Abdul Aziz Karim
Singapore
“How much opportunity and time are given to the large number of workers to improve their skills when they are limited to doing routine work? Let us create a climate where the people, like the Germans, for example, are incessantly seeking knowledge and wanting to improve their skills.”
“Sir, the Bill before the House is more modern and progressive than the existing law. However, I have some reservations in respect of certain clauses of the Bill professing to serve the interests of workers. But since it has been indicated that the Bill will go to Select Committee, I reserve my comments on the Bill.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, there are examples of harmful styles for our young generation to imitate. This is the society we create. How much can we blame the present generation. First, we must demotivate ourselves.”
“Sir, the Minister has been discussing the best performance of SBS. I have harassed the Minister for Communications regarding this. I am not sorry. It was my duty, and it was his duty to reply to the questions.”
“Any damage is repaired as and when necessary by the Roads Branch of the PWD or the HDB. Oil drippings from buses are inevitable unless a very high standard of maintenance of the buses is exercised by the bus owners. The PWD and HDB do take action against any misuse of the bus termini.”
“Sir, I was saying that repair and maintenance bills are given tax allowance. My question is this. Is it possible for excessive repair and maintenance bills to cause leakages in the SBS finances, when it comes to taxation?”
The complete record
Every one of 241 lines we hold for Abdul Aziz Karim, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 5.
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill. However, I hope and I wish that the National Sports Promotion Board will never finance sports and recreation clubs, associations or bodies which are organised exclusively on a racial basis; nor should the players, members and officials of such organisations be allowed to represent the Republic at the expense of the Board; nor should the officials of such organisations ever he appointed to the Board by the Minister. I hope he can give this assurance. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] 5.l5 p.m.”
“Will it not be good management to look after all the contingencies that might arise in the very near future? Mr Sia Kah Hui: I think the hon. Member will agree that the matter is in good hands. CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND CONTRIBUTIONS (Interest on monthly basis) 7. Mr N. Govindasamy asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Labour if he will ascertain from the Central Provident Fund Board whether the Board considers it feasible to compute interest on contributions not on a yearly but on a monthly basis as practised by the Post Office Savings Bank.”
“Sir, are not preparations being made to see that there is more than one person standing by to fill that position?”
“Sir, other than the present General Manager, are there any serving officers with the Central Provident Fund Board who are qualified to fill the post of General Manager of the Board?”
“Will the Minister inform the House of the locations of the ten bridges to be built in 1969?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, will the Government accept the transfer of Singapore citizens now in the Malaysian Armed Forces into the Republic's Armed Forces with no loss in seniority or status?”
“Sir, does the Parliamentary Secretary not consider the reluctance and unco- operative attitude of certain employers selfish and shortsighted and not conducive to the national interest in economic development?”
“I come now to the crucial point where it may be necessary to take extra remedial legislative measures to make it unlawful to take industrial action over "non-industrial matters". Sad is the day when more restrictive laws are adopted. Let there not be such a day.”
“There ought to be a provision here ensuring that before the Court makes any award, especially in relation to a matter which does not come within the specific relief originally claimed by any party, the Court must first bear in open Court the submissions thereon of all the parties who are eventually to be bound by the award. A specific clause ought to be included here stating that the Court has the power to order the reinstatement of employees no matter for what reason they have been dismissed if for any good and sufficient reason the Court thinks it fit that such employees should be reinstated.' It was as a result of this proposal that the Government decided to amend section 38 (now section 40 of the Reprints Supplement) giving the court specific powers to reinstate an employee who is dismissed. I have already stated my objection to clause 5, but my opinion on clause 8 is quite neutral because it does not matter very much whether general termination cases are dealt with in the Industrial Arbitration Court or the Ministry of Labour. However, I give my support not to withdraw the jurisdiction of the District Court to hear cases subject to section 79 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. Mr Speaker, Sir, at this juncture I wish to make an observation on the futility of clause 5 and clause 8. Even if the matters listed in clause 5 are non-industrial matters, as defined in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, there can be disputes not arising from the terms of the collective agreement. Such disputes are not necessarily bound to be referred to the Minister under clause 8. That is the defect I wish to point out.”
“Section 38 gave the court the power to make an award on any matter or thing for the purpose of settling a trade dispute or of preventing any further trade dispute even though the matter or the thing was not one of the specific reliefs claimed by the parties before the Court. My trade union colleagues, who had occasion to appear before the Industrial Arbitration Court in cases for reinstatement, had on every occasion been told by the senior representative of the Singapore Employers Federation, who had argued against the unions, that the court did not possess the power to reinstate. His main argument was that, in the absence of a specific provision empowering the court to order the reinstatement of a dismissed worker, the court could not order any reinstatement. Also, he had, on occasion, compared the powers given to industrial tribunals in Australia where the tribunals were specifically given the power to reinstate and he had proceeded to emphasise that without such a power the court could not reinstate any dismissed employee. The present provision contained in section 40 of the Reprints Supplement of the Industrial Relations Ordinance was a direct result of certain proposals put forward by the National Trades Union Congress following the adoption of a resolution urging the Government to amend certain sections of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, particularly those contained in section 38. This took place on the 4th of April, 1964, at the Victoria Memorial Hall, at its first Annual Delegates Conference. The Recommendations of the N.T.U.C. on the amendment to section 38 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance were as follows: 'The powers of the Court are very wide as set out in this sub-section.”
“I think it is clear now that the introduction of clause 5 to prohibit collective bargaining on procedures on promotion, transfer, employment, termination, dismissal, re-employment and assignment of work is a denial of the workers' right to participate in the affairs which immediately affect his life and that of society. Let me be explicitly clear that trade unions have never desired to arrogate to themselves the functions of management in directing the affairs of the enterprise. Labour only wants the establishment of rules for management to follow in exercising their functions. This must necessarily be so, for workers will suffer if the undertaking is managed inefficiently or may have to suffer if the undertaking is to be run more efficiently. In the former case, it is clear how all those involved in the enterprise will suffer, but in the latter case, because of the workers' own productivity, some of them might be dispensed with. Arising from the points I have just made, I think no self-respecting worker and trade unionist will agree to the matters listed in clause 5 being withdrawn from the field of collective bargaining. Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 8 of the Bill seeks to remove from the Industrial Arbitration Court the power to hear and decide upon claims by unions for the reinstatement of employees and to order the reinstatement where the court is satisfied that the dismissal was wrongful. Perhaps we in this House should try to trace the events that led to the amendment that was made to the previous section 38 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (now section 40 of the Reprints Supplement). A glance at the original provisions contained in section 38 of the Ordinance seems to indicate that the court had extremely wide powers.”
“The definition of those terms is left directly to those parties involved, and there is nothing in law to stop the union from demanding as the price of the co-operation of its members a voice in some matter previously independently determined by management. Since the property rights do not mean that one has command over others, management may find it essential to share its authority as a means of inducing co-operation, in order to maintain the value of a going business. Over a period of time, it becomes customary to share authority in order to win co-operation in certain recognised areas of business decisions - for example, wages, hours, or perhaps the speed of assembly lines.' The only institution where a man can be managed and ordered about is the military institution where authoritarian relationship exists by consent. However, a military-like regime can never run an undertaking successfully for long. I have strongly emphasised the need for greater participation by workers in the management of undertakings, because this is a world-wide phenomenon. The International Labour Organisation's Recommendation 130 lays down that workers' representatives should participate in the framing of personnel policy and the solution of social questions within the undertaking. The problems that require the workers' participation cover conditions of work, welfare services, safety, employment and discipline, training and a range of matters involving the workers and having social consequences.”
“It is fear, fear, fear without limit. I think it would be more sensible to invoke the patriotic spirit to work hard to be more efficient and productive, and to make the necessary sacrifices. I think the workers must be made to feel they are important, useful and effective digits in society. They must be allowed to decide the future of the country, and feel that they do not get the worst deal, whether the circumstances are favourable or poor. Some may be inclined to believe that the workers in Singapore have never had it so good, and if things are going to be bad, they must have the worst. This is not the correct attitude to take towards the workers. I firmly believe that there will be greater participation by the workers in the affairs of the undertakings if they are to understand most clearly, to give out the most and receive the best in return. The common assertion that it is the employers' right to make business decisions free from collective bargaining is based on property rights. Such a contention is valid as far as the right to organise and to direct machinery, materials and money is concerned, but never men. As far as men are concerned, the property basis of management carries no legal duty, and no legal compulsion to co-operate. An authority on industrial relations has this to say: 'While property rights carry with them a power of disposition of goods, they do not carry an equal power to use those goods if the co-operation of others is necessary to that use. Co-operation, without which the property right is reduced to a power of disposition, cannot be commanded. It can be won only by consent. And there is no legal compulsion upon the workers to cooperate. There is no legal statement of the terms on which co-operation must take place.”
“" Is the former Minister for Labour suggesting that trade unions are also terrorising him, his officials and the court when they were defending their members in the Labour Department and in the court? Is the former Minister for Labour claiming that there is a free-for-all situation with organised workers terrorising the employers? I think it is a figment of his imagination. If anything is true, it is that he possesses the quality of a fiction story-teller quite common among some reporters who rub in highly sensational ideas to make a no-story a tall story. I wish to point out to the Minister that the general consensus of opinion of workers, not just trade union members, is that clause 5 and clause 8 of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill to amend section 17 and section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1960, is an open invitation to wield the axe. However, much depends on who the Minister is, and if the Bill is passed, I think workers will have to cross their fingers, and wait and see how he plays his hand in dealing with the bully-boys amongst unenlightened employers. This attitude, rightly or wrongly, arouses the hopes and fears of workers, because the proposed labour legislation is brimming with prejudice. The fear created by the new labour legislation in the worker is that if he is unfortunate to be sick for too long, he will not get a vacation leave, and probably he will leave his family destitute. The fear created in the worker is that if he proves, in the opinion of his employer, to be not so useful any more, he will lose his job. The worker is told if the new labour legislation is not introduced, there is the prospect of a grim future for him, and when the economic situation becomes bad, unlike money and managerial men, he is stuck fast here.”
“' With these words of the Labour Department in mind, it is hard to understand the move to take away the powers of the Industrial Arbitration Court to hear cases on dismissal and retrenchment, and the contingent powers to reinstate dismissed or retrenched employees and grant suitable reliefs. It is imperative to note that all dismissal or retrenchment cases that came up before the Industrial Arbitration Court were either disputes arising out of the operation of collective agreements or disputes jointly referred to the court, or disputes directed to the court by the Minister, and included in the latter category would be cases which his Ministry had failed to mediate successfully. In all these cases, the trade unions have more than accepted the awards of the Court. In fact, they have come to respect the court as a place of wisdom and justice. Notwithstanding this realisation, the trade unions have discreetly settled their disputes out of court. The records of the court show this attitude. In 1967, the Court heard four dismissal cases, three union recognition cases and five retrenchment cases; and in 1966 the court heard 13 dismissal cases, five union recognition cases and two retrenchment cases. The Labour Department, however, still have the monopoly of dismissal and retrenchment cases referred by the trade unions for conciliation and arbitration. Of the 702 disputes referred to the Labour Department in 1966 for conciliation, 34.9 per cent were dismissal cases; and according to the same Report (Command 7 of 1968), "Retrenchment was again a minor cause amounting to only 6.6 per cent.”
“The very fact that an employer can act, intentionally or unintentionally, against the present or future interests of his employee, should be convincing enough to any man with common sense and, more, with a sense of justice, to accept the plea that an aggrieved employee should be allowed to have the full protection of his trade union against the high and heavy-handed action of his employer. If we accept the concept of a free society, and a society of law and order, then we must accept accordingly the democratic right of an individual to protest, to object and to dispute an action which he considers is against his own interest. I firmly believe that an aggrieved employee should be given the right to seek justice in the Court, and it would be a shame to clip the powers of the Industrial Arbitration Court. The Industrial Arbitration Court is a sound industrial relations procedure, and any attempt to circumscribe the jurisdiction and function of the court is unacceptable. The Industrial Arbitration Court has obtained the respect of the workers because it operates on sound principles. In this connection, I quote Chapter Eight, page 202 of the Singapore Year Book, 1966: 'The principle upon which the Industrial Arbitration Court operates is that of offering to employers and trade unions of employees an award or decision which will fairly and justly reflect not only the interests of both parties to an industrial dispute but also to the community as a whole, as well as the economy of the Republic.”
“In Chapter Eight, page 189, it states: 'The marked improvement in industrial relations noted in 1965 continued throughout the year. There were only 14 work stoppages during the year - the lowest since 1961, the peak year for work stoppages when there were 116 strikes. For the first time, at the end of the year there were no outstanding strikes.' In the same chapter, in page 200, it states: 'The two noteworthy features in the fields of industrial relations were firstly, that there were only 14 work stoppages - the lowest since 1961 - and, secondly, the short duration of these work stoppages. Nine stoppages lasted from 1 to 5 days, four from 6 to 40 days and only one lasted for more than 40 days, which altogether involved 1,288 workers as against 3,374 in 1965 and 43,584 in 1961. The number of man days lost as a result of the 14 work stoppages was 17,807.' Mr Speaker, Sir, surely there have been disputes - disputes on union recognition, dismissal and retrenchment. Some were settled by direct negotiations, some were settled in the Labour Department, and some were settled in the industrial Arbitration Court. The cases brought up to the Labour Department were settled under the very eyes of the former Minister for Labour, and in some of the cases, the employees' objections were upheld. It was true also that the Industrial Arbitration Court has ruled in favour of the trade unions in some dismissal and retrenchment cases. These decisions of the Labour Department and the Industrial Arbitration Court prove the point that employers can abuse their powers, and that employees should be allowed to protest, to object and to dispute the actions taken by management which they consider are prejudicial to their own interests.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, what is the true industrial relations situation? Are the workers suppressed or are the employers terrorised? Neither proposition describes the real situation. But apparently the former Minister for Labour has quite suddenly come to think that the workers have gone out of hand and must be straightened up by harsh administrative and legal sanctions. It is also apparent that he has not given a factual account of the real situation. Those who are deeply involved and concerned with industrial relations will readily say that labour and management have matured since the turbulent years of the 1950s. From Labour Department sources we gather that there are fewer and fewer strikes and lock-outs. The number of work-stoppages for each year since 1955 are as follows: - 1955 - 275 1962 - 88 1956 - 29 1963 - 47 1957 - 27 1964 - 39 1958 - 22 1965 - 30 1959 - 40 1966 - 14 1960 - 45 1967 - 30 1961 - 116 In the first five months of 1968 there have been only two work-stoppages. Although there were 18 more strikes, in 1959 than in 1958, there were fewer man-days lost in 1959 than in 1958 due to work-stoppages. In the 1950s the work-stoppages were mainly politically motivated, and so were those in the early l960s. Whatever the laws might have been, they would not have made any difference to the trend and line of action in those years. However, since those days, industrial relations have gradually progressed and found their own balance, and restrictive laws will not at all be conducive to the further development of better industrial relations. Industrial relations have made a marked improvement in the last few years, and this is eloquently stated in the Singapore Year Book 1966, which is published by authority.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the introduction of the Arbitration (International Investment Disputes) Bill is to be welcomed as it comes up at a time when the Republic is sparing no effort to create a favourable image abroad, that we are a society following the principles of law and order. I think the labour movement would associate itself with such a timely act to gain the confidence of prospective international financial investors. The Republic has already established for itself a reputation for respect for law and order, and the move to give legal protection to investors is a move in the right direction. The adoption of the Bill will definitely strengthen the image of the Republic and its people. We have all witnessed on not too few occasions when other governments have ruled without any respect for the agreements they have entered into. The enactment of the Arbitration (International Investment Disputes) Bill into law and its enforcement will necessarily mean the implementation of the International Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States and the registration by the Republic's High Court of the award of the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes. The direct effect of accepting the Convention will mean that the Republic does not live by arbitrary rules. The Arbitration (International Investment Disputes) Bill does not necessarily imply that the Government of Singapore expects to have disputes with foreign investors. It is, however, vital that there must be the international machinery available to settle the disputes. The Arbitration (International Investment Disputes) Bill will offer the machinery. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to support the Bill.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, firstly, I wish to express my regret that the Government is attempting to withdraw the payment of bonus from the field of collective bargaining. I have already fully expressed my views during the Second Reading of the Bill, but now I wish to draw the attention of the House to certain important facts regarding this matter. The first is that the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1960, as it stands, allows the Industrial Arbitration Court to make awards on bonus under section 40. The law, as it stands, allows bonus to be a negotiable matter, something which you can dispute in court. It is really disheartening to note that the Government now proposes to withdraw this matter from the purview of the court. This proposal upsets the workers very much. The Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1960, was drawn up and introduced just after the Government came to power in 1959. Surely the Government has not changed its views since then.”
“The Short title and commencement of a Bill do not commonly come up for debate. I cannot think of any occasion when it did. The Employment Bill repeals and re-enacts, with amendments, the Labour Ordinance, 1955, the Clerks Employment Ordinance, 1957, and the Shop Assistants Employment Ordinance, 1957. I support the introduction of a unified employment Bill. For the interest and benefit of hon. Members of the House who were then not even in their political cradlehood, I wish to say that nine years ago, in 1959, leaders of the Singapore Trade Union Congress, the predecessor of the N.T.U.C., did recommend the unification of the labour laws. From the speeches of some hon. Members, I have the impression that the N.T.U.C. is criticising the Employment Bill because of vested interests. This is not true. The N.T.U.C. fully supports a unified employment Bill, but it opposes some of the new provisions in this Employment Bill in the interest of workers at large, whether they are organised by the N.T.U.C. or outside the N.T.U.C. fold. The N.T.U.C. itself had recommended the introduction of a unified employment Bill on several occasions. But its plea went unheeded until now. This is many years too late. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do agree that the Bill, when passed by the House, should, with the exception of certain parts, come into effect immediately in the national interest. For example, I would suggest that the Government should put into effect the provisions of clause 47 after it has directed all employers and trade unions to work out a productivity bonus scheme. That is all I wish to say. Question put, and agreed to. Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 -”
“I would go to the extent of saying that any worker who makes a habit of taking "French leave" should be properly disciplined, because we cannot allow ourselves to behave like some others in another country where, in spite of the country's political and economic position, they fail to turn up for work following New Year's Day and other public holidays. To behave in the same manner would be disastrous for Singapore. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the next clause in the Employment Bill I wish to discuss is clause 53. This clause should be read in conjunction with clause 7 of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill. It is clear that only collective agreements of industrial undertakings that have commenced business on or after January 1968 are covered by the two provisions. The National Trades Union Congress fully support the encouragement and protection of pioneer industries. In this respect, it has formed the Pioneer Industries Employees' Union to look after the interest of pioneer industries and their employees. This particular union is a credit to the good sense of the people of Singapore. Last, but not least, I hope the Government will not only consider the amendments to be moved by the Member for Bukit Ho Swee but also accept them. 3.55 p.m.”
“The provision of 14 days' paid sick leave in each year, if no hospitalisation is necessary, and 28 days, when hospitalisation is required, is definitely inadequate. I do not imagine any doctor can cure anyone suffering from a chronic illness in 28 days. It is unimaginable how a malingerer can pretend to be seriously ill and get his employer's doctor to recommend his admission to a hospital. It is harder to imagine how such a malingerer can wrangle his way in getting admitted to a Government hospital. I do not see how a malingerer can abuse such a benefit. All I wish to say is that the National Trades Union Congress do not stand by workers abusing any benefit provided. We would agree to the Government and employers "smoking out" the culprits and punishing them. But the way the Government proposes to solve their dilemma is like that of a frantic man who, being unable to catch the rats in the house, burns his house and everything in it down, regardless of the lives of his family. However, I am gratified to know that the Government will consider the proposals made by the N.T.U.C. With regard to the provisions for annual leave and public holidays, I do agree that they are within reasonable limits for new pioneer industries. To show that the trade union movement does have a social conscience and responsibility, we agree to the inclusion of clause 42 whereby a worker who absents himself without excuse on the day preceding or following a public holiday will not receive any public holiday pay. This is an important and necessary punitive provision against those who interrupt the proper functioning of the undertaking.”
“The workers, whether white-collar, blue-collar, or bare-neck, are not unconcerned about the economic expansion and advancement of the nation. I am sure they will be prepared to sacrifice some of their most important benefits if, by doing so, more jobs are created for their unemployed sons, daughters, relatives and friends. I am sure the workers who receive bonus will be prepared to contribute anything between 10 and 20 per cent to the Central Provident Fund if that can generate economic expansion and activity. This proposal has been made by the National Trades Union Congress, and the offer to the Government is still open for the free negotiability of bonus. This offer, which I have mentioned, is the workers' energy pact offer for national development. The employers can match it if they wish to accept the challenge. I will disagree with anyone, including the Minister for Labour, that workers are not squeezers of fringe benefits, trying to cover every contingency they can think of, from the altar to the hospital and from the cradle to the grave. More often than not, it is the employers who would be prepared to provide more fringe benefits than pay adequate wages and rewards for productivity. I dare say that if workers are properly remunerated, they will be least bothered about losses of fringe benefits, like sick leave which, I am sure, they do not hope to enjoy. With regard to the sick leave provision in clause 44, I do not consider it a productivity booster. I do not agree with the belief that a worker will be productive if he works under the fear that his family will suffer if he becomes sick. Under this condition, he will more likely put in the minimum effort to avoid sickness.”
“The game of the carrot or the stick may very well degenerate to the extent where an employer provides incentives for personal favours. It is too far-fetched to believe that all employers who are making profits will pay a productivity bonus notwithstanding the profits which can be attributed to the productivity of labour. If clause 47 stands unamended, workers can expect to lose everything in the form of bonus. Mr Speaker, Sir, at this juncture I wish to ask the Government to be ever watchful against unscrupulous employers taking advantage of the Employment Act and the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act to sour up industrial stability, harmony and progress. I am prompted to say this because there are indications that some employers are interpreting the introduction of the Employment Bill and the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill as a sign of "go-ahead licence to skin the workers". 3.50 p.m. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] Yesterday, the Minister for Labour himself informed the House of two uncrupulous employers, whoever they may be, who have taken advantage of the situation. I hope the Government will be watchful against employers victimising the workers. This warning is necessary because the Minister has apparently now realised that employers can abuse the situation created by the introduction of the Employment Bill and the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill. I wish to tell the Government that the workers can take all the verbal snipings of the Minister in the proper spirit, but they will react in the most unfriendly way and manner if the Employment Act and the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act become beach-heads for the final assault on their job security and economic well-being.”
“Should any dispute arise between the parties, it could be referred to the National Productivity Council which, I expect, can reliably be depended upon to give correct advice. In this connection, the National Productivity Council can be given statutory powers to investigate and to make decisions on productivity problems. The question of increasing productivity in any firm or undertaking and the payment of productivity rewards can also be worked out between the particular employer, employees' representatives and the National Productivity Council. There must be the machinery for working out productivity plans, examining the results and for negotiating the payment of incentive awards to make any productivity drive achieve its objectives. The question of increasing productivity is an urgent matter and should be of serious concern to employers, Government workers and their organisations in the interest of economic progress. In this respect, if workers are asked to give their wholehearted support to higher productivity programmes and campaigns, they must be allowed to participate actively and constructively in formulating and implementing them. When there is success, there must be concrete and reasonable returns or rewards. In conjunction with the foregoing point, it is beyond comprehension why the payment of bonus to workers, a vital incentive to higher productivity, is to be non-negotiable. This is indeed a great injustice to workers. The trade unions do vehemently protest against the attempt by the Government to remove bonus or ex-gratia payments from the purview of negotiability. It cannot be expected that all employers will wisely and fairly pay productivity bonus.”
“I believe that the Court, in making awards, has been guided by section 31 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1960, which reads as follows: 'In determining a trade dispute the Court may have regard not only to the interests of the persons immediately concerned but to the interests of the community as a whole and in particular the condition of the economy of the State.' The Court, I am sure, has followed the guidance in section 31 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance when it stated in an award in the case between the Chartered Bank and the Bank Employees' Union on 17th November, 1966, that: 'On the whole, in the present economic context, it would be preferable to effect adjustments in bonus whether upwards or downwards as the general economic condition, the particular circumstances of each case and the position of the parties in each particular dispute are being considered rather than to make adjustments in respect of basic salaries which are matters of more long-term application.' If the Industrial Arbitration Court is to consider all the policy statements made by the Government and stick to the principle enunciated in the case cited, there could be virtually a wage freeze. At this point, I venture to say that if in due course workers discover that there has been an overall loss rather than gain, it may well lead to an assault on the wage front. In view of the fact that employers can refuse to pay bonus in spite of higher productivity, it will be interesting to watch in which direction the Court will tip the scale. To my mind, it will be a good thing for the Government, as a matter of policy, to direct employers and trade unions to work out productivity bonus scales and payments rather than remove the payment of bonus from the purview of negotiability.”
“To take away the benefits which workers are now enjoying through collective bargaining or through other legitimate ways is terribly unreasonable and unjust. One of the major offences against workers is the attempt to remove from the field of negotiations the matter of bonus and ex-gratia payments. In this respect, the loss of this right will be grievously felt. Bonus has become entrenched in the salary structure of the private sector and a vital supplement to the worker's income. It has become payable not only to workmen, clerks, shop assistants and other classes of employees, but even to executives in the private sector. The concept of negotiability of bonus has been established by the trade unions and accepted by the Industrial Arbitration Court. The concept that bonus is payable only when there are reasonable profits is prevalent in Singapore. This is the trend in Singapore and the emergence of this trend is consistent with the principle that employees should have the right to claim an equitable share of profits as a result of their labour. The proposal to remove bonus from the field of negotiations and outside the purview of the Industrial Arbitration Court is the rudest shock workers have had and an indirect censure of the Industrial Arbitration Court. I do not think that the President and the Deputy President of the Industrial Arbitration Courts and panel members have not used their good sense and judgment in giving awards on matters like bonus. In this respect, there is no necessity to circumscribe the jurisdiction of the Court unless the Court has been making haywire decisions.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, inner circles and rank and file members of the trade union movement have long awaited an employment law to cover all classes and categories of working people other than those in managerial and executive positions. The Employment Bill as introduced by Government, however, falls short of expectations as seamen, domestic servants, watchmen and security guards do not come within the ambit of the Bill. The rationale of our attitude is that every employee who enters into or works under a contract of service with an employer must receive the protection of the employment law of the country. In this respect, it is worth while to note that the scope of the law will embrace employees working in undertakings engaged in the transport of passengers or goods by road, rail, sea, inland waterways or air, including the handling of goods at docks, quays, wharves, warehouses or airports. From the point of view of the labour movement, it is acceptable in principle, to repeal the Labour Ordinance, 1955, the Clerks Employment Ordinance, 1957, and the Shop Assistants Employment Ordinance, 1957. These were introduced during the colonial regime to cause class distinction and to discriminate further between those covered by the laws and those falling outside the scope of the laws. In principle, it is acceptable to rationalise, to streamline and to standardise employment practices and to lay down minimum conditions of employment by enacting a new law to replace the outdated and messy laws. The replacement of the existing labour laws by one employment law is not a controversial matter. What is controversial are certain provisions in the Employment Bill which tend to remove the rights of the workers from enjoying fringe benefits, and the reasons propounded to justify their removal.”
“However, as the Bill intends to improve things in Jurong, I give it my whole-hearted support. 3.30 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Jurong Town should be a place of joy in which to work and live. But it is sad to say that although it is a thriving industrial estate, it is quite a desert for social life. I say this with experience because I live not far off -in fact, a stone's throw - from the Jurong complex. Every morning for about l« or 2 hours, you can see streams of cars, motor-cycles and scooters going in one direction and in the evening for about 2 hours, they go the other way. Throughout the morning and even in the night, Jurong is quite a dead town. Life is dull and gloomy, and except for the occasional Christmas or New Year parties thrown by some Father Christmas of an employer, Jurong is quite a dead town. From my experience, most of the people after work go to the city to enjoy themselves and it is very difficult sometimes to find friends at home in Jurong, because most of them live in the city. I have said just now that Jurong should be a pleasant place in which to work, and I hope that the Corporation to be set up will endeavour to improve things in the Jurong complex and provide all the modem amenities to the workers and residents. Things in Jurong are not so good, even the daily food. This is to be wondered at, that although Jurong is a landing point for the fishing fleet, the fish one gets in Jurong is not so fresh as one gets in, say, the Kandang Kerbau Market. This is a complaint of the workers, that Jurong has not been taken care of in the past. I speak not only from experience but also as a result of the complaints made by workers working in Jurong, that Jurong is not a very pleasant place in which to work, because not only are the wages there low, but there are also no social amenities at all.”
“The People's Action Party Government has given status and recognition to the labour movement, so much so that trade union representatives are found on many statutory bodies, and I hope the Government will continue to do so, more particularly at this moment as the workers are beginning to question the intentions of the Government, which I do not doubt are good.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to give my whole-hearted support to the proposal by the Minister for Finance to create and establish the Jurong Town Corporation, the objectives of which are to develop an industrial estate and to provide the amenities of life to the working people and residents of the area. The move to form the Jurong Town. Corporation is indeed a bold and imaginative move to correct the imbalance between the Jurong area and, the other parts of developed Singapore. Mr Speaker. Sir, when we speak of Jurong Town, we do so with pride because it manifests the confidence of the world in Singapore, in particular in the industry of the working people. In this connection, I am sure there will be the right incentives like good and efficient utility services provided not only to the industries but also to the residents. Therefore, in order to make the Jurong complex more attractive to investors and workers, things in Jurong will have to improve and the co-operation of not only the employers but of the workers too is necessary. Mr Speaker, Sir, I refer to clause 5 (1) (c) of the Bill and I hope the Minister will also appoint trade union representatives to be members of the Corporation. It will be appropriate for him to appoint representatives of the National Trades Union Congress or of the Pioneer Industries Employees' Union to this Corporation so that the wishes and desires of the workers working and living in that area can be heard.”
“In connection with this matter, I wish to make an observation that some Housing and Development Board Estates, including the Kallang Basin Estate, have an unsightly appearance caused by rubbish whether at nine in the morning, or at noon or three in the evening, which are within working hours. To round off my speech, I wish to say that only the People's Action Party has manifestly shown itself to be the only party that has shown its concern and welfare for the Republic and the people. Only the People's Action Party has been a true and genuine Opposition Party and governing Party. Only the People's Action Party has been through thick and thin under all circumstances with the people. In spite of all the tasks ahead, the People's Action Party is willing to undertake the responsibility of looking after the country. The people have clearly shown their faith in the Government. The Government cannot jettison the trust and faith of the people. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Opposition group and parties outside Parliament have behaved outrageously by not offering themselves as an alternative government, and it can be expected that they will be more irresponsible as an Opposition in Parliament and still more irresponsible as a Government. They deserve the people's rejection. Last and not least of all, I wish to express my appreciation and gratitude to the President for his honourable presence and his speech on Monday evening. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to support the Prime Minister's motion of thanks to the President. 4.04 p.m.”
“I purposely use the terms "wages" and "salary", because in the President's Speech the Government has used the word "wages" which usually refers to earnings of the ordinary workers. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] 4.00 p.m. The ordinary workers would like to ask whether the fruits of their sacrifices go to the businessmen and executives and are remitted out of the country. What measures are there to see that more people are employed by business concerns after the proposed legislative measures have been introduced? The ordinary workers have the right to know, for they just cannot pack up and migrate to another land. Mr Speaker, Sir, next I wish to deal with the Ministries of National Development, Law and Health. The matter is the question of the handling of rubbish by these Ministries. I hope they will decide among themselves as to which Ministry is responsible for this before the question of cleanliness becomes unmanageable. The question is that the Public Utilities Board, under the Ministry of Law, wants to impose a trade refuse fee of $4 for work not done by them in Petaling Road Market in Kallang Constituency. The problem is that the Housing and Development Board is already charging $35 and $30 for cooked foodstalls and wet foodstalls respectively inclusive of service and conservancy charges. The worst of it all is that the Public Utilities Board, after initiating the move, passed the problem to the Ministry of Health for a decision. Such bureaucratic wrangling and tug-of-war is definitely not conducive to good administration of the public service. I support legislative measures to punish litter bugs, but the Government departments responsible for clearing rubbish must also do the jobs they are paid for.”
“I do suggest to the Government to use fully the mass media of radio and television to publicise the patriotism of our loyal citizens Instead of almost subserviently depending on one local newspaper to announce contributions to the National Defence Fund. This particular newspaper, I learn from one well-known employee, responded quickly to an appeal of another country; but not a stir of response to just as urgent a need for our Republic. Even their own employees recently gave something, but not them. I think hon. Members must feel heartened that the people of Singapore have demonstrated their love and loyalty to the country. This is surely a good sign. The ordinary people - the workers, trishaw riders, taxi-drivers, hawkers, farmers and their children -to the greatest degree, must be commended for sacrificing their savings or earnings for the national need. Some worked overtime and gave their overtime pay to the nation, while others gave their whole day's earnings. But there are executives who shudder to give up their one day's entertainment money for the National Defence Fund. This latter group is apt to put the blame on the ordinary workers for anything that goes wrong in industry. This brings up the question as to how much the executives, including those in Government service, who are not covered by the employment law should be made to sacrifice. It is common knowledge that these executives enjoy fringe benefits, especially annual vacation, far in excess of what the ordinary worker gets. They are the ones who judge whether a day's work put in by the ordinary worker is worth a day's wages. But under our social system who is to judge whether the executives are worth their salary?”
“I have commended the Minister not so much because the Central Provident Fund balances can be used but that home ownership fulfils the desire of every person to own a home. And also because the scheme itself is in accordance with socialist principles. I would venture to suggest to the Minister to allow current Central Provident Fund balances to be used to pay off loans from building societies and finance societies for the purchase of houses, because of the high rate of interest charged by these financial companies. In connection with the programme of the Ministry of Labour, I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that no provisions are made for unemployment insurance. With the high degree of unemployment, surely this must be an important matter. Can the Minister elucidate what happened to the payroll tax collected which was meant to start an unemployment fund? What are the prospects of a person who is to be made jobless by termination of service? Outside the provisions of collective agreements generally, there is no provision in any of the three labour Ordinances for payment of service gratuity. The jobless person gets $21 as public assistance, which is hardly enough to meet the daily necessities for survival, let alone pay for Housing Board flat rent. It is now proposed by the Minister for Health that such a person be charged for hospitalisation. Would such a person, if he was injured doing work for his employer, be asked to pay for his recovery? I think the Government should not be too smug about what welfare benefits they provide to the unemployed or sick people. Sir, one of the Government's objectives is to awaken and to infuse national consciousness in the population to meet the national problems coming ahead.”
“I do not think any hard-headed private employer would tolerate for a day, or an instant, the abuse of Standing Orders or the terms of a collective agreement. May I remind the Government, lest it has been forgotten, that it was only in recent years that trade unions have managed - and not without struggle and sacrifice - to secure reasonable wages, fringe benefits and job security for its members. Therefore, very careful consideration should be given to the question of depriving the workers of the benefits which they care most. However, I have said earlier that the workers can make sacrifices for the nation, and the sacrifice of certain fringe benefits can be made if it is definitely going to create more jobs in the firm or in industry. But it is most unlikely that the trade unions can give up the basic rights to organise, to protect its members and to have free negotiations without objection and dissent. Sir, it is my earnest hope that in the end the proposed Employment Bill does not degrade the dignity of labour, does not cause job insecurity and demoralisation. I hope the Minister for Labour, who is concurrently the Minister for Foreign Affairs, will not have the task of selling Singapore in that way. While on the programme of the Ministry of Labour, I wish to commend the Minister for his proposal to allow the Central Provident Fund balances to be used to pay for the first instalment of Housing and Development Board flats and that the additional contributions made by the member and his employer can be used to pay off monthly instalments of both Housing and Development Board flats and privately-built houses.”
“In this connection, there must be genuine consultations between the Government and the trade union movement on the proposed Employment Bill. If the purpose of this Bill is to create greater employment, it is worthy of support. But it might as well be said now that with the repeal of the Clerks Employment Ordinance, 1957, and the standardising of working hours for clerks at 44 hours per week, theoretically speaking, an employer requires five' clerks less for the functions that were formerly carried out by 44 clerks. If the aim of the proposed Bill is also to reduce certain fringe benefits like leave, the overall effect will be worse. In such a situation, there will be greater unemployment through retrenchment, which gives a result contrary to the aim of the Bill. One of the aims of the Bill is to check the abuse of fringe benefits. May I say, without any reservation, that the fringe benefits provided in the Labour Ordinance, 1955, or the Shop Assistants Employment Ordinance, 1957, or the Clerks Employment Ordinance, 1957, are not all of them adequate? In fact, more have been obtained by way of free union / management negotiations or awards of the Industrial Arbitration Court. [Mr Lim Cheng Lock temporarily in the Chair] 3.50 p.m. I would think that if there is abuse of fringe benefits by individuals, the cure is for the employer - this includes the Government - to put it under control. To reduce or to limit fringe benefits because of the misdemeanours of a few is an admission of poor management, which is not in accordance with the Government's declared policy. It would be pertinent to ask the question: in which sector is abuse of fringe benefits rampant? Is the bad area in the private sector? I am sure this is not found in the private sector.”
“However, Mr Speaker, it is regrettable to note that Ministerial speeches tend to give the impression that the workers have all along been mainly responsible for malpractices and bad productivity, and the only way to cure it all is to introduce some labour taming or maybe labour killing measures. Is the labour movement so irresponsible? Statistics show that there were fewer and fewer strikes, and records also show that whenever there were disputes, the trade unions would use the good offices of the Ministry of Labour or would use the machinery of the Industrial Arbitration Court to settle their disputes. I believe that at this point of time when we are entering into a crucial phase, co-operation between the workers and the Government is important and necessary. I would strongly suggest to the Government not to make the workers their natural whipping-boys. The Government should, I think, desist from making hysterical allegations of malpractices and publicly castigating the workers. Such an attitude is not conducive to bringing about good co-operation between the Government and the workers. Sir, this is not going to create a good image but will have the opposite effect of creating an untrue ugly image. If it is the Government's policy to establish sensible relations between labour, management and Government, the Government itself must show the way. The only way to get real co-operation is to have consultations on matters of mutual interest. And where matters concern labour, consultations must be held with the appropriate trade union organisations. To illustrate, when there are legislative or other kinds of changes affecting labour, consultations must be held preferably ending with agreement rather than that the changes be rammed down the throat of labour.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the President in his speech to the House on the evening of 6th May, 1968, expressed three objectives which the Government seeks to achieve. The objectives principally are, (1) to build up a defence capability to ensure continued national security; (2) to eradicate bad industrial practices and to increase productivity in order to create a good climate for increased investments and, in conjunction with this objective, to build a sound relationship between labour, management and Government; (3) to enhance solidly national consciousness to tackle the impending problems. I wish to record my support for these three objectives, without necessarily agreeing with the diagnosis of the problems and their solutions. Any sane and thinking person will have realised that the next few years are crucial and vital years for the Republic and its people, because of the withdrawal of the British Armed Forces, which will affect our national security and income and the political situation in the whole of this region. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do believe that the people of Singapore have the ingenuity, discipline and spirit to face the challenges that are to come, as they had in the years gone by. The workers, of whom I am one, do recognise that when there is mounting unemployment, economic and industrial expansion for the Republic is ever more imperative for our own job security and more for our own well-being. I am sure they will support any reasonable measure to solve the grave unemployment situation in the Republic.”