On 9 September, during a parliamentary debate over a new bill intended to strengthen protections for platform workers and grant them better rights, politicians from both sides of the aisle ended up debating the relationship between the government, the ruling party, and the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC).
The debate over the Platform Workers Bill began at around 4:30 pm, with multiple Members of Parliament (MPs) taking turns to speak on the issue, highlighting platform workers’ concerns and expressing their support.
However, three hours in, the debate turned political, prompting Leader of the House Indranee Rajah to remind Parliament: “Political parties can slug it out amongst themselves, but don’t put the platform workers in the middle of this. Don’t make them the pawns or the, you know, the beating bags for this. We have a bill to pass. At the end of the day, it comes back to this: We have a bill to pass, and let’s pass this bill so that we can confer rights and protections on our platform workers.”
Background
The Platform Workers Bill aims to provide enhanced rights and protections for platform workers, who often face precarious working conditions.
The bill has garnered significant attention due to the growing number of individuals relying on gig economy jobs for their livelihood.
The debate in Parliament was expected to focus on the specifics of the bill and its implications for workers. However, the discussion veered into political territory, reflecting broader concerns about the relationship between the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) and the NTUC.
PAP’s relationship with NTUC a concern: Gerald Giam
The exchange between MPs from the ruling People’s Action Party and the Workers’ Party started after a speech by WP MP Gerald Giam, who raised concerns about the NTUC’s “symbiotic relationship” with the PAP.
Giam claimed, “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.”
He noted that many PAP MPs and branch chairpersons also act as advisers to NTUC-affiliated unions, which he argued could lead to “a potential conflict of interest.”
Speech ‘predominantly an attack on the NTUC’: Christopher de Souza
In the middle of Giam’s speech, MP for Holland-Bukit Timah GRC Christopher de Souza raised a point of order, stating that Giam’s speech had not addressed the bill at hand but was “predominantly an attack against the NTUC.”
De Souza remarked, “I think it’s unfair, it’s opportunistic, and it goes beyond the agenda of what we are debating today, which is a specific legislation to advance the protection and the future of platform workers.”
He added that MPs should not use Parliament and legislation to “craft political speeches” that “go well beyond” the ambit and scope of the legislation being debated.
Giam responded that the first part of his speech was a preamble to the points he would be making and later proposed that workers should be able to form alternative associations not affiliated with NTUC to have representation that is “not beholden to any political party or the government.”
After Giam’s speech, Speaker of the Parliament Seah Kian Peng referred him to parliamentary standing orders, which stated that MPs should confine their observations to the subject under discussion and not introduce irrelevant matters.
PAP members ought to reflect on themselves: Pritam Singh
Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh took the podium soon after and remarked that Seah’s comments were “critical.”
He recalled a Budget 2022 speech by de Souza, during which the latter also advised the PAP government to decide on the 4G leadership.
“So I think the salutary 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,” Singh addressed Seah.
De Souza clarified that the situation was different when discussing a bill, where there is an agenda to follow.
Conversely, he said that during a budget debate, members have free reign to discuss other matters, such as “the objectives, the values, the future they want to see for Singapore.”
‘Give respect to our union leaders’: Heng Chee How
Jalan Besar MP and NTUC deputy secretary-general Heng Chee How stepped up in response to Giam, asking him to “give due respect to our union leaders.”
Heng stated, “They are not stooges. Their hearts are in the right place. They do all this for their fellow workers.
Be fair to our union leaders. Be fair to our unions. Be fair to the NTUC. NTUC is not expecting the Workers’ Party to support us, but at least be fair.”
Other MPs from PAP and WP also joined in the debate, which lasted for about half an hour.
‘Up to NTUC to decide whether to support political party’
Towards the end, Giam asked the PAP MPs if, based on their statements, one could assume that NTUC would become “an instrument of opposition against the new government” if the PAP were ever to lose power.
Rajah then stood up in response, stating that while she could not speak on behalf of NTUC, it would be up to the workers and NTUC to decide whether to support any political party.
“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 NTUC,” she said.
Ending the debate on NTUC, she said: “We all know that by next year, there has to be a general election. It may be this year, maybe next year, but we all know that by next year, there has to be one.
We also know that whenever a general election appears or is around the corner, the political rhetoric ramps up, that political parties can slug it out amongst themselves, but don’t put the platform workers in the middle of this.”
The Platform Workers Bill debate resumed and adjourned at around 9:30 pm for the debate to continue on 10 September.
