Hansard, 1960-02-12

"to provide for the registration and control of mutual benefit organisations", presented by the Minister for Labour and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 2nd March, 1960, and to be printed.

Order for Committee Stage read. Bill considered in Committee.

2.32 p.m. Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report progress and ask leave to sit again." Sir, after seven months of careful consideration, the Minister presented the Industrial Relations Bill to this Assembly on 13th January. In the space of less than one month, and on the very day that the Bill was to come up for debate on its Second Reading, the Minister in charge found it necessary to put into our hands seven pages of 50 amendments. Out of a short Bill of 37 pages, 50 amendments had to be rushed through. Sir, I use the term "rushed through", because the amendments were given to us just a few hours on the very day of the sitting at which the debate on the Bill was to take place. Had the amendments been in the nature of corrections, or alterations or sentence construction, or printing errors, or even minor oversights, then it would have been of little consequence. But as it is, Sir, the amendments consist of very important changes. In several cases, the most vital principles of the Bill are to be negatived by the amendments. Members of the Opposition Bench praised the Bill at the last sitting because there were signs of genuine effort to promote industrial peace, giving (as was stated by the Hon. the Prime Minister) a fair deal to the workers and, at the same time, creating conditions conducive to industrial expansion. It was, in fact, a courageous Bill, in my opinion.

Order. I think the honourable Member is perhaps going a bit too far. She ought to confine herself to reasons why she thinks that the Chairman should report progress and beg leave to sit again. I think she is probably now making a Second Reading speech. She should confine herself to the motion.

Sir, I am saying all this just to show the importance of postponing the Committee stage to another day. I am giving reasons why it should be postponed, and although it might seem irrelevant now, I hope, when I tie up my reasons, to show that they are relevant and why I think the Committee stage should be postponed. We thought that the Bill was designed to prevent the reoccurrence of the mistakes of the past. But there are amendments which have been sent to us two days ago which take the essence out of this -

Chicken!

- take all the essence out of this genuine effort to promote industrial peace. Sir, first the Bill was presented to us. Then before it could be passed, it has now been mutilated beyond recognition by 50 amendments. Surely it will do no harm if a little more time is spent on putting it into a shape which is acceptable to all concerned, which will be of benefit to the State and all its people, and which will be a credit to the Government. I hope the Minister will agree to postpone the Committee stage to another day.

Before I propose the Question, I might inform honourable Members that the Government were in time when they sent in their notices of amendments. The notices of amendments were, in fact, received in the Clerk's Office on the 8th of February. Admittedly, it did take some time for the Clerk to go through the amendments to put them into a shape acceptable to me, and it was not until the morning of 10th February that Members received their copies of the amendments. So, in so far as the Government are concerned, they were in time. Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report progress and ask leave to sit again."

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think this point had already been dealt with by the Prime Minister when the principles of the Bill were debated at the last sitting. Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall later be moving amendments which will clearly show to the Opposition Front Bench that the amendments do not in any way affect the main structure of the Bill. They are in respect of points of detail. And when I do so, I think I will be able to promote peace between the Opposition and ourselves.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I received my copy of the amendments of the Minister for Labour and Law when I arrived in this Assembly about ten minutes before 2.30 p.m. I therefore had no time to become acquainted with the proposals outlined in the proposed amendments. I do not say, Sir, that the Government were out of time in submitting their amendments. But I do say that had the Opposition been aware of such amendments that were being proposed, the speeches of the Opposition on the Second Reading of the Bill might have been of a different character. The Prime Minister said that there was no useful purpose in referring this Bill to a Select Committee because the question of principles was not involved. But I do respectfully submit, Sir, that the amendments proposed by the Minister for Labour and Law go a long way to upset the balance that was aimed at in the Bill - the balance of conflicting forces - so that there could be industrial peace. I do again say, Sir, that, because of the very nature and character of the Government amendments, more time should be given to the Opposition and to the public to become aware of their implications.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as the Member for Cairnhill has just complained that he had no opportunity of looking at the Government amendments until 2.30 this afternoon, the Government is prepared to postpone the Committee stage to after item No. 5 on the Order Paper.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if I had been able to read the proposed Government amendments before I made my speech on the Second Reading, I would most certainly not have spoken in the tenor in which I, in fact, had done. When we met here the day before yesterday, I thought it was an excellent Bill, a courageous Bill, because the Government was attempting to solve a very difficult problem, which is to hold the balance evenly between employees and employers in the overall interest of the State. Sir, after I have had the opportunity to look at the Government amendments and to realise their implications, I am now satisfied that the balance which the Government had so strenuously sought to preserve in the original Bill has been whittled down to the extent where one of the parties to a dispute would have lost confidence in the Bill. Therefore, if the primary aim and objective of this Bill is to secure industrial peace, it is, I think, imperative that both sides to the dispute should be satisfied that it is a fair and impartial Bill. At the moment, Mr Speaker, Sir, as the amendments stand, the Opposition feel that the Bill is weighted with the amendments on one side, and the balance is not held equally. The Minister has said that he has received representations from both employers and employees, and as a result of those representations he has framed these amendments. If I may say so with respect to the Minister, these amendments have been filed at the instance and at the suggestion of employees. May I ask him whether these amendments have been put to the employers to find out what their views are on them? I venture to suggest to the Minister that if these amendments had been put to the employers, they might not have readily accepted the Bill in its amended form. I therefore beg of the Minister to defer the Committee Stage, Sir, so that the employers and others who are interested in the Bill could be given adequate opportunity to examine the amendments and to see what their effect will be on industrial peace. 2.45 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, at the last sitting of the Assembly, every Member of the Assembly who spoke said that this Bill was very important and vital to the interest of the people of Singapore. Therefore, I do not wish to be left behind in expressing my dissatisfaction with the method by which this Bill is going to be rushed through without first giving an opportunity to the Opposition to review it thoroughly, because it has been found, as expressed earlier, that the amendments just tabled by the Government clearly show that they are contrary to what the Government claims them to be, that is, the Bill is in the interest of all concerned. We have just been made to understand that the Government has considered these amendments after receiving the views and representations of many trade unions who had offered their views. Hence the Government has tabled many amendments. It cannot be said, however, that only trade unions were given the opportunity to express their views on the Bill which affects industrial relations. Similarly, the Opposition are not satisfied, as they were not given an opportunity. We must not forget that in this Assembly we are not representing the workers or employers but we are here responsible for the enacting of Bills which give protection to all sections of the community in Singapore, and not merely a certain section. Hence it follows that the views expressed by the Opposition for the postponement of this Bill should receive the attention of the Minister, because we, in the Opposition, will also be held responsible for the enactment of any Bills that are put before this Assembly.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I remember the Prime Minister saying on Wednesday that there was no principle on which the Government could give way. But I do submit, Sir, that the amendments proposed by the Minister for Labour and Law constitute a withdrawal of some of the major principles adumbrated in the Bill. The Minister in his Second Reading did not consider it necessary to inform this House that he had discussions with representatives of the trade unions and representatives of the employers. It was left to a Government back-bencher to disclose it to this House. I do submit that, in future, when matters of importance are involved, the Minister should inform this House of what has been taking place. Furthermore, Sir, he has not informed the House in what way the representatives had made objections to him. Sir, if he will be so good as to inform this House, I would like to know the names of the representatives of the trade unions who saw him as well as the names of the representatives of the employers.

I think perhaps the debate is ranging a bit too far. If the Minister is, in fact, going to disclose these names, I think he would probably be out of order, because we are now debating whether or not proceedings on this Bill should be postponed. The debate must therefore be confined to the reasons why consideration of the Bill should be postponed, and nothing further.

Why I ask for the information is because it is felt by the Opposition that the amendments proposed are as a result of one-sided discussions between the Government and some of the trade unions. As you have ruled, Sir, we will not be in a position to get the information we want. But I do submit that questions of principle are involved, and that what the Prime Minister told the House last Wednesday, that the Government would not give way on any principle whatsoever, is not borne out by the amendments to be proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when we debated the Bill two days ago, the nature of the amendments proposed was not known to the Opposition nor, Sir, was it known to the public. We did not realise that the amendments are so vital that they practically change the character of the whole Bill. On that ground, Sir, we believe that the public must be kept informed of later developments so that there can be a test of public reaction.

Mr Speaker, when the principle of this Bill was being debated, I remember that in my reply I charged the Opposition Front Bench with showing so very little or no attention to the contents of this very important Bill. Mr Speaker, I did say in my speech when I moved the Second Reading of the Bill that the Explanatory Statement published in the Bill summarises in considerable detail the main provisions of the Bill. I also went on to say that in Committee I would move certain amendments which would not affect the general features of the scheme embodied in the Bill. Those were the exact words I used. Mr Speaker, when the Member for Cairnhill was speaking, it appeared to me that he was not informed of the amendments that the Government had sent in, and I interrupted on a point of information and pointed out to the House that the amendments had, in fact, been submitted by the Government. Mr Speaker, the Government is also charged with having given no publicity to these amendments. Mr Speaker, I gave an interview to the reporters in the Chinese Press and the Straits Times on Tuesday afternoon, and the main provisions of the amendments which the Government will move were, in fact, published in the Straits Times on Wednesday morning. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Members of the Opposition have had ample time to consider the amendments that Government proposes to move this afternoon. In fact, there was a public holiday yesterday and the House was not in session, and if the Member for Cairnhill is the champion of the people, as he wants to make out that he is now, surely he could have spent some time yesterday looking at these amendments. Or if he had not got a copy of the amendments, he could have got one from his learned friend sitting next to him, the Member for Farrer Park. I am horrified to know that he told this House this afternoon that the first time that he had received these amendments was this afternoon at 2.30.

No, no.

Let him say no. But I always say we speak the truth.

I think there has been some misunderstanding. I think the Member for Chairnhill said he saw these amendments at 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday.

I beg your pardon, Sir. That means, Mr Speaker, Sir, that he has had ample time to look at these amendments. Mr Speaker, I have pointed out repeatedly that the amendments do not in any way affect the main structure of this Bill. For that reason, the Government wishes to proceed with all these amendments this afternoon. On the question of my discussions with representatives of employers and representatives of trade unions, I had referred to all these when I replied during the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill. As a result of the discussions that I have had both with the representatives of the unions and the employers, the Government has, after taking into account both representations, drafted the amendments which we hope to move this afternoon, so that it has' not been a one-sided manoeuvre, as the Opposition Front Bench are trying to suggest now. Mr Speaker, Sir, since they require a little more time, I do not mind giving them a little more time. We will come back to the Committee stage after item 7 on the Order Paper for today.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there was nothing on the Second Reading of the Bill which the Opposition could have said. The Opposition quite frankly informed the House that they were in complete agreement with the principle involved in the Bill. As the Second Reading is concerned with the debate on the principle of the Bill, there was nothing that the Opposition could say in criticism. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it was the Hon. the Prime Minister who said that this was the first attempt made by the Legislature to bring the rule of law into industrial relations where previously the rule of the jungle had prevailed. That, I thought, was an admirable sentiment and something which is very necessary if confidence is to be established which will attract capital to this place and keep it here. If we are going to introduce the rule of law where the rule of the jungle had prevailed, then the Court must be able to enforce its awards both against the employee and the employer. That is the rule of law as I understand it, Mr Speaker. The rule of the jungle, as we all understand it, is where the superior survives and the inferior is destroyed. We want the rule of law. But when we read the amendments, Mr Speaker, Sir, we find that the awards can be enforced against the employer, but it seems that the employees are not so bound. That is our reading of the amendments. If that is correct, then there are no sanctions attached to the failure on the part of the employee to observe an award. If that is the correct interpretation of the amendments, Mr Speaker, where then is the rule of law? 3.00 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, various Members of the Opposition have based their request for a delay in considering this Bill in Committee on the point that the amendments proposed by the Government have been such as to radically change the nature of the Bill. But none of them have given a single ins- tance of any way in which the amendments proposed by the Government have made any basic changes to the nature of the Bill. It may be that in the course of celebrations over Thaipusam - An hon. Member: Penance!

- they might have read into the amendments things not meant to be read into. Now, let us not go into a panic over these things. The Bill in its original and in its amended forms sets out the procedures and regulations whereby disputes between unions and employers can be settled in an orderly fashion. That was the aim of the original Bill and that is the aim of the Bill as amended. Again, there is the claim that the amendments have been so drastic as to alter the balance between employers and employees - a balance which the Opposition Members approved in respect of the original Bill, but which they disapprove in respect of the amendments, presumably because they suspect that the amendments have given concessions to the unions but not to employers. This apparently has caused considerable dismay among Members of the Opposition who everyone knows represent vested interests. Let us put both our feet firmly on the ground and let us not indulge in flights of fantasies about the effect of these amendments in reverting industrial relations to the rule of the jungle. May I ask the Opposition to remember always that the P.A.P. Government acts with decision? It has not been hasty in drafting the Bill. It has given due consideration to proposals and counter- proposals from the parties affected. But there must be some finality in these things, and if we were to act in the manner which Members of the Opposition want us to, that is, to preserve a fine balance between the groups concerned, we would go on balancing for the next five years. Members of the Opposition may well be reminded of the story of Columbus when he wanted to balance an egg. The best way is to bang the egg and break one end of it and the rest of the egg stands quite stably in this way. Mr Chairman, I have no sympathy whatsoever with the pleas for delay by the Opposition. I think they have completely exaggerated the extent to which the changes proposed have altered the nature of this Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I did not go into the details of the proposed amendments in order to air our stand that the amendments proposed by the Government go a long way to alter the principle of the Bill. I thought that if I had done that you might have ruled me out of order. To suggest -

Order. I think I probably would have ruled the hon. Member out of order. I would suggest that the way to tackle this particular problem, in so far as the complaint of the Opposition are concerned that the principles of certain clauses have been altered, is to raise the point when we come to the particular clause and then move that consideration of the clause itself be postponed. If that meets with the Opposition's wishes, perhaps we can proceed.

May I proceed, Sir?

Yes, Tun Lim Yew Hock.

With respect, Sir, it was because you have allowed the Hon, the Minister to say that we had given no valid reason. I was trying to say why we could not.

Order. I appreciate that and I think the House does appreciate that. There must be some valid reasons in the minds of the Opposition why they think that the principles have been departed from. Probably the Minister for Finance knew that and said what he did say with his tongue in his cheek. But I am just trying to direct the Members of this Assembly on a speedier course. It seems to me that we are debating round in circles. Perhaps if some agreement can be reached on the lines I have proposed, we can proceed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we had hoped that the Committee stage of this Bill could be postponed to a later stage whereby the public would have at least considered the major amendments proposed by the Government. The Minister for Labour and Law has suggested that if we had qualms about the amendments he might agree to taking the Committee stage when all the other business of the day has been disposed of. May I respectfully submit, Sir, that such a suggestion is nothing but frivolous?

Order. I think I have ruled the word "frivolous" out of order. Will the Member please withdraw?

I withdraw, Sir. I will therefore say that such a suggestion is not in keeping with the dignity of this House.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when I suggested just now that the Committee stage of this Bill be taken after item No. 5 on the Order Paper, I did so because I mistakenly believed that the Member for Cairnhill had said that the first time that he had seen these amendments was at 2.30 this afternoon. As a matter of fact, it was pointed out to me that he had seen these amendments at 2.30 on Wednesday afternoon. This has made the case for an application for an adjournment even more - I am very much tempted to use the same word, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, the principle of the Bill was carefully gone into when the Second Reading was debated last Wednesday. When replying, I remember I pointed out where the amendments departed from the main provisions of the Bill. I remember informing this House that the Government had, after discussions with the unions, agreed to take out the provisions in the Bill dealing with the de-registration of unions. I remember informing the House that the Government had, after discussions with the unions, decided that the provisions restricting the activities of union leaders, when they were found guilty of contempt of court, were to be preserved. I remember dealing with all these matters, and I am very surprised that the Member for Farrer Park has got so lost in the jungle of his thoughts that he should have suddenly accused the Government of wanting to introduce the law of the jungle in industrial relations. If he had been a little more careful and given more thought to what I had said when replying to the debate on the Second Reading, then he would not have made that very unfair remark.

Mr Speaker, Sir, concerning the remark that we could have spent a few hours yesterday studying the amendments; I would like to say this. It is because we have studied them thoroughly that we now feel, not for our sake, but for the sake of the public, that the public need to be informed of these amendments, and they need to give thought to them. This is why we are proposing a postponement of the Committee stage. It is not for ourselves. We spent the whole day yesterday discussing them. 3.15 p.m.

I take it that the suggestion by the Government that the Committee stage be taken after item 7 on the Order Paper is not acceptable to the Opposition. I shall then put the Question on the motion, and the Government side will no doubt vote in the way they think appropriate. Question put, "That the Chairman do report progress and ask leave to sit again."

Division, Sir. The House divided: Ayes, 6; Noes, 35; Abstention, Nil; Absent, 10. Ayes. Noes. Ahmad Jabri bin Ahmad bin Mohamed Akib. Ibrahim. Lim Yew Hock. Bani, S.T. Mohd. Ali bin Buang bin Alwi Omar Junid. Rajah, A. P. Bryne, K. M. Seow Peck Leng, Chan Chee Seng. Mrs. Chan Choy Siong, Thio Chan Bee. Miss. Chan Sun Wing. Abstentation. Chor Yeok Eng. Nil. Goh Chew Chua. Goh Keng Swee. Absent. Kandasamy, G. Abdul Hamid bin Lee Khoon Choy. Haji Jumat. Lee Siew Choh. Baharudin bin Lee Teck Him. Mohamed Ariff. Lim Cheng Lock. Fung Yin Ching, Lin You Eng. Miss. Lingam, S. V. Hoe Puay Choo, Lor Por Tuck. Madam. Mammen, John. Koh, C.H. Mohd. Ariff bin Lee Kuan Yew. Suradi. Leong Keng Seng. M. Ismail Rahim. Ong Eng Guan. Ng Teng Kian. Rajaratnam, S. Ong Chang Sam. Sahorah binte Ong Pang Boon. Ahmat, Madam. Ramaswamy, S. Sheng Nam Chin. Tan Cheng Tong. Tan Kia Gan. Tee Kim Leng. Teo Hock Guan. Toh Chin Chye. Wee Toon Boon. Wong Soon Fong. Yaacob bin Mohamed. Yong Nyuk Lin. Question accordingly negatived.

Before we proceed, I wish to draw the attention of the Opposition Members to Standing Order 71 (7) which reads: "A clause may be postponed, unless a decision has already been taken upon an amendment thereto...". Therefore, if any Opposition Member wishes to move that a clause be postponed he or she should do so before an amendment is moved or considered. Clause 2-

Amendments (i)* and (ii)+ appear to be connected. Perhaps the Minister could move amendment (i) and speak on both. * See column 235. + Amendment (ii) reads as follows:- In page 2, lines 21 to 23, to leave out "and any department of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom functioning within Singapore".

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, *In page 2, lines 13 to 15, to leave out "or of any department of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom functioning within Singapore". * See column 234. Mr Speaker, Sir, when moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I explained why Government has thought it necessary that the Services and their employees should be left out of the provisions of this Bill and I do not propose to repeat what I have already said.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Opposition would indeed be grateful to the Minister if he would repeat the reasons which he gave during the Second Reading of the Bill. Sir, the reason I ask is that we do not have a copy of the Hansard.

Sir, that proves my point earlier on when I said that the Opposition Members gave very little attention either to -

On a point of order, Sir. Is it out of order for a Member of the Opposition to ask for information?

It is not a point of order. No point of order has arisen.

If I am not mistaken. I think the Member for Cairnhill has asked me to repeat what I said when I moved the Second Reading of the Bill. My point is that if he had paid attention to what I was saying, then there would have been no need for his asking me to repeat what I then said. In order that he may he informed, I shall now proceed to restate what I then said on the Second Reading of the Bill: "... 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." I also said then, Mr Speaker: "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 also informed the House: "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 also expressed the hope that: "...it will be possible in the near future for the United Kingdom Service departments 10 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 did listen to the Hon. the Minister when he was moving the Second Reading of the Bill. I just wanted him to repeat it in this House. It would appear, Sir, that a self-governing constitution is much worse than the constitution of a colony. When Singapore was a colony from 1955 to 1959, yet our laws could legislate to contain and embrace any department of Her Majesty's Government. And we are told today by the Government that because we are self-governing we, therefore, cannot do it. Yet when we were running a colonial government we had been challenged by leaders of the P.A.P. as to why we did not insist that employees of Service departments should be covered by law. Because of that, we had discussions with the British Government and had it included in our law. It could be easily verified if you look up the Labour Code and other labour legislation that a Service department of Her Majesty's Government is so covered. And today we are told in this House that because we have a self-governing constitution we cannot do what we could do when we were a colony.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government's stand is sincere and consistent, and not like that of the previous Government. We see the Member for Cairnhill standing up today accusing this Government of giving no protection whatsoever to Service employees. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to state here that I had been employed in the Army and was actively concerned with a certain union. We are aware that if the Services or the British Government desire that Service employees be covered in this Bill, then all the provisions in this Bill must be acceptable to them. But in our experience - I personally have had this experience - any local legislation which will benefit the Services will be acceptable to them, but if any local legislation is detrimental to them they will not wish to get themselves involved in it, and they will say that they have their own legislation in the United Kingdom. I can say frankly in front of the Member for Cairnhill that he himself knew that many disputes arose in the Service establishments when I was an Assemblyman for Sembawang and that I did bring such matters to his attention, but he replied that he was in no position to settle such disputes. 3.30 p.m. But today it seems that he is trying to make it appear as if we have neglected or shirked our responsibility to the Services employees. I think such an accusation is unfounded. As I have said earlier in my speech, we are frank, outspoken and sincere. If the Services departments wish to accept completely the legislation passed by the local Government, they should wholly abide by the legislation, and not accept part of it and reject the other. I have personally experienced this, and I am sure the Services unions will agree with me in this respect.

Mr Speaker. Sir, all that the Hon. the Minister has said does not deny the fact that in the Labour laws of today, Service departments are covered. If they could be covered in the Labour Ordinance, if they could be covered in the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance, if they could be covered in any other law, why cannot they be covered in this law? It is the same law! If it is necessary to delete it, then I would suggest to the Government that they should amend all the laws that are in existence today - to take out of them the coverage of the Services departments of the United Kingdom Government. Sir, there is enough protection of Her Majesty's Government here, because the employees working in the Services departments cannot be so declared as employees until the Yang di-Pertuan Negara has so declared. And the Yang di-Pertuan Negara is a representative of Her Majesty in the State of Singapore. Now, if we do not have it in there, Sir, then how are we going to give protection to Service employees? I am not a lawyer. Suppose today the Services union says, "Yes, we want to come under this law"; the Services departments say, "Yes, we want to come under this law"; then how are they to come in when for the purposes of this Ordinance they are not "employees" or "employers"?

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is quite obvious that the Member for Cairnhill had been seeing visions and dreaming dreams all the years when he was in politics, from 1948 to 1959. If he was a realist at all, he would have known, Mr Speaker, Sir, that no non-Sovereign legislative body can bind Her Majesty's Government. That is a well-settled constitutional point, and I need not in any way argue it here. Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Services and their employees were brought into the present Labour Ordinance, it was by agreement. If it is possible for them to reach an agreement - and I have expressed the hope that they would do so - it will be quite easy for us to amend the Ordinance to provide for their coming in. We certainly would be very pleased if they could agree to come in. But as I have pointed out, the United Kingdom Commissioner here has made it clear that they would only agree to their employees coming in on certain conditions. And until those conditions are agreed, I think we would have to leave the position as it is. I still repeat what I have said before, that we do really and sincerely hope that both sides would get together and iron out their differences and then come to us and say, "We want to be brought under the provisions of this new procedure for the settlement of industrial disputes." I can assure the Opposition Bench that there would be none happier than ourselves to introduce amending legislation for that purpose.

Sir, I do not understand why it should be deleted now and then amended at a future date if, as the Hon. Minister has said, the Services departments of Her Majesty's Government are not against coming under this Bill. I do not see why it should be so. What the Yang di-Pertuan Negara can do is to wait until an agreement is reached with Her Majesty's Government. Without the amendment, it will put the matter in the forefront. And as soon as agreement is reached, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara will then so declare. If this is not to be there, I submit that all the laws that cover Services departments should be abolished.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to labour this point. I just want to repeat that we would be very happy to welcome the Services departments to the fold as soon as they can agree with their unions to be brought under the provisions of this Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I agree with the Minister for Labour and Law that legislation normally does not bind the Crown, unless the Crown itself submits to that legislation. It is because of that that the words "and includes an officer or a servant of the Government" have been put in. But that is not the end of the matter. Merely putting in the phrase "and includes an officer or a servant of the Government" does not in itself place a Government employee within the meaning of this Ordinance. It is the inclusion by the Yang di- Pertuan Negara by way of a proclamation which finally makes him an employee within the meaning of this section. What then is the necessity for deleting the words sought to be deleted from this Bill, Mr Speaker, Sir, when the inclusion of those words would not in themselves bring that group of employees within the framework of the Ordinance, unless and until the Yang di-Pertuan Negara so declares? So it seems to me, Mr Speaker, Sir, particularly as the Minister himself has said, that there are only one or two points on which agreement has to be reached, and as soon as that is achieved, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara can then so proclaim.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the essential point is this: that the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, as our Head of State, would on the recommendation of the Cabinet, be able to make a declaration to include certain categories of Government servants within the definition of "employee". But what the Yang di-Pertuan Negara cannot do on the recommendation of the Cabinet is to place, say, categories of Services employees within the definition of "employee". He can do that only after agreement is reached between this Government and Her Majesty's Government. It is only then that he can make such a declaration. But he could easily declare a local Government servant as an "employee" for this purpose on the advice of the Singapore Government, and that is the distinction.

Sir, we understand the position that the Yang di-Pertuan Negara is the Constitutional Head of State. He cannot act on his own initiative; he can only act on the advice of his Ministers. As and when agreement is reached between the Cabinet and Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, that agreement, Sir, will be the subject matter for discussion by the Cabinet. As a result of the Cabinet's decision, the responsible Minister then advises the Yang di- Pertuan Negara, who will then gazette. Where then is the need for the deletion?

Mr Speaker, Sir, we feel that it would always be better for an agreement to be reached between the Services as employers and their own employees before any approach is made to the Singapore Government. We do not want to enter into agreements with Her Majesty's Government over the heads of their own employees' organisations. We would like them to get together and discuss the conditions under which they will be prepared to come in, before we welcome them in. Surely, there is nothing sinister in that? Amendment agreed to. Amendment made: In page 2, lines 21 to 23, to leave out "and any department of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom functioning within Singapore".-[Mr Byrne].

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, In page 2, to leave out lines 28 to 32 inclusive. This is the definition of "essential service". This amendment is consequential to the amendment to clause 28 (c) of the Bill. I will explain the purpose of this amendment when we come to clause 28 (c) .

There are two methods whereby we can deal with amendments of this nature. One is to enter into a debate immediately on the advisability of leaving out "essential service" from the ambit of this Bill; the other way, of course, is to postpone consideration of the amendment to clause 2 under the provisions of paragraph 11 of Standing Order 71. This amendment can be considered under the provisions of paragraph 11 of Standing Order 71, which reads: "After all clauses and schedules have been gone through, any Member may, with the leave of the Chairman, move an amendment to a clause or schedule already passed, provided that the amendment is made necessary by an amendment made to any other clause or schedule." That is, consideration of this amendment could be entered into under paragraph 11 of Standing Order 71 after consideration of all the other clauses of the Bill. But perhaps it would be convenient if the Minister would make a speech now on the advisability of omitting the reference to "essential service". That would cover clause 28 (c) as well as the Schedule to the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if Members of this House will look at clause 28, they will see that the Industrial Arbitration Court will take cognizance of a trade dispute in the circumstances there provided:-

Order. Perhaps I did not make myself quite clear. At this stage will the Minister please confine himself to the question whether or not essential services should come out of the ambit of the Bill? Later on, he can deal with the other amendments to clause 28. I take it that clause 28 (b) does not concern itself with essential services?

That is so.

So if the Minister will now confine himself to the principle of taking the essential services out of the ambit of the Bill, he can proceed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sorry I have to refer to clause 28 (b) in some detail, because, unless I did so, it would be difficult for hon. Members to understand why we have suggested an amendment to clause 28 (c). Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think I need repeat what I have already said with regard to clause 28 (b). I will go straight on from there to clause 28 (c). There it is now proposed that the Minister be given an over-riding right to refer any trade dispute to arbitration. In clause 28 (c), it was proposed that the Minister could so direct only where the trade dispute concerned an essential service. But it is now thought that to enable the unions to place some value on their collective strength and their bargaining position, it would be advisable to give the Minister this over-riding authority, so that in any dispute, whether it concerns an ordinary trade dispute or an essential service, the Minister would be in a position to refer that dispute to arbitration; so that references to arbitration would therefore arise under the amendments to be proposed in cases where the parties agreed to go to arbitration, in cases where the Minister decided to refer the dispute to arbitration, and in cases where the Yang di- Pertuan Negara in the public interest declared by proclamation that the dispute should go to arbitration. If this amendment is adopted, Mr Speaker, Sir, this definition of "essential service" would be unnecessary.

The supposition then that essential services were coming out of the ambit of the Bill is not correct. They would still be within the ambit of the Bill.

Essential services, Mr Speaker, Sir, would be within the ambit of the Bill, but they would come within the definition of a trade dispute.

They come indirectly under the provisions of clause 28 (c) so far as disputes are concerned.

That is so.

In the debate that may follow, hon. Members may range over the proposed amendments Nos. (iii)* and (iv)+ to clause 28, at page 51 of the Order Paper Supplement. * Amendment (iii) reads as follows: In page 12, to leave out lines 9 to 14 inclusive. + Amendment (iv) reads as follows: In page 12, lines 15 to 18, to leave out "certifies in respect of a trade dispute with regard to employment in, or in connection with the provision of, an essential service that it is in the public interest" and insert "directs".

Mr Speaker, Sir, do I understand the Minister to say that the deletion of those lines really makes no difference? It seems to me, Mr Speaker, that where under the clause as framed in the original Bill persons in essential services had certain rights, it could well he that now, as a result of the amendment, they have been excluded from those rights.

Mr Speaker, Sir, that is a very simple point. They would have recourse to collective bargaining under the provisions of Part III of the Bill.

Mr Speaker. Sir, while we have no objection to the deletion proposed, we feel that the amendment proposed by the Minister to clause 28 (c) is a matter which I would like to discuss at its proper time, because I too have an amendment to that particular clause.

The hon. Member will not, of course, be debarred from raising his points. Amendment agreed to.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 2, line 37, at end, to add - '"Industrial Relations Officer" means an Industrial Relations Officer appointed under section 26 of this Ordinance;'. Mr Speaker, I have also moved an amendment to clause 26 of the Bill to provide for the appointment of Conciliation Officers and Industrial Relations Officers.

If the Minister wishes to speak on his amendments (i)� and (ii)++ to clause 26, perhaps this is the appropriate time, and when he comes to clause 26, the Minister can just move formally. � Amendment (i) reads as follows: In page 11, line 33, after "Officers", to insert "or Industrial Relations Officers". ++ Amendment (ii) reads as follows: In page 11, line 38, to leave out "and of Conciliation" and insert "or Industrial Relations Officers and of Conciliation Officers and Industrial Relations".

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have provided in this Bill that practising advocates and solicitors should be excluded from participating either in collective bargaining or from appearing before the Industrial Arbitration Court, except in cases which are referred to iii clause 62 (1) (b) (ii). Mr Speaker, in view of that, the Government has considered that it would be wrong to leave a vacuum, as it were. If I am right, I think the Member for Cairnhill said yesterday that until such time as the unions were able to train their own officials in this work, legal representation should be allowed to them. Mr Speaker, Sir, we had that point in mind when we proposed that when legal representation was withdrawn it would be proper to institute a new category of officers known as Industrial Relations Officers in addition to the Conciliatory Officers who would be appointed to handle this work for those unions who would not be able to train their own officials to handle this sort of work. That is the reason for this amendment.

As indicated by the Minister, the debate may range over the proposed amendments to clause 26 and also over the principle whether or not a trade union should be represented by an advocate and solicitor.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the creation of Industrial Relations Officers to assist trade unions in negotiations or in arbitration proceedings before the Court. But I would like to inform this House that an Industrial Relations Officer is a servant of the Government. He is under the directive of the Commissioner for Labour and, through him, the Minister. When an Industrial Relations Officer is selected by a trade union to represent it in arbitration proceedings, is it understood that he is for the time being working for that particular union, and taking orders and directives from that union, without being encumbered with a higher directive that the Industrial Relations Officer shall not go beyond this?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I can assure the Member for Cairnhill that it is never our intention to try to appoint stooges as Industrial Relations Officers. They will have a perfectly free hand in espousing the cause of unions before the Arbitration Court. Mr Speaker, the Member for Cairnhill, who used to be an absentee overlord in the Ministry of Labour, knows very well that in the Ministry itself there is a Labour Court and there is a President of the Labour Court. He has the powers of a Magistrate, and he is designated an Assistant Commissioner for Labour. I would not want to impute anything against anybody, but I do not for a moment believe that it has ever been the policy of the Government ever to threaten this person in the exercise of his discretion when he sits as a President of the Labour Court. The same position will obtain with regard to Industrial Relations Officers. When they are selected by the unions, they will have a completely free hand to handle the unions representations before the Arbitration Court.

Sir, what I said just now was an attempt to save the Government from some embarrassment. I did not impute any motive whatsoever. I said that if it is known to the unions that an Industrial Relations Officer is there for them to use as they like during the course at the proceedings, the Government would be saved from embarrassment. The trade unions cannot say: "Well, who is that man? He has received orders from so and so that he should only go that far and no farther." Sir, I have helped the Government out of a predicament.

Mr Speaker, we have got to get on with our work. I do not think that the Member for Cairnhill is really so serious as to want to concern himself with saving this Government from any embarrassment. This Government can always be trusted to do its duty and to do it wisely. Amendment agreed to. Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 4.00 p.m. Clause 4-

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 3, lines 27 and 28, to leave out "not be deemed to be a public servant but" and insert "be deemed to be a public servant and". Mr Speaker, Sir, the purpose of this amendment is to find out why it is necessary that the President of the Court shall not be deemed to be a public servant. As he will be holding public office, he normally will be considered a public servant. Is there any special reason why the President of the Industrial Arbitration Court should not be a public servant?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have already referred to clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill when I replied to the debate on the Second Reading. For the information of the Member for Farrer Park, I would like to draw his attention to clause 3 (1) of the Bill, which provides that the President shall be appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister. A similar power of appointment appears in the Constitution in respect of the appointment of the Chief Justice. Mr Speaker, Sir, the purpose of this provision - that "The President of the Court shall not be deemed to be a public servant" - is to shut out this appointment from the provisions of the procedure that is followed in appointments to the ordinary public service. It is intended that the President of the Court shall have the same rights, privileges, protection and immunity as a Judge of the Supreme Court. As Members are aware, the office of a Judge, under our Constitution, is not a public office. It is not intended that this official should be appointed by the Legal Service Commission; so that, Mr Speaker, Sir, we have used these words to make it clear that this appointment will be an appointment made by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara on the advice of the Prime Minister, and that it will be outside the provisions of the Public Service Commission's procedure with regard to public appointments. There is nothing sinister in our proposal, Mr Speaker, Sir.

I do not think there has been such an allegation.

Not the way we look at it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I understand the Constitution, Judges are not supposed to be public officers for the purposes of appointment by the Public Service Commission. It is limited to that specific purpose. But in every other aspect, they shall be public servants. If I am right in that contention, Mr Speaker, Sir, a Judge of the High Court is a public servant, and the Chief Justice is a public servant for every purpose other than an appointment by the Public Service Commission. If it is quite clear from the Ordinance that the President of this Court shall be appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister, why should the President of the Court not be a public servant for all purposes?

Mr Speaker, Sir, under our Constitution a public Servant is not defined at all. The Constitution defines a public office. "Public office", for the information of the Member for Farrer Park, according to our Constitution, means "any office of emolument in the public service". "Public officer" means "the holder of any public office" and `"public service", in relation to service on or after the appointed day, means service under the Government of Singapore, or service as a Judge of the Supreme Court or as a judge or magistrate of a subordinate court; and, in relation to service before the appointed day, shall be similarly construed.' In section 75 (b) of Part IX of the Constitution dealing with the Public Services, it is stated that: 'the expression "public office" shall not include the following offices, that is to say:-

Mr Speaker, Sir, with respect, if that were the intention of the Minister, all that need to be said would be: "The President of the Court shall have the same rights, privileges, protection and immunity as a Judge of the Supreme Court." I, therefore, must assume that the Minister is not using the words "President of the Court shall not deemed to be a public servant" as mere verbiage. I must assume those words to have a special significance over and above the expression "The President of the Court having the same rights, privileges, protection ...". If the President of the Court is not deemed to be a public servant, then could a Member of this Legislature become the President of the Court?

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have pointed out just now in the definition of "public service", it has been made quite clear that "public service" means service under the Government of Singapore or service as a Judge of the Supreme Court. He is in the public service, there is no doubt about that. But it is usual in penal statutes to provide that officers discharg ing executive functions shall be public servants for the purpose of exercising those powers. Mr Speaker, Sir, in this case the President will, in fact, be discharging the duties of a Judge, and it is not usual to provide that, in the case of the appointment of a Judge, he will be liable under the penalties provided in the Penal Code if he does not act properly as a judicial officer. It is for this reason that we have been advised that it will be proper to use the form of words that appears in clause 4, and that these words "shall not be deemed to be a public servant" are included there.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not satisfied with the Minister's explanation. Sir, in our Constitution it is provided that Members of the Assembly are deemed not to hold public office by virtue of the fact that they are Members of the Assembly. As clause 4 stands, the President of the Court shall not be deemed to be a public servant, so it will be quite possible for the Minister to appoint somebody from this Assembly to be the President of the Industrial Relations Court. If he does so, that person can retain his seat in this Assembly and still be President of the Court. I am not saying that it will happen, but it is possible.

It is, of course, possible to postpone consideration of clause 4. Is it agreed then that we postpone consideration of this clause until we have dealt with the other clauses?

Yes.

Yes. Further consideration of clause 4 postponed. Clauses 5 and 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 7-

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 5, line 24, to leave out "an order made under". Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a small drafting amendment. Under the new provisions which we are putting into clause 54, the disqualification will follow from the fact that the person has been punished for contempt, and not from the order that the union be de-registered as it is under clause 56. It is an amendment which is necessary, as the Government now proposes to negative the provisions of clause 56.

In that event, shall we then deal with that amendment as 1 have indicated on page 56 of the Order Paper Supplement? That is that the figure "56" be altered to read "54". This amendment is necessitated by the amendment to clause 54 and the deletion of clause 56 of the Bill. We will then deal with that amendment under the provisions of Standing Order 71(11).

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 5, line 29, at end, to add- "(f) is a committee member of a political party or of any of its branches,". Sir, this particular clause deals with the disqualification of a person to become a member of a panel of the Court. We feel that, particularly in trade disputes where the law has been introduced to see that there should nor be unnecessary industrial strife, committee members of political parties or any of their branches should be debarred from holding office. This does not mean to say, Sir, that we think the Government will do such a thing - putting in committee members of political parties - but we do say that it would be a good thing if we could take a political figure out of the panel of the Court. 4.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Member for Cairnhill whether he believes that a committee member of a political party or of any of its branches is necessarily a person with prejudices? Surely such a person can be fair if he is appointed to such a panel. Mr Speaker, Sir, if it is found that he has not been acting impartially, there is already provision in clause 9 (2) for the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to remove him from the panel on the grounds that he is not a fit and proper person to be selected to constitute the Court. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government considers that it is very unfair to place such a restriction on a person just because he is a committee member of a political party or a committee member of a branch of a political party. The fact that he is occupying that position should not exclude him from the panel on either side. If he is a person who is good enough to be a committee member of a political party or of its branch, he is equally good enough to be on a panel like this, either on the employer's side or on the union's side. If he shows that he is a prejudiced person and is unfit to continue to hold that office, there are provisions to remove him from the panel. Surely that is a reasonable proposition.

Somewhere in this Bill, Sir, it is said that the proceedings before the Industrial Arbitration Court shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings. I just cannot lay my hands on it at the moment, but I think it does say that somewhere. Mr Speaker, Sir, as the proceedings before the Industrial Arbitration Court are judicial proceedings, the three persons who sit on it are therefore persons carrying out functions appertaining to judicial proceedings. One does not suggest that in every case things could go wrong, but the main thing about a Court, Mr Speaker, is that its composition should be such that it would inspire confidence in both the parties before the Court, and if the composition of the Court is such that that confidence is lacking either on one side or on the other, then I think the composition should be looked into. It is being suggested from this side of the House that if members of either panel are known to be active politicians. particularly politicians in the industrial field, then one side or the other is not going to have confidence in that particular member, and as soon as confidence is lost in that respect, then it could well be that the award might not be to the satisfaction of one of the parties before the Court.

Has the hon. Member clause 69 in mind? It is not quite the same as stated by the hon. Member. Clause 69 reads: "Proceedings before the Court shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings for the purposes of the Penal Code...".

Yes, I probably had that in mind, Sir, but possibly that does not cover the point I have raised. The Minister has said that the President should be treated as a judicial officer and the persons who sit beside him too take on that mantle.

The Member for Farrer Park must draw a distinction between those members on the employer's panel and those on the union's panel, and the President of the Court. It would be inhuman to expect employers to have confidence in the people on the employee's panel. Similarly, it is unheard of to expect the unions to have confidence in those members who are on the employer's panel. The very fact that you classify the two types in this way means that they are people who, by statute or otherwise, are closely in touch with, and are probably in sympathy with, the views and problems of employers or unions as the case may be; and the only person we can reasonably expect both parties to - and indeed we must expect both parties to - have absolute confidence in in integrity, fairness and impartiality is the President himself.

While accepting what the Hon, the Prime Minister has said, I think the matter goes a little beyond what he has said. It is not merely a question of being a member of the employee's panel or the employer's panel. There are several political parties in Singapore. Some parties are affiliated to certain unions and some unions are affiliated to other parties. Now if a union, shall we say belonging to political party X, has an industrial grievance and goes before the Industrial Arbitration Court and a member who is actively connected with political party A is put on, then, Mr Speaker, Sir, my point is clear.

It can act the other way also, Mr Speaker, Sir. The employer can be a member of a political party, and we say that on balance the Court is tripartite. It does not follow, to our way of thinking - and we are accused of being very illiberal in these matters - that a person is necessarily prejudiced on a panel like this just because he is a committee member of a political party. If it is found, by his attitude, that he is not a fit and proper person, then there is provision under clause 39 (2) to remove him from that panel, but we cannot accept the proposition that anybody who is a member of a political party is a prejudiced person and therefore unfit to be a member of the panel on either side.

Sir, I did not say "any member of a political party". I said "a committee member of a political party". Sir, I do urge upon the Government that it is desirable that the participants as well as the Court should bring about an atmosphere of calmness without bringing political implications into any dispute. Therefore, in order to avoid any unhappy incidents that may arise in the future, would it not be better that we take committee members of political parties out of the Court?

Mr Speaker, Sir, if we have a situation in Singapore, which obtains in some Western countries, where there is an abundance of public-spirited people both in political parties and in trade unions and so on, it might conceivably be possible that we might want to go to considerable lengths to establish the unbiasness of any particular member either on the employer's or on the union's panel. But I think the Member for Cairnhill is well aware of the fact that we are not in that fortunate position. The number of people who are actively prepared to take a leading part in trade union and political activities is fairly limited. On the basis of purely academic and theoretical debate, to strike out or exclude a whole class of persons who are likely to be of some value because of their trade union experiences, interests, and so on, just because they happen to be committee members of a political party is, I think, an unnecessary restriction on the choice. Surely it is not suggested that trade unionists, who are interested enough in the political future of Singapore to be members of a political party, should thereby become sufficiently tainted with bias as to be disqualified from being a member of the union's panel? Amendment negatived. Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 9-

Sir, I beg to move, In page 5, line 45, at end, to add- "(d) has become permanently incapable of discharging the functions of a member of the Court.". In dealing with this amendment, Sir, may I also bring in the following amendment because it is relevant: (ii) In page 6, to leave out lines 1 to 6 inclusive.

Yes.

Sir, I said during the Second Reading of the Bill that the power to appoint must carry with it also the power to remove. In the appointment of members to both panels of the Court, there are certain disqualifications in clause 7. So long as a person is nominated by either body, it does not come within the meaning of that clause, and unless the Minister is of the opinion that the person to be appointed by him is a fit and proper person, such person will not be appointed. Therefore, once the Minister has so considered that a person is a fit and proper person to be appointed to a panel of the Court of Arbitration, I see no reason why we should bring in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to have a say in that he is of the opinion that the Minister's opinion is not a good opinion; and we know, Sir, constitutionally, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara only acts on the advice of the Minister. Therefore, such a thing can only happen and may happen: if the Minister, having considered a man to be a fit and proper person, appoints him to the Court and then finds that that person is not carrying out, shall we say, the duties to his liking, he may then advise the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to say that that person should be removed because the Yang di-Pertuan Negara is of the opinion, on the advice of the Minister for Labour and Law, that that person is no longer a fit and proper person. Sir, sub-clause (2) (a) deals with the removal by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara of a person who "has become permanently incapable of discharging the functions of a member of the Court". Sir, such duties should not devolve on the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. If a person is permanently handicapped, surely it is easy and free for the Minister to put in the sub-clause proposed by me, that when a person has become handicapped to that extent, therefore the Minister shall remove him from a panel of the Court. 4.30 p.m. That is on sub-clause 2. Under sub-clause 2 (a), that job can be done by the Minister without trouble, there can be no argument whatsoever. Whereas sub-clause 2 (b) is entirely different. I have said that the Minister will never appoint a man to serve on the panel unless he is of the opinion that that person is a fit and proper person. Having made that opinion, he should stick to it and not bring in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to say that the Minister is wrong in his opinion. Sir, I beg to move.

The Question is, "That the words proposed to be added, be there added", and the debate may range over the second amendment, that is: In page 6, to leave out lines 1 to 6 inclusive.

Sir, may I first say that it is a spurious hypothesis to say that the power of appointment carries with it the power of removal? In quite a number of judicial and semi-judicial appointments, the person who has the power of appointment does not have the power of removal. For instance, take the case of Puisne Judges. They are appointed according to the Constitution - by a panel of Judges. But the Judges by themselves have no right to remove. It is to give the appointee greater protection from the caprice of the person or persons who have appointed him, that certain formalities are required before a person is removed. Far from the Minister wishing to abuse his power of appointing a person to a panel, it is, in fact, designed to safeguard the person who has been so appointed from being easily removed. In the case of a removal, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara has to be advised by the relevant Minister, after consultation with the whole Cabinet, that a person, having been already appointed, should not be so flippantly removed. That is exactly the purpose of having the power of removal in a more solemn form than the power of appointment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my second amendment lays down that there shall be no removal whatsoever on the grounds of a person's fitness from the membership of the panel. I did not say that the Minister should have that power. It was wrong. Once the Minister has formed an opinion, let that opinion stand. The Prime Minister has said that it is a spurious hypothesis that the power of appointment carries with it the power of removal. I am no lawyer myself, Sir, but I remember, when I was sitting on the other side of the House and the hon. Member on this side, and we were arguing on a Bill, that it was he himself who said that surely the power to appoint carries with it the power to remove.

Sir, I do not know in what context I was quoted - or rather misquoted. But there is a simple elementary device whereby, if one wishes to protect the appointee from being removed at the caprice of the appointer, the removal must go through a more solemn and intricate process. For this reason, if we were to apply the ordinary principle whereby for the lesser offices of the State, the person who appoints also has the power to remove, it would, in fact, be giving the appointee less protection. But we are not going to hamper ourselves in the case of a member on the panel to a point where it must be proved beyond any doubt that he is permanently incapable. In other words, what one will have to do is to get a doctor to certify that something in him has deteriorated. As Members on the other side, particularly the Member for Farrer Park, may know, it is difficult to get a doctor to certify that a man's mind has deteriorated; it is not uncommon to find people in high office who everybody agrees should no longer be there.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill has tried to be logical in stating that if the Minister appoints a fit person, that person should so remain fit. But history has proved that the Chief Minister of a colonial government has not been returned as the Prime Minister of the State of Singapore. I was also glad to hear the Member say that he is not a lawyer. I believe he happens to be an Honorary Doctor of Laws of the University of Malaya -

Order. I do not know why these personalities must creep in in this debate which is of a very serious nature. The Prime Minister has set the pace in this debate. Let us keep that pace.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if I am not mistaken, I think the Member for Cairnh1ll has got himself involved because he has seen that clause 6 (6) provides that the Minister must be satisfied that an appointee is a fit and proper person before he is put on the panel. Then he goes on to ask, why should he be removed on the grounds that he is not a fit and proper person when the Min ister himself has appointed him because of those attributes? Mr Speaker, Sir, we are all human and sometimes we get appointed in a situation where we might be fit and proper persons but later on become unfit and improper persons. That being so, the Government is very careful to ensure that when anybody is removed on those grounds, it will only be so after considerable deliberation and not, as the Prime Minister says, at the caprice of the Minister. The whole position of the appointee will be examined by the Cabinet. And after the Cabinet has fully considered the matter, the recommendation will then go to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. Surely that is the proper way of proceeding.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is indeed very exhilarating to hear the Minister say that he is human and is capable of making mistakes. And because of that, Sir, I will not press the issue.

Is the Member withdrawing?

May I beg leave to withdraw, Sir? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I take it that the second amendment* is not to be moved. * The amendment reads as follows: In page 6, to leave out lines 1 to 6 inclusive.

No, I am not moving. Question proposed, "That clause 9 stand part of the Bill."

Sir, I should be obliged for some clarification of clause 9 (1) (b): "The Minister shall remove from a panel a person who accepts any relief afforded by law to bankrupts or insolvent debtors;", particularly when clause 9 (1) (a) says: "The Minister shall remove from a panel a person who ceases to be eligible to be a member of that panel in accordance with section 7 of this Ordinance;", and clause 7 (4) (a) says: "A person who is an undischarged bankrupt shall not be eligible for appointment to a panel." Now, clause 9 (1) (a) says: "The Minister shall remove from a panel a person who ceases to be eligible to be a member of that panel in accordance with section 7 of this Ordinance;", so that when he becomes an undischarged bankrupt, he ceases to be eligible. What meaning then has clause 9 (1) (b), "...accepts any relief afforded by law to bankrupts or insolvent debtors"?

Sir, clause 7 (4) (a) is a qualification: a person who is an undischarged bankrupt is disqualified from appointment. Clause 9 deals with the removal, and clause 7 (4) (a) deals with the position at the time of appointment. If it is shown that the person is an undischarged bankrupt, consideration is given as to whether he should be appointed; then he is disqualified. Clause 9 deals with the case of a removal from a panel of any person who, say, accepts any relief afforded by law to bankrupts or insolvent debtors; such a person can be removed. Surely that is a very simple point.

Sir, I have not found it as simple as the Minister has found it. Because it seems to me that the only way a person can accept relief afforded by law to bankrupts or insolvent debtors is by becoming a bankrupt.

No, Mr Speaker, Sir. Surely -

Order.

That is why the conception of the expression "or insolvent debtors" after persons against whom wage-earners' administration orders are made are not called bankrupts.

Surely clause 7 deals with appointments, and clause 9 deals with removals from a panel. In clause 7, if it is found that so-and-so is an undischarged bankrupt, he is disqualified from appointment - he cannot be appointed. Now, a person may be perfectly solvent at the time of appointment. Later he becomes insolvent, and so we proceed to remove him under clause 9 (1) (b). That is a very simple state of affairs.

I accept that. But what then is clause 9 (1) (a) doing? It says: "ceases to be eligible to be a member of that panel in accordance with section 7 of this Ordinance;". He had already become ineligible in accordance with clause 7 by becoming an undischarged bankrupt. Why, therefore, does clause 9 (1) (b) say, "accepts any relief afforded by law to bankrupts or insolvent debtors"?

Mr Speaker, Sir, in all cases, the person ceases to be eligible to be a member of a panel in accordance with clause 7. If he is of unsound mind, nobody will appoint him. If he is appointed and then becomes of unsound mind, then we will remove him under clause 9 (1) (a).

May I carry on a step further from where the Minister has left off, Sir? If he were an undischarged bankrupt at the time of appointment, he would be appointed -

No!

If he were an undischarged bankrupt at the time of appointment -

He cannot be appointed.

Order. Let the hon. Member continue. I think the Member for Farrer Park is too much involved for the Minister perhaps to unravel the involvement!

Sir, if a person is not a bankrupt, in other words, he is not an undischarged bankrupt, he is eligible for appointment under clause 7. So he is appointed. Subsequent to the appointment, he becomes a bankrupt. Therefore, the Minister acting under clause 9 (1) (a), can remove him. He can remove persons of unsound mind. He can remove persons who cease to be citizens of Singapore. He can also remove persons who have become undischarged bankrupts. So why then is it necessary to have clause 9 (1) (b)? The suggestion I am making, Mr Speaker, Sir, is this: paragraph (b) could be deleted. Yet, if after appointment a person becomes an undischarged bankrupt, the Minister could act under clause 9 (1) (a).

I think the Member for Farrer Park, if he is suggesting that paragraph (b) should be deleted, is too late. He ought to have given notice of an amendment, "to leave out paragraph (b)" and then a debate could properly have taken place. At the moment, we are on the Question, "That clause 9 stand part of the Bill", and the debate thereon must be a debate on the principle of the clause.

He has missed the bus! 4.45 p.m.

I have not missed the bus. It is a question of whether clause 9 (1) (b) is necessary to carry the meaning of the Bill any further. It does not detract from the Bill in any way. All I wanted to know was whether clause 9 (1) (b) took it any further than clause 7 (4) (a).

It is the intention of the Member for Farrer Park to tell us that we have said the same thing twice and that we could have done it in a much shorter time. But we would say that it is put there to make it doubly clear. That is why it appears here, because clause 9 (1) (b) is the same as clause 9 (1) (a) as far as an undischarged bankrupt is concerned.

May I add that clause 9 (1) (b) envisages a situation where, although the person has never become a bankrupt, he is an insolvent debtor - one who avoids bankruptcy by any one of the means (composition or otherwise) envisaged in the laws of bankruptcy. He can then be removed if it is discovered that as a member appointed to the panel, he is owing people a large sum of money and he arrives at a composition before he is declared a bankrupt. Surely it is desirable to remove him. Clause 9 (1) (b) therefore envisages a situation where, although a man may not be adjudged a bankrupt, he is an insolvent debtor or one who has avoided bankruptcy by the grace of God; and we may not wish him to remain on the panel.

The explanation, Sir, 1 think, satisfies me.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 11-

The first five amendments, Mr Speaker, Sir, are just drafting amendments. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 6, line 17, to leave out "workmen" and insert "employees". Mr Speaker, Sir, the expression "employees" is used in the Bill except in the expression "trade union of workmen". It is now considered that the expression "employees" should be used throughout the Bill. It is proposed to use this expression, where appropriate, in future labour legislation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I merely want further information. The Minister says it is a drafting amendment. As the debate goes on further, I will show that it is not entirely a drafting amendment. Mr Speaker, Sir, if you look at page 3 of the draft Bill, the definition of "trade union" has not been amended. '"Trade union" means a trade union of workmen or employers registered under any written law for the time being in force relating to the registration of trade unions.' As the debate progresses, Mr Speaker, you will find that the word "trade union" is used on several occasions.

The expression "employees" is used in the Bill except in the expression "trade union of workmen". It is now considered that the expression "employees" should be used throughout the Bill. It is proposed to use the expression, where appropriate, in future labour legislation. We use the word "employees" in place of the word "workmen".

Is the Minister suggesting that the definition of "trade union" in page 3 ought also to be amended to read "trade union" means "trade union of employees or employers"?

Yes.

In that event, we will deal with that suggested amendment under the provisions of Standing Order 71 (11) in due course. We will make a note of that. That covers the point raised by the Member for Farrer Park.

It does. Amendment agreed to.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 6, line 20, to leave out "and trade unions of employers". Mr Speaker, Sir, I will be moving an amendment to clause 16 for the deletion of all references to trade unions of employers. I have already explained to the House that the Government intends to restrict the collective bargaining procedure and procedure before the arbitration court to single employers and to a trade union of employees. As I have already explained to the House, a trade union of employers would enjoy, a superior bargaining position in collective bargaining to a trade union of employees. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is common knowledge that in industry at the present time, there are some employers in the same industry who are in unions and some who are not. If the employers who are in trade unions enter into collective agreements, it might be that the rates which have been agreed might be such that those employers who are not in trade unions will not be able to pay. If that is so, then the employers who are not in the unions may be put out of business, and the result would be that the workers would be the persons who would suffer. So we have decided that this procedure should be open only to a trade union of employees and single employers. If I am not mistaken, during the debate on the Second Reading, I think the Member for Cairnhill posed this question. What would happen, he asked, if there were a trade union of employers which enters into collective agreements with a trade union of workmen representative of workmen scattered throughout, say, different industries? Would the trade union of employers have to conclude separate agreements with the same trade union of employees? The answer now is to be found in the amendment that I will be moving, that is, that the collective bargaining procedure should be open only to single employers and a trade union of employees.

Since it has been proposed that all references to trade unions of employers should be deleted from this Bill, I submit that the definition "trade union" should also be so amended. Or it might be that there need be no definition at all, because with the present definition as it stands, a trade union can be a trade union of employees - even if the Minister were to change "workmen" to "employees" - and also a trade union of employers. In many places in the Bill, reference is made to "a trade union", which can be taken to imply that it can be "a trade union of employees" or "a trade union of employers". So if one were to remove all references to "a trade union of employers", therefore the definition of "trade union" has to be amended. And if it is amended. I think it will be less cumbersome if all references to a "trade union of employees" can just be described as a "trade union", so that there could be consistency, because in some places it is "a trade union of employees" and in other places "a trade union".

The Minister will no doubt consider that point. Amendment agreed to. Further amendments made: In page 6, line 23, to leave out "workmen" and insert "employees".-[Mr Byrne]. In page 6, lines 24 and 25, to leave out "and trade unions of employers".-[Mr Byrne]. In page 6, line 33, to leave out "workmen" and insert "employees".-[Mr Byrne]. In page 6, lines 36 and 37, to leave out ", or trade unions of employers who represent the majority,".-[Mr Byrne]. Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 12 to 15 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

I think this is an appropriate time to suspend. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

The Assembly is suspended. I shall take the Chair again at 5.30 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.59 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

Debate in Committee resumed.

Clause 16-

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 8, line 3, to leave out from "of" to the end of line 5 and insert "employees may serve on an employer and an employer may serve on a trade union of employees". The reason for this has already been given. Amendment agreed to.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 8, lines 8 and 9, to leave out "employers or workmen" and insert "employees". It is for the same reasons. Amendment agreed to. Clause 16, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 17-

Mr Speaker. Sir, I rise to move, In page 8, line 14, to leave out "employer or trade union" and insert "trade union or employer". This amendment is to follow the sequence. It is an employer serving on a trade union, and a trade union serving on an employer. If we do not amend the clause, it will mean an employer serving on the employer!

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am most obliged to the Member for Cairnhill. It is a drafting improvement. Amendment agreed to. Clause 17, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 18-

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 8, line 27, to leave out from "employer" to the end of line 33 and insert - ", the Commissioner is of the opinion that it is a factor influencing the employer in failing to accept an invitation to negotiate that the employer believes that a majority of the persons employed by the employer". These are consequential amendments, Mr Speaker, Sir. Amendment agreed to.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 8, line 35, to leave out from "notice" to the end of line 43 and insert - "are not members of the trade union of employees by which the notice was served, the Commissioner may submit to a vote of the persons so employed taken by secret ballot the question whether they are members of the trade union,". Mr Speaker, Sir, the effect of this amendment will be to remove the provision which would have enabled a ballot to be taken on the question whether the members of a trade union wish the union to negotiate on their behalf, with the result, Mr Speaker, Sir, that there would have been an unjustified interference with the rights of a trade union for a ballot for these purposes to be taken. Amendment agreed to.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 9, lines 2 and 3, to leave out "or trade union of employers and the trade union of workmen" and insert "and the trade union of employees". Mr Speaker, Sir, this is also a consequential amendment. Amendment agreed to. The following amendment stood in the name of Mr A. P. Rajah - In page 9, line 8, to leave out "otherwise directs" and insert "acts under section 21 of this Ordinance".

I am not moving, Mr Speaker, Sir. Clause 18, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 19- Question proposed, "That clause 19 stand part of the Bill."

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think there is some confusion in clause 19 (1). Although I have not tabled an amendment, I would like to seek the views of the Minister on this sub-clause. According to my reading of it, if one union were to serve notice on four employers and if in the case of three employers, an agreement had been reached, but in the case of the fourth employer, no agreement had been reached, the union may report to the Commissioner all the matters in dispute, and not only that matter on which no agreement had been reached. Here again, there is a time limit of 14 days. It says here that a time limit of 14 days shall apply to the latest date of the last notice on the last employer. Would it not be clearer if we were to limit this particular sub-clause to just one union and one employer? So long as that union and that employer have not come to agreement during negotiations, that matter shall be reported. If it were to be a union and three employers where agreement had not been reached in all three cases, surely the union would then report to the Commissioner for Labour. The fact as it stands is that if one union has reached an agreement with two employers but has not reached an agreement with the third employer, the whole thing is in the melting pot. And vice versa in case an employer settles the dispute with one union but not with the other two unions.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in clause 16, a notice will be served by a trade union on a single employer. That is to say, in the case of a trade union which is negotiating with say, three employers, there will be three separate notices served, one on each employer, so that if agreement is reached with two employers and agreement is not reached with the third employer, then the issues will die as far as the first two employers are concerned, and will still exist as far as the third employer is concerned. So where is the difficulty, Sir?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the wording here is very clear: "a collective agreement has not been reached between all the trade unions and employers by whom and upon whom the notice was served as to all the industrial matters set out in the invitation". So that covers all. But if you just limit it to one particular notice, irrespective of whether it is an employer serving on a union or a union serving on an employer, then this only applies to that particular notice without making it more confusing by bringing in notices which the same union may serve on other employers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it would be advisable to amend it in the terms which the Member for Cairnhill has suggested.

Order. We are now on the Question, "That clause 19 stand part of the Bill" and, therefore, it is too late to move any amendments. One method I can suggest to the Hon. Minister is to recommit the Bill when it is reported to the Assembly after consideration in Committee. Recommittal can take place under the provisions of Standing Order 73. Perhaps the Minister will consider the point in due course.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 20- The following amendment stood in the name of Mr A. P. Rajah - In page 9, lines 36 and 37, to leave out "otherwise directs" and insert "acts under section 21 of this Ordinance".

I am not moving, Mr Speaker, Sir. Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 21-

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 9, line 40, to leave out "19" and insert "20". That is to correct a mistake, Sir.

There is notice of a similar amendment in the name of Tun Lim Yew Hock. Amendment agreed to.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 10, line 1, to leave out "may be given orally or" and insert "shall be". Sir, in regard to this particular clause, this will only apply when clause 18 or 20 comes into operation. When the Commissioner becomes aware of a dispute, he will then notify the Minister, and it will be left to the Minister whether or not to direct the Commissioner then and there to notify the Registrar. The same thing applies to clause 20. But if the Minister feels that a further attempt should be made to bring about a settlement of the dispute through conciliation, and he exercises his powers under clause 21, he will direct that the parties concerned should come to a conference. 5.45 p.m. This sub-clause (2) , Sir, says that a direction of the Minister may be given orally or in writing signed by the Minister. Sir, we have been informed that the present Government, in their desire to bring their Back-benchers closer to the Government have allotted a certain number of them to jobs in each Ministry. It has happened - so it was reported to me - that those Assemblymen who are in the Ministry of Labour and Law have taken it upon themselves to give directives in the name of the Minister - that the Minister wants this and that to be done, and that the Minister would be happy if such and such a thing could be done. Therefore, to prevent a cross-current of directives issued by the Minister through the Assemblymen in the Ministry, I feel that such directives should be given in writing so that the enthusiastic Assemblymen in the particular Ministry may not be tempted to use the powers of the Minister and give an oral directive, saying that the Minister has so directed. But if it is in writing, it is clear, and the person receiving such a directive shall have to take heed. I do not see any reason why a person should be so directed by just an ordinary Back-bencher using the name of the Minister.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is necessary for the person whom the Minister directs to preside at a conciliation conference to be given these powers. Mr Speaker, Sir, it often happens that if a conciliation is to be effected, we must be able to get all the parties together as soon as we can and there is no reason why any instruction should be given only in writing. It could be done over the telephone and, so long as it is understood to be an instruction that they attend before the Minister, that should be sufficient. If there is any doubt that the person who has been summoned before the Minister is likely not to attend, you can be sure that the Minister will follow up that instruction with a written request that he turns up but I do not see any reason why the Minister should be denied these powers if conciliation is to be effected.

Sir, I have not suggested in any way that the Minister should be denied the power, but I have suggested, and do suggest again, that such direction given to a person should be made in writing.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the days when the Member for Cairnhill was the overlord of the Labour Ministry are all over - thank God for that! If he wants to know, we work there from half-past eight in the morning right up to about six in the evening, and there is not only one person working. There is the Minister, there is the Parliamentary Secretary, there is the Political Secretary, there are all the Assemblymen in addition to the civil servants working at every hour of the day. We have even put officers on duty every night from six o'clock in the evening to 8.30 the next morning, and they are on call in case of labour disputes. There was a time when the overlord used to appear there at about 3.30 p.m., and he had an assistant who was ensconced in an office. Nobody saw that assistant. Those days are over. The Minister must be in a position, if there is a trade dispute likely to lead to a strike, to be able to get on to his phone and to summon the employers and the trade unions. Is there anything wrong in that?

All that still does not reply to what I have said about P.A.P. Assemblymen sitting inside the Labour Ministry using the name of the Minister when issuing orders. Has the Minister so delegated his powers to all the Back- benchers who are inside the Ministry of Labour? If he has not, why should they be there to give orders to employers and trade unions alike? Or are they now saying that no such orders have been given?

Mr Speaker, Sir, they are all entrusted by the Minister with the work of conciliation, and if they send for the parties, I see nothing objectionable in that. They are acting in the name of the Minister, and clause 21 would expressly give them that power because they would be acting on the instructions of the Minister.

I am indeed very surprised, Sir, that the Minister can delegate his powers to one who is not even a civil servant - to a Back-bencher of the P.A.P. How could such powers be delegated to him?

Mr Speaker, Sir, for the purpose of conciliation, any person who can assist the Ministry effectively can bring the parties together and get them to come to a settlement.

Sir, the provisions contained in clause 21(1) are fairly serious because sub-clause (4) provides that: "A person who, on being directed under subsection (1) of this section, fails without lawful excuse to attend a conference ...shall be guilty of an offence...". That being so, it is quite important to know from whom the direction emanates and to whom it is given. It is a matter of some importance to the person to whom the direction is given, that it should come from the proper person. I understand the Minister to say that anybody in his Ministry could give the direction. Is that the position?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I never for a moment suggested that. I said that if an Assemblyman was asked to act as a conciliator, it could be done on the instructions of the Minister, and if anybody was summoned he would be so summoned on the instructions of the Minister. It is quite obvious that such powers are necessary in an emergency when it is very necessary to get the parties together as soon as you can. If you have sufficient time to get them together and if there is no urgency about the matter, I think the proper course to be followed is to send them an invitation in writing. If that cannot be done, then it must be done over the phone.

I think we will be satisfied if the Minister says that the direction under sub-clause (2) will be given either orally or in writing by the Minister himself, because, unless that happens, Mr Speaker, Sir, the proviso under sub-clause (4) would not follow in law.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Opposition is just trying - pardon me for saying so - to be difficult. These instructions could be given by anybody. I could have my Secretary give these instructions on my behalf. I could ask my Secretary to telephone the parties and ask them to come in. They know that she is my Secretary, and they will duly come in. What is the difficulty about that?

With respect to the Minister for Law, may I venture to suggest that, if that is what he did and if he went to Court for a conviction under sub-clause (4), he would not get it.

How can the Member say so?

I do not think that we should now arrogate unto ourselves the powers of a Judge! Amendment negatived. Clause 21, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 23-

Sir, I move, In page 10, line 27, after "writing", to insert "either in Malay, English, Chinese or Tamil,". Sir, in clause 45, it is clear that the Government intends that a memorandum of agreement could be made in Malay, English, Chinese and Tamil. Therefore, in order to make that intention clear in clause 23, I have ventured to propose the amendment. I would like the Minister to disabuse his mind that I put in this amendment just to cash in on him. I know that the Government intends to do it, but as the Minister himself is human, he has overlooked it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have already indicated that it is this Government's intention that agreements should be expressed in any language the parties want. If they choose to write out their agreements in Greek, they can do so. But the point is this, Mr Speaker, Sir, that when they do so, it will be necessary for copies to be made of that agreement, and the copies will have to be in Malay. English, Chinese and Tamil. Does that satisfy the draftsman, the Member for Cairnhill? Amendment negatived.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 10, line 39, to leave out "two years or more than five" and insert "eighteen months or more than three". Sir, it was proposed in the original Bill that the duration of any collective agreement or an award should be a minimum period of two years up to a maximum period of five years, but in discussions with the unions, it was, represented that that duration was a bit too long. Government has compromised on it and has agreed to accept the minimum period of eighteen months and a maximum period of three years for the duration of registrable collective agreements and awards. Amendment agreed to. Clause 23, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 24 and 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 6.00 p.m. Clause 26-

The amendments have already been debated. Will the Minister please move formally? Amendments made: In page 11, line 33, after "Officers", to insert "or Industrial Relations Officers".-[Mr Byrne]. In page 11, line 38, to leave out "and of Conciliation" and insert "or Industrial Relations Officers and of Conciliation Officers and Industrial Relations".-[Mr Byrne]. Clause 26, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 27-

Sir, I beg to move, In page 11, line 42, after "Minister", to insert "for Finance". Sir, the Minister referred to in this particular paragraph is the Minister for Finance, and it is necessary to have this amendment in order not to confuse this particular Minister with the Minister in charge of the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister referred to there is not the Minister for Finance, but the Minister in whose portfolio this Bill lies. That Minister, Mr Speaker, is the Minister who is notified that a trade dispute exists, and is so notified under the provisions of clauses 18 (4) and 20 (b); so that the Minister there clearly is the Minister for Labour and Law who is notified that a trade dispute exists.

With respect, Sir, I do not think so. That is why this particular clause is brought in. For the purpose of treating the Government as an employer, the Minister for Finance shall be the representative of the Government. And for the purpose of serving the Government as an employer, it can be anyone designated by the Minister for Finance. It can be the Permanent Secretary in the Establishment Branch, or it can be the Permanent Secretary in the Treasury Branch. This has nothing to do with the Minister for Labour and Law.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I cannot understand why the Member for Cairnhill is trying to be difficult this afternoon. When there is a trade dispute, somebody has got to be informed; the Commissioner for Labour has certain functions to perform - he has to notify the Minister. If you will look at clause 18 (4), if there is a trade dispute and if any party refuses to negotiate, it is the duty of the Commissioner for Labour to notify the Minister. And the notification in regard to that trade dispute must be to the Minister for Labour and Law. Once it is shown that the notification is in respect of a trade dispute, whether the parties have refused to negotiate or whether there has been a deadlock in the negotiations, the person to be notified is obviously the Minister for Labour and Law. But in this case, it is the Minister for Finance who is also informed - he is the employer of civil servants for the purposes of this Bill. The Minister to be notified of a trade dispute is naturally the Minister for Labour and Law. Amendment negatived. Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 28-

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 12, line 6, after "dispute", to insert "jointly". This is to clarify the intention.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when parties are engaged in a dispute, I think it may be difficult for them to sign jointly a request for arbitration. I would suggest that if there is to be an amendment, it should be the insertion of not only the word "jointly" but also the words "or separately"; so that if both parties refused to sign the letter jointly but preferred to sign it separately, that would be sufficient notification.

Is the hon. Member proposing an amendment to the amendment?

Yes, Sir, and I so move.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the minds of both parties must be ad idem on this, that is, both must agree to refer the dispute to arbitration; otherwise it is not possible for a reference to be made under the provisions of clause 20 (a). They must so agree and jointly make a request, because they both agree that the matter should go to arbitration. And if they separately agree one in one room, and another in another room, they still agree. And once they have agreed, then there is arbitration. I cannot see the difficulty that the Member for Tanglin sees in all these matters.

Sir, if one party wants to be difficult and refuses to sign jointly, then will that mean that on a technical point the trade dispute cannot be recognised?

Mr Speaker, Sir, if they agree, then there is arbitration. If they do not want to agree, the Minister can act under clause 28 (c).

Sir, in view of the explanation given, I beg to withdraw. Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Original amendment agreed to.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 12, line 9, to leave out from "(b)" to the end of line 14 and insert "a trade dispute has been notified to the Registrar by the Commissioner in accordance with Part III of this Ordinance;". Sir, I see that the Minister also has an amendment to this clause, but I would like to explain why I consider my amendment necessary and why the amendment proposed by the Minister is not in keeping with clauses 18 and 19 of Part III of this Bill. Sir, under this particular clause there are several ways whereby a Court can take cognizance of a trade dispute. One way is that an employer and a trade union of employees both agree that they should refer their trade dispute to the Court, and the Court then takes cognizance. Paragraph (b), as it stands, says that even though the Minister may have directed the Commissioner to notify the Registrar of the Court that a trade dispute exists, the President of the Court may, if he feels that a further attempt at conciliation is desirable, not take cognizance of the trade dispute, but may exercise his power under clause 29. As we know, Sir, there is now agreement that clause 29 should be deleted. I feel that once a notification has been made to the Registrar of the Court by the Commissioner on the direction of the Minister in accordance with clause 18 or clause 20, then the Court must take cognizance of the trade dispute.

Honourable Members will have noticed that the Minister himself has given notice of art amendment: In page 12, to leave out lines 9 to 14 inclusive- in effect, the whole of paragraph (b). Therefore, up to that point, both the hon. Member for Cairnhill and the Minister are ad idem. It is only when the amendment moved by the Member for Cairnhill seeks to insert the words that there is a "dispute". I will therefore first put the Question, "That lines 9 to 14 inclusive proposed to be left out, be left out." When that is agreed to, I will then put the Question, "That the words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted." A debate may then take place on that Question. I trust that is convenient to honourable Members? Hon. Members indicated assent.

Question, "That the words from '(b)' to the end of line 14 proposed to be left out, be left out," put, and agreed to. Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted". 6.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it seems to me that we are going over and over again over the same ground. I have taken the trouble to explain to the House that our intention in removing the whole of paragraph (b) is that we must give some recognition to the bargaining power of unions in the process of collective bargaining. We must never give the impression that arbitrations are automatic. That is why, in removing the provisions of paragraph (b) as we have proposed, we have also proposed a further amendment to paragraph (c) of the same clause, so that the Minister has an over- riding right to send any trade dispute, whether it is an ordinary trade dispute or a trade dispute affecting essential services, to arbitration. He can do this at any time, whether at the time when both parties refuse to negotiate, or any of the parties refuses to negotiate, or at the time when negotiations deadlock. Whether he has intervened in conciliatory proceedings or not, the Minister has that over-riding right to send any dispute to arbitration. We have done that, because we must give some regard to the collective strength of the unions in the bargaining process. Sometimes with a little show that they are determined to take action, the unions might be able to persuade the employers to see the reasonableness of their demands. That is the reason which has induced us to make these amendments. If the amendment which the Member for Cairnhill has suggested were to be made, that is once the Minister has refused to intervene and it stops there - as indicated in clause 18 (4) and clause 20 (b) - then there will be an automatic notification to the Registrar of the Court, in which case the Court automatically takes cognizance. Now that could be a very dangerous position to be in, because it may result in the Court being bogged down with a lot of work if the impression is given that these arbitrations are automatic. I have explained all this, and it is clear from the amendments proposed that we are giving effect to this intention.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as a result of reading this particular paragraph, I tabled this amendment, which was submitted to the Clerk long before the 10th of February, to ensure that the President of the Court shall not again be given another trial. I have said that the Minister himself agrees that clause 29 should be disagreed to. There we are together. But if we do not have this amendment to paragraph (b), then under clauses 18 and 20, suppose the Minister wants to direct the Commissioner to notify the Registrar, where does he come in? Because he does not direct. He certifies in the Gazette. If that is to be by certification, Sir, then I submit that clauses 18 and 19, as approved, should be so amended. Clauses 18 and 19 say "notification by the Commissioner on the direction of the Minister." If there is to be no direction by the Minister to the Commissioner to notify the Registrar, then say so. There need be no direction. It can just be by a certification. But once you have it in clause 18 and clause 20, where comes that direction? If a direction is given, how is it going to be applied in clause 28? I am just asking that. If it can be applied by a certification, well and good. But if it cannot, some way must be found whereby such notification can come under clause 28.

The main point, Mr Speaker, is this. If the Minister has the power, and it is the intention that the Minister should have the power, to direct that a trade dispute be submitted to arbitration, it is superfluous for the Commissioner for Labour to have such power. If we want to put it in that the Commissioner for Labour shall have the power to inform the Registrar of the Court, then paragraph (c) should not therefore be amended. Paragraph (c) could be left out altogether, because the Minister can direct the Commissioner to notify the Registrar. What is envisaged in this situation is this: that parties to a dispute who do not come to any settlement may or may not find that the Minister would direct that the trade dispute be submitted to arbitration. The procedure would be that the Minister, by notice in the Gazette, so directs, and the administrative procedure would be that the Commissioner would be told by the Minister to inform the Court. The reason why we consider the amendment by the Member for Cairnhill to be unacceptable is this. It would, in fact, mean a re-establishment of the original position, and the original position envisaged in this Bill was deadlock and automatic cognizance by the Court. We have, by this amendment, moved away from that original position, in that we foresee possible recalcitrants, either on the part of the union or the employer, not wanting to reach a settlement by negotiation, because the recalcitrant party knows that any way the dispute will be going to arbitration, so there is no harm in stalling. This may result in one of two things. Theoretically speaking, you may get a situation where there are pending in the Court, by automatic notification, one hundred or two hundred cases, and it will be impossible for the Court to resolve these disputes for months or maybe years. Therefore until we know exactly how the machinery functions, we consider moving into a more practical position, one where it goes to the Court, when both parties consent, or the Minister directs. The Minister directs, he gazettes his directions, and the Commissioner for Labour informs the Registrar. Whether a dispute goes to arbitration or not, if the two parties cannot agree, depends solely on the discretion of the Minister. And whether the Minister directs that the dispute goes to arbitration or not depends upon the position of the Court at that time, the position with respect to that particular dispute. I therefore urge upon the House that if we accept the position - that we are unable to predict exactly the pattern of conduct that unions and employers will follow as a result of the implementation of this provision - it will then be wiser to leave the discretion to the Minister alone.

I can understand all that and I sympathise with the Government. I know they have now changed from the stand of compulsory arbitration to one of not so compulsory arbitration. But what I have been trying to point out to the Government is this. Clause 18 and clause 20 lay down certain requirements on the Commissioner. Now it is well and good if the Commissioner notifies the Minister and the Minister directs, "Hold your hand, do not inform the Registrar." Then paragraph (c) will come in. But suppose the Minister says, "Go ahead and notify." Where does it come in? If you look at paragraph (c), Sir, the amendment, if I have read it right, is that the Minister by notice in the Gazette directs that the trade dispute be submitted to arbitration. Which trade dispute is it? We do not know. But it must be qualified as to which trade dispute it is. But if one says the trade dispute that is notified to him under clause 18 or clause 19, one can then understand what trade dispute it is. But it just says directs "the trade dispute". There is no qualification for the particular trade dispute. If the Hon. Minister will read what this amendment is about, then he will know. He has withdrawn the words "an essential service" but has left in the words "trade dispute" which refers to "essential service", and that means nothing.

It appears to me that we are also debating amendment (iv). Therefore, for the convenience of hon. Members, the debate can also range over this amendment. Amendment (iv) is to leave out in paragraph (c) "certifies in respect of a trade dispute with regard to employment in, or in connection with the provision of, an essential service that it is in the public interest" and insert "directs".

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have a lot of draftsmen - people who are interested in drafting - sitting opposite us this afternoon. Mr Speaker, my attention has been drawn to clauses 18 (4) and 20 (b). Those are the clauses where it is provided that when there has been a refusal to negotiate by one of the parties or by both the parties, or when negotiation has broken down, it will be the duty of the Commissioner to notify the Minister, and unless the Minister otherwise directs, the Registrar will be informed - information, that is all. There is all the difference in the world between, say, information, (that is, the Registrar of the Court is informed), and what the Member for Cairnhill is now wanting us to agree to, namely, that once the Minister has directed the Commissioner to notify the Registrar, then the Court shall take cognizance. That is where we disagree. We say that there is nothing wrong in this and I think that it is desirable that the Registrar of the Court should be so informed. If there is a trade dispute between two parties and one side has refused to negotiate or both have refused to negotiate, or if negotiations have deadlocked, then the Registrar should be informed, because he is the channel of communication between the Commissioner and the Court. But there is also a world of difference between the Registrar being informed and the Court taking cognizance. Now if the Member's suggested amendment is agreed to, then the moment the Registrar is informed, the Court will have to spring into existence. The Court takes cognizance and the President is there. He is always there. It will be his duty then to get the employer's and employee's panels constituted. That is what we seek to avoid, and that is why we have taken out the whole of paragraph (b) and made the amendment to paragraph (c) of the clause.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it would appear that the Minister cannot understand what I have been trying to explain to him. I did not say that mine was right. I based my amendment on what is in there. Now that the Government has withdrawn from the stand of compulsory arbitration, therefore the Government's amendment is almost in line with mine. Well, that is good, so let us go ahead with the amendment. Let us talk on the amendment. Suppose a notification is necessary to the Registrar, because the Minister does not otherwise direct. 6.30 p.m. What is going to happen? At first we say it is here under clause 28 (b); it is going to be this way. But now we are going to take clause 28 (b) out. But what is going to happen? In regard to clause 28 (c), the Minister has now proposed that he will direct that the trade dispute be submitted to arbitration. I again agree with him. But I am asking him, what is the qualification for this dispute that he directs that "trade dispute"? Which "trade dispute"? There must be some qualification.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we seem to be talking round and round the subject. I have made the position quite clear. The Member for Cairnhill is now saying to this House that the Government has receded from its stand on arbitration. Where has it receded? The powers given to the Minister in paragraph (c) - the amended powers-over-ride all that the parties may say. One side may agree to arbitration. The other side may violently disagree to arbitration. Both sides may not want arbitration. They prefer a trial of strength. The Minister can still intervene and say that the matter be referred to arbitration. So there are all the safeguards written into the clause. Now, all that we want to do by the amendment is to make a distinction between a mere routine information to the Court, and cognizance. We have got to draw that distinction, because if the Court is informed through the Commissioner for Labour under the provisions of clause 18 (4) and clause 20 (b), well, that is a routine information to the Court. But if the amendment which the Member for Cairnhill makes is accepted, then on mere information the Court shall take cognizance. It is a matter then that is laid before the Court. There is a President and he will then have to see that the panels are constituted for the Court. We do not want that to happen, and that is why we want to delete the whole of clause 28 (b) and make the amendment to clause 28 (c). It is a very simple point and I do not understand why so much difficulty is seen in it, Sir.

Sir, could the position be this? The Hon, the Prime Minister has said just now that if there are 200 trade disputes, then the position will be very difficult. We understand that. But supposing at that moment there is only one trade dispute, and under clauses 18 and 20 certain disputes could not be settled. What then happens? The Commissioner shall notify the Minister and, unless the Minister otherwise directs, the Registrar that a trade dispute exists. If the Minister directs the Commissioner to inform the Registrar and the provisions of clause 18 or clause 20 are complied with, then by virtue of clause 28 as envisaged, the Court shall not take cognizance of that trade dispute. If that is the position, then the only way in which a trade dispute could be taken cognizance of would be for the Minister to act under the proposed clause 28 (c). Is that the position the Government want to reach?

Mr Speaker. Sir, what we, in fact, have in clauses 18 and 20, is machinery whereby the Court is kept informed of the general industrial position. Whether it is a particular dispute of which the Court will have to be informed, unless the Minister intercepts under clause 18, will depend upon the decision of the Minister. If the amendment moved by the Member for Cairnhill is accepted, then it means that the Court, in accordance with the procedure of keeping it abreast of all negotiations which are deadlocked, will automatically be notified by the Commissioner, again on the direction of the Minister - unless the Commissioner is an independent entity from the Minister - and it will then take cognizance. There is no point really in this situation because we are giving the Minister power anyway under paragraph (c) . So what happens is this, that the Court is informed of all the disputes which are deadlocked. The Minister may or may not say that the dispute is for arbitration. That is exactly the position therein.

I understand the position, Sir,I am not pressing with my amendment. What I was saying is -

Sir, if the -

- if it has to be a trade dispute in regard to paragraph (c), then it has to be so qualified. That is all there is to it.

But surely it is not the business of the Legislature to try and tell the Minister how to identify a trade dispute. If he cannot identify it, then I think things are in a very bad way. Amendment negatived.

Will the Minister move amendment (iv) formally? Amendment made: In page 12, lines 15 to 18, to leave out "certifies in respect of a trade dispute with regard to employment in, or in connection with the provision of, an essential service that it is in the public interest" and insert "directs".-[Mr Byrne]. Clause 28, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 29- Question proposed, "That clause 29 stand part of the Bill."

Mr Speaker, Sir, the note says, "That the clause stand part of the Bill" be negatived, and I so move that it be negatived.

It is not necessary to move. Of course, the Minister can explain why.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is actually a consequential amendment. If clause 28 (b) is removed, it follows that the provision for clause 29 must disappear.

There is a note that Tun Lim Yew Hock has given a similar notification.

Question put, and negatived. Clause 29 accordingly disagreed to. Clause 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 31-

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 13, line 14, after "Government", to insert- S.I. 1958 "relating to any matter which would No. 1956. entail an expenditure of public funds or with regard to which the Yang di-Pertuan Negara is required under the provisions of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, to act on the advice of the Public Service Commission or the Legal Service Commission". Mr Speaker, it is the intention, by this amendment, to give the Civil Service the right to take a trade dispute from the collective bargaining stage right up to arbitration without any reference to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara only in such matters which do not affect public funds or which do not affect the functions of the Public Service Commission. Mr Speaker, Sir, as the Government is accountable for taxpayers' funds, it is necessary that, before any trade dispute between the Civil Service and the Government is referred to arbitration, that dispute is stopped from arbitration if it affects public funds or any matters which come under the competence of the Public Service Commission. The amendment so provides, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the amendments that have taken place to clause 28 of the Bill, I am wondering how clause 31 can ever be called into operation. Clause 31 says: "Where the Court has cognizance of a trade dispute...". Now the only way in which cognizance of a trade dispute could be taken by the Court would be under clause 28. Clause 28 (a), as amended, says that it shall be a joint submission. Clause 28 (b) is off. The new clause 28 (b) [old clause 28 (c)] says where the Minister directs in the Gazette; and the new clause 28 (c) [old clause 28 (d)] says where the Yang di-Pertuan Negara by proclamation so declares. So applying that to clause 31, if the Minister for Finance and the Government union do not jointly submit, it does not become cognizable by the Court. If the Minister under the new paragraph (b) does not direct it in the Gazette, the Court cannot take cognizance, and similarly under the new paragraph (c) the Yang di-Pertuan Negara does not declare by proclamation, then it is not a cognizable trade dispute. Mr Speaker, Sir, I dare say the Yang di-Pertuan Negara will not proclaim unless he is advised by the Minister. Under paragraph (b) in this particular instance, I cannot see the Minister directing; under paragraph (a) I cannot see the Minister for Finance agreeing to a joint submission. Therefore, I cannot see how clause 31 can ever be called into operation. But as the original clause 28 stood, Sir, clause 31 could have come into operation because, under clause 28 (a), it could have been an individual submission rather than a joint submission. In view of the amendment to clause 28 (a), I am wondering whether the provisions of clause 31 would ever be called upon.

Is it with or without the amendment?

With or without the amendment, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the problem is not as simple as has been expounded by the Member for Farrer Park. Under clause 28, it is not necessarily the Minister who certifies. The Member may be aware that there are such things as Joint Whitley Councils. It is true that officials normally act under the direction of the Minister, but there is nothing to prevent the Official Side and the Staff Side from jointly agreeing on an official basis that the matter should go for arbitration in accordance with existing Service agreements. Therefore, to make the position quite clear, we have included this amendment so that, in certain circumstances, it cannot, even when it comes under civil service procedure, go to arbitration. In the words of the amendment, "any matter which would entail an expenditure of public funds or with regard to which the Yang di-Pertuan Negara is required under the provisions of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, to act on the advice of the Public Service Commission...". Mr Speaker, Sir, civil service Whitley Council machinery being what it is, the Government is justified in taking a very cautious view in these matters. Amendment agreed to. Clause 31, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 6.45 p.m. Clause 32-

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 13, line 20, to leave out "shall" and insert "may". The reasons for this amendment have already been given. Amendment agreed to. Clause 32, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 33 to 35 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 36-

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 14, line 3, to leave out "five" and insert "three". Sir, I have already explained the purpose of this amendment. Amendment agreed to.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 14, line 5, to leave out "two years" and insert "eighteen months". I have already explained the purpose of this amendment. Amendment agreed to.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 14, line 6, to leave out from "(3) " to the end of line 22 and insert- "Where some or all of the persons and trade unions bound by an award, by an agreement registered under section 23 of this Ordinance, agree that the award or the award as varied by the agreement shall continue in force for a period not being less than eighteen months or more than three years after the date on which it would otherwise cease to be in force, the award or the award as varied shall as between the parties to the agreement continue in force for such period. (4) The Court may whether or not an award has ceased to be in force, on application by a person or trade union bound by the award, order that the award, or the award as varied by the order, shall continue in force for such period, not being less than eighteen months or more than three years, after the date on which it would otherwise cease to be in force, as is specified in the order.". Mr Speaker, Sir, these amendments are regarded as drafting improvements. As the clause stands, it is not clear that the parties may bargain for the future or approach the Court to extend an award when an agreement or an award is in force. Under these amended provisions, the parties to an agreement or an award can agree before a registered agreement or an award expires to continue the agreement or award in force with or without variation. If they cannot agree to make a new agreement from the date of expiry of the registered agreement or award, the Court can so award. Amendment agreed to.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on the amendment to clause 4 -

Is it a consequential amendment?

No. It was a question asked by the Member for Farrer Park.

I think we will have to wait. Clause 4 has, in fact, been postponed till after the consideration of all the remaining clauses.

Mr Speaker, I think it was the intention of my colleague not to bring the discussion round to clause 4, but he would like to make an explanation as regards that clause so that Members on the other side may apprise themselves of the position before we come back to that clause. It might be useful.

That is completely out of order in so far as Standing Orders are concerned. I think we had better stick to our Standing Orders. Clause 36, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 37 to 41 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 42-

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 17, line 11, to leave out "two years" and insert "eighteen months". I have already explained the purpose of this amendment. Clause 42, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 44- Question proposed, "That clause 44 stand part of the Bill."

On a point of clarification, Sir. The last two lines of clause 44 read: "... in any court and shall not be subject to certiorari, prohibition, mandamus or injunction in any court on any account." Sir, I always understood that it was part of the inherent jurisdiction of the Courts that these writs will always continue to run. Is it the intention that these writs are to be completely excluded? Will the Minister please explain to the House why, by virtue of this provision in the clause, the Courts will be prevented from exercising their inherent jurisdiction in so far as these writs are concerned?

Mr Speaker, Sir, it must be obvious to the Member for Farrer Park - although he is trying to be difficult tonight - that an award is final and conclusive, and that any order made by the Industrial Arbitration Court is final and conciusive as far as an award is concerned. If the Court goes outside of this, then the prerogative writ of prohibition would be available to prevent an excess of jurisdiction. The power of the Industrial Arbitration Court is to arbitrate on a trade dispute of which it has cognizance, and a "trade dispute" is a dispute as to industrial matters, as defined in clause 2. Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Industrial Arbitration Court began to arbitrate on matters not in dispute, it could be prohibited. Likewise, if it declined to arbitrate, mandamus would lie, so that in the exercising of its jurisdiction in the matter of awards with respect to trade disputes, the orders of the Court are final and conclusive, but if it goes outside that, then writs of prohibition and mandamus do lie.

On a further point of clarification, Sir,I appreciate what the Minister says, that if an award is in connection with an industrial dispute and all the terms set down in the Ordinance are complied with, then that is the end of the matter. But supposing some of the conditions set down in the Ordinance are not complied with, would this still exclude certiorari, prohibition or mandamus?

If it could be shown that the Court was not properly constituted or anything of that sort, then I would say writs would- lie. That means certiorari would lie.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 45-

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 17, line 36, after "by" where it first occurs, to insert "an employer or". Sir, that is to say, a person bound by an award or a person authorised by "an employer or" a trade union bound by an award shall upon application be allowed a reasonable opportunity of comparing a copy of an award or order with the original. That is to say, both sides to the dispute can have similar facilities.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the amendment is accepted. I am most grateful to the Member for Cairnhill for suggesting this. This is an occasion tonight where he is really trying to be helpful. Amendment agreed to. Clause 45, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 46 to 48 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. 7.00 p.m. Clause 49-

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 18, line 34, after "union", to insert "or an employer". This is to equate the punishment for a trade union of employees and the employer.

This is connected with the next amendment*, and perhaps the Minister can touch on that as well. * The amendment reads as follows: In page 18, line 35, to leave out "an employer or".

Yes. Mr Speaker, Sir, it follows that to equate punishments with regard to paragraph (a), you must leave out "an employer or" in paragraph (b). Amendment agreed to. Amendment made: In page 18, line 35, to leave out "an employer or".-[Mr Byrne]. Clause 49, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 50-

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 19, line 10, to leave out "entitled to the benefit of" and insert "bound by". This is to bring the provisions of this clause into line with clause 37 (f), where it is provided that all members of a trade union are bound by an award. Amendment agreed to. Clause 50, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 51-

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 19, lines 15 and 16, to leave out "entitled to the benefit of an award and an employer bound by the" and insert "and an employer bound by an". This is a consequential amendment, Mr Speaker, Sir. Amendment agreed to.

I suspend this Committee for a few minutes. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

7.06 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, under Standing Order 32, I beg to seek the assent of the House to move a motion, That at its rising today, the Assembly do stand adjourned to tomorrow, 13th February.

The relevant Standing Order is, as pointed out by the Leader of the House, that: "Notice shall not be dispensed with in the case of a motion or in respect of any other proceeding for which notice is required except with the consent of the Speaker and the general assent of Members present." The motion proposed to be moved by the Leader of the House requires notice. I give my consent, although my Saturday afternoon might be spoilt! Is it the pleasure of honourable Members that the motion be moved? Hon. Members: Aye.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That at its rising today, the Assembly do stand adjourned to tomorrow, 13th February. Sir, I would like to add these words. The Leader of the Opposition has indicated to me that he will be absent on Monday [15th February], and because it is necessary to accommodate the Opposition as well, I have so moved.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That at its rising today, this Assembly do stand adjourned to tomorrow, Saturday, 13th February.

Debate in Committee resumed.

7.08 p.m.

We are still on clause 51.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 20, lines 5 and 6, to leave out "the Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister or to". With your permission, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would also like to talk about all the other amendments - Nos. (iii) to (vii)* - because they are all involved in the same principles. * The amendments read as follows (iii) In page 20, lines 9 and 10, to leave out "the Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister or". (iii) In page 20, line 12, to leave out "the Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister or". (iv) In page 20, lines 15 and 16, to leave out "the Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister or". (vi) In page 20, line 21, to leave out "Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister or the". (vii) In page 20, lines 31 and 32, to leave out "informed by the Minister or by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister or is"

Yes.

Clause 51 primarily deals with the Commissioner's powers to inquire into complaints. Sub-clause (5) makes it possible for any person to complain to the Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister, or to the Commissioner that a trade union or person bound by an award has committed a breach or non-observance of any term of an award. Mr Speaker, Sir, my point in moving this amendment is this: where there is a statutory civil servant charged with the carrying out of these functions, I feel it would be much better to let him carry out his duties under the Ordinance rather than for the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister to be involved in personal individual complaints. If it were a matter of policy, or a matter that affected public interest or affected a section of the public, then I think it would be right and proper that the Minister should be brought into the picture. But here, Mr Speaker, Sir, is an individual complaint from somebody who is aggrieved by an award. The statute provides machinery whereby that grievance can be inquired into by the Commissioner, as he is the person charged with that duty. In the circumstances, I see no reason whatsoever, other than political, for bringing the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister into the picture. Mr Speaker, Sir, if you will look at clause 49 of the Bill which reads: "Any trade union or person bound by an award who has committed any breach or non-observance of any term of an award shall be guilty of an offence...", there are several safeguards of which a person aggrieved by an award can avail himself. Under clause 49, it is made a criminal offence, and under clause 51 (5), the Commissioner is charged with the duty of inquiring into a complaint to see whether such an award has, in fact, been broken. Mr Speaker, Sir, other than to complicate the issue, it could serve no useful purpose to let three persons have the handling of the particular complaint, when eventually the complaint will be directed, to the Commissioner for inquiry. Would it not be better for the Commissioner himself to go into the complaint and then hold an inquiry? If there has been any breach, perhaps action might be taken under clause 49, or the Commissioner himself might take action under the particular clause. My own view, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that once an award has been made and machinery provided to enquire into complaints, particularly when that is a criminal offence, it is highly undesirable for the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary not to come into the picture.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this clause deals specifically with the case of private agreements which arise out of collective agreements. It is considered not right and proper that a Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary should be deprived of the powers which are granted to an official of the Ministry, particularly in the Ministry of Labour and Law. Mr Speaker, Sir, in cases where this sub-clause (5) applies, the complaint is usually made by the aggrieved person - the complaint that, say, his employer is not giving him the terms of an agreement which arose out of a collective agreement between the employer and the trade union which represented him. In that case, surely it should be open to the aggrieved person to make his complaint either to the Minister or to the Parliamentary Secretary or to the Commissioner for Labour. It may be a dispute between him and his employer as to whether the award in the collective agreement is applicable to his private contract of service. In that situation, Mr Speaker, Sir, it would be the duty of the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary, or the Commissioner for Labour to refer the matter in dispute to the Labour Court. Under this clause, we are not, in any way, attempting to side-step the procedure that is laid down with regard to the bringing of actions before the Labour Court. That will go on. 7.15 p.m. All that we seek to do here is to obtain the powers to initiate action. If an aggrieved person comes to us, we will accept his complaint. We will find out what he wants. If we can, we will summon his employer, and if the employer agrees that there is a breach of the award, we will then get his consent to meeting the request of the aggrieved person. If not, and if there is an issue of fact to be decided between them, we will send the matter to the Labour Court. That is all we are seeking to do under this clause. Again I would say that there is nothing sinister in all this.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the word "sinister" is in the mind of the Minister for Labour and Law. Sir, what I am saying is not sinister. What I am saying is that it is highly undesirable for the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary to get into the fray at this stage. "Award" includes an award not only of a collective agreement made by mutual consent, but an award made by the Court of Industrial Arbitration. That is how it is defined in the defining clause. `"Award" means an award made by the Court'. A collective agreement, in certain circumstances, when it is registered with the Court becomes an award. So that the award spoken of, Mr Speaker, Sir, in clause 51 is an award which might either be given, in the first instance, by the Court or a collective agreement registered with the Court. What is the necessity for the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary when the Commissioner exists and the Commissioner has Assistant Commissioners who, under the Labour Ordinance, have similar duties and functions to perform? I beg to submit, with respect, that one does not want to give these inquiries, resulting from alleged breaches of awards, a political flavour. It could well be, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary could be subject to political pressure of a kind that the Commissioner cannot and would not be subject to.

I am unable to accept the last argument submitted by the Member for Farrer Park. The reason why my colleague, the Minister for Labour and Law, is insisting that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary should be among the persons to whom complaints can be made is because, from his experience in the last eight months, he has discovered that union leaders and union members not unnaturally have preferred, in most cases, to make their complaints to the Parliamentary Secretary for reasons which are not difficult to understand. The permanent officials are there. They were permanent officials to the last Government. They are permanent officials there today. It is a fact which we have to accept. The point is that neither the Minister nor the Parliamentary Secretary can participate in any of the judicial processes to decide whether or not there has been a breach. All that the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary can do is to ascertain whether or not there is a matter to be referred to the Court for such action as can proceed under the Ordinance. These powers are just the powers to summon either the union or the employer to answer truthfully questions relating to the existence of an agreement. The enforcement of any breach of observance of an agreement is not in the hands of the Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary or the Commissioner. Whilst, politically, I would say that it is not a duty which the Minister would want to perform all the time, there are situations where it is more judicious for the Minister himself to make such inquiries. It is, I think, a common practice. When the Member for Cairnhill was the Minister for Labour and Welfare, not very infrequently he had to deal with employers and unions not only in relation to alleged breaches of awards but to a host of other important matters relating to employers and unions. There is nothing novel or unusual in these provisions. Amendment negatived.

I take it that the Member will not be moving amendments (iii), (iv), (v), (vi) and (vii)*? * see footnote at cols. 293-4.

I am not moving. Clause 51, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 52 and 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 54-

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, In page 22, line 28, at end, to add- "(5) Where the Court punishes as contempt a failure by a person to comply with an order of the Court, that person shall, during a period of two years from the date on which the punishment is imposed, or such lesser period as the Court may determine, be ineligible to be nominated for election as an officer of a trade union or a branch of a trade union or a federation of trade unions or to act as such an officer. (6) A person who acts as an officer of a trade union, or a branch of a trade union or a federation of trade unions while he is ineligible by reason of subsection (5) of this section shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction by a District Court to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months or to a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars or to both such imprisonment and fine and for a second or subsequent offence shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not less than six months and not exceeding three years.". Mr Speaker, Sir, I have already explained that it is the intention of Government to negative the provisions of clause 56 and to add to clause 54 the provisions of clause 56 which places trade union leaders under restriction against participation in trade union activities if they so conduct themselves as to commit contempt of court. These sub-clauses give effect to that intention. Amendment agreed to. Clause 54, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 55-

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 22, line 29, to leave out from "Court" to the end of line 43 and insert- "that a number of members of a trade union sufficiently large to form a substantial part of its membership refuse to accept employment in accordance with an award the Court may, subject to such conditions as it thinks fit, by order cancel or suspend for such period as it thinks fit all or any of the terms of the award so far as the award applies to or is in favour of the trade union or its members.". Mr Speaker, Sir, the amendment we propose will enable the Court to cancel or suspend the operation of an award in more limited circumstances than the Bill originally proposed. The power will be exercisable only in the event of members of a trade union seeking to pick and choose those parts of an award which are acceptable, and repudiating those parts which are not acceptable. The Court has the discretion, in these circumstances, to direct that the whole of the award be accepted. If not, the whole of the award would be cancelled. Amendment agreed to. Clause 55, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 56- Question proposed, "That clause 56 stand part of the Bill."

Does the Minister wish to add anything further?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have already given the reasons why it has now been proposed that the Question that clause 56 stand part of the Bill be negatived, and I do not propose to add to what I have already said.

Question put, and negatived. Clause 56 accordingly disagreed to. Clauses 57 and 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 59-

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 25, line 9, after "interest", to insert- "or that, having regard to the provisions of any relevant award made by the Court or made under the industrial Courts Ordinance or of any relevant collective agreement registered under this Ordinance or made before the coming into operation of this Ordinance and not so registered, the trade dispute or matter or part thereof ought to be dismissed". Mr Speaker, Sir, most of the considerations in clause 29 (2), which are relevant when the President decides whether he will direct that the trade dispute be referred to arbitration, that is, the clause which we have proposed to delete and which has been deleted already, are also relevant on the question whether the claims should be dismissed under clause 59 (g). For this reason, these provisions have been added to clause 59 (g). Amendment agreed to. Clause 59, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill, Clauses 60 and 61 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 62-

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 25, line 38, after "union", to insert- "or, in the case of a trade union of employees, by an officer of the trade union or by an industrial Relations Officer selected by the trade union". Mr Speaker, Sir, I have already explained the reason for this amendment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the amendment has already been moved and accepted by the Opposition that there shall be no "trade union of employees", and all reference to a trade union could only refer to a trade union of employees. Therefore, I think that amendment tacked on to paragraph (a) may be making things more confusing. There is no longer a trade union of employers being a party to negotiations. That has been accepted by the Government, as a result of representations by the trade unions. Therefore, there is no such thing as a trade union of employers before the Arbitration Court. Such being the case, therefore, reference to any trade union could only be to a trade union of employees. 7.30 p.m.

Has the Member for Cairnhill read the amendment right? The amendment reads "of a trade union of employees" and not "employers". We are on amendment (i).

That is right, Sir. What is amended is that, being a trade union, it "may be represented by an officer of the trade union". This obviously means "trade union of employers". But there is no longer any trade union of employers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I have the right to congratulate myself on having followed the argument of the Member for Cairnhill. His argument is that since any trade union that appears before the Court must be a trade union of employees, we can safely leave out the words "of employees". But I do not wish to go into the intricacies of draftsmanship. I do not think the addition of the two words "of employees" really makes the legislation other than proper. It might be that even though in the definition the unions referred to are unions of employees, there is no great loss of space by the addition of the words "of employees" in just one reference to it in this amendment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will not take all the sorties from the Opposition Members lying down. To prove my point conclusively, I will refer them to clause 62 of the Bill where the distinctions are made. Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 62 (1) (b) reads: "In proceedings before the Court a party or intervener-

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Minister for Labour and Law is rather tired. Far from the Opposition following the debate unintelligently, I think it can congratulate itself on having followed it intelligently. I think what my colleague the Member for Cairnhill means is this. Paragraph (a) of clause 62 (1) reads: "being a trade union may be represented by an officer of the trade union;" and the proposed amendment reads: "or, in the case of a trade union of employees, by an officer of the trade union or by an Industrial Relations Officer selected by the trade union". So therefore, the amendment there seeks to draw a distinction between "a trade union" and "a trade union of employees". But what the Member for Cairn-hill said was that in an industrial dispute there cannot be a trade union of employers. Therefore, the amendment does not seem to read right.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not want to allow that remark to pass. It is incorrect to say that the amendment does not read right. It might well be that those with all-embracing minds can argue that since no trade union of employers can appear before the Court, therefore, the words "of employees" become superfluous. But I do not see why that should in any way detract from the merits of the Bill and the drafting of the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it does not detract from the merits of the Bill one bit. But what we are now saying, Mr Speaker, Sir, follows on what the Minister for Labour and Law has told this Assembly, that, as a result of discussions with trade unions of employees, he has considered that, in so far as proceedings under the proposed Ordinance are concerned, there cannot be a trade union of employers as defined in clause 2. I take it that the Minister will be dealing with that in due course. In any event, he has told the House that so far as an industrial dispute is concerned, it will be between a union of employees and an employer. If that is correct - it must be correct, because the Minister for Law has spoken - then what is the meaning of "being a trade union may be represented by an officer of the trade union" and, in addition to that, it talks about "a trade union of employees"? Therefore, what precedes the trade union must be the "trade union of employers", and the Minister himself has said that there cannot be a trade union of employers so far as this Bill is concerned.

No, Sir. There cannot be a trade union of employers who are parties before the Court. Clause 62 (1) envisages a situation where, in proceedings before the Court, a party or intervener - and there is nothing to prevent a trade union of employers from intervening.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I can assure the Member for Farrer Park that however hard he and his colleagues try to tire me, 1 am not going to be tired. Mr Speaker, Sir, the provisions of clause 62 have been carefully looked into. That clause deals with the position of parties before the Court. As a matter of note, Sir, it provides for representations before the Industrial Arbitration Court, and it deals with the representations of the parties before the Court. Now, the employer may be in a trade union and he may be represented by an officer of the trade union. Mr Speaker, Sir, where he is not in a trade union, if, say, an employer can participate in collective bargaining, his employee could appear. The employer could under (ii) on the next page, page 26 of the Bill, be a member of a trade union, in which case he would have the advantage of using the services of an officer employed by the employer's trade union to represent him before the court. Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, we wish to make this distinction - the distinction between the single employer who has the advantage of that service (that is, his representation before the Court by an officer of the trade union to which he belongs) and the service that we wish to provide to the employees' unions. When we appoint the Industrial Relations Officers, we want to make these officers available only to the employees' unions. That is all that we are seeking to do. That is why we make this distinction to distinguish that position from the position that is indicated in clause 62 (1) (b) (ii). I do not know whether the Member for Cairnhill wants us to make a further amendment to make this service also available to employers.

Sir, the Minister has great difficulty in understanding what we are trying to say. Perhaps he can help us who are trying to understand what he is saying if he will explain to us what is meant by the words "trade union" in line 37 of paragraph (a) of clause 62 (1)?

It means a "trade union of employees". Mr Speaker, Sir, I have already indicated that this clause deals with the representation of parties, and under the collective bargaining procedure in clause 16, the only parties to a collective agreement or to arbitration proceedings would be the single employer and the trade union of employees -

Or the intervener.

Or the intervener.

Yes. Trade union of employers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with respect to the Minister, I think the difficulty has arisen because clause 62 has been framed in the way it has been framed. It is because the original concept was that the words "trade union" should include "trade union of employers" as well as "trade union of employees". But we have since then departed from that concept and we now say that "trade union" shall mean "trade union of employees". Until the Minister takes it upon himself to redefine "trade union" on page 3 of the Bill, we will be constantly running into this difficulty. Since clause 62 (1) (a) reads "being a trade union", we must necessarily go back to page 3 to find out what "trade union" is and whether "trade union" is defined as "trade union of employers" or "trade union of employees". Therefore, as the definition now stands, "being a trade union of employers may be represented by an officer of the trade union of employers;" or "being a trade union of employees may be represented . That is how it should read, Mr Speaker, Sir. An amendment is brought in to draw a distinction between a trade union of employers and a trade union of employees. If I may take it upon myself to redraft this paragraph, in view of the changes, I think all that need be done is to say: "In proceedings before the Court a party or intervener-

No doubt the Minister will consider that point when he deals with the new definition of "trade union". 7.45 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think we have made the position clear. A trade union may be represented by an officer of the trade union, and we go on to add this provision in the amendment that we propose - "or, in the case of a trade union of employees, by an officer of the trade union or by an Industrial Relations Officer selected by the trade union". Mr Speaker, Sir, we are making the distinction. We show quite clearly the difference between the provision of clause 62 (1) (b) (ii) which deals with the representation of employers by officials of their trade unions, and the services that we propose for the union of employees. Amendment agreed to.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 26, to leave out lines 3 to 7 inclusive and insert "but may be represented by an advocate and solicitor if so desired.". Sir, I tabled this amendment because I felt that to deny the trade unions a chance to be represented by an advocate and solicitor to present their case concisely, clearly and effectively in the Arbitration Court would be to make it difficult for them. I did say, Sir - and it has now been accepted by the Minister for Labour and Law - that not all trade union officers are well trained and capable of handling the cases of their unions before the Arbitration Court. And past experience has shown that where a trade union has the benefit of the services of an advocate and solicitor to represent it either in conciliation proceedings or in a Court of Inquiry or in an Industrial Court, that union has the advantage of having its case very well presented. That union, with the help of an advocate and solicitor, would come out of the conciliation proceedings in a much better light than if it were denied the right to engage an advocate and solicitor to look after its interests. In fact, Sir, it has been the practice - in fact, the custom too - in previous years that in trade disputes of this kind, unions were wont to call upon the services of advocates and solicitors who put the benefit of their knowledge and experience to use when presenting the unions' case. I do not wish to suggest that, because those advocates and solicitors referred to by me earlier in my speech are no longer in a position to render such assistance to the trade unions, other advocates and solicitors should be so denied. I know that that is not the case. The way I look at it is that the Government, in moving this particular clause, says that it must be an officer of a trade union. They do not want lawyers; they do not want professional agitators. Therefore, clause 62, so far as it goes without the proposed amendment, is good. I would have accepted that, I would have said an additional amendment "of an industrial officer to assist a union" would be good but now - I must range over the proposed amendment of the Minister - the Minister in his proposed amendment, which is to be moved after my amendment, throws the gate wide open to people who may not be honestly and sincerely connected with the trade union movement. I refer, Sir, to professional agitators. If we want to close the gate to advocates and solicitors from helping trade unions in presenting their case, we must also close the gate to all those people who are not trade unionists or who are not closely connected with the trade union movement.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as the Member for Cairnhill knows, the intention is to exclude advocates and solicitors from taking part in the collective bargaining process or from the representation of interests before the Industrial Arbitration Court, except in cases where there are proceedings for contempt of the Court's authority or where the State Advocate-General has intervened, The reason why Government has decided to exclude advocates and solicitors from these functions is that, though it is accepted that they are skilled in the orderly presentation of arguments before the Court and in the examination and cross-examination of witnesses, this very fact would give the proceedings a forensic atmosphere which would put a lay advocate at a disadvantage; so that the side that does not have Counsel feels at a disadvantage. We have pointed out that it will be necessary to make proceedings arising from collective bargaining before the Court as informal as they can be. Mr Speaker, Sir, there is also the question of the costs of professional representation. The employer's side can well afford these costs, but in most cases they are prohibitive as far as the employees' unions are concerned. What we are seeking to do is to extend to the arbitral stage that spirit which prevails in the bargaining process rather than to introduce Counsel, forms and the sort of approach that is common in courts of law, where technical points are usually taken in the course of arguments. We believe, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the purpose of this legislation should be to encourage the officers of trade unions on either side to handle their own members' affairs. If they receive this en- couragement, they will thereby increase their own prestige in this field. It is quite obvious that they will not be able to develop this skill and prestige if, as soon as the case that is handled by them during the collective bargaining stage is passed on to the Court of Arbitration, Counsel are brought in and they take over from them. That is not the way of increasing their prestige and of developing the sense of responsibility that we want to see developed in these union officials. Furthermore, Mr Speaker, Sir, union officials on both sides who meet round the bargaining table and in the Court develop a habit of dealing with each other on friendly terms, and they will, by close association, be able to have confidence in each other and to establish close friendships. In dealing with each other, they will be able to feel that they are in industrial relations together. Say you get trade union officials of employers and you get trade union leaders appointing their own officials, Now in the bargaining process and so on, there will be very hard words passed across the table, but they will get to respect one another in these discussions. Mr Speaker, Sir, the exclusion of advocates and solicitors only extends to those who appear as such. There is nothing to prevent an officer of a trade union from being a professionally qualified man, but special provision has been made in this legislation to prevent a practising lawyer from having himself appointed as an officer of the union for a particular case so as to get round the provisions directed against professional representation. Such a person must have relinquished his practice for six months before he meddles in these matters. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would also like to draw attention to the fact that paid agents are also excluded. This is to stop people starting a new group of industrial advocates - a kind of new industrial legal profession.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we are indeed very surprised that this amendment should be made to the Bill, because, in the eyes of the Minister, it looks as if advocates and solicitors who participate in the work of reconciling the different parties in a trade dispute are highly undesirable people. It also implies that in previous years, the Hon, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Labour and Law himself, by their; example, proved that they were highly undesirable. If they believe that their top leaders performed an important function in trade disputes in previous years, there is no reason therefore why their fellow advocates and solicitors should at this time be barred from conducting the activities which they did before, Although it would bar a former Chief Minister from activities in the trade union field, we on this side have decided that, in the interest of industrial peace, the door should also not be open to others who would make it more difficult for industrial peace to be achieved, But when the amendments proposed by the Government open the door to anybody, by whatever name, to come in and interfere in trade disputes, I think it is wrong to exclude advocates and solicitors. If it is the intention of Government to bring about an amicable atmosphere conducive to an early settlement of disputes, and that advocates and solicitors should not be included to prolong negotiations, I think the next amendment by the Minister* should not come in. The public, Sir, may infer that this is an attempt by the Government to prevent the return of a former Chief Minister into the public limelight. * The amendment reads as follows In page 26, lines 9 to 11, to leave out "a person in the employment of a trade union as a full-time secretary or assistant secretary" and insert- "for the purposes of any proceedings before the Court a person appointed by the body, by whatever name called, to which the management of the affairs of the union is entrusted, to represent the trade union in those proceedings".

It might interest Members on the other side to know that my instincts were to stand up for the rights of advocates and solicitors, on the theory that a case is best presented when you have two trained, skilful and disciplined advocates rapidly crystallising the issues in a case, My view is that that should be the position. However, I have been persuaded by my colleague, the Minister for Labour and Law, who informs me that far from helping to crystallise the issues at dispute, they very often befog their clients. He is firmly of the opinion that it is more likely that justice will be done if both employers and unions, through being naive, honest and sincere, put forward points - both good or otherwise - in their respective cases, and that an intervention from the sometimes skilful and sometimes less skilful advocate only helps to prolong and be devil a proper and rapid conclusion of the hearing of an arbitration. Sir, I would hate to admit that on principle we might save time by excluding advocates and solicitors -

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee has made progress on the Bill, and beg leave to sit again tomorrow, 13th February.

So be it.

Resolved, "That this Assembly do now adjourn."-[Dr Toh Chin Chye]. Adjourned accordingly at Eight o'clock p.m.