Advertisement

Trade unions can do more to educate migrant workers in S'pore about their rights: public forum

[UPDATE 24 Apr, 3.30pm: When asked by Yahoo! Singapore to clarify what claims are statutory and non-statutory, a MOM spokesperson replied, "Examples of statutory claims are non-payment of salary or overtime pay; or unauthorised deductions made from salary. Examples of non-statutory matters are disputes over wage increment or bonus payments".

In a forum letter on English daily The Straits Times Wednesday, AGC chief prosecutor Aedit Abdullah said that "even if the Trade Unions Act had applied - which it did not - the ultimate decision on the charges is within the prosecutorial discretion of the Public Prosecutor."

Aedit added that in the prosecution's submission, "whether the (four SMRT bus drivers) were trade union members or not was not a relevant consideration, given that their conduct clearly contravened the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, and that any sentence imposed had to reflect the gravity of their conduct."]

Panelists at a public forum on Sunday to discuss last November's mass SMRT bus driver strike called for more to be done to tackle the unequal treatment of migrant workers on the basis of pay disparity and living conditions.

The public forum, “Strike Out! The SMRT case, its implications and our experiences” -- which was co-hosted by civil advocacy groups Maruah, Think Centre, Transient Workers Count Too (TWC2) and Workfair Singapore -- also called for an anti-discrimination culture and law to be cultivated and instituted respectively in Singapore.

Panelists also agreed that trade unions are not doing enough to educate migrant workers on their labour rights.

Think Centre president Sinapan Samydorai said that the bus drivers faced contracts worded in English and a high recruitment fee of around S$7,000. He said drivers were also not told of differences in pay scales: that a Malaysian bus driver was paid more than that of a China bus driver.

According to an SMRT spokesperson, the starting pay of a mainland China driver on a two-year contract is $1,100 while a Malaysian driver on a permanent contract is $1,350. Singaporean and Permanent Resident bus drivers on a permanent contract earn a starting pay of $1,625.

“Migrant workers are treated as commodities. They have basic rights. How can you just kick them around as if they are nothing?” questioned Sinapan.

Sinapan also said that Singapore has not ratified conventions by the United Nations’ International Labour Organisation on core labour standards regarding freedom of association to form legal union groups, and employee and occupational discrimination.

Proper channel for non-statutory complaints?

Social worker Jolovan Wham from labour advocacy blog Workfair Singapore also spoke out on claims by the Ministry of Manpower that proper channels are given for migrant workers to voice their concerns.

“We know from our years on the ground that these so-called proper channels are not effective. If the workers’ complaints are not statutory concerns, how then can you legitimize your claim that these channels are proper and the concerns with the problems can be resolved?”

Wham criticised how NTUC labour chief Lim Swee Say reasoned out differences in pay between nationalities to how much money a migrant worker gets once he or she exchanges Singapore currency back to his or her home currency.

“The underlying assumption is that you are paying based on household expenditure. If that’s the case, Singapore drivers should be paid on household expenditure,” Wham said.

Wham further rebutted labour chief Lim’s points on how equal pay for equal jobs would be unfair t Singaporeans. He asserted that Singaporeans would lose out because cheap foreign labour would always be chosen by companies over pricier Singapore labour.

“When migrant workers are easy to exploit, local workers will be displaced,” Wham emphasised.

Flaws in act that bus drivers were charged under

Choo Zheng Xi, lawyer for He Junling — one of the four China nationals charged with leading the November strike -- pointed out that even if a migrant worker joins a trade union, a collective agreement between SMRT and National Transport Workers’ Union (NTWU) states that only Singaporeans are protected by the union and it excludes temporary and contract employees.

Choo highlighted how the bus drivers were charged under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (CLTPA), which metes out an imprisonable sentence.

“If you are union-protected, the prosecution has an option to charge you under the Trades Union Act,” said Choo. The Trades Union Act charges offenders a fine of not more than $2,000.

Choo pointed out that in Singapore’s last illegal strike, the Singapore Airlines pilot strike in 1980, all pilots who went on strike were discharged of all charges.

“It’s horribly ironic that Jun Ling and friends, who were not aware of their union rights or who were actively misled into not participating in the union, fall under the CLTPA, when if they had been union members and exerted the protection that they were entitled to, they would have gotten a fine,” he said.

Objective behind 14-day strike notice


Mark Goh, counsel for drivers Liu Xiang Ying and Gao Yue Qiang, added on to the alleged discrepancies in the CLTPA and said that the act “does not require the prosecution to prove the intent behind calling a strike. If you don’t give the notice, that’s it: it’s illegal”.

“The objective and the intention behind not giving a 14-day notice must come into play,” said Goh, noting that the act is one of public order and thus, the strike’s intent must be proven.

A 14-day notice must be given by persons who want to apply to hold a strike.

Goh said that, based on Parliamentary speeches made by Lee Kuan Yew and David Marshall in 1955, the CLTPA is targeted at clamping down on “topengs” (agitators) and “hotheads” who may disregard negotiations intended to be held during the 14-day strike notice period. Thus, Chan asserted that his clients did not fall into these categories.

“The CLTPA is silent under the objective test. Other than it saying the strike is illegal because no notice was given, there should be another test: for the prosecution to prove that the intention of the accused was for purposes other than to arrive at a collective agreement,” said Goh.

Related stories:

Allegations of police abuse by former SMRT bus drivers 'baseless': MHA

SMRT bus drivers' strike illegal: Tan Chuan Jin