Skip to main content

End of Tripartite Just like the End of Apartheid?


Singapore’s tripartite model of labour relations has underpinned three decades of success, but it must now contend with destabilising forces in the modern globalised economy. #1
The new political norm, the recent labour disputes and the large number of foreign workers has posted a life and death challenge to the tripartite partnership of union, employers and government. Will this partnership end like the Apartheid in South Africa in years to come?

The Apartheid can hold on for so long all because of the strong and authoritarian National Party of South Africa. Indirectly, it also received supports from the West in the beginning. However, the Apartheid cannot sustain when more and more people understand the reality, the true.   

Apartheid (pronounced [ɐpɑːrtɦɛit]; lit. "aparthood") is an Afrikaans[1] word for a system of racial segregation enforced through legislation by the National Party governments, who were the ruling party from 1948 to 1994, of South Africa, under which the rights of the majority black inhabitants of South Africa were curtailed and white supremacy and Afrikaner minority rule was maintained. Literally defined, it means 'the status of being apart'. #2

There is a time limit for ‘being apart’.  Just like the PAP, Just like the tripartite partnership.  The tripartite partnership is a success model in the past and this is what the PAP government wants it to be. However, the government itself is not as solid as before (not as intelligent and total control as before).  Can it still hold on the same position like the past? Can the tripartite partnership function as effectively as the past?

NTUC and SNEF

We all know who can become the chief of NTUC and perhaps same for SNEF.  

The tripartite partnership is supposed to be an equal relationship.  However, the NTUC and SNEF are over representing employees and employers in many ways. But with the government support, they are given equal partnership status but ‘the status of being apart’.       
“Of the 1.16 million foreign workers here, only 11 per cent or 125,000 are unionised. In contrast, about 27 per cent or 560,000 of 2.08 million local workers are union members.” #3

The best NTUC can only claim that they are representing minority workforce in Singapore. Even Singapore workers, NTUC is only representing less than 30% of the workers.  If you understand why 60% of the votes can translate into more than 90% of the parliament seats, you will understand this logic of representation better.

Comparatively, SNEF scores higher and it claims to cover 63% of workforce. But not to forget, SNEF is for the employers not for workers.    
The Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF) has released its advisory on employee grievance handling. This follows the illegal strike by a group of bus drivers from China, employed by transport operator SMRT. In a statement, the federation said it has emailed the advisory to nearly 20,000 employers. Together, they cover nearly 2 million employees or 63 per cent of the Singapore workforce. #4

Control and Command of ‘being apart’

To maintain the Apartheid, the National Party needs the rules and regulations. Of course, a sustainable tripartite partnership also needs rules and regulations. One of them is the control on strike, for example the recent illegal strike of Chinese drivers at SMRT.

However, rules and regulations must be seen as fair and equal to all.  The Apartheid has its legality and so it can be used to detain or even torture people. But it has its limitation, especially when more and more people do not agree with it.

Total control and power are tools that can be used to create ‘status of being apart’.  This is why when Egypt’s 5-month old new President Morsi intends to give more power to himself, immediately there is a protest.  This is because more and more people are aware of ‘being apart’ and the consequence.     
Mr. Morsi, an Islamist and Egypt’s first elected president, portrayed his decree as an attempt to fulfill popular demands for justice and protect the transition to a constitutional democracy. But the unexpected breadth of the powers he seized raised immediate fears that he might become a new strongman. Seldom in history has a postrevolutionary leader amassed so much personal power only to relinquish it swiftly. #5

In the article ‘The Future of Tripartism in Singapore: Concertation or Dissonance?’, Soh Tze Min of Civil College Singapore points out the following possibilities:    
In spite of its widely recognised benefits, the centralised tripartite model is fast becoming a rarity. Countries such as Australia, Ireland and the UK have turned from a centralised tripartite model to enterprise-based collective bargaining, characterised by growing numbers of disparate trade unions each competing for members, and contending with employers for employment benefits according to the particularistic interests of their members.#1

The article also highlights “The Challenges of Tripartism”: 
Around the world, tripartism is waning: union membership is declining across Europe, Ireland, Netherlands and South Korea.13 Globalisation has skewed bargaining power in favour of businesses by expanding labour supply and increasing factor mobility, heightening conflicts between business and worker interests. With an open economy, Singapore is hardly immune to the destabilising forces of globalisation. Furthermore, changes in the social, economic and political environment are raising questions about the sustainability of tripartism in Singapore. #1

Soh also provides 3 scenarios:   Tripartism Endangered, Tripartism Rejuvenated, and From Tripartite to Multipartite Relationship.

The best hope for the PAP is a Rejuvenated Tripartism. But this scenario will require the government ‘to play a greater role in balancing the interest between business and workers.’ 

To play a greater role for the government when more and more people are aware of the present working of tripartite partnership?   Does it look like President Morsi giving more power to himself?  


#1
http://www.cscollege.gov.sg/Knowledge/Ethos/Issue%2011%20August%202012/Pages/The%20Future%20of%20Tripartism%20in%20Singapore%20Concertation%20or%20Dissonance.aspx

#2

#3
http://www.singapolitics.sg/news/labour-chief-sbs-good-model-labour-relations

#4
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1241219/1/.html

#5
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/23/world/middleeast/egypts-president-morsi-gives-himself-new-powers.html?_r=0

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Sub-standard PAP and the Singapore education system

I make a 'policy shift' when I hear the debate of right politics, constructive politics and sub-standard opposition. My original aim is to discuss about “Su Dongbo, Zhang Juzheng and Singapore education system”. The discussion will end with a sub-standard PAP, in particular from the assessment of the quality of PAP potential candidates. Another policy shift is to discuss it like a play, a drama and make it more entertainment rather than a sub-standard political discussion. Act 1 Gangster’s demand Imagine a sense in the Hong Kong's gangster movie (or a godfather movie), the gangsters' master is shouting at his poor opponent and demand him to give a price for his wrong act. The poor guy without any resources can only offer his body or his service to work for the master. Back in his own chamber, the master is still not satisfied and continues to shout 'don't play, play, you think you are hero, you think you are tiger, or superstar or acting ...

Is Prism Project Another Central Planning of the PAP?

There are 3 scenarios under the Prism Project#1 of Institute of Public Policy.  However, it looks more like the central scenario planning of the People’s Action Party. From the instructional menu of Prism Project Primer #2, participants were guided to a situation in 2022 and they have to imagine, within the Primer framework, to come out with 3 possible scenarios in Jun-Aug 2012.  2022. What a coincidence! Not long ago, PM Lee declared that he would like to hold the prime minister post for another 10 years. The other coincidence is the similarity between the 3 scenarios and the candidates of PE2011. How competitive and sustainable are the 3 scenarios to the people of Singapore and to the PAP?   Will the scenarios produce competitive and sustainable Singapore, Singaporeans or the PAP?  Perhaps, as what the Chinese say: planning cannot always catch up with changes.   And planning sometimes turns out the wrong, bad and unexpected results, espec...

对话一定要有共识吗?还是求取多元性来丰富自我?

全国对话喊到现在还一直高喊全国要有共识,尤其是全国对话的结果就是要寻求新加坡人的共识。不然,行动党就会说,我国的政治将会出现分裂,新加坡就变成一个不团结的国家。 全国对话一定要取得共识吗?文明对话的目的难道就是为了取得全国共识吗?如果是共识,那就一定有取舍。是不是说强势的人就领头共识,而落势的就落得一无所有。这不又走回老路,一条行动党独大的旧政治框框吗?看来,行动党对于过去,仍然依依不舍,行动党的共识,就是国家的共识,新加坡人的共识。 对话是要加深双方的了解,尊敬并且互相学习,吸取对方的优点,填补自己的缺点。这就是多元性的好处。然而全国对话的结果,如果只是强求共识,而忽略多元性和不同的意见,甚至否定他人的意见,那么,这个共识,是否具建设性,破坏性,还是分裂性,那就很难说了。 行动党似乎忘记了多元性。文明的对话并不是要把自己的 意见,信仰和理念强加给对方。即使这些意见,信仰和理念都是好的,善的。但是,对方未必会欣赏,未必会接受。因此,对话的结果应该是吸取对方的意见,改进自己的治国方针,然后,交给人民去决定,而这个决定也不过是大多数人的共识,而不可能是全国人民百分百的共识。 (乐观的看,行动党的全国对话,也不过是改进自己的治国方针,通过自己的小圈圈,自我讨论,研究,更新和改良行动党的政治策略,然后,在下一次大选时,拿出来让选民决定。因此,所谓的共识,在全国人民还没有决定前,仍然不是全国大多数人的共识。很可惜,行动党原本应该通过全国对话这个平台,吸收更多对手的意见,不同的观点,将它们纳入自己的政治策略中,然后在大选中让选民选择这个纳入反对意见的新政纲。可惜的是,行动党没有这个雅量,也或许根本看不起反对的意见。因此,它只能企图通过全国对话,硬要说这是全国共识。所以,充其量这只能说是行动党小圈圈的改良版政治策略,绝对不能说是全国共识。) ‘己所不欲,忽施于人’我们不喜欢的,不要强加他人身上。同样的,我们喜欢的,也不可以强加于他人身上。例如,有些人不喜欢吃有些食物,我们却很喜欢吃这类食物,但是,我们要尊重个人的喜好,不要强迫他人接受我们的建议。了解了这点,下一回提供食物时,就会通过多些选择,而不是只提供自己喜欢的食物。这点一般新加坡人都有这个敏感度,我们会了解马来族的要求,尽量避免他们敏感的食物。 为何行动党过去能够了解国人...