Phey Yew Kok
Singapore
“Sir, before I withdraw the amendment, I would like to clarify one point. Just now when I mentioned CASE as being a paper tiger, I was not saying that the NTUC, of which I am the President, considers CASE a paper tiger. I do not consider CASE a paper tiger. I say that the coffee shop owners' association considers CASE as a paper tiger.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I find it very difficult to agree with the Minister of State that because the affiliates of the NTUC have been winning most of the secret ballots we should not change this regulation. May I refer to another case which is published in today's New Nation.”
“I am of the firm view that the situation can be easily rectified if an amendment is made to the Regulations, either requiring all employees who are entitled to vote in the secret ballot for recognition so to vote in the secret ballot unless they are sick or abroad or have reasonable excuse, or making the results of the secret ballot to be…”
“Sir, may I bring up another point. There were a number of occasions when unscrupulous employers used undue influence to pressurise the workers not to go and cast their vote.”
“Sir, in view of the explanation, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Phey Yew Kok - (7) That the sum to be allocated for Head M be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead Code M C-02 of the Main Estimates.”
“Sir, I rise in support of the amendment to the Central Provident Fund Act. The 10,000 bus workers and SILO which represents these employees of SBS welcome the announcement by the Government to turn SBS into a public company. We are glad to learn that a percentage of shares will be set aside for our bus workers.”
The complete record
Every one of 119 lines we hold for Phey Yew Kok, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 3.
“(7) That the sum to be allocated for Head R be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead Code RH-06 of the Main Estimates.”
“Sir, before I withdraw the amendment, I would like to clarify one point. Just now when I mentioned CASE as being a paper tiger, I was not saying that the NTUC, of which I am the President, considers CASE a paper tiger. I do not consider CASE a paper tiger. I say that the coffee shop owners' association considers CASE as a paper tiger. That is why they continue to increase prices without even consulting CASE. But in view of the Minister's reply I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment by leave, withdrawn. The following amendments stood on the Order Paper Supplement:”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Hon. Minister has not given a satisfactory reply. The increase of an additional 2.1 cents by the coffee shop and restaurant owners has no justification at all. I am afraid to say that, on the one hand, the Minister refuses to give more subsidy to CASE so as not to make it a paper tiger. The Coffee Shop and Restaurant Owners' Association always think that CASE is a paper tiger. Let me quote one instance. Sometime last year in May, when the price of coffee beans was raised, the Coffee Shop and Restaurant Owners' Association increased the price of a cup of coffee by five cents. When the price of coffee beans dropped drastically, the Coffee Shop and Restaurant Owners' Association conveniently forgot about it. CASE protested but it was of no use because the Association treated CASE as a paper tiger. It is the same thing now. The further increase of 2.1 cents has no justification. Sir, let me quote the figure which I have worked out roughly, if it is correct. It was stated in the Straits Times of 26th February that the total consumption of aerated water per year is 24 million crates of 24 boules each. If we work it out, it costs the consumer something like more than $29 million per year. And two cents for the coffee shop and restaurant owners will cost the consumers about $12 million. I consider this as profiteering and it appears to us that the three big bottlers in Singapore are trying to squeeze the small bottlers. It becomes a monopoly shared by a few big bottlers. 4.00 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head R be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead Code RF-01 of the Main Estimates. Sir, on the 26th February, 1979, three bottlers, Fraser & Neave, Magnolia and Yeo Hiap Seng, raised the price of each bottle of soft drink by 2.9 cents. It must be pointed out that they have decided on this price increase without publicly justifying for it. The bottlers have alluded this price increase to increased costs of manufacturing and delivery. When they announced the price increase, there were two other bottlers which refused to support the increase. Subsequently, these two companies were pressurised to conform to the increase. Sir, definitely this price increase by some companies is not because of increased costs of production and delivery. What is also equally unreasonable is that the Coffee Shops and Restaurant Owners' Association has also decided to capitalise on the price increase by levying a five-cent increase on every boule of soft drinks when the cost has only risen by 2.9 cents. The five cents round-up means that the 2.1 cent profit per bottle is passed over to the coffee shops and restaurant owners at the expense of the consumers. The price increase by the coffee shops and restaurant owners is therefore most unjustifiable. Although soft drinks may be considered as a non-essential consumer good, they have become a necessity for the workers, especially industrial workers who cannot afford to be victimised. In view of this, can the Trade Department ensure that any increase in the price of consumer goods affecting the majority be accompanied by justifications so that proper controls to curb profiteering by monopoly is exercised?”
“Sir, in view of the explanation, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Phey Yew Kok - (7) That the sum to be allocated for Head M be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead Code M C-02 of the Main Estimates.”
“Sir, may I bring up another point. There were a number of occasions when unscrupulous employers used undue influence to pressurise the workers not to go and cast their vote. A very simple example - the manager just stood in front of the workers saying, "Look, those of you who want to vote can go in and cast your vote." No employee dared to cast his vote because the employer was standing in front of them. So that must not be taken to mean that the employee is voting against the union.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I find it very difficult to agree with the Minister of State that because the affiliates of the NTUC have been winning most of the secret ballots we should not change this regulation. May I refer to another case which is published in today's New Nation. The Food, Drink and Allied Workers' Union won another secret ballot. It is the same thing. Another non-affiliate of the NTUC tried their best, three times, to convince the workers not to vote and it took the other union three times to win the secret ballot. Is this not an unnecessary waste of man-hours for the workers who are required to vote three times to make this decision? The Minister of State has said that even without those who do not vote, we can still win. But I do not think this is fair, because for those workers who do not vote, it is a vote against the union. It is not a vote against the employer or others. Can I suggest to the Minister of State that the regulation be changed so that the abstention of those who do not vote should not be considered as a vote against the union.”
“I am of the firm view that the situation can be easily rectified if an amendment is made to the Regulations, either requiring all employees who are entitled to vote in the secret ballot for recognition so to vote in the secret ballot unless they are sick or abroad or have reasonable excuse, or making the results of the secret ballot to be based on the simple majority of the votes of employees who vote in the secret ballot. If the Ministry considers it rather too harsh to make voting in secret ballot compulsory, then a fairer remedy is to base the result of the secret ballot on the decision of workers who take the trouble to vote than on the decision of those who for some reason or other choose not to exercise the right to vote. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]”
“If the unanimous or vast majority of voting employees vote in favour of recognition then, by necessary implication, those employees who abstain from voting are to be considered to have voted against recognition. It would thus simplify the job of an unscrupulous employer to get rid of employees whom he considers to be undesirable. This would make a mockery of the very purpose of a secret ballot, which is intended to protect the identity of workers, whether they vote in favour or against recognition. It is true that Regulation 4(2) provides that no one "shall in any way obstruct the taking of a secret ballot". The difficulty is to prove to the satisfaction of a court that a person obstructs in the taking of a secret ballot. Even if there has been a successful prosecution for obstruction of the taking of a secret ballot, the maximum fine of $500 is not likely to be an effective deterrent. As it is, there have been instances of employers threatening the employees who would like to vote in favour of the union. When such advice is coupled with the practice of some employers openly taking down the names of employees voting in the secret ballot, it would be rather foolhardy for employees not to heed the advice of the employer. It is a rather unsatisfactory situation. But not too long ago the NTUC did make representation to the Ministry on the manner of the conduct of a secret ballot as effected under the prevailing regulations.”
“" In other words, a trade union seeking recognition from an employer must obtain the votes of the absolute majority of employees in favour of representation by the claimant trade union. If the number of employees voting in the secret ballot is less than the absolute majority of employees entitled to vote, the result of the secret ballot would be only of an academic interest to all concerned. As Members of the House may recall, the campaign of the former trade union representing the industrial workers of Ford Motor to stay away from the secret ballot is similar to the campaign of the Barisan Sosialis to persuade the workers of Singapore to boycott the referendum conducted in 1963 to ascertain whether Singaporeans were in favour of Singapore joining Malaysia. To counteract such an effect, it was declared that any voter abstaining from voting would have been deemed to have voted in favour of recognition. Sir, I am by no means trying to equate the significance of a secret ballot for recognition to that of a nation-wide referendum. But the principle underlying the conduct of the secret ballot is, nonetheless, similar to that underlying the conduct of a national referendum or a general election, when it is expressly specified that the result of the voting will count only if the majority of persons entitled to vote do so vote in favour. The precise effect of Regulation 4(4) requiring an absolute majority as a condition for the granting of recognition is that it makes it easier for an unscrupulous employer or other persons to ensure the defeat of the trade union claiming for recognition.”
“Sir, I beg to move. That the sum to be allocated for Head M be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead Code M B-03 of the Main Estimates. I rise to speak not because I consider that the Minister for Labour has failed to do a proper job, but rather the officials of the Ministry tend to give an impression to workers, rightly or wrongly, that the Ministry does not fully understand and appreciate the aspirations of workers. Sir, such an impression is strengthened by a recent experience of the Singapore Industrial Labour Organisation (SILO). As Members of the House may be aware, the local press last week carried a report of SILO winning the right to represent the industrial workers in Ford Motor Co. (Pte) Ltd as a result of a successful secret ballot for recognition conducted by the Ministry of Labour. The secret ballot victory was made more remarkable by the fact that the workers were represented by a non-affiliate of the NTUC for more than 20 years. But what was not highlighted in the report, Sir, was the disturbing fact that 90 workers chose not to vote in the secret ballot. The former trade union representing the industrial workers of Ford Motor, realising that it would lose the secret ballot for recognition of SILO, went on a campaign to persuade the workers to stay away from the secret ballot. If a larger number of workers had stayed away from the secret ballot, any victory in the secret ballot would be an empty victory. Under Regulation 4(4) of the Industrial Relations (Recognition of a Trade Union of Employees) Regulations, 1966, a trade union would be granted recognition by an employer only "if the results of such secret ballot show that the majority of the employees entitled to vote are members of a particular trade union.”
“Sir, can the Minister convince the Minister for Communications that each bus worker, assuming that every bus worker has sufficient CPF savings will be given at least $1,000 shares or an amount equivalent to the public or any other commuter?”
“Sir, I rise in support of the amendment to the Central Provident Fund Act. The 10,000 bus workers and SILO which represents these employees of SBS welcome the announcement by the Government to turn SBS into a public company. We are glad to learn that a percentage of shares will be set aside for our bus workers. I would like to find out from the Minister what is the percentage of the 20 million shares to be set aside for the bus workers? If we want our bus workers as well as the commuters to have a stake in the company, I think the stake for the bus workers should be big enough to create an impact. I am sure that the bus workers welcome this move because we are given a chance to have this equity participation in the company.”
“Sir, the best advice from the union to its workers is, as the Senior Minister of State has said, that the driver should refuse to move on, if the Traffic Police continues to summon the bus drivers and conductors. Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment by leave, withdrawn.”
“In addition to a fine, this rule also imposes demerit points. So if a driver is booked twice under this rule, the driver would have accumulated sufficient demerit points to be suspended from driving for a whole year. His livelihood is thus jeopardised for something which he did not do. We feel that it is too harsh and unconscionable to punish the driver in this manner when, in fact, the type of buses used does contribute a great deal to this dangerous situation. In any case these buses without hydraulic doors will, in time, be phased out. All buses in future will be equipped with hydraulically operated doors and this will once and for all remove the danger of passengers standing on the steps. In the interim it is hoped that this particular rule in the Road Traffic Act can be made less rigid so as not to affect the livelihood of bus drivers.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head O be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead Code OF-03 of the Main Estimates. Sir, those who do not observe the law and those who blatantly show contempt of the law must be severely dealt with. To punish our helpless workers, who do not break the law but are made to break them by others is a different matter altogether. I refer to the helpless drivers of SBS who are booked for allowing passengers to stand in the doorway of buses during peak hours. During peak hours, the travelling public is always anxious to get a place in the vehicle to reach their place of work in time or return to their homes as soon as possible. Sometimes passengers rush in and pack the bus and ignore requests from the conductor not to stand in the doorway of the buses. To avoid ugly scenes and delays, the conductor just gives up and proceeds to collect fares and issue tickets to passengers. By this time the bus is on the move. At other times, it is physically impossible for the conductor or driver to see if there are any passengers standing on the steps leading into the bus. If the bus is fitted with automatic hydraulic doors, the problem does not arise at all, as by the time the signal is given to the driver to shut the door the passengers would already be inside the bus. But the SBS still has 733 one-door buses that are not fitted with automatic hydraulic doors, and these are the ones that the commuters find it possible to misuse. If the Traffic Police want to book them for this offence, I suggest that they book the SBS, not the poor bus workers. Of late, because the said rule can only be applied to drivers of these vehicles, the Traffic Police has booked an SBS driver.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary enlighten the House on two points? Just now I mentioned that the Commissioner for Labour awards compensation to any worker who has lost a finger. a thumb or a toe. For a worker to lose a toe is not as serious as losing an ear. But if a ballet dancer has lost his toe, the Ministry of Labour should definitely award him some compensation. If a worker has lost a toe, he can hide its ugly appearance in his shoes, but if he has lost an ear he cannot hide it. So my request is: will the Labour Ministry review this question of compensation to make it fairer to the workers? This is the first point. The second point is in regard to hospitalisation. If an injured worker is serious enough to be hospitalised for 60 days in a hospital, there is no doubt that he will be paid 60 days' medical leave. But due to the efficient medical treatment in the hospitals, even some of the workers who are sick enough to be hospitalised are not hospitalised. The reason is that perhaps there is no bed available or the doctor thinks that the injured worker can rest at home. But he is not fit enough to work and he has to stay at home for 60 days. Yet he is not compensated for this period of absence. 4.00 p.m.”
“Moreover, it is quite obvious that whilst the medical experts assigned by the insurance companies may have vested interests, Government medical consultants are impartial because they have neither vested interests for nor against the insurance company or the employee concerned. Under the circumstances, where there is conflict of medical opinion on the degree of permanent disability between Government specialist and the insurance company appointed specialist, the Government specialist's opinion should prevail.”
“It is therefore my sincere hope that the Minister will further review the need to correct such deficiencies in the Act. Another difficulty experienced by injured workers is that under the Act, they are entitled to 14 days' full pay and one-third of the monthly pay up to a maximum of $195 for the remaining period. This restrictive provision causes undue hardship for injured workers. It will take months or even years for an employee to receive compensation if he is lucky. There are occasions when an employee is hospitalised or on injured leave at home for months, but his permanent disability may be zero percent. Under such circumstances, the loss of income of an employee who receives one-third month's salary for every 15 days is considerable without any hope of compensation. I wonder whether the Minister can consider making suitable changes in the Act to qualify the employee to the entitlement of full pay for 60 days at least, as in the case of hospitalisation leave for natural sickness. Another experience is that the number of cases involving disputes by insurance companies over the quantum of compensation awarded by the Labour Ministry has also increased. The employers rely on the opinions of the experts appointed by the insurance companies whilst the trade unions representing the employees rely on the opinions of the Government doctors, Such disputes result in litigations and hence hardship for the injured workers. It is therefore suggested that in the event of any conflict of opinions, the opinions of the Government consultant should prevail so that the workmen would not have to incur extra expenses nor be inconvenienced through arbitration proceedings, particularly in some cases where the quantum of compensation is small, of not more than a few thousand dollars.”
“Yes, Sir. The trade union movement is grateful to the Minister for Labour and his Ministry for taking initiative in amending the Workmen's Com- pensation Act on a number of occasions for the benefit of the injured workers. However, since its operation, experience shows that there are areas which need further review and there are areas which need further improvements. Under the Act, compensation is awarded for permanent incapacity or permanent disability to certain parts of the body. For example, if an employee has lost a tip of his finger, he is entitled to compensation. But he is not entitled to any compensation if he has completely lost his ear or teeth. Teeth can be replaced by denture, but it will cost him money. The loss of an ear may not affect his hearing but it is a loss which is visible and affect his appearance. Similarly, there is no compensation for a scar caused through an injury. In one instance, some chemicals fell on the arm of a young pretty girl. This accident left her with a long scar on her arm. This scar frequently grows and therefore she had to undergo surgery twice to graft the scar. She has to wear long sleeve blouse to cover the ugly scar for life. One can just imagine what would have been the fate if the chemical had splashed on her face leaving such an ugly scar. In this case, the Commissioner for Labour awarded $650 as compensation for pain and not a cent for the scar. However, the company concerned entertained the Union's plea on her behalf and paid $5,000. The fact is that the employer could rightly reject any claim for compensation for a scar. What is important is that the scar could be on the face through burns. What would be the fate of a young unmarried girl or boy having an ugly scar on his or her face?”
“Sir, I am not happy with the explanation. However, since the Minister of State has given an assurance, I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, I would like to make a point of clarification. I have mentioned that the doctor simply puts down "abortion leave" or "sterilisation leave". It is unethical for a worker to ask the doctor to change it to "casual sick leave" or "other sick leave". Definitely the Labour Minister cannot pass this responsibility to the doctor. He should come out with a ruling to say whether this kind of leave can be granted or not. Is the Minister aware that most of the employers do not recognise the Government's medical officer's sick certificate?”
“Is the Minister of State aware that abortion leave is not granted by employers? Similarly, male workers who have undergone sterilisation are also not given leave by employers?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head M be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead Code MC-01 of the Main Estimates. Sir, abortion and sterilisation of consenting adults is legal in Singapore. This is indeed as it should be in keeping with our Government's policy on birth control. We have also proved that our birth control campaign is most successful in this part of the world. Yet, the labour legislation that provides for confinement benefits for female workers does not accord leave benefits for those seeking abortion or sterilisation in the case of male workers. Consequently, the employers exclude these from medical benefits thus making it a disincentive for workers to adhere to the call for family planning in Singapore. It can hardly be refuted that abortion requires hospitalisation in some cases and in most cases require rest and recuperation. Why then can it not be recognised as an ailment just like any other requiring minor surgical treatment? In some countries, they even offer incentives in the form of gifts or cash rates to persuade workers to undergo abortion or sterilisation. In Singapore workers are very reasonable and responsible. We do not ask for this. Here we are only asking this to be treated as a medical or surgical requirement for a national purpose, on qualified advice. It is hoped the Hon. Minister would give it serious thought and introduce the necessary amendments in Part X of the Employment Act.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, can the Hon. Minister let the House know whether it is the policy of the PUB not to work on Sundays?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am afraid the Minister has not given me a satisfactory reply. Lot me pose this question. If the PUB is not responsive to the consumer's demand, can we create a better climate for industrialisation? I know of at least five cases where as a result of the PUB's policy of penny wise, pound foolish, the five companies concerned had to change their working days. According to the Employment Act the unions can refuse to cooperate with the employers if they do not give them sufficient notice. If the union wants to behave like the PUB, it can refuse to change working days. The companies will then lose one day's production, fail to meet the shipment schedules, resulting in a loss of business. Are we going to allow this? It is easy to pass the buck to the unionist, and enlist my support. I think we will support the PUB if the PUB will realise that the loss of 700 man-days is more important than paying nine men for three hours at double rate.”
“We are aware that ITB also conducts evening courses but since the majority of industrial workers are on shift work, they are not able to take advantage of such training schemes. In line with the Government's objectives of upgrading the level of skills in our industries, it is my view that more companies should provide inplant training and that training centres, including those managed by ITB, exercise some measure of flexibility in the arrangement of the time schedules for such training courses. There would appear to be no justifiable basis for the 100% increase in the driving licence fees. The $10 increase is intended to bring in additional revenue amounting to $7 million in this financial year, but I am of the opinion that there are better ways of raising this revenue without adding on to the financial burden of the many thousands of workers whose occupations require the possession of a driving licence, Finally, Sir, I would like to express my reservation in respect of the increase in entertainment duty for live entertainments such as stage plays, concerts, recitals, music performances and dances. The increase in entertainment duty runs counter to Singapore's objective of promoting cultural activities. We have too often being dubbed a nation without a soul and, to prevent the Republic from becoming a cultural desert, there should not be an increase in the levy of this very form of entertainment which is not promoted for the purpose of profit-making. A distinction must be made between this form of cultural activity and the commercial entertainment provided in our nightclubs and cinemas. 6.19 p.m.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, from the point of view of the workers in Singapore, the shift and the impact of taxation in income to consumption tax is most welcome by Labour, as the tax burden would fall upon those who are most able to pay. It will be a welcome relief to the majority of workers who have to live within their basic needs. It has been another major concession in this Budget statement for the Finance Minister's decision to scrap the 5% tax on PUB bills of between $35 and $ 50. I am glad that this Government is not oblivious to the voice of its people through their representatives in Parliament. This is a popular move because there is an actual savings of about $2 per household per month. I am happy that the merits of the abolition of this tax will no doubt provide an added incentive for Singaporeans to save water and to conserve energy. I am sure the workers in Singapore will give their wholehearted support to the efforts of the Government to strengthen the economy and create employment opportunities for our people. I must, however, share my reservation with the Members of this House over some of the other proposals made by the Finance Minister. The Budget Statement has also spelt out the Government's policy on manpower development and it is in this area that I must comment on the system of training conducted at the Industrial Training Board and other training centres. It has been a common complaint by workers in manufacturing establishments that the prospect for upgrading their skills is remote because the ITB and other training centres conduct classes catering more to school leavers and employees working on normal office hours.”
“My trade union colleagues and I strongly support this Bill, and we hope the rest of the Members of this House will also give their support to this Bill. 3.42 p.m.”
“A scheme for industrial rehabilitation, for instance, when implemented by the proposed Foundation, would serve a very real need among the workers in Singapore. It has been realised for many years, in the highly industrialised countries of the West, that workmen's compensation, in the form of monetary payment, is not satisfactory from the point of view of the incapacitated workers and their dependants. No amount of monetary compensation can make up for the feeling of desperate anguish by incapacitated workers at the prospect of not being able to earn their own living. On the other hand, a scheme of industrial rehabilitation, would enable an incapacitated worker to train for an alternative employment most suitable to his altered circumstances. By so doing, it would thus help him to derive personal satisfaction from gainful employment and from being able to support his own family. With the proposed Foundation, it becomes feasible to provide the costly infrastructure and the facilities that are required for the scheme. Thus the proposed Foundation under the Bill should eventually prove to be beneficial to workers and their employers. It is for this reason that the Bill makes provisions for donors to include persons and organisations other than workers and trade unions respectively. It is to be hoped that the employers will respond generously to the proposed Foundation which will eventually benefit them through benefitting their workers. In any event, all potential donors and benefactors can rest assured that the funds of the proposed Foundation will be used only for the stated objectives as enumerated in the Bill. Apart tom the provision for yearly auditing, a report of the Foundation has to be tabled annually before Parliament.”
“But it is also realised that the absence of a central co-ordinating body to channel funds from diverse sources to specific projects is a stumbling block to the successful realisation of the aspirations of the trade union movement. The establishment of a single corporate body, as that envisaged in the Singapore Labour Foundation, makes it that much more practicable to devise and implement a comprehensive and nation-wide programme of various development projects for the benefit of union members and other workers and their dependants. In the absence of such a Foundation, the various trade unions, even with the best of will, can only initiate and operate strictly limited projects for the benefit of their own members and their dependants. Such an approach, on the basis of the individual trade unions themselves, tends to be haphazard and cannot command sufficient resources that are required for comprehensive and meaningful development projects. The trade union movement has repeatedly made representations to the Government for the setting up of a Foundation for such purpose. As a result of such representations, the trade union movement is glad that the Government has sponsored this Bill before the House. Among the various objectives of the proposed Singapore Labour Foundation, it is to be noted that educational projects and a scheme for industrial rehabilitation are among the principal objectives of the Foundation. In the Bill, it is clearly stated that not only the trade union members are to benefit from the establishment of the proposed Foundation, but other workers and other Singaporeans can and will also benefit from the activities of the proposed Foundation.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise most enthusiastically in support of the Bill to establish the Singapore Labour Foundation. It is without exaggeration to say that this Bill embodies a dream which the Labour movement in Singapore has nursed for nearly a decade. In 1969, as Members of this House may recall, the trade union movement in Singapore led by the NTUC made a historic decision to modernise itself. The process of modernisation, however, was not viewed as an end in itself but as a means of achieving the objectives of the trade union movement. It may be the impression of some employers that the objectives of the trade union movement are primarily to squeeze as much as possible out of the employers for the benefit of its members. If such impression is still harboured by these employers, it is erroneous. The action of the trade union movement speaks for itself. Co-operative enterprises, for instance, have been set up to benefit the members of trade unions without having recourse to the pockets of their employers, directly or indirectly. Consequent upon the success of the process of modernisation begun in 1969, the trade union movement in Singapore has become financially more viable. The source of the modest increase in revenues of the trade union movement is the increase in subscription tom a growing membership strength, which now totals more than 200,000 or about 45 percent of the total bargainable and organisable workers in Singapore. Thus the NTUC and many of its affiliated unions have had for some years past sufficient funds to give effect to their objectives, among other things, of promoting educational and welfare projects for the benefit of union members and other workers and their dependants.”
“Apart from that, I also hope that the Minister would not be unduly restrictive in giving his approval to securities in which unions may invest their funds. I have in mind the cooperative enterprises and projects, with which the NTUC and its affiliated trade unions are associated. Such enterprises may not be satisfactory from the point of view of yield from or return on investment but they greatly benefit the members of the trade unions and their families in a way which cannot be evaluated in the statement of accounts or the balance sheet of the trade union concerned.”
“I have in mind two particular situations. One is the minority of non-members in an establishment, the majority of whose employees are represented by a registered trade union, The other is the entire group of workers employed by a contractor or a sub-contractor, as contract workers are notoriously impossible to be organised into a registered trade union. If such workers can commence, promote, organise, participate or otherwise act in furtherance of any illegal strike or industrial action and get away with it, it would be extremely demoralising for other workers who are members of registered trade unions. I hope the Minister for Labour will make the necessary amendments to the proposed provisions to prevent such a situation arising. Finally, I must express my puzzlement over clause 6 of the Bill relating to section 50 of the principal Act. In addition to the prevailing prohibition on the use of trade union funds for political purposes, the proposed provisions seek to restrict the investment of union funds in securities, The principal Act has been in force for some thirty years and all that time, it has not been considered necessary to introduce any restriction on the investment of union funds in securities. Though the principal Act has been silent on this point, the Registrar of Trade Unions, in the course of exercising his wide administrative function, has more or less guided trade unions in their investment of trade union funds. I am sure the NTUC and all its affiliated trade unions have not, in their investment of their respective funds in securities, given any cause to the Minister to prompt him to introduce the proposed restriction.”
“I should think it is a logical matter, if not for anything else, that if a strike or industrial action is deemed to be illegal for any failure to comply with the secret ballot requirements or the rules of the respective trade union, then all persons who participate in any manner or to any extent in such illegal strike or industrial action should be subject to the same sanction, irrespective of whatever office they hold or their status in the trade union concerned. Sir, in welcoming the proposed provisions under clause 4 of the Bill, I must, however, express my strong misgiving in that the proposed provisions are not as comprehensive as they should be. I am parti cularly concerned that the proposed provisions are directed against members of a trade union participating in an illegal strike or industrial action, but are strangely silent about the application of a sanction of the law on persons, who are not members of any trade union and who participate in an illegal strike or industrial action. It is true in the principal Act, the trade union is defined to include a temporary combination of workers with the object of promoting, organising or financing strikes. But knowing how the officials of the Labour Ministry react to something out of the ordinary, I do not expect there would be any prosecution of un-organised workers participating in an illegal strike or industrial action. An excuse that might be advanced by the Ministry of Labour officials would probably be that, since such groups of workers are not formally organised, it would be difficult for them to comply with the secret ballot requirement. I personally do hope that the scenario I have just sketched would never take place. But the probability of such a situation arising is not all that insignificant.”
“As I see it, the leadership of the trade union movement must be judged by its ability to secure and promote the welfare and interest of the rank and file membership, without unduly prejudicing the general welfare and interest of the larger community, in which the members live and work. I am confident that the National Trades Union Congress and my colleagues in this House share my view on the responsible leadership of a constructive trade union movement and welcome the provisions of clause 4 of the Bill pertaining to section 28 of the principal Act. There are, of course, those who, again, will quibble about the supposedly restrictive effect of the proposed provision which, among other things, seek to penalise members of a trade union participating in an illegal strike or industrial action. As Members of this House may recall, the prevailing provisions of the principal Act, regarding illegal strike or industrial action in contravention of the secret ballot requirement or in contravention of the rules of the respective trade union, have been in force for the past 11 years or so. But the prevailing provisions, while penalising an offending trade union or the officers of such trade union, are silent on the part played by the rank and file members in an illegal strike or industrial action. The result is that it can be a rather intolerable situation for officers being confronted by the members, who are pressing for an illegal strike or industrial action and who are too aware of their being not subject to any sanction of the law in participating in an illegal strike or industrial action under the prevailing legislation.”
“While there are those who may quibble about the need for young workers between the age of 21 years and 18 years to obtain the approval of the Minister for Labour to hold office in a trade union, I, on behalf of the National Trades Union Congress, welcome the proposed provisions as they stand in clause 5 of the Bill. The lowering of the minimum age for union membership and for holding office in the union is most timely. Otherwise, there would be the paradoxical situation of selected young persons between the age of 21 years and 18 years being considered matured and fit enough to be commissioned officers in the Singapore Armed Forces, while no young persons between the age of 21 years and 18 years can be considered matured and fit enough to be officers of trade unions. The proposed provisions put right the matter by permitting young persons between the age of 21 years and 1 8 years, who have shown themselves to be responsible, to hold office in their respective trade unions. I do not think there should be any confusion between the eligibility of all young persons between the age of 21 years and 18 years to be officers of a trade union, and the actual selection of a smaller number of young persons to be the officers of the respective trade union. With the lowering of the statutory minimum age for holding office in a union, it is now possible for the NTUC and its affiliated trade unions to groom and train at an earlier stage such young persons to become the future leaders of the trade union movement.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill. In doing so. I am confident that I have the support of the trade union movement in Singapore as well as my colleagues in this House. There are, of course, some provisions in the Bill on which trade unionists may want to have clarifications or assurances from the Minister for Labour. Apart from that, the Bill is generally acceptable and does in no way seek to hamper the operation of a responsible trade union movement, as I intend to explain later on. One particular provision, which I am most pleased to note, is that contained in clause 5 of the Bill pertaining to the amendment of section 29 of the principal Act. This House may recall that in 1974 and 1975 I drew the attention of the Minister for Labour to the desirability of amending the Trade Unions Act to lower the statutory minimum age for union membership and for holding office in trade unions. As I stated at that time, there was a compelling reason for lowering the age requirement for union members and union officers. The compelling reason is that persons are entering into the labour market under the age of 18 years in increasing numbers, It was not unusual in the last few years, and more so today, to find new establishments staffed with a majority of workers under 18 years. Under the prevailing provision, young workers under the age of 18 years are not supposed to be members of a union and young workers between the age of 21 and 18 years are not permitted to hold any office in a union. Such statutory restriction is out of keeping with the prevailing social situation in Singapore and, in that sense, has become outdated. The proposed amendment rectifies the matter by, in a manner of speaking, putting the clock forward.”
“Sir, the EXIM Bank of Japan has withdrawn these impertinent questions. But the DBS has not withdrawn them.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, one point of clarification from the Minister for Finance. I agree with the Minister that a prudent banker should ensure that a loan must not be granted without careful consideration and investigation. But I have been told that questions on the buyer's personal history and the number of wives he has have to be answered. What have these questions got to do with a person buying a ship? What I am trying to point out here is this. Financing for the building of an oil rig or a ship is not successful because the DBS rejects the application as some of the impertinent questions have not been answered. I was told that the EXIM Bank of Japan have dropped these impertinent questions. Would it not be easier to grant a loan or credit facility to the shipbuilder in Singapore instead of to the buyer, so that a contract to build the ship could be entered into?”
“The tragedy is that Singapore can ill-afford to lose all shipbuilding orders, which local shipbuilders are prevented from accepting because of the red-tape governing credit facilities.”
“Another aspect of the red-tape problem is that concerning the guarantee the DBS wants from shipbuilders. The guarantee is to the effect that the shipbuilder guarantees repayment of the loan during the seven-year period. Shipbuilders accept the orders placed with them in good faith. Buyers are required to make a downpayment equivalent to 30% of the total cost of their orders. But it will take one or two years to fulfil their orders. In the meantime, due to unforeseen circumstances or international events beyond their control, buyers may be unable or unwilling to take delivery or, after taking delivery, the buyers may go bankrupt before repaying the loan. Shipbuilders, therefore, cannot guarantee that the buyers will take delivery of the ships they have ordered or repay the loan fully. In such circumstances, the local shipbuilder is unable to secure sufficient shipbuilding orders, not because he cannot win such orders in open competition, but because he cannot obtain the necessary credit facilities. I expect the Minister for Finance's retort to be the usual platitude - that the red-tape is necessary if financial institutions are to be viable. But what I am unhappy about is, not that the Finance Ministry or the DBS do not throw caution to the winds and lend indiscriminately, but that they are not more imaginative and realistic in giving credit facilities to shipbuilders. Japanese shipbuilders' success can in a way be attributed to the credit facilities provided by EXIM Bank of Japan. Probably the Ministry of Finance can have another look at the Japanese method when it lays down policies for DBS to adhere.”
“It is, therefore, not surprising that some buyers react hostilely and refuse to answer all these impertinent questions, since they can have the ship built elsewhere on not less favourable terms of credit and without the need to answer all these impertinent questions. I was told that some local firms had to give up contracts to build ships because of these impertinent questions. Another aspect of the red-tape problem is that concerning the basis on which the credit facilities are made available only for the contruction of self-propelled ocean-going ships of more than 5,000 deadweight tonnes. Our members are not only employed in building ocean-going ships but also in building oil rigs and dredgers. The fact that Singapore is one of the biggest oil rig builders seems to be a matter of no consequence to the Finance Ministry or the DBS. Apparently, no credit facilities can be given to builders of oil rigs and dredgers. A Director of a company told our union leaders that he lost a $36 million contract because the DBS refused to give credit facilities for the building of dredgers. In this instance, the firm had secured 100% credit from EXIM Bank of Japan for the machinery. What the builder needed was credit for labour cost and materials which would have been in the region of $3 or $4 million. DBS rejected the application because the dredgers had no propellers. And, consequently, more than 200 employees lost their jobs. These 200-odd employees would not have joined the rank of the unemployed if the DBS had not been so rigid in its adherence to its self-imposed rules for the granting of credit facilities. Moreover. such rules do not seem to have taken into account the character of Singapore's shipbuilding industry. 5.45 p.m.”
“Sir, the recent Government's scheme of financial assistance to the shipbuilding industry to enable Singapore shipbuilders to compete in the international market is very commend able. But I understand that the scheme has been fouled up by too much bureaucratic red-tape. The success of the scheme is a matter of great concern to me. Not that I seek to be a spokesman for the shipbuilding managements, but I view the scheme as an aid for maintaining job opportunities. The two unions I am associated with, SILO and PIEU, have a few thousand members who are employees of the shipbuilding industry. Their livelihood is being threatened through the inability of our shipbuilding industry to compete on equal terms with their foreign competitors. The primary cause of such inability is the difficulty, or the red-tape, local shipbuilders have to go through to secure credit. It is the normal practice for a local firm, which has successfully bid a contract to build a ship, to allow the buyer to pay only 30% of the total cost of the ship as a down-payment. The local firm then applies to the Development Bank of Singapore (DBS) for a loan equivalent to 70% of the total cost to enable the firm to build the ship. This is when the troubles arise. The DBS requires the prospective buyer to furnish in duplicate or triplicate his personal particulars, some of which the buyer considers impertinent or irrelevant to the question of his credit-worthiness. Fair enough, the buyer must answer personal questions to determine his financial status. But the fact is that other countries, who are our competitors are more lenient towards their buyers and have done away with such questions.”
“Not repeating, Sir,I just want to substantiate. There is contact. All MPs normally invite the OC of every station to attend the CCC meetings. On our part, I think it is not fair to say that the MP has not tried to contact the OC to have this rapport.”
“No, Sir, just to substantiate what I said just now.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we are happy to hear from the Minister for Home Affairs that there is a standing instruction to the effect that any new officer-in-charge of any police station, when transferred to a new constituency, should have closer relations with the CCC and the community leaders. Perhaps he may be interested to know that as regards the previous OC of Kandang Kerbau Police Station, I do not think he has ever visited my constituency to introduce himself. But I must compliment the new OC. Mr Ng Leng Hua, who came to our community centre and met the community leaders and had a good discussion and understood each other.”
“Sir, I would definitely take up the case with the Ministry of Labour regarding this company and, if possible, with the NWC to make sure that there is no abuse. I thank the Minister for his reply and I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 7.15 p.m. The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Tan Cheng San. (2) That the sum to be allocated for Head N be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead AAA 1010. Mr Tan Cheng San(In Mandarin): Sir, as I have already touched upon this item earlier, I do not wish to speak on this amendment now.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to have two points clarified by the Minister for Labour. First, the company which I mentioned just now is a manufacturing company. It is not a service company as the Minister has stated. I must say that it is quite prevalent in a number of companies to try to exclude as many employees as possible from the Employment Act and pay higher annual wage supplements. In the case of the company which I mentioned, how can we convince the workers that we cannot go beyond the annual wage supplement limit? For every eight workers in this company, one worker gets four months, whereas those workers who come within the ambit of the Employment Act get two months. What I would like to find out from the Minister is: will he consider amending the Employment Act or other legislation to make sure that the annual wage supplement is applicable to everyone, irrespective of whether they are in the bargainable or non-bargainable category. We are not certainly objecting to a few top managerial personnel who deserve more than what the Employment Act permits. The second point of clarification is the question of half-day off for the workers, What I am saying is this. If the Government which is the biggest employer sets the example of giving half day off on the eve of the four festivals and also on New Year's Eve, how can we encourage more and more workers to go to the manufacturing sector? I do not think that this is an area where it can be considered bizarre. In the past, the employer has been giving these benefits but because of the NWC we trade unionists are prepared to accept the freezing of all fringe benefits and the employer conveniently also tries to take away the half-day off benefit from the workers.”
“I quite realise that in circumstances where the work is essential to the life of the community or when a disruption of work will have adverse economic or social effects this will not be possible. I must say that the organised workers in Singapore, like the transport workers and the bus workers, are responsible workers. We know that on Chinese New Year Eve we have to have family reunion dinners but we do not go and ask for time-off. We ask only in those areas where their absence does not disrupt production of work. In other words, non-essential areas. But where disruption of any nature will not arise, it is manifestly unfair not to grant this facility to blue-collar workers. This year's Chinese New Year eve was an instance in which where even Government officials seemed to be inclined to the view that requests for a half-day off from blue-collar workers to their employers should be treated differently. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, such a view becomes incomprehensible and untenable in the light of the present policy to encourage our workers to take to blue-collar work. It is obvious, Sir, that if we continue to adopt different standards for white-collar workers and blue-collar workers, it will be difficult to obtain the desired objective. I would, therefore, like to see the application of, at least, uniform standards.”