Thursday 19 November 2009

NTUC: Union or Members’ Club?



T

trade union

Organization whose membership consists of workers and union leaders, and whose principal purposes are to (1) negotiate wages and working condition terms, (2) regulate relations between workers (its members) and the employer, (3) take collective action to enforce the terms of collective bargaining, (4) raise new demands on behalf of its members, and (5) help settle their grievances. Trade unions are generally classified as: (a) Company union that represents interests of only one firm and may not have any connection with the trade union movement. Also called house union, a company union is often a bogus one and generally illegal. (b) General union that represents workers from several firms from the same industry. Also called industrial union. (c) Craft union that represents skilled workers in a particular field such as carpentry or welding.


Source: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/trade-union.html


The latest furor stems from an annoyed Mr Khoong who wrote in to the Straits Times Forum page to ask for more sensibility on the part of the NTUC in giving out ‘NTUC vouchers’ (I'm assuming this means NTUC FairPrice department store vouchers) to NTUC members who worked at his firm.


Source: http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/Story/STIStory_454126.html

Indeed it seems odd that the NTUC, which represents the interests of entire industries, would act in such an alienating way towards some workers. Would not the non-members be in equal difficulty and feel neglected - even though it may be ‘their fault for not becoming a member’? Conversely, when the NTUC calls for workers and employers to be ‘Cheaper, Better & Faster’ does it only address the members then?


In any case, a grand show of (blind) loyalty to the NTUC led an enthusiastic Mdm Chow to reply in today’s Straits Times Forum with a chiding retort extolling the benefits of being an NTUC member.


Mdm Chow is indeed right as well that Mr Khong ‘missed the point’ that he ‘would have been better off joining the union from day one’. Indeed, the manner in which the NTUC went about giving out the vouchers seems more for the purpose of ‘punishing’ the non-members for their lack of support than to ‘bring joy’ to members. Why else would they so openly ostracise and belittle some workers when a more discreet process would have resulted in the same level of joy for the recipients whilst avoiding the bad aftertaste for others?


The key to addressing the aforementioned furor seems to lie in understanding what it means to be an NTUC member – it certainly affords many privileges such as shopping discounts, special entertainment packages and occasionally, NTUC FairPrice department store vouchers to supposedly help with financial difficulty. This is not unlike other clubs, societies and organisations which gather groups of people and offer them bulk discounts and privileges of all sort.


What the NTUC does not do though is remonstrate any employer for poor practices, organise large-scale negotiations, draw up firm and specific guidelines that champion workers’ causes, or lobby for widespread change in labour practices. In fact, the description on the website of what the NTUC exactly does is quite vague and generic – except for all the wonderful membership privileges it can offer.


For example, it is comical that ‘What We Do’ according to the NTUC includes what workers ought to be, what government and industry players ought to do and what mindset Singaporeans generally should adopt. The only real commitment on this particular webpage seems to be on improving on their recreational facilities and raising money for charity.


screen capture of http://www.ntuc.org.sg/ntucunions/whatwedo.asp

Legislatively, the Ministry of Manpower (MoM) already handles the whole gamut of labour matters (even mediation), which makes the NTUC’s involvement in shaping the climate for workers largely ceremonial. What we do observe, however, is a top-down approach where the NTUC, helmed by CEO Lim Swee Say (who is also a Minister ‘kosong’), tells workers and employers to be ‘Cheaper, Better & Faster’ and belts out such ‘hits’ as 'Upturn the Downturn' (see below) to placate the increasingly struggling masses.



Meanwhile, suggestions for radical changes are typically met with the reiteration that the system currently in place is the best - instead of any due consideration for the feasibility or potential benefit in implementing such changes (see Halimah Yacob’s reply to ‘Give women the right to ask bosses for flexi-work' for an example).


Thus, the situation needs to be understood in the proper context and where the NTUC’s actions may have seemingly caused non-members unhappiness, this sentiment is in fact unfounded. Taking into consideration that the average member who was a ‘member from day one’ would have paid thousands of dollars in membership fees over the years, receiving a $300 shopping voucher is still a net loss. The non-members in the case cited would have in fact (rightfully) saved those thousands of dollars and spent the money on things they wanted to instead of (being forced into) just buying more groceries and tidbits.


The NTUC should be allowed to behave as the exclusive members-only club that it is and should not be confused with a union that protects or champions any particular cause, or one that ensures that any worker who is suffering is accorded the necessary financial support. Only then can the action of proudly offering some workers vouchers (never mind if they need it or not) whilst overtly ignoring others (even though they may be in real financial hardship) seem not inappropriate at all.

Saturday 7 November 2009

Why Changing Headlines is Bad...

Recently, the Head of Editorial Systems at SPH remarked in an ST blog post that some bloggers "jump up and down ... when an SPH website changes a headline". Well, although I don't have the habit of doing any physical body movments when I'm typing out a blog post, he may have felt that bloggers like me are nitpicking on the ST due to the sheer volume of ridiculous faux pas it makes in spite of it being "the most widely read newspaper in Singapore" that "strives to be an authoritative provider of news and views" - ST's own claims.

True to form, over the last 2 days, the self-censorship over the Minitor's comments continued to bring out the 'headless-chicken' behaviour at ST. A report carried on Friday (6 November 2009) reported on the China Premier's press briefing before his trip to Singapore and was titled "Controversy is 'normal'", referring to Minitor's earlier comments at an event in the US.



However, the same report appears at a different URL with the exact same text but is dated 7 November 2009 and carries the more vague title "MM's remarks normal".



If one were to read the article, however, what is referred to as 'normal' is actually the controversy and furor - not Minitor's remarks. Thus the 'updated' version of the article is incorrectly titled and is plainly misleading - how can this be a 'correction' by any stretch of the imagination? Unless 'correction' is a pseudonym for 'self-censorship'.
THE recent uproar among Chinese netizens over Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew's call for the United States to remain engaged in Asia to balance China is 'normal', the Chinese Foreign Ministry said on Friday.

"It is not surprising to see all kinds of comments on his views appearing in the newspapers. That is normal." - Assistant Foreign Minister Hu Zhengyue
Based on the callousness with which the aforementioned Head of Editorial Systems at SPH makes his observation with regard to taking issue with such senseless changes, it would seem that the ST sees this as part of the journalistic process.

The problem is that changing a headline makes it difficult to trace, hard to cite and is just downright unprofessional. Journalists and media organisations who claim to be credible should research the material thoroughly, make a decision on the text and title, and then stick by it. Changing the material after publication (whether online or otherwise) suggests ineptitude at best - something that an "authoritative provider of news and views" should not be.

Remember the friend who keeps changing his handphone number for god-knows-why? Well, it's equally annoying when today's article cannot be located tomorrow because of the title-change. And just as you would want to slap the friend who justifies the change by saying he liked the new phone number better than the former, frustrated readers are metaphorically slapping the ST's unsavoury behaviour by pointing this out on their blogs.

And since ST is now aware of the 'smoke' (i.e. bloggers "jumping up and down") it should consider putting out the proverbial fire by improving its journalistic integrity rather than be "the most widely read newspaper in Singapore" that only knows how to fan away the smoke.

Thursday 5 November 2009

The Evolution of a Straits Times Headline

Recently, there has been some furor over our Minitor's (i.e. short for Minister Mentor) comments:
"The size of China makes it impossible for the rest of Asia, including Japan and India, to match it in weight and capacity in about 20 to 30 years. So we need America to strike a balance."

- MM Lee, 29 October 2009
addressing a "stellar cast of
the US capital's political and business heavyweights
(who) turned out to honour him,
including three US Presidents
who sent messages in writing or via video"
Apparently, The Shangaiist reports that people in China are not thrilled with the allusion and mistrust with condemnation flowing from netizens (harsh) and the mainstream media (mild) in China alike.

Perhaps, Minitor's "surprise that Beijing put on a major military display of home-made weapons at its 60th National Day earlier this month" added fuel to the angry sentiments? Or perhaps it was his observation that a "blue-water fleet with aircraft carriers cannot just be to deter foreign intervention in a conflict between Taiwan and the mainland", addressed to the same crowd at the US-Asean Business Council's 25th anniversary gala dinner, and reported in a separate article entitled "US-China competition yes, but conflict? No".

However, what interests me is the way the headline changed for the first article - which is symptomatic of ST reports these days on sensitive issues. For example, a report on the Malaysian Insider quotes Minitor's words above but attributes the ST headline as "MM Lee urges the US to retain role in Asia to balance China".


But if one were to search for this report, the result is a report mildly titled as "MM calls on US to retain key role in East Asia" - which is only reproduced in full on the PMO's website.


The development of the headline does not end there however, and if you were to visit the ST webpage that carries a snippet of the story now, the headline is a nondescript "MM: US key in East Asia".


Honestly, I have no idea which of these 3 headlines appears in the print edition - please let me know if you do - but the question is whether this is a really necessary exercise. In all 3 cases, the story is exatly the same and the factual accuracy of the headlines remains solid, so why the need to change? This is a question we all need to ask ourselves when reading ST's reports.