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 16 of 17.
“Of course, the Government outdoor clinic is available to them, not at the employer's expense but at the Government's. I mention this simply to demonstrate that much of the burden that Government shoulders in the case of its own direct workers, is also borne as a concealed added cost by society, when contract labour is employed. When I think of the conditions under which contract labour toils - and look at the many modern buildings, including our own multi-storeyed houses, in which we regularly take pride, I say they stand out really as monuments to the sweat and toil of contract labour. What I stress is not merely a figment of my imagination. It is a fact. The evils of contract labour are recognised throughout the world and no less a body than the International Labour Organisation, of which Singapore is a member, has cried aloud against its evil practices. My colleague, the Minister for Labour, who recently attended the I.L.O. General Assembly, must be aware of the importance that is placed on the decasualisation of labour by the civilised countries of the world. Lest what is decided in Geneva be considered remote and inappropriate for our developing society, let us cite an endeavour in our very midst, to show that we are equally concerned in such matters. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] 7.10 p.m. I ask Members of this House to recall the Commission of Inquiry into contract labour which this Government set up soon after it came to power in 1959.”
“Sir, I have already voiced my fear that some Members of this House will suggest that contract labour is the only answer and I would not be the least surprised if someone even went so far as to spell out some of the glowing virtues of contract labour. Of late it has become so fashionable to say such things that hardly any day passes without someone extolling the virtue of contract labour without considering its real implications. I would not for a moment deny the fact that contract labour is cheap in a short-sighted sort of way. I admit that all over the world contract labour is cheaper to the employer only than direct labour. The final cost to the community, however, is vastly different and vastly greater. What we in the trade union movement, who believe in the dignity of human labour, consider profoundly objectionable in contract labour is the price which workers pay in such employment. The man who bears the evil of the system and is called upon to subsidise the real costs is not the contractor but the labourer, who by force of circumstances is obliged to accept such an employment. To those who choose to observe the scene around them, I will ask them to recall for a moment those workmen and even young girls who can be seen sweating from seven in the morning to seven at night every day, in spite of the existence of the Labour Ordinance. Whatever others may say, it is well known that any complaint over long hours by such contract workers will mean the end of even the casual work they now possess. Notwithstanding the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance, we see many such men and women taking undue risks without even the barest of safeguards. When they suffer illness, which they often do, on whom do they depend?”
“A further point I wish to ask Members of this House to appreciate is that the large majority of daily-rated workers in the public services in Singapore are not engaged in work which is easily measurable in terms of output. For example: how does one decide on the appropriate output of a cleansing labourer working in Tanglin area? On the other hand, how can one compare this with the work required in one of the new housing estates, where one has to take into account not only the space to be cleaned at ground level, but also the number of floors above, and the number of people who reside there, all of whom constantly contribute towards the quantity of litter and refuse that has to be removed? What in fact is the measure to be accepted in cases where large numbers of stationary hawkers are involved, or where well-to-do second-hand dealers choose to dump their scrap metal and other refuse on the roadside? I ask the experts who advise our Ministers to define and make public the norms of cleansing workers in the public utility services. Sir, I ask Members of this House to bear these points in mind before making general or sweeping statements concerning malingering and restrictive practices in the public services. My colleagues from the trade union movement are convinced that the simple solution suggested from time to time by Treasury and Health Ministry officials that contract labour should be used is no real answer. We are convinced that this is an enormously complex problem for management and labour to solve together and one which calls immediately for an objective study of the supervisory system of daily-rated workers and a search for fair and equitable remedies.”
“I can almost anticipate, if the Minister for Finance is here, he will come and say that the Government use contract labour for the purpose of efficiency and also for economic reasons. And I also will expect him to say that most daily-rated workers, if not all, are malingerers. He will add that there is a definite attempt to reduce daily output and to accumulate work over the week, in order that work may be obtained on a Sunday, when double pay is paid. I am sure the question of triple pay will be highlighted as the evil of the daily-rated system, even though very few people realise that there are only 11 public holidays in a year in which daily-rated workmen can enjoy such benefits, and then only when the employer calls them up for work. Sir, as a representative of a responsible trade union movement, I do not for a moment wish to deny that, in a work force of ten thousand men, many of whom are probably earning a subsistence wage, there are some malingerers. This is the inevitable result the world over if labour is underpaid. I will not deny either that there may be instances of output being below expected standards. However, I ask Members of this House to recognise that only part of the blame can be laid at the door of labour. I suggest that the problem is bound up with the question of supervision; and to the extent that these malpractices occur, I say that this is a measure of the failure of management. Given the right supervision and the right management, I can see no reason why malingerers cannot be brought to book and restrictive practices removed with the co-operation of the workers and their trade unions.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, about two years ago my colleague, the Member for Telok Blangah, drew the attention of this House to the increasing tendency in the public service to resort to contract labour in places where work was previously done by directly recruited labour. He dealt at length with the views of the trade union movement on these practices and also touched on the distinction between work of a recurring nature normally done by direct employees and those which were thought to be more efficiently done by contract schemes, for example, building projects and so forth. He also drew the attention of the Government to the concern among workers over the number of vacancies in the daily-rated establishment which remained unfilled due to the growth of this practice of using contract labour. My colleague, the Member for Telok Blangah, then made it clear to the House that workers led by the N.T.U.C. could not condone this practice and urged Government to take positive steps to remedy the situation. [Mr Lim Cheng Lock in the Chair] 6.59 p.m. Today, Sir, far from there being any improvement in this situation, what do we find? I am told that this tendency is increasing day by day in all directions. I hear that more and more work in Government departments, which was previously undertaken by directly recruited daily-rated workers, is being farmed out to contractors. At one time, we found such work as grass-cutting only in the hands of contractors but today we notice the tendency is spreading to use contract labour so that even minor road repairs and similar work of a recurring nature is being farmed out to contractors.”
“On a point of order. Mr Speaker, Sir, we are debating the amendment. We are not debating trade union officials being sacked by trade unions. The Member for Farrer Park is talking about trade union officials being sacked by trade unions. I think there is no relevance to it.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member for Anson has misunderstood my point when I made my speech earlier on. I said I support the requirement that any industrial action must be conducted by a secret ballot. I did not say that industrial action can be taken without a secret ballot. I fully support taking a secret ballot for a strike, I represent the National Trades Congress. We fully support the secret ballot. I did not say that without a secret ballot, the union can go on strike. Any strike must be supported by -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am speaking in a dual capacity - as a Member of Parliament as well as the Secretary-General of the N.T.U.C. I am not speaking only in the capacity of the Member for Bras Basah.”
“It should be totally deleted from the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill. I hope that the Government will succumb to common sense and democratic ideals and, last but not least, give way to the legitimate rights of the working class. Mr Bernard Rodrigues (Telok Blangah) rose -”
“Now, I have made it very clear before the House that it is left to the Government to decide whether they are to delete the amendments, particularly subsection (4) , or whether they are prepared to face the wrath of the working class. Mr Speaker, Sir, I subscribe to the point of view that this amendment is designed to curb irresponsible trade leaders and anti-national elements who call for strikes without legitimate grounds and without the consent of the majority of their members. As I said earlier, I completely agree with that. But in the process of curbing the anti-national elements in their irresponsible acts, the loyal democratic trade union movement like the N.T.U.C. and its affiliates will also get clobbered. Hence, I submit that the amendment is totally unnecessary and unwarranted. The existing laws are sufficient and adequate to deal with any situation. For instance, section 28 (b) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance gives enough power to the Minister to refer any dispute to arbitration at any time. The President of the Arbitration Court is also fully armed to issue any injunction to meet the requirements. So why is the Government afraid that strikes will be called without secret ballot, and so on? If the President of the Court feels that a strike is illegal, he can issue an injunction to call it off. The Minister for Labour has full ministerial power to direct it to Court. So where is the necessity to have this amendment? Even the constitution of every individual trade union has also relevant clauses to prevent it from taking industrial action without a secret ballot. Further, there is the Registrar of Trade Unions - the watchdog of the Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, I submit that this subsection should not be incorporated.”
“The reason why I mention section 79 now, which was section 77 (10) then, is to make a comparison, that for a piece of anti-labour legislation, the Government is ever ready to bring it to this House for approval. But for a piece of progressive labour legislation which is intended to restrict employers - that is section 79 - from victimising workers, the Government is reluctant to do it, in spite of our repeated requests. So when we made repeated requests to put more teeth into this clause, there was reluctance on the Government side. They just do not care. But today, they are ever ready to bring this new amendment into this House to seek its approval. On the other hand, the Minister for Labour has no hesitation to introduce this particular amendment which incorporates the definition of "industrial action" which he himself should know amounts to selling the labour movement lock, stock and barrel to the employer. Mr Speaker, Sir, our Government maintain or at least attempt to maintain a semblance of a socialist Government! But the working class cannot be duped. They can see through the "camouflage". We have battled right from 1945 against colonialists, against colonial stooges like Lim Yew Hock, and also against Communists during 1961 and 1962. But, today, if we have to face another "emergency" which warrants solidarity and determination of the workers to struggle for the survival of a free and democratic trade union movement in pursuit of its legitimate maintenance of dignity of labour, we will have no hesitation or reservation in doing battle as what we did in the past against the Lim Yew Hock regime and the Communists.”
“It is very apparent, Mr Speaker, Sir, that if the Government continues to introduce anti-labour legislation, nobody will wonder that the number of organised workers has dwindled. So in future, I will not be surprised if the number of our organised or unionised workers will be further reduced. Mr Speaker, Sir, at this juncture, it will be pertinent to refer to section 79 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance which is intended to protect the interest of labour from victimisation.”
“Of late, a series of statements issued by our Prime Minister on labour matters and the number of amendments to the labour legislation introduced by the Labour Minister have subsequently made many of us wonder what exactly the Government are up to. Do they believe in industrial peace at any costs? Do they believe in knocking down the N.T.U.C., which is a loyal and democratic trade union movement, so that the Communists and opportunists can take over? I would like to warn this House, Mr Speaker, Sir, that if the Government prefer to allow the Communists and opportunists to take over the government, they can go ahead with their amendment. But if they choose the N.T.U.C. - the present leadership in the trade union movement - then they are listening to the voice of reason. It says, "Vox populi, vox dei." While analysing the figures for organised labour in this country for the years 1956 and 1966, I was surprised to note that for the year 1956, organised labour was 157,216 and for June, 1966, the figure for organised labour was reduced; it was only 152,023. Why is it so? If the Government claim to be labour-biased and labour-orientated, organised labour should have increased, but instead the figure was reduced. Something must be wrong somewhere. As I understand, in 1956, we had only semi-colonial status, but today we are told that we are citizens of a democratic socialist Republic. Further, the labour force has increased substantially during the last decade, and today one-third of the total population can be considered as economically active. Still, the total number of unionised workers has dwindled. Why?”
“But at that time, the Government did not see fit to introduce measures to curb industrial action. As all the people of Singapore are aware, at that time, the Government and the N.T.U.C. co-operated very well. We fought the Communists. We fought the crooks. We fought the communalists. We came out with flying colours. But it is surprising that today the P.A.P. Government, which often claims to be labour-biased, is apparently determined to throttle us for no rhyme or reason. Compared with the figures of industrial stoppages in 1961 and 1962, there were only 31 strikes and lock-outs in 1965, and further, during the first six months of this year, from January to June, there were hardly half a dozen strikes on our industrial scene. Mr Speaker, Sir, does this not indicate the high sense of responsibility on the part of the trade union movement and also our success in finding a common ground for the economic survival of the Republic? And yet the Government has got the cheek to introduce such restrictive measures to curb a loyal democratic trade union movement like the N.T.U.C.! That being the case, can the Government furnish one good acceptable reason for the introduction of this particular subsection in the amendment which de facto binds and chains the limbs of the workers? The colonial masters did not do it. The turbulent years of 1961 and 1962 did not demand it, and yet today in a comparatively calm atmosphere and situation, the Government is going to introduce this amendment - as the Minister for Labour has said earlier - to curb irresponsible leadership and anti-national elements. I completely agree with him. But does he realise that in doing so, we will also get involved? The democratic trade union movement also will be clobbered in the process.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the whole object of this new amendment will restrict an employee even to take only two or three minutes off for the purpose of answering the calls of nature. Legally, if you read the amendment, it will, ridiculously enough, mean that every act which limits productivity constitutes an industrial action. While I am not attaching any blame on the legal draftsman for this definition, I cannot appreciate its anti-labour concept. Even during the heyday of the colonial regime, when our Prime Minister and his colleagues were in the forefront of attack against the anti-labour laws of the foreign masters, there was not a single piece of legislation or amendment to the then existing Ordinance which could match this wonderful piece of legislation, for which the present Government attempts to seek the approval of this Parliament. I wonder why at this juncture the Government should exert increased pressure and restrictions on the union movement, especially when the N.T.U.C. and its affiliates are acting in a very highly responsible and democratic manner. The N.T.U.C. today represents 75 per cent of organised labour, and our record during the past few years is one which deserves praise from all quarters. Even in the face of extreme provocation from management from time to time, we continue to explore peaceful ways and means with a view to arriving at a solution consistent with our declared objective - "industrial peace with justice". Thus, our approach has resulted in very few industrial actions in Singapore. During 1961, there were 116 strikes and lock-outs, while in 1962, the fact that the figure was reduced to only 88 apparently was no consolation either to the employers or to the unions.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I refer to the proposed amendment by the Minister for Labour.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, regarding these medical advertisements in Chinese newspapers, I remember that the Member for Delta asked a similar question last year. I think she has in mind the advertisement concerning abortions. The Government at that time said that it would put a stop to it. But almost a year has lapsed and nothing has been done. May I have an explanation from the Minister why nothing has been done to stop these advertisements?”
“We must find ways and means to enable bus companies to operate for the benefit of the public, for school children, and so on. The reason why parents allow their children to use pirate taxis is this. Firstly, the safety of their children; secondly, the distance from their homes to the bus stand; and thirdly, they have to change buses frequently, which takes time and also cost more in fares. This must be considered as widely as possible. That is all, Mr Speaker. 4.59 p.m.”
“Why cannot this Committee make a recommendation for separate licences as, for instance, office workers' taxis, taxis for people going to market, or taxis for people living in areas without buses? This is a complicated matter. In issuing special licences to taxis to carry the 61,000 school children alone, we must also consider the views of other transport operators because the Committee is of the opinion that buses are insufficient. I also think that office workers in town are not supplied with adequate bus services and they feel that they should come to office by pirate taxis. If we allow taxis to run according to pirate taxi rules, I am sure that, for the purpose of enforcing the law with good intentions, we should not implement it, and that to regularise the position in our country we must be open-minded and not restrict or confine ourselves to one sector of the population alone. Mention is also made in the Report that most of the drivers have a little knowledge of Singapore for the benefit of tourism. I am sure that because of the rapid developments taking place in our country, that has nothing to do with the Bill under discussion today. Mr Speaker, Sir, we should also find out the reason why, in addition to the matters I have mentioned earlier on, the bus companies as mentioned in the Report do not wish to provide special bus services because of uneconomical grounds. What is surprising to me is that if the Bill is passed without an open mind considering it, I am afraid that the attitude of bus companies will be this, "If I do not make a profit, then I do not care what happens to you." If this is the attitude of bus companies, we should not adopt a civil attitude. We cannot support that attitude.”
“Therefore, it is impossible for this Committee to consider all these factors because, as stated by the Minister of State, with the development of housing estates by private developers and the Housing and Development Board, we must also consider that the increase of 300 taxis must be raised. As I said, we cannot compare with those countries that I enumerated just now. Conditions in Malaya differ from those obtaining in our country. Mr Speaker, Sir, services by road, rail, and aeroplane all differ. Bus services and the operation of taxis and pirate taxis differ one from the other. For instance, in the case of buses, they run along fixed or determined routes and cannot stop anywhere other than at specified bus stops. Pirate taxis ply according to their own routes and they may stop wherever they like. Sometimes they even stop when the traffic lights are red in order to set down their passengers. There are two types of taxis in Singapore. One is the taxi which follows the rules of the Registrar of Vehicles, and the other which follows the pirate taxi rules. This means that taxis following the rules of the R.O.V. ply their business along routes which differ from the bus routes and the routes of pirate taxis. They pick up passengers at one place and go according to the directions of the passengers. Mr Speaker, Sir, in the Committee's Report referred to, there is reference made to 61,000 school children using pirate taxis. Because of the great number of children, the Committee recommends that licences be issued to what are termed by the Committee as "school taxis" or "private motor vehicles licensed to carry school children".”
“Firstly, the taxi drivers; secondly, the bus companies; thirdly, members of the public, including adults, office workers, women going marketing, school children; and fourthly, the unemployed. I am sure unemployed persons will find ways and means to earn a living and, in their opinion, they can earn a living by driving pirate taxis. To me, if a country is short of buses, bus routes, or taxis, or if the taxis or buses are untidy and the roads are narrow, we can say that that country has not got adequate laws. We must have an open mind on how we can adopt these laws so that the citizens may benefit from them. Mr Speaker, in Paper Misc. 3 of 1966, the Report of the Committee to Review the Licensing of Taxis and Taxi Drivers, the Committee only recommends a total of 300 additional taxis. Statistics were obtained from cities like Bangkok, Hongkong, Manila, London, Queensland Australia, and the Malay States. I believe that, apart from Malaya, the standard of living of those countries mentioned is high and that enables the people to own their own cars or to run adequate buses. Perhaps in countries like London, we understand that in addition to taxis and buses, there are underground rail and monorail services. Perhaps that is an effort on the part of the Government concerned to improve the transport system. Mr Speaker, in contrast, in the whole of Malaya there are 5,245 taxis with a population of 7 million. We cannot compare Malaya with Singapore on the ground that Malaya, with a population of 7 million, has hundreds of small towns, excepting Kuala Lumpur, Penang, Ipoh, and Seremban, for example, which do not have any use for taxis as we do in Singapore.”
“If the Registrar fails to bring about a fair distribution and, on the other hand, indifferently allows the concentration of vehicles in the hands of a few, he will be going against the tide of a socialist society. There is another aspect. Though taxis must be given to the hundreds of taxi drivers who are not in a position to buy their own vehicles because of their incapacity, are they to continue to be exploited by the vehicle owners? I have the intention to raise this matter with the Government with a view to appealing to the Government to form a co-operative society with Government assistance to enable them to possess their own vehicles. The trade union movement has been especially interested in this problem and anxious to end exploitation of the kind mentioned earlier, and we have been interested in bringing about a situation where taxis are manned by owner-operators. If the Government works along the lines indicated by ensuring that taxis are so distributed that the situation is brought about where there is one owner to a taxi, it will be a feather in the cap of our socialist Government. I fervently hope, Sir, that interest will be taken in the formation of a co-operative society with the principal function of helping the taxi drivers to own their own vehicles and to bring to an end their exploitation which is quite naked in this sector. Inche Mahmud Awang (Kampong Kapor)(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel that the Bill which has been introduced in Parliament today is a Bill which really affects the public of our country. I believe that it certainly has good intentions, that is, to safeguard our country from being a country without laws or without procedure. However, in a matter of this nature, we must consider all aspects.”
“I have gone through the relevant clauses of this Bill and it was with great pleasure that I noted from the relevant clauses that in future it will be extremely difficult for the pirate taxi which appears to have invaded the city traffic to a great extent to continue reaping illegal profits at the expense of the licensed taxis and buses. Mr Speaker, Sir, this pirate taxi problem essentially consists of two evils. First of all, the owners of cars registered in Malaysia have invaded our city traffic with a view to earning a living at the expense of our own citizens. If we move around the city streets, we can observe pirate taxis with Malaysian number plates plying, the drivers' eyes glued to the pedestrians with a desire to attracting them to their taxis. I am also glad to hear from the Minister of State that steps have been taken to increase the number of licensed taxis, but in taking these necessary steps to increase the number of licensed taxis, I would like to draw the attention of this House that once the issuance of taxi licences takes place, the Registrar of Vehicles must turn every stone to ensure that the new taxis do not fall into the hands of the small-time capitalists who own several vehicles and who make their money by renting out these cars. On the other hand, the Registrar must ensure that the new taxis go into the hands of the vast number of registered taxi drivers who, for want of a vehicle of their own, are forced to hire taxis from the small-time capitalists, in which case they suffer the exploitation of having to part with a heavy payment from their earnings as hire for the vehicles. This is important, Sir.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, relief will be felt all round at the passing of the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill into law. To my mind, however, the passing of this new law will not be sufficient. We would be extremely unrealistic if we expect our public transport problems to be solved solely on the passing of the new law. Yes, if the new law is properly imposed, then the pirate taxi menace will be eliminated. But what about the aftermath? As I once before remarked in a speech to the Taxi Drivers' Association, Singapore today is not the Singapore of the suburban area of Katong, Geylang, etc. Suburban areas like Queenstown, Kallang, Toa Payoh have emerged with their heavy demand for public transport. In the first place, I should like to say that it was their demand which gave rise to the pirate taxi business, although I read in the newspaper that the President of the Taxi Hire Car Association, Mr Simon, said that the pirate taxi problem has been existing for 20 years. It seems to me that he said nothing at all in the present context. It was no problem then, but now it has become a problem of some dimension and action has had to be taken, and further a solution sought not by just giving the history of the existence of pirate taxis. Mr Speaker, Sir, I should like to congratulate the Minister of State for the Prime Minister's Department on introducing this Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill which, when passed by this Legislature and incorporated in the Road Traffic Ordinance, will remove the ambiguities in the Road Traffic Ordinance, 1961, and also put an end to the pirate taxi menace in Singapore.”
“In view of the domineering and bullying attitude of the Federation Government, just in case the Malaysian Government refuse to move out their troops from here, what steps are we going to take, of course, without having to resort to military confrontation?”
“I would like to ask the Minister of Defence whether there is any secret agreement or undertaking other than those published in the separation agreement.”
“I wish to ask the Minister of Defence whether there is any secret agreement or undertaking other than those published in the separation agreement -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, arising out of the Ministerial statement, I understand that the Malaysian Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister, Tun Abdul Razak, issued a statement saying that the Malaysian troops are here to stay and to defend Singapore by agreement. Here, we all know that Malaysia herself is not in a position to defend against Indonesian aggression. How on earth can their soldiers defend Singapore? So will the Minister of Defence inform this House whether there is such an agreement that we request the Malaysian troops to stay here and to defend Singapore?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, I am obliged. But since I cannot get general assent of this House, I do not want either to speak on it or introduce any amendment.”
“Mr Speaker, I consider this amendment is very vital to the workers. So when I submit it to you, Mr Speaker, you can put it to the House. And if the House rejects this amendment of mine, then I will withdraw it.”
“I have not got it in writing, but I can write it down.”
“My amendment is that in clause 16 an amendment be introduced that any employer on receiving claims served by the union shall not embark on any action to retrench or dismiss the workers.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Clause 16 of the Bill provides for a trade union to submit claims on the employer, but we often come across employers who, on receiving claims from the unions, embark on an action of dismissal or retrenchment, and we have submitted proposed amendments to the Labour Ministry ---”
“Yes. Clauses 1 to 15 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 16 -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to seek the general assent of this House to introduce an amendment without notice to clause 16 of the ---”
“In my speech yesterday, I did not ask the Minister for Labour to give the trade unions the power to prosecute employers when employers dismiss the workers. What we are asking under section 77 is that the Ordinance be simplified as we have come across many cases of victimisation and we have found it very difficult to bring the employers to book. What makes the procedure cumbersome is this, Sir. Undue emphasis has been placed on the reference to the Public Prosecutor for his opinion on whether the prosecution is to be instituted or not. The whole point is that we want the Ordinance to be simplified. We do not want to be so very unreasonable as to prosecute employers as soon as they dismiss the workers.”
“On a point of clarification, Sir. Mr Jek Yeun Thong resumed his seat.”
“I can only agree with the Minister for Labour that some amendments were effected in consultation with the N.T.U.C. representative, but not all the amendments in the Industrial Relations Ordinance. In our deliberations with the officials of the Ministry of Labour, we told them that we would reserve our right to comment. So we did not fully agree with all the amendments, but we did agree with some amendments. We did not make any comment on those amendments we agreed. I am only commenting on all those amendments on which we still have some area of disagreement with the Ministry of Labour.”
“Under the provisions of the present Ordinance, the Minister may direct such a dispute as I have described to be referred to the Industrial Arbitration Court in accordance with the provisions of section 28 (b) . But my only concern is whether the enactment of the proposed section 15A will have any effect on the Minister's right to intervene in the situation I have described before. If the Minister for Labour can give me an assurance that it is still possible, after the enactment of the proposed section 15A, for workers who are members of a union which lost out in a secret ballot to obtain redress through the Industrial Arbitration Court in the event of any dispute arising between them and the employer, I shall be most satisfied.”
“, he should not be allowed to seek refuge behind the provisions of this section when he has committed an act of injustice which is within the jurisdiction of the Industrial Arbitration Court to direct. At this juncture, I think I should remind Members that the Industrial Arbitration Court grants hearing only to an employer or to a union - an individual worker has no right to appear before the Industrial Arbitration Court. The Industrial Arbitration Court grants hearing only to an employer. So there is no opportunity for an individual worker, if he has grievances, to appear before the Court. Even no union can appear on his behalf, because, you see, it is not recognised by the employer. Under the provisions of this proposed section 15A, the plight of those workers who are members of the union which lost out in the secret ballot is most unenviable. Any dispute the workers may have with their employer cannot be brought before the Industrial Arbitration Court, because under the provisions of section 20 (a) of the Ordinance, a joint application by both the employer and the union is necessary for the reference of the dispute to the Industrial Arbitration Court. In the situation as I am describing now, the employer will not consent to make a joint application with the union which the employer is entitled not to recognise as a representative of the workers, and the union which is accorded recognition by the employer will be entitled to refuse to take up the case of these workers who are not their members. This, in effect, leaves such workers without the right of redress to the Industrial Arbitration Court.”
“For the present, I only wish to add that the successful prosecution of an employer under the provisions of sections 75, 76 and 77 of the Ordinance must be dependent on circumstantial evidence in the absence of better evidence. An employer may tell a worker in the privacy of his office that it is detrimental to the interests of the worker if he persists in continuing his union activities. If the employer is brought to court and if he denies that he ever made such a statement, then it is the worker's word against the employer as to whether such a statement was ever made by the employer. Considering the difficulty facing a worker when he seeks to obtain redress through the ordinary law court, it is no surprise that the worker would prefer to have his legitimate grievance or complaint dealt with by the Industrial Arbitration Court. Sir, the point I want to make here is that the proposed section l5A should provide that where two or more unions compete for the right to represent the workers, those workers who have been members of the unsuccessful union up to the time of the secret ballot and still continue to be members of the unsuccessful union in spite of the fact that this union has no locus standi in the eyes of the employer, should be brought before the Arbitration Court by the unsuccessful union. As I see it, this question of union recognition should be properly treated as a question of the definition of the relationship between an employer and a union in respect of a collective agreement and other incidental matters thereof. While an employer is entitled to refuse to deal with any union other than the one to whom he has accorded recognition, in accordance with the provision of the proposed section 15A.”
“To extend this principle of majority to a situation where only one union is seeking recognition from an employer is to create unnecessary industrial unrest and injustice because, as I have said earlier, in the case of a new industry or undertaking, it may be difficult for a union to organise the majority of the workers until some time has elapsed. The last point I would like to make in respect of this question of union recognition is that some provision must be made to safeguard the interests of workers who are members of a union which has lost out in secret ballots where there are two unions competing for the right to represent the workers. Now, according to the provisions of the proposed section l5A, only a successful union will be recognised as a negotiating body for the workers. But, as it often happens, the members of the unsuccessful union are liable to be victimised by the employers. I am fully aware that sections 75, 76 and 77 of the Ordinance provide legal protection for such workers who have been victimised by the employers. The difficulty lies in enforcing or seeking the legal protection provided under the Ordinance. The difficulty lies in the fact that no employer will be so foolish as to state in writing the true reasons why he had victimised a worker. It may be that the latter is engaged in trade union activities and also the fact that the worker, being a human being, is so perfect that an employer cannot find any fault in his conduct or competence or efficiency as to warrant his justification for the dismissal of the employee. I will deal with this point more fully later.”
“This I can assure you, Sir, can make things rather difficult for the union, because when negotiations for a collective agreement break down - and this is highly probable in the case of a first collective agreement - the matter will be referred to the Industrial Arbitration Court whose practice in the case of a first collective agreement is to make an award that follows the minimum provisions of the prevailing employment Ordinance in Singapore. It is not difficult to understand here why these workers question the purpose of a union when it is unable to obtain for them benefits over and above those laid down in the relevant employment Ordinances. To come to the point, it would be hardly conducive to industrial peace to allow a situation to develop where an employer can refuse recognition to a union solely on the ground that it does not represent the majority of the employees. So to prevent such a situation I suggest that some provision be made for the Minister to direct, at his discretion, that any union be accorded recognition by an employer, notwithstanding the fact that such a provision will have the effectiveness of the proposed section 15A. Such a provision, of course, is subject to the fact that only one union is involved in this question of union recognition. As I have stated earlier, Sir, where two or more unions are competing for recognition it is only fair that the union which obtains the majority of votes in a secret ballot is entitled to represent the workers comprised in the secret ballot.”
“The problem then would likely be one of whether Union A or Union B should be given the right to represent the workers. In such a situation, where two rival unions compete for the right to represent the workers - I repeat once more here - I agree that the provision of the proposed amendment deals adequately with the problem of resolving which union is to be accorded the right to represent the employees. I do not think there will be any disagreement among Members in this House that they would not consider it unfair that the union which obtains the majority of votes in a secret ballot should be given the sole right to represent the workers vis-a-vis the employer. What I have in mind is this, that in the case of a new industry or undertaking where unionisation is in the process of taking place and in such a case where a union has only started to move in and organise the workers, it is plain common sense that it will take some time before the union can enrol the majority of workers in such industry or undertaking to become members of the union. I have been given to understand by the Pioneer Industries Employees' Union that the workers in such industry or undertaking are often reluctant to become members of the union until they are convinced that the union can do something for them in relation to their benefits, terms and conditions of service. But this means, in effect, that the workers expect the union to obtain a favourable collective agreement on their behalf before they consent to become members of the union.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, though I am grateful to the Minister for Labour for presenting before this House a Bill to amend the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1962, I have some comments to make, especially in relation to the proposed amendments. My first comment is in respect of clause 8 of the Bill in which it is proposed to include new section 15A in the Ordinance. I gladly welcome the move to bring the question of union recognition by an employer within the scope of the Ordinance by treating recognition as an industrial matter. But my concern is that the question of union recognition does not seem to be adequately dealt with in the proposed amendment. I refer to the fact that a union may not be granted recognition by an employer if the result of a secret ballot shows that the trade union does not represent the majority of the employees or class of employees in respect of whom the right to represent is claimed by the trade union, as stated in subsection (3) of the proposed section 15A. Sir, I am bringing up this point because, once this Bill is passed by this House and becomes law, the question of union recognition becomes very vital and crucial to any union, and until a union has been accorded recognition by an employer in accordance with the provisions of the proposed section, the union has no right to represent the employees vis-a-vis the employers. This problem of union recognition does not arise in the case of an established industry or undertaking where unionisation has taken place or has been taking place for some time. In such a case, the provision for union recognition as set out in the proposed section is adequate, because unionisation of workers will have taken place.”
“Yes, the News Section. It seems to me that the T.V. and Radio News Section have given more coverage to the Barisan Sosialis than to the Back-benchers of our Government. Some time last week, when Dr Lee Siew Choh was giving a Press conference, a very good report was broadcast over the radio and T.V. I remember the radio and T.V. did not report even one line of my Budget speech, which contained about eight and a half pages. This is my complaint, Sir.”
“It must survive the changing conditions of each day, yet navigate nearer the chosen journey's end. The Finance Minister has made a good start, and I hope he will take us to the `high sea to progress'.”
“They should compare sufficiently favourably to maintain the standing of government as a good employer...' Sir, this is a Report on the Revision of Salaries by Mr F. C. Benham. Since Mr Benham is a good friend of our Finance Minister, we insist that the Government should serve as a good employer, and that it should compare favourably with the private sector. I hope the Minister will follow in the footsteps of the private sector which, by and large, does not believe in "breach of contract". Most of the employers in Singapore at least honour the terms of a collective agreement. Will the Minister, who conscientiously attempts to identify himself with Benham, agree to honour the 1961 collective agreement and the recommendations of the subsequent Commission of Inquiry? Or will he at least agree with Mr Benham that the Government should be a good employer and hence consider itself obliged to honour the collective agreement? If it tears off collective agreements in this fashion, then the daily-rated employees are likely to lose faith in any assurance given by the Government, and this development is definitely not going to promote healthy employer-employee relations between the Government and its employees. I hope, at this late hour, that wisdom will prevail and that necessary additional provisions will be made in the Budget to accommodate justice, so that when Government representatives attest their signatures to any collective agreement, it does carry weight. Finally, I have only to add that the first Budget of an independent Singapore does present a rosy picture. Nevertheless, it is like a ship which is sailing against the current and weather, and through seas which are never calm.”
“After the Government acknowledged the 1961 collective agreement and the recommendations of the subsequent Inquiry Commission, the Minister appeared before the House the other day and declared, in unequivocal terms, that the Government has no intention to honour its agreement. The Minister has made a very poor case to justify a breach of contract. In order to justify this undemocratic action, he has quoted Benham which is quite irrelevant in this particular case. If Government as an employer can afford to ignore the terms of a collective agreement, it will not be a surprise to me if the private sector too follow the footsteps of the Government and scrap collective agreements with their respective unions. Then the N.T.U.C. will not be in a position to champion the cause of its workers and bring the employers to book, especially when the Government has set an example to the employers. I wish the Minister, instead of devoting his time to Benham, could afford to spend a few hours in going through the terms and conditions of service enshrined in the collective agreements entered into between the N.T.U.C. affiliates and the respective employers. Perhaps that will provide him with the necessary candle-power for enlightenment instead of irrelevant passages from Benham. Perhaps it will be quite appropriate to quote another passage from Benham which I hope will open the eyes of our Finance Minister who appears to have a great appreciation of Benham. Mr F. C. Benham in his report on revision of salaries in the public service states: `... the total remuneration and conditions of service of government employment should compare favourably with the net advantages of private employment.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, after the Agreement of 1961 was signed, there was no revision of salary. Only on the integration of the City Council into Government, they brought up the wage -”