Mr Speaker,
My speech today will focus on strengthening workers’ rights in Singapore, particularly with regard to trade unions, Platform Work Associations (PWAs), and the representation framework for ride-hailing and delivery service workers introduced in the Platform Workers Bill.
Unions in Singapore play an important role in advocating for the interests of workers. I would like to acknowledge the many unionists who work hard advocating for fair treatment, better working conditions and improved wages for their members.
Over 99% of trade union members in Singapore are represented through the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) and its affiliates, and 58 out of 61, or 95%, of employee trade unions in Singapore are affiliated with the NTUC, underscoring the near-total monopoly that the NTUC has over the labour movement in Singapore.
The NTUC has declared that they have a symbiotic relationship with the PAP. This relationship is frequently highlighted during union meetings and rallies. The NTUC May Day Rally in 2024, for example, included a chant led by the NTUC President which concluded with, and I quote, “Majulah NTUC! Majulah PAP! Majulah Singapura!”. The NTUC Secretary-General and many PAP leaders, including the Prime Minister and Senior Minister, joined in this chant on the big stage, pumping their fists in the air.
Many PAP MPs and PAP branch chairpersons serve as advisorsto NTUC-affiliated unions. The NTUC announced in 2017 that where possible, all PAP MPs—which include Cabinet Ministers—would be appointed as advisors in the unions, professional associations and guilds under NTUC. As at 2017, there were 71 PAP MPs who were advisors to unions. It should be noted that many union advisors are there not only in an advisory capacity, but are involved in the governance of the union. Many unions affiliated to the NTUC have a Council of Advisors which, for several industry unions, also has the power to suspend the Executive Committee.
PAP leaders frequently argue that this symbiotic relationship has helped Singapore navigate crises and build the nation. However, this close alignment also presents significant challenges to the independence of unions.
The primary mission of unions is to advocate for workers’ rights, ensure fair treatment and negotiate for better working conditions. Yet, when union leaders are also PAP members, a potential conflict of interest arises. Can they fully advocate for workers’ interests when those interests might conflict with government policies or the PAP’s political agenda? They may feel pressured to support the policy, even if they sincerely believe that it compromises the needs of the workers they represent. This could lead to muted union advocacy, where political alignment takes precedence over workers’ rights.
Over time, the deep entrenchment of PAP influence within unions could lead to the perception that unions are not independent bodies representing workers but extensions of the PAP’s political machinery. If workers believe their interests are being subordinated to the political objectives of the PAP, unions may lose their ability to effectively mobilise and advocate for workers.
Furthermore, an overly close relationship between the PAP and unions risks creating groupthink, where union leaders are less inclined to challenge prevailing policies or explore alternative solutions. This may limit unions’ ability to openly express workers’ grievances or discuss innovative policies that could benefit workers, employers and the economy. Such a situation would lead to a loss of dynamism in labour policy making, reducing the possibility of new and better approaches emerging.
The risks of this alignment may be particularly pronounced in the event of a significant political shift in Singapore. If the PAP were to lose power, unions aligned with the PAP might struggle to work with a new government. Additionally, these politically-aligned unions may lose the support of workers who voted for the new administration, potentially weakening their effectiveness.
It is crucial that key institutions in Singapore, including the trade union movement, are not beholden to any one political party. Conversely, it would be equally undesirable for 95% of unions to become instruments of opposition against a newly elected government, as this could undermine its ability to govern effectively and act in the best interests of workers and citizens alike.
The International Labor Organization (ILO), which supports tripartite cooperation between governments, employers and workers, insists that unions must maintain independence to effectively represent their members’ interests. ILO’s Convention No. 87 on Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise—which the Singapore government has not ratified—stresses that workers’ and employers’ organisations must be independent from public authorities, and free from government control or interference (Articles 3(1), 3(2), 5, 8(2) and 11). While collaboration with the government can be beneficial, unions must have the freedom to challenge policies that do not serve workers’ best interests, without fear of political repercussions.
Similar Controls in the Platform Workers Bill
Turning to the Platform Workers’ Bill, Mr Speaker, I support this legislation, which seeks to enhance the representation of private hire drivers and delivery riders. These workers form a growing segment of our economy, and their voices must be heard. However, the Bill imports many of the regulatory restrictions currently faced by unions.
The Platform Work Associations (PWAs), much like NTUC-affiliated unions, already operate under significant NTUC control. The National Taxi Association (NTA), the National Private Hire Vehicles Association (NPHVA), and the National Delivery Champions Association (NDCA) all have current or former PAP MPs as Advisors. Their constitutions grant NTUC the power to appoint members of the Council of Advisors, who play a key role in overseeing the actions of the Executive Committees. The Council of Advisors has the authority to suspend the Executive Committees elected by members. This mirrors the power NTUC exerts over many of their affiliated unions, limiting their independence.
Furthermore, the Registrar of PWAs has the authority to refuse registration of a new PWA if there is already an existing one for that platform service, or even to cancel the registration of an existing PWA under similar conditions. Given that the NTUC-affiliated PWAs are likely to be registered first, this could limit the formation of alternative PWAs, thereby restricting workers’ choices. Platform workers should instead have the freedom to choose to join—or form—the association that best represents their interests.
The Bill proposes that recognition of a PWA would require a majority vote from platform workers eligible to participate in the recognition process. However, I am concerned that in some cases, the percentage of workers voting could be low, and a PWA might gain recognition even with limited support from the overall workforce. This could result in representation that does not fully reflect the will of the majority of platform workers in the sector.
Clause 40 of the Bill allows the PWA’s Executive Committee to bind all members to a collective agreement without the need for ratification by the members. This could result in workers being bound by agreements negotiated by representatives chosen by only a small fraction of their peers. We must ask whether this truly serves the interests of the workers or simply expedites the process at the cost of their collective voice.
The Workers’ Party has long opposed moves to make unions less independent. In 2004, Mr Low Thia Khiang opposed amendments to the Trade Unions Act that allowed union leaders to conclude collective agreements with employers without seeking union members’ ratification. That amendment was eventually passed by Parliament, and the same provision is now mirrored in the Platform Workers Bill, raising similar concerns about the erosion of workers’ rights to have a direct say in agreements that affect them.
The Bill also requires platform companies to contribute employer CPF payments to their workers. This is a positive step towards improving platform workers’ long-term financial security. I support the Platform Workers’ CPF Transition Scheme, which will cushion the effects of CPF deductions from workers’ earnings. However, there is a risk that platform companies might reduce their overall payments to compensate for the increased CPF contributions. This could result in workers being worse off salary-wise. This is a concern highlighted by the Leader of the Opposition earlier as well.
It is important that the government monitors this closely and ensures that safeguards are in place to prevent such unintended consequences, so that platform workers truly benefit from the CPF contributions without suffering a reduction in take-home pay.
Conclusion
Before I conclude, I would like to once again acknowledge the efforts of unionists who have dedicated themselves to advancing the rights and welfare of workers in Singapore. My proposals to ensure the independence of unions and PWAs are not aimed at diminishing their work, but rather to enhance their ability to advocate freely for the workers they represent. By ensuring that unions and PWAs are not beholden to any political party or the government, unionists will have the autonomy to fully pursue the interests of their members, challenge government policies that do not align with workers’ needs, and introduce innovative solutions to improve wages and working conditions. Ultimately, an independent union movement will not only strengthen the labour movement but also create a more dynamic and resilient workforce for Singapore’s future.