TRADE UNIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Column: 2879

TRADE UNIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL: Order for Second Reading read.

The Acting Minister for Manpower (Dr Ng Eng Hen): Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Singapore enjoys a peaceful and productive industrial climate that is the envy of many nations. We have not had a strike since 1986. The state of our industrial relations is a key competitive advantage that attracts investments and businesses into Singapore. Our unions,

Column: 2880

principally led by the NTUC, and employer organisations, together with the Government, are equal social partners in the spirit of tripartism that work together for the common good and prosperity of this country.

But particularly because we have had industrial peace for so long, some may mistakenly take these relations for granted, and assume that this state of affairs is the natural order of things. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have achieved industrial harmony not by change, but by choice, hard work and constant tending to the ground. All three social partners interact constantly and often accommodate the other partners' concerns to achieve the greater good.

We did not inherit these virtuous conditions. Indeed, industrial relations in Singapore in the 1950s and early 60s were adversarial and confrontational. Frequent work stoppages, a lack of discipline and teamwork resulted in a poor investment climate, economic stagnation, high unemployment and social unrest. When independence was thrust upon us in 1965, and faced with dire economic conditions aggravated by the withdrawal of the British forces, the crucial challenge then was to move away from the adversarial labour-management relations to a cooperative one, and to develop a disciplined, motivated and productive workforce as part of the national effort to create a favourable environment for investment.

To achieve this objective, the existing legal framework was overhauled by introducing a rational framework for collective bargaining, conciliation and arbitration of industrial disputes, and also by establishing basic employment terms for employees. More importantly, the three social partners, ie, the employers, trade unions and the Government, realised that, for the industrialisation programme to succeed, confrontation had to be replaced by cooperation and collaboration.

Column: 2881

They, therefore, decided to adopt a tripartite partnership approach, with the Government as a facilitator, to bring about labour-management cooperation. A new spirit of tripartism unique to Singapore was thus born. This provided a consultative platform for industrial relations issues to be addressed and resolved amicably, and laid the foundation for the development of a disciplined and productive workforce.

This special bond between the three partners spurred growth, created job and raised standards of living for all. We should vigorously guard this framework and be alert to practices that can, over time, if left unchecked, undermine our labour relations.

It is with this caveat that I put to the House today the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill. While amending this Act, let me reiterate the Government's commitment to preserve the rights of workers and the unions that represent them to voice their concerns, bargain collectively and to seek redress. This Bill seeks to amend the Trade Unions Act to confer on the officers of a trade union and any other persons appointed by the trade union to represent its members in collective bargaining the authority to bind all the members by the collective agreement reached through negotiation with the management without the need for ratification by the members.

Let me elaborate on our reasons for proposing this amendment.

The ratification clause exists only in the constitution of one union in Singapore - the Airlines Pilots Association of Singapore (Alpa-S). In 1999, Alpa-S was restructuring to accommodate members from subsidiaries of SIA, such as Silkair. Alpa-S took the opportunity to introduce a clause into its constitution which required

Column: 2882

collective agreements (CAs) to be ratified by members. Ostensibly, through this check mechanism, members could, by their approval, affirm that their interests had been protected at the conclusion of the CAs and endorse the leadership of the negotiating team that negotiated this collective agreement. But, in practice, members' interests have not been safeguarded, as thereafter protracted and futile negotiations worsened relations between union and management, to the detriment of all. In some instances, negotiating positions had progressively hardened and precipitated deadlocks, as the Executive Council (Ex-Co) sought ratification from the members.

For example, in 2001, the collective agreement between Alpa-S and SIA management could only be concluded after 27 months of tedious negotiations. Even after this, the in-principle agreement between Alpa-S and the SIA management was short-lived, as it was overwhelmingly rejected by the Alpa-S membership during an EGM to ratify the agreement. This case was eventually referred to the Industrial Arbitration Court (IAC) and subsequently settled out of court. Both management and union must share the blame for this unproductive exercise. But the point is this: that the interests of both union members and the company suffered from these cycles of acrimony aggravated by the ratification clause. Last year, a wage cut was proposed by the management after SIA suffered losses due to the impact of the Iraqi war and the SARS outbreak. The dispute between the two parties was settled after the case had been referred to the IAC and mediation by MOM. But even after the Alpa-S members had ratified the agreement, 55% of their members subsequently voted out the President and his negotiating team for the agreement. Again, the ratification provision did not serve its original purpose of securing a mandate for the Ex-Co from union members because, as this case illustrated, members could, even after

Column: 2883

ratifying an agreement, change their minds and their leaders subsequently.

Other unions have been able to adequately protect and reflect their members' interests without this onerous stipulation. Unions affiliated to NTUC, which represents 99% of all unionised workers, vest the mandate in their Ex-Co to negotiate and commit to an agreement with the management. Doing so does not in any way compromise the membership's interest, as the Ex-Co is fully accountable to their membership and the decisions they make during negotiations. The Ex-Co is duty-bound to act responsibly in the interests of their membership, failing which the membership still retains the constitutional powers to vote the Ex-Co out through the AGM.

Similar provisions on the representation rights of trade union officers are found in the labour laws of other countries. Let me just quote one. For example, Article 6 of Japan's Trade Union Act delineates the authority of a trade union to negotiate as follows:

"Representatives of a trade union or those to whom the authority has been delegated by the trade union shall have the authority to negotiate with the employer or the employer's organisations on behalf of the trade union or the members of the trade union with respect to conclusion of a collective agreement and other matters."

The Bill will, therefore, facilitate a more efficient process of collective bargaining and will not compromise or diminish the rights of unions and members in collective bargaining. Presently, only Alpa-S will be affected by this change, and the amendment will also override any future rule or resolution by a trade union which requires agreements to be ratified by union members.

Sir, I do not want to give the wrong impression that this amendment alone will

Column: 2884

improve relations within the union or their relationship with management, be it in SIA or elsewhere. The ratification clause is one of many aggravating factors, and this change is necessary. But management continues to bear the responsibility for restoring, building and nurturing the relationship between them and their employees. Leaders and members of unions, however, can accelerate productive outcomes with positive attitudes.

In this regard, the tripartite partners, comprising the employers, unions and the Government, have formulated a Code of Industrial Relations Practice. This Code is to promote and guide both employers and trade unions to conduct industrial relations and deal with labour-management relations in a responsible and constructive manner for the benefit of the company and its workers. I am pleased to present the Code for Members' information, which I now ask the Clerk of Parliament to distribute. [Copies of Code distributed to hon. Members.]

Again, this Code is unique to Singapore

and it reflects that special bond, the spirit of tripartism which I spoke about earlier.

In conclusion, I would like to emphasise that the harmonious industrial relations in Singapore are essential for economic growth and social stability. It is important that Government guides the framework for industrial relations so that it supports the development of harmonious relations. This includes being vigilant and taking action to prevent practices that are contrary to this objective.

There are many jobs and livelihoods at stake if industrial harmony is undermined. But the Government cannot, through changing laws alone, improve labour-management relations. This must be built

Column: 2885

by management, employees and their unions, company by company.

Let me close by calling on the management, employees and unions to continue to foster strong partnerships based on mutual trust and purpose.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Mr Speaker, Sir, this amendment inserts a new section 30A to say that the officers of a union will be allowed to conclude collective agreements with employers without seeking ratification from the members. Any provision to the contrary in the union's rules will be void. This is, in effect, giving elected union membership a blanket authority during the term of their office to act on behalf of members without the need to face the consequences of their action until the end of their term of office.

The rationale behind some unions requiring their officers to come back to them for confirmation of collective terms is to avoid situations where the officers get carried away and agree to terms not acceptable by the majority of the union members. It also serves as an effective deterrent against union leaders acting on their own interpretation of what is in the best interest of their members without consultation and confirmation from members as to what they think is their best interest.

To me, obtaining members' ratification of terms of collective agreements is a superior process and a better safeguard for union members. It is also in line with the spirit of democracy of which accountability of leaders is the hallmark. Accountability does not merely lie at the end of one's term of office nor at

Column: 2886

elections. True accountability means acting in accordance with the mandate given by the members and being answerable to members for actions taken. If we believe and trust the wisdom of the people, it should be up to each union to decide what kind of rules they want. The officers are chosen by the union members and it is up to the members to decide how much power to give them. If the union's rules provide that the negotiating officers cannot conclude terms of agreement or collective agreements unless the members confirm the terms, then why should the Government impose this blanket condition on all the unions by way of legislation?

Having said that, this amendment does not surprise me. It reflects the typical mindset and the response of the PAP Government. This is the response to the robust democratic process of the Alpa-S union, which needed the attention of the Senior Minister to finish his unfinished business. In Singapore, rarely do we see such incidents of organised labour movement openly pressurising their management to secure the best deal for their members and replacing their leadership to demand accountability. I suppose with this amendment, the unfinished business is done. I am quite sure similar episodes will not have a chance to take place again. This is the typical response of the PAP Government. If they cannot control you or is unable to persuade you to act according to their wishes, they will outlaw you or cripple you by legislation. A legitimate act could become a criminal act overnight. A robust organisation could become subdued and submissive. Welcome to Singapore!

The PAP Government is able to do this because Parliament, which makes laws, is the territory of the PAP. Some people say that the only law in Singapore is PAP law. Others say that under the PAP Government, there is no rule of law, only ruled by law! Why is it that after nearly

Column: 2887

40 years of nation-building, there is political apathy among Singaporeans? Why is it that our pledge "to build a democratic society", sounds hollow, with our people being passive in upholding the principle and the spirit of democracy and fearful, even ignorant of their democratic rights? The answer, I believe, lies in legislation like this. This is the Singapore story untold.

Sir, I oppose this amendment.

Mdm Halimah Yacob: Sir, I rise in support of this Bill. In practical terms, this amendment will have little impact on the 63 unions affiliated to NTUC. Among our unions, the Executive Committee, as the duly elected body of the workers through secret ballot, can negotiate on behalf of their members and enter into binding collective agreements with employers.

There are about 1,200 collective agreements registered with the Industrial Arbitration Court. Every year, about 300 of these collective agreements are renegotiated by our affiliates with no difficulty whatsoever.

Sir, this provision, found in the constitution of our unions, empowering the Executive Committee to negotiate a collective agreement without the need for ratification by members, is voluntarily adopted and is not the result of any statutory requirement. Although the existing arrangement has worked satisfactorily for us, we are supportive of the move to enshrine what is already a widespread practice into our law as this will provide greater clarity and certainty in the conduct of industrial relations and minimise potential disputes due to the increased complexities of the workplace today. Nevertheless, Sir, there are some concerns that have been expressed over this amendment which I would like to highlight here and seek a response from the Minister.

Column: 2888

Sir, some people, like Mr Low Thia Khiang, a few moments ago, have expressed the concern that this amendment represents a step backwards and is not in the interest of workers. The issue is whether this amendment will deny individual members the right to have a final say on their pay package. Some see ratification by members as an important safeguard which will be removed with this amendment, as the Executive Committee will now no longer be accountable to their own members over such an important issue as their salaries and terms and conditions of employment. To some extent, in my view, this concern may be overstated as ultimately, members still wield the power over the Executive Committee to act in their interest. They can, for instance, refuse to re-elect an Executive Committee that has negotiated a collective agreement against their interest. And there is, of course, nothing to stop them from throwing out an Executive Committee mid-stream that has negotiated a collective agreement which they feel is not in their interest.

Democratically, Sir, unhappy members can also vote with their feet and leave the union. These factors will, in my view, act as a natural constraint on the unions' Executive Committees who would, themselves, be affected by the collective agreement that they negotiated for their members to act in their members' best interest. Sir, nevertheless, the Minister's clarification on this point whether the amendment would indeed be detrimental to workers' interest is important, bearing in mind that this is a restriction that will now be mandated, instead of being voluntarily adopted by unions. In the latter event, one could still argue that members, when approving the voluntary system of non-ratification, have the final say on how they should be consulted.

Secondly, Sir, there are also concerns expressed that this amendment is one-

Column: 2889

sided. While the amendment prevents union members from overriding the collective agreements negotiated by the Executive Committee, there is no corresponding obligation imposed on employers so that the board of directors or the shareholders of a company can override a decision made by the management or disagree with the collective agreement that has been negotiated with the union. It is a fact that there are employers who drag their feet, resort to delaying tactics and who send representatives to the bargaining table without any mandate to settle with the union.

So, Sir, in the absence of any provision imposing a similar statutory obligation on the employer, could the Minister tell us what steps the Ministry will take to impose similar obligations on employers to negotiate in good faith and to respect workers' and trade unions' rights during collective bargaining? Would this amendment, Sir, amount to a situation where unions are now required to negotiate with one hand tied behind their back, but employers have both hands free?

Sir, thirdly, there are many who feel that this amendment alone is not sufficient and will not, by itself, result in good industrial relations. The law can provide a useful framework for unions and management to deal with each other in a rational and orderly manner. But, Sir, in today's context, one requires much more than just a civilised manner of dealing with each other. What is needed is a collaborative relationship built on trust and confidence, a sharing of mutually agreed goals, strong communication and fair and transparent rules. No law, however, Sir, can mandate all these nor is it something that can be built overnight.

Sir, our experience shows that where there is a high level of trust, it is much

Column: 2890

easier for companies to implement change and workers are more receptive to wage freeze, wage cuts or even retrenchments. Where there is a low level of trust, Sir, restructuring becomes more bumpy and acrimonious. I am therefore happy that there is now a Code on Industrial Relations to codify some of the key guiding principles and ensure strong partnership between management and unions.

However, Sir, for this Code to be truly meaningful, it must have the support and endorsement of the top leadership in the company and be implemented at every level of management. So I would like to ask the Minister what steps will be taken to strongly promote this Code among companies. One suggestion I would like to make is for the Ministry, together with the Singapore National Employers Federation and the NTUC, to organise a series of workshops and seminars on this Code so that everyone understands the part they have to play.

Sir, in this highly competitive world that we live in, infrastructures, systems and technologies can be easily duplicated if countries have the means to do so. What makes us different from many countries is our strong tripartism and good labour-management relations at the enterprise level. Sir, in order to preserve this edge, it is important that we continue to invest sufficient time, effort and resources in this partnership.

On this note, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr A Nithiah Nandan (Nominated Member): Sir, how critical is it for leaders to have mandate to deal on behalf of their members, as a clear mandate allows different partners in a negotiation to resolve issues in a harmonious way for the mutual benefit of both partners concerned? These are important questions. We need to reflect on our past experience to see what has happened in the past in many of the affiliated unions in

Column: 2891

NTUC. Here, I wish to share my own experiences.

Sir, in 1985/1986, we went through a severe economic recession. At that point of time, I was a leader with the then PUB Daily-Rated Employees Union. We had to take tough decisions. One of it was to accept a wage freeze and to forgo the mid-year bonus for these low-income workers. The union leadership had to take a decision, and we took a decision which was, no doubt, tough and unpopular.

With that and other tough measures introduced, such as the CPF cut, the Singapore economy rebounded and a lot of progress took place. The PUB Daily-Rated Employees Union in 1989 negotiated a collective agreement on behalf of its members. Through that collective agreement, workers managed to enjoy a pay increase of between 18%-21%. All that came about because a very strong harmonious industrial relation existed. We were able to take tough decisions, and we had the mandate to take tough decisions. This was one of the examples we went through.

Then, in the 1990s, we wanted to take away this daily-rated concept because it was a misnomer of our colonial days. The union discussed this issue with its Executive Council and we decided that we could not do it by wage increase alone and we needed to address a more fundamental issue of helping the workers to go through training, whereby they could adapt to the new technological changes taking place in the market.

To do that, we had to take some very tough decisions. At that point of time, this group of workers was working from 7.00 am to 2.50 pm and thereafter, they did a second job. So any training programme or any change in their working hours to attend a training programme will become very disruptive.But then the

Column: 2892

collective benefit of all the employees and their long-term benefits have to be taken into account. So, we decided to discuss this with the management, and the management too had a strong mandate. The director had a very strong mandate from the management and he understood the problem. He knew that was the right direction, and he was able to convince his senior management.

From 1992 to 1997, about 1,800 daily-rated workers were trained and retrained. After which, they were able to acquire monthly rated positions, which were more secure jobs, and they were also able to enjoy higher wages. If they had not gone through the changes and attended the training programmes, today, they would be earning between $1,000 and $1,400. But by accepting the changes and accepting the union leaders' decision, today, they are able to enjoy salaries of between $2,000 and $2,700, and this is a hefty increase.

All this was possible because the union leaders had the mandate. In my own experience, since 1979, I have negotiated over 20 collective agreements, and went through nine elections. If the workers' interests have not been taken into account, that would not have been possible. The union constitution provides sufficient provisions for the whole executive council to be removed by the ordinary members. And we have to make sure that we are close enough to our members, close enough to even listen to their pulse, and this is important for a union leader. We have to hear views and feedback. But at the end of the day, we have to make decisions. And to make decisions, we need a mandate.

So, this amendment, I believe, is long overdue. In fact, it should not have taken such a long time to amend this law. But at the same time, some other concerns

Column: 2893

have been raised. One of the concerns has been highlighted by Mdm Halimah. As far as union leaders are concerned, they have a clear mandate. What about management?

Lately, we notice that some employers are more concerned with shareholders' interest. Their primary concern is on shareholders' interest, not so much for the other stakeholders, especially the workers. So, they are not giving a clear mandate to human resource heads to negotiate with the unions, and this has caused a lot of disruption in the workplaces.

The Acting Minister has circulated a Code of Industrial Relations Practices. But this is just a piece of document. You just sign and then you keep it in your file. It does not serve anybody's interest. You must make sure that it is put into real practice. Because by issuing this statement, tomorrow, everything is not going to change. Those reluctant employers must change their attitude, and must give a clear mandate to their human resource director to negotiate. If they do not have a mandate, then there is no point in blaming the unions or the union leaders. So, this is very crucial for harmonious industrial relations.

We have decades of industrial harmony and peace, and we have enjoyed prosperity and growth. On the average, we have enjoyed about 5% wage growth since the NWC started in 1972. All this could not have been possible without cooperation and clear mandate. But, going forward, with a very competitive environment, we see a lot of difficulties arising. On this, the Manpower Ministry has to give its Conciliation Officers more powers, so that they can take to task employers or their representatives who are not showing the kind of support that they should give to good industrial

Column: 2894

relations practices. It is not just by signing papers, because this is not a legal document. And if it is not a legal document, employers will just talk about it and after that, they will forget about it. I think we should not allow that to happen. If we are sure about the amendment, make sure that it is balanced - the interests of the workers are taken care of and, at the same time, the employers' interests are also taken care of. But the employers must also exercise their responsibility and give a proper mandate.

Sir, in conclusion, I just wish to state that in my view, a leader without a mandate is similar to a body without a head. On that note, I support the Bill.

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Sir, I am really concerned with the amendment in the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill and do not support the passing of this amendment. Just imagine a worker called Mr Flying Pilot. Without joining any union, Mr Flying Pilot makes his own decision on the terms of employment with his company. Yet, after joining a trade union, his power to decide on his own terms of employment with the company has been replaced by a collective agreement, something that is negotiated and agreed upon on his behalf without his participation, agreement nor ratification. This is no good. How can a person who joins a union have his employment rights legally restricted? People who join unions want to have a voice, an outlet for them, to improve their rights, their lives, their work environment and be more effective when negotiating with the management for fairer wages. If this voice is being crippled by law, what is the point of them joining a union any more?

Instead of being reassured that the union will protect Mr Flying Pilot's earnings and livelihood, he may have sleepless nights wondering and worrying

Column: 2895

whether the union officials had accepted an unsatisfactory collective agreement with a difficult and not responsive management. He has no choice but to worry unnecessarily because there is no cause for redress for him once the law is passed. This amendment adds insecurity, uncertainty and stress to union members, and should not be passed at all. However, as said by Mr Low Thia Khiang earlier, with the complete dominance of Government Members in this House, I am most assured that this amendment will be passed through easily. Therefore, I can only advise our Singaporean workers to seriously think twice if they want to renew their union membership or join any unions in Singapore in future.

Dr Ng Eng Hen: Sir, let me thank Members for their responses.

I was very heartened with Mr Nithiah Nandan's heartfelt recounts of how he was able to secure a mandate and leadership. In his capacity, he had negotiated 20 collective agreements and re-elected nine times. Even in some unions, with this ratification clause, there have been more leadership changes than collective agreements bargained.

Mr Nithiah Nandan said that leaders without mandate are like a body without a head. It invoked images of thrashing headless bodies around! And, indeed, in some circumstances, it was, as I related to Members how in the last negotiations in 2001, after a tedious exercise of 27 months, even with in-principle agreements, it was overthrown by the membership.

Mr Nithiah Nandan's account is certainly more enlightening than Mr Low Thia Khiang's diatribe against what he calls "the oppression and how we have crippled rights". But is this so? What rights have we deprived from this amendment? Have we deprived workers of the right to bargain collectively? No.

Column: 2896

Have we deprived them of the right to organise? No. Have we deprived them of a right, if they feel that their interests have not been protected, to change the leadership? Not at all. They can call, as Mdm Halimah has said, an EGM to change the leadership. Have we deprived them of the right to seek recourse or a decision by the Industrial Arbitration Court? And the answer is again no. So, Mr Low hypes the effects of this amendment, and this amendment only seeks to facilitate the collective bargaining process, which I have recounted, this clause has not effected.

Mr Low Thia Khiang and Mr Steve Chia speak much about protecting workers' rights, and that this amendment will increase the insecurity of workers. In the last few months, we have put out in broad print the challenges of the aviation industry. It seems to me that they have ignored completely all the challenges, and only made political points. Which is the greater insecurity? That of individual unions demanding their own personal share to the detriment of the company? And when the company suffers and divisions go under and workers are unemployed, will Mr Steve Chia and Mr Low Thia Khiang say, "Well, there you are, but your rights have been protected. You are out of a job, but never mind!"

Mr Steve Chia makes a plea to Singaporeans not to join unions. I would ask him to look at the membership numbers from the NTUC which represents 99.5%. Locally, the numbers have gone up. And if you compare it internationally, the numbers and the union memberships have grown from strength to strength. What does that tell us? It tells us, as Mr Nithiah Nandan has said, that Singapore workers are much more enlightened. They look at the overall effects. They see what the Government says. They see what the union membership say and can deliver, and they are willing to trust that leadership to deliver what was promised -

Column: 2897

not quick remarks, not grand sounding aspects, not chest thumping, what Mr Low Thia Khiang refers to as superior processes of democracy. In other words, go on the streets, demand your rights, never mind the overall picture, never mind the ability of the companies to survive, never mind the economic competitiveness of your nation. I think that our workers and our citizens are much smarter than them.

Mdm Halimah asked what safeguard do we have to make sure that employers do not abuse this. First, I would say that employers do not have a rule requiring them to seek ratification of negotiated collective agreements. But I also take the point that there may be instances where employers, for whatever reason, do not come to a conclusion or lengthen out the process. And I would advise such employees who have such employers, as both parties now have the ability, to make ex parte applications to the IAC or to approach MOM for conciliation. The Ministry of Manpower would advise the employer not to cause undue delay in negotiations and help the two parties reach an agreement within a reasonable timeframe.

Mr Nithiah Nandan says, give more powers to my conciliation officers. I think we have been doing OK, looking at the number of collective agreements and the number of cases that we have had to settle. But I take their point - Mr Nandan and Mdm Halimah - that the Code of Industrial Relations Practice that was circulated today is a piece of paper. They are quite right, but it is a valuable piece of paper. Very few countries, if you read the contents, are able to arrive at these enlightened principles, to have it signed by union, Government and employers. That starting point should not be underestimated. It is unique. I have travelled widely. I have consulted

Column: 2898

employer organisations, as I have visited trade union leaders. We are the exception to the rule. It is an important starting point. It is a valuable platform. Yes, we will roll out this series of seminars, as Mdm Halimah has suggested, to bring on board more employers and more union leaders. It is certainly not a piece of paper to be filed away.

Sir, let me conclude by saying that this amendment does not in any way deprive or diminish the rights of workers or the unions that represent them.

But it does seek to facilitate the collective bargaining, and this is an important rational framework for us to conclude collective agreements so that workers and management know that there is a limited time framework to which their rights can be negotiated, failing which there is recourse to either MOM for conciliation or the IAC as a final arbiter. This serves to give a framework which gives predictability, sensibility and profit for all.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, may I seek clarification from the Minister?

Mr Speaker: Yes.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, the Minister asked what has this amendment deprived the workers. I would like to ask him: does this amendment not deprive the right of workers to decide how much authority they want to give to their leaders to negotiate collective agreements? And the Minister also quoted Mr Nithiah Nandan's speech that a leader without mandate is a body without a head, floating around. But having a wrong mandate, which is not accountable, you may find a situation where you have the head floating around without the body.

Dr Ng Eng Hen: Sir, this amendment does not in any way reduce the ability of the members who are dissatisfied with the leadership to remove them. That is a fundamental point. They can call an AGM

Column: 2899

and remove the leaders at any time, even after this amendment. So, in that way, their rights are not deprived at all.

Mr Low Thia Khiang asked: does this reduce the mandate for leaders? But this ratification clause, as I have illustrated, in no way assures a mandate. Because looking at the exercise last year where the wage cuts from SARS were negotiated by the Ex-Co and ratified by the members, a few months later, even before the removal of the thermal scanners, the members changed their minds and removed their leaders. So, what assurance was that given to leaders? This clause has neither helped members nor their leaders. It does not deprive the members of their right to change and elect new leaders. That is fundamental. But it does facilitate the collective bargaining process. As I said, this is not the only factor which aggravates labour-management relations, and we should not pretend that amending this Act will suddenly improve relations. As Mdm Halimah says, there is a lot to be done and we will continue in this process. This is a necessary change, but it is a first step of many steps that we must help unions and their leaders who have trouble to restore, to build and to reach a situation where the mandate is strong enough for them to believe their members, for the leaders to believe the management, and for the management to take the leaders into confidence about where the company is headed, and for all to thrive and benefit.

Mdm Halimah Yacob: Sir, I would like to ask the Minister this issue about getting members' views before a collective agreement is signed. With this amendment, does it mean that the Executive Committee cannot get their members' views and inputs before they sign the collective agreement? Does this amendment preclude them from doing so?

Dr Ng Eng Hen: Sir, since coming to this House, I have been very impressed

Column: 2900

with Mdm Halimah's incisiveness, and I am sure she asks the question for me to reiterate the point, and the answer is, of course, no. And she herself knows, which is the modus operandi for NTUC, they practise a pre-mandate. The Executive Committee consults their members way beforehand and asks, what can they do, what should they arrive at, which is a sensible thing to do. It no way deprives the leaders of asking their members: "What is it that we can do? And what is it you will accept?" But the ratification clause, in practice, was that it created a dynamic where there was brinkmanship. Sometimes, there was a power play; sometimes, the leaders use the excuse to say, "Well, I can't conclude because the members might not agree." And this has created a negotiation, a dynamic that precipitated that lock. Because at each successive cycle, the stakes got higher, until both sides were locked and you could not come to an agreement. Therefore, that is why you have 27 months of negotiations. This is one of the factors.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: I wonder why is there a need for the Government to come in to legislate in order to outlaw similar provisions passed by union members. The union members may decide whether or not they want to give full power to their leaders for negotiation or they may want to decide that, all right, after negotiation, their leaders come back to consult the members. Of course, I think there is nothing to prevent the union leaders, after negotiating the collective agreement, to consult the members. But the onus is on the union leaders. If there is a resolution passed by the unions, it will be mandatory for the leaders, after negotiating the agreement before signing it, to come back to consult the members. So the members' interest is in a way protected. At least, the members know what is the final agreement which they are going to conclude. Does he agree with that?

Column: 2901

Dr Ng Eng Hen: Sir, I mentioned in my preamble that because we have industrial peace for so long, some may mistakenly believe that this is a natural order of things - that the industrial relation that we have is a natural order of things. Mr Low Thia Khiang asked why is it necessary for the Government to intervene. I have said that the three social partners interact constantly. This is not a static picture of harmonious relationship because it is so. It is because we have constantly tended to the ground. And why we have intervened is because this ratification clause, as I have amply shown, precipitates or worsens labour-management relations. In fact, for them to get the clause into their constitution, they had to ask the Registrar of Trade Unions' permission, and we allowed it. But through these years, they have shown, and we have observed, that it does not help them. So just as we have the powers to say yes for a clause to be included, we only allowed the clause because ostensibly they said this protects members' interest and facilitates labour-management relations. But when the clause has not been shown to serve its orginal purpose and, indeed, worsens relations, I think it would be remiss of the Government not to intervene.

Why do we not just allow them to, as Mr Low says, for the Ex-Co to go back to the membership for the reasons that I have illustrated? But removing this clause does not deprive the members from having the final say on their leadership. The point is that many other unions - in fact, this is the only union which has this ratification clause - have been able to function and achieve collective agreements, and protect their members' interest without the need for this ratification. If Mr Low wants to know how it is done, I suggest he consult my NTUC counterparts in this House. Some of the examples that have been cited are that they practise a pre-mandate. In other words, they ask the members beforehand what positions are agreeable. That is a fruitful and productive way of doing.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Dr Ng Eng Hen].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.