 532 00:24:12,824 --> 00:24:15,135 Speaker 2: quite consistent in enforcing guidelines 533 00:24:15,650 --> 00:24:18,689 Speaker 2: and people who fall foul of them are usually investigated. 534 00:24:18,699 --> 00:24:21,369 Speaker 2: Invited down to mm They basically explain to them that 535 00:24:21,380 --> 00:24:24,380 Speaker 2: these guidelines are actually meant to be complied with, say 536 00:24:24,390 --> 00:24:27,349 Speaker 2: for some exceptions to your weighty question as to what 537 00:24:27,359 --> 00:24:29,739 Speaker 2: we see in the crystal ball. I mean, you know, 538 00:24:29,750 --> 00:24:31,910 Speaker 2: I don't want to speculate, but I basically think that 539 00:24:31,920 --> 00:24:34,540 Speaker 2: the guidelines to be issued by the mom, I are 540 00:24:34,550 --> 00:24:36,409 Speaker 2: not going to go too far off from what the 541 00:24:36,420 --> 00:24:36,900 Speaker 2: courts 542 00:24:37,250 --> 00:24:40,089 Speaker 2: have already set out. I think on the one hand, 543 00:24:40,099 --> 00:24:42,369 Speaker 2: the guidelines will make clear that the law will protect 544 00:24:42,380 --> 00:24:45,630 Speaker 2: legitimate proprietary interests of employers. And I think there will 545 00:24:45,640 --> 00:24:49,630 Speaker 2: be a preamble to specifically acknowledge that employers have rights 546 00:24:49,640 --> 00:24:51,790 Speaker 2: too because I don't want our listeners to think that. Yeah. 547 00:24:51,800 --> 00:24:54,290 Speaker 2: All right. You know, this is Braveheart moment. Once the 548 00:24:54,300 --> 00:24:56,150 Speaker 2: mom guidelines come out, I know I'm going to rip 549 00:24:56,160 --> 00:24:58,140 Speaker 2: up my contract and I'm going to go running down 550 00:24:58,150 --> 00:25:00,430 Speaker 2: to tough and complain. That's certainly not the case. 551 00:25:00,900 --> 00:25:03,290 Speaker 2: I think as a starting point, they could slice it 552 00:25:03,300 --> 00:25:05,909 Speaker 2: that way, which is a salary band slice. I mean, 553 00:25:05,920 --> 00:25:08,000 Speaker 2: in contrast, if you are being paid half a million 554 00:25:08,300 --> 00:25:10,410 Speaker 2: to work in a very specific job to develop a 555 00:25:10,420 --> 00:25:13,280 Speaker 2: specific market, then I think yes, of course, some level 556 00:25:13,290 --> 00:25:15,800 Speaker 2: and I think any reasonable person would agree at some 557 00:25:15,810 --> 00:25:18,020 Speaker 2: level of restriction would apply, but of course, the devil 558 00:25:18,030 --> 00:25:18,359 Speaker 2: will be 559 00:25:18,780 --> 00:25:21,939 Speaker 2: what? Right? What will apply? So that's one slice. I 560 00:25:21,949 --> 00:25:26,439 Speaker 2: think another slice may be in industries. OK. I'm not sure. 561 00:25:26,579 --> 00:25:29,150 Speaker 2: But that could be a different way that the government 562 00:25:29,160 --> 00:25:32,560 Speaker 2: could slice it. A third slice would be duration. Although 563 00:25:32,569 --> 00:25:35,290 Speaker 2: I'm not entirely sure about duration because duration appears to 564 00:25:35,300 --> 00:25:38,329 Speaker 2: me to be somewhat arbitrary. And I'll tell you why 565 00:25:38,339 --> 00:25:40,449 Speaker 2: many times I have clients coming to ask me to say, 566 00:25:41,189 --> 00:25:43,420 Speaker 2: hey John, first of all, do you think 24 months 567 00:25:43,430 --> 00:25:45,469 Speaker 2: can or not? I said for goodness sake, you can't 568 00:25:45,479 --> 00:25:46,119 Speaker 2: stop someone for 569 00:25:46,130 --> 00:25:47,219 Speaker 1: working for two years, 570 00:25:47,229 --> 00:25:50,829 Speaker 2: right? Ok. How about 18? How about 12? And they 571 00:25:50,839 --> 00:25:52,969 Speaker 2: ask it like in this cascading manner, 572 00:25:52,979 --> 00:25:55,709 Speaker 1: right? At some point, you will go think that is 573 00:25:55,719 --> 00:25:56,188 Speaker 1: the magic 574 00:25:56,199 --> 00:25:56,599 Speaker 1: number, 575 00:25:56,609 --> 00:25:59,339 Speaker 2: right? And, but I'm sorry listeners that there's no such 576 00:25:59,349 --> 00:26:03,770 Speaker 2: magic number, some clever employers. Well, clever, they think that 577 00:26:03,780 --> 00:26:06,689 Speaker 2: they're clever. Then they hire lawyers who think that they 578 00:26:06,699 --> 00:26:09,089 Speaker 2: are clever and then they draft what we call cascade 579 00:26:09,099 --> 00:26:11,010 Speaker 2: clauses and it basically says that 580 00:26:11,349 --> 00:26:14,430 Speaker 2: Gerald, you can't work for a competitor for 12 months. Now, 581 00:26:14,439 --> 00:26:16,448 Speaker 2: if the court finds that 12 months is too much, 582 00:26:16,459 --> 00:26:19,409 Speaker 2: then b you can't work for eight months. And if 583 00:26:19,420 --> 00:26:21,448 Speaker 2: the court finds that eight months is too much, then 584 00:26:21,459 --> 00:26:26,729 Speaker 2: c then six months. So these clauses, I want to 585 00:26:26,739 --> 00:26:30,919 Speaker 2: assure our workers and the friends out who are listening 586 00:26:30,930 --> 00:26:34,959 Speaker 2: have been held to be invalid because it imposes a 587 00:26:34,969 --> 00:26:38,530 Speaker 2: sense of uncertainty on the situation and it cannot operate 588 00:26:38,540 --> 00:26:39,010 Speaker 2: that way. 589 00:26:39,609 --> 00:26:41,989 Speaker 2: An employer has to pick a line and draw it 590 00:26:42,000 --> 00:26:43,589 Speaker 2: and stand behind the line. They can't say 591 00:26:44,390 --> 00:26:47,208 Speaker 2: I'm going to try my luck at 18 months. If 592 00:26:47,219 --> 00:26:49,790 Speaker 2: I cannot do 16, then if not, then 15, then 14, 593 00:26:49,800 --> 00:26:51,599 Speaker 2: then then there will be no end to this, right? 594 00:26:51,890 --> 00:26:54,680 Speaker 2: So this is a really silly thing and I just 595 00:26:54,689 --> 00:26:57,660 Speaker 2: wanted to disabuse all our listeners that this is even 596 00:26:57,670 --> 00:26:59,430 Speaker 2: a thing it's been held to be void. 597 00:26:59,439 --> 00:27:00,439 Speaker 1: OK. Yeah. 598 00:27:00,579 --> 00:27:04,079 Speaker 1: Iii I think we have spoken in detail actually about 599 00:27:04,089 --> 00:27:05,099 Speaker 1: this non-compete clause 600 00:27:05,224 --> 00:27:08,724 Speaker 1: today and I am so much clearer with you coming 601 00:27:08,734 --> 00:27:12,125 Speaker 1: in to explain to us, not just from the employee side, 602 00:27:12,135 --> 00:27:14,145 Speaker 1: but also from the employer side as well. So for 603 00:27:14,155 --> 00:27:16,234 Speaker 1: any of our listeners, I hope this has been also 604 00:27:16,244 --> 00:27:18,775 Speaker 1: very clear for you as it is very clear for 605 00:27:18,785 --> 00:27:21,405 Speaker 1: me and Gerald as well. So, thank you so much 606 00:27:21,415 --> 00:27:22,254 Speaker 1: Jonathan for coming 607 00:27:22,295 --> 00:27:22,324 Speaker 1: on. 608 00:27:22,454 --> 00:27:24,415 Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you. Gerald. Thank you, Tiffany for having 609 00:27:24,425 --> 00:27:24,905 Speaker 2: me over. 610 00:27:28,839 --> 00:27:33,219 Speaker 1: Hi, welcome back to our ask me anything segment. So 611 00:27:33,229 --> 00:27:36,609 Speaker 1: today we have a question from a listener. She wants 612 00:27:36,619 --> 00:27:39,540 Speaker 1: to remain anonymous, so I'll call her Samantha. 613 00:27:39,930 --> 00:27:43,390 Speaker 1: Now, Samantha asks, how do I work in a team 614 00:27:43,459 --> 00:27:46,889 Speaker 1: where often bosses or even coworkers talk in a way 615 00:27:46,900 --> 00:27:50,869 Speaker 1: that's just up in the air with no tangible outcomes. 616 00:27:50,880 --> 00:27:54,119 Speaker 1: After the meeting. She even sent us an Instagram video 617 00:27:54,369 --> 00:27:57,409 Speaker 1: of examples of how these non meetings look like. Yeah, 618 00:27:57,420 --> 00:27:59,579 Speaker 1: I'll read them out, I'll read some quotes out and 619 00:27:59,589 --> 00:28:00,948 Speaker 1: then Gerald, you can tell me if you find them 620 00:28:01,055 --> 00:28:04,364 Speaker 1: familiar. So like the boss will say right now, we're 621 00:28:04,375 --> 00:28:08,665 Speaker 1: not very streamlined with the way we maximize our efficiency 622 00:28:08,844 --> 00:28:11,974 Speaker 1: and we're not being agile, sounds like weight loss is needed. 623 00:28:12,785 --> 00:28:15,635 Speaker 1: And in order to be agile, we need to leverage 624 00:28:15,645 --> 00:28:21,175 Speaker 1: existing bandwidth in a more streamlined, effective manner. OK? Wi 625 00:28:21,185 --> 00:28:22,035 Speaker 1: Fi problems. 626 00:28:23,170 --> 00:28:26,139 Speaker 1: And I just feel like right now our ducks are 627 00:28:26,150 --> 00:28:29,349 Speaker 1: not in a row. I don't get that one at all. Yeah. 628 00:28:29,359 --> 00:28:32,819 Speaker 1: So this person, if they're spending like five minutes just 629 00:28:32,829 --> 00:28:35,339 Speaker 1: saying all of these things, you're just wondering. So what 630 00:28:35,349 --> 00:28:37,639 Speaker 1: are you trying to say? And I can go on 631 00:28:37,650 --> 00:28:41,650 Speaker 1: and on. But basically Samantha is leaving this meeting feeling 632 00:28:41,660 --> 00:28:44,869 Speaker 1: like she's heard all these corporate speak, but her boss 633 00:28:44,880 --> 00:28:48,209 Speaker 1: or her coworkers have no concrete steps for her to 634 00:28:48,219 --> 00:28:48,750 Speaker 1: move on 635 00:28:49,010 --> 00:28:51,109 Speaker 1: and it makes her feel very jaded I mean, I 636 00:28:51,119 --> 00:28:56,189 Speaker 1: personally would be quite angry and emotionally exhausted from these meetings. So, 637 00:28:56,199 --> 00:28:59,260 Speaker 1: what should someone like Samantha do if she's going to 638 00:28:59,270 --> 00:29:02,020 Speaker 1: these sort of meetings? Yeah. I think if I'm Samantha, right, 639 00:29:02,130 --> 00:29:04,719 Speaker 1: I'll find that meetings are a waste of time because 640 00:29:04,939 --> 00:29:08,069 Speaker 1: there's no outcomes and everybody just talking just the time 641 00:29:08,079 --> 00:29:09,550 Speaker 1: could be used to do other things. Right. 642 00:29:09,819 --> 00:29:12,439 Speaker 1: I came from public service. So this is something that 643 00:29:12,449 --> 00:29:14,670 Speaker 1: if anything at all, the public service is very on 644 00:29:14,680 --> 00:29:18,180 Speaker 1: the ball with meeting deliverables. Ok? So I can perhaps 645 00:29:18,189 --> 00:29:20,670 Speaker 1: share from that experience. I think when we want to 646 00:29:20,680 --> 00:29:23,800 Speaker 1: have meetings in Samantha's case, it always starts with setting 647 00:29:23,810 --> 00:29:26,170 Speaker 1: an agenda. Ok. Prior to the meeting, I think that 648 00:29:26,180 --> 00:29:28,239 Speaker 1: would be really helpful if she's being called into a meeting, 649 00:29:28,250 --> 00:29:30,859 Speaker 1: that's going to be up in the air pretty useful 650 00:29:30,869 --> 00:29:32,400 Speaker 1: for Samantha to just say, you know, what can I 651 00:29:32,410 --> 00:29:34,540 Speaker 1: just know what we want to discuss? What's the aim 652 00:29:34,550 --> 00:29:35,119 Speaker 1: of that meeting? 653 00:29:35,560 --> 00:29:39,239 Speaker 1: If possible, set a time limit, don't give like two 654 00:29:39,250 --> 00:29:41,780 Speaker 1: hours or don't just set a meeting without any time frame. 655 00:29:41,910 --> 00:29:43,680 Speaker 1: Because if you say I only got 30 minutes, let's 656 00:29:43,689 --> 00:29:45,310 Speaker 1: do this within 30 minutes, then it's going to be 657 00:29:45,319 --> 00:29:48,869 Speaker 1: chop chop very quick discussions, perhaps very much more focused 658 00:29:48,880 --> 00:29:50,459 Speaker 1: on the agenda. Yes. Right. 659 00:29:50,699 --> 00:29:54,050 Speaker 1: Of course, after doing the meeting itself, Samantha could perhaps 660 00:29:54,060 --> 00:29:57,369 Speaker 1: take over a little bit more by asking for some specifics. 661 00:29:57,650 --> 00:29:59,339 Speaker 1: I mean, very helpful. If you have a marker and 662 00:29:59,349 --> 00:30:01,550 Speaker 1: bought a nearby, if you have a laptop that you're 663 00:30:01,560 --> 00:30:03,469 Speaker 1: projecting a screen and say, don't mind guys, if I 664 00:30:03,479 --> 00:30:05,270 Speaker 1: take some notes, I just want to jot down the 665 00:30:05,280 --> 00:30:07,560 Speaker 1: points that we are key points we are talking about, right? 666 00:30:08,069 --> 00:30:10,839 Speaker 1: But that also means that like Samantha would have to 667 00:30:10,849 --> 00:30:11,160 Speaker 1: be 668 00:30:11,270 --> 00:30:15,010 Speaker 1: in a position where she feels she can take charge 669 00:30:15,020 --> 00:30:17,670 Speaker 1: a little bit more of the situation, right? I think 670 00:30:17,680 --> 00:30:22,000 Speaker 1: that's perfectly normal. I guess it's normal because most times 671 00:30:22,010 --> 00:30:24,430 Speaker 1: in a meeting where everybody is talking, right? Nobody wants 672 00:30:24,439 --> 00:30:27,239 Speaker 1: to take the notes. So, so it's Amanda helps to 673 00:30:27,250 --> 00:30:28,930 Speaker 1: do that. So you don't mind. I take some notes 674 00:30:28,939 --> 00:30:30,479 Speaker 1: so that all of us can have a reference. I'll 675 00:30:30,489 --> 00:30:31,760 Speaker 1: share it with you after the meeting 676 00:30:32,079 --> 00:30:34,410 Speaker 1: and when people see those notes being written down on 677 00:30:34,420 --> 00:30:36,099 Speaker 1: the screen or on a white board, I think it 678 00:30:36,109 --> 00:30:38,819 Speaker 1: helps them to come back to the agenda of the meeting. Yeah, 679 00:30:38,900 --> 00:30:42,089 Speaker 1: it helps them grow. Don't get sidetracked. Right. Exactly. Exactly. 680 00:30:42,219 --> 00:30:44,680 Speaker 1: So I think if today those meetings take place with 681 00:30:44,689 --> 00:30:47,729 Speaker 1: people outside external people and it's not so appropriate, 682 00:30:47,979 --> 00:30:50,079 Speaker 1: maybe what the man could do is to have a 683 00:30:50,089 --> 00:30:54,469 Speaker 1: debrief after the meeting with a team, you have to 684 00:30:54,479 --> 00:30:57,750 Speaker 1: say that shall we just discuss 20 minutes or 15 minutes? 685 00:30:57,880 --> 00:31:00,359 Speaker 1: What exactly do we need to do from that meeting? 686 00:31:00,369 --> 00:31:02,650 Speaker 1: What took place? What, what's your opinion and what the 687 00:31:02,660 --> 00:31:06,880 Speaker 1: deliverables that we need? To do. I think Samantha sounds 688 00:31:06,890 --> 00:31:08,599 Speaker 1: like a little bit more of what we call more 689 00:31:08,609 --> 00:31:12,520 Speaker 1: enterprising more task oriented person. She needs some clarity on 690 00:31:12,530 --> 00:31:12,880 Speaker 1: her goal 691 00:31:13,130 --> 00:31:16,219 Speaker 1: on the outcomes of the meeting. So she's very focused 692 00:31:16,229 --> 00:31:17,839 Speaker 1: on the process and the tasks. So I think there's 693 00:31:17,849 --> 00:31:20,010 Speaker 1: nothing wrong with that. I think you just have to 694 00:31:20,020 --> 00:31:22,209 Speaker 1: play that to our strengths and in a group where 695 00:31:22,219 --> 00:31:25,660 Speaker 1: everyone is a little bit more strategic or a bit 696 00:31:25,670 --> 00:31:28,109 Speaker 1: more dreamy in their discussions. So it really, really helps 697 00:31:28,119 --> 00:31:30,739 Speaker 1: to have someone like Samantha. So I think maybe Samantha, 698 00:31:30,750 --> 00:31:32,540 Speaker 1: if you are listening in, this is the time that 699 00:31:32,550 --> 00:31:35,660 Speaker 1: you could perhaps step up a little bit more. Take charge. 700 00:31:35,670 --> 00:31:37,810 Speaker 1: Don't let the meetings get to you. Yeah. 701 00:31:38,160 --> 00:31:41,030 Speaker 1: Yeah, I hope that what Gerald has shared really would 702 00:31:41,040 --> 00:31:45,000 Speaker 1: give you some tips, some helpful tips. Um And if 703 00:31:45,010 --> 00:31:47,780 Speaker 1: it still doesn't, you know what, take a deep breath, 704 00:31:47,790 --> 00:31:51,520 Speaker 1: shake it off and go have your favorite drink or dessert, 705 00:31:51,709 --> 00:31:53,219 Speaker 1: it's not you, it's them 706 00:31:54,520 --> 00:31:56,890 Speaker 1: write to us. And if like Samantha, you have a 707 00:31:56,900 --> 00:31:59,859 Speaker 1: burning question, we are at CN A podcasts at media 708 00:31:59,979 --> 00:32:04,800 Speaker 1: corp.com dot SG. We're also streaming on Spotify Apple podcasts 709 00:32:04,810 --> 00:32:07,979 Speaker 1: and you can find the video version of this on youtube. 710 00:32:08,319 --> 00:32:11,369 Speaker 1: The team behind the work it podcast is Christina Robert, 711 00:32:11,390 --> 00:32:15,270 Speaker 1: Joan Chan Jaini, Johari, Saya Win, Rosti put and to 712 00:32:15,410 --> 00:32:19,900 Speaker 1: Yan Yon. So, mixing by Arjun Bala video by Haida Amin. 713 00:32:19,910 --> 00:32:22,739 Speaker 1: I'm Tiffany and I'm Gerald work it this week.