S. Rajaratnam
Singapore
“There are two already there! BG Lee Hsien Loong: Well, we see the future before us. The proposal to have a 4% interest rate on HDB loans without a corresponding drop in CPF interest paid on the deposits is the first step to raiding the reserves.”
“This concern for the 15-20% was taken up in the President's Address by the new Cabinet. Many of the new and older MPs who preceded the Member for Queenstown have spoken eloquently and constructively on this subject. Quite a few had come forward with suggestions on how this goal could be achieved and it is constructive criticism.”
“Just two minutes. So the Member for Queenstown ended his vision of the future in what I thought was an apocalyptic note, and I would like to quote, I hope he does not deny this: 'Water [he said] can carry a boat but it can also sink a boat. Respect the people and attend to their needs at all times and the people will carry you far.”
“You will have time. You will be here for four years, five years. Do not worry. If you are serious about alleviating the lot of the less fortunate, then the politics of envy and hypocrisy is the surest way of ensuring that this goal is not reached.”
“It is incredible. He wants us to set the example that he wants to follow, to prove that he is a man who is prepared to render service. He can put us to shame (i do not think he will) by just voluntarily, one-sidedly, unilaterally, as a man of principle, sacrificing $3,000. That is nothing. it's peanuts to him.”
“May I finish my speech? - and which has the distinction of being the first political party in this country or in any other country which has been brought to a state of bankruptcy by a politician.”
The complete record
Every one of 375 lines we hold for S. Rajaratnam, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 8.
“This new proviso enables an employer to require, as a condition for the appointment or promotion of a person to a managerial or executive position, that that person shall not continue to be an officer or member of a particular trade union, unless the trade union is a trade union whose constitution and rules restrict its membership to persons in managerial or executive positions. This amendment is consequential upon the amendment in clause 4 of the Bill which requires separate representation by employees in managerial or executive positions as distinct from other subordinate employees. The existing provision merely states that an employer can object to his employees being members of a particular trade union. This by itself does not prevent an employee in a managerial or executive position from joining another trade union catering for employees in these grades. I have already explained why separate representation is necessary in the course of my discussion in clause 4 There is, therefore, no need for me to repeat it here. Clause 15 of the Bill amends the Ordinance by introducing a new section 78A which sets out the circumstances under which a trade union officer may obtain paid leave of absence from his employer to attend to trade union duties. It provides that a trade union officer shall apply in writing to his employer for leave of absence stating the duration of and the purposes for which such leave is applied. It further provides that an employee shall not be entitled to paid leave unless the purpose of his leave is to represent members of his trade union in relation to industrial matters affecting his employer. Hon. Members will appreciate that there have been considerable difficulties in this regard.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, at the moment of interruption yesterday, I explained clause 7. I am now going to speak on clause 8 of the Bill which amends section 34 of the Ordinance by providing that the Industrial Arbitration Court shall not inquire into disputes relating to the dismissal or reinstatement of an employee unless such an employee has been dismissed in circumstances arising out of the contravention of section 79 of the Ordinance. I have already mentioned, in connection with clause 5, the remedial action that may be taken by an employee if he considers that he has been dismissed without just cause or excuse. I would, however, add here that the Minister's decision in this regard is final and conclusive and shall not be challenged in any court, and that the Minister may direct the employer to reinstate the employee in his former employment and to pay him an amount that is equivalent to the wages that the employee would have earned had he not been dismissed by the employer, or to pay such amount of wages as compensation as may be determined by him. If the employer does not comply with the directions of the Minister, then the employer shall be guilty of an offence under the Ordinance and shall be subject to the punishment prescribed. Clause 13 amends section 57 of the Ordinance by extending the circumstances whereby the powers of the Industrial Arbitration Court can be exercised by the President sitting alone. The inclusion of sections 24A, 34, 37 (4) , 39, 42, and 79 is consequential upon other amendments in this Bill and is intended to expedite the proceedings in the court. Clause 14 amends section 77 of the Ordinance by substituting a new proviso for the existing one.”
“The reason for this extension is to enable stability to be maintained in the level of terms and conditions of service for a longer period. This would lead to more effective and efficient administration of an undertaking and enable entrepreneurs to plan ahead. Hon. Members are aware that under section 53 of the Employment Act, no collective agreement entered into after the coming into operation of this Act shall contain provisions more favourable than the terms and conditions of service provided for in Part IV, except in respect of sick leave and annual leave. In order to provide added inducement for new investors to come to Singapore, clause 7 of the Bill provides that all industrial and other approved undertakings, including pioneer industries, which commenced operation on or after the 1st day of January, 1968, shall comply wholly with the provisions of Part IV of the Employment Act, 1968. In other words, all the terms and conditions of employment, including sick leave and annual leave, of these new industrial undertakings will constitute the maximum terms of service for a period of five years from the date such undertakings commence operation in Singapore. The Minister, however, may extend the period at his discretion. 5.00 p.m.”
“Similarly, the right of an employer to dismiss an employee is subject to certain restraints as provided for in an amendment to section 34 of the Ordinance as embodied in paragraph (d) of clause 8. An employee dismissed without just cause or excuse by an employer may, within one month of his dismissal, make through his trade union, representations in writing to the Minister to be reinstated in his former employment. The purpose of directing dismissal cases to the Minister is to provide for more speedy machinery to deal with individual cases of dismissal and to prevent the Industrial Arbitration Court from being bogged down by prolonged arguments over isolated cases. If the objective of the Bill is achieved and high employment created, we can expect the supply of jobs to outrun the demand for jobs. Such a situation would be a natural bar to employers wanting to terminate the services of employees because employees will be able to choose jobs from several alternatives that are open to them. In any case, the more efficient and useful a worker, the less are the chances of his losing employment, and improved performance and productivity will become a natural deterrent to unjust dismissals. Similarly, whilst the employer is given the right to assign or allocate duties or specific tasks to an employee, this right is qualified by the fact that such assignment or allocation must be con sistent or compatible with the terms of employment. Clause 6 of the Bill amends section 24 of the Ordinance to provide that the duration of a collective agreement should be for a minimum of three years and a maximum of five years as against the existing provisions for a minimum of 18 months and a maximum of three years.”
“Employers are subject to human failings just as trade unions are, and these human failings can lead to aberrations. It is, therefore, necessary to build in certain safeguards to protect the employees. For instance, the right of an employer to transfer an employee is subject to the requirement that the exercise of such a right does not entail a change to the detriment of an employee in regard to his terms of employment. Further, the right of an employer to terminate the services of an employee can only be exercised on the grounds of redundancy or reorganisation of the employer's profession, business, trade or work. The trade unions, however, have apprehensions in this regard. In view of the fact that retrenchment can only be carried out on the grounds of redundancy or reorganisation, the employer will have in fact to show that this is so. What the Bill intends to achieve is merely that the employer should have the prerogative to decide which of his employees should go, not just on the principle of "last in, first out", but more on the principle of "least efficient, first out". An employer would naturally want to retain efficient workers if be wants to run his enterprise successfully. The principle of "last in, first out" prevents him from retaining useful employees in a redundancy or reorganisation exercise. The fears expressed in this regard are, therefore, somewhat exaggerated because in any case of abuse by the employers, remedial measures can be instituted under section 72 if the circumstances warrant the appointment of a Board of Inquiry. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] 4.55 p.m.”
“Separate representation of different categories of employees is nothing new and is accepted in the highly industrialised countries of Europe and America. Further, it has been our experience that the provisions of the existing section 16 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance have not been effective in minimising the incidence of disputes on the question of trade union representation which, in practice, attempted to embrace managerial or executive employees. There is, therefore, a need for legislative intervention in this regard to regularise the position. Clause 5 of the Bill amends section 17 of the Ordinance and a new subsection is now included to provide that certain fundamental management functions are not negotiable. These functions are as follows: (a) the promotion of an employee; (b) the internal transfer of an employee; (c) the recruitment of staff; (d) the retrenchment of an employee; (e) the dismissal or reinstatement of an employee; and (f) the assignment or allocation of duties or specific tasks to an employee. It is undoubtedly true that such functions are common law rights and that, therefore, it would appear unnecessary to give further legal effect to such rights. However, as I said, experience has shown that the line between management functions and trade union functions becomes blurred in the process of heated negotiations, with neither side knowing where one's right begins or ends. It is, therefore, necessary to define clearly what management functions are, just as it is important to delineate trade union functions to eliminate an area of dispute which has caused considerable concern in regard to the industrial progress of Singapore. But unfettered rights there cannot be, because rights also beget obligations.”
“One can seriously ask whether in such a state of affairs any new employer would set up factories in Singapore if there is no clear dividing line between the functions of management and the functions of trade unions. This Bill is therefore a bid to create the necessary framework within which certain industrial matters between the employer and worker can find a new basis for a new working relationship. I shall now deal with the major clauses of the Bill. Clause 4 of the Bill seeks to amend section 16 of the Ordinance by providing that a trade union of employees, the majority of whose members consist of employees working in subordinate positions, may not seek recognition in respect of employees who are in managerial or executive positions. The existing provisions of subsection (2) of section 6 of the Ordinance merely stipulate that a trade union of employees, whose constitution and rules do not permit it to admit as members any class of employees, may not seek recognition in respect of that class of employees. But the constitution and rules of a trade union may be drafted so widely as to embrace all grades and categories of employees from the office boy up to the managing director. In any commercial or industrial undertaking, the supervisory category of employees constitutes a minority of the total number of employees. A trade union ostensibly works on the democratic principle that the will of the majority prevails, but sometimes this principle cuts across the interests of the minority. As the minority of employees are in supervisory or executive grades, one often finds that such a principle is incompatible with the enforcement of discipline. And discipline is undeniably a necessary prerequisite for effective and efficient management.”
“The Industrial Relations Ordinance, which was enacted in 1960, gives expression to Government's declared policy of industrial peace with justice. Though the law has worked satisfactorily generally, experience in working it has shown that a reappraisal is necessary to eliminate certain fundamental areas of latent dispute which have caused serious concern to us, because in a large number of cases this has resulted in shattering confidence in Singapore's ability to create the necessary conditions to attract foreign investments, encourage industrial development, and generate much-needed employment opportunities for our people. Let me give you some figures of work stoppages from 1960 to 1967, that is, during the last seven years. The total number of stoppages during this period of some eight years was 389, involving a loss in man-days of 1,284,029; the peak years were of course 1961, 1962 and 1963. It will be seen that the number of man-days lost is colossal. It is a loss which could have crippled a country of our size and in our position, but fortunately because we in Singapore are made of sterner stuff, we have managed to survive. What is even more interesting is a study of the causes of these disputes. Of the total of 389 disputes, 106 or about 27 per cent arose out of dismissals while another 120 or about 30 per cent were due to a number of other reasons which included demotion, discontinuance of life insurance scheme, discrimination in filling vacancy, grading of staff, recruitment of workers, reorganisation, transfer of company doctor, warning letters, and not least of all, a union's demand for dismissal of an employee. These disputes indicate that there is no clear demarcation between management functions and trade union functions.”
“I am not saying that unions have deliberately claimed the rights of management because then they would also have to take on the responsibilities that go with it. But unwittingly they have trespassed into this sphere by querying the right of management to hire, fire, promote and transfer employees where these are necessary to enhance the efficiency of the enterprise. Yet the essence of management is the ability of the management to deploy its labour resources and skills in the most effective and most rational way - and central to this is to be able to recruit the most qualified worker, to promote the most able, to get rid of the inefficient and to transfer a worker where he is most needed. These, to a certain extent, involve judgment but, by and large, the judgment of the management should be the decisive one because if its judgment is erratic and ill-informed the enterprise sooner or later goes bankrupt. I am not saying that management rights cannot be abused or improperly or unintelligently exercised by management. We have, therefore, in this Bill provided such safeguards as we can against flagrant abuse of management rights, but laws have to be designed for normal behaviour. It is reasonable to assume that most employers are interested, as most workers are, in efficiently managed and therefore profitable enterprises. One cannot make laws on the assumption that employers are going into business with the primary objective of hiring, firing and promoting workers arbitrarily and unfairly. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] 4.43 p.m. Abuses and malpractices there will always be, and inroads into rights and privileges will always be made by one party or the other which, in the ultimate, can become detrimental to the public good.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill, like the Employment Bill, is an attempt to rationalise employer-employee relationship with a view to attracting new investments and increasing the efficiency of our trading and industrial enterprises. This Bill, unlike the Employment Bill, deals with the rights and responsibilities of management. Efficiency of an enterprise depends on effective management, more so as our commercial and industrial enterprises become more modernised, more complex and bigger as they must if they are to hold their own in an increasingly competitive world. The more highly organised our economy becomes, the more up-to-date, resourceful and imaginative must become our management methods. The trade unions have never questioned the rights of management to manage, first, as a matter of common-sense and, second, because these rights are common law rights. But whatever the theory the rights of management have over the years been eroded, perhaps not as a conscious policy, by trade unions. What this Bill seeks to do is to restore these rights of management to the employers by making common law rights into statute law. No rights are being taken away from the workers because the workers never claimed these rights, even though some of these rights have, in practice, been denied to management. We are not restoring these rights to management merely out of a sense of justice and fair play, but because we are convinced that unless proper management functions are allowed to be performed unhampered there would be little or no economic expansion or fresh investments. No investor or entrepreneur is going to risk millions of dollars if he has not the final say and the responsibility to decide how the enterprise should be run.”
“At present there is a Committee of Inquiry which consists of a Chairman and two members appointed to hear all appeals from citizens who are to be deprived of their citizenship. It has been found from practical experience that it would be more desirable to have a panel from whom may be chosen two members to form such a Committee of Inquiry. This will expedite the hearing of appeals. The amendment to Article 63 (2) would enable the Government to appoint such a panel. The amendment to Article 66 would now empower the Government to cancel certificates that have ben obtained under this Article in circumstances where such certificates have been obtained fraudulently or by mistake. The national registration exercise has brought to light a number of cases of persons who had used other persons unnamed birth certificates to claim Singapore citizenship under this Article. With this amendment the Government would now be empowered to cancel citizenship certificates under Article 66 where such certificates were obtained by means of fraud or concealment of material facts or by mistake. 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 Rajaratnam]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 4.40 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Bill amends various Articles to the Constitution relating to citizenship rights. The first amendment relates to Article 55. As amended, Article 55 would allow citizenship by descent to a child who is born outside Singapore of a father who is a Singapore citizen, whether by birth or by registration. In the case where the father is a Singapore citizen by birth, Article 55, as amended, would allow his child the right of Singapore citizenship by descent, In the case where the father is a Singapore citizen by registration, his child may claim citizenship by descent only if he does not acquire the citizenship of that country in which he was actually born by reason of his birth there. In both cases, the parents are required to register the child within one year of its birth with the Government or with the Singapore Mission in the country of the child's birth. However, the Government reserves to itself the right to grant permission to a person claiming citizenship by descent to register his birth, where this has not been done, within the one year prescribed. The amendment to Article 60 (3) of the Constitution is purely a technical one in that it would extend the operation of the present Article 60 (3) to cover cases of citizens obtaining Singapore citizenship by registration under section 13 of the repealed Singapore Citizenship Ordinance, 1957. This section in the 1957 Ordinance corresponds to Article 58 of the Constitution. Both the provisions require a citizen who is a minor to take the oath of renunciation, allegiance and loyalty within twelve months of his attaining majority. Failure to do so will result in the subject losing his citizenship status.”
“No. Question put, and negatived. Clause 15 accordingly disagreed to.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee has made progress on the Bill and ask leave to sit again on a date to be fixed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 56, line 1, to leave out "XV" and insert "XVI". The purpose of this amendment is to rectify a clerical error. Amendment agreed to. Clause 160, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 161 to 170 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. 6.45 p.m. Schedule A ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule B -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 49, line 41, to leave out "C" and insert "B". Sir, this is a consequential amendment. Amendment agreed to.”
“It is not so much a reply as a statement that this clause 53 of the Bill has been carefully considered and drafted and I do not think that even the suggestion proposed by the Member would be accepted by the Government because this clause is far more comprehensive than was intended. So I am afraid that, as far as the Government is concerned, we cannot consider any variation in the clause in the amendment as submitted by me. Amendment agreed to.”
“Mr Speaker. Sir, I beg to move, In page 25, after line 3, to add - "(2) The provisions of this section shall not apply where the terms of service under which a person is employed are provided for in collective agreement entered into before the corning into operation of this Act and while such collective agreement remains in force. (3) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section it shall not be an offence for an employer to grant to his employee terms of service relating to leave more favourable than those contained in sections 43 and 44 of this Act." The intention of the Government is to make the terms and conditions of service provided in Part IV of the Bill the norm of conditions of employment in respect of collective agreements entered into after the coming into operation of the enacted Bill. After the Bill becomes law, collective agreements, other than existing ones, cannot deviate from the provisions of Part IV in respect of terms and conditions of service except to the extent provided under clauses 43 and 44 relating to leave. The intention, in respect of sick leave and annual leave, is that it shall not be an offence for an employer to grant more favourable terms than those contained in clauses 43 and 44. The purpose of the amendment is to clarify this further.”
“Sir, in view of the statement I have made earlier that this is another of the clauses which the Government requires time to consider, I would like to request that this clause be postponed for consideration at some future time.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have already clarified at length the justification for this particular provision. But, as I have indicated earlier, in view of certain points raised by the Member for Bukit Ho Swee and other hon. Members, I am prepared to defer voting on this provision to give the Government time to consider the Member's proposal.”
“Sir, since I am not familiar with the matter, I will look into it and find out what is to happen. Amendment agreed to. Amendment made: In page 21, line 1, to leave out "working". - [Mr Rajaratnam]. 6.00 p.m. Clause 43, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 44 -”
“Perhaps it is the difficulty in the translation, but I am not familiar with this particular case. I understand they are having 28 days' leave now?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 20, line 42, to leave out "working".”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 20, to leave out lines 38 to 40 inclusive. This is consequential to my first amendment to this clause. Amendment agreed to.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 20, to leave out lines 29 to 34 inclusive and insert- "(4) Subsection (3) of this section shall not apply to an employee who is employed by the Government or a statutory body in any of the essential services as defined under Part the Criminal Law (Temporary of 1995 Ord.26 Provisions) Ordinance, 1995 but any such of 1955. employee may notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section be required by his employer to work on a holiday or part of a holiday to which he would otherwise be entitled under that subsection, and in any such case he shall be given a day or part of a day off, as the case may be, in substitution for such holiday or part thereof.". In so far as it concerns an employee employed by the Government or a statutory body in any of the essential services as defined under Part V of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance, 1955, it is intended that any work done on a rest day or on a holiday shall be remunerated by way of proportionate time off in substitution. The purpose of this amendment is to make this clearer. Amendment agreed to.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 20, line 1, to leave out "Schedule B to this Act" and insert "the Schedule to the Holidays Act, 1966,". Sir, since it is intended that the holidays specified in the Schedule to the Holidays Act, 1966, be applicable to all employees under the Employment Act, it is no longer necessary to set out the same holidays in Schedule B to the Employment Bill. Amendment agreed to.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 19, line 18, to leave out "part of the work done" and insert "specific amount of work required to be performed". This amendment is intended to clarify further the existing clause 40 of the Bill. Amendment agreed to. Clause 40, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 42 -”
“It is obvious that such circumstances can be determined well in advance if there is any dispute to that effect. Hence it would be in order for the proviso to apply to paragraph (f) . Amendment agreed to. Clause 39, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 40 -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 18, line 24, to leave out "this section" and insert "paragraph (f) of this subsection". The purpose of this amendment is to provide that the proviso to sub-clause (2) of clause 39 shall only apply to paragraph (f) of the same sub-clause. Paragraphs (a) to (f) of sub-clause (2) of clause 39 set out the circumstances under which an employer can require his employee to work in excess of normal working hours or to work on rest days or holidays. The proviso provides that in the event of any dispute, the Commissioner for Labour shall have the power to decide whether or not the employer is justified in calling the employee to work in the circumstances. It is considered that the circumstances set out in paragraphs (a) to (e) cannot be made subject to the proviso. Some of the examples of the circumstances set out in paragraphs (a) to (e) are work essential for defence or security, work to be performed in the event of accidents, urgent work to be done to machinery or plant. Such work has to be done on an urgent basis and cannot await the Commissioner's decision on whether the employer is justified in calling upon the employees to work in the circumstances. Furthermore, the circumstances listed under paragraphs (a) to (e) are also not restricted by such proviso in the existing labour legislation. Paragraph (f) of the same sub-clause provides that the employee may be required by an employer to work outside normal working hours or on rest days or holidays if the work to be performed is in respect of any industrial undertaking essential to the economy of Singapore or any of the essential services as defined under Part V of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance, 1955.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 18, line 14, to leave out "and which is not of a recurring character". The purpose of leaving out these words is to make the existing paragraph (e) of sub-clause (2) of clause 39 workable. Under this paragraph, an employee may be required by the employer to exceed his normal working hours or to work on a rest day or holiday where there is an interruption of work in the work establishment which it was not possible to foresee and which is not of a recurrent character. This might well create difficulties. For example, an interruption of work can be due to a breakdown of machinery, and while the breakdown cannot be foreseen, it may well recur. The removal of the words specified in the amendment would, therefore, make the provision of paragraph (e) more practicable. Amendment agreed to.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 18, line 6, to leave out "or on a holiday". The removal of the words "or on a holiday" from clause 39 is designed to avoid a conflict between that clause and sub-clause (3) of clause 42 of the Bill. Sub-clause (3) of clause 42 provides that an employee may be required by his employer to work on a holiday. This is also the position under the existing three employment Ordinances. On the other hand, through an inadvertence, the existing sub-clause (2) of clause 39 of the Bill also provides that an employer may require his employee to work on a holiday only in certain specified circumstances. This was not the intention, and the deletion of the words "or on a holiday" is designed to enable the existing position to continue. Amendment agreed to.”
“- then naturally there has been a case of unjust dealings in this matter. If such instances come to light, they will be looked into and if necessary there will be directions to ensure that this provision is applied fairly and justly in regard to employees. Amendment agreed to. Clause 38, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 5.45 p.m. Clause 39 -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I say that I missed the first half of the translation but I assume that the second half is the substance of what the Member for Kampong Kembangan wanted to say. I am not aware of the particular case that he has mentioned just now. But as I said, if the facts are true”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have already explained the main reasons for introducing these two amendments. However, the hon. Member for Telok Blangah has raised one valid point, that it would be manifestly unfair to call upon a worker to work during a holiday or on his day off for such a short period as to nullify the compensation he might have at some subsequent day of one or two hours in lieu of his holiday. I would like to give him this assurance, that my Ministry will give administrative directions whereby employees who are called upon to work on a holiday or rest day would not be unreasonably made use of by asking them to come to work for just one or two hours. Where possible, and in fact in every case, it would be that they should work for a considerable part of the holiday or part of the day on which they are called upon to work. I would like to assure the hon. Member that in implementing this provision, due regard will be taken to ensure justice and fair play for the employees.”
“In respect of to sub- clause (3) of clause 38 of the Bill provides that if such employee works on a rest day, whether it be for only one hour, tow hours or any part of a rest day, then the employer is bound to give the employee a full day off in substitution for the employee's work on that rest day. The purpose of the amendment is to provide that if such an employee works only on part of a day, then the time off in substitution for his work on a rest day shall be proportionate to the period of his work on that rest day. I would emphasise, for the information of hon. Members, that this latter amendment only affects employees employed by the Government or statutory bodies in the essential services defined by the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance, 1955.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 17, to leave out lines 11 to 23 inclusive and insert - "(2) Any employee who at his own request works for an employer on a rest day shall be paid for that day at not less than the ordinary rate of pay for one day's work. Ord. 26 (3) Any employee who at the request of his of 1955. employer works on a rest day shall be paid an extra day's salary at the ordinary rate of pay for one day's work in addition to the ordinary rate of pay for that day. (4) Subsection (3) of this section shall not apply to any employee who is employed by the Government or a statutory body in any of the essential services as defined under Part V of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance, 1955, but any such employee who at the request of his employer works on a rest day or part of a rest day shall be given a day or part of a day off, as the case may be, in substitution of such a rest day or par thereof.". Mr Speaker, Sir, this amendment involves two points. Firstly, as a matter of wording, the amendment is clearer that the existing corresponding working of the Bill. The main objective of this new wording is to avoid using the expression "double the ordinary rate of pay" because, as Members are aware, it is this expression which has in the past led to the triple pay situation which this Bill, among other things, is designed to abolish. The second point involves employees who are employed by the Government or a statutory body in any of the essential services as defined under Part V of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provision) Ordinance, 1955.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am quite prepared to accept the assurances by the Member for Bukit Ho Swee. But people at the age of 70 obviously relapse into a second childhood. However, I have already indicated that there are certain clauses on which the Government needs time for consideration, and this is one of them. Sir, may I formally move?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 9, line 9, after "service", to insert "as an employee". The existing clause 12 of the Bill enables a minor, that is, a person below the age of 21 years, to enter into a contract of service either as an employer or as an employee, and it also provides that no contract of service shall be enforceable against a minor and no damages or indemnity shall be recoverable from such a person in respect of such contract of service unless it is for his benefit. Whilst it is reasonable to protect the interest of a minor when he enters into a contract of service as an employee, it is considered unjustifiable to treat him in a different way from other employers when he enters into a contract of service as an employer. In fact, such unnecessarily favourable protection to the minor in his capacity as an employer may well lead to his abusing his legal position to the detriment of his employees. The purpose of this amendment is to confine the protection granted by this Bill to minors in their capacity as employees only. Amendment agreed to. Clause 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 13 and 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 8, to leave out lines 4 to 6 inclusive. The purpose of this amendment is to remove the proviso to sub-clause (1) of clause 9 of the Bill. The proviso to this sub-clause (1) of clause 9 lays down that a contract of service for a specified period of four weeks or less shall be deemed to be a contract for an unspecified period, and in sub-clause (2) of the same clause it is provided that a contract of service for an unspecified period shall be deemed to run until terminated by either party in accordance with the provisions of the Bill. Such a contract would, therefore, under the provisions of sub-clause (2) , have to be terminated by notice even though it is, in fact, a temporary contract of service. This would mean that if a labourer was engaged and told he would be employed for one day, nevertheless, an employer would have to give him one full day's notice under paragraph (a) of sub-clause (3) of clause 10, even before the employee began to work. Moreover, the employee in such a case would be getting two days' pay for one day's work. This would be absurd and the deletion of the provision of sub-clause (1) of clause 9 is designed to rectify this. Amendment agreed to.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 4, line 5, to leave out "steel" and insert "steam". This amendment is to remove a clerical error. Amendment agreed to. Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 3 to 8 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 9 -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 3, lines 28 and 29, after "manufactured,", to insert "assembled,". This amendment is to provide for an omission. Amendment agreed to.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 2, line 40, after "include", to insert "any seaman, domestic servant, watchman or security guard or". The purpose of this amendment is to exclude seaman, watchman, or security guard from the definition of "employee". The reason is that, as I have said earlier in reply to the Member for Kallang, the nature of the duties performed by these categories of employees are not amenable to regulations by ordinary labour legislation. Amendment agreed to.”
“This Bill should therefore be read in conjunction with the other long-term changes we are making in the social, cultural, educational and political fields to infuse our people with new ideas and new spirit so as to enable them to cope with the problem of existence in the world of today and tomorrow. Rapid economic modernisation cannot be achieved on the basis of an unending ruthless conflict between workers and employers, for this must eventually end in economic stagnation and chaos in which all, including employers and workers, become the tragic victims. This Bill gives a new basis for employer-employee relationship. It seeks to ensure the prosperity of both in one common goal - sustained economic expansion and rapid industrial growth. The sectional interests of both must be subordinated to this central goal. Conflict there always will be, but workers and employers must realise that conflict must not be carried to the point where the economy as a whole is immobilised. There must be acceptance of the fact that wages and profits can increase only so long as the enterprise on which both are dependent grows and expands. This Bill tries, in so far as a Government can, to give legislative encouragement to this new outlook. But legislation, by itself, is not enough. Workers and employers must themselves be imbued by this outlook. Only then can this Bill produce the results expected of it. 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 Rajaratnam]. Bill considered in Committee. 4.30 p.m. [Mr Speaker in the Chair]”
“However the major objective of the Bill is to enhance prospects for rapid economic growth and with it a political and economic stability capable of resisting the buffetings Singapore could be subjected to in the next few years. I am convinced, Mr Speaker, that even those who are now critical of this Bill will, in the nineteen seventies, be thankful that as a result of the inoculation administered through this Bill our economy will have acquired sufficient immunity against such calamities as it may be exposed to in the years ahead. This is the negative aspect of the Bill. Positively, whether there are calamities or not, this Bill will accelerate economic growth and make more certain not merely Singapore's survival but also its capacity to prosper and advance as a modern technological, industrialised society. We would not be merely a society struggling to keep afloat in a twentieth century world but we would be of the twentieth century. We would be intellectually and technologically equipped to move smoothly and confidently with the other advanced societies into the twenty-first century. This Bill is only one of the many planned long-term measures to prepare our people to face the ever-changing future. We have repeatedly said that our purpose is not to encourage our people to join our ancestral past; to rummage in the dustbin of the past to find models for our future; to revive the real and imagined glories of our ancestors because we have not the capacity to build glories of our own. Only a people without talents of their own and without a creative spirit of their own live with the dead, are overwhelmed by the present and decimated by the future.”
“Secondly, some Members appear to have forgotten that the existing labour legislation provides for only 28 days' sick leave irrespective of whether hospitalisation is necessary or not, and therefore the total number of days provided in this Bill is no different from the provisions in existing legislation. However, Mr Speaker, we are a reasonable Government. We have no wish to railroad through those provisions of the Bill to which strong objections have been taken by some hon. Members and to which they have proposed their own amendments. I refer to the four amendments proposed by the Member for Bukit Ho Swee - namely, to clauses 15, 44, 46 and 47. What I propose to do with your permission, Mr Speaker, is to debate these 4 clauses and the amendments at Committee stage but move to postpone voting on them until the next sitting of Parliament. This will give the Government time to consider fully all the implications of the proposed amendments before accepting, rejecting or modifying them. The Member for Bukit Ho Swee has also moved an amendment to clause 53. Hon. Members are also aware that subsequent to the hon. Member's notice of amendment, I have also given notice that I will move an amendment to that clause. I will deal with this matter when we discuss this clause in Committee. This Bill has, not unexpectedly, provoked considerable debate and has, no doubt, helped to dispel the imaginary fears and unfounded alarms based largely on misconceptions and ill-informed rumours. I am not denying that this Bill demands painful adjustments on the part of some workers, but for the vast majority of them and, in particular, the blue-collar workers, it confers rights and opportunities which they did not enjoy before.”
“The point our trade union officials appear not to realise is that through the course of the last decade or so trade union pressure on the employer has succeeded in elevating the payment of bonus into something payable as of right. It is the contention of the Government that in order to achieve the common purpose of accelerated economic growth, trade unionists should, in future, clearly recognise the distinction between wages and incentive payments like bonus. Wages are what is regarded as fair reward on the basis of what an average worker can command in the labour market. A bonus is incentive payment to induce the worker to do more than what is normally expected of him in return for his ordinary pay. In this Bill there is nothing to prevent workers from negotiating for better wages if they feel they have a case for better wages. But it is not going to help our objective of economic expansion if the incentive element in bonus is maintained in theory but not in fact. On the subject of sick leave, the provision in the Bill was primarily intended to regulate the malpractice of malingering. On this subject, the Member for Telok Blangah relapsed into heart-rending melodrama about whether the Minister had miraculous powers to command broken legs to heal within the period prescribed by the Bill. Unfortunately, I have none but I have a near substitute for it. This is the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance. The hon. Member should know that injuries sustained in the course of work are governed not by this Bill but by the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance. I would strongly suggest that in the case of broken bones and other injuries, trade unionists would do well to invoke this Ordinance and not the non-existent miraculous powers of the Minister to heal the sick and the maimed.”
“This means that the Commissioner will make his decision on each case on individual merits - whether the person is medically fit to continue working, whether his skill and experience persist unimpaired despite advancing age; whether his employer finds him useful for his enterprise and so on. Since the purpose of this Bill is to promote economic expansion and productivity, it would be illogical to retire workers who, whatever their age, can still contribute effectively towards this goal. What this clause seeks to do is to give the Commissioner the power to review the continued employment of older persons so that the inefficient and the unproductive do not indefinitely block job opportunities for the vigorous and productive and skilled young men who yearly enter the labour market. The next most controversial provision is clause 47 on bonus. Here again the criticism of hon. Members, though understandable, seems to have been mis-conceived. It is apparent that bonus has been regarded not as incentive payment, which it is by definition and should be in regard to purpose, but as part and parcel of wages. The Minister for Culture did in his speech point out convincingly the prevailing confusion between bonus and wages. The essence of bonus payment, he noted, is that it is discretionary. It has to be discretionary if its character as incentive payment is to be maintained. This was what the Government was trying to achieve in providing that the payment of bonus shall not be a matter for negotiation but that it should be tied to productivity and performance.”
“For his information, I would point out that in keeping with the Interpretation Act, the word "person" in the definition of "employer" should be construed to include any company or association or body of persons, corporate or incorporate. On the question of definitions, the Member for Kallang has asked why seamen, watchmen and security guards are excluded from the definition of "employee". The reason is that the nature of the duties of this category of employees is not amenable to regulation by ordinary labour legislation. For instance, the normal working day of 8 hours for the average employee cannot possibly be applied to the working conditions of seamen, watchmen or security guards. The nature of their duties requires them, as a rule, to be "attached" to their place of work. Under the circumstances, it is best that conditions of employment for this category of workers be left to be determined by mutual agreement. Moreover, hon. Members will note that seamen watchmen and security guards are already excluded from the definition of "workmen" in the Bill. It is therefore logical that they should be excluded from the definition of "employee". I would like now to deal with criticisms in regard to major provisions of the Bill. It would appear that clause 15, relating to retirement at 55 years, has attracted considerable criticism. The sum total of these criticisms has been to convey the impression that once a person has reached the age of 55, this Bill would ensure that he is consigned to the dungheap - including, as one hon. Member not unkindly pointed out, me and the Minister for Finance. This is, of course, to misread the intentions of the Bill, because clause 15 gives the Commissioner powers to approve persons over 55 to continue working.”
“One of the reasons why this provision has been included in the Bill is to make it easier for us to find jobs for national servicemen on their discharge. No one will quarrel with the principle that those of our young men who have gone through national service and are committed to defending with their lives, the lives and property of employers as well, should have preference in the matter of jobs - provided they can perform these jobs. Let me, however, assure the Member for Anson that in making these regulations the points made by him will be taken into consideration, It is not the intention of Government to direct employment in all cases. Employers will still be free to engage employees through other sources. The Member for Kampong Kapor has pointed out that before this provision can be implemented the Employment Exchange must be reorganised to implement this provision effectively and fairly. I fully agree with him. This would also involve the availability of trade-testing facilities and this matter is now being looked into in conjunction with the Technical Education Department of the Ministry of Education. The Member for Anson also wanted to know why the provisions on maternity benefits are not applicable to female employees other than female workmen. The existing Labour Ordinance confines payment of maternity benefits only to female workmen and no cogent arguments have been advanced why we should depart from this established practice. He also asked whether the definition of "employer" in clause 2 of the Bill includes corporations and associations.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, one fact that has emerged from the debate on the Bill is that even the most critical Member of the House agrees with the essential aims and broad principles of the Bill - and it is this: employer - employee relationship must have as its primary and over-riding concern the promotion of economic growth and economic expansion without which ruination faces both workers and employers alike. The criticisms have been in regard to some details of the Bill though some of these details are of major importance and could, if radically modified, substantially hinder the achievement of our major economic objectives. Other criticisms derive, I think, from a misunderstanding of the provisions criticised. I would like, therefore, to deal with some of the relevant criticisms and offer either clarification or explanation. First a matter of clarification. The Member for Anson, for example, said that he could not understand why this Bill should seek to prevent employers from engaging employees except through the Employment Exchange. He pointed out the difficulties and hardships it could cause to small establishments which have members of the family working or in cases where it may be necessary for the employer to have someone whom he can trust on the basis of his personal knowledge. On this, I would like to say that Part XI of the Bill, especially clause 112, enables the Minister to make regulations to require employers to notify vacancies in their establishment and to prevent employers from engaging or re-engaging employees except through the Employment Exchange. 4.10 p.m. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] However, the provisions of this part of the Bill will not be invoked until the necessary machinery and regulations are ready.”