The propaganda campaign against the striking bus drivers
Category: Perspective |
Today Comments: 4
Vincent Wijeysingha
It should come as no surprise to an informed
Singaporean that the government, its agencies such as Reach Singapore
and proxy agencies such as Media Corp are engaged in a massive
public relations exercise to guide public response to the SMRT bus
drivers' strike.
When 22 young persons were arrested under Operation Spectrum in May
1987, the then Singapore Broadcasting Corporation (SBC) used every
means at its disposal to propagate the government’s case. We now
know it to be propaganda designed to eliminate criticisms of
government policy particularly in relation to labour and
poverty.
The SBC doctored the sequence of Vincent Cheng’s television
interview to make him sound like he was giving the answers they
wished him to give. And the print media, day after day, reported
verbatim the government statements which we now know to have been
untrue.
Fast forward a quarter century later and identical areas of policy
are motivating Singaporean social workers, lawyers and political
activists to intervene in what is rapidly becoming a highly
embarrassing moment for the government.
Last night about 30 prominent civil society veterans and newbies
gathered to strategise a response to the incident. Hailing from all
sections of civil society, they included established welfare
organisations, research centres, well-known bloggers, writers,
lawyers and social entrepreneurs.
On the table were a range of initiatives which are being timetabled
for the coming period. It is understood they are hosting a forum on
Saturday 8 December to explore trade unionism in our country. One
attendee is quoted as saying that the trade union discourse became
frozen in the "post-Hock Lee” bus strikes era [1955] and that the
vast majority of Singaporeans, young and old, have an extremely
limited meaningful understanding of trade unionism and its
functions in a civilised society.
This may appear to have been borne out by the results of a survey
carried out by Reach Singapore – no doubt paid for by
taxpayers’ money –
over the first three days of the strike. What is interesting to
note is that, while the relevant authorities were grappling with
the strike, Reach had the presence of mind to mobilise its
resources on the first day itself to rush out among the general
public and attempt an exercise that would give greater support to
the government’s action against the striking workers.
I am a
sociologist by training. Among the settled principles
of survey methodology,
researchers seek, as far as possible, to minimise those factors
which might skew the results of the survey. In
A-Level Economics we learn the term ceteris
paribus meaning ‘all things being held constant’.
Research in general tends to try, as far as possible to keep other
factors constant so that the results of the survey are trustworthy
and can be replicated with a different sample of
interviewees.
For example, surveys done
in the heat of the action are to be avoided. Surveys conducted when
people have had no access to alternative information with which to
shape their conclusions are equally to be shunned. Surveys done in
a constrained discursive climate are also shaky.
All of these factors were present when Reach carried out its
survey. But perhaps most importantly, it committed the worst sin in
the surveying world, that of the ‘leading question’. It is a
well-established fact that you can elicit a desired answer by
asking the question in a certain way. The setting of the interview,
the inflection of the voice, the framing of the question can all
impact upon the answer.
Take a look at the questions that were asked.
Question 1: Are you aware that a group of SMRT drivers from
China staged an illegal strike on the 26th and 27th of
November?
Immediately, the interviewee is put on his guard by way of the
framing of the strike as ‘illegal’. If something is illegal, then I
had better show the proper disdain for it lest I be seen as one who
approves of illegal behaviour.
Also, bear in mind that at this point, the only information
available to interviewees on which to base their opinion is the
state press. Is it likely that they could have had the time to
digest the information, explore different perspectives, talk to
their friends and then gradually formulate an opinion?
Question 2: The Government has done the right thing by
taking time to ascertain the facts before labelling the action as
an illegal strike on the second day.
Question 2 then reiterates that the strike is illegal. The
question, rather than asking ‘if’ the government had done the right
thing, informs the interviewee that it has done so and to which you
are simply invited to acquiesce. It also suggests that the
government has acted in a measured and responsible way by examining
all the facts before coming to a decision. Minister Tan Chuan Jin
said exactly this at his press conference on Saturday.
Question 3: The Government has reacted swiftly to ensure
that the situation is under control and there is minimum disruption
to the public transport system.
Question 3 vaguely reminds the interview that the strike is a
situation that could get out of control, without specifying what
sort of chaos might arise. The word is dropped subtly into the
question but the net result is to elicit the intuition of chaos and
danger. The interviewee, opening his mental filing cabinet, hits
upon the oft-repeated sentiment that strikes imply blood and riot
and arrives at the expected attitude. And again, notice how it
places the government in a positive light as having acted rapidly
to contain the potential contagion. In fact, as we now know, the
strikes resulted in nothing of the kind. The striking bus drivers
stood quietly and peacefully outside their dormitory and refused
their labour. That is all.
Question 4: The bus drivers from China should have gone
through the proper channels to air their grievances instead of
staging a strike.
Question 4 implies, without a shred of evidence, that the workers
did not go through the proper channels. It is difficult to
ascertain if Reach was in the know about the six months of proper
channels the workers had tried without success (which I documented
in a Facebook post on Sunday). Reach’s Supervisory Board is stacked
with government MPs (including Dr Intan Azura Mochtar who is a
member of the PM’s GRC), trade union officials, and grassroots
leaders. Therefore, one could reasonably expect that they might
have some knowledge of this; the survey question suggests
otherwise.
Question 5: If the bus drivers from China are found to have
breached Singapore’s law, they should be punished to the full
extent of the law, as Singapore has zero tolerance for illegal
strikes.
Question 5 commits an error of logic. It states that the bus
drivers should be punished BECAUSE Singapore has zero tolerance.
Punishment for an offence arises because the thing being punished
for is against the law not because there is extreme intolerance for
it. Otherwise, if we had, say 50% tolerance, then they should not
be punished to the full extent?
For example, in the 1997 General Election, the then Prime Minister,
his two deputies and former MP, Dr Vasoo, were found inside a
polling station of a constituency they were not contesting – a
clear breach of the Parliamentary Elections Act. The Attorney
General, however, justified the action. Did we only have about 5%
tolerance to that particular law?
Furthermore, the question leads the interviewee to the conclusion
that this amorphous entity called ‘Singapore’ is opposed to this
action and THEREFORE the interviewee should also have zero
tolerance for it since he is part of Singapore. It is not made
clear if ‘Singapore’ means the government, the legal system, the
cultural settlement, the rules of trade union activity, the PAP, or
the general public. The interviewee is led to the particular
conclusion.
Question 6: The bus drivers from China were wrong to have
held a strike, but SMRT also bears some responsibility for the
situation as it did not manage the grievances of the Chinese
well.
Again, a leading question which, if objectivity were the true
intention, should have been rephrased as, "If the bus drivers were
wrong…”. Furthermore, Question 6 is in direct contradiction to
Question 4 for if the workers had not gone through any channels,
how did Reach know, on the very day when the strike began, that the
bus drivers had any grievances at all?
Over the course of these last five decades, the government has
sought to co-opt all national entities such that they serve the
government’s behest. In each decade it carried out at least one
major swoop on its perceived detractors to impart a salutary
lesson. In 1987 we saw the last major, wholesale attempt to do so.
Last week it used Reach, again, I remind you, at taxpayers’
expense, to lead public opinion in a cynical and devious attempt to
obtain, through covert means, antagonism towards the
strikers.
The workers, as I wrote in my Facebook note last Sunday, had a
string of concerns which they tried to remedy over a period of six
months by talking to their bosses, their union, the NTUC, and the
government (including a letter to the PM himself). Frustrated at
every step of the way, they finally took what must have been a
terrifying decision: to deliberately place themselves at the risk
of losing their livelihood.
For Reach to conduct such a flawed survey is distasteful to me,
both as a citizen and as an academic who hold close to the
scientific principle of falsifiability, which Reach has
violated.
In 1987, the state media prevented any alternative analyses of
Operation Spectrum and, particularly, those which early and easily
dismantled the government case – and I assure you there was a huge
amount – from reaching the ears of Singaporeans. In 2012, we should
not let this happen to us. Allow me to plead with you to form your
own judgment of the bus drivers strike based on all the available
information and not only on what the government determines is safe
to publish. You may arrive at a very different conclusion than the
one the government is so desirous of propagating.
Do avail yourself of attending the forum on 8 Dec (Saturday),
2-5pm at #04-01 Bras Basah Complex of 321 Bain Street. Bring your
friends and family. You would have started the process which, in
time, will help you to grow up from under Big Brother’s dark
shade.
Public Forum: The SMRT strike: Why should
we care?
Date: 8 Dec 2012, Saturday
Time: 2-5pm
Venue: #04-01 Bras Basah Complex, 321 Bain
Street
[More details at event's facebook]
Dr Vincent Wijeysingha is the Treasurer of the SDP and
Head of the party's Communications Unit.
http://yoursdp.org/publ/perspectives/2-1-0-1172
The Workers’ Party has been following with great concern the
unfolding events surrounding the strike by SMRT bus drivers on
26-27 November 2012. As a result of the strike, some bus services
were disrupted and commuters suffered inconveniences on our
already-crowded public transport network.
This is the first
strike in Singapore in more than 25 years. We are
disappointed that it took a strike to bring to the forefront the
bus drivers’ grievances about their pay and living conditions.
We believe that
workers’ rights to engage in industrial action (including strikes)
must only be done within the bounds of the law. Strikes should be –
and usually are – a measure of last resort by
workers who have exhausted all other avenues to persuade management
to address their concerns.
This strike
signals a failure in the labour dispute settlement process within
SMRT. By its own admission, the SMRT management
needs to improve the way it engages its bus drivers. While much
attention this week has focused on the grievances of the bus
drivers from China, SMRT must address legitimate concerns that have
been raised by all its bus drivers since the recent revision of
salaries and work hours. We urge SMRT to keep its commitment to
improve working conditions for all its workers and ensure channels
of communication between workers and management remain open.
It is in
Singapore’s interests, and in line with our nation’s values, that
all workers are treated fairly, so that they are motivated to
perform their jobs with excellence. This is
especially so for workers providing essential public services as it
affects not just the local public but also Singapore’s
international reputation.
As the cases of four SMRT bus drivers who have been charged with
instigating the illegal strike are now before the courts, it would
not be appropriate to comment on these specific cases. Our MPs will
be asking the Government questions on this issue during the next
sitting of Parliament.
THE WORKERS’ PARTY
30 November 2012
http://wp.sg/2012/11/wp-statement-on-bus-drivers-strike-smrt-must-address-workers-grievances-better/
