Ho See Beng
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister of State whether he is aware that each time re- settlement takes place, the business houses or firms suffer a terrible loss. Although the HDB could provide them with alternative shop premises, they have to rent them from the HDB.”
“Sir, I want to ask a supplementary question with vested interest. This concerns a teacher who upgraded himself or herself and got admitted into the University, but the teacher has got to forgo his or her salary. In the case of an SAF officer, if he is sent to the University, he does not have to sacrifice his salary.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask whether the Minister will consider giving incentives to consumers who read their own meters?. I ask this question because it will save PUB a substantial amount of money by way of salaries for meter readers, if the PUB succeeds in teaching consumers how to read their own meters.”
“But before I could explain the relevancy, I was interrupted by the Member for Anson, who stood up and denied that he had ever said anything about supplying me with such a list.”
“Sir, as I have said, I intend to appeal to the Minister for National Development whether he will consider giving priority allocation of flats to the Blair Plain residents who will be resettled by PSA soon.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, when the House adjourned at 8.00 pm last night, I was reminding the Member for Anson that I have yet to receive his list of Blair Plain residents whom he claimed to have attended his meeting and approached him for assistance on the matter pertaining to resettlement.”
The complete record
Every one of 839 lines we hold for Ho See Beng, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 13 of 17.
“If Government manifestly indicates that it is soft pedalling when it comes to the employer, it may well be that we will have to return to the 1950s. If the employers blatantly exploit the workers, are we then to come back to this Chamber again to repeal the present measure to prevent the exploitation of workers, or are we going to amend the labour laws every few years to prevent employers or employees from exploiting each other? Everyone knows that this P.A.P. Government has got the interests of the workers at heart. It assists them to have a fair share of their labour and we also know that this Government, too, has the reputation of allowing employers to have their just due. One can therefore understand that the introduction of these new clauses is aimed at giving a boost to capital investment with a resultant reduction in our unemployment. Of course, there is no doubt that this is a good intention. This new Bill will give most citizens employment and in the long run the workers will be better off and the country as a whole will have prosperity. We all fully agree that this is what the Bill sets out to do. But intentions alone are not good enough. They must be translated into realities. Does the Government seriously believe that some of the restrictive clauses in this Bill will create a good industrial climate? Is the Government sincerely of the opinion that this Bill as it stands now will achieve its objectives? I ask, can frustrated and disgruntled workers give of their best and thus increase productivity? If the answer is "No" to the above three questions, then I suggest to the Hon. Minister for Labour that he must be prepared to concede to the amendments proposed by some of us here.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, much has been said in this Chamber on some provisions of the Employment Bill. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Labour has stated that only six per cent of the clauses in the Bill are new and some of these new provisions have been designed to cut out bonus abuses practised by workers. The old labour laws were brought into force about 14 years ago to stop malpractices by employers and to prevent the exploitation of workers. But the Employment Bill does give one an impression that what the Minister is trying to convey is that one of the reasons for the introduction of certain restrictive clauses is to prevent workers and trade unions from exploiting the employer.”
“I refer to the proposed establishment of the Tenants' Compensation Board, the minimum payment of at least six years' and eight years' rent to evicted tenants of residential and business premises respectively. And there are also provisions for compensation for loss of goodwill, disruption of business, etc. I am, however, quite ignorant of the basis upon which the Government has arrived at the decision to pay a minimum of six and eight years' rent to tenants of residential and business premises respectively. I will be glad if the Minister for Law and National Development can enlighten me on this. Sir, in the case of evicted tenants, may I suggest that these persons be given priority to move back to their original area of residence or business, if such is possible, after development of the area has been completed? There are some who, I believe, for good reasons would prefer a temporary rather than a permanent uprooting from their original area of tenancy. Certain areas, for example, are strategic areas for business operations enabling lower transportation costs and within convenient reach of many other facilities if these amenities still exist after development. There is no reason to deny priority to those who originally enjoyed them. I further wish to suggest a more comprehensive procedure to deal with claims from tenants of business houses. Such claims may involve substantial amounts and can be highly complicated. As such, I do not feel that the rulings of the Tenants' Compensation Board can adequately do justice. To be fair, it is my contention that a dissatisfied tenant should have option to appeal to a higher authority, preferably to a civil court of law. This will certainly act as a counter-check to the rulings of the Board and justice will be more fully ensured.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel in all sincerity that the Government must be commended for this very sensible Bill on the recovery of possession of controlled premises designed to encourage and promote development in the private sector in Singapore. The Government has, of late, placed much emphasis on the introduction of incentives to accelerate the industrial and economic development of our country. This Bill for the recovery of possession of controlled premises is very constructive, being fair, flexible and providing adequate protection to both landlords and tenants. How I wish that the proposed new labour laws are as constructive and encouraging as this one! Sir, all obstructions to the progress of our society must be removed in an intelligent way. Squatter areas, illegal and other forms of land occupation which are not only economically unproductive but also socially and physically unhealthy, must make way for new and healthier social and economic development. But such changes must be made with the least possible hardship and in the most fair and equitable manner to all classes of people, be they capitalists or workers, landlords or tenants. There is in this Bill an elaborate list of provisions to ensure that a landlord claiming land must have a sincere intention to develop the property. There is a heavy penalty - which is the compulsory acquisition of the controlled premises by Government - should a landlord after recovery of the premises fail to complete its development within a prescribed period. The safeguards provided in this Bill against abuses by the landlord are indeed quite complete. It is also heartening to note that fairly adequate provisions have been proposed to compensate tenants affected by this Bill.”
“- it will fight for its life. Eventually it may lose in the struggle and die. Labour incentive to co-operation and higher productivity can also be similarly smothered. Therefore, in keeping with our democratic aspirations, whatever arrangements the Government has in store for the workers must be reached not by compulsion but by mutual consultation and consent. I hope the Government will understand that healthy union co-operation does not mean the latter's mute acceptance, lock, stock and barrel, of all Government's demands. Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to associate myself with the Prime Minister in expressing my appreciation and thanks for the President's Speech. 2.52 p.m.”
“It might be due to other bottlenecks in the industry, wrong predictions made by the entrepreneurs, excessive investments on overheads, large inventories due to lack of understanding of the markets, absence of specialised skill due to faulty training programmes of the industry and so on. These are all factors which might affect productivity, and it is rather naive to suggest that labour should be held responsible for lower productivity. But surprisingly enough, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has been less vociferous in exhorting employers to do their part. Mr Speaker, Sir, over and above all this, I concur with my other trade union colleagues in recognising the over-riding need for the Government to consult with the trade unions before passing laws affecting the interests of the workers. The best thing to do, I feel, is to set up a tripartite council of management, labour and Government representatives to discuss in detail the Government's proposed Acts. Any arbitrary legislation, or any attempt by the Government to bulldoze its way with the comprehensive Employment Bill will result in a deterioration rather than an improvement in the industrial climate now existing. The Government must not make the mistake by thinking that higher productivity can be acquired by merely passing Acts in this Parliament and choosing to ignore the opinions of labour representatives. You can lead a horse to the water. You can push its head into the water. But if you duck its head in too long -”
“The Government should exhort management and labour to get together in a spirit of sincere co-operation to identify problem areas and tackle them jointly. For example, management and labour can be encouraged to co-operate in exploring ways for more efficient utilisation of work force, increasing the workers' efficiency through enlargement and improvement of job skills, elimination of unnecessary overtime and restrictive job demarcations, and reorganisation of work methods to reduce production costs. Certainly it is only through such positive measures that positive results can be achieved. Touching on the issue of labour productivity in more detail, it is also my contention that Government and management must not fall into the nasty habit of making labour the scapegoat for low productivity and business failures. Increased productivity is not something that labour alone can achieve. If in a firm or industry there is low productivity, it does not necessarily mean that labour is at fault. It might be due to inefficient management, especially when we have unqualified family management which used to employ their nieces and nephews.”
“Under such circumstances, a reduction of fringe benefits would be most unjustified and the union leadership would not be in a position to advise the workers concerned to accept the proposed terms. Further, labour productivity will definitely be adversely affected if such an arbitrary measure is enforced by legislation, especially when labour realises that there is no reward in putting additional efforts to improve the financial position of the firms and industries. This will lead only to unhappiness, a sense of social injustice and a feeling of exploitation, resulting in a deterioration or rupture of the existing good employer/employee relations. The Government must realise that there is a positive and a negative way to increase labour productivity. The negative way is to tamper with the existing fringe benefits, especially those which have been granted to the workers with the full consent of the employers and the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Court. This approach is bound to boomerang on the Government. On the other hand, the more desirable positive approach would be to give labour a chance to show their capability for responsibility. In this connection, I call for a more decentralised approach to solving problems, and to persuading labour to exercise restraint. In this way the Government will not be accused of interfering with freely negotiated agreements arrived at by mutual consent between the employees and the employers. In other words, instead of legislation, the working groups of management and the workers should be allowed to make on-the-spot decisions with regard to a particular firm or industry if conditions there warrant any modification in the terms and conditions of service.”
“Sir, no one in his right senses will say that organised labour is not aware of this glaring difficulty. There is today an effective trade union organisation which is capable of comprehending fully the social and economic problems of our nation. I am sure it will hasten to respond favourably to whatever measures the Government may propose to take to solve the nation's economic ills, provided such measures are reasonable and sincere, and labour interest is not unfairly jeopardised. Under the circumstances, I am sure the organised workers in Singapore will be eager to know what new labour legislation the Government is going to introduce to regulate the terms and conditions of employment of all employees. But before more detailed information is available, it is unwise for me to comment on the merit and demerit of this proposed Bill. Nevertheless, I have certain observations to make on the aforementioned areas of fringe benefits, employer/employee relations and labour productivity. With reference to the Government's intention to eliminate fringe benefits which, they say, are likely to be abused, may I caution the Government that it must make a genuine attempt to distinguish carefully between abusive and genuine fringe benefits. Any attempt at indiscriminate slashing of fringe benefits will bring about much injustice to the workers and defeat the very purpose for which it was intended. Mr Speaker, Sir, there are, as you know, in Singapore certain well-established firms whose profit margins are very high and where, as a result of labour efficiency and economies in production, they are likely to move still further towards a better position.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, while perusing the memorandum presented to this House as an Addendum to the Speech by the President, I must say that it is physically impossible for me to analyse all the salient features in his policy speech. I can only touch on certain problems which I feel should be tackled with caution and understanding by the Government so that it will not fall or falter. It is my intention to speak on the proposed policies of the Ministry of Labour on matters connected with fringe benefits, employer and employee relations and labour productivity with a view to promoting a better industrial climate essential for our economic growth. As one of the 51 Members in the last Parliament and 58 Members in the present Parliament representing a cross-section of the people, I must confess my bias for labour matters in the past. But in the new context of our circumstances and the gravity of our nation's problems, I feel that one should speak without bias or prejudice on problems connected with labour in this House. Hence in the course of my speech, I hope to be able to drive home my views in meeting the call made in the President's Speech for sensible relations among employer, labour and management. Singapore is fast making a change from an entrepot economy to an industrialised State. In this process, she has to make this island State sufficiently attractive both to indigenous and foreign capital. Singapore must keep the cost of production to the minimum so that her products can be highly competitive. She also has an unemployment problem with 10 to 15 per cent of the economically active unemployed. This figure can be expected to increase with the complete withdrawal of the British Military Forces from Singapore by 1971.”
“Yes, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker: Mr Ho Kah Leong.”
“In this context, Sir, I remember that in the 1959 general elections when the Singapore People's Alliance was in power, this clique deliberately introduced legislation to slash the rentals of tenants who live in Singapore Improvement Trust flats with a view to gaining popularity and winning the general elections. But the people knew that they were not sincere and honest. Therefore, no amount of bene ficial legislation which is of a temporary measure will help. Therefore, one can safely infer that this Government, which is elected to power by universal suffrage, would not deliberately legislate laws aimed at bringing hardship to the civilian employees of the British Military Services. Sir, I support the amendments and the proposed Redundancy Payments Fund Act, because I am of the opinion that the wider interest of the Republic necessitates such an Act and that the proposed Act confers some undoubted benefits on the persons affected in return for some flexible restrictions on their rights. 4.04 p.m.”
“Irresponsible and disloyal elements allege that the Government has plans to control or takeworkers' money to raise fact, the reverse is the truth, wanting to control or take workers' money, the Govmaking a big concession in workers' money, exempting paying income tax when the Redundancy Payments Fund Act comes into operation. Sub-clause (2) of clause 11 provides: 'Every redundancy payment paid into the Fund under section 6 of this Act and every payment out of the Fund under section 8, 9 or 10 of this Act shall be exempt from income tax under the Income Tax Ordinance.' Along with a number of provisos designed for the protection of the workers' benefit in this Bill, the Government has made further concessions in this Bill as a result of representations made by the N.T.U.C. I am also glad to know that the Government has accepted the N.TUC.'s additional conditions for withdrawals by members of the Fund who are citizens as and when they are in need of money to meet any contingencies affecting the members themselves, their wives, children and parents. Further, any member who is a citizen of Singapore on reaching the age of 55 years will be allowed to withdraw the total amount standing to his credit in the Fund if the Director is satisfied as to the true age of the member. Sir, nothing can be more flexible than this. Unlike the previous Government, the P.A.P. has always stood by and is guided by its socialist principles. It is loath to introduce legislation to hoodwink the public for its own interest. If legislation has to be introduced which will affect the interest of the minority for the good and benefit of the majority and the State, so be it, for we cannot afford to do otherwise.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, right from the outset, let me congratuate the Minister for Labour and thank him for accepting almost all the recommendations proposed by the National Trades Union Congress for incorporation into the Redundancy Payments Fund Bill. When this proposed Act was made public on its First Reading, a handful of individualists and one or two opportunist politicians attempted to distort and capitalise on the plight of the Army civilian workers and tried to interpret it as a piece of anti-labour legislation. These opportunist politi cians, Sir, have never in their lives associated themselves with the aspirations of the labour movement or interested themselves in labour problems. Strangely enough, they appear to be very much alive to the apparent opportunities presented by the proposed Act for their mischievous talent for creating and fomenting industrial unrest. The reactionary attitude manifested by such characters is understandable, for they are interested only in themselves and have no concern for local problems. Critics of this proposed Act are not aware that the majority of these 40,000 odd civilian employees do not belong 10 the higher income group. I am given to understand, Sir, that 75 per cent of these workers earn about $200 to $250 a month only, and with the prospect of an indefinite period of unemployment due to the accelerated British military withdrawal, a socialist government like the P.A.P. cannot afford to remain inactive and leave the workers to fend for themselves without formulating a constructive and comprehensive plan for the protection and safeguard of the workers' retrenchment benefits during the transitional period.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Minister has misunderstood my question. At the moment, our complaint is that the awards are unduly delayed. With the provision of two weeks the Arbitration Court is now apparently unable to hand down awards in the required time. The Minister has said that he is going to remove the two weeks' period. Would this mean that he is going to make the period even longer?”
“As a trade unionist, I feel that if the Minister for Finance can give his sympathetic consideration to genuine grievances, there is no fear at all for bona fide finance company houses having to resort to retrench employees as a result of the passage of this Bill. And if this end can be achieved, I will propose to the Minister for Finance that the day of the coming into operation of this proposed Act is not made retrospective but is to take effect in the near future. Hence there is no need to refer this Bill to a Select Committee. 5.37 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Finance Companies Bill whose object is to license and control finance companies and to govern matters connected therewith. Since the purpose of this Bill has been made very clear and specific, therefore, bona fide finance company houses should have no cause for any undue apprehension. Although clause 22 of the Bill provides that within six months of the date of its coming into operation finance companies are required to liquidate all transactions prohibited by the provisions of the Bill, nevertheless, Mr Speaker, Sir, earlier on the Finance Minister has already stated that consequent on the passage of this Bill, if and when genuine grievances arise, he is prepared to consider sympathetically their respective difficulties. An important feature of the Bill is the restriction placed on the powers of the directors and other officers of a finance company to deal with the money deposited with the finance company. This is very important, Mr Speaker, Sir, because many members of the public are induced to place their savings in a finance company by the attractive interest rates offered by the company on such deposits. Up to now, there is no specific Ordinance to ensure that a finance company takes as good care of such deposits as any honest businessman will take care of his property. In that sense, the Government should be congratulated on initiating such a Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, my concern is this. As a socialist by conviction, I feel that the the larger interests of the community in stead of a microscopic few should be given first regard. Sir, another concern is this.”
“Sir, what has been said by the Minister for Labour to amend the Ordinance is to meet the seriousness of the unemployment situation in Singapore in the light of the economic situation. In this context, this Labour (Amendment) Bill is suitable, and I fully agree with it. But after hearing the different speeches by the Members for Delta and Telok Blangah about workers employed in the pioneer industries in Jurong and other industrial areas, it is not convenient for me here to express any more points of view. If our Government is a pro-labour government which adopts a very enlightened policy on labour, I think it is advisable to form an investigation committee and go to the Jurong industrial area to investigate whether it is true that the labourers there are exploited by the employers, or whether they get equal treatment for both sexes. This is my view. 3.17 p.m.”
“(10) That the sum to be allocated for Head 63 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of subhead 302.”
“In which case, I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $345,080 for Head 0902 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 1001 -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not very satisfied with the reply by the Minister. Although he has criticised my suggestions, he has not offered any solution.”
“But I ask, can we have industrial peace with justice if there are delays in handing down the awards which sometimes last for months and even more than a year after the cases have been heard? Of course, both the unions and the management may admit that they do have justice, but a rather belated justice. Meanwhile, there is frustration among the workers and this frustration must necessarily affect production, a matter with which, I am sure, all of us are concerned. I feel that something must be done to accelerate the hearings and the making of the awards of the cases by the courts. Have the Minister and his officials given thought to this matter? They may be very busily occupied with other matters. But, nevertheless, I would like to suggest this for the Minister's consideration and sincerely ask him to give his urgent attention to this matter. I suggest that the courts should have permanent panel members. In other words, either the members of the management and the employees should be engaged on a full-time basis, or do away with them completely and let all the cases be heard by either the President or the Deputy President only. My other suggestion is that the Minister appoints only panel members who can afford to spare the time. If a member, having been nominated to sit on the cases, finds himself unable to attend the hearings on, say, three consecutive occasions, he automatically disqualifies himself from hearing any further cases. The Chairman: Mr Ho, if you stop now, the Minister will have three minutes to reply.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head 0902 be reduced by $100. Sir, before I touch on the point I wish to raise on the Industrial Arbitration Courts, let me make it very clear that whatever I say in relation to the Industrial Arbitration Courts does not refer to the President, the Deputy President or any official of the First and Second Industrial Arbitration Courts. In fact, I would like to pay my tribute to the President and Deputy President of the Courts for their past work in handling the multifarious cases that have been presented in the First and Second Courts. But whatever point I raise to indicate the present state of affairs the parties concerned are now in, may I emphasise that it is not the fault of the courts but it is the fault of the system in operation that is to be blamed? The present method of having panel members from employee and employer groups does undoubtedly cause unwanted and unnecessary delay not only in hearings but also in the making of awards. Sir, the Industrial Relations Ordinance lays down that the award shall be handed down within two weeks after the parties concerned have presented their arguments. The fact that no one in the Ministry of Labour or the Advocate-General's Chambers has queried why the Ordinance has not been followed indicates that all have accepted that this is not possible. Under the circumstances, I would like to ask the Minister if we are not defeating the very purpose for which the Industrial Arbitration Courts were set up. The policy of the Government was and, I hope, still is industrial peace with justice.”
“I have changed my mind, Sir. (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, having heard what the Member for Delta has said, I feel that I must share my sentiments with her on some of the points that she has touched upon. First, perhaps she does not understand very well the actual reason why workers in the pioneer industries do not join the unions. This is not an error on the part of Government's policy. I think the reason why they do not -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the assurance given by the Minister for Finance that he will consider exempting payments made to prematurely retrenched employees from income tax, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $4,180,080 for Head 0807 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 0809 -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated or Head 0807 be reduced by $100. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it is high time that the Government adopted a realistic policy on the implementation of the income tax laws. Of course, nobody will disagree with the Government that it must endeavour to collect as much tax as it can from those who have to pay tax according to law. But the taxing of a worker's gratuity or ex-gratia payment, when it is given to him, say, on premature retrenchment or under any circumstances, can hardly be considered just and equitable. The argument may be put forward that if this gratuity is deposited with the C.P.F., it will not be taxed. I do not think this is a good solution to the worker who does not have a job. What is he to live on until he reaches the age of 55? If he does not get a job to enable him to support his family, you do not expect him to live on thin air. The employment opportunities for men in the age group of 45 to 55 are very slim, and this is particularly so when they reach the age of 50. Do the authorities consider that they can afford to be taxed? I urge the Minister to consider the exemption of tax on gratuities or ex-gratia payments made to retrenched workers. I suggest that if tax has to be paid, a certain formula should be worked out whereby the total gratuity should be divided by the number of years from the lime that a worker is retrenched up to the age of 55, and that this sum should be allocated as earnings for each year up to the age of 55 and taxed in the normal way if he is within the taxation bracket.”
“In which case, I will continue talking in Mandarin to the best of my ability.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am quite aware of the Standing Order that does not allow me to switch from one language to another. But in view of the fact that you have not been very strict about it, I crave your indulgence to allow me to quote another instance in English.”
“The people elect us for their own interest, They do not elect us to cause them trouble or difficulties as a result of passing restrictive laws. We should not pass such laws on the people who elect us. We must be consistent in whatever we do. Mr Speaker, Sir, if you are, or any Minister is, in the applicant's shoes, I do not know how you or the Minister will feel about it. I hope the Government will sympathetically consider the case of this old lady and allow her to enter Singapore so that her son here can be reunited with her. I am sure they will be very grateful -and I too will be grateful -to the Minister, (In English): If I may go on in English -”
“Just now I have mentioned this item regarding immigration and I say that formerly it came under the jurisdiction of the Deputy Prime Minister. Last year, during the Budget debate in which I took part, I was given an assurance by him that the applications of Singapore citizens who desire their parents to come into Singapore would be considered only if such parents are above 60 or 65 years old. At the same time, he also said that the applicants must have sufficient means to maintain their aged parents coming into Singapore so that Singapore will not have an additional social burden. These statements by the Deputy Prime Minister appear in Hansard. This year I have received certain complaints from my constituents, One person complained about his application regarding his old mother in Hong Kong whose daughter is married, According to Chinese tradition, the wife follows the husband. In this instance, the daughter is unable to support her mother. But this old lady's only son, who is running a shop in Singapore, has enough means to support her. Several applications have been made to the Immigration Department for the entry of this old lady into Singapore, but I do not know why approval has not been granted. In fact, the application was rejected by the Immigration Department and no reason was given. This is really incomprehensible. There is perhaps a lot of bureaucracy in the Immigration Department. This old lady in Hong Kong i5 now 83 years old. It is rare for a person to live up to the age of 70, but this old lady has already exceeded the age of 80. So if the Government will allow her to enter Singapore. I think she will have only a limited number of days in which to enjoy life in our country. It is my hope that the Government will consider such cases sympathetically.”
“In that case, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not speaking on my amendment on the M.I.D.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, last year in this House I spoke on the debate on the Budget then presented. At that time I raised the question of immigration, namely, citizens of Singapore who applied for the entry of their parents into Singapore. At that time Immigration was under the jurisdiction of the Deputy Prime Minister and I remember that he then agreed and promised that if citizens of Singapore wanted to apply for their parents to come to Singapore -”
“I agree with your suggestion, Mr Speaker. Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head 0401 be reduced by $100, Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to speak in Mandarin,”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have, in fact, made this mutual arrangement with the Member for Sembawang. But I do not know whether the Member for Delta will agree to such an arrangement, so that when we come to Head 0402, Immigration, I will withdraw my amendment.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to seek your permission to speak on both the Heads, M.I.D. and Immigration. Since my name has been put down for this amendment, together with the names of Madam Chan Choy Siong (Member for Delta), and Mr Teong Eng Siong (Member for Sembawang), I wonder whether you will allow me to speak on Immigration instead of the M.I.D, as a whole.”
“I know that the Singapore Government has done its best to boost the morale of the locally-trained graduates by giving preference to the employment of locally-trained graduates in Government departments and statutory boards. But, unfortunately, it is not the case with the employers in the private sector who continue to value foreign diplomas and degrees more than the local ones. It will not only be in the interest of the locally-trained graduates but also in the interest of Singapore as a whole if the Government makes a strenuous and determined effort to eradicate the private sector employers of their bias against the products of local education which is by no means inferior to the product of foreign education, judging by the success of Singaporeans in foreign educational institutions. 4.33 p.m.”
“However, the number of vocational schools in Singapore today is still very much less than that of grammar schools. The need for highly qualified technical specialists is not so pressing as the need for relatively less qualified technicians and artisans: yet our educational system is geared to the production of specialists rather than of technicians. I do not know why there is such a situation in the midst of cur attempt to industrialise our economy. It may be that our educational authorities do not have the energy or imagination to reorientate our educational system to meet the changed economic and political circumstances in Singapore. Or it may be that the Minister for Finance has not paid sufficient attention or has not devoted his attention to the establishment of more vocational schools, which is the reason why such schools cannot turn out enough competent technicians and artisans. If this is the case, it may result in employers having a low opinion of the training given by the present vocational schools. This leads to a vicious cycle, that is, employers do not want to employ graduates of our vocational schools because of their poor training, and students wishing to seek admission to such schools are hesitant for fear of the difficulties of getting employment after their graduation. Sir, is it because of the poor demand of our vocational school graduates that the educational authorities or the Minister for Finance feel justified in their policy of treating the vocational schools as poor cousins of the secondary grammar schools? In this connection, I also wish to comment on the bias of employers against the locally-trained graduates.”
“As the Minister for Finance himself has stated in his Budget Speech, it is vital for Singapore's industrial development to encourage the inflow of foreign capital and investment, because such an inflow will not take place if Singapore has no political stability. Sir, it is also my intention to make a few remarks on the Ministry of Education. I note with gratification that more than one-third of the Budget is devoted to social services, which include education. The importance of education to the Republic of Singapore cannot be over-emphasised, particularly as the only natural resource that is present in Singapore for its industrial development is skilled labour. In this respect, I regret to observe that the Ministry of Finance, or the Government, does not appear to pay sufficient attention to the exploitation of our only natural resource. At this juncture I must pause and say that I do not know whether the Minister for Finance or the Minister for Education is responsible for such a state of affairs where our educational system continues to churn out more white-collar workers than blue-collar workers who are essential in manning our increasing number of factories. The fact is that in comparing the total number of secondary grammar schools with that of vocational schools in Singapore, I notice that there are far too few vocational schools in existence to train technicians and artisans. Sir, I have also glanced through the Development Estimates for 1968. Although the Minister has made provision for $4,204,520 for vocational institutes as compared with $5,937,120 for primary and secondary schools, no doubt he has good foresight because he feels that if we are going to industrialise, we have to have more technicians and artisans.”
“I will speak Mandarin when it comes to the turn of the Minister of Defence; not now. Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Budget. It is a Budget in keeping with the present circumstances of Singapore's political and economic growth. The Minister for Finance has really made a realistic appraisal which is reflected in his "standstill budget". Mr Speaker, this is not a matter of "I support you" or "You support me". There is one particular feature in the Budget which I wish to comment on, rather than to criticise, and that is, the increased provision for the defence and security of Singapore. There are some people who question the wisdom of the Singapore Government in maintaining a large military force. In their opinion, the island of Singapore cannot be defended against any external invasion by a determined enemy. Such people miss the whole point by not agreeing with the Government's policy in maintaining a large security force. The principal purpose of maintaining such a force, as I see it, is to strengthen and maintain internal peace and order and not to guard against external aggression. The need for a large security force to maintain internal law and order is not so far-fetched, for recently we have witnessed how a handful of determined agitators could cause widespread disorder in a neighbouring country on the pretext of currency devaluation by the Malaysian Government. We saw how some irresponsible elements were able to stir up the emotions of the public against law and order, which resulted in a communal conflict. Therefore, Sir, the preparedness to guard against such a situation arising in Singapore itself amply justifies the maintenance of a large security force. There is no need to stress the importance of keeping peace and order in Singapore.”
“It is the co-ordination and co-operation on the part of every one of the three parties concerned that can herald a new and bright phase to our industrial growth - to borrow the phrase of the Finance Minister in his Budget speech. 4.03 p.m.”
“To what extent should employers finance the setting up of trade missions in every large city in the world? Sending trade missions overseas once in every six months is not good enough. Singapore must have super-salesmen posted in every capital in the world. The employers should be willing to bear some of the expenses of these trade missions which would be manned by people with expert knowledge of the various industries. Mr Speaker, Sir, businessmen alone cannot be expected to have governmental contact overseas. I think the Ministry of Finance is obviously the department which should initiate and lay the foundation of setting up various trade missions throughout the world. Otherwise all efforts made in Singapore to produce quality-made goods at reduced cost and all the incentives offered to the export industries would be in vain. I suggest in all seriousness to the Minister for Finance that the campaign to achieve the target should be tackled with the same vigour that the Government is tackling the problem of family planning (so that we need not have to legalise abortion) and the "eat more wheat" campaign. Sir, I would go further and recommend to the Minister for Finance to plough back the 4 per cent tax on export earnings, or at least some portion of it, to the setting up of trade missions in those countries where Singapore-made goods have or have not found a market, or in countries where businessmen find difficulty in establishing contacts. I will be failing in my duty as a trade unionist if I do not emphasise that the workers alone cannot he expected to practise restraint as part of their role to boost the economy of the State. The Government and the employers too must play their part.”
“The council was inaugurated with a lot of fanfare, but where is this council today? No one hears about it today. It is completely dormant, sleeping. Let us not make the same mistake again. A tripartite council, as I have suggested earlier, with special functions must be initiated. The emphasis would be on increased exports, higher productivity with quality and lower costs, and industrial peace with justice which will be the responsibility of the Council. All grievances between employer and labour could be investigated and solutions arrived at, to the satisfaction of all concerned. If concrete results are to be obtained and the fate of the first national tripartite council avoided, the persons nominated to this council must include persons who are directly connected with the export industries. Sir, the functions of this council I would envisage to be: (1) To educate the workers and instil in them the importance of increased productivity. (2) To instil into employers the importance of recognising the efforts put in by workers for increased production which should be compensated reasonably. (3) To investigate into complaints from employers or unions on all matters affecting production, quality and industrial relations. Sir, since increased export is the overall aim and is of vital importance to Singapore as a whole, I would suggest that the Government appoint a public servant as secretary in the Council. I would even go further and suggest that full publicity by posters, advertisements and talks be given to drive home to all concerned about the vital role they are requested to play in boosting the economy of Singapore. Assuming that by the efforts of this Council production is boosted, what should the Government or the employer do about finding the overseas markets?”
“Similarly the pioneer companies themselves on their own volition should grant incentives for increased productivity to the workers. Both the management and union leaders must be prepared to appreciate the difficulties encountered by each other. The workers in the pioneer companies have a greater responsibility than just irrationally increasing their pay packets. By 1971, at least 10,000 Singapore citizens would be seeking employment due to retrenchment in the British bases. Owing to the devaluation of the Pound, Britain may possibly accelerate the withdrawal of the bases. To add to this, we have an unemployment figure of 52,000, not counting the school-leavers seeking employment in the labour market. Sir, with restraint of wage increases for unskilled labour at the $3.50 mark and above, accompanied by an increase in productivity of 15 per cent, the reputation of the Singapore workers would induce overseas investors to bring in capital to start new companies. The greater the investment from overseas, the more manufacturing companies set up, the smaller would be our unemployment problem. By reducing the unemployment figure, the workers can have more for themselves in the long run. A practical solution must be found if we in Singapore are to overcome any possible adverse factors that may arise as a result of devaluation which may restrict our effort to export more. One way is to set up a tripartite council, consisting of management and labour representatives together with the national productivity centre representing the Government, to investigate the effects of devaluation on our export industry and to seek solutions. A tripartite council was set up a few years ago. This council represented all employers and labour at the national level.”
“For example, Hong Kong, which devalued by 4.3 per cent - originally Hong Kong devalued by 14 per cent - would be in a better competitive position in the international markets in terms of price, as Hong Kong-made goods would be cheaper than Singapore-made goods of similar kind, as Singapore did not devalue. Mr Speaker, Sir, some of the pioneer companies may use this as an argument to deny any wage increase. Some of the Commonwealth countries have devalued equally with the Pound. Singapore, therefore, would theoretically be at a disadvantage in pricing by 15 per cent in competing with those countries which have devalued 15 per cent. Can our goods, therefore, remain as competitive as before? This may be possible if the two parties concerned in the manufacture of export goods, employers and unions, preserve good sense and not take advantage of each other by using the devaluation issue as an excuse. Labour in the manufacturing companies, particularly the pioneer industries, must be prepared to exercise restraint for at least one or two years on increase of wages. This should apply more specifically to those pioneer companies where the unskilled workers are being paid at $3.50 and above. Labour as a whole at all wage levels in the export manufacturing industries should seek to increase their productivity by 15 per cent, in terms of greater efficiency, by cutting costs, for example. On the other hand, the pioneer companies must be prepared to recognise the greater efforts put in by labour and grant reasonable increases to those who are in the $2 to $2.50 bracket up to a maximum of $3 to $3.50. The Government has given added incentives to export manufacturing companies.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, much has been said about the Sterling devaluation the last couple of weeks, since the United Kingdom Government announced the devaluation of the Pound. Apparently, the devaluation of the Pound by nearly 15 per cent with its broader economic consequences did not seem to be a matter of great concern to the people of Singapore. Instead, the half a million workers and businessmen were more concerned about the depreciation of the old Malayan currency by 15 per cent. This was the main concern. Little or no attention was given to the effect of the devaluation as a whole, on the future earnings of the Singapore workers. Sir, some have expressed gleefully, "The British-made cars would be cheaper by 15 per cent." So may it be. But the fact that no one seemed to be worried about the effects of devaluation on the broader economic front, including its effects on labour, indicates a possible complacency on the part of the Singapore workers. This may be understandable. More than 1,200 motor-cycles or scooters are registered every month. This is a clear indication that the workers in the lower and middle income groups have benefited from the economic expansion over the last five years. Can this rate of economic expansion be maintained and can the workers of Singapore as a whole continue to increase their earning capacity at the same rate? One may wonder what the devalued Pound has to do with it. Singapore is an island-State with no natural resources, and the value of the new Singapore dollar in terms of purchasing power depends entirely on how much Singapore-made goods can be exported, and how much foreign exchange we can earn thereby. There is a great possibility that our export may be affected adversely one way or the other.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in addition to the two Members who have touched on this matter, I would like to ask the Minister whether the unexpected number of retirements this year was due to the poor pay given to civil servants which hastened their retirement. Usually the Government put them on the Superannuation Scheme, and if that is the case, I feel that the Government should not allow this brain-drain to occur.”
“It was published in the papers on the 23rd November. Question put, and agreed to. Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 3 to 5 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. ANNUAL BUDGET STATEMENT 3.25 p.m.”
“It does not relate to the clause, but I feel that this clarification is very important. When the Pound devaluation was announced, I remember two days later Tunku Abdul Rahman said that he knew many months before that the Pound would be devalued. I just want to know whether the Tunku had communicated with the Singapore Minister for Finance.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, can I seek clarification from the Minister for Finance?”
“I am saying that there is a possibility of the American dollar being devalued but not that it will be devalued.”