TRADE UNIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Thomas Thomas: Sir, this Bill updates the regulation of trade unions. I agree with the Minister that this Bill will make it easier for unions to operate. Unionists must therefore welcome the amendments as they reflect changing times and ensure the quality of the movement.

Examples of changing times are the use of IT to maintain records and union register; reflecting the new investment climate of opportunities in the greater flexibility in the application of union funds, more leeway in the purchase of land and building; and also to make it easier for unions to change names or amalgamate, just as corporations do. This Bill will enable unions to respond more quickly to changes in their operating environment.

I would also support the increase in fines, because it also reflects changing times, and it is just like keeping up with times. The quality of the movement would also improve the imposition of additional disqualifications on those who want to hold union office or become trustees. I do not intend specifically to go through the details of the Bill, because it was adequately covered by the previous two Members.

Globalisation has increased the power of management relative to labour on a world scale. Management seems to have more options whilst labour has a smaller voice globally. Unless trade unions can remain an effective voice for the small man, frustration in the workplace can threaten social cohesion in the long run. Strong trade unions are therefore good for the country. In this context, I wish to thank the Minister for acknowledging the contribution of unions in the economic and social progress of Singapore, as well as saying that in the long run, he supports the growth of a responsible and strong trade union movement in Singapore. I therefore support these moves that would strengthen the trade union movement and therefore also support the amendments in the Bill. However, my only complaint is that I wish there were more amendments, which reflect the changing employment patterns.

In the past, a "normal" employment relationship involved a full-time job with a specific employer and usually had some long-term stability. We saw attempts in the past to promote company loyalty, a closer nexus between workers and employers, and even a shared common destiny. Therefore, this "normal" worker was also a normal union member or a normal potential union member, and he was a full-time employee whose employment relationship was not casual.

Today, things have changed so much. It is recognised that atypical employment situations are increasingly becoming typical. Part-time work, short-term and casual employment, agency work, self-employment, work from home, contract work and, of course, unemployment, are all now more common. Down-sizing and structural shifts in sectoral and occupational distribution, changing technologies and increased use of IT have added to these changes. The net result is increased uncertainty and ambiguity for the worker. The contract of service, which is used in the Trade Unions Act, to define a worker is more and more being substituted in the workplace with contract for service, as employers seek to lower cost with less manpower, to save on CPF contributions, fringe benefits and other benefits.

Allow me to illustrate this point. The New York Times of 16th February carried an article entitled "Who is the boss? Who is a worker?", reported some interesting cases. One was of temporary workers successfully suing and getting benefits of full-time workers. Another was that the New York State Attorney-General is trying to force Manhattan food stalls to pay minimum wage to delivery people employed from another company. There is even debate on whether health and safety standards for offices should apply to home offices. These cases, as illustrated, show that United States laws have not kept up with changes in the workplace.

In Singapore too, there are many workers with a contract for service instead of a contract of service working for one employer. The work they do can be considered an integral part of the business and the employer is able to discipline, dismiss and give them incentives. In the United States, non-governmental organisations, with the support of trade unions, are emerging as champions for the cause of workers in atypical employment. The question I ask is: who in Singapore should represent this growing group of workers? Should they bring their problems to Court and let Judges decide? In that case, do we want to see an increase in litigation, or do we want to see NGOs agitating on their behalf?

In view of all these, I would therefore like to ask the Minister to take some proactive steps to enable the trade union movement to cover this type of workers. By bringing them within our existing industrial relations system, it will reduce social tensions and enhance social cohesion. This would also ensure that our tripartite system, which has served us very well in the past, will stand the test of time and continue to serve in the best interests of workers, the employers and their unions.

Mr R. Sinnakaruppan (Kreta Ayer-Tanglin): Sir, I join my former colleagues from NTUC in supporting this Bill.

As the Minister had pointed out earlier, a major review of the Trade Unions Act was carried out way back in 1982. Although this Bill should have been introduced some years ago, it is, nevertheless, timely that the Ministry has brought to the fore some major amendments to the Trade Unions Act, especially because in the last few years, there have been significant changes and this changed circumstances in the administration of trade unions in Singapore.

Sir, I just want to touch on two or three key points in this amendment Bill. First, the delegate system, as pointed out in sections 33 and 34. As Mr Seng Han Thong has pointed out, many unions, for many years now, have been facing this problem of having annual ordinary members meeting, particularly unions like AUPE, UWEEI, SMMWU, SEAHSU and many others. They have as many as 30,000 members, and to have 30,000 members to come for a meeting is an impossible thing in Singapore. Even the World Trade Centre conference halls cannot hold these people. Therefore, they had to work within their union constitution to come out with this delegate system, and I am very pleased that the Ministry now recognises this delegate system and has actually empowered more provisions through this delegate system.

Looking broadly, globally there have been tremendous changes, particularly in the corporate world - company globalisation, corporate restructuring, together with some of the changes in Singapore, for example, corporatisation of statutory boards and other Government bodies, going from corporatisation to privatisation like PSA. All these have led to major impacts on the way the unions organise themselves and has therefore made it a necessity to have a major union restructuring through either dissolution of some of the older unions, or having amalgamation of unions, new statutory board employee unions and also the registration of new unions.

It is therefore appropriate that the delegate system is being recognised and extended to simplify vote taking by allowing decisions on the change of union names, amalgamation of unions and in the change of use of union funds. I am confident that the larger unions particularly will find this a more efficient and effective means for decision-making.

The only question I have in this regard to ask the Minister is: why is there a provision to say that there is a need for a two-thirds vote delegate system, while a simple majority is needed for an ordinary members' meeting? I recognise that it is a form of safeguard, especially in today's context where most unions are well-run, but you never know something in the future. But I want to know why this magic number of two-thirds.

As I have said, all these changes have come about because of the changing corporate manpower landscape due to globalisation, technology and corporate restructuring and so on. But these changes and response, while it is necessary, I think it is not sufficient. I feel that corresponding changes that relate to the unionisation of a wider range of employees to join rank-and-file unions may be necessary and the Nominated Member of Parliament, Mr Thomas Thomas, has touched on this point. I think the Ministry needs to examine, for example, section 16(3) of the Industrial Relations Act and look at a major review of this section. And the reason is as follows.

As Mr Thomas has pointed out, changing job designations, job re-designs, job enrichment and many other changes for employees necessitate a complete review as to who can be a union member. Sir, with the advent of the knowledge economy, or knowledge-based economy, as we call it in Singapore, it has blurred the distinction between a worker and a manager in today's context. I remember the Trade and Industry Minister, BG George Yeo, had some two or three years ago, at a NTUC Ordinary Delegates Conference, made a keynote address. He had said that in the knowledge economy, everyone, including managers, and even the CEO, is a knowledge worker. So, everyone is a worker. So, who can join a union? And in this context of a rapidly changing knowledge economy, and it is something that we ourselves are very much involved through Singapore 21 and many of the moves that Dr Tony Tan and his committee are looking at, we would certainly need to take it a step to the unions to see how union membership has to be extended.

Sir, I may still sound like a unionist who had spoken for workers many times in this House, though I have now returned back to the corporate world. This is because of the impact that NTUC had made on me during my stint there, a certain sense of passion for helping workers and unions. I want to use my personal experience, both in the union and management, to contribute in whatever small way to building a stronger tripartite model in the new knowledge-based economy.

Sir, the point that I want to make here is that union membership and collective bargaining rules have to be revamped in this context, and union membership has to be broadened through legislation, not just by convenience through union constitutions or rules. I therefore call for further amendments to the Trade Unions Act, as well as the Industrial Relations Act, if necessary.

I remember some years ago, the Secretary-General of NTUC had made this call to broaden union membership by proposing a 80-20 rule, meaning that in any organisation, 80% of the employees should be unionised. This point has been brought up many, many times in various forums where even the Minister himself was present and he felt at that point of time that there was no need to legislate. But some years have passed and I think with these amendments and with the change that is taking place in our economy, I think it is time to look at the legislation.

Sir, I would like to move on to some other amendment in this Bill - purchase of property. Section 46 has been repealed and re-enacted to give greater flexibility to trade unions to directly purchase properties while also making possible for decision making through the delegate system. This change will certainly be welcomed by the unions, I believe, for at least two reasons. Firstly, it gives them the direct opportunity to own and develop their own buildings, to give unions a status symbol and a public recognition that they truly deserve. Secondly, it also gives all their members more facilities within their own premises for their members and their members' families to use. Therefore, it takes away the need to work through other labour institutions or labour foundations to achieve this.

Sir, finally, in conclusion, I am generally pleased with the amendments put forth by the Minister for Manpower on the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill, though I feel more can be done. Some time ago, I made a call to the then Ministry of Labour, the new Ministry of Manpower, to play a more pre-eminent role in labour related issues as NTUC had done. I am very happy to note and acknowledge that during the past year or so, the Ministry of Manpower has launched major initiatives and charted new directions for Singapore through Manpower 21 and Construction 21 and many other initiatives like that. These have become blueprints for our workers' future and for the future of all Singaporeans. Sir, I congratulate the Minister and the Permanent Secretary and his team for a job well done.

Sir, I support the Bill.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen (Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have just one simple clarification to seek from the Minister. This is on the amendment to section 43. This amendment excluded two classes of individuals from holding office of trustee of a trade union. One group is undischarged bankrupts. The second group is individuals convicted of fraud, dishonesty or any other offence which the Minister considers them unfit to be a trustee. Yet, for the second group of individuals, there is a clause which says, "with the approval of the Minister." My question to the Minister is: why are undischarged bankrupts considered more undesirable than other individuals who have been convicted of fraud, dishonesty or other offences which render them unfit to be trustees?