The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) has refuted accusations by the civil society group, Function 8, that the use of the term “illegal strike” to describe the actions of SMRT bus drivers in late November is wrong and prejudicial.

Local television Channel NewsAsia (CNA) reported that the ministry’s spokesperson said the “serious accusations” were “entirely baseless”.

Four SMRT workers were charged in court last month with instigating the incident, which took place over a pay dispute.

Early this month, another driver was charged in court and sentenced to six weeks’ jail after he admitted to taking part in the incident.

In an earlier statement to the media, CNA quoted Function 8 as saying the workers were “doomed from the start” and called a stop to the use of the term “illegal strike”.     

The group added that the term gave the impression that what the bus drivers had done was “illegal” and that there was indeed a “strike”.

It said since the cases had not been determined by the court, it was “grievously wrong and prejudicial” to the bus drivers to label their action as such.

Function 8 also said that the ministry was commenting on a pending case and such comments were sub judice and constituted contempt of court.

CNA reported it also said repeated claims that the drivers had participated in an “illegal strike” amounted to prejudging their case and could only be calculated to influence the decision of the judge.

'Never attempted to prejudice the case'

But MOM said the government, including Acting Manpower Minister Tan Chuan-Jin and the Manpower Ministry, had never attempted to prejudice the case.

They added that Part III of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act or CLTPA clearly outlines that strike action taken in respect of essential services such as public transport is deemed illegal, unless 14 days’ notice has been given.

It was with that in mind that Acting Manpower Minister Tan Chuan-Jin used the term “illegal strike”.

MOM also pointed out that Tan referred to workers participating in the strike in general. He did not refer to the participation of any particular worker, or to any matter pending before a court of law.

In its statement, CNA said Function 8 had also questioned why MOM had revoked the work passes of 29 bus drivers so swiftly.

It also asked why it did not allow them legal representation or give them an opportunity to be heard.

Clarifying the incident, MOM said the 29 bus drivers were provided with an opportunity to be heard in relation to their conduct during the strike.

The ministry said the work permits were only revoked after due consideration by the Controller of Work Passes.

It added there was no requirement for legal representation in such a process, and no request was made in this regard by any of the 29 workers.

- Bernama