Sia Khoon Seong
Singapore
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Code LD 1500 of the Main Estimates. Earlier, I stated that the morale of the teachers is dependent on their conditions of work.”
“For one thing it must be clear to the parents that the Day School is not just another name for a day care centre. Neither does the Day School scheme diminish parental role and responsibility in the moral upbringing of their children. Children can and will do just so much during school hours.”
“I must urge the Ministry of Education to allow as many serving non-graduate teachers as possible, who have the ability and qualifications, to join the degree programme and attain graduate status. Those who have proven their worth in the service more than deserve the opportunity to further themselves.”
“I have not finished. Of course, the underlying reasons for the teaching of Religious Knowledge are always valid since time immemorial - to teach man to be good. After all, our moral education basically wants to achieve that. Since 1959, not just 1982, the underlying reasons for moral education have always been the same.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to ask the Minister of State, is it not true that prior to 1982 Religious Knowledge was also an optional subject? Prior to 1982, all along Religious Knowledge was taught as an optional subject. In 1989, we are going back to pre-1982. The mistake in 1982 was to make RK compulsory.”
“With the introduction of caning for traffickers and employers who employ illegal immigrant workers, I am quite sure it will act as a strong deterrent to them from doing so. With the passing of this Bill, employers and traffickers will now find it not worth the while to take risk in employing foreign workers illegally.”
The complete record
Every one of 624 lines we hold for Sia Khoon Seong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 13 of 13.
“It is not so much the size or the number of classes as the nature of the responsibility that is the problem. The educational system i'n the Chinese stream is different from that in the English stream. As a result, the timetables for the two different streams of education, with all the attendant problems arising from integration, have to be fitted in. In addition to integration, we now have the multi- purpose school, which is a sort of comprehensive school. If you talk about comprehensive education in England, and compare it with the type of schools that we have, the strength of their staff would be two or three times greater than that of our schools. As the Minister for Finance has said, Singapore is an island of 224 square miles at low tide. We are short of land. Therefore, school buildings have to go upwards. I believe that in some of the schools in Singapore they have as many as 48 classrooms in one school. There is no playing field. These are some of the problems which have come within the responsibility and duties of principals in the past few years. I also mentioned yesterday the lack of co-operation on the part of parents. Not only do they not show any special interest in their children's welfare in education, but sometimes they even obstruct the principals and teachers in the performance of their duties. One very common occurrence these days is for the children to complain to their parents on the slightest excuse. These complaints are readily accepted, and at one time almost welcomed, by the Ministry of Education and an immediate investigation would then be carried out. The poor principals and teachers would have to answer all these complaints. These are the types of problems which principals and teachers have to worry about and attend to.”
“In Singapore it is quite difficult for teachers to get this sort of leave, more so for principals. At present, the principals are less fortunate than the teachers. Although teachers are supposed to get a three-term holiday, they are expected to go to school and do a lot of things. But principals have got to be in school even during the holidays to carry out their duties. The question of leave for principals has never been settled. I am not here to raise the question of the conditions of service of teachers. I just want to point out to the Member for Serangoon Gardens this one obstacle which principals will have to encounter before they can carry out his suggestion. We have also to understand that the nature of the duties and the type of responsibilities of the principals have considerably increased since the last decade. As the Member for Telok Blangah has pointed out, a principal now has to look after two schools. Due to the shortage of school buildings, two schools are being run under one building. Now very conveniently the Ministry has called them two sessions of one school~ But when we compare the structure of the schools in our neighbour, Malaysia, with our own, we are in fact having two schools in one school building. The principal's responsibility is to look after these two schools. This is one additional responsibility which he has had to undertake since the last decade. As I said yesterday, we have made significant and impressive progress in our educational development. We have introduced integrated schools. At one time principals had to look after only one stream of education. Now they have to look after two or even sometimes three streams of education.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Serangoon Gardens brought up the question of getting the principals to make a greater contribution towards their professional work in education. I agree with him in principle that this suggestion is highly desirable. But my fear was well founded, as has been proved just now by the Minister's reply. The Minister said that he readily agreed to such a suggestion and that he would follow it up. However, at this juncture the principals will be asked again to do something which I think is quite beyond them. I may have to repeat what I said yesterday about the question of over-loading principals and teachers with unprofessional duties with the result that they are unable to contribute very significantly to their professional work. On the question of principals making a contribution towards educational matters, I do not want to sound too professional here. But I would like to quote just one example of teachers in other countries. In America, for example, after a number of years of service, teachers are given six months' full-pay, what they call Sabbatical leave. The purpose is to enable them to go to other countries and study for themselves the educational system there and also do some research work. I am not making a comparison and saying that we should do likewise. The point I want to stress is this. For professional people to be able to make a substantial contribution to their professional work, the one essential element is the time factor. There should be opportunities for these people to have the time to study and do research work. In the case of teachers, they should also be given time to travel and see things for themselves and make comparisons with different educational systems. Of course, I think the Minister knows the answer.”
“Sir, I did not blame the Ministry for harping on it. I was just commenting on the criticisms that were being levelled at the teachers from within and without this House. I know the Ministry cannot blame the teachers because the Ministry has got to blame itself. I do not hold the Ministry responsible for this. In fact, we are in the same boat. We have to defend ourselves against the unfair criticisms both from within and without this House.”
“There are also the other hours where the children are at home and it is the parent's concern to teach their children moral and social values. Therefore, the parents' role is as essential as, if not more essential than, the role of teachers. Much as we blame the teaching profession for some shortcomings, there are certain parents who should also be blamed, for the only concern they show for their children's education is whether they can pass the Primary School Leaving Examination and whether or not they should employ private tutors to give them additional tuition. The vast majority of parents, cannot afford to engage private tutors. They probably have their citizenship or other problems to worry about.”
“I was wondering how the principals of these 200 schools would be able to find 3,000 persons - there are 15 members in one advisory committee - within one month to serve on them. The main function of the committee is to contribute and raise money, and another function is to look after the interests of the schools. The task of the principals to get this number of persons within one month is beyond most of them. In the first place, how do we suddenly find 3,000 citizens within one month or six months, who are civic- minded and with the interest of education at heart, to serve on the advisory committees and to raise and contribute money? The result is that if the principals do not form the committees in time, the blame will be put on them because they are not up to the mark. These are some of the problems that I am able to list for the moment. I can go on listing other problems which the principals and teachers have to face. It is true that there are bad principals, and bad teachers, but this fact must be, looked at against the perspective of the vast majority of teachers who are willing to play their role. I will not say that the vast majority of the teachers are truly dedicated. There are also those who, though not that dedicated,. are willing to rise to the occasion and play their role effectively. My point is that we will not get this response from the teaching profession if we continue to criticise the failings of a few and let these criticisms dominate everything, while we forget the good which the teaching profession has done. It must also be recognised that how well our young citizens will shape up does not depend only on our teachers alone. I think the teachers spend about five hours with their students and perhaps one or two hours during extramural activities.”
“Teachers are also human beings and they can only take up the load to a certain extent, not more than that. The Member for Serangoon Gardens has mentioned a few examples of the non-professional work that principals and teachers are asked to do. One of them is the filling of survey forms and all kinds of returns. This work is not done during free periods but during teaching hours, and therefore lessons must necessarily be interrupted. Principals are sometimes asked to act as audit clerks. I realise this is not entirely the fault of the Ministry of Education, because they have their limitations and, with a standstill budget, they cannot employ additional clerks. But the blame should not be on the principals and teachers. When they are not proficient in their professional work, it is because they are given this additional load of unprofessional work. The Ministry of Education has recently come out with the idea of forming advisory committees in schools. I think this is a very splendid idea, because schools should be allowed to use their initiative to get additional finance in order to increase their efforts in promoting extramural activities and equipping their libraries and so forth. Unfortunately, a sound idea is sometimes badly carried out. Principals of all Government schools - the aided schools already have their management committees comprising civic-minded citizens who have the interest of education at heart - are asked to form advisory committees. To make it easy for Members to follow me, I will take 200 schools as the number. Each advisory committee will comprise 15 members and the principals are asked, in the first instance, to set up their advisory committees within one month.”
“A demoralised teaching profession will not be able to play the role that we expect of them and, in Singapore, we sometimes expect the moon. I will give a few examples of the contributions that the teachers have made in response to the call of nation building. Some time in 1960, the Government wanted to introduce Malay as the National Language and bilingualism and trilingualism in schools. Many of the teachers were not able to speak Malay at that time, and when asked to attend the Teachers' Training College in order to acquire a knowledge of Malay at Standard I and II level, the response was so tremendous that even the Teachers' Training College and the Ministry of Education were not able to organise enough classes for them. This situation would not have arisen if the teachers had not risen to the occasion. We have recently heard of the slogan of building a rugged society. The number of extramural activities going on in the schools nowadays sometimes frightens the parents. They complain that their children have no time for their studies. We have observed the results of these extramural activities in the performance of the students during the Youth Rally and the Festival of Drama and Music. Over and above all this, the teachers are asked to do unprofessional work. The Member for Serangoon Gardens has underlined a very important point which we have to remember, and that is, we have to recognise teaching as a profession. If the teachers are to achieve professional standards in their teaching, certain duties which are non-professional should not be added to their load of professional duties. Common sense tells us that if you have that situation, then the efforts of the teachers in the field of professional work will be diluted.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the development of education in Singapore in quantitative and qualitative terms has been impressive and signi ficant. But, unfortunately, the people of Singapore have not noticed it. Educationists who have come to Singapore and seen how the education system works have often marvelled at some of our achievements. Take, for example, integration, bilingualism and trilingualism in our schools. These are aspects of our educational achievements which have impressed many of the foreign educationists. They have also been impressed by the fact that we are able to achieve all this within the short space of one decade or so. Those of us who were present at the Youth Festival this year and watched the performance of the youths at the youth rally and the Youth Festival of Drama and Music must admit that a great deal has been achieved in education. As I said, all these achievements have been conveniently forgotten by the people and also by some Members of this House. What stands out very clearly in their minds is the failings of teachers. There must always be black sheep in every profession. The headlines they make in the papers are very vivid in the minds of the people of Singapore. The people have not recognised the fact that these achievements and the development in education must necessarily bring about a lot of attendant problems which will only be solved with the passage of time. These problems are unavoidable and are sometimes due to the failings of certain teachers. 6.45p.m. If we keep on harping on all these failings and criticising these teachers both inside and outside this House, I think we will have a very demoralised teaching profession - not an inspired one.”
“Singapore will be made a laughing stock if it says that the criterion in judging whether a person qualifies for citizenship or not is the ability to contribute towards the economic well-being of the country. When we talk of citizenship, the first thing that it demands from the person is loyalty. I think the vast majority of those who seek citizenship today are loyal and have considered Singapore their home. It is a surprise to them that the Government does not grant them citizenship. Sir, it is in this respect that we ask the Government to be more humane in the application of this policy. II: is only rational that the Government should have a policy in the granting of citizenship in order not to aggravate the present problem that we have in terms of employment opportunities for citizens who are already flooding the unemploynlent market. It is well and good to have a policy like this. But, at the same time, it is important for the Government to consider other factors in respect of some of the residents who have been staying in Singapore for many, many years. There is also another category of people who were born in Singapore but, because of special circumstances, birth certificates were not obtained for them. Sir, I would like to ask the Government to consider these points in granting citizenship.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour has drawn the attention of the House to the statement made by the Minister himself on the Government's policy in granting citizenship. I have no quarrel with that policy, but my quarrel is with the application of the policy in respect of certain categories of people resident in Singapore applying for citizenship. The Member for Anson has outlined a number of categories. There are people who were born in Singapore but, at the time of registration, the parents were faced with certain difficulties to register the birth of their children. There is also a category of people who had resided in Singapore long before the talk of Singapore joining Malaysia. There are also other categories of residents applying for citizenship. The ordinary people who go about their daily lives having to worry about earning a living are the people who will become the victims of a policy that the Government has formulated in the granting of citizenship. The Government is not to be blamed, because it has to worry about its citizens. But my point is that there has got to be a certain degree of laxity in the application of this policy, because the ordinary people find it difficult to understand this contradiction in granting citizenship. People who come here and are able to invest $250,000 are granted citizenship without any difficulty. The qualification is that they can contribute to the economic well-being of the country. In which country has citizenship been granted on the basis that a person must he able to make an economic contribution to the country? I think the most important point that we must look for in granting citizenship is loyalty.”
“Nevertheless, such misunderstanding may persist and some employers may use it as a pretext for not giving to their employees more favourable terms and conditions of service in relation to the Employment Bill. We have accordingly sought to clarify these provisions so that it would not be an offence to grant more favourable terms and conditions of service. These, in brief, Mr Speaker, Sir, are some of the grounds for our proposed amendments to the Bill. My trade union colleagues in this House will be addressing you more fully on this subject. Before I conclude, I would like to mention in passing that all sections of the public service have helped to make Singapore what it is today, and no doubt they will play a vital and significant role in the difficult years ahead. They have grievances over conditions of service and salary structures in the public service, and these have been referred to the Salaries Commission which has considered them and has submitted its report to the Government. I hope the Government will table the report before this Parliament as soon as possible. 4.53 p.m.”
“One proposition is that an employer would not cut off his own nose to spite his own face by refusing to give incentive payments to his workers. Our experience is that some employers would go to extraordinary lengths to avoid giving workers their just dues. Another proposition is that productivity and profits can be easily and conveniently measured or determined. Our understanding is that these two subjects form areas of much controversy. I share the view, therefore, that bonus should be made a negotiable issue up to a maximum of one month's salary of an employee and that any bonus over the amount of one month's salary is to be payable at the discretion of an employer on the basis of incentive or a reward for the employee. By allowing bonus to be negotiated on the present basis between the employer and a trade union subject to the maximum of one month's salary, the necessity and difficulty of determining what is productivity and what are profits are obviated. This will help to minimise industrial friction arising out of the question of bonus. Clause 53 of the Bill re-enacts the existing provisions in the Clerks Employment Ordinance, the Labour Ordinance and the Shop Assistants Employment Ordinance. As the provisions of clause 53 now stand, there is some confusion as to the effect of this clause. The confusion arises mainly out of a misinterpretation of Government statements on the Bill to the effect that the provisions of the Employment Bill are intended to place a maximum limit on the terms and conditions of service of workers in Singapore. This is shown to be erroneous when the Bill was read for the First time.”
“But we are of the view that 28 days a year is insufficient to provide for the hospitalisation of an employee. I am of the view that the maximum period for hospitalisation should be increased from 28 days to 60 days at least. Our consideration is that the stringent requirements for an employee to be granted sick leave for the purpose of hospitalisation leave no scope for any possible abuse and, secondly, medical science and technology have not advanced to a stage where an employee can be immune from being incapacitated for one or two months by a serious illness. Clause 46 of the Bill states that the qualifying period in respect of an employee's entitlement to any retirement benefit payable by his employee is seven years of continuous service with that employer. I share the view that the period should be reduced from seven to five years on the grounds that most collective agreements have provided that an employee is eligible for retirement benefit after five years of service. To extend such qualifying period is to impose unnecessary hardship on the workers who, unlike their counterparts in the civil service, do not have a pension to look forward to on their retirement. The retirement benefit, which is an ex-gratia payment for past services, serves as enforced savings for an employee's retirement. Clause 47 of the Bill makes bonus a non-negotiable issue between an employer and a trade union, and relates the payment of bonus to the productivity of performance of the workers. The weakness of such a provision is that it is not only impracticable but also unrealistic. It takes for granted, as proved to be true and correct, several propositions the soundness of which is highly questionable.”
“Judging from the healthy disposition of these two gentlemen and their mental agility, I would like to believe that they will be more than fit, both physically and mentally, to be with us in this House long after they reach the age of 55. With the passing of time, they will grow in wisdom, and with their additional years of valuable experience they will remain to help chart the course of the Republic's progress and destiny. In fact, we in the trade union movement look forward to many, many years of happy confrontation with the Minister for Labour over the labour problems that may arise when the Employment Bill and other new labour legislation come into force. It is not in the Republic's interest if men with skill and experience, just because they reach the age of 55, must retire when at this juncture of our national development we are looking towards our workers acquiring more skills and ability in order to make a success of our economic expansion. Clause 44 has been ostensibly worded to minimise abuses to the provision of sick leave by irresponsible workers. But it should be made clear to this House that any attempt to paint a picture of prevailing widespread practice among workers who use the sick leave provision as a means of getting extra paid leave is largely un-warranted. The small percentage of black-sheep amongst workers who behave irresponsibly in this manner must be viewed in the correct perspective of the large percentage of workers who are proud of their record of seldom being on sick leave. In any event, the restriction of sick leave without hospitalisation to a maximum of 14 days a year should satisfy any employer with an obsession that his employees on sick leave are not very sick.”
“It may not have occurred to the Government that, in forcing employees at the age of 55 to retire for the purpose presumably of making way for a corresponding number of young unemployed citizens, it may not achieve the desired effect of reducing the extent of unemployment, because the young unemployed citizens are not likely to possess the skills and experience of those forced to retire at 55 years. What will, in effect, be the result is that a different category of citizens will become unemployed, mainly those reaching the age of 55 in addition to the existing number of unemployed citizens. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask, is this not unnecessarily cruel? It is indeed pitiful that young citizens are unemployed, but they are usually without dependants and can perhaps scrape an existence from parents and relatives for a reasonable length of time. On the other hand, the old citizens are rendered unemployed because they have reached the age of 55. Those who are strong and able to work can perhaps make a significant and useful contribution to our national development. Moreover, they are likely to have dependants whose well-being and survival depend on their livelihood. What is this magic figure "55" that will determine that men will no longer become useful to society and must wither away from the scene of active life? Does it make sense to say that amongst us in this House the two most senior Cabinet Ministers in terms of age, namely, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Labour and the Minister for Defence, when they reach the age of 55 in a few years, will become decrepit and must leave their portfolios to younger men?”
“[Mr Speaker in the Chair] 4.38 p.m. Mr Speaker, Sir, in brief, this is the main consideration for the N.T.U.C.'s decision to propose amendments to the Employment Bill through the Member for Bukit Ho Swee, who is the Secretary-General of the N.T.U.C. Let me now, in a general way, point out the objections of the trade union movement to clauses 15, 43, 44, 46 and 53 of the Employment Bill which we think will not help in any way as it stands at present to give effect to the Government's objectives in introducing the Bill. Let me first take clause 15. It seeks to restrict the employment of persons after the age 55 years. It is true that clause 15 provides for approval by the Commissioner for Labour of the employment of persons after the age of 55 years. But does the Government really believe that many employers, even if they do not use the provision as a pretext of getting rid of long-service employees with their relatively higher wages, will bother entangling themselves with the unnecessary red tape of getting such approval? Such a provision, if allowed to stand, would in effect condemn a substantial number of workers, leading a hand-to-mouth existence with family obligations and without any life savings, to great hardships and perhaps, figuratively speaking, to a lingering death by starvation. I am sure that such horrible consequences cannot be the purpose of the Bill. Why then is clause 15 included in it? Is it to compel an employee to retire at the age of 55 so that he has to make way for a younger unemployed citizen?”
“Much as we in the trade union movement dislike the changes to be introduced into the labour legislation by the Employment Bill, we have to accept such changes as necessary and inevitable in the light of Singapore's economic circumstances. But it should be made emphatically clear that our acceptance of the underlying principles of the Bill does not mean that we unreservedly accept the manner in which such principles are translated into the actual provisions of the Bill. We do not expect the unpleasant policies of the Government as embodied in the Bill to be sugar-coated for our easier acceptance but, at the same time, we do not expect the Bill to be made unnecessarily bitter. The Employment Bill, as it stands, has certain deficiencies. It is feared that unscrupulous employers will take advantage of these deficiencies to cause unnecessary hardships and difficulties to the workers. It is our fear that once this Bill is passed as it stands it may run contrary to the desired objective of the Bill and, instead of giving solutions to our problems, would create additional problems such as widespread industrial unrest. While we may not have serious objections to prospective investors, particularly foreign investors, who seek to commit millions of dollars to new enterprises in the Republic, wishing to be assured of trouble-free labour relations and of the absence of any possibility of unnecessary prohibitive labour costs making their products uncompetitive in international markets, we must confess that we find it extremely alarming and disturbing that there are employers, particularly our citizen employers, in well-established firms and small business concerns who are thinking of taking advantage of the Employment Bill and treating it as a licence to exploit labour.”
“Sir, I rise to make certain observations on the Employment Bill. There will be difficult years ahead and the problems confronting Singapore are immense and call for drastic solutions. If, in the course of the next few years, Singapore does not make substantial and radical changes to her social and economic infrastructure, the present unemployment problem will grow to grotesque and unmanageable proportions, the consequences of which will be painful and disastrous for all persons who make Singapore their home. The trade union movement of Singapore is not blind and deaf to these wider problems of the Republic. Trade union members are fully aware that as citizens and permanent residents of Singapore they have their obligations to their fellow citizens, and that their fate is interwoven with the survival of Singapore as a political and economic entity. Any step taken by the Government as an emergency measure to meet the challenge posed by the difficult and crucial years ahead will have the co-operation and support of the trade union movement if it is convinced that such step will eventually help the Republic to survive as a political and economic entity and to bring progress and economic advancement to its two million citizens. The Employment Bill should be viewed in its proper perspective as one of the measures introduced by the Government to bring about a more favourable climate to attract massive foreign investment into the Republic in order to cushion off the expected economic impact of the complete British withdrawal by 1971, and to bring about an increasing number of job opportunities to overcome the growing unemployment problem.”
“Therefore, if these teachers are to be replaced, then some care must be taken to ensure that those who are unemployed will be adequately trained to take over the night classes. 5.47 p.m.”
“There must not be over-emphasis on the technical aspect of education without also the balance of the subjects on the humanities. In the Addendum, under "Ministry of Education" section (b) , mention is made of a concerted effort to produce effectively bilingual school-leavers. This is laudable and goes to show that language teaching cannot be isolated by itself but must form an integral part of education. Under section (c) it is mentioned that there will be "increasing emphasis on quality at all levels of education to make up shortcomings in the past necessitated by the unprecedented rate of expansion in the school system to provide a place for every child. Now that this quantitative target has been achieved, attention will be turned to qualitative improvement in such fields as curriculum reform, textbooks and teaching aids, teaching techniques, teacher training and re-training, examinations, health education, physical education, art and music, and all forms of extramural activities." All these, Mr Speaker, Sir, sound pious hopes to me. In order to have curriculum reform, changes in textbooks, improvement in the quality of teaching and so forth, careful research and adequate personnel are required. I hope that we will have the experts. We will spend enough time on research before changes are made on these very important aspects of education. The Member for Anson has said that teachers at present teaching adult education in night classes are depriving the unemployed of job opportunities. I want to state here that it is not easy to replace these teachers in night classes with those who are unemployed. The standard of adult education has got to be maintained.”
“Government must ensure that this does not happen. It will be good for Singapore if a situation can arise where management and labour can co-operate for mutual benefit. Government must ensure that nothing that it will do, especially in new legislation affecting labour, will harm the long-term interest of labour. This is only possible if the N.T.U.C. is consulted on all matters affecting labour. Coming to the changes in the education system in Singapore, I commend the Government for setting up a Cabinet Committee to supervise the planning and co-ordination of technical and vocational training on a national basis with the object of avoiding duplication of effort and ensuring that technical and vocational training would be keyed to manpower needs and employment opportunities. Not to set up this committee would be to miss the first essential step in the massive structural reorganisation of the educational structure. The Education Minister in his speech earlier has mentioned that machinery has been set up to swing into technical education. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education has also mentioned that a crash programme will be launched to train craft teachers. My question is, has care been taken before all this is launched? I hope that great care will be taken in the drawing up of the curriculum as well as the training of teachers. We must not produce, at the end of the technical and vocational training, human robots who will merely man our industries efficiently, but we must also produce citizens who are capable of feeling and understanding concepts and values like democracy and loyalty to Singapore and who are culturally equipped to be able to spend their leisure hours usefully.”
“I refer to those features pertaining to the introduction of comprehensive labour legislation and to the changes in the educational system. On the Government's introduction of the Employment Bill, the fears of labour have been adequately expressed by my N.T.U.C, colleagues in this Chamber. Any mention of the fears of labour on my part would be mere repetition. However, I would like to add that I recognise that for Singapore to prosper it must encourage and generate greater economic activity to sustain and to improve our industrial growth. I also recognise that to do this capital must be encouraged to remain in and flow into Singapore. This is only possible if the investment climate in Singapore is more favourable than that in other countries. In other words, there must be political stability, a good communications system, hard-working and efficient labour, an export market for goods that can compete in terms of quality and price with goods of other countries, and a host of other factors. Workers in Singapore will respond to the new challenges ahead by giving of their best, especially when they are made to feel that at the end of their efforts and sacrifices, the nation survives and prospers and they will be given a share of the prosperity, ownership of homes and the enjoyment of social facilities, such as free education, health and all the amenities of life. If it is for all these that workers in Singapore are expected to co-operate with the Government to ensure our survival and prosperity, then they will not be found wanting in their co-operation. But the Government must always bear in mind that the workers have legitimate fears that the proposed Employment Bill may have features that could lead to management abusing them.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, let me echo what has been so vigorously expressed currently both from within and from without this Chamber, that the years ahead for the people of Singapore as a result of the British withdrawal by 1971 are crucial in every aspect of life in the Republic. They are crucial for us in terms of national defence and security and in economic, political and social development. The sacred and trojan task before the Government in its present term of office is not only to win the support and co-operation of the people in a common effort to surmount the difficult defence and economic problems that will arise as a result of the pending British withdrawal, but also to lead the people of Singapore towards a national identity which is Singapore's own in form and content, and to move from a society of migrant people to a deep-rooted society, with a feeling of attachment to Singapore and a sense of national pride and purpose. In the difficult years ahead, while our attention will be focused on the problems and our minds will be diverted towards finding solutions to the problems, we must never lose sight of our national perspective and, in our eager and aggressive approach to solve our problems, find temporary solutions that would create other problems for ourselves. While I would say that the policy of the Government as outlined in the President's Speech and the Addendum to it is positive and imaginative, and inspires confidence and sparks off a radiant ray of hope in our people in the crucial years ahead, I must, at the same time, point out that certain features of the policy as outlined require re-thinking and care in their implementation.”