And while Singaporeans work the most number of hours, according to a survey by the International Labour Organisation, real wages continue to decline. This has made us one of the most stressful countries in Asia to work; our workers are among the unhappiest.

Yet, we are governed by ministers who pay themselves the highest salaries in the world regardless of their performance. They are guided by an ideological adherence to the neoliberal idea of market fundamentalism which allows the rich unbridled power to amass vast fortunes that distort the market. As a result, Singapore's economic progress is held hostage by an elite which corners wealth at the expense of the rest of society.

Such an arrangement is unsustainable and will eventually result in economic meltdown. The two-day strike carried out by SMRT bus drivers from China is a manifestation of the underlying problem. But while the Chinese Government has spoken up for the SMRT workers from China, Singaporean workers remain at the mercy of the PAP. Someone has to stand up for them.

The SDP will work towards bringing our labour laws in accordance with international standards, allowing Singaporean workers to organise themselves free from the NTUC's control. Free trade cannot exist when one side does not have the freedom to organise and bargain.

It is severely myopic to continue down the path of worker exploitation. Empowering our workers will enable them to feel more secure and facilitate a happier working environment. Studies show unequivocally that such a labour framework rapidly increases labour productivity, currently languishing at persistently worrying levels.

Increasing wage levels by introducing a minimum wage also contributes significantly to a productive labour force, not to mention increasing workers' spending power. This will be good for the overall economy.

The liberalisation and deregulation rules laid down by the Washington Consensus, to which the PAP so fervently subscribes, cannot be allowed to continue in Singapore. Singaporean workers, speaking with a unified voice, must seek to put an end to their own exploitation.

Chee Soon Juan

Secretary-General

Singapore Democratic Party

“First, the trafficker must have only played the role of courier, and must not have been involved in any other activity related to the supply or distribution of drugs. Second, discretion will only apply if having satisfied this first requirement, either the trafficker has cooperated with the Central Narcotics Bureau in a substantive way, or he has a mental disability which substantially impairs his appreciation of the gravity of the act.”

These stipulations by themselves raise many questions, some of which have been asked by MPs and which are left unanswered. For example, NMP Lawrence Lien raised an important point about punishment:

“This ‘substantive assistance’ standard is too high, which was also mentioned by Mr Edwin Tong, and has a worryingly strong utilitarian element of collecting better intelligence, and using the threat of death as a bargaining chip. Simply put, whether a person gets a chance to live or not hinges on how useful the offender is to the state in achieving certain ends. I believe the life and death of an offender should not be decided based solely on their utility to the state. Hence, I urge that this subsection be removed.”

One could say that Mr Lien’s point can be taken further to mean that one could be put to death not because of the actual crime one has committed, but because one is unable to provide “substantive assistance” to the authorities.

In other words, you will die not because you trafficked drugs. You will die because you are useless to the State.

The Workers’ Party MP, Sylvia Lim, said:

“The Explanatory Note to the Bill expressly clarifies that information which does not enhance the effective enforcement of the Act ‘will not suffice’. According to this wording, a low-level courier who knows nothing about the drug network will go to the gallows, while another courier who has more information (and is presumably closer to the higher echelons) can escape death. This would be a perverse outcome…”

These are unanswered questions which we must deal with. Unfortunately, we seem to have glossed over such problematic issues conveniently by offering the deterrent argument once again. And this is the main argument the Government has presented many times – that the mandatory death penalty is a deterrent to drug traffickers.

“The mandatory death penalty strengthens this deterrent message,” DPM Teo said in Parliament. He then cited the decrease in the number of kidnappings and firearms offences to substantiate his deterrent argument. Strangely, though, the DPM did not provide statistics on the number of drug trafficking activities over the years since the introduction of the mandatory death penalty in 1975. Instead, DPM Teo said “the war is ongoing.”

Even so, it is highly dubious to cite numbers so simplistically to argue in favour of putting someone to death. And especially so when such statistics seem to be used selectively – why cite them for some crimes (kidnappings, firearms offences) and not others (drug trafficking)?

At the end of the day, the fact remains that the deterrent argument is a dubious one. At best, it is speculative. And it being speculative is not a good enough justification for taking someone’s life. Period.

The ministers and several MPs too seemed to have placed much weight on the role of the traffickers. Indeed, their arguments seem to be so entirely weighted against the drug mules  that they may have lost sight of an important point – that drug addicts and drug abusers too share the blame and responsibility for the consequences of drug abuse.

In short, no one can force powder up your nose or shoot them into your veins.

As former NMP Calvin Cheng wrote in his letter to the Straits Times forum page:

“The victims in drug offences are unique in the sense that, unlike in many other crimes, the ‘victim’ is responsible for some degree of culpability and consent. As such, trafficking does not warrant capital punishment.”

He also wrote:

“In drug offences, however, the victim makes a decision to abuse drugs - if this were not the case, there would not be efforts to counsel or rehabilitate the victim of drug abuse.

“The families wrecked by drug abusers should as much blame the abuser as the stranger who sold the victim the drug.”

Lastly, Law Minister K. Shanmugam said, referring to victims of drug use:

We hardly ever hear tears shed in public for these 200,000 who die. But we shed a lot of tears for everyone on death row. Compassion is important, but context is also important.”

Minister Tan Chuan Jin said, on his Facebook page:

“No one cheers for the death penalty nor the mandatory nature of it. I don't. Nor any of my colleagues.

“We often shed tears for the trafficker. And debate passionately the humanity of our laws.  We often do not shed tears for those who lose their lives to drugs. We often forget the families destroyed by drugs.

“The crime is trafficking. Let us not forget who the victims are.”

First, contrary to what Mr Shanmugam said – that “we shed a lot of tears for everyone on death row” – in fact the lives and stories of those on death row in Singapore are shunned by the mainstream media here. So, how is it possible for the public to “shed a lot of tears for everyone on death row” when no one knows about them, their families, their stories? Even their executions are not announced. The truth is that those on death row die quiet deaths, away from the knowledge of the public.

Second, Minister Tan is right in saying that we should not forget who the victims are. However, he seemed to suggest that the victims here are only the abusers and their families.

The truth, again, is that the victims are on both sides – the abusers and the mules.

Perhaps if our mainstream media – and our ministers and MPs – delve more into the lives of the drug mules, and help the wider public understand the problem better, we will have a more balanced view of the issue.

What is disturbing is that our parliamentarians seem to have a very skewed perspective at the moment, even stereotypical ones – and at the same time signing off on legislations which empower them to snuff out lives, based on flimsy and unsubstantiated arguments.

And I would like to ask too: why do we require those sentenced to life in prison to also be caned? Why are we so bloodthirsty for our pound of flesh? Are we looking for justice, or for revenge?

“Society should move towards more humane ways of restorative justice,” Mr Lien said, “especially where there is possibility of reforming and rehabilitating the offender.”

Sadly, his seemed to be the lone voice which spoke some sense.

"Tay Hong Seng and I first met when I was a student in Sheffield. He was slightly older than most of us. That was how he got his name and was fondly called "Lao Tay". He introduced me and some other Sheffield friends to the world of student politics and activism. He was the key person to develop the Malaysian and Singaporean Society of Sheffield (MSSS) into a politically active society.

Hong Seng often did his work in a quiet but very effective manner. Besides his active political involvement he often found time to cook. He was a really good cook.

Another of his friends commented "Initially I found him to be slow, old fashioned and difficult to understand due to my own ignorance and impatience at the time. As I slowly began to talk to him and understand him more, I realise that he had in-depth knowledge of politics and an analytical mind. I had truly learnt and benefited from him during our student days in Sheffield. Due to his very slow style of speaking, impatient people like me always interrupted him when he spoke during meetings. He would not get angry but let others finish their interruptions. After some time he would raise his hand and say "Please may I continue, I have not finish yet".

Yet another had this to say: "To be honest, initially I was very annoyed by his persistence. He would cling to you like a leech, talking to you for hours from breakfast to lunch or from the student union cafeteria to your hostel. But his perseverance paid off. Gradually, many of us became endeared to him and he was like a big brother to us."

During his time in Sheffield, Lao Tay participated in a production called "Only a while the mountain sleeps". It was an activity that is still fondly remembered by his contemporaries in Sheffield.

After graduation in Sheffield, Hong Seng moved to London and was involved in the production of a student magazine called "Fijar" a publication of FUEMSSO.

Tay returned to Singapore in 1981 and consistent with his enthusiasm for cultural and political activism, he started building bridges with like-minded friends, some of whom were those he met in UK during his student days and others were activists during the 1970 student movement period in Singapore. With ten other friends, they formed the Third Stage. Hong Seng wrote and directed "Things we paid for" which was performed at the Drama Centre in July 1983 and he also co authored "Esperanza" with Wong Souk Yee.

In 1987, the Internal Security Department arrested 22 people four of whom were key members of the Third Stage. Hong Seng was one of the four. He was imprisoned for nearly a year. It was an irony that Third Stage was accused of being a front to subvert the social and political system of Singapore when its production went through the censorship board with a few even receiving monetary grants from the then Ministry of Culture.

During the period of his detention, Hong Seng was subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment and was also forced to "confess". Hong Seng once said that "he was prepared to spend his life in the cell if his payroll was not affected adversely." The trauma experienced by those arrested is encapsulated in Teo Soh Lung's "Beyond the blue gate".

After his release, Hong Seng kept much to himself. In recent times however, he had on more than one occasion indicated his interest to be kept informed by those organising the campaign to abolish the ISA on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of Operation Spectrum. Hong Seng was not only scholarly in his persona but was a profound thinker. He was a talented activist and according to one of his friends, he writes well in Chinese and is an accomplished calligrapher. We only hope that he did confide with someone near and dear to him so that we can learn more about him.

It is indeed with regards to context and compassion that we should re-examine the crime of drug trafficking, but I however come to the opposite conclusion as the Law Minister.

First, let's look at the context. I would like to point out that the victims in drug offences are unique in the sense that unlike in many other crimes, there is a degree of culpability and consent on the side of the ‘victim’. Because of this, it is my contention that drug trafficking is not even a crime that deserves capital punishment.

Murder would not be murder if the victim consents – it would be assisted suicide. Robbery would not be robbery if the victim consents – it could be insurance fraud. The lack of consent is inherent in the very definition of rape. In drug offences however, the ‘victim’ makes a decision to abuse drugs – if this was not the case, there would not be efforts to counsel or rehabilitate the ‘victim’ of drug abuse. The families wrecked by drug abusers should thus also as much blame the drug abuser for inflicting pain on them, as the stranger who sold the drugs.

Second, let's look at how much compassion one should offer drug abusers. As much as it is true that some tears may be shed for some drug abusers, especially those who are driven to drugs by abject socio-economic conditions, there are just as many struggling individuals who remain drug-free. In addition, drug abusers in developed countries are increasingly well-to-do individuals who seek a temporary thrill from illicit substances. Compassion for such individuals would be completely misplaced.

The death penalty for drug trafficking seems then to be an extremely blunt and extreme measure for a crime where victims have a level of culpability and consent not present in other crimes. I do not doubt that there are increasing number of drug users around the world, but the solution cannot be the state-sanctioned killing of drug-couriers. This is a cop-out of an extremely complex socio-economic problem where the roots of drug abuse must be targeted,including poverty, social and familial dysfunction, psychological problems, and a lack of education on the addictive effects of drugs.

The death penalty can ever only be justified, if at all, for the most heinous of crimes. Drug-trafficking and drug-abuse are part of a larger, complex and deeply rooted global social problem, where the victims must share culpability with the perpetrators.

It is not genocide.

Hotel management asked the organizers to move their event to a different venue, admitting that they had failed to notice that it was an opposition political party that wanted to use their seminar room, and that they would not have entered into a contractual agreement to lease their seminar room for the forum, if they had known that the event was being organized NSP.

The hotel was however, legally bound to the agreement. To ease RELC International Hotel’s discomfort, the NSP sought the help of publichouse.sg, the co-organizer’s of the event, to re-book the venue in PH’s name.

‘The forum that almost wasn’t’ commenced as planned and saw a turnout of about a hundred people. The second in a series of forums designed to generate public discourse, the event featured a panel discussion with litigation lawyers, Dr Jack Tsen-Ta Lee (Assistant Professor of Law, SMU), Peter Cuthbert Low (former Law Society President), Choo Zheng Xi (co-founder of socio-political website, The Online Citizen), and media expert Cherian George (Associate Professor, NTU), and ended with a rousing Q&A segment.

Moderated by Mr Philemon, the panelists discussed topics such as the extent and limitations of the freedoms of expression and speech, the constraints of navigating the online world, defamation laws, and lessons from past prosecutions, from a mostly legal perspective.

NSP’s Vice-President, Jeannette Chong Aruldoss, said that she considered the event a success and that the forum achieved its objectives of shedding more light on taking informed risks when engaging on socio-political issues online.

It’s hard to imagine that an informative-educational event such as this one was almost cancelled, just because it was organised by an opposition party. I’m glad that the muzzle on the opposition parties and on those that offer contrarian views have not yet been extended to the Internet. The online world continues to remain the most open 'public square' Singaporeans have for public discourse.

"We were supposed to be grateful for the economic success, not do the unthinkable," he explains in our video interview below. The "unthinkable" in this case was criticizing the ruling party for its past wrongs and stepping in to help with social issues, such as workers' disputes, something which he felt the union was not actively doing. It was because of his involvement with one of the disputes, which somehow turned violent, that led to his incarceration.

Upon his release, Wah Piow received a letter from the SAF drafting him into the army. This was "highly irregular ", he told us, and he decided that the best course of action was to leave for the UK, where he is safe from a state that has not taken kindly to his defiance. He continues to stay there now with his family, practicing law.

It seems however that he was gone but not forgotten. He was named the "ringleader" of a "Marxist Conspiracy" in 1987, ten years after he had left the country. Operation Spectrum saw the arrest of 22 men and women, some of whom were involved in social activism at the time. The papers then claimed that these men and women were following Wah Piow's orders in a plan to wrest power from the ruling party and turn Singapore into a Marxist state. It is a claim which he denies and mocks. He was never a Marxist, he laughs. He was an architecture student who was involved in activism for a mere 3 months before he was arrested and made an example of.

All 22 men and women were released after a gruelling process which saw their reputation dragged through the mud by the local press, without them being accorded the right to an open trial to defend themselves.

We met up with the man recently in Malaysia, where he is launching two books, Smokescreens and Mirrors, an updated version of his autobiography "Let the People Judge" and "Escape from the Lion's Paw", a compilation of accounts by exiles of Singapore in which he contributed to.

{youtube}OOai0VbcjnE|600|450|0{/youtube}

You can purchase the two books at http://www.ethosbooks.com.sg/store/mli_dynamicIndex.asp

The decision by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) to repatriate the 29 Chinese workers will entrench this fear further among the migrant community here. While MOM’s actions may give assurance to businesses that such industrial action will not be tolerated and that indeed the government itself will step in to resolve such matters, they ironically and perhaps perversely also legitimize errant employers’ mistreatment of the workers.

The decision to deport the 29 is deplorable for several reasons – the main one of which is the existent mitigating factors for the workers.

By its own admission, SMRT accepted that the workers’ living condition – which was one of two issues the workers went on strike to raise awareness on – “could be improved.” The MOM itself used a stronger term – that the conditions were “below par.” As such, one would incline towards understanding of the workers’ grievances.

The other issue was the disparity in wages between the Chinese workers and those of the Malaysians and Singaporeans. From news reports, it would seem that it was a matter of miscommunication, or late communication, or misunderstanding. And even in this, the CEO of SMRT, Mr Desmond Kuek, admitted that SMRT could have done better in explaining the disparity. Indeed, Mr Kuek said there are "deep seated issues" with SMRT itself.

So, it would seem SMRT too accept part of the blame.

What we have here then are two instances – indeed the two issues which are at the crux of the strike – which the SMRT accepted blame and responsibility for. The MOM too agreed with the first one – that the living conditions of the workers were “below par.”

The explanation for the deportation is that the workers’ action had caused or disrupted essential services, and industrial peace. It is also said that the workers should have sought to air their grievances legally and through “proper channels.”

But this is easier said than done. Indeed, news reports say that the workers had tried to speak with the management of SMRT, to no avail. The strike was, it would seem, their last resort to seek justice as they saw it. [Read Alex Au’s write-up on the so-called channels which workers presumably have.]

Given the circumstances, which include legitimate mitigating factors, the decision to deport the workers is indeed harsh.

The authorities have also said that 5 of the workers will be charged in court, which raises some questions in itself. One, why are they the only ones charged? Second, why are the other 29 being deported without them also being charged first? What if the courts find the 5 not guilty of having conducted or instigated an “illegal strike”, as the authorities claim? Would we not have wrongly deported the other 29 workers, without according them a right to defence?

It would thus seem that MOM’s decision to deport the 29 is presumptuous. MOM needs to explain its decision.

But beyond this particular incident, there is a more serious underlying question and issue we need to consider - while the government deals swiftly with such actions by workers, what rights do these workers have to protect themselves from the allegations and charges from the unions, ministers, the employers and even the public? It was reported in the Straits Times that the workers were barred from speaking to the media, and that reporters were not allowed into the compound of the dormitory.

Were the workers – both the 5 and those who are being deported – given legal representation, and legal advice?

How fairly has MOM dealt with the matter?

Lastly, the problems faced by transient workers are not new. Non-payment of salaries, poor accommodation, mistreatment, physical abuse, etc are not uncommon.  [Read some of these stories here.]

To talk tough and deport workers who “take the law into their own hands” is all well and good but they do not solve the institutionalized problems faced by these workers. These problems have been raised time and time again by various quarters, especially by the two non-governmental organizations which are at the forefront of providing aid to these workers – TWC2 and HOME.

In 2010, the two NGOs issued a paper on the problems faced by these workers and made recommendations for systemic improvements. [Read it here: Justice Delayed, Justice Denied]

It is simplistic for the MOM, the unions, MPs and ministers to say that workers should go through the “proper channels” to air their grievances. It only shows a woeful lack of understanding of the problems these workers face.

Unfortunately, with the “tough stance” taken by the authorities in this case, migrant workers will continue to live in fear and not have courage to speak up.

Will MOM be as swift and decisive in providing these workers protection as it has in running to the aid of SMRT? It seems to have been dragging its feet on this for the longest time.

The upcoming review of the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (EFMA) will give a clue. But no one is holding his breath. After all, MOM has said little about the main complaints by the workers – their wages and living conditions. In fact, it is more concerned about how our “industrial harmony” is not compromised. It seems to fail to understand that our “industrial harmony” is or should be founded on fair treatment of workers, which include fair wages and adequate living conditions.

It is sad that the workers have been repatriated for precisely speaking up on these things.

Surely, we can’t be proud of the action taken by MOM.

We had also considered the need for the announcement of station names to be in four languages. During our review, it was clear to us that most station names, when pronounced in English, sound similar to that in Malay and Tamil. Stations names in Mandarin, however, sound different. Take for instance, some examples are as follows:

1)       City Hall, 政府大厦 (Zheng Fu Da Sha)

2)       Somerset, 索美塞 (Suo Mei Sai)

3)       Redhill, 红山 (Hong Shan)

4)       Lakeside, 湖畔 (Hu Pan)

5)       Pioneer, 先驱 (Xian Qu)

In this regard, the announcement of station name in Mandarin will benefit passengers who rely on announcements during their journey.

Other improvements to in-train announcements are the clarity and conciseness of the announcements.

Thank you for writing in, and we wish you a pleasant week ahead.

Yours sincerely

Lynette Sng

Customer Relations

Corporate Marketing and Communications

SMRT Corporation Ltd

"Tay Hong Seng and I first met when I was a student in Sheffield. He was slightly older than most of us. That was how he got his name and was fondly called "Lao Tay". He introduced me and some other Sheffield friends to the world of student politics and activism. He was the key person to develop the Malaysian and Singaporean Society of Sheffield (MSSS) into a politically active society.

Hong Seng often did his work in a quiet but very effective manner. Besides his active political involvement he often found time to cook. He was a really good cook.

Another of his friends commented "Initially I found him to be slow, old fashioned and difficult to understand due to my own ignorance and impatience at the time. As I slowly began to talk to him and understand him more, I realise that he had in-depth knowledge of politics and an analytical mind. I had truly learnt and benefited from him during our student days in Sheffield. Due to his very slow style of speaking, impatient people like me always interrupted him when he spoke during meetings. He would not get angry but let others finish their interruptions. After some time he would raise his hand and say "Please may I continue, I have not finish yet".

Yet another had this to say: "To be honest, initially I was very annoyed by his persistence. He would cling to you like a leech, talking to you for hours from breakfast to lunch or from the student union cafeteria to your hostel. But his perseverance paid off. Gradually, many of us became endeared to him and he was like a big brother to us."

During his time in Sheffield, Lao Tay participated in a production called "Only a while the mountain sleeps". It was an activity that is still fondly remembered by his contemporaries in Sheffield.

After graduation in Sheffield, Hong Seng moved to London and was involved in the production of a student magazine called "Fijar" a publication of FUEMSSO.

Tay returned to Singapore in 1981 and consistent with his enthusiasm for cultural and political activism, he started building bridges with like-minded friends, some of whom were those he met in UK during his student days and others were activists during the 1970 student movement period in Singapore. With ten other friends, they formed the Third Stage. Hong Seng wrote and directed "Things we paid for" which was performed at the Drama Centre in July 1983 and he also co authored "Esperanza" with Wong Souk Yee.

In 1987, the Internal Security Department arrested 22 people four of whom were key members of the Third Stage. Hong Seng was one of the four. He was imprisoned for nearly a year. It was an irony that Third Stage was accused of being a front to subvert the social and political system of Singapore when its production went through the censorship board with a few even receiving monetary grants from the then Ministry of Culture.

During the period of his detention, Hong Seng was subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment and was also forced to "confess". Hong Seng once said that "he was prepared to spend his life in the cell if his payroll was not affected adversely." The trauma experienced by those arrested is encapsulated in Teo Soh Lung's "Beyond the blue gate".

After his release, Hong Seng kept much to himself. In recent times however, he had on more than one occasion indicated his interest to be kept informed by those organising the campaign to abolish the ISA on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of Operation Spectrum. Hong Seng was not only scholarly in his persona but was a profound thinker. He was a talented activist and according to one of his friends, he writes well in Chinese and is an accomplished calligrapher. We only hope that he did confide with someone near and dear to him so that we can learn more about him.

Furthermore, 29 other bus drivers involved in the strike, all of whom are also Chinese nationals, have had their Work Passes revoked and were subsequently repatriated on 2 December 2012. It remains unclear on what grounds their permits have been cancelled.

“We condemn the Singapore government’s criminalisation of the exercise of fundamental rights by the bus drivers who went on strike. The swift and harsh actions overlook the bases of their complaints about wage discrepancies and poor housing. Furthermore, the charges of instigation and incitement under Section 10(a) of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, which denies them any right to bail, is highly disproportionate and unacceptable,” said Yap Swee Seng, Executive Director of FORUM-ASIA.

FORUM-ASIA strongly disputed The Ministry of Manpower’s allegation that this strike presented a threat to public order. “The allegation by the Ministry of Manpower is misleading as the bus drivers had assembled peacefully in their living quarters. Such restriction of rights on broad and sweeping grounds is unjustifiable”, said Yap.

Existing dialogue and negotiation options with the bus company SMRT have reportedly been ineffective. Moreover, the existing trade unions have expressed that they do not have the legal mandate to represent the bus drivers involved because they are not union members.

“All workers, national and foreign, must be able to form or join independent trade unions of their own choosing that promote and protect their rights and have the right to organise without being subjected to prosecution and other legal actions,” said Yap.

The regional human rights group called for a full and independent inquiry into this industrial dispute. As a member State of the International Labour Organisation (ILO), Singapore must adhere to international labour law and standards, such as the 1998 ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. "Specifically, as a State Party to the ILO Convention No. 98 on the Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining, the Singapore government should implement its obligations to respect, protect and fulfill the rights to freedom of association and of peaceful assembly at all times," said Yap.

The decision by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) to repatriate the 29 Chinese workers will entrench this fear further among the migrant community here. While MOM’s actions may give assurance to businesses that such industrial action will not be tolerated and that indeed the government itself will step in to resolve such matters, they ironically and perhaps perversely also legitimize errant employers’ mistreatment of the workers.

The decision to deport the 29 is deplorable for several reasons – the main one of which is the existent mitigating factors for the workers.

By its own admission, SMRT accepted that the workers’ living condition – which was one of two issues the workers went on strike to raise awareness on – “could be improved.” The MOM itself used a stronger term – that the conditions were “below par.” As such, one would incline towards understanding of the workers’ grievances.

The other issue was the disparity in wages between the Chinese workers and those of the Malaysians and Singaporeans. From news reports, it would seem that it was a matter of miscommunication, or late communication, or misunderstanding. And even in this, the CEO of SMRT, Mr Desmond Kuek, admitted that SMRT could have done better in explaining the disparity. Indeed, Mr Kuek said there are "deep seated issues" with SMRT itself.

So, it would seem SMRT too accept part of the blame.

What we have here then are two instances – indeed the two issues which are at the crux of the strike – which the SMRT accepted blame and responsibility for. The MOM too agreed with the first one – that the living conditions of the workers were “below par.”

The explanation for the deportation is that the workers’ action had caused or disrupted essential services, and industrial peace. It is also said that the workers should have sought to air their grievances legally and through “proper channels.”

But this is easier said than done. Indeed, news reports say that the workers had tried to speak with the management of SMRT, to no avail. The strike was, it would seem, their last resort to seek justice as they saw it. [Read Alex Au’s write-up on the so-called channels which workers presumably have.]

Given the circumstances, which include legitimate mitigating factors, the decision to deport the workers is indeed harsh.

The authorities have also said that 5 of the workers will be charged in court, which raises some questions in itself. One, why are they the only ones charged? Second, why are the other 29 being deported without them also being charged first? What if the courts find the 5 not guilty of having conducted or instigated an “illegal strike”, as the authorities claim? Would we not have wrongly deported the other 29 workers, without according them a right to defence?

It would thus seem that MOM’s decision to deport the 29 is presumptuous. MOM needs to explain its decision.

But beyond this particular incident, there is a more serious underlying question and issue we need to consider - while the government deals swiftly with such actions by workers, what rights do these workers have to protect themselves from the allegations and charges from the unions, ministers, the employers and even the public? It was reported in the Straits Times that the workers were barred from speaking to the media, and that reporters were not allowed into the compound of the dormitory.

Were the workers – both the 5 and those who are being deported – given legal representation, and legal advice?

How fairly has MOM dealt with the matter?

Lastly, the problems faced by transient workers are not new. Non-payment of salaries, poor accommodation, mistreatment, physical abuse, etc are not uncommon.  [Read some of these stories here.]

To talk tough and deport workers who “take the law into their own hands” is all well and good but they do not solve the institutionalized problems faced by these workers. These problems have been raised time and time again by various quarters, especially by the two non-governmental organizations which are at the forefront of providing aid to these workers – TWC2 and HOME.

In 2010, the two NGOs issued a paper on the problems faced by these workers and made recommendations for systemic improvements. [Read it here: Justice Delayed, Justice Denied]

It is simplistic for the MOM, the unions, MPs and ministers to say that workers should go through the “proper channels” to air their grievances. It only shows a woeful lack of understanding of the problems these workers face.

Unfortunately, with the “tough stance” taken by the authorities in this case, migrant workers will continue to live in fear and not have courage to speak up.

Will MOM be as swift and decisive in providing these workers protection as it has in running to the aid of SMRT? It seems to have been dragging its feet on this for the longest time.

The upcoming review of the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (EFMA) will give a clue. But no one is holding his breath. After all, MOM has said little about the main complaints by the workers – their wages and living conditions. In fact, it is more concerned about how our “industrial harmony” is not compromised. It seems to fail to understand that our “industrial harmony” is or should be founded on fair treatment of workers, which include fair wages and adequate living conditions.

It is sad that the workers have been repatriated for precisely speaking up on these things.

Surely, we can’t be proud of the action taken by MOM.

In fact, bringing up two teenage sons has been fraught with challenges for Mr. Ong, a divorcé living in an interim rental flat paying $1,600 per month and was barred for 30 months from renting from the Housing Development Board (HDB). Mr. Ong is also behind with two months of rental arrears and faces the plight of being driven out of his housing by his landlord, EM Services.

Thankfully, one of the students, Wei Jie, witnessed the incident and notified Darren’s father, Mr Ong, who rushed down immediately to the school. Ironically, Wei Jie was chided by his form teacher for spouting rubbish and informing Mr. Ong on his own accord. Meanwhile, Darren was left in tears while he recovered from the shock of the incident.

After speaking to the form teacher, Mr. Ong was shocked to realize that the form teacher had let go of the perpetrator despite his act of bullying and molest. When confronted, the form teacher said, “This is the school rules and we have no right to hold the children back.” Mr. Ong’s request to meet the perpetrator’s parents was likewise rejected.

When Mr. Ong asked to see the higher management of the school, he was told that the head of department and the principal were in a meeting and were not available to see him.

Pushed to his wit’s end, Mr. Ong had no other option but to call the police. An Investigation Officer (IO) from the Singapore Police Force (SPF) soon arrived but he did not carry the necessary documentations for recording the statements from the various parties. The officer  even had to be prompted by Mr. Ong to retrieve pen and paper to take down notes. The following day, Mr. Ong went to his Neighborhood Police Post (NPP) to lodge a formal police report.

About two to three weeks later, Mr. Ong called the IO but was told that the case was still under investigation. On 31 Oct, he received the same response from the SPF and was puzzled that he had to be the one chasing the authorities on the matter and was also dissatisfied with the apparent lack of progress given the scale of the matter.

On 2 August 2012, the Shin Min Newspaper reported this incident but the public coverage was apparently insufficient to compel the school management to act and give Mr. Ong a satisfactory response on the matter.

In early November 2012, Mr. Ong went down personally to the Ministry of Education (MOE) Head Quarters (HQ) to alert the Ministry and was duly assured that they will handle the case and work with SPF, if required. In what seemed like an impasse after a few weeks, Mr. Ong called the MOE again only to have one of its officers tell Mr. Ong to not pursue the incident anymore and let it go.

In his anger, Mr. Ong retorted, “Would you let go if this incident happened to your son?” To which, the MOE officer woefully agreed and gone on to follow up on the case.

By this time, Mr. Ong was concerned that the authorities would likely gloss over the issue with the impending school holidays. His fear was also that there was nothing much he or the school could do after the primary six students moved on to their different respective secondary schools.

After a four months long tussle, Mr. Ong still has not had any opportunity to meet Victor or Victor’s parents. By then, Mr. Ong felt it was only fair that the Principal and Vice Principal asked Victor  to make a public apology.  Eventually it came down to the form teacher and she did ask him to apologize but it was done so half-heartedly at his desk. Given that his desk and Darren’s were rows of tables apart, it seemed at best, a weak attempt to close the matter.

At the crux of this entire incident lie two key matters, which we need to collectively delve into.

Firstly, the management of such cases of bullying within our schools given how bullying and taunting are typically prevalent anti-social behaviors. Are there proper and adequate protocols and processes to abide by to ensure the equitable and timely handling of such incidents? Or is the school management given  free reign and sole discretion to decide how it would best handle such incidents and for whose interests it would be safeguarding?

A source of Mr. Ong’s deep frustration is how he felt slighted,  when all he wanted was for the incident to be handled and resolved in a manner that’s fair and equitable. Yet the school management was apparently insensitive and passive, applied a “light touch” approach and had to be coerced into action only after Mr. Ong’s desperate attempts at pursuing the case with the various authorities.

Secondly, the emotional well being of the victims of bullying. When I asked Darren about how he feels towards Victor (the bully), he was uncomfortable, replying only after much hesitation.One can only imagine the emotional rollercoaster he had gone through on that fateful day as a 12-year-old -- shock, helplessness, anger, shame, embarrassment and loss.

How would the victim be able to pick himself up from the incident? Are there adequate social and emotional support and facilities within the school? Would teachers be informed and trained on how to handle such cases and understand the need to refer the victims to a school counselor? How can the victim gradually assimilate back into the same environment? What can the teacher do within his or her constraints to educate the bully on his misdeed and prevent it from occurring again?

We need to critically ask these questions not just for the sake of accountability but more so to develop a holistic and healthy environment for our students so they are able to excel academically and more importantly, develop themselves gradually as young adults with a healthy sense of self and the world around the them.

Perhaps it’s the case that anti-social behaviors like bullying are often undermined and downplayed so much that we have condoned it as a commonplace behavior and a perverse fact of childhood and growing up. Yet with Darren’s case, it can perhaps also be one whereby we start to recognize the importance of the social and emotional well being of students as a means of giving them a better chance at life and also as an integral part of education within our schools.

And as per modus operandi of this government, once the legality is ascertained, everyone falls in line and stands behind this. The Acting Manpower Minister even seemingly boasted about the many government departments involved in handling the incident – “SPF, MHA, MOM, MOT, LTA, MinLaw, ICA, AGC, MFA & Prisons” - oblivious to the impression he is giving, that the government cranks up the entire machinery to go to war with the ordinary workers, workers who have nothing more than their voice to speak up with, when these workers fail to fall in line, and fall into silence.

But all this is bereft of “heart”. You may be right legally, and you are. After all, you have the entire government machinery to help you determine the applicable statutes. But in submerging yourself in the legality of it all, you have also blinded yourself to a simple truth – that workers, whether foreign or local, just want one thing: fair wage for fair work. It is about fairness. And I would argue, just like justice, fairness must not only be done but also be seen to be done.

And this is where the ordinary folk step in to teach the elites – the ministers, the Labour MPs, the unions, the top management of the SMRT – what this fairness is.

On 6 December, it was reported in the news that at the arraignment of the 4 SMRT workers who were charged, their Singaporean colleagues at SMRT came together and raised the bail money for the four. It amounted to a substantial S$50,000. It’s no small sum. (Read it here.)

While one could not be perfectly sure why the colleagues did this, it is not unreasonable to say that fairness has a lot to do with it. And it is heartening to see this act of benevolence by the Singaporean workers.

It is a lesson which the government should learn – that it is not in speaking colourful words, or describing things in beautiful terms, that we show our sincerity in what we say. It is in the practice of these vows and pledges that we give meaning to them.

While we speak of having “hearts” and “hope” and making Singapore into a “home” we can all be proud of, the way the government has treated these workers – who wanted nothing more than just fair treatment for the labour which they provide – makes their words nothing but hot air. They may speak the words but they do not know their meanings.

To hide behind the excuses that the workers have contravened or broken the law, or that we must not allow our “industrial harmony” to be “disrupted”, or that they have to go through the “proper channels” to seek redress, or that they should respect our laws, etc, is to be blind to the simple fact that workers do not go on strike as a first choice of means. Taking such drastic action is always a last – and desperate – attempt to be heard.

Our ministers do not seem to understand this, blinded as they are by the righteous application of the law.

In his National Day rally speech, the prime minister spoke of the relationship between Singaporeans and non-Singaporeans and how we should foster closeness between the two. The prime minister was even reported to have said “we must feel for our fellow human beings.”

It is thus a shame that the government itself does not seem to have taken the prime minister’s advice to heart. That when the workers went on strike, it was not because they wanted to “disrupt” our “industrial harmony”, or that they purposefully wanted to challenge our law. It is stupid, really, to think that these were what they had in mind.

No, when they went on strike, it was a last, desperate attempt to be heard. It was a cry for fairness, a cry for help.

The government has thus lost an opportunity to practice what it preaches - to show some heart and empathy in dealing with aggrieved workers. How is it that such cries are met with arrest, charges, even being locked-up in prison and deportation - while those whose failures gave rise to such unhappiness are let off?

But the government is not Singapore. And from the charitable actions of the Singaporean colleagues of the drivers who were charged, there is hope still that it is the ordinary Singaporean – not the PAP government – who will indeed make Singapore into a home with hope – and a heart.

As Mr JB Jeyaretnam once said, the strength is in the ordinary people. And so it is.

The Workers’ Party, in a statement released on Sunday, pointed to this as well.

“The two public transport operators (PTOs) remain very profitable,” the party said. “SMRT and SBS Transit turned a profit of $119.9 million and $36.7 million respectively in the last financial year, while providing shareholders a return on equity (ROE) of 15.1% and 11.3% respectively over the same period. In contrast, the median ROE for Singapore Exchange-listed companies over the past year was 7.8%.”

In a 10-minute exchange with this writer, Mr Gan says that in fact there is no confirmation or certainty that there will be a fare increase next year.

What Mr Lui meant, Mr Gan explains, is that the current fare formula does not show the link between wages and fares and thus it might be good to make this clearer in the formula.

What the government is trying to do is to "to review this formula." Mr Gan also said the trains service are subsidising the bus service as “the buses do not make money”, he said he was told.

Mr Lui’s remarks on 7 December have attracted criticism, especially online, with many questioning the rationale and the timing of such an announcement, given the recent strike incident at SMRT and the continuing problems with the transport system.

"Any fare adjustment will allow the two operators to have more resources in time to come to make further salary adjustments,” Mr Lui said. “We recognise that the drivers need to be paid more. (The) question is where is that money coming from?” (TODAY)

What is also unclear is the relationship between wages and fares, given the seemingly contradictory statements made by different officials.

In March, Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam announced a S$1.1 billion Bus Services Enhancement Fund for the transport companies. Part of this is to help them purchase 800 new buses.

“IF THE Government does not step in to help public transport operators SBS Transit and SMRT improve bus services,” the Straits Times reported Mr Tharman’s explanation, “commuters will have to pay 15 cents more in fares per journey to get the better service they want.”

In February, Mr S Iswaran, Second Minister for Home Affairs and Second Minister for Trade and Industry, said “part of this funding is also designed to address some of the operating cost implications over the next 10 years.”

It would thus seem that the government is also lending a helping hand to the operators in terms of wages as well, which would be part of their operating costs.

In May, however, commenting on the wage increase for its workers by SMRT, Mr Cedric Foo, the chairman of the Transport GPC, said he didn’t “think there's a direct correlation between drivers' wages and bus fares”, when he was asked if the pay rise would mean increased fares.

So, do fares have any linkage to wages for transport workers? And since the government is already heavily subsidising transport operators’ costs (for as long as the next 10 years), why’re transport operators still allowed to increase fares? These are some of the questions which the public are asking.

But they are not new questions. The operators are allowed a window each year to submit applications for fares “review”, a euphemistic term for fare increase. This has always raised the ire of commuters and members of the public. This time, however, the anger is more pronounced, given the numerous breakdowns, bad maintenance regimes, and bad Human Resource management in the SMRT which resulted in Singapore’s first strike in two and a half decades.

As for Mr Lui’s remarks about possible fare increases next year, Mr Gan says, “I think people have misunderstood.”

What is on record is that fares have been raised 8 times since 2000.

“Commuters should not be expected to pay higher fares, especially when service standards remain unsatisfactory,” the WP said, “as they have been since the last fare hike. The Government and PTOs must put the public interest before shareholders’ interests. If PTOs are unable to do so because of their obligations to shareholders, public transport should be taken out of private hands and run by a not-for-profit corporation which focuses on providing efficient and quality public transport, instead of generating shareholder returns.”

Meantime, here is the 10-minute exchange between this writer and MP Gan Thiam Poh in Hougang on Sunday morning.

{youtube}CQxRsyQ2Psg|600|450|0{/youtube}

An Open Letter to the SMRT Board of Directors

Statement by HOME

We refer to the recent episode of the industrial action taken by 171 bus drivers and we wish to express our dismay over your anti-labour and discriminatory practices against your Chinese bus drivers.  We support the call of the Minister of Manpower that the incident is a ‘wake-up call’ to all businesses to review their human resource management policies and practices.

Non Compliance to UN Guiding Principles to State and Businesses

SMRT is a State linked organization providing essential public services and disruption of public transportation is a national concern.  As a State linked business enterprise, you need to strictly comply with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. These principles based on ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ framework should be implemented in a non-discriminatory manner with particular attention to the rights and needs of vulnerable migrant workers in your organization.

Non Compliance to Investor’s Ethical Standards

Among your investors, Australian Ethical avoids investments in companies that practice ‘exploitation by low wages, poor working conditions, discriminatory employment and inhibition of human rights’. Your 171 Chinese bus drivers resorted to an illegal strike action because of your discriminatory practice of unequal wage increments and unsatisfactory living conditions.

“Unequal Pay is Immoral” – International Labour Organization (ILO)

The ‘Equal pay for Equal work’ is a foundational principle of the International Labour Organization. The policy decision to implement unequal salary increment is discriminatory and  in violation of international labour standards.

Remedial Actions for the State and SMRT

• We call on SMRT to review and consider the re-employment of the 29 bus drivers who were repatriated back to their homes.

• We call on SMRT to make a public apology to bus commuters for the disruption in your services caused by poor people management policy and practices.

• We call on SMRT to place the interests of bus commuters foremost in the delivery of quality transportation services with a motivated team of fairly managed and trained workers.

• We call on the State to exercise leniency and grant freedom to those strikers in remand and imprisonment. The State’s action to convict those involved in illegal industrial action should be mitigated by the ‘non-compliance’ of SMRT to the UN Guiding Principles to State and Businesses.

• We call on the State to ensure that SMRT and all other businesses conduct human rights due diligence and comply with international labour standards ‘equal pay for equal work’ and best practices in human resource management.

We submit this open letter to you for a human-rights based resolution as the world commemorates Human Rights Day this 10th December 2012.

Bridget Tan

CEO & Founder

In fact, bringing up two teenage sons has been fraught with challenges for Mr. Ong, a divorcé living in an interim rental flat paying $1,600 per month and was barred for 30 months from renting from the Housing Development Board (HDB). Mr. Ong is also behind with two months of rental arrears and faces the plight of being driven out of his housing by his landlord, EM Services.

Thankfully, one of the students, Wei Jie, witnessed the incident and notified Darren’s father, Mr Ong, who rushed down immediately to the school. Ironically, Wei Jie was chided by his form teacher for spouting rubbish and informing Mr. Ong on his own accord. Meanwhile, Darren was left in tears while he recovered from the shock of the incident.

After speaking to the form teacher, Mr. Ong was shocked to realize that the form teacher had let go of the perpetrator despite his act of bullying and molest. When confronted, the form teacher said, “This is the school rules and we have no right to hold the children back.” Mr. Ong’s request to meet the perpetrator’s parents was likewise rejected.

When Mr. Ong asked to see the higher management of the school, he was told that the head of department and the principal were in a meeting and were not available to see him.

Pushed to his wit’s end, Mr. Ong had no other option but to call the police. An Investigation Officer (IO) from the Singapore Police Force (SPF) soon arrived but he did not carry the necessary documentations for recording the statements from the various parties. The officer  even had to be prompted by Mr. Ong to retrieve pen and paper to take down notes. The following day, Mr. Ong went to his Neighborhood Police Post (NPP) to lodge a formal police report.

About two to three weeks later, Mr. Ong called the IO but was told that the case was still under investigation. On 31 Oct, he received the same response from the SPF and was puzzled that he had to be the one chasing the authorities on the matter and was also dissatisfied with the apparent lack of progress given the scale of the matter.

On 2 August 2012, the Shin Min Newspaper reported this incident but the public coverage was apparently insufficient to compel the school management to act and give Mr. Ong a satisfactory response on the matter.

In early November 2012, Mr. Ong went down personally to the Ministry of Education (MOE) Head Quarters (HQ) to alert the Ministry and was duly assured that they will handle the case and work with SPF, if required. In what seemed like an impasse after a few weeks, Mr. Ong called the MOE again only to have one of its officers tell Mr. Ong to not pursue the incident anymore and let it go.

In his anger, Mr. Ong retorted, “Would you let go if this incident happened to your son?” To which, the MOE officer woefully agreed and gone on to follow up on the case.

By this time, Mr. Ong was concerned that the authorities would likely gloss over the issue with the impending school holidays. His fear was also that there was nothing much he or the school could do after the primary six students moved on to their different respective secondary schools.

After a four months long tussle, Mr. Ong still has not had any opportunity to meet Victor or Victor’s parents. By then, Mr. Ong felt it was only fair that the Principal and Vice Principal asked Victor  to make a public apology.  Eventually it came down to the form teacher and she did ask him to apologize but it was done so half-heartedly at his desk. Given that his desk and Darren’s were rows of tables apart, it seemed at best, a weak attempt to close the matter.

At the crux of this entire incident lie two key matters, which we need to collectively delve into.

Firstly, the management of such cases of bullying within our schools given how bullying and taunting are typically prevalent anti-social behaviors. Are there proper and adequate protocols and processes to abide by to ensure the equitable and timely handling of such incidents? Or is the school management given  free reign and sole discretion to decide how it would best handle such incidents and for whose interests it would be safeguarding?

A source of Mr. Ong’s deep frustration is how he felt slighted,  when all he wanted was for the incident to be handled and resolved in a manner that’s fair and equitable. Yet the school management was apparently insensitive and passive, applied a “light touch” approach and had to be coerced into action only after Mr. Ong’s desperate attempts at pursuing the case with the various authorities.

Secondly, the emotional well being of the victims of bullying. When I asked Darren about how he feels towards Victor (the bully), he was uncomfortable, replying only after much hesitation.One can only imagine the emotional rollercoaster he had gone through on that fateful day as a 12-year-old -- shock, helplessness, anger, shame, embarrassment and loss.

How would the victim be able to pick himself up from the incident? Are there adequate social and emotional support and facilities within the school? Would teachers be informed and trained on how to handle such cases and understand the need to refer the victims to a school counselor? How can the victim gradually assimilate back into the same environment? What can the teacher do within his or her constraints to educate the bully on his misdeed and prevent it from occurring again?

We need to critically ask these questions not just for the sake of accountability but more so to develop a holistic and healthy environment for our students so they are able to excel academically and more importantly, develop themselves gradually as young adults with a healthy sense of self and the world around the them.

Perhaps it’s the case that anti-social behaviors like bullying are often undermined and downplayed so much that we have condoned it as a commonplace behavior and a perverse fact of childhood and growing up. Yet with Darren’s case, it can perhaps also be one whereby we start to recognize the importance of the social and emotional well being of students as a means of giving them a better chance at life and also as an integral part of education within our schools.

As Alex Au said at a forum recently, being housed 8 to a room is actually not the worst that could happen. This writer, along with the migrant workers NGOs, have seen tiny rooms which had many workers squeezed into them. 20 to a room. Even 40 to a room, sleeping on bare concrete floors, or – as we once witnessed - on triple-decker beds. These places are littered all over Singapore, from Chinatown to Little India, or any industrial estate, or shophouse.

In this short video [below], taken on 9 December, I visited one of these so-called dormitories. [This dorm was apparently for construction workers.] It was a very small room, with 8 double-decker beds crammed into it. This would mean up to 16 workers could be housed there. There were little storage space, in terms of cupboards or shelves, and thus the workers’ possessions are strewn and hung everywhere.

There also didn’t appear to be a proper laundry area, or space for drying their clothes outside the dorm. So, laundry has to be dried indoors.

The cooking area, or kitchen, is within the same space as the sleeping area, without any separation between the two areas. The walls and floor in the kitchen were in a terrible state, as you can see in the video and the pictures.

With just one window for ventilation, and with the cooking and drying of laundry done indoors and in the same space, the air in the room has a certain smell of staleness. Indeed, the odour attaches itself to you even after you leave the room.

While one does not expect workers to be housed in five-star accommodation, one would expect at least a basic level of comfort, reasonable space and storage facilities. But the problems do not just apply to this particular dormitory.

The Manpower Ministry really needs to step up its enforcement of basic standards for workers’ accommodation. There is no use in talking about “proper channels” and avenues to address grievances when the basics are not enforced.

But the bigger question which we need to ask is this: with the government saying it is not lowering the number of migrant workers by any significant amount, where are we going to house these workers and those who will arrive? And by this, I mean a decent standard of accommodation.

What the government could also do perhaps is to allow independent inspection of dormitories by third parties, such as the NGOs, or even reporters. At the moment, access to such dorms is limited to a selected few, such as MOM. It was reported that reporters were not allowed into the dormitory which housed the SMRT drivers during the strike.

When workers “take the law into their own hands”, often it is the last resort, and probably after a prolonged period of frustration. While we may say we have “zero tolerance” for such actions by workers, we should also pause and consider that perhaps they do have a point.

After all, are we not a first-world country, aspiring to be a compassionate society as well? Why then do we not accord basic decent living conditions to those who work for us? Why do we need for them to take drastic actions before we ourselves act?

As we admire the Gardens by the Bay, or Universal Studios, or our spanking new condominiums, or the highways we travel on, or our new HDB flats, or the next shopping mall which springs up overnight, do spare a thought for those who help make these possible.

The very least, really, we can do is to treat them as and like fellow human beings.

Leave the tough talk aside, especially when we fail to provide them the very basic.

------------------------

{youtube}f_tYNzyEY0E|600|450|0{/youtube}

An Open Letter to the SMRT Board of Directors

Statement by HOME

We refer to the recent episode of the industrial action taken by 171 bus drivers and we wish to express our dismay over your anti-labour and discriminatory practices against your Chinese bus drivers.  We support the call of the Minister of Manpower that the incident is a ‘wake-up call’ to all businesses to review their human resource management policies and practices.

Non Compliance to UN Guiding Principles to State and Businesses

SMRT is a State linked organization providing essential public services and disruption of public transportation is a national concern.  As a State linked business enterprise, you need to strictly comply with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. These principles based on ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ framework should be implemented in a non-discriminatory manner with particular attention to the rights and needs of vulnerable migrant workers in your organization.

Non Compliance to Investor’s Ethical Standards

Among your investors, Australian Ethical avoids investments in companies that practice ‘exploitation by low wages, poor working conditions, discriminatory employment and inhibition of human rights’. Your 171 Chinese bus drivers resorted to an illegal strike action because of your discriminatory practice of unequal wage increments and unsatisfactory living conditions.

“Unequal Pay is Immoral” – International Labour Organization (ILO)

The ‘Equal pay for Equal work’ is a foundational principle of the International Labour Organization. The policy decision to implement unequal salary increment is discriminatory and  in violation of international labour standards.

Remedial Actions for the State and SMRT

• We call on SMRT to review and consider the re-employment of the 29 bus drivers who were repatriated back to their homes.

• We call on SMRT to make a public apology to bus commuters for the disruption in your services caused by poor people management policy and practices.

• We call on SMRT to place the interests of bus commuters foremost in the delivery of quality transportation services with a motivated team of fairly managed and trained workers.

• We call on the State to exercise leniency and grant freedom to those strikers in remand and imprisonment. The State’s action to convict those involved in illegal industrial action should be mitigated by the ‘non-compliance’ of SMRT to the UN Guiding Principles to State and Businesses.

• We call on the State to ensure that SMRT and all other businesses conduct human rights due diligence and comply with international labour standards ‘equal pay for equal work’ and best practices in human resource management.

We submit this open letter to you for a human-rights based resolution as the world commemorates Human Rights Day this 10th December 2012.

Bridget Tan

CEO & Founder