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 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.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 6 of 12.
“Sir, is the Minister aware of the ILO resolution in 1965 recommending that governments accord full pay leave for attendance in trade union courses? If the Minister is aware, are we subscribing to the ILO resolution?”
“Sir, the Minister asked whether I can show the terms. I can show them. Will the Minister consider giving civil servants better terms than are accorded them at the moment?”
“Sir, it is not law. It is in collective agreements. I can show to the Minister that the private sector gives better terms”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister's reply may be a cause for a debate but I shall not participate in a debate now. Sir, is the Minister aware that in the private sector, trade unionists attending courses get better treatment than what the Government affords its civil servants?”
“From the answer, it is obvious that there is a reduction in workload resulting in a reduction in take-home pay. Sir, can the Minister tell the House what concrete steps has the PSA taken to alleviate this hardship arising out of the reduction in the take-home pay? Also as a result of the reduction of workload, will there be any redundancy in PSA amongst the employees?”
“The Director of Marine seems most unhappy and reluctant to exercise the various powers conferred on him under the Merchant Shipping Act regarding employment of seamen. For instance, the provision of section 39 of the Merchant Shipping Act stipulates that the engagement of seamen for work in any ship, whose flag is not represented by a consular official in the Republic, shall be conducted in the Mercantile Marine Employment office set up for that purpose. The Director of Marine has indicated to the Singapore Organisation of Seamen that he intends to propose amendments to the Merchant Shipping Act to relieve himself of such onerous responsibility as that entailed by the supervision of the Mercantile Marine Employment office. It is only fair to inform the House that the NTUC has never raised this point with the Ministry when representations were being made on the Bill. The fact is that, with discussions being confined to the Bill, it seems rather awkward to make references to another Act, which at that time the NTUC had the impression that it might come up for drastic amendment as well. Now it is clear that the Merchant Shipping Act would not be amended in relation to maritime employment. I am also given to understand that the Singapore Organisation of Seamen have made representation to the Ministry on the inadvisability of the Director of Marine being continued to be saddled with the responsibility of supervising maritime employment. Now that the National Maritime Board is to be set up, the opportunity should he taken to streamline the administration of maritime employment. 6.19 p.m.”
“The Bill is clearly intended as an enabling instrument in that specific powers are exercisable by the Board by way of the various regulations to be made under the proposed Act with the approval of the Minister. I see no harm in enhancing the enabling provision of the Bill so as to allow the Board to have more scope for action and more teeth for effectiveness when the need arises. There is hardly any danger of the Board running amok with its powers, as the final say always lies with the Minister. Sir, thus I suggest the inclusion of:- (a) a provision for manning scale, on which I have already spoken, and (b) a provision under clause 21 of the Bill conferring on the Board "to prescribe for the registration of all persons or employees who desire to select or engage seamen registered under the provisions of this Act". Existing regulations provide for the cancellation of registration or suspension of seamen against whom complaints have been lodged by their respective employers. But there is no reciprocal provision for black-listing or penalising of employers who violate the terms of contract of employment of, or ill-treat, the seamen. Under the proposed provisions of clause 21 as it is, the amendment of the various regulations as indicated by this Bill would serve no useful purpose, as far as seamen are concerned. It should be also noted that under clause 20 of the Bill, no distinction is made between an employer or a seaman in respect of the penalty to be incurred for violation of the proposed Act. The various provisions in the Merchant Shipping Act (Cap. 172) dealing with employment of seamen should be deleted from the Act and incorporated into the proposed National Maritime Board Act or a separate enactment by themselves.”
“The risk to the fare-paying passengers can well be imagined since the non-registered seamen may not be able to take care of themselves in a crisis at sea, not to say spare a thought for the passengers. It is a matter of great importance that there should be some form of machinery for manning scale to ensure that every ship carries a minimum number of trained seamen. For another thing, as long as ship-owners and ship-captains can engage non-registered seamen with impunity, the selection machinery of the Board will never achieve the purpose for which it is intended, and that is, besides being a machinery, to ensure equal opportunity of employment with a disciplinary device to ensure that seamen taken on at Singapore are of the highest standards and so enhance the reputation of Singapore by their work and conduct. It is obvious that seamen who are unruly and anti-social, to begin with, so as to merit the disciplinary sanction of the Board, are unlikely to submit themselves meekly to any suspension imposed by the Board on them. It is such registered seamen who offer themselves for employment by the back-door, by-passing entirely the selection machinery of the Board. The significance of the absence of any statutory provision governing manning scale in relation to the Board's objective of seeking to regulate maritime employment is that it makes for unnecessary difficulty in the attainment of the Board's objective. Having given Members of the House a picture of the background of this Bill, I now put forward the following proposals for the consideration of the Minister and the House.”
“A policy of "a rate for the port" - that is, same pay and other conditions of service for all seamen who sign on at Singapore irrespective of whichever ship they are attached to - is not acceptable to the Ministry as not being feasible at present. I must add that the NTUC agrees with the view of the Ministry on this matter. That leaves us with the question of a manning scale as a means of eradicating the abuse of the selection machinery. By manning scale, I mean some form of predetermined percentage of ratings, or registered seamen, that must make up any ship's complement. I am given to understand by the Singapore Organisation of Seamen that representation has been made on this matter to the Ministry. In their representation, the Singapore Organisation of Seamen have also drawn the attention of the Ministry to the fact that some ship's crew complements have been made up of more than 50 per cent non-ratings or non-registered seamen. Such a situation has come about through the recruiting agents' rejection of all the seamen offered by the Board under the normal selection process and hiring by the back-door, as it is, of persons who are not trained as seamen or who are deregistered or suspended ratings but who are prepared to offer some inducement to the recruiting agents. This constitutes the other principal abuse of the selection machinery of the Board, and it has more sinister implications. For one thing, untrained or inexperienced persons who are taken on ships normally as laundrymen, hatch-men, or any other of the non-registrable categories, are not able to cope with the natural hazards or exigencies that can be expected to occur to a ship at sea.”
“A Greek vessel, it may be also added, is the last recourse of desperate seamen, for invariably a Greek vessel is literally a floating jungle. To return to the point, seamen are prepared to offer up to one month's wages, which can be substantial on a Norwegian vessel, to the recruiting agents to ensure that they are taken on by such a well-paying shipping company. That is where the abuse of the selection machinery of the Registry Board comes in. If the seamen who have offered bribes are not in the first or second batch to be called up by the Board for selection, the recruiting agents who, I regret to say, are also Singapore citizens, would reject all the seamen in the first two batches on one pretext or another. Even if the seamen who have offered inducement are not sufficiently well up the queue to be included in the third and final batch of seamen to be called up by the Board for any particular ship, the recruiting agents will make a passionate plea for the employment of those particular seamen, or else they will wait until almost departure time outside the office hours of the Board to take on such seamen. Now, Sir, the question of selection is a matter of life and death for the seamen because every additional day of waiting for selection means another day without pay for themselves and their families. The point is how does the Government intend to resolve the problem of ensuring that the selection machinery offers every seamen an equal opportunity for employment? The Police and the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau have their hands full with their existing responsibilities as it is without having to look into the malpractices in maritime employment.”
“In order that Members of this House can have a proper perspective of such malpractices in relation to maritime employment, it is necessary for me to dwell at length on such malpractices. More important than the other major question of assuring seamen the fruits of their labour, for which the Bill now contains provisions, is the question of assuring seamen a fair and equal opportunity of employment. Thus, in theory, the system of registration of certain categories of seamen for the purpose of maritime employment ensures that seamen of the registrable categories have equal opportunities for employment by requiring them to take their turn in the queue for employment. In practice, however, Sir, the provision as reproduced in clause 6 (h) of the Bill allowing the Board to supervise the selection of seamen and to provide both employers and seamen reasonable freedom of choice in relation to employment, is very ineffective. A seaman who refuses three consecutive offers of employment goes down to the bottom of the queue. On the other hand, an employer who refuses to select any seamen from these batches of seamen offered by the Board is not similarly penalised. Sir, I am given to understand by the officials of the Singapore Organisation of Seamen that the greatest number of malpractices arises out of such selection of seamen. It must be clearly emphasised that the rates of pay and other terms of service vary greatly from shipping to shipping companies. Naturally, there is a clamour among seamen to work on, for instance, a Norwegian vessel where they can earn double or treble the sum they may obtain on, for instance, a Greek vessel for the same given period of time.”
“Unfortunately, a seaman who has been granted less favourable terms than those originally promised to him cannot expect any remedy from the Board, even though the representatives of his employer may be sitting on the Board itself, for the simple reason that the Board has no power to discipline the employer. What utterly demoralises the seamen is that the same employers' representatives, when disciplinary action against seamen is called for, would have no scruples about demanding the imposition of the heaviest penalty on the seamen. Sir, for that reason, the NTUC happily places on record the acceptance of their recommendations by the Ministry to assure seamen the fruits of their labour by including a definition of "employer", which is wide enough to cover the local agent of a foreign employer, and enabling the Board to regulate the manner of payment of salaries and the discharge of contracts of service. The Ministry is indeed to be congratulated for their inclusion of such provisions which go towards increasing the protection of seamen. But to that extent the aim of the Ministry and the aim of the NTUC seem to coincide. Beyond that, their aims seem to be irreconcilably divergent. The cause for such divergence seems to lie in the fact that the Ministry approved the Bill as a consolidation of existing provisions with the incorporation of new provisions limited to the barest minimum possible. The NTUC views the Bill as an opportunity to eliminate malpractices by the efficient and effective regulating of maritime employment in Singapore. Thus, from the viewpoint, the Bill must necessarily incorporate new provisions as the existing provisions of the four statutes to be repealed by and re-enacted in the Bill have not been adequate to deal with such malpractices.”
“The Bill in seeking to repeal the Seamen's Registry Board Act, the Seafarers' Welfare Board Act, the Singapore Mariners' Club Act and the Singapore Sailors' Institute Incorporation Ordinance and to re-enact the provisions of these four statutes is, in effect, a consolidating Bill without any new provision of any great significance. Other than the Seamen's Registry Board Act, the other three statutes are not concerned with the matter of maritime employment. And under the Seamen's Registry Board Act, read together with the Seamen's Registry Board Rules, the seamen find themselves in a position of "Heads, you win: tails, I lose" vis-a-vis their employers, for that accurately describes the actual working of the Act. Under the law at present, and it will continue to be so under the Bill, a seaman who commits any misconduct would, in the absence of mitigating circumstance, be invariably meted out with some form of disciplinary action by the existing Seamen's Registry Board or the proposed Maritime Board. The disciplinary action would usually be in the form of suspension from registration, or the loss of priority in registration. As registration is a condition precedent for the employment of any seamen of the registrable categories, it can be easily imagined that such disciplinary action has a sobering effect on, besides the financial shock to, the erring sailors. Such disciplinary action would have been bearable to the seamen if they can be sure that the employers who literally short-change their seamen would be brought to account in a similar fashion by the Board.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the National Maritime Board Bill, but subject to such qualifications as I shall later on detail in my speech. The topic of maritime employment is a matter of great interest to the NTUC which have sponsored the formation of the Singapore Organisation of Seamen, a registered trade union to organise and represent seamen in relation to their respective employers. The NTUC, therefore, have reasons t' be grateful for the opportunity to give their comments while the Ministry of Communications were in the process of drafting the Bill. Some of the recommendations contained in NTUC's memorandum to the Ministry, I am glad to say, have been incorporated into the Bill before the House. The accepted recommendations include those dealing with the definitions of "seafarer" and "employer", and with the imposition of a penalty against employers engaging seamen in contravention of the proposed Act. Other accepted recommendations of NTUC dealt with minor matters. Despite the acceptance of some of their recommendations, the NTUC have reservations about the Bill as it now stands. While it is natural that NTUC should feel disappointed that not all their recommendations have been accepted, the reservations of NTUC are not founded on chagrin but concern for the future of maritime employment in our Republic. In the second sentence of the Explanatory Statement to this Bill, it is averred that "the general intention of the Bill is the welfare of members of the mercantile marine and the development of the mercantile marine." In so far as the Bill seeks to promote the welfare of seafarers, it does seem that the Bill is an answer to the concern of the NTUC. But therein lies the snag.”
“(1) That the sum to be allocated for Head 1201 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1001.”
“Sir, I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. In the absence of Mr Ng Kah Ting, the following amendment standing in his name was not proceeded with - (2) That the sum to be allocated for Head 1101 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1061. The sum of $482,370 for Head 1101 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 1104 - The following amendment stood in the names of Messrs Hwang Soo un, Ho Kah Leong, Sim Boon Woo and P. Govindaswamy - That the sum to be allocated for Head 1104 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1001.”
“If planning in phases is well thought out, one area of Telok Blangah could have been acquired first, and flats built to re-house residents of other areas of Telok Blangah or those residents in close proximity to the Constituency. This has neither been thought out nor done. Sir, the Minister for Finance during his Financial Policy Statement mentioned the Sentosa Development Corporation. Many residents of Sentosa are boatmen, solely depending on the sea for their livelihood, i.e, ferrying cargo. They ply between ships anchored in the outer roads and Singapore. They have contributed to the entrepot trade of Singapore and will continue to contribute to make the Singapore harbour a thriving one. They are an economic necessity to the survival of Singapore. I have no quarrel with making Sentosa a tourist paradise. But what does the Government propose to do with the residents of Sentosa who depend upon the sea for their livelihood? If they are moved out, will they be given alternative accommodation close to the sea? Will they be provided shore space to moor their boats? Or will they be allowed to continue remaining in one part of Sentosa and be allowed to continue to ply their traditional trade between the outer roads and Singapore? 2.45 p.m.”
“The Lettings and Sales Sections cannot cope up with flat requirements of the Resettlement Department and everybody is under pressure, including the Member of Parliament. Could this not be the fault of the overall planning in the Housing and Development Board? In other cases, the whole area is served with notices of clearance and only partial clearance of smaller areas, like kampongs, takes place. Sometimes even after one year of the serving of clearance notices, nothing happens. Owners of houses do not repair dwellings while under clearance notices, and tenants' requests for Housing and Development Board flats are not met, the reason being that the areas are not required for immediate clearance. Sir, nobody likes to move out of a place where one has been living in for years, paying low rentals, or no rental at all in the rural and suburban areas. If people, who are already reluctant to move out, are further burdened by the offer of flats miles away from where they work, resentment breaks out especially when they have to pay higher rentals and have to travel longer distances to their places of work. Many of my constituents in Pulau Brani, Sentosa, Bukit Theresa, Bukit Purmei, Radin Mas and Kampong Heap Guan San, who are all affected by urban renewal, are dependent on the Port of Singapore Authority and the sea for their livelihood. They also belong to the lower income group. If they are offered alternative accommodation far away from the area of their means of livelihood as a result of bad planning, we cannot blame the citizens if they offer resistance.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 1101 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1001*.(* The same amendment also stood in the names of Messrs Yeo Choo Kok, Ho See Beng and Seah Mui Kok.) Sir, in my criticism of the Ministry of Law and National Development, I would like to confine myself to three topics, (1) Planning for development; (2) The co-ordination between Urban Renewal and Resettlement Departments; and (3) The Lettings and Sales Sections of the Housing and Development Board. In fact, it can be said that the coordination among all the agencies that I have just outlined also leaves much, to be desired. Sir, it appears as if plans are drawn for an area earmarked for development, and as soon as the overall plans are approved the squatters and landowners are issued with clearance and land acquisition notices. No planning or co-ordination takes place at this juncture for the number of houses to be cleared, within what period and to where they are to be resettled. Phased acquisition of land and land clearance is not properly carried out. Squatters and landowners are asked to move out even though the Resettlement Department is unable to provide suitable alternative .accommodation. Sir, you are aware that Telok Blangah is under an intensive urban renewal project, and I know what I am talking about. In some phases of acquisition, one-room flats are offered to large families, because they are the only ones available. In other phases of acquisition, families which cannot afford to pay high rentals are offered 2-room and 3-room flats because these are the only ones available.”
“Sir, with the hope that I would not have to raise the same problem next year, I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 1003 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1001, Sir, last year I raised the problem of resignations and the shortage of men in the Fire Brigade service. I also raised the problem of a revision of wages for members of the Fire Brigade, and that it should be in line with the revision of salaries of the Police Force which was being conducted at that time. When I raised the problem of wages for our firemen, the Minister replied, and I quote him: `The last point that the Member raised concerns the possibility of reviewing the emoluments of the staff of the Fire Brigade Department. This is being done, and it is hoped that the review will be completed in the near future.' This is found in Hansard [Vol. 30, No. 14, col. 1041] of 22nd March 1971, Sir, every time the Minister replied, he has these qualified terms "in the near future", "soon", "under active consideration" or "very soon". I want a categorical answer this time as to whether or not this is being done. If it is not done, why not?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the fact that the Minister is just as interested as I am in obtaining a permanent circuit, I wish him luck this year. I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Last March, Sir, our sporting Minister for Social Affairs told us that a committee had been set up and it had submitted a comprehensive report to the Government on an alternative site and other requirements. He also told us that the proposed multi-purpose circuit would be in a good location with scenic surroundings and away from residential areas. He also told us that there would be social amenities and it would thus become a tourist attraction. May I inquire what has become of this committee's report? It is high time we had a permanent racing circuit. We should stop using the Sembawang circuit with its attendant inconveniences, although it is not an inconvenience to me because I am staying just a stone's throw from it.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 1001 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1001. Mr Speaker, Sir, the 7th Grand Prix will be held at the Sembawang circuit next Fri-day. Grand Prix has become a national event in Singapore and it is participated not only by local but also international competitors. In fact, Sir, it is one of the very few international sporting events which is held in Singapore. Singapore has a rightful place in the international motor racing calendar. However, can we say that we have a suitable circuit? What we need is a permanent Grand Prix circuit, and this question was raised not less than twice previously. Sir, though next week's Grand Prix is the seventh in our series, we have had motor racing events for many years. The local participants in the racing events are always at a distinct disadvantage because of the lack of a permanent circuit where they can practise and compete with one another in order that our best talents can participate at the annual Grand Prix event. A permanent circuit will provide an opportunity for our young speed enthusiasts to test their skill and their motor cars or motor cycles. We hope it will also put an end to the hide-and-seek that our young motorists are playing with the traffic police at odd hours in various places, like Orchard Road, Nicoll Highway, Nicoll Drive, Jurong and other venues. Our motorists and motor-cyclists have not been able to offer keen competition to international competitors in our Grand Prix, not because they lack talent but because there is no permanent circuit where they can practise for competitions.”
“Sir, I disclaim any responsibility for that!”
“I thank the Minister for his elaboration. I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Teong Eng Siong - (2) That the sum to be allocated for Head 0801 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1003.”
“It is exorbitant to buy uniforms, especially those for the school band. I know this from experience. Can I have the Minister's clarification on this issue?”
“Sir, perhaps when I moved the amendment and spoke on the expenses of uniforms for students in the uniformed groups. I did not make myself clear. If I remember correct, the Minister mentioned that all such uniforms are provided free And he has also said that I was perhaps misinformed. I want a clarification, to make clear on what I have said, and also to listen to the Minister's further views on free uniforms, If I am correctly informed, uniforms are provided free in the case of members in N.C.C. that is, the National Cadet Corps of the Army and the Police. However, the uniformed groups in schools are not confined to these two categories alone. There are other uniformed groups, for instance, the Boy Scouts, the Girl Guides, the Red Cross, the Boys' Brigade, the St. John's Ambulance Brigade and, most important of all, the school bands which we are very keen on advocating. As I have said earlier on, I speak with some experience as I have children in schools. I have said that there are many schools which provide these uniforms free of charge, on a loan basis. However, there are also some schools where the children have to buy the uniforms themselves. It is all right for me to buy uniforms for my children, but there are some people who cannot afford to buy them. This is where I think the Minister said that the school management committees are even looking into the possibility of providing free lunches if students have to stay behind for technical education. This is a welcome move. Perhaps we can extend this privilege by providing free uniforms so that we do not confine children from the lower income group to the N.C.C, of the Police or the Army. If they have talent and if they are interested, they can join the school hand.”
“, which are required for technical classes. A system of loan scheme should be devised. I agree with the Government's policy of requiring every pupil to be enrolled in at least one uniformed group in a school. I have known that in some schools uniforms have to be purchased by the students themselves. In certain cases they have to buy two sets of uniforms, one for ceremonial purposes. We are encouraging school bands to be formed. In many schools, uniforms for the bands are not provided and therefore children from poor homes, even if they are talented and interested in joining the bands, feel shy of joining them just because they cannot afford it. I hope the Minister will look into the possibility of providing these uniforms free-of-charge which will be returned to the school when the pupil leaves the school, or is no longer in the uniformed group. This is being done in some schools, but not all. Surely we do not want participation in school bands to be the exclusive right of only those who can afford it. Sir, another common complaint of parents with children in secondary schools is the heavy load on the school curricula. I have heard complaints from parents that secondary school pupils have very little time for homework and for home environment. Sir, I speak this with some experience and authority. I have the same complaint. The pupils spend very little time in the house as they are required for extra-curricular activities, games, sports, etc., at least three to four times a week, either in the evenings or mornings, outside their regular school hours. Education should be an enjoyable process and not a burdensome one.”
“A student in the secondary school has to pay a school fee of $4 per month, plus a fee of $2 for miscellaneous purposes thus making a total of $6 per month. The only students who are exempted from the payment of such fees are students of Malay origin. Others, even those whose parents are in receipt of public assistance from the Social Welfare Department, are expected to pay at least a fee of $1 for miscellaneous purposes. Conditions prescribed by the Ministry of Education for the remission of school fees from $6 per month to $1 per month are extremely rigid and restrictive to such an extent that it is impossible for the student from a family of very difficult financial circumstances to be granted such a remission of school fees. One of the conditions is that the family income does not exceed $200 per month, and the other is that the remission, if granted, is subject to a maximum of 10 per cent of the total enrolment in each school. There are other expenses involved in respect of pupils, especially from the lower income group. If the schools are far from their homes, invariably they are, the children will have to remain be-hind in school at least twice a week for extra-curricular activities and technical classes. This involves additional expenses for meals as well as additional transport where workshops are not located close to the school where the children are admitted. I have known of lower in-come group parents, especially those earning $200 or less, complaining that it costs them at least $30 per month to keep each child in a secondary school. Sir, in addition to this monthly recurrent expenditure, there are some expenses at the beginning of the school term, such as the purchase of books, drawing boards, workshop aprons, geometrical instruments, etc.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 0801 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1001*.(* The same amendment also stood in the names of Messrs Tay Boon Too, Ng Kah Ting, Ho Kah Leong, Ho See Beng and P. Govindaswamy.) Sir, I notice the Members for Paya Lebar, Jurong and Moulmein have also moved amendments to this Head of Expenditure. As we know that all three of them are Presidents of Teachers' Unions, I will leave it to them to take up the professional and industrial problems of teachers and the Education Service in general. I will confine myself to those aspects which affect teachers and pupils as a whole. One of the problems I wish to raise is the high cost of education in Singapore. Let me hasten to add, Sir, the high cost of education to certain categories of people, that is (1) the lower income group, and (2) the over-worked pupils in secondary schools. Sir, we are aware of the emphasis on technical education and participation in uniformed groups. In the case of the lower income groups, this emphasis is costing more than what they can afford. I have spoken on this subject once before. This policy does not appear to give any consideration to the minimisation of the economic effect of the readjustment of its policies on the parents of the students concerned. While it is not possible for the Government to implement a scheme of free secondary education, it is reasonably expected of the Government to bring secondary education within the means of as many citizens as possible. Many citizens, particularly those from the lower income group, have found the cost of educating their children to secondary level very expensive.”
“The complaint of the Member for Sembawang that there are two or three days' delay in the delivery of local mail does not appear to be justified, because there are two other Members who feel that they are getting their letters earlier than usual. This may well be, because the Member for Sembawang is living in a rural area and the other two Members are living in an urban area where services are more efficient.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, having complained about the Telecommunications Department, I think I must stand up this time to compliment the Ministry on the vast improvement in the postal services. I am sorry that I cannot agree with the views of the Member for Sembawang. Sir, if you will remember correctly, during the last Budget debate, I spoke on two aspects of postmen. One was the uniforms which were not only unattractive but also unsuitable for the climate of Singapore. You will notice that the postmen are now on a smart turnout. Let me take a little credit for that for having criticised the uniforms of postmen last year. If you remember, Sir, I also mentioned the problem of providing postmen with faster vehicular transport. That also has been done. Now, I see postmen in rural areas, as the Member for Anson said, using scooters resulting in faster delivery. There has been vast improvement in the Ministry of Communications, if not in the Telecommunications Department, then in the Postal Department. Let us congratulate the Ministry on that. Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Mr Speaker, Sir, it looks as if it would not be necessary for me to answer the criticisms by Members. I would like to say that if there has been any improvement in the Postal Department, credit is due to the Backbenchers of Parliament because, arising out of their strong criticisms, action was followed up. Therefore, I would appreciate it if Members have constructive criticisms, could they please direct them not to the Member for Sembawang, but to pass them on to me, because there is a lot of work to be done.”
“Sir, on the assurance of the Minister that the Telecommunication Authority will do better than the Telecommunications Department, I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $421,700 for Head 0701 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 0703 -”
“Rapid advancement has been achieved with the installation of the satellite earth station and the expansion of the telex service. But to keep pace with this rapid development in the department, staffing should also be increased commensurate with the development. Sir, progress, cannot be achieved without adequate, contented, and well-rested staff. May I suggest that the Minister radically revises the present situation existing in the Telecommunications Department to ensure that the defects are remedied without prejudice to any better provision which may exist or may be negotiated by the N.T.U.C. Sir, now that the Telecommunications Department is to be made the Telecommunication Authority of Singapore from 1st April this year, will this improve the situation at all? I have my doubts. Another statutory board, the Public Utilities Board, has similar problems of overtime and staffing. Do I have to come back again next year and make the same plea on behalf of the workers of the Telecommunication Authority of Singapore? An hon. Member: Will you be here next year?”
“This will wipe out the present vacancy position as well as fill the 159 new posts now coming up for approval before the House. The department should be able to have a full complement of staff by May this year.' That was the reply last year. And he continued: `A crash training programme is being arranged which will enable the new staff to be trained and put into operating position some time in August. It is anticipated that the long overdue time off can be granted thereafter. It is likely that 24 vacancies in the vote for telegraph messengers will be filled by June, by which period time off for messengers can be granted thereafter.' Sir, I will relate also what actually is the position today. It is strange, but true, that although the Minister for Communications assured me on 19th March last year that the loyal and dedicated staff of the Telecommunications Department would not again be faced with an enormous accumulation of time off, for this year, i.e., from March 1971 to February 1972, the figure stands at 45,000 hours owing to the staff in the department. Sir, the workers in the department cannot be treated as cogs in the wheels of the department. They should be given justice. It would seem odd indeed that such a situation exists in the Telecommunications Department since, as the Minister intimated last year, the Public Service Commission had just completed an exercise to recruit over 250 Telecoms clerical assistants and technicians and that the 24 vacancies for telegraph messengers would be filled by June. Sir, what has actually gone wrong? Was the recruitment done? Were the people recruited at all? My firm suspicion is it has broken down. Let us hope not. The department is expanding with greater demands for higher technological Telecommunications.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 0701 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1001*.(* The same amendment also stood in the names of Messrs Yeo Choo Kok, Ho See Beng and Seah Mui Kok.) Sir, in the last Budget session, I spoke on staff shortage in the Telecommunications Department of the Ministry of Communications. Let me quote what I said on the 19th March last year [Hansard, Vol. 30, No. 13, col. 889]: `... we have a very serious shortage of staff in the Telecommunications Department. The employees in the operational side of the department work day in and day out without obtaining any time off for rest days and public holidays.' Sir, last year, the International Telegraph Section of the Telecommunications Department alone owed the staff for the period June 1969 to January 1971 a total of 30,000 hours for working on rest days and public holidays. The Department owed the messengers 11,500 hours, clerical assistants 5,600 hours, and counter clerks 1,500 hours. I also mentioned then, Sir, the fact that messengers were put on duty without a single day of rest for several weeks at a stretch. They worked for half a year without any rest days or public holidays. I also mentioned the fact that there should not be any problem at all in recruiting clerical assistants, counter clerks and messengers because they are not highly skilled persons. Let me now quote to you, Sir, what the Minister told this House then, and I quote from the same Hansard, col. 892: `I am very pleased to say that for the first time the department is well ahead on recruitment. The Public Service Commission has just completed an exercise to recruit over 250 Telecommunications clerical assistants and technicians.”
“Mr Speaker. Sir,I think the Minister has not quit answered my question. We know that sections 37 (4) and 4! (4) are not operable. We cannot operate under those sections. We have tried to do so since 1968. The Minister should he aware of it as the NTUC had sent him a memorandum on it. We have also made representations to the Minister for Finance. Although the Act provides for time off in lieu the major Departments involved. Ministries of Finance. National Development, Communications. Telecommunications and statutory boards like the P.U.B, and P.S.A, cannot follow the law. Is the Minister suggesting that because we do not amend the Act, then these Ministries and statutory boards should break our own law? This is what will happen. We should either not request them to work on public holidays, in which case essential services will be interrupted, or allow them to work and pay them for it. But the law prevents them from being paid. We have come to an impasse. Therefore. I suggest one or two ways to solve this problem. One is a ministerial directive to allow the Permanent Secretaries and Chairmen of statutory boards to use their initiative to pay for overtime worked by employees whom they cannot give time off in lieu. And if they cannot pay, then amend the Act. There is no other way.”
“Will the Minister consider amending this section of the Employment Act? Meanwhile, can the Permanent Secretaries, departmental heads and Chairmen of statutory boards, be given authority to grant overtime, and to pay for overtime if no time off can be given within a reasonable period?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, my colleague, the Member for Bukit Ho Swee, during the debate on the financial policy of the Government, spoke very frankly and forcefully on the need for amendments to the Employment Act and the Industrial Relations Act. He covered a number of sections in the Acts that need to be reviewed, namely, sections on the limitation of bonuses (this has clearly proved to be not workable), employer's prerogatives on transfers, promotions, dismissals, etc. I shall not repeat except to associate myself with the sentiments expressed. I hope the Minister has taken note of the views expressed by the Member for Bukit Ho Swee, and that in his reply today he will cover the grounds raised by the Member. I only want to speak on two other sections of the Employment Act - sections 37 (4) and 41(4) - that need to be amended as a matter of urgency. These sections limit financial compensation for workers in the essential services for overtime work performed, when time off cannot be granted within a reasonable period because of the shortage of staff - many of these departments are of an essential nature. Implementation of these two sections of the Act has encountered difficulties by some Ministries and statutory boards and I will give details when I speak about these Ministries later on. The Ministries and statutory boards concerned cannot give time off for overtime work performed, because of serious shortages of staff. At the same time, the employees of essential services are required to work and the Act restricts them from being paid wages although they are required to perform duties over and beyond the 48-hour limitation on overtime work. Both these sections of the Employment Act have proved to be unworkable.”
“Sir, now that the administrative slip has been found out, I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, subhead 1036 is the vote for a Research Officer under Salary Code 154. This Code gives .a salary scale ranging from $800 to $1,650. The Research Officer under subhead 1041 comes under a different Salary Code; Code 216 which gives a salary scale ranging from $935 to $1,255. The question is: what is the reason for the disparity in the salary scales for these two Research Officers? It is understandable if one officer is on a different grade from the other, but the Estimates of Expenditure does not indicate so. The nomenclature is the same, and yet the salaries differ. Can the Minister of Defence explain the difference in the salaries?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 0401 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1036. Sir, as I have another amendment* on subhead 1041 of the same Head, may I seek your permission to range my remarks over both amendments? * The amendment reads as follows: That the sum to be allocated for Head 0401 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead1041.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the Minister's explanation and the fact that some money was made out of this machine, I beg leave to my other point, that is, the extent of withdraw, Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $2,405,580 for Head 0104 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 0108 -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 0104 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2010. Sir, this amendment is moved to solicit information. A vote of $600 was set aside for the last financial year 197 1-72 for the rental of a photo-copying machine. I would like to know how much of this vote was actually spent during that financial year. Sir, the Government is advocating mechanisation in our various departments. Has the department of Judicature a photo-copying machine or not? If not, would it not be cheaper to purchase one rather than renting a photo-copying machine at the cost of $600 a year?”
“One aspect of this is the anomaly found in the Public Utilities Board charges for use of electricity. Sir, the rich and the well-to-do live in comfortable air-conditioned rooms and pay at the rate of 7 cents per unit for electricity consumed. On the other hand, the poor, who cannot afford an air-conditioner, have to be contented with a ceiling fan which only circulates the hot air in the room, and they have to pay 18 cents per unit. I should think that the charge should be the other way round. This is one way of giving indirect relief to the lower income group. I am sure our able Finance Minister will find means of distributing our fortune a little more in favour of the lower income group than it appears in his Budget speech for this year. 3.44 p.m.”
“Sir, one newspaper has described our Minister for Finance, after his Budget speech, by saying that he has scored "first a hat-trick and then a Six". May I extend the analogy of the cricket language by adding that he has also played his way into the pages of "Wisdens". In fact, I have been waiting to hear criticisms from Opposition parties on the Financial Statement. Not a squeak has been heard, which goes to prove that our Budget has not been a mean achievement. Any Opposition party would be hard put to improve it. Sir, the increase in earned income relief will benefit about 33,000 taxpayers. The increase in the exemption from $6,000 to $12,000 in the net annual value of owner-occupied residences for income tax purposes will benefit house-owners, including those who live in palatial homes. Remission from Estate Duty on estates between $10,000 and $25,000 will benefit house and land-owning citizens, including Housing and Development Board flat owners. Good luck to them. Except for the $1,000 income tax exemption, I have looked in vain in our financial policy for benefits for our lower income group of workers, i.e, the one- room Housing Board flat dwellers, the unfortunate unemployable persons. Every citizen has a right to a share of whatever prosperity the Republic enjoys. The annual allowance of one month's salary for workers in the public sector is a welcome gesture. They now look forward to the Wages Council's recommendations. We hope this will provide some additional benefit in the form of an increase in wages for wage-earners. Sir, what I am pointing out is that the lower income group will not benefit from the exemptions that the Finance Minister has outlined. We have to find ways and means of raising the standard of living of this group.”
“Sir, being a responsible Government, we have been able to plan and execute our policies with the object of obtaining what is good for our people. Our actions have been geared to what we can do best for the people to improve their material, cultural, educational and aesthetic well-being, without always worrying about what the Opposition Members of Parliament would say. In other words, as Back-benchers, we do not have the slightest desire to make a noise in Parliament just for the sake of it, so as to be able to subserve the purpose of getting votes. The time of the Ministers, Minister of State, Parliamentary Secretaries, Members of Parliament and civil servants has not been wasted in unnecessary, irrelevant, or hair-splitting arguments in order to score points and win votes for the Opposition political party, but rather spent usefully in planning for a better life for our citizens. If the composition of this House were different, if we had representatives from any of the irresponsible political parties that have mushroomed in recent months, we would have squandered a lot of time with arguments designed to catch the ear of the electorate, rather than to safeguard the interest or welfare of Singaporeans. Members on this side of the House have criticised the Government and will continue to do so not to score points, but to make constructive and objective criticisms. Very few people in Singapore realise that our achievements in the past few years, with odds against us, have been the result of all 58 Members of this House coming from the same Party, and that Parliament has been able to initiate necessary action with the minimum of fuss.”
“Mr Speaker. Sir, the four hon. Members who spoke before me have aptly commended the Minister for Finance for his Budget Statement. I think this is the first time that any Finance Minister in any country has not only presented a Budget without new taxation measures but has also given away revenue amounting to $3.5 million approximately. I may be wrong. The historians in Parliament can clarify this. Any benefits to anybody, although the benefits given by the Finance Minister would not be for the lower income group, should be applauded. In fact, at the end of his speech, Members of the House did applaud in complete disregard of the Standing Orders. Sir, we are grateful to the Minister for Finance who acknowledged the efforts of the workers for their contributions for a very successful year. With the rapid withdrawal of the British military forces in 1971, never in the wildest dreams did the people of Singapore expect a 14 per cent increase in our Gross National Product. However, this has been achieved, and the credit goes to the Government as well as to our workers for their hard work, dedication, restraint and co-operation. When I say "workers", I do not confine it only to workers in the private sector and lower ranks of the public service, but also include our top civil servants and senior statutory board employees. People who work with their brain are as much a worker as those who work with their brawn. In my opinion our economic progress in the past few years has also been the result of the unique political situation obtainable in Singapore today - without any official parliamentary opposition as we have in this Chamber today.”
“Order. I think this is the most convenient time to take a suspension. I suspend the sitting now and will take the Chair again at twenty minutes past Five. Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.49 p.m. until 5.20 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.20 p.m. [Mr N. Govindasamy in the Chair] MEDICAL REGISTRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL Debate on Second Reading resumed. Question proposed.”