Hansard, 1959-08-13

The following Members have, under the provisions of subsection (2) (g) of section 42 of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, obtained from the Speaker, permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of the Assembly:- Mr C. H. Koh (Joo Chiat) -one month from 24th July, 1959. Mr S. Ramaswamy (Bukit Merah) - from 9th August to 9th September, 1959.

I have received two messages from His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, informing me that His Excellency had, in accordance with the provisions of section 55 (1) of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, on the days stated, assented to the following Bills:- 21st July, 1959. (i) Financial Procedure Bill; (ii) City Council (Suspension and Transfer of Functions) Bill; (iii) Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections (Amendment No. 2) Bill; (iv) Control of Rent (Amendment) Bill. 22nd July, 1959. (i) Promissory Oaths (Amendment) Bill; (ii) Local Government (Amendment No. 2) Bill.

I have to inform hon. Members that on the 22nd day of July, 1959, I duly sent a letter to His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, containing the Address agreed to by resolution of this Assembly on the 21st day of July, 1959. I received a reply from His Excellency dated the 22nd July, 1959, acknowledging receipt of the kind message of the Legislative Assembly transmitted to him in my letter.

2.32 p.m.

Mr Speaker, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Ordinance to amend the Hotels Ordinance, 1954 (No. 24 of 1954)." Bill read the First time.

Second Reading, what day?

Immediately after the conclusion of the proceedings on item 4 of the Order Paper [Factories (Amendment) Bill].

So be it.

Mr Speaker, I lay upon the Table a Certificate of Urgency signed by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in respect of the Bill. Certificate of Urgency handed in.

The Certificate is in order. Are typed copies of the Bill available for the use of Members?

Yes. Typed copies of the Bill handed in to the Clerk and distributed to hon. Members.

Mr Speaker, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Ordinance to invalidate certain acts and proceedings of the City Council and for purposes connected therewith." Bill read the First time.

Second Reading, what day.

Mr Speaker, immediately after the conclusion of the proceedings on the Hotels (Amendment) Bill.

So be it.

Mr Speaker, I lay upon the Table a Certificate of Urgency signed by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in respect of the City Council (Invalidation of Proceedings) Bill. Certificate of Urgency handed in.

The Certificate is in order. Are typed copies available for the use of Members?

Yes. Typed copies of the Bill handed in to the Clerk and distributed to hon. Members.

Mr Speaker, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Ordinance to amend the Cinematograph Films Ordinance (Chapter 213 of the Revised Edition) and to repeal the British Cinematograph Films Proclamation (Proclamation No. 54)." Bill read the First time.

Second Reading, what day?

Immediately after the conclusion of the proceedings on the City Council (Invalidation of Proceedings) Bill.

So be it.

Mr Speaker, I lay upon the Table a Certificate of Urgency signed by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in respect of the Bill. Certificate of Urgency handed in.

The Certificate is in order. Are typed copies of the Bill available for the use of Members?

Yes. Typed copies of the Bill handed in to the Clerk and distributed to hon. Members.

"to amend the Criminal Procedure Code (Chapter 132 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Labour and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 2nd September, 1959, and to be printed.

"to amend the Evidence Ordinance (Chapter 4 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Labour and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 2nd September, 1959, and to be printed.

"to amend the Penal Code (Chapter 119 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Labour and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 2nd September, 1959, and to be printed.

"to amend the Registration of Criminals Ordinance (Chapter 136 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ong Pang Boon); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 2nd September, 1959, and to be printed.

"to amend the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance, 1955 (No. 26 of 1955)". presented by the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ong Pang Boon); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 2nd September, 1959, and to be printed.

"to repeal and re-enact the law regulating the limitation of actions and arbitrations", presented by the Minister for Labour and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 2nd September, 1959, and to be printed.

"to make provision for the regulation of moneylending", presented by the Minister for Labour and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 2nd September, 1959, and to be printed.

"to make provision as respects things done in relation to enemy property or property treated as enemy property in excess of the powers conferred by the law relating to trading with the enemy; as respects income from moneys invested by Custodians of Enemy Property or Custodians of Property; as respects copyrights in or in connection with which German enemy interests subsisted, or were properly treated as subsisting during the period of the war with Germany; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid", presented by the Minister for Labour and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 2nd September, 1959, and to be printed.

"to provide for the licensing and control of establishments for massage or special treatment", presented by the Minister for Labour and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 2nd September, 1959, and to be printed.

"to provide for the transfer of certain powers and duties to the State Advocate-General", presented by the Minister for Labour and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 2nd September, 1959, and to be printed.

2.50 p.m. The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye): Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That this Assembly resolves that amendments, as recommended in paragraph 3 of the First Report of the Standing Orders Committee and contained in Paper L.A. (New Series) 2 of 1959, be and are hereby made to the Standing Orders of this Assembly.

I second the motion.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly resolves that amendments, as recommended in paragraph 3 of the First Report of the Standing Orders Committee and contained in Paper L.A. (New Series) 2 of 1959, be and are hereby made to the Standing Orders of this Assembly.

2.52 p.m.

Mr Speaker, I rise to move the motion standing in my name as it appears in item 2 of the Order Paper.* *That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (1) of section 79 of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, resolves that the remuneration of the Chairman and Members of the Public Service Commission established under section 76 of the aforementioned Order shall be as follows:-

Sir, I second the motion.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (1) of Section 79 of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, resolves that the remuneration of the Chairman and Members of the Public Service Commission established under section 76 of the aforementioned Order shall be as follows:-

Order for Second Reading read. 2.56 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Members will recall that at the last sitting of the Assembly, the Financial Procedure Bill was passed to fill in the general framework for the control of public expenditure established in sections 95 to 100 of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council. Sections 101 to 103 of the Order in Council similarly provide a skeleton for the audit of public accounts by the Director of Audit. The present Audit Bill is intended to give flesh to those bones. The Explanatory Statement has set out in full the nature of the clauses of the Bill and I need not therefore say more than that, together with the Financial Procedure Bill, it is so designed that the finances of the State will be subjected to proper accounting procedure and regulations which, under the watchful eye of the Director of Audit, will be meticulously followed. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. [Dr Goh Keng Swee]. Bill considered in Committee.

2.58 p.m. Clause 1 -

Sir, I beg to move, In page 1, line 8, after "3rd", to insert "day of". This is purely a drafting amendment. Amendment agreed to. Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 -

Sir, I beg to move, In page 1, line 11, after "as", to insert "in". This is a typographical omission. Amendment agreed to. Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 5 -

Sir, I beg to move, In page 3, line 5, after "the", to insert "Legislative". This is to preserve consistency throughout the Bill which elsewhere uses the full description. See clause 4, page 2, line 30. Amendment agreed to. Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 6 to 8 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 9 -

Sir, I beg to move, In page 5, line 40, to leave out "(1)" and insert "(2)". This is to correct an error, as, although subsection (1) refers to reports made by the Auditor, submissions made by him can be dealt with in subsection (2). Amendment agreed to. Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with amendments; read the Third time and passed.

Ordered for Second Reading read. 3.03 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Factories Ordinance provides for the regulation and supervision of health, safety and welfare of persons employed in factories and other workplaces. An amendment to section 6, subsection (4) of this Ordinance is now considered necessary to provide that small factories employing less than ten persons will only be exempted from the provisions of the Ordinance if no mechanical power, steam boiler, steam container, steam receiver, cast iron underfired vulcaniser, air receiver, refrigerating plant pressure receiver, or gas plant is used, or where no highly inflammable or noxious substance is manipulated, used or created. Mr Speaker, Sir, as the Ordinance stands, no legal action can be taken against a small factory employing less than ten persons even though it uses the kind of machinery mentioned above. It has been found that there are a large number of factories having less than ten persons using out-of-date machinery which did not originally have safety guards incorporated, or where they have had safety guards, these could easily be removed, Sir. The Government is merely seeking power to take preventive action against serious accidents to life and limb in small factories employing less than ten persons where dangerous machinery of the type mentioned above is used, and which are now excluded from the Factories Ordinance, Sir. In a recent case, a locally assembled grinding machine burst its grinding wheel, a piece of which hit the operator in the face, killing him instantly. The present amendment to the Factories Ordinance is designed to enable proper control to be exercised in respect of such activities where dangerous machinery is used in small factories employing less than ten persons. Mr Speaker, Sir, you will remember that the original Factories Bill provided that premises in which there were less than six employees should be exempted from the provisions of the Ordinance. This Bill was later referred to a Select Committee of the House, and was discussed in Select Committee on the 15th September, 1958. It was first proposed to the Select Committee that the exemption should be extended to premises in which there were less than 16 employees, and the Chief Minister, Tun Lim Yew Hock, agreed to a compromise by which premises with less than ten employees were to be exempted from the provisions of the Factories Ordinance. It was thought that such an exemption would make it unnecessary for a lot of small businesses to comply with the onerous provisions of the Ordinance. There was a lot of confusion of thought as to what the Bill was designed to do when it was last before this House. Members who spoke in the Select Committee mentioned that great hardship would be caused to small businesses, in which no machinery was used, if they were not exempted from the provisions of the Ordinance. I would refer you, Mr Speaker, to the proceedings of the 15th September, 1958, in Select Committee, and I will quote extracts from speeches which were made by hon. Members at that time. This is what one hon. Member had to say: This Bill is bringing in, for the first time, certain trades within the definition of "factory", trades which do not use any mechanical devices or machinery.' In fact, all factories use mechanical devices or machinery, Sir. For instance, this is what the same Member said: "The shoe makers and garment manufacturers have, on analysis, more than six workers in their premises. With the trades which are not using any mechanical or electrical machinery, what is important are the conditions of work from the health point of view of the workers, and I do not think the original intention of this Bill was to bring these trades within its provisions. Consequently, I think an increase to the number would automatically exempt most of these trades from the provisions of the Bill." It was not realised at the time that premises using the type of machinery mentioned in the Ordinance would be just as dangerous to safety even if a single workman was employed to tend the machinery. I have just mentioned the case of the grinding machine which burst its grinding wheel, and which instantaneously killed the person operating it. It is therefore considered essential that factories employing less than ten persons and which are operated by mechanical power or which use highly inflammable, or noxious substances should also be brought under the provisions of the Factories Ordinance for the reasons which I have stated above. I do move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Mr Byrne]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 3.13 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This is a short and simple Bill, the urgency of which is due to the fact that the life of the current Hotels Licensing Board expired on 10th August, 1959, and new appointments are necessary. In accordance with the provisions of the existing section 3 of the Hotels Ordinance, 1959, this Board consisted of a Chairman appointed by the Governor in Council and not less than six members elected by the Justices of the Peace from among themselves and appointed by the Governor in Council. The new Government considers, however, that in view of the new constitutional changes, it would now be more appropriate for the Minister to appoint the Chairman and members of the Board. The amendment will also enable to Minister to choose from a wider field of selection suitable persons for appointment as members who could reflect the new Government's attitude on social vices. It is a logical step to expect that after the closure of pin-tables and juke boxes and gambling dens, the Government should now pay very close attention to bawdy houses and brothels disguised as; legitimate hotels. Clause 2 of this Bill, therefore, amends section 3 of the Hotels Ordinance, 1954, to reconstitute the Board on the lines which I have mentioned. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved into a Committee on the Bill -[Mr Ong Pang Boon]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 3.17 p.m.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The main purpose of this Bill is to make provision for the invalidation of certain acts and proceedings of the so-called Tang Peng Yeu-Vasagar City Council in the six weeks between 18th April, 1959 and 5th June, 1959. The people know that during this short period of six weeks, many acts and decisions were passed by this rump City Council depleted of any mandate or any authority to carry on. It made important decisions which affected the interests of the nation for a long time, in some cases raising fundamental issues. A case in point is the question of tariff charges for electricity supplied to cinemas. Mr Speaker, during the ten years when the Member for Farrer Park was in sole charge of the City Council, we the people of Singapore had to pay 20 cents a unit for electricity charges while cinema-owners had to pay only three to four cents a unit for their lighting. That had been going on for nearly ten years until we found it out. The case they put up was to masquerade under the so-called maximum demand tariff that, without these cinemas, the electricity being churned out from the Pasir Panjang Power Station would be thrown into the sea. We know that this was far from true. We raised the cinema rates from three or four cents to 20 cents per Unit. But during the six weeks that the watch-dogs of the nation were not in the Council, the rump City Council of Tang Peng Yeu Vasagar rescinded our decision and decided to conclude an agreement with the cinema-owners providing for a substantial reduction in the rates payable. Mr Speaker, I have in front of me a so-called agreement signed between the parties. This deed of compromise was made on the 29th day of May, 1959. There are a few significant features in this agreement. One was that although it was purported to be the 29th of May, 1959, and even if the accepted date is truly the 29th day of May, the stamp is on the 1st of June, 1959. The fact is that the 29th of May, 1959, is a date which we call the eve of a beautiful funeral. Because on the 30th, the electorate condemned the Parties whose representatives had signed this agreement. The second significant feature in this agreement was that in the more than 100 years of Municipal history, as I have been told, never had an agreement been concluded on duplicating paper. All agreements were printed and properly sealed. That was the first time in Municipal history that a very important document had been stencilled on cheap printing paper, and with many typing mistakes. Mr Speaker, just to give an instance of the typing mistakes. This deed of compromise made between the City Council of the one part, and the companies and persons - 25 in number - of the other part; the "25" was changed in handwriting to "17". Apparently eight of them might have had cold feet, knowing very well that when we came in we would rescind it. Mr Speaker, on the 19th of April, 1959, the Chairman of my Party made this important announcement. This is contained in the Straits Times of the 19th April, 1959: 'Dr Toh also warned that the C.A.O. and the Minister for Local Government, Dato Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat, would be held personally responsible "for any acts committed in this interregnum which is detrimental to the public interest. The next Government will rescind and reverse any decision or action which is not in the people's interest,".' Mr Speaker, we gave due warning to all persons concerned who had dealings with this rump City Council that their actions could be re-opened and subject to review. And we have here eight enlightened cinema-owners who understood that this document was a document which was going to be perpetrated against the interests of the country. They thus refused to sign and, as a result, the "25" had been corrected in pencil to "17". There are also the initials of Mr P. C. Marcus as the C.A.O., Mr G. B. Armstrong, as a City Councillor, and one member representing the theatre and cinema-owners who initialled just behind the pencil mark. Mr Speaker, this Bill seeks to rectify, by legislation, this most unsatisfactory situation, by giving powers to the Minister to invalidate any act or proceedings of this rump City Council which is not considered to be in the public interest, and also to render null and void all contracts and agreements entered into on the authority of such acts and proceedings. The people pay 20 cents per unit for electricity. The cinema-owners should not pay only six cents. Mr Speaker, provision has also been made in the Bill for compensation to be awarded in cases where hardships may arise as a result of the invalidation action taken. I wish to make some explanation on this. There has been a contract on certain sewerage works of the City Council. The lowest tenderer withdrew for no reason whatsoever. In the normal practice in the City Council, they always re-tender. But in this case, the Committee, consisting of the residual of the rump City Council, decided to give it to the second lowest tenderer and it cost a quarter of a million dollars more. After we had been elected in as the new Government, I received certain letters explaining to me why the first tenderer withdrew and the reasons which they considered motivated the giving of the tender to the second lowest tenderer. This action was against all previous precedents. Mr Speaker, we have taken action on this. We have frozen the contract - luckily the contract was not signed yet. We were fast enough to take action and, although the contract was not signed, the second lowest tenderer had done some spade-work and perhaps, in such cases, it might be necessary to pay a little bit of compensation to the contractor, although it was not the fault of the City Council that he had proceeded with the work. Now, Mr Speaker, there are many more instances of actions taken by this rump City Council which are against the interests of the country and which have to be invalidated. This Bill will provide for such powers. Mr Speaker, I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.28 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for National Development paid me a compliment by saying that I was in sole charge of the City Council for the ten years previous to his advent there. Now, if the Minister means what he says - that is, that I was in sole charge - then he must necessarily imply that I was controlling the City Council and what I said then went in the City Council, in the same way that when he was the Mayor what he said in the City Council went. Fortunately or unfortunately for me, Mr Speaker, Sir, that was not my position. I was not in sole charge of the City Council. I was only one of the members of the Board of Commissioners to begin with, and latterly one of the members of the City Council. I had not the powers that the ex-Mayor had when he was there. However, the purpose of this debate, Mr Speaker, Sir, is to discuss not who was in charge of the City Council, but the merits or demerits of the Bill now before us. Sir, the Hon. Minister for National Development started off his speech by saying this Bill raises fundamental issues. Mr Speaker, Sir, to my mind, it also raises fundamental issues, but my understanding of the fundamental issues raised is not the same as that of the Minister. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have not known a Bill seeking to do what this Bill is seeking to do. I have not known any legislation such as this enacted and put on any statute book. This is something unique, and if this Bill goes through this House, as I expect it will, I hope that this will be the last of such Bills in this Assembly. First of all, Mr Speaker, Sir, the present Government in its policy speech said that the prime task for Singapore is to build up a climate of confidence - confidence of such a nature that people will have faith in this country and come here and invest their money and carry on their business. I venture to suggest, Mr Speaker, that Bills of this nature must surely destroy that confidence. If one government disagrees with the actions of the previous government, surely in a democratic country, Mr Speaker, the answer is not to legislate to annul such actions of the previous government and this more so especially in matters in respect of which private citizens had acquired rights. If our Government is going to take this sort of action, then it is going to be very difficult for private individuals to carry on their business with any sense of confidence. Clause 3 of the Bill proposes to cancel off all contracts entered into by the City Council during a certain period. No doubt the Mayor and his group were not in the City Council then, but that did not make the City Council an illegal institution. It was a perfectly legal institution carrying out its duties in a perfectly constitutional manner, possibly not in the way that the Mayor and his group would have done, but still carrying out their duties in a proper and lawful way; and if contracts were entered into as a result of those lawful acts, is it moral Mr Speaker, that the present government should come along and upset what was perfectly right, proper and legal at the time of decision? Even more disturbing than that, Mr Speaker, is this. Clause 4 of the Bill says: "...no court shall entertain any claim to compensation damages in respect of any such contract or agreement." But the Bill goes on to say that the Minister, if he so desires, may award compensation. Why this attempt to oust the court of its rightful sphere of action? If compensation should be paid, why should not the court decide it, and why should the Minister be allowed to decide it? Have we lost faith in our courts that we must go to the Minister every time? It may be that the Minister may decide to cancel a contract. Certain legal rights will arise on work done, on a quantum merit. Is that person to be denied access to the courts? And should he be left to the tender mercies of the Minister in charge? In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would say that this Bill is not the proper Bill to create a climate of confidence; in fact, it is highly improper. 3.35 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, and fellow Members-

The hon. Member need not address the Members of the House. He addresses the Chair.

(In Malay): I am sorry. Mr Speaker, in support of the Bill moved by the Minister for National Development just now, and which has caused concern to the Opposition Members, I can be quite frank to say here, for the information of the Members of the Opposition, that it is in the interest of the people and State of Singapore as a whole. This Bill is not aimed at any individual, as had been practised by the Member for Farrer Park when he was in the City Council previously. If we go deeply into the matter as to how this Bill was brought about resulting in it being moved today, I think it will take a long time. However, I wish to reply to his queries one by one in order to satisfy him. The Minister for National Development has stated that it is not proper for the former City Council to discriminate against the people of Singapore who pay 16 cents for a unit of electricity, and that there was no reason why businessmen or cinema-owners should pay only 6 cents per unit or even a lower rate than that. I think this is not fair. In my opinion, there must have been some ulterior motive behind that decision. The Member for Farrer Park stated just now that this Bill will create an unhealthy climate for the Government of Singapore, that it will go to show that its administration is not so perfect, and that it will result in the loss of confidence of cinema-owners in the Government of Singapore. I feel that the loss of confidence will not be as a result of this Bill. The loss of confidence resulted from the attitude of the City Council during the past ten years for its generous charge of six cents per unit of electricity to cinema-owners, or even a lower rate than that. Certainly if we increase the charge to more than six cents, or 18 cents a Unit, the cinema-owners will be surprised, as they are paying six cents per unit now. Therefore, the loss of confidence was due to the fact that the rate had been increased from six cents to 18 cents per unit to bring it at par with the rate paid by the people of Singapore. The Member for Farrer Park said that he was not in sole control of the City Council. But he was one of those responsible for the running of the City Council during the past ten years. He played a big part in the City Council and he had powers. As a member of the City Council, I also had certain powers. When we, the P.A.P., won the elections to the City Council and we checked the books, there was nothing to show that the Member for Farrer Park opposed the low rate of six cents per unit of electricity levied on the cinema-owners. This should be a guide to the Member concerned. I am quite sure that he is fully aware that the loss of confidence is not as a result of this Bill. There are many other examples which can be quoted here. For instance, the Victoria Theatre, and the Murnane Reservoir, but if I do that, I will be running away from the subject of the debate today. Mr Speaker, among other things mentioned in this Bill are that the decisions of the previous City Council of Messrs. "Vasagar/Tang Peng Yeu" would be considered unconstitutional and would be invalid and rescinded. The reason why I support this Bill is that since members of the P.A.P. left the City Council, the Opposition Members acted like thieves and robbers to satisfy their lust and ambitions which were opposed by the members of the P.A.P. when they were in the City Council. As mentioned by the Minister for National Development, normally an agreement is signed on a standard type of paper according to proper procedure but the agreement signed by the City Council of Mr Vasagar and Messrs. Tang Peng Yeu and company were not so. This is the attitude I was referring to when I talked about thieves and robbers. There are many other acts committed by them which are not in the interest of the State of Singapore. The reason for their perpetuating these acts to satisfy their lust was prompted by the support of the previous Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing. Mr Speaker, the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing, who is Dato Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat who-

Order. I think the previous Minister for Local Government is now a Member of the House and, therefore, he must not be referred to by name.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I tender my apologies. So this encouragement came from the previous Minister. How did he give that encouragement? There might be many other reasons. The powers which he had delegated to himself was not in accordance with the Local Government Ordinance. With such encouragement, the ex-City Councillors committed many acts, and made decisions at their whims and fancies. That is the reason why this Bill is introduced today - so that the decisions taken since the P.A.P. City Councillors left, and which were not in the interest of the people and of the State, could be made null and void. Once again, Mr Speaker, I wish to say that this Bill has been formulated in the interest of the people of Singapore, and should be supported by all here. 3.47 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, the Member for Anson said that when I was the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing, I encouraged all these commitments, these unconstitutional acts in the City Council. This is completely untrue. I wish to emphasise here that when I was a Minister, I carried out my duties constitutionally. The actions which I took were in accordance with the Constitution of Singapore. As mentioned by the Member for Anson about the electricity agreement signed between the cinema-owners, and the City Council, the present Minister said just now that the agreement was made on the 1st of June, 1959, i.e. after the elections. So it is therefore not true to say that I was responsible for or that I encouraged acts which were in violation of the Constitution of Singapore. 3.49 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise just to clarify a few points. This question of electricity rates has been confusing the minds of the electorate for some time, and I must say that my mind is confused too. I have heard divergent views on these electricity rates. Perhaps the Minister will be able to clear up, once and for all, this doubt in my mind and in the minds of many other people. The Minister says, I think, why should it be right and proper that cinema-owners should be charged a lower rate than what the public is called upon to pay to the City Council? I too have been paying the City Council rates for electricity. I pay a rate for lighting, which is 20 cents per unit, and I pay rates for power for my ironing, my refrigerator, and for my air-conditioner. If I remember rightly - I do not have the City Council bill with me - for my air-conditioning plant, I pay power at 6 cents per unit. Therefore, if such are the proper rates, where then is the right to charge that cinema-owners are paying lower rates? In fact, by this Bill, the Minister now proposes to re-assess the rates for cinemas and to call upon them to pay more. Sir, it is confusing. As I do not have the City Council bill with me, I do not know whether it is right or wrong. But as far as I know, power rates are at 6 cents per unit, and lighting is at 20 cents. May I repeat again, Sir, if I remember rightly, the rate for air-conditioning plant is the same as for power; therefore, it is 6 cents - I do not know, I stand subject to correction. But the point raised by the Member for Farrer Park, Sir, is not whether the City Councillors, who remained at their posts after the resignation of the P.A.P Councillors, did right or wrong. That is not the question. The question is: they were legally constituted; they were discharging their duties in a legal way; and since that is so, any act that they did was done legally. If the Government was not satisfied with the manner in which the City Councillors who had remained in office conducted their business, it is a question of dissatisfaction. I do not think it is good public policy for any incoming government to try to upset the decisions of a previous government. That would create a feeling of uncertainty. As the hon. Member for Farrer Park has pointed out, the most important thing in Singapore today is - and this is even admitted by the Government - to create a feeling of confidence in Singapore. And the only way to create such confidence is for the Government to create the confidence of others in itself. But if such matters are allowed to go on without any challenge, where then is that confidence? Moreover, it seems that this is an important matter, and yet it is brought up on a Certificate of Urgency. We do not know what other forms of contracts or what other actions of the ex-City Councilors come within the provisions of this Bill. If we had time, we might be able to know more about it. Apart from the merits or demerits of the actions of those City Councillors who remained in office, I share strongly the same view as expressed by the hon. Member for Farrer Park, that this is an immoral Bill. 3.54 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I feel that this Bill, introduced by the Minister for National Development, is clear and specific for the reasons stated therein. Mr Speaker, we know that certain acts committed by certain City Councillors after the resignation of the P.A.P. Councillors, were done with the ulterior motive of safeguarding the interests of vested interests. This is made clear by the instances quoted by the Hon. the Minister concerning the agreements which were signed in a haphazard way. I think, Mr Speaker, there may be many other reasons; for instance, they knew that their powers in the City Council would cease, because it was clear, from the manifesto of the P.A.P., that if the P.A.P. was returned to power it would dissolve the City Council. For this reason, they knew that their fate was written on the wall. Therefore, they resorted to unconstitutional acts in the interest of vested interests. Mr Speaker, the present Government of the people will not hesitate to act to safeguard the interest of the people as a whole. As has been stated by the Member for Farrer Park, it appeared that he did not have power in the City Council, but that was a different matter. He said that this Bill would cause doubts in the minds of those people who think of investing capital in this country, and that this would create a policy of discrimination. I think the question of investment will not be affected. There is no need to fear that in this Bill. No policy of discrimination has been enacted by the Government. The previous Government in power fed their cats with meat, when actually they should have fed them with vegetables and rice. This means that certain sections of the people during the last regime - and this also happened in the City Council - received more benefits than the ordinary people. The Member also denied that the actions taken by the City Councillors who remained after the P.A.P. Councilors had left were illegal. We did not say that the actions were illegal, but we said that their actions were detrimental to the interests of the people, and for that reason we oppose. Mr Speaker, there is no need to carry on this debate at length. It is a waste of time. We know that this Bill, if approved, will give a fair deal to all the people in Singapore. 4.00 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Farrer Park has just now accused the Government of bringing in an unprecedented Bill. He says that, as far as he knows, no such Bill has ever found its way into the legislature of this territory and no such Bill has ever found a place in the legislatures of other territories. Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill has been introduced by Government to deal with a very unprecedented situation in the history of this territory. We all can recall what did take place just a few months ago, when the former Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing stealthily - for the last Government always acted in stealth - emasculated the City Council, and tried, within the short while that they were able to exercise some authority, to set aside all the very good work that was done by the former Mayor and his colleagues against the united opposition of those who have very recently been completely rejected by the people of Singapore. They set aside everything that was good, and now the relics that appear before us have got the audacity to suggest-

I do not know whether the Hon. Minister is referring to hon. Members in this House. If he is, I think calling them "relics", and suggesting that they have the audacity to speak in this Assembly is completely unparliamentary. The Minister will probaby pull himself together, and get on with the merits of the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope that I have not unduly alarmed the hon. Members who are seated before me. I must say, Sir, that with your majestic intervention, I have lost the trend of my thoughts. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it is very improper for Members here present, who were clearly connected with the former Government, to come here today and suggest that this Government is behaving in a most improper manner. Now, Mr Speaker, we all know that during the election campaign, when the Opposition were in power in the City Council, our Prime Minister gave a clear warning to all those who were then exercising authority in the City Council that, if they proceeded to set aside all decisions made when there was a full and fully representative City Council, and if the tables turned, they would have to be prepared for a situation when the Government that took over from the previous Government would set aside everything that they did in the interregnum. That is what we are proceeding to do today, so that it would be most improper for them now to suggest that they who themselves have behaved improperly before should now say that we are behaving improperly. We have never interfered with anything that was done by the previous Government bona fide. But where anything is done mala fide, where anything is done improperly, the Opposition can be sure that we will seek to put those matters right. 4.05 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, while hearing the hon. Member for Farrer Park, I can just recall the day before the 30th May, when the other Parties said that if the P.A.P. came to power the business community would run away, and the same old slogan is being repeated here. This Bill seeks to rescind the contracts which were given by the Councillors who remained in the City Council after the Mayor and the P.A.P. Councillors left. The Cinema Owners Association was made to pay increased electricity charges. The 32 Councillors with a majority passed the Bill. Mr Speaker, the people of Singapore are quite aware of the repercussions. A big noise was made by the Opposition, or what we call the Rightwing reactionary partisans in the Council, in collaboration with the capitalists and vested interest people. The cinema-owners stopped their air conditioning plants, saying that the P.A.P. had increased the charges, and that they were running at a loss. The City Council then told them plainly that if they could produce their accounts for the last five years to the court and prove that they were running at a loss, then the P.A.P. Councillors or the P.A.P. Mayor would be willing to rescind the decision they took in the Council. As you know, Mr Speaker, when once this matter goes to the court, all their propaganda will be exposed to the public. They knew this, and they did not dare do this. What happened? The Opposition Councillors who had no majority to push through waited for a chance to see when they could help their blue-eyed boys or their Western counterparts. They took their opportunity when the P.A.P. Councillors resigned from the Council. Tun Lim Yew Hock rose -

On a point of order?

On a point of information, Sir.

If the Member will give way.

No, Sir, it is not necessary.

Please continue.

Even when the Councillors left, we told them frankly that whatever decisions they were going to rescind, we would see to it that when the P.A.P. came back to power, all contracts and agreements made by them would be null and void. Even at the election meeting, our Party leader plainly told the Opposition Councillors who remained in the City Council that if they did anything to please their counterparts, then they would be taking a risk. And that is the main purpose of introducing this Bill today, Sir. Even just now, the Member for Cairnhill, I believe - because he has got so many ex-wards - mentioned that he has got an air-conditioner, a refrigerator and some other things. We are not interested whether the Member of the Opposition has got an air-conditioner or a refrigerator, or whether he uses gas or electricity, charcoal or kerosene. We are not interested in this. When we introduce this Bill we are thinking of the people of the country as a whole, and not of any individual. If he thinks he is being charged on his air-conditioner at six cents, I hope he will write to the City Council to increase it to 20 or 30 cents, so that they can make money out of him. If this Bill is passed, and according to the Minister, we are going to increase all the air-conditioner plants, then I think the hon. Member will have to decide whether he might want to have an air-conditioner or not. There was a system of giving contracts in the City Council. While we were in the City Council, the principle we adopted was that the lowest tenderer would be given the contract, according to specifications. And even there are certain tenders which ought not to be revealed. And Councillors like Tang Peng Yeu and Vasagar made a big noise - the hero or champion of the workers of Singapore! When the P.A.P. were there, they shed crocodile tears and said that what the P.A.P. was doing was not good for the people of Singapore. It would only be helpful to certain P.A.P. chaps. When the P.A.P. resigned, they knew that even if all the Right-wing reactionary group lined up to go and fight the P.A.P. in the general election, the P.A.P. would come to power, and afterwards they would not be able to sit in the City Council. They knew that their only chance was during the two months' time when they could do whatever they liked in the name of democracy, in the interest of the people, and even in the name of God. And that is what they did. They expected this because the P.A.P. had clearly stated its policy that whatever decisions made by the remaining Councillors would be rescinded by the P.A.P. if they formed the next Government. We will see that all contracts and agreements which they made and which went against the P.A.P.'s decision are rescinded. And this Bill is particularly aimed at those agreements and contracts. 4.12 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, my point of view concerning this Bill is this. We positively support this Bill. There are two important points in this Bill. When the P.A.P. Councillors were not in the City Council, the Opposition Councillors used their time to make irresponsible contracts. Mr Speaker, politically and socially, it may be different. In the present society, according to the P.A.P. point of view, we should do some just and fair work. Some previous Councillors in the City Council had their own political points of view which are different from ours. The old Government was responsible for the rich people to become richer and for the poor people to become poorer. This kind of society and this phenomenon have been the same for the past years. But our Party wants to reform this society. Therefore, I say we want to rescind the actions and contracts made by the previous Councillors or made with the capitalists. For example, about the electricity charges paid by the cinema owners. The poor people have to pay 20 cents per unit. But for the capitalists, the rich people, who use the electricity to earn money, they get lower charges. Is this reasonable? Mr Speaker, therefore, I say that a Party which is for the welfare of the poor people should rescind the previous contracts made by the non-P.A.P. Councillors. This is what we P.A.P. should do. 4.15 p.m. Mr Ong Eng Guan rose -

In reply?

Yes. Mr Speaker, I wish all hon. Members will stretch their imagination back to the six weeks of the circus in the Tang Peng Yeu-Vasagar Council when it was at its full swing. Imagine there was a roster system of work among these ex-Councillors and each one took turns to sign as Chairman of the City Council! They occupied the former Mayor's room, did full time work and signed as Chairman of the Council, instructing the former Mayor's staff and behaving exactly like the Mayor! Mr Speaker, this is to show that the remnants of this Council in those six weeks were not acting bona fide. They were not acting in good faith. We are not going to rescind those decisions which in the usual course of events go to the Council and the Committees for approval and which have nothing to do with these Councillors. We are going to consider only those decisions taken by the Council which were either made for party politics or in which vested interests were involved. The Member for Cairnhill has mentioned just now in passing (not in discussing the Bill but in raising certain queries) electricity tariffs. For the past many years - during which the Member for Farrer Park, I regret to say, was not in full charge, but he was abetting the decadent old Council - the old Council had been charging the ordinary consumer 20 cents a unit for lighting and 6 cents per unit for power. The cinema magnates obtained between three and four cents per unit both for lighting and for power. The Member for Cairnhill was, like any other consumer, paying 20 cents a unit for lighting and 6 cents a unit for his air-conditioner and refrigerator. But not so the cinema magnates. They pay between three and five cents, depending on a certain formula per unit both for lighting and for power. When we went to the polls during the City Council elections, we explained to the people the principle of discriminatory tariff. The old decadent Council, of which the Member for Farrer Park was not in full charge but was only a symbol, had also practised the principle of discriminatory tariff. The poor pay more and the rich pay less. We also believe, Mr Speaker, in the principle of discriminatory tariff. We believe the rich should pay more and the poor should pay less. So as a start we reduced the electricity tariff for those poor people consuming electricity under 20 units per month from 20 cents to 12 cents, and later those over 20 units from 20 cents to 18 cents. This was to help the 150,000 consumers in Singapore. But, Mr Speaker, on the other hand, we do not only rectify the anomalies in the case of the big cinema magnates by making them pay the same as the 150,000 other consumers pay, but we admit the fact that we have made them pay much more than the ordinary consumer who pays 18 cents, some 12 cents for lighting, while they have to pay 20 cents. The ordinary consumer like the Member for Cairnhill pays six cents for his air-conditioner and refrigerator, while they have to pay 20 cents. Mr Speaker, every economist agrees that taxation must be based on the principle of ability to pay, and since the old Council did not negate the principle of discriminatory tariff by exploiting the poor to benefit the rich, we also did not negate the principle of taxing the rich a little bit more in order to benefit the poor. And so in October 1958, we decided to charge the cinema magnates 20 cents a unit both for lighting and for power. Mr Speaker, we have done some costing. All this is a little irrelevant to the Bill, but since the Member for Cairnhill has brought it up, I think I should reply. We have done some costing and it only costs the cinema magnate an extra five cents in cost for a $3 seat, leaving him $2.95 to pay for the rest of his expenses. We think this is very fair. Now, Mr Speaker, what this Bill purports to deal today is with this particular instance of cinema tariffs; to restore the status quo, to revert back to the position which we think is of benefit to the people. In this particular case, it amounts to this. In the other case which I mentioned just now, it was only to prevent, for instance, the loss of a quarter of a million dollars in public funds perhaps going into somebody's pockets. Now, Mr Speaker, the role of a good, honest and efficient government is to restore all those things which are beneficial to the nation as a whole. And in this particular case, the Chairman of our Party has given due warning. In The Sunday Standard of the 19th of April in block letters, Dr Toh said: '"We like to remind the Chief Administrative Officer and the Minister for Local Government, Dato Abdul Hamid, that they will be held personally responsible for any act committed in this interregnum which is detrimental to the public interest." He also warned that the next Government would "rescind and reverse any decision or action which is not in the people's interest".' Mr Speaker, we have given due warning. In a company when most of the members of the Board of Directors have for some reason or other gone, and have given due warning that anybody who buys goods stolen by the store-keepers could have full restitution in Court, then, Mr Speaker, those persons who buy stolen beer or stolen cigarettes could have their benefits restituted, and the Board of Directors who represent the shareholders (and in this case represent the people) could have every right to seek restitution. This is fully in conformity with justice and the theory of British laws. Now, Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. -[Mr Ong Eng Guan]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 3.28 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." As the explanatory statement to this Bill shows, the purpose of this Bill is three-fold. Clause 2 of the Bill merely seeks to regularise what is the present procedure of the Board of Film Censors in the matter of censoring duplicate films. The Board has, since the war, been regarding 16 m.m. and 8 m.m. copies of censored 35 m.m. films and 8 m.m. copies of 16 m.m. censored films as duplicates in this respect and has authorised screening of these duplicates without viewing by the Board. This practice, however, is not strictly in accord with section 16 of the Ordinance which requires a duplicate to be identical in detail, subject matter and footage. A 16 m.m. film is, however, only one-third the length of an otherwise identical 35 m.m. film, and an 8 m.m. film is proportionately shorter. Clause 2, therefore, repeals and re-enacts section 16 of the Cinematograph Films Ordinance to enable copies of different sizes to be regarded as duplicates for purposes of censorship. Administrative arrangements preclude the chances of evading censorship of duplicate films. Mr Speaker, you will note also that a proviso is added to this clause which prohibits a larger size copy to be regarded as a duplicate of a smaller size censored film. The reason is obvious and is meant to prevent the evasion of proper censorship fees which are based on footage. The second object of this Bill is to reconstitute the Committee of Appeal and this is provided for in clause 3 of the Bill. The Committee of Appeal of 17 members, as constituted by the existing section 21 of the Ordinance, hardly exists at the moment and this is the main reason for the urgency of this Bill. There have been a number of vacancies since 7th January this year. The abolition of the City Council, which appoints three members, and the Rural Board, which appoints one member, has added to the number of vacancies. In the light of new constitutional changes, this Government considers that the composition of this Committee should now be revised and that it would be more appropriate that all appointments to this Committee should be made by the Minister. Clause 3 therefore proposes that there should be a Committee of Appeal of nine members, including a Chairman and Vice-Chairman to be appointed by the Minister annually. It is unnecessary and unwieldy to have a large Committee like the previous one. A small Committee will be more effective in carrying out the present Government's policy on film censorship which is part and parcel of the anti-yellow culture movement initiated by the Government. It has been the practice in the past to permit exhibition of films whose underlying purpose is to impress on the subject peoples their inferiority and inadequacy. Films such as "The Four Feathers" and the numerous westerns showing the massacre of the Red Indians by the white men are typical examples. The P.A.P. Government has no wish to see its people conditioned to enjoy films which depict their degradation. Hence early last month, a new directive was issued to the Board of Film Censors that all films whose primary intent is the glorification or justification of colonialism or which are calculated to bring Asians and so-called coloured peoples generally into contempt, ridicule and hatred should be banned. In these days of national awakening, it is particularly important for the Government to bring to our people a new sense of dignity and work. Mr Speaker, over the last few years, there have been an alarming increase in sex crimes, assaults, extortions and murders. The well-informed public and the law officers have repeatedly pointed out the evil influences of publications and films exhorting violence and sex in its debased form on the young population. The colonial governments, and particularly the Government led by the Member for Cairnhill opposite me, have completely ignored the warnings of the public. No one can deny that widespread publications and the screening of films which emphasise sex, brutality and gangsterism over the years have left a lasting mark on the impressionable youth of today and the mounting waves of crime lately involving a large number of teen-age youths are a clear indication of the evils of yellow culture. The new Government cannot tolerate this state of affairs to continue. While the Board of Film Censors is well advised to implement the directives of the Government on film censorship, a properly constituted Film Appeal Committee could assist tremendously in interpreting the policy of the Government. It is expected that as film censorship is tightened in the interests of the people, there will be many appeals before the Committee. Further, the reconstituted Committee will have to review many of the films that have been passed before. A shorter term of office as proposed would also enable more public-spirited persons to become members of this Committee although annual appointment does not preclude re-appointment. The third object of the Bill is contained in clause 4 which gives power to the Minister to make regulations which include especially the power to impose film quotas requiring or restricting the showing of certain specified classes of films or films originating from certain specified countries of origin. The introduction of this provision makes it possible to repeal the British Cinematograph Films Proclamation No. 54 of 1946 (which is still and is the last remaining British Military Administration Proclamation to be in force) and which prescribes, inter alia, that all first and second run cinemas showing English language films for more than 50 per cent of their screening time should devote ten per cent of their time to British made films. Although clauses 4 and 5 provide for the power to make regulations and the repeal of the Proclamation, the intention is that these clauses will not be brought into force until the Government has considered in greater detail the question of quotas, the requirements of the local film industry and the regulations which are required. As the House will observe, Mr Speaker, clause 1 provides for different sections of the Bill to be brought into force separately. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 4.40 p.m. The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye): Mr Speaker, my colleague, the Hon. Minister for Home Affairs, has already indicated to the House the desirability that certain amendments must be made to the exhibition of films in public. I would like to add this. One can amuse oneself either in the home or outside the home. In Singapore in particular, the sources of entertainment and amusement are very limited and the cinema forms an important source of entertainment for the public; but it would be foolish for us to consider the cinema purely from the entertainment point of view. We all must acknowledge that among the powerful media of propaganda we have besides the newspapers and other literature, the cinema too constitutes a very effective medium of propaganda - in fact, I would say a very important medium for conditioning. Memory or ability to remember things depends on what we hear, see and feel. It is on these three sensations that we remember our surroundings and also through these three different stimuli that it is possible for us to be conditioned to adopt certain behavioural attitudes. Our exhibitors should note in particular clause 4 of the Bill which the Minister for Home Affairs is introducing today, and that is: "that all cinemas or any class of cinema shall show not less than the prescribed number or prescribed proportion of films of a specified class...", and here I come to the very point which I wish to bring out before the House: "or from a specified country of origin;". You must admit that a very large proportion of the films that are exhibited in public come from the United States - Hollywood in particular. Some of these films have a certain educational value in the sense that they tend to bring out the background of the social life in the United States. On the other hand, a large number of films too have very little to teach the sociologists, because many of them are based on impossible events, romance, and so on. I do not say that all those who go to seek entertainment are those who go to the cinemas to be educated. I do not claim that we must be prudish; we should acknowledge that when a film is suitably presented it is not wise that it should be banned or forbidden from screening purely because it comes from some particular country. What I would like to say is this - that we all know that 50 per cent of our population today are 19 years and under and if we were to make a poll of those who go to the cinemas, it would not be surprising to find that a large number of the cinema audience come from the teenagers. In fact, our cinema exhibitors have exploited this point so that you have day shows not only during the weekends but also during weekdays, particularly during school holidays. When films are screened at such times, the audience is not the adult working population but it is the youthful population who have left school and who have no other alternative to occupy themselves. So it is important, Mr Speaker, that what our youth see or hear should be such that they should not be conditioned to imitate characters that are depicted in these films. In the past, or even recently, quite considerable glorification has been built around youthful film stars like the late James Dean and so on and so forth. They depicted the youth as heroes, although many of these heroes have, in the films, taken on the role of an anti-social element. I would say, Mr Speaker, that part of the reaction which we see among our youth today derives partly from what they see in the films. For instance, there is the feeling among our youth that, unless he challenges his companion to be brave, to carry a dagger, or to perform some villainous deed, he is a chicken. That, Mr Speaker is not apt in our society; it is quite contrary to our cultures and our customs. It is for this purpose that the Minister for Home Affairs is giving fair warning to our film exhibitors in Singapore - that while they cannot purely exhibit films solely for profit, they must consider the effects of such films on our youth; in other words, cinemas have a very important function to play in our lives and our exhibitors should take an important note that cinemas form not only an important medium for propaganda but a very important stimulus for conditioning. We would then advise our exhibitors not to confine the screening of films only to those which are exclusively or very largely made in one country. Mr Speaker, next to sight, we have sound as a very important stimulus for conditioning. In these days of talkie films, the dialogue that we hear in a cinema is equally important to the senses. In the old days when we had silent films, we were solely dependent on vision and the ability to read, and to understand what was going on. But with dialogue being introduced into films, it is important that what is said should come under the close scrutiny of the censors. However, Mr Speaker, I would like to add that it is not the intention of our Government that we should act as prudes, or that we wish to control the thought of our people. On the other hand, I would say that democracy or the liberty in screening films would be totally abused if there were also no discipline imposed upon this liberty.

I was listening to the Deputy Prime Minister with great interest, but it seemed to me that possibly he was going a little far away from the Bill itself. I allowed him to continue because it seemed to me that he was detailing the reasons which prompted the Government to introduce this Bill. I do not intend that to be taken as meaning that I will give a licence for a debate on the whole film industry! I do ask hon. Members from now on to concentrate on the merits of the Bill as they see it. The Minister for Home Affairs did digress as well, but he did point out what the three principles involved are in the Bill. 4.52 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I wholly support this Bill. The film industry is important for the country's education. In Singapore in the past, our cinemas were controlled by the colonialists. In a colonial country, the people were subjected to the thoughts and emotions of the rulers. But in our country today this new Government has appointed the Film Appeal Committee for the purpose of controlling the film industry, as against the Board appointed by the Government previously. The film industry should be controlled by the Ministers of the people's Government, and this amending Bill is to meet that purpose. We must ensure that films have an educational value for the people of Singapore. We know that the past colonial rulers colonialised us through the medium of films - conditioned our thoughts so that we were without self-respect, like colonial people. Under the old Government, we saw that the films exhibited in Singapore were imported from Japan, Hongkong or America. Those films were yellow films, sensational, and they also depicted forms of slavery, shall we say. The present Government has decided that it should control the film industry for the sake of the people in Singapore. The film industry should not be controlled by foreigners. We should not lose our self-respect. Therefore, we now have this Cinematograph Films (Amendment) Bill, and I fully support it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, although there has been some digression, nevertheless I think it is still relevant to the point in that we hope that the Film Appeal Committee in future will be strict and fair on the standard that the Government hopes to achieve. And also that in their deliberation on appeals submitted before them, they will give every due consideration in the interest of the public.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. -[Mr Ong Pang Boon]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Is it a convenient time to suspend?

Yes, Sir.

I shall take the Chair again at half-past five. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.00 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." In the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara which outlined the policy of this Government, it was stated that the Government would also cancel registration of splinter and yellow unions after due investigation. Mr Speaker, Sir, this statement of policy merely repeats the stand of the People's Action Party on labour and trade unions, which was stated to the people of Singapore in a speech delivered by the Prime Minister at a mass rally at Geylang Serai on the 1st March this year. In his speech the Prime Minister said (I will quote him): "No legislation for minimum wages or benefits or working conditions can be as effective and efficient in protecting the workers from exploitation by bad employers as a good union. It is the right of the workers to protect and strengthen their position by organising themselves into unions. And a P.A.P. government will do its utmost to facilitate the workers to organise themselves into unions. The primary burden of pressing the just claims of workers must be that of the unions. In this they will receive the full help of the machinery of the State. We shall legislate regarding the compulsory recognition of unions, the cancellation of registration of yellow unions after due investigation to establish the truth or after secret ballot has shown that a majority of the workers support or oppose, as the case may be, a union in their sector of employment." We have stated, Mr Speaker, Sir, the methods that we will use in no uncertain terms. This Bill seeks to implement the declared policy of the Government. It will, as stated in the Explanatory Statement, enable the Registrar of Trade Unions to cancel the registration of yellow and splinter unions, and also to refuse to register such unions. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is my duty now to point out the trends which appear to have been overlooked by the previous Government. For years there has been a continuous increase in the number of small unions of employees or rival unions of employees, with the result that we have reached an unhealthy state of affairs: too many small unions of employees in this small island State of Singapore. Whilst the number of small unions was increasing, the total membership was decreasing. Mr Speaker, Sir, I will now refer to extracts from the Labour Department Reports which were published year by year from 1955 to 1958. These reports were published by the previous Government, and it appears to me, as I shall show later, Mr Speaker, that the same Government that was producing these reports never took the trouble to know what they contained. Now, the position as given in the 1954 Report was that there were 136 unions in that year with a total membership of 76,452. If we turn to page 10 of the 1955 Labour Department Report, we see this reference: "The growth of trade unions in the Colony during the year was marked in the number of unions, in union membership and in union activities. More small unions of clerical as well as manual workers came into existence to heighten further rivalry among themselves and with general unions." According to that report, the number of registered unions of employees in that year increased from 136 to 187, while their membership increased from 76,452 to 139,317. Table XXXI of that same report shows the breakdown. There were 20 unions in 1955 with a membership of under 50. There were 71 unions with a membership ranging from 50 and under 250; 68 with a membership ranging from 250 and under 1,000; 25 with a membership ranging from 1,000 and under 5,000; one union with a membership ranging from 5,000 and under 10,000; and 2 unions with a membership ranging from 10,000 or more, making the total for 1955, 187 unions with a membership of 139,317, an increase over the figures for 1954. Now, if we turn to pages 12 and 13 of the Labour Department Report for 1956, we see this note: "The general tendency to form small unions continued to prevail. All the unions registered during the year, with one exception, were small unions with memberships ranging from 10 to 250. The move to federate by the bus workers' unions proved abortive and the attempt at amalgamation by certain Harbour Board unions had yet to materialise." During that year, the number of registered unions of employees increased from 187 to 205, and the membership rose from 139,317 to 157,216. On Table XXXII of that report the breakdown is shown: 22 unions in 1956 with a membership of under 50; 75 with a membership ranging from 50 to 250; 73 with a membership ranging from 250 to 1,000; 32 with a membership ranging from 1,000 to 5,000; one with a membership of over 5,000 and under 10,000, and 2 unions with a membership of over 10,000, making the total - 205 unions with a total membership of more than 157,000. Now, let me refer you, Sir, to the 1957 Labour Department Report, at pages 17 and 18. This is what the report says: "The number of small unions in Singapore continued to rise. The general pattern of union development closely followed that of previous years. Most of the newly established unions were small ones, and no serious moves were made towards either forming larger unions or merging existing ones. The attempts at amalgamation begun in 1956 by the bus and Harbour Board workers unions fizzled out during that year. The number of employees unions in that year rose from 205 to 216, but the aggregate membership fell from 157,216 to 140,710." Table XXXIV of the 1957 Report gives the breakdown for that year: 20 unions with under 50 (there were 22 in the previous year); 81 with memberships ranging from 50 to 250; 85 with memberships ranging from 250 to 1,000; 27 with memberships ranging from 1,000 to 5,000; 2 with memberships ranging from 5,000 and under 10,000; and one with a membership ranging from 10,000 and above, so that the position was: 216 unions with a membership of 140,710. That means a membership of 17,000 less than the year before. Mr Speaker, I would like to refer you now to the 1958 Labour Department Annual Report, at pages 17 and 18: "The tendency to form small unions continued in 1958. Out of the 18 unions of employees registered during the year, 11 had a membership of 50 or less, while the rest varied from 68 to 350. One more union of general employees came into existence, thereby increasing the number of such unions to 6 in the Colony. Although there were reports that several unions were considering amalgamation, by the end of the year only one application for amalgamation of two unions was received. In that year the number of unions of employees increased from 216 to 218, but their aggregate membership fell from 140,710 to 129,159." You see the drop, Mr Speaker, Sir. From 157,000 to 140,000 to 129,000 and the numbers of unions increased from. 205 to 216 to 218. The breakdown is also given for that year: 24 unions with a membership of under 50; 84 unions with a membership ranging from 50 to 250; 83 unions with a membership ranging from 250 to 1,000; 24 unions with a membership ranging from 1,000 to 5,000; 2 unions with a membership ranging from 5,000 to 10,000; and one union with a membership ranging from 10,000 and more. We now come to 1959. According to the Labour Department monthly report there were on the register on the 31st May this year, 226 unions of employees, with a total membership of 134,650. There were also in the hands of the Registrar of Trade Unions as on the 31st May this year, 11 applications for the registration of new unions of employees as on that date. Of these, one has since withdrawn its application. The membership of each of the remaining 10 unions as stated in their respective applications is as follows: one union claimed a membership of 10 members; one union claimed a membership of 11 members; two unions said they had not more than 30 members each; one union had a membership of 32; one claimed a membership of 45 members; one a membership of 50, one a membership of 80, and two unions said their membership did not exceed 154 each. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have given you a very detailed statement regarding the position in all these unions. This information gives a clear picture based on figures and facts of the continuous growth of the number of small unions of employees during the last 4� years, causing rivalry among the registered unions and acting, therefore, against the general interest of workmen. I will now, Mr Speaker, Sir, come to the case of splinter unions. I shall now proceed to prove, again giving figures and stating facts, that a large number of these unions are splinter unions, i.e. the unions that I have just been referring to. Let me give the House a few illustrations. Since 1947, there has been in existence a registered trade union which caters for coffee-shop employees. At the beginning of 1956, a small union also claiming to cater for employees of coffee shops suddenly sprang into existence. It is interesting to note that the title of the small union closely followed that of the employers' association, which the coffee-shop employers themselves had just formed less than a month before. Among the seven persons who made the application for registration of the small union was the ex-president of the registered coffee-shop union. At the time of its registration, the small union claimed to have a membership of 100, whilst the registered union had a membership of 1,280. A number of the ex-officers of the larger union, probably because they were not re-elected to office, have since joined this splinter union and are now its president, vice-president, secretary and treasurer. It has been pointed out to me that if the Registrar had the power to examine the books of some of their employers, he would most probably discover that many of these union officials in one way or another have some interest in their employers' shops. Even today, the membership of the larger union is many times more than that of the splinter union. Sometime in 1949, one of the officers of a certain registered Chinese Seamen's Union was convicted and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment on a charge of criminal breach of trust of union funds. Some years later, this same man formed yet another Chinese seafarers' union and had it registered. He is now the registered secretary of this union. Under the existing Trade Unions Ordinance, the Registrar has no power to refuse to register a union with such an undesirable person as an official. Again in 1956, a Chinese union claiming to cater for hair-dressers with only 40 members came into existence. There was at that time already in existence a registered trade union of many years' standing catering for the same class of workers. Three of the seven persons who made the application for registration of the splinter union were former officials of the registered union who were not reelected to office. Even today, the membership of this splinter union is less than 100, while that of the older established union is over 800. As a direct result of the ease with which splinter unions could be formed and registered, there is today in existence in Singapore a total of eight registered trade unions claiming to cater for the workers in the food catering service alone. It is interesting to note that a number of splinter unions have their registered offices at the same address. There are many such unions which have been formed on similar lines at the expense of the strength of the bargaining power of the existing unions. But I do not think it necessary to waste the time of this House by giving more details. I will now come to the case of seamen's unions. Members of this House may be interested to know that among the 10 applications for the registration of new unions which I refered to earlier, and which are still pending, two of them, one with a membership of 50 and another with 30, are applications to form unions to cater for seamen and maritime officers. These applications to register new seamen's unions have been made in spite of the fact that there are already on the register a total of 10 registered seamen's unions, two of which are exclusively for maritime officers and the remainder for seamen. The 10 seamen's unions at present on the register do not include the three seamen's unions and two maritime officers' unions, the certificates of registration of which have already been cancelled by the Registrar. Let me come now, Mr Speaker, to the case of the teachers' unions. Of the remaining eight applications this year, three are to form unions to cater for teachers of one category or other. The first application is to form a union for 10 teachers, the second for 30 and the third for 11 teachers. Meanwhile, there are already on the register 18 registered trade unions catering for teachers of various categories. This number of 18 registered teachers' unions does not include a registered trade union, which although it caters for other employees, has rules permitting it to enrol teachers as members. Of the three applications to form new teachers' unions, one openly admitted that it was to be a splinter union for teachers. Now, let me come, Mr Speaker, to the position of general unions. As on the 27th of May, 1959, there was on the register a total of eight unions catering for general workers. With the exception of two, which could claim to have some thousands of members each, the rest have only a few members each. Mind you, they call themselves general unions. One of these general unions can claim to have only 12 members, and another only 11. Most of these general unions were registered between June 1955 and February this year. Among the 10 new applications for registration this year, there is one applying for registration of yet another general union. From its proposed rules, a person holding an administrative or managerial post in a shop can also be enrolled as a member of this general union. This general union is too obviously a yellow union to deceive anybody. Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, in my association with Government unions, I found that there are splinter unions amongst Government employees as well. I remember a time when the head teachers got disgruntled. They broke away from the teachers' union and formed themselves into a head teachers' association and had it registered as a trade union. We had to do something about it, Sir. The Whitley Council decided that they were not going to allow any splinter union to participate in Whitley Council procedure, and it passed a resolution excluding the splinter union from participation in the Whitley system. Mr Speaker, Sir, I will pass now from splinter unions to the case of yellow unions. The undesirability and, in fact, the danger of the existence of yellow unions was fully revealed by the events of the Hock Lee Bus incident in early 1955, which was sparked off by the formation by the management of a yellow union known as the Hock Lee Bus Employees Union. Thank God, on the recommendations of the arbitrator of the Hock Lee Bus dispute, this yellow union dissolved itself voluntarily, though after much harm had been done. Mr Speaker, Sir, I will quote again now from paragraphs 1 and 2 of page 2 of the Labour Department's monthly report for May, 1955. This is what the Report says about the Hock Lee Bus dispute: 'Industrial unrest during the month reached its climax on the night of May 12, when violence and rioting which had been worked up over the Hock Lee bus dispute broke out. A full report of the industrial aspect of this dispute is as follows: "The Singapore Bus Workers' Union for many years limited to the employees of the Green Bus Company began to extend its activities among other Chinese bus companies in the Colony in the latter half of 1954. Towards the end of February, 1955, a branch of the union was established at the Hock Lee Bus Company, and it seemed to be generally known that it would find great difficulty in gaining recognition from the management of this company. Simultaneous with the establishment of the union branch, two of the branch officials were dismissed from the company for reasons, according to the management, unconnected with trade union activities. This blithe assurance was of course never accepted by the Singapore Bus Workers' Union. Simultaneously, another union was formed known as the Hock Lee Bus Employees' Union. The Singapore Bus Workers' Union branded this rival union as an employers' or yellow union in disguise; whereas the management insisted that it was a spontaneous creation by a group of their own workers who viewed with some alarm the irresponsible leadership of the Singapore Bus Workers' Union. A fact, however, that supported the suspicions of employer sponsorship of the Hock Lee Bus Company Employees' Union was the remarkable speed with which demands were submitted and agreed to shortly after its formation. On the 4th of March this union wrote to request a revision of pay and conditions of employment. On the 5th of March a board of directors' meeting was held to consider these demands, and on the 6th a reply satisfactory to both sides was given. The new conditions of service were made effective from the following day, the 7th of March."' Mr Speaker, Sir, since my assumption of office, numerous complaints have been received by my Ministry from trade unionists regarding the existence of yellow unions. One such union has for years had an undisputed employer as its president. We traced the records. He has been signing records which declare him as an employer. This man, who is an undisputed employer, and several other agents of employees as members, have decided that they would pull themselves out of this union and allow this union to reorganise itself. The employer and the agents of employees who used to control this union have now expressed their willingness to relinquish their control over the union, and a general meeting has been called recently to elect a new committee from an entirely new membership of workers hitherto uncatered for by this union. In the case of another union of employees of restaurants, some of the officials and members of which have openly admitted being shareholders of employers' restaurants, appropriate action to cleanse this union is now proceeding. There is yet another union, the president of which is also an employer. He has, however, recently resigned his office and many of the members of this union have abandoned their membership and joined another union, the membership of which is strictly confined to employees. Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, I come to a clause of the Bill which might be criticised by Members of the Opposition today. And that is clause 5 of the Bill, Sir, which states: '"(2) The decision of the Minister on an appeal under section 16 of this Ordinance shall be final and shall not be called into question in any court.".' Mr Speaker, Sir, this provision in the Bill that appeals from the decisions of the Registrar shall be heard by the Minister whose decision shall be final and shall not be questioned in any court, may be argued to be an infringement of Article 4 of Convention No. 87, which is The Freedom of Association and of The Right to Organise Convention, 1948. This Article provides that workers and employers' organisations shall not be liable to be dissolved or suspended by administrative authority. Mr Speaker, Sir, a few months ago the Secretary of State sought confirmation from the previous Government whether the law in practice here with regard to trade unions conformed with the provisions of this Convention and with the provisions of Convention No. 98, which is The Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949. In a reply to the Secretary of State, the last Government pointed out that there were many sections of the present Trade Unions Ordinance which infringed Articles 2, 3 and 4 of The Freedom of Association and of The Right to Organise Convention 1948, but that the law in practice here with regard to trade unions was in conformity with The Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949. The previous Government replied that its full legislative programme had unfortunately prevented it from giving early consideration to measures to bring the Trade Unions Ordinance into conformity with The Freedom of Association and of The Right to Organise Convention, 1948. In fact, Mr Speaker, Sir, in their reply, the previous Government set out the various sections of the present Ordinance - I am not referring to the Amendment Bill - which conflicted with the provisions of that Convention. The previous Government stated that the present sections 14, 15, 26, 28 and 29 conflicted with Article 2 of the Convention and that the Schedule under section 32, and sections 38, 39, 40, 41, 42 and 46 conflicted with the provisions of Article 3 of the Convention and that sections 16, 17 and 29 (5) conflicted with Article 4 of the Convention. Now for the benefit of the House, Sir, I will proceed to read the texts of these various Articles. Article 2 provides: "that workers and employers without distinction whatsoever shall have the right to establish and subject only to the rules of the organisation concerned to join organisations of their own choosing without previous authorisation." Article 3 is in two parts. Part I provides: "that workers and employers' organisations shall have the right to draw up their constitutions and rules, to elect their representatives in full freedom, to organise their administrations and activities and to formulate their programmes." Part II of Article 3 provides: "that the public authorities shall refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof." And Article 4 provides: "that workers and employers' organisations shall not be liable to be dissolved or suspended by administrative authority." In their reply to the Secretary of State, Mr Speaker, Sir, they also said that conditions were not suitable for any change to be made in the present Ordinance because of the Government's fear of subversion and infiltration by subversive elements into the union organisations. Mr Speaker, Sir, section 16 of the Trade Unions Ordinance provides that appeals from the decision of the Registrar should go to the Minister. I would submit, Sir, that this is rightly so because the question of whether the registration of a trade union should be cancelled or withdrawn is an essentially executive act. The new power of cancelling the registration of yellow or splinter unions is one, I submit, Sir, that can only be exercised by an executive body. I submit that the machinery of the courts is quite unsuitable to deal with such matters which hinge so much on questions of policy and executive action. The Bill therefore, Sir, seeks to retain the provision for appeals to be heard by the Minister but it seeks to provide, as is usual in other Ordinances, that the decision of the Minister should be final. The purpose, Sir, is frankly to shut out any appeals to the court, for the Government believes that such matters cannot be resolved in a court and that such decisions can only be made by a Minister responsible to the Legislative Assembly and to the electorate. I am informed, Mr Speaker, Sir, that although under the amendment to section 17 of the Ordinance appeals to the court will be shut out, this amendment however will not shut out proceedings by way of certiorari. In a recent case where the registration of the Malayan National Seamen's Union was cancelled on the grounds that the union had contravened section 44 of the Ordinance by failing to furnish within the prescribed period annual returns in certiorari proceedings, the order of the Registrar cancelling the union's registration was quashed on the grounds that the notice required for these proceedings fell short by one day of the period of two months stipulated in the Ordinance. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have extracted precedents from other Ordinances to show that there is nothing improper in the Government seeking powers to shut out appeals to the High Court on the question of the cancellation of registration or the refusal to register a trade union which is either a splinter or a yellow union. In fact, the last Government took similar powers when dealing with other matters; and I shall now proceed to refer to a few of the similar powers which the former Government took with regard to other matters. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Ordinance No. 40 of 1958 the Public Entertainments Ordinance where there is a forfeiture of security, aggrieved persons have a right of appeal to the Minister whose decision thereon shall be final. That is the provision of section 11(5) of Ordinance No. 40 of 1958. Similarly, section 13 (3) of the same Ordinance provides that an applicant aggrieved by the refusal of his application by the licensing officer may appeal in writing to the Minister whose decision thereon shall be final. Similarly, with regard to the cancellation of a licence under the same Ordinance - the Public Entertainments Ordinance - the decision of the Minister shall be final. Again, Mr Speaker, Sir, I refer you to the Nursing Homes and Maternity Homes Registration Ordinance (No. 5 of 1959) on the question of the refusal of an application and the cancellation of an application for registration. Section 5 (4) of that Ordinance provides that the Minister's decision shall be final. Similarly, Mr Speaker, Sir, I refer you to the Planning Ordinance (No. 12 of 1959) to section 13 (2) which deals with the enforcement of planning control. That section provides for an appeal and the Minister's decision thereon shall be final. Similarly, in the case of development of land under the same Planning Ordinance, there is provision for an appeal. Section 14 (3) provides that the Minister's decision shall be final. And I would refer lastly to the Control of Manufacture Ordinance (No. 14 of 1958) in respect of the registration of goods. Section 5 (6) provides for an appeal and the Minister's decision on the appeal shall be final. Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. Government has taken the stand that the plurality of small trade unions would work to the detriment of the trade union movement as a whole. The Government knows that trade unions have been fostered by employers - I have produced all the evidence before this House - in order that they may split the workers and that these unions are used not to strengthen the cause of workers but to make it easier for the bad employers to exploit the workers. The P.A.P. Government, as has been said before by our Prime Minister, does not believe in the maintenance of the outward forms of democracy, or in this case the outward forms of trade union freedom, if the effect is to undermine the real essence of democracy or of trade union freedom. The Government does not believe in trade union freedom if it is used to kill the trade union movement itself. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 6.10 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am in agreement with the principles outlined in the Bill, but, as the Minister has pointed out, he has a feeling that an objection might be taken by the Opposition to clause 5 of the Bill and he has therefore attempted to reply in advance to the objection that the Opposition might raise on this particular clause. Sir, before I come to this clause, I would like to explain why so many trade unions were registered in previous years. The Trade Unions Ordinance was promulgated in 1941 just before the war, and under that law any seven persons signing an application form to have a trade union registered shall automatically have the application approved unless the Registrar was satisfied that the objects of the proposed union were not in accordance with the law. The Labour Department even tried to assist trade unions, to make their applications more easy by having model rules. Therefore, most sponsors of trade unions who wanted to have their applications approved quite quickly just adopted the model rules and in a very short time the trade unions were registered. I did mention, Sir, during the debate last month, that I had in my mind the same thought as is now stated in this particular Bill, but then I was in the position of having to deny, mostly to Members of the Opposition, the right to organise new trade unions. I felt that it was not fair on the part of the Government to restrict the activities of trade unionists. Now in this desire not to hinder the activities of political opponents, it had also to give way to, shall we say, adventurers of the type that the Minister had mentioned. If we were not firm on any particular class of sponsors, we should not be firm at all. And we have all listened to the figures given by the Minister in the reports of the previous Government. I was aware that such a situation was not a good thing, but then I was mostly guided by the fact that I should not do anything to restrict the activities of political opponents who in their own endeavour desired to form trade unions to work for the welfare of the Members, and thus we have, shall we say, a very unhappy situation today. I say that I support the Bill. It is a good thing. The Minister has pointed out how he proposes to go about in the consideration of yellow unions or splinter unions. I think the best way to achieve this is to allow the workers a free choice. The Minister has mentioned the question of a ballot taken of employees in any particular industry or place of employment - to, give the workers a free choice to decide which particular union they want to represent them. That would make the position of the Minister a little bit more tenable. He need not have to be faced with a situation whereby two rival unions come to claim his compassion, his sympathy, and his understanding. That is the easiest way to decide which particular organisation should represent the workers. Sir, coming now to clause 5. The Minister has pointed out that the previous Government had also contravened certain articles - Articles 2, 3, and, I forgot the other one - and he has therefore said, "It is quite all right. What was done previously, we are continuing to do now." And he also quoted certain legislation whereby powers were given to Ministers to come to decisions which should not be brought to any Court of Law. Sir, in regard to the other legislation - entertainment, business, and one or two other things - those are not protected by conventions of an international organisation. In the case of workers' organisations, there is the International Labour Organisation, of which Singapore is a member. Resolutions adopted at conferences of the I.L.O. are, to a certain extent, binding on all member-countries. Previously, Singapore was a colony and therefore came under the United Kingdom delegation. Now that Singapore is a self-governing state, I think Singapore can claim to become a full member of the I.L.O. And if Singapore were to be a full member of the I.L.O., I submit that Singapore should observe the conventions and resolutions which were adopted in the interests of the workers. And as the Government has claimed that it is a government for the workers, I submit that it would be in keeping with their declaration if they were to observe conventions. 6.18 p.m.

Mr Speaker, in dealing with the Trade Unions Ordinance, we on this side are very much surprised that the ex-Minister for Labour and Welfare and the present Opposition Members are all against it. The ex-Minister for Labour and Welfare says, as a reason, that the Trade Unions Ordinance was in force in 1941 and that the past Government was at least good enough to draw up trade union registration and rules on modern lines. But the workers are not worried over the modernisation of trade union registration, rules and regulations. And why did the past Government not change the 1941 Trade Unions Ordinance concerning union by-laws? He says the best way for the Minister to decide which union is yellow or splinter is by secret ballot. Mr Speaker, Sir, on this business of secret ballot, I would ask the hon. Member on the opposite side: what was talked about the ballot in the past Government when he was the Chief Minister and Minister for Labour and Welfare? Mr Speaker, Sir, on the same matter of splinter and yellow unions, I would quote Legislative Assembly, Singapore, Sessional Paper No. S 7 of 1957, a report into the trade dispute at the Singapore Harbour Board. In the Singapore Harbour Board there are eight existing unions, and to determine which union represents the majority of workers, a Court of Inquiry was appointed and they recommended that the easiest way to settle it was by secret ballot. The unions which represented the workers are mentioned in page 10 of the Sessional Paper:- No.of Members SHBLU [Singapore Harbour 491 RTU [Registrar of Trade Unions] Board Labour Union] states 322 probably old members. 169 new ones. Another register [i.e, a second register of the same Union] shows 316 members. Membership declining rapidly. SW & SLU [Singapore 325 Subscriptions book inspected by Wharf and Ship Labour RTU. In the light of subscription Union] receipts, membership declining. CSCET [Confederation of 292 RTU unable to say whether all the Singapore Chinese working for SHB. Engineering Tradesmen] HBEU of S [Harbour Board 270 Official notification of this figure Employees Union of not submitted to RTU. Singapore] MSU [Malay Seamen's 117 This figure said by the Secretary of Union] the Union to represent employees of SHB. RTU unable to say whether this statement correct. States however that only 16 members appeared to have paid subscription. The remainder paid no subscription during 1957, and many paid nothing at all for the last 2 or 3 years. SHBEWU [Singapore Harbour 34 Only 62 applications for membership Board Engineering duly completed. RTU said that he was Workmen's Union] told by officials of the union that 245 who had defaulted had recommenced to pay subscription in June. SHBS & WWU [Singapore 307 Only 62 applications for membership Harbour Board Stevedore duly completed. RTU said that he and Wharf Workers' Union] was told by officials of the union that 245 who had defaulted had recommenced to pay subscription in June. Sir, these eight unions were looked into by the Court of Inquiry, and in the Court of Inquiry it was clearly stated that even though there was no trade union law to determine by virtue of law, the Court of Inquiry recommended unanimously that the Minister should, together with Labour Ministry officials, take the initiative to supervise the ballotting and to determine which union should represent the majority of the workers. And today we heard from the hon. Member for Cairnhill, the ex-Minister for Labour and Welfare, advising our present Minister for Labour and Law that the easiest way is by ballot; it is the only thing. But I would ask him that if he had the same idea, what had he done when the recommendations of the Court of Inquiry were placed before this Assembly? Again, Sir, on this matter of splinter and yellow unions, since the publication of this report, a further two new unions in the Singapore Harbour Board were registered. One is the Singapore Harbour Board Mechanical Drivers' Union with a membership of 45, and the ex-Minister for Labour and Welfare and the Registrar of Trade Union know that one day or another a ballot will be taken, and all these unions would automatically be cancelled. Then again, Sir, we find that apart from these splinter and yellow unions, there is another category of such unions - unions of a communal nature. Communalism is creeping into the trade union movement. There is the Singapore Harbour Board Malay Employees Union, which is only for the Malays. We have never heard in trade union history that Malays must have one trade union, Indians must have one trade union, and so on for Chinese, Eurasians and Europeans. We trade unionists are interested only in one community, a community of workers. The registration of that Malay Employees Union has clearly violated the trade union's fundamental principle, and the past Government was even willing to register this union which was completely organised on a communal basis. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Labour and Law has already explained the position of existing trade unions in Singapore today and the number of workers they represent. In introducing this amending Bill, this Government, or the Party as a whole, intends to have one union for one class of workers, so that the unions can face the employers as a united body representing all categories of workers. Thus the unions have more bargaining power and more strength, and the employers cannot victimise the unions' active members. The existing trade union law in Singapore more or less follows British trade union practice - the Member for Cairnhill mentioned that seven members can form a union! Why was the past Government reluctant to take a firm stand in implementing these laws? And, he mentioned that he wanted his political opponents to form more unions to fight him. Sir, if we draw up a list of all the small unions registered from 1955 to 1958, we will find that none was P.A.P. registered; it was the S.P.A./Labour Fronters. They themselves initiated this because they knew that in Singapore Left-wing trade unions were powerful, and in any trade union disputes they were not going to follow what the past Government was doing in the name of democracy. And so they thought it was best for them to break this union, and to find people who were willing to ally with the past Government and to encourage the workers to form splinter or yellow unions. This is not the P.A.P.'s policy. From 1955 we believed that the trade unions should be strong, should be united, and they should stand firm for the rights of the workers. Mr Speaker, Sir, by this law we find that most of the unscrupulous employers took the opportunity to encourage their employees to form splinter unions. To encourage this, the employers would make certain promises of jobs to certain employees and thereby encourage them to form a union. And the employers knew that such a union would be easily registered without any enquiry whatsoever. And therefore we usually find in Singapore employers who just stand up and tell the other unions, "Look, we have a new union registered which represents the majority of our workers, and I am not going to recognise your union." So instead of the union fighting against the employer for better working conditions for its workers, we find (and this has happened in the last four years) the unions fighting one another, and the employers taking advantage of the situation. And to settle a dispute over which union represents the majority of workers, the Government either keeps silent or collaborates with the employers and says, "This small splinter union really represents the workers." And this is the root of all the industrial unrest in Singapore for the last five years. Why? The hon. Member for Cairnhill is so afraid that if the Minister were to make a list of all the things which were hidden by the past Government, they might be exposed to the people of Singapore and to the workers especially. Again, Mr Speaker, Sir, in certain establishments, for example, the transport industry, which we shall take as a whole, after the Hock Lee Bus riots and the leaders of the bus workers were detained, the past Government-the S.P.A. Government-took advantage of the situation and encouraged the formation of one other union which is now considered to be a yellow union, which represents only two bus companies, that is, the Tay Koh Yat Bus Company and the Hock Lee Bus Company. Every trade unionist in Singapore and the people of Singapore know that the union was purposely registered and encouraged by the past Government. When we say that this Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill is coming into force, we can make it very certain and very clear to other trade unions that what the present Government intends to do is to safeguard the interests of the working class and to safeguard them from exploitation. When I say exploitation, Sir, there are two kinds of exploitation in Singapore at the present moment. That is, one is exploitation by the employers who take advantage of the situation, and second, exploitation by the self-styled trade union leaders in Singapore who, in collaboration with the political parties, have from the beginning tried to exploit the workers. Because from our experience we have found out that these trade union leaders have either collaborated with the employers or perhaps they have shared the profits with the employers who do not recognise the genuine registered trade unions in that establishment. Mr Speaker, Sir, when this law is implemented, it is quite clear that the employers cannot play any more "divide and rule" tactics by saying: "Look, I can only recognise that small union because I like the faces of the leaders. I cannot recognise your union because you people are fierce and of the fighting type. So I cannot sit around the table and discuss because all your demands are reasonable. I cannot make friends with you because you are not corrupted." So, this is a good piece of legislation to tell the employers: "Look, it is high time for you people to change your attitude and recognise one union in one establishment and deal with that one union." Once they deal with that union it is quite clear that the workers of Singapore will flourish because there is one union in one establishment, so that when one employer makes an agreement with one union that agreement is valid. And even if a handful do not like the union leadership, they cannot just get about seven men and send in their application for registration. If this law is implemented, it is my earnest belief that all the workers in Singapore will be happy. Finally, Sir, I would like to note one more point - that the hon. Member for Cairnhill was talking for the trade union movement. I should like to know, Sir, at the present moment, how many trade unions he represents? How many thousands of workers he represents and on whose behalf was he talking when he was talking about the trade union movement. Even while he was the Chief Minister he had said that he was born as a clerk and he would die as a clerk

Order. I was just wondering how relevant that is to this debate. The hon. Member for Cairnhill, I take it, has spoken as a Member of this Assembly. He is entitled to speak as a Member, and not as a representative of a trade union.

I am sorry, Sir, I am not going to argue with you. What I was trying to stress is this. He cannot be representing any unions. I just want to make it clear that we on this side, at least, whatever opinions we express we can say that they have come from the unions which we represent. So that puts more value and more strength into our opinions because we know the feelings of the workers, and how they are eagerly awaiting the implementation of this Bill. Finally, Sir, I on this side am trying to make it clear that as soon as this Law is passed we can expect a big hue and cry in Singapore from the yellow unions which were once helping more or less the past Government to prevent the healthy growth of the trade union movement in this country. So once this law is implemented we can see what these self-styled trade union leaders, half of whom belong to the gangster group and the other half to corrupted people, are going to do. We can have a good headline in the newspapers. And I hope the Hon. Minister will, immediately after the Bill is passed, start cancelling these yellow and splinter unions because the Singapore Harbour Board Union itself has been waiting since 1957 for the implementation of the recommendations of the Court of Inquiry. Today we are very glad to hear the views from the same mouth of the Chief Minister who once refused to hold a ballot because he knew that once this was taken, all these eight or nine unions with his good old friends would be ousted from the trade union arena in Singapore. 6.37 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, concerning the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill to give powers to the Minister for Labour and Law to restrict trade unions which are considered detrimental to a healthy trade union movement, I, in principle, agree, so that we can organise the trade union movement in Singapore as one which can fight for the interest of labour. But I would like to remind the Assembly that with these powers, there must be consideration to the effect that there will be no action taken which is motivated by certain sections, because from what we have witnessed the majority of the trade unions existing today in Singapore are mixed up in politics. Therefore, this connection of theirs can be to the detriment of the trade union movement which has, as its object, the improvement of the workers and which has no discrimination in relation to the colour of the skin or religion. We know that the labour movement in Singapore can be considered a new movement and the majority of the workers are not yet fully able to understand its true aims and why they should get together to face their employers. Therefore, as these workers are not yet fully conversant with the principle of the trade union movement, it often happens that if they become members of a certain trade union they will be tied to a political ideology of which the leaders of those trade unions are the adherents, because there is a difference between political ideology and the trade union movement. In the circumstances, they cannot fit themselves into any trade union movement. But, unfortunately, they are not prepared to sit on the fence because they see that the trade union movement in Singapore is mixed up in politics. If they do not belong to any trade union they will become the victims because their fellow workers will victimise them. The Member for Anson quoted an instance of a labour movement in the Singapore Harbour Board. He also drew attention to a debate in this House on the recommendations that had been made by the Court of Inquiry into the Harbour Board dispute, particularly the consolidation of the Harbour Board workers into one labour organisation.

Order. I think possibly the Member is referring to the hon. Member for Telok Blangah, not Anson.

(In Malay): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I meant the Member for Telok Blangah. The Member for Telok Blangah also mentioned two trade unions which emerged after the recommendations made by the Court of Inquiry. What I would like to do is to clarify this - as regards one of the trade unions which has just emerged and which has followed communal lines. As I have said, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Telok Blangah has in particular mentioned the union representing Malays. It is agreed that it represents Malay workers in the Harbour Board because they consider that they have no alternative to safeguarding or protecting their interests, not only in respect of their means of livelihood, but also their political view-point. This is because they have observed that the Harbour Board union movement is closely linked with political movements in Singapore and also the reason-

On a point of order.

On a point of order? Yes

The hon. Member has just mentioned that the Harbour Board Staff Association is connected with political activities in Singapore.

It is not a point of order. It is a matter of opinion.

Sir, I would like him to clarify that point.

It is a matter of opinion. Does the hon. Member give way for clarification? Inche Ahmad Jabri indicated dissent.

No, the Member does not.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, the conduct of the trade union in the Harbour Board is well-known. It is a trade union which has a great interest in the political movements in Singapore, but the majority of the workers are those whose ideologies do not fit in with the movement of that particular trade union which supports a certain political organisation. I remember that when a strike was staged in the Singapore Harbour Board, those who were members of this union worked hard to conduct the strike with a view to making it a success. But only a handful of other workers actively participated. When the strike reached its climax, they realised that they were being led in the wrong direction, one not in keeping with their political beliefs. They then decided that they could not continue with the strike. Mr Speaker, as I said just now, on the whole, I support this Bill and agree with it. But we must be careful as to how past happenings can be improved upon, so that a strong labour union can be created to look after the interests of the workers irrespective of their political ideologies or religious beliefs. 6.50 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, as members of the public know, the P.A.P. Government is the people's Government. It is a Government supported and backed by the people; a Government representing the poor masses who have been down-trodden and exploited by the past Government and also exploited by employers who were protected by the last Government. It is the desire and intention of my Party to raise the standard of living of the masses, particularly the workers, in Singapore, who have, as I mentioned earlier, been ignored or suppressed by the last Government and by employers protected by the last Government. The P.A.P. is not only a Party which has not failed in its promises - it is one which highly respects the promises it has made. This is because we know that a government which does not fulfil its pledges will inevitably have its fate decided by the masses. As one closely associated with the trade union movement, I should explain something here concerning this movement. As far as I know, the conditions for the workers at the present moment are still bad. This is because the laws promulgated by the last Government were one-sided - they were more on the side of the employers. The reason is that during the life of the past Government, splinter unions were established, the majority of them to split the unity of the workers in Singapore. In addition, yellow unions were also used by employers to break the solidarity of the workers. To fight for the interests of the workers, we will amend these laws and will take proper action on employers who do not observe them. As for yellow unions and those which do not represent the majority of workers, we will endeavour to have them dissolved. The policy of the present Government has the support of the entire labour force in Singapore. An important problem facing the Government at present is unemployment, to overcome which the Government requires large sums of money. But unfortunately when we examined the Treasury left us by the last Government, we discovered that the coffers were empty. In spite of this, we are confident that with the efficiency and ability of the P.A.P. leadership, and with the support and backing of the people of Singapore, we will overcome difficulties and the people of Singapore will be led to the gate of happiness. Here I should explain that a noble ambition cannot be implemented overnight or in one or two days, but that it may take 10 or 20 years. However, that is our ambition. Whether it can be realised in a short or long period rests with the people of Singapore. I say this because I know that only with the co-operation of the people especially the labour force can our ambition be realised. It should be explained that the trade union movement in Singapore should not follow communal lines. The welfare of the workers in Singapore does not depend on race, that is to say, that if a Chinese worker is exploited, his Malay or Indian co-worker is similarly exploited. Therefore, in a trade union movement, communalism or race should not come into play. I appeal to the labour movement to cease communalism so that we can unite that movement in Singapore. Although the P.A.P. Government has the overwhelming support of the people, that does not mean that there are no more elements continually trying to subvert the programmes of the Government. In these circumstances, I hope that all the people of Singapore will be on their guard against these elements, so that our ambition will not be subverted. Once again, therefore, I appeal to all the people of Singapore to give all-out support to this Government so that we can, hand-in-hand, build a nation in peace and justice. Mr Speaker, just now I heard the Member for the Southern Islands state that he agreed with this amending Bill, but he thought the Minister should give careful and just consideration when he is pressed. I think the Member is not yet fully aware of the labour movement in Singapore. I myself know for a fact that the Member has no connection with labour movements. The Member stated that political encroachment is taking place in the majority of labour unions. Once again, I say that the Member knows little about the trade union movement. In the trade union movement there are members who play to the various political parties. From what I know of the large trade unions, members come from the P.A.P., S.P.A., U.M.N.O., and so on. The workers are all united in their dealings with their employers. Finally, the Member for the Southern Islands talked about the Harbour Board unions. I personally had worked in the Harbour Board Union in a part-time capacity. The Member for the Southern Islands also stated that the members of the union - especially the Malays - did not receive proper care and that they could not fit in their political beliefs. Mr Speaker, what the Member for the Southern Islands stated at the beginning of his speech is contradictory to what he stated at the end of his speech. Earlier, the Member said that politics should not be used in trade unions, but later on the Member said that because the Malays could not fit in their political beliefs, they formed other unions. Inche Ahmad Jabri rose -

On a point of clarification? If the Member speaking gives way.

(In Malay): Therefore, Mr Speaker, I hope that the Member for the Southern Islands, if he is not yet fully aware of our trade union laws, will consider them thoroughly or take part in trade unions in the future.

Perhaps I had better read the Standing Order which might be of some assistance to hon. Members, that is, Standing Order 30 (4) which reads: "A Member who has spoken to a question may again be heard to offer explanation of some material part of his speech which has been misunderstood; but he shall not introduce new matter." So that if any Member considers that he has been misunderstood in some material part of his speech, he can apply to be heard again. Inche Ahmad Jabri rose -

Does the Member for the Southern Islands claim to be misunderstood?

(In Malay): Yes. Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to clarify my speech which was misunderstood. It was commented by the Member for Kallang that at the beginning of my speech I stated that in the trade union movement we should have no connection with political parties. The reason why I say this is that a particular trade union was found to be run in accordance with the beliefs of a certain political party and some of the members were not in agreement with these political beliefs. Therefore, the result is that these members left that union and formed another union with the object of having nothing to do with politics but solely of concerning themselves with improving the conditions of their employment. 7.05 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on clause 5 of the Bill now under consideration, the Hon. the Minister for Labour and Law somewhat anticipated the point I wish to raise. As I understand the existing Ordinance, Mr Speaker, although the Minister has a right to over-ride the decision of the Registrar, that decision of the Minister over-riding or accepting the decision of the Registrar does not prevent an aggrieved party from taking the decision of the Minister into court. Now, the Hon. Minister says that he has decided to introduce this amendment to the existing section 17 of the Ordinance primarily because he feels that such matters cannot be suitably resolved in court. I take it that his only explanation to the House for introducing this proviso is because he feels that such matters cannot be suitably dealt with in a court of law. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not an expert on trade union matters, as so many of us here claim to be. So, therefore, I went to the Trade Union Acts in the United Kingdom from which our Trade Unions Ordinance is derived and on which it is based. The inspiration for the trade union movement as we know it comes from the United Kingdom, and our Trade Unions Ordinance is to a large extent based on the English Trade Union Acts. I was surprised, Mr Speaker, to find that the Trade Union Acts in the United Kingdom expressly and categorically preserve the rights of aggrieved parties to take their grievances into court. I am therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, somewhat at a loss to understand how similar matters could be suitably aired in an English court but the same matters cannot be suitably dealt with in our courts. I do not for one moment believe that the Minister for Law is suggesting that our courts are less capable of dealing with a situation which the English courts seem to deal with fairly well. Sir, leaving the ultimate decision on certain matters in the hands of a Minister is necessary, to some extent, to carry on an efficient government. I concede, Mr Speaker, Sir, that a Minister must be given certain executive powers from which there should not be an appeal; otherwise the courts will be flooded with niggardly and wanton appeals. Sir, the Hon. Minister cited four Ordinances as giving power to the Minister to do certain acts on matters - if I may be permitted to say so, Mr Speaker - which are not of general public importance but are matters on which individual subjects are involved with the Government and with the permanent officials of the Government. In those circumstances, it is only right and proper that the Minister, who is not a public official in that sense, should be given the right to determine whether a licence should be given, or to do some such act which only affects the private individual. Such a decision should rest with the Minister. But this, Mr Speaker, Sir, is an entirely different matter. This is a matter which does not involve one person. It involves the right of persons to associate themselves together in one group in order to further their own economic interests. Unfortunately, such matters are tied with political issues sometimes. I was surprised to hear the Member for Telok Blangah (Mr John Mammen) in his speech suggesting that the Minister for Law should use these powers to strike out what he called "S.P.A. splinter unions." If the Minister were to use his powers with that end in view, I should be very unhappy, but the mere fact, Mr Speaker, that a responsible Member of this House could suggest that the Minister should use these powers to do that leaves open the question that such an amendment is fraught with danger. Therefore, it is only right and proper that on a matter of such public importance the ultimate decision should lie with the courts of law, as in England. The Government, Mr Speaker, Sir, cannot deny that the cancellation of yellow or splinter unions as they call them is a political matter. Therefore, it is of importance that on an issue such as this the ultimate decision should lie with the courts of this country which are completely above suspicion, completely neutral, and which will look completely objectively upon such matters according to the rules framed by the Minister and not according to any preconceived political ideas. 7.12 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill suggested that when giving powers to the Minister for the cancellation or for the withdrawal of registration of yellow and splinter unions it should be decided by means of a ballot. Sir, he was not of that same opinion in 1957 when he appointed a Court of Inquiry to look into industrial disputes in the Singapore Harbour Board. A Court of Inquiry appointed by the Singapore Government, of which the Member for Cairnhill was then the Chief Minister as well as the Minister for Labour and Welfare, did recommend that a ballot should be held and that the result of such a ballot should be taken into account for the recognition of the most representative union in the Harbour Board. Unfortunately, these recommendations did not suit the Chief Minister in 1957 and, despite various appeals from the unions connected with organising the workers in the Harbour Board and the Singapore Trades Union Congress, which is the national centre for unions, the Minister refused to hold a ballot. That was the situation in 1957, but the Member for Cairnhill has since changed his views. It does appear that his view with regard to ballots to decide or to assist the workers to decide which union they will support has now changed according to the side of the House that he finds himself in. Mr Speaker, the Member for Cairnhill also touched on I.L.O. conventions, international opinions with regard to the Amendment Bill that is before the House. The present Trade Unions Ordinance was introduced in 1941, mainly modelled on the Trade Unions Ordinance that was then existing in Ceylon, and when it was finally implemented after the war, it was clear to all who had the interest of the workers at heart that the purpose of the Trade Unions Ordinance was to show the world, in particular international organisations such as the I.L.O. and at a later stage the I.C.F.T.U. and so on, that the Singapore Government did recognise the rights of workers to form unions; that it could not only show this by means of having legislation but also by having a number of unions. But the legislation made it impossible for effective trade unionism to exist. At the last sitting, Sir, I did mention that the Trade Unions Ordinance as it stands today makes it possible for a man, his wife and five children to form a union. And it has become quite a fashion among persons who do not believe in the welfare of the workers, who do not believe in sound trade union organisation, but who only believe in their own personal glory, to take advantage of this part of the legislation. When they find themselves defeated in a democratic election within the trade unions they decide to set up splinter unions. This has become quite a fashion. In private industry, this move of discredited union leaders who lose elections and who want to form splinter unions is sometimes encouraged by employers directly or indirectly. The Minister for Labour and Law quoted an example of Hock Lee. Several other examples can be quoted. Political parties too have played their part. Sir, the trade unions that do exist in Singapore - they number 225 - cannot be said to be a movement that is united and cohesive, that can offer adequate and complete service to the members that they represent. We cannot do so because of the limitations imposed on the movement by the Trade Unions Ordinance. The limitations are not expressed in so many words as appear in the Ordinance, because the Trade Unions Ordinance makes it possible for splinter and yellow unions to grow. I myself, Sir, have for many years been associated with unions in the Government service. Five years ago, there was only one union for teachers, but now there are several unions for teachers. There was one union in the medical service; now there are various splinter unions. There was one union catering for administrative and clerical workers; now there are half a dozen such unions. It is the same in every industry, whether it is in the Harbour Board, the Armed Services, the City Council, or whether it is in private industry. We have also a union which, strangely enough, calls itself the Professional Women's Association, whose aims and objectives are not very clear. But that union has managed to pull out some members from the teachers' unions, some from the Medical Services Union, and it now constitutes itself the Professional Women's Association. We have had inter-union rivalry as a result of splinter unions and yellow unions. Some of these rivalries have ended in bloodshed and riot, as was seen in the Hock Lee riots. If one were to analyse the number of man-hours lost as a result of strikes and lock-outs, one would be surprised to know how many of those strikes were caused directly as a result of straightforward industrial dispute, and how many of them were caused because the employer refused to recognise a legally constituted and proper union but desired to reach agreement with either a yellow union or a small splinter union. If industrial relations are to be maintained at a high level of understanding between employers and employees, and if the present Government's policy of industrial peace with justice is to be carried out, then a climate of confidence between the workers in their own organisations and employers, particularly the good employers and reasonable employers, must be established so that any agreement reached would be kept. In the present situation, it is not possible, for where the good employer wants to maintain his agreement with a properly constituted union, you have the bad employers who are willing to subsidise or to assist the formation of yellow unions or reach agreement with splinter unions - agreements that are often to the detriment of the workers organised by the properly constituted union. The Member for the Southern Islands, Sir, did make suggestions that unions should not be involved in politics. Yet in the same breath he spoke about a union in the Harbour Board, whose members had to resign from a properly constituted union because they could not agree with the politics of that union. This union, I believe, is organised and confines its membership to a particular racial group. If the Member for the Southern Islands meant that only unions subscribing to the politics of his own political organisation could exist in Singapore, perhaps he would have been more to the point. But he confused the issue by first suggesting that all unions should keep away from politics. Sir, previously it was a popular thing for trade union leaders to say that trade unions should keep away from politics. But the workers never at any time believed that unions could be kept away from politics. The progress of the workers and the improvement of their standard of living are dependent to some extent on the assistance that they can provide or the pressure that they can bring to bear on political parties which are favourably disposed to the workers. It is only natural that the majority of the unions in Singapore should support the present Government. They do so, because this Government, for the first time in the history of Singapore, did put out a concrete and a positive labour policy before the workers and got a mandate from the workers and the people. The workers have faith in this Government. It is by the overwhelming support of the workers and the people of this country that this Government was elected. The workers have also shown their feelings for the past Government. While it might be said - as the Member for Farrer Park did say - that political considerations would come in when withdrawals of registration from yellow and splinter unions are made, it must be made clear, and I think the Minister did make it very clear, that we are not dealing with unions whose leaders support this Party or that Party. We are dealing with yellow and splinter unions. The definition of this term to trade unionists is very clear. If it is by a coincidence - and it has happened in Singapore - that many splinter unions, strangely enough, have had their offices, either temporary or permanent, at one spot, I may say that quite often their addresses by a coincidence have happened to be at Allenby Road. But it is a coincidence that the splinter unions gather strength from one another and they seem to congregate in one place. The cancellation or the withdrawal of the registration of those unions will take place. The motive is not one of politics. The fact remains that they are splinter unions. If one studies the Annual Reports of the Labour Department during the last ten years, one finds that on an average 20 unions are registered every year and 11 unions lose their registration. Either they are cancelled because they have not kept within the terms of the Ordinance, or they are dissolved because the members have lost interest. As a result of this growth of unions on the one hand and de-registration on the other - these constant fluctuations - workers do lose some of their faith in the trade unions that they have. They join a trade union today and they find that because it is small and ineffective (they may not realise that it is a company union), these unions are not able to look after their interest, as a result of which the workers become disillusioned with the trade union movement. If the workers are to believe in the democratic form of government, then the trade union movement, as an institution in a democratic society, must be made to succeed, must be made to work, and it must produce results. If the trade union fails to produce results, then the workers will lose faith in the trade union movement, and, consequently, must also lose faith in the democratic process of government. The purpose of this amendment, Sir, is to strengthen the trade union movement and not to weaken it. It is to strengthen it by doing away with the large number of splinter and yellow unions, consolidating the workers into properly constituted unions, and perhaps at a later stage reorganising them on an industrial basis. If, as we believe, the workers' organisations, the trade unions, should be protected, should be encouraged to be strong and powerful - because only a sound trade union movement can properly look after the interest of the workers - then, Sir, it is imperative that this amendment is accepted. 7.33 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, on the whole, the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill, which is being debated, is appropriate to safeguard existing trade unions which are being wrecked by yellow unions or splinter unions. We discover many yellow trade unions and splinter unions which are constantly trying to wreck the growth of a healthy trade union movement. Many yellow and splinter trade unions were formed with the encouragement of employers. And these employers who encouraged the establishment of splinter and yellow trade unions are employers who received protection from the last Government. The previous Government constantly protected such employers, so that their workers or employees who were members of the trade union movement could be exploited. For instance, the employers know that a healthy trade union movement will submit claims for better or improved conditions of service. Therefore, these employers tried to use these employees to form another trade union whose claims would be considered by the employers. This state of affairs has occurred in many instances, and I am sure my colleagues have quoted instances and explained the acts that had been committed by the employers to form yellow and splinter unions. Therefore, the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill, I believe, is in accordance with the assurance given by the People's Action Party to the people of Singapore during the electioneering. The People's Action Party has stated its policy to the people of Singapore - the overwhelming majority of them comprise workers - that it will look after the interest and welfare of the labour movement. With this Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill, we can give security to members of healthy trade unions so that their interest will be looked after and thus they will not be victimised or exploited by their employers through yellow and splinter unions. Just now, the Member for the Southern Islands said he agreed with the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill. But he felt suspicious that this Bill could influence the members to side with certain political parties. He also mentioned the point raised by the Member for Telok Blangah, that a small trade union based on communal lines was established because the Member for Telok Blangah believed that the main object of establishing this particular small communal trade union was solely to instil political ideology. But the Member for the Southern Islands has refuted the statement that they no longer had faith in the trade union which represented them, on account of the fact that they were misled to accept political beliefs, and they therefore formed a union for the genuine purpose of protecting the workers' interest and members of the Malay working class. Therefore, it is necessary that unions of this nature should be established. Mr Speaker, as far as I know, the union which was formed, as explained by the Member for Telok Blangah just now, was, in reality, to consolidate or enhance political ideologies. That is to say, the members and officials who formed this union were all U.M.N.O. members who at one time tried to sabotage the unions which represented them. When the union which represented them was faced with a trade dispute, however, and when they were unsuccessful in enhancing their position, they formed another trade union. Also, I still remember when my union, that is, the Telephone Board Employees Union, was faced with a trade dispute, we appealed to a Minister for assistance to settle it. But the Minister stated that he tried to settle the dispute because the members of the Singapore Telephone Board Employees Union comprised Malay members, the majority of whom are members of U.M.N.O. The way in which he tried to settle it took the form of political-

Order. I am wondering how the Member for Ulu Pandan can relate all these matters to the Bill. I think he is quite in order to make passing mention of certain splinter unions, but to go into details is a bit too much.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I shall try to comment in detail on the speech made by the Member for the Southern Islands just now concerning the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill, with which the Member for the Southern Islands said he agreed in principle provided that the Bill would not jeopardise unions not involved with political movements and an assurance could be given to workers who are members of trade unions that it would be implemented in a more suitable way. As for the Member for Farrer Park, he said the Bill follows the Trade Unions Ordinance in the United Kingdom, and that the members of trade unions there involved in a trade dispute could have the matter brought to a civil court. He asked why we cannot do likewise in Singapore - is it because the law courts in Singapore are less capable? I would like to draw attention to the trade disputes which were settled in the courts of Singapore. I believe the methods by which they were settled were colonial methods, that is to say, they were one-sided affairs and the Ministers concerned, for instance the Minister for Labour and Welfare, did not take the slightest interest in the Court's decisions or recommendations. So what is the use if when a trade dispute is settled in the courts, its decisions or recommendations are not heeded and no action is taken in the interests of the workers concerned? With the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill, however, I believe, that all workers in Singapore who are members of healthy trade unions will have an assurance that their conditions of work, etc., will be improved. 7.50 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, when a new system is born we naturally want to revise the old one. To amend legislation permitting yellow and splinter unions is therefore one of our Government's policies, because we want to unify the unions. Mr Speaker, here I would like to analyse the yellow unions. They are detrimental to the welfare of the workers. Take, for instance, the Hock Lee bus riots to show how yellow unions are detrimental to workers - serious riots broke out when a yellow union was established. When this happened was it advantageous to the workers? They wanted to get their three meals but, unfortunately, another union was set up to destroy their legal union and against their welfare. While negotiations took place between the employers and employees, a yellow union was set up. That was very bad for the workers. Mr Speaker, there are many other unions of a similar nature which are not useful to good relationship between employers and employees. When we settle the frictions between employers and employees, we do not purposely seek the disadvantage of the employers. However, the employers purposely give a lot of reasons - illogical ones - which are not for the welfare of the workers and create a lot of incidents. Under the present Ordinance, some employers, although they knew their workers have a legal union, purposely got other workers to form a yellow union. This created a lot of friction between the workers and thus gave an advantage to the employers. Mr Speaker, under the old system, the colonial rulers ruling us naturally liked to have many unions for the workers and thus create friction. There was friction between employers and employees, and also between employees and employees. Therefore, I say that when a union truly represents the welfare of the workers, the old system must be reformed. Just now the Member for Farrer Park spoke about the system in the United Kingdom. We the P.A.P. Government were elected by the people of Singapore and we are responsible for the welfare of the people of Singapore. Mr Speaker, if we do not amend the legislation permitting yellow and splinter unions, and unify all unions for the sake of the country's economy we will suffer much serious loss. In our policy statements, we have analysed the country's economy and stated the serious problems facing it. If we have yellow unions side by side with legal unions and creating a lot of trouble among the workers, that will not be advantageous for the country's economy. During the election campaign, there were many false unionists who shouted that they would look after the welfare of the people and provide jobs for the unemployed. In fact, that will not be possible if the problems of the workers are not solved. Mr Speaker, politically speaking, we are different from the Opposition Members. Apparently they are nonchalant about this problem. In order to avoid trouble between employees and employees, we want to unify all employees in Singapore and create a new society. We know that all the goods in the world were created by the workers. Therefore, we say that we must look after their welfare. We do not want to be used by other people. We do not want trouble created between workers and workers. Therefore, I positively support this Bill to amend the legislation permitting yellow and splinter unions.

Order. Moment of interruption. Further consideration, what day?

Mr Speaker, tomorrow at 2.30 p.m.

Resolved, "That this Assembly do now adjourn."-[The Deputy Prime Minister.] Adjourned accordingly at Eight o'clock p.m.