- Joined
- Jul 10, 2008
- Messages
- 1,573
- Points
- 63
For Immediate Release
National Solidarity Party’s statement on the strike at SMRT
28 November 2012
Singapore
The National Solidarity Party (NSP) regrets the strike action taken by some SMRT bus drivers. Whatever their grievances, their action unfortunately broke the law and the rule of law must be respected by all, Singaporeans or not.
However, it takes two hands to clap and in a conflict, it is seldom the fault of only one party. So far, responses to this incident have mostly focused on the illegal nature of the strike, so we would like to present the other side of the coin for a more balanced discussion.
What are the causes that led us to this breakdown in our labour relations?
We are in no position to comment on the competence of the management at SMRT, but its recent string of missteps in operations, emergency management, public relations and now human resource management does not augur well, and highlights our vulnerability with only two public transport operators running essentially two separate monopolies. NSP repeats its call for the inclusion of more private operators of public transport.
Given that communications between the management of SMRT and the drivers have broken down, what else could the drivers have done instead of going on strike?
Traditionally, unions are set up to protect the interest of employees. Group action and organization are necessary to balance the power of employers, and hence make it possible for negotiations to be conducted on a more equal footing, leading to fairer and sustainable outcomes.
Singapore has often touted its tri-partite model of labour relations management – employer, union and government - the three parties that supposedly check and balance each other. However, our National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) is so closely intertwined with the Government that it is difficult to tell them apart. NTUC’s response in this case is also identical to the Government stance.
In the case of a Government-linked company, of which SMRT is one, all three parties are perceived as one and the same. So while we could say that the aggrieved workers should have approached the union or MOM for a resolution, we should also recognize that such a serious conflict of interest does not provide confidence to aggrieved workers that their rights and interest would be protected. It is often said that the legal system must not only be fair, but also be seen to be fair. The same principle applies here. We need a union that is independent, and also seen to be independent, from the Government.
The strikers have cited low pay and unbearable living conditions as reasons for their strike. If these were true, they are mitigating factors. While NSP has always objected to the Government’s liberal immigration policy, it is the policy to which we object, not the foreign workers personally. We have no wish to see foreign workers being mistreated and are against the rising income inequality in our society. We urge an open and fair investigation by the authorities despite the conflict of interest arising from the fact that SMRT is majority-owned by Temasek Holdings which is owned by Government.
We would also like to urge any drivers still on strike to return to work immediately in the interest of commuters, as well as in their own self interest.
Sincerely,
Hazel Poa
Secretary-General
On behalf of the Central Executive Committee
National Solidarity Party’s statement on the strike at SMRT
28 November 2012
Singapore
The National Solidarity Party (NSP) regrets the strike action taken by some SMRT bus drivers. Whatever their grievances, their action unfortunately broke the law and the rule of law must be respected by all, Singaporeans or not.
However, it takes two hands to clap and in a conflict, it is seldom the fault of only one party. So far, responses to this incident have mostly focused on the illegal nature of the strike, so we would like to present the other side of the coin for a more balanced discussion.
What are the causes that led us to this breakdown in our labour relations?
We are in no position to comment on the competence of the management at SMRT, but its recent string of missteps in operations, emergency management, public relations and now human resource management does not augur well, and highlights our vulnerability with only two public transport operators running essentially two separate monopolies. NSP repeats its call for the inclusion of more private operators of public transport.
Given that communications between the management of SMRT and the drivers have broken down, what else could the drivers have done instead of going on strike?
Traditionally, unions are set up to protect the interest of employees. Group action and organization are necessary to balance the power of employers, and hence make it possible for negotiations to be conducted on a more equal footing, leading to fairer and sustainable outcomes.
Singapore has often touted its tri-partite model of labour relations management – employer, union and government - the three parties that supposedly check and balance each other. However, our National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) is so closely intertwined with the Government that it is difficult to tell them apart. NTUC’s response in this case is also identical to the Government stance.
In the case of a Government-linked company, of which SMRT is one, all three parties are perceived as one and the same. So while we could say that the aggrieved workers should have approached the union or MOM for a resolution, we should also recognize that such a serious conflict of interest does not provide confidence to aggrieved workers that their rights and interest would be protected. It is often said that the legal system must not only be fair, but also be seen to be fair. The same principle applies here. We need a union that is independent, and also seen to be independent, from the Government.
The strikers have cited low pay and unbearable living conditions as reasons for their strike. If these were true, they are mitigating factors. While NSP has always objected to the Government’s liberal immigration policy, it is the policy to which we object, not the foreign workers personally. We have no wish to see foreign workers being mistreated and are against the rising income inequality in our society. We urge an open and fair investigation by the authorities despite the conflict of interest arising from the fact that SMRT is majority-owned by Temasek Holdings which is owned by Government.
We would also like to urge any drivers still on strike to return to work immediately in the interest of commuters, as well as in their own self interest.
Sincerely,
Hazel Poa
Secretary-General
On behalf of the Central Executive Committee
