Seah Mui Kok
Singapore
“Members of this House will support the recommendations of this Report if appropriate amendments as proposed by us are accepted. The Minister for Health has to give this assurance to this House.”
“The Member for Anson was saying that the workers of Singapore have lost their rights, and become serfs and slaves. Do not talk nonsense. Be more intelligent. I was the General Secretary of the United Workers of Petroleum Industry for 17 years.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not a lawyer. But from the question raised by the Member for Anson that money deposited with the Government and statutory boards does not earn interest, I would like to know whether a lawyer pays interest on money put by his client into the lawyer's office. An hon. Member: Second account.”
“Sir, may I join the debate and say a few words just to clarify a point? Singapore has too many first-class, second-class and third-class divisions.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Members of this House have heard the Hon. Minister of Defence saying that our Singapore military reservists are actually front-line soldiers. I fully agree with him and I support him. May I suggest to the Hon. Minister that instead of calling them "reservists", let us call them front-line soldiers.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, although we are laughing, I think we have to be very serious about this matter. As far as Members of this House are concerned, I think the Singapore Government has the money, plenty of money. Some hon. Members: Yes. Mr Seah Mui Kok: We are not poor.”
The complete record
Every one of 195 lines we hold for Seah Mui Kok, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 4.
“It is most regrettable that there are still some unenlightened employers who are abusing these rights and use them in a subtle way to victimise their employees who are actively interested or participated in union activities. Sir, a small American oil company in Singapore is doing such a silly thing. The Management of this company recently gave promotion to a foreign executive from a neighbouring country and deliberately preferred not to give it to its Singaporean executives who have the experience, qualification and seniority of service. I understand this same Management has decided to give another promotion post to another foreigner from a neighbouring country rather than promoting its local executives who are capable and qualified for this promotion. Sir, the local executives of this small American oil company have decided to form a union after a general meeting among themselves. They have submitted their application and Union Constitution to the Registrar of Trade Unions for approval and registration. I believe because of this move to form a union, the Management is deliberately depriving the local executives from promotion and preferred to give them to non-Singaporean executives. I am not objecting to the Management prerogatives to promote the right person for the job. What I am strongly objecting to is that the Management did not give consideration to local executives and using promotion as a weapon to victimise employees who want to form a union. Sir, unless the Management of this company stops this kind of unfair labour practice by subtly victimising the local executives, just because they want to form a union, this issue will be brought to the Ministry of Labour and made known to the public through the press in due course.”
“Sir, I am glad the Government approves tax relief for taxpayers who take care of their aged parents, grandparents and handicapped children. I must congratulate the Government for taking the right step to encourage the younger people to love and care for their aged parents and handicapped children. It is our social responsibility to do so and to make them happy. The tax relief of $300 a year for each dependant will take effect from 1-1-74. I would appeal to the Minister for Finance to give further consideration to increase the tax relief to $750 a year. The amount of $300 a year for each dependant is inadequate. The tax relief for a first child is $750 a year. Surely, to care for an aged father or mother could be costly and definitely cost more than a child, especially when an older person requires more nourishing food and medical care. Also, an older person falls sick more easily and more frequently because of old age and weak health. If one calls a doctor to attend his aged father or mother at home in case of emergency, the medical bill will be from $15 to $25. Therefore, the tax relief of $25 for that particular month will be just enough to pay for the doctor's bill. If the aged parent has to be admitted into a hospital for further medical treatment, then the $25 will not be enough. Sir, I fully agree with the Minister for Finance that our success and progress is due to the effective tripartite co-operation between labour, management and Government. I am sure we can maintain our present healthy climate in our industrial relations and to work harder for more success and progress. Sir, employers are well protected by the labour legislation and they have the managerial rights to reorganise, transfer, promote and dismiss employees.”
“New Nation 5-3-73 (4) "TWO SEMI-DETACHED HOUSES at Katong Sea View Palace. Price: $220,000 each". Sir, the Government must do something to stop the fantastic increase in prices of flats, terrace houses and semi-detached houses. I believe some of the big financial investors deliberately jack up the prices to make big profits. I would suggest to the Government to limit the number of construction projects by the private sector in building multi-storey flats, terrace houses, semi-detached houses and office/shopping complexes, and to further increase the building target of HDB multi-storey units to, if possible, 40,000 units a year so that the long waiting list for HDB flats could be eliminated. All HDB flats are meant for the workers and the people of Singapore so that they can have decent accommodation, whereas private sector flats, houses and office/shopping complexes are meant for big profit by the financial investors. The HDB flats are built for national interest, whereas private building projects are meant for individual and sectional interest. Sir, in view of the fantastic increase in the prices of flats and houses in the private sector, may I request the Government to increase the family combined salary limit from $1,500 to $2,500 to enable more workers to purchase or rent the Housing Board flats?”
“Perhaps the time has come for workers to request their employers to enter into a joint venture in co-operative canteens to supply food and drinks at reasonable prices at various offices and factory worksites. The Government and the NTUC can play an important role in these co-operative canteens for the workers in the private and public sectors. It is unfair to request the workers to refrain from demanding higher wages for the sake of industrial peace and national interest, whereas hawkers, sundry shops, provision stores and other food suppliers can increase their prices at any time they like without any concern for national interest. Sir, it is time the Government considered forming a National Council to give guidance on the increasing prices of food and commodities, including non-edible items, if we want to achieve industrial peace with justice. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to speak on the fantastic increase in the prices of flats, terrace houses and semi-detached houses. Prices are still rocketing. Perhaps this is due to the manipulation of big financial investors. Also, rich foreigners from Hong Kong, Taiwan, Indonesia and other countries are buying these flats and houses without hesitating to pay the high prices. They know very well that prices of flats, houses and land in Singapore will never come down and will always go up. Sir, I would like to quote a few advertisements from the New Nation's "Houses & Land For Sale" column: New Nation 3-3-1973 (1) "Tanglin Area, luxurious maisonette flat facing swimming pool. Due completion July 1973. $250,000". (2) "Cairnhill Court Apartment. First Floor nearing completion. Price: $180,000". (3) "New Luxurious 1st Floor Flat at Jalan Datok. G. Block $83,000".”
“There is a National Wages Council to recommend to the Government on annual wage increases, but there is no Council to guide the reasonable increase in the prices of food and commodities. Unless the Government is able to enforce and control reasonable increases in prices of food and commodities comparable to the annual wage increase recommended by the National Wages Council, it is quite definite that the workers will demand higher wages or high cost-of-living allowances to meet the increases in prices of food and commodities. How can you expect the workers to accept 8 per cent to 10 per cent annual wage increase when prices of food and commodities went up from 25 per cent to 100 per cent. Sir, the Budget statement is indeed painless, but the prices of food and commodities which the workers have to pay daily are really very painful and quite unbearable, especially those in the lower income bracket. The Government must do something about it and the sooner the better and as soon as possible, because we do not want to be faced with a labour situation like in the United Kingdom where the workers have to resort to strike action. Sir, it is a well-known fact that a good number of hawkers are making a good monthly income. Some popular stalls like chicken rice, satay, fried hokien mee and turtle soup can easily make a monthly profit of $1,000 or even more. Some are earning more than Members of Parliament! I am wondering how many hawkers are paying income tax. I understand that some well-to-do hawkers own cars, houses, and are partners of some finance companies. If hawkers keep on increasing the prices of their food, workers and their unions may have to find ways and means to live within their monthly income.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government and the Minister for Finance should be congratulated again for presenting a third painless Budget to this House on 26th February, 1973. I am sure all the workers, employers and the people of Singapore are happy that there is no new taxation. Sir, in spite of the fact that there is no new taxation, prices of food and commodities have increased from 25 per cent to 100 per cent! Even the hawkers are doing the same thing. For example, a small glass of ice-water was five cents, and we now have to pay 10 cents. A sarabat hawker has also increased the price of a glass of coffee or tea by another five cents, like the coffee-shops, even though he is not paying any stall rental, light and water. A bowl of kway-teow was 30 cents, now it is 50 cents; a stick of satay was 10 cents, now it is 15 cents; a plate of mutton briyani was 80 cents, now it is $1.20. With all this, you will still find that the quantity and quality of the food have gone down. Sir, we are not objecting to a reasonable increase of prices of food and commodities, but at the rates they have increased from 25 per cent to 100 per cent, it is indeed very painful to all the workers, especially those earning less than $200 a month. The wage increase recommended by the National Wages Council was 8 per cent, of which 4 per cent had to be deducted for CPF contribution. For those earning less than $200 a month they could get 6 per cent wage increase and 4 per cent to CPF. Mr Speaker, Sir, you will appreciate that the wage increase a worker could get was from 8 per cent to 10 per cent, and 4 per cent was deducted for CPF. Yet the increase in the prices of food and commodities went up from 25 per cent to 100 per cent.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in the recommendations of the National Wages Council, there was no specific mention that wage increases should not be given to employees whose salaries are above $750. I presume that some employers will take the line that employees whose salaries are above $750 are not entitled to enjoy wage increases as recommended by the National Wages Council. I think this is their deliberate intention. I would strongly suggest that either the Government or the National Wages Council should clarify as to whether or not the recommendations on wage increases are meant for all workers irrespective of what their salaries are. 4.15 p.m.”
“The Pioneer Industries Employees Union, the Singapore Industrial Labour Organisation and the Singapore Manual and Mercantile Workers' Union will be too pleased to recruit them and to get for them better wages and conditions of service and job security. Sir, I appreciate the necessity of getting additional workers to meet the present labour shortage. It was also suggested to get as many women workers as possible to meet this shortage, especially the housewives, by doing part-time or piece-rate work. It is perfectly all right for housewives to do part-time or piece-rate work if they have the spare time, or else they would neglect their home duties and their children would not get the usual attention or love from them. I think it is not wise for housewives to earn $2 or $3 a day to do part-time or piece-rate work and to neglect their home duties or their children. Children who do not get the attention and love from their parents and are neglected will eventually become school dropouts or juvenile delinquents and a danger to society. I would prefer more mechanisation of work, a little more liberal in granting work permits and better pay for the workers. Also, the workers must accept family planning and the need to have a small family of two or three children only. With better wages for the workers, more mechanisation of work, further relaxation in granting of work permits, and with workers practising family planning, we can spare the good housewives from doing part-time or piece-rate work, so that their attention and love given to their children will bring up good, loyal, healthy and strong citizens of Singapore in the spirit of gracious living. Sir, I beg to support the motion. 6.14 p.m.”
“With one hand, the employers give us the wage increase of 8 per cent but 4 per cent go to CPF, and with the other hand, the employers take the 8 per cent back through increases in the prices of commodities. Government has to increase the taxes so that the additional revenues will be used to pay the wages of civil servants, to build HDB flats, schools, hospitals, roads, bridges, etc. But when the Government increases the taxes, the employers increase their prices of products. In the end, the workers will suffer. The Government requested the workers to exercise wage restraint and to make sacrifices for the national survival, which they have fully co-operated. But unfortunately it is not possible for the Government to impose price control on anything. Again, the workers have to suffer. Where is the justice? I hope that next year when the National Wages Council makes any recommendations for wage increases, it would take note of the increases of Government taxes, the increases in prices of commodities and the high cost of living. Otherwise, whatever wage increase is given to the workers will be taken back by the employers through general price increases. Sir, it was reported by a local paper recently that there is exploitation of the workers by unscrupulous employers. These bad employers pay low wages to the temporary and daily-rated workers and demand high productivity. They also dismiss these workers' without good reason and replace them as often as possible so that they can keep on paying low wages and free from paying CPF contributions. I would strongly urge the Minister for Labour to investigate this matter. I appeal to workers who have not joined any trade union to do so immediately.”
“(c) They must convince the electorate that their leaders have the ability and capacity to do what the PAP leadership has obtained, i.e, peace and prosperity for the people of Singapore. Unless the opposition parties have these good qualities which I have just mentioned, I can predict they will be totally defeated again and that all the PAP candidates will win again. Sir, the National Wages Council had recommended for the workers a wage increase of 8 per cent for this year with effect from 1st July, 1972, 4 per cent of which will go to the Central Provident Fund. I regret to say that the net balance of 4 per cent is hardly enough to meet the present high cost of living and the gradual increase of prices of things from 5 per cent to 15 per cent. The Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) can testify to the truth of it. The Ministerial statements given by the Minister for Finance, the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Health during this Session of Parliament will increase the charges on the following items:- (a) New rates of duties and taxes on liquors, cigarettes and tobacco, petrol, cars, additional registration fees and road tax on private cars; (b) New electrical tariffs from December 1972; (c) New accouchement fees from August 1973. Sir, the abovementioned increases in the new rates of duties and taxes, the new electrical tariffs, and accouchement fees mean that more money have to be spent by the workers. The net balance of 4 per cent wage increase given to the workers will be taken away by the new taxes, new electrical tariffs, new accouchement fees, and the increase in prices of commodities.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to join my colleagues in this House in supporting the motion moved by the Member for Bukit Batok to thank the President for his speech delivered on behalf of the Government at the opening Session of this Parliament on 12th October, 1972. The President's speech, together with the addenda from the various Ministries, clearly spells out the policies of the Government and what it would do for the people of Singapore during the next five years, so as to achieve higher standards in everything, with the emphasis on quality. Sir, in the last general elections held on 2nd September, 1972, 760,472 voters, or 93.55 per cent, in the 57 contested constituencies cast their votes, of which more than 525,000, or 69.02 per cent, voted for the People's Action Party. All opposition party candidates, including two independent candidates, were defeated. All 65 PAP candidates were elected to Parliament. Sir, the PAP's victory in the last general elections means the victory of the people of Singapore. The result of the general elections clearly shows that the opposition parties are not wanted by the voters and they only want the PAP. The voters of Singapore, young and old, male and female, are very intelligent in casting their votes wisely and opposition parties cannot fool them with empty promises or obsolete slogan-shouting. I observe that leaders of opposition parties still do not realise that if they want to win in any general elections, they must have the following good qualities: -` (a) They must have intelligent, honest, capable and incorrupt leaders who are respected by the voters of Singapore and who are especially of good character. (b) They must prove to the people of Singapore that they are dedicated and loyal to the Republic of Singapore.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am very glad that the Government has accepted the recommendations of the National Wages Council. 1 believe this is in appreciation of the hard work, the sacrifices and the restraints on the part of the workers, thus helping the employers to make the best possible profits. We have just heard from one of the employers' representatives, who is also a Member of Parliament, making recommendations that this Bill be sent to a Select Committee. The workers have been making a lot of sacrifices. As far as we are concerned, we would like to get the Bill implemented as soon as possible. We are interested in an increase of wages for the workers and also in a bigger bonus. We have done our part, and we hope the employers will also do their part. With the help from the Government side, I hope the implementation of the Bill could be done as soon as possible, without any further delay.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Law and National Development has said earlier that more than 21.000 persons have registered to rent Housing and Development Board flats, and another 31,000 persons have registered to purchase these flats. I am sorry to say that they will have to wait for quite a long time, perhaps another one or two years before they can rent or purchase Housing Board flats. Sir, in view of the present long waiting list of Housing Board flats for rent and purchase, I would like to ask the Minister for Law and National Development whether he will limit the construction of multi-storey office and shopping complexes so that more construction workers and building materials could be channelled to expedite the construction of more Housing Board flats. This, I believe, will lessen the long waiting time and shortening the waiting list. At the moment, there is no acute shortage of office or shopping space. 3.15 p.m. Therefore, the construction of multi-storey office buildings and shopping complexes should be restricted, so that the construction of Housing and Development Board flats could be increased from 20,000 to 25,000 flats each year. Sir, the construction of multi-storey office buildings and shopping complexes is purely for profit only, but the construction of Housing and Development Board multi-storey flats is a social development for the workers, especially those in the lower and middle income groups. They cannot afford to purchase houses built by the private sector because their prices are fantastic, ranging from $38,000 to $85,000 per unit. An hon. Member: More than that!”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I also have an amendment* on this subject of Public Assistance, and since Members have now spoken on it, I wish to take this opportunity to join my colleagues in strongly requesting the Minister for Social Affairs to give active consideration to review and to increase the public assistance allowance to the poor and needy. I do not think I can say much on it now since many Members have already expressed their views very well. However, * The amendment, standing in the names of Messrs Sim Boon Woo and Seah Mui Kok, reads as follows: (5) That the sum to be allocated for Head 1002 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 2061. I would strongly urge the Minister for Social Affairs to recommend at least 15 to 20 per cent increase in the public assistance allowance, as they really need it. 7.30 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully support the views expressed by various Members of this House about our buses. Since the implementation of the reorganisation of motor transport system in Singapore, there has been some general improvement of our transport system. Unfortunately, after the closing down of the Singapore Traction Company, bus commuters still have to wait very long for buses. Also, the buses are very overcrowded. Sir, a good number of the old buses are very dirty. We can see black smoke coming from the exhaust pipes, seats with the cushion badly damaged, windows cannot be shut when it rains. These old buses are littered with used tickets, paper, and other rubbish. Perhaps they have never been swept for months. The noise from the old engines is so terrible that if you sit near the front portion of the bus, you will at times get a terrific headache as well. There have been frequent breakdowns of these old buses causing traffic jams here and there. Sir, I strongly urge that these old buses should not be allowed to carry commuters any more, as it is very dangerous to do so. I would strongly suggest that the Registry of Vehicles should give another check on all these buses to ensure the safety of bus commuters. Sir, may I take this opportunity to ask the Minister for Communications how many new buses have been bought and put to use by all the bus companies since the implementation of the reorganisation of the motor transport service? And would he be kind enough to request the bus companies to `put more new buses on the various routes to ease the present overcrowding and the unnecessarily long waiting for the buses?”
“Mr Speaker. Sir,I am anxiously waiting for a reply from the Minister.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I must thank the Members for Telok Blangah and Toa Payoh for supporting my request to amend the Employment Act and the Industrial Relations Act on the negotiability of bonus and to remove the managerial prerogative. Sir, yesterday I spoke on the Budget Statement and gave reasons why I requested amendments to the Employment Act and to section 17 (2) of the Industrial Relations Act, so that the union can negotiate with the management on the annual bonus up to three months instead of one month only, and to remove the managerial prerogative so as to stop the employer from abusing them. It is a well known fact that employers can easily victimise the employees by using this prerogative. Sir, I would like the Minister for Labour to tell us whether he will agree to amend provisions in the Employment Act and Industrial Relations Act so as to enable the unions to negotiate annual bonus up to three months and to remove the managerial prerogative immediately.”
“I would suggest that employers who are hostile or against trade unionism, or victimise trade union organisers, should be packed into a box and despatched back to their own countries, and the sooner we do it the better it will be. I am glad the Prime Minister has stated that the Government would not allow workers to be bullied or coerced by employers. Mr Speaker, Sir, under the amendments to the Industrial Relations Act, 1968, employers were given the power of hiring and firing, promotion, transfer and retrenchment. There are some unscrupulous employers using these managerial prerogatives to victimise workers as well as union organisers. It has been proven that these employers have abused their managerial prerogatives. Therefore, I request that these managerial prerogatives should be deleted from the Industrial Relations Act immediately. Mr Speaker, Sir, with regard to the existence of the Wages Council, of which N.T.U.C, is being represented by our President, Mr Phey Yew Kok, Mr Devan Nair, our Secretary-General and our Adviser, Prof. Tom H. Elliott, we have full confidence in them. I hope this Wages Council will be helpful to the workers and not be restrictive to the reasonable wage increase demand by the workers. I hope the Wages Council will see that the bonus payment system will not be abolished. Perhaps, I may say the workers have the right to demand bonus payment if the employers are making good profit. Sir, I fully support the Government's policies as presented in the Budget Statement of the Minister for Finance. 5.45 p.m.”
“We are now drafting its constitution. The response from one oil company is very good. Out of its 25 managerial and executive employees covering secretary, superintendent, auditor, accountant, chemist, engineer, etc., 24 have already signed in support of forming a union. They have officially written to the N.T.U.C. Secretary for Organisation and Administration to join this union. I understand one of its management expatriate representatives had said hostile and anti-union remarks about their 24 managerial and executive employees for signing in support of forming a union. I hope the management representative of this oil company will appreciate that their managerial and executive employees have the right to join a union to protect their job security, better wages, bonus and conditions of service. Sir, the petroleum workers' union, i.e., the United Workers of Petroleum Industry, is watching the development closely on this oil company, and we fully support its managerial and executive employees to join the union to be formed by the N.T.U.C. It was reported by the N.T.U.C. Secretary for Industrial Disputes that a good number of dismissals took place while the union was awaiting recognition, pending a ballot to be taken by members of the union. In fairness to the workers and to stop the tendency of employers to abuse the various prerogatives so conferred upon them, 1 request the Government to amend section 17 (2) of the Industrial Relations Act (Cap. 124 of 1970) and remove such prerogatives immediately. However, the N.T.U.C is preparing a brief to the Government on alleged victimisation of workers by employers who are anti-union, and I hope the Government will not hesitate to use the big stick on them.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the N.T.U.C, held its Ordinary Delegates Conference from 3rd to 5th March, 1972, and the Industrial Policy and Resolutions Committee's recommendation on the bonus payment was unanimously adopted by the Delegates as follows: `The Committee agreed that the statutory limit of one month is unrealistic and is further of the opinion that there should be no blanket ban on the payment of bonus. Hence the Committee strongly recommends that bonus be made a negotiable item without any ceiling on the quantum of bonus.' Sir, the restriction to only one month's salary as a bonus payment through negotiation was imposed by the Government under the Employment Act, 1968. With the present economic boom most employers are making very good profits, and I strongly appeal to the Government to allow the workers to negotiate bonus with their employers up to three months. If this proposal is agreed to by the Government, the N.T.U.C, will be prepared to accept it although we prefer that there should be no ceiling on the quantum of bonus. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Finance in his Budget Statement in Parliament on 7th March, 1972, paid tribute to the workers for changing the difficulties and uncertainties caused by the loss of neighbouring markets upon separation from Malaysia and loss of unemployment and foreign exchange upon the British military rundown, into economic opportunities, o opportunities which have now produced our present healthy financial situation. Yet it is most regrettable that there are still some unscrupulous employers who are against the formation of trade unions to represent the workers and victimise the union organisers by dismissal. Mr Speaker, Sir, the N.T.U.C, is forming a union for the managerial and executive employees.”
“He also said that the Government would review the salaries of the Government employees in Divisions I to IV, as well as the public daily-rated workers. The workers in Singapore welcome the good news announced by the Government that the C.P.F. contribution for the workers in the private sector would also increase from 10 per cent to 12 per cent as from July, 1972, and it will be increased gradually to 15 per cent. I hope all employers will follow the good example set by the Government. The workers are not demanding fantastic bonuses or wage adjustments. We only ask the employers to give a bonus if they make a profit. It is a well known fact that annual bonus has been paid by Chinese employers as well as Western employers since pre-war days. When employers make profit they must pay bonus to the workers. The workers are the ones that help the employers to make profit in their business. Therefore, they must share their profit with the workers by paying them bonus. Mr Speaker, Sir, annual bonus is a necessity to the workers. Bonus is indeed very helpful to the workers especially to pay for their children's school textbooks, school uniforms, new clothing's for the new year celebration; to meet additional expenses on new year, such as food, drinks and ang-pows; to settle all the debts incurred and, if possible, to put something aside for saving. Bonus is a necessity to the workers especially the lower and middle income groups. I am sure all managerial and executive employees would like to get an annual increment of salary as well as bonus. It is quite understandable that Government is not giving bonus to its employees but an additional extra month's salary as an allowance is just as good as a bonus. The Government employees really deserve this extra allowance.”
“The workers must abide by the collective agreement. Where is the fairness? Mr Speaker, Sir, I do appreciate that frequent wage increases will never stop the increase in prices of commodities and will cause inflation, but the Government must, at least, put a stop to unjustifiable increases in prices of commodities. The workers are prepared to continue the tripartite co-operation and to maintain the present industrial peace. We give our assurance to the Government that we will maintain our present political and economic stability. We are willing to work harder to achieve greater economic and industrial growth for the Republic of Singapore for the benefit of all workers, employers and the Government. But please do not ask us to continue giving sacrifices all the time. The benefits most employers derive from the enforcement of the Employment Act and Industrial Relations Act of 1968 have been tremendous, especially on longer working hours, lesser number of public holidays, restriction of overtime work, limitation to the annual bonus to one month only, etc. Mr Speaker, Sir, most employers have benefited from the toil, sweat and sacrifices of the workers since 1968 and they have already made substantial profits together with business expansion. Therefore, the time has come for them to share their profits sincerely with the workers by giving them bigger bonus, adjustment of wages and improvement in fringe benefits. On 5th March, 1972, the Prime Minister announced at the N.T.U.C. Delegates Conference that the Government would pay its employees an allowance of an extra month's salary at the end of March, 1972, and would increase the C.P.F, contribution from 10 per cent to 12 per cent.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to join my colleagues in this House to congratulate the Minister for Finance for presenting a painless Budget to Parliament on 7th March, 1972, for the financial year 1st April, 1972, to 31st March, 1973. I am sure most of the people in Singapore from workers to employers are happy that there are no new taxes. Not only are there no new taxes, but the Minister for Finance has kindly introduced six tax reliefs in his Budget Statement, which will give satisfaction to those who benefit. With our present rate of economic and industrial growth, I sincerely hope that eventually workers will be exempted from paying income tax. I believe that income tax should be paid by employers, investors and industrialists only. Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no doubt that the workers in Singapore have done their part in response to the Government's appeal for national survival and nation-building. Through their toil, sweat and sacrifice, they have helped to bring economic boom and industrial progress and prosperity to the Republic of Singapore. Although they stand to benefit in the present successful economic growth and industrial expansion, the employers, investors and industrialists benefit many times more than workers. To the workers, wages and bonus are always limited, but profit to the employers is unlimited. Whatever wage increases or bonus given to the workers will be taken back by the businessmen because the workers have to pay high prices for edible and non-edible commodities. Yet the employers are unwilling to give the workers any high cost-of-living allowance to meet the frequent increase of prices of goods. Businessmen can increase the prices of the goods anytime they like, but workers cannot ask for an increase in wages anytime they like.”
“The hawkers' representatives have requested me to appeal to the Housing and Development Board authorities to allow them to return to Block 27 because of the following reasons: (1) Business is not very good at the Beo Crescent Market Concourse, (2) Selling at Block 27, each hawker could make a profit of $5 a day, and now at the Beo Crescent Market Concourse, the profit has been reduced to $2 or $3 a day. (3) Most of them have families to support and with a small profit of $2 or $3 a day. they are facing financial difficulties. (4) Strong competition in the market place because of too many stalls selling the same goods. (5) Because of the two-shift system, they cannot earn enough. (6) They cannot cater for the residents around Block 27. (7) The residents would prefer them to hawk in the area, i.e., Block 27, because there are no shops in that area and it is convenient for them to send their children downstairs to buy food. (8) The space between the blocks in this area is big enough for a row of stalls, leaving a broad enough space for the passage-way. (9) They will give full co-operation to keep the place clean. (10) They are prepared to erect their own shelters with advice from the Housing and Development Board and the Hawkers' Department. I have already made my appeal on their behalf to the Housing and Development Board authorities, but their request has been rejected. I would appeal to the Government to give sympathetic consideration to allow hawkers to do their business at certain places in the housing estates and they should be under the supervision of the Housing and Development Board and Hawkers' Department. They have been in the hawking business for years and it is difficult for them to change their profession. 3.47 p.m.”
“By putting this limitation on them, construction workers and building materials will be available to the Government to build more Housing and Development Board fiats. It will eventually eliminate the long waiting list for Housing and Development Board flats. Perhaps this exercise will help to prevent the private sector from increasing the prices of houses so fantastically. It will also help the Government to build another 25,000 units. Sir, I would like to touch on the resettlement of hawkers. May I request the Government to adopt a policy of flexibility in resettling hawkers at the market concourse or at hawker centres? I quite appreciate the importance of having a clean environment for the hawkers as well as for those who buy food from them. But to centralise all the hawkers into the market concourse temporarily and then to resettle them again finally at a hawker centre is causing hardship to a good number of them. Government must realise that hawkers cater for a certain number of residents in the housing estate. By resettling them from a few temporary places in the housing estate to only one area in the market concourse will cause too many hawkers selling the same food. There will be strong competition among themselves and this will lead to much lesser profit or even financial loss. Their customers are from the residents in the housing estate and quite naturally a resident will not walk a long distance from his flat to go to the market just to buy a bowl of kway teow. Therefore, hawkers will be losing their customers and get lesser profit. For example, the hawkers selling at Block 27 at Bukit Ho Swee have been resettled at the Beo Crescent Market Concourse.”
“Should there be rapid mechanisation just purely for the sake of saving labour costs and retrenching the workers, there will be serious trouble. The N.T.U.C, and all its affiliated unions will fight back by taking industrial action. I hope this will not happen. I am sure the Government will not allow such a thing to happen. I fully support the Government's intention to amend the Workmen's Compensation Act to cover non-manual workers who earn up to $750 per month, to treble the quantum of workers' compensation payable at present, to provide a more detailed list of injuries which would result in permanent partial incapacity, and to include silicosis and asbestosis in the schedule of occupational diseases. Sir, I would now like to touch on public housing. I am glad to know that more than 125,000 units of public housing have been completed. More than 700,000 people, that is, about 35 per cent of the population, are now occupying Housing and Development Board flats. I must congratulate the Housing and Development Board on the good work they are doing and I wish them more success in building more flats. The Housing and Development Board are going to build 100,000 units for the period 1971 to 1975. May I request the Government to increase its target to 125,000 units, instead of 100,000 units, because most of the working-class people can afford to rent or buy only Housing and Development Board flats. The prices of houses and flats built by the private sector are so fantastic that even the middle-class income group cannot afford to buy them. Sir, I would also request the Government to reduce at least 50 per cent of the building projects undertaken by the private sector, especially on multi-storey flats, terrace houses, semi-detached houses or bungalows.”
“I sincerely hope they will appreciate the workers' sacrifices and their contribution in helping them to make bigger profits. The time has come when they must give the workers better bonuses. By the middle of next year, they should give substantial wage increases to the workers. Some of the employers have already responded to the Government's appeal to give bigger bonuses and I hope more employers will do the same. The present wage restraints and the increase in prices of goods are causing financial difficulties and hardships to the workers. I would request the Government to relax the present policy of wage restraints as soon as possible and also to take drastic action against shopkeepers who increase prices of goods without justification. The employers are fully aware that prices of goods have increased substantially and in spite of the good profits they are making, they are still reluctant to consider giving a temporary "high cost of living allowance" to the workers. This attitude is indeed very deplorable and unfair. Unless the workers get a fair wage to meet the present cost of living, they may have to take drastic action against their employers which will eventually disrupt the present industrial peace. Sir, it was mentioned in the President's speech that the Government will systematically mechanise laborious and repetitive work. The private sector will be encouraged to do the same. Sir, mechanisation is a necessity. I would request the Government and the private sector to carry out mechanisation in gradual stages and not to over-do it, so that the workers' job security will not be affected. If the employers expect industrial peace with the workers. I advise them to accept this request seriously.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to join my colleagues in this House to thank the President for his speech delivered at the opening of the Second Session of the Second Parliament on Wednesday. 21st July, 1971. Sir, I am sure all Members of this House will fully support the Government's policy that we will not allow anyone to work up heat on the gut issues over language, culture and religion. Also no one who is working in the mass media has the right to play with the emotional reflexes of our different communities. Let us make it very clear that those who deliberately try to encourage. stir up or provoke trouble, under the pretence of language, culture or religion, must face the consequences. It is the duty of everyone and all local or foreign press here to assist in creating a , happy, harmonious, tolerant and understanding society among all the people of all races, of different languages, cultures and religions. May I also express my full support for the measures that this Government will implement as outlined in the President's speech and in the addendum to the speech by the President. Sir, the workers in Singapore have done their very best to help achieve success in our industrialisation programme and rapid economic growth. Through their co-operation with the employers and Government, there is industrial peace which helps to attract more investors to come to Singapore. Since the Employment Act was passed by Parliament in 1968, the workers have made a lot of sacrifices, especially as they have to work longer hours, with lesser public holidays limitation of bonus payment wage restraints, etc By now, most of the employers have enjoyed the present economic boom and they have already made substantial profits as well as expanded their business.”
“It should be courtesy to everybody in Singapore.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, two days ago while I was entering the Parliament gate, the policeman on duty raised his hand towards me and, raising his voice slightly, said, "Hey, where are you going?" Being a very patient man and quite understanding, I just gave him a smile and told him that I am the Member for Bukit Ho Swee. His immediate reaction was to stand to attention. I strongly feel that police constables require some kind of courtesy course.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we were told by the Minister of State for Finance that the Bakers' Association had discussions with his Ministry and, as a result, approval was granted for the increase in the price of bread. It seems that the approval was very easily given. I hope if the N.T.U.C, or the unions approach the Ministry of Finance for a high cost-of-living allowance, perhaps that can be granted as well.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I suggest to the Minister of State for Labour that in order to educate the workers on the importance of prevention of accidents, it will be a good idea for the Ministry of Labour to get some good films, especially those showing how to prevent accidents and how to handle machinery safely and so on. Such film shows will impress them better. They will have a better idea of these safety measures and be more conscious of the need to prevent industrial accidents. Of course, in addition to these film shows, pamphlets or circulars on this subject will help too, but film shows are just as important.”
“The workers, especially those with lower wages, are suffering terribly. The Government must stop pampering the employers too much, and pay more attention to the workers and relieve their plight as soon as possible. Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully support the budgetpresented by the Minister for Finance. 6.46 p.m.”
“In order not to allow the private sector to keep on building houses and making fantastic profits, may I suggest to the Government to build as many H.D.B, flats as possible and to limit the building of houses by the private sector? The private sector is the main cause of the fantastic rise in the prices of houses built by them. We must put an immediate stop to it without further delay. I am glad the Minister for Finance in his annual budget statement says that he is keeping a close watch on the unprecedented rise in the cost of new buildings and the value of the existing buildings so as to prevent the cost increase from developing to serious proportions. Sir, I fully agree with the views expressed by other Members of this House on the present increase of prices of various commodities, and I support their proposal that action should be taken to put a stop to it. I also request the Minister for Finance to put a stop to the arbitrary increase of prices of commodities by business associations, for example, the increase in the price of bread by the Bakers Association recently. If the Government allows these business associations to increase their prices arbitrarily, then the Government should not stop the unions from demanding arbitrarily an increase in wages and bonus. Unfortunately, the unions are not allowed to do so. Workers are requested to endure all the restrictions enforced in the Employment Act, for example, longer working hours, a lesser number of public holidays, a limitation to the annual bonus to one month's salary only, etc. But there are no restrictions on the employers and the business associations. They can increase the prices of their commodities arbitrarily. This is most unfair and the Government must stop this squeezing on the public.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the people of Singapore are happy to know that there will be no increase of any tax for the financial year 1st April, 1971, to 31st March, 1972, as announced by the Minister for Finance in his annual budget statement in Parliament on the 8th of March, 1971. Since there will be no increase of any tax for this period, it will give employers the opportunity to expand their industries and make more profit. It will attract more investors to come here and will definitely create more jobs for the people. Sir, with the present industrial boom and several employers making good profit, I think the time has come for amendments to be made to the Employment Act which was implemented in 1968, particularly about the bonus payment. I would like to join other Members in this House and strongly request the Government to remove the limitation on the negotiation of bonus payment to one month only. I think the bigger the profit, the bigger should be the bonus. The workers should be given the right to negotiate for a bigger bonus with their employers so long as they have the capacity to pay. Sir, prices of new and existing houses have been rising fantastically during the last five years. For example, the price of a terrace house was about $30,000 five years ago, but if you buy it now you will have to pay $55,000 for it. Prices of houses have gone up so high that workers find difficulty purchasing them. Luckily, they can purchase Housing and Development Board flats. Since the workers find difficulty in buying houses from the private sector on account of the fantastically high prices, may I suggest that the Government allow the family combined salary limit to be $1,700 to purchase H.D.B, flats rather than the present limit of $1,200?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully support the Bill to prohibit smoking in cinemas or theatres. I only regret that the Minister did not include the prohibition of smoking in public buses and taxis. I sincerely hope that at the next sitting, if possible, the Minister will move an amendment to include the prohibition of smoking in buses and taxis so that there will be no nuisance to the passengers. 4.12 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on rainy days, especially when the rain is heavy, you will see pools of rain water collecting at various bus shelters and at pedestrian cement pavements along MacPherson Road and Mountbatten Road, and perhaps in other parts of Singapore. Because of the stagnant rain water at these bus shelters, people who want to board the bus have to step into the rain water and so wet their shoes, socks and trousers before they can get into it. The only way they can avoid getting wet is either to remain at the bus shelters and not board the bus, or to take off their shoes and socks and roll up their trousers before stepping into it. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I request the Minister for National Development to instruct the Director of the Public Works Department to look into this matter to see that the rain water flows into the drain and not collect and stagnate at bus shelters and pedestrian cement pavements along MacPherson Road and Mountbatten Road, or in other parts of Singapore?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we have been encouraging the people of Singapore to keep Singapore clean so that we can have a healthy environment and better health for the people. But I have seen many cars, buses and lorries in the streets of Singapore letting out dirty and poisonous fumes from their exhaust pipes. These dirty and poisonous fumes not only pollute the air but they are also endangering the health of the people of Singapore. We must put a stop to it, and the sooner the better. I understand that action has been taken against the offenders but there are still too many vehicles letting out dirty and poisonous fumes. Sir, I request stronger action should be taken against the offenders and heavier fines should be imposed on them. Perhaps an effective system can be adopted by empowering the Traffic Police to deal with offenders on the spot. I would suggest that the fines be paid by the owners of the vehicles and not by the drivers, because the owners must be responsible for their vehicles. If the emission of dirty and poisonous fumes is due to the negligence of the drivers, then it is up to the owners to deal with them. I hope the Minister will give consideration to my proposal and take strong and immediate action against the offenders for letting out dirty and poisonous fumes from their vehicles. We must not allow them to pollute the air and endanger the health of the people of Singapore.”
“I would also like the Minister to answer my question. He has forgotten to do so. Mr Rajaratnam: Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for your indulgence because I have already exceeded considerably the time allotted to me.”
“It is also true that the recent amendment to the Constitution which requires the holder of a certificate, who is a minor, to take an oath of renunciation and allegiance on reaching the age of 21, is printed in English on the certificate itself. But owing to ignorance either on the part of the holders or their parents of this requirement as a result of the constitutional amendment, the persons concerned lose their citizenship, necessitating the surrender of their certificates and also their pink identity cards. Some of these young ex-citizens who had been granted citizenship during their early teens subsequently obtained employment. As a result, they have to ask their employers to apply for work permits in order to continue in employment. Such applications may or may not be approved by the Commissioner of Employment. These are the more fortunate ones whose employers are prepared to apply for work permits on their behalf. There are, however, a few employers who take the opportunity to terminate the employment of these unfortunate persons, regardless of the hardship that may be caused. I wonder whether it would be possible for the Government to give advance notice through the media of T.V. and Radio, just as it is now being done in the case of eligibility for national service, so that the persons concerned can take the necessary steps to take their oath of renunciation and allegiance.”
“It is beginning to be a practice amongst some employers to do away with staff who are drawing high salaries, and later on recruit new employees at less than half the salaries paid to those who were retrenched. The amendment to the Industrial Relations Ordinance has taken the teeth out of the unions, and certain provisions in the Employment Act further weaken the unions by appearing to cut out their tongues as well. A few employers have even gone to the extent of hiring labour contractors, commonly known as kepalas, to perform the work normally done by their permanent staff. This is effected by retrenching all or some of the permanent staff. One of the intentions of the Employment Act and the amendment to the Industrial Relations Ordinance is to restrain irresponsible labour, but nothing has been done so far to check employers from making use of the provisions of our labour laws for their selfish ends. I do hope that the Minister for Labour will take the necessary steps to rectify such a situation. Mr Speaker, Sir, on the question of citizenship, I would like to bring to the notice of the Minister the hardships faced by both parents and young persons who have registered as citizens under Article 58 of the Constitution. I have come across several cases where persons so registered as citizens have had their citizenship withdrawn by reason of their failure to take an oath of renunciation and allegiance, as provided for under the Constitution, on reaching the age of 21. It is true that there is no provision in the Constitution to empower the Registrar of Citizens to extend the deadline for taking the oath.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, I sincerely hope the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Labour will request the employers not to terminate the services of their employees whose work permits have been withdrawn by the Malaysian Government, but to give them jobs in their Singapore offices. If that is not possible, then the employers must give substantial monetary compensation to their employees, and not to exploit or abuse them by terminating their services. Mr Eric Cheong Yuen Chee (Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, since the implementation of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Ordinance, several well-established commercial undertakings have taken advantage of the provisions in section 17 (2) concerning retrenchment where unions cannot challenge the bona fides of retrenchments, even though they are effected on the flimsy grounds of reorganisation within the undertakings. Since then, 29 established firms, whose employees are represented by one union, have retrenched a total of 282 workers. Many of these employees had spent the best part of their working lives for their respective employers. There may be other employees represented by other unions facing the same plight. For reasons of age, education and other factors, many of those retrenched could not find alternative employment, nor could they be retrained for other trades in the industries. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not my intention to turn this august Chamber into a labour court. I am merely bringing to the notice of the Government the inherent danger that may occur if employers are given free rein to retrench employees just to increase their profits, which are not and may not be reinvested in Singapore.”
“If there are no vacancies, then a substantial sum of compensation should be given to them so that they may have the opportunity to start life anew with some hope for the future, particularly having regard to the number of years of service rendered to the company. Since both the Singapore Government and the Malaysian Government have introduced work permits for workers who are non-citizens in the territories concerned, perhaps it would be a good idea if consideration can be given to the setting up of an arrangement whereby the Singapore Government can request all Singapore citizens now employed in Malaysia to register with the High Commissioner there, furnishing him with full particulars and details of employment, so that the total number of people who are working in Malaysia with work permits can be ascertained. In the event that their work permits are withdrawn by the Malaysian Government, the employers that have their offices in Singapore should consider giving them employment, provided their skill, experience, training and qualifications are suitable for the jobs to be filled in Singapore. Sir, the employers are given the power and right to transfer their employees; therefore, they must also accept the responsibility to transfer back their employees to their Singapore office should their work permits be withdrawn by the Malaysian Government and not to terminate the services of their employees. If employers are not willing to accept this responsibility to transfer them back to Singapore, then they have no right to transfer their employees outside Singapore.”
“If this employee were to be treated as a redundant case and according to the collective agreement, he would get about $17,000. A good employer would certainly either transfer him back to the Singapore office or pay him according to the collective agreement redundancy benefit of $17,000 rather than $6,500, especially at his present age which is nearing 50 years. There is no possibility of his getting a clerical job with a $600 salary; neither can he be trained for a technical job. How is he going to live with $6,500? How is he going to start life in Singapore? How is he to get his children to school in Singapore? How is he to furnish a new home? Where can he get a new job in Singapore? Will the monthly pension of $115 be sufficient for his family, for food, rental, transport, children's schooling and other miscellaneous expenses? If he is unemployed for one year, that $6,500 will be exhausted and he has to ask the Social Welfare Department for assistance. I am just quoting one case, but there are many more cases which are worse than this one. 4.00 p.m. I am not criticising the right of Government to withdraw work permits from non-citizens. A government is responsible to its own citizens and to see that non-citizens are not an economic burden to the country. But I cannot tolerate the irresponsible way employers are treating the citizens of Singapore by terminating their services because their work permits have been withdrawn by the Malaysian Government. The least the employers should do is to give them whatever jobs that are available in their Singapore office.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in Singapore and Malaysia, we have several companies operating their business in both countries. A good number of their employees have been transferred either to Malaysia or Singapore. This kind of transfer disrupts the employees' families; the houses already bought by them have to be sold away; their children have to change schools; and extra money has to be incurred to start new homes. Most of the workers who have been transferred through the request of their employers have worked for several years, some even more than twenty years. Failing to accept transfer to, say, Malaysia, their services will be terminated by the employers. After years of faithful and loyal service, and through no fault of theirs, their work permits have been withdrawn by the Malaysian Government and the employers served them with letters of termination. I believe this is an act of exploitation and abuse. Therefore, it is necessary to review the Employment Act and the Industrial Relations Ordinance as soon as possible. I would just like to quote one case in a company called "X" in Singapore. It has its business in Malaysia as well. The employee was given the option to accept transfer to its office in Malaya in 1952 or he had to leave the company. He accepted the transfer to Malaya (now Malaysia). He had been working in its Kuala Lumpur office for 17 years, and his total service with the company was 23 years. Recently, he received a termination letter from his company and the reason given was that his work permit had been withdrawn by the Malaysian Government. For his 23 years of faithful service to the company, this is what he is going to get: (a) A monthly pension of $115; (b) A lump sum retirement allowance of $3,200; (c) A special ex gratia payment of $3,300.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, can the Minister for Communications say how many of the 80 new buses belong to the Singapore Traction Company?”
“Mr Speaker, it seems that preference is given to the encouragement and development of the orchid industry. In view of the fact that most of the farmers, by nature, grow vegetables, I would like to ask the Minister whether he will conduct a simple course on orchid growing for farmers. This will encourage them to grow orchids which will help them in their livelihood.”
“Sir, I am not prepared to give way; I would like to complete my sentence, The working class people will definitely remain in times of adversity. During the Japanese occupation of Singapore, many of the rich people flew or sailed away from Singapore. This is a well-known fact. This was reported in the newspapers of that period. Sir, I would like to make an appeal to the Government to reconsider the policy of granting citizenship and also bear in mind that we do not grant citizenship only to the rich people but also to the working class as well. The working class are the people who will work here and, in time of trouble, I am quite sure they will be with us rather than go away from Singapore.”
“I think some consideration should be given to the working class as well. I am quite sure, Sir, that in time of war or when war is about to begin, the rich people will be the first to fly or sail away from Singapore. But the working class will definitely -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully support the views of those Members of Parliament who have spoken on citizenship. We are getting a lot of trouble and headaches from our constituents during the "meet-the-people" sessions on this matter. I think even a large amount of Aspro and aspirin will not cure our headaches. We are fully aware that there are many unemployed persons in Singapore and therefore jobs should be given to our citizens. But, on the other hand, we must sympathetically consider deserving cases. Of course, they must meet the requirements of the law. During our "meet-the-people" sessions, the constituents who are seeking citizenship tell us very long stories. We take the trouble to record all the details and then write lengthy letters to the Registrar of Citizens, After going through so much trouble, the reply is just an ordinary acknowledgement card which says the application is under con sideration. Then there will be a long silence - it may be three or six months. After this the person seeking citizenship will he asked to call at the office almost every week. The officer will tell him to be patient and that a reply will be given. I think the Government must be very realistic on this issue. They must be aware that all Members of Parliament should not be made to look stupid in the eyes of the public. I hope they will carefully review the policy of granting citizenship and lay down guide lines, instead of letting Members of Parliament help these people and in the end we find there is more frustration among the people. It seems that foreigners who have $250,000 to invest here will be given special consideration in their applications for citizenship, and perhaps citizenship will be granted to them speedily.”