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 4 of 13.
“A review would enable this House to see if the original assumptions and basis of arriving at some of the recommendations, especially on streaming, are still valid and, if so, whether the manner in which the recommendations have been implemented needs adjustment. Sir, the Normal stream programme in the secondary schools is now in the second year. Are the official syllabuses for all the subjects in the Normal course readily available, assuming that there are official syllabuses? How different are these from the syllabuses for the Express stream? Are there sets of specially prepared textbooks available for the pupils? Or are these selected on an ad hoc basis? The programme prepares pupils for the CSE examination. Is a pre-tested sample for the CSE now available? In other words, if they want to prepare the students for the CSE examination next year, I think the teachers have to start working with the students, giving them sets of model questions and so on, so that they all can be prepared for this examination. Has the Ministry got a pre-tested sample available at this moment for all teachers to follow?”
“Consequently, it was expected that there would be a dramatic increment in the rate of percentage passes in comparison to that of previous years when all pupils were allowed to sit for the PSLE. This was unfortunately a pipe-dream. Let us look at the actual facts. The pass rate under the old system was about 82% in 1981. This result compares favourably with the 1982 result if you take into account the fact that the weaker pupils were not channelled into the Monolingual stream and practically all pupils were allowed to sit for the PSLE, Based on the 1982 PSLE results, streaming did not achieve the high rate of PSLE passes that was confidently predicted and expected. But streaming effectively barred those who were channelled into the monolingual course from sitting for the PSLE in 1982 as they would normally have done had it not been for streaming. It would seem that streaming only produced a marginal increase in the rate of PSLE passes despite the weeding out of supposedly weak pupils, The difference in performance between the cohort of 1981 under the old system and that of 1982 under the new system is only 5.6% increase. In 1981, it was 81.7%, 1982, 87.3%. Compare this with the more impressive difference in the PSLE results of 1979 and 1980, namely, 9.1% .In 1979, it was 74.2%, 1980, 83.3%. This is a 9.1% jump. These pupils took the examination before the introduction of the present form of lateral streaming. From this set of statistics I have just cited as well as for other reasons, is it not fair to suggest that a review of the Goh Report is both necessary and timely?”
“These high failure rates could be reduced if the education system is flexible enough to cater for the different categories of pupils.' The last sentence of the paragraph implies that when the NRES is implemented with lateral streaming at primary and secondary levels, the high failure rates could be reduced. Last year, the GCE 'O' level students who were taught under the old system scored 75% passes and 99% of them passed in at least one subject at 'O' level. If you compare the,1976 GCE 'O' level results with the 1982 'O' level results, you will notice that there is a marked improvement between the performance of pupils in 1976 and 1982 and yet the GCE candidates in both years were taught under the old system. What this seems to signify very graphically is that there are other more effective means of reducing the attrition rate in examinations than the mere application of the streaming method as recommended by the Goh Report. What the recommended streaming method really does is to eliminate the supposedly weak pupils through a vigorous obstacle course comprising such hurdles as the Primary 3 streaming exercise, the Primary 6 School Leaving Examination, the Secondary 1 streaming exercise and the CSE for Normal course students. Let us now look at last year's PSLE results. Percentage pass, 87%. The pupils were the products of the New Restructured Education System. In 1980, at a meeting with school principals, a Ministry official projected the percentage pass in 1982 for the first batch of students under the NRES to be 95%. This estimation was based on the statistics of previous PSLE results and it took into account the fact that the monolingual pupils would not be sitting for the examination.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LA-01 of the Main Estimates*. Sir, as I was saying just now, a veritable array of formidable mountain peaks now separate the school child from the desired goal. He has to cross over many perilous watersheds before he can even think of attempting the mountain at the end of the school course. Many who might have made their way up this mountain with some degree of success, given the right training and assistance, will have fallen by the wayside, victims of a terrain that tends to discourage rather than encourage the development of latent abilities. Eventually even subjects like Moral Education will become examinable. Are we not making the education system more competitive and fraught with unnecessary burdens for our children? Do we want a generation of future citizens troubled with a sense of early failure and of broken dreams of what might have been had they been given a fairer chance in school? The Goh Keng Swee Report, Chapter 4, para 2, under the heading "The Existing Education System" states: 'The 'single-curriculum' education system does not take into consideration differences in absorption capacities and rates of learning of the pupils. Although pupils may be streamed according to merit into different classes and schools, all are required to cover the same syllabus within the same period and to sit for the same examinations. This rigidity in the system tends to favour the above-average pupils, penalising the below-average pupils and the slow learners. This resulted in high failure rates. In 1976, 41% of the PSLE candidates and 40% of the GCE 'O' candidates failed.”
“I am withdrawing my amendment, Sir. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, before I withdraw my amendment, I just want to say that I have other amendments to move and I intend to carry the debate over to the other amendments. For the moment I will withdraw this amendment to allow you to provide tea time and to let off the heat. The Minister of State is a nice person. I am in full sympathy with him for policies which probably at one time he was not even a party to them.”
“Do you know that one more year in school, the social interactions, all your campaigns, despite what the Member for Whampoa has said, has got a tremendous effect on the children. In an atmosphere where other values are also being taught - loyalty, team spirit, moral values and all the things that we are trying to propagate - in the vital age of the child, at the age of 16 years, an impressionable age which I think is the best age during which we can hold them, you are doing everything possible to get rid of them. What kind of administration do you have in the Ministry of Education?”
“The point is, the public has been protesting. The teachers have been protesting. The system has been overburdened. The parents are becoming neurotic because they are anxious that their children would be dropped out in the process. The old system was already overburdened. The Goh Report recommended a new system. It is supposed to relieve, to make it easier, and to look after the slow learners, and I can quote chapters expressing such sentiments. What has happened to those sentiments? What is happening? Is it because the Ministry is run by men who are mesmerized by statistics, who get lost in the process and forget the most important human factor? What are we doing for education? If this Government does not give every young Singaporean the chance, a feeling that he has got the chance, an opportunity made as easy as possible without weakening standards so that he can attain the best grade possible and not a system which finds ways and means of making it more difficult, then I think this Government has breached its promise to the people. I do not believe the Government has flinched from this. It is not because I am a member of the Government that I am saying this to the Minister. It is because education is very important, and that is why we are so excited about starting the BEST programmes, and all kinds of programmes. Even to the worker, persuading him just to improve by one grade more than what he has attained is so important. To a 16-year-old boy probably, what is he going to do? He is too early to go for national service; too late to find a job because nobody wants to employ him. He may become a drug addict probably. One more year away from getting the 'O' level.”
“I dread the day when this is implemented as I think we are going to get a lot of members of the public coming to us and say, "Please get a place for my child." The Minister of State says that just because a child has failed the CSE, he cannot do the 'O' level. He is the Chairman of the VITB which took over the Adult Education Board. Why were we spending money on the adult education board? What was the adult education board for? It was for those who did not make it during school, was it not? How many of them have passed despite the fact that they are working? They work, they study, after having failed in school which is one extra handicap, yet they passed. Why is the Ministry not providing them with one extra year, which in the past has been provided to them, to study and obtain the 'O' level? Is this not their right? That is my question. I am not misleading the public when I say that every child should be given a chance to reach the 'O' level. I think that is the important difference. 5.30 p.m. The Minister of State talks about this poor 28%, that it is better to let them have the CSE. If he can persuade the 28% who dropped out in the process to take the CSE, that is fine. I am all for that. He says that those who would normally pass should pass the CSE. He is not quite aware of how examination can affect people. Examination is not a fool-proof system to test whether a person is capable or not. Sometimes even a person who has passed the 'O' level will probably fail the CSE if you make him sit the test. If he does not believe me, I am willing to get somebody to conduct some tests on, say, those who have passed B.A. (Hons.). If they were to take their B.A. degree again, they may fail. I think those who are involved in education know that there are many other factors.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Minister of State has not understood what I have said, that a child should be given the opportunity to reach the 'O' level. I am quite aware that not every child in Singapore can reach the 'O' level because there are so many bars - streaming at Primary 3, PSLE at Primary 6, and what have you. What I am saying is that a child has come a long way to reach Secondary 3. But the Minister of State says he cannot go on to 'O' level if he does not have three CSE passes with a maximum of eight points. That is my point. The point is if a child is able to reach Secondary 3, then I think he should be given a chance to go on to Secondary 4. I agree that not every child could be given a chance to go up to Secondary 4. Some will drop out in the process. That is correct. But the opportunity must be given. If he does not take advantage of the opportunity to meet the requirements of the system and gets out in the process, then he is out fairly and squarely. This is in the old system which is already a tough system. But the Ministry has now come out with another hurdle, the CSE level. One more hurdle to cross. This is the point - having cleared so many hurdles to reach Secondary 3 where, under the old system they were all allowed to proceed, the Minister of State now says that they cannot proceed to Secondary 4. As the Member for Ayer Rajah pointed out, in one of the reports, it is said that nearly 65% of the Normal course cohort at the CSE level would not be allowed to sit for the 'O' level examination. Does he know what is the number involved? How many children's lives are involved and their parent's lives are involved each year?”
“Sir, I do not want to be interrupted because I would lose my trend of thought. I did not interrupt him when he spoke.”
“For them, not being able to get a university education is already a disadvantage but the least they must have is an 'O' level. Why deprive them of the chance? If they cannot get it, that is bad luck. But why do you stream them? Why are you imposing an extra year? It is to help them. So why are you not giving them all the assistance to proceed? Dr Tay Eng Soon rose -”
“And when they reach the Secondary 3 level, they proceed to the Secondary 4 level. In the old system where they were burdened by the second language and all the other burdens, in four years they could still go to Secondary 4, sit for the GCE and get at least one or two 'O' level. 99% of them did that. But streaming, which is supposed to relieve them of this burden, instead of doing it in three years, the student is supposed to do it in four years. All those who were not fortunate enough, those 28% that he mentioned, dropped out. If, under this new system with an extra year, we are not able to help them reach Secondary 3 level where they have a fighting chance to go to the 'O' level, then what is the point of introducing this system and bring heartaches to all? Why bring in one extra year of education and causing a lot of dislocation to the whole education programme, and costing the Government more money? What is the whole objective of this new system? The whole objective is to make learning easier, facilitate learning, particularly for the slow learners. The Ministry of Education has got no right to advocate whether the child has the right to sit for the 'O' level or do not have the right to sit for the 'O' level. The 'O' level is important to every child, to every parent, and this is particularly so for those who are less fortunate, but not the professionals. The professionals, the high-fliers, the systems engineers - they have got very brilliant, very impressive academic qualifications. They look upon the 'O' level as nothing. But to those with a humble background, I think attaining the 'O' level is an achievement. It is an important achievement especially in a society which places so much importance on paper qualifications.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not at all satisfied with the Minister of State's reply. On the first question about a report being presented to Parliament, I think the answer he gave is rather feeble, about having an addendum. All Ministries put up their addenda. When we talk about a mid-term report, it is specific - a mid-term report on the Goh Keng Swee Report. Because the Goh Keng Swee Report makes very fundamental changes in the education system. And about all those reports he circulates among the Schools Council members, some of them are not easy to understand what it is all about. We want to know whether the Ministry has shifted from the basic changes. And when he presented the report to Parliament, it is not just for us to read when we have nothing to do at home. We want to debate it because we represent the people of Singapore, and if we are not satisfied with the manner in which the Ministry has implemented the report, we are going to say so. I think the Ministry has shifted from the basic policy of Government to give every child a chance to attain 'O' level, despite his protestations to the contrary. He said something to the effect that if the students fail the CSE they can still proceed to the 'O' level. Did he say something like that just now? He says that that is half the story. I know. But under the old system, when the students reach Secondary 3, they proceed to Secondary 4. Under this system, the Normal course that he has introduced, it is also natural that in the process, at Normal 1, Normal 2, Normal 3, there will be some dropouts. There will be a certain percentage of dropouts, leaving only a reduced percentage at the fourth year. But the point is they reached the Secondary 3 level.”
“He has to cross over many perilous watersheds before he can even think of attempting the mountain at the end of the school course.”
“The 1982 GCE 'O' level results indicated that 75% got three or more 'O' level passes and 99% got one or more 'O' level passes. These were the pupils who were under the old system where there was no weedingout at the CSE level. All those who made it to Secondary 3 proceeded to Secondary 4 and sat for the GCE 'O' level. The results showed that only 1% did not obtain any pass. The bottom 24% got at least one or two 'O' level passes, If the form of lateral streaming as recommended by the Goh Report had been implemented earlier, and all the 1982 GCE 'O' level pupils had been affected by the streaming and the need to pass the CSE examination with at least a pass at L1 and two other subjects, then the bottom 24% or so of the cohort would probably not have been able to get a pass in the L1 and two other passes at CSE level, and would therefore have been deprived of sitting for the GCE 'O' level. They would have had to be content with just only one or two passes at CSE level. Fortunately for them they have obtained at least one or two passes at GCE 'O' level, simply because they were allowed to sit for the GCE 'O' level. Which is better, one or two passes at GCE 'O' level, or one or two passes at "CSE" level? I think the majority would prefer the former rather than the latter. The CSE, as recommended by the Goh Report and implemented today, is now one more addition to the many obstacles that a child must surmount before he can even have a chance to sit for the GCE 'O' level. Our education system, instead of making it easier for every child, especially for the academically less inclined, now makes it even more difficult. A veritable array of formidable mountain peaks now separate him from the desired goal.”
“Here, they have got to go through a hurdle, and they will be eliminated if they do not get a pass in the First Language (L1) and two other passes with an aggregate of not more than 8 points. These excerpts suggest that there is a shift from the original intention of streaming at Secondary level. The guidelines indicate that some pupils will not be allowed to sit for GCE 'O' level if they do not pass L1 and two other subjects. Does this not impose additional strain and stress on pupils and increase the anxiety of parents? Previously all pupils could take the GCE 'O' level examination. Now a large percentage of the Secondary 1 pupils will have to surmount one additional hurdle, the CSE, before they are allowed to sit for the GCE 'O' level examination. In the process, many will be prevented from sitting for the GCE 'O' level simply because they do not pass L1 and o other subjects, with an aggregate of not more than 8 points. It does not necessarily follow that those who do not do well at the CSE level will also not do well at the GCE 'O' level. It is not as simple as all that. Various factors have to be taken into account. A student who does badly at the CSE examination may be jolted into putting in extra effort in the following year to prepare for the GCE 'O' level. Sometimes, a child's failure to do well in an examination may be due to emotional or other factors at the time of the examination and not because of any academic inability to cope with the examination. Whatever it is, every child will want an opportunity to attempt the GCE 'O' level especially when he or she has come this far in his or her school career. Every parent will want this for his or her child.”
“We suggest that the ordinary stream will lead first to the Certificate of Secondary Education (CSE) in four years. Pupils may take the GCE 'O' Level Examination in the fifth year, sitting for the same subjects for which they have performed well at the CSE examination. They may sit for as few as 3 subjects in any one examination. The CSE is recommended for three reasons: * to provide students who could not succeed at the GCE 'O' Level with a lower qualification, * to provide average and below average students guidance on the number and choice of subjects for GCE 'O' Level Examination, and * to provide the average and below average students exposure to a common examination in order to reduce examination shock at the GCE 'O' Level Examination a year later.' Sir, the essence of this is that there are two streams of students, the fast learners and the slow learners. You put the slow learners under a 5-year course, but they will all lead to GCE 'O' Level. Let me also quote certain relevant excerpts from the Principal's Handbook issued by MOE, August 1981, and NES(S) Supplementary Guidelines on Normal Course, October 1982. 'If they fail the CSE examination at the end of the 4th year, they are allowed to repeat it in the 5th year. For these pupils, the CSE will be terminal. Only the better pupils who perform well in the CSE will proceed to offer the GCE 'O' Level Examination a year later. The new criteria will be a pass in L1 and 2 other subjects. They must have an aggregate not exceeding 8 points for 3 subjects including at least a grade 3 in L1.' This is a departure from the recommendation because in the recommendation the essence of the recommendation is very clear. If you are a slow learner, you take five years to complete your 'O' Level, but you are allowed to sit.”
“It calls to mind those insurance policies we sometimes buy, simply because we are attracted by the more beneficial provisions printed in bold letters but do not take the trouble to scrutinize the small print qualifying the benefits. Sometimes even new clauses can be subsequently added to restrict the benefits further. 4.30 p.m. Four years have elapsed since the Goh Report was implemented and the so-called small print and subsequent clauses are beginning to be noticed. Let me come to one specific example. Let me quote chapter 6 of the Goh Report - 3.1.2d. 'Today, about 41% of the Primary 1 cohort would fail to obtain at least 3 GCE 'O' Level passes at the end of their secondary education. For these pupils who would definitely not go for GCE 'A' Level and university studies, it would be better for them to concentrate on the learning of languages rather than the studying of factual subjects (for example, Physical Sciences). We recommend that these pupils be channelled to an ordinary stream concentrating on English Language (EL1) and doing only a lower "second" language (L3). The standard of L3 will be lower than that of L2. The primary aim is to at least maintain the level of the second language they have learnt in the primary school (that is, they should be able to read local news and to write at least simple sentences in L3). In order to help these pupils obtain at least 3 GCE 'O' Level passes, we also recommend that: * the pupils be allowed to complete their secondary education at a slower pace (leading to the General Certificate of Education Examination in five instead of four years), and * the students be allowed to sit for fewer GCE 'O' Level subjects than those in the bilingual streams.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LA-01 Object Group 1100 of the Main Estimates.* Sir, the Goh Keng Swee Report was tabled in this House in March 1979 and, after a spirited debate, the House adopted the Report with the proviso that the Minister of Education reports to Parliament after two or three years on the progress, unresolved problems, and the state of implementation of the New Restructured Education System (NRES). As four years have passed since the Report was adopted, is it not overdue for the Ministry of Education to report to this House on the progress and problems it has faced in implementing the revised structure of education? Will we ever get a mid-term report on the implementation of the revised structure of education? If not, I would like to know the reason. If the answer is in the affirmative, may we know when such a report will be forthcoming? Has the Ministry completed monitoring progress in the implementation of the NRES? If so, is the Education Ministry as confident as it was in 1979, that some of the assumptions and bases on which the recommendations were made are still valid? Mr Speaker, Sir, it is no exaggeration to say that there is mounting public anxiety over the implementation of the Goh Report. There are several reasons for this. One reason is that when the Report was first published in 1979 with a fanfare of lavish praises and accolades bestowed on the Study Team which had impressive credentials, the public generally heaved a sigh of relief that, at long last, the Education Ministry was going to have its house put in order. People were carried away by the big headlines, the bold print and the persuasive language of the lead stories on the Report.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 6, lines 4 and 5, to leave out "by a trade union from its members for a specific purpose", and insert "for a specific purpose by a trade union from its members, which the members were liable to pay in accordance with its rules,". I do not need to advance the reasons for making this amendment, as I have already stated the reasons during my speech at the Second Reading of the Bill. Amendment agreed to. Clause 12 as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 13 to 16 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with an amendment; read a Third time and passed. TRADE DEVELOPMENT BOARD BILL Order for Second Reading read. 6.50 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the Minister's favourable response to my point, I would like to get your consent and the general assent of hon. Members present to move an amendment to this clause without the requisite notice.”
“The amendment as proposed by the Member for Anson, if adopted, is likely only to benefit some legal practitioners in terms of case or publicity as their expertise and services will be required by any person, persons or trade unions that are aggrieved by the decision of the Registrar of Trade Unions. 6.45 p.m.”
“It would appear that the reference of any dispute to the High Court is not necessarily the best or most desirable course of action for any union to take. On the other hand, referring an appeal to the Minister may and can be most productive and useful in terms of result where a union has cogent and valid grounds for making an appeal. The Minister, in exercising his judgement and decision over any appeal, has not only to do justice to an appeal but also to ensure that justice is seen by the public to have been done to the appeal. If a decision of the Minister is patently biased and unfair, then not only he but the Government also will suffer the wrath of the people, and such wrath will be reflected in the voting at every General Election. This is the best check against any possible unfair decision of the Registrar of Trade Unions against trade unions who pursue valid and legitimate objectives. In considering an appeal against any decision of the Registrar, the Minister will consider not so much the technical aspect of the appeal but the substantial merit of the appeal. For this reason, I do not think I can support the amendment moved by the Member for Anson. It is implicit in such amendment that the Minister, who is elected by the people of Singapore and is responsible to this House, is not competent and conscientious enough to deal with appeals from the decisions of the Registrar of Trade Unions. It is also important to note, and as pointed out by the Member for Kuo Chuan, that even though the Minister's decision is final after the appeal has been considered by him, there is nothing to prevent any aggrieved person to take up proceedings in court against his decision by way of certiorari, or other remedies under the law.”
“Sir, looking objectively at the proposed amendment by the Member for Anson, from the trade union's point of view, I have my doubts whether the proposed amendment would really serve to help a trade union in a dispute with the Registrar of Trade Unions over his decisions. I am fully aware that it is always possible for a Registrar of Trade Unions to be unreasonable and to place obstacles in the way of trade unions in their normal functions. It is necessary, therefore, for the Trade Unions Act to provide for a competent authority for appeals against whatever unreasonable decisions made by the Registrar to be overruled. This higher authority can be the Minister in charge, or the High Court as the Member for Anson now proposes. Let us take the case of the High Court. Such course of redress will sometimes entail great expense in legal costs, and may put some unions in great pecuniary distress as a result of legal costs, where the legal disputes are long and protracted. The Registrar of Trade Unions will always be at an advantage because he has the vast financial resources of the Government at his beck and call, legal personnel in the employ of the Government will, on behalf of the Registrar, do battle with the legal counsel of any union in any court of law. Win or lose, the union will always be the poorer for it. To some people it may give great personal satisfaction to be able to haul the Registrar or, for that matter, other public officials, before a court of law. But such satisfaction is no consolation to a union unable to make the Registrar reconsider a disputed decision. At the same time, great legal costs are incurred.”
“The executive committee of a union, who are empowered under the constitution of the union to conduct the business and affairs of the union and whose actions and decisions are subject to a general meeting of members or a delegates' conference of the union, as the case may be, should be in the best position to decide how to dispose of any surplus of any special fund raised through voluntary contributions. The clause, as it stands, will require the change of use of any fund of a union to have the consent of general members by secret ballot irrespective of how the monies of the fund are raised. This is not practical and reasonable especially in respect of funds raised through voluntary contributions. I wonder if the Minister will consider favourably a suitable amendment to clause 12 of the Bill so as to make it more practical. 5.13 p.m.”
“Where a special fund is raised by a trade union through voluntary contributions from both members and well-wishers, different considerations should apply regarding the change of use of such fund. Often, such a fund is raised for an ad hoc purpose, such as to enable the union to sponsor special activities relating to the cultural, educational and recreational interests of its members. The general funds of a union may not be sufficient to finance these additional activities because of commitment to regularly recurrent items of expenditure such as administrative costs, the payment of staff salaries and the maintenance of union premises, etc. To finance the additional activities, a union may hold a flag-day, a walkathon, or any other fund-raising project. The fund so raised on a voluntary basis from among members and other persons would then enable a union to hold a special anniversary celebration, to host an international conference in Singapore, or any other worthwhile activity. More often than not, the fund so raised would be more than sufficient for the specific purpose for which it has been raised. The surplus may be a few hundred dollars or a few thousand dollars. To try to apportion such fund between contributions from union members and from non-union members would be a futile and pointless task. This fact is enough to suggest the consent of members is irrelevant to the disposal of the surplus fund. Another pertinent consideration is that in the case of a union with a membership of 10,000 or 20,000, the process of obtaining the consent of the general membership by secret ballot is likely to be irksome and time-consuming and also disruptive of work and production.”
“Is that not progress? Nothing is static. It must change. We have made the best of the last 14 years through this cooperative effort. We want to make sure that perhaps the next 14 years will be even better than the last 14 years. Mr Speaker, Sir, can I now direct my comments on clause 12 of the Bill? Clause 12 of the Bill seeks to amend the principal Act to protect the special funds of a trade union. The proposed provision is not only necessary but also desirable to make a clear distinction between the general funds and the special funds of a trade union so as to prevent any confusion over the use of the funds to the detriment of the interest of the general membership of the trade union. However, it is necessary to distinguish between a special fund established by a trade union for a specific purpose through compulsory contributions levied on its members and a special fund set by a trade union through voluntary contributions solicited from members as well as well-wishers. Clause 12, as it is now worded, implies that the proposed procedure for sanctioning any change in the use of a special fund is applicable in all instances irrespective of whether a special fund is raised through compulsory contributions from members or through voluntary contributions from members as well as well-wishers. In the case of any fund raised through compulsory contributions from members for a specific purpose, it is not only right but also reasonable that any change in the use of such fund should not be effected except with the consent of existing members who have contributed or are contributing to it.”
“I think my trade union friends in Japan will be most offended by that remark. I think the Japanese trade unions are amongst the strongest in the world where championing the rights of their workers are concerned. The rights and interests of the workers are well protected by the trade unions despite their very cooperative posture with their employers and the government. They are very proud of that fact. Perhaps the Mem- ber should visit some of the unions to see whether this is true, perhaps through the auspices of the National Productivity Board. He mentioned that the trade unions must exist principally for industrial matters, and he scorned at what the Minister said about the trade unions having expanded their role. In fact, he twisted what the Minister said. The Minister said that the trade unions today, after modernization, have expanded their role from being purely an industrial organization, a bargaining institution, to one that includes social objectives. And I said this at the last exchange with him over trade union matters. I said that as far as the trade unions under the NTUC are concerned, the paramount and fundamental task of the trade unions is still to advance and to protect the interests of the workers. But in addition to this fundamental right and task, there is an expanded role to create social and economic projects so that the workers not only will have the political but also the economic and social strength. In this way, the workers' influence is felt throughout Singapore, not just only in the industrial scene but also in the social and economic scene so that the trade unions will generally have carved for themselves through these activities a sphere of influence in the wider circle of Singapore's development. What is so wrong about that?”
“He is not only dramatic but he is also not factual because the passing of this Bill will not change how the trade unions have behaved in the last 10 years and how they will behave in the next 10 or 20 years. But there will be this conscious effort to want to cooperate even further. We want to emulate the Japanese, not in everything but there are certain good points about the Japanese. Incidentally, the Member for Anson said that a friend of his mentioned that the Japanese worker is a slave to the employer.”
“Singapore is not equal to America in terms of power and wealth resources. Singapore is never equal to America or to any big country in the world. But does it mean that cooperation cannot exist between Singapore and America and other big countries in the world? No, it is not necessary that we must be equal in all respects. Although we are not equal in terms of power and resources, we are treated with respect and dignity. I think our views, if they are cogent and valid views, will always be taken into account. It is on that basis that the Government continues to enjoy the support and the respect of the workers. On this question of sham unions, there are certain very fundamental things which indicate whether a union is a sham union or not a sham union. I have said this before: union leaders are elected by secret ballot. Workers are not compelled to join unions. They join of their own free will. So nobody is coerced into joining a union. The leaders are elected by secret ballot. It is their fundamental right to elect their leaders. Who do they want to elect, whether they are from the PAP and if some of them want to elect from the Workers Party, this is their right. And if they have exercised their right to elect Members of Parliament from the PAP and so forth, does it mean that they cannot exercise their right? The workers in Singapore have enough good sense to know that the people they elect, the people they appoint as advisors, are people who can help them to advance their interest. And what is so wrong about it? I think this is commonsense. This is perfectly legitimate. Is it not? The Member said something like the passing of this Bill is the last rite that will completely finish off all the trade unions in Singapore. I think he is being dramatic.”
“But what is being encouraged, what is being pursued, what is being asked is that henceforth, especially after the past ten years or so when we have managed to work in cooperation and have found the fruits of this cooperation in terms of better wages, better job opportunities and so forth, we should make sure that this cooperation which is the key to our success, the key to our security not only for ourselves but for our children, is ensured for all times. I think we have a responsibility not only to the present generation of workers but to our children. And if the stability of the industrial relations in Singapore has helped to create this prosperity for Singapore - and there were certain conditions for this success - I think it is important that we, as responsible leaders whether from the Government or from the trade unions, must do whatever we can to ensure that these conditions are forever present so that we and our children can continue to live in prosperity with no sense of insecurity insofar as jobs are concerned. It is for this very ultimate, noble, national and important objective that we give our hands to the Government, and it is in that context that we support the Government. And what is so wrong about that? What is so immoral about that? How does that make us serfs and slaves? Of course, we are not equals with the Government in terms of power and strength.”
“Some two years back - I cannot quite remember the exact date - when President Reagan took office, the air traffic controllers in America went on strike. I think their union was closed down. The point I want to make is not that America has not got the freedom. I think nobody in his right mind can say that America has not got the freedom, but I think every right is in relation to the overall national interest. I think even a country like America, with its reputation of freedom, has got such rights related to the national interest. In this Bill that is proposed before this House today, there is nothing to say that trade unions cannot go on strike. In fact, the Secretary-General, after the announcement, in one of the functions publicly stated that the right to strike in Singapore for the trade unions is sacrosanct. The Ministry of Labour has assured us that the right to strike is not in any way taken away as a result of this amendment. The procedure to strike is incorporated in section 28 of the Trade Unions Act, which is not part of the provisions that are being amended. You can still go on strike. This has been said so. The Member for Anson has made some scurrilous remarks against the Straits Times for its three very good articles that it put up on these amendments. In those three articles I think it was also pointed out very clearly that, as far as the right to strike is concerned, everybody after reading the Straits Times reports will have no doubt in his mind that the right to strike for the trade unions still remains sacrosanct. There is no tampering of his right.”
“Not only today but as far back as 1968 when the trade unions supported the Employment Act, which he mentioned - with certain reservations which were subsequently removed when certain assurances were given by the Government - there were also accusations from people like him that the trade unions in Singapore were sham trade unions and that the trade union leaders sold out the trade union movement. We do not have to go into the arguments as to whether we sold out the trade union movement or the trade union members' interest. I think what has happened in the last 14 years since 1968 till now is an improvement in the standard of living of the workers of Singapore; how the trade union leaders, with courage, stood up and supported policies that are finally in the interest of the workers, in terms of getting them a secure job, good wages, good housing. Today in Singapore, not only do we say so, but people all over the world - I do not know but I am sure the Member for Anson travels a great deal - but I think all over the world people who have visited Singapore and who have read about Singapore have not only great admiration for Singapore in terms of its garden city image but also in terms of its standard of living and housing. For a small developing country, I think we have fared well. Nobody in Singapore is a serf or a slave. We in the trade unions have held our heads high, and in anything that we stand up in support of the Government we do so not because we are a stooge of the Government but because we believe in certain common goals and share in a certain common vision. Trade unions in the developed countries have all the rights. Do you know what happened in America? I think it is one of the freest countries, perhaps it is the freest country, in the world.”
“Sir, I rise in support of the Bill, but before I comment directly on the Bill itself I cannot resist answering some of the serious and malicious charges made by the Member for Anson against the trade union movement in Singapore. As expected, he came up with his usual litany of criticisms against the Government and the trade unions in Singapore. He termed the trade unions in Singapore as sham trade unions. He talked about trade unions in other countries winning their rights and so forth. If he were to make comparisons between us and some of the more militant, more self-centred, more sectionally interested trade unions in the more developed countries of the world, I think we do not measure up to them. We have never said that we are that sort of a trade union movement; neither do we make apologies for the fact that we are not that type of a trade union movement. We are not a militant trade union movement for the sake of militancy. We are not trade unionists who look at issues from purely sectional trade union interest. We have often stated publicly since 1968 that we are trade unionists with a national perspective, looking at the interest of the trade union members, both from the trade union interests as well as the interest of the nation as a whole. It must be in this context that we view and we work, and we act and react on matters. What is so wrong about that? The Member for Anson is not the first, nor will he be the last, person to make such accusations against the trade union movement in Singapore.”
“How does it help to alleviate this problem? The other question that I want to ask the Minister of State is this. Supposing a teacher is willing to offer two major teaching subjects for the part-time degree course, would his Ministry consider a case like that rather than giving a blanket refusal not to recognise any degree even with merits just because the degree was obtained on a part-time basis? Dr Tay Eng Soon: Sir, there is a shortage of graduate teachers in our schools. That is true. With respect to the Member's second point, which is, if a teacher can do a degree by part-time means and do two or more teaching subjects in that course, I think this matter can be taken up as and when teachers do such a course.”
“Sir, is there not today a serious shortage of graduate teachers in secondary schools, and how does this policy help to alleviate this problem? According to the Minister of State's reply -”
“[Laughter] It may be a laughing matter to us, but it was certainly not a laughing matter to the families who were involved in the wedding ceremony or in the funeral ceremony. To one family it was a solemn, sad occasion, but punctuated with all the light-hearted entertainment. To the other family, it was a happy occasion, only to be reminded that life is too short. I think it would perhaps be a good idea to erect shades for such purposes where possible. I am not saying that it is possible to do it in all housing estates and that it should be done immediately. But I know that in my constituency and in some, small housing estates, there are definitely areas which could be designated as areas for funeral ceremonies and for which shades can be constructed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in speaking on this amendment, I am merely asking the Minister if he would ask the HDB to construct public toilets in the HDB void decks in view of the fact that the void decks are frequently being used by the residents for weddings, funerals and other functions. As a matter of fact, not a single day passes by without something going on in one or several of the void decks in an HDB housing estate, perhaps a wedding, a funeral or some other functions, all functioning at the same time. These functions normally attract visitors from areas outside the estate. As attendance at these functions usually last several hours, it is natural for visitors to answer the call of nature. At present, there is no public convenience for them to answer the call of nature. There are also people who visit the housing estate for other purposes and would at times find themselves in a similiar situation. Would it not be a good idea, therefore, for the HDB to construct public toilets in HDB void decks, not just for the convenience of visitors to the HDB estates but also as a positive measure to discourage urinating in lifts? I would also like to take this opportunity to ask the Minister whether it is possible for the HDB to erect shades for funeral rites at designated areas in the housing estate, for instance, near a temple or open space away from the residential units. At the moment, many void decks are heavily used. On one occasion there was a funeral ceremony at one end of a void deck and a wedding ceremony at the other end. At the wedding ceremony a musical band was employed together with a singer. She sang songs like "Crocodile tears", etc.”
“In view of the Minister's reply, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment by leave, withdrawn.”
“If the Minister wants any confirmation from any one concerning the deteriorating traffic congestion in Balestier Road, I suggest he ask the Member for Clementi who happens to be a constituent of mine living in that area.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TC-02 of the Main Estimates. In moving this amendment, I am taking the opportunity to draw the Minister's attention to the deteriorating traffic condition along Balestier Road in my constituency. I wish to enquire from the Minister if the PWD is taking steps to improve the flow of traffic there. The widening of Thomson Road recently has not helped to ease the traffic congestion at the junction where Balestier Road meets Thomson Road. In fact, the flow of traffic has somewhat been impeded to some extent because there is now a heavier traffic along Thomson Road, especially during peak periods, thereby slowing down the flow of traffic from Balestier Road to Thomson Road. Soon the PWD will be widening Moulmein Road and linking Moulmein Road to the Central Expressway. When that happens, the traffic along the other end of Balestier Road where it meets Moulmein Road will likewise be impeded to some extent. The increase in traffic volume along Moulmein Road is more than expected. The end-result of the widening of Thomson Road and Moulmein Road, which are both ends of Balestier Road, will be that the traffic along Balestier Road will be trapped in between. The traffic congestion is compounded further by the fact that the areas surrounding Balestier Road are now undergoing intensive development of flats as well as shopping complexes and offices. As a measure to ease the flow of traffic along Balestier Road, will the Minister ask the PWD to review the overall traffic plan in the vicinity of Balestier Road with a view to improving and easing the flow of traffic along Balestier Road, particularly during peak periods?”
“And we are proud to have a Secretary-General who is a Minister in the Cabinet, and we know that the present Secretary-General would not betray the workers in the Cabinet because if he does that - it is not in his nature to do this but if someone like him were to do that - the workers finally will reject him. Every three years the Secretary-General must subject himself to a secret ballot to get himself to be in that position and to enjoy the confidence of the workers.”
“In fact, as an indication of their support, members of the trade unions affiliated to NTUC have shown their approval of the leaders of the trade union movement cooperating with the Government, with the employers, so that Singapore can be made more favourable as a place for investment, that we can continue with our industrialization expansion, and that every worker and every son and daughter of every worker will have a future security of employment. It is with this very great and noble national objective that the trade unions have gone into cooperation with the Government and employers towards creating a harmonious atmosphere in Singapore. Of course, we are not always in agreement with the Government in all that they do. We have privately, sometimes through official meetings and sometimes in Parliament and, as indicated by the Member for Kebun Baru and the Member for West Coast who are trade union MPs, they have even at this stage brought up reservations and the need for certain reviews to be made. We are constantly aware that sometimes there could be abuses and we have always never failed to bring this to the attention of the Minister for Labour or the Ministry officials. Nothing is perfect. We are aware that there are certain shortcomings. We are aware that the trade union movement is not at a most ideal stage of development. But I think the NTUC today, though it is small as compared to many trade union movements in the world, has got every reason to be proud of its achievements. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!”
“That has got nothing to do with a worker's decision to join or not to join the trade union. And there is no compulsory deduction. He has got to give his authorization to indicate that he wants his subscriptions to be deducted through the check-off system. If he does not give that authorization, it is not done so. There is no compulsion there. There is a willingness on the part of the workers to do so. No one is compelled to do so. It is on the volition of the workers that all these things are happening. If these are not clear indications that the trade union movement has enjoyed the support of the workers, what other indications there are. On this question of the right to hire and fire, I think an explanation was also given when the Employment Act was introduced in 1968. The trade unions did express some reservations about the possible abuse but they were given assurances by the then Minister for Labour and the Prime Minister that the Ministry of Labour would observe and monitor the enforcement of this employment legislation with respect to this particular feature of the employment legislation to hire and fire and that there would be no abuse. I was just reading through some reports and I found that over the last 10 years the various Ministers for Labour had made something like 39 ministerial orders ordering some 100-odd reinstatements and there were about over 100 cases where unions and managements negotiated over dismissals and quite a number of them were reinstated whereas the others were given compensation. With the trade union movement, I think there was some measure of protection. The NTUC has fulfilled its role religiously and has not, as accused by the Member for Anson, failed the workers.”
“Today it has got 220,000 members and workers in Singapore today are sophisticated enough to know whether the leaders who lead them are working in their interest or working against their interest, and they would show their support for their leaders by identifying themselves with their movement. The fact that today the membership of the trade union movement has increased from 85,000 to 220,000 -”
“By the leaders. The Secretary-General of the NTUC is subject to a triennial delegates' conference of the NTUC and the delegates are elected by the trade unions through a secret ballot, and once in three years they elect the office bearers. The Secretary-General of the NTUC, like any official of the NTUC has got to subject himself to all the rigours of a secret ballot. There is no doubt about the bona fides of its decision and the reason why we should have a Minister there is simple - that the interests and the welfare of the workers can be best advanced at the Cabinet meetings where decisions are made on matters relating to labour. What better place than at the very place where the decisions are made? I think there is this advantage. And if the Secretary-General of the NTUC does not fulfil that role properly, he will be rejected by the trade union movement, and to his credit he has so far acquitted himself well and he has enjoyed the support of the trade union movement. What is so wrong about it? 4.15 p.m. The Member says that since 1968 there has been a steady erosion of the workers' rights. This is his opinion. But what is important is not only the opinion of the trade union leaders but also that of the workers in Singapore. Let us go by the statistics. In 1968 there were something like 85,000 workers who belonged to trade unions affiliated to NTUC and, as everybody in Singapore knows, nobody is compelled to join a trade union. You can join as freely as you can resign from a trade union movement.”
“I think the Member has said that the trade union movement since 1968 has departed from its traditional role of protecting and advancing the workers' interests and has gone into business ventures. I think he has got it quite wrong. Since 1968 the trade union movement has expanded its role. It has not departed from its traditional role. The fundamental role of the trade union movement today, as represented by the NTUC, is still to protect, to advance and to safeguard the interests of the workers. But it believes that in addition to this role of a bargaining institution, it should also expand its role to that of a social institution. It should also have a place to play and an influential role to play in the various social, political and economic spheres in Singapore's development. It has expanded this role to meet this new challenge in this new era in which the trade union movement in Singapore has been given that challenge, and the right to participate. I think the comment about the Secretary-General being a Minister in the Govern- ment has been explained quite explicitly by the Prime Minister, accepted by the trade union movement - An hon. Member: By the leaders.”
“Sir, the Member for Anson has chosen this occasion to attack the trade union movement of which I am an official. So I thought I might as well take the opportunity to answer some of his criticisms rather than leaving it to the Minister for Labour to do so.”
“I understand that the Labour Information Service programme was initiated early last year. Having been in operation for less than a year, it will be premature at this stage to gauge the effectiveness of the Labour Information Service. However, I hope it is not out of context if I ask the Minister for Communications and Minister for Labour to elaborate on the activities of the Labour Information Service and to give an indication of the role it will play in maintaining industrial peace in Singapore.”