1 I refer to The Straits Times article, “Sylvia Lim questions tripartite relationship”, dated 3 May 2006.

2 Ms Lim and the Workers’ Party clearly showed their lack of interest, insincerity and incompetence in wanting to represent and help workers, judging from the allegations and factual errors she made in her rally speech on unions and labour laws here.

3 Firstly, Ms Lim alleged that a “conflict of interest” arises because NTUC is aligned to PAP and since the PAP Government is the largest employer.  Where is the alleged conflict of interest?  The PAP and NTUC have a symbiotic relationship tracing back to PAP's labour roots – more than half the PAP's first Central Executive Committee were unionists.  And the PAP Government, like other governments, performs many different and non-conflicting roles in labour matters, including policy making, conciliation and arbitration, and public administration.

4 In Singapore, public sector employees are represented by the independent Amalgamated Union of Public Employees (AUPE), which negotiates and signs Collective Agreements on members’ behalf and represents their grievances.  The AUPE has in the past even fought cases in the Industrial Arbitration Court on members’ behalf and won.  This clearly proves that workers’ rights can be and are well protected under the PAP and NTUC symbiotic relationship, as both institutionally independent organisations shared a common goal – improve workers’ lives and create a better future for all Singaporeans.

5 Secondly, it is to workers’ advantage that NTUC Secretary-General Lim Boon Heng is also the PAP Chairman and a Cabinet Minister.  As NTUC’s Secretary-General, he is sensitive to workers’ concerns and aspirations.  As a Cabinet Minister, he voices their concerns and aspirations, and influences policies affecting them in the Cabinet and Parliament.  Unfortunately, the Workers' Party ignores and is uninterested in the positive outcomes of having our Labour Chief in the Cabinet, which have benefited workers and Singaporeans for many years.

6 Thirdly, Ms Lim claimed that there is only one workers' union not linked to the NTUC.  This is factually inaccurate.  Out of a total of 69 unions in Singapore, five are not affiliated to NTUC.  It is unforgivable for the Workers’ Party, self-proclaimed advocate of the workers, to have only a shallow understanding of the union movement situation in Singapore.

7 Fourthly, she recalled that PSA Corporation retrenched workers in 2002, and that the Singapore Port Workers’ Union (SPWU) supported it at a time when “PSA was making money.”  These are factually incorrect.  The retrenchment was conducted in 2003, not 2002.  Obviously, the Workers’ Party is insensitive and did not seem competent enough to understand the global economic forces that PSA Corporation had to withstand and be responsive to, in order to remain competitive.  Fortunately, SPWU and the port workers understood the bitter truth that retrenchment was necessary for PSA Corporation’s survival.  Otherwise, many more workers would have lost their jobs.

8 Retrenchment is painful for all involved, particularly, the affected workers.  Thus, SPWU negotiated hard and intensively with PSA Corporation for a fair retrenchment package, including relief and training grants.  The tripartite partners also organised a job fair to aid affected workers in their job search.  PSA Corporation’s senior management also raised funds to help these workers’ children.  All these are done to minimise the pain of these workers.  However, there was something glaringly amiss then – what did the Workers’ Party do to help these workers?  The Workers’ Party did not even attempt to care for these workers.

9 Fifthly, Ms Lim claimed that workers could have lost out when the Trade Unions Act was amended in 2004 to allow union leaders to seal Collective Agreements with managements without seeking union members’ approval.  Ms Lim’s claim reflects the Workers’ Party’s complete lack of understanding of labour laws here and how unions function, and their insincerity in wanting to help workers.  Unions have Executive Committees, elected by members through the democratic process of elections, to represent and make decisions for members in matters like Collective Agreement negotiations.  Besides, unions can still seek their members’ views before signing the Collective Agreements, despite the amended Act.  The Act was amended to ensure that members will not lose out just because a group of members disagrees and holds up the completion of the Collective Agreement.

10 Sixthly, Ms Lim alleged that the Employment Act, which was amended to give employers flexibility in giving workers time off in lieu of overtime, put power in employers’ hands, which in turn, might lead to exploitation of low income workers.   This is incorrect.  Once again, it shows Workers’ Party’s lack of understanding of labour laws here.  The decision whether or not to allow flexibility to give time off in lieu of overtime, lies with the Commissioner for Labour and not the employer, and it depends on a job’s nature.  Employers who wish to have this flexibility must apply and justify to the Commissioner for his approval.  In unionised companies, the unions must agree too.  So, the question of exploitation does not arise.
 
11 Finally, Ms Lim claimed that Singapore ranked lowly in terms of protection and bargaining power for workers.  Workers’ Party had made this claim with total disregard for the real situation.  On the contrary, Singapore ranks highly in worker protection – labour laws here are enforced strictly and working conditions are generally safe.  Our unions negotiate and sign on average 300 Collective Agreements and refer more than 300 labour disputes a year to the Ministry of Manpower on workers’ behalf.  The NTUC today is well-respected in the international trade union community.  Question is, what did the Workers’ Party do to protect workers?

12 Together with the tripartite partners, the labour movement has done far more to help and care for our workers and their families, than Ms Lim and her Workers’ Party can ever imagine and acknowledge.

John De Payva
President
National Trades Union Congress