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 8 of 14.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as the Employment (Amendment) Bill has been committed to a Select Committee, I shall similarly commit this Bill to the same Select Committee for consideration. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Resolved, "That the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill be committed to the Select Committee appointed to consider the Employment (Amendment) Bill." - [Mr Ong Pang Boon]. NATIONAL CADET CORPS BILL "to provide for the raising and maintenance of a National Cadet Corps and for matters connected therewith; and to repeal the Malayan Air Training Corps Act (Chapter 231) and the Singapore Sea Cadet Corps Act (Chapter 236)", presented by the Minister for Education (Mr Lim Kim San); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. PETROLEUM BILL "to repeal and re-enact with amendments the provisions of the Petroleum Act (Chapter 256 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Social Affairs (Inche Othman Bin Wok); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Prevention of Corruption Act (Chapter 104 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Law and National Development (Mr E. W. Barker); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. MEDICAL (THERAPY, EDUCATION AND RESEARCH) BILL Order for Second Reading read, 4.00 p.m.”
“Now, Sir. Certificate of Urgency signed by the President in respect of the Bill, laid upon the Table by the Minister. Typed copies of the Bill distributed to Members. Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill he now read a Second time." Sir, consequent to the amendments, to the Employment Act which I have just presented to the House, it has also been found necessary to amend certain sections of the Industrial Relations Act, 1968. Under the present 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 lengthy 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 to two to three years. Section 34 of the Industrial Relations Act currently provides that in determining a trade dispute the Industrial Arbitration Court may have regard not only to 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, made on the advice of the National Wages Council, 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.”
“Mr Speaker. Sir, 1 beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Act to amend the Industrial Relations Act (Chapter 124 of the Revised Edition)." Bill read the First time. Second Reading”
“Govindasamy, Member for Telok Blangah, Mr Hwang Soo Jin, Member for Jalan Kayu, Mr Ong Pang Boon, Minister for Labour, Mr S. Rajaratnam, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Sia Kah Hui, Minister of State for Labour, Mr Sia Khoon Seong, Member for Moulmein."-[Mr Ong Pang Boon]. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL First Reading 3.52 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for River Valley has expressed concern that there may be many employers who barely manage to survive and, therefore, are unable to comply with some of the recommendations of the National Wages Council. 1 think the Government appreciates their position and also that of the unions and management. That is why representatives of the NTUC, the management and the National Wages Council met the Prime Minister on the 23rd May. They have agreed that the recommendations of the National Wages Council should not be translated into legislation, so that there will be flexibility for negotiations on both sides. The Bill has, in fact, been considered by the National Wages Council many times, and there has been no disagreement on the principles of the Bill. It is for that reason that the Bill was introduced today on a Certificate of Urgency. However, since Members have expressed the wish that they would like to have some time to study the Bill, the Government has no objection to send the Bill to a Select Committee. As for the public sector, I think the Member for Anson is aware that the 13th month payment was given to the employees in the public sector a few months ago, including Members of Parliament. I think next year the Government would also be considering the conditions of service in the public sector, if the Member for Anson will be a bit more patient, the matter will be sorted out. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Resolved, "That the Employment (Amendment) Bill be committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and the following Members: Mr Ch'ng Jit Koon, Member for Tiong Bahru, Mr N.”
“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 acknowledged time and again that the present favourable state of the economy is in great measure due to the hard work and effort put in by the workers, by the sacrifices they have made and by the restraint which they have shown. The Government is aware of the needs and aspirations of the workers and the underlying purpose of this legislation is to ensure that workers in Singapore may have their fair share of the prosperity that has been generated by the present buoyant economic conditions. Employers generally recognise that workers should have an increased share in the profits of their undertakings. However, all this does not mean that excessive and unbridled demands should be made upon employers - such demands must be tampered by reasonableness and moderation. By the same token, employers are expected to exercise the quality of reasonableness in meeting the claims of their workers. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“Provisions are inserted in the Employ, ment 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 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 96 hours per month.”
“The annual wage supplement that shall be payable by an 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, etc., 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. 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 (I) 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 those matters, either of the parties may, notwithstanding the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act, refer the matter to the Court which may make a decision thereon.”
“The Bill had been commented upon by the National Wages Council whose suggestions were incorporated in the present Bill. 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, as is referred to in the following paragraph: (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. 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. An employer who cannot afford to pay any of these benefits is not compelled to pay. The provisions of the Industrial Relations Act shall apply to these negotiations. The terms "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.”
“Meanwhile, certain misunderstandings had arisen with regard to the interpretation of these recommendations and with regard to the Government's general acceptance of the principles enunciated in the National Wages Council's recommendations. On the 23rd of May, the National Wage Council and representatives of the Chambers of Commerce, Singapore Employers Federation, National Employees' Council, Singapore Manufacturers' Association and the NTUC met the Prime Minister and myself to discuss ways in which the recommendations of the National Wages Council could be given effect. Hon. Members would recollect the press statement issued by these bodies after the meeting. `It was unanimously agreed that the recommendations of the National Wages Council should not be approached in a legalistic way. The recommendations should not be converted into legislation. Insofar as the National Wages Council 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 annual payment and a bonus, or 13th annual payment and an annual wage revision, such enabling legislation should be passed. It was 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 the agreements as contained in the said press statement.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." As hon. Members are aware, the National Wages Council, a tripartite body comprising representatives from labour, management and the Government, put forward certain recommendations for wage increases and on bonuses. Members are also aware that at the NTUC May Day Rally held last month, I had announced that the agreed recommendations of the Council had been accepted by the Government. However, I emphasised in my speech that "in accepting the recommendations of the National Wages Council, the Government would like to underline the fact that they are guidelines. They are not hard and fast rules." I pointed out that: `The employers' representatives represent established medium and large size businesses. The unions reflect the interests of the NTUC affiliates. In arriving at the guidelines, the National Wages Council has used the bigger employers as the norm. Even within this norm, there can be wide variations between commerce and industry, and between different companies within the same category. Some will be able to meet much more than the 8 per cent recommended. Others may barely be able to meet even half of it. Variations will be even wider in the case of the smaller employers.' I also struck a note of caution that: `as this is the first year of the work of the National Wages Council, many problems and anomalies may arise out of their recommendations. They will have to be sorted out with goodwill and good sense also as guides.' To enable the recommendations of the National Wages Council to be implemented, certain amendments to the Employment Act and the Industrial Relations Act would have to be made.”
“Now, Sir. Certificate of Urgency signed by the President in respect of the Bill, laid upon the Table by the Minister. Typed copies of the Bill distributed to Members.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Act to amend the Employment Act (Chapter 122 of the Revised Edition)." Bill read the First time. Second Reading”
“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 is 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 if employers and workers are to be made to understand and appreciate that Government means business in its efforts to reduce the high rate of industrial accidents occurring today. Question proposed. 2.46 p.m.”
“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 work involving special risks which are set out in the Seventh Schedule of the Bill. It has been established that nearly 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 appliances provided and the safety measures instituted. 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 issue a notice requiring the offender to attend at the Magistrate Court to answer the charge. Finally, the Bill provides for an increase in the quantum of fines or term of imprisonment imposed for all infringements of the Bill. For instance, under the old 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.”
“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 in a position 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. 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 insist 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 anti-pollution 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.”
“The problem of industrial safety and health has to be tackled on many fronts. On the legislative front, the existing Factories Act enacted 14 years ago, when there was hardly any manufacturing industry of note, is increasingly adequate for our present changed circumstances. This Bill seeks to revise and improve upon the Factories Act. Some relevant provisions of more advanced industrialised countries, notably the United Kingdom, the United States and Australia, have been adopted with Xuitab1e modifications to fit our local environment. Both the Singapore Employers' Federation and the National Trades Union Congress were consulted, and some of their suggestions have been incorporated in the Bill. Altogether, there are 42 amendments and additions to the Factories Act. Consequently, it is neater to present a new Bill rather than amending the present one. As there are extensive amendments and in view of the Bill's importance, it is proposed to commit the Bill to a Select Committee of Parliament so that views of all interested parties can be considered. The Bill seeks to repeal and re-enact with amendments the Factories Act (Cap. 123 of the 1970 Revised Edition) with a view to (a) improving the health and safety measures anti the welfare facilities of persons employed in factories; and (b) ensuring a more stringent observance of the safety provisions so as to reduce the rate of industrial accidents. The main provisions of this Bill are detailed in the Explanatory Statement to the Bill. I would like, however, to draw attention to some of the more important changes. Clause 94 of the Bill empowers the Minister to appoint an Advisory Council for Industrial Heath and Safety.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the 1960s witnessed a fundamental shift in our economy, away from entrepot trade and related servicing activities to manufacturing. To attract foreign investment and to accelerate the pace of industrialisation, the Employment Act and the Industrial Relations Act of 1968 were enacted. Rapid industrialisation and economic growth ensued accompanied by a drastic fall in man-days lost through unnecessary work stoppages. Whereas in 1967 a total of 41,322 man-days were lost through industrial strife, in 1968 a loss of 11,447 man-days was recorded. In 1969, the figure fell to 8,512 and, in 1970, it fell further to 2,514. Unfortunately, the incidence of industrial accidents exhibited an opposite trend. Fatal accidents rose annually from 68 in 1967 to 159 in 1970, while permanent disablement cases rose persistently from 598 to 886 between 1967 and 1970. Over the same period, man-days lost through industrial accidents rose appreciably from 99,539 in 1967 to 302,800 in 1970, an increase of around 300 per cent. In our essentially materialistic society, some employers still think of industrial accidents only in terms of dollars and cents. I would remind these employers that there are economic costs to industrial accidents which would include loss of output of the victim, monetary compensation, cost of damaged equipment, bottle-necks in production and training expenditure dissipated through accidents. The most painful aspect of industrial accidents, however, is the human suffering, anguish and misery caused by loss of life and health. The loss of a father, a husband, a loved one can never be compensated. To think otherwise is to brutalise our conscience.”
“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. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL SECURITY CORPORATION BILL Order for Second Reading read. 7.16 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I share the sympathy of the Member for Kallang in respect of his apprehension and fear that the increased productivity may lead to loss of job security for workers, may endanger the safety of workers while at work, and so forth. It is, in fact, to meet this kind of reservation that there will be representations from the trade unions on the National Productivity Board itself. I am quite sure the trade union representatives on the Board will be competent enough to safeguard the interests of the workers. Sir, regarding the question of bonus payments, as I have said earlier during the Budget debate, the whole question of bonus payment and the amount of bonus negotiable is being referred to the National Wages Council for deliberation. The Government has made known its views to the National Wages Council regarding this matter, and we are waiting for its recommendations. I think the Member for Kallang is well aware that the recommendations of the Wages Council will only be ready around the end of April or early May. So I ask him to be a little bit more patient. There can really be no conflict arising between the National Wages Council and the National Productivity Board, because the Board is, in fact, servicing the National Wages Council. The National Wages Council is purely an advisory body which will submit reports and recommendations periodically to the Government on wages and guide-lines for implementation by the Government and the `various employer organisations. In servicing the National Wages Council, I am quite sure the National Productivity Board will be able to assist in the various ways of formulating such guide-lines. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.”
“In order that the objectives of the Board will be achieved, it is also empowered in clause 7 to publish works and disseminate information concerning productivity techniques, to award certificates of efficiency to persons attending courses organised by the Board and to establish, under clause 6, a scheme of subscribing membership to the Board. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 7.00 p.m.”
“Clause 4 of the Bill provides for the appointment of a 14-member board consisting of the chairman, three directors each to represent the Government, employers, trade unions, academic and professional bodies associated with productivity, and an Executive Director. This equal and broad representation will help the Board to better serve the felt needs of different groups in our society and to better elicit their support in the task of raising productivity. Mr Speaker, Sir, the fundamental task of the National Productivity Board is to raise the level of productivity in Singapore. Its specific objectives are set out in clause 6 of the Bill, the more important of which are: (i) to promote productivity consciousness amongst management personnel, trade union leaders and workers; (ii) to provide training facilities for management and trade unions personnel in all productivity techniques, including general management, personnel management, supervisory development, management accounting and industrial engineering; (iii) to foster and promote good industrial relations by training and by promoting the formation of joint consultative councils; (iv) to render management consultancy services in the same fields in which training activities are undertaken with a view to assisting industrial enterprises to achieve a general raising of productivity; and (v) to assist industrial establishments in formulating and rationalising wage policies and wage systems.”
“However, higher wages without accompanying productivity increases can impede economic growth. Fundamentally, the businessman is more interested in his labour cost per unit of output rather than wages as such. If the productivity of his employees rises, he can raise their wages without simultaneously increasing his unit labour cost. Through higher productivity then, the aspirations of our workers for higher wages can be met without inflation, without damaging the competitiveness of our products in international markets, and without reducing the attractiveness of our investment climate. I repeat --the necessity to raise productivity in Singapore cannot be over-emphasised. The National Productivity Centre was established in May 1967, within the Economic Development Board as a result of a joint declaration signed by the National Trades Union Congress, the Singapore Employers' Federation and the Singapore Manufacturers' Association. In July last year, the National Productivity Centre was transferred from the Economic Development Board to my Ministry. It had always been envisaged that after the National Productivity Centre had acquired sufficient experience and expertise, its status would be raised to that of a statutory board. Having been in existence for almost five years now, and bearing in mind the importance of raising productivity, it is opportune to transform it into a statutory board now. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to go into the details of the Bill as regards the aims, powers and functions of the National Productivity Board as these are clearly indicated in the Explanatory Statement to the Bill. I shall only point out some of the salient features of the Bill.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The importance of raising productivity in Singapore stems from basic economic realities. We are a small country in terms of our population and the natural resources we possess. Indeed, our only natural resources are our resourceful working population, our geographical location and a fine harbour. While other countries have abundant mineral deposits to exploit, we have none. While other countries have vast, fertile tracts of land to till, we have none. We can build a healthy economy and enjoy a high standard of living only upon the productivity and discipline of our working population, including both the managing and the managed in both the public and private sectors. Unlike other populous countries, we do not even have a large, guaranteed, domestic market for our locally-made products. Given our limited domestic market of 2.1 million persons, in order to attain our targeted Gross Domestic Product growth rate of 15 per cent annually over the next five years, we simply must export more and more. To secure markets for our exports, we must be able to compete internationally in terms of the price and quality of our products. And to do so our businessmen, industrialists and workers must be efficient and productive. The importance, indeed, the necessity of raising productivity in Singapore can never be overemphasised. Moreover, increases in productivity make possible wage increases without upsetting the economic apple-cart. Many of our workers in the past have worked conscientiously, diligently and with the welfare of the nation at heart. Not only do they deserve our thanks, in this decade they should enjoy higher wages.”
“It is to the credit of the Tenants Compensation Board that, in the course of its deliberations, it has adopted a liberal attitude and has been responsive to the changing circumstances in our economy and the Government's more liberal policy of compensation in respect of its own resettlement cases. As the House is aware, since the coming into force of the Controlled Premises (Special Provisions) Act in 1969, the rent of private residential properties has gone up several-folds and well beyond the reach of tenants and subtenants in controlled premises in the Golden Shoe area. As a result, the demand for public housing has shot up to an all time high so much so that, despite the record annual output of 16,000 units per annum by the Housing and Development Board, the demand cannot be met promptly. Today, an applicant has to wait an average of about three years before he can obtain a fiat, either on rent or purchase. This is a factor which the Tenants Compensation Board will have to take into consideration in deciding the quantum of compensation as the Housing and Development Board has become the only source of supply of cheap housing within the reach of the poor living in the Golden Shoe area. My personal view is that a reasonable minimum amount of compensation for a residential tenant or subtenant as of today, shall be in the region of $5,000 or 18 years' rent, whichever is the greater amount, not taking into consideration other relevant factors such as removal costs, location and siting of controlled premises, hardship, etc. 1 have no doubt that the Tenants Compensation Board appreciates the position and will know how to exercise discretion in this matter. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Amendment Bill.”
“The landlord is offered generous concession for undertaking urban renewal project in the form of lower property tax - 12 per cent as against 36 per cent. A landlord who can commit millions of dollars in a redevelopment project can in all cases offer a fair amount of compensation to affected tenants and subtenants, otherwise he should not be in the business in the first instance. However, in the short period since the Act was in force, it has been found that landlords were far from willing to offer fair and reasonable compensation to tenants and subtenants. They often exploited the ignorance of the illiterate residential tenants and subtenants. In one case I was informed, as I was then in America, that a landlord even resorted to the tactics of demolishing parts of a building in order to force tenants in another part to accept unreasonable terms of compensation and move out for their own safety. In another instance, despite the strong recommendation made by the Tenants Compensation Board for enhanced ex gratia payments, the landlord, a leading local bank, was unsympathetic to the claims of a number of occupiers in controlled premises. The landlord was prepared to pay only a derisory sum of ex gratia to them. It was only through the intervention of elected representatives that the bank eventually agreed to increase ex gratia payments to the occupiers. In fact, it was as a result of this case that the present amendments to section 9 were introduced. Indeed, if landlords or developers, particularly those with millions of dollars of assets, were to take the lead and show a little sympathy for the plight of the poor, the present amendments would not have been necessary.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Amendment Bill moved by my colleague, the Minister for Law and National Development. Sir, we all agree that a large part of the Central City areas is in need of renewal, as many of the properties were built in the last century and are now in a dilapidated condition. Some are even unsafe for occupation, quite apart from health considerations. Thus, when the Controlled Premises (Special Provisions) Act was introduced in 1969 to remove the protection accorded to tenants of controlled premises under the Control of Rent Ordinance so as to enable redevelopment to take place, there was general support from the public. In fact, all agreed that redevelopment of the Central City areas would not only bring greater economic opportunities and employment to the people of Singapore in general, but would also change Singapore into a modern City befitting its status as a regional and international centre of communication, trade and commerce. However, in the process, there is bound to be some dislocation and suffering to some of the affected tenants and subtenants, especially those who depend on the Telok Ayer Basin and the waterfront for their livelihood. It is only fair and just that they should be compensated to make their removal and resettlement in a new and more distant environment more bearable. It would be grossly unjust if prosperity in one sector of our society should be built on the misery of another sector, albeit a smaller one. Indeed, this was taken into consideration in the Act, wherein provisions were made for the establishment of a Tenants Compensation Board to ensure that fair and reasonable compensation shall be paid by the landlord or developer to tenants or subtenants affected by urban renewal in the designated area.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir. 1 beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made progress on the Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 1972, to 31st March, 1973, and ask leave to sit again on Monday, 20th March, 1972.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member for Toa Payoh was present in this House when the Employment Act was introduced in 1968. He should be aware of the reasons for its introduction. It is already three years since and during this period the whole employment situation has changed from a surplus to a tight labour market. However, before we consider any proposed amendment to the Employment Act or to the Industrial Relations Act, we should bear in mind the economic situation of the country. We will still have to depend considerably on foreign investments in the next few years. We have to maintain the right climate in order to attract the kind of investment we want. For this reason, we do not wish to take any action that will affect the investment climate of Singapore. However, the Government is not unaware of the abuses by employers by taking advantage of these provisions to carry out certain measures which are detrimental to the workers. I would suggest that if the Member for Toa Payoh does come across any definite case of retrenchment on unjustified grounds, he should bring them to the attention of my Ministry. We will then try to take appropriate action to alleviate the sufferings of the workers.”
“Thirty-four representations resulted in an amicable settlement, while another 17 were withdrawn by the trade unions themselves. Four of the representations were disposed of by Ministerial order for their reinstatement or compensations paid. In another 15 representations, the Minister found no sufficient reason to intervene. The remaining four representations are presently receiving attention. Mr Speaker, Sir, these figures show that the situation is not so serious as to justify further amendments to the Industrial Relations Act at this juncture. However, the Ministry will continue its vigilance on the industrial scene and, if the need arises, will take prompt action, including legislative measures, to ensure that these management rights are not abused.”
“We are awaiting its recommendations as to whether the present one-month limit on the negotiability of bonus should he raised and, if so, what should be the ceiling. Until the views of the Council are known, it is premature now to consider any amendment to the Employment Act. Some Members have touched on the employers' prerogative to hire and hre staff. Mr Speaker, Sir, when the Industrial Relations Act was amended in 1968 to render certain management functions not negotiable, it was generally accepted that the amendments were necessary `to allow management functions to be properly performed and unhindered as otherwise there would be little or no economic expansion or fresh investments coming in. Besides, in restoring to employers the right to hire or fire, to promote and transfer employees, no rights were taken away from the workers. They were merely amendments to the common rights of management to administrate and now made into statute law. As a safeguard against abuse on firing at will, provisions were made, now contained in section 35 of the Industrial Relations Act, for a speedy redress for employees who consider that they have been dismissed by their employers without just cause or reason. By virtue of this provision, all cases of dismissal or termination of service may be made, if a trade union so desires, the subject of a representation in writing to the Minister for the reinstatement of the dismissed employees. Mr Speaker, Sir, in the three full years of the operation of this provision, a total of 74 representations have been made by trade unions, under section 35 (2) of the Industrial Relations Act, for the reinstatement of 141 employees who considered that they had been dismissed by their employers without just cause or excuse.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, coming to lie Member for Telok f3langah's question before time was up. I was giving reasons as to why these two Sections of the Employment Act were in t roil u ::ed. Before the introduction of these provisions, there was considerable malingering in those days and there was high absenteeism on normal working days, so that work could he accumulated to be performed on rest days a nil public holidays, which attracted higher rates of pay: I think the rate was treble. Since then, time and circumstances have changed. We are approaching full employment. Consequently, I think these essential services have found difficulty in recruiting sufficient workers to perform the job, and as a result employees were called upon to work overtime on rest days. In fact, this matter is now under consideration, and we have made our views known to the relevant authorities. As I have said, the reasons for introducing these two sections have been considered thoroughly at that time. Any amendment now would require due consideration and consultation with the relevant authorities. I can assure the Member for Telok Blangah that the question he has raised will be thoroughly gone into. In fact, before coming here, I was informed by one statutory authority that they had taken active steps to recruit workers to fill up the establishment so that the workers will not be called upon to perform work on rest days and public holidays. 6.30 p.m. The question of wages and bonus has been occupying the minds of Government for some time. The Member for Bukit Ho Swee is aware that Government has made its views known to the National Wages Council.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, sections 37 (4) and 41 (4) of the Employment Act, restricting payment for work done on rest days and public holidays to employees of Government or statutory bodies, were introduced in 1968, primarily to prevent malingering which was then widespread among employees engaged in the essential services.”
“The proposed Factories Bill stipulates the employment of safety officers and the formation of industrial safety committees. the Ministry of Labour, in conjunction with the National Productivity Centre, will conduct appropriate training courses for these safety personnel to supplement the work of the Factory Inspectorate, by emphasising on the preventive aspects of accidents. However. I must reiterate that the Government on its Owl: cannot fight the battle to reduce the rate of industrial accidents. Management and trade unions must also share and play their role in keeping Singapore industrial safe, clean and health. In so far as the accident in Jurong Shipyard is concerned, I think the Member for Sembawang is aware that the Government has already appointed a committee of inquiry to investigate into the nature and causes of the accident. When their findings are known, appropriate measures will be taken, and I hope sonic preventive steps could be taken to prevent such occurrences in the future. The Member for Telok Blangah has touched on sections 37 (4) and 41 (4) of the Employment Act. Mr Speaker, Sir, employees of Government or statutory bodies who are engaged in essential services are presently prohibited from payment for work done on rest days or public holidays under these two sections of the Employment Act. Instead, they are given an equivalent time off in substitution. I think the Member is aware that the AUPE, which represents employees the public sector, has taken up this matter with the Ministry of Finance, and certain compromised solutions were offered although not to the satisfaction of the AUPE.”
“Workers would he helped to form new and correct work attitudes and made to appreciate the need for personal safety in their everyday working life. Employers would be reminded of their duties and responsibilities to provide a safe, clean and healthy working environment. Appropriate legislation to provide for higher standards of safety, health and welfare, would he drawn up. In fact, the Building Operations and Works of Engineering Construction Regulations, 1971, have already been enacted. These regulations were drawn up specifically to overcome the problem of high accident rates in the building and construction trade. The new Factories Bill, to replace the Factories Ordinance enacted in 1958, has just been introduced earlier this afternoon. The Workmen's Compensation Act, which was amended last year. would be trebling the quantum of workmen's compensation payable, and force employers to be more conscious in providing adequate safety measures. Consideration is also being given to the drawing up of separate regulations for Specific industries, such as sand blasting and quarrying operations, to ensure that workers in these industries .are fully protected. Whilst the Factories Bill will set higher standards of safety, health and welfare, and ensure a more stringent observance of these provisions, it is necessary for the Factory Inspectorate and Health Unit to carry Out more vigorous and frequent checks on factories and worksites. For the information of the Member for Sembawang, more posts of Factory Inspectors and other subordinate staff have been created. There will be no letup in bringing to book both employers and workers found contravening the provisions of the Factories Act.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Sembawang has touched on the question of industrial accidents and he asked why the rate of industrial accidents has gone up in 1971 as against 1970, despite the campaign introduced by the Ministry with a view to reducing industrial accidents. The main reasons for the increase in the number of industrial accidents in 1971 can be attributed as follows. Firstly, the rapid expansion of our industries and the construction boom have compelled employers to recruit workers indiscriminately. Most of these workers have very little or no formal training prior to their being put on the job. As such, they were more accident-prone, being ignorant of the working technique, safety and health measures. Secondly, the shortage of experienced and qualified supervisors at the factory floor and worksites, and the new and inexperienced worker who is often left alone to acquaint himself with the job on a trial and error basis, can be regarded as contributory factors. In many cases accidents occur because employers have wilfully neglected to provide or install prescribed safety devices. Finally, in the larger number of cases reported, the accidents were due to the irresponsible attitude of workers who failed to use and wear safety equipment provided by the employer. 6.15 p.m. As pointed out by the Member for Sembawang, the Ministry has recently organised a two-week campaign on industrial safety. At the opening ceremony of the campaign on 1st March, 1972. 1 outlined a three-prong strategy which would be put into operation to reduce the number of industrial accidents occurring in Singapore. Briefly, an intensive period of social education would be mounted to bring home to the public the high social and economic cost of industrial accidents.”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 1, line 11, after "reason", to insert "or transferring the whole or part of his undertaking or property, as the case may be.". Sir, this amendment is necessary in view of the amendment moved by the Member for Moulmein to the Employment (Amendment) Bill earlier this evening and passed by the House. It will provide for the payment into the Redundancy Payments Fund the retirement or other benefits provided under a collective agreement in instances where an employer transfers the whole or part of his undertaking or property. Amendment agreed to. Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with an amendment; read a Third time and passed. SINGAPORE POLYTECHNIC (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 4.04 p.m.”
“Mr Govindasamy, Sir, I seek your consent and the general assent of the Members present to dispense with notice in respect of a consequential amendment which I propose to move to this clause. I have with me copies of the proposed amendment for distribution. Typed copies of the amendment distributed to Members.”
“The proposed amendment will enable all payments made to the employee on the termination of his services by reason of his employer ceasing to carry on business for whatever reason to be paid to the Redundancy Payments Fund. This would enable any payments made in respect of retirement benefits and other gratuities payable under the terms of a collective agreement or award on the winding up of the company, according to the Employment (Amendment) Bill which I introduced earlier, to be paid into the Redundancy Payments Fund instead of direct to the employee. In this way, the Fund can be used to conserve in the employee's best interest the money due to him on the termination of his services on account of his employer ceasing to carry on business for whatever reason and thus prevent such money from being unwisely dissipated. 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. [Mr N. Govindasamy in the Chair] 4.00 p.m. Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 -”
“Mr Govindasamy, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Members may recollect that my predecessor, in moving the Redundancy Payments Fund Bill in this House on 25th January, 1968, cited the following reasons in support of the Bill. I quote from Hansard, Vol. 26, No. 16, col. 1111: `On becoming redundant, most of the employees will get a sizable sum of money as redundancy payments. Many of them are unaccustomed to handling substantial sums of money at any one time the basic aim of this legislation is to ensure that the money they receive is not used unwisely and in-judiciously, which will make them destitute in a short period and bring them and their families great distress.' Over the past three years, nearly 18,000 base workers have been retrenched from the British bases. As a result of the careful husbanding of their redundancy payments, they have been protected from acute financial distress or personal hardship. Further, with the British withdrawal nearing completion, the nation as a whole has not experienced any serious social upheaval or economic dislocation which would have occurred if Government had not acted to safeguard the interest of the workers and their families. Yet the Act was criticised in some quarters and accusations were hurled to the effect that the redundancy payments belonging to the workers were taken away and used as revenue. Time has shown that Government action in enacting the law to safeguard redundancy payments has been correct and the sorry spectacle of workers being reduced to poverty after frittering away their hard-earned money has been avoided. Whilst previously the Redundancy Payments Fund Act was applied only to redundant workers, it is the intention now to expand the coverage of the Act.”
“(3) The provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall not apply where an employer has set up a fund under a scheme for the payment of pensions, gratuities, provident fund or other superannuation benefits to his employees on their retirement from the service of the employer whereby under such scheme the benefits of the employees shall be safeguarded in the event of the bankruptcy of an employer or, if the employer is a company, on the winding up of the company or in the event of the employer ceasing to carry on business for any other reason. (4) Any sum of money payable under subsection (2) of this section shall, for the purposes of subsection (1) of this section be deemed to be a payment to an employee on his retirement and shall be included among the debts referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) of that subsection.". Sir, the amendment as now proposed is to provide safeguards to employees who are entitled to receive retirement benefits under collective agreements or awards. As the Bill stands, such an employee is not protected if his employer ceases to carry on business for whatever reason, since he would not be able to seek monetary compensation for the number of years of faithful service rendered. Such a situation would be patently unfair and unjust to him. The proposed amendment, therefore, seeks to provide that where the services of an employee are terminated on account of his employer ceasing to carry on business for whatever reason, he would be entitled to receive, under the terms of any collective agreement in force at the time of the cessation of employment, a compensatory amount as if he had retired from the service of the employer on the day the employer ceases to carry on business.”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 1, line 16, to leave out "debt" and insert "debts". This is purely a typographical error. Amendment agreed to. Mr Ong Pang Boon: Sir, I beg to move, In page 2, after line 5, to insert - "(2) Where a collective agreement or an award, whether made before or after the date of the coming into operation of this Act, contains a provision for the payment of a gratuity or other sum of money to an employee on his retirement and no provision is made for the payment of a gratuity or other sum of money on the termination of the employee's services by reason of his employer ceasing to carry on business for whatever reason, every such collective agreement or award shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any written law or rule of law or collective agreement or award to the contrary, be deemed to contain a provision that in the event of the employer ceasing to carry on business for whatever reason an employee who ceases to be employed by the employer by reason of the happening of such a contingency shall be paid such sum of money as he would have been entitled to receive under the terms of the collective agreement or award if he had retired from the service of the employer on the day the employer ceases to carry on business.”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 1, line 10, after "or", to insert "other". Due to an oversight, the word "other" was left out in the draft. Amendment agreed to. Further amendment made: In page 1, line 14, after "or" to insert "other". [Mr Ong Pang Boon].”
“The Bill also seeks to rectify another anomaly currently found in the Act. Subsection (2) of section 95 of the Act provides for maternity benefit entitlement to a female workman who has worked for an employer for not less than 180 days within the period of one year immediately preceding her confinement. The maternity allowance payable under this section is at the rate of $4 a day or at her ordinary rate of pay for one day, whichever is less during the benefit period. It would appear that this restriction on the maximum of $4 a day is outdated and unfair in the light of the present-day wage structure and economic conditions. According to a survey on wages carried out by my Ministry, it has been found that in several industries a large number of female manual workers are already in receipt of more than $4 a day as wages. We are of the view that where a female workman is paid more than $4 a day, there is no reason why she should not be entitled to a full day's pay whilst on maternity leave. It is, therefore, proposed to remove the maximum of $4 a day set in the Act. 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. [Mr N. Govindasamy in the Chair] 3.41 p.m. Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 -”
“Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." As the Employment Act stands at present, no provisions have been provided therein to safeguard the rights of the workers vis-a-vis their retirement, retrenchment or other similar benefits. Such benefits are usually agreed upon between the employer and the workers in collective agreements whereby the employer agrees to pay gratuity or other sums of money to the workers on the termination of the latter's services. However, it has been discovered that in the event of an employer's company or business being in financial difficulties or is wound up or foreclosed, no legal protection is afforded to the workers to recover their gratuity or other benefits provided in the collective agreements. Such a situation is clearly untenable, because it is not right or just that these workers, having put in long years of faithful service, are suddenly denied their right to the entitlement of the gratuity or other benefits through no fault of their own. It is, therefore, proposed that the Employment Act be amended to ensure that the workers' expectations of receiving some monetary compensation to tide over their twilight years are not needlessly dashed by circumstances outside their control. The amendment to section 45 of the Act will ensure that, in the event of the employer winding up his company or business, the rights of the workers to gratuity and other benefits would attract priority of payment over other unsecured debts. That is to say, when a company is wound up or foreclosed, the payments due to the employees in respect of retirement, retrenchment or other such benefits would be payable in the first instance before the claims of other unsecured creditors are met.”
“I think, for a start, we will probably begin with the building industry and also industries like ship-repairing where the workers will be working under hazardous and dangerous conditions. TRAFALGAR ESTATE (Development plans) 2. Mr Ng Kah Ting asked the Minister for Communications what plans his Ministry has to develop Trafalgar Estate which formerly housed the Trafalgar Receiving Station; and whether the residents, who have been living in the Estate for many years, will be given Temporary Occupation Licences to continue to live there and to enjoy the amenities such as water and electricity and better roads.”
“Where the employers have failed to provide the safety equipment, then they will be prosecuted, not the workers. But where the employers have provided the safety equipment but, for some reason or another, the workers have refused to use it, then the workers will be penalised.”
“We do advise employers that all safety equipment should, as far as possible, be of the type recommended or tested by the Singapore Institute of Standards and Industrial Research. I think it is only reasonable that the employers should provide safety equipment to the workers free of charge.”
“Mr Govindasamy, Sir, I have not got the figures with me, but I should think that roughly a dozen new Factory Inspectors have been employed this year. Many of them have, in fact, been appointed only recently and they are still undergoing training. So their effectiveness will not be as expected. But, nevertheless, they are making their rounds now, and when we commence action against the employers and the employees, I am quite sure there will be some effect on the rate of industrial accidents.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the last suggestion is a good one and I certainly will take note of it. I cannot agree with the Member more that the Workmen's Compensation Section should be staffed by more qualified people. 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. TOKYO CONVENTION BILL Order for Second Reading read. 6.04 p.m.”