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 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.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 5 of 12.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head CA be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead BA 1109*. (* The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr P. Govindaswamy.) Sir, this amendment is moved in order to seek clarification in respect of the Anti-Pollution Unit. When the Unit was first set up in 1971, I spoke during the Budget Debate, as reported in Hansard, Vol. 30, col. 789, welcoming the setting up of such a Unit. At that time it was not very clear as to which Ministry would be responsible for such a Unit. I also had my reservations about several Ministries or departments being agencies responsible for enforcement action. In 1971, the Ministry of Health, Police. Registry of Vehicles, as well as the Port of Singapore Authority, were responsible for enforcement of the various anti-pollution measures. I asked if it was not possible for the Anti-Pollution Unit to be made the sole authority for the enforcement of the various anti-pollution measures. Since then the Unit has been set up and has been under the Prime Minister's Office. Since last year we have set up the Ministry of the Environment which deals with various environmental problems. I think the Ministry of the Environment will be the most suitable Ministry to be made responsible for the Anti-Pollution Unit. My query raised in 1971 is still valid in respect of enforcement authority being vested in more than one Ministry or department. 3.45 p.m.”
“Life insurance has not been so popular among the Singapore public and in the past the benefits of life insurance were enjoyed mostly by a small proportion of the wealthier citizens. Only recently, the general consciousness has increased and many persons from the lower and middle income groups, notably from the membership of the trade unions, have been coming forward to save through life insurance. Last year, the Minister gave considerable help to these insuring people in the lower and middle income groups by removing the limit of one-sixth of their assessable income which applied to the amount of income tax relief available in respect of life policy premiums together with contributions to the CPF and other approved provident funds. The change in the taxation basis of the purchased life annuity now proposed by the Minister will no doubt open up for the life offices an opportunity to develop a new type of insurance cover but will also allow the policyholders a valuable option to receive claims proceeds either in a lump sum or in the form of an annuity. The higher exemption from estate duty will also enhance the net value of life insurance policies. While, therefore, welcoming all these measures which should help spread the protection of life insurance among the masses and enhance the financial security of the policyholders and their families, may I ask the Minister to consider a suitable amendment to section 44 of the Insurance Act? The provisions of section 44 of the Insurance Act help beneficiaries of life policies to obtain quick settlement of their claims if the amounts payable do not exceed $10,000. Now as an estate up to $50,000 is to be exempted from estate duty, a corresponding change in the provisions of section 44 of the Insurance Act would seem logical. 4.15 p.”
“The revision of tax relief for dependent parents and grandparents as touched upon by my colleague, the Member for Bras Basah, from $300 to $750 at least brings parents and grandparents to an equal footing with the first grandchild who is also being given a relief of $750. Let us hope that by FY 75 the Minister will consider increasing tax relief for wives as well. The high cost of living has also spread to the high cost of maintaining a wife. Sir, I cannot really follow what we gain by giving incentives to foreign ship-owners for registering their ships in Singapore. This is a concession which should not be given at all. I do not know what benefit this concession brings us. Ships registered in foreign countries are known in shipping circles as "flag of convenience" vessels. Some countries which encourage "flag of convenience" ships are Panama, Liberia, Somalia and Honduras. How does Singapore benefit by joining this "flag of convenience" league? Many of the ships registered in the countries I mentioned earlier on including Singapore sail the seven seas but never to the country in which the ship is registered. The foreign ship-owners of these Singapore registered vessels would not hesitate to register their ships in any other country tomorrow, provided they are offered slightly better incentives for some reasons of their own. Sir, may I submit that Singapore's good name and its flag would be tarnished if we are listed as a "flag of convenience" nation. If the concessions given are in respect of genuine locally owned ships which call at our port and employ, if not all, some of our crew, then I have no quarrel with the tax concessions. Sir, let me now come to life insurance concession.”
“Consumers associations in most parts of the world are financed substantially by public funds. In the Scandinavian countries, France and Switzerland, the government finances the consumers associations to an extent of 100 per cent of the expenses. In most other countries, the government subsidizes the consumers organisation by substantial amounts. In Singapore, the Consumers' Association of Singapore has been to-date financed by the NTUC by more than 70 per cent. It is gratifying to note that this year the Government has decided to assist CASE with some financial contribution. If CASE is to be expected to play its part more vigorously, then CASE must also try to help itself and not just depend on the Finance Minister's handout, that is, its membership must increase with a consequential additional support from the Government. The trouble with CASE is that there are far too many critics of CASE and too few members who grudge paying $6 per year but are quite free with their criticisms. Let me now deal with the taxation policy and changes for FY 74. It appears as if our Minister for Finance has anticipated the sort of criticisms that Backbenchers like me would make and, in anticipation, he has justified the taxation measures that were introduced recently. It is said that attack is the best form of defence. In the case of our Finance Minister, it appears as if his policy is justification even before being accused. He has taken cognizance of the views expressed by Members of Parliament, in particular the Member for Katong and myself, in respect of estate duty on houses owned by wage earners. The higher exemption and remission limits of estate duty would relieve large numbers of the middle and lower income group house-owners. This is how it should be.”
“We on our part are willing to work with the Government and the entrepreneurs to increase productivity so that our manufactured, quality products would be competitively priced in foreign markets. As a result of our careful anti-inflationary policies of the past, we have had a very small rise in cost of living until about three years ago. But in the past three years or so, our consumer price index has risen very, very sharply although it does not appear excessive in comparison with the developed countries, having regard to the fact that we are not food producers. Food prices rose by 35.5 per cent in 1973. This year, in the past two and a half months alone, there have been further substantial increases. Although these increases are mainly external in origin, I appreciate that the Government is doing all it can to reduce the continuous increase in prices of essential commodities brought about by local forces. During FY 73 the Government lifted import duties, according to the Minister's survey on 149 items of a wide range of foodstuffs, household appliances and construction materials. Lifting of import duties must result in reduction of prices of these items. This aspect of pricing of the products after the removal of import duties has not been properly followed up. I welcome the interest shown and the recent activity of the Trade Division of the Ministry of Finance in warning profiteers and traders who either marked up prices or indulged in short-selling. The Consumers' Association of Singapore has made its contribution, within its competence of limited resources, but no amount of consumer action without the help of the Trade Division can be successful when we have in our midst greedy and anti-social wholesalers and retailers who want to make a quick buck.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Hon. Minister for Finance has taken the sting out of the Budget debate. It is customary for Finance Ministers to increase taxes or impose new taxes during Budget time. Since 1969 we in Singapore have begun to look forward to the Budget debate for tax concessions that the Government was going to make and not new taxes that it was going to impose. This has become a habit over the last couple of years. Newspapers have stopped gazing the crystal ball to predict new taxation measures that the Minister was going to impose. In fact, they have even stopped taking photographs of the Minister walking into Parliament House carrying the dreaded black box containing all the terrible new or increased taxation measures the Government was going to impose. May I compliment the Minister for Finance on his economic survey of Singapore for 1973 and his Budget Statement. Since last year, this has become a new innovation and the comprehensive economic survey and our economic policy have been very illuminating as well as educational. The method of presenting these to Parliament in the form of tabled statements allows for proper and detailed study. It is gratifying to note that the Government is aware that in spite of the National Wages Council's recommendations of the past two years, the rapid rise in cost of living has offset any wage increases. Real wages for workers, therefore, have declined, in spite of the fact that profit margins in the manufacturing sector have increased. The interim NWC recommendation for 1974 has been a welcome relief for the lower income group. We have no doubt that the decline in real wages for workers would be taken into consideration when the next NWC recommendations are made in July.”
“Sir, one of the reasons advanced by the Minister just now for the increase in selling prices was the cost of land. Will the Minister consider selling Housing Board flats at the old rate to those people affected by urban renewal? The reason is that since the compensation they are going to receive is based on the old rate, they should be allowed to purchase flats at the old rate. The Housing Board should not charge them the higher selling prices now, because the Board was not able to allocate them any flats earlier. Does the Minister want a new cut-off date for this category?”
“Sir, I will conic to the point. What about those who arc affected by urban renewal? The compensation to be paid by the Resettlement Department has been agreed in some cases as far back as six months ago, and the Housing Board was not able to allocate flats to those to he evicted at the time, when they should have been allocated, and they are still waiting. Will these people have to pay the same increased cost for flats that the Minister has just enumerated?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has just thrown a bombshell in front of us. We were expecting price increases, but to hear that the lowest increase is going to be $2,000 is too hard to take. I wonder if the Housing Board is also joining in the inflation racket! It would be reasonable to suppose that people who have registered for purchase of flats have to wait for some time before increases in costs would be effected and borne by them. But there are also other categories of people who are awaiting allocation of flats. By "people", I mean those who were affected by urban renewal sometime ago.”
“The reply given by the Minister was that it would be difficult to draw a distinction between houses owned and occupied by such a family and a palatial mansion owned and occupied by the heirs of a wealthy deceased. In that respect, the introduction of the proposed section 59B into the Property Tax Act is heartening, as it seems to indicate that the Minister has second thoughts about the plight of a family of a deceased wage earner. If the principle underlying such a provision can be extended to the payment of estate duty by the family of a deceased, who was the sole principal wage earner and who left no sizable assets other than the house or flat occupied by the family, either by way of an outright remission of estate duty for so long as the house or flat is not sold by way of a deferment of tax for a stipulated number of years or until such time as the family could sell off the house or flat without being desperate, then the proposed section 59B could be rightly regarded as an example of equitable legislation. 3.44 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have only one comment to make on the Bill to amend the Property Tax Act, and that is, to welcome the token of compassion and generosity by the Minister in introducing clause 23 of the Bill, which proposes a new section 59B to the principal Act, whereby the Minister may grant property tax remission on the ground of poverty or if he is satisfied that it is just and equitable to do so. At first sight I thought it must have been a drafting error, as it seems patently ridiculous that any owner of real estate property in Singapore can justifiably apply for tax exemption or remission on the ground of poverty or any other equitable ground. But, on further consideration, the proposed provision turns out to meet a very real need. One situation I have in mind is that of a worker who has exhausted his CPF contributions by paying the initial instalment for his flat and eventually dies without fully paying for his flat and leaving perhaps a sum of money against his insurance policy, which sum may just be able to pay off the balance of instalments on the flat. It is conceivable that in such a situation, the widow as owner of the flat, and if she is not working, may have to ask for remission of estate duty until such time as she can make arrangements for alternative accommodation and selling off the flat. I do not know if the Minister has some other situation in mind. However, Sir, at the last sitting of this House on 11th July, a Question was asked as to whether the Minister could, in view of the greatly inflated prices of real estate property in Singapore, grant exemption or remission from estate duty in respect of a family whose sole breadwinner has died.”
“With the above comments, I repeat that I am wholly in favour of the proposed amendments to the Central Provident Fund Act but would request the Government to compute interest on a more conscionable basis, and that is, on a monthly basis like the Post Office Savings Bank is doing. 4.25 p.m.”
“I believe that the purpose of this amendment is to enable the CPF Board to compute interest on a more conscionable basis than the present yearly basis, which is manifestly unjust. Charge them interest every month. We welcome it. On the other hand, if the Post Office Savings Bank is able to compute interest on voluntary savings on a monthly basis. I should think the CPF Board should be able to do so similarly on compulsory savings of workers. With the additional consideration of clause 7 of the Bill, amending section 7 of the principal Act, which provides for the payment of an enhanced penalty in respect of contributions which are belated by even one day, any decision by the CPF Board to compute interest at an interval longer than one month clearly smacks of profiteering under the guise of bureaucratic inefficiency. The CPF wants to collect 1 1/2 per cent every month from the employer. Pay some to the employees as well. Lastly, clause 11 of the Bill has introduced a new paragraph (c) to subsection (2) of section 11 of the principal Act by providing for the large category of Malaysian workers who are employed in Singapore and who have CPF contributions credited to their respective accounts while so employed in Singapore. The proposed provision enables the Board to permit such workers to withdraw their contributions in certain circumstances on their departure from Singapore for good. Co-ordination perhaps with the Work Permit Office and other relevant departments would serve to ascertain whether the departure of such workers from Singapore is permanent or otherwise. Difficulty may he met by the CPF Board in trying to trace the whereabouts of such workers twenty or thirty years after they have left Singapore.”
“As such, the sums so deducted should not be retained by employers for any period longer than is necessary, and any provision discouraging them from doing so is undeniably in the interest of workers. In the same clause 6 of the Bill, the proposed subsections (1) and (2) of section 6 of the principal Act are substantially a rehash of the existing provisions and are apparently intended to accommodate new circumstances which may arise from any implementation of such recommendations of the National Wages Council as the Government may have accepted. One difficulty, however, is posed by the time-lapse between the effective date of the increase of CPF rates that is, in the case of this year I per cent on 1st July, 1973 - and the actual date of payment of NWC's recommendations, even though with retrospective effect. The result is that a worker may suffer a cut in his take-home pay because of the increased CPF's rate of contribution based on his salary without the benefit of any NWC's increment. An obvious retort from the Minister would be that, even without any NWC's increment, he would have received an increase in pay by way of a higher sum credited to his CPF account and that, if he is a member of a trade union, he should press his union not to procrastinate in the hope of a greater increment than what the NWC has recommended. Sometimes, however, the delay in implementing the NWC's recommendations is not occasioned by either the trade union or the employer but by complexities or peculiarities of terms and conditions of service not considered by the NWC. But the point I want to make is to relate clause 6 of the Bill to clause 10 of the Bill amending section 10 of the principal Act which governs the payment of interest on contributions credited with the CPF.”
“But before some snide remarks are made about the affluence of Singapore workers who are able to afford domestic help, let me hasten to add that a working couple with one or two children, living completely on their own in a Housing Board fiat, without the benefit of the service of in-laws or the cheap service of a creche, have to employ domestic help out of sheer necessity - that is, work permits from the Ministry of Labour permitting. In such a case, even though the husband may be the official employer in the sense that he may be so described for the purpose of the principal Act or any other statutory enactment, the actual or real employer may be the wife in the sense that she may be the one who deals with the remuneration and decides the terms and conditions of service for the domestic help. I trust that the intention of the proposed provisions is to catch out employers of large labour force rather than to capitalise on any misunderstanding between husband and wife in relation to the employment of their domestic help. In clause 6 of the Bill, a new subsection (3) has been added to section 6 of the principal Act, which provides that a heavy penalty is liable to be imposed on an employer who, after making the requisite deductions from the pay packet of his employees, forgets or refuses to remit the same to the CPF Board. A vital distinction is made from the employer who fails to pay his own contribution under the principal Act within the prescribed period, as dealt with in clause 7 of the Bill, which I will comment upon later. The distinction is necessary, as the Minister has pointed out just now, as the sums of money deducted from the wages of the workers for payment to the CPF Board do not belong to the employers but are only held in trust by them.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as I see it, this Bill which seeks to amend the Central Provident Fund Act is intended to give more teeth to the principal Act. As such, the amendments can benefit workers in general. I have no hesitation in giving my support to it. However, there are some provisions upon which I wish to comment on in some detail. Clause 4 of the Bill, introducing a new section 4A into the principal Act, is, in my opinion, a timely and necessary provision, as the persons charged with enforcing the principal Act have apparently encountered unnecessary difficulties in the absence of the proposed provisions. Human nature being what it is, it is probable that officers of the CPF Board, or the Ministry of Labour for that matter, may have received either downright evasive replies or outright hostile silence from persons to whom their enquiries have been directed. Under the prevailing law, there is no legal obligation for such persons to produce documentary records or to be frank with the investigating officers. In that respect, the proposed provisions should, by helping to make it more difficult for employers to evade their obligations under the principal Act, be of great service to workers. Some of the proposed provisions, however, may pose a threat to the peace of mind of small employers, particularly the employers of domestic help, whether on a full-time or part-time basis.”
“Sir, I have never said that all non-unionised workers should be left out of that provision. Perhaps the Minister was not listening. Let me repeat and quote the exact text of what I have said: `We in the NTUC have in the past always regarded a worker, who is eligible to seek membership in the union but who refrains from joining the union, as a parasite to our society.' These are the people I want to be kept out; not any employee.”
“Sir, I wish to correct the misunderstanding that the Minister has conceived. Mr Speaker: All right.”
“The suggested procedure, as mentioned by me earlier, is particularly necessary following representations to the Minister for reinstatement following a wrongful dismissal. I observe that the Commissioner for Labour will he entrusted with the duty to inquire into the dismissal and to make the necessary report to the Minister. The suggested procedure I mentioned earlier should he followed each time the Commissioner carries out an investigation into a dismissal case referred to him by the Minister. The present procedure under the industrial Relations Act - that of meeting union representatives and management representatives separately has proved to be unsatisfactory. If this procedure is allowed to continue, the confidence of workers in the Labour Ministry will be shaken. And if confidence is shaken, it is not likely for the workers to refer their grievances, especially in dismissal cases, to the Labour Ministry. In the ultimate, it will lead to a situation which the House can imagine - how much industrial unrest it will cause! Mr Speaker, Sir, 1 am sure that that is not the intention of this legislation, and I urge that the most serious consideration be given to the points I have raised. 3.28 p.m.”
“Even more disturbing, Sir, is the possibility that the employer, being engaged in more urgent business, may not be able to take prompt steps to investigate into the alleged acts of misconduct, and when he finds that the week is coming to an end through his neglect to take steps promptly, he will proceed to dismiss. In matters of this nature, Sir, it is desirable to extend the time where the case requires it. I would suggest that the suspension period for the purpose of an inquiry be one week initially, during which the employee is paid half his salary, with the possible extension of a further week on one quarter of his salary. I have criticised the procedure adopted by employers by holding inquiries in the form of private investigation without the worker being given a chance to explain. We have found that there are always two versions to a story. In such an important matter as dismissal, there can be no justice unless the worker, against whom allegations of misconduct are made, is given a fair opportunity to state his case. In addition, he must be allowed to be represented by a union representative of his own choice and be allowed to contest the testimony of persons who have made statements against him. In other words, we consider that it is not only desirable but necessary that an employee, against whom allegations of misconduct are made, should be given the chance to confront witnesses from the management side who have made statements against him. I suggest, Sir, that the worker must also he given the opportunity to call any witnesses he considers necessary to testify on his behalf. Justice, Sir, must not only be done but also seen to be done.”
“Instead, when representation is made for reinstatement, Labour Ministry officials call for the parties separately and make their recommendations thereafter. In trade union circles, dismissal as a form of punishment, especially to a worker who has put in many years of service, is analogous to a death sentence as it is the supreme form of punishment. Nor shall we confine our attention only to the dismissed worker who may well be either the sole breadwinner or the main provider in his family. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, by one injudicious act an employer can inflict punishment on a group of innocent persons. It is, therefore, necessary for us when dealing with dismissal cases to extend our consideration to the family unit as well. Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to deal with the relevant provisions in clause 2. In the proposed section 14 (1) (b), the employer is given the right to suspend a worker without payment of salary for a period not exceeding one week. This is a re-enactment of the existing provision. From experience, Sir, very few employers observe the provision to suspend a worker for one week. What they normally do is to hold an inquiry of their own. They make their own investigation without giving an opportunity to the suspended worker to explain or to counter the allegations of misconduct. In some cases, Sir, where the investigation cannot be completed within a week, the employers invariably proceed to dismiss, believing, rightly or wrongly, that if they do not dismiss after one week they might lose the right to dismiss.”
“However, I do realise that it may be desirable to make suitable provisions in exceptional cases, such as dismissals of a prospective union member who may be engaged in organising workers in his place of employment or in cases where recognition of the union is withheld by the employer for lack of majority. At this juncture, Sir, it would be relevant for me to draw the attention of the House to the need to consider introducing a clear and definite form of procedure in dealing with the merits of the representation for reinstatement. However, to understand and appreciate what I am about to propose, one has to go back to the year 1965. At the end of that year, Sir, the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 1965, was passed. One of the most important amendments was the granting of specific powers to the Industrial Arbitration Court to order the reinstatement of a dismissed employee. This power was removed in 1968 by a further amendment to the Industrial Relations Act. And now, Sir, only in cases of victimisation does the Court have the power to reinstate. As a result of the restrictions placed on the Court's power to deal with dismissal cases, the only remedy available in the case of wrongful dismissal is that provided under section 35 (2) of the Industrial Relations Act. In the early stages following the amendment in 1968, a few inquiries were held at the Labour Court in the Labour Ministry, presided over by an officer appointed for that purpose. Witnesses were allowed to be called by both parties and could testify at the inquiry. To some extent the proceedings at such an inquiry, though informal, were well regulated and were quite satisfactory. For the past three years, however, no inquiries of such a nature have been held.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I read with considerable interest the Employment (Amendment) Bill. I am particularly interested in clause 2 of the Bill. To begin with, this clause seeks to introduce a form of procedure whereby a worker or an employee within the definition of the original Act may seek reinstatement in his former employment if he can satisfy the Minister that he has been dismissed from service without just cause or excuse by his employer. Sir, as the Minister has pointed out, a similar procedure is found in section 35 (2) of the Industrial Relations Act. The only difference, of course, under section 35 (2) of the Industrial Relations Act, is that a worker who is aggrieved by his dismissal must make representation in writing to the Minister through his union, whereas under the provisions of the proposed amendment to the Employment Act he need not he a member of a union. We, in the NTUC, have in the past always regarded a worker, who is eligible to seek membership in the union but who refrains from joining a union, as a parasite in our society. Mr Speaker, Sir, from our point of view, the proposed procedure in clause 2 of the Bill is objectionable. You will agree with me, Sir, that in legislating matters which are interrelated, there should be some uniformity. Both the Employment Act and the Industrial Relations Act are pieces of legislation governing the relationship between the employer and the employee. I do hope that clause 2 of the Bill, which introduces a new section 14 in the Employment Act, could he amended at page 2, lines 7 and 8 of the Bill, to ensure that any representation to the Minister for reinstatement arising from a wrongful dismissal can be made only through a union and not otherwise.”
“Sir, are we going to deprive a single person of citizenship if he has got no parents, or no children?”
“Sir, should one have a family to be a citizen? What about the case of a confirmed bachelor?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am talking about the public officer who works for the Government. If the officer is not retiring but his quarters is being acquired for some purpose, would he be given such priority?”
“Sir, can the Minister clarify what he means by "public officers"? Would officers working in the statutory boards be considered public officers?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, while welcoming the Minister's remark that citizenship would be considered for those who are skilled, would the Minister care to enlighten what "skill" is in his terms? "Skilled work" is relative. What are the categories that the Ministry would term as "skilled workers", for whom citizenship can be considered?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the need for the establishment of more creches to be run by the Government has arisen because not all industries can afford to run creches of their own. I welcome this Bill because the intention is to set up more creches. But the complaints that are normally raised are that the creches close at a time when the mothers are still at work. Sir, even the newspapers' complaints mention that they close at 5.00 p.m. or 5.30 p.m. The solution to the problem during the course of drawing up the regulations for these creches is for the Ministry of Social Affairs to consider the possibility of extending their hours or of specifying various periods of service, so that working mothers who leave their children in the creche early may come to collect their children early. And those mothers who work in the afternoon can similarly call in the afternoon and collect their children late in the evening. If such arrangements can be made, it will certainly help a lot of working mothers. After all, the policy now is to encourage our women to work.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if I remember correctly, in the Light Dues (Repeal) Bill where provision is made for the staff of the Marine Department to be transferred to the PSA, the Minister of State said that the transfer will be "on terms no less favourable than those enjoyed by them" in the previous department. But in this Bill, the phraseology is a little different. The Minister of State said that the transfer will be "on terms as near as may be." I think that is not good enough because when staff is transferred, it should be on terms no less favourable than what they enjoy in the Marine Department. They are not responsible for the transfer from the Marine Department to the PSA. Dr Ang Kok Peng: Mr Speaker, Sir, the intention is that the transfer is to be carried out in such a way that the staff will enjoy the benefits no less favourable than what they are enjoying at the moment. 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. - [Dr Ang Kok Peng]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. SALE OF FOOD BILL Order for Second Reading read. 3.03 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister of State missed the point about hawker centres. Dr Ang Kok Peng: Mr Speaker, Sir, when I gave my answer about housing, I meant to include hawker centres in our consideration. 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. - [Dr Ang Kok Peng]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. MERCHANT SHIPPING (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 2.56 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I support most of the moves and the changes that are taking place in the PSA. But I am a little perturbed about one or two matters. Firstly, over the last two years, the PSA's work has increased. The Authority is taking over the function of the Light Dues Board. On one previous occasion I raised an objection to the Authority being in charge of pollution when we already have a Department in the Government to look into pollution problems. It is a well known fact that the PSA not only deals with matters concerning the port but it has also gone into business, like building houses for its staff and building hawker centres, not in conformity with the Government's policy of providing cheap housing for our citizens and of building cheap hawker centres for the hawkers. Can something be done about this? The other point I want to raise is the reduction of membership of the PSA. At the moment, the NTUC is represented in the PSA. Will the reduction of membership affect the NTUC representation in the PSA?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have great pleasure in seconding the proposal.”
“Yes, Sir. The Minister just mentioned that he would allow his good offices to he used in the matter of tripartite difficulties. Perhaps he would use his good offices in a problem between the union and the Government itself, that is, the Ministry of Finance. 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 Ong Pang Boon]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 4.20 p.m.”
“I thought the Minister was going to give way, Sir, in a matter of explanation.”
“But even with the best of intentions, any individual person cannot be expected to be infallible in any matter or in every matter. Otherwise, there would have been no need for the tripartite basis of consultation so fervently advocated by the Government and implemented in relation to the National Wages Council, and there would have been no need for a trade union movement in Singapore at all. 4.08 p.m.”
“A point that should be remembered by Members of the House is that the Government has accorded to civil servants and other public employees, except those in the Singapore Police Force and in the Singapore Armed Forces, the right to organise and bargain collectively. Such civil servants and public employees may or may not have the right to bring their disputes before the Industrial Arbitration Court, but there is no law in Singapore to preclude or to prohibit trade unions representing civil servants or public employees from entering into negotiations with the respective ministries and departments on the terms and conditions of service of their members. Once recognition has been accorded to a trade union in respect of a particular group of employees the employer, whether it be a Government department or a private company, is expected to treat such union with some courtesy and respect as befitting a collective bargaining agent on behalf of such group of employees. Where the employer seeks to vary or change the terms and conditions of service of the employees, it is only proper that the employer secures the agreement of a trade union representing such employees to avoid any misunderstanding and friction. In the particular incident which I have related earlier, the revised salary scales may be beneficial to some of the employees concerned, but the conversion from the old salary scales to the new salary scales is a highly controversial matter and the immediate promotional prospects have been altered. These should have been referred to the trade union concerned for their views before the Ministry proceeds to implement such a proposal on the basis it arbitrarily decides upon. I do not doubt or question the integrity of the Ministry officials concerned.”
“The official side, in accepting the invitation to negotiate, had stated that such acceptance was "intended to promote goodwill and good relationship between your union and this Ministry". During the intervening 10 years between 1962 and 1972, the Ministry has never revoked the recognition accorded to the union to represent the employees of the Ministry. It is, therefore, a gross violation of all accepted norms of sound industrial relations practice for the Ministry unilaterally and arbitrarily to revise the salary scales and conditions of service and to proceed to implement such revised salary scales and conditions of service without prior consultation with, or even notification to, the trade union concerned. The retort of the Ministry, in response to the complaint by the union of such improper and arbitrary change in the terms and conditions of service, to the effect that no employees have expressed any dissatisfaction was irrelevant and mischievous. In the first place, no employee would himself wish to be singled out for the dubious attention of his supervisors or superior officers by voicing his dissatisfaction with the increase of pay accorded to him, when the same superior officer obviously considers such an increase in pay as a generous gesture on their own part. In the second place, since the employees are members of a registered trade union which has been accorded recognition by their employer, it is natural for the employees to voice their dissatisfaction to the union in the expectation that the union would take up their grievance with their employer.”
“The new scheme also does away with promotion grades. The managerial representative to whom the dissatisfaction was conveyed, however, replied that the revision of the salary scales was approved and sanctioned by the relevant person in charge of finance, who had not given any instruction or indication that the revised salary scales were to be implemented in consultation with the trade union representing the workers. In the circumstances, the managerial representative bluntly informed the union that there was no question of any discussion as to an alternative and fairer basis for conversion from the old salary scales to the revised salary scales. Another managerial representative, a very senior official of the establishment, also added that none of the workers had directly voiced any dissatisfaction with the revised salary scales and that it was the "damn trade union" which was seeking to create a dispute between the workers and their employer. The incident which I have just related may seem to be the kind to be expected of an unusually recalcitrant employer in the private sector of Singapore. I think Members of this House would be I surprised to learn that the trade union concerned is the Amalgamated Union of Public Employees (AUPE) and that the employer is none other than the Ministry of National Development and the Ministry of Finance of the Government of Singapore. Members of the House would be also interested to learn that the trade union concerned has served a notice, in writing, as far back as October 1962, to the Government to negotiate for better terms and conditions of service.”
“I wish to bring to the attention of the House a regrettable but nevertheless true, instance of the medieval attitude of some employers or professional managements towards trade unions. One well-established and otherwise reputable employer in Singapore, whose workers are represented by an affiliate of the NTUC, recently decided in a mood of paternal benevolence to revise slightly upwards the salaries of their employees. But without previously consulting or even notifying the trade union concerned, the employer informed their employees on 20th October of this year that their salaries were to be revised with retrospective effect from 1st October. Members of this House may very well wonder what my grievance is, or rather what is the grievance of the trade union concerned, since the workers have been given a slight increase in pay by their employer. The matter, however, is not simply a question of pay increase. In the process of revising upwards the salaries of the workers, the employers have also changed the salary scales of the employees concerned, resulting in the need for a conversion exercise in the placement of employees from the old salary scales to the new salary scales. It is natural that with employees previously receiving different salaries under the old scales being grouped together on the same incremental point in the new salary scales, some employees receive disproportionately greater increases than others. The trade union concerned has informed the employer that its members are not happy over the basis of conversion in that the increases in salaries have been unnecessarily disproportionate and inequitable from an objective point of view, and that the conversion has been implemented without prior consultation with the union.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, there are three important Bills tabled for Second and Third Readings today. The Employment (Amendment) Bill and the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill are, in my opinion, very important legislations on employment, which should be implemented in the spirit in which they are passed. We are all well aware of the need for the introduction of the Employment Act in 1968. The trade unions have co-operated fully to make the Bill workable. Since the implementation of the Employment Act, there has been so much talk of tripartism in industries and we have made all efforts to make tripartism work. Even in the Addendum to the President's speech, a call has been made to unions, employers and the Government to work together for the national interest. Greater emphasis is to be given to the prevention or elimination of, and I quote the Addendum, "nascent points of friction between labour and management before they assume ominous proportions". Similarly, in an address at the annual dinner of the Singapore Employers' Federation, the Minister for Labour has soundly rebuked those employers whose sluggishness in negotiations is not conducive to harmonious industrial relations with their workers. The purpose of these references which I have just made is to remind Members of the House that, despite the countless exhortations by the Government to both employers and unions to co-operate with one another in the interest of the Republic, there are still employers or their managerial representatives who regard trade unions as necessary nuisances to be tolerated rather than desirable partners to be co-operated with.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, would a teacher be considered as a person with specialised professional training as such, and be entitled to reliefs just now propounded by the Minister?”
“I have two questions to ask the Minister, Sir. First, how does the Minister propose to defind a married woman who is highly qualified and one who is not? Secondly, on the question of tax reliefs, will those people, who now have four children but are not eligible for income tax at the moment, get tax reliefs for these four children later when they become eligible for payment of income tax?”
“14th month? I heard the Minister say "the 13th month." A 14th month payment will be most welcome! The employees of Government and Statutory Boards would certainly appreciate the gesture to make this payment just before the festive season. However, Sir, the last 13th month payment was made only to those who were in the service during the time of payment. May I make a strong plea on behalf of the employees of the Government and the statutory boards? If we follow the same system, some of them would not be eligible for the 13th month payment if the month of their retirement is earlier than the month in which the payment is made. In other words, if he retires in November, he would not get his December pay. Sir, this 13th wage is paid for services rendered to the Government whether they worked for 12 months or less. If they are compulsorily retired, then they should be paid. In the course of one year, many would retire, and as such I strongly feel that in the case of those who leave the service through no fault of their own, a proportionate payment should be made. 3.42 p.m.”
“I am not advocating free services for all, as such a policy may lead to abuse to the detriment of all. What I am saying is that the State should pay more attention and provide more assistance in looking after the old destitutes, the chronically ill, the mentally retarded, the blind, the deaf and dumb, by providing State-sponsored facilities which would offer them training, education, recreation and a better life. Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I thank the Hon. Minister for Finance for announcing that the 13th month payment for the current year will be made in December. An hon. Member: 14th month!”
“The President also mentioned that "we can achieve higher standards in everything, with the emphasis on quality, whether in jobs, schools, hospitals, social and recreational amenities or homes." He went on to say that there must be heavy subsidies for good health and good education. I certainly subscribe to this principle. The trouble is that not all citizens, through no conscious or deliberate fault of their own, have equal opportunities to avail themselves of the subsidised services of the Government in the field of health or education. I am of the view that one category of our citizens deserves much more attention from the Government than they have enjoyed so far. I make a plea on behalf of the old-age destitutes, the deaf and dumb, the blind, the mentally retarded and the chronically ill. Most of these persons are looked after, within the limits of their personal ability and scant financial resources, by socially-conscious individuals and well-meaning private organisations. Have these underprivileged people benefited or received any improvements as a result of our recent mini-boom? I should think their participation in Singapore's present prosperity is, at the most, minimal. With our continuing economic progress and the increased $38.25 million that the Minister for Finance hopes to collect from increased taxes, we should also be in a position to improve the lot of the under-privileged. I entirely agree with the President when he said that "everyone must work to earn and pay for what he wants in life." Not everyone, however, can earn through his own efforts to pay for even the bare essentials for his own survival, and such a person ought to be assisted by the State in finding work or other means of living.”
“It is hard to believe, for instance, that tax increases on such luxuries as beer, stout and cigarettes affect the privileged class of persons more than the wage-earners. Similarly, in the matter of motor car taxes, no attempt is made to discriminate between a family of wage-earners, pooling their resources together to buy for the first time in their lives a medium-sized car, and a tycoon who thinks nothing of buying several limousines perhaps for each of his concubines. The justification advanced by the Minister for Finance for such taxation - to discourage private ownership of cars - seems rather cynical, if I had not known that he was sincere about it. The point I wish to make is that taxation measures form part of the fiscal policy of the Government and that such measures are not eminently suitable for the attainment of socially desirable objectives. The Government may have to contemplate more direct and drastic methods of keeping cars off the streets, especially during peak hours. One method may be the staggering of office hours beyond the prevailing limits of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. It would be in line with the rationale underlying the PUB's restructuring of tariff charges. But if the actual purpose of increased taxation is to raise more revenue, I have nothing more to comment upon except, of course, how this estimated increase in revenue of $38.25 million is going to be used. The President in his address made reference to, and I quote him: `a better life for everyone willing to work will become more pronounced, and in more gracious surroundings.' May I suggest that we pay a little more attention to those who are willing to work but who, because of mental or physical handicap or for some other cogent reasons, are unable to work.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in the President's speech outlining the Government's policies for the next five years, I note with pleasure the acceptance of the necessity for the level of wages to rise in so far as such wage increases take place in an orderly fashion. I note with further pleasure, and they do not assume the proportions of a galloping inflation, the assurance that tax increases are to be kept down to the barest minimum possible. It has always been the legitimate complaint of workers that whatever wage increases they receive are more likely than not swallowed up by tax increases and price increases. While I appreciate very much the particular concern of the Government not to kill the individual incentive for hard work- on which Singapore's prosperity is built - by raising direct taxation upwards to the level of diminishing returns, I am somewhat disappointed at the Government's recourse to indirect taxation, even though it be on the so-called "luxury" goods. For one thing, I have my doubts as to whether there is any general acceptance of what constitutes "luxury" goods. For another, Government may give more serious consideration to the distinction between earned income and unearned income for the purposes of taxation. I am quite aware that as a Backbencher it is easy for me to criticise and that the Government, being much better informed and having to consider factors such as the development of Singapore into a financial centre for the region, may have considered and dismissed some of my points. Nevertheless, I feel it incumbent upon me to voice what I consider to be the rather disappointing features of the Government's recent tax measures.”
“This will have further implications. 1 have spoken on at least two occasions in this Chamber about the problems of limiting overtime, especially in the essential services. Therefore, I support the Member for River Valley that we submit this Bill to a Select Committee instead of hurrying its passage today. On that note, Sir, I hope the Minister will reconsider his decision to carry this Bill through all its three stages today. 3.45 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Member for River Valley only in respect of sending this Bill to a Select Committee, and not on the part where he talks of level-headed unionists and so on and employers not making profits. Sir, this Bill has been introduced on a Certificate of Urgency. When the Minister made a lengthy speech on the Second Reading, I was trying to make notes of his speech, and at the same time I was thinking whether it was really necessary and urgent that we must take this Bill through all its stages in today's sitting. Sir, the Minister was right when he said that the National Employees Council, the Manufacturers' Association, the NTUC, the Government, as well as the Chambers of Commerce met on the 23rd May. We decided that, irrespective of legislative changes, we should go ahead with the recommendations of the National Wages Council. Sir, you must have read in the newspapers that a number of unions have submitted claims and have invited the employers to negotiate on the Wages Council's recommendations. We have not come across any hitch as yet. Listening to the speech made by the Minister just now, Sir, I myself, having been associated with trade unions, am confused with a number of terms that he referred to, such as "annual wage supplement", a phrase which I hear for the first time. If I can be confused, other union members will be more confused with such terms as "13th month wage", "annual bonus", "annual wage increases", and he also mentioned "a combination of all three". Sir, this Bill does not only put into effect the recommendations of the National Wages Council, but it also recommends some other changes. One of the changes that he proposes to introduce is increasing the limit of overtime, from 48 hours to 96 hours per month.”