Power To The People

last SG · 2005-09-24T21:20:18+00:00

GMS, 1) Do we? I reason out CiPRI to be an independent, non-partisan research engine striving to achieve social progress in our nation; isn't that how you v...

goh meng seng SG

In the democratic process, People's Power would be the ultimate basis of how the society should be managed. The only Power needs to be checked and control is those in the govt which has vast amount of resources and power to be utilized. People's Power is just "abstract" which is diverse in nature while Govt's power is REAL in terms of resources in its disposal and the things it could do.

How could People's Power be "damaging" if it is the popular will that is installed in it? For example, you are talking about consumers' want to be restricted in any ways instead of those providers of goods or services cater to the consumers' want? The customers are always right, remember?

Goh Meng Seng

BillyBong SG

The concept of Power To The People most probably come about from the French revolution that fought against monarchy rule. Monarchy rule is basically a despotic, autocratic rule. The characteristics of a Monarchy rule are somehow equivalent to a Monopolistic company. Both of them depend on the monopoly of power, be it in political power or market domination.

These monopolies would and COULD exploit the market to the fullest simply because there are no competition in the market. And most important of all, they are in control of goods and services that are a NECESSITY to the people. Good political governance is also a NECESSITY to a stable environment for people to live in. They derive their power basically because what they are providing is a necessity and they are the only ones who are providing these goods or services. If we view political governance as a kind of services, it is not difficult to understand the correlation between market monopolies and monopolies of political power. If the power of these monopolies are not curb, the people will suffer one way or another.

Of course, we could hope for benign monopolies just like ancient people always hope to have good Emperors or Monarch to take care of them, but these are rare exceptions from the historical perspective though it is not totally impossible.

History has proven that monopolies never really remain dominant in the face of real competition. In the case of an increasing number GLC firms, unless they innovate and 'entreprenate', their continued reliance on govt support will lead to their ultimate demise.

There is no need to 'act' against such monopolies. Instead there should be a preference to adopt a 'wait and see' policy. Some monopolies may indeed prove their worth i.e. wal-mart, IBM etc. They have proven that diversifying their products and improving themselves earn customer satisfaction, especially when consumers are flooded with choice. In any case, there will always be competitors ready to bite at the first mistake these giants make.

The reason for people to have POWER is basically because they need the BARGAINING POWER to balance the monopolies power. If they do not have this bargaining power, their needs would be neglected and the products and services will be overpriced.

Demonstration or expression of strong objections or dislike is an important way to get the better deal for citizens at large. The recent Eight White elephants saga is one fine example. Although I think it is a non-issue but look at it this way, at least such demonstration of dissatisfaction has force LTA to react and do something. However, the stiffening laws have prohibited Singaporeans right to make strong demonstration of demands or objections to various issues. However, those who put up the white elephants are deemed as law breakers under current laws though they are exercising their power to demand better deal from the LTA and transport provider.

PAP has claimed that they are opening up and there are many ways for people to feedback. However from my perspective, if such opening up doesnt bring value to voters bargaining power in the political system, it is not very meaningful at all. We may not want people to break laws and go on unlawful acts but I think there are good considerations to be made on the right to demonstrate (as guarantee by our constitution but administratively deprived by the ruling party) basically because it involves the bargaining power of the people. Hong Kong has provided an ASIAN example whereby LAWFUL demonstrations do not disrupt economic activities nor chase away foreign investors.

Thus when the reporters who interviewed us ask what do we think about the open society, my answer is pretty simple: the ultimate test of openness is whether PAP would give us (the citizens) back the right to demonstrate lawfully in Singapore. Ironically, if law and order is really the main concerns, why would PAP willing to allow foreigners to demonstrate in Singapore when IMF meeting is going to be held in 2006?

Street demonstration is only one important avenue of peoples power. Freedom of expressions in any forms is also very important. Active participation in political discussion and discourse is one way of exerting peoples power. Artistic deliberations of social phenomenon and political concerns are one important ways also. Of course, attending feedback sessions either with ruling party or alternative parties are important. However many people who have attended government sponsored feedback sessions are disillusioned and we should seriously ask why.

Given all the recent furore of seditious remarks etc, i'd think any mention of the word demonstration' would be viewed as an attempt to incite public disorder. I do agree that to some extent, if left unchecked, companies have a tendency to exploit workers or at the least squeeze them unethically. That is for MOM and NTUC to monitor and if necessary take appropriate action.

On the other hands, by giving power to irresponsible unions, they in turn would have the tendency to abuse their power. No one wants a similar situation to French Unions. To this end, i only see demonstrations as a waste of resources and manhours, especially if they are over meagre and negotiable issues.

So far, the only demonstration SG has seen was the one sanctioned by the late Ong Teng Cheong in the 1980s, and most critics including locals believed it was the RIGHT action at that time, despite the protests of the ruling party.

robertteh SG

Hello Mr. Goh Meng Seng,

Power to the people ? Not likely to happen. What you mean probably is not street mobs taking over the government but more balance in political participation in our environment.

Oppositions are not likely to succeed in taking over the government in the next election but you can field more candidates of the age-group 35-50 with some commitments to change.

These candidates should not wait until election time to walk about but should try to make their individuals credentials and personal beliefs known to the voters.

For example, Dr. Catherine Lim has made her beliefs and thoughts well known to Singaporeans. If she stands for election I think she will win. Get more candidates of credentials to give their views in forums and the like. Words will spread and you will form some good GRC teams to give the incumbent a good run of ideas and deposits. Don't give up.

pikamaster SG

Originally posted by BillyBong:
[b]
The concept of Power To The People most probably come about from the French revolution that fought against monarchy rule. Monarchy rule is basically a despotic, autocratic rule. The characteristics of a Monarchy rule are somehow equivalent to a Monopolistic company. Both of them depend on the monopoly of power, be it in political power or market domination.

These monopolies would and COULD exploit the market to the fullest simply because there are no competition in the market. And most important of all, they are in control of goods and services that are a NECESSITY to the people. Good political governance is also a NECESSITY to a stable environment for people to live in. They derive their power basically because what they are providing is a necessity and they are the only ones who are providing these goods or services. If we view political governance as a kind of services, it is not difficult to understand the correlation between market monopolies and monopolies of political power. If the power of these monopolies are not curb, the people will suffer one way or another.

Of course, we could hope for benign monopolies just like ancient people always hope to have good Emperors or Monarch to take care of them, but these are rare exceptions from the historical perspective though it is not totally impossible.

History has proven that monopolies never really remain dominant in the face of real competition. In the case of an increasing number GLC firms, unless they innovate and 'entreprenate', their continued reliance on govt support will lead to their ultimate demise.

There is no need to 'act' against such monopolies. Instead there should be a preference to adopt a 'wait and see' policy. Some monopolies may indeed prove their worth i.e. wal-mart, IBM etc. They have proven that diversifying their products and improving themselves earn customer satisfaction, especially when consumers are flooded with choice. In any case, there will always be competitors ready to bite at the first mistake these giants make.

The reason for people to have POWER is basically because they need the BARGAINING POWER to balance the monopolies power. If they do not have this bargaining power, their needs would be neglected and the products and services will be overpriced.

Demonstration or expression of strong objections or dislike is an important way to get the better deal for citizens at large. The recent Eight White elephants saga is one fine example. Although I think it is a non-issue but look at it this way, at least such demonstration of dissatisfaction has force LTA to react and do something. However, the stiffening laws have prohibited Singaporeans right to make strong demonstration of demands or objections to various issues. However, those who put up the white elephants are deemed as law breakers under current laws though they are exercising their power to demand better deal from the LTA and transport provider.

PAP has claimed that they are opening up and there are many ways for people to feedback. However from my perspective, if such opening up doesnt bring value to voters bargaining power in the political system, it is not very meaningful at all. We may not want people to break laws and go on unlawful acts but I think there are good considerations to be made on the right to demonstrate (as guarantee by our constitution but administratively deprived by the ruling party) basically because it involves the bargaining power of the people. Hong Kong has provided an ASIAN example whereby LAWFUL demonstrations do not disrupt economic activities nor chase away foreign investors.

Thus when the reporters who interviewed us ask what do we think about the open society, my answer is pretty simple: the ultimate test of openness is whether PAP would give us (the citizens) back the right to demonstrate lawfully in Singapore. Ironically, if law and order is really the main concerns, why would PAP willing to allow foreigners to demonstrate in Singapore when IMF meeting is going to be held in 2006?

Street demonstration is only one important avenue of peoples power. Freedom of expressions in any forms is also very important. Active participation in political discussion and discourse is one way of exerting peoples power. Artistic deliberations of social phenomenon and political concerns are one important ways also. Of course, attending feedback sessions either with ruling party or alternative parties are important. However many people who have attended government sponsored feedback sessions are disillusioned and we should seriously ask why.

Given all the recent furore of seditious remarks etc, i'd think any mention of the word demonstration' would be viewed as an attempt to incite public disorder. I do agree that to some extent, if left unchecked, companies have a tendency to exploit workers or at the least squeeze them unethically. That is for MOM and NTUC to monitor and if necessary take appropriate action.

On the other hands, by giving power to irresponsible unions, they in turn would have the tendency to abuse their power. No one wants a similar situation to French Unions. To this end, i only see demonstrations as a waste of resources and manhours, especially if they are over meagre and negotiable issues.

So far, the only demonstration SG has seen was the one sanctioned by the late Ong Teng Cheong in the 1980s, and most critics including locals believed it was the RIGHT action at that time, despite the protests of the ruling party.
[/b]

Billybong,

(numbering for this post includes bolded paras)

4) I guess they would.

5) The difference is that IBM, Walmart and so on are private monopolies. GLCs are pseudo-private monopolies, tt is the latter is essentially government-run. And precedent shows that nationalized industries more often than not suffer from diseconomies of scale.

11) I think there is something wrong with the Sedition Act itself. But anyway, history has shown MOM and NTUC to be favourably inclined towards the employers; look at the SIA saga for example. NTUC is more a government department than a trade union, looking that it actually runs supermarkets and so on. Seriously, would FairPrice look into allegations of it mistreating its workers? I don't think so. There is too much vested corporate interests here. Singapore has basically sold its soul to the MNCs.

12) It always puzzles me as to why the only references people use for trade unions and demonstrations etc. are France, Germany, USA and Taiwan. These are not the only countries with trade unions and the right to public protest you know. For the trade union issue, French unions are not representative of the entire world's collection of free trade unions. There are free trade unions in Switzerland, Sweden and Denmark as well. In these countries, there is a very high level of social and political stability, and (surprise! surprise!) these unions have a very low strike rate. But they are also free trade unions, not like our NTUC, which like I mentioned before, looks more like a government department than anything else.

13) I admire Ong Teng Cheong for that action of his. I only wished Nathan was as brave as OTC when he encountered the SIA question. Obviously, the ruling party did not like it; it hurt their foreign investment, didn't it? Mr. Green That just shows how unconcerned the ruling party is for the welfare of the citizens.

Cheers,

the pikamaster

pikamaster SG

GMS,

1) Objectivity means to judge things based on all possible and available perspectives.

2) Ya, I agree with what credibility depends on. However, I'll clarify my take: if CiPRI is doing research first and then sharing its results with the political parties concerned, that's ok; if CiPRI is basing its research on the whims and fancies of the political parties, that is it is streamlining its research projects to suit partisan demands, then that is a definite no-no. I think the test for which condition CiPRI is currently in is this research question: Assess fully the political parties in Singapore and their respective policy lines. If CiPRI can do this question without shwoing bias in its analysis for/against any party in Singapore, then it has maintained its credibility.

3) You misunderstand me: "partisan" in my context means "sliding [CiPRI's] research to suit the interests of political parties".

4) Does PERC have much credibility in Singaporeans' eyes?

5) Ya, I'm not unrealistic. Clearly, you need politicians to implement the changes. But instead of turning too much into an activist group, despite the fact that membership is largely activist, why don't you leave the politics to the politicians and focus on research. Let the politicians use the research in whatever way they want, but let none of their interests get in the way of CiPRI's research focus.

6) Neither do I, which is why I believe CiPRI should be kept firmly out of the influence of any political party, especially WP; I noted your statements about having tensions with your WP mates regarding CiPRI's work: do you think perhaps that in the long-term, a future Chief Researcher or perhaps even you yourself might fall victim to these pressures, and in so doing, compromise CiPRI's character? No offence, but this is politics - I think.

I'm not advocating a pro-PAP stance for CiPRI - that would be absolutely nonsense, since it certainly won't add to the amount of knowledge we can get now from government sources. But neither do I wish CiPRI - as a concerned citizen - to adopt a wholly anti-PAP view, as it might be possible that the PAP does still have some good points, despite its obvious weaknesses.

Aft) btw, I actually think that if CiPRI could get government sponsorship, it would be good for it. haha Very Happy But I do believe that it should seek to outclass ISEAS, IPS, IDSS and all the other government think-tanks. That would be good for all of us, and might even win the govenrment's favour. And after that, well...

Good Luck!!

the (hopeful) pikamaster

BillyBong SG

11) I think there is something wrong with the Sedition Act itself. But anyway, history has shown MOM and NTUC to be favourably inclined towards the employers; look at the SIA saga for example. NTUC is more a government department than a trade union, looking that it actually runs supermarkets and so on. Seriously, would FairPrice look into allegations of it mistreating its workers? I don't think so. There is too much vested corporate interests here. Singapore has basically sold its soul to the MNCs.

In the case of SIA pilots association vs SIA, everything was going fine and even the outcome was satisfactory for both sides, that is until someone stepped in unilaterally and revoked the preceived 'ringleader's PR status. To a neutral party, that was perhaps the single most amusing part of the saga and could well be deemed as the one detrimental part of the negotiations - clear and biased govt intervention where none was needed.

12) It always puzzles me as to why the only references people use for trade unions and demonstrations etc. are France, Germany, USA and Taiwan. These are not the only countries with trade unions and the right to public protest you know. For the trade union issue, French unions are not representative of the entire world's collection of free trade unions. There are free trade unions in Switzerland, Sweden and Denmark as well. In these countries, there is a very high level of social and political stability, and (surprise! surprise!) these unions have a very low strike rate. But they are also free trade unions, not like our NTUC, which like I mentioned before, looks more like a government department than anything else.

I used France because their unions have a reputation for being overbearing. They strike over the smallest things and can hold entire corporations to ransom. Ultimately and ironically, this does their union members no favours as the companies they work at will eventually lose valuable business customers and revenues combating worthless demonstrations.

Besides France, one simply has to look at the recent british airways strike. Tens of thosuands of passengers were stranded and had to make alternate arrangements simply because the entire fleet of employees went on strike, all because some ground staff were retrenched.

In the end, the long term result is a dip in passenger bookings and significant losses in annual revenues which, ironically, may imply more subsequent retrenchments.

pikamaster SG

Originally posted by BillyBong:
[b]
11) I think there is something wrong with the Sedition Act itself. But anyway, history has shown MOM and NTUC to be favourably inclined towards the employers; look at the SIA saga for example. NTUC is more a government department than a trade union, looking that it actually runs supermarkets and so on. Seriously, would FairPrice look into allegations of it mistreating its workers? I don't think so. There is too much vested corporate interests here. Singapore has basically sold its soul to the MNCs.

In the case of SIA pilots association vs SIA, everything was going fine and even the outcome was satisfactory for both sides, that is until someone stepped in unilaterally and revoked the preceived 'ringleader's PR status. To a neutral party, that was perhaps the single most amusing part of the saga and could well be deemed as the one detrimental part of the negotiations - clear and biased govt intervention where none was needed.

12) It always puzzles me as to why the only references people use for trade unions and demonstrations etc. are France, Germany, USA and Taiwan. These are not the only countries with trade unions and the right to public protest you know. For the trade union issue, French unions are not representative of the entire world's collection of free trade unions. There are free trade unions in Switzerland, Sweden and Denmark as well. In these countries, there is a very high level of social and political stability, and (surprise! surprise!) these unions have a very low strike rate. But they are also free trade unions, not like our NTUC, which like I mentioned before, looks more like a government department than anything else.

I used France because their unions have a reputation for being overbearing. They strike over the smallest things and can hold entire corporations to ransom. Ultimately and ironically, this does their union members no favours as the companies they work at will eventually lose valuable business customers and revenues combating worthless demonstrations.

Besides France, one simply has to look at the recent british airways strike. Tens of thosuands of passengers were stranded and had to make alternate arrangements simply because the entire fleet of employees went on strike, all because some ground staff were retrenched.

In the end, the long term result is a dip in passenger bookings and significant losses in annual revenues which, ironically, may imply more subsequent retrenchments.[/b]

Billybong,

2) ya, I agree.

4-6) You miss my point. My point was that there exists in this world successful independent ttrade unions which have not jeopardized their own national economies.

the pikamaster

BillyBong SG

such as?

SGLoyalist SG

Hi,

Other than those mentioned, Japan is a country with fairly stable labour relations.

I do not think we can put all the fault of jeopardising the economy on unions. What about employers? If they are not uncompassionate, they would not earn the rebuke from unions or government. I am not surprised France probably has the most hardy bosses in the world. Hence, they also have a fair share of the blame when a strike happens.

If nothing is done and unions are expected to be grateful no matter what the employers do, there will be low worker morale.

I think Singapore largely suffers from low worker morale. I remember a study done and reported in TNP 5 years ago, the "bo-chap" worker costs the Singapore economy $2.4 million a year.

Would one or two strikes a year in Singapore cost so much?

"Bo-chap" is due to the lack of avenues to express themselves.

Regards

pikamaster SG

My point precisely!

mett SG

I concur with GMS's views.

We, as intelligent citizens, must have our rights to excercise our voice.

Question is, who is willing to front this view to the ruling party?

pikamaster SG

Soon, soon (I hope)

BillyBong SG

Bo-Chap mentality is mainly due to our lack of local job diversity. The extent of which results in Singaporeans paying only due attention to their work based on their salary package. Indeed, we do not look at work as a CAREER but a JOB that pays bills. Given our weakness in this area, expect 'bo-chap' attitudes to continue well into 2010.

There are many factors stemming from a strike, not just a loss in revenue. For one, you have to suffer a loss in consumer confidence and very likely, a drop in potential investments. At the same time, many companies structure their direction based on continued customer satisifaction; it would be foolhardy to even contemplate a strike as many seldom recover fully from a drop in customer confidence.

1 or 2 strikes a year? If not for the right reasons, they can cause more damage than you think.

pikamaster SG

Billybong,

1) I guess you are right...

2) Loss in investment yes, but why would there be a loss in consumer confidence? that needs explaining.

3) And what do you consider "right" and "wrong" reasons? And what kind of incomprehensible damage would strikes cause?

Aft) That having been said, are you sure not-striking in Singapore has not done any damage to our society?

the pikamaster

SGLoyalist SG

Related in a way. "Lack of local job diversity" is a pre-occurence. There are many reasons. Quality of local management is another. Thereafter, there are no channels to express as bosses in Singapore have no pressure to listen, neither is applying licence for a mini-strike frivolously granted (which is not all that bad). Hence, workers will turn themselves off and just do their work. The egg is returned to the chicken when boss finds that with bo-chap workers, there is no potential to diversify job scope.

What you say is true. I am not pro-strike for unnecessary reasons. I am merely highlighting the TNP report in comparison with another labour statistic. The last strike that happened in 1986, the bill was about $60,000. Compare that to $2.4 million.

Regards

BillyBong SG

You have to look at it both ways.

For an economy that prides itself as 'non-strike', a single strike can be devastating. It can be speculated that a one-party dominant govt may be starting to lose its grip, that NTUC no longer has the usual swagger it conducts itself with.

Similarly, a country which strikes all the time will suddenly set investors rolling if it is non-strike for a month.

This is how fickle-minded investors or existing customers can be as to the situation. And anyone who permits a strike (NTUC chief) has to weight the options carefully, at the same time, ensure that regardless of the outcome, there will be no row with the cabinet.

The direct terms 'right' and 'wrong' refer to issues which may or may not be negotiable. Let's face it, people complain for all kinds of reasons. You will always have union heads who conjure up enough dissatisfaction among the ranks over meagre issues. For example, if the economy slumps and companies exercise the MVC component in order to save jobs, and people are upset over the drop in salary and want to strike, then it would be a WRONG (no wait ...STUPID) reason.

As for right, there are plenty of tenable arguments. But most of them can be candily discussed at union level and then corporate level. All this avoids demonstrations.

Only when all avenues are exhausted do extreme measures take precedent.

Whether SG has benefited from a non-strike status is for everyone to gauge. Less disruptions mean a solid foundation for corporates to build and improve. On the flip side, many will cast a doubt whether companies have solicited govt aid in legislating numerous MOM directives to their beneift such as lower medical benefits or reduced leave, but then again, that is for the employee to judge.

pikamaster SG

BillyBong,

1) I guess so, but of course NTUC is not a *genuine* trade union.

2) right again.

3) Why sould the cabinet come into the picture? The government is supposed to serve the citizens, which includes the unionized labour, not the other way round. Scrap the nonsensical political Confucianism!

4) That depends on whether the MVC compononent is the correct policy in the first place, and of course if you have management salaries in socially acceptable ratios. (For this discussion, ministerial salaries are considered socially unacceptable.)

5) Give examples, pls?

6) I don't disagree with this. But notice in a non-strike country like Singapore, even when all avenues are exhausted (I don't consider IAC a legitimate avenue), extreme measures still CANNOT take precedent. And that is what I find issue with.

7) What is "build and improve"? Able to squeeze the workers more? More possible to perform racial, religious and linguistic discrimination? More able to pay CEOs "peanuts" i.e. increase profits exorbitantly? More able to keep raising transport fares and other costs for the consumers? Improvement can take many forms, and not all socially or morally desirable.

the pikamaster

BillyBong SG

3) Why sould the cabinet come into the picture? The government is supposed to serve the citizens, which includes the unionized labour, not the other way round. Scrap the nonsensical political Confucianism!

While i admire your brazeness, there is always a need to keep big brother informed. The transparency of which will ensure that there are no repercussions from drastic actions. (it's like saying: hey i told you so!)

4) That depends on whether the MVC compononent is the correct policy in the first place, and of course if you have management salaries in socially acceptable ratios. (For this discussion, ministerial salaries are considered socially unacceptable.)

The question is: who are we to determine what is or is not acceptable pay? That is a question big brother will throw back at us. As LHL mentioned in his interview with ST, the subject of ministerial pay will always be a talking point no matter how many times MPs explain the responsibilities and the formula to justify it. It will never be satisfactory to many as the gap is simply too large to comprehend or accept, especially among the lower income groups.

MVC is now a predominant item in employment contracts. After the large-scale abrupt retrenchement by SIA, including pilots and ground staff, many companies have factored in a percentage to be absorbed back in the event of downturns. The aim is to prevent a repeat of the SIA 'blunder' and to preserve jobs.

5) Give examples, pls?

What are you refering to?

6) I don't disagree with this. But notice in a non-strike country like Singapore, even when all avenues are exhausted (I don't consider IAC a legitimate avenue), extreme measures still CANNOT take precedent. And that is what I find issue with.

True, the law dictates that you have to 'apply' for a 'permit' from our boys in blue which will undoubtedly be thrown back in our faces. I suppose you can view it as a quiet nudge by our govt to say: go explore ALL avenues before adopting the demonstration option. There is ALWAYS another way, no reservations.

I'm not entirely in agreement with this either, but it helps to study all possibilities before moving ahead.

7) What is "build and improve"? Able to squeeze the workers more? More possible to perform racial, religious and linguistic discrimination? More able to pay CEOs "peanuts" i.e. increase profits exorbitantly? More able to keep raising transport fares and other costs for the consumers? Improvement can take many forms, and not all socially or morally desirable.

Not every company is so 'bloodthirsty' as to squeeze the living juice out of us. The employment benefits may vary between firms but in the end, you just have to reflect on the good points and bad.

Some people may have experienced really bad welfare benefits while in one company, but after hopping to another, might find the new perks amazing. It's really all subjective. You have to get a feel of the overall welfare plan for employees in numerous institutions before you can really judge what is desirable or not.

PS: Everyone always wants more annual leave. It's whether your workscope permits you to take them or not.

pikamaster SG

Originally posted by BillyBong:
[b]

3) Why sould the cabinet come into the picture? The government is supposed to serve the citizens, which includes the unionized labour, not the other way round. Scrap the nonsensical political Confucianism!

While i admire your brazeness, there is always a need to keep big brother informed. The transparency of which will ensure that there are no repercussions from drastic actions. (it's like saying: hey i told you so!)

4) That depends on whether the MVC compononent is the correct policy in the first place, and of course if you have management salaries in socially acceptable ratios. (For this discussion, ministerial salaries are considered socially unacceptable.)

The question is: who are we to determine what is or is not acceptable pay? That is a question big brother will throw back at us. As LHL mentioned in his interview with ST, the subject of ministerial pay will always be a talking point no matter how many times MPs explain the responsibilities and the formula to justify it. It will never be satisfactory to many as the gap is simply too large to comprehend or accept, especially among the lower income groups.

MVC is now a predominant item in employment contracts. After the large-scale abrupt retrenchement by SIA, including pilots and ground staff, many companies have factored in a percentage to be absorbed back in the event of downturns. The aim is to prevent a repeat of the SIA 'blunder' and to preserve jobs.

5) Give examples, pls?

What are you refering to?

6) I don't disagree with this. But notice in a non-strike country like Singapore, even when all avenues are exhausted (I don't consider IAC a legitimate avenue), extreme measures still CANNOT take precedent. And that is what I find issue with.

True, the law dictates that you have to 'apply' for a 'permit' from our boys in blue which will undoubtedly be thrown back in our faces. I suppose you can view it as a quiet nudge by our govt to say: go explore ALL avenues before adopting the demonstration option. There is ALWAYS another way, no reservations.

I'm not entirely in agreement with this either, but it helps to study all possibilities before moving ahead.

7) What is "build and improve"? Able to squeeze the workers more? More possible to perform racial, religious and linguistic discrimination? More able to pay CEOs "peanuts" i.e. increase profits exorbitantly? More able to keep raising transport fares and other costs for the consumers? Improvement can take many forms, and not all socially or morally desirable.

Not every company is so 'bloodthirsty' as to squeeze the living juice out of us. The employment benefits may vary between firms but in the end, you just have to reflect on the good points and bad.

Some people may have experienced really bad welfare benefits while in one company, but after hopping to another, might find the new perks amazing. It's really all subjective. You have to get a feel of the overall welfare plan for employees in numerous institutions before you can really judge what is desirable or not.

PS: Everyone always wants more annual leave. It's whether your workscope permits you to take them or not. [/b]

Billybong,

2) My point is: should we need to keep Big Brother informed?

4) The answer is so simple, it hardly need be said: 'cos we are the ones being paid or left unpaid. The Big Question is: Is there any flaws in the formula itself and in the arguments used to justify the format of the formula?

5) Hmmm... you need to clarify why a private company would work to preserve jobs. No doubt a government might; since it could possibly lose a few election seats if unemployment over-swells. Mr. Green But a private corporation or even a GLC???

7) Give examples of the legitimate conditions and reasons for strikes to occur.

9) No disagreement here; but is the govt always necessarily right?

10) We are here evaluating the necessity and the fairness of current existing laws; we are not discussing the possibilities present in the local context: we are debating on the motion "Does the local context (i.e. the "tripartite" system) justify its existence?".

12) A big MNC will have no qualms; see what Coca-cola was doing to the Indian environment and how Nike treated its Indian and Bangladeshi workers. Big companies aim for profits, because these are its only interests. A smaller company might find it more worthwhile to focus on workers' welfare, though, since it would stand to gain mroe from the increase of a single worker's productivity.

13 & 14) The subject is not limited to stuff like annnual leave. I am talking more on the lines of firms sacking or refusing to hire pregnant mothers, firms refusing to beleive in the possibility of bilingualism, firms retrenching workers w/o providing compensation, or compensation that's insufficient for the retrenched worker to survive for any prolonged length of time. These cannot be argued against, 'cos this is an employer's responsibility. Btw, all the above coem from real-life examples in our local newspapers, and are not figments of my imagination.

Regards,
the pikamaster (who believes in free trade unions)

BillyBong SG

2) My point is: should we need to keep Big Brother informed?

My question is, if you don't, are you prepared for the consequences like the late Ong Teng Cheong? Are you prepared to risk your career, life and family for such a move?

4) The answer is so simple, it hardly need be said: 'cos we are the ones being paid or left unpaid. The Big Question is: Is there any flaws in the formula itself and in the arguments used to justify the format of the formula?

To address this formula, you have to review it on your own. It isn't enough to just speculate. You have to see it for yourself.

I didn't bother, since it would never have satisfied me anyway.

5) Hmmm... you need to clarify why a private company would work to preserve jobs. No doubt a government might; since it could possibly lose a few election seats if unemployment over-swells. But a private corporation or even a GLC???

Why not? Are you so one-tracked to assume that private corporations would lean on the unethical and unjust simply to churn profits? Who do you think has more to lose should labour unrest spill into frontpage headlines? The employees or the employer? Likewise for GLCs?

7) Give examples of the legitimate conditions and reasons for strikes to occur.

This is obvious. I will just say: one clear example would be open exploitation by the company management.

10) We are here evaluating the necessity and the fairness of current existing laws; we are not discussing the possibilities present in the local context: we are debating on the motion "Does the local context (i.e. the "tripartite" system) justify its existence?".

Were we? i seem to recall we were discussing why demonstrations should or should not be the appropriate way forward. I mean if you are specific.

12) A big MNC will have no qualms; see what Coca-cola was doing to the Indian environment and how Nike treated its Indian and Bangladeshi workers. Big companies aim for profits, because these are its only interests. A smaller company might find it more worthwhile to focus on workers' welfare, though, since it would stand to gain mroe from the increase of a single worker's productivity.

Sure. And i can name you SIA's mishandling of their retrenchment exercise a few years back. And SIA is a GLC.

Smaller companies will not have the resources nor bargaining position to offer better welfare options, period. More than likely, they will not have much better benefits than larger firms. The closest you can come to is the closely knit working conditions they have over larger companies.

13 & 14) The subject is not limited to stuff like annnual leave. I am talking more on the lines of firms sacking or refusing to hire pregnant mothers, firms refusing to beleive in the possibility of bilingualism, firms retrenching workers w/o providing compensation, or compensation that's insufficient for the retrenched worker to survive for any prolonged length of time. These cannot be argued against, 'cos this is an employer's responsibility. Btw, all the above coem from real-life examples in our local newspapers, and are not figments of my imagination.

There have been firms who discontinue expectant mothers for unacceptable reasons and i resent such acts. They are biased and unfeeling. On the other hand, the senior management has to decide productivity on an equal basis. They should not compare pregnant women differently from normal women in their company. In this regard, i believe more can be done to improve the suffrage of working women. Compensation should not be considered as an option, especially after lost of job.

I do not see how bilingualism comes into this picture?

In any case, most of the complaints you get are not from expectant mothers. What you get are the usual: pay too low, so little leave, medical benefits suck, company makes me pay pay pay...etc

We can address those with greater implications separately because they represent a valid view and fundamental human right. But most of the time, the complaints don't reflect this.

« Previous Page Next Page »