The Taming of the Union
by singaporearmchaircritic
If not for the late President Ong Teng Cheong, the last strike Singapore saw would not be in 1986; it would be in 1977, a whopping 35 years from this week’s strike by SMRT China-born bus drivers.
In the famous interview with Asiaweek in 2000, Mr Ong, who was head of NTUC and Labour Minister when the 1986 strike took place, said,
…in January 1986 I did sanction a strike, the first for about a decade. It was in the shipping industry where the management was taking advantage of the workers. I did not even tell the cabinet about sanctioning the strike. And some of them were angry with me about that. The minister for trade and industry was very angry, his officers were very upset. They had calls from America, asking what happened to Singapore? – we are non-strike. I said: if I were to inform the cabinet or the government they would probably stop me from going ahead with the strike. It only lasted two days. Then all the issues were settled. It showed that management was just trying to pull a fast one. So I believe what I did was right (emphasis mine).
NTUC: Paper Tiger Not?
The 1986 strike is significant in more than one sense. It is a “legal” strike that broke free of the many fetters imposed by our laws – the Trade Disputes Act, the Trade Unions Act and the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions Act) – which make a legal strike virtually impossible in Singapore.
Labor grievances have to be aired and settled through conciliation, mediation and referred to the Industrial Arbitration Court. Only when all channels are exhausted can the union hold a secret ballot to vote for or against industrial action. Workers in certain industries are prohibited from striking while those in essential services have to give 14 days’ notice of industrial action, which defeats the purpose of holding a strike.
By the 1980s, the so-called “tripartite relationship” between the government, the employers and the labor represented by the union, had grown so cozy that “non-strike” was (and is still) Singapore’s second name. Ong Teng Cheong’s revelation that the strike would not have transpired if he had pre-empted the cabinet brings home this point.
If we recall the context of 1985-86, Mr Ong’s move to sanction the strike is all the more remarkable.
Hit by recession, Singapore’s GDP growth slowed from 10% to 3% in 1985. Externally, our leading industries – shipbuilding and oil refining – were in decline with competition from the region and the Middle East. Internally, it was also a time when government took drastic steps to curb rising labor costs: employer’s CPF contribution was cut from 25% to 10%; there was simultaneously a wage freeze from 1986 to 1987 with the public sector taking the lead. These measures were no doubt begrudged by many.
In this light, it is unsurprising that the 1986 strike was initiated by a branch union of the Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering Employees’ Union (SMEEU) against the Hydril Pte Ltd, which deals in oilfield equipment, although the then NTUC Assistant Secretary-General Lim Boon Heng stressed that the strike “has got nothing to do with the economic situation” (The Straits Times, “Workers strike over ‘anti-union moves’ by firm”, 3 Jan 1986).
In the same week when the 2-day Hydril strike took place, there were two other presumably “illegal” industrial action: more than 40 workers downed tools at Aerospace over the non-payment of salaries and CPF contributions; 60 employees at Galeries Lafayette department store walked out to demand that 8 dismissed colleagues be reinstated (The Straits Times, “Labour gives a sharp reminder”, 4 Jan 1986).
When the Hydril strike erupted against all odds, the government was quick to damage control via The Straits Times. It capitalized on the event to warn employers not to use recession as an excuse to exploit workers (lest more restive workers take industrial action in the unfavorable economic climate). It also took the opportunity to somewhat restore NTUC’s credibility:
There was, until the Hydril episode, a gut feeling among employers that no union would be allowed to spoil Singapore’s strike-free record, especially during the recession…This perception of the union as a paper tiger apparently gained currency as a result of the prevailing industrial peace…If there is a lesson to be learned from the Hydril strike, it is that unions do have teeth. They can and are prepared to exercise their right to strike if the cause justifies it (The Straits Times, “Hydril episode shatters bosses’ misconceptions”, 1 Feb 1986).
That was then. Sadly, today it is hard to controvert that NTUC is not a toothless tiger.
Then and Now
It is not an overstatement to say that one person made all the difference in the 1986 strike. If not for late President Ong who, at the risk of antagonizing his colleagues, sided with the workers and approved the union’s action as NTUC head, the 1986 strike would not have made history. Comparing him to today’s NTUC chief Lim Swee Say and his disappointing handling of the last SMRT dispute only makes the people’s President more dearly missed.
Now that Singapore’s long prevailing industrial “peace” was broken, and by a group of foreign workers, what are the lessons and implications?
At the time I was writing this blogpost, news broke that four China bus drivers were arrested for “instigating” the illegal strike. This is a predictable outcome following the government’s statement that it has “zero-tolerance” for illegal industrial action.
In the past decades since Independence, Singapore’s industrial relations were transformed each time a major strike happened. Will this time be no exception? How will the government further tighten the space for strikes and other industrial action, legal or illegal?
The strike also shows how ill-prepared the government is for the consequences of its liberal immigration policy. Not only did it not foresee the strain of a huge foreigner influx on our infrastructure, the cost of living, and Singaporeans’ disgruntlement, it also failed to see how foreign workers, unlike “tamed” Singaporeans, are not as submissive and will fight for their rights when they perceive themselves to be exploited or treated unfairly. The China-Chinese in particular are no stranger to industrial action despite tighter controls and harsher clamp-downs in their homeland.
In Singapore, strikes and other industrial action were common in 1950s and 1960s. Then the government had used our young nation’s economic survival to justify the taming of the union and workers. After clamping down on a major “illegal” strike by Metal Box workers in 1977, Singapore had been strike free till 1986, and from then till 2012. Today, Singapore is no longer a third world country. Yet the withholding of workers’ rights for the sake of development has never been revoked.
The evolution of our union(s) shows how a supposedly short term trade-off has become cast in stone. And I think many of you would agree with me that the 1986 legal strike is probably the last we shall see in our generation.
If economic growth was then seen as a means to an end, i.e. the well-being of our people, today economic growth seems to have become an end in itself, such that even mooting slower growth is considered a sacrilege.
Next week we’ll chart the trajectory of how our unions and workers were tamed over the past few decades, looking into 1977 Metal Box strike and 1966/67 Public Daily Rated Employees Union Federation (PDREUF) strikes which prompted the government to curtail the power of unions and workers’ right to take industrial action.
Note: MOM reportedly told AFP news that the last illegal strike in Singapore was in 1980. Strictly speaking, however, the industrial action taken by the Singapore Airlines pilots in 1980 was not a strike but a “work-to-rule”, which means employees do no more than the minimum required by the rules of a workplace to cause a slowdown.
Singapore Armchair Critic 
Another interesting titbit I chanced upon when researching for this blogpost:
“In a surprising revelation yesterday, labour chief Lim Boon Heng told reporters how workers at SMRT Corporation almost went on strike in 2002 after the management backtracked on an agreement it had earlier signed with the National Transport Workers’ Union (NTWU)…According to the collective agreement signed between SMRT and the union in 2001, SMRT staff were entitled to a 3 per cent service increment in 2002. But when the time came, SMRT refused to cough up the amount…That made the employees so unhappy that they wanted to go on strike”.
(The Straits Times, “When SMRT workers nearly went on strike”, 23 Sep 2005, http://newspapers.nl.sg/Digitised/Article/today20050923-1.2.3.aspx)
[…] – Singapore Armchair Critic: The Taming of the Union […]
I’m giving up hope in my country. What upsets me the most is not the government’s responses to recent strike but the tone that has coloured an overwhelming majority of the comments from the general public.
They Can’t see beyond xenophobia and realise that this strike is symptomatic of workers in Singapore having very little leverage because of an extremely skewed labour environment. It is equally shocking to see the extent to which truisms like ” Singapore cannot survive a strike, foreign investors will run away” has been swallowed uncritically by the masses without debate.
Reminds of single issue republicans from the bible belt who vote are staunchly against universal healthcare that no doubt will benefit them because of their exposure to self-serving lies from corporate interests fed to them via republican propaganda.
The more I think about the more I think the majority of Singaporeans represent quite a unique anomaly in the world. Their subservience, apathy and willingness to except needlessly exploitative situations unquestioningly really sets them apart, and is really the linchpin in the PAP’s soft form of authoritarianism that has allowed the government to never have to resort to violent coercive methods ( with some exceptions) and has created a seemingly ‘comfortable’ and stable environment to outside observers. However this is not replicable in other societies because I can imagine few other civilian populations behaving in a similar manner. There is really no point for countries like Burma and China to try and emulate our governance model because it is really predicated on a very unique population.
Kran, don’t despair. Singaporeans were not like that in the early decades of independence, and today there are also many Singaporeans speaking out for the Chinese bus drivers, urging the government to respect their rights and so forth.
Yes, there are netizens whose views on the strike are colored by their resentment against foreigners on the whole, and our mainstream media had cited the “man-in-the-street” echoing the government’s mantra, but are these representative of the “masses”? There will always be people “ranting” behind the veil of anonymity on the internet, and I do not think we have to take these seriously.
I am still hopeful that things will change, albeit slowly. Just try to recall: did you even hear or see ordinary Singaporeans speaking out for our rights, criticizing the government and/or its policies, openly declaring that they were voting for the opposition twenty years ago? What about today? Our society is progressing, and in the right direction, thanks to a better educated populace and the Internet.
I also used to be very cynical but the last GE changed how I see things. Now I believe we can all do our part by speaking out and contributing to intelligent and rational debate on issues that concern us via whatever platforms we have. So hang in there!
Are unions really still necessary if we one day have a tight foreign labour policy and tight labour market such that workers can choose to leave for better jobs if they are unhappy with their current ones?
Union is of course necessary whether it is effective or not. The union in Singapore is nothing but just a wayang to the world that Singapore has a union even though it is ineffective due to conflict of interest in the management. If you notice what happen is that everything can just easily blamed on the workers for not using the union as the so-called proper channel, yet we know very how ineffective the union is. Isn’t Singapore is been engineered by who-know-who to render union ineffective and with conflict of interest, just like the electorate ?
In this age of internet, the regime can only helplessly await its own destruction by continuing to treat the people as dumb who do not know what happens, when the world actually know what happen to this tiny red dot through internet. It is a party that can never learn due to complacency and status quo.
Incidentally, China’s situation is very similar to ours.
Autonomous trade unions are non-existent in China. The All-China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU) is subordinate to the state; its workplace unions are subservient to either the management or the communist party organisations at the same level. The ACFTU’s government status prevents it from any kind of labour mobilisation against employers. Union heads, nominated by party organisations or management in many workplaces, are often key party or management members.
Clearly, there is a conflict of interests since unions are closely tied to the institutions that prioritise profits at the expense of labour interests. And this is not lost on astute Chinese workers. Some think the trade union is worse than the secret society because the latter takes their money and serves them whereas the government-controlled unions demand for union fees but in turn suppress workers.
Unions are especially important for the low wage workers who tend to be the least mobile and have smallest voice. Not everyone can just leave for better jobs just because they are unhappy.
Hi voiddecker
Love your open letter to “Vivi”, haha
http://www.voiddecker.com/2012/11/its-not-slower-growth-stupid/
As in my reply to singaporearmchaircritic, the government should ensure that companies cannot suppress wages and benefits by importing foreign workers who are willing to work for a fraction of local wages due to the currency disparity, or by exploiting foreign workers who are tricked by agents into accepting poorer terms and conditions than what they had in mind. If the government plays this role and tightens the labour market such that companies are always competing to get workers, I don’t see why even workers in lower rungs cannot be mobile.
Ha, thanks singaporearmcharcritic. I must commend you on a very well research piece here as well!
Sporescores: Thanks for your thought provoking question. Yes I think unions are still necessary regardless of the state of the labor market or the economy. Unions are important because they engage in collective bargaining on behalf of the workers. Even in the scenario you envision, a union may be able to negotiate a better deal for all workers through collective bargaining, and create a win-win situation for both employers and employees.
I find it rather thuggish that a union can threaten industrial action to obtain a better deal than what its workers agreed to when they signed the employment contract. To me, this is as thuggish as a company threatening to reduce the fixed benefits/wages that it had promised to its workers. The worker should just leave for another company if he/she is unhappy with the current terms of his/her contract. Much as companies are not allowed to band together to fix prices or wages, workers should not band together to fix wages. The government should be the one who ensures that companies cannot suppress wages and benefits by importing foreign workers who are willing to work for a fraction of local wages due to the currency disparity, or by exploiting foreign workers who are tricked by agents into accepting poorer terms and conditions than what they had in mind.
“even though it is effective due to conflict of interest in the management.”
correct to
“even though it is ineffective due to conflict of interest in the management.”
Conflict of interest is the main cause of mistrust.
Corrected in your original comment.
[…] If not for the late President Ong Teng Cheong, the last strike Singapore saw would not be in 1986; it would be in 1977, a whopping 35 years from this week’s strike by SMRT China-born bus drivers. .. Labor grievances have to be aired and settled through conciliation, mediation and referred to the Industrial Arbitration Court. Only when all channels are exhausted can the union hold a secret ballot to vote for or against industrial action. Workers in certain industries are prohibited from striking while those in essential services have to give 14 days’ notice of industrial action, which defeats the purpose of holding a strike. By the 1980s, the so-called “tripartite relationship” between the government, the employers and the labor represented by the union, had grown so cozy that “non-strike” was (and is still) Singapore’s second name. Ong Teng Cheong’s revelation that the strike would not have transpired if he had pre-empted the cabinet brings home this point. […]
Also on the Glocal: http://www.glocal.org.hk/articles/6398; TRE: http://www.tremeritus.com/2012/11/30/the-taming-of-the-union/; Chinese translation at 新国志 http://xinguozhi.wordpress.com/2012/12/01/工会被驯服记/#more-6508
[…] 作者：Singapore Armchair Critic 译者：新国志 2012-12-1 原文：https://singaporearmchaircritic.wordpress.com/2012/11/29/the-taming-of-the-union/ […]
[…] The fall of the SMBWU in its battle with the PAP government and the NTUC marked the final, inexorable decline of independent unions, ushering in an era of “industrial peace” in the history of Singapore briefly interrupted by the 1986 “legal” strike. […]
[…] The fall of the SMBWU in its battle with the PAP government and the NTUC marked the final, inexorable decline of independent unions, ushering in an era of “industrial peace” in the history of Singapore briefly interrupted by the 1986 “legal” strike. […]
[…] The Taming of the Union […]
[…] “It is not an overstatement to say that one person made all the difference in the 1986 strike. If not for late President Ong who, at the risk of antagonizing his colleagues, sided with the workers and approved the union’s action as NTUC head, the 1986 strike would not have made history.” – SingaporeArmchiarCritic […]