SQ pilots under political pressure (merged)

[Gladiator]

Call Singapore broadcasting Corp. or whatever their name is and obtain a copy of this program.

You will learn about your own history and it will all be clear.

[John Barnes]

NOw how about the history of the good old USA. If I remember well, correct me if I am wrong, they had a little "slave history" as well. Beats me what all this has to do with the problems in SQ!!!

[southernmtn]

Glad,
Again, "WHAT A LOAD OF CROCK!!!"

[Gladiator]

It is all about attitude. Singaporeans deserve Lee Kuan Yew and hence the situation in hand.

It would be scary to watch that program. I can see how it would be difficult to face the facts. Better pretend it does not exist.

Have a nice day under the dictatorship.

[Chambudzi]

Gladiator
I see you still cant help yourself when it comes to SIA and LKY.
To suggest that LKY is the way he is because of some ancient story about slavery in Singapore is the same as saying you are the way you are because Tzar Nik's missus believed everything Rasputin had to say to her. No connection --right.
Time to go back to bed in your icy abode for the long winter.

[Lithgow]

It's Official - Ryan Goh Is Out

SIA pilot Ryan Goh's appeal to Home Affairs rejected, PR status revoked

02 April 2004 2208 hrs (SST)

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stori.../78377/1/.html

SINGAPORE : SIA pilot Ryan Goh has lost his permanent resident status and will have to leave Singapore.

The Home Affairs Minister has just rejected his last ditch appeal.

Captain Goh and his family will be given some time to make the necessary arrangement to leave the country.

SIA pilot Ryan Goh was thrust into the spotlight after Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew singled him out for manoeuvring behind the scenes to get the previous leaders of the pilots union sacked.

Soon after that his PR status was revoked.

This was because the authorities deemed Captain Goh an "undesirable" immigrant.

His appeal to the ICA was turned down on 20th March, but he was given a last appeal to the Home Affairs Minister.

But this has also been rejected because there were no fresh grounds to overturn the decision. - CNA

[wotwazat]

No doubt SIA will be offering Captain Goh a Perth based job in recognition of his years of service. I am sure the Senior Minister wouldn't object to that as this situation is in no way related to the happenings at ALPA S!!!!!!!!!

[BYOD]

The public reply to Capt Goh's exile by ALPAS is nothing but a whimper. Capt Goh, no matter how miss guided he was in his vission, was by no means malicious to the co he is working for. He has become nothing but a pawn in national politics. He has been honourable in not spilling the beans on his co conpirators, many who now sit in the union. Maybe thats why the response is so muted. My farts even louder.

[Lee]

Quote from Gladiator:>>>If you understand this concept and past history, you will then understand the mentality of this idiot Lee Kuan Yew.<<<

I do understand the concept behind SQ and Singpore's past history, but i still don't understand the mentality of that idiot lee kuan yew!

[Gladiator]

Chambudzi

You just don't get it. If it hasn't happened for you by now it never will.

And thanks, the eskimo is still smiling and so am I. For your increased education average winter temp in KSEA is +8C.

[twitchy]

The present salaries what we are getting are 5 years old. But do you all have an ideaq what is the SIA proposal for the new CA to be effective till 2007. Its reduction in salary of about 20% for its pilots. Its scary man, it is high time to pack your bags if there are any jobs around for we guys........

God bless us all in this land of LKY

[John Barnes]

As always has been and always will be, we pilots are our own worst enemies. The company wants the old timers to leave, so they can replace them with the hungry guys from SAS, for a salary that is less than half of what they have to pay the real senior guys in SQ. Their leaving is not excactly a threat to the company , it is a blessing!! The generals won the battle, and that's nothing new!!

[Rockhound]

As an outside, relatively dispassionate observer of the Singapore civil aviation scene, I am surprised by the muted reaction from PPruners to the revoking of the Singapore residency status of ex-SIA pilot Capt Ryan Goh, who I see has just been granted a two-week stay of execution by the Singapore authorities. After more than 20 years as a permanent resident of SIN and a presumably satisfactory or better record as a SIA pilot (even rising to 744 command), he is essentially deported from SIN, losing his job with SIA in the process, apparently for the sin (pun intended) of union activism. Is it strictly a matter of not getting away with crossing LKY? Did the fact that Goh was also a PR of Australia and owned a house there, in which some of his family lived, play a part? None of this seems like high treason to me or is PR status in SIN granted very grudgingly, with many conditions attached? If a member of SIA's SIN-based flight staff has residency roots elsewhere but consistently reports for duty in SIN, why should there be a problem? (I am thinking of John Barnes, who reputedly flies for SIA while allegedly living quietly as a retired lecturer in Liege, Belgium). Seriously, I would be interested to hear rational, more or less unbiased comments from SIN locals and ex-pats on this issue.
Rockhound

[knackeredII]

Don't be surprised, Rockhound. It has always been a feature of the Singapore threads that the response is muted for the simple reason that most potential posters there are too afraid to speak up. The few who do respond are generally expats and I have spoken with locals there who sincerely believe that the government has the means and the will to monitor their movements and their phones. I always thought they were being somewhat paranoid but now I wonder.

[Rockhound]

Knackered,
I don't know, I've been to Singapore several times and it hardly looks like a police state to me, with the threat of phones being tapped and mail opened. Actually, it's one of my favourite places in the world to visit but, admittedly, I've never lived there. As well, some PPruners, SIN locals as well as ex-pats, have not exactly minced their words criticising SQ management and the SIN govt on this site.
The punishment meted out to Goh seems way over the top to me and I cannot help but wonder what's really behind it. I don't believe Goh expected it, otherwise he would have used a different tactic to shake up Alpa-S. His attempted palace coup happened months ago, why did the SIN authorities wait so long before throwing the book at him? Is there any local SIN PPruner who can honestly say, yes, the revoking of Goh's PR status was entirely predictable and fully expectable? If Goh had been a local born and bred in SIN, what would the punishment have been? These are just some of the questions going round in my head
Rockhound (still )

[highcirrus]

Rockhound

As I suspect you already know, the following is a tariff of sanctions to be expected by the three categories comprising the current Singapore population, in the event that an individual or group within any of these categories should start rocking the totalitarian PAP boat, thus requiring a message to be sent out, confirming that LKY controls absolutely everything in Singapore and will brook no interference, challenge, or promotion of alternative views, that counter his single handed helmsmanship of the ship of state:

1. Ex-Pat – Work Permit paperwork suddenly found to contain “errors” and “inconsistencies” that render the Permit invalid. Individual required to leave the country at short notice.

2. Permanent Resident – Entry and Exit privileges withdrawn as the individual(s) is/are suddenly and mysteriously found to be “undesirable” alien(s).

3. Singapore Citizen – Tax records back to the year dot are meticulously audited in conjunction with an exhaustive Internal Security Department investigation of any past statements or writings of the individual(s) that can possibly render him/her/them open to a defamation suit which, as night follows day round here, inevitably leads to victory for the government and loss and corollary bankruptcy for the individual(s). If this tack fails or quicker action is required by the regime, the Internal Security Act (Suppression of Dissent, for the use of) may be invoked and the individual(s) can simply be made to disappear. Alternatively, a naked threat of immediate imprisonment of the individual(s) and family can be made personally by LKY.

As we presently have clearly demonstrated, LKY will do what he damn well likes, any time he likes – we all await his pleasure in handing down details of the new CA which he will personally formulate, now that he has openly demonstrated that it is he who is the de-facto CEO of SIA, rather than the unfortunate, present, time-served incumbent.

As a final item, us residents of the Republic note with wry smiles the touchingly naďve suggestion made on another thread, presumably by a putative SAS contract pilot, that Alpa-S should contact the SAS pilots’ union and appraise the latter of the true situation in Singapore and Singapore Airlines, with a view to collective union torpedoing of the upcoming influx of SAS talent. Such “treason”, of course, would swiftly and summarily be dealt with as above.

[knackeredII]

Believe it Rockhound, when I first moved to Singapore my ideas were very similar to yours but by the time I'd left, my eyes had well and truly been opened. It is a very tightly controlled society and no dissention of any sort will be tolerated. You will not see any demonstrations of any sort on the evening news.

[Rockhound]

OK, I'm beginning to get the picture. I appreciate hi cirrus taking the time to share his views. I did have it from another authoritative source that Ryna Goh's downfall was the direct result of his falling foul of LKY but I found it hard to believe (and, frankly, still do) that the shadow cast by the old man is that long.
Rockhound (less )

[jstars2]

Straits Times, Wednesday, 21 April 2004

Why amend Act? Alpa-S saga shows workers' interests not protected

THE amendment to the Trade Unions Act was sparked off by the state of affairs at the Air Line Pilots' Association Singapore (Alpa-S), where protracted negotiations led to soured ties with the management of Singapore Airlines.

Acting Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen yesterday explained the rationale for the change that effectively affects only Alpa-S.
It removes the need for its elected leaders to seek members' approval before concluding collective agreements (CA) or settling disputes with management.

Alpa-S, which represents about 1,600 pilots, introduced this clause into its constitution in 1999, when it was restructuring itself to accommodate members from SIA subsidiary SilkAir.

'Ostensibly, through this check mechanism, members could by their approval affirm that their interest had been protected and endorse the leadership of the negotiating team,' Dr Ng told the House.

'But in practice, members' interests had not been safeguarded as thereafter, protracted and futile negotiations worsened relations between the union and management, to the detriment of all.'
In some instances, negotiating positions had progressively hardened, resulting in deadlocks as the executive council sought ratification from members.

He highlighted the example of how in 2001, a collective agreement between Alpa-S and SIA, which took 27 months to conclude, was thrown out by Alpa-S members at a meeting to ratify the deal.

The case was eventually referred to the Industrial Arbitration Court and settled out of court.

'Both management and union must share blame for this unproductive exercise, but the point is that the interests of both union members and the company suffered from these cycles of acrimony aggravated by the ratification clause,' he said.

More recently, a wage cut deal proposed by SIA management in the wake of Sars was ratified by Alpa-S members. However, 55 per cent of members later voted out the president and his negotiating team.

'Again, the ratification provision did not serve its original purpose of securing a mandate for the exco from union members.

'Members could, even after ratifying an agreement, change their minds and their leaders subsequently,' Dr Ng said.

Yesterday, Alpa-S president Mok Hin Choon said the amendment will obviously change the way things are done.

For one thing, union members will have to be more careful in selecting their representatives who will have full authority to negotiate and agree to terms on their behalf.

Leaders will also have to be doubly careful in negotiations with management, making sure they cover all the bases.

Previously, they would have been able to 'look members in the eye and say: 'Look, guys, you cleared it' ', as the membership had the final say on an agreement.

That is now no longer an option, said Capt Mok, who also headed Alpa-S when it negotiated the 2001 collective agreement but stepped down shortly afterwards. -- Rebecca Lee

Straits Times, Wednesday, 21 April 2004

CHANGES TO THE TRADE UNIONS ACT
Opposition MPs reject revision

Union leaders no longer have to get members\' approval when they seal collective agreements with management. Here\'s a look at yesterday\'s debate on the amendment:

THE changes to the Trade Unions Act are typical of a People\'s Action Party government which seeks to outlaw or cripple by legislation those it cannot control or persuade, Opposition Member of Parliament Low Thia Khiang charged yesterday.

\'A legitimate act could become a criminal act overnight. A robust organisation could become subdued and submissive,\' said the Hougang representative.

\'Welcome to Singapore,\' he mocked.

Mr Low, with Non-Constituency MP Steve Chia, opposed the Bill which seeks to remove the right of workers to reject collective wage agreements signed by their union leaders. It was later passed by Parliament.

In rejecting it, Mr Low, leader of the Workers\' Party, argued that the right ensures leaders face the consequences of their actions, beyond being booted out in an election.

It also deters union leaders from acting on their own interpretation of what is in members\' best interests without consulting members or getting their support.

Hence, it was \'a superior process and a better safeguard for union members\', he said.

\'It is also in line with the spirit of democracy of which accountability of leaders is the hallmark.\'

He also blamed such changes for causing Singaporeans to be so apathetic politically. He said: \'Why is it that our pledge to build a democratic society sounds hollow, with the people being... fearful, even ignorant of their democratic rights?

\'The answer, I believe, lies in legislation like this.\'

Mr Chia, a member of the National Solidarity Party, said people join unions in order to have a voice to improve their rights and their work environment, and be more effective in negotiating for wages.

\'If this voice is being crippled by law, what\'s the point joining a union anymore?\'

Singapore workers should therefore seriously think twice about joining unions in future, he said.

In reply, Acting Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen accused Mr Low of hyping up the effects of the amendment.

\'Have we deprived them of the right to seek recourse or a decision by the Industrial Arbitration Court? The answer is \'no\'.\'

The amendment seeks only to facilitate the collective bargaining process, he said. \'It does not in any way reduce the ability of members who are dissatisfied to call an EGM and remove the leaders at any time, even after this amendment. That\'s the fundamental point,\' he added.

Mr Ng also accused Mr Low and Mr Chia of making political points by ignoring what the Government has been saying about the challenges facing the aviation industry, where management-pilot dispute had made the amendment necessary.

If workers there end up jobless, will Mr Low and Mr Chia, he asked, tell them: \'Well, there you are, but your rights have been protected. You\'re are out of a job, but never mind.\'

Mr Ng also shrugged off Mr Chia\'s call to workers not to join unions, saying they can see what unions can deliver and are willing to trust the leadership. The rising membership of unions here is telling, he added.

Note to Readers: Peoples Action Party (PAP) holds 99% of Parliamentary seats in Singapore. “The Opposition” holds the remaining 1% of seats and is only there to provide a figmentary belief that Singapore is not ruled by a totalitarian oligarchy

Straits Times, Thursday, 22 April 2004

Ratifying clause\' not good for work ties
Axed clause that gave union members final say on workplace deals created climate of brinksmanship: minister

THE clause that required union leaders to seek members\' approval before signing collective agreements was not good for industrial relations as it created a \'climate of brinksmanship\'.

It could result in situations where demands are pushed to a point where an entire deal is jeopardised to the detriment of all, Acting Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen indicated yesterday.

His comments, in response to questions from reporters, came a day after Parliament amended the Trade Unions Act and removed the ratification clause.

Although all unions could have included the clause in their constitutions, it was seized on only by the Air Line Pilots Association-Singapore (Alpa-S).

Explaining how the clause had a negative effect on negotiating parties, he said: \'It created a very brinksmanship climate. You keep pushing limits on each side and it created a lot of envy.

\'Sometimes... members felt that they could have got a better deal. Even if they agreed to the deal, when things changed, they said we shouldn\'t have said \'Yes\'.\'

Relating this to the situation with Alpa-S, he said that the union had agreed to wage cuts in the wake of the Sars crisis last year.

\'Then when the situation from Sars improved, they said: \'We shouldn\'t have agreed anyway\' and booted out the previous negotiating team. I think it\'s unhealthy...\'*

Removing the clause not only contributed to improving labour-management relations but also removed an element in the negotiation process in which boundaries were pushed and tested.

Dr Ng reiterated yesterday that affiliates of the National Trades Union Congress, which represents 99 per cent of unionised workers here, \'don\'t need this clause to protect workers\'.

Indeed, the 63 unions in question usually held prior discussions with members. And their leaders were given the mandate to negotiate and seal agreements on their behalf - similar to union practices in Japan.

Workers, however, were not deprived of their rights as they still retained the power to vote out leaders if they were unhappy with them.

And Dr Ng\'s advice to union members was that they should choose good leaders and be clear about the terms given to them.

*When judging unhealthy situations, Readers may again wish to cast their minds back to the dark SARS days of heavy and sustained Singapore Government media and back channel pressure on Alpa-S and the complete lack of financial information from SIA, both of which precluded a proper judgment of the need for, or scale of any required salary cuts and merely produced wildly varying percentage cuts from thin air, which at the behest of a weak and complaisant former Alpa-S President were foisted on a bemused membership before it had time to realize it was being duped

[Gladiator]

Make it easier on each other and accept that Singapore is not a democracy.

Why bother to have the union in the first place? Disgusting.

Communists suck.