Making Singapore's tripartism work (faster): the formation of the Singapore National Employers' Federation in 1980

Abstract

We locate the 1980 formation of the Singapore National Employers' Federation (SNEF) within a history of Singaporean tripartism. This redresses a general neglect of employer associations in that system and suggests re-conceptualising Singaporean tripartism into three overlapping phases between 1960 and 1985. The motivations for the first two are well understood. Once in government, the People's Action Party (PAP) suppressed political and union opposition and then sought legitimacy and the integration of Singapore's working class, including by providing a central role for a subordinated union movement. We argue that in a third phase, emerging during the 1970s, PAP brought employer associations into its national distributed leadership model that meshed close personal ties and institutional tripartite roles. SNEF's formation was necessary for rapid tripartite implementation of the PAP's radical shift in economic strategy.

Keywords::

• tripartism
• business–government relations
• Singapore
• Singapore National Employers' Federation (SNEF)
• employer association
• institutional leadership

Notes

^1.Perkins, “There are at least Three Models,” 657–660.

^2.Suh and Seo, “Trends in the Pattern,” 128.

^3. , “From Industrial Relations,” 651, and “Strategic Choice,” 161, gives the event, proportionately, even much less attention.

^4. The only substantial treatment of this topic remains an unpublished doctoral dissertation. Gan, Bernard. “Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF) and Singapore's Industrial Relations”, PhD diss., University of New South Wales, 2010.

^5.Windmuller and Gladstone, Employers' Associations.

^6.Fairhurst, “Considering Context,” 1608.

^7. Biggart and Hamilton, “An Institutional Theory”; Pellegrini and Scandura, “Paternalistic Leadership.”

^8. Windmuller and Gladstone, Employers' Associations, v–vi.

^9.Perks, “The Roots of Oral History,” 218–220; Keulen and Kroeze, “Back to Business,” 15–16, 19–20.

^10.Lim, “Interviewing the Business and Political Elite,” 57.

^11.Simpson, “The ILO and Tripartism,” 40.

^12.Flanagan, “Macroeconomic Performance,” 1555.

^13.Bean, Comparative Industrial Relations, 218; Woodiwiss, Globalisation, 221.

^14. Woodiwiss, Globalisation; Hamilton “Patriarchy, Patrimonialism.”

^15. Onis, “The Logic,” 123, uses the term ‘infrastructural power’.

^16. See e.g. Little, Economic Development; Przeworski, Alverez, Cheibub, and Limongi, Democracy and Development, respectively.

^17. Hamilton, “Patriarchy, Patrimonialism,” 88, 92–96; see also Biggart and Hamilton, “An Institutional Theory”; Woodiwiss, Globalisation.

^18. For China, patriarchalism remains ‘the organizing principle of society’, Hamilton, “Patriarchy, Patrimonialism,” 88.

^19.Onis, “The Logic,” 123.

^20. Woodiwiss, Globalisation, 3.

^21.Clark, “Institutional Stability,” 70.

^22.Campos and Gonzalez, “Deliberation Councils,” 445; Onis, “The Logic,” 114.

^23. E.g. Kuo, “Rescuing Businesses through Transnationalism,” 103–107.

^24. See e.g. Anantaraman, Singapore Industrial Relations System; Huff, “What is the Singapore Model?”; , “From Industrial Relations” and “Strategic Choice.”

^25. E.g. Chua, Communitarian Ideology; Lee, From Third World.

^26.Coe and Kelly, “Languages of Labour,” 354.

^27.Chalmers, Crucial Issues, 27.

^28.Wilkinson and Leggett, “Human and Industrial Relations in Singapore,” 9.

^29. Huff, “What is the Singapore Model?,” 735

^30. Hock, “State Capitalism,” 157–161.

^31. For contending perspectives, see e.g. Chua, Communitarian Ideology, 74; Coe and Kelly, “Languages of Labour,” 354; Wilkinson, “Social Engineering.”

^32.Kleinsorge, “Employers' Associations in Malaya,” 125.

^33.Kleinsorge, “Employers' Associations in Malaya (II),” 152.

^34.Lee, Interview.

^35. Chalmers, Crucial Issues, 91.

^36.Tan, Interview.

^37.ILO, Study Mission, 3; Chew and Chew, Employment-driven.

^38. Chalmers, Crucial Issues, 84.

^39. Chew and Chew, Employment-driven, 118.

^40.Tan, Interview.

^41.Singapore Employer's Federation (SEF) Annual Report, 1963, 5. Also Kleinsorge, “Singapore's Industrial Arbitration,” 565.

^42.Tan, Interview.

^43.Devan Nair, Not by Wages Alone, 63–72.

^44.Anantaraman, Singapore Industrial Relations System, 123.

^45.Turnbull, A History, 307.

^46.Vasil, Governing Singapore, 65.

^47.NTUC, Progress into the 1980s, 6.

^48.NTUC, Why Labour Must Go Modern, 6–7.

^49. Ibid., v–vi.

^50.Hamilton-Hart, “The Singapore State Revisited,” 206.

^51. Turnbull, A History, 309.

^52. Bean, Comparative Industrial Relations, 125–126.

^53.Lim, “The National Wages Council,” 17–19; Then, “The National Wages Council,” 222.

^54. Lim, “The National Wages Council,” 19.

^55. Ibid., 22.

^56. Chew and Chew, Employment-driven, 147.

^57.Cheng and Womack, “General Reflections,” 320–337.

^58.Koh, Interview.

^59.Lee, Interview.

^60.Koh, Interview.

^61. Lim, “The National Wages Council,” 24 and 25.

^62.Chia, Interview.

^63. Singapore Employers' Federation, Annual Report, 1975, 11.

^64.Hock, “State Capitalism”, 164–165.

^65. Singapore Employers' Federation, Annual Report, 1975.

^66. Singapore Employers' Federation, Annual Report, 1977, 12.

^67. Singapore Employers' Federation, Annual Report, 1978, 12.

^68.Rodan, “Singapore.” 144–145.

^69.Pang, Education, Manpower and Development, 202, 217–219.

^70. Chew and Chew, Employment-driven, 221.

^71.NTUC, Progress into the 1980s, 6.

^72. Singapore Employers' Federation, Annual Report, 1979/80.

^73. Chew and Chew, Employment-driven, 97.

^74. Singapore Employers' Federation, Annual Report, 1979, 14.

^75. Singapore Employers' Federation, Annual Report, 1979, 13.

^76. Singapore Employers' Federation, Annual Report, 1979, 14.

^77.Wilkinson and Leggett, “Human and Industrial Relations in Singapore,” 10–11.

^78. The Singapore Manufacturers' Association, which no longer had NWC representation was “actually [a] trade association which [is] not involved in the collective bargaining procedure at the plant level”. See Chew and Chew, Employment-driven, 93.

^79.Chia, Interview.

^80. Singapore Employers' Federation, Annual Report, 1979, 8.

^81.Koh, Interview.

^82.Lee, Interview.

^83.Ong, “Speech by Ong Pang Boon.”

^84.Singapore National Employers' Federation, Annual Report, 2003, 4. See also Chew and Chew, Employment-driven, 84; Leggett, “From Industrial Relations,” 651.

^85.Chia, Interview.

^86. Singapore National Employers' Federation, Annual Report, 1980, 17–18.

^87.Lee, From Third World; Turnbull, A History, 297–332.

^88.Chia, Interview.

^89.Ong, Interview.

^90. Singapore National Employers' Federation, Annual Report, 1981, 3.

^91.Ong, Speech by Ong Pang Boon.”

^92. Singapore National Employers' Federation, Annual Report, 1980, 10; Annual Reports, 1981–1985.

^93. Compiled by authors from Singapore National Employers' Federation, Annual Reports, 1980–1985.

^94. Singapore National Employers' Federation, Annual Report, 1980, 18.

^95.Hou, interview; Singapore National; Employers' Federation, Annual Reports, 1981–1985.

^96. Singapore National Employers' Federation, Annual Report, 1980, 18.

^97.Onis “The Logic,” 114ff; Bamber and Ross, “Industrialisation,” 5–16.

^98. Kuruvvilla and Erickson, “Change and Transformation,” 212.

^99. From the inaugural Transparency International Index in 1995 (measure of perceived corruption).

^100. Przeworski et al., Democracy and Development, 95, re. world's highest probability of democracy by per capita income, Table 2.4.

^101. Woodiwiss, Globalisation, chs. 3–5.

^102.Booth, “Linking, De-linking and Re-linking,” 36.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Peter Sheldon

Peter Sheldon, Bernard Gan and David E Morgan are in the School of Management, Business School, University of New South Wales, Sydney Australia and are also Research Associates at that Business School's Industrial Relations Research Centre. They each publish across a range of topics in employment relations, management and international business and together collaborate on projects on employer associations, collective bargaining and on China and Singapore. Gan was, for many years, a port terminal operations manager for Port of Singapore Authority and, during the early 2000s, Vice President of Singapore's Port Officers' Union and a NTUC Council Member.

Bernard Gan

Peter Sheldon, Bernard Gan and David E Morgan are in the School of Management, Business School, University of New South Wales, Sydney Australia and are also Research Associates at that Business School's Industrial Relations Research Centre. They each publish across a range of topics in employment relations, management and international business and together collaborate on projects on employer associations, collective bargaining and on China and Singapore. Gan was, for many years, a port terminal operations manager for Port of Singapore Authority and, during the early 2000s, Vice President of Singapore's Port Officers' Union and a NTUC Council Member.

David Morgan

Peter Sheldon, Bernard Gan and David E Morgan are in the School of Management, Business School, University of New South Wales, Sydney Australia and are also Research Associates at that Business School's Industrial Relations Research Centre. They each publish across a range of topics in employment relations, management and international business and together collaborate on projects on employer associations, collective bargaining and on China and Singapore. Gan was, for many years, a port terminal operations manager for Port of Singapore Authority and, during the early 2000s, Vice President of Singapore's Port Officers' Union and a NTUC Council Member.