MTUC and unions in general have been defanged in the course of the industrial relations of this country.
Labour laws inherited from the colonial regime were more aimed at halting the communist “subversion” of unions rather than providing effective, democratic and fair representation of labour.
Post-colonial regimes inherited these obnoxious laws to ensure that labour would not pose a threat to employers.
The state is anything but neutral towards labour and unions.
Most trade unions were formed in the political context of the government’s crackdown on militant labour in the 1950s and 1960s.
In this respect, MTUC and many other federations can hardly speak of a glorious labour history.
MTUC and labour unions have come a long way.
Today, these unions are constrained by low membership, restrictive labour laws, the government’s overt bias towards labour and pro-active policies that serve the interests of capitalists.
MTUC might be weak; it cannot directly represent labour, lacks effective bargaining power with the state and, most importantly, functions in an environment of labour hostility and forced labour.
It is not that the MTUC cannot be replaced, but the option is a union that is much more weaker and obsequious to the state than the existing one, or no union at all.
I am sure those who think of the wellbeing of labour might not take an extreme line to call for the removal of the MTUC.
At least the current MTUC leaders do make noise from time to time.
MTUC might be pulled in different directions due to political differences in the leadership, but these factions do come together when the situation warrants.
The argument to replace MTUC is a hollow and shallow one.
Just imagine a situation where workers in the country are left without any representation at all.
I am not sure which party is telling the truth, the ministry or MTUC, on the question of consultation on the recent amendments to three sets of labour laws.
The ministry says that the MTUC and employers federation were consulted nine times before the amendments were approved.
But the MTUC and the employers are saying that there is no such thing and this the reason they are asking the senators to reject the amendments’ bill to be referred back to the National Labour Advisory Committee (NLAC) for re-consideration or endorsement.
The ministry might have consulted the other two parties in the NLAC, but whether the latter gave its endorsement remains unclear.
The ministry can say that they only need to consult and that endorsement from MTUC and employers’ representatives is not necessary.
I really don’t understand this specious argument of the ministry, that they only need to inform the other two bodies and not seek their endorsement.
If these amendments do not serve the interests and wellbeing of the working class, and they don’t have the consent of labour and employers, what is the point of pushing the amendments in Parliament?
Is the PH government any different from BN when it comes to the rights of workers?
It is about time the role of NLAC was reformed to ensure MTUC has a bigger and more effective role in endorsement, rather than merely being involved in consultation.
Mere consultations are not good enough to safeguard the interests of labour.
P Ramasamy is deputy chief minister II of Penang.
The views expressed here are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.