C.V. Devan Nair
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I make a most unusual request? I know I am supposed to be the first to speak today, but the Prime Minister has successfully pre-empted my speech by touching on my own subject and in a much better way. So I will require some time to think of something else to say.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Minister aware that for Singaporeans who do not understand Hanyu Pinyin, the name of the new town which reads "Hou Gang New Town" could mislead some Singaporeans into believing that it is a new town of gangsters headed by our Hon. Minister of Defence who is also called "Howe".”
“I hope the Ministry of Education will seek the views of the various parties concerned so that before the curricula are implemented they would have been given careful study, review and close scrutiny so as to avoid the old mistake of merely treating the symptoms of the ailment.”
“I ask for your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. While we are on the subject of occupational health and safety, I wonder whether the Minister for Labour could also bring under his purview the occupational health of working Members of Parliament.”
“Sir, there was one point which the Member raised but was not referred to in the reply. That was the instance given of employers taking down the names of workers who went in to vote. Surely that is reprehensible and the Ministry could do something to persuade such employers not to indulge in such un-Singaporean practices.”
“May I repeat that the governments of the developing countries will sooner or later be compelled to develop common and effective counter-measures against the ITF brand of protectionism, if our sea and air transport workers are to keep their jobs. Much obliged, Mr Speaker, Sir. 3.50 p.m.”
The complete record
Every one of 72 lines we hold for C.V. Devan Nair, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 2.
“Our own co-operative law in Singapore was first enacted by the British colonial adminstration 54 years ago, in 1925, with no significant changes since then. By and large, the co-operative societies which came into being under this Act, were thrift and loan societies, and incidentally, Sir, more LOAN than THRIFT. Co-operative societies in other former British territories in Asia and Africa were generally characterised by inept management, poor performance, and an incapacity for growth, all of which were engendered by an uncritical and scrupulous adherence to the outmoded Rochdale Principles. Robert Owen's ghost continued to stalk the co-operative movements and to stifle all potential of significant social growth and influence on the part of co-operatives. If at all some success stories were registered, as they did in India, it turned out that co-operatives founded by employers were far more successful than co-operatives founded by workers, It may be asked how the NTUC co-operatives, which were launched from 1970 onwards, managed to get off the ground at all, cribbed, crabbed and confined as they were by the existing Co-operative Societies Act. The answer is simple. We obtained the enlightened support and encouragement of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education, with whose help we managed to obtain exemption from a whole series of restrictive provisions in the current Co-operative Societies Act. Fortunately for us, the current Act does provide for wide discretion on the part of the Minister to exempt co-operatives from many inhibitory provisions of the Act. It was a discretion which no Minister in the past had ever thought of exercising, until intervention by the Deputy Prime Minister.”
“Once this principle was allowed to become sacrosanct, what served initially as a help and a stimulant to the development of co-operative communities, became a formidable barrier in later times to the development of viable co-operatives. Co-operators allowed themselves to forget that the merchant and capitalist succeeded precisely because they did not confine their markets to fellow merchants and capitalists. But co-operatives in later times were to condemn themselves to relative insignificance because they came to regard this Rochdale principle as inviolable. Robert Owen and the Rochdale pioneers were reacting to the economic barbarism ushered in by the new Commercial Age which began with the Industrial Revolution in Great Britain. They saw competition and the pursuit of profit as being inherently evil, and advocated as a remedy the establishment of co-operative communities. It is useful to bear in mind that while Robert Owen was a good and well-intentioned man, none of the co-operative communities which he founded succeeded. Some of the crashes he was responsible for were quite colossal. Nevertheless, the Rochdale ideals had a powerful appeal and were to generate a movement, not altogether unsuccessful, in several European countries. Indeed, there were some significant successes, especially in the Scandinavian countries, which have become bywords in the co-operative movement. So much for the historical background of the co-operative movement, necessarily very brief and very sketchy. The British had introduced practically identical co-operative laws in their colonial territories, all based essentially on the Rochdale Principles.”
“In fact, Mr Speaker, Sir, the principles which form the basis of this Bill, not the Bill itself but the principles, are already being circulated by the Asian Regional Organisation of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions to several trade unions not only in the Asian Region but also in Africa and Latin America, as a basis for their own programmes of co-operative development in their own countries. This was an unsolicited, but nonetheless gratifying development, brought about by the high regard in which our co-operatives are held by other trade unions and co-operative movements elsewhere in the world. Permit me to explain what I mean. Sir, the underlying social philosophy of the co-operative movement was formulated during the first half of the 19th century by writers such as Robert Owen in Great Britain and Charles Fourier in France. The basic organisational structure, which has governed the operations of co-operatives in Singapore, as elsewhere, until the Singapore pioneers took a hand, dates from 1844, with the establishment in England of the first successful consumers' co-operative called the Rochdale Society of Equitable Pioneers. It was this society which created what is now known as the Rochdale Principles that have been adopted, with minor modifications, in most countries and used for a wide variety of co-operative activities. Briefly, these principles call for democratic control, open membership, no religious or political discrimination, service at cost, and education of the members. Members have a dual relationship to their association. They contribute its capital, and are also the association's own customers or patrons. In short, the earliest co-operatives were confined to serving their own members, but not society at large.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, very few Singaporeans realise that we in Singapore have pioneered a breakthrough in co-operative development, which may well prove a highly significant departure for other developing countries. Indeed, the Singapore model of trade union co-operatives is being increasingly recommended by international trade union and cb-operative organisations. as being one worthy of emulation by other developing countries. My guess is that the Rochdale Pioneers who laid down the first principles of cooperation, which had heretofore been regarded as sacrosanct, will probably be superseded by the principles evolved by what one international observer called "the Singapore pioneers". It would therefore be a pity if Members of this House were to regard this Bill as yet another piece of legislation inspired by the Government, this time to regulate and control the co-operative movement in our Republic. The truth is that this is one of the few Bills presented to this House which owes its originating impulse not to the Government but to our co-operative movement as a whole and, in particular, to our trade union co-operatives. As one of those associated with the formulation of this Bill and one who regards its contents not merely as a turning point for co-operative development in Singapore but as a model for emulation by other developing countries, I find it of special significance.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not want to sound pedantic but my question is on the use of language. The Hon. Minister referred to accident-prone drivers. There are people who are accident prone. Human beings are prone to various things. The Member for Jalan Kayu, for example, is prone to attracting the attention of the traffic policemen. But every day as I drive up Napier Road, I am intrigued not by an accident-prone driver but by "an accident-prone bend". The poor "bend" is always meeting with accidents! That is an improper use of language. I remember reading the New Nation some weeks ago about an explanation given by a driver of how he met with an accident in his report to an insurance company. He said that "as he was driving along, he found a lamp-post rushing very fast at him and he tried his best to avoid the la mp-post but the lamp-post hit his car." So could we have some more apt words for that poor "accident-prone bend" in Napier Road? Have a sign there saying "Caution - Accident Area" or something. I think it does make a poor impression on English-speaking visitors to Singapore who find not only accident-prone drivers but accident-prone bends and nooks.”
“I ask for your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. While we are on the subject of occupational health and safety, I wonder whether the Minister for Labour could also bring under his purview the occupational health of working Members of Parliament. I submit that the freezing temperature in this Chamber is not conducive to the occupational health of MPs; we could do with a much warmer temperature in this House. Perhaps something could be done to ensure that we do not have to operate in such terrible working conditions.”
“Sir, there was one point which the Member raised but was not referred to in the reply. That was the instance given of employers taking down the names of workers who went in to vote. Surely that is reprehensible and the Ministry could do something to persuade such employers not to indulge in such un-Singaporean practices.”
“May I repeat that the governments of the developing countries will sooner or later be compelled to develop common and effective counter-measures against the ITF brand of protectionism, if our sea and air transport workers are to keep their jobs. Much obliged, Mr Speaker, Sir. 3.50 p.m.”
“These are clearly people who have no sympathies whatsoever for our jobs, but they rush to arms over the question of trade union rights in developing countries. And this pretension of the ITF needs to be debunked for what it is - the most brazen and shameless cant and hypocrisy. For we can ask: how is it that neither the ITF nor Australian trade unions nor West European trade unions make any noise or pass fierce resolutions when workers in developing countries lose their jobs by the thousands, as a result of policies like those pursued by the ITF? One would have thought that one of the most important trade union rights is the right to ensure, as far as is humanly possible, that workers keep their jobs. But this is precisely the right which is systematically and callously violated by protectionist trade union organisations like the ITF. And yet, these are precisely the same people who condemn violations of trade union rights in the developing countries, whether imaginary or real. Which is why I call them brazen humbugs. ITF and Australian trade union concern for trade union rights in developing countries does not go with concern for the right of workers in these countries to keep their jobs. And of what use are trade union rights without the far more fundamental right to jobs? But there is a total absence of such concern on the part of the ITF, whether for Asian seamen or for air transport workers. Which is why, Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall advise our own Singapore Air Transport-workers' Union, and all other Singapore trade unions affiliated to the ITF, at the appropriate time, to call on the ITF to show cause why our unions should not disaffiliate from that body.”
“And it is an ironic twist of history that the new imperialists should be - not capitalists - but some trade unions in the developed countries. They are trying to achieve today, what the colonial powers tried to achieve in the past, through the infamous Navigation Acts, i.e. the monopoly of carrying cargo in their own ships, manned by their own crews to the detriment of merchant shipping in the developing countries. There is little that trade unions in the developing countries in Asia can do against ITF protectionism. We have no leverage whatsoever to exert against them. The only thing we can do is to withdraw our affiliation to the ITF. After all, why pay affiliation fees to an organisation whose policies result in loss of jobs for our workers. The protectionist character of the ITF is again exemplified by their attitude to the Australian International Civil Aviation Policy (ICAP). The aim of this Australian-British duopoly is to squeeze out the airlines of the developing countries which lie between Australia and Britain. If they succeed, apart from serious loss of tourist traffic, our airline workers also stand to lose their jobs. In fact, I have already told our airline workers that however much the Singapore girl may smile, Singapore Airlines may not fly. But this suits the ITF fine! They therefore keep mum about the Australian-ASEAN dispute over ICAP. Australian trade union leaders were conspicuous by their absence during the recent Asian Labour Summit held in Singapore, although they are members of the Asian Regional Organisation of the ICFTU. I know why they did not show up. Because they knew very well that Asian trade union leaders would have given them a tongue-lashing over the Australian ICAP.”
“They were bluntly told that this is only the beginning of ITF action against Singapore-registered ships. I must now inform the House that the German company concerned has been forced by the ITF to buckle in. They will now be obliged to deregister their 21 ships from Singapore, dismiss their Singapore-recruited crews and officers, and probably re-register in Germany. They will thereafter employ West European crew at West European rates of pay. This means that 700 locally-recruited seamen and officers will lose their jobs in the very near future. And 700 Singapore families will lose their means of livelihood. And as the ITF action against Singapore-registered ships gathers momentum, a few thousand Singapore seamen and officers will find themselves without jobs. So much for international labour solidarity, as practised by the ITF. A more damning indictment of international labour hypocrisy can hardly be imagined. A couple of years ago, an Australian trade union refused to release a Singapore-registered ship unless the shipowners agreed to pay ITF rates of pay. Their bluff was easily called. I told the Australian trade union concerned that I would have no objection to our seamen being given Australian rates of pay, on condition that they were also offered Australian citizenship. This, of course, was unthinkable to my comrades in Australia. What happened was that the shipowner was finally forced to cough up, returned to Singapore, and promptly dismissed his locally-recruited crew. It is not concern for Singapore seamen which motivated the Australian trade union. That was only a smoke-screen behind which they effectively priced our seamen out of their jobs. These, then, are the new imperialists.”
“The real culprits, however, seem to be the trade unions in the developed countries, and some international trade union organisations which they control. With every passing day, I feel obliged to pose a bigger question mark against their professions of international labour solidarity Indeed, it sometimes seems to me that one of the biggest on-going humbuggeries in the modern world is this froth about "international labour solidarity". Right now, a Singapore-registered ship is being held up in the port of Elat in Israel, despite the fact that the crew are covered by a collective agreement certified by our Industrial Arbitration Court. This ship is being held up at the behest of the International Transportworkers' Federation (ITF) with headquarters in London. The company which owns the ship is a German company registered in Singapore. They have a total of some 21 Singapore-registered ships, and they employ 700 Singapore crew and officers. The aim of the ITF is blatantly protectionist. They intend to force every ship registered in developing countries, and employing crew recruited in these developing countries, to pay ITF rates of pay, which are West European rates of pay. The result, of course, is that seamen from the developing countries are priced out of their jobs. To date, thousands of seamen from countries like India, Pakistan, Philippines and Taiwan have been rendered jobless - thanks to such manifestations of "international labour solidarity". Five of our trade unions in Singapore are affiliated to the ITF. I send two emissaries from the NTUC to London last week, to try and persuade the ITF, in the name of international labour solidarity, to drop their action against the Singapore-registered ship. My emissaries were rebuffed.”
“Also implied in his remarks is the notion that our Cabinet Ministers are people who can be easily led by the nose by superscale civil servants, which again I know to be wrong. The reaction of a recently retired junior public servant was the same. He told "i will get a pension of only $300 per month, and I have a wife and three children to look after. What is there in this concession for me? The Minister says he is not hard-hearted. But he is only soft-hearted to those better off than I am." It is the occupational responsibility of a trade union leader to keep his ears as closely as possible to the ground. These were the reactions I encountered. And they were honest reactions. I cannot believe that the Government has soft feelings only for the better-off pensioners, and not for the run-of-the-mill pensioners, who constitute the majority. It is a pity, therefore, that the Minister failed to state in his address what the Government had in mind for the pensioners who do not enjoy chargeable pensions. Recognition of past services rendered to the nation (and these were the Senior Minister of State for Finance's own words) by pensioners, and the ravages of inflation, should not apply only to those with chargeable pensions, but also to the majority of pensioners who do not receive chargeable pensions. Even-handedness in the dispensation of social justice is a sine qua non for a government which values its credibility. I hope that the Minister will rectify this omission in the course of his reply to the debate. Finally, some necessarily trenchant words on protectionism. The Minister had the governments of the developed countries in mind.”
“I will only observe that any Singaporean who looks around at the Sino-Vietnamese-Soviet imbroglio in Indochina, at the developments in Iran, the Middle East, the Horn of Africa, Afghanistan, and at growing protectionism in the developed countries, and yet continues to believe that Singapore is situated right in the middle of Paradise, should have his head examined, free of charge, at Woodbridge. The Budget does not provide for this. I recommend that it does. Now, for my reservations on the Budget. If there was one part of the Budget address in which the Minister gave the impression that he spoke, with tongue in cheek, as it were, it was when he announced the concession to pensioners. As I listened I did not think so. But later, I was told that this was so. And it is important that the Government should take heed of what the average man-in-the-street thinks. One junior civil servant told me, "Look, this is a concession formulated by superscale civil servants for their own kind, who have retired." When asked why he thought so, he replied, "The exemption from income tax favours only those who receive pensions in the chargeable brackets. A large proportion of pensioners do not receive chargeable pensions. Take the retired postman, fireman, customs employee, and so on. They receive pensions of less than $400 per month. But nobody remembers them. And they get nothing from the so-called concession. These superscale follows sure know how to look after their own kind". Sir, these were the words, not my words, but the words I am quoting. I know our superscale civil servants, and I know that, by and large, they are beyond reproach. But this was the impression created in the mind of an honest man.”
“A morbid obsession by the doomsday syndrome does not help, and I certainly do not recommend it. But neither must we fail to remember that international political and economic forces and factors, over which we have no control, continuously impinge on our lives, for better or for worse. Singapore may be likened to a ship sailing through very stormy international waters, boosted or buffeted by every passing wind. And sometimes these winds blow violently. The only guarantees we have are that the captain and the crow of the Singapore ship are quietly efficient and do not panic, and that the ship itself is seaworthy. And to keep the Singapore ship seaworthy, it is of vital importance to preserve that national cohesion, sense of purpose and direction, and social and political stability, which continue to attract investments and technology to our shores. The capacity we have shown in the past for making rapid adjustments to challenge and change will call for constant renewal. One cannot expect the shallow-brained smart Alecs, who take things for granted, and seem to believe that this small island-state of ours occupies the centre of the universe, to see this. Fortunately, the majority of Singaporeans possess that indispensable political sixth-sense, which perceives the possible dangers and pitfalls ahead, and which largely explains the results of the general elections in December 1976, and of the recent by-elections. I am not sorry for those who lost. The simple truth is that they deserved to lose.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have some reservations on the Budget statement delivered by the Hon. Senior Minister of State for Finance. But, first, let me congratulate the Senior Minister of State on his presentation. He delivered the Budget address in terms that the public had come to expect from the Government - realistic, sober and hard-headedly cautious. His performance augurs well for the future. My first observation relates not so much to the Budget address itself but to the public reactions to the statement. The press headlined it favourably as "a painless budget", "a mildly pleasurable budget", and so on. But the sombre undertones of the Senior Minister of State's address were not sufficiently underscored. I wish it had been otherwise, so that the public would not have been left with a mildly euphoric feeling, to the effect that "God is in His Heaven, and all is right with the world, including Singapore." Regrettably, God may be in His Heaven, but all is certainly not right with the world. The Minister bluntly told this House and I quote, "I am not optimistic about the outlook for world economic growth in 1979." And he gave his reasons, which included an expected slow-down in the world economy, the proposed four-stage oil price increase totalling 14.5% in 1979 by OPEC, and the more sombre prospect of a world oil shortage following disruption of supply from Iran. So there is nothing to crow about in the fact that in 1978, 41,000 jobs were created, and unemployment fell to a record low of 3.6%. If things go dangerously wrong, in South East Asia, in Iran, and the Middle East, or elsewhere, it could be the other way round, and unemployment could hit a record high in the coming years, rather than a record low.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to participate in this debate on the National Service (Amendment) Bill. I have many reasons for expressing my pleasure in this Bill. Through national service we inculcate pride in our country. We acknowledge our self-respect. If we are self-centred and do not have regard for the interests of the nation, we will never prosper. But if we regard our own interests as closely intertwined with those of the nation, that will also take care of our own self-interest. But we must have regard for the interests of the people at large, and that is the spirit we must inculcate in our people. The National Service (Amendment) Bill, I believe, will be of great help in developing this spirit. If we help ourselves, God will help us too. But to defend ourselves, we must have sufficient training and this Bill enables us to have such training. This Bill is essential. Young people who take up national service will not only get military training but also training as good citizens, and the sense of social responsibility will be inculcated in them. Parents, particularly mothers, must encourage their children to join up. I support this Bill wholeheartedly. 3.49 p.m.”
“Sir, we hear pop and undesirable songs in the programmes of T.V. Singapura in all languages. The children are very much attracted to them, and because of that, they tend to go the wrong way. Does the Minister intend to change this attitude? If not, can he look into that in future? Secondly, there are undesirable scenes in pictures featuring James Bond. These scenes also attract young people and spoil them. Why do we not ban such pictures? Even if we do not ban them, we can censor the undesirable scenes. I hope the Minister for Culture and Social Affairs will take action on this. Thirdly, when there are good programmes on T.V. Singapura, these are stopped when they reach the exciting parts, and advertisements are shown. People who are interested in the programmes are disgusted because of this. As a result, the advertisements do not get into their minds. So the aims of the advertisements are lost. Can the Minister stop such advertisements which do not benefit anyone? Fourthly, as far as the programmes are concerned, they should be of a good standard. It is very important. In addition to that, they should be heard by the public properly. In this connection, I wish to touch on Tamil programmes. I do not want to touch on the standard of Tamil programmes over the radio. They are not closely listened to by the people. Recently, the radio wave-length was changed for Tamil programmes. Whatever changes are brought about by the Government should be for the better. But in this .case, it has produced the reverse effect. There are a lot of disturbances in the broadcasts. At times we can hear everything except Tamil programmes over this wave-length. Can this pitiful situation be improved? Can the Minister for Culture take action?”
“But our Barisan Opposition Members have chosen to boycott this Session altogether. This shows that they have no faith in the democratic system. At the same time, they must realise why they have been elected by the people. They have forgotten the duty which they owe to the people. I wish to associate myself with the Motion of Thanks to the Speech made by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. 4.00 p.m.”
“In some Ministries there are not enough officers in certain departments for the Tamil section. Therefore, the sections do not function well. I hope the departments concerned will take adequate steps to remedy this. Tamil is used in the Tamil secondary schools. However, there are no opportunities for these students in the secondary schools to continue with their education. They have no means to continue with their education even though they may have the desire to do so. Opportunities and facilities should be made available for such students. I feel there is a shortage of teachers. I appreciate that. There is the Teachers' Training College to train teachers. Even though there are Tamil-trained men in the College, not enough graduates are being produced. I feel that immediate steps should be taken to rectify this situation. Those who have passed well and with credit in the secondary schools should be given bursaries. They should be sent to India for higher education. On their return in a few years' time, the pressing shortage of trained staff will be eased. Meanwhile, officers on contract could be brought from India. They can be appointed for teaching appointments at the Teachers' Training College. In this connection, the Ministry of Education should take adequate steps to implement this proposal. I would request them to do so. Mr Speaker, Sir, the policy of the Government to protect the interests of the minorities is most gratifying. The minorities will have full confidence in the Government. In conclusion, I wish to point out one fact. In any democratic society Opposition Members should always bring up any points on which they disagree, in this House. They may even walk out if they wish to do so.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, with regard to the Motion of Thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for his Address, I wish first to express my thanks for being granted this opportunity to participate in this debate. The policy speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara is giving confidence and hope to everyone. I am also pleased with that speech. At this juncture, I wish to give some of my views to this House. Mr Speaker, Sir, all our citizens should be given adequate employment opportunities. That is our basic task. The employment exchange is not functioning well. That is what I have gathered. There are some people who have registered with the employment exchange for many years, but they have not been able to get any job. However, those who have newly registered have been able to get jobs. I hope the Minister for Labour will look into this matter. Mr Speaker, Sir, our nation has four official languages. All of them have the same official status. It is remarkable and praiseworthy that all of them should be given equal status. We do not have the policy of having one language, one religion and one race. We have quite clearly declared our policy. Democrats who have the interest of the people at heart should accept this objective. This policy of multi-lingualism is accepted with much pleasure. At this juncture when we are practising multi-lingualism in our society, I should mention one important matter. There have been some defects in the working out of this system. The Tamil language is being very adversely affected. It is my duty to point this out. Notice boards at Government offices are written in all the four languages. But there are too many errors in the Tamil language version. In some places there are only three languages. Tamil has been omitted.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask a supplementary question. The Parliamentary Secretary has said that kimonos are given to those in the wards after surgery. Does he know that some parts of the kimonos have no buttons - open at the back? Some do not have elastic bands. Does it not appear to the Minister that the patients have to hold on to the dress with their hands where-ever there are no buttons? Male attendants laugh at the patients. Is the Minister not aware of this? Will he do something to remedy the situation?”