28 November 2012:
My take on the SMRT incident.
The whole SMRT incident has gripped Singapore by now, I suppose. Kopitiam uncles and aunties would have new fodder for conversation, anti-PAP people would again slam the government for allowing foreign labour, PRCs would (mostly) lend their support to their 'discriminated' comrades. It is quite a dynamic affair, I would say.There are three aspects of the whole incident that I have thoughts about. (1) Is this a strike? (2) Was SMRT discriminatory? (3) Should the drivers refuse to work? (4) What was the response by various parties?
1. Is this a strike?
I first learnt of this incident on Monday via Mr Brown. He highlighted the starting of the incident where SMRT bus drivers from PRC refused to go to work over pay issues. Mr Brown was particularly satirical over the phrase 'refused to go to work over pay issues', because to him that was what the mainstream media substituted in place of 'strike'.
When I logged on to Facebook, The Online Citizen also caught hold of this point. I purposely watched Monday's news on Channel Newsasia and Channel 8. I don't remember catching anything on Monday on TV but I did come across an online report from CNA again using the phrase 'refuse to work'. Channel 8 used the term 曠工.
Well, I do think of it as a strike, 罷工. According to Oxford Dictionary, a strike is when employees 'refuse to work as a form of organized protest, typically in an attempt to obtain a particular concession or concessions from their employer'. The drivers (1) refused to work (as 'confirmed' by Straits Times, Channel 8 and CNA); (2) as a form of organised protest (100+ people refusing together ... organised enough); (3) to obtain concession (in this case, they wanted a higher pay raise).
According to Zdic, '罷工' means '为迫使雇主答应所提要求或为达到其他目的而暂时停止工作'. Again, 司機們想破事雇主答應給他們加薪的要求 and 司機們暫時停止工作. There's no running from the definitions. No wonder people were upset that the mainstream media refused to call it a strike, using all sorts of terms like 'dispute', 'sit-in', 'stand-in', 'squat-in' (okay fine I made 'squat-in' up).
On Tuesday, the Acting Minister for Manpower Tan Chuan-Jin termed this incident an 'illegal strike'. Whoa. Not only is the incident a strike, it's now also illegal. Actually, after reading his explanations and justifications, I do understand why the government and media cannot call it a strike so easily.
Calling this incident a strike on the first day would mean that it's illegal (as he mentioned), because they broke the law. That would mean that some form of punishment (jail term, fines, etc.) would have to be meted out in order to be fair and lawful. Since SMRT had issued a statement on Monday that the issue would be looked into and the drivers would return to work on Tuesday, I suppose the government intended to let it pass.
It would be a tricky situation to hand out punishments to the drivers. Politically, China would be looking over our shoulders. We would be in a dilemma. If we were strict on them, China might not be friendly towards us, then Singapore would not receive their help. (Even though yes I don't really like most of em, but hey we do have to rely on them sometimes.) If we are lenient, other countries would probably say that we are only boot-licking or favouring China cos we need their help.
I suppose in this case, the easiest way for the government would be to let it pass, without even claiming it's illegal or legal. However, the continued no-show forced to government to 狠下心來 and call it illegal. Now, of course, I await the various proceedings and possible punishments.
Under Chapter 67 of the Penal Code which is known as the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, it is stated that people working in gas, water and electricity services (known as 'essential services') are not allowed to go on strike. Those who are also in essential services (such as transport in this case) can only go on strike legally if they met the condition of notifying their employer 14 days before their planned strike date.
It sounds ridiculous ('boss I 14 days later going strike ah') but hey it's in the law. It's another matter altogether to dispute the law already. These drivers may be punished with a fine of up to $2000 or jail up to 12 months or both.
In conclusion, the government itself has already called it a strike after a no-show for two days. Therefore, all of us shall rest our cases about whether or not it's a strike. In other words, 'hanah hanah gahmen say strike liao can oready'.
2. Was SMRT discriminatory?
The SMRT drivers were so furious was because they felt SMRT was discriminating against them PRCs. A lot of PRCs on Weibo also felt this way. (More on that later.) However, I would say that just because of the pay difference, one is unable to ascertain that they are discriminatory.
The drivers are asking for 同工同酬. This means the same pay for the same work. However, there are at least two areas at which their work is not all the same. The first would be the command of English. Most PRC drivers have a lousy command of English. They can only converse in Mandarin, and I'm not sure how many actually bother to learn English.
Singaporeans would definitely know that English is important. It is the language of administration and this helps our policy of multi-racialism. If the SMRT drivers are not able to converse well in English, this put them at a disavantage over Malaysian drivers. Rightfully, they should not be paid as much, since they are unable to fulfil the communication aspect of the job in our language of administration.
Even though I do not take buses that often, I have encountered a few times where PRC drivers are unable to understand certain simple road names. Often, it's fellow Singaporean passengers that play the role of a translator, helping to bridge the language barrier. I certainly do not think the PRC drivers deserve more pay if they require such assistance. I don't know if it's explicitly spelt out in their contract, but I feel that they need to know that in Singapore you have to speak English. Your inability to do so would mean lesser rewards, in this case in the form of salary.
Also, there is the issue of lodging. Malaysians travel to and fro the Causeway every day for their jobs. They do not depend on SMRT for lodging. PRC drivers have to depend on SMRT, with the latter providing dormitories for them. Therefore, I do believe that it is right if this lodging fee is deducted from their salary so long as it is rightful.
Some PRC drivers have claimed that the dormitory conditions are 'like a prison', so this issue of lodging is not enough a justification for their lower pay. Well, in that case, I would like to know if they have tried voicing their displeasure. If they have and it was ignored, well okay then it's not totally their fault. However, one may actually further add that they have not exhausted all channels of feedback and communication. Singapore is so bureaucratic, there are surely organisations or departments to voice out such displeasure.
Did the drivers bother to ask their supervisors or bosses why they are being paid less? Again, if they tried asking but were ignored or told off, then I would agree that they are discriminated and that they should receive more equal pay. If they only flared after seeing the circulars without asking anyone for clarifications, then I think their claims of 'discrimination' are uncalled for.
Of course, that is not to say that SMRT is totally not at fault. There still exists the possibility that the corporation is really at fauly because they are discriminating the PRCs because they are 好欺負. Therefore, I would think it's useful for SMRT to actually issue a circular addressing the difference in pay and increments to the public. It may be bureaucratese again but hey it may dispel this view.
In conclusion, we may never know whether or not SMRT is indeed discriminatory. At least, as of now. Maybe a few days later the minister would call for an investigation, then the truth may be out. Till that happens, I would reserve judgement on whether or not SMRT was discriminatory. However, I would not support anyone who straight away blasts SMRT just because of a pay difference, be he PRC or Singaporean. There may be compelling reasons, two of which may be what I've suggested. (There's also the foreign worker levy thing but I'm unsure of that so I'm not commenting.)
3. Should the drivers refuse to work?
No, duh. Refusing to work is an irresponsible act, no matter who. (Although yes I do wish I could not go to school at times.)
Furthermore, this is an essential service of Singapore. If it was some small company, the damage is not that great. (Still not agreeing that they should do that though.) Luckily, according to Minister of State for Transport Josephine Teo, SMRT was able to maintain its service standards for the two days that the strike was going on.
When the MRT broke down previously, see the inconvenience that it caused. Very luckily, this time only a small part was affected. SMRT's driver workforce is 22%, if I'm not wrong. If it were more, what would have been the damages and inconveniences then? Such things should never happen.
Maybe the French would laugh at us for being so anal. From what I know, France is the nation that strikes most in the world. (Sorry I don't have any statistics to back that up, I heard it from somewhere only.) Nevertheless, I don't think that we should condone such things at all. The workforce of Singapore would be greatly affected if people unhappy with their jobs simply went on strike.
In conclusion, no.
4. What was the response by various parties?
Firstly, let me touch on the responses by PRCs. I am on Weibo, and I have seen the fury of PRCs there. I would say that 99% of them support their workers, which is expected and understandable. However, as I mentioned earlier, it would not be right if they simply called it discrimination based on salary.
Yet, this is what most of them are saying. Some are already issuing threats to Singapore / Singaporeans. From the papers, I read that someone mentioned about sending fighter planes to Singapore's doorstep to show that China is no weakling.
Hello?! I don't think anyone has ever felt that China was a weakling, not even America. The whole world regards China as a superpower or superpower in the making. If they really resorted to such action, it would just show that they are the bullies instead, not us, as they claim. Thankfully that person isn't a diplomat or in charge of this.
On Weibo, I saw a thread that had people criticising Singaporeans' thought process. After reading it, I cast doubts on the thought processes of the people instead. It was a screen grab of a post on Facebook by 聯合晚報 and its comments. Most commented that they shouldn't strike. Some were extreme and said PRCs should scram. Well, I don't see how that shows anything about how we can't think.
Singaporeans are angry, no doubt. (By the way, this is showing emotion, which runs contrary to that report that we are the most emotion-less.) Some are more extreme and start blaming SMRT, PAP, NTUC and everybody involved. Others just called for them to be repatriated to serve as a warning to everyone that such behaviour can never be tolerated.
This may sound biased, but I think the Singaporean response is more measured neutral than the PRC response in general. Maybe it's because the PRCs think they are being bullied, so of course they are standing up.
There is a viewpoint brought up about the safety of Singaporeans in China. It may seem far-fetched, but not at all. When Japan was caught up in the island dispute with China, Chinese media stoked flames wildly and made Japanese to be come Public Enemy No. 1. Days or weeks later, there were reports of Japanese being attacked, Japanese stores being hit or burned.
Although perhaps the Chinese won't be as extreme to us Singaporeans, that is not to say that everyone is as rational over there. Some who are extreme would think that we are bullying them, so they take revenge by making things difficult for Singaporeans in China. The media would certainly play a crucial role in either helping or stopping this; thankfully from what I read Chinese media is rather quiet. So hopefully this also means there would not be such trouble over there.
I believe the Chinese embassy is not very happy with Minister Tan's comments. He called it 'illegal' so yes there would be punishments to come. Obviously, the Chinese embassy representing PRCs would be unhappy that they have to receive punishment. (A bit like the Michael Fay incident, I feel.) The embassy issued a statement. Basically, I infer it to mean 'don't go overboard ah Singapore'.
In conclusion, some responses by both Singaporeans and PRCs are extreme. Nevertheless, most are neutral and measured, which is good thing. There's no use stoking flames now that this incident can finally die down and life goes on. One thing though, kopitiam uncles and aunties would continue talking about this for a while, anti-PAP people would still use this to slam government for a while, and some PRCs would still be angry at us Singaporeans for bullying them for a while.
TTFN.
Something I read on Weibo was that the PRC drivers refused to be under NTUC or any union when they first arrived. In China, worker unions are useless and only grab money. Therefore, the PRCs thought Singapore's unions were around the same, so rightfully refused entry. However, now NTUC or any union cannot help them because they do not have legal mandate to help the drivers. I'm not saying this to mock them, but it's quite a sad thing that they are disadvantaged because they were 心寒-ed by conditions in China, so to speak, therefore rejecting what was useful for them.