PAP, WP MPs clash over independence of NTUC that is ‘symbiotic’ with ruling party

SINGAPORE: Lawmakers from the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) and opposition Workers’ Party (WP) debated over the independence and effectiveness of the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) in parliament on Monday (Sep 9).
The exchange, which drew spontaneous and impassioned responses from both sides of the House, took place about three hours into the second reading of a draft law to protect the rights of platform workers.
One of the provisions of the proposed law is a legal framework for platform workers – delivery riders, private-hire drivers and taxi drivers – to be represented in union-like associations.
The NTUC has said it will set up new platform worker associations with legal powers if the law is passed.
Opposition lawmaker Gerald Giam (WP-Aljunied) gave a speech questioning whether the NTUC, which has a “symbiotic relationship” with the PAP, could “fully advocate” for workers.
Mr Giam said that as of 2017, there were 71 PAP Members of Parliament (MPs) who were also advisers to the unions under NTUC, and that some of them were involved in governance of the unions.
“PAP leaders frequently argue that this symbiotic relationship has helped Singapore navigate crises and build a nation,” said the second-term MP.
“However, this close alignment also presents significant challenges to the independence of unions.”
Mr Giam questioned whether a potential conflict of interest arises when union leaders are also members of the ruling party.
“Can they fully advocate for workers’ interests when those interests may conflict with their government policies or the PAP’s political agenda?” he asked.
“They may feel pressure to support the policy, even if they sincerely believe that it compromises the needs of the workers they represent.
“This could lead to a 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 interests of the PAP or the political objectives of the PAP, unions may lose their ability to effectively mobilise and advocate for workers.”
Mr Giam also said that an “overly close” relationship between the PAP and the NTUC risked creating “groupthink”, where union leaders are less inclined to challenge prevailing policies.
“Such a situation would lead to a loss of dynamism in labour policy-making, reducing the possibility of new and better approaches from emerging,” he said.
“The risk 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 the new government.”
He continued: “It is crucial that key institutions in Singapore, including the trade union movement, are not beholden to one political party.”
MP Christopher de Souza (PAP-Holland-Bukit Timah) then interjected with a point of order that Mr Giam’s speech so far was irrelevant to the debate on the draft law.
“It was predominantly an attack on the NTUC and the symbiotic relationship between the PAP and the NTUC,” he said.
Leader of the House Indranee Rajah (PAP-Tanjong Pagar) rose to ask Mr Giam whether he believed labour unions must be independent of political parties.
After Mr Giam agreed, she replied: “Anyone who knows anything about democracies will know that in many of the democracies in the world, unions and political parties actually have a close relationship.”
She said that the Labour Party in the United Kingdom and some political parties in the United States and Canada were all closely associated with unions.
In response, Mr Giam said the affiliation between the Trades Union Congress and the Labour Party in the UK “is not the same as them being symbiotic”, as the unions “reserve the right to state their own positions”.
“I would like to just state for the record that WP supports the tripartite dialogue between employers, unions and the government of the day, but not … an explicit alignment with any political party,” he said.
“I believe that unions must be independent and non-partisan, and they must represent their workers without fear or favour in front of their employers, the government and the ruling party.”
Later, Mr Giam asked: “Can I assume that … if the PAP were to ever lose power, the NTUC would therefore become an instrument of opposition against the new government?”
Ms Indranee said she could not speak on behalf of the NTUC, but that it would be “entirely up” to NTUC and the workers to decide if they would support a political party, and if so, which one.
“What I can say is that the PAP would do its very utmost not to have to give them a reason to think that we would never support them, or that as a government, we would not do our very best for the workers and the trade union congress.”
Ms Indranee then said Mr Giam was “venturing more and more into the political realm” when the debate was supposed to be about protecting platform workers.
She noted that Singapore must hold a general election by November next year.
“Whenever a general election appears or is around the corner, the political rhetoric ramps up … but don’t put the platform workers in the middle of this. Don’t make them the pawns or the beating bags for this. We have a Bill to pass.”
Mr Giam rejected Ms Indranee’s argument that it would be up to the NTUC and the workers which party they support, as the PAP is “deeply embedded” in the unions.
“It is not an issue of just theoretical grandstanding, but this is an issue of institutional continuity. Are we going to have a situation where any new government that comes to power is completely jammed up?”
Ms Indranee replied that trade unions elect their own leaders, and that having PAP members among current union leaders did not mean that would always be the case.
“But the point that Mr Giam is missing is that the trade unions have a mind of their own. They have leadership. They know what to do, and they will act in a way that they think is best for their unions and for their workers,” she said.
NTUC deputy secretary-general Heng Chee How (PAP-Jalan Besar) also called on Mr Giam to “give due respect to our union leaders”.
“They are not stooges. Their hearts are in the right place. They do all this for their fellow workers,” said the senior minister of state for defence, as fellow MPs thumped their armrests in support.
“The NTUC has a symbiotic relationship with the PAP so that we can convey the views and the needs of the workers to our political partner, so that when they become the ruling party, when they win the trust of Singaporeans and have the mandate to be the ruling party, that the interests of workers in this country will always be taken care of, be given great priority.
“And you look at the track record of the PAP for all these years that it has been in government. What has it delivered for this country? What has it delivered for the workers? Has it sold out the workers? Has it embarrassed our union leaders?”
Mr Heng also said that the draft Platform Workers Bill before the House, which Mr Giam and the WP expressed support for, was the result of that “symbiotic relationship”.
A partnership or alliance between political parties and trade unions “is not uncommon, and they don’t do this out of stupidity” but “because it serves the interests of the constituents that they represent concurrently”.
He urged the House to be “very, very careful” of Mr Giam’s arguments, saying that it was not clear that tripartite partners would be more likely to agree for the good of the workers in the scenario that the MP described.
“So I just wanted to (say) this as my heartfelt response: Be fair to our union leaders, be fair to our unions, be fair to the NTUC,” said Mr Heng.
In response, Mr Giam said he was “not questioning the commitment and the work of unionists” but “addressing the systemic constraints that they face”.
“I believe that many unions are trying their level best to be able to advocate for workers that they represent, but they face many restrictions in doing so because of the controls that the government, through the NTUC and other legislations, place on the unions.”
Members also continued to debate whether Mr Giam’s speech was relevant to the draft platform workers law that was on the table.
Mr de Souza described Mr Giam’s speech on the NTUC as “unfair”, “opportunistic” and irrelevant, while Mr Giam said it set the context for points he wanted to make about the specific law being discussed.
Speaker of the House Seah Kian Peng said that Mr de Souza made a “valid point”. He later asked Mr Giam to refer to Section 50 of the Standing Orders of parliament, which says that MPs shall confine their observations to the subject under discussion and not introduce irrelevant matters.
Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh (WP-Aljunied) immediately rebutted the speaker, saying that Mr Seah’s remarks were “critical”.
He recalled that during a debate on the government’s Budget in 2022, Mr de Souza had made a speech in which he “did not speak about the Budget, but went on to advise the government or the PAP to make a decision on the 4G leadership”.
“So I think the sanitary message you provided at the end is important, because it cannot be just accusations made at the opposition, but I think some PAP members ought to reflect on themselves,” the WP secretary-general said to Mr Seah.
Mr de Souza said that during the Budget debate, “the members have free reign to discuss what they want in addition to the Budget – the objectives, the values, the future they want to see for Singapore”.
He said that his speech on the 4G leadership was in concert with the Budget because “without key leadership, budgets are nothing”.
Later, Mr Giam said: “Why is it that … very often, when Workers’ Party brings up a valid policy point, we are accused of politicking and making political speeches, whereas when the PAP talks about something different, it becomes a relevant policy point.
“I think that there is a need to be fair as well to us.”
The exchange ended when MPs resumed their prepared speeches on the draft platform workers law. The debate on the proposed Bill continues on Tuesday.