The second-term MP asserted that” PAP leaders often claim that this symbiotic partnership has helped Singapore understand crises and create a nation.”
” This near position also poses significant problems to union independence,” the author continues.
Mr. Giam questioned whether a potential conflict of interest could arise when union officials are also ruling party users.
When those interests may conflict with their own government policies or the PAP’s political agenda,” Can they fully advocate for workers ‘ interests”? he asked.
They may experience stress to back the plan, even if they genuinely believe it to be harmful to the personnel they represent.
This could lead to a subdued union advocacy where social harmony is prioritized over worker right.
” Over time, the serious ingrained PAP impact within unions may lead people to believe that organisations are modifications of the PAP’s political apparatus rather than separate body representing workers.
Organizations may lose the ability to efficiently mobilize and support staff if they believe their passions are being subordinated to the PAP’s political objectives or their political goals.
Mr Giam also said that an” exceedingly near “relationship between the PAP and the NTUC risked creating” groupthink”, where union officials are less inclined to challenge prevailing plans.
” Such a condition may lead to a decline of vitality in labour policy-making, reducing the possibility of new and better methods from emerging, “he said.
The risk of this positioning may be especially high in Singapore in the event of a major social change. Organizations affiliated with the PAP may struggle to collaborate with the fresh state if the PAP were to lose power.
He continued:” It is crucial that crucial institutions in Singapore, including the trade union movement, are no answerable to one social party.”
Democracy OF Workers Organisations
Then, according to MP Christopher de Souza ( PAP-Holland-Bukit Timah ), Mr. Giam’s speech was deemed to be unrelated to the draft law debate.
He claimed that it was primarily an assault on the NTUC and the parasitic relationship between the PAP and the NTUC.
Indranee Rajah, the PAP-Tanjong Pagar head, scurried in and asked Mr. Giam if he thought labor unions had to be democratic party independent.
After Mr Giam agreed, she replied:” Someone who knows something about democracies will realize that in many of the democracies in the world, unions and social parties really have a nearby connection.”
She claimed that organisations were a key component of the political parties in the United Kingdom and the United States and Canada.
In reply, Mr Giam said the associations between the Trades Union Congress and the Labour Party in the UK” is not the same as them being symbiotic”, as the organizations” reserve the right to express their own jobs”.
He said,” I would like to just let it be known that WP supports the confederal dialogue between companies, organizations, and the current government,” but he opposed an explicit position with any political party.
” I think that organizations must be free and non-partisan, and they must reflect their workers without fear or favor in front of their businesses, the government, and the ruling gathering,” he said.
Eventually, Mr Giam asked:” You I presume that… if the PAP were to ever lose power, the NTUC had thus become an instrument of opposition against the novel government?”
Ms. Indranee claimed that it would be up to the NTUC and the employees to decide whether they would support a social gathering, and if so, which one.
What I may say is that the PAP will do everything in its power to prevent them from believing that they will never help them or that they will not do their very best to support the staff and the business union senate.
Therefore, according to Ms. Indranee, Mr. Giam was “driving more and more into the democratic domain” when the topic of the discussion was supposed to be platform worker protection.
She noted that a general election had be held in Singapore by November of that year.
The political rhetoric “every time a general election occurs or is about to occur, the rhetoric ramps up,” but do n’t place the platform workers in the middle of this. Do n’t use them as the beating bags or the pawns for this. We have a Bill to move.”
The PAP is “deeply embedded” in the unions, so Mr. Giam rejected Ms. Indranee’s claim that it would be up to the NTUC and the workers to decide which group they support.
” It is not an matter of only philosophical politicking, but this is an issue of administrative stability. Are we going to experience a situation where any fresh government that emerges from energy is fully encircled?
Ms. Indranee responded that trade organizations elect their own officials, and that having PAP users among the present coalition leaders did not imply that this would always be the case.
The key level that Mr. Giam is missing is that business organizations have their own minds. They have management. They are aware of what they are doing and will behave in the manner that they believe is best for both their organizations and their employees, she said.
Federation LEADERS” ARE Just STOOGES”
NTUC deputy secretary-general Heng Chee How ( PAP-Jalan Besar ) also called on Mr Giam to” give due respect to our union leaders”.
” They are not lackeys. They have the proper intentions. As fellow MPs thumped their handles in aid, the older minister of state for defense said,” They do all this for their own employees.”
The NTUC and the PAP have a synergistic relationship, enabling us to communicate the workers ‘ opinions and needs to our political partner, so that when they become the ruling party, when they gain Singaporeans ‘ confidence and have the authority to be the ruling party, that the interests of workers in this nation will always be prioritized above all else.
” And you take a look at the PAP’s track record throughout its tenure in office. What has it delivered for this land? What has it delivered for the personnel? Has it sold out the personnel? Has it embarrassed our union rulers”?
Additionally, according to Mr. Heng, the” parasitic relationship” that Mr. Giam and the WP expressed support for led to the House’s review System Workers Bill.
Political parties and trade unions “are not uncommon, and they do n’t do this out of ignorance,” but “because it serves the interests of the constituents that they represent simultaneously” in a partnership or alliance.
He urged the House to be “very, very cautious” with Mr. Giam’s arguments, noting that the MP’s prediction for a scenario in which tripartite companions would be more likely to agree for the benefit of the workers was untrue.
” So I just wanted to ( say ) this as my heartfelt response: Be fair to our union leaders, be fair to our unions, be fair to the NTUC”, said Mr Heng.
Mr. Giam responded by addressing the structural limitations that unionists face rather than “punching the determination and the work of unionists.”
” I think that many organisations are doing their best to represent the employees that they represent, but they face a lot of limitations because of the restrictions that the government places on them through the NTUC and other laws,” he said.
Impact OF THE Argument
Members debated whether Mr. Giam’s talk was pertinent to the proposed platform workers law.
Mr de Souza described Mr Giam’s talk on the NTUC as “unfair”, “opportunistic” and useless, while Mr Giam said it set the framework for items he wanted to make about the particular laws being discussed.
Seah Kian Peng, the house speaker, said Mr. de Souza made a” true point.” He later requested that Mr. Giam refer to Section 50 of the Standing Orders of Parliament, which mandates that members of Parliament only make observations about the subject being discussed and refrain from bringing up unrelated issues.
Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh ( WP-Aljunied ) immediately rebutted the speaker, saying that Mr Seah’s remarks were” critical”.
He recalled that Mr. de Souza had made a speech in which he “did not speak about the Budget, but he later advised the government or the PAP to make a decision regarding the 4G leadership” during a debate on the government’s budget in 2022.
” So I think the sanitary message you provided at the end is important, because it cannot be just accusations made at the opposition, but I think some PAP members ought to reflect on themselves”, the WP secretary-general said to Mr Seah.
Mr de Souza said that during the Budget debate,” the members have free reign to discuss what they want in addition to the Budget– the objectives, the values, the future they want to see for Singapore”.
He claimed that his speech on the 4G leadership was in line with the budget because, “budgets are nothing without key leadership.”
Later, Mr Giam said:” Why is it that… very often, when Workers ‘ Party brings up a valid policy point, we are accused of politicking and making political speeches, whereas when the PAP talks about something different, it becomes a relevant policy point.
I believe there is a need to treat us equally unfairly.
The discussion ended when the MPs resumed delivering their speeches on the draft platform workers law. The discussion of the proposed Bill continues on Tuesday.