On 26 Nov 2012, 171 SMRT bus drivers from the People’s Republic of China decided not to report for work. They alleged that their terms of employment are less favourable than their Malaysian counterpart and complained of poor living conditions. After intervention by officers from the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), the majority returned to work the next day.

Acting Minister for Manpower, Mr Tan Chuan-Jin was quick to label the action taken by the bus drivers as an “illegal strike”. Investigations were launched by the police under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (MOM report dated 27 Nov 12 on what the Acting Minister said). The press, taking the cue from the acting minister, immediately and relentlessly used the term “illegal strike” in their reports. The bus drivers were clearly doomed from the start with MOM and its Acting Minister taking the side of their employer, SMRT.

On 29 Nov 2012, four bus drivers were charged under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act and their cases are pending. On 1 Dec 2012, 29 bus drivers were reprimanded and repatriated upon the decision of MOM to revoke their work passes (MOM statement of 1 Dec 2012). We are not informed of the reason/s why MOM revoked their work passes so swiftly and did not allow them legal representation or give them an opportunity to be heard.

On 3 Dec 2012, one bus driver was suddenly charged in court, pleaded guilty without legal representation and sentenced to 6 weeks’ imprisonment. He is presently serving his jail term and is likely to be deported immediately upon his release.

In the various statements of the Acting Manpower Minister and press releases of MOM, shortcomings of SMRT in failing to resolve the grievances of the drivers in a timely manner were acknowledged. It was not explained why swift and harsh action was taken only against the bus drivers and not SMRT. The repeated allegation by the Acting Minister, MOM, SMRT and the mainstream media that the refusal of the bus drivers to report for work constituted an “illegal strike” gives the impression that what the bus drivers had done was “illegal” and that there was indeed a “strike”. Since the cases have not been determined by the court, it is grievously wrong and prejudicial to the bus drivers’ cases to label their action as an “illegal strike”. It is commenting on a pending case and the law is clear that such comments are sub judice and constitute contempt of court.

We, at Function 8, view with grave concern the free and frequent use of the term “illegal strike” by the Acting Minister for Manpower, MOM, SMRT and the press. The four bus drivers are awaiting trial.  Repeated claims that they had participated in an “illegal strike” amount to prejudging their case. Such claims can only be calculated to influence the decision of the judge/s. In the interest of justice and the preservation of the good name of Singapore, we call upon all government officials, SMRT and the press to stop using the term “illegal strike” when referring to the SMRT incident.  As a first world nation which believes in the rule of law, we must ensure that all accused persons receive a fair and just trial.

**************

26 Nov 2012

MOM press release after meeting with drivers and smrt in the afternoon

MOM takes the workers’ actions very seriously. There are appropriate grievance handling processes in place, and workers are advised to speak to their HR and management to discuss and resolve any employment-related issues amicably, rather than take matters into their own hands.

27 Nov 2012

*  However, regardless of their grievances, what the workers have done is illegal. There are right ways and wrong ways to handle these concerns. There are due processes to be followed. Just as we expect employers to follow the law, employees should similarly do so.

* Taking the law into your own hands is wrong. This illegal strike is not acceptable and would be dealt with in accordance to the law.

29 Nov 2012

MOM reiterated to SMRT that the labour and contractual grievances raised by the workers should be a priority and addressed quickly. MOM also called on SMRT to work more closely with the union to resolve outstanding issues. At the same time, MOM urged SMRT to fully address its remedial actions, both on the housing and labour relations front.

1 Dec 2012

In addition, 29 SMRT bus drivers have been sternly warned by the Police for participating in the strike. The Controller of Work Passes has revoked their work permits, and the Immigration & Checkpoints Authority will be repatriating them. These bus drivers who persisted in the strike were absent on either or both days of the illegal strike without reason. Some had medical certificates, but notwithstanding this, there is evidence of their involvement in the strike.

1 Dec 2012

Remarks by Acting Minister of Manpower Tan Chuan-Jin

This is not just a labour dispute, it was an illegal strike. The individuals who are to be prosecuted and those to be repatriated will be accorded the due process of law. We will continue to work closely with the PRC Embassy to render them any assistance that they may need.

On Labour Relations

What the workers did was wrong and illegal – however, SMRT, as the employer, could have done better in managing their labour grievances and concerns. We have met and spoken with SMRT senior management to fully address the outstanding issues, including labour grievances raised by the workers. I have also personally spoken to SMRT top management and they have assured me they will be looking into these issues. In addition, I reminded them that SMRT must take steps to ensure that a severe breakdown in labour relations like what we saw this week does not happen again. I have received SMRT’s commitment that the company has already been taking steps to improve labour relations and will continue to do so, working with the union.

— Function 8

We, the civil society groups in Singapore, appeal to the Singapore government to act with compassion, kindness and to take into consideration the urgent need to provide humanitarian assistance to all refugees.

By October 2012, Muslims of all ethnicities are being targeted in the worsening ethnic conflict in the Rakhine state of Myanmar, a member of ASEAN. Many are escaping violence that has reached almost genocide proportions. Unfortunately, ASEAN member states have shown that they not been taking care of victims of such conflicts in the past and have even forcibly deported some of these refugees back to their persecutors or areas of war and disaster.  ASEAN member states must respect the rights of all refugees and the principle of non-refoulement. Whether their countries have ratified the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees or the 1967 Protocol and Article 3 of the 1984 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, countries have obligations to refugees and to cooperate with the UN’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) under the terms of the UN Charter and relevant General Assembly resolutions.

Recently, on 5 December 2012, 40 boatpeople were rescued from the Andaman Sea off the coast of Myanmar by a Vietnamese registered vessel MV Nosco Victory at 6pm. 9 others were rescued in a second boat. These were the only survivors of 207 Rohingya Muslims who were trying to escape from ethnic unrest in the Rakhine province of Myanmar when their boat capsized. They had been out in the open sea for 30 hours before they were rescued. 

The Maritime and Port Authority (MPA) of Singapore refused to allow the rescue ships to dock as they explained to media that there were people on board “who do not appear to be persons eligible to enter Singapore.”

As civil society, we would like to express our concern at the callousness at which the MPA had refused to allow the ships to even dock. Singapore could have provided much needed medical aid or supplies to the refugees even if she had disallowed them entry into the country.

The Singapore government should review the regulations with which asylum seekers are being processed and uphold their basic human rights. We strongly urge the government to provide future asylum seekers with assistance while the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is processing their claims. Even though Singapore may not be a party to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, it should respect the principle of non-refoulement, and provide support and assistance before the refugees can be properly re-settled in other countries that have ratified the Convention.