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 6 of 8.
“- to prevent anybody exploiting the country.”
“But there is no way of distinguishing between him and one hundred others who just destroy all papers and say that they were born in Singapore. We will do everything we can to make life easier for non-citizens. For example, people claiming birth in Singapore but without any documentary evidence can, first of all, apply for Singapore citizenship in the normal way as any other non-citizens who ask for consideration on the basis of long residence or any other qualifications. Non-citizens who are holders of blue identity cards can get jobs in Singapore provided they obtain work permits. Where a man holds a blue identity card and says he was born in Singapore and has the requisite qualifications, I am quite sure that he will have prior consideration with regard to the issuing of work permits than a non-citizen who was born elsewhere. This is a difficult problem and we sympathise with people who may have been born in Singapore but are without birth certificates to prove it. However, I do not think the Government can just arbitrarily waive aside the regulations governing citizenship purely on the basis of somebody claiming, without proof, that he was born in Singapore and is qualified for Singapore citizenship. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That Parliament do now adjourn. Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine minutes past five o'clock p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government and I are well aware of the problem to which the hon. Member for Geylang Serai has referred. We sympathise, of course, with the difficulties of people who are not Singapore citizens, but we have to sympathise even more with the difficulties of Singapore citizens. This is a dilemma which, if things were otherwise, we could solve. But we have also thousands of Singapore citizens who are making demands for jobs, for homes and for houses, and every non-citizen who is given citizenship not only gets a job, but all the privileges and commitments that we have made in regard to all our citizens. During the national registration exercise, it was revealed that there were many people who claimed birth in Singapore but who, on further investigation, were found not to be born in Singapore. If we do not have some criteria for judging proof of birth in Singapore and if we just relax or ignore the law, qualifications and evidence required to prove citizenship, then having regard to the conditions prevailing around us, we might have thousands of people coming here who were not born in Singapore. They cannot produce birth certificates or any other evidence of their birth in Singapore. We sympathise with the people who claim that they were born in Singapore, but who obviously cannot produce any evidence. I would like to say that during the re-registration exercise, holders of the old 1948 and 1949 identity cards whose place of birth was shown as Singapore were issued with pink identity cards. We would like to assist people who are undoubtedly in great difficulties, but we cannot afford to relax our law on this at the moment. We would like to do the right thing for one who was really born in Singapore but without any evidence to prove it.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That Parliament do now adjourn. Question proposed. DIFFICULTIES OF BLUE IDENTITY CARD HOLDERS CLAIMING BIRTH IN SINGAPORE”
“There is as yet no country in this region which provides (together with the proposed amendments to our Central Provident Fund laws) benefits and terms better than what the workers of Singapore will enjoy. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 4.28 p.m.”
“This is the intent and purpose behind this Bill. How far this Bill will succeed in its purpose will depend on both workers and employers placing national interests before sectional interests. The Government is aware, too, that like some workers there will be some short-sighted and stupid employers who will try to take advantage of this Bill, not to promote economic expansion, but unjustly to squeeze workers for personal gain. I know that one or two such employers have already, through a selfish misreading of the Bill, started wielding the big stick. They have proposed cuts and reductions, not because of financial difficulties, but because the proprietors want to get a bit more spending money for themselves. May I inform such employers that the Government will not stand idly by and watch them sabotage our efforts to bring about industrial peace and stability. They are not the only ones who can wield the big stick -and their stick could, when it comes to the crunch, be broken like a rotten twig. Of course, the Bill does not provide for all situations, for all sorts of contingencies that may arise in what is a rapidly changing area of the world. So the Government will in the light of experience review the Bill when defects come to the surface. So, Mr Speaker, unless this Bill is studied in the context of our formidable economic and political problems, its essential purpose and objectives might well be lost sight of in the debate. These formidable problems cannot be tackled without painful adjustments though the Government has made every effort to reduce to a minimum the pain by sweetening the medicine somewhat, In conclusion, let me say that this Bill, with the amendments, still remains the most progressive piece of labour legislation in this part of the world.”
“But no problem is insoluble and in so far as our economic problem is concerned - and on which hinges our political and military viability - we may not find complete solutions. But we can with discipline, hard work and long-term planning and organisation make reasonable progress despite the many difficulties ahead. This is no idle boast. When we were asked to leave Malaysia, there were those who predicted economic disintegration and collapse for Singapore. They predicted an island seething with discontent and revolt -and a ready prey for the imitation Maos now prowling about in the caves of Victoria Street. These predictions have been proved wrong because after separation we got down immediately to tackling the difficult economic and other problems following separation. So once again we must start planning now to meet and overcome, this time, the economic consequences of a precipitate British withdrawal. If we are to meet the problems of unemployment, make good the $450 million the British Armed Forces have been spending, then there must be massive industrial expansions; accelerated economic growth through stimulation of our entrepot trade, tourism, shipping and so on. To do this quickly, we must attract local and foreign investments - foreign investments because we cannot mobilise enough domestic savings except by a ruthless lowering of living standards. The Employment Bill should, therefore, be seen in the context of the new problems an independent Singapore faces. There must be a climate of industrial peace and stability to attract both local and foreign capital. It is essential to increase the productivity of our workers, the efficiency of entrepreneurs, so that our products can compete in the stiff competitive export markets of the world.”
“When there are thousands of workers battering at employers' doors for any job under any conditions, then the door is open for real exploitation and the progressive weakening of the authority and influence of organised trade unions and organised workers. It is, therefore, in the interests of trade unions to support, whatever the cost, measures designed to reduce unemployment by fostering sustained economic growth. This Bill, in effect, is an attempt to tackle the problem of finding jobs for as many of this 120,000 forgotten and largely inarticulate group of citizens. I am not saying that we can solve the unemployment problem altogether. But we can contain it and minimise the tragedy and real suffering which only the unemployed can know. Apart from the unemployment problem, we are going to lose some $450 million spent annually by the British Armed Forces in Singapore and which constitutes approximately 14 per cent of our gross domestic product. This will tail off to almost zero after 1971. To fill this gap and avoid recessionary effects to our economy, we will have to spend an additional $900 million between now and 1971. To all these we must add the economic burden that defence will impose on us. After 1971 the centuries-old British shield (paid for and maintained by the British) will no longer be here to protect us. If we do not develop a defensive armour of our own, then a rich and strategically valuable island like ours is a tempting prize to seize - particularly if, out of a misplaced sense of thrift, we deprive ourselves of the tooth and claw to deter the freebooter. All these might appear formidable problems - and so they are, Mr Speaker.”
“I think we are cats and this Bill will give us the claws and the strength to fight our way out of the coming difficulties in the seventies. It may be as well, here, to mention some of these coming difficulties besides which problems about bonus, rest days, and other alleged suffering will appear trivial when the moment of reckoning comes. First of all, with the withdrawal of British Forces some 21,000 Singapore citizens out of some 25,500 civilians directly employed by the British will be without jobs. These 21,000 citizens are today not worrying about bonus or sick leave or holidays. Their immediate fear is that between now and 1971 they would, if we do not take stern measures now, be on indefinite holiday without pay. For 21,000 of our citizens their major preoccupation is not fringe benefits but jobs in order to exist. Nor must we forget the additional thousands of citizens who earn a living by doing service to base civilians and British soldiers - such as domestic servants, taxi drivers, shop-keepers, restaurants and bar workers and so on. Add to this the unemployed that now exist. According to the Sample Household Survey of 1966, they number 52,000. Add to this the 25,000 who annually enter the labour market. By 1971, therefore, for some 120,000 people - our citizens - the struggle for existence would not be debate over fringe benefits but getting a job, any kind of job just to feed, clothe and house themselves and their families. The problems and conditions of this 120,000 require our prior attention and concern rather than the relatively minor tribulations of other categories of workers. Those trade unionists and workers lucky enough to have a job would do well to ponder over the consequences for them of massive unemployment coupled with economic stagnation.”
“These attitudes, if unchanged, will instead become factors for economic disaster and political anarchy in the seventies when the British withdraw. We can no longer order employee-employer relations, as we have hitherto done, in the belief that the ultimate responsibility for Singapore's economic well-being and for its military defence will rest on the shoulders of a comparatively affluent Britain. The British are scheduled to leave Singapore by 1971 and all the responsibility we can expect from them would be their good wishes and prayers for our continued prosperity and safety - perhaps a bit more if there is a change in the tide of British fortunes. Our economic well-being and survival after 1971 is in our hands. The best we can hope for if our economy collapses would be that some kindhearted nations will send us food parcels and cast-off clothing to avert mass starvation. And in an island like Singaore where we can grow no food or plant cotton and where one square mile has to keep alive and sustain 8,000 Singaporeans, a stagnant economy means starvation. This, I am sure, is not the future we want for ourselves or our children. This Bill, is, therefore, a deliberate and planned effort, taken well in advance, to get our people to make adjustments now to take in the economic, political and military shock of British withdrawal. Three years do not give us sufficient time but the British have decided to make a precipitate withdrawal and there is no use our trying to solve our problems by sitting down and beating our breasts in despair. Somebody has said that there are two kinds of peoples -there are the rabbits who, when cornered, die easily and there are the cats who will scratch and claw their way out.”
“What the Bill seeks to do is to prevent the abuse of fringe benefits - fringe benefits being used as cover for malpractices which hamper rapid growth in productivity; which protect the inefficient and which obstruct industrial expansion and accelerated economic expansion. The other point I would like to make is that the Employment Bill should be read in conjunction with the two other Bills I introduced today - the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill and the Central Provident Fund (Amendment) Bill. The first Bill reinforces management's powers to manage - powers which have been eroded over the years and without which efficient and dynamic industrial growth would be seriously hampered. The Central Provident Fund (Amendment) Bill, on the other hand, adds to the pay packet of workers by way of extra contributions by employers to workers' savings on retirement or to make it possible for a great many workers to purchase their own home. Those who read the Employment Bill carefully will discover that it in no way precludes workers from seeking their due and just share in expanding prosperity. But, first, there must be expanding prosperity and this cannot be brought about by dividing and sub-dividing a static level of prosperity. That is why this Bill relates rewards, not to some abstract and arbitrary principle of justice, but to more tangible and more meaningful norms like efficiency, effort, productivity and so on. Rewards whether by way of profits or wages should be related to economic growth and efficiency. The conditions under which our labour laws and the attitudes of workers and entrepreneurs were shaped over the years no longer exist.”
“Part XIII of the Bill includes provision for the Commissioner for Labour to collect more comprehensive manpower data. Part XVI enables the Commissioner for Labour to inquire into and decide any dispute or claim for wages arising out of the provisions of this Act or out of any term in a contract of service, in respect of workmen and other employees whose monthly salary does not exceed $750 or in respect of employees who, before the coming into force of the Act, were entitled to lodge a complaint with the Commissioner under any of the three existing Ordinances. However, the Commissioner may not inquire into a claim involving matters arising earlier than one year from the date the claim is lodged or the termination of a contract of service of the claimant. Claims in respect of matters arising out of or as a result of the termination of a contract of service have to be lodged within six months of such termination. Provision is now made for the Commissioner to charge a nominal registration fee as provided in Schedule C of the Bill in respect of such claims. Mr Speaker, Sir, the facts, as I have outlined so far, far from bear out the wild allegations that this Bill has sold out the rights of the workers and given them over, bound hand and foot, to the tender mercies of vengeful employers. True, it cuts into some of the fringe benefits which, as I said, only a minority of white-collar workers by and large enjoy. On the other hand, the Bill will bring to the large majority of blue-collar workers benefits which they did not enjoy before. However, it is not a case of the Bill withdrawing fringe benefits altogether.”
“It is, therefore, imperative that uninhibited demands for bonus should be curbed. The Member for Bukit Ho Swee, however, will be moving amendments to this clause. The Government will consider very carefully his arguments in this regard when he formally moves the amendments. Clause 53 of the Bill makes an employer liable to the punishment prescribed in the Bill if he employs an employee contrary to the provisions of Part IV or fails to pay any salary in accordance with such provisions. The Member for Bukit Ho Swee has given notice that he will move an amendment to this clause. The Government has already given notice to amend clause 53. Part IX of the Bill gives legal recognition to the Employment Exchange run by the Ministry of Labour and there is provision to enable the Minister, by notification in the Gazette, to require employers to notify vacancies to the Commissioner for Labour and to prevent employers from engaging employees except through the Employment Exchange. Part X of the Bill on Employment of Women remains substantially similar to the provisions in the existing law, but with one exception. This exception is that the benefits are now restricted to three confinements only. It is illogical, Mr Speaker, that while, on the one hand, we are actively pursuing a policy to encourage family planning, on the other, we should through our labour laws, nullify our efforts in this direction. If our population growth is not contained, it is obvious that the measures we are taking to bring about economic growth and social well-being will be ineffective. The restriction to three confinements is, therefore, meant to discourage rather than prohibit large families. The result would be not the creation of hardships but of better and happier conditions of living.”
“The Government, however, will consider the amendment moved by the Member for Bukit Ho Swee for 60 days' sick leave in each year if hospitalisation is necessary, inclusive of the 14 days if no hospitalisation is necessary when this is formally moved later. Clause 45 on the payment of retrenchment benefit is another new provision. It does not entitle an employee having less than three years' service with the same employer to retrenchment benefit. It is necessary to have such a provision in this Bill to ensure stability, particularly in new and developing industries. With emphasis on production for export markets, it may be necessary for factories to engage workers on a temporary short-term basis. It would be manifestly unfair if these new industries would have to pay retrenchment benefits to such workers once their services are no longer required. Clause 46 provides that an employee having less than seven years' continuous service with the same employer shall not be entitled to any retirement benefit other than that payable under the Central Provident Fund Ordinance. The Government, will, however, consider the amendment to be moved by the Member for Bukit Ho Swee at a later stage to reduce the period to five years. Clause 47 disallows the payment of I onus or any other ex-gratia payment other than as an incentive to an employee to increase his productivity or as a reward for his performance and prohibits a collective agreement from containing any provision otherwise than in accordance with this principle. This clause was made restrictive as pressures put on new and developing industries, whose profit margins will be negligible if at all, can have disastrous consequences on our industrialisation programme.”
“These refinements favour the vast majority of workmen who, under the existing law, will only enjoy seven working days irrespective of their period of service. Clause 43 would now enable the vast majority of workers to enjoy 14 days' paid annual leave after they have completed a period of 10 years' service or more with the same employer. However, clerical employees who have not completed 10 years will stand to lose, but for those who have completed 10 years or more, the position would remain unchanged. However, if an employee absents himself from work without permission or without reasonable excuse for more than 20 per cent of the working days in the year, he shall forfeit his entitlement to such leave. Clause 44 introduces another change from the existing law in respect of sick leave. It provides for 14 days' sick leave if no hospitalisation is necessary and 28 days including the 14 days if hospitalisation is necessary. An employee is also required to inform his employer of his sick leave within 48 hours of his falling sick. Hon. Members will be aware of the abuses of sick leave by some workers in the past. Absence on fictitious medical certificates have been frequent because of the looseness of the provision in the existing law whereby a worker could be examined by any registered medical practitioner if the employer has not appointed one for that purpose. This looseness in the law has now been tightened up so that if the employer does not appoint a medical practitioner to examine his employee, the employee concerned will have to see a medical officer who is defined in the Bill as a medical practitioner employed by the Government.”
“The words "part of a holiday" and "part of a day off" have found their way in the clause by way of amendments that are now being moved, to meet a situation where an employee is required to work for part of a day on a holiday. It is also provided that an employee who absents himself from work on a working day immediately preceding or immediately succeeding a holiday or any day substituted therefor without the prior consent of his employer or without reasonable excuse shall not be entitled to any holiday pay for that holiday. Hon. Members will recall the malpractices that existed amongst certain sections of the daily-rated workers not very long ago in this regard. It is hoped that this provision will eradicate once and for all malpractices of this nature in the future. I might as well mention here, in this connection, that such a provision is not foreign to labour legislation, as in a number of other countries such a provision is more or less the general practice. Modifications have also been introduced in respect of annual leave. Mr Speaker, Sir, hon. Members are aware that existing legislation provides 14 days paid annual leave to clerical employees and seven days to all others. The standardisation of annual leave, as embodied in clause 43, now means that all employees should enjoy the same number of days for every 12 months' continuous service with the same employer. However, the refinements that have been introduced are that where an employee has less than 10 years' service he would be entitled to seven days leave per year. But where an employee has worked for 10 years or more he would be entitled to 14 working days.”
“The standardisation of conditions of employment, irrespective of whether an employee is a workman, shop assistant, clerk or industrial clerk, will now enable all to enjoy the same number of holidays in one year. Eleven holidays have been specified. Only clerks have hitherto enjoyed more than 11 holidays a year. However, all this will change and every one in Singapore, including Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries and Government officers will have only 11 holidays in one year. Embodied in clause 42 on this subject, however, is one significant change. Triple pay for work on public holidays will disappear. This is something unheard of even in industrialised countries. This practice cropped up in Singapore because of a High Court decision on the matter. The Bill, therefore, now provides that if an employee is required by his employer to work on any holiday, he shall be paid only an extra day's salary in addition to his ordinary rate of pay for that day. Further, if a holiday falls on a half working day, the ordinary rate of pay payable shall be that of a full working day. This provision does away with a certain amount of confusion that has existed over the provision in the existing law about what the ordinary rate of pay should be if a holiday fell on a half working day, i.e., a Saturday. In this respect as well, there is provision that 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, who is required to work on any holiday or part of a holiday shall be given a day or part of a day off in substitution.”
“The future of our youths is in industry and the continuance of the existing practices of discrimination would only dissuade young people from taking up jobs in industry. A prerequisite for the growth of an industrial society is respect and status for those who work with their hands as well. It is, therefore, iniquitous that those on the factory door and in the servicing industries whose creative skills are required for economic growth are given less favourable terms than those who sit in offices. The only group of employees that have enjoyed a 39-hour week hitherto has been clerks, but the provisions of clause 39 do not prevent clerical employees and other employees continuing to work a 39-hour week. However, overtime rates will become operative only after an employee, irrespective of the group he belongs, completes 44 hours in one week. There is, however, a restriction on overtime work in that an employee shall not be permitted to work for more than 48 hours in one month unless the Minister, by notification in the Gazette, declares that the relevant provisions shall not apply to employees in any particular industry or undertaking. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sure that hon. Members will agree that excessive overtime must be controlled, because it is a grievous anomaly and a travesty of justice that some employees should earn more than 200 per cent of their substantive pay as overtime at the expense of many of our unemployed citizens who have as much right as they to work, earn and live reasonably comfortable lives. There is, therefore, an urgent need that the excessive benefits enjoyed by some workers from overtime earnings should be spread over a wider field to cover more persons. This is one of the clauses in the Bill which should generate greater employment.”
“It is also provided that where 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, works on a rest day or part of a rest day at the request of his employer, the worker shall be given a day off in substitution for such rest day. However, the Government will be making amendments to this clause to ensure that where an employee of the Government or a statutory board is required to work for part of a rest day he shall only be entitled to a part of a day off in substitution. This provision is to ensure that work essential to the community is carried on every day of the week, but the employee does not lose his right to a weekly rest day. It is pertinent to add in this context that the provisions of section 35 of the existing Shop Assistants Employment Ordinance requiring shops to close completely on either Friday or Sunday is not re-enacted. The basic idea underlying this provision stemmed first from the Weekly Holidays Ordinance (Cap. 156) enacted in 1950, to ensure that a shop assistant enjoyed a weekly rest day. In the circumstances, there is no reason why a provision requiring shops to close should continue to remain if the law ensures shop assistants a weekly rest day. Clause 39 on hours of work standardises the hours of work for all classes of employees. In standardising working hours and other conditions of employment of both clerical and non-clerical workers, the discrimination that had hitherto existed between the white-collar and the blue-collar workers is eradicated once and for all.”
“However, this provision has evoked fears amongst older workers and a certain amount of misgivings from employers in respect of older workers whom they consider skilled and experienced and essential to them. In view of these apprehensions, the Government will give consideration to the amendment which will be formally moved by the Member for Bukit Ho Swee at a later stage. Part IV of the Bill on rest days, hours of work, holidays and other conditions of service apply only to workmen and other employees who are in receipt of a salary not exceeding $750 a month or such other amount as may be fixed from time to time by the Minister. Clause 37 stipulates that the weekly rest day shall be Sunday or any other day as determined by the employer by way of a monthly roster. However, to enable flexibility in the arrangement of shifts, a rest day of a continuous period of 30 hours may be substituted for the usual rest day of 24 hours which is normally from midnight to midnight. Work on rest days has two other facets: one is where an employee works on a rest day at the request of his employer, and the other where the employee works at his own request on a rest day. Clause 38 seeks to ensure that where an employer requires work of an employee on a rest day, he is obliged to pay an extra day's salary at the ordinary rate of pay for the day's work in addition to the ordinary rate of pay for that day, which means that an employee would receive not more than double his ordinary rate of pay. On the other hand, there is no justification for a worker to demand double pay for work performed on a rest day if he works for his employer at his own request. We have had instances of this in the past and it is necessary that there must not be a recurrence of such undesirable practices.”
“, following which certain modifications and refinements have been made by Government to some provisions in the Bill with which I shall deal in detail later on. The Member for Bukit Ho Swee has also tabled notice of amendments which he proposes to move. The Bill abolishes the current statutory definition between clerks, industrial clerks, shop assistants and workmen. It brings within its scope all persons who are employed under a contract of service, other than those employed in a managerial, executive or confidential position, all of whom would enjoy standardised working conditions. Further, Government employees will not be affected unless declared by the President to be employees for the purposes of the Act. The provisions of the Bill will not apply to domestic servants unless the Minister so declares by notification in the Gazette. Clause 10 on notice of termination of contract has been the subject of criticism by certain quarters. The point has been missed that the notice periods prescribed apply only in the absence of any provision for notice in the contract of service. It is also worthwhile to point out that the notice periods are similar to those provided in the British Contract of Employment Act, 1963, and if such periods are considered fair and reasonable by the United Kingdom workers, then there seems to be no reason why these periods should be considered a retrograde step in Singapore. Clause 15 of the Bill prohibiting the employment of a person after the age of 55 years was made to ensure that the unproductive and inefficient do not continue in employment at the expense of more productive and able youngsters in the labour market.”
“We have studied these examples with great interest and in every case the result has been contrary to what was expected: the capitalists certainly have grown poorer but the poor have grown poorer still. We need only look around us for evidence of this. The economies of all these countries are in ruins; the rich maintain their wealth and profit through corruption, loot and reckless exploitation of the poor which yearly grow in size and in the measure of their desperation. It is because we have learnt from the bitter experiences of those who promised prosperity without tears and without effort that we have decided to promise prosperity the only practical and effective way - the hard way. It is not a popular way - that is popular with a weak and effete people. But we do not believe that our people are weak or effete. We belief that if they can be told the hard facts of life honestly and bluntly, they will respond to the challenges ahead. But the people will respond provided they are convinced that the effort and difficult adjustments demanded are really directed towards eventually promoting the well-being of the people as a whole and not merely to enrich a privileged few - whether gay and fun-loving political leaders or the racketeering ruffians with whom they are allied. We have brought this Bill because we believe that though it will prevent the misuse of certain fringe benefits enjoyed by some categories of workers, it will nevertheless ensure the long-term economic well-being of all the workers and the people of Singapore. Let me now deal with specific clauses in the Bill. Before I discuss the provisions of the Bill, I would like to state here that consultations have taken place between the Government, the Employers' organisations and the N.T.U.C.”
“A few of the old clauses have been modified or refined to meet the objectives of increased productivity or to generate new employment or to iron out anomalies. Yet some enthusiastic critics, unaware of this fact, have attacked some of these re-enacted clauses in the belief that these were innovations to deprive workers of their hard-earned rights. As for the overall impact of the new provisions in the Bill, it will cut into some of the fringe benefits enjoyed by a minority of the total working population in Singapore - the organised sections of the white collar workers. Even here, as a result of representations made by N.T.U.C. leaders, the Government has agreed to consider certain modifications to the Bill as it was originally presented. This is in order to enable these workers to adjust themselves to the fact that labour laws and practices should aid and not restrict rapid industrial growth and economic expansion. Let me state here that we are not restricting certain types of fringe benefits either because we want to make life miserable for workers or because, as it is alleged, we want to enrich the rich at the expense of the poor. We in the Government are not going to get a cent for ourselves by enriching the capitalists. On the contrary, if, as politicians, we had wanted to ensure the popularity of our party and thus assure ourselves of a longer political life, it would have been in our interests to have presented a Bill the opposite of what is now under consideration. In many newly independent countries, politicians out to be popular with the people, and particularly with the workers because they happen to be in the majority, have invariably persecuted and impoverished the capitalists in the belief that as the rich become poorer, the poor would become richer.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, before I go into the wider political and economic problems this Bill is designed to meet and overcome, I would like, first of all, to deal with significant details of the Bill itself. Since the Bill was introduced on 15th May. 1968, there has been considerable discussion on it. Some of this has been constructive and pertinent but, unfortunately, a great deal, too, has been no more than excited gossip based not on what the Bill really contains and seeks to accomplish but on rumours of what the Bill is supposed to contain. Even allegedly progressive intellectuals and defenders of workers' rights have been making indignant pronouncements without, I suspect, having read the Bill itself. These criticisms have been very much like those of the highly emotional advocate who concluded his case by saying, "This then, gentlemen of the jury, are the opinions on which I have based my facts." It may, therefore, be helpful for debate inside and outside Parliament were we to first get right our facts about this Bill. There appears to be some misapprehension that the Employment Bill, as a whole, is a new piece of legislation designed radically to alter our labour laws. This is not true. The bulk of the Bill merely brings together in a convenient and systematic form the existing Employment Ordinances which have grown piecemeal year by year. Mr Speaker, Sir, a reference to the comparative table will show that only 10 clauses or, roughly, six per cent of the total number of clauses in the Bill are new. It follows, therefore, that some 94 per cent of the clauses in the Bill merely re-enact existing labour legislation.”
“Mr Speaker Sir, the total number of applications for citizenship received between 1st January and 31st December, 1967, was 32,337. The total number received between 1st January and 30th April, 1968, was 8,338. The hon. Member will appreciate that the grant of citizenship is a matter of privilege and not of right. A person who has the necessary residential qualifications will not automatically be granted Singapore citizenship. The hon. Member is aware that by the end of 1971 the British would have withdrawn from their bases. A great number of our citizens will lose their jobs. The complexity of our problems has been outlined by the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister in the recent series of Ministerial talks on the Crucial Years. In view of the run-down of the British forces and mounting unemployment, the Government has decided not to grant citizenship as freely as in the past. The number of cases that will be approved will now depend upon our economic position. A person who is granted citizenship must be able to make a positive contribution to the economic well-being of Singapore. INVESTIGATIONS INTO ANONYMOUS ALLEGATIONS AGAINST TEACHERS 2. Mr L. P. Rodrigo asked the Minister for Education whether investigations are conducted into allegations against teachers which are contained in anonymous letters addressed to him or to any official in his Ministry or brought to his Ministry's notice; and how many investigations of this kind were undertaken in 1967.”
“Resolved, That the following Address in reply to the speech of the President be agreed to : - "We, the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore, express our thanks to the President for the speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the opening of the First Session of this Parliament." COMMITTEE OF SELECTION 6.36 p.m. Resolved, "That this Parliament, in accordance with paragraph (1) of Standing Order 92, appoints the following as members of the Committee of Selection : - Mr E. W. Barker Mr Chua Sian Chin Mr N. Govindasamy Mr Lim Soo Peng Mr L. P. Rodrigo Inche Sha'ari Bin Tadin Mr Sia Kah Hui." - [Mr E. W. Barker]. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to Tuesday, the 21st day of May, 1968." - [Mr E. W. Barker]. Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-two minutes to Seven o'clock p.m. to Tuesday, 21st May, 1968”
“It is only when leaders develop this philosophy and fervour that they can transmit some of their fervour to the people and make them work-minded and development-minded. Only then, when the leaders show this, will the people willingly put up with the difficulties and hardships necessary to complete the task of modernisation and economic development. But if the leaders are weak, if they have no faith in the necessity of economic development in the imperative need for economic development, if they are cowardly, if they choose the easy way out, then Singapore goes the way of many other new nations. But if they are courageous and determined, then I think that ten to twenty years from now, those who come after us will say, "Thank God, in the hour of need Singapore did not lack real leaders. Because of them, because they did not flinch before the challenge, we have survived and prospered." So this is the choice in so far as we want to assume leadership. And I assume that those of us who come to this Chamber have put forward ourselves as leaders, not leaders for tomorrow or the day after tomorrow, not leaders of their constituencies, but leaders who in five to ten years will be regarded as an asset, as leaders and patriots, because they did not flinch from the challenge. I am confident that Singapore will not go the way of other new nations. I am confident we can make the grade. A well-known Swedish economist recently classified nations into two categories: hard nations and soft nations. I think that Singapore is not a soft nation. Now we have to prove to ourselves and the world that we are a hard nation. An hon. Member: Hear, hear! Question put, and agreed to.”
“But do you say, "Whatever the cost, we want economic growth."? In a way, Sir, trade unionism and parliamentary democracy for us have been a distortion of history. As I have said earlier, in Europe industrialisation came first and out of the struggle parliamentary democracy and trade unionism grew naturally. So, as the economy developed, trade unions also developed and became more mature and more powerful. But here the history is just the reverse. We get Parliament and trade unions first. And then we start on economic development and industrialisation. There has been a reversal, a distortion of history, not necessarily a bad thing provided trade unionists, employers and political leaders understand that there has been a distortion which we must correct. And therefore they must come to the problem of industrial and economic development with a sense of understanding and responsibility of what it is that is happening. As I have said, since we have to do this in a democratic way with the consent and support of trade unions and employers, we must develop this almost religious fervour for development. They do it in the Communist countries. They make work a religion. Stakonovite - a people's worker. They glorify work. If you are in China, or in Russia in the early days, any worker who said, "Why should I work 52 hours? Why not 50 hours?", would be considered a heretic. If you want to make the grade, if you show that only by working 52 hours you can catch up with the West, the Germans, the imperialists, then you work 52 hours. So you get a Stakonovite coming and proving that a man can work 55 hours, and he becomes a hero.”
“For a small island we have to force the pace not under conditions where we have not got to bother about trade unions or Parliament, but where we have to bother about both. And maybe this is a good thing because then we may be able to avoid some of the unnecessary injustices, hardships and brutalities that accompanied industrialisation and modernisation in some of the now advanced countries. But we cannot do this if political leaders, trade union leaders and entrepreneurs are not themselves inspired by the philosophy of development. They must be passion ately convinced of the need for development. Belief in this must permeate their being and their thinking. It must become a part of their being, part of their way of life. The need for economic growth or development must become an insatiable hunger -if you like, a religion. If you read the history of industrialisation in Europe, for example, in Britain, especially during the Puritan and Victorian era, work became a religion. To save was to glorify God. That was the Protestant ethic. To live frugally, to practise thrift, to work hard - that was the belief that inspired the industrialisation, the entrepreneurs, the capitalists in Europe and most of Western Europe. If we want to develop a meaningful philosophy of development, then we must bring to this task the same measure of courage, dedication and discipline that we brought to the anti-colonial struggle. Whatever the other fears and doubts that the trade union leaders might have in regard to the proposed Employment Bill, I would urge them to consider seriously what it is that they want in terms of priority. Do they want economic development and economic growth, whatever the cost? If you read the Bill, however, it does not put up the cost so high as to make it intolerable.”
“Members to read the history of modernisation and industrialisation in Europe, in the Soviet Union, in America and in Japan. They would then begin to realise what a heavy price, an almost intolerable price, people have had to pay for modernisation and advance. These countries which are now judged as affluent, as advanced, were lucky in that they embarked on modernisation and industrialisation when there were no trade unions and no Parliament. Modernisation in most of these countries was pushed through by dictators, autocratic monarchs or elites who were not dependent on popular vote. So they could extract the price for modernisation, sometimes an inhuman price for modernisation, knowing full well that there were no trade unions or Parliament to call them to account. In the Soviet Union, if you were to read its history in the early days of industrialisation, two million were deliberately left to starve to death. That was the price that even a workers' country demanded, that workers must pay for modernisation. In China more recently, there was a case where three and a half million people were deliberately allowed to starve to death because there was no choice. That was the only way that China could make the advance that she had made so quickly, especially in the fields of industrialisation and modernisation of agriculture. But we in Singapore have to proceed with our modernisation and industrialisation at a time when we have well-developed trade unions and a democratically elected Parliament. We must, therefore, undertake the difficult task of bringing about industrialisation and modernisation with popular support. This is our problem.”
“This is obvious, if you keep on distributing and redistributing the same amount of wealth among more and more people - because in Singapore the population is increasing at a rapid rate - what you get is not a more prosperous people but more and more poor people. The problem of redistribution becomes real and meaningful only after you have created sufficient wealth, additional wealth. Then redistribution makes for a genuine increase in living standards. Raising wages and maintaining welfare standards unrelated to the level of economic development results in spurious prosperity. When wages go up in a poor country, as it has often been done, prices go up and the worker is precisely where he was before. It is no use trying to ward this off by price controls. Experience has shown that attempts at price controls under these circumstances in developing countries have merely paved the way for more corruption and rampant speculation. The only practical way of raising living standards and bringing about genuine prosperity is by creating more and more wealth. This means producing more and consuming less than we produce. We must save enough to invest in more factories, more enterprises to produce more wealth. All the affluent and advanced countries of today, whether Communist or non-Communist, had to go through a long period of heart-breaking toil, discipline and sacrifice - and very often unimaginable horrors associated with the industrial revolution in Europe - before they made the grade. Sometimes we forget that every country which is advanced, every country which is prosperous today, paid a heavy price. It was accompanied by exploitation, injustice, child labour, long hours of work. I would advise hon.”
“We observed standards of life which were set by the expatriates who came here on the basis that they were in exile, that they should make as much money as they normally would in half the time if they were in Europe, and go back. So once the expatriates retired or were Malayanised, the new elite stepped in, not only into the office but also into the standard of life and style of life that the departing expatriates had set for them - the same pay, the same size of house, the same size of limousine - not knowing that that kind of life was not related to our own economy. It was not related to what we could produce what we could maintain. It was set by expatriates who felt that they had come to this country as a punishment and, therefore, they needed extra for their effort. But we nevertheless continue to get this compensatory pay that was reserved for exiled expatriates. But now that we are independent and are on our own, this kind of approach, the consumption psychology, is a sure and certain road to disaster. At least in the crucial years ahead the major objective to which all other issues should be subordinated is this: it is not redistribution of wealth but the creation of wealth that should be our major and relentless concern. This is a concept which has never occurred to us and which has never entered either into the minds of workers or employers. Anything that hampers and retards the creation of wealth must be checked, however unpopular and however painful this may be. But the hard facts of economic life leave us with no other choice. You cannot evade these hard facts. The cost of evading them, as many countries have discovered, is certain disaster.”
“The old slogans, the old cries and the old attitudes of 20 years ago have become irrelevant to the times as they are today and we are going to face totally different problems in the future. Therefore, we have to develop a new outlook, a new philosophy to meet the challenge of the new times. For want of a better name, I will call it the philosophy of development as contrasted with the current outlook which can be described as the philosophy of consumption - the outlook of the ant which builds or the locust which consumes. It was perhaps inevitable that under colonialism we should have developed to a high degree a consumption mentality without realising that in a healthy economy the capacity to consume should be related to the capacity to produce, because when the colonials were in charge of Singapore they never talked about development, for their own interest and exploitation. Therefore, for us the concept of development has never occurred. The only thing we could think of to make life worth while was to ask -"What can we consume? How much can we consume?" And that became the purpose of life. So under colonial rule the efforts of workers and trade unionists were directed towards one objective - to redistribute wealth (for that is a way of consuming) by way of higher wages and better conditions of work. The objective of employers was to extract the maximum of profits in the shortest possible time and use these profits to consume more and make more profits. This was the basis of our economic activity. Consume - whether as workers, whether as employers, whether as professional men, whether as civil servants. We earned more to buy more, built bigger houses, bought bigger cars.”
“We must accept the fundamental belief that if we want economic growth and industrial development, we must be prepared to pay the difficult and heavy price that it demands. If we are not prepared to pay this price, if we are not prepared to accept this as a basis of our future policy, then there will be little or no economic development. The present leaders, especially we in Parliament, can, if we like, fool the people, as some leaders in newly-independent countries have done, into believing that we can bring them prosperity without tears and effort. And if we did, then in five or ten years, we would go the way of many independent countries - into bankruptcy and despair. Only in Singapore, we have not got the escape hatch that many countries in South-east Asia have. We have not got vast scrub-lands and lush jungles to which the dispossessed and impoverished can flee to scratch some sort of living, either by hunting or growing bananas and tapioca. Economic collapse or stagnation for a densely populated, nonagricultural and highly commercialised island like Singapore means mass starvation. The Prime Minister has said repeatedly that in one square mile we sustain something like 7,000 people. If our commerce and industry come to a halt, the only way 7,000 people can survive is by eating one another! We cannot grow anything, we cannot plant vegetables, we cannot start agriculture. There are about 7,000 people in one square mile. So for us the price of collapse is total disaster. Our commercial and industrial economy is such that, like a cyclist, we have to keep moving in order not to fall off. We must always be on the move. I think the time has now come for us - employers, workers and the people in general - to develop a new outlook.”
“And until very recently, even though the colonialists had retired to temperate climates and the countries concerned had been recognised as independent and free nations and given seats in the United Nations, the anti-colonial struggle was, nevertheless, persisted in for many years after that. Or some of them tried to shore up their crumbling economic edifice by making regular pilgrimages to European and American capitals in search of loans, grants or anything that might be going free. It never occurred to them - though this thought is now fortunately dawning on the new breed of leaders emerging in Asia and Africa and who I think will be the future leaders of Asia and Africa - that the cause for their failures and disappointments might lie nearer home in the illusions and fallacies they bred during the anti-colonial phase of their struggle. One of the unpleasant facts we in Singapore must face is that economic growth and industrial development cannot be achieved on the cheap. Industrial development requires at all times a sustained effort, a willingness to mobilise savings, a readiness to take risks, a propensity for innovation, a passionate vision of the future, a willingness to make the painful adjustments required by modernisation and, most important of all, a readiness on the part of the people as a whole to postpone immediate rewards for greater gains in the future. This is the premise on which we can build genuine economic and industrial development. If we do not accept this proposition as true, then I think we are wasting time; we are fooling the people when we talk of economic growth and industrial development.”
“" He said, "No, I am in business now." An hon. Member: Does he come from Formosa? Mr Rajaratnam: He said, "There is nothing that we can offer our workers, because things are so bad that people are prepared to work for one meal a day." You can go on strike - some employers will be quite happy because they can close down the firm for a day and give no wages. In many of these countries, even the few factories that were erected fell into disuse and decay. The vast bureaucratic machines -symbols of modernisation - hampered rather than assisted the development of the country. A number of them eventually became machines for organised graft and petty oppression. Even then, many leaders in newly-independent countries refused to accept the fact that colonialism was not the only factor responsible for their backwardness. They dared not tell the people the unpleasant truth that the road to economic growth and modernisation is one of hard work, sacrifice and dedication, because during the anti-colonial struggle, they had said, "Independence means peace, prosperity and progress." Therefore, they dared not tell the people, "Now that you have got independence, only hard work, sacrifice and dedication can put you on the road to happiness." When things got more difficult and more desperate, some of the leaders tried to assuage the growing resentment of their people by claiming that though colonialism had been got rid of, the source of their troubles has now been traced to a new menace - neo-colonialism.”
“We put up magnificent administrative buildings and set up bureaucratic machines which were equal to any in the advanced countries, if not in performance, at least in numbers. We put up magnificent monuments to commemorate real, but very often imaginary, heroes. We went still further and adopted the styles of living and consumption of the most affluent countries. True, this was made possible for only a tiny minority of peoples of the new rulers, but this was very often justified on the grounds that all great advances must have small beginnings. We also adopted social welfare legislation, trade union laws and the more pleasant and expensive features of well-developed countries even though we lacked the highly developed economics and organisations that made these things possible in advanced countries. This was the first phase - the first few years of independence - when it looked as if the theory, "Get rid of colonialism and we move to peace, prosperity and happiness," was right. But we know now, 20 years after, that within a few years, things turned sour. The system of parliamentary democracy was hastily dismantled in the vast majority of newly-independent nations on the ground that it did not suit the national genius. Instead we had one-man saviours and military dictators. Trade unions discovered that under conditions of growing poverty and economic disintegration, workers were prepared to work for a mere pittance, whatever workers' charters might prescribe. I would advise hon. Members to study closely what has happened to very powerful and very militant trade unions around the region. Recently, I had occasion to meet one respected and venerable trade union leader from a neighbouring country in the region. I asked him, "What has happened to your trade union?”
“Because that was the only way we could mobilise the people to struggle against colonialism. Any strategist will tell you that in a fight you should concentrate on only one enemy - the principal enemy. At that time, it was the colonial power which was our principal enemy because it was the enemy we wanted to get rid of. That was the strategy. But, unfortunately, after independence the nationalist leaders and many of their followers got caught in the coils of their own propaganda. They believed and persuaded their people to believe that now that colonialism was out of the way, all their problems would automatically vanish. Colonialism was responsible for their poverty, misery and frustration. Colonialism had now been eliminated. The real source of their troubles had been eliminated. Therefore, they argued, there should ipso facto be peace, prosperity and brotherhood all round. The people expected that they could now enjoy all the things that the richer colonial nations had enjoyed but which they had deliberately denied to us. So they really believed that colonialism was responsible for all our evils. And now everybody expected that it should be just the opposite. For the first few years after independence - generally from my calculations it is about 10 years after independence - it looked as though this theory was right, that progress and prosperity could come about automatically. We appeared to be having, with little or no effort, all the things that the advanced nations have. We made democratic constitutions equal to and sometimes even better than any to be found in the advanced countries. We erected magnificent Parliaments which were even better and more expensive than any to be found in Europe or America.”
“And we are among the newest of new nations. Perhaps it would be helpful for us in Singapore if I listed out some of the major errors which are responsible for the dismal state many newly-independent nations find themselves in. This is not a very pleasant exercise but necessary if Singapore is not to find itself in the blind alley some countries have wandered into. One of the principal errors was the belief, or rather the pathetic fallacy, that all the evils, miseries and frustrations we experienced under colonialism derived wholly from the fact of imperial rule. During the anti-colonial struggle the propaganda line was simple and straightforward. Why were we economically backward? The answer was because of colonialism. What was the cause of poverty, slums, disease and unemployment? The answer was colonialism. Why were there racial and religious conflicts? The answer was because of colonialism. Every frustration and every shortcoming, we believed, was attributable to colonialism. Even today, long after the colonialists have faded from the scene, nationalist leaders, if they cannot find the right answer or dare not give the right answer, invariably blame it on colonialism. Now, there is an element of truth in the answer. In so far as a colonial power assumed responsibility or forced themselves on us for our welfare and progress, it had to be held accountable in so far as it failed to promote the welfare of the people. In this respect, there is some truth in the answer. But it is not the whole truth. Imperialism or colonialism was only one of the many causes responsible for our backwardness. Perhaps it was a good and necessary strategy during the anti-colonial phase of our struggle for nationalist leaders to concentrate only on the evils and shortcomings of colonialism.”
“I am not decrying independence or sneering at the misfortunes of comparatively older nations, but it is a fact that independence, going by the experience of the last 20 years, has not ushered in the brave new world nationalists had hoped for and had promised to do when they fought for independence. In many newly-independent countries within the region and outside, hope has given way to despair. The sense of dedication and purpose which characterised nationalist leadership before independence has given way to venality and aimlessness. Tribal wars and racial and religious persecutions of their own people are marked features in the lives of many new nations. Riots and violence are endemic. And almost everywhere their economics are in process of disintegration. Of course, the picture is not all one of unrelieved bleakness and failures. There have been a number of achievements in different fields, but the overall picture is one of disappointments and even disillusionment. I do not want to infer from this that the struggles for independence were a ghastly mistake. The new nations were right to fight for independence because no foreign ruler can really promote the welfare of the people. Nor do I think that the nationalist leaders who led their countries into freedom lacked patriotism, courage or even the will to succeed. If they did not have these qualities they could not have become successful and respected nationalist leaders or endured the ordeal and risks involved in the struggle for freedom. If many of these countries have made a mess of independence, it is largely because, though they knew how to fight for freedom, they did not know how to consolidate it. This is one of the bitter lessons to be learned from the post-independent history of new nations.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I first say what subjects I am not going to talk about? As Minister for Foreign Affairs, I do not intend to say anything at all about foreign affairs because, judging by the debates in the House, practically every Member appears to be satisfied with the trend of our foreign policy. For those who are nevertheless interested in knowing what our foreign policy is, I suggest that they read the Addendum to the President's Speech. Nor do I, as Minister for Labour, intend to deal with the specific points raised by certain hon. Members in connection with the proposed labour legislation. I understand it was a bit unfair on the Members because they were discussing a Bill which they had not seen. But the Bill has been presented today for First Reading. When it comes up for Second Reading, there will be ample opportunities for hon. Members to discuss it at greater length and in greater detail. What I would like to do today is to indicate the wider context against which the Employment Bill and all other Governmental measures and national policies should be studied, because without these broader terms of reference, I think we will be in danger of looking at the trees and missing the wood. Sir, we in Singapore are fortunate in that independence has come to us long after most of the countries in Asia and Africa had achieved theirs. We achieved our independence less than three years ago, though the decolonisation process has been going on for some two decades. The advantage we get of being latecomers to independence is that we can learn from the mistakes and achievements of our seniors - particularly their mistakes.”
“If the Member for Punggol has any bright, honest or upright persons in mind, we will certainly be prepared to consider any suggestions with regard to potential Trade Representatives. I agree with the Member for Delta that it would be a very good thing if we could have female diplomats. I think it will make my job much easier, because not only do I have difficulties with male diplomats but I think that male diplomats do have difficulties with some of the diplomats in the countries to which they are assigned. I am quite sure that female diplomats will have that extra touch which may be able to influence countries to be more favourably disposed toward us than if they had to contend with male diplomats and High Commissioners. However, the difficulty is that very few ladies in the Republic of Singapore seem to be attracted by foreign service, We have solicited applications from potential lady diplomats and so far the response has been poor. There was one case where the lady was highly suitable for the diplomatic career. I think she was chosen, but after a while she wrote back to say that she had changed her mind. I am not quite sure whether other interests had developed in between her being appointed and her being sent away. But as far as our policy is concerned, everybody who has the capability and the necessary qualities, regardless of whether he is a male or a female, will be considered and accepted by the Foreign Office.”
“Here again, we are looking for an appropriate man to head this rather important mission which involves both economic and commercial knowledge as well as political perception in this part of the world. So we have to wait until such time as such a person is available -the Indonesians themselves are equally anxious to find a suitable man -to take this job as Ambassador in Indonesia. We are not definitely in the habit of setting up missions for the sake of setting up missions. We would rather not establish a mission if we are satisfied that we have not got the right personnel to go with it. With regard to ASEAN, I do not want to launch into a long lecture because I have already made a statement in Parliament as to what it is all about, except to say that since then the Standing Committee which was established has met, I think, twice. At least, they are supposed to have met last month. I think it has been postponed to January to consider certain specific schemes -I hope seriously -so that by the time the next ministerial conference takes place, we will have something very tangible to agree upon. I also agree with the Member for Punggol that we should set up Trade Secretaries, Trade Offices or Trade Representatives. If he had listened to the Minister for Finance, he would have heard that the Minister did indicate that this year we intend to establish a number of Trade Offices or Trade Representatives. In fact, we already have them in the United States and Hong Kong and we intend to establish a few such offices in other parts of Europe. But here again, it is a matter of finding the right person, because a very good businessman is not going to give up a very lucrative business especially at this time in Singapore.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not disagree with most of what has been said except to clarify some queries raised by some hon. Members. One is with regard to Japan. One hon. Member felt that the system of priorities has not been as it should have been. Perhaps I should explain that sometimes priorities are decided not by an objective standard of priorities but in terms of the persons available, A man for such an important post as Commissioner in Japan will have to be a man of high calibre. There were one or two other places which were equally important, like New York and London, and therefore we had to leave this post vacant not because of anything else but because we could not find a man of appropriate calibre to be sent there, In fact, we found one but, as I said earlier, unfortunately, he died. We could not fill the post and we had to look around, I quite agree that Japan is just as important to us as any of the missions that we have established. It is a matter of waiting for the right person, a person appropriate to Japan. Obviously, a person who goes to Japan must be well versed in trade and must be as sharp as the Japanese in matters of commerce, trade and industry. If there are such people, they are already well established in business concerns of their own and they are not necessarily going to enter the diplomatic service. Anyway, Sir, I would just like to clarify that sometimes the systems of priorities are determined more by other factors than by just giving importance to any particular mission. With regard to Indonesia -I think this point was raised by the Member for Sembawang -we have a Trade Liaison Office there.”
“Yes, it is definitely our intention to establish a mission in Tokyo as soon as possible. In fact, we had an Ambassador-designate in mind. But he died. So we have to look around for another Ambassador. This is a fairly important post and we need a man of extreme intelligence and perception in Tokyo. That being so, I cannot say when this mission will be set up but most likely I hope it will be in April or May next year.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, this diplomatic post is being considered for Johore and it will be a Commission. The fact is that there have been certain difficulties arising from applications for visas by Singapore citizens in Malaysia who, if they are living in Johore or South Malaya, have to go all the way to Kuala Lumpur. We have occasions when some of our citizens from right across the other side of the Causeway look wistfully across to Singapore but they cannot come in without proper travel papers. We feel, in case there are such problems, this diplomatic post in Johore Bahru will facilitate travel for some of our own citizens. Secondly, it is also for tourists who might have come down to Johore Bahru or the Johore area who have to get visas from Kuala Lumpur. So if we have an office in Johore Bahru which will be under the control of the Kuala Lumpur High Commission, I think it might facilitate matters both for the tourists and our citizens. Of course, it is all subject to our clearing these matters with Kuala Lumpur. In fact, the intention is not to set up an office immediately. It is intended to have an E.O. or a Third Secretary who will be able to discharge many of these rather small functions which might facilitate things for our citizens and for some of the tourists. Mr Lingam: I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“We have purchased it and we are considering how we can renovate and decorate it so that the Ambassador will have a house. We have also purchased a chancellery which is in the process of being renovated for him to move into, and it will be ready as soon as possible. As regards the third point -Confidential Secretary -yes, she is a locally-recruited staff member but she also happens to be a Malaysian citizen. I think she has had long connections with Singapore too, and she has been in this job for quite some time because this is part of our trade section. As far as I know, the designation "Confidential Secretary" is the old one for a grade of officer higher than a stenographer but lower than a Personal Assistant. So maybe next time we will take great care to change the name of the post and that might satisfy the hon. Member. It is true that like all secretarial work, this post of "Confidential Secretary" does involve certain confidential correspondence and files. But if it is very highly confidential and is of a nature which we do not want to pass through the hands of a non-citizen, then, of course, we will consider employing a Singapore citizen. But considering the kind of work she is involved in, and the fact that she has been on the job for a long time, there is nothing unusual in her continuing with her present job without any major disaster to Singapore. In fact, I understand that the designation of this post might be changed to Information Assistant, and I do not know whether that would satisfy the hon. Member.”
“Sir, first, in regard to the grading of Ambassadors and High Commissioners. There are in all three grades -I, II and III. Grade I is really the Permanent Secretary, and the other two, the Ambassadors and High Commissioners, come within either of these two grades -Grade II or Grade III. This grading is done partly on the basis of the importance for us of the particular mission, or it may be on the basis of the person concerned, because some of the appointments are political appointments. So it is on this basis that the grading of the respective Ambassadors or High Commissioners is done. In regard to housing, finding houses and chancelleries for our respective missions, especially by a government, is a very delicate affair because when people know that the Singapore Government is going to buy a house or a chancellery, prices tend to be higher. It involves long and protracted negotiations. But, by and large, in most of our missions we have managed to purchase residences and chancelleries. I think the exception is the particular case the hon. Member has in mind, that is, in London where the High Commissioner uses his fiat as his office and residence. This is partly because we are still considering an appropriate residence for the High Commissioner. This is not unusual, Sir, because I think, in Washington we are doing the same. For example, in Washington we took over from another well-established mission which had been conducting its business in a hotel suite. If you want to go for prestige regardless of expense, then, of course, you can buy the most expensive house and the most expensive chancellery. So it is because of this that in one or two places the matter has not been resolved. But in the case of London we have got a house in mind.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in all, some 12 embassies and missions have been established abroad. They are Australia, Cambodia, Hongkong, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Thailand, the United Arab Republic, the United Kingdom, the United Nations, and the United States. SEX EDUCATION IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS 5. Mr Ho Kah Leong asked the Minister for Education what is the Government's view on the proposed introduction of sex education in some Mission secondary schools next year, and whether such subject will be introduced in other secondary schools.”
“Gonzales asked the Minister for Finance (a) how many officers in Divisions III and IV of the Government Service have been dismissed during the past twelve months on account of indebtedness; and (b) whether consideration is being or will be given to those with a long record of faithful service for further employment in view of the social problem which can result if those persons are unable to find employment in the private sector because of their having been dismissed from the Service.”