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 4 of 4.
“Sir, I wish to place on record my sincere appreciation of how the Government has taken great pains to ensure that the necessary new taxes are borne by those who can afford to pay them. The Minister for Finance has done an excellent job of finding the necessary funds in an unobtrusive fashion for equally necessary expenditure to be spent on defence. But while such new taxes are intended to fall on those who can afford to pay them, I must add that in the end it is the common working men who have to bear the new taxes. It is simply common sense that faced with the extra expenses that have to be met, for instance, because of the levy on P.U.B, charges, the employer will simply raise the prices of his products to meet the extra cost, Thus, my only regret is that the Minister for Finance has not seen fit to incorporate into his Budget complementary or supplementary legislation comparable to that of the Employment Act to restrain profiteers from passing the burden of indirect taxation to the consumers, the majority of whom must be the workers. 3.50 p.m.”
“While the workers of Singapore have generally reconciled themselves to the fact that the Employment Act and other legislation seeking to restrain the workers from demanding higher wages and better working conditions are necessary sacrifices which have to be tolerated in the interest of the Republic, the Government should also make it clear to all foreign investors not to take undue advantage of the situation. Workers in Singapore are pragmatists who believe in hard work. All that they ask of employers is fair treatment and an equitable return for the hard work they render to their employees. It is surely reasonable and equitable for workers to ask for decent wages and an adequate bonus when their employers make sizable profits. Mr Speaker, Sir, we, the leaders of the N.T.U.C., however, shall always extend our fullest co-operation and assistance to the Government and to the employers in our common effort to ensure our survival and to maintain our present prosperity during the next few crucial years. We appreciate that in the final analysis we have only ourselves to depend upon for the continuing political and economic viability of the Republic. We know for a fact, and this I emphasise, that the world does not owe us a living and that if we want to continue to enjoy the privilege of living in a separate and independent Republic, we have to pay dearly for that privilege by our own sweat and labour. But in the far- sighted and logical proposals enunciated by the Government in the Budget, the Government has shown that it can provide the competent and determined leadership to see us through all our difficulties in the next few years.”
“My main concern is that while defence is necessary for Singapore, the burden of paying for any increase in defence expenditure ultimately falls on the working men. The Government has decided to raise the necessary funds for our defence expenditure by means of indirect taxation in such a manner as to ensure that the taxes are paid by those who can afford to pay. On the surface, its explanation appears to be valid, such as the graduated scale of tax on P.U.B. rates and the tax, for instance, on made-up garments. The Minister is correct in saying that if people persist in buying goods of foreign origin when their equivalents are beng manufactured locally, it is only fair and reasonable that they should be made to pay for their choice. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] 3.45 p.m. It is appreciated that we require foreign investment in order to be able to create sufficient employment opportunities for our continuously increasing labour force. And to induce foreign investors to come here, we have to provide a minimum domestic market for the products made by the factories in Singapore even if they are supposed to be export-orientated. In this respect, I must acknowledge that the Government has been singularly successful in wooing foreign industrialists to invest their capital and know-how in our Republic. The list of foreign operations which have or are intending to set up factories in Singapore read like an excerpt from Who's Who of the industrial corporations of the world. It appears that the new Employment Act and similar legislation have helped to conjure up a congenial climate for the industrial development of Singapore.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in appreciation of the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1st January, 1969, to 31st March, 1970. The Budget presented by the Minister for Finance seeks to find practical solutions to seemingly insoluble problems and has done so with considerable success. The main problem of finding the necessary funds for many competing wants appears to have been solved by the proposal to impose new forms of taxation in such a manner as to be reasonable and acceptable to the people of Singapore. The bulk of the increase in Government expenditure is shown to be caused by the need to provide for our own national security and defence. As a result of the proposed British withdrawal from Singapore by the end of 1971, the Government has wisely made provision to increase the strength of our armed forces, that is, the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, to a level which is consistent with the safety of our Republic. While no one who has the interest of the Republic at heart will deny the necessity of incurring the heavy cost of our own security and defence, it is a source of constant anxiety and worry that new taxes or increases in existing taxes may have to be imposed over the next few years in order to shoulder the burden of military defence. It would be most helpful if the Minister for Finance can give an assurance that any future increase in the expenditure on the defence forces and installations during the coming years will be phased out in such a way that it will be painless and fair to all. It is true that no one can foresee the future and that one cannot give any assurance of the actual size of our defence force and installations in the future by reason of the fact that new circumstances and events may arise which cannot be foreseen now.”
“I wish also to comment on an important point which seems to be ignored under the Central Provident Fund (Amendment) Bill. I refer to the problem of persons who are unemployed before reaching the age of 55 years, at which age they are only allowed to withdraw whatever sum of money is standing to their credit in the Central Provident Fund. Such persons, particularly those whose ages range between 45 and 50, may find themselves unemployable in the labour market which is being flooded with young school-leavers. The tragedy is compounded by the fact that such persons are usually family men. The result is that they find themselves in a most unenviable situation. They have no jobs and no means to support the family. They find that they cannot withdraw some of the monies which are credited to their names in the Central Provident Fund. I would, therefore, appeal to the Government seriously to consider allowing such persons to withdraw some of the monies credited to them in the Central Provident Fund. I would suggest that a person who has been unemployed for five years and has attained the age of 45 years should be allowed to withdraw up to 30 per cent of the amount of money standing to his credit in the Central Provident Fund, and if he still remains unemployed at the age of 50, he should be allowed to withdraw a further 30 per cent of the money standing to his credit. Such a measure will allow him to make use of the money when he most urgently needs it either for supporting his family or for commencing a small business. This measure also allows him to retain 40 per cent of the sum of money so deposited in the Central Provident Fund for use in his old age, by which time some members of his family may be able to take over the task of maintaining the family. 5.32 p.m.”
“While I appreciate that the provisions in the Bill are for the general benefit to workers, however, I wish to draw the attention of the Government to the fact that whatever benefit the Government proposes to give to the workers under the Bill may be largely negatived by the action that would be taken by most employers. It is the valid fear of workers that employers may offset the increased rate of contribution payable under this Bill against the gratuity benefits payable by them under a collective agreement. Members of the House may be aware that in most collective agreements, provision is made for the payment of gratuity benefit to an employee on his resignation or retirement from the service of his employer. The amount of this gratuity benefit depends on the length of his service. The rate usually averages five per cent of the last drawn monthly salary for each year of service, in addition to the Central Provident Fund contribution payable by the employer. As it is proposed under the Bill to increase the Central Provident Fund contribution ultimately to 10 per cent, and if the employer is allowed to offset the increased rate of contribution against whatever gratuity benefit is payable by him to the worker under the collective agreement it would, in effect, mean that the worker would not obtain the benefit of any wage increase as envisaged under this Bill. I would therefore urge the Government to look into this problem and ensure that the employer does not offset the increased rate of Central Provident Fund contribution against whatever gratuity benefit is payable by him to his workers under the collective agreement. If employers do this, it will defeat the very purpose of this Bill which is to enable the workers to enjoy any increase in wages.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Central Provident Fund (Amendment) Bill. This Bill makes a welcome change from the Employment Bill and the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill in that it contains provisions mainly for the benefit of workers in Singapore. The Bill seeks to increase the existing rate of contribution to the Central Provident Fund payable by both employer and employee from 5 per cent to 6½ per cent, 8 per cent and 10 per cent respectively during the next three years. It appears to be the intention of the Government that such increases in the rate of Central Provident Fund contributions are to be treated as wage increases. The Government is to be congratulated on moving such an amendment to the Central Provider Fund Ordinance as the increased rate of contribution would, in effect, increase the savings of workers. In conjunction with the increased rate of contribution, the Bill also seeks to provide that the amount of existing deposits credited to each employee in the Central Provident Fund can be utilised for making a down payment for the purchase of a Housing and Development Board flat and that the subsequent contributions to the Central Provident Fund at the enhanced rate of contribution can be utilised for paying the monthly hire-purchase instalments for the purchase of such flats. As I see it, such a provision would enable many workers to make their dream of owning their own homes come true. This is particularly so when the Central Provident Fund rate of contribution is increased to 10 per cent in three years' time.”
“Even now as we are discussing this Bill, there are employers who are seeking to exploit the provisions of the Bill to their best advantage, regardless of the intention of the Government. I have been given to understand that one commercial organisation, which has previously applied for the extension of a collective agreement to which the trade union concerned has indicated its agreement, now seeks to oppose its own application before the Industrial Arbitration Court. The reason for its action appears to be that the employer anticipates certain provisions to be superfluous in a collective agreement in view of the Government's gift of management functions. Such being the case, workers cannot be blamed for feeling nervous that some employers are clearing the decks for wholesale exploitation of workers. While it is heartening to know that the Government has given an assurance that it will not hesitate to cane the naughty employers, it is our hope that the Government will not be found wanting in decisiveness and firmness when it comes to dealing with recalcitrant employers. The N.T.U.C. will not be silent if it finds that some employers take undue advantage of the powers of managerial functions given to them under this Bill. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] 3.43 p.m.”
“The impression that appears to be given is that the trade union movement has been irresponsible in the past and cannot be relied upon to ensure that work-stoppages of such magnitude would not occur again so as not to prejudice Singapore's future industrial expansion programme. I wish to point out that work-stoppages must necessarily arise out of trade disputes and that it takes two parties to make a trade dispute. It is not fair and correct to blame the occurrence of each and every dispute on the union involved. For in the first place, if an employer can be trusted to give a fair deal to his workers, it would never have been necessary for the Government to enact employment legislation such as the Industrial Relations Ordinance. I also wish to point out that the reference to the period, 1960 to 1967, whether intentional or otherwise, was extremely misleading, to say the least. The fact is that the Industrial Relations Ordinance was enacted in 1960 to meet the need for promoting peace and stability in the field of industrial relations in Singapore. It takes a few years for the Industrial Relations Ordinance to be in operation before its effect becomes evident. This is substantiated by the published data of the Statistics Department pertaining to work-stoppages. For the period 1964 to 1967, the second half of the period referred to by the Minister, there were only 94 world-stoppages involving the loss of 11,715 man-days which do not amount to even one per cent of the total for the whole period. The only conclusion I can draw from this comparison of figures is that the Industrial Relations Ordinance has become increasingly effective during the last few years even without the gift of managerial functions to employers.”
“Thus it is open to an employer to adhere most rigidly to the publicised conditions for promotion or employment of persons he does not like and to waive such conditions on any pretext in respect of applicants favoured by him. It all boils down to whether an employer can he relied upon to exercise his management functions in good faith. Although the provisions pertaining to the rights of an employer to transfer, retrench, dismiss or order his employees contain certain safeguards for the employees, such safeguards are effective only if the assumption that an employer always acts in good faith is justified. On this point, we in the N.T.U.C., being used to seeing the uglier side of the employer's face, do not share the .optimism of the Government that employers can be depended on to behave responsibly and decently towards their workers. We are fully aware that industrial or commercial organisations are profit-making organisations and that it is in the own interest of the management, whether it be professional management divorced from the ownership of tile business or otherwise, to employ the best talents available or to deploy staff in the most advantageous manner. But the fact remains that employers and managers are only human and may occasionally behave in an irrational and perverse manner. Our concern is that such behaviour may have adverse repercussions for the workers and that the Ordinance does not seek to safeguard the rights of the workers. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Labour in his speech yesterday referred to the incidence of 389 work-stoppages involving a loss of 1,284,029 man-days during the period from 1960 to 1967.”
“If such managerial or executive employees have nothing to fear from their employers, they would never have found it necessary to be members of the trade unions representing employees in non-managerial or non-executive positions. It is a fact which should be duly noted by the Government when implementing tile proposed amendment to the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The other point which I wish to comment on concerns clause 5 of the Bill which seeks to amend section 17 of the Ordinance. A new subsection, which seeks to make certain managerial functions non-negotiable between an employer and the trade union representing his employees, has been proposed. The managerial functions refer to the rights of an employer in relation to (a) promotion, (b) transfer, (c) employment, (d) retrenchment, (e) dismissal and reinstatement, (f) assignment or allocation of duties. We must point out that it seems most dangerously lopsided to enact that such managerial functions are exercisable at the absolute discretion of the employer without providing for adequate safeguards for the workers. In the first place, such managerial functions exist in common law and it appears rather unnecessary and superfluous to give statutory protection to such managerial functions. But granted that it is necessary from the Government's viewpoint to give statutory protection to these managerial functions, the failure to provide ample safeguards for the workers does not appear to be justifiable. To be more specific, in respect of the management functions pertaining to promotion and recruitment, no attempt has been made to spell out the criteria or limits within which an employer can reasonably exercise his rights.”
“It must be emphasised here that the Industrial Relations Ordinance gives protection to workers only if they are members of a trade union which has been accorded recognition by an employer. Where an employee does not belong to any trade union, or belongs to a trade union which has not been accorded recognition by his employer, he has no effective remedy or redress against victimisation by his employer under the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The position is complicated by the fact that there are few trade unions to cater for managerial or executive employees. In fact, there are, as far as I know, only two unions catering for employees in managerial or executive positions in the private sector. It is inconceivable that these two unions would be in a position to cater for all the employees in managerial or executive positions engaged in the various industries in the private sector in Singapore. Even if they are, there has to be an inevitable lapse of time before a union can be given recognition in respect of employees in managerial or executive positions who have been formerly represented by a trade union consisting mainly of non-managerial or non-executive employees. While we appreciate the principle that employees in supervisory positions should belong to unions different from those of the subordinate employees, we are rather apprehensive that, in view of such a radical change to prevailing practices, the Government has not made any transitional provisions to safeguard the interests of employees who are in a managerial position and who happen to be members of the trade unions representing mainly employees in non-executive positions.”
“We also note that the proposed section 24A provides that the proposed restrictions on collective agreements governing the employees within the specified industries are to be valid for the first five years of the existence of the specified industries. Such measures, though they may appear to be rather drastic to employees engaged in the new industries, are necessary to stimulate new industries and will then lead to the creation of more job opportunities. While we are happy that the Government has taken into consideration our representation by incorporating some of our suggestions into the provisions of the Bill, as I have just mentioned, we cannot help noticing that the Bill also contains provisions which appear to be unnecessarily unfavourable to workers. For instance, in clause 4 of the Bill, by which a new subsection (3) is to be added to the existing section 16 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, it is provided that any trade union representing subordinate staff may seek recognition in respect of employees in managerial or executive positions or serve a notice under section 17 of the Ordinance in respect of those employees. We are apprehensive of the position of such trade unions at present representing employees who may be considered to be in managerial executive positions. These unions, whose members consist mainly of employees in non-managerial or non-executive positions, have been given recognition in respect of employees in managerial or executive positions and have concluded collective agreements on behalf of such employees. If such unions are not to be allowed to continue to represent employees in managerial or executive positions on the expiry of the existing collective agreements, then these employees would be placed in a most untenable position.”
“Not every one who has been wrongfully dismissed by his employer can claim to be a trade union officer or a member actively engaged in trade union work. Paragraph (d) of clause 8 of the Bill, however, takes care of cases of dismissal arising out of circumstances other than those in contravention of section 79 of the Ordinance by amending section 34 thereof to provide for such cases of dismissal to be referred to the Minister who may himself, or through the Commissioner of Labour, inquire into the dismissal and who is empowered to order the reinstatement or payment of compensation to an employee who is found to have been wrongfully dismissed. I am also happy to note that clause 7 of the Bill has given effect to the N.T.U.C, representation that the provision cutting across collective agreement should not be unduly wide. The original intention of the Government was to enact that no collective agreement should contain provisions with regard to terms and conditions of service more favourable to employees than those contained in Part IV of the Employment Act, 1968. The N.T.U.C., however, pointed out that since the intention of such an amendment was to stimulate and promote industrial expansion in Singapore and that since the existing collective agreements relate to employees in existing firms and factories, it was only logical and reasonable that such a drastic amendment should be made applicable only to firms or factories which have not yet been established. We note here with satisfaction that an acceptable compromise has been made by the Government in proposing that only employees in certain specified industries which are established on or after 1st January, 1968, are to come within the scope of the proposed section 24A.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to comment on the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill which is now being read for the Second time. As the Secretary-General of the National Trades Union Congress, I am very pleased to note that the Government has incorporated into the Bill some of the suggestions made by the N.T.U.C. When we were first informed by the Government of its intention to amend the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1960, we were very much taken aback by the rather drastic scope and extent of the amendments intended by the Government. We then strongly represented to the Government that its objectives could still be achieved by modifying its intended amendments so as to minimise the adverse effects on the workers. Evidently, as it appears from the Bill, the Government has given heed to our representations. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] 3.26 p.m. For instance, it was intended that the power of the Industrial Arbitration Court to reinstate in employment an employee who has been wrongfully dismissed was to be confined to cases where the employee had been allegedly dismissed for trade union activities. We pointed out that such a provision restricting the power of reinstatement in employment would give rise to many malpractices or abuses by unscrupulous employers. At present, such employers are deterred from dismissing their employees summarily without justification because of the protection given to employees under the Industrial Relations Ordinance. It would have been unduly and unnecessarily demoralising to an employee to have been deprived of the protection given to his employment under the Industrial Relations Ordinance.”
“Sir, does the Government propose to accept the recommendation of the Commission in paragraph 588* of its Report on the restoration of commuted * Paragraph 588 reads as follows: 'We recommend the Treasury's proposal for consideration' pension to a pensioner who outlives the period in respect of which his pension was commuted, i.e., 12½ years?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the clause be read a Second time." Mr Speaker, Sir, it is very necessary that workers in Singapore be given a chance to negotiate with employers for the annual bonus. The National Trades Union Congress is most reasonable, and it did recommend that bonus should be negotiable up to a maximum of one month. Anything more than that should be for mutual negotiation or agreement between employer and employee. As I have stated earlier, the payment of annual bonus is very important to the workers, because they require money especially at the end of the year for expenses incurred during the various religious festivals. In addition, if the workers have families, they will need extra money to buy school uniforms, school books, etc, for their children. In this respect, we therefore request that (a) bonus should be negotiable (b) it should be up to a limit of one month, and (c) anything more than that should be by mutual consent between the employer and employees. It is quite natural that the workers will definitely know how to save any surplus money after incurring various expenses. Unless they get their annual bonus, their chances of saving money are almost negligible. Question put, and agreed to. Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill. Bill reported with amendments; read a Third time and passed. ARBITRATION (INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT DISPUTES) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 3.58 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it is intended that the Question, "That the clause stand part of the Bill," be negatived. The reason is that it is common practice that most employers in Singapore do pay an annual bonus. Therefore, it is excessively unfair to deprive the workers of their annual bonus, as it will not achieve the purpose of increasing productivity. Question put, and negatived. Clause 47 accordingly disagreed to. New Clause - "Payment 47.- (1) A contract of service of bonus. or collective agreement made after the date of the coming into operation of this Act between an employer and his employees or a trade union representing his employees may contain a provision for the payment of an amount not exceeding the equivalent of one month's wages of an employee as a bonus or ex-gratia payment. (2) Nothing in subsection (1) of this section shall be construed as preventing an employer at his discretion from paying as a bonus or ex-gratia payment an amount that exceeds the equivalent of one month's wages as an incentive to his employees, or any particular employee, to increase their or his productivity or as a reward for their or his services, as the case may be. (3) This section shall not apply to the Government or any statutory body or employees thereof.". - [Mr Seah Mui Kok]. Brought up, and read the First time.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 22, line 36, to leave out "seven" and insert "five". Mr Speaker, Sir, it is common practice that most employers in Singapore pay retirement benefits when an employee has completed five years' service. Therefore, it is quite logical that my amendment should be accepted by the Government so that retirement benefits will be paid when an employee has completed five years' service. Amendment agreed to. Clause 46, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 47 - Question proposed, "That clause 47 stand part of the Bill."”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 21, line 42, to leave out "fourteen" and insert "forty-six". This second amendment is just to regularise the provision. The purpose of my amendment is that if a person is paid sick leave for 14 days, it is quite natural that the remaining number of days should be 46. So the total for the paid sick leave will be 14 days' sick leave and 46 days for hospitalisation, making a total of 60 days. Amendment agreed to. Clause 44, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 46 -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 21, line 37, to leave out "twenty-eight" and insert "sixty". Mr Speaker, Sir, as we have already said in this House at the last sitting, I move this amendment for the simple reason that 28 days for sick leave, including hospitalisation, is rather inadequate. I am quite sure that persons admitted to hospital must be suffering from serious illnesses, otherwise they will not be admitted. In order to assist a patient to regain his health so that he can carry on with his work efficiently. It is necessary that the period of sick leave, including hospitalisation, should be 60 days instead of 28 days only. Amendment agreed to.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it is intended that the Question, "That the clause stand part of the Bill", be negatived for the reasons given in the last sitting. I do not like to waste the time of Members of this House. I would just say that this clause should be deleted in fairness to people who reach the age of 55. They are human beings. They have family responsibilities. Therefore, they should be given the chance to carry on working, if they are capable.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would still like to make a special appeal to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Labour. Although he has already decided on his stand, we, the workers of Singapore, sincerely hope that the time will come when there will be a relaxation of this clause.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully support the views expressed by my colleague, the hon. Member for Telok Blangah.”
“In our representations to the Government, we have made it very clear that we subscribe, on the ground of social justice, to their idea that bonus be tied to profits and productivity where this is indeed possible. But, for practical reasons, and to avoid indiscriminate and arbitrary demand of bonus payment by the workers, the Government has declined to accept that proposition. The solution is certainly not to remove the item from the ambit of negotiability altogether. Indeed, we have thought of a formula that will cause the minimum of hardship both to the employer and to the workmen. Since bonus is the key to productivity the achievement of which is an important national purpose, we suggest that a legislative maximum be fixed for bonus as a negotiable issue, leaving the payment of the quantum over and above this maximum to the goodwill of the employers based on profits, productivity and incentive schemes. Madam Chan Choy Siong(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have some doubts on the N.T.U.C.'s suggested amendment to the provision on bonus. Is there any difference between the proposed amendment and the original provision in the Bill? It appears that there is not much difference between the two; to me, they are just the same. According to the suggestion of the Member for Bukit Ho Swee, the trade unions will negotiate with the employers on the payment of bonus but, ultimately, the employers will have the right to decide whether or not to give a bonus. I feel there is not much difference between the original provision in the Bill and the proposed amendment.”
“It is, in fact, part of a worker's take-home pay which the employer should not be allowed to vary at will. Besides with the 1960 Price Index as a basis, the Monthly Digest of Statistics now shows that in 1968 the overall increase in the prices of essential food items is 13.5 per cent. The breakdown percentage increase of the bare essentials to feed a family shows that vegetables have gone up by 16 per cent in price, fish has gone up by 25 per cent, and rice, a staple commodity, has soared by a 31 per cent increase. If bonus as a deferred wage is made non-negotiable, how else can a worker ask for adjustment in wages to cope with the increase in the cost of living over the years without upsetting agreed salary structures? If bonus is not to be made negotiable, should it not in the circumstances, at least, be incorporated into a worker's wages? Even the Government, as the largest employer, has a cost of living allowance, ranging from between 25 and 35 per cent, thus increasing the quantum of take-home pay as opposed to basic salary. So far, our experience in collective bargaining with the employers has shown that managements' decisions on wages or wage scales are made in terms of total wage costs which include, among other things, bonus. The other view on this matter is bonus as an incentive to higher productivity by workers. In return for this higher productivity, they are given a share in the profits. Indeed, the trend in Singapore over the last few years has been towards the emergence of a pattern consistent with this proposition of an equitable share in the profits of the undertaking.”
“Sir, in addition to what I have already said earlier, I would like to say that clause 47 is a provision dealing with the payment of bonus. The clause, as it stands in the Bill, prohibits agreement on bonus payment in collective agreements though it makes it permissive for an employer to grant a bonus or an ex-gratia payment commensurate with the employer's profits as an incentive to an employee to increase productivity. We in the trade union movement, representing a class of employees whose contracts of employment include receipt of a bonus or an ex-gratia payment from the employer, oppose the provision removing the payment of bonus from the purview of negotiability. Bonus has become an entrenched feature of the salary or wage structure of the employees in the commercial sector in Singapore. It has been made payable in the private sector not only to those who come within the definition of "workman" but also to those who are categorised as executives. Though peculiar to this part of the world, bonus, described as deferred payment of wages or as an incentive payment related to profits, is in our view necessary in private or commercial undertakings. If this is indeed the case, there is every justification to say that bonus serves as an incentive to higher productivity which, in reality, would mean higher profits for the employers and overall economic growth for the nation. The general wage level in the private sector in most cases is lower than that in the public sector. This, coupled with a high dependency ratio of population which is 1: 3, i.e, one worker has, besides himself, to support three dependants, the payment of bonus is far from being a mere ex-gratia concept.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, before the Minister moves that further consideration of the clause be postponed, may I be allowed to proceed further to give more arguments in support of what I have said earlier?”
“Sir, I object to the clause remaining as it is, because it is a well-known fact that bonus is a matter that has been negotiated between employers and employees. Taking away the opportunity of the workers to negotiate with the employers on the bonus issue, I think, is most unfair and cannot be accepted by the workers in Singapore, for the simple reason that the payment of bonus is a traditional practice. Most employers are quite willing to pay an annual bonus. Therefore, I proposed that the clause as it stands should be deleted.”
“Sir, in order to enable further consideration of this clause to be postponed, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment but reserve my right to move the amendment when the clause comes up again for consideration. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Resolved, "That further consideration of clause 46 be postponed to the first available sitting after 25th July, 1968." - [Mr Rajaratnam]. Consideration of clause 46 postponed. Clause 47 - Question proposed, "That clause 47 stand part of the Bill."”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 22, line 36, to leave out "seven" and insert "five". Clause 46 of the Bill states that retirement benefits arc confined to employees who have been in continuous service with the same employer for seven years and more. We feel that this period of time is too long, particularly in view of the fact that employees in the private sector without the benefit of a collective agreement get nothing more than the paltry sums saved up through contributions to the Central Provident Fund. No doubt the Provident Fund benefits are to be increased by the introduction of the Central Provident Fund (Amendment) Bill. Even then, it is felt that the sum payable under the C.P.F. on cessation of service is inadequate to sustain an employee after his retirement. Therefore, a reduction in the period by which an employee becomes eligible for retirement benefit would necessarily increase the quantum by a small margin. I would urge the Government to give due consideration to our views on the matter and reduce the period to five years.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in order to enable further consideration of this clause to be postponed, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment but reserve my right to move the amendments when the clause comes up again for consideration. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Resolved, "That further consideration of clause 44 be postponed to the first available sitting after 25th July, 1968." -- [Mr Rajaratnam]. Consideration of clause 44 postponed. Clause 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 46 -”
“Sir, this will, of course, include consideration on amendment No. (2) of clause 44 - in page 21, line 42, to leave out "fourteen" and insert "forty-six" - so that it will be complete.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 21, line 37, to leave out "twenty-eight" and insert "sixty". Sir, clause 44 (1) (b) curtails the entitlement of paid sick leave of a worker to 28 days in each year in cases where hospitalisation is necessary. Once again, I must draw the attention of this House to the undesirability of this particular provision. Hospitalisation in the event of illness is not a fringe benefit but a necessity for the proper care of a worker's health. The need to be hospitalised is never at any stage determinable by the worker concerned, but by a competent medical authority appointed by the Government of Singapore. Besides, as my various colleagues in this House have rightly pointed out, the accommodation facilities in hospitals in Singapore are such that only the seriously ill cases are admitted. The length of stay in the hospital also depends on the seriousness of the illness. If any provision in this Bill can be described as harsh beyond imagination, I, for one, would say that it is this particular provision. Even in freely negotiated agreements, I have not come across any employer, whether enlightened or unenlightened, foreign or local, who has objected to a longer period of hospitalisation leave. Therefore, I urge the Government to give the most serious consideration to the objections raised against the retention of this provision in the Bill.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the deletion of this clause. With due respect to the explanation given earlier by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Labour, I still consider it necessary to delete this clause. After all, employers are intelligent enough and it is up to them to decide whether to continue employing employees who reach the age of 55. If an employee reaches the age of 55 and is of no use to the employer, I doubt whether the employer would continue to engage him. Clause 15 of the Bill is a new provision and did not exist in any of the former three Ordinances which this Bill consolidates. If this clause is allowed to remain in the Bill, its effect will be to enforce compulsory retirement of persons at the age of 55. Sir, the ill effects of this provision have been severely criticised by most Members of the House. Whilst I concede that most of the collective agreements existing today contain provisions to retire employees at the age of 55, I feel that legislative powers to achieve the same purpose will put fetters on both employer and employee where it is mutually agreed that the worker concerned should, at the request of the employer, continue to render his services for any special reason. I understand that in Singapore a man's economically active life stretches well into the seventies. Therefore, it is extremely unwise to introduce compulsory legislative measures to see a man out of job at the age of 55.”
“In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, I consider it very necessary that before the passing of this Employment Bill, the Government must give an assurance to the N.T.U.C. and the workers in Singapore that it will review the Bill whenever it is necessary and when further representation is made by us should there be abuses or exploitation by the employers. On our part, we will give our full co-operation to achieve the objective which will be beneficial to the Government, employers and workers. 3.05 p.m.”
“Workers, especially in established firms, must be allowed to enjoy all the benefits which they have obtained by negotiation. The best way to achieve increased productivity is to see that workers are well treated, happy and contented in their work and to reward them with a productivity bonus. Sir, several speakers have already expressed their criticisms and views and made suggestions on the Employment Bill, and in this debate I have observed the following: (1) All agree that we are going to face a lot of problems and difficulties in the coming crucial years. (2) All agree that with the complete withdrawal of the British forces in mid-1971, the problems will become more acute and serious. (3) All agree that plans must be made now to solve these problems. (4) All agree that the Government, employers and workers must help to create a good climate to attract more investors to build more factories in Singapore. (5) All agree that the objective of the Employment Bill is to attract more investors to create more job opportunities and increase productivity. (6) All agree that some amendments to the Employment Bill are necessary. (7) All agree that employers must not make use of this Bill as a legal licence to abuse and to retrench workers under false pretences. (8) All agree that the Government, employers and workers must co-operate to achieve the objective of the Employment Bill. The N.T.U.C. has studied the Bill and I am directed to move the deletion of clause 15 on the employment of a person after the age of 55 years, and amendments to the following clauses: clause 44 on sick leave; clause 46 on retrenchment benefit; clause 47 on payment of bonus; and clause 53 on offences. During the Committee stage, when moving these amendments, I shall give my reasons for doing so.”
“With so many extra hours available for the employers, they may reorganise their company and reduce the number of workers by retrenchment under various pretexts. However, a representative of the Employers' Federation did mention in the Press that employers would respond positively to Government's efforts to generate more jobs and that the Employers' Federation would see that no employer would take advantage of the new provisions in the Employment Bill. We sincerely hope that the Employers' Federation would keep their promise. The N.T.U.C. and the workers in Singapore are fully aware of the coming crucial years and the great task and difficulties we have to face. We have about 70,000 registered unemployed and every year 25,000 school-leavers are seeking jobs. With the final withdrawal of the British military forces in mid-1971, another 30,000 workers will lose their jobs and indirectly thousands of others will be affected, like shop-keepers, amahs, taxi drivers, etc. In addition to that, the Government has to spend millions of dollars on military equipment to build up our national defence so as to preserve our independence. This expenditure is necessary. In view of these circumstances, it is necessary that workers should co-operate with the Government to find ways and means to attract foreign investors to build more factories here so that more jobs will be available. It is necessary for workers to work harder and make some temporary sacrifices, as a result of the enactment of the Employment Bill into law, for the sake of national survival and economic stability. Employers, too, must come forward and give their co-operation by not taking advantage of the provisions of the new Bill. They must expand their business and engage more workers.”
“Minister for Culture's observation of how workers are demanding work on Sundays and public holidays, and go to sleep on Mondays and Tuesdays, is utterly irrelevant and highly objectionable, to say the least. If he is referring to Government or statutory board workers going to sleep on Mondays and Tuesdays, he has only himself to blame for not providing adequate supervision to see that they do not shirk their duties. How on earth can the Minister, who has had dealings with the labour movement in Singapore for so many years, make ill-founded statements like that is beyond our comprehension. On medical leave the Minister refers to $2 medical certificates of dubious validity. If this practice is indeed widespread, what has he done to the doctors who, in the first place, issue these so-called dubious certificates? We in the trade union movement do not quarrel with the maximum of 14 days' intermittent sick leave as provided for in clause 44 (1) (a) . But we have pointed out the gross inadequacy of 28 days' hospitalisation leave. Why has the Minister for Culture neatly side-stepped that issue? We would like to ask him about it. The unions, through many years of struggle, have managed to obtain various fringe benefits and now they are requested to sacrifice several of them. The workers naturally prefer to retain all the benefits they are enjoying. It is ridiculous to deprive them of their annual bonus which has been a practice in Singapore for so many years. Depriving them of their annual bonus will never help to increase productivity. We are quite concerned that the employer may take advantage of this Bill especially to increase the working hours from 39 to 44 per week.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we understand that the new Employment Bill is introduced by the Government in order to achieve increased productivity, to attract new investors and to create more jobs for the unemployed and the school-leavers. The Employment Bill increases the working hours from 39 to 44 per week for the non-industrial white-collar workers, reduces the number of public holidays to 11 days, and makes bonus not negotiable. It may be noticed that a few of us in this House who are closely connected with the trade union movement in Singapore have deliberately refrained from sloganising or uttering platitudes in advancing constructive criticisms on certain provisions of this Employment Bill. On the other hand, it has been the Hon. Minister for Culture's role to sloganise against the organised workers and the trade union movement in Singapore. It is a fallacy on his part to think that before we advance arguments against an encroachment of certain well-defined principles, we must go and unionise everyone in Singapore. A trade union cannot be judged in this way by its numerical strength. A trade union movement, worthy of its name, must be judged by the responsible manner in which it puts forth its views. Never has it been suggested by any one of my colleagues from the trade union movement in the course of this debate that the employers, or better still, the foreign investors, should make one-way traffic sacrifices merely for our benefit. On the other hand, we have put forth closely reasoned arguments only on the undesirability of certain provisions of the Bill, while accepting the tenor and purpose of the Bill as a whole. Therefore, the Hon.”
“I think it is known throughout the world that Singapore is the best place for investment due to its good and incorruptible government. There is political and economic stability. There are intelligent and sensible trade union leaders. There are facilities available, such as shipping, banking, insurance, communications, etc. Such facilities, to a certain extent, will attract foreign investors to Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to conclude by giving the assurance that the workers in Singapore will fully co-operate with the employers and the Government to build a happy and prosperous Singapore. The people of Singapore have the will, determination and capacity to succeed in spite of whatever difficulties that may arise. We are sure that we will be able to succeed. Mr P. Govindaswamy (Anson) rose -”
“I hope that this kind of training can be extended to a selected number of unemployed people, because a good number of them are still unable to get jobs, although they have registered their names in the Labour Exchange for years. In giving them a chance to join the training programmes, a person registered as a clerk may perhaps be able to be trained as a technician and get a job as such. We now come to the question of fringe benefits. For a number of years, union leaders have struggled for and managed to get whatever fringe benefits we now have. With the coming of the new Employment Bill, we hope that there is a possibility of leaving as they are whatever agreements there are between employers and employees if there is mutual agreement on both sides. It is painful that after struggling for so many years we have to sacrifice many of the fringe benefits. I would like to say that it is most welcome to know that the Government intends to encourage workers to own their own homes. In view of the increase in contributions to the Central Provident Fund, I hope that most of the workers in Singapore will take this opportunity to own their own homes. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have been told by the Prime Minister that we have to establish a very good industrial climate in Singapore to attract foreign investors to establish their business here so that more people will get jobs and our industrialisation programme will be more successful. Of course, the new Employment Bill will be passed in due course subject to discussions between employers, employees and the Government, and after hearing the views and recommendations of all parties concerned. With the passing of the new Employment Bill, we hope that more foreign investors will come here and engage workers in Singapore.”
“I hope that, with the workers agreeing to the increase in working hours, employers will not take advantage by retrenching employees, because in every company, there is a limited number of workers and some employers may take advantage of the new situation. With regard to increase in productivity, it is not merely a question of increasing the working hours. There are other necessary factors to achieve increased productivity. For example, there must be good industrial relationship between employers and employees, good wages and conditions of employment, good management, personnel and efficient supervisors. One of the best ways to achieve increased productivity is to give certain incentives to workers, like incentive bonuses. In the last few years of the N.T.U.C, leadership, industrial relationship between workers and employers has been very good. There are more enlightened, intelligent and responsible trade union leaders who are able to settle industrial disputes and negotiate for good collective agreements by knowing the capacity of the employers to pay. The old techniques of slogan-shouting and wild-cat strikes are now out of date and not practised by enlightened trade union leaders. The workers fully support regulation of overtime because it is not good for some workers to score so much in over-time while there are many people who are unemployed. So I sincerely hope that by regulating overtime, employers will be able to engage more workers so that there will be less people unemployed in Singapore. We now have a scheme to train workers in all the services in view of the withdrawal of the British military forces.”
“Industrial relationship between workers and employers has been very good and we are determined that this good industrial relationship should carry on so that it will be beneficial not only to the workers but to the employers as well. Sir, we appreciate the importance of greater economic growth, higher productivity, elimination of restrictive practices and abuses of fringe benefits and more efficient management. We agree that, in the national interest, the workers should sacrifice as much as possible. Also, we expect the employers to make sacrifices as well. The N.T.U.C., at its last Annual Delegates' Conference on the 7th of April this year, unanimously passed a resolution to give our full co-operation to the Government. In other words, we are very sincere and we openly agree to co-operate with the Government, especially with the coming of this new Employment Bill. But we are surprised that at this very moment the employers' side is still keeping very quiet. We hope they, the employers, will be able to come out with a public statement that they will co-operate fully with the workers as well as with the Government. I think it is a well-known fact that the abuse of fringe benefits, or whatever they may be, lies not only on the side of the workers. Employers also abuse the fringe benefits. In other words, not all employers are saints and not all workers are angels. Just because of a small percentage of workers who deliberately abuse the fringe benefits, I hope this new Employment Bill will not be taken as a punishment to the rest of the good workers. I sincerely hope that the increase in working hours to a standard 44 hours per week, will help employers increase productivity and at the same time enable them to engage more workers.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the workers of Singapore are fully aware of the crucial years that are coming ahead. There will be a lot of problems to be solved. We are confident that the workers will be able to face these problems and to co-operate with the employers and the Government to solve them. Everyone is aware that the British Government will be withdrawing their military forces from the Singapore Base by the end of 1971, thereby causing a lot of unemployment. About 30,000 of the workers there will lose their jobs. In addition to that, thousands of our young school-leavers are still seeking jobs. In other words, the unemployment problem will be more acute and more complicated, and unless the workers, the employers and the Government co-operate with each other, it will be very difficult to solve this problem. In view of all these difficulties and problems that are coming ahead, the Government is introducing a comprehensive Employment Bill. Of course, the object of this Bill is to standardise and regulate the terms and conditions of employment of all employees, to standardise working hours of 44 hours per week for all employees, to regulate overtime work, to enable a wider spread of employment, to limit certain fringe benefits, to lessen abuses, increase productivity and promote more industrial growth. All these objectives are quite acceptable. What we hope, before the Bill is passed, is that representations from the workers' side will be seriously considered and accepted so that no one side will be favoured. The workers in Singapore have, during the past few years, been very co-operative with the Government.”