Eric Cheong Yuen Chee
Singapore
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head Q be reduced by $10 in respect of Code QI 1000 of the Main Estimates. The Minister has announced the issue of new identity cards. Since it affects the vast majority of the population the registration process should be made more convenient.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as we all know, ambulance services are run by the Singapore Fire Service and also by the Government hospitals. As there is an increasing need for the sick and aged to be transported from place to place, many of these cases are non-emergency cases requiring an ambulance run by the Fire Service.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head Q be reduced by $10 in respect of Code QH 1000 of the Main Estimates. Sir, at present a work permit holder who marries a Singapore citizen without getting prior approval from the Commissioner for Employment is banned permanently from entering Singapore.”
“Sir, my other colleagues have a wide range of subjects on the drug control. I have just one point to make, and that is, whether the Minister will consider the confiscation of vehicles used in the transportation of illegal drugs. This is different from confiscation of assets that may belong to the drug traffickers.”
“Police, because of limited manpower, will emphasize high efficiency and optimum use and deployment for all the various functions, and greater emphasis will be given to mechanization and computerization. But while doing all this, the Police must continue to strive to get public support and community support.”
“Sir, the points that I wish to raise have already been covered by the Member for Boon Teck. But I have just one little point, and that is, to reinforce his argument that there is a reduction in manpower in the NPP. Originally it was eight per shift, now it has been reduced to four.”
The complete record
Every one of 450 lines we hold for Eric Cheong Yuen Chee, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 9.
“I am not moving, Sir. Dr Lee Chiaw Meng: Sir, I value the Member for Tiong Bahru's appreciation of the difficulties we are facing. In fact, in view of the predicted shortage of places at Secondary I level, the Ministry of Education has, at the beginning of this year, expanded the facilities of all the secondary schools in the Queens-town area, which includes Tiong Bahru. As a result, only a few hundred students were posted out as against a figure of over a thousand last year. However, we have earmarked two new secondary schools to be built within the Queens-town area in our Development Plan. Of course, the Member will also appreciate that we are at the moment faced with the fact that the bulge of the population is in this age group, and it will only level off around 1976.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the shortage of primary schools in Toa Payoh is an annual problem. Every year, parents clamour to enrol their children in schools near their homes. Some of them even had to camp overnight at these schools to ensure that their children are registered. There are only three primary schools in Toa Payoh proper and 11 other schools in Toa Payoh constituency. But they are all sited outside the Toa Payoh housing estate. I understand there are several sites reserved by the Housing and Development Board for the construction of primary schools in Toa Payoh. I would like to ask the Minister of State how many of these sites have been reserved by the Ministry of Education and how many have been taken up by private organisations for the construction of primary schools in Toa Payoh?”
“Sir, with the increasing number of our factories and high-rise buildings coming up in Singapore, I consider it of utmost importance that our Fire Brigade service should be well equipped in manpower so that it may be able to deal with any emergency that may arise. May I also ask the Minister how many experienced senior officers have left the service for greener pastures in the private sector, and what steps are being taken by his Ministry to fill such vacant posts caused by the resignations? Inche Othman Bin Wok: Sir, my Ministry has already reviewed the salaries and conditions of service of the Fire Brigade service, and our recommendations are now with the Ministry of Finance. No doubt this proposal will have to be considered in the broad context of the salary structure of the entire civil service. To the point raised by the Member for Toa Payoh, there has not been a spate of resignations of Senior Officers in the Fire Brigade. In fact, since March 1971 there have been only two resignations, and both these officers are in the Station Officer's grade. Sir, the approved strength of officers in the Singapore Fire Brigade is as follows: - Chief Fire Officer -one post Divisional Officer - 4 posts Assistant Divisional Officer - 6 posts Station Officers - 33 posts. There are a total of six vacancies out of an authorised strength of 44 Senior Officers.”
“Sir, may I put forward a suggestion to the Minister of State for Labour with regard to the employment of disabled persons? As you are aware, in Singapore there are a lot of multi-storey buildings coming up, particularly the shopping complexes, where lifts are installed. I wonder whether the Ministry can discourage employers from employing able-bodied men as lift attendants, and so give the opportunity to these disabled people. In fact, we notice that even in Government buildings the lift attendants are able-bodied men.”
“Sir, in this particular instance, the employer is prepared to retain the services of his employee because he is a useful worker. But then, under the present regulations, he cannot continue employing him until he gets a work permit. If the work permit takes, say, a month to be approved, then he stays out of employment ,for, a month, and this affects his continuity of service with the employer.”
“Sir, may I ask the Minister of State one question with regard to the issue of work permits? Lately, there have been one or two instances in which a minor, who has been issued with a Singapore citizenship certificate, had his certificate withdrawn for the reason that he had not taken the oath of allegiance. He has been employed for a number of years but was instantly dismissed because he had to exchange his pink identity card for a blue one. In cases of this nature, will the Minister of State consider allowing an employer to retain the services of such an employee until the application for a work permit is formalised?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am afraid! the Minister has not answered the point with regard to the retrenchment exercise conducted by employers. For the information of the Minister, most of the retrenchment exercises did not come before the Ministry of Labour for conciliation. Therefore, the Ministry does not have the exact records on how many retrenchments have taken place. Most of them negotiated between the unions and the employers, on the understanding that the unions had no choice but to negotiate on the quantum of retrenchment benefits rather than on the pros and cons of retrenchment.”
“Yes, Mr Speaker. Sir, if I may have your permission to continue with just one more paragraph. May I ask the Minister whether he is aware that any employer with average competence can easily circumvent the provisions of section 35 of the Industrial Relations Act, which provide for the termination of services of a worker, by giving due notice, rather than summarily dismissing that worker without any notice?”
“Under section 35 of the Industrial Relations Act, it is provided that if a dismissal has been effected in circumstances amounting to victimisation of the dismissed worker, proceedings can be commenced in the Industrial Arbitration Court for the reinstatement of the dismissed worker. Similarly, if a worker has been dismissed by an employer without just cause or excuse, a representation can be made to the Ministry of Labour for the reinstatement of the dismissed worker. There are, however, three main aspects -”
“The other situation is that if the workers are in possession of a skill, which is very much in demand, and if they are to take joint action against an employer in support of their colleague, who has been given a raw deal by the employer, then by jointly terminating their services and seek alternative employment, the employer will be the first to cry "blue murder" and would urge the Ministry of Labour to intervene in what he constitutes an industrial action. Such a hypothetical situation envisaged by me is not likely to occur, not because it involves industrial action which is prohibited in respect of termination of service, but because workers are generally more responsible than that. But the anticipated reaction of employers to such a hypothetical situation is not at all far-fetched. If you may recall the agitation of employers over the high turnover of labour in the industrial establishment in Singapore during the past few years, you will readily agree with me that employers were not prepared to concede to a worker the right of termination of contract of employment. That is exactly what some employers have suggested as a solution to the problem of high turnover of industrial labour by depriving the worker of the right to terminate employment. Then it may be argued that while trade unions are debarred from negotiating with employers or are prohibited from having recourse to any industrial action over any termination of service, there are statutory provisions to afford adequate remedy to any aggrieved trade union or its members.”
“What makes it worse is that the employer, who may be a director of a well-established company, will have no qualms to echo the refrain of the Government that workers must make sacrifices for the general good of the Republic. Some Members of the House may still wonder why it is still so unfair of an employer to exercise his powers under section 17 (2) of the Industrial Relations Act, i.e., to terminate the services of workers on grounds of redundancy or reorganisation. We may also say that there is nothing to stop a worker from terminating his contract of employment, if he so desires. There are, however, two considerations which may put the matter in a different light. One is that, with the generally accepted practice of employment in Singapore to grant a worker an incremental salary scale, a worker who has been employed for several years expects to draw a salary considerably higher than that which he obtains at the commencement of his employment. However, some employers feel that they are entitled to effect savings by terminating the services of workers who have been employed for several years and replacing them with little or inexperienced workers at far lower salaries. The damage done to a worker whose services have been terminated may be irreparable, particularly if he belongs to a category of labour which is not much in demand. If he is lucky he may obtain alternative employment with a far lower salary, or he may join the ranks of the unemployed even though he may have many years of active service before him.”
“Such length of notice, of course, may be greater than that provided under the Employment Act, if an individual contract of employment contains any provision to that effect. In the absence of any such contractual provision, the length of notice may be governed by the Employment Act. The provisions of section 10 are as fair as can be desired. Both the employer and the worker have an equal right and correspondingly equal duty to give the same notice of termination of contract of employment. The snag, however, lies in the provision of subsection (2) of section 17 of the Industrial Relations Act, which provides for the right of an employer to terminate the services of workers on the grounds of redundancy or reorganisation without having to prove such redundancy or reorganisation. Thus, under the existing laws an employer can call upon a worker, who may have been employed for more than 10 years, and say to him, "I hereby give you a month's notice, in accordance with the Industrial Relations Act, for the termination of the contract of service on the grounds of redundancy or reorganisation as I may wish to choose." And the worker has no remedy to the court even though he knows very well and can prove that there is no such redundancy or reorganisation. From my own personal experience, I have come across many cases where an employer, after terminating the services of a worker on the grounds of redundancy, proceeds within a short time thereafter to recruit new workers under new designations to perform the same work that has been done by the ex-worker who has been retrenched on the grounds of redundancy.”
“The purpose of my speech today is to bring the attention of the House to the grievances of workers that the right to dismiss or retrench a worker has been somewhat abused by a considerable number of employers in obvious disregard to the welfare or interest of the worker. In some cases, it may be even said that dismissal or retrenchment has been effected in circumstances tantamount to victimisation. Members of the House may think that we have adequate legislation to protect workers in the event of victimisation, but the fact that there is such legislation does not necessarily mean that it is effective for the purposes for which it is intended. Moreover, even if' there is effective legislation for the protection of workers against victimisation there is at present, as the law stands, no remedy for workers who find themselves thrown out of employment through no fault of their own, but who cannot allege victimisation by the employers. In order that those Members of the House who are not employers, or who have no occasion to deal with employer! employee relationship, may have a clear picture of the problem of insecurity of employment, which is a haunting fear assuming nightmarish proportions to workers with family obligations and hire purchase commitments, it is necessary for me to give a brief outline of the situation in which a contract of employment may be terminated. Under section 10 of the Employment Act, it is provided that an employer or an employee may terminate a contract of employment by giving to the other party the right of notice of not less than one day or not more than one month, depending on the length of service of a worker affected.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak on a subject to which the Minister for Finance has not made any direct reference but which is very close to the hearts of workers. In his Budget Statement, the Minister has given credit to the workers for the role they played in the economic success of Singapore during the past few years. The Minister has also gone on to say that it has been necessary for the Government to relax its stringent immigration policies in respect of workers who possess the skill or expertise required in the economic development of Singapore. The general impression conveyed by the painless Budget presented to this House is that Singapore is enjoying booming conditions and that we are experiencing a situation of full employment. Thus, by inference, workers should not have difficulty in obtaining ample opportunities for suitable employment. While it is true to say that the level of unemployment has gone down to a point that would have been unimaginable two or three years ago, there remains certain categories of labour which cannot find employment in the present situation of full employment. Such categories of labour are of a non-industrial variety or are not in possession of the skill or expertise which is much in demand now, or are unsuitable by reason of education, age or health. Even apart from the consideration that a worker presently in gainful employment may have great difficulty in obtaining alternative employment in the event of being deprived of his present job, a worker will normally object to his employment being terminated by an employer on grounds which are not due to any act or conduct of the worker. 6.00 p.m.”
“Nonetheless it is rather alarming to me that the proposed Bill should provide a ready-made opportunity for dubious and shady chit fund operators and subscribers to make hay with the money of bona fide subscribers. Rather than leave it to the discretion and good business sense of chit fund operators, it may be advisable to include in the proposed Bill or the regulations thereunder, a provision requiring guarantors not to be subscribers who have purchased chit fund prizes themselves and who have not completed payment of contributions in respect thereof. As I have said earlier, the provisions of the proposed Bill are as comprehensive as can be. Even though I find it necessary to seek clarification from the Minister regarding some provisions of the Bill, I have no doubt that bona fide subscribers require the protection that the Bill seeks to confer on them. 6.35 p.m.”
“A distinction should be made on the basis whether a subscriber has knowingly and wilfully been a party to the failure of a chit fund to comply with the essential terms and conditions set out in clause 24. The whole text of clause 24 seems to be an elimination of any scope for fraudulent practices by, for instance, apparently limiting a subscriber to one share per chit fund as inferred from paragraphs (b) and (1) of clause 24 (1). There is apparently no restriction on the number of chit funds in which a subscriber can simultaneously participate. It is, of course, in the general interest of every subscriber to a chit fund that he can freely invest in the chit fund. Nonetheless, apart from what I have earlier said in relation to clause 24, there seems to be a distinct need for a bona fide subscriber to be protected from his fellow subscribers whose financial credit may be suspect or who may be colluding with a chit fund operator. Clause 30, for instance, requires a subscriber to produce at least two guarantors before he can claim payment of the prize amount. There is apparently no prohibition against such subscribers mutually agreeing among themselves to be guarantors for one another. Thus, by means of such a mutual agreement, three subscribers can each claim payment of the prize amount in respect of three chit funds even simultaneously. It is highly probable that a reputable chit fund company may have ruled in accordance with clause 24 (2) (d) to prevent a subscriber from being a guarantor simultaneously. Moreover, under clause 61(2) (e) the Commissioner may, with the approval of the Minister, prescribe by regulations the nature of security to be given to the chit fund company by the subscriber purchasing a prize amount.”
“Though there are four official languages in the Republic, it is nowhere provided in the Bill that every agreement made under clause 23 containing the terms and conditions set out under clause 24 should be written in more than one official language. I suppose that literacy or proficiency in only one language in our multi-racial republic is a misfortune and not a privilege; and that a subscriber to a chit fund whose agreement is written in the official language he cannot comprehend, must run the risk of being so deficient. All the same, it seems inequitable that the innocent subscriber, after being hoodwinked by a chit fund operator who has fraudulently omitted some of the essential terms and conditions prescribed under clause 24 in respect of any chit fund and thereby caused it to be deemed only to partake of the nature of a chit fund, should be debarred from having any recourse to a court of law. Such a subscriber apparently cannot, for instance, apply to the court for an order directing payment by other subscribers under clause 40 (2) (b), in the event of the termination of a chit fund or the failure of a chit fund operator to conduct the chit fund in accordance with the provisions of the proposed Bill. It would hardly be any consolation to a subscriber for the loss of his money invested in a chit fund that the chit fund operator and his agents are subsequently prosecuted for the fraudulent or improper conduct of the chit fund. I am sure it is not the intention of this House that any chit fund promoter or subscriber is to be permitted to suggest steps in making not enforceable by action in court the rights of claim of a subscriber as provided for under clause 24.”
“It does not require much effort to calculate that if a chit fund company operates 40 such schemes or a smaller number of schemes with a total chit fund value equivalent to $4 million, the commission of the company will be not less than $200,000. I am, therefore, happy to note that clause 61(1) (g) of the Bill empowers the Commissioner, with the approval of the Minister, to make regulations to prescribe the total value of chit funds to be conducted at any one time by the chit fund companies in relation to their paid-up capital. It is obvious from the illustration I have just given that the minimum sum of $200,000 may be practically sufficient for the protection of contributors in every given instance. There is a need for the regulations envisaged under clause 61, and I hope that they will come into operation within the shortest time possible of the passing of the Bill. Clause 20 (4) of the Bill provides that no right or claim under any scheme or arrangement which only partakes of the nature of a chit fund within the meaning of this Act or regulations made thereunder shall, without prejudice to the provisions of clause 20 (1), be enforceable by action in any court. Clause 20 (1) states that every scheme or arrangement which is not based on the essential terms and conditions set out in clause 24 shall, for the purposes of the Bill, be deemed only to partake of the nature of a chit fund. The cumulative effect of these two provisions and other provisions of the Bill, as I see it, is to penalise equally the culpable promoter and the innocent subscriber of a chit fund.”
“Sir, I rise to speak in support of the Chit Funds Bill whose provisions are not only comprehensive but also timely. The Explanatory Statement describes the purposes of the Bill - to license and control chit fund companies for the protection of the subscribers. It remains to be seen, however, whether the ingenuity of any chit fund company would in the course of time be able to discover and exploit any latent loophole in the Bill to its own advantage and at the expense of the subscribers. The possibility of the perversion of the objectives of the Bill is not so farfetched as one would imagine when one considers the example of the Moneylenders Act which has been designed for the protection of the borrower, but which has practically strengthened the stranglehold of moneylenders on their unfortunate victims. I therefore seek clarification regarding some provisions of the Bill. Clause 9 (1) of the Bill stipulates that the minimum capital requirement for any chit fund company to be accorded a licence shall be not less than $200,000. Such a minimum limit seems to be fairly substantial enough to afford a certain amount of protection to the subscribers of the companies. But in reality the protection so afforded is more apparent than real, depending on the scale of operations of the chit fund companies. A chit fund scheme with 100 subscribers each contributing $l0 weekly will be able to realise a total chit fund amount of $100,000 over a period of approximately two years. At five per cent of the chit fund value, the commission of the company in respect of this particular scheme alone will be $5,000.”
“The fundamental purpose, as I see it, of making it compulsory for an employer to insure against his liability under the Act is to ensure that such compensation would be paid, as the insurer would be, by reason of the nature of his business, in a comparably better and stronger position to effect the discharge of liability under the Act than any employer. For those employers who are persons or organisations of substantial means and who are able to meet their liability under the Act, there is provision for the Minister to exempt them from the provisions of compulsory insurance. Such being the case, I sincerely think that it is advisable that a provision should he incorporated into the Act to the effect that any question of any breach of contract or faith by any employer should be a matter to be resolved between the insurer and the employer concerned, and should not operate in any manner that would justify the withholding of or delay in the payment of compensation to an injured worker under the Act. 4.50p.m.”
“If there are any doubts whether the nightmare I am painting may not be over-exaggerated, I need only call your attention, Mr Speaker, Sir, to the identical situation arising in the event of a traffic accident where the relevant insurer disclaims all liability for the action of the party solely or principally to be blamed for the action. Over the years there have been several cases where the victims, after obtaining judgment for the injuries arising from accidents, find that there are no ways or means of enforcing the judgment, since the relevant insurers have disclaimed liability and the judgment debtors are persons of straw. I have, however, been given to understand that all insurance companies have voluntarily formed a pool for meeting the claims of third parties who have suffered injuries as a result of any culpable act by persons in respect of whom the respective insurers have disclaimed liability. While it is true that a similar pool may be organised by insurers to meet claims under the Workmen's Compensation Act in the event of any individual insurer disclaiming liability under the Act by reason of any breach of contract or faith by the respective clients, I think it is more desirable that there should be a provision to require an insurer to be primarily responsible for the claim of the injured workman under the Act and subsequently to recover the money paid out under such claim from the defaulting employer. It is pointless to provide compensation in respect of the death or injury of a worker as a result of an industrial accident when at the same time the Act makes it possible for an insurer to disclaim any liability for the payment of such compensation.”
“Should one of his employees subsequently meet with an industrial accident and be entitled to claim compensation under the Act, the insurer concerned may very well claim that as the employer has made a fraudulent declaration for the purpose of paying less insurance premium than would otherwise be payable by him, the insurer can accordingly exercise the right to disclaim any liability under the insurance contract as a result of such a wrongful disclosure by the employer. While there is some controversy about the correctness of the judicial precedent for the doctrine that a contract of insurance should be treated differently from any other contract on the ground that full and frank disclosure of any relevant particulars is an essential element for the validity of the contract of insurance, there can be no doubt that, as the law stands at present, any failure of an employer to comply strictly with any of the conditions of contract of insurance would have the effect of invalidating such a contract. The tragedy of the subsequent invalidation of a contract of insurance, as I have said earlier, lies in the effect on the claim of an injured worker to whatever compensation is payable under the Act. If the employer is a person or an organisation of substantial means, not much harm would have resulted from the disclaimer by the insurer of his liability under the Act. But if the employer is not in such a fortunate position, the plight of the injured worker, needless to say, would be beyond any legal or legitimate recourse.”
“The result is that the tragedy of the' worker who had an industrial accident is possibly compounded by the further tragedy of his inability to obtain any compensation as provided for under the Act by reason of his employer being uninsured and being incapable of meeting his liabilities under the Act. The proposed provision for compulsory insurance by the employer against his liabilities under this Act is, therefore, very commendable. I have, however, certain doubts about this particular provision which I hope the Minister will be able to clarify for me. It is very well to provide for the punishment of an employer who contravenes the provisions of compulsory insurance in any manner. But what this Act has failed to make clear is the position of the workers of an employer who has been convicted of such contravention of the Act. The situation may arise where an employer, either through wilful and deliberate action or negligent omission on his part to insure, has sufficient cause to disclaim liability for the payment of full or any compensation to an injured worker under the Act by reason of his failure to comply with any of the conditions in the contract of insurance covering his liability under the Act. A likely cause for such a situation would be an instance in inaccurate declaration by an employer of the actual number of employees for the purpose of insurance coverage.”
“With the proposal to make it compulsory for an employer to insure against liability under the Act, it is likely for an unscrupulous person or organisation employing contract labour to attempt to evade the application of the Act after the coming into operation thereof by converting all contracts of service into contracts for services. It may well be argued that the contractor or subcontractor for labour may be a person or organisation of sufficiently substantial means to be able to give satisfactory discharge to his liabilities under the Act. My point is that as long as there is a possibility of evading the application of the Act by converting the contract of service into a contract for services, the evasion of the applications of the Act may have disastrous consequences for a worker injured in an industrial accident if the contractor who is deemed to be the employer under the Act is a man of straw and fails for one reason or other to have a valid insurance cover against his liabilities under the Act. I will be dealing with this in greater detail when I comment upon the provisions of the Bill regarding compulsory insurance. For the present I wish to emphasise that the prosecution of an employer for contravention of the Act will in no way resolve the question of payment of compensation properly payable under the Act to a workman who has been injured in an industrial accident. Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 15 of the Bill, by repealing the existing section 26 of the Act and replacing it with the new provision, introduces a significant and vital element to the Act. Under the existing Act there is no obligation for an employer to insure himself against his liabilities under the Act.”
“Under the same clause 3 of the Bill, a new definition of "employer" is proposed in place of the existing definition. The new definition is substantially a reproduction of the existing definition and seems to be mainly dictated by the need to provide for the radical changes in the political situation of Singapore since the enactment of the Act more than a decade ago. It is to be regretted that the opportunity has not been taken to widen the scope of the definition of "employer" in relation to the phrase appearing therein, i.e.: "where the services of a workman are temporarily lent or let on hire to another person by the person with whom the workman has entered into a contract of service or apprenticeship". The situation covered by this phrase applies to the practice of contract or subcontract for labour as prevailing in the Republic. Such a phrase would not conceivably cover a situation where a person may enter into a contract for services in contradistinction to a contract of service on his own behalf or on behalf of a group of other persons. The reason, as I see it, for making a principal liable under the Act in respect of the employees of a contractor or subcontractor of labour is that, in the event of the insurer disclaiming liability under the Act, the principal is more likely to be a person or organisation of substantial means with the necessary capacity for giving effect to the provisions of the Act governing the payment of compensation thereunder.”
“The difficulty is that it is not clear whether such period should be the last few years, the last few months, the last few weeks, or the last few days before the industrial accident. The importance of having a standard period for the computation of earnings for the purpose of quantifying the compensation properly payable is unquestionable in those cases where the amount of compensation to be paid is below the maximum limit specified by this Bill. Thus, if earnings are to be computed on the basis of a worker's total' remuneration during the last month preceding his industrial accident, the' amount of compensation determined in accordance with the provisions of section 8 of the Act may vary by as much as 20 per cent, depending on the actual amount of overtime payments or other' allowances he received during that last month. Thus an anomalous situation may arise where two workers, receiving the same amount of wages and normally the same amount of overtime payments or other allowances, may actually receive widely different amounts of compensation for the same type and degree of incapacity, simply because during the last month preceding their respective industrial accidents one worker might have received more overtime payments or other allowances than the other-worker. I therefore suggest that some formula or other guideline be incorporated into the definition of "earnings" for the-purpose of standardising the computation of overtime payments or other allowances for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation properly payable under the Act. In the absence of such formula or guideline, there is a possibility that the proposed basis of computing such earnings may give rise to misunderstanding and friction between the workers concerned and their respective employers.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill in principle. The provisions of this Bill provide for desirable amendments to the Workmen's Compensation Act, particularly those amendments regarding the maximum amount of benefits variously obtainable under the Act. I find it necessary to seek clarification in respect of some of the proposed amendments. Under clause 3 of the Bill, among the various amendments proposed therein, the new definition of "earnings" is worded to include "overtime payments or other special remuneration for work done" for the purpose of computing the compensation payable to a workman under the Act in the event of injury or death. Such overtime payments and other allowances are qualified by the phrase "if of constant character or for work habitually performed". While the provision contained in this definition of "earnings" appears to be reasonably clear as to the intention of this legislation to provide for an equitable basis of computing the compensation payable to a worker in the event of an industrial accident, it is not so clear as to how to determine the basis in a satisfactory manner. As a trade unionist, it has been my experience that overtime payments and other similar allowances may be of a constant character or for work habitually performed, but the actual amount of such overtime payments or allowances may greatly vary from month to month, from week to week, or even from day to day. The indication in the Bill seems to be that such overtime payments or allowances should be determined in respect of the period immediately preceding the industrial accident for which compensation is payable under the Act.”
“Members of their families are prepared to pay for the services provided if such facilities are made available. Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope the Government will look into the problems raised. 4.28p.m.”
“In this respect, I would urge the Government to consider providing some avenues for the unions to bring up such cases for determination. Mr Speaker, Sir, with the accelerated rate of withdrawal by the British Armed Forces, thousands of our citizens will be left without jobs. From experience, we find that not all of these workers can be re-trained for alternative technical jobs. Because of age and educational qualifications, it is also difficult for them to find alternative employment in the private sector. I would ask the Government to consider whether these workers can be absorbed in Government departments, the Car Park Division, the Postal or Hawkers' Department, or as lift attendants in public or private buildings. It is a common sight to see many of our able-bodied young men and women working in the Car Parks Division and as lift attendants in public or private buildings. Surely these youths can be discouraged from taking up such employment and be encouraged to work in the industries where their youth and energy can be better utilised. Mr Speaker, Sir, in the addendum to the President's speech, it is mentioned that there are plans to restructure the existing w e if a r e institutions and that new facilities will be provided. Here, I would like to seek f u r t h e r clarification f r o m the Government whether such plans include the extension of these facilities, such as homes for the aged and infirm, to our non-destitute senior citizens. There are in Singapore a number of such senior citizens who could not be admitted to the existing institutions because they do not meet the qualifications imposed by these institutions. Due to family considerations and other problems, many of these people cannot be taken care of by their children or relatives.”
“Granted that a certain amount of suffering and inconvenience cannot be avoided in the process of economic development, but it is also equally true that it is the policy of our Government to minimise such suffering and inconvenience as far as is practicable. This is evidenced by the recent decision of the Government to increase the rate of compensation paid to persons affected by resettlement. In the present case, perhaps some arrangements can be made between the Government and private developers to provide persons rendered homeless as a result of private development with alternative housing, whether put up by the Housing and Development Board or otherwise, which is within their means. Mr Speaker, Sir, on the question of labour, I wish to support the sentiments expressed by the Member for Bukit Ho Swee. An early review of the wage restraint imposed on labour should be considered. It is heartening to note that the Government is conscious of the fact that labour has, in no small way, contributed to the rapid economic growth of Singapore. Unfortunately, there are still some employers who prefer, for some reason or other, to ignore this. The payment of additional bonus is one example. Although there are indications that they have made substantial profits, these employers are not prepared to consider any additional payment of bonus to their employees. The quantum of bonus negotiable is restricted to one month's salary. Any payment in excess of this amount is governed by the provisions of the Employment Act. Therefore, the unions are not in a position to make any further claims on the employers even though they are quite certain that such employers have made substantial profits.”
“There is, however, a substantial group of persons who are not fortunate enough to be classified as fire victims, or persons displaced by the Government's urban renewal scheme, but who are in the same and equally desperate position in respect of housing as that of other persons. I refer to those persons who have been staying, in some cases, for two or three decades in areas which are now acquired by private developers with the intention of putting up blocks of luxury flats or shopping complexes. It is true that some private developers pay out fairly liberal sums of monetary compensation to those persons who have been served with quit notices. There are developers who pay only a token sum in order to obtain early possession of the site. I have been approached by a number of such persons who seek my assistance in obtaining Housing Board flats. It appears that by far the greater majority of such persons prefer to utilise the monetary compensation to purchase Housing Board flats. Such persons are confused and puzzled by the predicament in which they have found themselves through no initiative of their own. The alternative housing which they can afford, and for which there is a long waiting queue, seems to be the monopoly of the Housing and Development Board. On the other hand, their homes have been demolished by the private developers to make way for luxury blocks of flats or shopping complexes which are beyond their means, even with the monetary compensation provided by the private developers. I urge the authorities to do something for these unfortunate people.”
“I rise to speak in support of the motion of thanks to the President's speech to this Parliament. The first point which I wish to comment upon represents one aspect of the rapid rate of development of the building industry in Singapore. We are all proud of the fact that the success of the Housing and Development Board can be clearly seen in the towering blocks of flats which, in some cases, stand on formerly swampy ground or wasteland. Statistical evidence of such success is to be found in the fact that approximately one-third of the population of Singapore is accommodated in the various housing units put up by the Housing and Development Board. It is also a matter of congratulation that, with the policy of the Singapore Government to allow C.P.F, contributions to be used for the purchase of Housing Board flats, a substantial portion of residents in such flats are owner-occupier. The desirability of residing in or owning a Housing Board flat is one thing, but the ability to do so is another thing. Such is the demand for Housing Board flats that the procedure governing the allocation of such fiats has to be strictly adhered to, in order to ensure fair play for everyone concerned, not least the applicants themselves. It is a well-known fact that only persons who are victims of a fire or any other natural catastrophe, or persons who are affected by urban renewal schemes involving the Housing and Development Board or the Government, may be given priority in the allocation of these flats. In all other cases, the applicants have to take their turn in accordance with the order of registration.”
“Sir, I am satisfied with the Minister's reply and I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“According to accident statistics obtained from the Accidents Branch, Traffic Police, only three accidents have occurred near Jalan Toa Payoh flyover and 10 accidents near Kim Keat Road during the period 1st January, 1970, to the 28th February, 1971. That is a period of 14 months, According to the Accidents Branch, these few accidents were due to carelessness of either the pedestrians or the drivers. Jalan Toa Payoh was constructed largely over swamp land. A considerable amount of filling had to be carried out and hence, over a period of years, there has been continuous settlement of the earth. And this has given rise to unevenness of the road surface and the road breaking up in some parts. Because of the continued construction taking place in and around Toa Payoh New Town, permanent repairs have not yet been carried out. Various service departments have been laying services along Jalan Toa Payoh. I assure the Member that as soon as all such works are completed, the entire road will be properly resurfaced.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 75 be reduced by $10 in respect of item 005 of subhead 201. Sir, I believe that this is the Public Works Department's first experience in the construction of a flyover road system. I would like to ask the Minister concerned whether there are any studies made since this road system was first opened at Jalan Toa Payoh/New Town Southern Access Interchange to see whether this system is safe, including the surface condition. I notice that part of this road is very badly pitted and it is a source of danger to road users. There is a very sharp bend at this flyover which is also another source of danger for road users. I am informed that quite a number of accidents have occurred along this bend. Two vehicles so far have overturned, fortunately without any loss of life. It is a pity that this Pan-Island Expressway is so poorly constructed. It is true that some minor repairs have been done to the road surface. But, at the moment, many of these repairs are on the point of breaking up again. I would ask the Minister concerned whether any appropriate measures will be taken to rectify these faults. Mr E. W. Barker: Sir, Jalan Toa Payoh/ New Town Southern Access Interchange is the major access into Toa Payoh New Town from Jalan Toa Payoh. Jalan Toa Payoh is just a part of the proposed Pan-Island Expressway and, in order to provide an uninterrupted flow of traffic along Jalan Toa Payoh, a flyover was constructed. This flyover permits free right-turn movements from Jalan Toa Payoh into Toa Payoh New Town and vice versa. Since the right-turn traffic at this point is separated and provided for at two levels, the accident risks are reduced.”
“Sir, I wish to thank the Minister for his reply, and I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 72 be reduced by $10 in respect of item 001 of subhead 404. In moving this amendment, I would like to seek clarification from the Minister whether the amount provided for is for the construction of a police station in Toa Payoh. If it is so, when will construction commence?”
“Sir, is the Minister aware that this market is within a Housing and Development Board estate? It is not the policy of the Hawkers Department of the Housing Board to license unauthorised hawkers outside or within the concourse of the market. If it is, this will create a problem for me.”
“Sir, it is indeed heartening to listen to the Minister's comments, but may I make just a point of clarification? There are at present two community centres in operation - one in Kim Keat Avenue and the other in Lorong 5. I did mention one centre which is being completed now at Lorong 1A. I believe there are quite a number of vacant plots of land in Toa Payoh East. I will be glad if the Minister can indicate when the officials of the People's Association will be free to come along with me, and I will suggest some suitable sites for them. But in view of the Minister's reply, I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 52 be reduced by $10 in respect of item 001 of subhead 101. Sir, the population in Toa Payoh now is more than 100,000. There are only two community centres in the constituency. Both of these two centres are sited in a very inconspicuous position, and the facilities there are particularly inadequate for the large number of residents in the constituency. I am aware that there is another self-contained community centre which is being completed in the western sector. I believe this new community centre is to cater for residents in that sector. I would like to ask the Minister whether he will consider putting up another self-contained community centre in the eastern sector to cater for the residents in that area. I beg to move.”
“Sir, in view of the reply of the Minister of State, I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Mr Ng Kah Ting: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 41 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 603. Sir, the Hotel and Catering Training Centre was previously under the Ministry of Labour, and it has now been transferred to the Ministry of Education. I would like the Minister concerned to indicate the number of trainees who have been trained in hotel catering by this Centre, whether or not there have been cases where some graduates of this Centre have been sent for further training, and the number of graduates in the various categories. 5.45 p.m. What I mean is that with the accelerated building up of the hotel industry, there is, to my mind, an acute shortage of hotel staff. I wonder whether the Hotel and Catering Training Centre, when it moves into new premises, will be able to cater for the requirements of the hotel industry in the next few years. Also, will the Centre consider training not only those involved in waitering and other services, but also those concerned with floor management, that is, the supervisory and managerial posts? We had occasion in this House to hear one of the Members remark that working as attendants in wash-rooms is a lucrative business. Surely the Centre should train our youngsters for more responsible positions in hotel catering than just being attendants in wash-rooms. I sincerely hope the Minister of State for Education will care to comment on my remarks.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 41 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 601. Sir, in view of the reply of the Minister of State to my earlier question, that the establishment of educational institutions depends on the density of the population, may I ask him whether any consideration has been given to the building of a vocational or technical institution in Toa Payoh?”
“I thank the Minister of State for his explanation. I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Every year I hear a lot of problems from parents, particularly towards the end of the year and the beginning of the year, when they ask for transfer of their children from schools in other areas.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir,I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 41 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 301+ I note with dismay the amount which has been allocated for new primary and secondary schools in the Development Estimates. In my constituency many parents have difficulty in getting their children admitted to the schools near to their homes. At the moment, there are only three primary schools and one secondary school in the town proper. We have talked about Toa Payoh being a self-contained town and I really wonder why the Ministry of Education has not seen fit to build more primary and secondary schools in this constituency. There are about 14,000 children of primary school age and 10,000 children of secondary school age in the whole Toa Payoh Constituency. The Minister may explain that there are other schools around the outskirts of the town, but under the new transport system, as stated in the Wilson Report, children have to travel more than three miles to reach the schools outside Toa Payoh town proper. It is also stated in the report that there are 22 routes, but only four of them pass through the schools outside the constituency, that is along Thomson Road and Braddell Road. Out of these four routes, only one route has a service at four-minute intervals and the others are at 15-minute intervals. We can just imagine the inconvenience that will be caused to the children travelling to the schools in and around the area. I understand there are several sites in Toa Payoh town reserved for schools. May I ask the Minister of State for Education or the Parliamentary Secretary what steps are being taken to build more primary and secondary schools in Toa Payoh?”
“Yes, what I have to say will cover both.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in moving my amendment, may I have your permission also to touch on my next amendment, which is amendment No. (6) * and is concerned with "New Secondary Schools"? My question will cover that too. * The amendment, which also stood in the name of Mr Ho Kah Leong, reads as follows: That the sum to be allocated for Head 41 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 401.”
“Sir, in view of the Minister's explanation. I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Mr Speaker. Sir, I beg to move. That the sum to be allocated for Head 31 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 202*. (* The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Ng Yeow Chong.) I just want to ask the Minister a question. In the White Paper on the Reorganisation of the Motor Transport Service of Singapore tabled recently, there was a proposal to allow authorised motor workshops and repair shops to issue certificates of inspection to vehicle owners. May I ask the Minister when this can be implemented?”
“However, this is not to suggest that such a thing might not happen, as in the instance mentioned by the Member for Potong Pasir. As I have already said, if the instance which was raised did, in fact, occur, will he give me all the details so that an investigation can be carried out? And if the Member is correct, action will be taken. As regards the question of ambulance-chasing, I believe this is a matter that has been brought up many times in Parliament. As far as we know, there is no evidence to show that it is a serious matter, but if there are any further instances I will be glad to look into it. I think I should take this opportunity to say something very important. A policeman's job is a very difficult one, allegation of corruption being an occupational hazard. I have received numerous complaints and every complaint has been investigated. More often than not, the investigation suggests that the complaints are founded on malice rather than on fact. And the surprising thing is that the police force has borne all these complaints with fortitude. This is really a tribute to the force itself.”