Bernard Rodrigues
Singapore
“The Housing and Development Board, not to mention other landlords, may have to be prepared to write off a significant sum of money as unrecoverable debts because of the provisions of clause 16. It seems to me that this Bill requires a lot of further amendments before it can become an Act. 3.53 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 53 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead l0l*. * The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr S. V. Lingam Sir, has the Minister any plans to organise or renovate the Museum to make it more interesting for the public and in particular for the tourists?”
“The provision of overhead bridges merely strives to remedy the symptoms without removing the cause of the problem of the kamikaze attitude of Singapore residents.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I only want to touch on the allocation of the flats, if I may. There are applications for Housing Board flats where the applicants have applied for Housing Estate A but have been offered flats in Housing Estate B, while there are other applicants who have applied for Housing Estate B and have been given Housing Estate A.”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether it cannot be made law that a pedestrian must use the overhead bridges otherwise he will be committing a traffic offence. I per sonally think it is a waste of funds to build more overhead bridges if people do not use them.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I only have one question to ask as a result of what the Member for Bras Basah has said. Will the Minister for Finance consider granting an amnesty over a fixed period of time to tax-dodgers to reveal their hidden assets and income which, when revealed, will not be taxed on condition that such assets and income are capital…”
The complete record
Every one of 105 lines we hold for Bernard Rodrigues, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 3.
“Because of his military training requirements, he may not be able to carry out overtime work in his company --- 7.00 p.m.”
“I, however, have two comments to make in respect of the proposed Bill. I wish to draw the attention of this House to the proposed new section 21A wherein it is provided that an employer of any person placed in the national service reserve shall be responsible for the difference in the emoluments between such person's civilian and service emoluments. It is probably envisaged by this section 2lA that the employer pays the difference while the Government pays the service emoluments direct to such person. This section provides for persons who are placed in the national service reserve, but I am rather puzzled about the position of a person who is in full-time national service for the duration of the specified two-year period. It is likely that such a person might already be in the employment of a company or firm. I am not sure whether in the principal Ordinance any provision is made for the security of such person's employment and earnings for the period when they are receiving full-time military training. If no provision has been made, then I think it is essential that some amendment must be made to the principal Ordinance to safeguard the position of such person. Another point which I wish to bring to the attention of this House is that while the Ordinance provides for the security of jobs of persons placed in the national service reserve, no provision is made to the effect that no person placed in the national service reserve shall be prejudiced in his employment by reason only of the fact that they are placed on the national service reserve for the duration of such reserve services. I have in mind the possibility that a person placed on the national service reserve may be placed at a disadvantage in respect of promotion opportunities as a result of his military duties.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, several Members of this House have already stated their views on the National Service (Amendment) Bill, 1967. I wish to place on record my agreement in principle with the proposed amendments to the National Service Ordinance. I am of the view that some form of national service is essential to the well-being and security of Singapore. Even if there would never arise a situation where the persons who have been called up for military training are required to defend Singapore from any threat or danger, whether externally or internally, such period of national training would stand those persons in good stead. By reason of such training, they would be fortunate enough to receive training in leadership and responsibility towards their State. Thus Singapore would have at least a substantial number of its citizens who are physically fit and mentally keen to give the effective and strong leadership required in the future years of our Island Republic. I, however, have two comments to make in respect of the proposed Bill. I wish to refer ---”
“A supplementary, Sir. Will the Minister introduce legislation to see that employers are not allowed to deduct the wages of the employees for such training?”
“I will touch on my point, Mr Speaker. From my own experience, hawkers seem to fight shy of markets or of making use of them. The inference is that there are insufficient markets to accommodate all the hawkers, with the result that hawkers' stalls are set up in spaces allocated to parks. The other inference is that markets are superfluous because hawkers do not want to make use of them am of the opinion that an investigation should be made as to whether markets are inadequate to meet the needs of hawkers, in which case the provision this subhead should be increased, whether the hawkers do not make of them, in which case it is unnecessary to make any financial provision markets.”
“Mr Speaker. Sir, under subhead 901 in respect of Markets, the original estimate for 1966-1970 was $1,700,000.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I was not referring to my wife. I was referring to staff nurses in general. Most of them resign and look for employment elsewhere. I assure the Minister that my wife will never go back and work in the hospitals.”
“As for the fact that staff nurses are poorly paid, I would not like to make any comments on this because that is being considered by the Salaries Commission. But if they do leave, I suppose after being well trained, they will make very eligible wives and I think the Member for Telok Blangah has one!”
“I see under subhead 301 that provision has been made for 1967 for a Nurses' Training School amounting to $250,000. If this Training School is for the purpose of training assistant nurses, I am of the view that this subhead should be deleted, as there are at present in the Republic of Singapore facilities for training assistant nurses. There are more nurses than the Government can absorb in the hospitals. But if this Training School is for the purpose of training staff nurses, I fully support the inclusion of this subhead, as the hospitals in Singapore are experiencing a shortage of staff nurses. Further. Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Minister aware that many nurses, after being promoted to be staff nurses, leave Government service and look for employment elsewhere? Is it because of the very unreasonable salary that is being paid to them? Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: I would like to say to the Member for Telok Blangah that I have got his support, because this is an extension for the Outram Road General Hospital Nurses' School which trains staff nurses, which means those who are admitted for training after getting their School Certificate. But I will not accept that part of his speech where he says that if this were to be an extension to the building of the Assistant Nurses' Training School, then he would object to it because there is ample room for trained assistant nurses. Why he probably jumps to that conclusion is that some assistant nurses have been asked to wait a while before they are put on the permanent establishment because of certain difficulties of placing staff. But I want to say that assistant nurses are playing a very good role in our hospitals and there is room not only for trained assistant nurses hut also for nurses who qualify as staff nurses.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, since the Minister has touched on subhead 201, can I be allowed to touch on the Nurses' Training School?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to query the Minister for Culture whether he is in receipt of a copy of a letter addressed to the Editor of the Straits Times from the Singapore National Union of Journalists. It appears that Mr D. R. H. Brown, Secretary of the Singapore Turf Club, made certain statements on 12th December about profits from the first Singapore Sweep, which statements he clarified in the Straits Times on the following day. In his so-called clarification, he blamed a Straits Times reporter for an error which was, according to the S.N.U.J., Mr Brown's. The Straits Times, which has contracted to print the Singapore sweep tickets, has not published the S.N.U.J.'s letter, even though Mr Brown's so-called clarification statement has damaged the reputation of a local journalist. Will the Minister give this House an assurance that Press and public relations for the Singapore sweep will be properly handled in future by the Turf Club?”
“I have been told that Mr Tang is not going to move it.”
“No, Sir. It comes under the heading of "Hospitals".”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been given to understand that the demand by the Ministry for assistant nurses has exceeded the supply of trained assistant nurses from this school. So much so that previous to this year, the graduates from this training school were automatically appointed to the posts in the various hospitals in Singapore.”
“Ample provisions are made in the budget, as I have said, to induce foreign capital to flow into the Republic. But no provision is made to enable the labour force which may be made redundant through the closing down of firms engaged in the import trade - a necessary side effect of the Government's export drive - to be retrained and channelised into the industrial sector. In this respect, I should think something in the nature of a National Employment Insurance Scheme may well be considered by the Finance Minister. I, however, hasten to say that the point which I have just raised may have been fully considered by the Minister, and for his own reasons he has not dealt with it in his 1967 Budget. It should not, therefore, detract from my support of the budget which is progressive and sound. I wholeheartedly support the Finance Minister for such a balanced budget. 6.21 p.m.”
“Furthermore, the distribution of this massive investment is something which many developing countries would find it difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. No other country in this region has been able to allocate 57 per cent to economic development, 36 per cent to social development and only less than 7 per cent to public administration and defence. Coming to the budget itself, I note that in spite of the calls for inducements and incentives for entrepreneurs, it remains a very socialist one. Of the $590 million of revenue, income tax, property tax, taxes on property transfers, customs and excise on liquor, petroleum and tobacco account for nearly $360 million. Reimbursements, sales of goods and services and income from investments and property amount to over $122 million. Together, the items I have narrated account for over 80 per cent of the budget. And in this big sector, the poor contributes but little. On expenditure, I note that education and public health alone take up over $211 million, or nearly 40 per cent. Special expenditure or expenditure largely of a capital nature accounts for over $93 million or some 14 per cent. Culture, social welfare, public parks and gardens and public works expenditure come to nearly $60 million, or some 10 per cent. Statutory expenditure comes to some $76 million or over 11 per cent. The facts which I have just mentioned account for my support of the 1967 Budget. There is, however, one point insignificant though it may be to the House but of vital importance to me as a trade unionist, on which the Finance Minister is silent. I am referring to the casualty of labour in the transition of the Republic from an entrepot to an industrial centre.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the financial policy of the Government for 1967. In doing so, I wish to congratulate the Finance Minister on his realistic and down-to-earth budget. It would not have required much intelligence or courage, especially in a House with a dominant majority, for a Finance Minister to weave a budget with yarns of expectations and hope. There is an abundance of economists and even more of economic theories to help a Finance Minister to dodge his problems and tasks. But it really takes courage and common sense to prepare a balanced budget that firmly plants the country's feet on the ground and allows the hands to get to work. Such is the budget before us. On our eviction from Malaysia, we were faced with one country dedicated to our destruction, and another to our economic ruin. Another government and another people might have given up in despair. Our determination and our will pulled us through; and very nicely too. Our Gross National Product, our External Reserves, our trade and our manufactures have all gone up. There was indeed a miracle. Looking at the development programme for the public sector for next year, I am amazed at the magnitude of our problems and our capacity to meet them. Bearing in mind that we have a balanced budget before us, our public sector development programme is really astounding. The people of Singapore are asked to invest in this sector, a sum which comes to nearly 70 per cent of the budget and which represents an outlay of over $200 for every man, woman and child. In other words, for every dollar we spend on ordinary expenses, we invest another 70 cents either from savings or from loans. This rate is, I am sure, something a number of developing countries would envy.”
“A supplementary, Mr Speaker. Has the Parliamentary Secretary investigated how many employers are subsidising house rents in Jurong? I am quite sure he is not aware, Mr Speaker.”
“A supplementary, Mr Speaker. I think the Minister is wrong, because in most cases in Jurong they do not subsidise, neither do they give a transport allowance. They leave it to the union to fight. So I am hoping the Minister will do something to encourage future developers in Jurong really to help the workers in the subsidy of rent. In fact, I understand the policy of providing transport has been stopped for quite some time now.”
“A supplementary question, Sir. In view of the low wages paid in Jurong, what is the Minister doing to encourage employers to subsidise the rents in Jurong?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Minister aware that in 1965 there was an import of 19,149,896 square feet of plain plywood into Singapore, costing $2,908,072? And in January to March 1966 this year there was an import of 3,574,411 square feet of plain plywood into Singapore, costing $576,700?”
“Then may I ask the third part of the question, Mr Speaker? What is the Government's policy in patronising local industry?”
“I did not get that one, Mr Speaker, Sir.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Minister aware that his Ministry is even trying to reduce the price of $4.38 at the moment?”
“Mr Speaker, second part - is the Minister aware that S.A.T.A. is purchasing the same tablets at $5.50 per thousand tablets from the same factory compared to the Government's $4.38 cents per thousand tablets?”
“All right. First, Mr Speaker, is the Minister aware that his Ministry is purchasing P.A.S. tablets from a local factory at $4.38 cents per thousand tablets, whereas the cost of such tablets, after deducting the sales cost, is $4.45 cents per thousand tablets?”
“A supplementary question, Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may have your permission to break it into three parts?”
“Overtime is not compulsory. He need not have to elaborate on overtime. Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: I am very pleased to have given way, Sir, because that is exactly what I want to hear from trade unionists, that overtime is not compulsory. [Interruption]”
“Mr Speaker, on a point of clarification.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I understand from the proceedings in the Malaysian Parliament that the advice of the International Monetary Fund was accepted by the Malaysian Government but rejected by the Singapore Government. Can the Minister for Finance tell this House why the Singapore Government rejected the advice of the I.M.F.?”
“Division, Sir. The House divided: Ayes, 28; Noes, 5; Absent, 18; Abstentions, Nil. Ayes Noes Barker, E.W. Ho See Beng Buang bin Omar Mahmud Awang Junid. Mohd. Ariff bin Chan Chee Seng. Suradi Chow Chiok Hock. Rahamat bin Kenap Fong Sip Chee. Rodrigues, Bernard Goh Keng Swee. Gonzales, R.A. Absent Govindaswamy, P. Ho Cheng Choon A Rahin Ishak Jek Yeun Thong. Chan Choy Sion, Lee Khoon Choy. Madam Lee Teck Him. Chan Sun Wing Lim Cheng Lock. Chia Thye Poh Lim Guan Hoo. Fong Kim Heng Lim Kim San. Koo Yong Lingam, S.V. Lee Kuan Yew Ng Kah Ting. Lee Tee Tong Ng Yeow Chong. Loh Miaw Gong, Miss Ong Pang Boon. Nair, Mrs Devan Othman bin Wok. Ong Lian Teng Rajaratnam, S. Poh Ber Liak Rajoo, S. Sia Kah Hui Ramaswamy, S. Tan Cheng Tong Sim Boon Woo. Tang See Chim Tay Boon Too. Toh Chin Chye Teong Eng Siong. Wong Soon Fong Wee Toon Boon. Yong Nyuk Lin Yaacob bin Mohamed. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. -[Mr Jek Yeun Thong]. Bill considered in Committee. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] 6.33 p.m. Clause 1 -”
“Minister supplies us with very cogent reasons for the introduction of this amendment, I am of the view that it ought not to be approved. As a trade unionist, I will not stand for anti-labour legislation in any shape or form. As my colleague the Member for Bras Basah has quite rightly pointed out, the need for such restrictive provisions in the Trade Unions Ordinance is completely unjustified, particularly in view of the fact that the figures quoted by him do not warrant undue restrictions to be imposed at this juncture of time. The N.T.U.C. and its affiliates cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be termed anti-national or obstructive in their attitude. All that we, the workers of the N.T.U.C., ask for is not to seal our armoury in such a way that our existence will be rendered hopelessly impotent or completely ineffective. There is not one iota of doubt in the minds of the workers of Singapore that this proposed amendment is rightfully anti-labour. If it is the Government's intention slowly to do away with every single right of the workers of Singapore, then we have no doubt that legislation to this end is indeed possible. But, Mr Speaker, Sir, is this the avowed intention of our Government? Was this our manifesto? I hope not and I pray not. The workers of Singapore have been aware and have been more patient in recent times, but let this not be mistaken for cowardice on their part. For, as the saying goes, even a worm will turn if it is unduly provoked. And the workers that the N.T.U.C. represents are not worms either! Accordingly, Sir, I will oppose the proposed amendment and appeal to all my colleagues in this House, whose sympathy lies with the workers, to reject this amendment.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I completely concur with what my trade union colleague and Member for Bras Basah has to say on the amendment to the Trade Unions Ordinance, namely, section 24A. The attempt to define "industrial action" is, if I may say so, quite unprecedented in our part of the world. I would be most interested if the Hon. Minister for Labour, who is not here at the moment, I think, could point out to this House one example of such definition being attempted in the Legislature of any socialist democratic country in Asia. We are told that we have competent Industrial Arbitration Courts in Singapore. If this is indeed true, Mr Speaker, Sir, then why in the name of heaven do we find it utterly necessary to spell out what is or what is not an industrial action in our Ordinance? Cannot our competent Arbitration Courts be called upon to do what is legitimately their work? Cannot they from time to time evolve what is or what is not an industrial action in any given circumstance? Has the Hon. Minister for Labour examined all avenues to this problem before coming to this irretrievable position of having to define in our statute what is meant by "industrial action"? Sir, let us look at the definition itself as it appears in the amendment Bill No. 69. It is couched in such a manner that it can only be described by any observer as a blanket definition in a deliberate attempt to tie the working class hand and foot. We are supposed to be men and women given to liberal, democratic, socialistic thinking. If all our thinking can only produce pathetic legislation of the sort that is being attempted here, then I for one am at a loss to understand what is meant by either socialism or democracy. Unless and until the Hon.”
“Perhaps, Mr Speaker, you may not be aware of what I really mean when I say a driver would save about $280 a month. Take, for instance, a driver who rents a vehicle from the blood-sucking vampire at about $17 per day or about $500 per month. The driver gets his own vehicle from the co-operative society on an instalment basis of about $220 per month. This enables him to save about $280 per month. He should then be able to say that he robs from the rich and gives to the poor and that he is a Robin Hood. I can understand why the Taxi Owners Association is against the increase of more taxis. These owners are not used to a socialist society, or any society other than a capitalist society. I should like the Government here to introduce a Bill whereby there will be a maximum of about $10 a day rent on any taxi for taxi drivers in Singapore. By this, Mr Speaker, I am, in fact, doing a favour to the fat capitalists who will be able to join our society, a socialist society. Lastly, while appreciating the unemployment market, I would appeal to the Minister really to look into the difficulties of the pirate taxi drivers so as to be able to fit them into our society. I would also ask him whether or not he has any intention to introduce taxi stops similar to bus stops.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to support this Bill and also to congratulate the Minister on his initiative. Firstly, I would like to ask the Minister for an assurance that just passing this Bill is not enough, but to see that the Bill is really enforced. Secondly, just curbing the pirate taxis will not really solve this problem. With the expansion of the Republic and especially of the housing estates, more licensed taxis should be introduced to cater for the needs of the public, particularly school children living in housing estates where buses are not available. I should like to suggest that Government introduce a type of transport where it will cater only for school children. While appreciating the Bill to curb these pirate taxis, the Government should also consider the problem of school-going children. At the moment these children depend for their transport on these pirate taxis. When I say transport, Mr Speaker, I mean cheap transport. There should be a form of cheap, legalised transport for school-going children. To ease their difficulties during the transition period, I would suggest to the Government to introduce a co-operative scheme whereby these taxi-drivers would be able to own their own vehicles one day and, at the same time, provide cheaper transport for children. These taxis carrying school-going children, on the co-operative scheme introduced by Government, should carry a plate openly on display, "For school children only" and levy charges at a very special rate. If the Government is prepared to float the capital for this co-operative scheme, a driver would be able to save about 50 per cent of the rent of the vehicle in a month, which will come to about $280.”
“Mr Speaker, I, as a Member of this House, would like to give my assent to the amendment.”
“As far as an ordinary worker is concerned, it appears to him that justice is not done where the decision to institute prosecution proceedings for an offence under the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance is left solely in the hands of the Public Prosecutor. After all is over, he will still be left with the feeling that no action has ever been taken on his case.”
“I can see no strong objection to the adoption of the procedure laid down in Chapter 132 of the Criminal Procedure Code, except that possibly the Government of Singapore has no confidence in the incumbents on the Bench in the Magistrate's Court, for surely a magistrate will be able to put a stop to any frivolous prosecution when he comes across it. In any event, there are sufficient safeguards under the Criminal Procedure Code to prevent a person from being unduly inconvenienced by any complaint laid before the magistrate. I presume from the term "public officers" referred to in the proposed subsection, the Minister has in mind any Government employee other than a police officer. He is not very concerned as to who makes an investigation. I would have thought that the police officer, by the nature of his training, should be the proper person to make any investigation in respect of an offence under the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance! Under the procedure laid down in the proposed amendment, it may take a long time before consent to institute prosecution proceedings can be given. In the meantime, the worker who has been injured by an offence in respect of which consent to institute prosecution proceedings is sought, justifiably feels that his time is being wasted. Where an ordinary worker is concerned, I feel happier if he is to appear before a magistrate and told by him that he has no case against his employer. I personally think that it is not only sufficient to ensure that justice is done, but it is also important to ensure that justice is seen to be done.”
“In effect, this means that any complaint by a worker against his employer must have a double trial before he can obtain satisfaction for his complaint. First before the Public Prosecutor, and then before the trial judge. I am not speculating on the probable effect of the proposed amendment, but I am speaking from bitter experience. The National Trades Union Congress has submitted several cases to the then State Advocate-General, now the Attorney-General, for his necessary consent before instituting prosecution proceedings. In such cases as the British Eastern (Malaya) Ltd, and the Singer Sewing Machine Co., where some employees were dismissed by the employers in highly suspicious circumstances, no consent to the institution of prosecution proceedings under the Industrial Relations Ordinance was obtained because the Attorney-General was of the opinion that there was no sufficient case. Only in one case that involved Lim Teck Lee & Co. was consent given to institute a prosecution. Even then I am given to understand that the police is not pressing forward with this prosecution. It is the contention of the National Trades Union Congress that, in view of the unsatisfactory mode of instituting prosecution proceedings under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, the most suitable manner of instituting prosecution proceedings should be as provided for under the provisions of section 132 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Chapter 132). In advocating such a procedure, I have in mind that the Public Prosecutor is already overburdened with work and that it will take some time for him to examine the facts of the case before he can decide whether to give his whole consent to the institution of any prosecution proceedings under the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance.”
“Another point is that no union can afford to employ a staff of stenographers at its own expense to take down Court proceedings for its own use. I am not making this criticism of the Industrial Arbitration Court for the purpose of running it down. What I want to emphasize is that the provisions of making an appeal within 14 days is impracticable in the light of the present staff situation in the Industrial Arbitration Court. I would suggest that the phrase "notice of appeal" be inserted in place of appeal in the proposed subsection (6) and that a longer time period be given for filing an appeal under the provisions of this Ordinance. Then in section 22 of the Bill wherein it is proposed to delete subsection (2) of section 79 of the Ordinance and insert in place thereof seven new subsections, I am of the opinion that the proposed amendment does not add to the efficiency of section 79 and the proposed prosecution of an employer in respect of offences under section 75 or 77 is cumbersome as the existing mode of prosecution under the present provisions of this Ordinance. The crux of the matter, as far as the National Trades Union Congress is concerned, is whether the written consent of the Public Prosecutor is necessary before any prosecution can be instituted under the provisions of section 79. As I have said earlier, it is difficult enough to institute prosecution proceedings against an employer in respect of any offences under the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance without making it more difficult by requiring that the Public Prosecutor must be satisfied that such a prosecution must have a chance of success before he would give his consent to the prosecution being instituted.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to comment on another section of the Bill which is section 18 where it is proposed to delete the existing subsections (2) and (3) of section 39 of the Ordinance and insert in place thereof another five subsections. My interest lies with the proposed subsection (6) wherein it is stated that an appeal from the decision of a referee to the Court shall be made in the prescribed manner within 14 days from the date of the referee's decision. I am of the opinion that the 14 days' limit for the making of an appeal is inadequate. My reasons for saying so are, (a) it is nowhere stated in any of the proposed subsections of section 39 that the referee must make his award in writing or that the referee must give the grounds of his decision together with his decision. I do not see how a person can make an appeal unless he knows what he is appealing from. The present system of making available transcripts of court proceedings to the parties is highly unsatisfactory, because of apparent understaffing in the Industrial Arbitration Court. It may take a party as long as three months to obtain such transcripts. I have been given to understand that some unions had made representations to the Industrial Arbitration Court in respect of this delay in obtaining Court transcripts and had been told by the Court officer that the Court is under no obligation to supply Court transcripts to any party. While I agree that the Court officer is correct in making such a statement, the fact remains that the party to any proceedings before the Industrial Arbitration Court has to wait for months before he can lay his hands on Court transcripts for which he has to pay quite a sum of money.”
“Speaking as one who belongs to the democratic trade union movement, let me assure the House that the workers of Singapore will stand resolutely by the Government in the years ahead so long as it adheres to a policy of positive neutrality in international affairs and respects the institutional independence of the working class led by the National Trades Union Congress. Permit me, Mr Speaker, Sir, to close my remarks with the expression that the workers of Singapore, with their high degree of political consciousness, will have no sympathy for those who have so disgracefully abdicated their responsibilities to the people of Singapore and stayed away from the open argument taking place in this House, to decide the destiny of our nation. 5.38 p.m.”
“Unlike those absent Members from the opposite row, who preach a brand of Afro-Asian solidarity which changes from time to time, the workers in the democratic wing have consistently believed that positive neutrality was and still is the correct policy for Singapore. We have never supported ideological exclusiveness and have always adhered to establishing fraternal relations with workers in the Afro-Asian world on the basis of mutual respect for each other's approaches to fundamental problems. As evident from the large number of fraternal delegates from the Afro-Asian trade unions who recently gathered in Singapore for the National Trades Union Congress Annual Convention and the international Labour Seminar, these policies have always paid dividends. Having succeeded in a small way in fostering this friendship among Afro-Asian nations for us in Singapore in the trade union field, we naturally feel confident that we can speak from direct personal experience that the policy indicated in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's Speech is the right one to adhere to. We should consistently display our adherence to the principles of non-alignment and the ideal of Afro-Asian solidarity, based on the Bandung principles. Far from being fence-sitters, we should never hesitate to make known that we dislike anybody making up our minds for us. Speaking on behalf of the workers of Singapore, I am indeed glad that the Government has seen the righteousness of this trade union philosophy in international relations and embodied it as the cornerstone of the foreign policy of our nation.”
“As my colleague, the Member for Bras Basah has already mentioned, employers in Singapore, like any employers elsewhere, are already giving different unintended interpretations to certain remarks of the Prime Minister. We are also aware that some among them even chose this occasion to use our struggles against the anti-national forces in our midst to play workers against workers, thus hoping to deny workers in the democratic trade union movement their legitimate rewards. To those employers, I give notice that, notwithstanding the need for stable labour conditions for our own economic future, we in the democratic trade union movement will not hesitate to make exceptions of such employers, regardless of Government's policies. We will endeavour, through sheer economic unionism and not political motives, to teach them some lessons on how collective bargaining and labour-management relations should be conducted in a free and independent country. In welcoming this remark by His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. I hope that the Government will equally ensure that employers do not take this plea for stable labour conditions to be an indication that Government would he a silent spectator of the exploitation of workers in the process. Finally, it was indeed heartening to note that our foreign policy aims at having the maximum number of friends and the least number of hostile countries. Speaking as a worker, I must say that this is indeed an enlightened policy to follow. We workers in Singapore have always recognised this need for positive neutrality and Afro-Asian solidarity.”
“First, Jet me assure the House that the democratic trade union movement in Singapore, which today represents more than 75 per cent of organised workers, is fully aware of its responsibilities. It believes that it cannot operate in a vacuum. As an organised part of society, it believes that it has a clear and positive role to play, primarily to safeguard the legitimate interests of labour and to fight exploitation of labour in any form. It also recognises that the economic stagnation of Singapore must inevitably mean the emasculation of the labour movement, and therefore its own future is inextricably tied up with the economic future of Singapore. I would like to remind this House that it is this basic and fundamental realisation that has led workers, led by the N.T.U.C., to give their full support to Singapore's industrialisation programme. We fully believe that this programme must succeed and, we say here and now, that in the years ahead, we will demonstrate our capacity and ability to adjust ourselves not only to meet the challenges but also prepare for some of the sacrifices which the pioneering years of industrialisation ahead will call for. But, lest it be mistaken, let me also say that workers have no intention of giving any employer a blank cheque for exploitation. In this regard, it will largely fall upon Government to continue to ensure that employers make an equal contribution to the national development and share our trials and tribulations. We seek an assurance from Government that it will not encourage employers to seek refuge from their obligations and use these economic circumstances to exploit and stifle the aspirations of workers in Singapore.”
“Having been given a glaring demonstration of their intellectual dishonesty, I am sure that our citizens now realise that they have elected a bunch of men who are prepared to make unsubstantiated criticisms about this House after having been here for the past two years and not forgetting the financial rewards they have derived from its membership. Be that as it may, what other interpretation could we give to this insane move? Could they have exhausted their supply of gramophone-record-like speeches and remarks? Is it because they now find it extremely untenable to continue as spokesmen for the anti-national forces, following recent developments in our neighbouring country? Or can it be that, with their channel of overseas instructions, which had served them well during the few years, now disrupted, they are awaiting fresh channels of communication to be established? To my mind, it is this disruption of the channel of communication and the delay in receiving directions from abroad that has prompted them to stay away - lest any remarks they make in this House prove to he contrary to instructions that may yet come from their foreign masters. Whatever it may be. I feel sorry for them today. The intelligence and political awareness of our people makes it impossible for them to play the role of "Proxies" for overseas masters, without being hounded from pillar to post, and life indeed must be difficult for them. In the policy Speech of the Head of State, reference was made to the need for awareness amongst workers in Singapore for the successful industrialisation of Singapore and the creation of job opportunities. Mention was also made of irresponsible trade unionism and trade union actions for political motives.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, let me first express my gratitude to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for his Speech to this House, which sets out in clear terms the tasks ahead and the efforts that have to be exerted by all of us in Singapore for the future prosperity and happiness of our people. Despite the Business sessions having commenced for several days now, I find it most difficult to comprehend the reasons for Members of this House in the Opposition to stay away, particularly when vital matters affecting the nation and the future of our people are being discussed. Although confusion and uncertainty could have led to their absence, I can only conclude that their action amounts to a clear abdication of their responsibilities to the people of Singapore. These men, who have constantly spoken as if they, and only they, are the knights of freedom and democracy and leaders of the people, have now demonstrated publicly that it is part of their creed to abdicate responsibility whenever it suits them - without even ascertaining the wishes of those who elected them to this House. To use their own vocabulary, I can only say that their actions in this regard are indeed phoney, particularly when it is abundantly clear that these Members of Parliament are abiding by the wishes of Dr Lee Siew Choh, who incidentally is not a Member of this House, as against the wishes of those who elected them. It is obvious from their actions that it is they who are the stooges and not us in the N.T.U.C.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, can the Minister indicate when he intends to set up this Committee and if he will include the Singapore Taxi Drivers' Association on it?”
“We would much rather put them behind us and regard ourselves as part of the constructive composite which Singapore has become but we can do so only on the confidence and the respect of the workers of Singapore which we have so far earned. We shall not put this in jeopardy because it is not good for Singapore. Gentlemen, I have elaborated the case of the Public Daily-Rated Employees sufficiently and have three things for you to consider: (1) The claims of the workers are just - they have been deprived by the tardy conduct of the Treasury officials of a wage increase for the past four years; (2) The back-pay demand is not something extra being demanded but the accumulation of an increase in wages that is due to them, and finally that once principles are established we cannot afford to shift our ground. We do so imperilling the progress and stability achieved. 4.32 p.m.”
“Such penalty clauses are obviously necessary if industrial relations in a civilised community are to proceed on an even keel. Employers are no more above penalty provisions than trade unions. Having established the validity of the Public Daily-Rated Workers' claims for back-pay, and we have no doubt that an Industrial Arbitration Court has incorporated this principle in its body of law, we would like to say that it has taken us a long time and effort to formulate rules for the preservation of industrial peace with justice and the N.T.U.C. views this principle as a pre-eminently major contributing factor to securing industrial peace not only in the public sector hut in the private sector as well, because in particular, employers in the private sector tend to watch which way the cat jumps in the public sector and when it jumps in the direction to their advantage, they would have no hesitation in adopting that course. We would also like to say this, that the N.T.U.C. has no intention of degenerating into an effete movement. That will not be in the interests of Singapore as a whole, nor do we believe that the Government is anxious that we should deteriorate to that level, as only quite recently the Minister for Labour, when he opened the Second Convention of the N.T.U.C., stated that a docile trade union movement is not a constructive alternative to a pro-Communist movement. Now the situation in the Public Daily-Rated Services is one of open frustration, aggravated by stern warnings on behaviour and discipline and should the continued delay engender a trial of strength, we must make it clear that our sympathy will be thrown effectively on the workers' side. We do not relish the idea of challenges or showdowns.”