Hansard, 1960-02-10

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 S. T. Bani (Thomson) - from 19th January to 26th January, 1960. Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Tanjong Pagar), Prime Minister - from 19th January to 26th January, 1960. Inche Baharuddin Bin Mohamed Arjff (Anson) - from 19th January to 26th January 1960, and from 3rd February to 12th February, 1960. Mr Leong Keng Seng (Serangoon Gardens), Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education - for two months from 24th January, 1960. Mr Ong Pang Boon (Telok Ayer), Minister for Home Affairs - from 30th January to 9th February, 1960. Madam Sahorah Binte Ahmat (Siglap) - from 1st February to 29th February, 1960. Mr C. H. Koh (Joo Chiat) - from 1st February to 31st March, 1960.

I have received a message from His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara dated 25th January, 1960, informing me that, in accordance with the provisions of section 55 (1) of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, His Excellency had that day assented to the following Bills:-

asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his recent visit to Indonesia.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is little I can add to the statement signed by the First Minister of the Republic of Indonesia and myself, and to the Press conferences in Jakarta and Singapore. I would like to repeat, however, that we received the utmost courtesy and hospitality during our stay in Indonesia, and look forward to the strengthening of trade and cultural relations in the months ahead.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to know how many of our local experts went to Indonesia together with the Prime Minister.

I was not equipped with any local experts, to my knowledge.

asked the Deputy Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the policy of the Government with regard to the nationalisation of the Singapore Traction Company and/or other bus companies in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, on principle, it is the policy of the P.A.P. Government to nationalise public road transport. When and how nationalisation of the bus companies will be brought about must depend on the ability of the Government to meet the financial problem of compensating the bus companies. In this respect, I would like to remind the House that there are other and more important claims to the financial resources of the State. We are not committed within the next five years to bring about this nationalisation, as this has not been declared as par of our Five-Year Plan. Nonetheless, it will be our intention to organise and train an administrative and managerial staff to form the nucleus for a future Road Transport Authority which will effectively take over the control of public transport. This is a prerequisite, as the complicated machinery of running public transport is not within the capability of any Government department at the moment, or, for that matter, of any statutory body that can be created in the immediate future.

asked the Deputy Prime Minister what were the total revenue collected from, and the total expenditure incurred in, the operation of the scheme of charging fees for car-parking in the City area from its commencement up to 31st January, 1960.

Mr Speaker, since the parking scheme was started on 21st December 1959, the following are the three car parks where fees are charged for parking cars: Raffles Place which contains 113 spaces. Fullerton Square - 75 spaces. Clifford Pier - 406 spaces. Of the three car parks, the first two are restricted car-parking places where a car is allowed to park for a maximum period of two hours at 40 cents per hour. The third is Clifford Pier car park where cars can park there all day at 20 cents per hour. The capital expenditure amounted to $24,107. This capital expenditure relates not only to the three car parks mentioned but also to other car parks which are now being prepared for future use. From 21st December 1959, to 31st January, 1960, there were 31 working days. The takings were on an average of $636 per day. The range was from $440 per day to $790 per day. The total takings for the period amounted to $19,706. The expenditure in respect of salaries, uniforms, advertisements, telephones and other miscellaneous charges was $6,584. There was therefore a net profit of $13,122 for the period. We hope that in the next few months the profit that we will make will be able to cover the capital expenditure spent on the car parks.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the operation of this new scheme, I would like to know how many new people were employed and whether these new employees were from the Automobile Association of Singapore.

The employees who have been recruited to man the car parks are divided into two grades: five senior parking attendants and 22 parking attendants. All of them have been recruited from the Labour Exchange.

Could the Minister say, Mr Speaker, Sir, whether the income from this scheme would be increased if the Shenton Way car park were to be brought into use?

Mr Speaker, I mentioned just now that we have car parks being prepared for future use, and it is our intention to use the car park adjacent to Shenton Way in the near future.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs how many Temporary Police Constables have been recruited since June 1959, how were they recruited, and what are the duties generally performed by them.

Mr Speaker, Sir, 16 Police Constables have been recruited since June 1959. Following a Cabinet decision, they were selected by me and appointed by the Commissioner of Police under section 19 of the Police Force Ordinance. 13 have completed their training. Their duties are to guard Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries to whom they are assigned for security purposes, but they have the ordinary powers of police officers.

Sir, in connection with Question No. 4, I would like to know whether any of the 16 Temporary Police Constables have been suspended from duty.

The services of two of these Temporary Police Constables have been terminated.

asked the Minister for Education how many voluntary teachers in Malay in the Government Special Evening Classes are members of the Singapore Police Force, and whether the Malay Education Committee had been consulted before they were accepted.

Mr Speaker, Sir, out of a total of 481 teachers who are dealing with Special Government evening classes in Malay, 201 from the Singapore Police Force offered their services in a voluntary capacity as far back as September, 1959, when the Ministry of Education started its mass literacy drive in respect of the national language. At that time, the offer made from the Ministry of Home Affairs was in the number of 630, made up of 450 from Malays, 100 from Chinese, 50 from Indians and 30 others who were prepared to assist the Government in its drive. In October 1959, the Minister for Education accepted the voluntary offer with grateful thanks, considering the fact that the new Government had in view a change in spirit in the new Police Force. Instead of confining their activities to Police duties, they were prepared to come forward to teach those who wish to learn the national language. The Member for Ulu Pandan, who happens to be the Chairman of the Malay Education Committee, which assists me in the Ministry, was fully aware of this decision and was also a party to the discussions between the Ministry of Education and the Police Force which took place in November. In January this year, the Member for Ulu Pandan, as Chairman of the Malay Education Committee, conveyed the decisions of the Minister to this Committee and they in turn suggested that these voluntary teachers from the Police Force should also undergo a course of training just as the hundred-odd untrained teachers who were recruited by the Ministry of Education in September last year had to undergo.

Statement by the Minister for Education 2.45 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak on the subject of the Nanyang University consequent upon the presentation to this Assembly on 6th February, 1960, of the Report of the Nanyang University Review Committee headed by Dr Gwee Ah Leng. This Review Committee was appointed by me on 23rd July 1959, to "review the Report submitted by the Prescott Commission on Nanyang University and to determine the extent and sequence of the reorganisation deemed necessary." The appointment of the Review Committee was in keeping with one of the recommendations (except in the manner of the composition of its members) contained in the 1959 Prescott Commission's Report on Nanyang University, which stated: "We recommend that an Ad Hoc Committee be formed of not more than seven members, consisting of representatives of the Nanyang University and of the Government, to review our Report and to determine the extent and sequence of the reorganisation deemed necessary." In view of the findings of the Prescott Commission, it was considered desirable that the members of the Review Committee should be outstanding, in, dependent, local men, each of whom having distinguished himself in varied fields of activity, for example, higher education, medicine, journalism and finance. One member from the staff of Nanyang University and another from the staff of the Ministry of Education acted as Joint Secretaries to the Review Committee. It is worthy to record, at this stage, that when persons appointed to the Review Committee were made known to the public in July last year, they received warm approval from all quarters. From the Report now in the hands of Members of this Assembly, you will agree with me, Sir, that the Review Committee had put in considerable work during the four months of its deliberations. On behalf of the Government, I wish to place on record our deep appreciation of their devotion to duty and sacrifice of time and labour in the service of their country. The signed Report was handed to me on 20th November 1959, and copies have been forwarded to the Federation Government authorities for their information. The Review Committee's findings are, in a few words, reorganisation of Nanyang University with Government support. The Singapore Government now finds itself in the position of having to carry the whole financial responsibility of Nanyang University, in addition to its share of subsidising the University of Malaya. The Singapore Government will face this problem to the best of its ability in the interest of the people and of education of our City State. It is regretted that the Nanyang University authorities failed to take any positive steps towards the maintenance of academic standards during the recent graduation examination held in December, 1959, for its first batch of graduates, by not implementing the "external examiners system" which was part of the Nanyang University Examination Regulations as approved by its Executive Council on 3rd July, 1956. Examination Regulation 28 (v) states as follows: "Graduation Examination: conducted at the end of the course by a Board of Examiners appointed by the University and consisting of internal and external Professors and specialists. The subjects and scope of the Graduation Examination shall be the principal special subjects in each course together with a thesis. The standard shall be set by the Board of Examiners." To our knowledge, no external examiners were appointed and according to newspaper reports which are the only information we have, there was a Final Examination Board of three; firstly, a Member of the Executive Council, and now its Vice-Chancellor; secondly, the Secretary-General of the Executive Council who is resigning in a few days' time; and thirdly, the Dean of Studies, who has since resigned from Nanyang and returned to Hongkong. It would therefore appear that the first batch of graduates from Nanyang University have been allowed to graduate without fulfilling the requirements of its own Examination regulations. Furthermore, up till today, there is no official published list of the reported 437 who graduated out of the 471 students who presented themselves for the Final Examination. The public is, therefore, kept in the dark as to who has or has not, in fact, graduated. In the meantime, graduates have to seek employment and employers are kept wondering. Even my Ministry, which will be the largest employer of Nanyang University graduates, is without an official list of graduates; all we have are stencilled statements of 1959 Final Year students, with blue pencil lines drawn across certain names purporting to be failures! It is unknown in any university that such a high percentage (more than 92 per cent) of the students would be allowed to pass in the Final Examination. Again, another unusual feature appears to be no grading amongst those who have passed; good students have been thrown in with poor students in the same unclassified lot and thereby penalised. To the many parents who have saved and stinted for years in order that their children may pursue a course of higher education at Nanyang University, the conduct of the graduation examinations must come as a shock. The Review Committee came to the core of the problem when it stated that - "The administration of Nanyang University has inherited certain features from the system of management in many local Chinese schools. This is a system where the financiers of the school or their nominees form the Board of Management which is responsible, not only for the appointment and dismissal of staff, but also for the educational policy of the school. With men of vision and good sense on the Board of Management, it is possible for such a school to achieve a higher degree of efficiency. On the other hand, it is not uncommon for a Board of Management with good intention but little knowledge of education to interfere with the staffing and the educational policy of the school to such an extent that progress is seriously hampered." The Review Committee clearly indicated that something is basically wrong with Nanyang University. The ideals of the founders of the Nanyang University were admirable. They set out to establish a University to meet the demand for higher education for students from the Chinese secondary stream at a time when the colonial government failed to do anything. However, in moving towards their goal, the founders, who have become the Management Committee, were confronted with university problems which their commercial and trading experience could not provide the answers, to. Had the previous Government been realistic in their approach to problems, they should have immediately warned Nanyang University, soon after its establishment, of the dangers arising out of the control of the University by businessmen, who are without the experience of dealing with matters concerning higher education. This misfortune of Nanyang University would not have reached such proportions today had the previous Government acted in a more responsible manner. Before the Nanyang University Ordinance came into being, Nanyang University was organised and run on the basis of a limited company. The major preoccupation of the Management Committee was how to run the University without too big an annual deficit. No doubt some $20 million had been promised to the University, but out of this sum only $13 million is reported to have been subscribed. In its four years of existence, Nanyang University suffered many setbacks, but none more crippling than the lack of expert planning and advice. A group of shrewd businessmen started the University with a great deal of initiative, but a university is an organisation for learning and research and not a business enterprise. The attitude which goes to make for a successful business enterprise is not necessarily the attitude required for administering a seat of learning. In a university, a line must be drawn between general policy and academic policy, and the latter should be left in the hands of academic personnel. In Nanyang University, the curious situation had arisen where the Secretary-General, who has no acquaintance of university administration, found himself on all academic committees and also one of the three members of the Final Examinations Board. A new university could not possibly achieve both quality and quantity in a short space of time. Perhaps out of consideration for financial stability, quality has been sacrificed in the interest of quantity. Further, there appears to be no proper evaluation of the individual teacher's qualifications and merit. From the Review Committee's Report, it appears that the curriculum of Nanyang University shows a lack of systematic planning and proper co-ordination, and individual guidance from staff members appears to be lacking. What then is the Singapore Government's stand on Nanyang University in view of the findings of the Gwee Ah Leng Review Committee? Despite the critical findings contained in the Review Committee's Report, the Singapore Government has decided to employ Nanyang University graduates and to recognise the Nanyang University degrees as equivalent to Pass Degrees of a recognised university. Selection will, as usual, be on individual merits through interview by the Public Service Commission. But in the public interest, the Singapore Government will have to reconsider the position if the next graduation examinations are conducted in this lackadaisical manner. The next important question is, in what manner and under what conditions will the Singapore Government be prepared to support Nanyang University? Since the People's Action Party Government's education policy is based on parity of treatment for the four streams of education in Singapore, it follows that the new Government will be prepared to support Nanyang University on the same basis as it does the University of Malaya, provided that there are similar safeguards as to the maintenance of proper academic standards and proper accounting of public monies. The Review Committee has recommended certain reorganisational changes which, if effected, would result in the following budget deficits for Nanyang University and which they recommend should be met by Government, namely, $606,570 for 1960, $675,302 for 1961, and $745,034 for 1962. The Singapore Government has no hesitation in accepting its share of these deficits, for the Singapore students in Nanyang University who are estimated at 40 per cent of the total student population. The sums involved being:- 40% of: $606,570 = $242,628 for 1960 $675,302 = $270,121 for 1961 $745,034 = $298,014 for 1962. However, since the Singapore Government is prepared to accord parity of treatment for Nanyang University with the University of Malaya, provided academic standards are raised and maintained, we are prepared to shoulder much heavier financial commitments. I will now outline the general principles on which the financial calculations are based and details are shown in an Appendix to this statement. According to the 1958 Report of the Joint Committee on Finance on the University of Malaya, appointed by the two Governments of the Federation and Singapore, the cost per student in the University of Malaya, i.e. "per capita basis", was as follows:- Arts student $3,000 p.a. Science student $6,000 p.a. Medical student $8,000 p.a. On the basis of an estimated student population of 2,085 for 1960, of which 750 are to be in Kuala Lumpur Division and 1,335 in Singapore Division, the deficit arrived at was $9.2 million, after some adjustment as shown in the appendix. Since the proportion of Singapore students at the University of Malaya was agreed at one-third and two-thirds for the Federation, the Singapore Government has agreed to subsidise the University of Malaya to the extent of one-third of $9.2 million, or $3.06 million, which sum was approved under sub-head 60 in the 1960 Education budget recently. If we use the same "per capita" cost formula for Nanyang University basing on 1959 enrolment of 1,700 students as the basis for 1960 as well, we arrive at a deficit of $5.286 million. Since available facts would indicate that 40 per cent of Nanyang University students are from Singapore, the Singapore Government is prepared to subsidise 40 per cent of $5.286 million, or the sum of $2.115 million. Although it is the duty of the Singapore Government only to subsidise its own students at Nanyang University, we are however prepared, for the time being, to shoulder a greater financial burden in order that Federation students now in Nanyang University may be allowed to complete their studies with the same advantages and facilities as Singapore students and at the same cost. It should be stated, however, that this proposed annual grant is in addition to the $600,000 already approved under sub-head 54 of the recent budget for Bursaries and Scholarships for Nan-yang University. But, before any grant can be made, Government must be assured that government funds are well spent and properly accounted for, and that proper standards in regard to academic staff and the teaching are maintained. One point worthy of mention, at this juncture, is the fact that the last Government paid the sum of $385,896 on 6th May, 1959, to the Nanyang University authorities to meet their supposed deficit for 1958. Payment was made "subject to production of audited accounts as soon as possible", on the basis of a Statement of Account rendered by the Chairman and Hon. Treasurer of Nanyang University Council on 13th April, 1959, showing a deficit of $450,000 out of a budget of $1.4 million. I wish to state that after three reminders for the 1958 audited accounts, the last of which was on 23rd January, 1960, the audited accounts were received by the Ministry of Education only a week ago, on 2nd February, 1960, and is now the subject of study. Any properly organised public institution working on a budget of under $1½ million per annum should be able to render audited accounts within three months. The fact that the Nanyang University authorities had to take 13 months to submit audited accounts is a matter of concern to the people of Singapore. Nanyang University must therefore be reorganised, academic standards must be raised, and the general policy of Nanyang University must be entrusted to a group of people with high academic reputation and experience to discharge such onerous duties, and adequate checks made on expenditure and accounts. Since the Singapore Government is alone in shouldering the financial burden of Nanyang University, Nanyang University will have to be reorganised to serve the needs of Singapore. Therefore the present policy regarding intake of students from outside Singapore will have to be revised. After all, it is the responsibility of a State to provide education for the children of its own citizens and taxpayers, first and foremost. However, the Singapore Government will be prepared to subsidise non-Singapore students to a total of 15 per cent of the student population in Nanyang University. The common practice in other countries is to have less than 5 per cent of the students from outside their territories. Reorganisational restrictions, when introduced, will be applicable to new entrants only. With full Singapore Government support for Nanyang University, it is envisaged that even those who fail to obtain bursaries from the Singapore Government will not find it impossible to benefit from further studies, should lack of finance be the chief obstacle. Therefore, full Singapore Government support for Nanyang University will result in more students from the poorer classes benefiting from higher education at Nanyang University, than has been possible at present. Higher education should not be the preserve of only those who can afford to pay high fees, but should be thrown open to as many as possible who have the mental capacity to undergo higher studies, so that more graduates can be turned out to make their maximum contribution towards the betterment of society in Singapore. The Singapore Government accepts, in principle, the main recommendations contained in the Gwee Ah Leng Review Committee's Report on Nanyang University. As stated earlier, we are, in fact, prepared to go even further than the recommendations in applying the principle of parity of treatment to Nanyang University together with the financial implications thereof. The question is, whether to patch and tinker with Nanyang or really to resolve the basic problems. We will not shirk our responsibility of supporting wholeheartedly the reorganisation of Nanyang University and to back it with adequate finance, when it is in the interest of the people and the cause of education in Singapore so to do. To the many benefactors who have so generously contributed to the Nanyang University endowment fund, Government appeals for their continued support. The Singapore Government, on its part, has decided to take all the steps necessary to make the Nanyang University a real university and, to this end, would be prepared to spend as much money on the Nanyang University as it is spending on the University of Malaya, on the basis of parity of treatment. At the same time, in the interest of higher education in Singapore, the Singapore Government will see that positive steps will be taken to ensure closer co-operation between Nanyang University and the Singapore Division of the University of Malaya. Just as we expect the Singapore Division of the University of Malaya, which was established to meet the needs of higher education for the English stream, to open its doors to those emerging from the non-English secondary streams, so in like manner Nanyang University, which was established to meet the needs of higher education for the Chinese stream, should develop in a similar fashion to absorb the products from the non-Chinese secondary streams. The media of instruction in the two universities will remain as they are. For many years now, the people of Singapore have been wondering what will become of Nanyang University and its future destiny. The present decision of the Singapore Government will settle their doubt. With reorganisation, students will be assured of a future and parents can also plan the careers of their sons and daughters. To the members of the management Committee of Nanyang University, we say that the Singapore Government will welcome the holding of early discussions on the implementation of this policy statement prior to reorganisation of Nanyang University as recommended by the Gwee Ah Leng Review Committee. The rest is an appendix to the statement, Mr Speaker.

The Minister can table the Appendix.* * see cols. 217-8. REPORT OF NANYANG UNIVERSITY REVIEW COMMITTEE(Cols 0217-0218)

Yes, thank you.

If there is any hon. Member who wishes to ask questions, he can do so. Tun Lim Yew Hock rose -

Tun Lim Yew Hock.

Mr Speaker, the Minister for Education says that the Government will recognise the Nanyang University degree on the same basis as a pass degree in any other university. Does that mean that the Education Ministry is going to engage the Nanyang University graduates into the education system in the same way as that of holders of a pass degree in other universities?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am surprised that the former Minister for Education is incapable of understanding an ordinary statement. When we say that we recognise graduates of Nanyang University subject to selection by the Public Service Commission on the basis of recognition of their degrees as being equivalent to the pass degree of a recognised university, I cannot see what further explanation I can give on this.

Sir, I see that the present Minister for Education found it difficult to understand me when I asked him whether the same salaries will be paid to these Nanyang University graduates as those paid to holders of pass degrees of other universities.

The answer is yes.

Yes. An hon. Member: He was expecting

Order.

"to repeal the Local Government Elections Ordinance, 1957 (No. 23 of 1957)", presented by the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ong Pang Boon); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 2nd March, 1960, and to be printed.

"to amend the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance (Chapter 53 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 2nd March, 1960, and to be printed.

I understood the Deputy Prime Minister wished to move a motion.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, That at it's rising this day, the Assembly do stand adjourned to Friday, 12th February, 1960.

I do not think strictly that that motion is necessary, because tomorrow happens to be a public holiday and, therefore, the adjournment today will automatically take the Assembly to Friday, because a public holiday, under Standing Order No. 1 (1), is excluded from the definition of "ordinary, sitting days".

Order for Second Reading read. 3.20 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara has permitted me to signify his recommendation to the Legislative Assembly. I beg leave to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Mr Speaker, Sir, the explanatory statement published with the Bill summarises in considerable detail the main provisions of this Bill. In Committee I shall move certain amendments which will not affect the general features of the scheme embodied in this Bill. These are the encouragement of collective bargaining with a view to the free negotiation of collective agreements on matters affecting the relations between employers and employees, conciliation to assist in the negotiations and, as far as possible, to remove deadlocks in the negotiations, and finally, arbitration where agreement cannot be reached. Mr Speaker, Sir, I refer first to collective bargaining, because I wish to lay the greatest possible emphasis upon the importance that this Government attaches to the bargaining provisions of this Bill. The Government believes in the value of freely negotiated industrial agreements and, indeed, I venture to say that few will deny that an agreement is the best method whereby in a free society the relations between people or groups of people can be regulated. The proposition that people ought to observe their agreements is one which commands universal acceptance. Mr Speaker, Sir, conciliation has proved valuable in the past and we propose that the services of specially trained conciliation officers shall continue to be available where this can help those endeavouring to reach agreement. In relation to this aspect of the Bill, I would point out that provision has been made to ensure that negotiations initiated, as provided in the Bill, are not unduly prolonged; that collective agreements shall be enforceable in the same way as arbitral awards; and that where negotiations break down or where there is a refusal to negotiate, there is a means provided whereby disputes may be resolved by arbitrable awards. This, Sir, I emphasise, is the way in which the arbitral provisions should be viewed. One often hears collective bargaining and arbitration spoken of as if they were mutually exclusive alternatives. This, Sir, is not so, and we are providing a system which allows for the co-existence of agreements and awards. If matters work out in the way that we hope and expect, agreements will be the rule and awards we hope will be the very rare exception. Fears have been expressed that the court will, soon after its establishment, be faced with a volume of work which will be beyond its capacity to dispose of expeditiously. I hope that this will not prove to be the case, but one of the amendments which I shall move at a later stage will be designed to enable this position to be controlled should it arise. I hope, however, that it will not. Compulsory arbitration, unlike collective bargaining and conciliation, is I admit new to Singapore and I can well understand any reservations about it, and indeed any opposition to it that may be expressed. On the employers' side, it invades, for example, their liberty to engage labour at the rates established in a free market, that is, it may force them to pay more than they would otherwise have to pay. And equally, on the employees' side, it implies limitation on the right to use direct action to obtain the limit of what can be obtained by trial of strength, that is, awards must be accepted. On the other hand, there are correlative advantages to both sides. Awards are a great safeguard to employees particularly in times of economic adversity, and from the employers' point of view, there is the assurance that the system offers continuity of work and stability in industrial relations. But perhaps the most important consideration is this. Strikes and lockouts and other traditional forms of direct action cause suffering and hardship to those involved, and economic loss to the community as a whole on a scale which a progressive society, aiming at a happier life and higher economic standards for all, cannot tolerate and cannot afford. I ask all of those who dislike the element of judicial regulation involved in compulsory arbitration to view the matter in the light o those considerations. Sir, what we are setting out to do is to substitute the rule of law for the law of the jungle in industrial relations, to establish, in the words of the first president of the Australian Arbitration Tribunal, "a new province for law and order". But I repeat, Sir, the rule of law never means that one side can have everything its own way. A system of law implies rights and obligations and there can be no enjoyment of the rights without observance of the obligations. What we want to see is the general observance and acceptance of the awards and agreements by both sides. But, Sir, it will depend on the spirit in which employees and employers, and particularly their organisations and their leaders, approach the new system: their willingness to meet round the bargaining table, and their preparedness to place their respective points of view fairly before the court if matters go to arbitration. I appeal to all, who desire to see the establishment and maintenance of industrial peace, to approach the scheme in a spirit conducive to the achievement of those good results which I am confident it can yield. As I have already said, I know that certain features of the Bill will arouse dislikes and even fears in some quarters; fears that powers will be exercised, for example, sc as to impose ruinous obligations on employers or savage penalties upon trade unions of employees. I ask those who may think in that way to believe that experience will show that such disasters will not materialise. The Court is, of course, tripartite in character. There will be members nominated by each side drawn from panels constituted by the Minister. But it will be the president on whom, if the members differ, the final decision will rest. It is, of course, our intention to appoint a man who will have a full sense of the high duties and responsibilities of his office and who will discharge his functions in a judicial spirit and with due regard to all the factors relevant to and the interests affected by the decisions of the Court. It may be suggested that the president being, as he will be, an impartial person may, in the very nature of things, have neither a trade union background such as to enable him to appreciate the feelings and aspirations of the workers, nor the commercial experience which will enable him to understand the problems of management. But it is for this reason among others that we have provided that the two members who will join with the president in constituting the court will be drawn from panels constituted from among the nominees of the employers' and employees' organisations. In selecting members from the panels for particular cases, the parties' preferences will be given effect to. The members will be members in the full sense, not representatives of the disputants, much less advocates for them. Their membership should ensure that no aspect of a case is overlooked or not fully appreciated when the court comes to make its decision. With regard to the representation of the parties in proceedings before the court, it is our belief that this is a function which is best performed by officers of trade unions. We have not limited it strictly to officers, as clause 62 shows. I shall move certain amendments at a later stage with the object of making the clause less restrictive, because it is realised that particularly in the early stages of the operation of the Ordinance some unions may not have officers equipped to do this work effectively. But in a scheme such as this, the representation of union members in negotiations and before the Court should come to be regarded as the normal function, indeed one of the principal functions of a trade union leader. He has a part to play within the system and it offers him a new field for the exercise of his talents and for serving his members with credit to himself. This, Sir, is the consideration which has led us to provide that there will not be representation by an advocate and solicitor in arbitral proceedings. This provision is not intended as any reflection on the legal profession. Indeed we know that if the Bill permitted it, professional representation would be very frequently availed of. One difficulty relates to a matter always close to a lawyer's heart, as the Member for Farrer Park very well knows, and that is the question of costs; and the workers' organisations could be in real difficulties if they were confronted by Counsel on the other side as they have not the resources to pay for similar representation. This, however, is not the main reason why the Bill proposes as it does. It is desired to encourage union officials particularly on the workers' side to handle their union affairs. On the employers' side, the larger employers already include on their staff officers who are specialists in industrial relations. Furthermore, it must be pointed out that proceedings before the Court relating to industrial matters are not judicial proceedings. The judicial function is the ascertainment and enforcement of rights under the law. The arbitral function involves the determination of what the rights and duties are to be in the future. The arbitrator's role is closer to that of the parties when they negotiate an agreement than that of a judge when he decides the matter litigated before him. Indeed, if there is an analogy, it is to delegated legislation. When this is realised, the exclusion of professional representation assumes a different aspect. Likewise, the question of appeals. It will be noted that an award is not subject to review except by the Industrial Arbitration Court itself upon an application for variation. If there were to be a review, this would not be a function of a court of law for the reason that I have just explained. I have referred to fears that may exist that the Court may, through inexperience, do something which could involve us all in economic disaster. The Court is empowered by clause 32 to have regard to the interest of the community as a whole and the condition of the economy of the State. The Court includes members who will be aware of these considerations. Strong advocacy in the Court will ensure that such considerations are put before the Court. The Court is empowered to vary its decisions where sufficiently strong reasons are advanced. Finally, the President will, as I have said, be a responsible man chosen with the full realisation of the importance of the Court in relation to the economy. As the system develops. it could be that we may have to have more than one Court to deal with matters in the first instance. If that happened, the question of an appeal system would arise, but any appeal would naturally be to another arbitral body and not to the ordinary courts. However, all that is for the future. The Bill has received the very careful consideration of myself and all my colleagues. We have had the benefit of advice and experience in the planning and in the drafting stage from Australia, where industrial arbitration has been in operation for over sixty years. But we do not claim that the Bill is perfect and we do not believe that the Ordinance will operate for any great length of time without amendments. We will, of course, watch its operation most carefully and I draw the attention of this Assembly to clause 87 under which the President is required to report annually to the Government on the working of the arbitration system. In this, we have followed the Australian law where a similar provision provides a regular opportunity to review the operation of the system. I assure this House that we will give very careful consideration to these reports and to representations made to us, and we will not hesitate to introduce amending legislation if the need to do so is shown. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have also decided to leave the Services and their employees out of the provisions of this Bill. This is because our State is fully self-governing in internal affairs but is not a sovereign State as far as external relations and internal security are concerned. For that reason, we are in no position to pass any local legislation binding on Her Majesty's Government. That being so, we consider that it would be advisable to leave it to the Services and their employees to decide whether they would freely wish to avail themselves of the machinery we have provided in this Bill for the settlement of industrial disputes, and it would be up to them therefore to decide whether they would freely come in or keep out altogether. In this connection, I have been advised by the United Kingdom Commissioner in Singapore, with whom both the Prime Minister and I have had discussions, that the United Kingdom departments are not opposed in principle to the objects of the Bill, since indeed arbitration courts have for long been a normal feature of civil service negotiating machinery in the United Kingdom. I have also been informed by the United Kingdom Commission here that the United Kingdom departments could not, however, agree to the Bill's application without modification to cover certain aspects which are governed by United Kingdom statute or practice and are not within the direct competence of the United Kingdom Service departments functioning in Singapore. I hope that it will be possible in the near future for the United Kingdom Service departments to reach an agreement with their employees on the application of the Bill on such terms as may be agreed between them, and, if such agreement is not possible, to settle their problems by other amicable means. Mr Speaker, Sir, I commend this Bill to the Assembly and I do move. Question proposed. 3.39 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has given us reasons why he considers such a Bill is necessary at the present time, and while we do not disagree with him on some of the reasons, we do feel that certain provisions in this Bill go far beyond what is required. I will therefore go through this Bill and point out the various clauses where I feel that amendments have to be made in order to make it more effective or less reprehensible. Sir, towards the end of his speech, the Minister tells us why it has been necessary that employees in Service departments have to be excluded from the operation of this Bill, but that if they, of their own accord, desire to enjoy the operation of this Bill they may do so. It therefore means, Sir, if I read the definition of "employee" correctly in page 2 of the Bill, that officers or servants of the Singapore Government are for the purposes of this Ordinance "employees". If that is so, Sir, then the definition of "employer" will have to be amended because the definition of "employer" restricts the class or classes of officers or servants in the employment of the Government. On the one hand - as I have said, if I read it aright - all employees of the Government are employees, but on the other hand, the Government as an employer is not an employer of all its employees.

On a point of information, Sir. I think the Member for Cairnhill is not aware of the amendments of which we have given notice.

Order. I might remind the Member for Cairnhill that we are on the Second Reading of the Bill and I trust that he will not go into the details of his amendments or the details of the clauses, because paragraph (2) of Standing Order 67 reads: 'On the order for the second reading of a Bill being read, a motion may be made "That the Bill be now read a second time", and a debate may arise covering the general merits and principle of the Bill.' There have been several notices of amendments sent in, and I trust that the Member for Cairnhill will be patient and wait until the Committee stage before commenting in detail on the clauses.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I understand that, but this is in relation to the principle whether all employees of the Government are employees for the purposes of this Ordinance and I am a little puzzled as to whether they are or they are not. If they are, then well and good: if they are not, then I have something to say on principle. Sir, I see that one of the most important clauses in this Bill is clause 62. The Minister gave reasons why trade unions should not be represented by an advocate and solicitor. While I agree with him on those reasons, I cannot help but say that, previous to the tabling of this Bill, trade unions have found it not only desirable but also effective that they should be represented by an advocate and solicitor who knows what is going on in the trade union field and who is, shall we say, au fait with almost all labour legislation to help them in arguing conciliation cases or in the courts. It seems, Sir, that the trade union leaders of the P.A.P. who are advocates and solicitors as well now feel that such a thing should not be allowed because, in their view, the trade union leaders themselves are quite capable of carrying out their functions in arguing a case in the Arbitration Court. Sir, I do see that in denying a trade union the right of employing an advocate and solicitor to present their case in court the employer is also so barred, but then, as the Minister himself has said, most employers have employed personnel managers who are well trained and are specialists in their jobs. But I do not think that the same can be said of all the trade unions in Singapore. There are some officers of trade unions, of course, who are quite capable of representing their unions. But there are many - many more - who are not in that position. Therefore, I feel, Sir, that for the present, as the Minister himself has indicated that this law has to be tried out and amendments may be found necessary, that until all the trade union officers have enough training to represent their unions on their own, the assistance of an advocate and solicitor in representing the case of trade unions before the Arbitration Court should be allowed. Sir, I am wondering whether the Minister, because he has said that he has several amendments to submit during the Committee stage in order to strengthen the Bill, would agree to refer this Bill to a Select Committee. If he does, then there is no need for a lengthy debate. Sir, one is not so clear in regard to Part III, particularly clauses 18 and 20. According to my reading of these two clauses in relation to this Part of the Bill, when the Commissioner for Labour himself is notified by a trade union of workmen that it has submitted a request to the employer for negotiations, he must notify the Minister but he cannot notify the Registrar of the Court, unless the Minister so directs. We can understand, Sir, why that clause is necessary, because the Minister feels that he may consider it necessary that a further attempt at conciliation under his chairmanship or under the chairmanship of somebody appointed by him may help to resolve the trade dispute. But there is nothing, Sir, in this Part of this Bill to say that if such an attempt by the Minister has resulted in failure, the Minister shall direct the Commissioner to notify the Registrar of the Court. One can say that it is implied in those words, but I feel that it has to be inserted into the clause in order to make it abundantly clear that if any attempt by the Minister to bring about a settlement by conciliation results in failure, then the Commissioner shall be directed to notify the Registrar of the Court. Clause 24, Sir, is rather complicated. This clause brings in the question of a union submitting a notice to more than one employer, or more than one union sending in a notice for a collective agreement to one employer. The clause is a bit puzzling. It brings in the question that unless all the employers or all the trade unions have reached agreement, the matter should be referred to the Commissioner for Labour. I think it would be desirable, if one trade union has to submit three notices to three separate employers, and if agreement has been reached between the trade union and one employer, that the matter should be taken out of this clause. But if it is not so, whether or not agreement has been reached between a trade union and one employer, all that must be reported to the Commissioner for Labour. I think that clause requires amendment. I see, Sir, that in regard to the President of the Court, he shall be appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister. But in regard to the Acting President, who is to have the same duties and functions of the President, he is to be appointed on the advice of the Minister for Labour. I do not see why it should be necessary to have two appointing bodies. If it is going to be the Prime Minister, why not make him the appointing body for both appointees? Or the Minister for both? Sir, regarding the qualifications of a member of the Panel. I feel that anyone who is a Committee member of any political party or any of its branches should be disqualified from serving on the Panel. The Minister has said that the members on the Panel are not there to look after any particular interest - that I accept. They are there with an open mind to try and understand the problems before them and to consider them in the light of clause 32, whether or not it is in the economic interest of the country that any improvements in their wages and salaries should be made. I feel that Committee members of political parties should not be on this Panel. Sir, I have learnt during my few years of service in this House that the power to appoint carries with it the power to remove. But I see in clause 9, the removal of a person from the Panel in certain instances by the Minister, and in other instances by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara (obviously on the advice of the Minister). Surely, Sir, if removal is necessary of any member of the Panel, the Minister should have that power to remove such members. He need not have to advise the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to remove anybody who, according to sub-clause (2) of clause 9, has become permanently incapable of discharging his functions. Surely if he has become "permanently incapable", the Minister can say. "Well, sorry. You cannot serve because you are permanently incapable." There is no need to ask the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to declare that, because a member has become permanently incapable, he cannot serve on the Panel. But I think why the Yang di-Pertuan Negara has been brought into this matter to remove a member of the Panel is because of sub-clause (2) (b): that the Yang di-Pertuan Negara is of the opinion that that member is not a fit and proper person to be selected to constitute the Court. Sir, before any nominee of the Trades Union Congress or any nominee of the employer's side is appointed by the Minister to serve on the Panel, the Minister, under clause 6 sub-clause (6), must be of the opinion that that person is a fit and proper person. If he is a fit and proper person before his appointment how can he become not a fit and proper person after his appointment? It could only lead to speculation that such a case can only arise if that member on the Panel does not carry out his duties to the wishes or to the liking of the government of the day. I do not think that is so. I do not believe that it is so. Therefore, I would suggest, "Let us carry on with the normal way of legislating - that the power to appoint will carry with it the power to remove." In regard to clause 23, Sir, in the case of trade unions which have reached agreement with their employers, they must prepare a memorandum of the terms of agreement and submit it to the President of the Court. But there is nowhere in this clause which says that it can be submitted in either of the four languages of Singapore - Malay, English, Chinese or Tamil. But in another clause, clause 45 (2), the Registrar shall cause copies to be made in these four languages. I am sure, Sir, that it is just an oversight, and it is not the intention of the Minister that the memorandum of the terms of agreement reached between a trade union and the employer must be in English. Clause 31 is, I think, going a bit too far - giving unnecessary protection to the Government. Clause 31 says that before a matter or a trade dispute between the Government as an employer and its employees can be arbitrated upon, the President must get the sanction of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. But the matter cannot come before the Court; the Court cannot have cognizance of such a trade dispute unless the two parties, i.e. Government on the one side and its employees on the other, both agree to refer the matter to the Court, or where the Minister directs the Commissioner for Labour that such a trade dispute should be notified. Once the Commissioner has so notified the Court through the Registrar that there is a trade dispute between the Government as an employer and its employees, surely, Sir, the Court should go ahead without getting another "green light", shall we say, from the Yang di-Pertuan Negara? The procedure is, I understand, that if a trade union and an employer cannot reach an agreement in negotiations, then the Commissioner for Labour will have a try. He will ask conciliation officers to bring the two parties together to try to conciliate to reach agreement. If he fails, he will then tell the Minister, "I have failed." The Minister, again, can under clause 21 say, "All right. I think there should be further conciliation." He steps in, either with he himself as the chairman or somebody appointed by him. And then if he finds that he has failed, he says, "All right. Refer to the Court." Then the President will have another try. Sir, this is dragging the matter unnecessarily. The Commissioner has one try, the Minister for Labour has one try, and when it reaches the Court, I think the Court should straightaway sit and arbitrate on the dispute, instead of having a further try. As we know, Sir, the longer a dispute is left to exist, the more heart-aches there will be between disputants. So I feel that, once the Commissioner for Labour has had his trial, and the Minister for Labour and Law has had his second trial, the President should not be given the power to say that there should be another trial. I feel that the Court should go straight ahead arbitrating on the trade dispute. Sir, I read in the Press that the Trades Union Congress have called a meeting of its constituent members to seek their views on this Bill, but I have not read in the Press any more whether the Trades Union Congress have made representations to the Minister or whether the Minister has considered such representations, and that in the light of such representations, he is going to submit amendments during the Committee Stage of the Bill. I think that this is a very important Bill. It is a Bill designed to bring about industrial peace. Everyone wants that. We know that in 1956, 1957 and 1958, because there was no such Bill and because there were no restrictions on trade unions on strikes, there had been a lot of industrial unrest. The Government may be profiting by the experience of their own sins in the past and may now have realised that to foster strikes and encourage trade unions to go to the limit irrespective of the economy of the country is all wrong, and that such things should not be allowed to take place again. And I even find, under clause 83, that an officer of a trade union cannot go into a place of work to talk about trade union matters. I think it is a good thing. But then I cannot help but say that it was because of an officer of a trade union being refused by an employer to go into the place of work to talk to members of a trade union on trade union matters that the union called a strike, and that particular union had for its legal adviser the Hon. the Prime Minister. Maybe they are learning their mistakes, or learning the folly of their ways, and they think that such a thing should not be repeated. I am with them. I think they are right now and that they were wrong in the past. There is this clause 37, sub-clause (2) - it is a bit difficult to understand why it is necessary. Now, it is right that there should be protection to ensure that the employer does not get out of an award by just transferring his business to somebody else. If an employer employs a devious method of getting out of an award, he should not be allowed to do so. That I agree, under clause 37 (1) (d), that is, any successor or any assignee or transmittee shall be bound by the award. But I cannot understand the purpose of sub-clause (2) of clause 37. What it means is this, if I have read it right. If A starts a business at, say, No. 51 Neil Road, and then later he finds that he cannot carry on any longer and he closes the shop. Then another man starts a business at the same address and does the same kind of business. Even though he may have no connection whatsoever with A, he is to be bound by this award - just because he happens to find that the premises are suitable for his business. He may have his own set of employees. He may have removed his business from a different address to this address - to No. 51 Neil Road, for the sake of argument. Is it intended that he should be bound by the award - he, who has no connection whatsoever with the previous employer who was a party to this award? I think it is wrong to encourage the premises to be left vacant. I do feel, Sir, that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, and I am sure that trade unions and employers alike will greatly welcome the opportunity to submit representations to this Select Committee in order to make this very important labour legislation a welcome one by all sides. I would urge upon the Government to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. 4.05 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, in connection with the Industrial Relations Bill which is now being debated, I wish to support the findings and views of the Member for Cairnhill and hope that this Bill will be referred to a Select Committee, because, Mr Speaker, from the opinions expressed by the Member for Cairnhill, there is no doubt that there are many matters which require further consideration, and this coincides with the fact that the Government itself has given notice of a number of amendments. It is therefore appropriate that this Bill should receive proper consideration. At the same time referring this Bill to a Select Committee will give an opportunity to the trade unions to study it. They have had no opportunity to have close connections with the Government and are in the dark as to the contents of this Bill. They can give their views to the Select Committee in the interests of industrial peace in Singapore. 4.08 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I fully support the Industrial Relations Bill because the Government have carried out a careful investigation into this matter and have reached an agreement with influential trade union leaders. Mr Speaker, the Government side is aware of all the matters affecting this Bill. Furthermore, it is also aware that the working class has been oppressed and suppressed by the employers whose objective is to cause disunity among the trade unions. Such was the fate of the labour movement in the past. The labour movement was designed to create unity so that the workers could earn a living for their families and their children. The object of this Bill, Mr Speaker, is to help the labour movement. This Government has many trade union leaders on its side who are now leading their fellow workers in the unions. In addition, we on this side realise our responsibilities towards the labour movement. Therefore, we wish to safeguard the freedom of the labour movement in future so that it will not deteriorate as it did in the past. Hence, Mr Speaker, I fully support this Industrial Relations Bill. 4.11 p.m.

Mr Speaker, the Industrial Relations Bill is, in fact, one of the outstanding Bills introduced by this Government. Before I go into the details of this Bill, I would like to mention certain things. When this Bill was first introduced into this Assembly, the Trades Union Congress and 16 unionists read through it very carefully, and afterwards submitted certain amendments to the Minister for Labour and Law. At the same time, the Federation of Employers and other employers also went into this Bill very thoroughly, and they submitted a 20-page memorandum to the Minister for Labour and Law. The trade union side read this Bill through very carefully. We had the opportunity to meet the Minister for Labour and Law. In fact, we discussed the Bill clause by clause, and also discussed the amendments which will be introduced at the Committee stage. The main aim of this Bill is to stabilise the relations between employer and employee in a more practical way with regard to trade disputes in Singapore. This Bill, in fact, is in line with our Party's policy which we put before the people of Singapore during the elections. And, of course, we then mentioned categorically that our aim was industrial peace with justice. While I was hearing the speech of the Member for Cairnhill, I thought he was going to make an outburst against this Bill. In fact, he had not much to say. He just took clause 50. When the Minister made his speech earlier, he had said that he would make certain amendments to clause 50, and therefore clause 50 is no more valid. Even if he makes capital out of it, the trade unionists cannot carry on their union activities in their working place. When the amendment is introduced, that part is deleted.

Will the Member mention the clause?

Clause 50 of the Bill, Sir.

Clause 50?

I am sorry, Sir. It is clause 83. When the Minister introduces this amendment at the Committee stage, that part will not be in the Bill. Since we took office in June 1959, Sir, and basing on the present Industrial Relations Bill or other Ordinances pertaining to labour disputes, neither the Minister nor his Parliamentary Secretary nor the civil servants of the Labour Ministry have been in a position to force the employer to come to any sort of agreement with the employees when they submitted demands for better wages and working conditions. But we are quite proud of the way in which the Minister dealt with labour disputes during the last six or seven months as compared with the way in which the Member for Cairnhill, when he was Minister for Labour and Welfare, dealt with labour disputes during his four and a half years of office. The unions in their day-to-day dealings with the employers usually meet two categories of employers in Singapore. One is the unscrupulous type of employers, and when the P.A.P. took office they quite understood the P.A.P.'s policy - industrial peace with justice. The behaviour of the trade unions for the last six months has been creditable. I should like to say here that the trade unions, as a whole, stick to the Party's policy and they behave quite responsibly in that respect. But the employers, on the other hand, took advantage of the situation. They said that since the P.A.P. Government's policy was industrial peace with justice, they would make use of the fact, thinking that the trade union movement would one day or other go against this Government and create industrial disturbances in Singapore. To deal with this situation, therefore, we must have some kind of legislation to pin down this type of employers, and that is the main reason why we, the trade unions, support this Bill in principle. The Minister is going to move an amendment in clause 28, and when this amendment is made, most of the fears of the trade unions will be removed. Clause 28 deals with the question when both parties jointly request arbitration. Paragraph (b) of clause 28 will be deleted when the Minister moves his amendment. Why I say the trade unions' fears will be partly removed is this. There is a time lapse when negotiation fails and the court takes cognizance of the trade dispute; and during this period the trade unions are at liberty to take industrial action against their employers. But the important point is this - that the court is only going to take cognizance of the trade dispute after the Minister informs the court. Of course, we agree in principle that when the matter is referred to the court there should be no industrial action. Sir, again in this Bill, if any collective agreement is reached between both parties and that agreement is registered with the court, it has the effect of an award. In the situation in Singapore, Sir, we find in most cases that when employers negotiate with employees and reach a certain agreement, and when the time comes for them to put their signature on the agreement, the employers just say, "No, we are not going to sign it." So many of these cases are happening, even in the Labour Ministry. A union submitted a claim. Their employers negotiated with them and reached an agreement. But when the time came for the employers to put their signature on the' agreement and make it valid, the union found that the employers just flatly refused to sign and were not going to adhere to what they had agreed during the negotiations. At the present moment, in such a situation, either the unions will have to call for industrial action or go to the Ministry of Labour and Law. And if they go to the Ministry of Labour and Law on the existing rules and regulations, the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary or anybody cannot do anything, because the law is such and they cannot go beyond the law. But when this Bill is passed and an agreement is reached, it is notified to the Registrar of the Court and the Registrar will in turn inform the President who will sign the agreement, and that agreement will be valid for l½ years or 2 years or 3 years, or whatever period is agreed between the union and the employers. One important fact is this. We find that there are people who take an active part in the trade union movement for their selfish interest. The employers know the situation well and easily buy these people over with prize appointments, so that they will become black-legs or traitors to their union; and when the union submits demands and something is achieved, these people are benefited both ways:-

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill which we have before the House is an important piece of legislation and we must pay tribute to the Minister for Labour and Law who has done so much during these last eight months for the labour movement. We know that since he took office in June last year he has fulfilled the promise of getting a Trade Union House for the labour movement. He has also introduced a Bill to eliminate yellow and splinter unions so that the labour movement could be strengthened and be in a better position to bargain collectively and achieve better things from the employers. And we know that his Ministry has also been seeing to it that the legislation which has been in force is being carried out. No one can deny that during the less than nine months since the P.A.P. Government has been in control, there have been confidence in the Government and industrial stability. This Bill seeks to promote stability so that capital development and industrial expansion could be carried out. We all know of the growing unemployment in Singapore. We all know that, to survive, we have to industrialise; and we all know that no one will invest money unless there is stability. This piece of legislation will encourage such capital development and industrial expansion. At the same time, this Bill will also ensure that the worker gets his fair share of the fruits of his labour. The hon. Member for Cairnhill has mentioned just now that if the Industrial Relations Bill had been in existence there would not have been disorder or industrial unrest during 1955, 1956 and 1957. I am glad he has realised that the introduction of this Bill will be good for the country. 4.29 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it would be very interesting to speculate on what would have happened had such a Bill been introduced three or four years earlier. I venture to suggest, Mr Speaker, Sir, that if this Bill had been in force four years ago, quite a lot of the Members sitting opposite me might not have been in this Assembly. However, these are all matters of speculation. Any one's guess may be right. The main thing is that we are here this afternoon to debate the principle involved in this Bill. Speaking for myself and for Members in the Opposition, I think it is a good Bill. It is a genuine attempt by the Government to hold the balance equally between the employer and the employee in the interests of the State. That seems to be the principle underlying this Bill'. It is a principle accepted by the Opposition, and if anyone says it should have been implemented earlier he may be right or he may not be right. It may be that four or five years ago the time was not opportune. Perhaps this is the golden moment when it should be introduced and the golden moment is in the hands of the Minister for Labour and Law. However, Sir, in seeking to bring- about industrial peace and good relationships between employees and employers, a principle which has been accepted in the past is being departed from and a new principle is being introduced. It is important not only to the employees but also to the employers that this Bill should be a success, because it is vital to the survival of the State. So I think, Mr Speaker, Sir, that all aspects of this Bill should be very carefully considered. The Hon. the Minister for Labour and Law himself said that he and his Government had given this Bill a great deal of thought even before they put it down as Bill No. 61. Apparently on this matter, the Government was assisted by an Australian expert loaned to them by the Australian Government. But at this late stage this morning, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has filed very important amendments which, to my mind, somewhat disturb the original balance held in the Bill. The amendments to be moved are important. The Bill itself is sufficiently important, but all interested opinion on this matter should be consulted before a new system whereby industrial peace may be achieved is to be implemented. I would therefore ask the Minister for Labour and Law to consent to this Bill being referred to a Select Committee in order that that end might be achieved. But if the Minister feels that he would not permit it to go to a Select Committee, could he consider deferring the Committee stage of this Bill in order that further and more adequate representation be made to him before final action is taken by the Assembly? The Minister himself, Mr Speaker, Sir, did not indicate to the House what representations had been made to him, either by employers or employees, but the Member for Telok Blangah, who seems to be very well-informed in these matters, made so bold as to say that representations had been made. But in so far as the Minister himself is concerned, he has not made any statement to the House as to what those representations were. 4.35 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully support the Bill because it contains provisions whereby small unions can be given the opportunity to derive benefits as a result of negotiations with big employers. With the existence of this Bill, such unions can fight in the interest of their members. As my colleague the Member for Telok Blangah has pointed out just now, only employees who are members of unions will stand to benefit from agreements signed with their employers. This is a matter which employees should be proud of, because hitherto all employees derived benefits as a result of negotiations between employers and trade unions, despite the fact that some of them were non-members of the unions. We know that such people are obstructionists. They hinder a healthy labour movement. When this Bill is enacted, these opportunists will no longer be able to derive benefits from agreements signed with their employers. Just now, the Member for Cairnhill stated that under this Bill, if, for instance, a business concern at No. 51 Neil Road, came to an agreement with its employees and it became bankrupt months later, its successor would have to abide by the agreement reached earlier. It was the practice during the past Government for a business concern, after having reached an agreement with its employees, to wind up its business on the pretext of bankruptcy. Then a few months later, this firm would establish itself under a different name and under a different management board; but the fact is that the same persons managed the new firm. The reason for that is that they wished to avoid paying the benefits to their employees. Therefore, with the existence of this Bill, I am sure that the employers who had been encouraged by the past Government to indulge in such malpractices will no longer be able to get an opportunity to oppress their employees in such a manner. The Member for Farrer Park said just now that if this Bill had been enacted four or five years ago those trade union leaders who are now on this side of the House would surely not be here today. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to explain the stand of the trade unionists who are in this Assembly today. Their stand is different from that taken by the Member for Farrer Park. In the last election, he stood as an Independent candidate, but when he was returned, he became an S.P.A. member. But the stand of the trade unionists on this side of the House has never wavered. There is no doubt that, in spite of the fact that some of them are on the Government side, they will still continue to struggle in the interest of the workers, as they have done previously. We do not switch our stand from one side to another. Why I say this, Mr Speaker, Sir, is because when this Bill was read the First time, we trade unionists on the Government side and other trade unionists were invited to attend a conference to discuss the Bill which is before us today clause by clause. As a result, several amendments were put forward by the trade unionists. Therefore, we trade unionists on this side of the House fully support this Bill to which several amendments will be moved later by the Minister concerned. 4.43 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, although the Industrial Relations Bill which is being introduced by the Minister for Labour and Law has not reached the ideal stage, I do think, however, that it is practical, for the reason that it will substitute the legislation of the previous Government which has taken an irresponsible attitude towards industrial relations in this country. This Bill is an attempt to amend the legislation of the previous irresponsible Government and it is practical in the interest of the masses in this country. Mr Speaker, Sir, the people have the power to run their own affairs. Therefore, the people who hold this power must be represented by themselves. An important fact arises out of this important piece of legislation. Those who are interested in the trade union movement believe that the Minister for Labour and Law has the final say. Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill has not been drafted in a day or two. It has been drafted after the Minister for Labour has put in much effort, energy and time in discussions with members of trade unions, and after agreement has been reached on many matters in this Bill. Because this Bill has been amended in many respects, we can see for ourselves that the P.A.P. Government is different from the previous Government. Our policy is based on the views of the masses of the people. Their views must be respected and given preference to and should be embodied in Government legislation. When that happens, we accept them and amend the Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, when going through the Bill, we found a clause in relation to disputes submitted by the Minister for Labour and Law to the Arbitration Court. The previous Government was cunning. They used to cheat and deceive the brothers and sisters of the workers. They used to refer disputes to the Arbitration Court. We know that the previous Arbitration Court was a fake. Therefore, in this sense, such a Court could only represent a one-sided view. On the other hand, the views of the other side were totally overlooked and neglected. But our Minister for Labour and Law has adopted a different attitude. If any dispute arises, and if our Minister thinks that it can be referred to the Arbitration Court, then he has the power to submit it to the ruling and findings of the Court. If the dispute between the employer and the employee can be solved by conciliation, he will then leave it to the conciliation officers to decide. This attitude is very practical. Mr Speaker, Sir, I remember in the past I represented the Singapore Telephone Board Employees' Union in negotiations. When the workers submitted their terms to the employer, they got their victory. Many of the workers did not join the union, but they gave full support to the union in their negotiations with their employer. Thus those who did not join the union also enjoyed the benefits fought for by the union for the members. This fact was unique under the rule of the previous government. From this we can obviously see for ourselves that there were unreasonable things in society. The employers would blackmail the trade union movement; they would discourage workers to join trade unions. We could see for ourselves many workers sitting on the fence. They did not join the trade unions, but waited for others to fight for them. There is now provision in the present Bill to provide that any member who does not join a union in negotiations with the employer will not be entitled to enjoy the benefits fought for by the union for its members. This provision will enable the workers to understand that it is essential for them to join a union. It is in their interest to join a trade union. This provision fully represents the interests of the workers. Thus when the Minister for Labour and Law introduces this Bill, I think it is practical for the reasons I have said. 4.52 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker. Sir, when this Bill was debated just now, the Opposition Members - the Member for Farrer Park, the Member for Cairnhill, and the Member for the Southern Islands - put forward various amendments and views. I would like to say, as has also been said by my colleagues just now, that before this Bill was debated today, the Government had received representations from several trade unions in Singapore, and that we trade unionists had got together and discussed its pros and cons and reached a certain measure of agreement. Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill not only protects the workers but also ensures industrial stability and peace. Under the previous government, when they enacted a Bill, it often appeared good outwardly, but in effect it did not give the workers anything concrete. What I have just said, perhaps the Opposition Members themselves will understand, for they know what happened in Singapore in the past. We had strikes and lockouts. The outdated Ordinance was not effective and had no provisions as are now embodied in this Bill. After this Government had assumed office for a few months, I myself, as a trade union leader, had negotiated with several employers for better conditions of service, such as overtime pay, involving sums amounting to not just hundreds of dollars but many thousands of dollars, which the employers were obliged to pay. This is the result of the present Government's genuine intention to better the economic status of the workers. Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, by this Industrial Relations Bill, as I have said earlier, not only will it protect the workers in Singapore but it will also ensure industrial peace. Therefore, as regards some of the Opposition Members, they should be ashamed of themselves for what they had failed to do in the past. When we enact such a Bill as this Industrial Relations Bill, we do not merely enact it for the sake of enacting it but, at the same time, we will carry out its provisions to the letter and take appropriate action against employers who fail to carry out their obligations.

It is a convenient time to suspend. I shall take the Chair again at half-past five. Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.57 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

Order read for resumption of debate on Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Question again proposed. 5.31 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the responsibility for the maintenance of the country's industrial peace is tripartite. It rests on the Government, on the employers and on the workers. But Government up to 1959 had been nothing more than an administrative machinery to be used by the employers, and a machinery for the enforcement of order over the workers, so that the exploitation of the workers could continue unhindered. In those circumstances, it was not surprising to find that all arbitration tribunals and courts of enquiries had been directed against the workers, and had never been impartial bodies at all. We have had examples of these in the case of the Naval Base Arbitration Tribunal whose Chairman was on the reserved list of the Admiralty. Not very long ago, We former Government set up a Court of Inquiry, and when its findings were not favourable to the Government, the Government refused to implement the findings of that Court of Inquiry. It was not long ago that the Member for Farrer Park was a member of the so-called independent panel of the Industrial Courts Ordinance. Those were the conditions under which the workers found themselves. We were faced with so-called independent Chairmen and independent persons, but they were, in fact, not independent at all but, in one way or another, were associated with the employers. The employers, too, have a responsibility for maintaining industrial peace. But the employers of today have never progressed from the days of indentured labour, the Kangani system. The trade unions have quite often found it difficult to expect employers to abide by collective agreement, and even to observe the minimum requirements of the Labour Ordinance. Even now we come across employers who are not observing the Labour Ordinance, the minimum standards laid down by the Shop Assistants Ordinance and the Clerks Employment Ordinance. With these experiences the workers could do nothing else but resort to industrial action. Their frustrations and discontent found expression in strikes. Sir, my Party contested the election on a policy based on industrial peace with justice. Its leaders have for a very long time worked with trade unions and with the workers, and were trusted by them. True to the policy of my Party. this Bill has been introduced. This Bill introduces a new chapter in the history of our country. For the first time it introduces a new concept, the concept of the force of law to collective agreement voluntarily reached between employers and workers. Never before has a collective agreement been binding. Never before has a collective agreement been enforceable. Employers have just ignored agreements whenever it suits them. Agreements have been signed on one day, and on the following day, the employers have just ignored them. To my mind, this is the most important step taken to promote collective bargaining in this country. The Bill also aims at promoting collective bargaining between employers and their respective trade union of workers. As the Bill will, at a later stage, be amended, it will be found that collective bargaining is being kept between employers and trade unions of workers. This is to avoid the present situation whereby an association of employers reached agreement with a trade union of workmen, and subsequently the individual employers resigned from the old association and refused to abide by that agreement which they were a party to when they were members of the old association. In order to prevent employers from cluttering up the work of the Arbitration Court by forwarding, by default, all disputes to the Court, the Bill will enable the unions to decide whether or not to take strike action. The right to strike is still maintained. It must be maintained, otherwise we might find a situation where the Arbitration Court will be cluttered up with all those trade disputes which can rightly be solved by negotiations. But the right to strike must be exercised in a responsible manner. As long as it is exercised for the benefit of the workers, it must be maintained. This Bill provides sufficient freedom, and, at the same time, sufficient protection to see that this weapon is not used by wild men to enhance their personal power or to coerce the Government. The trade unionists have accepted the principle that trade union leaders who obstruct the proper functioning of the Court should be punished, but not the union as a whole. The Minister for Labour and Law must be complimented for agreeing to the deletion of the provisions dealing with the cancellation of the registration of unions whose leaders deliberately flouted the orders of the Court. The denial of the right of representation before the Court to an advocate and solicitor is in order to direct the attention of the Court to the merits of the case before it, rather than to engage in legal technicalities and formalities. This particular clause will enable trade unions to be represented by persons who are considered to be most suitable for this task. The Member for Cairnhill cast a slur on the trade union movement when he said that the trade unions did not have sufficient experienced officers to represent the case of the workers before the Arbitration Court. Sir, the trade union movement is capable of looking after itself. It is capable of representing the interests of the workers before this Court - so long as we know that the Court is there to judge and decide on the merits of the case and not on the form of representation or on the technicalities of the law. The Bill must be supported if we are to solve our economic ills and expand our economy so that we may abolish unemployment from our country. I believe this Bill is one that will keep labour disputes to a minimum. Compulsory arbitration is not a popular solution. It is not a solution wholly acceptable to the unions. But in the situation that we find ourselves in today, there is no better instrument than compulsory arbitration. In this Bill the emphasis is on collective bargaining. But when collective bargaining fails, there must be arbitration, and arbitration, if it is to succeed, must also have the force of law. It must be binding on the parties that do appear before the Arbitration Court. This Bill provides such force of law. I, for one, am sure that responsible leaders on either side of the labour dispute will resort to collective bargaining. But both sides have their wild men, perhaps the employers more than the workers, and to ensure that these wild men do not destroy our standards of living and our economy, this Bill is necessary. Sir, I support the Bill. 5.43 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I must say that I am terribly disappointed at the performance of the hon. Members in the Opposition. Perhaps they are not sure on which side the Bill is weighted, whether it is on the side of the employers or on the side of the workers. However, the Bill before the House today is, as a matter of fact, the most important piece of legislation introduced by the Government so far, and one that has initiated widespread interest and discussion. Employers and bodies of employers have quite obviously scrutinised the Bill carefully. The Straits Times has editorially commented on the Bill more than once, and has even aired the unsaid fears of the employers. On the other hand, Sir, the trade unions have set up special sub-committees to study the Bill and have gone over, clause by clause, the provisions for and against their interests. The unions and employers have made representations to the Minister. Sir, it is indeed my duty today to speak both as a trade unionist and as a Government Member, as one who understands and shares the aspirations of the workers and recognises the legitimate democratic rights of the trade unions in the field of industrial relations, and as one responsible for the ideals and objectives of the Party. I think, Sir, at the outset it is important to mention the fact that although both sides - the employers and the employees - seem to have expressed certain fears with regard to the application of the Bill, no one so far appears to quarrel with the intention of the Bill. The underlying principle of the P.A.P.'s labour policy is industrial peace with justice. This will be the objective which the Bill in its final form is intended to achieve, and the truth of all truths is to put into practice this principle in the most effective and workable manner. Fears we all have. I am sure Members of this House have various fears, just as the employers and the trade unions have fears on the result of the operation of this Bill. I am being frank and honest when I state here in clear and unambiguous terms the fears and the worries of the workers and the trade unions in regard to this Bill. But before I proceed any further, I must state quite definitely that despite the fears and concern of the workers, they are quite prepared to accept the Bill, with the amendments, in the final form in which it appears after the trimming. This is solely because they have hope and confidence in the men who are going to be responsible for operating this Bill, namely, the Members of the Government. At this stage, Sir, I just want to refer to a statement by the hon. Member for Cairnhill. He sounded as though he was sorry that he did not have the opportunity of introducing such a Bill during his term of office. Let me tell the House quite plainly this. If it is the Lim Yew Hock Government which were to introduce the Bill, then I say today there would be workers outside holding placards, his the faith in the leadership of the Government and in the basic intention of the Bill, i.e. to mete out justice to the workers while preserving peace on the industrial front, which led the trade unions to take this decision. I wish to refer very briefly to a few clauses which are causing some apprehension among the workers. To start with, it is necessary to examine the difference between the Party's election pledge and the provisions of this Bill. In the Party's manifesto during the elections in regard to the Arbitration Court, it was stated that the union could opt to be brought within the jurisdiction of such a court. When the union so opts, the employer is automatically brought within the jurisdiction of the court. This, Sir, is no longer the case now under this Bill, and quite rightly there is some uncertainty and worry creeping into the trade unions of workers. Clause 28 of the Bill, as the amendments to be moved by the Minister will provide, will allow employers and the trade unions who are parties to a trade dispute to make a request jointly in writing to the Registrar that the trade dispute be submitted to arbitration, and when this is done, the court shall have cognizance of the trade dispute. The fear of the trade unions is on the opportunities which this clause will give employers to refer, or refuse to refer, disputes with the unions according to their particular benefits and thus make the workers helpless. But the safeguard against this possible abuse is provided by a sub-clause under the clause, where the Minister will have the authority to direct a dispute to arbitration. Here it is appropriate to) draw an illustrious example of what I said just a little earlier. While the unions strongly desire what was promised to them during the elections, they are prepared to accept the amendments to this principle, in the belief and faith that the Government, in particular the Minister who has to operate this Bill, will do so judiciously and in a manner that will preserve the unity of the workers and add strength to the working class movement. But sad to say, Sir, if the Minister were to be, for example, the Member for Cairnhill, then we would have to be prepared to face another round of the industrial unrests of 1955 and 1956. Let me refer to clause 32. Here, the Court in reaching its decision may have regard not only to the interests of the persons immediately concerned but to the interest of the community as a whole and to the economy of the State as a whole. This clause is considered by workers to be an employers' clause, for the simple reason that it appears to transmit the frequent howls of employers. We all know that employers are in the habit of crying about the interests of the community and the conditions of the economy of the State every time the unions make claims for just and improved conditions of employment for the workers. It must be stated that this clause in the Bill affords opportunities for employers to try and seek to prejudice the reaching of a just and reasonable settlement through arbitration. As a matter of fact, without any Ordinance to cite, the counsel for the Singapore Traction Company, in its recent dispute with the union, at the actual hearing roared something to the effect that the eyes of the industry were upon the Tribunal, and that the eyes particularly of those investors who sought to invest money in the City were watching carefully the deliberations of the Tribunal, it is well known now, Sir, what effect this has had on the Tribunal which was fairly constituted and it is not unlikely that there will be many more Mr Hills in the future casting intimidatory words at the proposed Court and the President. It is also not unlikely that it may affect adversely the case of the employers. But nevertheless, I must warn that if the decision of the Court is to go contrary to the interests and feelings of the workers, because of the over-emphasis of this clause, there will be grave dangers in that the Court will not only be brought into disrepute in the eyes of the workers and the whole machinery of arbitration jammed, but the employers will also have to bear the consequences. Sir, this is not to say that the interests of the whole community and the whole eco nomy should not be considered, but they should not be a blind for all kinds of spurious argument advancing selfish interests. Next, Sir, I have one point to make on the penal clauses. Here, what is of deep concern to the trade unions is the provision that will appear after the amendment which will prohibit a trade union leader from holding office for a certain period. To forfeit the trade union leader the right to be an officer is something that no union would like to see happen, and I am sure that nobody on this side of the House is particularly keen to deprive any leader of the right to be elected. The intention of the Government to check irresponsible Trade unionism is appreciated by the unions. But the fear remains on the grounds that this clause may be abused. However, this fear will be rendered groundless if the officer is of obvious integrity. These are the main clauses which remain a source of uncertainty and worry to the trade unions, but what is of the utmost importance is the actual function of the Court and the implementation of the various provisions of the Bill. Hope for the workers emerges as a result of the confidence in the men who are going to operate this Bill. As far as the trade unions of workers are concerned, the passing of this Bill in whatever form is not the be all and end all of the matter. I might say that certain employers who have yet to learn the lessons of the past - lessons of reality - may feel that they can use the provisions of this Bill to harass and irritate the unions. And there may be undesirable elements, pimps and stooges of vested interests, who may want to sabotage the proper functioning of this Court. Sir, it is common knowledge to those who have witnessed and who have participated in the combats between the employers and employees how jolly well employers desire to maintain industrial peace but resist justice from being done to the workers. If this is going to be the case, then I must point out that the trade unions of workers are not going to let the employers get away with that. The employers will have to face the force of a united and determind trade union movement, and while the Government has decided to establish and foster industrial peace, it has made it abundantly clear that it will not allow injustice to be meted out to workers. Let there be no doubts in the minds of employers that if and when such a situation develops, the whole machinery of the Government will be trained on the employer. Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, I have no doubt that the trade unions will give every co-operation and assistance to the Government to work the Bill, and my only hope is that the employers do likewise. 6.05 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to speak on the Bill which we are now debating. I understand that the purpose of this Bill is to promote industrial peace. I have heard it expressed by several experts or champions of the labour movement that this Bill aims at protecting the interests of the workers. However, there are many provisions in this Bill which affect the prosperity and economy of our State. On the whole, Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not entirely disagree with this Bill. It is foreseeable that this Bill will not be referred to a Select Committee and that it is necessary that certain provisions therein should be amended. I do not wish to be a defender of the Government on this issue. But we must be careful if we want to ensure the peace and prosperity of the State. I know, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the Members on the Government side have declared that it is the policy of the P.A.P. to fight for the interest of the workers. I, as a Member on the Opposition side, do not deny this. It is a fact and we have had proof that it is the policy of the P.A.P. to be the champions of the workers on this island. We know that most of the workers in the labour movement are illiterate in the English language. When this Bill is enacted, all the provisions will be printed in English. I am sure not all the workers will be able to comprehend the true meaning of the provisions of the Bill which we are now debating. Therefore, I think the time has come for the champions of the workers who are now on the Government side and who, as I have said earlier, have achieved successful results in the field of trade unionism, to guide the workers in their interest. In this situation, Mr Speaker, Sir, lawyers should also be given the opportunity to represent either the employers or employees in a trade dispute when it is referred to the Arbitration Court for settlement, because if the workers are not represented by a lawyer in the Court, I am confident that the employers who have all the necessary resources will be able to put forward their case better than can the employees. As I have said earlier, Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not disagree with the Bill as a whole. But I have not yet received any clarification concerning the reported agreement reached as a result of the discussions between the trade unions and employers. We should have clarification in this House as to what percentage of trade unions in Singapore support this Bill. I do not wish to dwell on this Bill at length, Mr Speaker, and I am prepared to receive any explanation from the Government. But if this is unacceptable to us, it is just like the proverb of the camel having to surrender to its master. 6.11 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, we are fully aware that the Industrial Relations Bill has been discussed at great length during the past few weeks. The labour movement and the employers have expressed their intention to join with the Government to stabilise the economy through industrial relations. We are determined not to allow an atmosphere which would create industrial chaos. We are also determined to make an all-out effort to maintain industrial peace. We have heard the views of the Members on the Opposition side on this Bill and all the criticisms that have been put forward will be considered by Government. The implementation of this Bill will be carried out judiciously. The Government has considered carefully the amendments put up by the labour movement and employers and after careful consideration of these amendments, the Government has made several amendments to this Bill. It should be understood that all those concerned in a trade dispute should be asked to reach an amicable settlement, but there are times when such a settlement cannot be reached because of the attitude adopted by one side or by the other. Mr Speaker, Sir, in such a situation, the Minister then should be empowered to have a say in the matter and thus avoid what would otherwise be a bad situation. If it is felt that the only recourse to the trade unions is to be given complete freedom to take industrial action or resort to strike action in order to achieve their objectives, it is not the intention of the Government to deny them this right. However, it is important for the Minister and the Government to have powers to achieve industrial peace. Therefore, it is found necessary to give such powers to the Minister who will, no doubt, implement the provisions of this Bill judiciously in any trade dispute which may arise. This Bill at first was considered to be too drastic, but it was subsequently found necessary to strike a balance between the employers and the workers. For instance, it is admitted that clause 82 of this Bill concerning "go slow" action will be carried out by the workers because it is feared that certain unscrupulous employers will exploit this clause to the detriment of the workers. We, the Government, admit that the workers and employers now have a new sense of consciousness and we feel that such a state of relations should be reflected in agreements which are backed by law. Such agreements or decisions reached in the Court will definitely stabilise conditions and benefit the workers. Mr Speaker, this Bill particularly aims at achieving industrial peace with justice in this country. Not only does this rest with the Government, but all concerned must make an effort to achieve industrial peace with justice. Therefore, anyone who shirks his obligations and responsibilities will find that there are clauses in this Bill whereby action can justifiably be taken. 6.18 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, since the introduction of the Industrial Relations Bill in Singapore, everyone has concentrated his attention on it. We all know that Singapore is a small island. If any sector of the community is not well looked after, then there will be no peace in industry. When this Bill was moved for Second Reading, our friends on the Opposition side felt very interested and made speeches in the hope that they would become the champions of the workers. So they criticised this and that, saying that this Bill was not appropriate. Of course, we know that if any clause of this Bill is contrary to the interests of the people, then the people will not welcome the Bill and will not support it. We can see for ourselves very clearly that during the Labour Front Government the representatives of the trade unions had discussed with them at that time the impracticability of a Bill which they had wanted to put through concerning the trade unions. At that time, if they could have looked after the people well and had listened to them, then there would not have been so many placards and slogans against them. It is evident that their actions and attitudes were against the interests of the people. But today they feel that the P.A.P. Government will neglect the interests of the workers and put through the Bill. They are under the impression that, in criticising the Government Bill, they will become the champions of the workers. However, my colleagues have explicitly declared that in drafting this Bill they have accepted representations from every sector of the community. And we can say that in the interests of the people, we have tried to repeal the old Ordinance without fear. They are putting a mask over their face, being themselves cheats.

Order. I think I did read the appropriate Standing Order which says that on the Second Reading, the debate should be on the general merits and principle of the Bill. I have allowed the honourable Member to carry on up to now in his exordium. Perhaps he could now come back to the general merits of this Bill.

(In Mandarin): I was just giving an example just now without any ulterior motive at all. We can see for ourselves today that if the Bill is not passed, the people of Singapore will suffer. The Minister has said that we can get full support from the trade unionists. We have discussed with them their views and these have now been incorporated in the Bill. So we can say that if the Bill cannot get the support of the majority of the people, then they will not support it and therefore it will not be passed. The Member for Farrer Park has stated that if this Bill was put through three or four years ago, he would not have been able to see us on this side of the House today. It a little childish of him.

Order. The honourable Member has been interpreted as having called another Member of the House "childish". If that is correct, then I think that word should not be used of an honourable Member of this House and should be withdrawn.

(In Mandarin): I beg your leave to withdraw, Mr Speaker, Sir. I cannot help laughing at the Member for Farrer Park's speech. He said that if the Bill was put through, then he would not have been able to see the Government side today. We can see for ourselves that the previous Government, under the leadership of Lim Yew Hock, could not look after the interests of the people of Singapore. Thus if they had passed such a Bill, then the people of Singapore would have given him an even bigger blow. This Bill, I think, is beneficial to the security and well-being of the country. This being so, I fully support it. 6.27 p.m.

Mr Speaker. Sir, this Bill is the first attempt to bring order into the field of industrial relations, and to allow reason to prevail. It is in pursuance of the Labour policy of the People's Action Party. At the outset, I would like to point out that in one respect we have departed from the set programme of the Party, namely, in giving power to the Minister for Labour and Law to send a matter to arbitration, regardless of the wishes of the union or the employer. It was our original intention to try and work out a scheme whereby all unions could be affiliated to a Trades Union Congress, which would opt for arbitration on behalf of all unions. However, the Minister, after eight months' experience in his Ministry, has assured us that, regardless of the ultimate shape and form of the T.U.C. and its constitution, it is necessary for the Minister to have this reserve power in order to ensure that, in the unlikely event of both union leaders and employers being recalcitrant, matters should not be allowed to take their illogical course and end in an industrial strike and confusion. Sir, I do not intend to deal with points of detail - they have been raised by Members of the Opposition. I shall leave that to my colleague, the Hon. Minister who is moving the Bill. But I would like to answer Members of the Opposition on their request that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee. My colleagues and I have given careful consideration to whether or not this Bill should go to a Select Committee. The conclusion we came to is that the sooner the Bill is enacted, the sooner we can get the provisions worked out, and the better possible it is for the Minister to implement our Labour policy. It would take several months to have the Court set up, the form agreed, and the machinery set in motion. To send the Bill to a Select Committee where it may lie for another three or four months would be another three or four months lost. On the question of principle, may I say that this is a new field of legislation? Whether these provisions are practicable and workable, or whether they are academic and unsuited to local conditions, will not depend upon an academic debate in a Select Committee, but upon the actual implementation of the provisions of the Bill. On principle, we are determined - as indeed we have the right to be, having stated it quite clearly in our election programme - to bring about industrial peace which, at the same time, ensures that justice is done to the workers. If there were a question of principle involved in which employers or unions could make representations on the basic features of the Bill, then some useful purpose might be served by sending it to a Select Committee. But as far as the main features of the Bill are concerned, its framework and its structure have already been decided upon, namely, that the emphasis must be on negotiations. Provisions have been laid out whereby unions can either get or not get recognition. Provisions are laid out as to how negotiations can be commenced and must be commenced. Provisions are made as to what is to be done if either negotiations are not commenced, or a deadlock is reached in negotiations. There is no question of principle involved on which we can give way. The only question is on the smoothness of the implementation of the intentions and objects of the Bill. That is a matter which we can only learn from experience. There are two principal objectives which this Bill seeks to achieve. First, that the workers receive their fair share of the fruits which their labour helps to create. Second, that it should establish conditions which are conducive to industrial expansion. Sir, if only the first objective is achieved, namely, that workers get their fair share, or more than their fair share, without creating conditions conducive to industrial expansion, then our problems of unemployment will mount over the next four years to disproportionate figures by 1964. Therefore, it is fundamental that we should also achieve stability in industrial relations, to assist the necessary expansion of industry, to create employment for the 20,000 to 30,000 young men and women who every, year enter the field looking for jobs. But, on the other hand, if this Bill only succeeds in creating stability for industrial expansion, without bringing the benefits and ensuring that fair shares are given to the workers, then we will have failed as a movement dedicated to the advancement of the working class. It is our hope that an intelligent application of the provisions of this Bill by the Government will prepare the conditions under which both objectives can be secured. Needless to say, it is fundamental to the working of the whole Bill that the Court must be so constituted that it earns the respect, if not the admiration, of both workers and employers. That is, the awards must be balanced and fair, made on the merits not only of the dispute but of the dispute within the context of the whole complex of our economy. I will not pretend that all parts of the Bill commend themselves to employers or to unions. There are several provisions in the Bill to which the Federation of Employers takes exception. Indeed, as some Members on the Government side of the House have informed you, Mr Speaker, Sir, the unions are not without their views as to the possible effects of certain provisions, particularly the penal ones on trade union activity. In the last analysis, it is the balancing of competing interests - first, fair shares for the workers; and, second, industrial conditions which will encourage investment and expansion - which has resulted in the Bill and its proposed amendments. Sir, we could have done one of two things. The first one is to proceed with the Bill, which we are doing. The other is to leave things alone. The second alternative really means the state of affairs which prevailed for many years past, in which there were no adequate and proper legislative controls, resulting very often in unlimited scraps between employers and unions, and the intervention of the Government not through legislation designed for the purpose of controlling industrial disputes, but intervention through legislation designed to maintain law and order. In the last analysis, if the law is flouted and disorder prevails, then the Government must abdicate and allow disorder to be supreme. It is hoped that these special legislative provisions will work and operate to maintain the balance of these two competing objectives, and that it will be unnecessary ever to invoke those provisions meant for the supreme crisis where order must be re-established at all costs. Sir, if this attempt to re-establish sense and stability in a field so far left untouched by detailed legislation succeeds, if only in part, then I think we should all be grateful for the advance the whole country would be making towards sense and stability in our industrial relations. In the earnest hope that the sooner we achieve even part of that objective that we have set out to achieve the better it will be, we have decided to go through with the Bill - the Second Reading, the Committee stage and the Third Reading - at this sitting of the Assembly. Mr Byrne rose -

Mr Byrne, in reply? 6.41 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am indeed very disappointed with the performance of the Opposition Front Bench this afternoon. I am indeed very surprised that the former Chief Minister of the State of Singapore - An hon. Member: Not the State. The Colony of Singapore.

I beg your pardon, Mr Speaker - the Colony of Singapore, and the former Minister for Labour and Welfare should have shown that he had paid so very little attention to the provisions of this Bill, which he himself said was an important piece of legislation. What he tried to do just now was to pick a few holes in a few clauses of this Bill and suggest to the House that the Government had given very little attention to these matters. He then expressed regret that he, as head of the former Government, was unable to introduce similar legislation when his Government was in power. Then he passed on the buck to the Member for Farrer Park who graciously admitted that this was a good Bill, but regretted that it had so many clauses, that it affected so many interests, that he really had not much time to consider the contents of this Bill, and that it would be most agreeable to all the Members of the Opposition Front Bench if this Bill could be sent to a Select Committee for further consideration, and for further inaction. It is also noticeable, Mr Speaker, Sir, that today the Member for Tanglin has shown a very great reluctance to perform.

Order. I have also allowed the Minister to carry on up till now with his exordium, but I do not think he ought to attack the personal conduct of Members in that way.

Mr Speaker, when I was about to begin, I was very much tempted to point an accusing finger at the Member for Tanglin opposite, but I resisted the temptation to do so. Mr Speaker, I will just deal with a few of the points that were raised by the Member for Cairnhill just now. He appeared to be very confused about the question of the appointment of the President of the Court. He wondered why it was necessary for the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to appoint the President of the Court after consultation with the Prime Minister, and why it should be left to the Minister for Labour and Law to appoint the Acting President. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have given this question of the appointment of the President of the Court considerable attention. Mr Speaker, Sir, the wording of this Bill is so phrased as to shut out the provisions of the Public Service Commission in relation to the appointment of the President of this Court. It will be appreciated that it would be crass stupidity on the part of the Government if it ever was tempted to let the Public Service Commission put out an advertisement calling for applications for this appointment. If we did so, I think the Opposition Front Bench might lose another Member. Mr Speaker, Sir, you will see from clause 4 of this Bill that it is the intention of the Government that the person who is appointed to this high office will have the rights, privileges, protection and immunity of a Judge of the Supreme Court. The constitution of the State of Singapore provides that Judges do not hold any public office; that they hold public office only for the purposes of ensuring their pension rights. It was very necessary, Mr Speaker, Sir, that this method of appointing an independent President of this Court should be adopted by the Government. In the case of the Acting President, when the President is away, we felt that such an appointment could be safely entrusted in the hands of the appropriate Minister. In this case, the Minister will be the Minister for Labour and Law. Mr Speaker, the Member for Cairn-hill has suggested that it would be a good thing if all those who serve on the committees of political Parties were excluded from either the employers' or the employees' panel. Mr Speaker, we are always accused by the Opposition of being very illiberal in our ideas. We are accused of wanting to place shackles on trade unions and wanting to inhibit political Parties from functioning. I would suggest to the Member for Cairn-hill that it would be unfair to place such a restriction on persons, who are connected -

A democratic person's rights and privileges.

- with political Parties, from serving on these panels. Mr Speaker, it may be open to this Government to put the Member for Cairnhill on the employers' panel. Mr Speaker, surely he would not think it unfair that we should even consider such a proposal. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member for Cairnhill has not understood the intentions of sub-clause (2) of clause 9 of this Bill. Would it not be more appropriate to allow a member of a political Party or a committee member of a political Party to serve on these panels? If they show by their attitudes that they are not persons to be trusted, and if they show that they are not persons who will serve impartially on these panels, it could be left then to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to remove them from these panels on the grounds that they are not fit and proper persons to be selected to constitute the court. Would not that be a fairer thing to do? Why prejudge the issue? Mr Speaker, Sir, I will now refer to another criticism which the Member for Cairnhill has made with regard to clause 23 of this Bill. He expressed surprise that this clause provided that a memorandum of any collective agreement should be in writing, but did not indicate that the writing of the memorandum should be in the Tamil, Chinese, English or Malay language. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is the intention of the Government to leave it to the parties to express their agreement in whatever language they choose. If they do so, then there is provision in clause 45 sub-clause (2) for copies to be made of the document in the Malay, English, Chinese and Tamil languages. Is there anything unfair in this? Are we placing any shackles on the parties? Mr Speaker, Sir, -

On a point of elucidation, Sir.

If the Minister will give way?

Yes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Minister - [Laughter].

Order.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Minister was not attentive when I said that truly I did not believe that it was the intention of the Government to insist that the writing should be in English, because it is clear from clause 45 that all the four languages are to be used. I said that in order to make it abundantly clear such an amendment is necessary. He has failed to understand.

It was an explanation and not elucidation.

Mr Speaker. I can very well understand the embarrassment in which the Member for Cairnhill now finds himself. He is obviously trying to talk himself out of a very difficult situation. Tun Lim Yew Hock rose -

On a point of order?

On a point of order, Sir. Well, let the records show!

Mr Speaker, Sir, it has been remarked in this House before that the Member for Cairnhill has great aptitude as an angler, in the sense that he loves to fish in troubled waters. He has made a reference to clause 31 of this Bill and has said quite blithely here - why should the civil servants be put to the trouble of getting an endorsement from the Yang di-Pertuan Negara before a civil service issue is to be put to arbitration? Mr Speaker, unfortunately for the Member for Cairnhill, I was a civil servant when he was the Chief Minister of the Colony of Singapore. Amongst my other duties was the duty of drawing up an arbitration agreement on behalf of the civil service with the Government of which the Member for Cairnhill was the Chief Minister. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Chief Minister understands very well that it is very necessary in civil service issues to write in safeguards into any arbitration agreement, because the civil service does not run like ordinary businesses in the sense that it is geared to produce a profit. In the civil service the Government is not entitled to use the taxpayers' funds improperly. For that reason, it is very necessary that no reference to arbitration should be allowed which involves any expenditure from the public funds, or which in any way affects the discretion of the Public Service Commission, unless the approval of the Head of State is first obtained. That is the practice in all democratic countries which run or operate civil services. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Farrer Park has stated that other members of the Government have referred to the discussions which the Minister has had with representatives of unions, but he has expressed great surprise that the Minister himself was silent in regard to these matters when he moved the Second Reading of this Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am now going to inform the Members of the Opposition Front Bench that I have taken the trouble to discuss the clauses of this Bill with members of the trade unions who have shown more interest in this Bill than any of those who are sitting now on the Opposition Front Bench. I will refer particularly to clauses in this Bill which were discussed during the time that I held my discussions with the representatives of the trade union movement in the State. Mr Speaker, Sir, if you will look at clause 16 you will see that the intention there is that the collective bargaining procedure should be available both to the employer and to the union of employers. The unions complained that it would be unfair to allow a trade union of employers to negotiate any collective agreement with a trade union of employees in the sense that the bargain ing strength of one was much stronger than the bargaining strength of the other. It was also represented to me that it would not serve the interests of the economy of the State if employers were allowed to reach collective agreements with a trade union of employees through a union of employers. The more prosperous employers could get themselves linked up in a union and thereby try to get an agreement with a trade union of workmen. The effect would be that the employer who is not in the trade union of employers would not be able to pay the same wages as those employers in the union would be able to do, in which case the smaller businessman would be put out of business. And the result of that would be that the worker in that small business would lose his job and would be the person most likely to suffer. It is for this reason, Mr Speaker, Sir, that I shall be moving an amendment to this clause later on. Mr Speaker, Sir, the unions also did not like the provisions of sub-clause (3) of clause 18 of this Bill. That is a sub-clause which enables an employer to say to the Commissioner for Labour that the workmen in his undertaking are not members of the trade union which claims to represent them; and it also enables an employer to say to the Commissioner for Labour that even though his employees are represented by a particular trade union which claims to represent them, nevertheless, in his opinion, he believes that his own employees do not desire that union to represent them. Now, the unions were particularly unhappy with clause 18 (3) (b) as it stands. The Government has now decided that it will keep clause 18 (3) (a), but delete clause 18 (3) (b) on the grounds that if effect is given to it, it would unduly restrict the activities of trade unions and would enable employers to meddle in trade union affairs. Mr Speaker, Sir, another provision in the Bill which gave considerable concern to the unions was clause 28 (b) where it is provided that the President of the Court should be given the last opportunity to try to effect a conciliation between the parties before he decides to refer a trade dispute to arbitration. Mr Speaker, Sir, it was pointed out that it would be unwise to allow the President to be in a position where he could conciliate and, at the same time, be the judge of a Court of Arbitration. In the process of conciliation, it is very likely that the conciliator forms an opinion with regard to a dispute. That being so, he might consider that the union is either unreasonable in not agreeing to the terms of the employer, or the employer is unreasonable in resisting the claims of the union, and, therefore, it would be unfair, after he forms such an opinion, to require him then to adjudicate on the same issues as President of the Court. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill also referred earlier on to the provisions of clause 18 (4) and clause 20 (b) of the Bill. You will see there, Sir, that the Minister has the power to stop the Commissioner from notifying the Registrar of the Court that a trade dispute exists. In clause 18 (4), he has the power to stop a notification reaching the. Registrar of the Court where the parties have refused to negotiate; and in clause 20 (b), he has the power to stop a notification reaching the Registrar of the Court where a deadlock has resulted during the negotiations. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill himself has proposed an amendment in this part of the Bill. He has suggested that the Commissioner should be required to notify the Court of a trade dispute where the parties have refused to negotiate, where a negotiation has broken down, and where the Minister has failed to conciliate after making an attempt to do so. Mr Speaker, Sir, in discussing this clause with the unions, they pointed out that the Government was, in fact, receding from its position with regard to a union being given the sole right to opt to bring a case before the Arbitration Court as the employer would, under the Party's policy statement, be required to submit to arbitration if the employees union requested arbitration. Mr Speaker, Sir, the difficulty was to reconcile the bargaining position of unions with the principle of compulsory arbitration. The unions have a right to threaten to use their collective strength during the bargaining process. They might be able, by the mere fact that they are able to use this threat, to induce the employers to reach an agreement with them, and they felt that that position should be safeguarded for them in this clause of the Bill. They recognised also that it was the Government's policy to promote industrial peace with justice, and that being so, they accepted the position that power should be placed in the hands of the Minister to direct that any dispute, whether an ordinary trade dispute or a dispute in an essential service, should be put to arbitration. For that reason, clause 28 (c) of the Bill is to be amended as appears in the notice of amendments which the Government has given. Mr Speaker, Sir, the unions also had a fear that if the impression gained ground that arbitration was automatic, it was likely that all issues would be submitted to arbitration and that the Court would be cluttered up with numerous pending issues. And to that extent, the whole policy of the Government would be completely frustrated. It was for that reason that they agreed that the Minister should have the final say as to whether a trade dispute should be put to arbitration or not. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Thomson has already expressed to this House the misgivings of the unions with regard to the application of clause 32 of this Bill which provides that the Court shall have regard not only to the interest of the persons who are affected by the dispute, but also to the interest of the community and to the economy of the State. He felt that the employers would try to put this to their use. Mr Speaker, Sir, in our policy statement, we have made it clear that when an Arbitration Court was set up, it would be required to have due regard to the complexities of our economy and, for that reason, we have had to tell the unions that we felt that clause 32 is vitally necessary for the operation of this Bill. But we have made a concession. Instead of requiring the Court to have regard to these matters, we have left it to the discretion of the Court to do so. The Court will, therefore, be fully informed of the position before making up its mind. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Thomson has also referred to the penal provisions of this Bill. We have taken counsel with the unions and after considerable discussions the Government has agreed to delete the provisions of this Bill affecting the deregistration of trade unions. But the Government has decided to retain the provision which places irresponsible trade union leaders under restriction against participation in trade union activities if they are found guilty by the President of the Arbitration Court of contempt of the authority of the Court. Mr Speaker, Sir, we ourselves on the Government side have said that we hope that it will never be necessary for these provisions ever to be implemented, and that with the experience gained from the operation of this law and with goodwill on both sides, the tradition of collective bargaining will be built up, which will make it unnecessary for the penal provisions of this law ever to be applied against any trade union leader. Mr Speaker, Sir, there are other provisions of the Bill which also gave considerable concern to representatives of the unions, but I do not propose to take up much time by referring to them, because the opportunity will be given to me to deal with these misgivings and fears when the Bill is dealt with at the Committee stage. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have also had discussions with the Federation of Employers. They have said in a very lengthy memorandum that they also do not like the provisions of this Bill. They have misgivings with regard to certain clauses, and they frankly admit that they do not understand a lot of these clauses. Mr Speaker, Sir, they are particularly concerned with the clause in the Bill which denies a disputant a right of appeal from the decisions of the Court of Arbitration. They consider that the disputant has a fundamental right of appeal, and they say that it might very well be that the Court might make a mistake which would cause considerable damage to their interests. For that reason they have suggested that there should be an appeal from the decisions of the Arbitration Court to the ordinary Courts. Mr Speaker, Sir, I pointed out, when I moved this Bill, that the Court that will be set up under this law is not a Court of Judicature. Its function will be to make an agreement for parties where they fail to agree, and as I have pointed out earlier, that function is more akin to delegated legislation; so that if there is to be an appeal from the decision of the Court, that appeal must lie to a superior Court of Arbitration; it cannot lie to the ordinary Courts of Judicature. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Federation of Employers also told me that they did not understand the provisions of clause 55 of the Bill. That clause is designed to ensure that either party may not be allowed to pick and choose the parts that they agree to accept in any award. The Court has the discretion under that clause to say to either party, "You will either have the whole of that award or no award at all." Sir, after a long discussion with the representatives of employers, they were satisfied that the Government was doing its best to provide to both employers and employees of their organisations the machinery whereby disputes could be settled, which would otherwise result in strikes and lock-outs and other industrial action which could cause considerable damage to the economy of our State. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister just now has given the House reasons why the Government has decided not to refer this Bill to a Select Committee. As the Prime Minister has pointed out, there is a lot of work yet to be done under this Bill-regulations will have to be made, the Court will have to be set up, and we will have to get on with the job of making this Bill operate. And it would not do for us to spend our time arguing the clauses of this Bill in protracted discussions before a Select Committee, and for that reason Government has decided to proceed with the Second Reading and Committee stage of this Bill at this sitting.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Committee Friday, 12th February, 1960.

Order for Second Reading read. 7.23 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill, Mr Speaker, Sir, proposes certain amendments to the Trade Disputes Ordinance, which are associated with the Ordinance called the Industrial Relations Ordinance. I have given the Bill its full title, but I intend to move at a later stage certain amendments designed to delete those parts of the Bill which would alter the law relating to strikes and lock-outs in the essential services. In particular, I shall propose that the paragraphs in page 2 of the Bill dealing with strikes and lock-outs in essential services be deleted, and that clause 7 be omitted from the Bill. I do not, therefore, comment now on those provisions. The main purpose of the Bill is to add to the types of strikes and lock-outs which are already illegal - strikes and lock-outs which are in furtherance of trade disputes of which the Industrial Arbitration Court has cognizance. Such strikes and lock-outs are in essence directed against the Court. Quite obviously, the Court cannot deal in a proper atmosphere with issues in dispute, if those issues are the subject of direct action outside the Court. The right to strike during bargaining stages are left unimpaired, but when a dispute goes to Court, direct pressure should cease. Sir, "you cannot have recourse to law and recourse to force at the same time" is a simple proposition. When an award is made, the Court has performed its task. Of course, not every award will give employees everything they would like. Indeed it is sometimes said that it can never be possible to give employees everything they would like to have, but the system requires that employees should work in accordance with the award. It therefore requires that it should not be lawful to incite them not to do so. The Bill gives effect to this in the new clause 3 (c) which it is proposed to insert in the principal Ordinance. I commend the Bill to this House.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Committee Friday, 12th February, 1960.

Order for Second Reading read. 7.27 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Hospitals Board was established to determine fees on condition that the Minister concerned confirmed them earlier, and to receive such fees. Among its functions, the Board is to determine the income approved by the Government. This Board advises the Government in matters relating to hospitals under its jurisdiction. The establishment of the Hospitals Board was in line with the policy of colonial governments, because colonial governments used the experience and expert services of people serving in the hospitals. The Hospitals Board played the role of a middleman - between the colonial government and the people who were oppressed. Such a role is outmoded now. Under existing conditions, where a People's government is elected to power, the Hospitals Board is outdated. This new Government has been elected to serve the people, and therefore, it is necessary for the Hospitals Board to play the role of a middleman. The general policy of the present Government concerning hospitals is to centralise all their activities, draw up plans, make inspection and control hospitals - all in the power of the Minister and his officers. Therefore, it is suggested that the Hospitals Board Ordinance be repealed, and a central body of hospitals be established under the Ministry of Health. 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.-[Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 7.33 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." At the moment, the Exchange Control Ordinance (Chapter 216) imposes no control on the import into or export from Singapore of Treasury Bills. Non-resident controlled companies are free to transfer, sell or do anything with their holdings of Treasury Bills. Alternatively, residents are able to make loans to such companies in the form of Treasury Bills without hindrance. Furthermore, transactions in or in relation to Treasury Bills by persons who leave the scheduled territories either on emigration or repatriation are not brought under control. When the Exchange Control Ordinance was passed in 1953, it was considered that, at that time, the provisions for the control of Treasury Bills were not necessary as the issue of such Bills was not then a regular feature of either Singapore or the Federation Government finance. However, the Federation Government is now issuing Treasury Bills, and the Singapore Government similarly intends to issue Treasury Bills in the near future. Therefore, it is considered that the time has now come for Treasury Bills to be brought under control, and this precisely is the main purpose of this amendment Bill now under consideration. When amended, the Exchange Control Ordinance will conform more closely to the United Kingdom Control Act of 1947. The Bill is also intended to effect an amendment to subsection (5) of section 2 of the principal Ordinance which contains a reference to British subjects. Reference to British subjects is not appropriate, in view of Singapore's present status as a self-governing State, and it is proposed therefore to delete that reference, and substitute reference to "citizens of the State of Singapore" instead. Lastly, opportunity is also taken to correct a clerical error appearing in Part II of the Fifth Schedule to the Ordinance. 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.-[Mr Low Por Tuck]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 7.38 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Bill seeks to deal with the immediate problem that has arisen following on the Government's campaign to enforce the provisions of the Hotels Ordinance, 1955, by taking action to cancel the certificate of registration of hotels which are conducted in an improper manner. Mr Speaker, Sir, as the law stands at present, it is possible for the hotel keeper to flout the law after the cancellation of the certificate of registration of the hotel, by letting out the individual rooms to prostitutes. If such rooms are then used for the purposes of prostitution, no action can be taken against the hotel keeper under the present law. The Bill seeks to change the law by providing that a tenant, occupier or person in charge of any premises who lets the premises or any part thereof shall, notwithstanding such letting, be guilty of an offence if the premises or any part thereof are or is used as a brothel, unless he proves that he has no knowledge that the premises or such part thereof are or is used as a brothel. Where premises are used as a brothel, the Bill provides that the tenant, occupier or person in charge of the premises shall be guilty of an offence, unless he proves that he has no knowledge of the use of the premises as a brothel. The owners or agents of the owners of premises are only liable if it is shown that they have knowledge of the use of the premises as a brothel. The definition of "brothel" has been amended so as to include not only a house or place but any portion of any house or place, and also to make it unnecessary to prove contemporaneous use of the premises for the purposes of prostitution by two women or girls. A definition of "prostitution" has also been added. As I said earlier, this Bill seeks to make amendments which are considered to be immediately necessary to the Women and Girls' Protection Ordinance. The whole law relating to the protection of women and girls is at present being reviewed as part of the general legislation for the protection of the rights of women. A Bill has already been drafted, and I hope to introduce the Bill soon. In the meantime, it is necessary to take these immediate steps to strengthen the law. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 7.41 p.m.

Sir, I beg to move that the words -

Order. If the hon. Member is not speaking on the principle of the Bill, I think she ought to wait until we reach the Committee stage for her amendment.

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. 7.42 p.m. Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2-

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 1, line 14, after "women", to insert "or girls". Section 2, Sir, defines the meaning of a brothel as a "house, room or place or a portion of any house, room or place, which is occupied or used by any two or more women whether at the same time or at different times for the purpose of prostitution".

Does the Minister accept the amendment?

Yes, Sir.

If the Minister indicates that he accepts the amendment, I do not know whether the hon. Member wishes to speak any further.

If he accepts it -

As I have just said, if the Minister indicates that he accepts the amendment, does the hon. Member wish to speak? She may do so, of course. I cannot stop her.

I wish to speak.

The hon. Member wishes to speak. By all means. She is probably not as tired as the Speaker!

I just want to point out one thing. Throughout the principal Ordinance, there is not even one instance where the word "women" is used without the word "girls", and the anomaly in this section might lead to misunderstanding and exploitation by unscrupulous racketeers. 7.45 p.m. What will strengthen their argument that a place is not a brothel if it is used by women under 18 is that there are sections where the word "girls" is used without the word "women". In these instances, it was intended to indicate that the section refers to females under 18. That is why I have thought it is very important that I should put the amendment in. I am glad the Minister has accepted the amendment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am indeed most grateful to the Member for Mountbatten for having pointed out the difference between "women and girls" and "girls and women". She has, by her great interest in the definition of a "brothel", saved the Hon, the Chief Justice from the pleasant or the unpleasant duty (depending on how he looks at these things!) of determining whether a "woman" is a "girl" or a "girl" is a "woman" for the purposes of this Ordinance. If I had that pleasant duty to discharge, Mr Speaker, Sir, I can assure the House that I would have no difficulty in placing the Member for Mountbatten amongst the "women" and not amongst the "girls"! 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. Bill reported with an amendment; read the Third time and passed.

7.47 p.m. Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I have the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's recommendation that this Bill be proceeded with.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." As hon. Members can see from the explanatory statement, this winding up Bill seeks to repeal the War Savings Certificates Ordinance of 1940. The principal Ordinance was passed on 30th August, 1940, to authorise the Governor of the Straits Settlements to raise a loan from the public as a gift to the British Government for the prosecution of the Second World War. This was to be done through the sale of War Savings Certificates in units of $15 each, and the Government was authorised to sell up to $20 million worth of such certificates. However, only $9,724,440 worth of certificates were sold from 1st September, 1940, to 15th February, 1942. These $15 unit certificates had a redemption value of $20 on maturity of 10 years from the date of issue. Compound interest at 3 per cent per year was paid on certificates which were redeemed before maturity. The latest balance sheet as at 31st December 1958, shows that the biggest liability item is a sum of $359,436 outstanding to purchasers of savings certificates as repayment for principal sums and payment of interest sums. On balance, however, there is a favourable credit of $424,547.30 on the surplus and deficit account. The Bill contains provisions which are largely procedural. For instance, clause 5 (1) of the Bill provides that all outstanding principal and interest payments due on unredeemed certificates shall be settled within six months after the coming into operation of the Ordinance out of the assets of the War Savings Certificates Sinking Fund. Where payments are outstanding in dispute, the Minister may pay the amount into court or may make other appropriate provisions for them. This is provided for in the proviso to clause 5. After all claims have either been paid or provided for. the balance of the assets of the War Savings Certificates Fund shall be disposed of according to the direction of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara and the Yang di-Pertuan Agong of the Federation of Malaya. 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-[Mr Low Por Tuck]. Bill considered in Committee.

7.53 p.m. Clauses 1 to 3 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 4-

Sir, I beg to move, In page 2, line 23, to leave out "the". This minor amendment is made for greater clarity of expression. Amendment agreed to.

Sir, I beg to move, In page 2, line 25, to leave out "the" and insert "such". This is also a very minor amendment made for the same reason. Amendment agreed to. Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 5 to 12 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with amendments; read the Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 7.57 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's recommendation that this Bill be proceeded with.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." In successful planning for economic development, a country has ultimately to depend upon her own resources for sustained and permanent growth. Singapore is no exception to this inflexible law. The Government is therefore constantly working out ways and means to tap our own resources, especially our financial resources, for the development of the State. Last year, the Government floated successfully two fairly long-term loans which the Government was happy to note were over-subscribed. I refer to the $15 million 5 per cent registered stock maturing by 1967 and the $25 million 5½ per cent registered stock maturing by 1979, issued in September, 1959. The Government also has plans to issue short-term securities in the form of Treasury Bills on tap as well as on tender in the near future. To complete the range of securities available, medium-term securities in the form of Treasury Deposit Receipts will be issued. These Treasury Deposit Receipts are, therefore, the subject of the Treasury Deposit Receipts Bill which I am now moving. The aims of the Bill are: first, to enable private investors, commercial banks, insurance companies, investment trusts, statutory bodies and other similar financial institutions to invest their surplus funds in Treasury Deposit -

Order. Moment of interruption.

Sir, I move, That this Assembly do now adjourn. Question proposed.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Party which I represent, I am taking this opportunity to convey some of its views concerning the constitution of trade unions in my adjournment speech in this Assembly. Mr Speaker, Sir, the time has come for us to draw the attention of the Government to the fact that amendments should be made to the constitution of trade unions to the effect that all the personnel managing trade unions and labour unions must be citizens of Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, as we all know, we have discussed today at great length the enactment of trade union laws in order to maintain industrial peace. As we already have our own flag and our own national song, we feel that the time has come for consideration to be given to the citizens of Singapore to participate in trade union and labour union affairs. We certainly do not like to see persons who are non-citizens of Singapore upsetting the livelihood of our workers. We wish for peace, progress and prosperity for our State. At this moment, we have representatives elected by the people who, I am sure, are capable of effecting a change to the constitution of trade unions so that only citizens of Singapore can play a leading part in trade unions. We are going ahead with our plans to make Malay the national language in the future. The matter on which I am speaking is of only a minor character, and I am sure the Government will be able to resolve it without much waste of time. We do wish that citizens of Singapore should be given a greater opportunity to lead in the field of trade unionism. If possible, we do not wish citizens of the Federation of Malaya to take an active part in our trade union affairs. Citizens of the Federation of Malaya are citizens of an independent State, and we should not give them an opportunity to play a leading role in our trade union activities. We must also take into consideration the fact that Commonwealth citizens should also be excluded from taking part in our internal affairs. The time has now come for us to take part in affairs which affect us. In these circumstances, Sir, I hope the Government will give consideration to the points which I have raised with a view to framing a new constitution whereby we can give opportunities to our own people -

Order. I was just wondering whether the hon. Member is advocating legislation. If he is, then this is not the time to do so. He is a legislator and has an opportunity of introducing a Bill if necessary. An adjournment speech must not suggest legislation.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to introduce legislation during this period when I have been permitted by you to speak. I am merely drawing the attention of the Government to what I have just said about the personnel in our trade unions, in the hope that they can concede to the wishes of the majority or the majority of the citizens of Singapore. In this matter relating to the constitution of trade unions or labour unions, we hope that the Government will take a serious view of the personnel who play a leading role in trade unions, especially in Service trade unions. We can see in these trade unions that their leaders are not citizens of Singapore. Although the money paid to the Service employees is not borne by this Government but by the British Government, we all know that the majority of these Service employees are Singapore citizens. It is, therefore, desirable that the citizens of Singapore should be given an opportunity to take over the responsibility of running their unions when they come together during their general meetings, and that future legislation should be passed by this Government to this effect. Therefore, with such encouragement from the Government, I believe that the citizens of Singapore will be grateful to the Government and that they will support the Government in other matters. As I have said earlier, Mr Speaker, Sir, we do not wish to see people, who have not taken out citizenship papers, take part in running our trade union affairs. What is the purpose of giving opportunities to citizens of the Federation of Malaya to play an important role in our unions? We are fit and capable of administering our own affairs. If there are persons in these unions with influence or ulterior motives, then I feel that the Government should take a more active interest in such affairs. These may be affairs relating to the security and peace of our State, because we know that undesirable elements are waiting for an opportunity to make use of the trade unions for their own ends with a view to grabbing power in the next elections. The members of the trade unions could be influenced ideologically by these undesirable elements. If such a state of affairs exists - and the Government is fully aware of this - I think the time has come, Mr Speaker, Sir, for us to take appropriate action. We do not wish to see such persons interfering in our domestic affairs, because these are affairs which concern the workers and their families. If there are persons who are non-citizens of Singapore taking part in union activities which would result in hardship to the workers and their families, the consequences will be very serious. This will not only affect the workers but also their families and their dependants. But the main thing, Mr Speaker, Sir, is this - let us make an effort to get rid of those persons who do not wish to become citizens of Singapore or who are not brave enough to show their undivided loyalty to this State. Our aim is to protect the interest of the citizens of Singapore. If such undesirable persons are given an opportunity to play a leading role in our trade union activities, Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe we will be confronted with bigger problems, because, as I have said earlier, this can be considered as an external threat which is in conflict with our own interest. If such a threat exists, it will lead to disaster and the name of our State will be damaged. I hope the Government will look into this matter so that we can restrict such persons who are non-citizens of Singapore - irrespective of whether they are citizens of the Federation of Malaya or of the United Kingdom and Colonies or of other independent States - from playing a leading part in trade unionism in Singapore. These persons have no franchise and they are not citizens of our State. I hope the Government will take a serious view of this matter so that we can fulfil our main obligation, that is, to help our own citizens.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I can assure the Member for Kampong Kernbangan that the Government is at present giving very serious consideration to introducing a new Trade Union Ordinance to repeal the present Ordinance, and to give effect to Government's policy with regard to trade unions. The hon. Member has suggested that committee membership of trade unions should be limited to Singapore citizens. That is written into the Trade Union Ordinance in the Federation of Malaya. I would draw the attention of the Mem- ber for Kampong Kembangan to clause 7 of the Industrial Relations Bill which was debated in this House earlier this afternoon. He will see that it is the proposal of this Government to restrict participation in both the employers' and the employees' panels of the Court of Arbitration to persons who are Singapore citizens. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not propose to indicate to this House what the Government's proposals will be in regard to the new Trade Union Ordinance, which it is proposed to introduce in the near future. It would be premature on my part if I tried to do so. But I would like to remind the Member for Kampong Kembangan that Government does not look with favour on union organisations which are communal. I do not propose to mention in this House the names of unions which restrict their membership to persons of a certain race. That sort of organisation does not fall in line with Government's policy with regard to trade unions. I am taking this opportunity to bring this to the hon. Member's attention, as he has taken some time this afternoon to suggest to Government the lines on which it should proceed when introducing the new Trade Union Ordinance. That is all I propose to say this afternoon.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly do now adjourn. Adjourned accordingly at Twenty minutes past Eight o'clock p.m. to Friday, 12th February, 1960. REPORT OF NANYANG UNIVERSITY REVIEW COMMITTEE(Cols 0217-0218)