TR EMERITUS

Manpower Minister Gan Kim Yong became the latest PAP leader to indulge in generous self-praise after launching the new Human Capital Leadership Institute to spearhead Singapore's drive to become a "global talent hub". Mr Gan claimed that the institute will encourage more innovation for businesses in Singapore and will support companies in nurturing talents into future leaders. “Top local talents will want to remain in Singapore and global talents will want to come here because we have the best educational infrastructures to help them develop their leadership competencies and further their careers," he was quoted as saying in Channel News Asia. However, Mr Gan did not provide any evidence or statistics to substantiate his claims that Singapore is an attractive place for global talents. According to a Gallup poll done last year among China's college students, their top three emigration destinations are the United States, France and South Korea. Singapore was not even featured among the top five. Mr Gan's speech appeared to reinforced the message sent by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong during the May Day Rally last week when he called on the understanding of Singaporeans to accept a higher inflow of foreigners. Unlike other developed countries which implement measures to safeguard the livelihoods of local workers, Singaporeans are exhorted repeatedly by PAP leaders to compete directly with the cheap foreign workers they are importing into the country while remaining "cheaper, better and faster" at the same time. “Employers will hire only the best candidates with the right skills and attributes. The workforce needs to upgrade its skills and knowledge in order to remain competitive and marketable," Mr Gan said. With no opposition in Parliament or independent trade unions to fight for their interests, Singaporeans will have no choice but to listen to Mr Gan and "upgrade" their skills to remain "competitive and marketable" never mind the fact that their wages are being undercut by the cheaper "global talents".   Please join our Facebook page here and invite your friends to do so to create awareness of the current affairs affecting Singaporeans. Please use our online web form to contact us  Read More →

The Straits Times Forum editor Yap Koon Hong has told opposition politician Chee Soon Juan that he would be denied space in the Forum pages until he withdrew his “serious and unfounded aspersions” on the integrity of the newspaper. He was responding to previous reports on the SDP website which implied that The Straits Times had unfairly edited certain portions of Chee’s letters before publishing them. Chee, the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) secretary general, had written to the newspaper on two separate occasions. On 17 March, the newspaper published Chee’s response to Lianhe Zaobao journalist Yew Tun Lian’s claims that he had been evasive to questions about foreign funding in an interview. On 15 April, Chee responded to a forum letter that had condemned his confrontational style of politics.  On both occasions, shortened versions of his letters were published both in print and on the online forums. The original version of the letters have been posted on the SDP website. In an email reply to Yap dated 5 May, Chee took issue with the fact that the title of his second letter had been changed to "PAP just as confrontational, replies Chee", which implied that he was indeed confrontational. In fact, newspapers rarely use the headlines suggested by writers and most readers know that headlines, together with picture selection and captions, are the work of sub-editors and not writers. The SDP website shows that almost half of Chee's letter was deleted before publication. The original text was 635 words long. Forum page letters are generally less than 400 words long. The published version of Chee's letter was 348 words long. Chee also questioned Yap's claims that The Straits Times' integrity had been damaged by the SDP's articles, citing how the Singapore media was already ranked lowly in international press freedom rankings. The SDP website reported that Yap wanted Chee to retract his statements about the integrity of The Straits Times, and that the newspaper would withhold publishing his letters in the forum pages until he did so. Click here to read SDP's report on the issue. Click here to read Journalism.sg's coverage of Chee's interview with Lianhe Zaobao journalist Yew Tun Lian. May 10th, 2010  Read More →

By Jordan Lee The Concept of Employee Voice The growing interest in the notion of ‘employee voice’ in recent years has led to many different interpretations of the term. Traditional meanings of employee voice such as collective bargaining and grievance procedures have now been combined with more consensual methods such as joint consultation, team working or problem-solving groups (Dundon et al. 2004). The concept of ‘voice’ in the employment relationship is grounded in Hirschman’s (1970) exit-voice-loyalty model. Voice is defined as any attempt ‘to change, ratherthan to escape from’ an undesirable situation. When people become dissatisfied withchanges in their surroundings they can exit (move or withdraw from further participation), or they can exercise voice. Another model by Turnley and Feldman (1998) describes voice as ‘actions taken to remedy violation, such as reducing losses or restoring trust through talking, threats and changes to behaviour’ (Sparrow & Cooper 2003). When applied to the context of employee relations, it can be derived that a loyal employee is more likely to exercise voice or protest against the management. Boroff and Lewin’s (1997) analysis of survey responses from a non-union firm however, contradicts the exit-voice-loyalty framework. Responses indicate that employee voice via grievance filing was positively related to the intent to leave their organizations, and negatively related to loyalty. It is also observed that the results of employment relations studies in the United States (Lewin & Mitchell 1992; Boroff & Lewin 1997) differ from those in the United Kingdom (Watling & Snook 2003; Millward et al. 2000; Beardwell 1998) and Australia (Benson 2000). Therefore, there seems to be conceptual gaps in the application of Hirschman's model and contradictory empirical findings. Despite this, many researchers appear to accept this model as valid and continue to use it to frame their inquiries (Boroff & Lewin 1997).   Representation through Trade Unionism Employee voice through representation by trade unions can be best explained by the term, ‘union voice’. Union voice is ‘the use of a trade union by workers to articulate grievances or express their preferences to management’ (Heery & Noon 2001, p. 388). Research evidence indicates that union voice can be effective in influencingmanagement in two ways. Firstly, it is associated with redistribution of resources within the firm, such that unionized workers receive higher pay and benefits compared with non-union counterparts. Secondly, it is associated with perceptions of fair treatment by the employer and lower rates of turnover. (Heery & Noon 2001) The decline in trade unionism and rise in non-union workplaces in recent years hasled to concerns whether workers have a reduced capacity to initiate issues andarticulate grievances (Kaufman & Taras 1999). For some, independent unions are seen as the only source of genuine voice while others argue that the adoption of the HRM paradigm will provide adequate voice mechanisms through non-union modes of representation (NERs) in the form of management sponsored activities such as joint consultation and quality circles. (Benson 2000) According to Freeman and Medoff (1984), trade unions are seen to be the best agents to provide employee voice, as they remain independent of the employer, which adds a degree of voice legitimacy. Also, trade unionism raises employee job tenure, enhances employer investment in human capital, and increases employee productivity. The results of Benson’s (2000) study of Australian workplaces show that there is a positive relationship between union presence and employee voice mechanisms in a workplace. Employees of a unionised workplace were found to have significantly more voice mechanisms compared to those in non-union workplaces. This may be attributed to the perception that such voice mechanisms are more effective when a collective consciousness exist. The study of MediCo (Butler 2005), a non-union workplace had some interesting findings. While there was a formal voice mechanism through the Medico’s company council, it possessed minimal power and proved incapable of applying checks on management prerogatives. Similarly, any allowance for employee influence was reduced by the limited autonomy of its structure. The council was simply a forum for the communication of management’s ideology and values. In the study of Aeroparts (Llyod 2001), NERs were found to have little influence on managerial agenda (Butler 2005, p. 274) while the findings on News International suggests that NERs are inherently flawed, given that they are usually created and controlled by management (Gollan 2002). Interestingly, in several other case studies, NERs are seen to be more effective when the representatives are elected, rather than appointed (Bryson 2004).   Trade Unionism in Singapore The National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) was set up in 1961, following a split in the labour movement over whether Singapore should join the Federation of Malaysia. The NTUC supported the position taken by the People's Action Party (PAP) that it would be in Singapore's best interests to become part of Malaysia. In 1963, the Federation of Malaysia was formed with Singapore as one of the federation’s fourteen states. After the merger, differences between the PAP and the Malaysian federal government led to Singapore's expulsion from Malaysia in 1965. Meanwhile, the British announced in 1968 that they would withdraw all military forces from Singapore. That would leave as many as 45,000 workers unemployed as British military spending accounted for a significant part of Singapore’s GDP. The PAP government and the NTUC recognised that attracting foreign investors was the only solution to the impending unemployment problem, which could only be achieved with industrial peace (Chew 1991). As a result, changes were made to two pieces of labour legislation, the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 1968 and the Employment Act 1968. In short, the amendments ‘extended the duration of collective agreements, protected managerial prerogatives from negotiation and confined the terms and conditions of employment for the bulk of the manual workforce to the prescribed minima’ (Leggett 2007, p. 648). This has, to a certain extent, reduced the collective bargaining power of the NTUC. Nevertheless, the NTUC endorsed the legislatures because they believed that full employment is necessary to safeguard the interests of workers in Singapore. (Chew 1991) Consequently, there were fewer disputes and working days lost, but also a decline in trade union membership. Knowing that they made a concession within the collective bargaining framework, the NTUC organized the “Modernisation of the Labour Movement” trade union seminar in 1969 to restructure and revamp the trade union organisation. Instead of just collective bargaining, NTUC recognised that unions canhelp to play a social and economic role by improving the quality of life of workers and their families. This led to the forming of co-operative ventures such as supermarkets, taxi hiring, insurance and dental services in the 1970s. The government’s economic strategy, coupled with the cooperation of the NTUC, proved to be very effective in attracting foreign investment which contributed to the growth of Singapore. (Chew 1991) Today, the NTUC is the only national federation of trade unions of workers inSingapore. NTUC affiliated unions consists of industrial, service and public sectors representing more than 460,000 workers in Singapore. As of 2007, 63 out of 69 unions in Singapore are affiliated with NTUC (Ministry of Manpower 2007). Apart from trade union activities, the NTUC also has representation in several statutory boards and organisations whose activities include housing, transport, education, training and investments.   Lack of Independence and Autonomy of the NTUC The symbiotic relationship between the NTUC and the PAP government as part of the national tripartite partnership has often been lauded as the driving force behind Singapore’s competitive edge (Kwek 2007; Phan 2006; Chuang 2005). The present Secretary General of the NTUC Lim Swee Say is concurrently a Minister and PAP Member of Parliament as was his previous two predecessors. Several cabinet ministers and Members of Parliament are also union leaders. In October 1995, the NTUC was accused by an opposition party of going after profits and ignoring workers, by concentrating on forming commercial ventures instead of protecting workers’ interests. Instead of properly addressing the issue, the NTUC's reply was short of nothing but a politically motivated jibe at the opposition party, questioning whether it was ‘worrying over NTUC’s role in minimising social unrest, which would spoil its chances in the next General Elections’. (Straits Times 1996) During the 2006 General Elections, another opposition politician brought up the issue of NTUC's relationship with the government in a country where the government was the biggest employer. She cited the case of the Port of Singapore Authority's (PSA) retrenchment exercise in 2002 involving 800 workers and accused the government and NTUC of supporting the retrenchment exercise despite the fact that PSA was making profits. This was followed by concurrent rebuttals by both NTUC and PAP leaders of the opposition’s 'lack of interest, insincerity and incompetence in wanting to represent workers' and that they ‘were attacking them on this issue because they do not have the workers' support'. (Loh 2006) Criticisms against the PAP government’s labour policies have also often invoked responses in official industrial relations literature (Leggett 2007). These includedliterature from the then Secretary General of the NTUC Devan Nair, who championed the government’s labour policies (ed. Nair 1976; NTUC 1982) while Josey (1976) and Raza (1970) sought to justify Singapore’s restrictive labour laws as necessary for the country’s development. In contrast, a foreign observer likened Singaporean workers as sheep with the NTUC as the shepherd (George 1984).   Government Control and Interference Another characteristic of Singapore’s industrial relations climate is the government’stight control and frequent intervention in labour issues. The PAP proclaims ‘pragmatism’ as its justification for its government’s social control, and the basis for Singapore’s transition from the third world to a developed market economy (Leggett 2007). In 1980, a dispute between Singapore Airlines (SIA) and its pilots’ union prompted Minister Mentor (then Prime Minister) Lee Kuan Yew to step in and warn the parties of the consequences of continuing their confrontation. The pilots’ union was later dissolved, some pilots were prosecuted and all were reprimanded in public (Leggett 1984). In another example was when members of the Singapore Teachers’ Union (STU) criticised the Deputy Prime Minister’s education policies. The government responded by threatening the union with dissolution on the grounds that the government would never allow teachers to strike and therefore they did not need a union (Wong cited in Institute of Southeast Asian Studies 1983). In more recent years, another high profile industrial dispute in 2003 once again met with government interference. The Air Line Pilots' Association Singapore (ALPA-S) ousted its executive council, unhappy that their leaders struck a compromise with the SIA management in their labour dispute instead of resorting to arbitration (Chua 2003). Minister Mentor (then Senior Minister) Lee Kuan Yew once again stepped in and singled out Captain Ryan Goh, a Malaysian citizen, as the main instigator of the ouster (Reuters 2004). Meanwhile, Prime Minister (then Deputy Prime Minister) Lee Hsien Loong described the move to vote out the leaders as a ‘confrontational approach which could undermine tripartite relations’ (Channel News Asia 2003). The pilot was later deemed as an ‘undesirable immigrant’ by the Home Affairs Ministry and stripped of his Singapore permanent residency (Reuters 2004). ALPA-S was considered the most independent trade union in Singapore (Burton 2003), being one of the few non NTUC affiliated unions. Despite the various legislative restrictions on trade unions enacted by the government, the pilots’ union has been a notable exception, frequently clashing on wages, benefits and rest times between flights. Its members have the exclusive right in Singapore to ratify wage agreements instead of automatically accepting deals negotiated between elected union leaders and management as other unions are required to do. As a result of the 2003 incident, amendments were made in the Trade Unions Act to remove this constitutional right (Straits Times 2004). According to one of the ousted leaders (The Electric New Paper 2003), the ouster was part and parcel of a normal democratic leadership change and was not confrontational. It was also within the members’ constitutional and democratic rights to demand for a change of leadership. He also added that that amending the Trade Unions Act was not a solution and that good employment relationships cannot be crafted with legislation.   Conclusion The case studies of representation of employee voice in unionised and non-unionised workplaces illustrate the importance of a trade union presence. Voice mechanisms in non-union workplaces are usually creations of the management. The purpose of these mechanisms are, more often that not, eroded by management agenda. An independent body in the form of the trade union has proven to be more effective in negotiation with the management. Looking into trade unionism in Singapore, the ‘symbiotic relationship’ between the NTUC and PAP is a cause of concern. Despite unions having representation on many statutory boards, national tripartite organisations and even the Parliament, it is effectively a double-edged sword. The NTUC clearly lacks autonomy from the PAP, as seen in its biased political alignment and overly defensive stance against criticism. The ALPA-S saga in 2003 is a good example of the PAP government’s interference in industrial disputes. The incident eventually led to amendments to legislation, which according to an opposition politician, ‘is typical of a PAP government which seeks to outlaw or cripple by legislation those it cannot control or persuade’ (Straits Times 2004). The involvement of the Home Affairs Ministry in revoking the victimised pilot’s permanent residency clearly shows the extent of excessive government intervention. Nevertheless, given Singapore’s excellent economic progress over the years, it cannot be disputed that the government’s labour laws coupled with the NTUC’s support has created a conducive investment climate attractive to foreign investors. However, it is evident that the voice of Singaporean workers has been heavily suppressed by an authoritarian government and a weak labour movement. In conclusion, employee voice in Singapore has ultimately been sacrificed for the ‘greater good’ of Singapore’s economy.   References Beardwell, I 1998, 'Voices On', People Management, vol. 4, no. 11, pp. 32-36. Benson, J 2000, 'Employee Voice in Union and Non-union Australian Workplaces', British Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 453-459. Boroff, KE & Lewin, D 1997, 'Loyalty, voice, and intent to exit a union firm: A conceptual and empirical analysis', Industrial & Labor Relations Review, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 50-63. Bryson, A 2004, 'Managerial responsiveness to union and non-union worker voice in Britian', Industrial Relations, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 213-241. Burton, J 2003, 'Singapore cracks down on airline pilots' union', Financial Times, 2 December, viewed 8 August 2007, Factiva. Butler, P 2005, ‘Non-union employee representation: exploring the efficacy of the voice process’, Employee Relations, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 272-288. Channel News Asia 2003, 'SIA pilots should rethink their confrontational approach - DPM Lee', 28 November, viewed 8 August 2007, Factiva Chew, SB 1991, Trade Unionism in Singapore, McGraw-Hill, Singapore. Chua, KH 2003, 'SIA pilots, unhappy with pay-cut deal, oust union leaders', Straits Times, 19 November, viewed 8 August 2007, Factiva. Chuang, PM 2005, 'Tripartism is S'pore's edge, says PM Lee', Business Times Singapore, 22 October, viewed 8 August 2007, Factiva. Dundon, T, Wilkinson, A, Marchington, M & Ackers, P 2004, 'The meanings and purpose of employee voice', The International Journal of Human Resource Management, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 1149-1170. Page 8 of 11 Jordan Lee Freeman, RB & Medoff JL 1984, What Do Unions Do?, Basic Books, New York. George, T 1984, Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore, Eastern Universities Press, Kuala Lumpur. Gollan, P 2002, 'So what's the news? Management strategies towards non-union employee representation at News International', Industrial Relations Journal, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 316-331. Heery, E & Noon, M 2001, Dictionary of Human Resource Management, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Hirschman, A 1970, Exit, Voice and Loyalty, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies 1983, Southeast Asian Affairs, pp. 263-276, Gower, Aldershot. Josey, A 1976, Industrial Relations: Labour Laws in a Developing Singapore, Federal Publications, Singapore. Kaufman, B & Taras, D 1999, 'Nonunion employee representation: Introduction', Journal of Labor Research, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 1-8. Kwek, K 2007, 'A Singapore secret that cannot be easily copied', Straits Times, 25 January, viewed 8 August 2007, Factiva. Lewin, D & Mitchell, D 1992, ‘Systems of Employee Voice: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives’, California Management Review, vol. 34, no.3, pp. 95-111. Leggett, C 1984, ‘Airline Pilots and Public Industrial Relations: The Case of Singapore Airlines’, Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 27-43. Page 9 of 11 Jordan Lee Leggett, C 2007, ‘From industrial relations to manpower planning: the transformations of Singapore’s industrial relations’, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 642-664. Lloyd, C 2001, 'What do employee councils do? The impact of non-union forms of representation on trade union organisation'. Industrial Relations Journal, vol. 32, no. 4, p. 313-327. Loh, CK 2006, 'A 'unique' relationship; Bond between Govt, trade unions gives workers representation at every level: Halimah', TODAY (Singapore), 4 May, viewed 8 August 2007, Factiva. Ministry of Manpower Singapore 2007, Employee Trade Unions, viewed August 9 2007, <http://www.mom.gov.sg/publish/momportal/en/communities/workplace_standards/tr ade_unions/employeetradeunions.html>. Millward, N, Bryson, A & Forth, J 2000, All Change at Work: British Employment Relations 1980–1998 as Portrayed by the Workplace Industrial Relations Survey Series, Routledge, London. Nair, CVD (ed). 1976, Socialism That Works... The Singapore Way, Federal Publications, Singapore. National Trades Union Congress 1982, Not by Wages Alone: Selected Speeches and Writings of C.V. Devan Nair 1959-1981, Singapore National Printers, Singapore. Phan, M 2006, 'PM: Tripartite partnership is S'pore's edge', Business Times Singapore, 1 May, viewed 8 August 2007, Factiva. Raza, MA 1970, 'Singapore's Industrial Relations and Public Policy', Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 218-237. Page 10 of 11 Jordan Lee Reuters 2004, 'Malaysian Pilot Loses Singapore Residency Appeal' , 3 April, viewed 8 August 2004, <http://news.airwise.com/stories/2004/04/1080965318.html>. Sparrow, PR & Cooper CL 2003, The Employment Relationship: Key challenges for HR, Butterworth-Heinneman, Oxford. Straits Times 1996, 'Pro-worker or pro-profit?', 1 May. Straits Times 2004, ‘Opposition MPs reject revision’, 21 April, viewed 8 August, Factiva. The Electric New Paper 2003, 'What's up, Captain?', 4 December, viewed 8 August 2007, <http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/printfriendly/0,4139,42927,00.html>. Turnley, WH & Feldman, DC 1998, 'Psychological contract violations during corporate restructuring’, Human Resource Management, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 71-83. Watling D & Snook J, 'Works council and trade unions: complementary or competitive? The case of SAGCo', Industrial Relations Journal, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 260-270.  Read More →