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 14 of 17.
“The obligation to redeem the 20-cent and 50-cent coins at their par value is moral and not legal. But our Finance Minister is going to make it legal by introducing this Bill with a Certificate of Urgency. But from the political and social point of view, failure to carry out a moral obligation is much more damaging than failure to carry out a legal obligation. 3.12 p.m.”
“It must not be forgotten that a substantial portion of our foreign exchange holdings consist of American dollars. Does it mean that devaluation of the American dollar will mean a further depreciation of the old Malayan currency? If such a depreciation should occur within the next month, it might cause greater confusion, particularly in respect of the old Malayan coins. After two weeks of its issue, new Singapore coins are hardly in evidence. Sir, I wish the House would consider seriously the question of depreciation of the old Malayan currency and its effect on the economy. With the devaluation of the Pound Sterling, there is much speculation about the possible devaluation of other currencies, particularly the American currency. In this context, I am also requesting the House to pay much more attention to our nearest neighbour, Malaysia. Although it has not devalued its national currency in line with the Pound Sterling, there is much speculation that it might have to devalue its national currency within a year or two. Since the Singapore Government has agreed with the Malaysian and Brunei Governments that their respective national currencies are to have customary tender in one another's territories, the Government should take steps to inform the people that they hold Malaysian and Brunei national currencies at their own risk. In the light of what I have outlined for the consideration of this House, I would suggest that the Singapore Government make a further effort to have the decision to depreciate the value of the old Malayan 20-cent and 50-cent coins completely reversed. Such a reversal is urgently required as there were no new coins available on 19th November of this year, when the devaluation of the Pound Sterling was announced.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am given to understand that the Singapore Government played an important part in the subsequent reversal of the initial decision of the Board of Commissioners of Currency, Malaya and British Borneo, to depreciate the value of the Malayan coins of whatever denominations in relation to the respective national currencies of Singapore, Malaysia and Brunei. This decision, needless to say, had caused a lot of confusion among the people of the three territories, especially among the working class who are the ones dealing in terms of cents instead of dollars. Sir, it was a relief for everyone when the Board subsequently announced that the old Malayan coins of one-cent, five-cent and 10-cent denominations are redeemable at their par value, if the Singapore Government could obtain a partial reversal of the decision to depreciate the value of the Malayan coins, it is conceivable that if our Minister for Finance makes a greater effort to persuade the other two Governments, then the decision reached might be entirely reversed, that is, 20-cent and 50-cent Malayan coins would be redeemable at their par value. The decision to devalue the old Malayan currency, particularly the coins, is bound to have a far-reaching effect on the morale of the people. Recently the three Governments made a joint statement that the old Malayan currency would continue to be redeemable (of course, at a depreciated value) with regard to the three respective national currencies up to 31st December, 1968. The question here is that with the devaluation of the Pound Sterling, there is a distinct possibility of the U.S, dollar being devalued - I am not saying right now, but assuming by next month - then what will happen if such a devaluation of the U.S, dollar occurs?”
“I appreciate that our Government, by reason of the fact that it is one of the three constituent members of the Board of Commissioners of Currency, Malaya and British Borneo, is not free to act in a way it thinks best for the interest of the people in relation to the question of depreciating the value of the old Malayan coins. It is also obvious, from the close economic link and proximity of West Malaysia to Singapore, that the Singapore Government cannot afford to take any unilateral action relating to the value of the old Malayan currency notes and coins. If our Government were to declare that old Malayan 20-cent and 50-cent coins are redeemable at their nominal value, Singapore would be flooded at present with all the 20-cent and 50-cent coins that were in circulation in West Malaysia. I think the Minister for Finance will put up this argument, but I would like to inform Members of the House how many 20-cent and 50-cent coins are in active circulation. This is from the Report of the Board of Commissioners of Currency, Malaya and British Borneo, 1965. The value of the 50-cent coins is $767,037.50, and the value of the 20-cent coins is $485,870.00. Assuming that from 1965, these figures have been doubled, then the 20-cent and 50-cent coins by now in active circulation - assuming that every 50-cent and 20-cent coin is in active circulation - will amount to only $3,758,722.25. So it is really inconceivable to think that the three Governments, that is, Singapore, Malaysia and Brunei, cannot afford to redeem one-third of this amount.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as far as currency notes are concerned, I am of the opinion that the Government has some justification for devaluing the old Malayan currency because the new Singapore currency has been introduced since 12th June, 1967, which gave ample opportunity for every Singaporean to convert his or her holdings of the old Malayan currency notes into the new national Singapore currency. But in the case of the coins, Mr Speaker, Sir, the position is radically different because up to November 1967, no new coins had been introduced or circulated by the Government of Singapore. So by depreciating the value of the old Malayan coins in relation to the Singapore national currency, it would appear that the Government of Singapore sought to penalise the residents of Singapore through no fault of their own. As I see it the only way that Singaporeans could be blamed for holding old Malayan coins is that they had not changed the old Malayan coins for new currency notes between 12th June and 19th November, 1967. But if they had done so, then a most ridiculous situation would have resulted, that is, no one would be in possession of any coins at all. Mr Speaker, Sir, such a situation would have a disastrous, if not a totally paralysing, effect on our economy. Sir, my purpose is to bring to the attention of this House the grievance of, if not the people of Singapore, at least the voters of my constituency, in respect of the old devalued Malayan coins which were the only coins in active circulation before the unfortunate event took place on 19th November, 1967, it is not so much to criticise the Government of Singapore but to show how ridiculous the situation had become.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it is difficult for me to support this amendment Bill as I have certain objections to make in respect of this proposed Bill which is to amend the Currency Act of 1967. The most significant point to which I wish to draw the attention of this House is not the amendment itself but the retrospective effect of the amendment. Members of this House are aware that the currency notes and coins issued by the Commissioners of Currency, Malaya and British Borneo, are stated to be legal tender for their full face value according to the provision in section 14(4) of the Currency Act. Members of this House are also aware that the occurrence of an event beyond our control - namely the devaluation of the Pound Sterling - has resulted in the Singapore Government having to declare that the currency notes and coins issued by the Commissioners of Currency, Malaya and British Borneo, are to be depreciated in value by about 14 per cent in relation to the national currency of Singapore. I appreciate that this drastic step has to be taken by the Singapore Government because the old Malayan currency was fully backed by the English Sterling, which was devalued on Sunday, 19th November, 1967. But this depreciation in value has brought great hardship on those persons who have old Malayan currency in their possession, particularly the working class who cannot afford to operate banking accounts.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want to ask the Minister to clarify clause 3 with regard to the new section 2lB. "Any person ...". Does "Any person" also include a lawyer in court who misbehaves and who will also come within the provisions of this Ordinance?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the fact that we are only one Party represented here, there is no Opposition. So when I say "the Party", it also means "the Government" and when I say "the Government", it also means "the Party". So there is no actual distinction for me to make.”
“I would say that the P.A.P. was not able to look into the welfare of the rural people. That is why the Party was not able to win their support. So if the Party can make a breakthrough in the rural constituencies by making the rural people understand our difficulties and by providing them with more and better social amenities, then I feel sure that in the coming elections, we will be able to win -”
“Sir, I am just mentioning this in passing. We were not able to obtain their support because we had neglected them.”
“I fully support and subscribe to the sentiments expressed by the Member for Choa Chu Kang that the rural people were not only neglected during the colonial days, but they are also neglected now. I can prove this in this House on the ground that we were not able to win the support of the rural people in the last general elections.”
“Mr Speaker. Sir, if you are thinking of doing business on such terms, then it is not profitable. Here you are charging $12 a month as a parking fee and, in addition, you have to hire three-shift workers to look after the car park and also give a policy - something like an insurance policy - to meet the claim of a motorist whose car has been hijacked. I say that that policy is no good, and we had better abandon it. Mr Speaker: Mr Barker, do you want to add anything to your previous answer?”
“Since Government charge a motorist a fee to park his car in the parking bay which is the property of Government, in the event the car is hijacked by someone, will they accept the claim from the owner of the car?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I have to crave your indulgence. When the public does not make any complaint, it does not mean that the film is a good one. Apart from the "James Bond" type of films, they allow on T.V. the "Beatles" type of songs ---”
“This is a very unsatisfactory answer. You go to a bank -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if a bona fide contributor to the Central Provident Fund is in a very difficult situation where he is in need of money, will the Minister consider allowing him to withdraw not the whole sum but, say, 50 per cent or 75 per cent of it in order to meet his needs? For instance, take the case of someone who might need a few thousand dollars to buy a house. In the present circumstances, unless he reaches the age of 55, he cannot touch his Provident Fund. I think on this aspect there must be flexibility in the application of the C.P.F. Ordinance.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, you see the trend against legal abortion in Singapore today is very clear. My question to the Minister is just to persuade the Government not to bring up this matter, because it might happen that when the Bill comes up and if the Government is defeated, it will put the Government in a very embarrassing position. Some hon. Members: No.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if a student in Primary 1 cannot make the grade and you promote him to Primary 2 and then to Primary 3, can the Minister say how he expects this student to cope with the work in Primary 3?”
“What I am complaining about is the posting system. Although the Ministry of Education -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I completely agree with the Minister for Education that the Government cannot, of course, accede to the request of the parents to send their children to the schools of their choice. But at the end of the year of the school term, there is a great mess in the postings of students from one school to another school. I can quote an example. For instance, if a student is staying in Jurong, he is posted to St. Anthony's School, whereas, on the other hand, a student staying somewhere in Bras Basah Road is posted to Jurong School.”
“Will the Minister support the Shell Company in the event that there is a manpower exercise which leads to the dismissal or retrenchment of 400 or so employees? And in the event that the company is willing to compensate all those affected employees, will the Minister support the Company's policy for this retrenchment, if the company can pay sufficient compensation to the employees?”
“No. ARBITRARY PRICE INCREASES BY PETROLEUM COMPANIES (Government action) 7. Mr Ng Kah Ting asked the Minister for Finance (a) whether he will look into the question of arbitrary price increases by large and monopolistic commercial firms, in particular the giant petroleum companies; (b) what steps he proposes to take to save the public from having to shoulder the burden of any possible increase in freight charges in respect of petroleum brought to Singapore for refining; and (c) whether he will consider introducing legislation imposing limits on advertising expenditure in art effort to reduce the prices of petroleum products in Singapore.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I can give an example -for instance, footwear. The footwear we import from China as compared with the footwear we import from the United Kingdom, Germany, or America.”
“It is possible that employees of statutory boards, who at present belong to various unions, may have their own views as to how best they ought to organise themselves. I am therefore to suggest to the Government that it should consider sending this Bill to a Select Committee, with a view to studying some of the undesirable results that may ensue from the application of the Bill, particularly the creation of a few peanut unions. The Select Committee would also be able to consider representations from the trade unions involved, so that necessary changes may be made to the Bill with a view to securing a more intelligent and more effective organisation of employees in statutory boards. If the Government's intention is good and sincere, and they wish to make us believe that, I appeal to the Minister for Labour to consider referring this Bill to Select Committee. I hope he will not just simply steamroller it through, knowing full well that he is capable of doing it, as he has so many Back-benchers to support him. If this Bill is referred to a Select Committee, I feel it will do justice to the unions and they will be given a chance to make their representations on the Bill. 6.00 p.m.”
“Statutory bodies like the Currency Board, the Economic Development Board, the Central Provident Fund Board, the Adult Education Board, the Polytechnic, the University of Singapore, the Asian Seamen's Club, the Seamen's Registry Board and the National Theatre are small-time employers. Some of the Boards employ as few as 15 to 20 persons. Employees of most of these Boards are at present represented by the A.U.P.E. But according to the provisions of this Bill, they will now have to form unions of their own, with the result that we will now have to deal with at least nine new peanut unions. This is surely a retrogressive effect. It is true that the Bill provides for a federation of unions representing statutory board employees, subject to the prior approval of the Minister. But why should it be necessary to specify that trade unions representing employees of statutory boards may not form a federation without the prior approval of the Minister? I am prepared to accept that employees of statutory boards may not be affiliated to any other trade union or federation of trade unions whose membership includes direct employees of the Government, without the prior approval of the Minister. But why should such prior approval be necessary for unions representing employees of the various statutory boards to federate among themselves? This, in my view, is an unnecessary stipulation, and should be specifically deleted from the Bill. One wonders too whether it is really necessary to stipulate that it is in "the national interest" that trade unions representing employees of statutory boards may only affiliate with the N.T.U.C., for instance, subject to the approval of the Minister. It surely cannot be held that the N.T.U.C. is a subversive organisation.”
“You will remember that our Government has done a great deal in the past to do away with smaller unions or peanut unions. We all remember the days when our port workers were divided into at least eleven peanut unions. Today, as a result of Government policy, the port workers of Singapore come under a single union. A number of similar examples may be cited, but if this Bill is passed into law, the Government will have taken a backward step. Let us examine some of the implications. Employees of the larger statutory boards, like the S.T.B., the P.U.B. and the Housing and Development Board, can form fairly sizable unions. Where the P.U.B. is concerned, the Bill might indeed have a progressive effect. At the moment, employees in the Water, Gas and Electricity Departments belong to separate unions, while monthly-rated employees in the P.U.B. belong to yet another separate union. So where the P.U.B. is concerned, this Bill would make it possible for all P.U.B. employees to be united into one single union, rather than being distributed among four separate unions, as is the case at present. This is only confined to a sizable union. But in the case of the transport workers, it is not in their interests. Therefore, as I said, where the P.U.B. is concerned, this Bill would have a progressive and beneficial effect. Employees of the Housing and Development Board are also distributed at the moment between two different unions, a daily-rated union, and the A.U.P.E. They too will now be able to amalgamate into a single union. But let us take a look at the other side of the coin.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I myself have laboured this point to some extent, simply because the N.T.U.C. is concerned to squash, once and for all, rumours generated in certain international labour circles which tend to have a damaging effect on the international image of Singapore, which we in the patriotic trade union movement deem it our duty to cherish and uphold. Now I shall deal with some of the critical observations that the N.T.U.C. has to offer. Normally, the Minister for Labour discusses the provisions of any proposed labour legislation with the N.T.U.C. This has happened on all past occasions, but this time the N.T.U.C. was by-passed. I would like an explanation from the Minister for Labour as to why this was allowed to happen. It must be appreciated that relations of understanding and co-operation between the Government and the democratic labour movement can only be maintained and strengthened through closer consultation on all matters affecting the interests of labour; not to say, "Well, we are not afraid of the trade union movement. At this moment we are very strong," and so on. I believe that closer consultation on all matters is very necessary. Coming to the applications of the provisions of this Bill, it will have one unfortunate result, and that is the creation of a number of peanut unions. For example, the Minister for Labour has said earlier on that in the transport section, there are members from the P.U.B., members from the Housing Board, and members from other sections. If this Bill is passed into law, instead of solidifying or getting the employees together to form a union, it will create a wide division of workers and various small unions will be formed. This, I think, is not in the interest of the workers.”
“I am glad to report to this House that the Central Executive Committee of the N.T.U.C. met on Saturday, 20th May, 1967, in order to consider certain representations on the Bill which had been submitted to the N.T.U.C. only a few days earlier by the A.U.P.E., and after due consideration agreed as follows: (1) That the Central Executive Committee of the N.T.U.C., after having listened to the explanations offered by the Prime Minister at a recent meeting, was satisfied beyond all doubt that the Government's bona fides in introducing this Bill were completely above-board, and that the Bill was not aimed at any particular trade union or at any particular trade unionist. (2) That the N.T.U.C, was, nevertheless, concerned about the application of the provisions of the Bill, and to this end, certain representations would have to be made to this House by trade union representatives in Parliament with regard to the removal of certain anomalies which might arise from the application of the Bill. I am also happy to announce, both for national and international information, that almost the entire Central Committee of the N.T.U.C., including Mr Kandasamy, accepted the bona fides of the Government as being above board, and appreciated the fact that the Bill was not directed at any particular trade union, but was motivated by considerations of the national interest. All members of the Central Committee of the N.T.U.C. met the Prime Minister last week and he explained to us exhaustively what he meant by the "national interest", and I do not recall that anybody, or any particular trade unionists representing employees of the public sector (who would be primarily affected by this Bill) disagreed with or in any way countered the considerations which the Prime Minister advanced.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill before the House is significant, not for any vigorous controversy it has aroused in trade union circles in Singapore, but for the misconception entertained in certain international labour circles regarding the intentions of the Bill. It has come to my knowledge, as Secretary of the International Relations Department of the N.T.U.C., that certain international trade secretariats have been seriously and grossly misled about the purpose and intention of this Bill. These quarters have been led to believe that the Bill has the most despicable motivations, and that the Prime Minister of Singapore is behaving just like an African despot, and that he is out to cut the A.U.P.E. down to size, and particularly Mr Kandasamy down to size. I do not for a moment believe that this is the intention of the Government. Besides I also understand that the A.U.P.E. at the moment does not pose any threat or danger at all. The people of Singapore would laugh at such stories because we know that they are simply not true. The A.U.P.E. also knows that this is not true. Indeed, the A.U.P.E. has issued a statement to the effect that the Prime Minister "took great pains" to explain to them the reasons for the introduction of this Bill. Nevertheless, certain international trade union bodies, hitherto friendly to Singapore, have been led to believe, by certain persons in this region, that the Bill is motivated by the basest of considerations. My information is that some damage has been done, at least in some international labour circles, to Singapore's image. As a loyal Singaporean and as a patriotic trade unionist, I call upon the Government to give the lie to the mischievous interpretations which have been given to the Bill internationally.”
“Coming to the recommendation of the Commission for the setting up of an Ombudsman (or Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration) as contained in Chapter IV of its Report, I have in mind the observation of the Commission that it is likely that some act or decision of Government or the administration or any statutory board or public body can give rise to complaints by citizens whose interests are affected by such acts. From my own experience as a trade unionist, I can assure this House that workers do sometimes feel frustrated and let down by laws which are expressly designed for their protection. For instance, an arbitration machinery is set up under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1960, to expedite the settlement of disputes and grievances of the workers. Circumstances, for which no provision is made in the Ordinance, have arisen where workers cannot have recourse to such arbitration machinery for the settlement of their grievances. This is all I say on the matter of the Ombudsman. 2.50 p.m.”
“(2) The very concept of such a Council of State implies that the present unicameral system of our Government is inadequate and unsatisfactory in the discharge of its functions. That being the case, it is hard to believe, for reasons I have already stated, that the proposed Council of State, which consists of nominated members (Parliament is composed of elected Members), would supplement and remedy the implied deficiency of the present system of Government. The Commission has in its recommendation put forward its view that the proposed Council of State serves as an advisory body to Parliament. But it has not indicated in what way that such an advisory body would be in closer contact with an electorate which elects by secret ballot its representatives in Parliament. I do not share the optimism of the Commission that persons of respectable standing in their respective profession or community are in a better position than the elected Members of Parliament to ascertain the feelings and aspirations of members of the general public. If anything, such persons are likely to be more aloof and removed from the general members of the public. It is difficult to envisage that an eminent lawyer or a highly qualified medical specialist is more accessible to members of the public than, say, an ordinary Member of this House. If the Members of the House discharge their obligations to their respective constituencies faithfully and regularly, I think this question of a Council of State will take care of itself. Mr Speaker, Sir, that is all I have to say on the Council of State.”
“But to return to the point, the very fact that the proposed Council of State is envisaged as an advisory body to Parliament implies that the persons who are likely to comprise such a Council are in a position to advise the elected Members of Parliament correctly. But what is the nature of advice contemplated by the Commission? As I see it, the advice is in the form of specialist and technical representation or reflection of the electorate's feelings or temper. The Commission has not shown how such Council would be more effective and efficient than the prevailing machinery or procedure for gauging public opinion or reaction to any proposed Bill by referring such Bill to a Select Committee of this House. I cannot see how a Council, comprising persons appointed for a fixed term, can provide comprehensive specialist guidance in relation to any Bill at any one time. As for gauging public reaction, Mr Speaker, Sir, I should think that the elected Members of this House are better equipped and placed than the members of the proposed Council. I am thus of the opinion that the recommendation of the Commission in respect of the proposed Council of Stale should not be accepted by this House for these two main reasons:- (1) Such Council is a luxury which Singapore can ill-afford, because it is not only a luxury but also a rather expensive luxury. Although in its recommendation the Commission has suggested that the Council of State should use the existing facilities that are available to Parliament and to the executive body and administrative organ of the Singapore Government, it is nonetheless necessary to make provision for new staff and new facilities to meet the requirements of such Council of State.”
“Nor, for the reasons stated in relation to the independence of decision of such Council, can any provision be made in the Constitution of Singapore in relation to the proposed Council of State to provide for the removal of Council members who might prove to be unduly obstructive to the effective and immediate implementation of any decision by the Legislature. As I have said, such a provision would be inconsistent with the very existence of such an advisory body which is meant to function independently and freely of the executive body of the Republic. On the other hand, if the members of the Council of State are readily amenable to the Government's view on any matter contained in any Bill, it would give rise to cynical stories and jokes that the most important qualification a person can possess to be considered for appointment to such Council is that of political sympathy with the Party in power. This would be a natural consequence even though these members have no political sympathy or affinity. In actual fact, they have no political sympathy or connection with the Party in power. Thus, where a Council of State contains members who are obstinate in their views, the temptation is very strong for the Government to introduce a Bill on a Certificate of Urgency in order to bypass the Council. And against such temptation there is no constitutional check. But where members of the Council of State are reasonable and endorse any Bill of the Government in power, I am doubtful what useful function such Council performs as a constitutional check on the Government of the day in the exercise of its powers. Here I am using the words "obstinate" and "reasonable" in the subjective sense as seen from the Government's viewpoint.”
“Nevertheless, with the formation and establishment of such an advisory body, it is possible that a situation would arise where the members of the proposed Council of State might not see eye to eye with the Government on the subject matters contained in certain Bills. Such a situation is not that all far-fetched when it is noted that in the proposed recommendation for a Council of State. The Commission has expressed its opinion that security of tenure for the members of the proposed Council of State is a necessary element to enable the proposed Council to discharge its function without fear or favour in relation to the Government. Thus a situation would arise where persons appointed to such Council might entertain convictions or beliefs which might differ radically from the policy of the Government. When such a situation arises, it would become obvious to the Government of the day that it would be useless for the Government to submit a Bill to such Council of State which does not have consensus of opinion with the Government in respect of the subject matters contained in such Bill. And as I have stated before, it would be quite natural and logical for the Government to submit a Bill on a Certificate of Urgency in order to avoid being delayed by such Council of State. No recommendation has been made by the Commission as to how to restrict the Government from indiscriminately introducing any Bill on a Certificate of Urgency.”
“In brief, the question is whether Singapore can afford to have such a luxury as a Council of State which, though proposed as an advisory body, performs the function of an Upper House of the Legislature. I am of the view that the proposed Council of State is a luxury, because I do not consider it to be essential or necessary for the proper government and management of the Republic of Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am further strengthened in my belief that the Council of State is superfluous when it is considered that the Commission has seen fit to place certain limitations on the powers to be exercised by the proposed Council of State. One of these restrictions on the functions of the proposed Council of State is that the Council would have no power to consider any Supply Bill or a Bill presented on a Certificate of Urgency. I do not intend to make any further comment on such restriction in so far as it concerns a Supply Bill, for I am in agreement with the Commission that it is hardly proper for such an advisory body to be in a position to comment on a Bill which merely authorises expenditure or outlay of money from the Consolidated Fund in relation to matters on which this House has voted. I am rather puzzled about the exemption of Bills presented on a Certificate of Urgency from the jurisdiction of the Council of State. It is always open to the Government to present any Bill it wishes on a Certificate of Urgency. I am not by any means implying that if this recommendation for a Council of State is accepted by this House, the Government of the day would pursue a course of action which would have the effect of by-passing such an advisory body as much as possible.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to draw the attention of this House to Chapter III of the Report of the Constitutional Commission, 1966. While appreciating that the Commission has gone thoroughly into the pros and cons of the setting up of the proposed Council of State, I have a few points to comment on the recommendation, as the Commission did not seem to have taken them into its consideration when deliberating on its recommendation for a Council of State. The Commission in its Report has advanced various reasons why there should be a Council of State. The Commission also has envisaged the proposed Council of State as a purely advisory body to which the Government can look for serious and weighty advice without being subject to its control. Thinking the matter over carefully, I have serious doubts whether such a Council of State is really necessary. Singapore is an island Republic of scarcely more than 220 square miles. We are not a continent. We have a population of less than 2 million. In addition, we have a unicameral legislature whose Members are elected by secret ballot periodically. The plain fact is that no citizen of Singapore is so physically remote from his elected representative in Parliament that he cannot air his views or grievances through such elected Members. Conversely, because of the relatively small physical area of his constituency, no elected Member of Parliament has any excuse to say that he does not know what is going on within his constituency. This brings me back to the question I have posed earlier to this House, which is, what is the necessity and purpose of such a Council of State?”
“, my stand is clear, and that is I oppose in principle any ban on strikes except in a situation of national emergency when, in the interest of the State and of the citizens as a whole, it is necessary to ban any strike. But such a situation of national emergency is not present here today and I cannot see any other justification for the Government's proposal to ban strikes in these three essential services.”
“I regret to say that the present industrial arbitration machinery is not effective for the purpose of solving industrial disputes effectively or expeditiously. Even in the private sector, with free recourse to the right of strike, the workers' experience is that the machinery of the Industrial Arbitration Courts does not confer on them adequate protection against an unscrupulous employer. Of course, I am not saying that the Government is an unscrupulous employer, but I must emphasise that workers and management personnel are human beings and that industrial disputes are bound to arise at any time in the course of their mutual relationship. It must also be remembered that the strike weapon, while it serves to lend force to the workers' demands on the employer, also serves as a means of focusing attention on the workers' grievances, whatever they may be. By taking away such a means of bringing the workers' grievances to the notice of the relevant authorities, it becomes more imperative that the Government, which is proposing this ban on strikes, should provide an adequate and effective machinery to take the place of strikes as a means of bringing the workers' grievances to the attention of such authorities. Mr Speaker, Sir, I suggest that the Government provide a more effective system of arbitration to resolve industrial disputes arising in a situation where the workers have no recourse to the strike weapon. It is by no means to be assumed by this House that I am in favour of the ban on strikes even though the ban is limited to the workers of the three essential services. As the Secretary-General of the N.T.U.C.”
“While the Government may justify its proposal by claiming that the right to strike has been abused and exercised irresponsibly by workers in the three said services, this by itself is no justification for the total ban on strike by the workers in such services, if the Government is really concerned with the possibility that in the future, if it were not for such proposed ban on strike, the right to strike would be abused or be irresponsibly exercised by the workers in the three services, such a fear on the part of the Government is adequately safeguarded by the relevant provisions of the Trade Disputes Ordinance of 1960; section 3 (1) thereof reads as follows: `A strike shall be illegal if - (a) it has any other object than the furtherance of a trade dispute within the trade or industry in which the strikers are engaged; or (b) it is in furtherance of a trade dispute of which the Industrial Arbitration Court has cognizance; or (c) it is designed or calculated to coerce the Government either directly or by inflicting hardship on the community.' Mr Speaker, Sir, I would have thought that the provision of paragraph (c) of section 3 (1) of the Trade Disputes Ordinance would have taken care of the Government's fear that the workers in these three essential services would utilise the right to strike by coercing the Government either directly or by inflicting hardship on the community. If the Government does really intend to ban strikes from these three services, then it should, as a matter of necessity, provide some more effective system of arbitration than has been provided under the Industrial Relations Ordinance to resolve disputes which would otherwise have found expression in the form of a strike.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill proposes to amend, among other things, section 23 of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance, 1955, by stipulating that no workman employed in the water services, gas services and electricity services shall go on strike or be locked out. The Government also, by Gazette Notification, require workers who are employed in banking services, broadcasting and television services, public bus transport and air services, to give 14 days' notice before they can go on strike. Up to now, there has been no such Ordinance. Mr Speaker, Sir, I contend that such an amendment is uncalled for in view of the adequacy of the existing law which provides the Government with the right to refer trade disputes to arbitration if strike action in these services harms the interest of the community. It is appreciated that the employer of all the workers engaged in the water services, gas services and electricity services is the Public Utilities Board, which is a statutory Board, and which is subject to public control. It may be the argument of the Government, in advocating the abolition of strikes in these three essential services, that the employer of the workmen engaged therein is not likely to exploit the workers who are so rendered defenceless. While I do agree that this House possesses the means of ensuring that the employer of the workmen, from whom the right to strike is taken away, does not take unfair advantage of the situation, the fact remains that the right to strike has in the past served as a psychological deterrent to the Board and its senior employees from being too complacent in their dealings with their employees.”
“Mr Speaker. Sir, I am not confining my question only to pharmaceutical products but also to general commodities.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, from a perusal of this Report, it appears to me that the recommendations of this Report are unanimous. Nevertheless I would like to ask a question -was there any dissenting voice on this Report?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as you are aware, this Report has just been presented to this House for the information of Members here only five minutes ago. I feel that by doing it in this manner, Members who may be interested to have a debate on it are deprived of the opportunity. May I ask the Minister whether he will give an opportunity to Members of this House to debate on this Report?”
“A supplementary question, Sir,It is not because the debtors are reluctant to come forward to give evidence. In the Government General Orders, there is a provision which prohibits civil servants from getting themselves into debt. But it is an open secret today that many civil servants are indebted. They are harassed by the money-lenders and dare not make a report. Once they make a report, they themselves will get into trouble. If the Government can do something about General Order 158, probably the debtors will dare come forward and give evidence. Is the Government prepared to amend or withdraw General Order 158?”
“Can the Minister inform this House what is the figure represented by 38 per cent of the total number of daily-rated employees who are provided with quarters?”
“Can the Minister assure this House that during the period of the strike, the Government will not use blacklegs to break it? Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: I can give the Member for Bras Basah this assurance that we shall step up the strength of the Emergency Cleansing Corps from the present 1,325 to as much as is needed to carry out an essential service for the public. FIRE BRIGADE POLICY ON ERECTION OF TARPAULIN SHEDS FOR PARTIES 2. Mr Ho See Beng asked the Minister for Culture and Social Affairs what is the policy of the Fire Brigade Authorities in regard to permits for the erection of tarpaulin sheds to shelter the audience at a Chinese "wayang", a dinner party, etc.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have a case also with regard to immigration. He is a voter who stays in my constituency. By occupation, he is a pilot employed by the Port of Singapore Authority. He has an aged mother who lives in Cambodia. This pilot was about to get married. According to Chinese tradition and custom, parents always like to witness the wedding of their children. In this case, this man had applied to the Immigration Department for some months, not to get this old lady to come here and stay, but just to witness the occasion of his wedding. I do not know why his application was rejected. He came and saw me and I then explained his case to the official concerned but still this official refused to agree. Finally - I do not know through whose help or assistance - his mother was allowed to come to Singapore after the wedding was over. But the son who sponsored her entry into Singapore was asked to pay a deposit of $2,000 in spite of the fact that the return passage and everything else was provided for. I feel that in the case of social visits by parents, particularly to witness their children's weddings as the case may be, the authorities should be more sympathetic. I bring this matter before the Deputy Prime Minister and shall be very grateful if he will investigate it.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, can I put the question which I have put earlier to the Prime Minister regarding the Rolls Royce?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it is indeed a pleasant surprise that the Member for Choa Chu Kang has complained that although the Library is housed in an air-conditioned room, there is insufficient supply of books for Members to read. But I have received information that the Prime Minister's Department has purchased a Rolls Royce car. If we do not have money to furnish the Library, how is that the Prime Minister's Department has purchased a Rolls Royce car? I would like the Prime Minister to inform the House when, where and how this Rolls Royce car was acquired by the Government.”
“That is what the Prime Minister said. We did not agree.”