Jek Yeun Thong
Singapore
“Would the Minister now consider it wrong to allow CPF members to use their CPF money to buy shares in the stock exchange, people whom the Howe Yoon Chong Report not so long ago would like us to believe that they could not be trusted to look after their own savings and yet they are now allowed to participate in the stock exchange casino, s…”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, could I ask a supplementary question which either Minister can reply? Is the Minister surprised that the Voice of America, an organ created by the US government to counter Communist propaganda world wide, has been used to cast critical views on a non-Communist government such as the Singapore Government which is, in fact,…”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, the Minister has not touched on my point regarding the tuition fees of University students. I do not know whether he would like to take this opportunity to answer or he would want to leave it to others to answer it.”
“Also, there is no danger that the students having taken the loans would abscond or not come back since at the moment all the male students going overseas are providing bonds because of national service. And as for female students, if we are still having too many of them, we can easily arrange bonds for those who intend to take the loan.”
“Yes, of course. I think the trouble with the press is that they missed my point on Education. The style they happened to like is what the Chinese call - wan shi bu gong (playful and not taking things seriously). So they really do not know what to do with me - I mean the press, not the Government.”
“Sir, since the Government is encouraging the people to have more babies now, the likelihood of these 3-room flats being unsold will be greater. Is it not a good point for the Ministry of National Development to try to convert these 3-room flats into, say, 6-room flats so that more babies could be accommodated?”
The complete record
Every one of 628 lines we hold for Jek Yeun Thong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 12 of 13.
“Consideration has been taken of the multi-racial and multi-lingual structure of our population, and the staff have been recruited on that basis. The points raised by the hon. Member that more Chinese-speaking officers should be sent to Chinatown, or Malay-speaking officers to the Geylang area, or Tamil-speaking officers to the Serangoon area have all been taken care of. However, it is not feasible to write the names in Malay or Chinese or Tamil in addition to the names in English on the identity cards. All names will be written in Roman alphabets on the identity cards. In the case of Chinese, their names in Chinese characters will be taken down in their application forms.”
“Member has raised the question of names being wrongly spelt either in the birth certificates or in the present identity cards. I wish to assure the Member that in the re-registration exercise, this matter will be rectified once and for all. Any mistakes in the spelling of the names will be given sympathetic consideration and if these are genuine errors, they will be rectified in the new identity cards. In the case of an illiterate applicant, it is suggested that his friend should assist him by writing out the correct spelling of his name on a slip of paper which he should bring at the time of re-registration. The hon. Member has also raised the question of persons who have voted but could not produce documentary evidence to prove that they are Singapore citizens. The House may be aware that the Electoral Roll has been compiled from the records of the existing identity cards. Where the persons' place of birth is shown as Singapore on such records, their names are automatically put on the Electoral Roll when they come of age. As Members are aware, in the initial registration of the population in 1948 for identity cards, no documentary proof whatsoever was required to show their place of birth. In this exercise, however, it is the intention of Government to rectify once and for all mistakes that have been made in the past. The Government is prepared to consider sympathetically those who claim to be born in Singapore but with no documentary proof and have voted during the last few elections. Such cases will be considered on their individual merits. Mr Speaker, Sir, for the information of the House, a total of over 500 temporary and permanent staff have been recruited for the re-registration exercise.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in my speech on the Second Reading of the National Registration Bill on 22nd December, 1965, I explained how the re-registration of the population will be carried out. I also made a statement in this House on 30th December, 1965, on Unnamed Birth Certificates to allay anxiety over a provision in the National Registration Act. In that statement, I announced Government's policy in regard to documentary evidence required to establish Singapore citizenship status. Since then a lot of publicity has been given in the Press, over the radio and on television on the national registration exercise. Recently a talk has been given by the Commissioner for National Registration over television outlining in detail the procedures for registration, the documents that are required to be produced at the time of registration. Further, meetings have been held with principals of schools to brief them on this exercise. Before the commencement of the re-registration exercise on 5th May, 1966, more publicity will be given. I propose to convene a meeting of all the Citizens' Consultative Committees to call upon their help in the re-registration work. In my previous speech on this subject I have stated that the new system of re-registration will give each Singapore resident a number which will be used for all purposes in the future. The new citizen identity card, which is pink in colour, apart from its own serial number, will bear the birth register number or the Singapore citizenship certificate number of the holder. Therefore, once a person has been issued with a citizen identity card, he will have no difficulty in establishing his citizenship status in the future. Mr Speaker, Sir, the hon.”
“Mr Speaker, I move, In page 9, after line 11, to add - `(3) The following sections of the Ordinance are hereby amended by deleting the words "Yang di-Pertuan Negara" wherever they appear therein and substituting therefor the words "President of Singapore" - Sections 2, 3 (1), 5 (1), 15 (1), 28 (c) and 30.'. This is an amendment in nomenclature subsequent to the changes recently introduced to our Constitution. Amendment agreed to. Clause 24, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with amendments; read a Third time and passed. PROBATE AND ADMINISTRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 3.11 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, I move, In page 9, line 5, after "60 (1),", to insert "61 (1),". This is an oversight in drafting. Amendment agreed to.”
“Sir, I move, In page 9, line 4, to leave out "expression" and there insert "words". The Chairman: I think "Attorney-General" is a compound word, and therefore it should be "word".”
“I seek your consent and the general assent of the House.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not that I would not like to accept the amendment from the N.T.U.C., but I have already said that a copy of this very Bill was given to the N.T.U.C. on the 14th September. It has been lying in their office for almost three months, and if the Member thinks that there is any reason for any amendment, he should have given it to us in the Labour Ministry so that we could have studied it properly and accepted it if agreed. I think that we cannot just accept any amendments to this Bill, because this Bill will become law for our industries. If we start accepting amendments without any notice, it would make our laws very loose and difficult to administer.”
“Once the notice of appeal has been filed within 14 days under sub-clause (6) of clause 18, the court will proceed to make available the full transcript of the referee's proceedings together with a copy of the referee's decision and all relevant exhibits to enable the appellant to prepare his petition of appeal. So far the Court has not laid down any time limit for the appellant to submit his petition of appeal, but eventually this will be regulated. I, therefore, fail to see the necessity for the amendment proposed by the Member. In view of this, I see no necessity for either an employer or a union to employ stenographers at its own expense to take down court proceedings for its own use. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Jek Yeun Thong] Bill considered in Committee. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] 3.55 p.m.”
“Yes, in the same report. In page 18, he said: `A close study of the Bill will show that the N.T.U.C. can feel justifiable pride at having secured progressive amendments to the Industrial Relations Ordinance in the interest of industrial justice and fair play.' This is not the personal opinion of Mr Devan Nair, for this report was unanimously adopted by the N.T U.C. Conference in front of trade union leaders from the Afro-Asian countries. I now come to the remarks made by the Member for Bras Basah when he raised a query on whether the proposed section 15A would restrict the Minister's right to intervene in any dispute between an employer and a trade union which has lost out on a secret ballot. The hon. Member need not have any fear on this score. The proposed amendments do not in any way restrict the Minister's power, and I can assure the Member that I still have the power to direct any trade dispute to arbitration by the Industrial Arbitration Court under section 28 (b) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. In regard to the Member for Telok Blangah's complaint that the 14 days' limit for making an appeal against a referee's decision, as provided for in sub-clause (6) of clause 18, it is apparent that he is not conversant with the procedure of the Industrial Arbitration Court in this matter. I would like to enlighten him that the current practice of the Court is to insist that all referee's decisions should be handed down in writing either by the referee himself or to the Registrar at the direction of the Court. A copy of the written decision of the referee is immediately made available to the parties concerned. The regulations that will be prescribed for appeal will lay down the procedure for appeal step by step beginning with the notice of appeal.”
“But, on the other hand, we must also protect the interests of the employers so that they are not unduly persecuted and do not start running away. On the one side, there is this demand from the N.T.U.C., and on the other, there is this resistance from the employers. We must strike a balance somewhere, and I say the compromise is in clause 22 of the Bill. There were extensive discussions among Mr Devan Nair, the Attorney-General, officials in my Ministry and myself before we finally put in this amendment. Hitherto, a complaint of victimisation is reported to the police and they will investigate it from the police point of view. They seldom secure enough evidence to initiate proceedings. But after this amendment, it is provided that a complaint of this nature should be referred to the Commissioner for Labour. He will then investigate the case from the industrial angle. If he is satisfied that there is evidence of victimisation, he will inform the Public Prosecutor and proceedings can be initiated. In this way, we are able to sieve through all the cases before they go to the court. Otherwise, our courts will be jammed up with all kinds of complaints of victimisation. An exact copy of this Bill was forwarded to the N.T.U.C. on 14th September, 1965. For nearly four months it was lying in the office of the N.T.U.C. and we have not heard from them that there is something wrong in the Bill. Based on this copy which we had forwarded to the N.T.U.C., the then Secretary-General of the N.T.U.C., Mr Devan Nair, has this to say in his report to the N.T.U.C. Second Annual Conference in October this year, and I quote, in page 18 ---”
“I have not come to that story yet. I will give it later. I am inclined to believe that most of the unions affiliated to the N.T.U.C. are reasonable. They are led by responsible leaders and they will not abuse the power. But I am not so sure about the unions which are not affiliated to the N.T.U.C., especially when they are assisted by Lenin-styled lawyers. Once this power is given, I am quite sure they will abuse it to the full and bring our economic system to a grinding halt. In fact, they are already doing this now even without the help of this power. What will happen if this power is given to them will be unimaginable. Then there is another point. A man who has invested his money in a shop or a firm or a factory and has become an employer would like to be given some freedom of what is called "Hire and fire". If every time he dismisses a worker, whether on genuine grounds or not, he is to be hauled up in court to answer charges of victimisation, life would be indeed quite miserable for him. In fact, the N.T.U.C. at one time earlier had wanted to lay down in the Ordinance that the employer has to go to gaol once he is convicted under section 77. What would the employer think of this if every time he sacks a man he has to go to gaol for it? How would he maintain discipline in his factory? If, in these circumstances, a man still wants to invest his money here and open up factories to benefit our workers, then I think he must have his head examined at the Woodbridge Hospital. So it is no wonder that when this proposal of the N.T.U.C. was put up to the Employers' Federation, there was an uproar from the employers. Mr Speaker, Sir, we are in a very delicate position. We are a pro-labour Government and we want to make everything easy for the workers.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the trade unions would like to be given extensive power under Section 77 of the Ordinance to prosecute the employers whenever they are found to be victimising their workers. But I am not sure whether this will do any good to the trade union movement in the long run. For one thing, there is no guarantee that the powers so given will not be abused. If the trade union movement only consists of persons like the Member for Bras Basah and the Member for Telok Blangah who are reasonable and intelligent people, then there need be no worry. But --- Mr Ho See Beng (Bras Basah) rose ---”
“and for the trade unions, but I am afraid the Government cannot allow this, because once we make it a law that employers would be prosecuted whenever they dismiss their workers, then I am sure nobody would like to bring in their capital to this country. 8.00 p.m.”
“Yes. This is the Secretary-General's report for and on behalf of the Central Committee of the N.T.U.C. which was presented to the N.T.U.C. Conference in October 1965. In page 18 of this report, Mr Devan Nair, among other things, said: `On the proposed amendments to the Industrial Relations Ordinance, several discussions took place in the State Economic Consultative Committee as well as directly between the N.T.U.C. and the Government. The Government is happy to announce that as a result of these discussions, several major changes will be made to the Industrial Relations Ordinance. These changes will be contained in a Bill intituled "An Ordinance to amend the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1966", which the Government has agreed to introduce at the next sitting of the Legislative Assembly of Singapore.' Now, among the amendments envisaged by the Bill would be provisions covering the following matters. There are several matters here - (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g), I quote: `(g) A more efficient and simplified procedure to deal with contraventions by employers under section 77 of the Ordinance.'. So here it is very clear that the then Secretary-General of the N.T.U.C. was quite satisfied that the Bill, which is now being debated here, provides a more efficient and simplified procedure to deal with contraventions of the Ordinance. I do not know why the Member still wants to raise this question since their Secretary-General had agreed that what is provided in this Bill is adequate enough to deal with contraventions of the Ordinance. I think the N.T.U.C., of course, would like to be given the power to prosecute employers as soon as they dismiss their workers. This would be an ideal case for the N.T.U.C.”
“have, in fact, worked out the regulations to be published governing the recognition of trade unions. Now in these regulations which will be published if this Bill is passed, one of the things which is provided is that a trade union of employees may serve on an employer a claim for recognition in the prescribed form and that once this claim is served on him, he must give recognition to that union within seven working days, unless he has some reason for not recognising it. In this case then, the union will have the right to notify the Commissioner for Labour who will direct that a secret ballot be taken in accordance with the directions given by him within a reasonable period, and once the secret ballot has decided that the union is representing the majority of the workers, the employer must recognise it. At present, there is no law to provide that an employer must recognise a trade union, but if this Bill is passed and the regulations which we are going to make are published, then there will be something legally binding on the employer to recognise the union. So the point raised by the Member for Bras Basah will not arise here. Then the Member also complained that there are not enough safeguards for the workers if they are victimised by employers. In other words, he is complaining that section 77 is not adequate enough to let our trade unions prosecute employers who are found to be victimising workers. Now, I would like to remind Members that in October this year the N.T.U.C. held its Second Annual Delegates Conference, and the then Secretary-General, Mr Devan Nair, made a report to the N.T.U.C. for and on behalf of the Central Committee of the N.T.U.C. In one of the passages in this report, he said --- Mr Speaker: Would the Minister give the citation?”
“Nevertheless, the whole of this amendment is based on the proposals made by the N.T.U.C. Of course, we cannot say that every proposal made by the N.T.U.C. must be accepted by the Government. Some of the proposals can be accepted, but some of them, we think, are demanding too much and will not be in the interest of industry as a whole. So we have rejected some of these proposals, and we have given full explanations to the representative of the N.T.U.C. I think the N.T.U.C. has developed into such a big organisation that sometimes its left hand may not know what its right hand is doing. I cannot blame it for that, because the N.T.U.C. is now representing about 75 per cent of our working population. However, let me come to the points raised by the Members. One of the points raised by the Member for Bras Basah is that he has some misgivings about clause 8 of this amendment Bill. He said that it is not adequate enough to deal with unions seeking recognition, especially the unions which are in the pioneering industries. I think he has not read the Bill as a whole. He came across this clause 8 and he found that under new section 15A there will be a provision: `No trade union of employees which has not been given recognition by an employer in the prescribed manner may serve on that employer a notice under section 16 of this Ordinance.' So he came to the conclusion that unions in the pioneering industries may not be able to seek recognition because of this clause. I would like to point out to him that there is still another clause in the Bill - clause 23 - which seeks to amend section 81 of the Ordinance and this provision empowers the Minister to make regulations governing the recognition of trade unions, and I must inform the House that the representatives of the N.T.U.C.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am rather surprised that the Member for Bras Basah and the Member for Telok Blangah have still got so much to say on this Bill. In fact, the amendments contained in this Bill were based on a memorandum submitted by the N.T.U.C. at the end of 1964 and throughout the whole of 1965, we have spent much time with the representative of the N.T.U.C. to work out the amendments in this Bill. In fact, the amendments contained in this Bill were mainly proposals made by the N.T.U.C. and in many committee meetings we have already explained ---”
“Yes DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES FOR 1966 Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [Allotted Day]. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] 3.30 p.m.”
“Clause 15 seeks to remove the conflict between section 16 and section 35 (4) of the Ordinance. At present, when a union serves a notice under section 16 for negotiations on a new collective agreement on the expiry of the old one, the employer is at liberty to apply to the Court under section 35 (4) for an order extending the old collective agreement. The Court in dealing with such application of an employer has no power to take cognisance of the notice served under section 16. The proposed amendment empowers the Court to take cognisance of and to deal with both the proposers for a collective agreement and the application for extension of an award under section 35 (4) if the parties do not reach agreement on their own within a specific period. To remove any ambiguity that may exist with regard to the power of the Court to order the reinstatement of a dismissed employee, it is expressly provided in clauses 17 and 21 that in making an award, the Court is empowered to take into consideration matters relating to the dismissal or reinstatement of an employee or class of employees and to order the reinstatement of a dismissed employee or grant any suitable relief as it may consider desirable. Clause 22 provides that the Commissioner for Labour may authorise a public officer to carry out investigations of complaints in respect of offences under the Ordinance and it sets out the powers of such officer. This has been done to ensure that speedy action is taken to investigate every complaint and to prosecute any offender if the investigation shows that the complaint is well founded. Sir, I beg to move.”
“The proposed amendments will help to remove this tendency by enabling the Minister to replace any panel members who are seldom selected to constitute the Court. Clauses 8 and 23 introduce new provisions on union recognition, because it has been found that one of the major causes of a trade dispute has been over this matter. Experience has shown that the existing provisions of the Ordinance are inadequate for dealing with this area of dispute between employers and trade unions of employees. The purpose of the amendment is to remedy this situation. It is provided inter alia, as a basic pre-condition for opening negotiations for collective agreements, that a trade union of employees must first be recognised by the employer in the prescribed manner. Clause 11 deals with the certification of collective agreements by the Court. At present, if the parties to a collective agreement do not agree to alter or amend the agreement in accordance with the suggestions of the Court, the Court has no power to alter or amend the agreement and certifies it. This state of affairs is unsatisfactory in that until the parties agree to amend the agreement as directed by the Court, there is no binding agreement. Therefore, this clause empowers the Court to amend and certify a collective agreement where the parties refuse to do so on the direction of the Court. Clauses 12 and 16 expressly stipulate inter alia that a collective agreement or an award is binding on the successor to a trade union. Under the Ordinance at present, a collective agreement or an award is binding on the successor to the business of an employer but not on the successor to a trade union. The proposed amendment remedies this anomaly.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The purpose of the Bill is to make certain amendments to the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1960. As hon. Members are aware, the Industrial Relations Ordinance was enacted five years ago as one of the chief measures in the promotion of the Government's policy of industrial peace with justice. Ever since then, the Government has kept a careful watch on its operation to see whether it could be improved. Accordingly, a number of amendments were made to it in 1962, the most important of which was the setting up of the Second Industrial Arbitration Court. However, in the light of experience gained since then, it has become apparent that the Ordinance could be improved further in order to make it a more efficient instrument in the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes, that is to say, in the preservation of industrial peace. The amendments which are embodied in this Bill have, therefore, been made with this end in view. These amendments are the results of several months' hard work of the President of the Industrial Arbitration Court, the representatives of the N.T.U.C., the representatives from the Singapore Employers' Federation, and officials in my Ministry, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank them for their contributions to this Bill. Sir, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the principal changes. Clause 5 reduces the period of the appointment of a panel member from three years to one year. Although there are ten members on each of the two panels, in practice the burden of constituting the Court has fallen on only a few of them, as employers and trade unions of employees who are parties to trade disputes have invariably restricted their choice to these few.”
“Well, if he was born before 1949. I think the legal parent should be allowed to give a statutory declaration on that. RE-ARRANGEMENT OF ORDER OF BUSINESS (Motion) Resolved, "That, under Standing Order 10 (2) , the Bills as stated in the Order Paper be proceeded with before the debate in the Committee of Supply." - [Dr Toh Chin Chye]. SINGAPORE TELEPHONE BOARD (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 2.43 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have explained earlier that the birth certificates of those who were born after 1949 - whether named or unnamed - will be endorsed by the Registry of Persons when they apply for identity cards. These birth certificates will be accepted as proof of citizenship.”
“It will be his passport to social amenities like education, housing, health, employment, and so on. This statement should clarify the position and allay the doubts of those who were born in Singapore.”
“They can apply for the new plastic laminated identity cards when their turn comes. All those of 12 years of age in 1949 must have taken identity cards as required by the law then. In other words, all those now over 28 years, i.e. 12 years at 1949 plus 16 years, that is 16 years since 1949 to 1965, have their proof in their identity cards. There are persons born in Singapore who attained the age of 12 after 1949. In such cases their birth certificates, whether named or unnamed, have an endorsement on them by the Registry of Persons when they obtained their identity cards. This endorsement shows their present identity card number. When such persons produce their birth certificates together with their present identity cards for re-registration, they will be accepted as Singapore citizens by birth and will be given a Singapore citizen plastic laminated identity card. Further, any person who holds an unnamed birth certificate together with a statutory declaration made by one of his parents can always prove his Singapore citizenship by birth by other supporting documents such as:- (a) birth certificates of his brothers and sisters, or (b) birth certificates of his children, or (c) school leaving certificate, or (d) vaccination notice or certificate, or (e) baptismal certificate, which my Ministry will accept as sufficient evidence to establish status as a Singapore citizen by birth. A citizen plastic laminated identity card in future will, be a very important document for a person to possess. In fact, the Government has taken measures to see that the new plastic laminated identity card is forgery-proof, tamper-proof and water-proof. With a citizen identity card, a holder will have all the rights and privileges conferred on a citizen of Singapore.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, over the last few days after the introduction of the National Registration Bill in Parliament on the 13th of December, 1965, much public concern has been expressed by the Backbenchers and through the Press over a provision in the National Registration Act - that an unnamed birth certificate supported by a statutory declaration shall not necessarily be sufficient evidence for the purpose of establishing Singapore citizenship by birth. The Registry of Persons has been besieged with inquiries as regards the citizenship status of persons holding unnamed birth certificates. The Government wishes to make it clear that this provision in the Act is designed to debar people who were actually not born in Singapore but who claim birth here by using unnamed birth certificates not belonging to them. The Government appreciates the fact that there are many people who were born in Singapore but whose names had not been entered on their birth certificates either through the ignorance of their parents or through the tardiness of the colonial registration authorities. As far as those who were, in fact, born in Singapore and holding unnamed birth certificates are concerned, there need be no worry over this provision in the Act. I would like to announce the Government's policy which is that a person who holds an unnamed birth certificate and has a Singapore identity card issued in 1949 or earlier, stating that his place of birth is Singapore, is presumed to be a Singapore citizen by birth. There is, therefore, no cause for anxiety by persons whose identity cards issued in 1949 or earlier stated that they were born in Singapore. They need not rush to the Citizenship Registry to have their citizenship status verified.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I name Thursday, 30th December, 1965, for the Second Reading of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill.”
“In fact, he could get his parents to file a statutory declaration stating that the birth certificate actually belongs to him. Now if this is the case, then there would be quite a lot of abuses in this respect. And so this provision in the Bill is necessary only to deal with these forgeries. 6.00 p.m. As to the person who is genuinely born in Singapore and who is in possession of a birth certificate without name, he has nothing to worry about. In fact, this is an opportunity for him to rectify his position once and for all, because it is very inconvenient for a person holding an unnamed birth certificate to apply for something from the Government whenever proof of citizenship is required. When the registration campaign starts, a person holding an unnamed certificate can always. If he can prove to the satisfaction of the Registration Officer that he was born in Singapore, have that fact registered in his future identity card, and he will not have to face all kinds of trouble in future when his citizenship status is examined. So for the present, I think it is not necessary for holders of unnamed birth certificates to rush to the Registry to have their status verified. A person born in Singapore and holding an unnamed birth certificate and a statutory declaration made by either of his parents has also to produce other supporting documents, such as the birth certificates of his brothers and sisters, or his School Leaving Certificate, or the birth certificates of his children, or his vaccination certificate. If he can produce all these relevant documents to establish his citizenship status, then he will be able to provide ample proof to the Registration Officer, and thus he will have his status rectified.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, there are two points raised by the Member for Kampong Kapor. However, I want to deal with the first one which relates to the welfare of workers in the Naval Base. What he has raised is a matter which is not under my Ministry, because, as we all know, under the Defence Treaty with Malaysia, which is still effective in Singapore, our labour laws are not applicable to foreign bases. So as regards this complaint about the Admiralty refusing to supply transport to members under their employment who have died, there is nothing we can do about it. But I am glad to hear of this complaint which I am prepared to forward to the Admiralty for their sympathetic consideration in future. As regards the question of birth certificates with no names raised by the Member for Kampong Kembangan, I have already made several statements in this House before when the Member for Kampong Kembangan raised the question under the Supplementary Estimates and also during the Second Reading of the National Registration Bill. I have said that the provision in the Bill regarding certificates with no names is only a provision to deal with forgeries and people who use such birth certificates as a means to get their citizenship. I can quote an example. If we do not have a provision in the law regarding unnamed certificates, then all kinds of abuses will occur. For instance, if two brothers are born of the same parents one born in Singapore and the other in the Federation and if the brother who was born in Singapore is in possession of a birth certificate without name dies, then the brother who was born in the Federation will he able to come down to Singapore, using the unnamed birth certificate of his dead brother and claiming it as his own.”
“I beg your pardon. I wish to apologise. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“If we expect every person to speak the national language, then this problem of language will not arise here. But in any case, we have many translators and interpreters in the Registry who can look after these people who are old and cannot speak any language other than their mother tongue. I think the interests of this type of applicants are being looked after.”
“This is an inevitable process because of the large number of people wanting to get citizenship, and the number of staff we have in this Registry is very small. Regarding the case of the Indian applicant who has been a resident in Singapore since 1935 and still has not got his citizenship papers, I think it is probably because of his various visits to India. At present the policy of granting citizenship is that, among other things, the applicant must have roots in this country. In other words, he must have his family here and has a stable job here. What we have found is that many Indians who have been resident in Singapore for quite a number of years do not have any family roots here. They have their wives in India; their children are also in India, and every month they send remittances back to India. In time to come, they may even go back to India to retire. Sir, for such cases the policy is this: apparently this applicant is not treating this country as his permanent home, and he is only taking up citizenship for his own convenience, and therefore normally citizenship is refused. As to the complaint that the staff in the Registry is not courteous to the public, I think the matter has been taken up to ensure that the staff in this Registry is polite and treat the public well. As to the language difficulty faced by the applicants, I have to point out that at present there is a ruling that applicants for citizenship must understand or must pass a language test in the national language. Only in circumstances where the applicant is very old and who cannot be expected to pass the national language test, will he be exempted from the language test. But the others have to pass the national language test.”
“Yes, so that Members interested can have a look at this sample. As to the comments of the hon. Member for Sembawang on the Citizenship Registry, I think it is inevitable that consideration of an application for citizenship is delayed because of the shortage of staff in the Registry. We all know that the citizenship certificate is a sacred document. It entitles the holder to many privileges which are only extended to citizens, for instance, in the application for houses, jobs, places in schools for their children, and so on. It is, therefore, necessary that the issue of a citizenship certificate should be properly investigated. There should he some checks and counter-checks. I think the issue of this citizenship certificate is a very important process. The normal practice in dealing with an applicant is this: on being issued with an application form, the applicant is at once sent to the Interview Section where his form is to he filled up by an officer and an interview takes place. This procedure can only be adopted if there are not more than 80 applicants a day; in other words, the Registry can deal with about 1,600 applicants a month. From January to July this year, as the average monthly number was 1,500-odd, the Registry staff was able to deal with all the applicants quickly. However, as from August 1965, with the separation of Singapore from Malaysia, the number of applicants rose very sharply. The average number of applicants monthly from August to September was about 3,530. Therefore, in view of this large increase, the Registry was unable to maintain its usual procedure of granting interviews to applicants on the same day. In these circumstances, different dates for interviews have to be given. These dates have been progressively advanced to December 1966.”
“Members will recall that on previous occasions when I mentioned in this House how the bogus leaders of the pro-Communist unions illegally dissipated funds of the workers for purposes inconsistent with the objects and rules of the unions to the detriment of the unions and danger to the State, Members across the House, for obvious reasons, jumped up to defend their character and integrity and accused us of smearing them. Members will also recall that in the past, when the Government introduced legislative measures to investigate trade union funds, we were accused by Members across the House of adopting Fascist and dictatorial methods to suppress the unions associated with them. When they receive the Report of the Commission, they may read it in silence or play the same old tune. But one thing is certain, and that is that no amount of false accusations from Members across the Floor of the House and their friends will be able to alter the facts and figures contained in the findings of the Commission. Copy of Report submitted to Clerk. 2.44 p.m. ORAL ANSWER TO QUESTION COMMUNITY CENTRE IN NEW MACPHERSON HOUSING ESTATE Mr S. V. Lingam asked the Minister of Defence if he will consider the construction of a Community Centre in the new MacPherson Housing Estate, which has a population of about 40,000 people, and when that Centre can be expected to be ready.”
“(2) That in the case of the Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union - (a) Payments totalling $13,550 were unauthorised by the rules of the unions or contrary to the provisions of the Trade Unions Ordinance; (b) Mr Foo Yong Fong, Mr P. Govindaswamy and Mr Tan Siew Chwee were found guilty of gross negligence in dissipating a sum of $26,901.30 contrary to the union rules; and (c) $35,654 had not been accounted for. (3) That in the case of the Singapore Bus Workers' Union - (a) Payments totalling $55,030.80 were unauthorised by the rules of the union or contrary to the provisions of the Trade Unions Ordinance; (b) $2,535.20 was incurred negligently; and (c) $12,523.69 had not been accounted for. From the above, you will see that a total amount of $354,074.26 was either unauthorised, incurred negligently or had not been accounted for by these three unions over a period from 1st April, 1962, to 30th October, 1963. How much more was taken or misused by them nobody will know. This represents the largest amount of money the Communist union leaders had abstracted from the workers as far as records are concerned. Sir, this is not the first time that the pro-Communist union leaders are found to have misused trade union funds. Such things happened eight years ago. Just before the de-registration of the Singapore Factory and Shop Workers' Union in February 1957, a sum of $100,000 was unconstitutionally withdrawn from its bank account and the money just vanished into thin air.”
“This group of political activists in the disguise of trade unionists were found to have displayed a flagrant disregard of the statutory provisions governing the custody of trade union funds. The unions' system of accounting was such that it provided ample opportunities for the manipulation of financial transactions. Even the unions' legal adviser, the self-styled spokesman of the workers, Mr T. T. Rajah, was found to be a party to the irregularities. According to the Report, in the transaction for the purchase of new union premises by the Singapore Bus Workers' Union, Mr T. T. Rajah, who acted for the vendors and the purchasers, undertook conveyance of the property to three union officials who were not trustees, although the rules of the unions specifically provided for all properties, movable and immovable, to be vested in the union trustees. In addition to the disappearance of the union officials, minutes and documents of the Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union, the whole Set of account books was also found missing, and deliberate attempts were made to frustrate the Commission's investigation and to cover the malpractices of certain officials. The Commission also found that huge sums of union funds had been dissipated illegally. The findings of the Commission in this respect, as summarised in its Report, are: (1) That in the case of the Singapore General Employees' Union - (a) Payments totalling $24,467 were unauthorised by the rules of the unions or contrary to the provisions of the Trade Unions Ordinance; (b) $29,847.95 were incurred negligently by the Executive Committee of the Union; and (c) $153,564.32 had not been accounted for.”
“The so-called leaders of the pro-Communist unions have been claiming all these years that they were the genuine champions of the workers and had dedicated their lives to the cause of the trade union movement. But what some of the workers did not know, because they were really misled, was that these bogus leaders were dedicated only to the anti-national cause of their political masters. They were not really interested in promoting the industrial interest of the workers but just made use of the workers as political pawns to achieve their anti-national objectives. The public and the workers have a right to know the actual state of financial affairs in these unions. It is the duty of the Government to keep our citizens informed of the true facts concerning any matters of public interest. It was against this background that a one-man Commission of Inquiry was set up under the Inquiry Commission Ordinance by His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara on 21st December, 1963. Mr Tan Wee Kian, an officer of the Legal Service, was appointed the Commissioner. The Commissioner has now completed his work. In all, there were 38 sittings of the Commission. 116 witnesses were examined, and 324 exhibits submitted to the Commission. The report of the Commission was submitted by the Commissioner to His Excellency on 31st July, 1965. I now present a copy of this Report for the information of Members. The Report of the Commission reveals a shocking state of affairs in these three de-registered unions. Their officials have been found wanting and have not discharged the responsibilities imposed on them by union rules.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to present a Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Financial Transactions of the De-registered Singapore General Employees' Union, the Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union and the Singapore Bus Workers' Union. Hon. Members will recollect that on 11th December, 1963, I made a statement in this House concerning the setting up of a Commission of Inquiry to inquire into the mismanagement of union funds by the pro-Communist leaders of the de-registered unions. I mentioned then that while de-registration proceedings were pending against them, the leaders of these three unions were making desperate plans to withdraw large sums of money from the unions' bank accounts to finance the Communist united front campaign against merger and Malaysia. I also recounted to the House how these unions took advantage of loopholes in the trade union laws to sabotage measures taken by the Government to protect trade union funds in the interests of the workers. With the assistance of their legal adviser, Mr T. T Rajah, they contrived and succeeded in withdrawing $30,000 from banks in the second week of October 1963. When the Registrar of Trade Unions tried to ascertain whether this sum of money was properly and legally utilised, the pro-communist union leaders deliberately obstructed his inquiry. Even police investigations were hampered because of the sudden disappearance of the then General-Secretary of the Singapore General Employees' Union. These incidents caused concern to the public in general and the workers in particular. Naturally they had good reasons to be disturbed.”
“This provision is necessary to safeguard the peace in our industrial field; otherwise if the Government decides to cancel the work permits of workers in several firms, we will have widespread strikes all over Singapore. Therefore, if we are to enforce this Bill and the measures provided in it, it is necessary that we have to make such a provision. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Jek Yeun Thong]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, our first responsibility is to our citizens. For those who are non-citizens but who have been resident in Singapore for quite some time - not after Malaysia but long before Malaysia - then the scheme here will provide that they be issued with work permits liberally. For those who were already in employment before 1st June, 1961, they will be eligible for work permits and will be allowed to keep their employment. The Member for Kampong Kembangan has alleged that an employer may try to exploit the workers by abusing the provisions in this Bill. In such a case, I think inspectors of the Labour Ministry will have to keep an eye on such employers. This will clear the doubts of the hon. Member. As to the disability of the union to take up the case for dispute of a worker who is dismissed because he is not issued with a work permit by the Government, I think this restrictive provision is necessary. Because if this Bill is enforced, there may be some cases where the Commissioner for Employment is unable to issue a worker with a work permit, and in such cases the employer, under the provisions of this Bill, will have to dismiss the worker, if we allow trade unions to take up these cases for dispute, then there will be disputes all over Singapore. This situation will not contribute to the stability of our economy, and I think it is most undesirable. So because of the possibility of such a situation arising, we have to put in this Bill the provision that trade unions cannot either take up the case of a worker who is dismissed because he was not issued with a work permit, or bring it up before the Arbitration Court under the provisions of the industrial Relations Ordinance.”
“It must be remembered, however, that each application will be considered on its own merits and that while we may issue work permits to non-citizens already in employment, we cannot promise that they may be issued with work permits again if they fall unemployed subsequently. I must stress that work permits will not be issued to recent arrivals with no family roots in Singapore, including those who have been in employment since 9th of August, 1965, unless they possess special skills. The provision of this Bill can only reduce the pressure of population from Malaysia. With Singapore serving as a beacon for a high standard of living and an equal and just society in the dark sea of a feudal, corrupt and unjust society, I feel that people will continue to gravitate towards Singapore. There is nothing we can do about it. Our next step will be to strengthen the various licensing authorities, like the Hawkers Department and the Registry of Vehicles, so that our streets will not be choked with hawkers and pirate-taxis from the Federation. The main object, of course, is not to drive the people back, but to stop a future influx. These measures may, in the long run, have beneficial effects on the people of the Federation, for once we make them realise that they cannot escape from their cruel reality by taking a trip to Singapore, they will stay put and rally more people to fight for a better life in the Federation. This will shake the whole structure of the existing social system and spark off a revolutionary wind of change and, in the end, the common people who are true Malaysians in heart will emerge victorious. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 6.47 p.m.”
“Control will only be exercised at the point of recruitment, because it is our intention not to impair the free movement of persons between Singapore and Malaya. Work permits will be freely issued to non-citizens who have special training, skills and qualifications. In fact, we will welcome them because there are ample employment opportunities for skilled workers and professional persons who can contribute substantially to our economic development. But work permits will not be issued to incoming non-citizens in the unskilled and semi-skilled categories. Mr Speaker, Sir, I must assure the House that the enforcement of the Bill will not give rise to adverse repercussions. Non-citizens already in employment for some considerable time will not be displaced. They will be issued with work permits so that they may continue in employment even though they do not possess the required skills. Allow me to elaborate a little on the basis on which work permits will be issued. All non-citizens who have been in employment before the 1st of June, 1961, will be issued with work permits liberally, whilst those employees who began employment between 1st June, 1961, and 16th September, 1963, will be given sympathetic consideration if they are married and their wives are permanent residents of Singapore. Those employed after 16th of September, 1963, but before 9th of August, 1965, will also be given the same consideration if, in addition to satisfying these two conditions, they have children who are permanent residents of Singapore. Special consideration will also he given to non-citizens who are permanent residents and already in employment if they are children of Singapore citizens, or whose children are Singapore citizens.”
“But the prospects dimmed and gradually disappeared because of the policy of the Government of Malaysia to isolate Singapore and pressurise her into economic subjugation. Since their Government is not SO friendly to our people and tries to stifle our industrial growth, why should we make our amenities available to their people? We can no longer allow the Federation Ministers to dump their unemployed into Singapore at the expense of our citizens. They must be made to do some work and face reality. Nor can we allow non-citizens without skill to impose themselves on our educational, medical, housing and other social facilities and amenities. These we have provided at enormous cost for the benefit of our workers in order to bridge the gap between the haves and the have-nots, thereby building a just and equal society. It is with considerable reluctance that the Government has decided to introduce this Bill to provide some measure of control. If such a decision is not taken, the standard of living now enjoyed by our workers will be seriously affected. Our economic and social burdens will become unmanageable, and our attempt to build a more just and equal society will he nullified. Sir, the intention of the Bill is not to bar all non-citizens from employment. Under it, all non-citizens, whether they are seeking employment or are already in employment at a basic salary of not more than $750 a month, will he required to obtain work permits. For practical application and administrative convenience, this rate of pay is considered to be sufficient to cover all workers in the unskilled and semi-skilled categories for the purpose of regulating their employment.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, we are all aware that the influx of people from Malaya has been on the increase. The majority of them have come with nothing other than their bare hands and hungry stomachs, because their Ministers have not done anything to improve their lot in the Federation. In 1964, we had a net increase of some 10,000 Malayans. In the first ten months of 1965, we saw a further increase of some 10,000 more. The Prime Minister of Malaysia, in answer to a question in his own Parliament, said that there were 800 families from Singapore who had applied to go to Johore to open up the jungle. This is not a true statement of fact, Sir. The figures in our Registry of Persons show that from August to November this year 6,319 Malayans came down to Singapore as against 423 Singaporeans going up to the Federation in the same period. I do not think these 423 Singaporeans have gone to Johore to open up the jungle. I suspect they were managerial staff or skilled labourers of Singapore commercial firms on transfer to the Federation. In November alone 2,320 Malayans came down to Singapore as against only 78 Singaporeans going up to the Federation. Nobody in his sound mind would abandon the comfort of city life and go into the wilderness unless he is driven to it. But we are not driving away any of our citizens to the jungle. In fact, some of the Singapore U.M.N.O. members have accused the Government of forcing the people to evacuate their slums in the kampongs and putting them into flats which are the products of modern civilisation. Hitherto, we have freely allowed workers from Malaya to come to Singapore to seek employment, because, before us, there was a golden avenue to economic union and a Common Market.”
“In future when we have completed our re-registration campaign, if we find that some persons with identity cards show that they were born in Singapore, but if we can prove that they were not born in Singapore, then I am afraid their names will have to be struck off the electoral rolls unless they apply for citizenship under registration. Otherwise it would not be fair to put the person who is not a citizen on the electoral roll. I think that is all I have got to say. Question put, and agreed to. Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 13 to 20 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. REGULATION OF EMPLOYMENT BILL Order for Second Reading read. 6.36 p.m.”
“The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health has asked whether applicants of new identity cards should be asked to produce any type of document. I would say yes, because clause 19 provides power for the Minister to make regulations, and among the subjects under clause 19 (2) (c) is "the nature of information and documents to be furnished for the purposes of registration". I would say, when the re-registration campaign is started, a complete set of regulations will be published informing the people about the type of documents they have to bring with them to the centres. 6.30 p.m. As to the remarks about the electoral rolls, some people have birth certificates without names, but their names appear in the electoral rolls and they have voted in several elections and the Referendum. This is because our electoral rolls were compiled in accordance with the counterfoils of our existing identity cards. When we issued identity cards in 1948, no proof was required to substantiate the claim that a person was born in Singapore. In those days there was no citizenship and the people did not pay much importance to citizenship papers; that was when we were still under colonial rule. In those days, the official just took the word of the applicants for granted. If they said that they were born in Singapore, the officials just put down on their identity cards that they were born in Singapore. If they said that they were born in China, then the identity cards would show that they were born in China. Because of this, our electoral rolls are actually not very accurate, as they were compiled according to the counterfoils of these identity cards.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir,I have already said that this clause is not designed to catch innocent people. If it is so, then I am afraid quite a number of us here will he caught by this Bill, and found without citizenship status. I, myself, am in possession of a certificate with a different name. The peculiar custom of our people here is that when a father is blessed with a child, he cannot know first whether it will be a boy or a girl. If it is a boy, he has to give him a boy's name, and if it is a girl, he has to give her a girl's name. After it is known that it is a boy, the whole family becomes excited. So, for a period, no name is given to him. Temporarily he will be called "Ali Kow" or by some other name. When the midwife calls, they just give his nickname. When he grows up, they find it rather awkward for him to carry on still with the old nickname which describes him as a pig, a cow or a dog. So he has to change his nickname to a proper name. Quite a lot of our citizens here, although they were genuinely born in Singapore, are either in possession of birth certificates without names or with different names. The officials in charge of registration will have to be very careful in weighing the pros and cons of each case. Some Members have suggested that special centres should be set up, to deal with these certificates without names. I think this is a very good suggestion. If this is to be carried out, I think one centre will not be enough, considering the large number of persons without names on their birth certificates. This is a good suggestion and it will be passed on to the officials in charge of registration for them to make recommendations.”
“Well, I would say that if a person can produce enough relevant evidence like a passport and a State statutory declaration and a birth certificate without name, then this can be taken as conclusive proof of birth in Singapore. Some Members have said that the charge for the issue of an identity card to citizens at 50 cents and non-citizens at $1 is a bit on the high side. But I must point out that to issue this card costs the Government about 70 cents and the money that we are charging them is only a negligible amount as compared to the money that the Government has to spend to provide these plastic cards. We have to buy very expensive equipment from the United States and we also have to buy special plastics which can withstand very high temperature. All this costs a lot of money and this 50 cents or a dollar is only a nominal charge for them. And also considering that this card will last them for life, I think the charge of 50 cents or a dollar is comparatively cheap. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Jek Yeun Thong]. Bill considered in Committee. 6.13 p.m. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Clauses 1 to 11 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 12 - Mr Lim Cheng Lock (River Valley) rose ---”
“In the re-registration process, the officials will try to help the people to locate evidence. If a person has a birth certificate without a name, then we will try to help him to locate his brothers, parents and all other relevant documents to prove that he was really born in Singapore. This provision is necessary because of the widespread forgery in birth certificates. For instance, if a person in possession of a birth certificate without his name dies, then his relative will be able to sell this blank certificate to anyone; and if we do not have a provision in this law, then anyone can turn up with this blank certificate and claim that he is a citizen by birth. So this law is to discourage such illegal activities, and I think we will do everything to see that innocent people will not he inconvenienced. The Member for Aljunied has said that the replacement charge is a bit high for those people who, as a result of fire, flood, or other disasters, have lost their identity cards. So, this will put a very heavy burden on them, Therefore, I think in these cases, which are very exceptional and could he called an act of God, special consideration will have to be given. As to his suggestion that the living parents of a person having a birth certificate without name can make a statutory declaration to the effect that the child was born in Singapore, I think this is a good suggestion and, in fact, the practice has been followed in the Citizenship Registry. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health has asked whether a passport, plus a statutory declaration, plus a birth certificate without name, can be considered as conclusive proof of a citizen by birth.”