This week, a Facebook post made by the secretary-general of the National Trade Union Congress (NTUC), Ng Chee Mang, caught my eye. In a nutshell, Mr Ng’s post talked about the railway strikes in the United Kingdom and the mayhem that they had caused.
He used this as a pretext to toot the horn of the NTUC, saying that as a result of the efforts of the NTUC and other trade unions, the rights of workers in Singapore were well looked after and as such Singapore is safeguarded against such inconveniences.
On the face of it, it seems like a generic self-congratulatory social media post that many in positions of power put out. However, dig a little deeper and you can sense the “fear-inducing” subtext – the NTUC keeps the workers in check and your life can continue unharassed from messy strikes. If the NTUC is not in charge, you will have chaos.
However, is inconvenience really that scary? Isn’t the effects of underpaying and the financial hardships suffered by workers scarier?
The British economy is one of the largest in the world. Despite its shortcomings, it is still a rich nation that millions of tourists flock to each year and where many global brands and companies are headquartered. If it was that bad, why are so many big names drawn to the UK?
London is a metropolis. There are strikes, protests, and fights. But it is also a hub of innovation and technology. It is also a centre of art and history with free speech to boot. It is also the country where the National Health Trust (NHS) provides free health services to all British residents – a most amazing safety net. London has not collapsed because of the strikes. The city has seen hundreds of strikes and is still going!
Is fear what keeps the social contract in place in Singapore? Not fear of death like some rogue countries like North Korea but fear of the status quo changing – fear of inconvenience. We are so inculcated to fear inefficiency that we have stopped to question why we fear it so.
While I am not suggesting that striking without abandon is the way to go. Do a certain level of right to strike have their role in society? Is the reason there are no strikes in Singapore due to how well the NTUC ensures workers are treated? Or is it because most workers do not have the stomach for strikes even if things are bad because we are so fearful of the “what ifs”? After all, better the devil you know? Is that how the system keeps us in our place?
In 2019 and 2020, a group of bus drivers filed lawsuits against transport operator SBS Transit. Among other things, the bus drivers said that they were made to work without a rest day each week while their overtime work was underpaid. This does not make for a good case to buffet Mr Ng’s claims that workers in Singapore are very well looked after, does it?
Lest we forget, authorities in Singapore have steadfastly refused to impose a minimum wage of a mere $1300 despite being repeatedly asked by the Workers’ Party (WP) in Parliament.
Can a country that refuses the minimum wage of a mere $1300 is said to be treating its workers well? Plus, why isn’t it the NTUC that is advocating for this? After all, aren’t they supposed to be the representatives of the workers?
Yet, we all accept this tacitly. Why?
It is the same reasoning behind the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking in Singapore. I do not for one second believe that most people enjoy the idea of someone getting put to death. Yet, many stick to their guns, stating that this is an effective deterrence despite there being no real evidence to suggest that this is so.
To make matters worse, this draconian law has even seen Nagaenthran K. Dharmalingam who has a low IQ of 69 being hung! How can hanging someone with a low IQ ever be a deterrence? Scarily, he isn’t even the only one. Pausi Jefridin, a Malaysian national, and Roslan Bakar, a Singaporean remain at risk of imminent execution despite Pausi having an IQ of 67, which is well below the global average of between 90 and 109, and Bakar having “limited capacity for judgment.”
There are also concerns that the law has the unwitting effect of discriminating against poor minorities. If the law was really meant to stop the drug trade, why is the drug trade showing no signs of abating? Why have no drug kingpins been arrested?
Yet, the same argument for keeping the law in place holds being trotted out – never mind that there is no concrete proof that it is effectively stopping anything. People are so fearful that if the mandatory death penalty was removed, there would suddenly be a floodgate of drugs, even when this flies in the face of logic. Are the marginalised in society paying the price for our fears?
Do we even realise how these fears have such an irrational grip on us?
Have we ever stopped to ask ourselves if the status quo could be improved?
It is imperative to remember that for things to improve, there first has to be change. But, how can there be change if we keep hanging on to the devil we know? It is this insidious fear of change that keeps the status quo!