Singapore’s celebrated tripartite approach, lauded for its harmonious collaboration between the government, unions, and employers, is facing increasing skepticism. Recent events, notably Lazada’s dismissive attitude towards its union during mass layoffs, have cast doubt on the efficacy and significance of Singaporean unions, revealing potential shortcomings when compared to their more assertive overseas counterparts.
Tripartism Exposed
The callous retrenchment of around 100 Lazada employees in early January not only showcased the company’s disregard for its union but also exposed the vulnerabilities in Singapore’s touted tripartite system. Despite being a unionized company, Lazada opted not to engage with the Food, Drinks and Allied Workers Union (FDAWU), a move that undermines the very essence of collaborative decision-making in the labor landscape.
Union Influence Undermined
Although it is not legally mandated for companies to consult unions on major decisions, these organizations are supposed to be the frontline defenders of employees’ rights. However, Lazada’s dismissive stance and FDAWU’s dissatisfaction with the initial retrenchment benefits illustrate the limited influence unions wield in ensuring fair treatment for workers. This incident raises questions about the toothlessness of unions in compelling companies to adhere to ethical practices.
Tripartism’s Folly
Despite the NTUC’s public condemnation and its escalation of the matter to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), the Lazada incident sheds light on the potential inadequacies of Singapore’s tripartite system. The supposedly robust relationship between NTUC and the government appears less effective when a major company can sidestep union consultation. This raises concerns about the true impact of the tripartite model on shaping policies and protecting workers’ rights.
1986 Strike Sanctioned by Late Mr Ong Teng Cheong
In January 1986, Ong sanctioned a strike in the shipping industry, the first for about a decade in Singapore, believing it was necessary as “[the] management were taking advantage of the workers”. However, he did not inform the Cabinet beforehand out of fear that the Cabinet would prevent him from going ahead with the strike. Ong recalled in a 2000 interview in Asiaweek: “Some of them were angry with me about that… the Minister for Trade and Industry was very angry, his officers were upset. They had calls from America, asking what happened to Singapore?”[21] Minister for Trade and Industry Tony Tan, vigorously opposed Ong Teng Cheong’s decision to sanction the strike, being concerned with investors’ reactions to a perceived deterioration of labour relations or an impact on foreign direct investment needed for jobs creation. Ong Teng Cheong viewed the strike as a success: “I had the job to do… [the strike] only lasted two days. All the issues were settled. It showed the management was just trying to pull a fast one.” (Wiki)
A Global Reality Check
Not only is the Union not as effective as in the past, comparing our Union to their overseas counterparts reveals a stark contrast. In other countries, unions actively engage in industrial action, holding companies accountable for their actions. The Hollywood screenwriters’ strike serves as a poignant example, showcasing the determination of unions to safeguard workers’ rights, even at the cost of economic losses and job cuts. This prompts a critical examination of Singaporean unions’ commitment to defending workers in the face of corporate decisions.
Toothless Union?
While Singapore’s tripartite system has been hailed as a cornerstone of its economic success, recent incidents, such as Lazada’s dismissive actions, demand a critical reevaluation. The limited influence of unions and the potential for companies to bypass them underscore the need for a more assertive and proactive approach.
