Ong Pang Boon
Singapore
“At the same time, our shoulders should be broad enough to accept criticism and even admit mistakes if need be, and be prepared to make the necessary changes. This does not mean pandering to the baser instincts of the people.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Ministry will certainly give every assistance to the villagers in clearing the debris, especially if they are left over by the contractors. I will appreciate if the Member can also let the Ministry know who are these contractors and we will prosecute them. CONSTRUCTION BRIGADE (Progress) 2.”
“The Ministry is now monitoring the results of the programme and is happy to note that there are some improvements in the cleanliness of our public toilets. It would prosecute managements of public toilets who fail to provide proper maintenance.”
“A comprehensive programme to monitor the air and sea environment in the vicinity of the Complex has been drawn up. Engineers and technicians from the Ministry and other departments have been sent for overseas training on the surveillance of petrochemical complexes.”
“The professional or other misconduct for the purposes of revocation must be of such a nature as to render, in the opinion of the Attorney-General, the notary public unfit to practise as such. This amendment is dealt with in clause 4 of the Bill.”
“All flats of the Port of Singapore Authority (PSA) including those at Blair Plain are rented out to employees on monthly tenancies and are not provided as part of their terms and conditions of service. These flats are therefore not service quarters.”
The complete record
Every one of 668 lines we hold for Ong Pang Boon, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 14.
“Sir, that shows a lack of discipline on the part of the couple. If the couple can show to the Commissioner for Employment that they have already made the necessary arrangements, I think favourable consideration may be given. Mr Ho See Beng: Sir, never mind the discipline. Everybody makes mistakes. The fact is that this couple had contracted to marry before 1st July, 1973. And when this regulation came into force, all those who wanted to marry foreigners had to get the approval of the Commissioner for Employment. So the couple went to the Registry of Marriages and the Registrar referred them to the Commissioner for Employment, who turned it down without finding out whether the contract was made before or after the 1st of July, 1973. This is the point I am making: How can, the Minister make his regulations retroactive?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as far as I am aware, I have not rejected any of those cases where the applicants have made arrangements to get married, i.e, if they have made bookings of restaurants, and if they have spent money on furniture and all sorts of things connected with the proposed marriages.”
“In that case, she should not have applied for a work permit.”
“Sir, if the Member can submit that case to me, I will certainly look into it. I would also like to ask him whether the girl's intention of coming to Singapore is to work or to get married.”
“Sir, the answer is "No". Mr P. Govindaswamy (Anson): Mr Speaker, Sir, a Malaysian girl applied for a work permit, but it was not approved. A Singapore citizen wants to marry this girl, but the application was rejected. Can the Minister give reasons why the application for marriage was not approved?”
“792 others were rejected because the work permit holders were unskilled and working in Singapore for too short a period prior to application. In this connection, hon. Members may wish to note that no approval is required in marriages between work permit holders where Singapore citizenship or permanent residence in Singapore is not acquired nor desired. Furthermore, applications from work permit holders who are skilled or who have more than five years' continuous employment in Singapore will be favourably considered.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, hon. Members may permit me to recall the rationale for the implementation of the policy in July this year requiring work permit holders to obtain the approval of the Commissioner for Employment before contracting marriage with Singapore citizens. Singapore's high rate of economic growth and the resultant tight labour situation in recent years have led to the adoption of a liberal policy in the issue of work permits. There is at present a large number of such work permit holders, many of whom are in the younger age group, working in Singapore. For these young workers, it is natural for them to mix freely in our society, making friends, marrying, settling down and raising families in Singapore. A healthy infusion of a vigorous and hardworking people can result from this, provided they are industrious and have acquired the necessary skills. These qualities are essential if the young work permit holders are to be integrated successfully into the society of Singapore. The policy requiring work permit holders to obtain the approval of the Commissioner for Employment was implemented to discourage young workers on work permit from contracting early marriages until they have shown that they are able to settle down successfully in Singapore and to support a small family. Unless a work permit holder has adjusted to the different and faster pace of life in Singapore's highly disciplined and urbanised society, marriage between a work permit holder and a Singapore citizen can lead to difficulties for themselves and for Singapore. In processing applications for marriages, consideration must therefore be given to these factors. As at 30th November, 1973, the Commissioner for Employment has approved a total of 702 such applications.”
“Yes, but the Post Office is probably somewhat different from the CPF. The Member may be aware that the CPF has a new computer with a larger capacity. It is hoped that when the computer is fully installed and functioning, it may he possible in the near future to compute the interest at shorter intervals than yearly as at present. All the monies collected by the CPF are invested in Government bonds. The CPF is not permitted to invest in other more profitable commercial securities. As the Government bond only pays an interest of about 6 per cent, the CPF therefore cannot pay an interest of more than 53/4 per cent. Much as the CPF would like to pay more, I do not think it is possible. The quarter per cent earned by CPF is used to pay for administrative expenses and staff salaries. I think this probably answers the question of the Member for Sembawang regarding the use of the CPF contributions. The CPF building is built out of funds accumulated by the CPF over the years. As for withdrawal before reaching 55 years of age, I do not think the present law permits that, unless the member is leaving Singapore for good or is unable to work indefinitely. So I am afraid the Member for Sembawang will have to be satisfied with the answer 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.-[Mr Ong Pang Boon]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. BUS SERVICES LICENSING AUTHORITY (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 4.35 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to assure the Member for Telok Blangah that it is not the intention of this amendment Bill to catch the small employers, the employer of a domestic servant, for instance. The intention is really to catch the big employers of a large labour force. I am quite sure the CPF inspectors will be able to exercise a certain amount of discretion when dealing with employers of domestic servants who fail to pay CPF contributions for a genuine reason. Mr Speaker, Sir, the CPF Board has, in fact, considered the possibility of computing interest monthly, but there are certain technical difficulties which it cannot overcome as yet at present.”
“Sir, to ensure that all employees enjoy the benefits of CPF and employers are prompt in making CPF payments, it is necessary to arm officers of the Central Provident Fund Board with sufficient statutory powers to carry out their duties effectively and to provide for stiffer penalties against recalcitrant employers. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 4.14 p.m.”
“Clause 6, therefore, provides that where an employer has deducted CPF contributions from the wages of his employees but fails to pay such contribution to the Fund within the stipulated time, the employer is liable on conviction to a maximum fine of $10,000 or to imprisonment up to seven years, or to both such fine and imprisonment. The interest of the employees will be further protected by clause 16 which enables the Board to lay claims on the proceeds from the sale of any property of an employer seized under a writ of seizure. Mr Speaker, Sir, the amendments proposed in clauses 5 and 10 are significant as they will empower the Board to make rules prescribing the manner in which interest should be calculated. This will enable the Board to take into account late payments of contributions as though they were not late so that the employees concerned would not suffer a loss of interest. The amendments also enable the Board, if circumstances permit in the future, to credit interest to members of the Fund at half-yearly or quarterly intervals instead of the present yearly intervals. Another amendment that deserves mention is contained in clause 11. At present, a member who has withdrawn from the Fund at the age of 55 and carries on working cannot withdraw again until five years later. This may cause some hardship especially if the member is subsequently out of job. Clause 11 will now permit him to withdraw again if he has been unemployed for a period of six months immediately preceding the date he makes an application for a further withdrawal.”
“Clause 7 of the Bill will, therefore, increase the rate of interest on late payment to 1 1/2 per cent per month with a minimum penalty of $5. This interest will be charged on a daily basis instead of on a monthly basis in order to encourage employers to pay up promptly as, under the existing provision, an employer is penalised the same amount irrespective of whether he is late by one day or one month. A more serious problem is where an employer has deducted CPF contributions from the wages of his employees but fails to pay them to the Fund. Currently, the maximum penalties for such an offence are $500 for a first offence and $2,000 for a second and subsequent offence. Though considered to be sufficiently deterrent when the Act was first introduced in 1955, when the combined rate of CPF contribution was only 10 per cent subject to a maximum of $50 per month, these penalties are now manifestly inadequate especially when the combined rate of contributions has just been raised to 26 per cent from 1st July, 1973, in respect of employees earning more than $200 per month. The maximum monthly contribution payable by both employers and employees has also been increased to $225 and $165 respectively, and there is no limit on CPF contributions on bonuses. Large employers of labour will be very tempted to delay payment of CPF contributions which have been deducted from employees' salaries, and utilise this money for other purposes. This, in fact, happened in the case of four Chinese bus companies prior to and immediately after the reorganisation of the public transport system in April 1971.”
“As the rates of contribution have been further increased from 1st July this year, it is envisaged that the number of infringements and offences will also increase, unless steps are taken to check this tendency. This is one of the main objectives which the Bill hopes to achieve. Mr Speaker, Sir, the aims of this Bill are given in the Explanatory Statement. I will, therefore, only concentrate on the more important provisions. The Central Provident Fund Board is facing some difficulties in enforcing the provisions of the Central Provident Fund Act because of its limited powers. At present, officers of the Board are unable to deal effectively with the problem of evasion of CPF contributions, as the Act does not provide specific statutory powers to require employers to produce contracts of service, salary account books, registers and such other documents relating to the employment of their employees. Clause 4 of the Bill, therefore, seeks to provide officers of the Board with the necessary statutory powers to deal with this problem and to strengthen the Board's enforcement machinery. The Board is also concerned over the problem of late payments which is mainly due to the existing low penalties. Currently, an employer who pays CPF contributions late can be charged interest of 1 per cent per month on the amount of contribution due or $1 whichever is greater. This rate of interest of 1 per cent per month is not sufficiently deterrent to encourage prompt payment, while the minimum penalty of $1 is administratively unenforceable since a simple registered letter of demand costs 75 cents in postage alone, and many employers simply refuse to pay, knowing that the Central Provident Fund Board is unlikely to take criminal proceedings for such a small sum.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Mr Speaker, Sir, the Central Provident Fund Act was enacted in 1955 to provide employees in Singapore with a compulsory savings scheme so that they will have some savings when they retire from active work. Since then, the Fund has grown from a membership of 180,000 with accumulated savings of $9 million to more than 911,000 members whose total balance amounts to $1,500 million at the end of June 1973. The Fund is also fulfilling two important social functions. Firstly, under its approved housing scheme introduced in 1968, members are permitted to use their CPF credits to purchase Housing and Development Board fiats. At the end of June 1973, 32,727 members have withdrawn $119 million for this purpose. Secondly, it is an institution for national savings and is one of the most important sources of funds for Government development projects. There is, however, one unhealthy and unfortunate development that accompanies the growth of the Fund, namely, a corresponding increase in the number of infringements and offences under the Act. This is especially true whenever the rate of contribution is raised. In 1968, when the employer/employee combined rate of contribution was 13 per cent, only 42 employers were successfully prosecuted for non-payment of contributions and more than $114,000 collected as interest on late payments. In 1972, when the combined rate of contribution was raised to 24 per cent, the number of employers prosecuted increased to 653 and interest on late payments also jumped to $642,000. For the first six months of this year, 314 employers have been successfully prosecuted and $790,000 collected as interest on late payments.”
“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. CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 4.01 p.m.”
“Sir, as many of the representations are straightforward, the procedures adopted by the Ministry of Labour have proved to be effective and satisfactory. This is borne out by the following facts. Since 15th August, 1968, 109 representations have been received. Of this number, 24 representations were rejected, 52 were settled by conciliation, 23 were withdrawn by the union, three are currently under consideration, and a total of seven cases were disposed of by Ministerial orders, directing four dismissed employees to be reinstated and three employers to pay compensation to three dismissed employees. A total of three formal inquiries were also held under order of the Minister. It is to he noted that each formal inquiry took no less than two and a half months for hearings to be completed. The current procedure of first dealing with union representation by means of conciliation has, therefore, proved to be both expeditious and satisfactory. This same procedure will be adopted in respect of representations made under the new amended section 14 of the Employment Act. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government does not contemplate amending the relevant sections of the Industrial Relations Act at the moment, nor does it intend to accept the suggestions made by the hon. Members in respect of representations by non-unionised employees for wrongful dismissal. A formal hearing, which is not only time-consuming but also involves the full-time services of a good number of Government officers, should only be resorted to when a prima facie case has been established and when all other conciliatory efforts have failed to settle the issue. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole house.”
“In other words, Mr Speaker, Sir, he has admitted that there are sections of workers which cannot be unionised, and therefore they need the protection of this provision. For instance, domestic servants and the large number of construction workers, contract workers, and so on. Obviously they need the protection of this provision in the Amendment Act. Sir, the Member for Telok Blangah has dealt at length with the procedure under the Industrial Relations Act regarding representations of wrongful dismissal. Under the provision of section 35 (2) of the Industrial Relations Act, if an employee considers that he has been dismissed without just cause or excuse by his employer, he may make representation through his union to the Minister for reinstatement. The representation is first referred to the Industrial Relations Section to be dealt with on a conciliation basis, and the employer concerned is asked to furnish in writing the circumstances leading to, and grounds for, the dismissal. If, in this informal preliminary inquiry, a prima facie case is not established by the union, then, of course, such representation will be rejected. But if the informal inquiry reveals that the management is partly in the wrong, then efforts will be made to get the parties through ex parte consultation to settle the case either by reinstatement or by cash compensation. If no settlement is reached by conciliation, the representation will be dealt with either under section 35 (3), whereby the Minister directs the Commissioner for Labour to hold a formal inquiry and to make recommendations to the Minister; or under section 35 (4) where the employer is asked to make written submissions to the Minister to justify his action to dismiss the employee concerned.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, all the arguments put forward by the Members for Telok Blangah and Bukit Ho Swee had been gone into thoroughly in 1968 when the present Employment Act was passed in this House. Therefore, I do not propose to repeat the arguments put forward by the Government then, as I think the various points of view have been fully aired both inside and outside this Parliament. Suffice it to say, as a result of the passing of the Employment Act in 1968, there has been rapid economic development and we have been able to attract investments to this country and to solve what was at one time regarded as the insoluble problem of unemployment in Singapore. Today, we need to have a favourable climate for economic development. We also need investments as much as in 1968. For these reasons, the Employment Act will have to remain with us for a long time to come. Although there have been criticisms against the shortcomings of the Employment Act, nevertheless in the overall interest of rapid economic development and in the overall interest of our people, we cannot disband overnight the Employment Act which was introduced in 1968. What we can do is to ensure that the kind of situations brought up by the Members for Telok Blangah and Bukit Ho Swee will be prevented or rectified whenever they occur. The Member for Telok Blangah has objected to the provision whereby a non-unionised worker can make representation to the Minister for wrongful dismissal. I am rather surprised that the Member for Telok Blangah should adopt such a selfish attitude. I think a non-unionised worker should be entitled - Mr N. Govindasamy rose -”
“This will now be amended by clause 19 which provides that where a female employee has worked in her employment for any day during the period of four weeks immediately before her confinement, she shall be entitled to receive, in addition to her ordinary rate of pay for that day, an amount equivalent to a day's pay or to absent herself from work on another day at the end of her benefit period. In other words, every female employee is entitled to the full maternity leave of eight weeks or pay in lieu of any portion of such leave. Thirdly, the present Act provides that a female workman will forfeit in toto her maternity benefits if she fails to give proper notice of confinement to her employer. This is unduly harsh especially where failure to give notice is due to genuine ignorance of the legal requirement on the part of the female workman concerned. Clause 19, therefore, seeks to provide that where a female employee fails to give proper notice of confinement to her employer, she will still he entitled to one half of the maternity benefits. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.15 p.m.”
“Last October, my colleague, the Minister for Health, outlined in his Ministerial Statement in Parliament the measures to be taken to encourage family planning. One of these measures calls for the curtailment of paid maternity leave for employees in both the public and private sectors from three to two confinements with effect from 1st August this year. For employees in the public sector, appropriate amendments to the Instruction Manuals have been made by the Ministry of Finance. As for the private sector, clause 19 of this Bill seeks to provide that a female employee will not be entitled to any pay when she absents herself from work during a confinement if at the time of confinement she has two or more surviving children. This clause also supersedes whatever agreement that may be provided under any existing collective agreements insofar as they provide for better or more favourable maternity benefits. There are, however, three compensatory aspects of clause 19 which deserve special mention. Firstly, maternity benefits as provided under Part X of the Act are presently only applicable to female workmen. These statutory entitlements will now he extended by clause 19 to all female employees. This amendment ensures that all female employees will be well taken care of up to two confinements, thereby safeguarding the health of both mother and child. Secondly, the present Act provides that a female workman is entitled to paid maternity leave four weeks before and four weeks after her confinement. If she gives birth prematurely, i.e, before the estimated date of delivery, she will not be able to enjoy the four weeks of paid maternity leave before her confinement.”
“The Minister will be empowered to order the reinstatement of the employee or to order the employer to pay compensation if, after due inquiry, he is satisfied that the dismissal was wrongful. Responsible and fair-minded employers will have nothing to fear, as the amendment is directed against the irresponsible amongst them. Mr Speaker, Sir, there is also a need to prevent exploitation of children and young persons, especially in the context of a tight labour market. Presently, a person who employs a child or young person without a Certificate of Registration issued by the Commissioner or contrary to the conditions set out in the certificate may, on conviction, be fined a sum not exceeding $500 or sentenced to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or both. As imprisonment has never been imposed by the Court, the maximum penalty of $500 is, therefore, not sufficiently deterrent and, of late, there is a growing tendency among employers to engage children and young persons to work in factories and other industrial establishments with scant regard for their safety and health at the work place. Members will agree with me that, notwithstanding the requirements of industries, our obligation must be to ensure that high standards of health and safety prevail in establishments employing children and young persons. Since employers must be deterred from employing young workers without regard for their health and safety, the maximum fine will be increased from $500 to $2,000 by clause 7 of the Bill. Also, where a child or young person suffers serious injury or death arising from a contravention of the provisions of the Employment Act, the Court shall, upon the coming into force of this Bill, impose a mandatory fine of $2,000.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Mr Speaker, Sir, during the legislative reform of 1968, certain management rights and functions, including the right to hire and fire, were restored to employers. Generally, employers have proved worthy of the trust placed upon them and have exercised the powers restored to them in a fair and responsible manner. There are, however, some irresponsible employers who are abusing these powers by dismissing employees without just cause or excuse. Where the dismissed employees are represented by trade unions, adequate redress is provided under the Industrial Relations Act which empowers the Minister to order reinstatement or payment of compensation if, after due inquiry, he is of the opinion that the dismissal was without just cause or excuse. Such redress, however, is not available to non-unionised employees. At present, all that the Commissioner for Labour can do is to order the employer to pay a salary in lieu of notice of termination which can only amount to a maximum of four weeks' pay depending on the length of service of the employee concerned. This is clearly no deterrent to those employers bent on maximising profits without any regard for the well being of their employees. Hon. Members will no doubt agree with me that a non-unionised employee is as much entitled to protection against unjust dismissal as his unionised counterpart. Clause 2 of the Bill, therefore, seeks to provide that where an employee has been dismissed by his employer on ground of misconduct, he has a right to refer his case to the Minister if his dismissal was wrongful.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 2 of the Bill seeks to amend section 16 of the National Productivity Board Act to provide for the accounts of the Board to be audited by the Auditor-General or by an auditor appointed annually by the Minister in consultation with the Auditor-General. Besides spelling out the powers of the auditor, it also deals with the Boards financial year, the financial procedure to he adopted and preparation and publication of annual financial statements and reports. It provides that a copy of the audited financial statements and of the report of the auditor shall he presented to Parliament, and hence be subject to the scrutiny of the Public Accounts Committee where necessary. These amendments are aimed at placing the accountability of the Board on a more firm footing. The Bill also introduces a new section 23 which will grant the Board an exclusive right to the use of a symbol as set out in the Schedule to the Act. Any infringement of this right will render the person liable to a fine exceeding $1,000. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole 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. EMPLOYMENT (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 3.05 p.m.”
“Sir, I think the present work permit policy is already liberal enough, and there is no need to relax it any further. MARRIAGES AND DIVORCES (Particulars) 5. Mr Teong Eng Siong asked the Minister for Social Affairs, during the year ended 28th February, 1973, (a) how many marriages took place at the Registry of Marriages; and (b) how many cases of divorce occurred, and if he is able to give the grounds therefor. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Affairs (Mr Chan Chee Seng) (for the Minister for Social Affairs): Mr Speaker, Sir, the number of marriages which took place at the Registry of Marriages from 1st January to 31st December 1972 was 15,555. For the first two months of this year, i.e. January and February 1973, there were 2,636 marriages. The number of marriages solemnized at the Registry of Muslim Marriages from 1st January to 31st December 1972 was 2,662 and the number of marriages which took place for the first two months of this year was 452. The number of divorces granted from 1st January to 31st December 1972 by the Supreme Court was 260, and for the period 1st January to 28th February 1973 it was 40. The number of divorces registered with the Shariah Court for the period 1st January to 31st December 1972 was 254, and from 1st January to 28th February 1973 it was 43. It is regretted that the statistics for the grounds of divorce granted by the Supreme Court as well as the Shariah Court are not readily available. PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (Particulars) 6. Mr Teong Eng Siong asked the Minister for Social Affairs how many persons were granted public assistance during the year ended 28th February. 1973 and the total amount of aid paid.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Ministry has arranged with the Industrial Training Board to conduct skill tests for applicants who are work permit holders. If they can pass the skill test, they will be eligible for consideration for citizenship.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, apart from skill, we also grant work permits to applicants who are prepared to work in the construction industry. It is quite correct that there are unskilled workers in the factories, particularly in the pioneer industries. But ultimately each case will be considered on its own merit.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, their skill will be the main consideration.”
“Can the Member please repeat the question? Mr Ho See Beng: Sir, my question is: what are the criteria for approving work permit applications by Malaysian workers?”
“Sir, the privileges will be extended to the white-collar workers, provided they have attained a certain level of skill. There are a number of recognised examinations which the white-collar workers can take. But, I think, we can go into the details when a decision is made.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, work permits have been freely issued to applicants holding Singapore blue identity cards. Holders of Singapore blue identity cards are as a rule given work permits valid for two years as against one year for other categories of applicants. It is not proposed to exempt holders of Singapore blue identity cards, who have resided in Singapore for ten years, from having to apply for work permits. However, because many of the Singapore blue identity card holders who are on work permits have family roots in Singapore, consideration is being given to granting this category of applicants with a five-year work permit instead of the present two years. The hon. Member will recall that recently my Ministry announced that permanent residents, who pass the appropriate skill test or who possess acceptable training qualifications, will be eligible for citizenship if they satisfy the ten-year residential qualification. Holders of Singapore blue identity cards who are unskilled should, therefore, strive to upgrade their skill so that they can qualify for citizenship under this scheme.”
“If they prove to be an asset to the country, the Government will take the necessary measures to enable them to have their yearly work permits renewed on a three-yearly basis on the recommendation of their employers. In addition, they will also be eligible for consideration for permanent residence within a period of five years. This, we hope, will encourage those who would be an asset to the country to remain in Singapore.”
“Without the sincere and wholehearted support of the workers and employers, stern and punitive measures on the part of Government alone can at best only bring about partial solution. In this respect, it is quite heartening to note that the NTUC is taking an active interest in educating its members, and I hope that with the effort of both Government and the unions as well as the employers, the rate of industrial accidents may be reduced in the coming year. The Member for Sembawang also made a plea for further liberalisation of the issue of work permits, while the Member for Anson held a contrary view. Mr Speaker, Sir, in so far as the issue of work permits is concerned, the Ministry has been granting work permits liberally to non-citizens who possess the skills Singapore needs, who are hardworking and who, because of their educational or other qualifications, can be trained for our necessary skills and disciplines. The request for the liberal issue of work permits to white-collar workers, such as clerks and shop assistants, cannot be granted, because the need for immigrant workers is in the factories i.e, in the blue-collar jobs, not the white-collar jobs. The Government has no intention to liberalise the issue of work permits for shop assistants and clerical workers. Sir, there is a limit to which the issue of work permits can be liberalised. The Government has to ensure that only those who can contribute to the growth of the economy and the well-being of the State are admitted, so that the social services for our own citizens are not overstrained and the quality of life is not lowered. So work permits will continue to be liberally given to technicians and skilled workers.”
“Although I quite agree with both the Member for Sembawang and the Member for Anson that the number of factory inspectors should be increased if it is to be more effective - nevertheless, with the force that is available at present, the Ministry has stepped up its inspection of factories and construction worksites with a view to ensuring that the safety regulations under the law are strictly complied with. For the information of hon. Members, a total of 11,000 inspections were carried out in 1972, doubling that of the previous year, resulting in 234 court actions. This result was achieved in spite of the fact that the establishment of the Inspectorate has been rather small, as pointed out by some Members Sir, the Ministry is also setting up study groups to consider and make recommendations on various aspects of industrial health and safety in specific industries. I think the shipbuilding and ship-repairing industries will receive prior attention, as the accident rates have been particularly high in the last year. These study groups will comprise persons who are conversant and directly involved with the problems in the industries concerned so that their recommendations can be adopted and implemented. Furthermore, the services of an ILO expert on industrial health and safety have recently been enlisted. Among other things, he will help organise and conduct courses for safety officers both in the public and private sectors. As a further step, the Ministry is also finalising plans for the registration of contractors. Certain minimal safety standards will be imposed upon registered contractors. It must, however, be stressed that prevention of industrial accidents is a tripartite responsibility.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member for Sembawang will recollect that in Parliament last year I outlined a three-prong strategy to reduce the number of industrial accidents occurring in Singapore. Firstly, appropriate measures were taken to tighten up existing legislation to provide for higher standards of health, safety and welfare in the factories and at construction sites. Secondly, the Building Operations and Works of Engineering Construction Regulations, 1971, were promulgated to deal with the problems of high accident rates in the building construction trade. Thirdly, the quantum of workmen's compensation payable under the Workmen's Compensation Act was trebled to encourage employers to provide more adequate safety measures for their employees. Members will also recall that a two-week long national campaign on industrial safety and health was launched in March last year. This was aimed at creating public awareness to the increasing rate of industrial accidents in the Republic and driving home the message that industrial accidents, quite apart from bringing sorrow and anguish to the victims and their families, also result in social and economic losses. A new Factories Bill has gone through its Third Reading in Parliament recently. Upon coming into force, the provisions relating to the establishment of safety committees and the appointment of safety officers and industrial nurses would be enforced.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thought that the debate on the President's Speech is over and done with last week, and that there should not be any further debates on this. However, Mr Speaker, Sir, the question of modernisation of management techniques is not the subject of debate. Nevertheless I hope the people most concerned with management will take note of the points raised by the Member for Henderson. 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. ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLIC HEALTH (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 4.36 p.m.”
“In accordance with the recommendations of the National Wages Council, this section is being amended so that the Court shall also have cognizance of a trade dispute where a trade union or an employer who is a party to a trade dispute makes a request in writing to the Registrar that pursuant to subsection (6) of section 46 or subsection (3) of section 46A of the Employment Act, the trade dispute be submitted to arbitration. Section 34 of the Industrial Relations Act ci4rrently provides that in determining a trade dispute the Industrial Arbitration Court may have regard not only td the interests of the persons immediately concerned but also to the interests of the community as a whole and, in particular, the condition of the economy of Singapore. It is now proposed that, in addition to the above, the Court also pays due regard to the recommendations made by the Minister in relation to wage increases. Such recommendations would be published in the Government Gazette from time to time. The Bill also seeks to provide that on or after the 1st day of May, 1974, the parties bound by a collective agreement or award, made prior to the enactment of this Bill, may make an application to the Industrial Arbitration Court to vary the said agreement or award. Sir, the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill was committed to the Select Committee before the dissolution of the last Parliament. All the representors have been heard by the Select Committee and some of their suggestions and proposals have been incorporated in the pill. As such, I do not propose to commit the Bill to a Select Committee again. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 4.27 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, as in the case of the Employment (Amendment) Bill, the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill was committed to the Select Committee in the last Parliament after its Second Reading on 2nd June, 1972. In presenting the Employment (Amendment) Bill earlier, I have explained that it will be necessary to also amend the Industrial Relations Act to enable the implementation of the National Wages Council's recommendations. The Bill now before the House seeks to achieve this. Under the present Industrial Relations Act, the tenure of collective agreements or awards is between three and five years. Both employers and trade unions represented on the National Wages Council have expressed the view that this period is unduly long and restrictive. The Government has accepted this representation, and therefore proposes to reduce the number of years for which a collective agreement or award is binding from three to five years to two to three years. Section 31 of the Industrial Relations Act currently provides that the Industrial Arbitration Court shall have cognizance of a trade dispute where - (a) all the trade unions and employers who are parties to a trade dispute jointly make a request in writing to the Registrar that the trade dispute be submitted to arbitration; (b) the Minister by notice in the Gazette directs that the trade dispute be submitted to arbitration; or (c) the President of Singapore by proclamation declares that by reason of special1 circumstances it is essential in the public interest that a trade dispute be submitted to arbitration.”
“Even though the Employment Act does not cover workers drawing more than $750 salary per month, there is nothing in the Act or in any other law to prevent employers from granting salary increases to such workers, in accordance with the recommendations of the National Wages Council. The main constraint will be the maintenance of good employer/ employee relations, as it affects the productivity of the firm and the ability of such employers to med the increased cost, without seriously affecting the firm's competitive position. The good offices of the Labour Ministry is always at the disposal of both unions and employers. The Members for Moulmein and Bukit Ho Swee can always avail themselves of the service when the need arises.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in recounting the events leading to the introduction of the Employment (Amendment) Bill, I have explained that the purpose of the Bill was to give effect to the recommendations of the National Wages Council. I have been listening patiently to the Member for Telok Blangah for the last 10 minutes, thinking that he was going to comment on the salient features of the Bill. It would appear that I have been mistaken. He has instead taken the opportunity to launch an attack on a matter which has nothing whatsoever to do with the substance of the Bill under discussion. I am afraid I am in no position to comment on the particular instance raised by him as I have neither been acquainted with the facts by the union concerned nor have I the opportunity of listening to the other side of the story. No doubt, my colleagues, the Minister for National Development and the Minister for Finance, will take note of the Member for Telok Blangah's complaint and deal with it in due course. In any case, the Member for Telok Blangah is well aware of the established grievance procedure governing civil servants, and I have no doubt that he will take advantage of such established means of settling grievances to mutual satisfaction. The principle of tripartism is the correct approach to industrial relations in our situation today. I have again reiterated this view at the annual dinner of the Singapore Employers Federation referred to by the Member for Telok Blangah, and the Ministry will continue to advocate such a policy. I have reiterated earlier that the recommendations of the National Wages Council should not be approached in a legalistic way.”
“The collective agreement or award so varied shall continue in force for the period of the collective agreement or award, or until the collective agreement or award is further varied by the Court, whichever first occurs. A collective agreement or award that is so varied shall have effect from the date of the variation. Mr Speaker, Sir, opportunity is also taken to amend section 38 of the Employment Act to raise the limit imposed on overtime work by employees from 48 hours per month to 72 hours per month. This amendment is necessary in view of the near full employment situation in Singapore, resulting in serious shortage of certain categories of workers. Sir, the Government has accepted that the recommendations of the National Wages Council shall take effect from 1st July, 1972. It is, therefore, necessary for the Act to come into force from this date. Sir, to sustain and accelerate our present pace of economic development, we must continue to pursue the policy of industrial peace with justice. This calls for closer co-operation and greater understanding between labour, management and Government. It also calls for an orderly and equitable distribution of the additional wealth created by the joint efforts of the tripartite partners. So long as the employers are fair and reasonable and the trade unions do not make irresponsible and excessive demands, the outlook of our future will always be bright. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“Where a notice is served under section 17 of the Industrial Relations Act by an employer or a trade union of employees in respect of the annual wage supplement, annual bonus or annual wage increases referred to in subsection (1) of section 46, or a combination thereof as is referred to in subsections (2) and (3) of that section, and no agreement is reached between the parties on any of these matters, either of the parties may notwithstanding the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act, refer the matter to the Industrial Arbitration Court which may make a decision thereon. Provisions are made in the Act which enable an employer to invite a trade union of employees, and for the latter to invite an employer, to negotiate for the variation of a collective agreement or award made before or after the enactment of the Bill by including a provision for the payment of either an annual wage supplement or an annual bonus or annual wage increases, or a combination thereof as is referred to previously. Where no agreement is reached between an employer or trade union to vary a collective agreement or award in accordance with subsection (1) of section 46A, either of the parties may, notwithstanding the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act, apply to the Court to vary the collective agreement or award, and the Court may vary the collective agreement or award as the Court thinks fit. Any variation of a collective agreement or award shall be incorporated into the collective agreement or award, and any of the parties bound thereby may apply to the Court to vary the collective agreement or award so as to give effect to their agreement, and the Court may accordingly vary the collective agreement or award.”
“The annual wage supplement that shall be payable by employer who has paid annual bonuses to his employees prior to the commencement of this Act shall be equivalent to the average of the bonuses paid in respect of the last three years preceding the commencement of this Act or to the last annual bonus paid, whichever is the greater, subject to a maximum of an amount equivalent to three months' wages of his employees, except that where such bonuses were based on exceptional trading results or increased productivity, which the employer finds have diminished to a significant degree, the employer may negotiate for a lower quantum of the annual wage supplement to be paid. If an employer has not paid any bonus to his employees or has paid a bonus of less than one month's wages before the commencement of this Act, the annual wage supplement payable by him shall not exceed one month's wages of the employee. For computation of annual wage supplement payable by an employer, all ex-gratia payments, salary supplements and other such payments paid by him in the last three years preceding the commencement of this Act to an employee as an incentive to enter into a collective agreement or to increase his productivity or as a reward for his services, shall be deemed to be bonuses paid in respect of the last three years preceding the commencement of this Act. It is an offence for any person or a trade union of employees to invite negotiations for the payment of an annual wage supplement or annual bonus of an amount which exceeds the equivalent of three months' wages of an employee.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill seeks to repeal and re-enact section 46 of the Employment Act to enable an employee or a trade union of employees to negotiate for the payment of any of the following or a combination thereof: - (a) an annual wage supplement of an amount not exceeding the equivalent of three months' wages of an employee; (b) an annual bonus of an amount not exceeding the equivalent of three months' wages of an employee; (c) annual wage increases. A trade union of employees is entitled to negotiate for the payment of either both an annual wage supplement and an annual bonus or both an annual wage supplement and annual wage increases. An employer has a right to make an option between negotiating for the payment of both an annual wage supplement and a bonus or both an annual wage supplement and annual wage increases. However, he shall be bound by his choice of option for the duration of any award or collective agreement which may be made regarding these payments. An employer who cannot afford to pay any of the aforesaid combinations may offer to negotiate to pay an annual wage supplement or bonus or annual wage increases. The provisions of the Industrial Relations Act shall apply to these negotiations. The terms "wages", "annual wage supplement" and "annual wage increases" are defined in the Bill. The annual wage supplement is intended to have the same meaning as the 13th month payment recommended by the National Wages Council.”
“On the 23rd May, the National Wages Council and representatives of the Chambers of Commerce, Singapore Employers Federation, National Employers Council, Singapore Manufacturers Association and the National Trades Union Congress, met the Prime Minister and myself, to discuss ways in which the recommendations of the National Wages Council could be given effect. The parties concerned unanimously agreed that the recommendations of the National Wages Council should not be approached in a legalistic way. However, in so far as the recommendations were contrary to any existing legislation, such legislation should be amended to remove any legal impediment to the implementation of the recommendations. Further where enabling provisions were necessary, for example, to make it possible for an employer to opt for either the 13th month payment and a bonus, or 13th month payment and an annual wage revision, such enabling legislation should be passed. The parties also agreed that where in any particular case no agreement could be reached between employer and union and a dispute was referred to the Industrial Arbitration Court, the Industrial Arbitration Court should take into account the recommendations of the National Wages Council and the special circumstances of that particular employer. The Employment (Amendment) Bill now before the House was drafted in the light of the3e agreements. It also incorporates those suggestions and proposals made to the Select Committee before the dissolution of the last Parliament and accepted by the Government.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time". Hon. Members will recall that the Employment (Amendment) Bill was introduced in the last session of Parliament. It was committed to the Select Committee after its Second Reading on 2nd June, 1972. In my Second Reading speech then, I have explained the events leading to the Bill. I have also drawn attention to the more important provisions of the Bill which, together with the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill, are designed to give effect to the recommendations of the National Wages Council which have been accepted by the Government. However, for the benefit of new Members of the House, I shall recapitulate. Mr Speaker, Sir, in April this year, the National Wages Council, a tripartite body comprising representatives from labour, management and the Government made certain recommendations on wage increases and bonuses. In announcing the Government's acceptance at the NTUC May Day Rally this year, I emphasised that the recommendations should remain as guidelines for negotiations between employers and their employees, or trade unions representing the employees. We cannot make the recommendations mandatory because there are some employers who are genuinely unable to grant the increases recommended by the Council. To compel them to do so would tantamount to forcing them out of business. However, it is necessary to amend those provisions of the Employment Act and the Industrial Relations Act which would otherwise prevent the full implementation of the National Wages Council's recommendations particularly in regard to bonus which, under the present Act, is negotiable up to a maximum of one month's wages.”
“In addition, clause 78 empowers an Inspector of Factories to require any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of an accident or a dangerous occurrence taking place in a factory to attend before him and state truly the facts and circumstances with which such person is acquainted concerning the accident or dangerous occurrence. Finally, the Bill provides for an increase in the quantum of fines or term of imprisonment imposed for infringements of the Bill. For instance, under the did Factories Act, the penalty for operating an unregistered factory was a fine not exceeding $1,000 or a term of imprisonment not exceeding three months. Under this Bill, both the fine and term of imprisonment have been increased to $5,000 and six months respectively. Similarly, under the Factories Act, the penalty for an employed person found infringing the provisions of the Act s a fine not exceeding $500 or a term of imprisonment not exceeding three months. This Bill has now increased the fine payable to a sum not exceeding $2,000. Such stiffening of the penalties for infringements of the law is clearly needed to bring home the urgency of the problem, if employers and workers are to be deterred from contravening the provisions of the Bill. Sir, in view of the importance of this Bill and the extensive amendments being made to the present Act, I propose to commit the Bill to a Select Committee again. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Resolved, "That the Factories Bill be committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and seven Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection."- [Mr Ong Pang Boon]. EMPLOYMENT (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 3.42 p.m.”
“Under the present Act, certain provisions relating to the safety of an employee are made applicable to work carried out in a harbour or wet dock in constructing, re-constructing, repairing, refitting, painting, finishing, or breaking up a ship, or in scaling, surfing or cleaning boilers in a ship, or in cleaning any tank or holds in a ship. In view of the growing importance of our shipbuilding and repairing industry and the rapid expansion of our port and harbour facilities, it is necessary to make further provisions for the health and safety of those workers who are engaged in the shipyards, the port and the harbour. These will be provided for in clause 68 of the Bill. It is estimated that about 65 per cent of the accidents have been caused by the negligence or refusal on the part of the worker to use safety appliances provided and observe the measures stipulated. Clause 73 of the Bill makes it mandatory for employed persons to use the safety appliances provided. In order, therefore, that this provision is strictly observed, it is necessary that the culprits are brought to book quickly and dealt with effectively. Clause 81 of the Bill, therefore, provides that any authorised police officer or Inspector of Factories may arrest without any warrant any employed person who has contravened clause 73 of the Bill and produce him before a Magistrate's Court. Alternatively, the police officer or Inspector can straightaway serve a "ticket" on the offender to attend at the Magistrate's Court to answer the charge.”
“Clause 64 of the Bill requires certain factories to appoint safety officers solely for the purpose of exercising general safety supervision and for promoting the safe conduct of work. With the rapid growth of the number of factories in Singapore, it would be physically impossible for the Factory Inspectorate to make regular and periodic inspections on all these factories. It would therefore be necessary to require that management police their own factories and ensure that they are safe. In addition, factories employing 50 or more persons will be required to set up safety committees to promote health, safety and welfare in their establishments. The rationale behind this requirement, which is set out in clause 65 of the Bill, is that both management and labour, which will be represented on the safety committee, can jointly contribute and participate in the promotion of industrial safety. In keeping with the Government's antipollution programme, the occupier of a factory will be required to take special preventive measures against the emission of harmful substances in the atmosphere. He will also be asked to provide appropriate protection for employees engaged in hazardous processes. Clause 59 of the Bill will require the occupier to substitute, wherever possible, less harmful substances, processes or techniques for their more harmful counterparts. The Bill also pays greater attention to workers engaged in occupations involving special risks to health. Under clause 62 of the Bill, the Minister can make regulations to require medical supervision and examination of persons employed in occupations specified in the Seventh Schedule of the Bill.”
“There have been times when we felt utterly frustrated simply because our powers were inadequate to deal more effectively with certain heartless employers who had no regard whatsoever for the welfare, health and safety of their employees. It is no consolation to us that there are not many of such employers. The greatest asset of Singapore is its human resources. We, therefore, value the life and health of each and every one of our workers. We cannot and will not tolerate such callousness especially when our human resources are being fully stretched by the burgeoning industries. The Bill now before the House seeks to remove the inadequacies of the present Factories Act. Sir, the Bill seeks to repeal and reenact with amendments the Factories Act (Chapter 123 of the 1970 Revised Edition) with a view to improving the health and safety measures and the welfare facilities of persons employed in factories; and ensuring a more stringent observance of the safety provisions so as to reduce the rate of industrial accidents. The more significant changes to the existing legislation are described in the Explanatory Statement to the Bill. I would like, however, to comment on some of the more important changes. Clause 94 of the Bill empowers the Minister to appoint an Advisory Council for Industrial Health and Safety. Hitherto, there was no institutional arrangement through which advice could be sought on matters pertaining to industrial health and safety. The proposed Advisory Council will have representatives from, management, trade unions and professional bodies and will, therefore, be able to collectively advise the Minister on matters affecting safety, health and welfare. Another important innovation introduced by the Bill is the appointment of safety officers.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move "That the Bill be now read a Second time". The Factories Bill was introduced in Parliament early this year. It was committed to the Select Committee after its Second Reading on 28th March, 1972. The Bill now before the House is essentially the same as the earlier version except for a few additional amendments. Sir, we are very concerned with the trend of industrial accidents which have been increasing annually since 1967. Despite the efforts of the Government to inculcate safety consciousness among the workers and management and in spite of more stringent enforcement of the Factories Act by an expanded Factory Inspectorate, the number of industrial accidents is still increasing. There were 2,220 industrial accidents in the first nine months of this year compared with 1,374 for the same period last year, an increase of 62 per cent. Members are well aware of the social and economic cost of every industrial accident. The most painful aspect, however, is the human suffering, anguish and misery caused by the loss of life and health. The loss of a father, a husband, or a loved one can never be fully compensated whatever the quantum of monetary compensation may be. For this reason alone, our conscience dictates that we must do everything possible to prevent the occurrence of any industrial accident. Sir, we are aware of the fact that we cannot hope to eliminate or reduce the incidence of industrial accidents through legislation alone. However, a piece of legislation as archaic as the Factories Act enacted in vastly different circumstances 14 years ago will not make our task any easier.”