Yes, indeed, Sir. You will see, Sir, that my amendment deletes all mention of the $500 ceiling and all mention of industrial clerks, and it combines the definitions of both "clerks" and "industrial clerks" into a single group of workers to be known as "clerks" with a single set of minimum conditions of service. This amendment goes to the root not only of the $500 ceiling, but also to the division into industrial clerks and clerks. If this amendment fails, Sir, then all the consequential amendments will fail, because the question of industrial clerks is now incorporated in this particular amendment. If we take up this division, then everything else must succeed and we have one set of clerks. So it is vital, Sir, that this House understands the objections to the division between clerks and industrial clerks on the part of employees as well as on the part of employers. So whom are we seeking to please? Sir, if you will look at page 11 of the Report, the employers, who had legal advice on this matter and who were assisted in the presentation of their case, said this in their memorandum, in paragraph 4: "One of the most important sections of industry which will be adversely affected by the proposed division of clerks is general transport which is so vital to the existence and development of the Island and in support of this we would quote the following extract from a letter received from the Singapore Traction Co. Ltd." This is what the letter quoted says: " 'We have two departments in which it will be very difficult to differentiate between "clerks" and "Industrial Clerks". These departments are- '(1) Traffic Department, in which the work varies from clerks keeping personnel records and preparing duty lists ("clerical" work), to time clerks and depot clerks whose work is connected with the operational side of the business and who are therefore "industrial" clerks, 'These clerks work together in the same office and on occasions must assist each other. There is also a large body of clerks in between these two extremes whose daily work is connected with both and whom it would be very difficult to divide into "clerks' and "industrial clerks".'" Now, you see, Sir. The letter continues: " '(2) Engineering Department, in which the clerks' work varies from time-keeping ("industrial" clerks), to costing ("clerks"), and covers all intermediate work. It would be practically impossible to divide these into the proposed categories without disorganising the work.'" So the suggestion of the Government, Sir, meets with the favour of nobody. The employers say it will disorganise their work and the employees say it is utterly unfair. If you continue on page 11, Sir, you will read the following: "Another important industry which has stated it will experience considerable difficulty is the motor industry, as will be seen from the following extract from a letter received from Borneo Motors Ltd.:- 'We give below two examples of our difficulty in practising a distinction in working hours: - '(1) In our Stores Department, we have Stock Control clerks, Sales Counter clerks and Workshop Counter Issue clerks. A Stock Control clerk records the receipts and issue of spare parts. His work is closely related to that of the other two categories of clerks, but is not complementary or supervisory to the work of our workmen in the Repair Shop. The work of a Sales Counter clerk is also not complementary or supervisory, as he sells spare parts over the Counter to the public. A Workshop Counter Issue clerk issues spare parts to the Workshop for the repair of vehicles and is, therefore, an industrial clerk within the meaning of the Ordinance. All these three categories of clerks now work the same number of hours. It will be difficult to make a distinction in working hours as their work is closely related and in the case of Sales Counter clerk and Workshop Counter Issue clerk, very similar. The fact that the Sales Counter clerk serves the public is not good reason why he should work shorter hours than the clerk who serves the Workshop.' " Turn to page 12, Sir: " '(2) In our Workshop, we have Bill clerks and Time clerks. The latter do clerical work complementary or supervisory to the work of our workmen and are industrial clerks within the meaning of the Ordinance. Bill clerks are office clerks and not industrial clerks but their work is nevertheless closely related to that of the Time clerks. Before a Bill clerk closes a job he has to refer to the Time clerk for the time spent by workmen on the job and he has also to refer to the Workshop Counter Issue clerk for the spares issued to the job. At present, the clerks work the same hours and it will be difficult to treat the Bill clerk as an office clerk and a Time clerk as an industrial clerk.' " Further down, Sir, we have the Singapore Cold Storage letter: "'(a) Bulk Stores Clerks, Orchard Road work in close connection with the shops whose staff under the new Bill are on a 44-hour week. Although these clerks do not work in the shops and serve customers, they are in a way very similar to shop-assistants. Issues of groceries, tin provisions, etc, are constantly made so long as the shops are open and a 39-hour week will entail overtime to these clerks with unavoidable complaints from shop-assistants.'" Quite right. And I say, with respect to you, Sir, that what we should provide is an inducement to reduce the working hours of the industrial clerks and, if necessary, to take on more employees, and thus, to some extent, meet the growing urgency of the unemployment problem. Finally, Sir, I will read the third last paragraph of the employers' memorandum, on page 12: "If time permitted, many more such examples could be cited but the Federation feels that those given above will be sufficient to show that genuine difficulty will arise. The Federation appreciates that on the occasion when previous legislation on this subject was under consideration, employers may generally have taken the view that the division between ordinary clerks and those employed in industry was workable, but it is convinced that this was due mainly to their natural alarm at the proposal of a 39-hour week for all clerks. Now that an opportunity has been given for more careful examination of the matter the difficulties and dangers attendant upon the proposal-" that is, the proposal to divide them into clerks and industrial clerks- "as set out above have been appreciated." Now, Sir, I have already read to you the objection of the employees appearing at column 37 of Annexe I. Nobody wants this distinction which divides clerks into three categories: one earning above $500 having no protection at all; one who has a 39-hour week, 14 days annual leave, and 13 days public holidays; and finally the poor second-class clerk who has a 44-hour working week, only seven days annual leave and 11 days public holidays. Sir, the Hon. the Chief Minister has indicated that the division into those earning under $500 and those earning over $500 is because those earning over $500 can protect themselves and can brief lawyers. Sir, I do not know how that is logical; it seems to be a non sequitur, and I would merely add this (if there is any merit to it) that the Minister is in charge of an Ordinance which provides for free legal aid, and that, if that Ordinance is actively and honestly implemented, the people of the country - not only those earning more than $500 but the people who need it - will be able to have free legal aid, man, woman and child. I know of no express intention on the part of the Hon. the Chief Minister to repeal that Ordinance and, in the circumstances, it seems to me illogical to provide for a division at $500 on the assumption that those earning more than that figure can afford to pay for legal aid. Sir, I say that, under the provisions of the Ordinance which he has the responsibility of administering, those earning less than $500 can also have access to lawyers. I say, Sir, that this division is unjust. It will cause a great deal of heart-burning to people doing the same work. It will encourage the employers to a great deal of litigation in order to press clerks into the industrial clerks category. It is not wanted by the employers, who say that it will disrupt work. It is not wanted by the employees. And I say to this House that if it accepts my amendment, these distinctions will be wiped away, but it leaves power to the Minister, in genuine cases where there is need to make the distinction, to take specific groups out of the definition of "clerk". That power should be exercised very sparingly, Sir, and I have no doubt, I hope, it will be exercised sparingly; in any event, if there are complaints, this House can hear about them. But the main thing to remember is this: If it is suggested that there are some industries which require that their clerks should work the same hours as their industrial workers, the answer is two-fold: one, employ more clerks or pay the clerks for over-time; and two, apply to the Minister for special exemption. Sir, I do plead with this House, even though the amendment may come from me, to consider it with impartiality and with a sense of justice to a group of people who have not been articulate, who are extremely timid, but who are, Sir, worthy of our honest and sincere efforts in assisting them to get the protection they need.