Hansard, 1957-04-25

asked the Chief Secretary whether Government will publish a White Paper indicating what action has been taken since April 1955 to prepare a Bill amending or replacing the existing Banishment Ordinance (Cap. 127) and when it is planned to have the first reading of the said Bill.

The answer is no, Sir. The Government does not propose to introduce at this juncture a Bill to amend or replace the existing Banishment Ordinance.

Will the Chief Secretary please read the question? I did not ask whether the Government was going to introduce a Bill. The question is: Is Government going to let us have a White Paper - a White Paper, Sir - indicating what action has been taken in the past, and action has been taken to prepare a Bill of amendment - a White Paper, Mr Chief Secretary.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer is still no.

Mr David Marshall.

If it please you, Sir, could I ask the Chief-

Mr David Marshall.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, question No. 2.

asked the Chief Secretary-

Mr Speaker, Sir, in regard to (a) of the question, there are 106 appeals outstanding - 73 against Detention Orders and 33 against suspension of Detention Orders. Three persons have appeals outstanding against Detention Orders as well as Suspension Orders. Because reading out the date of each outstanding appeal will take up the Assembly's time unduly, I will supply the hon. Member with a written statement on the dates as soon as possible. With regard to part (b) of the question, the question can more suitably be answered as follows: (1) Appeals outstanding for up to three months are 22 appeals against Suspension Orders which have been outstanding for about a month. (2) Appeals outstanding for up to four months are one appeal against a Dentention Order and 11 against Suspension Orders. (3) Appeals outstanding for up to five months are 71 appeals in respect of Detention Orders. (4) There is one appeal against a Detention Order outstanding for more than five but less than six months. (5) There are no appeals outstanding for more than six months. With regard to part (c) of the question, Sir, I am hopeful that all outstanding appeals by persons who are still detained will have been disposed of by the end of May this year.

asked the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing, whether Playfair Road leading to Playfair School will be repaired and maintained either by the City Council or the Public Works Department.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Playfair Road is at present a private street and the City Council is now proposing to take action under section 103 of the Municipal Ordinance to make up this private road. A survey of the road has already been completed and estimates of costs are being drawn up for apportionment of costs among the frontagers. Work is expected to commence during the second half of this year.

asked the Minister for Communications and Works what progress has been made towards easing the traffic congestion at the junction of Upper Serangoon Road and Yio Chu Kang Road.

As the hon. Member will probably recall from answers I have previously given in the Assembly, plans have been drawn up by the Rural Board on its own and the City Council's behalf to relieve traffic congestion along Yio Chu Kang Road by straightening and widening the road from its junction with Upper Serangoon Road to its junction with Serangoon Garden way. Effect cannot be given to these plans until proceedings are completed for the acquisition of the additional land required for the project. I am informed that enquiries under the Land Acquisition Ordinance have been fixed for next month, May. When these are completed, offers of compensation can be made to the owners after which possession can be taken of the land.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it seems that this question relates to traffic congestion at the junction of Upper Serangoon Road and Yio Chu Kang Road. It is not along Yio Chu Kang Road as the Minister said.

Will the hon. Member ask a supplementary question?

Sir, it seems the answer is not for this question.

Is that a question, Mr Speaker?

I take it it is a question, Mr Minister.

I am only indicating to the House, Mr Speaker, what measures are liable to improve the flow of traffic in that area. Presumably cars moving rapidly along Yio Chu Kang Road will debouch from Yio Chu Kang Road more rapidly also. If the hon. Member has anything further in mind, perhaps he will indicate it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the faster traffic moves along Yio Chu Kang Road towards the junction, the greater will be the congestion and we would like to ask the Minister what step he is going to take to help ease that congestion.

This is a matter which can be referred to the local government authority and not to the Minister.

Sir, I beg leave to move to introduce a Bill to incorporate the Reverend Mother Superior of the Little Sisters of the Poor in Malaya.

Sir, I second it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Who is prepared to introduce the Bill?

I, Sir. Sir, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Ordinance to incorporate the Reverend Mother Superior of the Little Sisters of the Poor in Malaya." Bill read the First time.

Second Reading, what day?

The first sitting in June, Sir.

Is not the hon. Member anticipating that there will be a sitting in June?

I hope there will be one. Sir.

Shall we say the 22nd of May?

Yes, Sir.

Order for Second Reading read. 10.10 a.m.

Sir, I rise to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." For a good number of years the practice of issuing licences to pawnbrokers in Singapore has been based on a three-year tender system. Normally the highest bidder is successful and pays a monthly rental equal to his 'bid' which depends on the locality of the business and the number of competitors for the licence. The fees range from $6,000 to $56,000 a year. In 1955, realising that the system was out of date and needy of change, Government appointed a Committee to review the system and to make recommendations for a new one and to draft any necessary legislation. The Committee's findings and the Government's White Paper on it which has accepted the main recommendations, were published and presented as Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 62 of 1956. Sir, since the publication of this White Paper, several letters have been received in my Ministry as well as in the Chief Minister's Office indicating a general acceptance of the recommendations of the White Paper. The Bill is the culmination of the investigations instituted, and it sets out to amend the Pawnbrokers Ordinance (Chapter 195) so as to incorporate such of the recommendations of the Committee which have been accepted by Government. The main object of the Bill, Sir, is to establish a Pawnbrokers Licensing Board responsible generally for the regulation of the pawnbroking business and particularly for the consideration annually of applications for licences, for the issue, refusal and cancellation of licences, and for the receipt of fees and monthly returns from licensees. The constitution of the Board, the definition of the scope of its duties, the conditions subject to which licences may be granted, recourse to the Minister for persons aggrieved by the Board's decisions, and the duties of the pawnbrokers in respect of pledges remaining in their custody after the determination of their licences, are all matters provided for in clause 3 of the Bill. The proviso to section 9 (1) (c), Sir, proposed by clause 3 of the Bill, safeguards the banking business which is commonly conducted by pawnbrokers in Singapore as a sideline. Clause 4 of the Bill provides that pawnbrokers may be required to make monthly returns to the Board in accordance with rules made under section 45 of the Ordinance. Such returns would be of value in determining, for instance, the extent of the community's dependence on the services of the pawnbrokers. Clause 5 of the Bill amends section 24 of the Ordinance so as to simplify the calculation of a pawnbroker's liability in respect of pledges destroyed or damaged by, or in consequence of, fire. Clause 6 of the Bill amplifies the provisions of section 45 of the Ordinance, defining the purposes for which rules may be made under this Ordinance. Clause 6 (e) of the Bill provides for rules for the procedure to be followed by applicants and the procedure and proceedings of the Board. Clause 7 of the Bill introduces an amended schedule of profits allowed to pawnbrokers. The new schedule provides for a maximum rate of interest of two per cent per month. Clause 8 of the Bill is designed to make amendments passim to provisions in the Ordinance which require to be brought up to date in reference to the amount of loans and to the maximum fines that may be imposed for offences under the Ordinance, and other amendments resulting in the constitution of the proposed Pawnbrokers Licensing Board which replaces the existing Licensing Authority. While clause 3 of the Bill provides the basis for the procedure and proceedings of the Board and that of applicants and applications, regulations are being framed to make more specific provisions in these respects, especially in regard to reference to departments, advertising of applications, notice of objections from the public and departments, fees for licences, and display of licences. Clause 8 (1) of the Bill provides for the fee to be prescribed by the Governor in Council and this will be done under the regulations which are being made. Neither the Committee's Report nor the White Paper has provided for any basis of classification or the scale of fees. However, it has been the view that the fees collected should not be looked upon as a revenue measure but as a means of covering the cost of the administrative system. It is proposed, Sir, to have classifications and fees as shown below. Classification Fee per annum $ Pawnbrokers "A" Class - pawnbrokers with an investment of $50,000 to $1,000,000 250 Pawnbrokers "B" Class - pawnbrokers with an investment of $20,000 to $50,000 150 Pawnbrokers "C" Class - pawnbrokers with an investment of $5,000 to $20,000 100 It is felt, Sir, that the above will be acceptable both to Government and the pawnbrokers. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 10.17 a.m.

Sir, I am happy to be able to support this measure which is the result of a thoroughly workmanlike report of public-spirited gentleman who sat on this commission to enquire into means of changing a colonial monopolistic system that sought through commercial concerns to tax the poorest people in the country. This Bill is perhaps a little late, but otherwise I think that every citizen should welcome it, particularly as now it provides for the lessening of interest rates in view of the fact that the pawnbroker does not have to pay those exorbitant fees which he was called on to pay in the past.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we are happy to support this Bill and we are glad to know that at last this Ordinance, which has been in operation for many years with many loopholes, is being amended today, particularly more so when the interest rate charged by the pawnbrokers now is to be limited to two per cent per month.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committee stage, what day?

Now Sir. Sir, I move, That this Assembly will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.

Sir, I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill considered in Committee. 10.19 a.m. Clause 1-

Sir, I rise to move an amendment to clause 1, In page 1, line 7, at the end to add the words",and shall come into force upon such date as the Governor may, by notification in the Gazatte, appoint". This Bill, Sir, in its present form will come into force as an Ordinance on the date that is passed by the Assembly. When it does so, Sir, sections 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the present Ordnance will be repealed and therefore the present licences will become null and void. It will take time for the new system to be bought into being and for the Pawnbrokers Licensing Board to receive, consider and decide on applications. It is therefore felt that clause 1 of the Bill should be amended to provide for the date of coming into force of the Ordinance to be appointed by the Governor, so that there can be a time lag between the date on which the Bill becomes an Ordinance and the date on which it is brought into force to allow for the preliminary work to be completed. Amendment agreed to. Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 3-

Sir, I rise to move an amendment to clause 3, In page 2, lines 5 to 7, to leave out paragraph (c) and insert the following- "(c) three persons to be appointed from their own number by the Justices of the Peace;". Sir, I think the amendment is self-explanatory. Amendment agreed to.

Sir, I rise to move another amendment to clause 3, In page 2, line 11, to leave out the words "by the Minister" and insert "in accordance with the provisions of subsection (1) of this section". Sir, this is for the purposes of clarification. Amendment agreed to.

Sir, I rise to move, In page 2, line 15, to insert after the word "Minister" the words "or the Justices of the Peace, as the case may be,". I think, Sir, this also is self-explanatory. Amendment agreed to.

Sir, I have another amendment to move, In page 2, line 19, to leave out the words "by the Minister". Sir, these words are not necessary there. Amendment agreed to.

Sir, I move, In page 3, lines 35 and 36, to leave out the words "with two sureties". Sir, the reason for this amendment is that the words "with two sureties" do not conform to the recommendations approved by the Government in its White Paper. This amendment is proposed to make the Bill consistent with the Government's recommendations. Amendment agreed to. Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 4 to 7 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 8-

Sir, I beg to move an amendment to clause 8, In page 5, line 33, after the word "sections", to insert the words "and portions". Amendment agreed to. Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. The Schedule-

Sir, I rise to move, In page 6, lines 1 to 18, to leave out the whole of the Schedule and insert the following:- 'THE SCHEDULE. (Section 8). First Column Second Column Section 3 Delete the words "two hundred and fifty" wherever they appear therein and substitute therefor the words "one thousand". Section 11 Delete the words "Deputy Commissioner of Police" appearing in the third line of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) thereof and substitute therefor the word "Board". Section 14 Delete the word "ten" appearing in the third line thereof and substitute therefor the words "one hundred". Section 15 (a) Delete the word "ten" appearing in the first line thereof and substitute therefor the words "one hundred"; (b) Delete the figures "$10" appearing in the marginal note thereto and substitute therefore the figures "$100". First Column Second Column Section 16 (a) Delete the word "ten" appearing in the first line thereof and substitute therefor the words "one hundred"; (b) Delete the figures "$10" appearing in the marginal note thereto and substitute therefor the figures "$100". Section 17 (a) Delete the word "ten" appearing in the first line of subsection (1) thereof and substitute therefor the words "one hundred"; (b) Delete the words "Chief Secretary" appearing in the first line of subsection (4) thereof and substitute therefor the word "Minister"; (c) Delete the figures "$10" appearing in the marginal note thereto and substitute therefor the figures "$100". Section 19 Delete the word "ten" appearing in the second line thereof and substitute therefor the words "one hundred". Section 20 (a) Delete the word "ten" appearing in the first line thereof and substitute therefor the words "one hundred"; (b) Delete the words "Deputy Commissioner of Police" wherever they appear therein and substitute therefor the word "Board"; (c) Delete the words "affixed at the police office" appearing in the seventh line of subsection (2) thereof. Section 21 (a) Delete the word "ten" appearing in the second line thereof and substitute therefor the words "one hundred"; (b) Delete the figures "$10" appearing in the marginal note thereto and substitute therefor the figures "$100". Section 28 Delete the word "two" appearing in the fourth line thereof and substitute therefor the word "four". Section 29 Delete the word "two" appearing in the last line thereof and substitute therefor the word "four". Section 30 Delete the word "two" appearing in the fifth line of subsection (1) thereof and substitute therefor the word "four". Section 36 Delete the word "one" appearing in the last line thereof and substitute therefor the word "two". Schedule A Delete the words "Deputy Commissioner Form No. 3 of Police" appearing therein and substitute therefor the word "Board". Schedule C Delete the words "Licensing Officer" wherever they appear therein and substitute therefor the word "Board"'. Sir, the reason for this is that there have been some consequential amendments to be inserted thereon and I have now collated the whole of these amendments into one schedule, and that is the reason why I propose that the Schedule as it stands be deleted entirely and a new schedule inserted therefor. Amendment agreed to. The Schedule, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill, as amended, be reported to the Assembly."

Question put, and agreed to. Bill reported, with Amendments.

Third Reading, what day?

Now, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill, as amended, be now read the Third time."

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill, as amended, accordingly read the Third time.

10.31 a.m. The Minister for Labour and Welfare (Mr Lim Yew Hock): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to move the motion standing in my name, namely, That the Report from the Select Committee on the Clerks Employment Bill, as contained in Sessional Paper L.A. 2 of 1957, be adopted, subject to the recommittal of the Bill in respect of clause 27, clause 28, clause 29 and clause 46 to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Sir, the Clerks Employment Bill was committed to a Select Committee and from Sessional Paper L.A. 2 of 1957, it will be seen that the Select Committee held five meetings. The minutes of the proceedings of these meetings can be found in Appendix III. The Bill reproduced in Appendix II contains all the amendments to the Bill recommended by the Select Committee. Most of the amendments made are minor ones for the purpose of improving the drafting of the Bill to clarify still further its provisions. The representations made by unions and employers have been duly considered but they are not considered to be of such substance as to make necessary amendments to the Bill. It must not be overlooked, Sir, that the Bill is an improvement on the previous Bill introduced by the Government during the last session and that account has already been taken of the representations then made. Moreover, the Bill has been considered by the Labour Advisory Board on which workers and employers are adequately represented. Sir, with reference to the telegram from the Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union, the points raised therein have been given due and careful consideration and it was felt that there should be a distinction between clerical workers in offices and those whose work bears a direct relation to the workmen in the same employment who are covered by the Labour Code. There are tally clerks, supervisors, store clerks, etc. The Report of the Select Committee has been in the hands of hon. Members for some time and I do not therefore propose to deal with it at great length. I am confident that this Assembly will support my motion and so ensure that the conditions of employment of clerks are set to a standard of which Singapore can be proud and that our clerical workers can enjoy this new charter on Labour Day. The proposal, Sir, to recommit the Bill in respect of the clauses named is merely to tidy up the Bill and improve further its drafting. Sir, I beg to move.

I would like to second the motion and reserve my right to speak at a later stage. Question proposed. 10.35 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the clerical workers of Singapore are undoubtedly the most docile, the most humble, the most timid group of people in the island and a group with less money to spare than most. This group, the clerical workers of Singapore, unlike the Singapore Federation of Employers, did not have a lawyer to present their views to the Select Committee at the last time or this time. We have promised them for a long time not a maximum standard of living Bill but a law to protect them against unreasonable exploitation, a law to give them statutory minimum conditions of service. There is much that is very good in this Bill. There are nevertheless provisions of a character which by some extraordinary oversight have slipped in which make it not a clerks Bill but an employers Bill and not even an ordinary employers Bill, because there are many very decent employers, but the Singapore Federation of Employers Bill, that Federation which through the pages of these reports and last year's Select Committee's reports comes through as a mean and crafty scrooge. Sir, I have had an illuminating talk this morning with the Attorney-General and I am glad to note that at least in respect of clauses 6 and 7 there was never the intention to have the effect which they do have but I shall take, clause by clause, the clauses to which I take objection and then I shall ask this House to give me an opportunity to put the arguments before you in Committee. I do not ask you to accept at this stage what I am suggesting to be true but I do ask you to permit me to amend this motion before you so that we can recommit ten other clauses to a Committee of the whole House to consider them quietly. Sir, the first clause which I shall ask for recommittal is clause 2. Clause 2 creates three classes of clerks. God created only two classes of human beings, men and women. We are asked to create by law: one, clerks earning more than $500 a month and clerks earning less; two, clerks working in offices; three, industrial clerks. They are all different. Clerks earning more than $500 a month have no protection whatsoever. Industrial clerks as compared to clerks have to work 44 hours instead of 39 hours a week, get only seven days holidays instead of 14 days for annual leave and 11 days instead of 13 days for public holidays. The Minister for Labour and Welfare is a Socialist, as we all are in this House, barring Mr Sutherland - no offence meant, Sir. He frankly said, "I represent capital, so what! And I am proud of it." Fair enough! Everybody else in this House says that he is a Socialist. Well, Sir, let us then look at it as Socialists, as honest people who seek to assist these really helpless people - this group known as the clerical workers. Sir, the Singapore Clerical and Administrative Workers' Union at page 4 of this Report protested against limiting clerks to those under $500 a month. It says: "... that all persons clerically employed should come within the meaning of and benefit by the Ordinance otherwise clerks drawing salaries exceeding $500 would not be able to claim the privileges contained in the Ordinance." Now, Sir, again the Confederation of Singapore Chinese Engineering Tradesmen Union at column 37 of Annexe I protested against this and in its letter of 12th November, 1956, it says: "Our interpretation of the contents of United Engineers' letter is that they will adhere strictly to the provisions of the Clerks Employment Ordinance, when passed, and, in its present form, apart from giving no protection whatsoever to clerical workers drawing more than $500 per month, it provides less benefits than currently enjoyed by U.E. workers who would be classified as "Industrial Clerks" under the Ordinance, in that they would be allowed one week annual leave against two weeks now enjoyed by them, and they would work 44 hours weekly, instead of 40 hours at present." Sir, the Attorney-General in Select Committee seemed to suggest that the $500 limit was necessary for ease of administration and I think you will find that at columns 2, 3 and 4 of the Minutes of Evidence. Sir, I for myself would like to ask the House to permit the recommittal of this clause for closer scrutiny. I say that there is really no valid reason whatsoever for putting this arbitrary limit of $500 except that the Singapore Employers Federation, seeking the maximum possible control in the minimum possible conditions of service for these workers, has asked that there be a limit and it be $400. Any decent human being who has read the representations of the Singapore Employers Federation should take the attitude that everything they say is suspect. It is evil: those documents that they have put in and the control that they seek to have over these entirely helpless human beings whom they employ as fodder for their obscene profits.

Come, come!

Come, come! I have asked repeatedly in this House, Mr Speaker, Sir, for a declaration as to the profits earned by these companies and it has never been available. The Financial Secretary and this House know exactly why I am not given those figures because it is feared that publication of the "obscene profits" (I repeat) made by these organisations would shock the conscience of this country. But that is the Singapore Employers Federation. Yet it is interesting, gentlemen, that the Singapore Employers Federation does not want the distinction between "clerk" and "industrial clerk". So here you have got the poor trade union saying, "Please, why a clerk who gets 14 days leave and doing 39 hours a week and then why an industrial clerk who is also a human being doing the same work doing 44 hours a week with only seven days for annual leave?" And the Federation agrees but for different reasons. You will see them in a minute. Sir, may I refer you to pages 6, 10, 11 and 12 of the memorandum of the gentlemen I have called Scrooges: "The Federation appreciates that this feature of the Bill has probably been introduced to meet objections put forward when previous draft legislation of this nature was under consideration that to impose a standard working week of 39 hours for all categories of clerks, irrespective of whether or not they were employed in industry, would make the effective working of industrial concerns virtually impossible. Unfortunately, however such a distinction between the two categories of clerks will also be impossible to operate in practice... (this distinction between clerks and industrial clerks)". And they go on to say that the Federation suggests that the clerks should all be reduced to the status of industrial clerks and that they would all be very happy. Now, Sir, I would like to go in detail through the arguments used for the division of these clerks and industrial clerks. I say that the Minister for Labour and Welfare errs and errs gravely when he suggests that it is necessary that there be this distinction of two different types of clerks: one a superior human being and another an inferior human being. I say that if in some concerns it is necessary to have different working hours then there can be overtime pay and in the last resort he can always accept that organisation in accordance with the terms of clause 2 from the provisions of this Code. Now, Sir, clause 6 perpetuates exploitatory contracts. If there is a contract in existence which gives the clerk much less favourable terms than the present Bill, then that agreement continues in force. Why should we condone and endorse contracts which fall below what we consider a minimum standard of conditions? I would be ashamed, gentlemen, to be in any way associated with a clause of that nature. I say that no true Socialist would seek to perpetuate and to give the authority of statutory law in support of provisions which are contrary to what he considers to be minimum human needs. Why should we endorse these contracts? Clause 7 says: "... any term of a contract of service which is contrary to the provisions of this Ordinance shall be illegal, null and void." Now, in fairness to the Government, let us get it straight. They did not mean it. The Minister for Labour and Welfare has been engaged and busy elsewhere. Fair enough! He did not mean it and now that it has been drawn to his attention, I have reason to hope that he will correct it but that clause 7 if you do not recommit it to this Assembly means that these are not minimum conditions of work but maximum conditions of work; because let us take the instance of clause 36. Clause 36 gives to clerks 13 days public holidays a year but, gentlemen, I had the privilege of being associated in negotiations with Boustead and Co. Ltd, who, though a member of the Singapore Federation of Employers, is of a totally different type. They showed a sympathy, an understanding and a goodwill that was very heartening and we obtained from them 16 days in respect of this particular aspect - 16 days public holidays a year. Now, according to the terms of clause 7, that agreement with Boustead is illegal. Sir, I do ask that you permit that that should go back for reconsideration despite the fact that two Select Committees have sat and the satisfaction of the Minister in charge of the Bill. Now, look at clause 14, gentlemen: "An employer may without notice dismiss an employee on the grounds of misconduct." The clerks went before the Select Committee last year and said, "Look, is this not a bit harsh? Supposing I speak to my employer in a loud voice. That is misconduct, is it not?" And the Attorney-General said, "Gentlemen, do you not agree that for misconduct, an employee shall be dismissed?" So they just withered and made their protest. Then let me show you something, gentlemen, of which the Attorney-General should have been aware. Sir, I quote the case of Clouston and Company versus Corry, 1906 Law Journal Reports, 75 Privy Council at page 20; also, Sir, reported in 1906 appeal cases -a Privy Council case, an appeal from New Zealand, Sir. Why I emphasize the Privy Council is because what is decided here, as you are aware, is applicable to Singapore. The decisions of the Privy Council are law in Singapore. What does Lord James of Hereford, Sir, who delivered the judgment say about misconduct: "There is no fixed rule of law defining the degree of misconduct which will justify dismissal. Of course, (please notice this) there may be misconduct in a servant which will not justify the determination of the contract of service by one of the parties against the will of the other." Now, may I repeat it, Sir: "...there may be misconduct in a servant which will not justify the determination of the contract of service...". But what does this clause say? All misconduct. You can dismiss your clerks. Why? May I read on, Sir, so that you may fully understand what is intended here, Sir? The common law says that only misconduct which goes to the root of the contract of service, which nullifies the terms and conditions of your service, only that kind of gross and grave misconduct is a ground for immediate dismissal. But this clause is seeking to protect whom? The Singapore Employers Federation says all misconduct is a ground for immediate dismissal without notice. Let me read on, Sir, from this judgment of Lord James of Hereford: "On the other hand, misconduct inconsistent with the fulfilment of the express or implied conditions of service will justify dismissal. Certainly when the alleged misconduct consists of drunkenness, there must be considerable difficulty in determining the extent of conditions of intoxication which would establish the justification for dismissal. The intoxication may be habitual and gross and directly interferes with the business of the employer or with the ability of the servant to render due service but it may be an isolated act committed under circumstances of festivity and in no way connected with or affecting the employer's business. In such a case, the question of whether the misconduct establishes the right to dismiss the servant must depend upon facts." So, gentlemen, all I ask is that we do not put the shackles even more firmly on the employee and that we recommit clause 14 in order to add such a phrase as "misconduct inconsistent with the implied and express terms of service". Sir, the present law applies if the employers think it necessary to have it but do not let us make things worse for the clerks than they are today. And, Sir, clause 15. There is nothing wrong with clause 15 except its silence. Sir, for many years now, workers have been bedevilled in their efforts to obtain honest conditions of service by the fear that if they go on strike, they may be legally committing a breach of contract which justifies their immediate dismissal and you know, Sir, that in this colony even recently there have been successful efforts to dismiss employees who went on strike on the ground that this is a breach of contract. Now, do we as Socialists all believe in the ultimate right to strike? If we do, Sir, then we should make it lawful and if it is lawful, then it should not be a breach of contract and I ask that clause 15 be recommitted to this House so that this should be made clear by the insertion of subclause (2) reading: "Strike action by an employee in pursuance of the lawful request of his registered trade union shall not be deemed to be a breach of contract." Let them be at peace, these workers. We are saying that this is a clerks charter, a lighthouse for the future for the protection of these humble people. Let them be at peace and know where they stand. If they take strike action in pursuance not of the request but of the lawful request of their registered trade union, then they shall not be deemed to have committed a breach of contract. Then, Sir, in respect of clauses 34, 35, 36 and 37, they are consequential to my request for amendment of clause 2 and I say, "Please let us consider them in Committee." Now, Sir, clause 38 is an absolute beauty, it says that you are entitled to a maximum aggregate of twenty-eight days of sick leave if your employer's doctor has examined you and so certifies but I ask the Minister: what happens if the employer's doctor refuses to examine him? [Interruption] Are you suggesting that it is impossible? What happens then? Supposing the employer says, "I will have no doctor. You are sick, well, psk!." If you read the Singapore Employers Federation memorandum, you will not have much respect for employers. What happens? Are we to give no protection to the clerk if the employer is obstructive? So I say that we should add a further clause: "or if the employer's medical practitioner does not examine the employee within twelve hours of the employee's request reaching him on the certificate from any registered medical practitioner whose charges shall be paid by the employer." Is that unreasonable? I wait twelve hours and I am sick. I wait twelve hours for my employer to send a doctor or to tell me what doctor to go to and he tells me, "Take a running jump." After twelve hours, I can consult any medical practitioner and that certificate protects me for the twenty-eight days. Is that unreasonable? Then, Sir, the Minister for Labour and Welfare spoke with considerable weight when it came to the question of how they labour in his Ministry, particularly on the Labour Code in respect of maternity leave. But under this Bill he forgot about that aspect of his labour - there is no maternity leave. Under the Labour Code, a woman is entitled to four weeks; under this clause she has none. I do not know whether it is suggested, Sir, that there are no women clerks, or that women clerks do not have babies, or that women clerks are of such sturdy character that they can drop their babies into the waste-paper baskets? Why do not clerks have maternity leave? I have not got a right to it as a clerk; it does not matter to me. We are seeking to make provision for the protection of timid human beings who cannot speak for themselves. Why is there no provision for maternity leave? There are 28 days sick leave for everybody. Is a woman not entitled to be sick whilst a man is entitled to be? Is she not entitled to some rest if she has a baby? Sir, I am going to move, if the House will permit me, the recommittal of this clause 38, that every employee shall be entitled to additional paid sick leave during terms of four weeks each before and after her maternity confinement, and I hope the Hon. the Minister for Labour and Welfare, who has the privilege of being a married man with lovely children, will remember that his wife needed maternity leave and so do those who are less fortunate and have to work in offices. So, Sir, I move that these clauses be recommited to the House. I say to you, let us have an opportunity to examine them in Committee - that is all I ask at present - and I move to delete all the words after the words "in respect of" and insert in place thereof the following words "clause 2, clause 6, clause 7, clause 14, clause 15," (then the Government clauses) "clause 27, clause 28, clause 29," (my clauses) "clause 35, clause 36, clause 37, clause 38," (Government clause) "and clause 46 to a Committee of the whole House". Amendment handed in. Sir, before I sit down, I would state that I do not quite know what the procedure is, but I think that I ought to disclose to this House that I am the legal adviser to the Singapore Business Houses Employees Union which has 4,000 clerical members, that my remuneration is an annual retainer of $1 a year, and that I am not here before this Assembly either as counsel or as solicitor; let me add, $1 a year not per member but for the whole Union.

Does the Member for Cairnhill not consider that a clause providing for maternity leave should be a separate clause?

Sir, I am grateful to you for drawing my attention to that. In fact, I had thought of consulting you but it seems to me, Sir, with respect, that it does come under clause 38. "Sick Leave", and I would ask, Sir, that it be included. 11.03 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in Singapore we have so many labour unions which arc so strong that we see a number of strikes by labourers but, unfortunately, the clerks in Singapore are not bound together as one single body. As you can see from their numerous unions, they are separated, one section from the other, and as such they do not represent such a strong force. I believe that this Bill is now introduced to exploit the clerks because they are not united and have not got a strong union to protect them. An hon. Member: Shame!

Shame! Real shame! Why then, should we exploit the clerks because of the fact that they do not have a strong union? A clerk is always a clerk. Why should we classify them into three categories - those earning $500 a month, those below $500, and industrial workers? Does this mean that a clerk whose income is above $500 is not a clerk? There are many firms and many organisations which do have clerks whose incomes are above $500. Why do they not come under this Bill and so get protection? Why should we bar clerks drawing above $500? Coming to industrial workers, Sir, if a clerk is a clerk, why should we call him an industrial worker? A labourer, a foreman and a technician are industrial workers, but not a store clerk or a tally clerk. If he is a clerk, he should be a clerk. What is the difference between an ordinary clerk and a store clerk? I do not see much difference between them. A clerk sits at a table; he performs clerical duties. A store clerk also works at a table and also performs clerical duties. The only little difference I may see is this, Sir, that a store clerk is responsible for the goods within his store: and that should give him more responsibility in his employment, and, with more responsibility, he should have better conditions of service rather than that his status should be lowered. By classifying him as an industrial clerk, we are trying to create a sort of inferiority complex in him, and that will just kill his initiative. Is that fair, Sir? We should not classify clerks into so many categories. Coming to clause 14, Sir, on "misconduct" I am not a lawyer, so I do not know how to interpret the word. I was working in the Army as a senior clerk. My status at that time was equivalent to a warrant officer, class one. At that time, a sergeant came up to me and said. "Mr Lee, I want you to address me as 'Sir'." I told him that my status was far above his and asked him why I should address him so. I firmly refused to call him "Sir". Was that misconduct? An hon. Member: No!

If you say that it was not misconduct then I would call it insubordination - and that is a worse term than misconduct. Would that refusal to call him "Sir" mean that I would have to lose my job? No, I hope it does not; but the word "misconduct" is not clear to me. If a clerk can be dismissed without notice on this account, is that not exploitation? On clauses 35, 36 and 37, the Member for Cairnhill has said that we will elaborate on them when we go into Committee. Coming to clause 38, on the question of 28 days sick leave in a year - is the period sufficient? As the Member for Cairnhill has said, if a firm's doctor refuses to examine its clerk, where else can the clerk go? He will not be entitled then to any sick leave at all. Apart from this, is it sufficient that a human being should have only 28 days sick leave, that he will only be sick for 28 days and no more? Is that fair? He may have put in 15 years of efficient service with the firm and within that time he has not taken any sick leave but, unfortunately, on the sixteenth year or so, he falls sick, and it may be a very serious illness. According to this Bill, he is only allowed 28 days; he must be sick for only 28 days and no more, or else he gets no pay. Is that fair? I think this clause should be amended so that there should he at least 52 days full-pay leave plus another 26 days half-pay leave. Why should we limit a man to being sick for only 28 days? Let us extend the limit and, if he falls sick, let him enjoy that privilege; and if he exceeds that period, at least give him half pay. If he falls sick, he has to incur medical expenses; yet, with all the cost of medical attention, he will get no pay after 28 days! Is that fair? Clerks, as the Member for Cairnhill said, are among the lowest paid workers: clerks are the most modest people in Singapore. Then where can they get the money to pay for medical attention? Cannot we grant them half-pay leave or so, so that they can continue to get some income not only to maintain their families, but also to pay for medical expenses? On the question of maternity leave, I fully support the Member for Cairnhill. Women give birth and it takes at least 30 days for a woman to recover from it. According to Chinese custom, the period for recovery is set at 100 days before they come out into the open; they are confined to their rooms for 100 days.

Red Indians say one year.

What, a hundred days per year? That is new mathematics to me! Are we going to say to a woman that we cannot give her maternity leave? She has to regain her health, to look after the child, to give the child food; and, again, she has to pay for medical expenses. We have to grant maternity leave! This issue has been fought in many organisations for a long, long time, and I hope that, with the introduction of this Bill, women will no longer be exploited. I support the Member for Cairnhill on committing the Bill to a Select Committee. 11.10 a.m.

The original Question was, "That the Report from the Select Committee on the Clerks Employment Bill, as contained in Sessional Paper L.A. 2 of 1957, be adopted, subject to the recommittal of the Bill in respect of clause 27, clause 28, clause 29 and clause 46 to a Committee of the whole Assembly." Since when, an amendment has been proposed, to leave out "clause 27, clause 28, clause 29 and clause 46", and there to insert "clauses 2, 6, 7, 14, 15, 27, 28, 29, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 46". I see that the Member for Cairnhill has repeated the Government clauses.

I have indeed repeated the Government clauses, Sir. They are clauses 27, 28, 29 and 46; I have not deleted a single one. I do not want to be obstructive, Sir; I am a Socialist.

I will propose the Question in a different way, then. The Original Question was as I have read out. Since when, an amendment has been moved, After the words "clause 46", to insert the words "and clauses 2, 6, 7, 14, 15, 35, 36, 37 and 38" The Question is, "That the clauses proposed to be inserted, be there inserted." Mr Lee Kuan Yew rose-

On a point of information?

Yes, Sir. Is the Government going to let the House have the advantage of the expert advice of the Hon. the Attorney-General on the criticisms made against the technical accuracy of the Bill - on construction and interpretation - as distinct from the question of principle and policy? Certain criticisms have been levelled, particularly against clauses 6 and 7, on certain provisos in clause 14, and on the clause on sick leave, that is on the question of the lapse or alleged lapse in the Bill in not providing for the contingency where an employer deliberately obstructs. In drafting this Bill has consideration been taken of the same difficulties which arose in the Labour Ordinance during the Select Committee stage?

I think those points could probably best be raised if and when this House resolves itself into Committee. They are matters of detail affecting clauses which might be recommitted, matters which perhaps would lend themselves to debate, and I suggest that they could be raised in Committee, in passing, I might mention that the practice is that, if an hon. Member asks for a clause to be recommitted, it is almost a matter of form that that clause is recommitted, so that a detailed debate on that particular clause can take place in Committee rather than in open Assembly. 11.15 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, all my life I have been a clerk, and when I am no longer Chief Minister, I will still be a clerk and I will die a clerk. I am therefore deeply touched by the great concern which the Member for Tanglin has for clerks - I am sorry, I mean the Member for Cairnhill. Being a clerk, and having been in the trade union movement ever since there was one after the war, may I respectfully submit that, since 1946, I have been looking after the interests of clerical workers and of other workers? Yet I am told now that what I hope to do for the clerks is to tie a knot around their necks for the benefit of employers! Sir, this Bill lays down the bare minimum. If we are to lay down the maximum, there will be no necessity for trade union organisations, or for such organisations to have legal advisers at a nominal fee of $1; there will not have been the chance or opportunity for trade union organisations to grow, or for advisers coming on - and coming off - the scene. In regard to clause 2, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill asked why we limited the salary to $500 per month. Sir, may I respectfully point out to this House that when the Member was Chief Minister in the last Government, he approved the presentation of a Bill to this Assembly fixing the salary limit at $400?

He was depending on his Minister for Labour.

It is the same thing. Now, when we fix the salary at $500, we are told that we are -

On a point of information, if I may, Sir?

Yes, if the Minister will give way. Mr Lim Yew Hock resumed his seat.

It has been indicated to the Minister that it is a convention that when a Member of the House asks for the recommittal of certain clauses, the request is conceded. This would imply that the Minister has conceded that these clauses be recommitted so that we can debate them in Committee?

Sir, I am always pleased to concede anything which can help to point out either to me or to other Members of the Assembly the error of my ways or the error of their ways - it is always a pleasure to concede. Regarding the other clauses on which the Member for Cairnhill has spoken with such vehemence, he has made me feel that something must have been wrong with me or something must have been wrong elsewhere, because all the clauses which he attacked are clauses taken from the Labour Code, which Code was approved during the time when he was Chief Minister and when he was proud to say, "This is the Labour Code for the workers of Singapore!" Today, however, we are told that that Code, of which he was then proud, is a set of shameful laws imposed on the workers of Singapore! It does happen, Sir, that when one has responsibility one speaks one way, and that when one has less responsibility, one speaks another way. But at least I have been consistent, Sir, by introducing the same sections in the Labour Code into the Clerks Employment Bill and the Shop Assistants Employment Bill. On clause 2, we are asked why there should be three classes of clerks. The reason is this: We lay down minimum conditions of employment for clerks and workers who are unable to look, or who have difficulty in looking, after themselves. We lay down a maximum salary of $500 because we feel that those drawing above that figure are in a better position to fend for themselves in court, and to have the advantage of legal advice in court as to the interpretation of "misconduct" or some other term of law. Sir, we have defined clerical workers into office clerks and industrial clerks- the industrial clerks are already there. What we propose to give them is the minimum, and in fact the Bill is going to help a good number of industrial clerks who do not have the advantage of trade union organisations or the benefit of a good employer. It does not detract from those clerks who are industrial clerks because of their close relationship with the labourers - or workmen, as we now call them under the Labour Code - who work under them. A store clerk has to be in a store to keep it open so that workmen can bring goods in and out - there is that relationship; or a supervisor has to keep on working when there are workmen for him to supervise. It is felt that there should be a direct relationship between the two classes of workers. Now, in regard to this limitation of $500, Sir, it will be seen that, under clause 2, the Minister can at any time, or from time to time, raise the figure. If the Minister is satisfied that, as a result of this limitation of $500, a large number of clerical workers drawing say from $600 to $700 are, shall we say, being ill-treated by their employers and are unable to fend for themselves, I am sure that the Minister for Labour and Welfare, whoever he may be at that time, will alter the limitation to cover this unfortunate class of workers. In regard to all the other points brought up, I would say that the relevant clauses have been taken from the Labour Code, and I do not think any useful purpose will be served if I were to speak on them and so lengthen this debate. The points brought up will, of course, be mentioned again at the Committee stage, when I will explain the policy of the Government on the points as they arise. The question of maternity benefits is one which requires a reply now. We did not insert a clause in the Bill on maternity benefits but this does not mean that there should be no maternity benefit for women clerks. However, as a worker myself, I can say this: If you want to drive women out of work and see that men remain in work, demand as much as you can for female workers, for they will no longer be in employment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we are all glad soon to have the opportunity to discuss in Committee the various criticisms which the Member for Cairnhill has levelled against this Bill. There are two distinct types of charges he has made. One is purely on the technical soundness of the draftmanship of the Bill, the way in which the intentions of the Government (which are, I think, fairly certain) have been expressed, and what they will in fact presume to have expressed. The other is on questions of principle - whether or not there should be this distinction between industrial and non-industrial clerks, and whether sick leave should include maternity leave. On the technical point, I hope that it will be sufficient to clarify the position, because some of the points which the Member for Cairnhill raised were raised by me in the Select Committee on the Labour Bill - as to the interpretation of "misconduct" and on clauses 6 and 7. I would like to point out that clauses 6 and 7 of the Clerks Employment Bill are in identical terms with sections 6 and 7 of the Labour Ordinance No. 40 of 1955. The word "misconduct" in clause 14 appears in section 17 of that Labour Ordinance. The Hon. the Attorney-General will remember that when I raised the point whether "misconduct" was not too broad a term and the whole matter was thoroughly debated. Again, as to the lapse - the alleged lacuna - in clause 38, as to what would happen if an employer deliberately refuses to appoint a medical practitioner to examine his workmen, the clause is in identical terms with section 48 of the Labour Ordinance. The Member for Cairnhill is at a disadvantage, for he must be responsible for this Labour Ordinance, he was then the principal advocate of it. He and his Government assured me then that there were no such doubts in existence, that in fact- Mr Marshall rose -

Is it on a point of order?

On a point of information, Sir.

If the hon. Member will give way?

I am sure there will be ample opportunities for explanation, but if the Member for Cairnhill wishes to explain now before he forgets it by all means let him do so!

I would like to correct the inaccurate memory of the Member for Tanjong Pagar - I never gave him such an assurance. The whole matter was handled by the Minister for Labour.

I thought, Sir, that there was such a thing as cabinet responsibility, and that the leader of a cabinet, like Sir Anthony Eden, accepts full responsibility for whatever goes wrong. I am sure the Member for Cairnhill would not like to be in undistinguished company in this matter, and that he will accept full responsibility for all the errors and omissions in the Labour Ordinance. I am in the fortunate position of never having been a chief minister but I hope I shall never, if placed in that position, allow myself to be led up the garden path by a subordinate Minister. Now, on these questions of construction and interpretation, let us by all means have the whole matter reopened. If it is finally conceded by the chief legal draftman to the Government that in fact there may be ambiguity, then amendment must not only be made to these clauses, but also to the Labour Ordinance. Let us always put right what has gone wrong, even though the wrong was done by someone else. On the question of principle, I support the Member for Cairnhill - that there should not have been this distinction between industrial and non-industrial clerks - and I am not satisfied with the explanation given by the Minister for Labour that, because industrial clerks work with workmen, therefore they must have the same reduced number of holidays and longer working hours per week as workmen. I think it is a non sequitur to say that because workmen work 44 hours a week, if a tally clerk who works with the workmen does 39 hours per week, there will be five hours in which there will be no tally clerk working with the workmen. It does not follow because you can always make the employer pay overtime for the five hours. I know the counter which the Minister for Labour has put in Select Committee, namely, that that would be compelling industrial clerks to work overtime, which is contrary to one of his major tenets on Labour relations. Before the Bill was sent to Select Committee, I drew the attention of the Assembly to: (1) The ceiling of $500 and how that arbitrary figure was reached; (2) This distinction between industrial and non-industrial clerks. I think we would all be grateful to know in Committee once again whether, first, the figure of $500 represented in actual fact the distinction between supervisory clerks and ordinary clerks, whether that can be supported by evidence on the current rates paid to supervisory clerks and ordinary clerks. Second, let us again debate this question of industrial and non-industrial clerks and all the consequential disadvantages of the industrial clerk.

Question, "That the clauses proposed to be inserted, be there inserted," put, and agreed to. Question, "That the Report from the Select Committee on the Clerks Employment Bill, as contained in Sessional Paper L.A. 2 of 1957, be adopted, subject to the recommittal of the Bill in respect of clause 27, clause 28, clause 29 and clause 46 and clauses 2, 6, 7, 14, 15, 35, 36, 37 and 38 to a Committee of the whole Assembly," put, and agreed to.

Committee stage, what day?

Now, Sir. Sir, I move, That this Assembly will immediately resolve itself into a Committee to consider the clauses of the Bill recommitted.

Before I propose that Question, may I suggest to the Minister that it might be fair to hon. Members if notice of these amendments is, in fact, given so that hon. Members will have the opportunity of studying those amendments and considering them before the next sitting, that is, the 22nd of May?

Speaking for myself, Sir, I hope to be in a position to hand copies of my proposed amendments by 2.30 p.m. if the House will adjourn now.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as it is not improbable that the business set down for today will not be completed before the moment of interruption and that there may have to be a sitting tomorrow, would it be in order if the Committee stage be taken tomorrow, thereby allowing Members of the Assembly time to consider the amendments proposed?

So that, Mr Minister, your reply to my request "Committee stage, what day?" would be tomorrow?

Tomorrow, Sir.

Tomorrow it will be. Mr Minister, there will have to be a motion that we sit tomorrow because tomorrow is not a sitting day. Perhaps that motion could be moved after the suspension?

That was my intention, Sir.

11.37 a.m. The Minister for Labour and Welfare (Mr Lim Yew Hock): Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the debate on the previous motion, I think it will be advisable if we postpone the consideration of this motion after the earlier motion has been disposed of. This Bill, Sir, contains almost all the clauses which are in the Clerks Employment Bill.

Will the Minister then move, please?

May I therefore move, Sir, That consideration of item 3 be deferred until completion of consideration of item 2 on the Order Paper.

Sir, I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That consideration of item 3 be deferred until completion of consideration of item 2 on the Order Paper.

11.38 a.m. The Acting Financial Secretary (Mr Oon Khye Kiang): Mr Speaker, Sir, beg to move, That this Assembly, in accordance with section 343 of the Municipal Ordinance (Chapter 133 of the 1936 Edition), sanctions the raising of a loan to be effected by increasing the issue of Singapore City Council 5 per cent Debenture Stock 1956 from an amount not exceeding $30,000,000 as sanctioned by a resolution of the legislative Assembly on the 7th March, 1956, to an amount not exceeding $50,000,000 for the purposes stated and under the conditions specified in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 12 of 1957. Sir, hon. Members will recollect that at a previous sitting of the Assembly on the 7th March, 1956, the City Council was authorised to raise a loan not exceeding $30,000,000 for the purpose of continuing the extension of its Electricity, Gas and Water Undertakings. This amount of $30,000,000 has now been fully taken up and the Council requires further money to carry on with these extension works in accordance with the proposals which have been approved in its Budget for this year. The extensions are essential to the further development of the Island, the expansion of industry, the improvement of living conditions, and the erection of more housing accommodation. It is considered that the money required by the City Council for the current year may best be raised by an extension of the authorised amount of the 1956 Loan from $30,000,000 to $50,000,000 rather than by the floatation of an entirely new loan. This method will lead to considerable savings in floatation costs and also obviate other difficulties which would have to be faced in the floating of a new loan. Apart from getting the loan money, the Council will be enabled to accept any money which might be offered for investment, especially from the Central Provident Fund, which might otherwise have to invest overseas. The Council therefore now applies for the sanction of the Legislative Assembly to the further borrowing up to a limit of $50,000,000. As indicated in the Sessional Paper, the City Council is empowered under the Municipal Ordinance to borrow a further sum of $151,000,000. Sir, I beg to move.

Sir, I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly, in accordance with section 343 of the Municipal Ordinance (Chapter 133 of the 1936 Edition), sanctions the raising of a loan to be effected by increasing the issue of Singapore City Council 5 per cent Debenture Stock 1956 from an amount not exceeding $30,000,000 as sanctioned by a resolution of the Legislative Assembly on the 7th March, 1956, to an amount not exceeding $50,000,000 for the purposes stated and under the conditions specified in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 12 of 1957.

11.42 a.m. The Acting Financial Secretary (Mr Oon Khye Kiang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency's recommendation to proceed with the motion. Sir, I beg to move, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $1,279,707 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure and for the services specified in Schedule A contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 14 of 1957. Sir, the detailed information on the reorganisation of the clerical services is contained in the Sessional Paper and there is nothing that I can usefully add. Sir, I beg to move.

Sir, I second it.

Committee of Supply, what day?

Now, Sir. Motion and Schedule considered in Committee of Supply.

11.44 a.m. Schedule

We will deal with the Schedule. The summary is at page 11. Head 1- The sum of $4,800 for Head 1 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 2- The sum $61,456 for Head 2 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 6- The sum of $11,400 for Head 6 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 7- The sum of $3,290 for Head 7 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 8- The sum of $127,096 for Head 8 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 9- The sum of $108,496 for Head 9 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 10- The sum of $1,700 for Head 10 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 12- The sum of $48,103 for Head 12 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 14- The sum of $l,900 for Head 14 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 15- The sum of $7,226 for Head 15 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 16- The sum of $9,750 for Head 16 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 17- The sum of $27,590 for Head 17 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 20- The sum of $17,248 for Head 20 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 21- The sum of $4,740 for Head 21 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 22- The sum of $4,080 for Head 22 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 27- The sum of $84,284 for Head 27 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 29- The sum of $11,180 for Head 29 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 30- The sum of $107,564 for Head 30 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 33- The sum of $14,580 for Head 33 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 35- The sum of $5,630 for Head 35 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 37- The sum of $57,951 for Head 37 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 40- The sum of $24,420 for Head 40 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 44- The sum of $84,650 for Head 44 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 46- The sum of $42,010 for Head 46 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 47- The sum of $33,210 for Head 47 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 48- The sum of $9,390 for Head 48 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 49- The sum of $144,990 for Head 49 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 51- The sum of $27,683 for Head 51 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 53- The sum of $11,900 for Head 53 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 55- The sum of $51,260 for Head 55 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 58- The sum of $130,130 for Head 58 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Turning to the motion, the Question is, "That the sum of $1,279,707 for the Heads of Expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule stand part of the motion." 11.49 a.m.

Mr Chairman, we agreed in principle to the reorganisation of the clerical services. We therefore support the financial arrangements which have to be made as a result of this reorganisation. But the Financial Secretary must be aware that there is a great deal of concern amongst the temporary clerks for quite a number of their colleagues who will be discharged as a result of this reorganisation. The House would be less anxious over their fate if we could be informed as to what the Government proposes to do to reabsorb as many of these temporaries as is possible. 11.50 a.m.

Mr Chairman, Sir, there have been two absorption schemes - one in 1955 and the other in 1956 - both negotiated and agreed with the unions concerned, and they have led to the absorption of some 850 temporary clerks out of a total of approximately 1,000. Some 120 clerks have not been found suitable for absorption, and for this reason were under notice. I would like to say, Sir, that out of the 120 clerks who have not been absorbed, we have managed to offer employment to 25 of them as typists. We assume a number of other junior appointments which will shortly be available to be 15 and this will go towards helping to find employment for these unabsorbed clerks. We have transferred to the Census Department 20 and there remain unabsorbed 59 out of the 120, ten of whom are being retained until they reach the age of 55. In addition, 26 of them are married women. The decision not to appoint these temporary clerks, Sir, was taken by the Public Service Commission in its executive role, and in terminating their services - that is, giving two months' notice to those with less than five years' service and four months' notice to those with more than five years' service - the Government is constitutionally carrying out the Public Service Commission's directions. The union has in fact appealed to the Government to ask the Public Service Commission to reconsider the cases of the unabsorbed clerks. That appeal has gone to the P.S.C. I am also told that a firm of lawyers are acting on behalf of these clerks and have made representations to the P.S.C. As the matter is sub judice in the Public Service Commission, I hope the House will appreciate it if I do not say anything on the question of their absorption; but I can say this - that the Government, outside the absorption scheme, is trying its best to help find employment for the balance of these unabsorbed clerks. There are not 120 clerks, but 59, less 10.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $1,279,707 for the Heads of Expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule ordered to stand part of the motion.

Sir, I move, That the motion and Schedule be reported to the Assembly.

Question put, and agreed to. Motion and Schedule reported, without Amendment. Question, "That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $1,279,707 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure and for the services specified in Schedule A contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 14 of 1957," put, and agreed to. Resolved. That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $1,279,707 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure and for the services specified in Schedule A contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 14 of 1957.

I think this is an appropriate time to suspend. I will take the Chair again at 2.30 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 11.55 a.m. until 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

The Acting Financial Secretary (Mr Oon Khye Kiang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency's recommendation to proceed with the motion. Sir, I beg to move, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $5,496,603 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 15 of 1957. Sir, the Schedule consists of a list of applications for supplementary provision amounting to $5� million, of which the great majority of the items, amounting to $3.8 million, are unforeseen revotes of expenditure approved in 1956. The reasons for these supplementary votes are given in detail in the Sessional Paper. My colleagues and I shall be happy to answer any question which hon. Members may wish to raise. Sir, I beg to move.

I second it.

Committee of Supply, what day?

Now, Sir. Motion and Schedule considered in Committee of Supply.

2.32 p.m. Schedule-

We are dealing with the Schedule. The summary is at page 27. Head 1- The sum of $5,901 for Head 1 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 5- The sum of $65,060 for Head 5 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 8- The sum of $49,326 for Head 8 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 9- Question proposed, "That the sum of $153,681 for Head 9 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Chairman, Sir, the Explanatory Note says that it is proposed to make permanent a certain number of temporary officers: firstly, because it is likely that they will be permanent, and secondly, because if they are not made permanent, they are likely to leave. May we know how many of these persons to be appointed as permanent Government servants and put on the establishment are expatriates and who will therefore become entitled to abolition terms to which as temporary officers they are not entitled?

Mr Chairman, Sir, all those who will be made permanent are local officers. There is one expatriate who will be employed and held against a permanent post but he is on contract and he will not be made permanent.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $153,681 for Head 9 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 12- The sum of $32,522 for Head 12 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 15- Question proposed, "That the sum of $25,282 for Head 15 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Chairman, if I remember rightly when we voted this sum in 1956 of $40,000 for film production it was the intention of Government to produce a film in colour of Singapore for distribution overseas for advertising purposes to encourage the tourist trade. I notice however that the amount spent in 1956 was only $14,700 odd. I therefore would like to know what has happened to that project?

Mr Chairman, I have not got the details and I promise to let the hon. Member have them in due course.

May I ask for supplementary information, Mr Chairman? If such a film has been completed whether, in fact, it is earning revenue abroad in distribution and getting the money back which we have spent?

Mr Chairman, I will let the hon. Member have this information also.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $25,282 for Head 15 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 16- The sum of $13,040 to Head 16 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 18- The sum of $71,941 for Head 18 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Order. If hon. Members wish to have a private conversation, they should retire behind the Bar. Head 20- Question proposed. "That the sum of $1,200,000 for Head 20 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Chairman, a sum of $1,700,000 is estimated to be the cost of the census that is intended for this year. Could we know before we level any criticism at the Government how much the Federation census over a much wider area and over six times as large a population as Singapore cost the Federation Government?

Mr Chairman, Sir, I am afraid that I have not got that information.

Has there been no consultation or exchange of information between the Federation and the Singapore governments on this question of the technique of collecting census in Malaya?

Mr Chairman, in the middle of last year, it was intended to hold the census on a Pan-Malayan basis and the Federation's Superintendent of Census was asked to make an estimate of the census. Speaking from memory, I think he estimated that the census in the Federation would cost $2.8 million and the census in Singapore about $� million .

Surely if that answer was known to the Financial Secretary he should not have allowed the Chief Secretary to say in this House that it is not known to the Government what the estimated cost of the census was, if the Federation's estimate for the whole of the Federation consisting of several thousand square miles as compared with Singapore's 236 square miles is only $2.8 million, how do we explain the fact that our census over a much smaller area and one-sixth the population of the Federation is going to cost about 60 to 70 per cent of the cost in the Federation?

Mr Chairman, Sir, when I said that I had not the estimate for the Federation expenditure, I was meaning the present estimate of the Federation census. The $500,000 was the original expenditure put up some time ago by the Superintendent-designate for the Pan-Malayan census. Now that $500,000 has been proved to be grossly under-estimated. When the estimate of $500,000 was put in the 1957 Estimates, the Superintendent of Census, Singapore, which appointment was made in December 1956, pointed out that this estimate was an under-estimate and that when the Technical Census Committee on census matters had completed its task, it should be possible to give more accurate figures. Now that the Superintendent of Census, Singapore, has had the opportunity with a fair degree of accuracy to know where and what staff can be obtained for carrying out the various census operations, it has become clear that the vote is so far from sufficient for the necessary expenditure that a supplement is required of the order of $1.2 million. The Government has set up a very highly organised machinery to carry out a thoroughly reliable census. Fully trained, full time, and adequate field staff under the supervision of trained senior officers of the Government will be employed. The numbers of supervisors, house-numberers and enumerators have all been based on a trial census held some time last year and the Superintendent of Census has given much time and thought to the proper reticulation of census areas. 2.45 p.m. I think there is no need for me to stress how vitally important this coming census is to Singapore with the coming political changes. An up-to-date and thoroughly reliable census of population is vital for the determination of national policies in the spheres of economic, educational, social and even political planning. Consideration of questions relating to economic and social development, unemployment, housing, public health and welfare must be based on accurate facts about the population. Various plans of social assistance and social insurance are dependent upon reliable census material. Available population statistics based on the last census in 1947 have now become obsolete. In fact, Sir, the census in Singapore is I speak, subject to correction- probably on a more complex scale than the one in the Federation. Conditions differ in Singapore and in the Federation and the conclusion was arrived at after very careful consideration at high official level in both territories that as the Federation and the Singapore Governments desire the census in both territories to follow somewhat different lines, there should be separate censuses for each territory but to be conducted simultaneously on the same date. With the free movement of population between Singapore and the Federation, the reasons are obvious for administrative convenience for the count of population to be simultaneous in Malaya. Sir, census day is fast approaching and the whole machinery of the census organisation is in top gear. I think we would like to get on with the job and I can assure this House that we are going to have a thoroughly reliable census. I think it will be the biggest census that Singapore has ever had and this is the first time that Singapore is holding a census of its own and we would like to see to it that the census is a very successful one. I would suggest to this House, Sir, that this increase of $1.2 million is well worth the money if we can achieve the aims that we intend to have in the census.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $1,200,000 for Head 20 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 23- Question proposed. "That the sum of $12,420 for Head 23 stand part of the Schedule."

Could the Government tell us whether this particular postmaster who absconded with $12,420 had any saving in the Government Thrift and Loan Society and whether any saving was made by the forfeiture of the pension that he would otherwise have been entitled to?

Mr Chairman, from enquiries, it was found that he had no savings and it was not then known how much pension he would have been eligible for. But if the hon. Member would like to know, I can arrange for the information to be passed on to him.

Mr Chairman, I would just like to know what steps have been taken to tighten up this system as a result of this misappropriation? I think that the House will agree that misappropriation generally takes place as a result of a faulty system or of someone taking advantage of a faulty system. We should like an assurance that losses of public money of this kind will be avoided in the future as far as possible.

Mr Chairman, this matter was investigated by the Director of Audit and the Accountant-General and they reported as follows: "We are satisfied that there is no flaw in the system of account, which is basically the same as that used in all British Post Offices. A defalcation of this nature could not remain undetected for more than two or three days. We also consider that surprise surveys are carried out at sufficiently frequent intervals by the Postal Services and Audit Departments. No system of account or check can prevent an officer in charge of cash from stealing it and the fact that an officer in a position of trust, such as a Postmaster, stands to lose so much in the way of retiring benefits by a criminal act is in itself a powerful deterrent against dishonesty. In our opinion, therefore, no responsibility for the loss attaches to any officer of the Postal Services Department other than the officer concerned who has been convicted and sentenced."

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $12,420 for Head 23 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 26- The sum of $123 for Head 26 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 27- The sum of $19,715 for Head 27 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 28- Question proposed, "That the sum of $48,458 for Head 28 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Chairman, supplementary provision of $9,200 is required for the purchase of toddy to allow the contractor to increase his price from $1.55 to $1.60 per gallon. I wonder if the Financial Secretary could tell this House whether the contract was given out on a public tender or was it under negotiations?

It was by public tender.

If it was given on a public tender, I wonder how we could allow the contractor to increase this price. If the contractor, after accepting the tender, could be allowed to increase the price, that serves no purpose of a public tender because there may be other tenderers who may have tendered either above or below this price. A public tender is a competition amongst the contractors or tenderers and once a tender is accepted, a price should be stuck on to that value. According to the explanation here, I see that the increase is to allow the contractor to rent 450 new trees to replace trees now in tapping which were discovered recently to have lost their toddy yielding properties. Now, if that be the case, why should toddy consumers be made to pay by increasing the price of toddy from 25 cents to 30 cents per pint? The contractor should bear the loss rather than that the toddy consumers be made to pay to recover this money. I cannot understand why we should allow this unless, in the tender, there is a clause which gives the contractor a variation in price and even if it does, the reason for the variation in price to increase this price should be sufficient enough to warrant this increase. I am not happy about this increase, Sir.

The tender concerned was the only tender received. It was in 1955 and a two-year contract was entered into with the contractor. There is a provision for review at the end of the first year. At the beginning of this year, the tenderer made representations regarding the cost he would incur in order to keep up his supply of toddy for the rest of this year. They were carefully examined by the Treasury and it was agreed to a review. With regard to the other point on the increase in the price of the sale of toddy from 25 cents to 30 cents per pint, the Government sells the toddy. It was calculated that, on the price of $1.60 per gallon, and if Government sold it at 25 cents per pint, it would be possible that Government might suffer a loss and this five cents per pint was meant to cover the possibility of a loss by Government.

I am not quite satisfied with the explanation given, Sir. As I have said, why should the toddy consumers be made to pay that extra five cents per pint so as to pay the contractor who has already tendered his price? He should bear the cost of whatever losses he may have to incur. May I then move, Sir, if I am allowed, to delete the sum of $9,200 under this item?

The Standing Orders require two days' notice.

Mr Chairman, Sir, the hon. Member raises an important and interesting principle and one which perhaps needs some clarification. I myself am in complete sympathy with any efforts to economise in public service but, at the same time, I may be wrong here, I am of the view that Government should not act merely with legality and insist on the letter of the law but should also act with equity and that if there are contracts with Government which it is fully proved were entered into, through some misunderstanding, though the contractor is, in fact, liable in law and Government could insist on his bearing the loss arising from a misunderstanding for which Government is not responsible, nevertheless, I am of the view - here I say I may be wrong and I would like enlightenment from the Financial Secretary on the principles applied - that Government should show a sufficient sense of equity in conceding a review in those particular circumstances and should not seek to act with Shylock commercial instincts.

Mr Chairman, each case will have to be decided on its own merits, in this case, the Government is satisfied that the price of toddy should be increased by five cents per pint.

What about answering me?

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $48,458 for Head 28 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. 3.00 p.m. Head 41- Question proposed. "That the sum of $2,712 for Head 41 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Chairman, the explanation makes the matter even more mysterious than it already is. It seems that this sum of money is now required to pay the Federation Employees Provident Fund - employers' contribution - in respect of certain employees of the Trade Marks Registry who were Federation Government servants seconded to Singapore and who were to be paid for by the Federation Government. What I would like to enquire from the Financial Secretary is: if he has been paying x dollars for these Government servants and has been receiving from the Federation Government x plus y dollars, y being the Federation contribution to the Federation of Malaya's provident fund scheme, how does he square up his accounts for so long before it is discovered that, in fact, he had been receiving from the Federation Government, x plus y dollars, and he is paying x dollars? After several years it is discovered that y dollars had not been paid to the Federation Employees Provident Fund. We have great respect for people who are intituled Auditors-General, but that respect cannot be commanded if this sort of mis-accounting is discovered now and again.

When the accounts were received from the Federation, the Singapore Trade Marks Office thought that the Federation Government had made a contribution direct to the Employees Provident Fund. It was only when a reminder was received from the Employees Provident Fund that it was realised that the contribution had not been made. It was an oversight on the part of the Singapore Trade Marks Office.

How do you square your accounts? The question is an interesting one, Sir, I am merely drawing attention. It is not my idea; it is the idea of the Member for Tanjong Pagar. His question is simply this: how does the Financial Secretary square his accounts for 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955 and 1956, to discover it only in 1957? In those six years, how did he square his accounts when he got x plus y dollars and paid out x dollars? That is a fair question.

I take it that the Public Accounts Committee will look into that.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $2,712 for Head 41 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 42- The sum of $85,000 for Head 42 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 44- The sum of $57,474 for Head 44 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 55- Question proposed, "That the sum of $18,100 for Head 55 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Chairman, we are told in the Explanatory Note that: "Provision of $16,200 was made in the 1957 Estimates for the salary of the Specialist Fire Officer for a period of six months." In other words, six months' payment to the Specialist Officer comes to $16,200. We are told now that his services must be continued for a further six months because certain officers under training will not return in time to take over before this six-month period is out and we are asked to vote a sum of $18,100. There is therefore a difference of $1,900 between the first six months' payment and the second six months' payment. Is this officer getting a salary rise for the second six months?

The salary has been revised from the 1st of January this year.

Do you mean the millionisation of the expatriates?

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $18,100 for Head 55 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 58- The sum of $77,390 for Head 58 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 2- The sum of $55,180 for Head D 2 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 5- The sum of $6,500 for Head D 5 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 9- The sum of $38,000 for Head D 9 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 10- The sum of $2,210 for Head D 10 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 12- The sum of $477,860 for Head D 12 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 16- The sum of $418,750 for Head D 16 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 18- The sum of $88,660 for Head D 18 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 46- Question proposed, "That the sum of $458,850 for Head D 46 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Chairman, Sir, may I ask a question of the Minister for Education? It appears that the estimated cost of Group B Primary Schools (eighteen) is $4,680,000 and the estimated cost of Group C Primary Schools (eighteen) is also $4,680,000. I am sure that the Minister for Education can clarify the point: whether all these schools under Groups B and C will consist of English schools or other schools. If the schools are to become national schools, we still have the item reading "Improvements and Extensions to Malay Schools".

Mr Chairman, Sir, these are revotes. These are revotes required to complete the erection of these schools. The schools now are all national schools and they are not named as English schools, Chinese schools, or Malay schools and the extensions to Malay schools are for those existing Malay schools which need extensions and repairs.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $458,850 for Head D 46 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 49 The sum of $1,026,790 for Head D 49 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 53 - The sum of $59,922 for Head D 53 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 57- The sum of $144,040 for Head D 57 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 58- The sum of $96,180 for Head D 58 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 60- The sum of $432,490 for Head D 60 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 61- The sum of $406,830 for Head D 61 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Turning to the motion, the Question is, "That the sum of $5,496,603 for the Heads of Expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule stand part of the motion."

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $5,496,603 for the Heads of Expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule ordered to stand part of the motion.

Sir, I move, That the motion and Schedule be reported to the Assembly.

Question put, and agreed to. Motion and Schedule reported, without Amendment. Question, "That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $5,496,603 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 15 of 1957," put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $5,496,603 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 15 of 1957. 3.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That the Report from the Select Committee on the Seamen's Registry Board Bill, as contained in Sessional Paper No. L.A. 6 of 1957, be adopted, subject to the recommittal of the Bill in respect of clauses 3 and 5 to a Committee of the whole Assembly. The Report, Sir, of the Select Committee is before the House. Representations were made to the Select Committee by all interested parties, that is shipowners and the seamen's unions, and witnesses from both sides appeared before the Select Committee and were examined very thoroughly. The salient feature of this Bill is the provision for a roster system, and on that particular feature, there was great divergence of opinion between the shipowners and the trade unions. On the rest of the Bill, there was not much difference of opinion between the two sides; in fact, representations and suggestions for amendment made by one side (except of course on the roster clause), were not objected to by the other side and, in some cases, even accepted. On the roster system, the employers were very emphatic that it would operate harshly and that the harshness of the system would make Singapore less attractive for recruiting seamen. In fact, they even thought that it might drive the recruitment of seamen away from Singapore to other ports, probably Hongkong. The unions, on the other hand, were equally emphatic that the roster system was the only one which could prevent corruption and the financial "squeezing" of seamen, and give seamen a fair chance of getting employment without their being preyed upon by unscrupulous persons in charge of the Registration Bureau, and also by agents or servants of employers who were unscrupulous enough to demand money for giving them the jobs. Sir, I would like to read a letter addressed to the Select Committee but which arrived after the Report was prepared; it is addressed to the Select Committee in fulfilment of a promise made by the unions to submit this information to it. It is a letter from representatives of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions and I will read out the relevant paragraph. I may say here that the roster system was established in the ports of Bombay and in Calcutta in 1953, or three years ago, and it was put up by the shipowners to the Select Committee that the system had failed in Calcutta as far as they knew. On this point, this is what the I.C.F.T.U. representatives have to say: "The roster register system of selection and engagement prevailed in both recruitment centres under rules and regulations found generally acceptable." - that is referring to Calcutta and Bombay- "The two offices have now been in operation for some three years. Speaking for the large body of seamen, we can say most emphatically that the scheme has proven, a success. It has ensured fairness and equity in selection and engagement matters . . . It has, to our personal knowledge, freed seamen from the stranglehold of interested petty unions, and company and government officials. We are not in a position to state whether any avenue for corruption still exists, but this we do know from our personal knowledge and investigations - that job-buying no longer holds sway and that the seamen, by and large, are satisfied with the working of the scheme." After a great deal of deliberation, the Committee, on balance, decided that the roster system should be preserved as it appears in the draft Bill, and therefore provisions for the system still remain. However, the harshness has been lessened to a great extent by removing the four-year limitation clause. The original draft Bill contains a limitation clause whereby the shipowner could retain the services of old seamen - those who had served with him - for up to a maximum of four years, provided he signed them on within seven days. That four-year clause has now been removed so that a seaman can continue to work for an employer for as long as he likes, provided he is signed on within seven days, and the Minister has certain discretionary powers to waive even this seven-day limit. Allowance is also now made for the transfer of seamen between ships of the same owner. In the previous Bill, a seaman had to sign on with the same ship within seven days but he was not allowed to sign on with a different ship although it belonged to the same owner. That has now been provided for. The main amendments to the Bill therefore, are the removal of the four-year limitation clause, and provision for seamen to sign on with different ships of the same owner. There is also provision whereby a seaman who wants to take two months' leave and go, say, to the Federation, can inform the Registry Office that he will not be available for employment and thereby not lose his place on the roster. There is also provision for the emergency recruitment of seamen when the Board's office is closed or in case of other emergency, subject to report being made to the Board. These, I think, are the main changes to the Bill which the Committee has made. I mentioned a little while back that the Minister has been given discretion to waive the seven-day requirement. That was found necessary because in some cases ships sailing regularly from Singapore to neighbouring ports are put in service in the harbour limit of Singapore while they are here. Seamen working on these ships cannot, therefore, be articled; they cannot sign articles when they are working within the harbour limit - it is only when they go out of harbour limits that they sign articles. Therefore, what would happen if these ships operated within harbour limits for, say, a month? When the ships want to leave the Singapore harbour limit for another port, the owners would then have to go to the roster to engage a new crew and to discharge the old crew. It is in such cases that the Minister has the discretion, provided a recommendation to that effect is put up to him by the Board. Of course there will be a lot of criticism on the roster system - I do not expect that there will not be any. The whole spirit of the legislation can only be realised if there is co-operation between the representatives of the employers and the unions on the Board. Sir, I beg to move. 3.25 p.m.

If it please you, Sir, it gives me great pleasure to second the motion before the House. I am conscious that the Minister has for a very long time - almost two years now - been engaged in laborious efforts to bring about some protection for seamen, and I think that after the exhibition yesterday on the Education Bill, the House must be delighted to find a Minister who is, in fact, thoroughly conversant with the Bill which he is propounding to this House. I support the principle, Sir, of the roster. There is no other way of protection for the seamen, and in this connection I think it my duty to bring to the attention of the House a somewhat ugly incident which occurred a few days ago. Sir, I received a telephone call from a person who purported to represent a group of shipowners; he told me how very dangerous the roster system was for Singapore, how detrimental it was to our entrepot trade; and he assured me that I would be very well paid as a solicitor for this group if I would undertake to vote against it in this Assembly. Now, Sir, I was so angry at the time, so rude, that I forgot to take note of the name. Probably acted in good faith, but I think, Sir, that perhaps it might be well if you were to make some statement which the Press could carry, that any attempt by any person or organisation to pay a member of the Assembly, whether a lawyer or not, to vote or not to vote, for any Bill, is an attempt to bribe that Member, an act which can carry the gravest consequences detrimental to the person.

Since that point has been raised - and the Member for Cairnhill was good enough to inform me beforehand that he was going to mention it - all I need do, I think, is to draw the attention of the Assembly to the relevant section in the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance, Section 18, which makes it an offence for any person who "offers to any Member or Officer of the Assembly, any bribe, fee, compensation, reward or benefit of any kind in order to influence him in his conduct as such Member or Officer, or for or in respect of the promotion of, or opposition to, any Bill, resolution, matter or thing submitted or intended to be submitted to the Assembly." The penalty on conviction is a fine of $2,000 or imprisonment for two years, or both fine and imprisonment. Question proposed. 3.29 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I felt, in listening to the debates yesterday and today, that we are all getting rather used to one another and that we have a fair idea of what we may expect to hear when any particular Member gets to his feet; though, speaking for myself, I am no longer as impressed as I was in the early days by the oratory of the legal Members. I still would be disappointed if the Member for Cairnhill did not rage, storm and cajole, and if the Member for Tanjong Pagar did not finish up his speech with hints of dire peril in store for somebody, Singapore headed for destruction and the British for the sea. Well, you heard this morning, Sir, that I am the only non-Socialist in the House, and Members will therefore have a good idea of what I am going to say on this Bill, but I can assure you, Sir, that no one has attempted to bribe me in the matter! During the Easter holidays, I read through the 90 pages of Minutes of Evidence on this Bill taken at the sittings of the Select Committee, and I must admit, Sir, that I did so not so much from zeal as an Assemblyman, as in order to study how you, Sir, conducted those meetings, in order that I might improve on my own amateurish efforts in the Committee on Public Accounts. However, on completion of my reading, I really was astonished to find that the roster clause was still included in the Bill. I gained the impression from the Minutes of Evidence that the Members of the Select Committee themselves entertained a good deal of anxiety about this clause and, indeed, had very grave doubts about the wisdom of introducing the roster system. The evidence on the shipowners' side appeared to me to be perfectly clear, and of course there was no doubt that they were definitely not in favour of the roster system. Now, it seems to me that the shipowners had no real financial stake in this and that their opinion was genuine and objective. The evidence on behalf of the unions was given by the representatives of the Seamen's Council of Action and, in my view, that evidence was sometimes rather vague and unconvincing. In Appendix I of the Sessional Paper L.A. 6 of 1957, the Council of Action state that they represent all 12 registered seamen's unions in the colony-

What page?

I beg your pardon- it is just at the beginning, Appendix I, page 5 of the Sessional Paper. They state that they speak with full authority on behalf of the seamen. Well, Sir, I have been given to understand that the Seamen's Council of Action was called into being for the sole purpose of forming one single non-communal union. This purpose has not so far, I understand, been achieved by the Seamen's Council of Action, and indeed there have been reports in the newspapers of unions resigning from the Council and rejoining it. I have also been informed that the Singapore Chinese Seafarers' Union is against the introduction of the roster system. The spokesman of the representatives of the Seamen's Council of Action admitted to being a landsman and to have no knowledge of the sea, and some of his evidence was not evidence at all. It was, in fact, sermonising and giving gratuitous advice to Government. He claims success for the roster system Calcutta, and I gathered this was the only port which had this system, but I have since learnt from the Minister that it also exists in Bombay. He claims success for this system but was unable to substantiate his statement to the Committee at that time. We have since heard this afternoon that the system has been successful in these two ports, but I did not know that when I came into this House at 2.30 p.m. today. Of the other two representatives, one was a bank employee and the other a trade union leader. Well, Sir, one wonders whether those gentlemen fully realised the importance of having a crew in a ship working in close harmony together, and of the importance of selecting them to that end? We often hear the expressions "happy team" and "happy office", and often a "happy home", but it seems to me that a "happy ship" is of greater importance than any of these, for obvious reasons. Perhaps I am being rather naive, but I also felt, in reading the Minutes of Evidence, that the shipowners' representatives seemed to have the interests and welfare of their seamen at heart.

Mr Sutherland talks about having a "happy ship" and selecting a happy crew - can he inform us as to how the roster system prevents this from coming about?

Have patience, and I will try to do that. I was saying that the shipowners' representatives seemed genuinely to have the interests and welfare of their seamen at heart, and that they were convinced that the roster system, which is, after all, an untried novelty in Singapore, will not be a success in Singapore. For my own part, I feel rather apprehensive of the system - and I will now answer the Minister - because of the multi-racial population of this City of Singapore, so much of it Chinese and so much of it Chinese clansmen. Added to that are the problems of different religions and sundry inhibitions. The limitation, therefore, of two rosters seems to me to be a very grave difficulty to get over; and there is another point - no other industry has a roster system imposed on it, so why pick on the shipping industry? I appreciate, Sir, that the main purpose of this system is to eliminate corruption, but has that been referred to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau for investigation and subsequent report? If not, why not? Would it not be better to refer this matter first to that Bureau before introducing a system which obviously has defects and has been tried out in only one country, where its success, as we know it, is based merely on one letter which we have had read to us this afternoon by the Minister for Commerce and Industry? Sir, I do not intend to vote against this Bill, but it seems to me that there are one or two points I have raised which require consideration. 3.37 p.m. Mr J. M. Jumabhoy rose-

In reply?

In reply, Sir. I can understand the grave doubts and apprehensions expressed by Mr Sutherland but I am sure that those fears will not be found to be true when the roster system is working. Perhaps I must explain at the outset how I envisage the roster system should work. The Bill provides for a roster or rosters. In addition to that, I have made an amendment to it in Select Committee setting out that the Board may also subdivide the rosters into category or categories. In Singapore at the moment, seamen are recruited by clans, especially where the Chinese are concerned. There are three main categories of seamen - deck crew - sailors who work on deck - engine room crew, who work below in the engine room; and catering staff, who are the waiters, cooks and so on. The Board can provide three separate rosters, one for deck crew, one for engine room crew and one for catering staff. These rosters can again be sub-divided into racial categories or sections - Malays, Hainanese, Cantonese, Foochow and so on. If on a certain ship you have say, only Hainanese catering staff, and if that ship wants to recruit two more caterers, they go to the catering staff roster. The employers see the two names at the top are of Cantonese caterers. If these are engaged, there is going to be trouble on board the ship. What they do then is that they are referred to the Hainanese section of the catering staff roster, and so they get their Hainanese seamen. The same thing will apply where deck crew are concerned. Some ships have Malay deck crew and must therefore recruit only Malays; so they will be referred to the Malay section of the deck crew roster. The shipowners' real objection, as I see it, is based on the fear that they will have to recruit some seamen who have in the past been found to be useless or idle or are loafers, who they know are not going to do their work efficiently. If that is so - in fact I raised this point in Select Committee - the answer is that if a seaman is found by a captain to be loafing, idle or useless, he should then not give the seaman a good discharge, so that he will then be penalised by the Board and will not then be put in the proper place on the roster. But if seamen are given good discharges, then there is no case against them, and I do not see why they should be refused employment by a shipowner claiming that they are lazy when in fact their discharges are good. If the captain finds a seaman to be lazy, incompetent or insubordinate, he has a right to give him a bad discharge. So that is the answer. The other real fear, I think, is that shipowners are afraid that there will be no choice and that they will get trade unionists on board ships; that is, I think the real fear behind their minds. But I do not see any way of preventing trade unionists - provided they are good workers, and take interest in their work and discharge their duties efficiently - why trade unionists should not get employment. The Bill provides a shipowner with two choices. If he comes round to the Board's office and says, "I want 10 Malay deck crew", he may be given 12, 15 or 20 names to choose from, as the Board may decide. Great latitude is given to the Board. The number of names offered is not fixed by the Bill. The Board can decide that if an owner wants 10 seamen, it offers 15, where he wants 20 it offers 30, where he wants 100 it offers 150, or where he wants one, it offers two - the Board can decide how many names to offer for selection. Now when 10 are asked for and 15 offered, the shipowner has a choice. He may pick not 10 out of the 15 but only seven, and say, "Sorry, the rest are no good to me." He still wants three more - and he will be given another three from the next on the roster; so he has a second choice then. That latitude has been provided for; to say, therefore, that certain seamen who are "residue" and whom shipowners do not want to employ will get to the top of the roster, is unfair. Probably they do not want to employ them because they are known trade unionists, or, as the owners call them, "agitators". On the Council of Action, Sir, I admit it was set up for the purpose of uniting seamen into one union. I have received a letter today, dated 25th April, from the Seamen's Council of Action, and it says: "To date, seven seamen's unions, including practically all the big unions, have signed the resolution of amalgamation to form one single seafarers' union under the auspices of the Seamen's Council of Action to be called the Singapore Union of Seafarers with autonomous sections of ship officers, seamen, harbour craft workers, and an interim committee has been set up . . . The remaining five seamen's unions will also be asked to dissolve themselves and get their membership to join the new union for the sake of unity. Whether they do or not, little difficulty is expected." As far as I know - and I have some knowledge as far as these unions are concerned - out of the remaining five, only one matters. It has been suggested that this roster system is an untried novelty and, therefore, there is apprehension about its implementation. Sir, the Rendel Constitution and this Assembly also were untried novelties two years ago. Well, there is a difference of opinion on how it works - some are satisfied, some are not - but the point is that if you stick to the conservative practice, of refusing to introduce reforms or to try out new things, you will never advance; you will not, for example, have the hydrogen bomb. That is not, therefore, a valid reason for refusing to try something which you do not know may prove a success; if it proves a failure, and if shipowners go out to other ports to recruit seamen, probably we will have to come back to this Assembly and repeal that portion of the Ordinance. The answer to the question why no other industry has this roster system, why only this particular industry has it, is simple: in no other industry are persons engaged on a casual basis. In most industries on land, there is permanent employment. When a man is taken on, he continues working with the firm, provided he is efficient, is not insubordinate and is found to be suitable, or provided the firm does not close down. But in a ship, a seaman signs articles for that, six months or, if it is an ocean-going, long voyage ship for two years. After that period, he comes back and is thrown out of employment. There is no obligation on the part of the employer to reengage him, and therefore he may not be able to find employment after returning from a particular voyage, or after he has finished his term of service with that ship. The roster system, therefore, is necessary in order to give him some security of employment. He knows that when he comes back, he can put his name down on the roster and has a reasonable chance that in so many months he can work in another ship. However, as I said, the system can fail if there is no co-operation between shipowners and unions, and that is what I fear. If only shipowners and unions will co-operate, I am sure the system will work. If any defects are found, we can always legislate to remove them. The final question which Mr Sutherland asked was that if corruption is prevalent, why has there not been an investigation? There has been an investigation into corruption; I mentioned it at the Second Reading of this Bill. I believe it was in 1950 but the report was that no proof of corruption was found. We tried to abolish the ghaut serang system and put in the present system, but it has not worked successfully and we know that in fact there is some amount of financial "squeeze" of seamen by interested parties. I will not name them here.

Question put, and agreed to.

Committee stage, what day?

Now, Sir.

3.47 p.m.

Sir, it is clear that the business set down for today cannot be completed before the moment of interruption and I therefore beg to move under Standing Order 7 (2), That this Assembly do sit tomorrow in order to complete any business that is left uncompleted at the end of today's sitting.

I second it.

On a point of information, Mr Speaker, Sir - does that mean that if tomorrow at the time of the moment of interruption, the business is still not completed, we have to sit beyond the moment of interruption, or does it mean that then further provision will be made?

I think the proper motion would be that, at its rising today, this Assembly do stand adjourned till tomorrow, Friday.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I now move, That at its rising today this Assembly do stand adjourned till tomorrow, Friday.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That at its rising today this Assembly do stand adjourned till tomorrow, Friday.

3.50 p.m.

Clause 3-

Mr Chairman, I move, At page 17, line 8, after the word "office", to insert the words "or offices". The reason for this is to bring the wording in line with the wording in the remaining portion of the Bill. Amendment agreed to. Mr R. Jumabhoy rose-

The hon. Member wishes to move an amendment?

Yes, Sir, to clause 3 (2).

It is too late.

Can I ask you when I can move it?

The hon. Member should have moved it before the Hon. the Minister rose.

But I thought, Sir - just on a point of information and for guidance in the future - that when a Member of the Assembly sits down thinking that the Minister might be moving this, but the amendment is different from what he expected-

Notice of amendment was given. The notice appears in the Order Paper. Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 5-

Mr Chairman, Sir, if this roster system is a means of-

Is the hon. Member moving an amendment?

No, Sir, I am speaking on it.

The hon. Member should wait till the Question has been proposed. If any Member wishes to move an amendment before clause 5, page 19, line 30, he should do so now.

Before page 19, can we take page 16?

On clause 5 only.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I move, At page 19, line 31, to leave out the words "agreements for their employment", and insert the word "articles". This, again, is to bring the wording into line with the rest of the Bill. Amendment agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move, At page 19, lines 34 to 35, to leave out the words "the agreement for employment", and insert "articles". The reason is the same as for the previous amendments. Amendment agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move, At page 19, line 41, to leave out the word "seamen", and insert "seaman". This is a typographical error. Amendment agreed to. Question proposed, "That clause 5, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr Chairman, Sir, if this clause 5 is for the protection of local seamen so that they can have full employment, then I think it may, in reality, deprive them of employment. The Minister has realised that the working of this roster system depends on the goodwill on both sides, employer as well as employee. I know that in this Assembly everybody is trying to give a good deal to workers, but if they are going to introduce what they think are good measures but which finally deprive them of employment, then they will not be doing a good turn to the seamen. From the Select Committee Report, I know that shipowners are not very happy about this, and that they need a great deal of persuasion by the Department concerned to co-operate in this matter. Even if this clause is adopted, I think there is still another escape for ship-owners - they can employ seamen who are in transit: these people can come to Singapore to join their ships. I know that ships come to Singapore because this is a convenient port and because they make Singapore the focal point for trade in South-East Asia - and Singapore has benefited from this to a great extent. We are trying to protect seamen, but I hope that this protection is for local seamen only and not those who come here, park themselves in this Colony, owe allegiance to other lands and then benefit from our laws. I think protection should be given only to the citizens of Singapore, to those who will become citizens, and not, indiscriminately, to people who owe allegiance elsewhere. I have heard that a number of ships which contemplated registering in Singapore have transferred their registration to other countries. This means a loss to us. This also means that these ships need not comply with our laws. This will mean that shipowners may not offer their co-operation, and may take seamen from other ports instead. Again, some local ships, I have been informed by reliable people, have avoided Singapore and, instead of coming from Bangkok to Singapore and then going to other South-East Asian ports, have proceeded straight from Bangkok to other ports like Kuching. In such cases, not only will our seamen lose their chances of being employed, but Singapore will also lose a great deal of its entrepot trade. I hear the Minister say that he is going to devise a system whereby there will be sub-sections in his rosters according to race of seamen, and types of work. But if the roster system is implemented in this way, what will prevent seamen from a particular race being left out all the time? If you have many ships which employ Chinese seamen, and only Chinese seamen, where will the Malay seamen find employment? How will the roster system help them in securing jobs? It seems that with a roster having many sections, a seaman will not get much protection. It will probably turn out to be a white elephant to be discarded after some time. The main- 4.00 p.m.

Order. Moment of interruption. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to report progress on the Seamen's Registry Board Bill and ask leave to continue discussion at tomorrow's sitting.

Tomorrow it shall be. Remaining items on the Order Paper read, and items Nos. 8 and 9 set down for tomorrow.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That this Assembly do now adjourn.

Sir, I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly do now adjourn. Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Four o'clock p.m.