FIRST and foremost, I would like to thank Penang Deputy Chief Minister II P. Ramasamy for his reply to my letter published earlier on titled: What is Ramasamy up to on labour.

I believe an intellectual and democratic exchange of this sort is positive for greater good of workers in this country. If Ramasamy wants to know more about who I am, he should read my articles on political and labour issues over the years which I have done without the instruction of anyone.

Besides that, he can draw his own conclusion of why I brought up the issue of discipline, since the comment I made is not merely due to single article that he has written on labour issues.

In the letter, he states that he was never the slavish proponent of the government, employers or labour. Due to the preponderant role of the state on behest of capital, labour was always on the receiving end.

Unless and until labour is empowered through legislation and other means, labour or its representatives cannot make much headway in efforts to improve the lives of millions of workers. The position of labour or the unions has been considerably weakened over the years.

Tripartite framework should not stick to old rules and regulations but must empower unions to play a significant role determining the interests of labour.

Gone are the days of government or the employers knowing the best. Labour or its representatives must be given a role in accordance with the principles of freedom and voluntarism.

The statist approach of Benjamin or those in the ministry does not address genuine problems of the subaltern class. Why can’t my analysis of institutionalism with particular emphasis on the empowerment of labour or MTUC be appreciated in the ministry? A tripartite mechanism is there, but it means nothing to the empowerment of labour.

My question is what sort empowerment of labour he has in his mind? What is the workable mechanism of empowerment he is looking at? The tripartite system is not meant to empower workers but is an advisory mechanism where the ultimate decision is made by the government.

The real issue here is not about a tripartite system, it is about the political, economic and social order and the nature of unions in this country. It is wishful thinking that merely overhauling the industrial relation act would bring them justice.

Looking at his past articles, Ramasamy is opinion that the government should be neutral, and the unions and employers should negotiate among themselves the terms and conditions of employment.

In this ideology there is a problem. When one analyses the strengths of union in relation to employers in a neo-liberal economic environment, employers with their financial power has always been able to influence the government of the day and this has been proven over the years.

This is evident in other countries like the United States. This is the reason the most basic freedom of Association C087 has not been rectified by the Malaysian government to this day.  Even a universal ILO convention such as C190 against harassment and violence at workplace was rejected by the Malaysian Employers’ Federation.

This is where it is vital for responsible government to take a bird’s eye view and ensure the common good is adhered to.

It cannot remain neutral when basic rights of workers are trampled on. The current amendments to the industrial relations act are a starting point to empower unions. It is in line with the vision of shared prosperity. It is not will to destroy unions in the country as a simplistic union leader put it.  

Whether the amendment suggests multiple unions in organisations or multiple unions nationwide can be discussed and negotiated further. I suggest Professor Ramasamy read up my article on the topic: Amendments to industrial relations act creates significant relations to get a better picture of union empowerment.

On the other hand, whatever initiative to empower of unions, without a social political struggle towards a just social economic model that serves the interest of people and the environment, nothing much can be done.

The current struggle of unions seems to be more focus on handouts and goodwill of the capitalist instead of challenging the neo-liberal capitalist system that has subdued workers’ rights over the years.

Furthermore, the political system is ethno-religious, and this has weakened the multi-ethnic power of trade unions to influence events. This issue is beyond the Ministry of Human Resources.

The unions in Malaysia should take clue from countries like Bolivia and Cuba and be part of new political order. In some countries, there are coalitions of green and labour parties that challenge the economic conservatism of mainstream parties.

Working horizontally to create powerful networks is union empowerment in real sense instead of always looking up vertically by either supporting Barisan National or Pakatan Harapan whose economic ideological leanings are almost similar.

Therefore, to will the empowerment of unions in the current ethno-religious social economic context and the nature of certain union leaders who are simplistic on the challenges facing them would be an uphill battle. 

It’s time for unionist to review what trade unionism in the current context and the future of work should be like.

Empowerment of unions cannot be separated from a struggle for social-economic model that is just and egalitarian.

What more from greater challenges that would come from digital economy and artificial intelligence.  Unions cannot be led by leaders who are simplistic with silo thinking. In a nutshell, empowerment starts from the union themselves and beyond what Ramasamy perceives. – November 5, 2019.

* Ronald Benjamin is secretary, Association for Community and Dialogue.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.