N. Govindasamy
Singapore
“Sir, in the hope that the Ministry of Finance will release the funds required for the Telok Blangah community centre within the next six months, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the name of Mr J F.”
“Member for Serangoon Gardens, would show that numerous criticisms were made in this Chamber. Some of the pitfalls of the education policies were pointed out and they could have been avoided.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am still a little confused. Would the Minister of State categorically state in this House whether the restructured education scheme is on or off? Even the teachers and the principals are arguing among themselves whether the restructured education scheme is on or off.”
“Sir, I have no intention of joining in. The problem here is riot a question of marrying abroad or in Singapore. The problem is still faced by people who were married in Singapore. There is the case of a woman who has been married here for eight years and has four children all living here in a Housing Board flat.”
“Perhaps when the Minister replies he will want to use it. Sir, the woman has been here for eight years. She was married in the Singapore Registry of Marriages. Four children were born in Singapore and they are now living in a Housing Board flat.”
“Sir, the Minister has set a specific number of hours and he says. "Well, if they do their part-time national service in 12 years they will have to do so many hours of work, and if we reduce it to five years, then they must perform the same number of hours of duties." This would mean that they have to go for duty practically everyday.”
The complete record
Every one of 564 lines we hold for N. Govindasamy, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 12 of 12.
“If it is not so, why does the Government not think of a three-tier system whereby all employees can enjoy a maximum of 21 days' annual leave after they have put in, say, 15 years of service? I think the Government, as a large employer, has always accepted this principle. Similarly, there are other provisions in the Bill which have been introduced merely in the blind hope that it would serve as an incentive to the employers and not for any well-defined or cogent reasons. My other colleagues in the trade union movement, during the course of the debate on this Bill, will touch on the other provisions, such as annual bonuses in the private sector and so on. In short, far from sloganising on the ills of this Bill, we will, when this debate ends, make the House realise that certain provisions are utterly unnecessary for the aims and purposes that the Bill proposes to achieve. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Hon. Minister for Labour had occasion to warn employers against the misuse of the provisions of this Bill. In fact, he even drew their attention to his ability in wielding the stick. We in the trade union world are grateful to him for this timely warning. But we must point out that had the Minister not harboured any fears that the employers would indeed react in a manner different from what was really intended, then he would not have had occasion to issue this severe warning. Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, in the knowledge that prevention is always better than cure, I would most sincerely urge the Government to re-consider some of the harsher provisions in the Bill, particularly if these will not serve the larger interest of the community at large. The Hon.”
“In what way will this increase productivity and efficiency and be an added incentive for the employer is once again a closely guarded mystery that only the Minister for Labour can reveal. The other equally ridiculous provision on which a lot has been said by my colleagues in this House is clause 15 of the Bill. Suffice it for me to say that the effect of this clause will be this. If someone reaches the age of 55, he will be put in cold storage if he is unfortunate not to be employed by someone else. On the other hand, we are all bending backwards to improve the skills of our citizens with experience. On the other hand, we are advocating a complete wastage of skill by legislating against people who are mentally and physically fit to work beyond the age of 55. Take, for instance, the question of annual leave. Whilst I welcome the attempt to standardise annual leave for industrial and non-industrial workers, I feel that the Government must have a very good reason to divide annual leave into two categories, namely, 7 days for workers with less than 10 years of service, and 14 days for workers with more than 10 years of service, the principle being that an older worker needs a longer holiday than a younger person setting out on a career. At present, in the private sector clerical workers enjoy an annual leave going up to 21 days per annum. This has been the result of free negotiations between the employers and the trade unions. The Industrial Arbitration Court has in a number of awards accepted this as a pattern and there have been no significant complaints from the employers. Perhaps the Government's reason for shortening annual leave is to give an incentive to employers.”
“We are not here as responsible leaders of a trade union movement to sloganise against the shortcomings of this Employment Bill. We are here to point out constructively to the Government how it can better achieve its purpose as outlined by the Minister for Labour in this House yesterday. Take, for instance, the provision of hospitalisation under clause 44 of the Bill. Hospitalisation leave, as the Bill proclaims, is to be limited to 28 days. No matter how seriously ill a person is or how seriously injured he may be through any event, he would only be paid for 28 days in the hospital. Would the Minister for Labour also care to legislate that a broken leg or a broken hand of a worker must be mended by the doctor in 28 days flat? If assurances can be given by the Hon. Minister for Health that his doctors would cure every serious ailment inside the period of 28 days, then we, on our part, will willingly concede to have 28 days as the maximum period for hospitalisation. I do not know by what rule of medical science the Minister for Labour has come to the conclusion that miracles can be achieved in hospital within 28 days. From the employers' point of view, this would be a most desirable feature of the Bill for the simple reason that after 28 days of hospitalisation, they need no longer pay a man his wages. Assuming that the sole bread-winner in a family is being hospitalised for two or three months, does the Minister for Labour not realise that the man's family would have to queue up at the Social Welfare Department for dole after the 28-day period is over? Perhaps the alternative to this could be for the hospitalised man to return to his employer, medically half or quarter fit for duty.”
“One, how can we be sure that expansion or diversification is not already dictated by natural growth in the business, which should rightly be financed by the owners or from company reserves, rather than subsidised further by reductions in the share of profit allotted to the workers? Two, how can we be sure that the savings in cost from reduction of fringe benefits under the proposed legislation will not be used to enhance the terms and conditions of executives who are happily outside the scope of the Employment Bill? There is no such machinery. Perhaps it would not be in the best interest of Singapore's investment promotion programme to try to set up such machinery which might scare some of the weak-hearted among the potential investors. Workers are prepared to make sacrifices for the Republic. We do not expect foreign capitalists to make sacrifices for Singapore. They should come and make money and prosper just as we hope Singapore will prosper along with them. But we do expect our Parliament and our Government to make every effort to ensure that sacrifices will be called for from Singaporeans only where necessary and that their sacrifices will not be in vain. When this House moves into Committee stage, a colleague from the trade unions will move amendments to the Employment Bill. These amendments have been framed after most careful and heart-searching consideration. We have taken into account the overall interest of the Republic and the difficult economic challenges facing us all. We in the trade unions have decided that adjustments must be made and that workers must rise to the occasion. At the same time, we believe that certain safeguards are fundamental and lines must be drawn to distinguish sacrifice from sacrilege.”
“It is also measured by efficiency, by the morale of the men labouring on the factory floor, and how much effort they are prepared to put into their work to produce not only in quantity but in quality as well. It is measured by individual enthusiasm and it can be lowered by frustration, restlessness and the governing conviction that the worker is being exploited. Singapore workers are neither unruly nor pampered. Official statistics should prove this. But even if they were, would you attract investment merely by offering such labour on the cheap? Naturally not. But what could be attractive to many businessmen worth their salt is labour which is efficient, enthusiastic and, in terms of wages and fringe benefits, reasonably priced. For this reason, though I support the move to standardise working conditions for the blue-collar and white-collar workers at a level that will attract new enterprises, I question the need to regard such standardisation as an exercise to set the limit for one and all. In developing economies it is a fact of life that there are "rich" industries and "poor" industries. Let us be practical and regard new industries as the poor ones. That, of course, need not necessarily be the same. But the rich and established industries are rich industries. There is no getting away from that. It is equitable to ask workers to tighten their belt and sacrifice merely to enhance the profit of these rich industries. There would be a rationale for doing this if there were machinery to ensure that savings in cost, by reducing benefits for workers, would be channelled 'directly into expansion and diversification that would create more jobs for local people. And I stress the words "local people". There are two other considerations.”
“In that event, they will show that, unlike the workers, they cannot be depended upon in a moment of crisis. In other words, when it comes to the real crunch, they will be men who will be ready to leave the sinking ship and fly off elsewhere with their ill-gotten gains. I throw out this challenge in this Chamber, the supreme legislature of our Republic, to local employers in the name of the workers of Singapore and in all seriousness. Let them answer it in clear and categorical terms. I am certain that the workers of Singapore will prove ready, by and large, to discharge Their patriotic obligations. But we would like to know publicly how and in what manner the employers propose to discharge their obligations. While accepting the major premises on which this Bill has been formulated, I must, nevertheless, question the need for some of the provisions in it and the validity of the reasons advanced in support of these provisions. The most glaring of the objectionable parts are clauses which seek to reduce certain vital terms and conditions of service to below the minimum level set by the former colonial administration. This may be deemed necessary to attract foreign investment, especially from countries with archaic or anarchic patterns of industrial relations. I concede to this. But what I do not concede to is that the Bill in its present form can achieve the purpose for which it is intended. Many factors govern a potential investor's decision to come and set up shop in Singapore. One of them is political stability. Another is the cost of labour. We must remember that the cost of labour is not governed solely by the level of wages and the kind of fringe benefits given.”
“But managements themselves make no significant contribution towards increased productivity and industrial efficiency through the use of modern equipment and modern production techniques. This will be an appropriate moment for me to throw out this challenge to the employers of Singapore. Subject to certain amendments to some of the provisions of the Bill which will be introduced at a later stage, the National Trades Union Congress accepts the objectives of the Bill. We are ready to be patriotic and to discharge our patriotic obligations for a better and more prosperous Singapore. When it comes to the crunch, the Government knows that it will have to depend largely on the patriotic sentiments of our workers. All our stakes are in Singapore. The workers cannot run away in moments of crisis to more prosperous countries. By and large, we shall stand or fall with Singapore and are, therefore, ready to make our contribution. But I challenge the employers of Singapore, especially local employers, to state whether they will accept the spirit of this legislation and will make the same patriotic contribution as the workers are expected to do. By all means, let them make their profit, for profitability is a legitimate motive. But are they prepared to plough back a substantial portion of their profits into re-investment for industrial expansion? Will they be prepared to get rid of obsolete machinery and antiquated production techniques and take to modern machinery and methods of production? If they are prepared to do this, then the workers and the Government of Singapore will be able to respect them as being motivated more by patriotism than by mere consideration of profitability. But if our local employers do not do this, then their patriotism must be subject to serious doubt.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it is generally appreciated that this Bill has been introduced in order to meet effectively the serious economic challenges that we face. However, the Government appears to have made certain dubious assumptions. Factors like increased productivity, greater efficiency and the like are not hampered solely by the workers. Certainly there have been a number of restrictive practices by workers which have hampered productivity, efficiency and so on. But it would be a very grave error to assume that employers have nothing to contribute towards this situation. Those who have made a study of the reasons for the failure of British industry in recent years have very cogently pointed out that the guilt for the failure of British industry can by no means be attributed to the British workers alone. British entrepreneurs have also been seriously guilty of hampering industrial productivity and efficiency by persistent use of obsolete and antiquated equipment, outdated management techniques and so forth. Surely, something must be done to ensure that the employers also on their part remove obstacles to increased productivity and industrial efficiency. It must be appreciated that this Bill will fail to achieve its objectives if only the workers are expected to sweat their guts out in an effort to increase productivity when they clearly will be inhibited from making their contribution if they are expected to do so on the basis of antiquated equipment and outdated production techniques. To many employers, particularly local employers, increased productivity is of less concern to them than increased profits. They can be assured of increased profits without increased productivity if workers are expected to sweat out their guts for them.”
“Under the head Ministry of Education, I wholeheartedly agree with the comments made by the Members for Katong, Serangoon Gardens, Paya Lebar and Bukit Panjang, notwithstanding the answer given by the Minister for Education. I am pleased to note that a few well established secondary schools will be converted to single-session schools. Now that the quantitative target has been achieved, we should also think in terms of not only converting more schools to single-session schools but also reducing the number of classrooms in each school. It is to be noted that schools in the last few years have become immense factories where, in some instances, the staff is so very large that the principal, who has to be a professional guide to the teachers, is not even able to know all the teachers by their names. In the 1950s, we had schools with not more than 13 classes in each session. They were managed by two principals, one in the morning and one in the afternoon. Today, we have schools with 30 to 40 classrooms in each session. They are managed by one principal who is expected to supervise the teachers and students of both sessions, which is humanly impossible. Now that we have reached the stage of qualitative education, although we may not be able to have one session in every school, we should make a start by at least appointing one principal for one session, which will improve the situation somewhat.”
“C, propagates and advances the view amongst its members and the Government that increased productivity is something to strive for. It also seeks ways to inculcate in workers that mass productivity means progressive improvement in the conditions of labour. Increased hours of work alone will not result in increased productivity. Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome the move by the Government to include employees of Government, statutory boards and self-employed persons as contributors to the Central Provident Fund, in addition to pensions or other provident fund benefits. This will go a long way towards compulsory savings and increasing the funds for industrial financing by the Government. The home ownership scheme to be introduced will encourage and induce more construction not only of Housing Board flats but also private building construction. However, it is noted in the Addendum to the President's Speech that the scheme being worked out between the Ministry of Labour and the Housing and Development Board will only enable balances in the present Central Provident Fund to be set off against the first instalment of Housing Board fiats. However, the Central Provident Fund contributions can be used to pay off monthly instalments for both Housing Board flats and privately built homes. The Government should also consider whether the present Central Provident Fund contributors can use their present balance as a first instalment for privately built homes as well, instead of confining them to Housing Board flats. I welcome another excellent feature that is contemplated, that is, the lowering of the assessment in the home-ownership scheme.”
“Trade unions in Singapore look forward to the day of full employment. They realise that there is large-scale unemployment in Singapore, and unless and until everybody is employed, labour will be exploited. Will this legislation that is to be introduced be used by employers to exploit their employees? Will the increase in hours of work for clerks remove the social differences that the blue-collar workers feel exist between them and the white-collar workers? By increasing the working hours of clerks from 39 hours to 44 hours a week, we are not showing that the blue-collar workers are as good as, if not better than, the white-collar workers. We are just showing that the clerks are just as bad as the blue-collar workers. Let us remember that not all employers in Singapore are angels. There will be many who will utilise this legislation to exploit workers for their own benefit. On Friday, we heard the Member for River Valley pay a glowing tribute to the workers of Singapore. Speaking as an employer, he praised the workers of Singapore and assured that the employers will not exploit this piece of legislation. But Sir, not all employers are as enlightened as the Member for River Valley. Sir, we are also aware that there are employers in Singapore who prefer to give overtime employment rather than employ new employees. How are we going to curb them? The Minister for Labour will have to consider all these questions very carefully before the Bill is introduced in Parliament. I must also point out now that the N.T.U.C, is fully committed to increasing productivity and has done and is doing all it can to increase productivity. The National Productivity Centre at Jurong was set up by the Economic Development Board principally through the motivating power of the N.T.U.C. The N.T.U.”
“Disillusionment will lead to frustration and we do not want a labour situation like the one that existed in Singapore in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Let us not forget that the Communist-led trade unions are still around the corner waiting to exploit any feeling of frustration amongst the workers. Let us also remember that trained Communist cadres are watching from the sidelines. I shall comment further on various aspects of the Bill, when it is introduced in Parliament. As set out in the President's Speech, the Bill will seek to provide a standard working week of 44 hours for all employees. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is said, that this will standardise and regulate the terms and conditions of employment for workmen, clerks and shop assistants. We now have about 137,000 workmen and industrial clerks who work 44 hours a week. We also have about 28,500 shop assistants who also work 44 hours a week. In other words, we have about 165,500 registered workers who work 44 hours a week and only about 33,500 clerks who work 39 hours a week. Therefore, what the legislation will bring about is that these 33,500 clerks will be required to do an additional 5 hours per week. As set out in the Addendum to the President's Speech, this new legislation also seeks to regulate overtime and to enable a wider spread of employment. Sir, this legislation will certainly curtail the overtime of clerks, but will it spread employment? As a result of the increased hours of work, will it result in retrenchment? Will there be safeguards for employees so that they will not lose their jobs as a result of increased working hours? These are questions that will have to be carefully considered and the drafting of the Bill can best be done with close consultation with the trade union movement in Singapore.”
“I sincerely hope that the emergency labour legislation that is to be moved in Parliament will not become permanent even after the crisis is over. As indicated in the special resolution passed by the delegates of the National Trades Union Congress, the workers of Singapore are willing to make sacrifices, but are not willing to commit suicide. The trust and the faith the people of Singapore have placed on the People's Action Party Government in electing all the 58 Members of Parliament shows that the people of Singapore expect us to solve the problems that we face by 1971. For the survival of Singapore, solve them we must. The workers of Singapore are willing to tighten up their belts by two inches or, if necessary, even three inches in order to overcome the temporary setbacks. But if we expect them to remove their belts from their waists and hang themselves, they will never do it. They recognise that the Government is pro-labour in its outlook and it is our duty to see that this recognition is maintained. Co-operation between labour and the Government has not been lacking so far, although in a number of issues disagreements have been recorded. The workers of Singapore have fully co-operated with the Government in the national and wider interests of the country. Similarly, we expect the Government's co-operation and consultation with the labour movement in Singapore when contemplating labour legislation. During this period of consultation, I hope the representations, proposals or amendments as proposed by the National Trades Union Congress to the Bill will be accepted by the Government. Let us not disillusion the workers.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, let me join hon. Members in thanking the President for delivering his speech in which he has outlined the three objectives that the Government will seek to achieve in the crucial years ahead. The workers of Singapore recognise the need for the attainment of these objectives, namely, (1) effective defence capability; (2) greater economic growth; and (3) enhancement of national consciousness. As outlined by the President, the crucial problems are unusual in magnitude. The organised workers of Singapore, as led by the National Trades Union Congress, are not only conscious of but also concerned with the problems that our Republic has to face in the difficult years ahead. Recognising this crisis that we have to face and realising that everyone in Singapore will have to make sacrifices to achieve economic success for Singapore, the National Trades Union Congress Delegates' Conference on 7th April, 1968. passed a special resolution giving the Government its co-operation and support in the initiation and formulation of emergency measures that may be deemed necessary. The President too has indicated that sacrifice and greater effort is needed as we face an emergency situation. I wholeheartedly agree that emergency measures are necessary when we are faced with grave problems of economic adjustment of a temporary nature. We are confident that the crisis we face is of a temporary nature and that this Government is capable of solving the problems by 1971. Unfortunately, we have the bitter experience in this part of the world that sometimes emergency legislation passed somehow or other becomes permanent even after the end of the emergency.”