Hansard, 1960-02-13

PERMISSION TO MEMBERS TO BE ABSENT The following Members have, under the provisions of subsection (2) (g) of section 42 of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, obtained from the Speaker permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of the Assembly: Miss Fung Yin Ching (Stamford) - 12th February, 1960. Mr Lee Khoon Choy (Bukit Panjang) Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture - from 16th February to 10th March, 1960. Mr Teo Hock Guan (Changi) - l3th February, 1960.

INDUSTRAL RELATIONS BILL Order read for resumed consideration in Committee.

INDUSTRAL RELATIONS BILL 2.31 p.m. Clause 62-

INDUSTRAL RELATIONS BILL An amendment has been proposed*: * An amendment proposed by Tun Lim Yew Hock on 12th February, 1960. In page 26, to leave outlines 3 to 7 inclusive and insert "but may be represented by an advocate and solicitor if so desired.". The Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

INDUSTRAL RELATIONS BILL There was an oblique reference yesterday by the Member for Tanglin, that perhaps Government may have infamous intentions to prevent the resuscitation of dead men. Sir, we do not require a steamroller to crack such little nuts as ex-Chief Ministers who have disgraced themselves. As a matter of fact, -

INDUSTRAL RELATIONS BILL Present company excepted!

INDUSTRAL RELATIONS BILL The present company always excepted. We are all honourable men here. Nothing is more likely to expose the hypocrisy of one's political convictions than continued demands on one's time for no monetary rewards. I can assure Members on the other side of the House that, whilst there may be a, lot of hard work and maybe some political kudos, there is no money in this. I can only say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that my friend and colleague, the Minister for Labour and Law, has assured me that it is his consistent experience that things are more quickly resolved, and issues are more quickly and honestly joined without garnishing, when two parties face each other across the table without the assistance of skilled advocates. It is our sincere hope that this, in fact, will continue to happen in these Courts when employers and unions are made to present their cases, in the case of the employers through their officials, and in the case of unions of employees, through the Industrial Relations Officers. For myself, I would like to add that I think it is a matter for some regret that what was once believed to be the royal road to acknowledgment as a champion of the cause of labour, should now be trodden by those who are prepared to he champions not Only for the few weeks that they may be in the Arbitration Court but for an extra period of six months prior to arbitration. I am quite sure there will be up and coming, earnest, dedicated men and women who will, in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Relations Bill when it is enacted, make the sacrifices necessary in order to qualify co be champions of labour.

INDUSTRAL RELATIONS BILL Sir, before I speak on the amendment, I would be obliged to the Minister for Labour if he would inform the House what exactly is meant by "intervener" in line 40, page 25 of the Bill, in reference to these proceedings? Does it just mean anybody who intervenes, arid what interest must he have before he intervenes?

INDUSTRAL RELATIONS BILL Mr Speaker, Sir, "intervene" means to intervene. Any party who can show an interest or any person, who can show an interest in the intervention, intervenes. And it will be up to the Court to decide whether to accept that interest as a legitimate intervening interest when such intervention is made.

INDUSTRAL RELATIONS BILL I submit, with respect, Sir, that "intervener" probably had a meaning when "trade union" meant a trade union of employers, too. But so far as "employer" is concerned at the moment, I do not see how anybody can intervene on his behalf. Maybe an intervention could still take place with regard to a trade union of employees, but with regard to the employer, I do not see how anybody can intervene on his behalf except he himself - he is left to fight his own battle. But if an employer has been served under clause 16 by a trade union of employees, then a trade union of employers could intervene under clause 62. Now that a trade union of employers is out of the picture entirely, and the employer is left to fight his own battle, I do not see who would be foolish enough to intervene on his behalf - in a losing battle anyway.

INDUSTRAL RELATIONS BILL Has this anything to do with the amendment before the House?

INDUSTRAL RELATIONS BILL Yes, Sir, it will have something to do with it when I speak later.

INDUSTRAL RELATIONS BILL I think the Member for Farrer Park has not envisaged a situation which very often can arise. Let us say a dispute arises between the Aerated Water Workers' Union and the Phoenix Aerated Water Company as to what would be the fair rates of pay for the workers. The decision on that would affect Fraser &Neave, and members of the union who are in Fraser & Neave. Therefore, it is quite open for another firm, also in the aerated water business, to want to intervene and say, "Whilst the Court is considering the wages and conditions of service and the state of the industry, I would like to give evidence." It is true that the award would only be binding on the immediate parties before the Court, but a party in a similar industry might want to come in and say, "Let me present my facts as I see them." In that case, the employer would be an intervener. Or vice-versa, it might be that the workers in Phoenix Aerated Water Company might belong to one trade union, and the workers in Fraser & Neave in similar occupations might belong to another, and they might want to come in and give evidence.

INDUSTRAL RELATIONS BILL Mr Speaker, Sir, the latest submission by the Member for Farrer Park adds considerable weight to my suggestion earlier - that the Front Benchers opposite have taken very little trouble to understand the meaning of this Bill. If the Member for Farrer Park would look at clause 61 (1), he would see that there is provision for the State Advocate-General to intervene in any dispute in the public interest. Going on to sub-clause (2), it expressly provides that: "Where the State Advocate-General has intervened in proceedings before the Court the Court may grant leave to any trade union or person to intervene in those proceedings." Surely that must have some reference to clause 62 - there is the provision of intervention in addition to what the Prime Minister has just indicated to the House.

INDUSTRAL RELATIONS BILL I would point out to the Minister for Law, in regard to his interpretation of "intervener", that the "intervener" I was thinking of was the "intervener" as it appears in line 40 of page 25. However, I will come back to that. Mr Speaker, Sir, there is on the Order Paper a notice of amendment on page 26 of the Bill in respect of the definition of "officer" in so far as this particular clause is concerned. Sir, may I be allowed to dwell on that too while I address the House on this particular amendment, because it would be relevant to my submission?

INDUSTRAL RELATIONS BILL Yes.

INDUSTRAL RELATIONS BILL Sir, as I said yesterday, whether or not clause 62 is a fair clause depends entirely on the concept of the Bill. In the Bill as it was originally, the concept was to hold the balance evenly between the two disputing parties. In my view, clause 62 is not unreasonable in trying to shut out advocates and solicitors, because it also shuts out everybody else, so far as the union of employees was concerned. The clause says that only a person who is a full-time secretary or assistant secretary may appear for a union. That is fair enough. But after representations have been made by trade unions of employees to the Minister, the Minister now proposes to alter the definition, Mr Speaker, Sir, as appearing in page 54 of the Order Paper Supplement [12th February, 1960] -

INDUSTRAL RELATIONS BILL We are now on the new Supplement.

INDUSTRAL RELATIONS BILL Anyway, the proposed new paragraph reads: '(a) "officer", in relation to a trade union includes 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.' As I understand it, a trade union of employees could appoint anybody, other than an advocate and solicitor, to represent them under that paragraph. So that X union could appoint the secretary of Y union, or vice-versa. Or they could appoint a complete outsider who has specialised in trade union activities. So far as the trade union of employees is concerned, there are two additional weights in their favour. First, they have been given the use by Government, at government expense, of an Industrial Relations Officer, who is himself an officer trained in such matters and who would be able to plead for the trade union of employees in a manner perhaps even better than can some advocates and solicitors, because he has been trained in that particular branch of Government work or trade union work. Over and above that, there are also persons at the disposal of trade unions of employees who themselves are specialists. Mr Speaker, Sir, recently we had an instance where one Political Secretary attached to the Government was given leave of absence. He went and so ably conducted the case for a trade union of employees that they won the case. Such a person would be available to all trade unions of employees who find themselves in difficulties with their employers. Now, the balance has again been upset. So long as a trade union of employers could take up the cudgels on behalf of an employer, there were some reasons to exclude advocates and solicitors, because the trade union of employers themselves might have secretaries who were well versed in these matters, and therefore those persons would have been able to appear for the employer in question. But now that too has been shut out. An employer must stand on his own. He cannot go to a trade union of employers. So you get the position, Sir, where two weights have been added in favour of the trade union of employees, and one weight which was in favour of the trade union of employers has been taken away. It is not always true, Mr Speaker, Sir, that an employer is a very rich person. An employer might be just struggling along like an employee. There are several very small employers in Singapore- persons who run a sewing business, a tailoring business, or a little coffee-shop -and they might have employees. And the employees might have a dispute with such an employer. The employer might be an illiterate person. Though very keen and clever in his business, he might be quite incapable of presenting his case to the Arbitration Court or even before a conciliation officer. Do we not know of instances, Mr Speaker, Sir, where people who are so voluble outside dry up once you ask them to stand on their feet and talk? It is a gift to be able to talk sensibly under pressure, and not all persons can do that. So at every point, the employer is faced with a disadvantage. How then can this be weighted in his favour again? If he cannot avail himself of somebody, then who could plead his case without fear or favour? Would not that person be an advocate and solicitor? Why is he being shut out? Originally, Sir, there was some point and purpose in the Bill, because things were balanced. Only secretaries and assistant secretaries of unions could appear for the unions. But now that has been extended to cover everybody, provided he is not a paid agent or an advocate and solicitor. 2.45 p.m. According to the Minister for Labour and Law, the main objection to employing an advocate and solicitor was that it was an expensive business. Sir, if an employer wants to engage an advocate and solicitor at his expense, why should the Minister object to that? Also, why should a trade union of employees object to an employer incurring expense in order to put his case correctly? If, as the Minister says, advocates and solicitors charge high fees appearing for trade unions of employees, well, the unions are not interested in advocates and solicitors. They have got the Industrial Relations Officers, who would be doing these jobs and doing them very well, available to them. So the unions are all right. Therefore, to say that because of expense an employer should be deprived of the services of an advocate and solicitor does not somehow seem right to me. The Minister also said, Sir, that skilled and orderly presentation of a case would give a trade dispute a forensic character. I beg to defer with the Minister on that point, because a good administrator can present the facts with skill and order. He need not be an advocate, and because he is doing that, is his Ministry a place where forensic matters are being thrashed out? All that is needed is somebody to put the points succinctly and clearly to the Arbitration Court. That is what is normally expected of an advocate arid solicitor. I think another point the Minister made was that if an advocate and solicitor appeared, there would not be that informality which is so essential in the Arbitration Court. I would submit to the Minister with respect that if the Minister wanted the Court to be informal, I am sure an advocate would make it very informal. There is a further point that advocates tend to become technical. Advocates do not become technical on their own, Mr Speaker, Sir. I take it that the President of the Court would lay down rules for the guidance of the Court, and advocates and solicitors would be guided by those rules. So why then is it necessary to shut out advocates and solicitors, particularly now that an employer has been deprived of the assistance of a trade union of employers, and the employer has to stand on his own feet? If I may come to clause 62 (1) (a) again, it says: "being a trade union may be represented by an officer of the trade union;" and with the amendment; "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." As the Minister himself has said, a trade union must now exclude a trade union of employers, and paragraph (a) refers to a trade union of employees. And paragraph (b), Sir: "not being a trade union," - I take it this now refers to an employer "may be represented by an employee of that party" - in other words, an employer may either appear himself or get his employee to appear for him, or an intervener. Sir. "represented by an intervener" means, I take it, somebody who appears on his behalf. Who could appear on his behalf? Not a trade union of employers - they are shut out. And not the State Advocate-General. So it must be somebody for and on behalf of the employer and at his behest! If that is an intervener, I do not know whether we have got the right meaning of "intervener". The whole objection to an advocate and solicitor, in the first instance, Sir, was that he would upset the balance, because the employer would be able to employ him, but not the trade union of employees. Now that the trade union of employees has been sufficiently and adequately protected, in so far as their representation is concerned, why then should they now object to the employer seeking to get what he considers adequate representation for himself?

INDUSTRAL RELATIONS BILL Mr Speaker, Sir, I am afraid, in the course of the debate, we would be teaching others! As the definition of "officer" appears in clause 62 (2) (a), you will see that representation is restricted to persons in the employment of a trade union as a full-time secretary or assistant secretary. We felt that that was unduly restrictive against the unions as far as representations before the Arbitration Court were concerned. You will see in clause 62 (1) (b) (ii) that employers can be represented by officers of their trade unions. I have mentioned this before: although an employer is not a party to the proceedings, an employer may nevertheless be a member of a trade union. For the purpose of representation, therefore, an employer can make use of the services of an officer who is employed by his trade union. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have in Singapore the experience of seeing big organisations of employers employing specialist officers as trade union experts. I do not wish to mention any names to the House, but it would sound a bell in their memory when I say that. The employers can get the services of trade unionists who sell their skill to the employers as specialists. Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of that, it was considered unduly restrictive to limit the representation on behalf of a trade union of employees to a full-time secretary or assistant secretary of a union. For that reason, we have proposed this amendment. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Farrer Park has overlooked the provisions of clause 62 (1) (b) (ii), where it is provided that all paid agents are excluded. What is a paid agent? A paid agent can be an accountant or a firm of accountants. If we allow them to advertise the fact that they are experts in trade union matters, they could then assist the employer. For that reason, we have excluded all paid agents from espousing the cause of disputants before the Arbitration Court. As the clause originally stood, you will see that it was unduly weighted in favour of the employer, and we have sought to redress that balance. That is why we have amended the definition of "officer" for the purposes of representation to give the committee of the trade union the right to appoint any person whom they consider competent to represent them before the Arbitration Court. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Farrer Park said that the services of advocates and solicitors are also available to trade unions. Is that so? Out of the whole Bar in Singapore, I know of very, very few lawyers who are really interested in trade union work, and who will offer their services to trade unions for a nominal fee. They can be counted on your finger-tips. As against that, the employers have got the services of the whole Bar. You can see quite clearly how everything is weighted against the trade union of employees, and it is for that reason that Government has proposed a further amendment to clause 62 to provide for the appointment of conciliation officers as well as Industrial Relations Officers, whose services will be available to a trade union of employees. On balance, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government can not be charged with favouring the trade union of employees at the expense of the trade union of employers. On the question of legal representation before the Arbitration Court, I have repeatedly told this House that there is a very great difference between the functions of the Arbitration Court, which we propose to set up, and the ordinary Courts. The Courts of Arbitration are not Courts of Judicature - I have repeatedly said that. Their functions are more like those of bodies which concern themselves with delegated legislation. At a glance the process of arbitration and conciliation is not a judicial process. By conciliation, a third party tries to bring the two disputants together, and to narrow down their differences. It is only when he cannot get them to reach an agreement that the question of arbitration arises. And when the question of arbitration arises, it is proper, to our way of thinking, that there should not be a formalistic approach The training of lawyers is such that they are prone to think in terms of precedents; they tend to stand on their rights. Far from helping to bring the parties together, lawyers more often than not make them drift apart. 3.00 p.m. Our purpose right through has been an honest purpose. We have repeatedly said that, though we want both sides to accept the principle of compulsory arbitration, it is our intention that as far as possible they should try to reach agreement, and that only in the last resort, when agreement is not possible, will they submit the dispute to arbitration. That surely is reasonable. On the question of the intervener, Mr Speaker, Sir, I have indicated that the State Advocate-General can be an intervener in arbitration proceedings. There might be reasons why he should intervene. When he does, he would be looking to the public interest in that dispute. If he comes in, then we have allowed legal representation. It is not true that we have excluded all legal representation, as the Opposition Front Benchers have charged. If this clause is looked at carefully, it will be seen that we also allow legal representation when the Court is looking into the question of contempt of Court under the provisions of clause 54. In the case of ordinary disputes, where no legal problems are involved, where no question of contempt is to be looked into, and where there is no intervention by the State Advocate-General, it is right and proper that lawyers should not come in. The Prime Minister has already made the point that if lawyers are interested in this kind of work, they can give up their legal practice. If they give up their practice six months before they get themselves mixed up with these matters, praise be to them.

INDUSTRAL RELATIONS BILL Mr Speaker, Sir, I have just one little point to add, from personal experience too. The Prime Minister has said that he has been informed by his colleagues that it has been his experience that when parties are represented by advocates and solicitors, matters are not so quickly resolved and not so honestly joined. I am sure he does not mean that, because when he was representing one of the parties during my time, I paid him a tribute, since it was because of his presence that the issues were joined more quickly and more honestly. Now it seems to me that he is of the view that if he had not been there, matters might have been still more quickly and still more honestly resolved!

INDUSTRAL RELATIONS BILL I am glad that the Member for Cairnhill appreciates that there are lawyers and lawyers! I can assure the Member for Farrer Park that in my personal experience - this is not hearsay - I have as yet to meet an employer who has not got a managerial staff to put his case across. The problem of an orderly and disciplined marshalling of facts, figures, and arguments arises, in most cases, with the unions. It is in the nature of things that the managerial side has always the intellectual talent to put facts, figures, and reasons logically and succinctly. In the unlikely event of an employer not being a member of a trade association or a trade union of employers, and himself being bereft of intelligence, then I say that, far from the employees' union worrying about how to get more money from him, I think they will be worrying about where they are going to get jobs when their employer's firm goes bankrupt! Amendment negatived.

INDUSTRAL RELATIONS BILL We are now on Supplement No. 14. We are on clause 62. Will the Minister move formally? I think we have had a debate on this amendment already, unless any Member wishes to speak further on it.

INDUSTRAL RELATIONS BILL Yes, I want to speak on the amendment.

INDUSTRAL RELATIONS BILL Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, 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".

INDUSTRAL RELATIONS BILL Mr Speaker, Sir, if I understand it right, the Minister said earlier in the debate on my amendment that the trade unions had objected to the limitation on a secretary or assistant secretary, and therefore, in order to widen the provisions of paragraph (a) he is tabling the amendment. But I would like to say, Sir, that the wording of the amendment throws the gate wide open. Not only does it make it an offence, but it is also not meant to meet the objection. If it is meant to meet the objection, I am sure the amendment should allow for a full-time officer, by whatever name called. He could be a clerk, a general affairs officer, or he could be anybody. But the amendment as proposed by the Minister could mean anyone, it could even mean a Political Secretary. He could even be anyone not connected with the trade union movement. I think the unions' objection is that they are being tied down to the secretary or assistant secretary. Why cannot it be a general affairs clerk? Why cannot it be an organising secretary? Why cannot it be a full-time official who does not carry the title of secretary or assistant secretary? I am sure the Government will have no objection if I amend the amendment to read, "full-time officer, by whatever name called", if that is actually the intention of the amendment.

INDUSTRAL RELATIONS BILL Mr Speaker, Sir, the purpose of the amendment is to enable the trade unions to get the services of people in the trade union movement who are skilled in the presentation of arguments before an arbitral body. The Member for Cairnhill must realise that the purpose of this legislation is to set up an industrial court, and it would be necessary for the unions to obtain the services of people who are skilled in presenting their arguments before the industrial court. Now one union may not have an official who is so skilled. Surely it cannot be wrong for that union to look around for some other union which has a conciliation officer, to enable it to have an official skilled in the type of service that it wants. If you write into the clause the provision that so and so is to be full-time, will you really achieve your purpose? There is nothing to prevent any union committee from deciding that X, who is a stranger to the union, will, for the purposes of the arbitration, be employed full-time. It means nothing. It does not add anything to what you are trying to do. The mere fact that you employ a person to represent your case before the Arbitration Court suggests that he is employed full-time for that purpose. Because arbitration proceedings take a long time, they are not over in the course of one day. I know that some arbitration proceedings take as much as two or three weeks before they are concluded. We leave that latitude to the unions. Surely there is nothing wrong in that.

INDUSTRAL RELATIONS BILL Did the Minister say that the union is free to employ any person to help it to negotiate? Did he use the word "employ"?

INDUSTRAL RELATIONS BILL Yes, or engage if you like, or obtain the services, or what have you. What we do not want is a paid agent. A paid agent is a person who sets up business to assist parties before the Arbitration Court. We do not want a group of undesirables unconnected with the trade union movement putting up notice boards and saying that they are, for the purposes of arbitration, paid agents whose services would be at the disposal of any union which wants to employ them. That would make a farce of the whole proceedings. You can leave the unions to look after their own affairs. We are trying our best to develop a sense of responsibility. We think it unfair that those persons who are in the trade union movement should spend so much time in conciliation proceedings, and when it comes to the presentation of their case before the Arbitration Court, to see lawyers coming in on various pretexts to cash in. We are not trying to make it impossible for the employees to find persons who are skilled to assist them. All that is not our intention.

INDUSTRAL RELATIONS BILL Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it is one of the aims of both sides of the House that there should be industrial peace with justice not only for the workers but for the employers. The other aim, as given by the Hon. Prime Minister, is to establish conditions conducive to industrial expansion, so that that will lead to further employment of more workers. That really is the ultimate aim of this Bill. The intention of setting up this Arbitration Court is to create an atmosphere of confidence in this country so that employers will expand their business and there will be more opportunities for employment. If this clause is amended, then the question is, will it give the employers that confidence so that they will expand their business and employ more people? Let us regard these two groups as human beings. We sometimes take sides. If you are workers, you naturally take the side of the workers. If you are employers, you take the side of the employers. An hon. Member: Which side are you on?

INDUSTRAL RELATIONS BILL Sir, I am a paid man. In this particular case, the Government in a way are employers. When they drafted the Bill - and remember, this is a Government Bill - they balanced competing interests. With the help of their expert draftsman, they produced this Bill, and, all of a sudden amendments are made which show that they have retreated from their position. 3.15 p.m.

INDUSTRAL RELATIONS BILL Order. I think the Member is probably going a bit too far from the amendment before the House, which is to amend the definition of "officer" in sub-clause (2) (a). Let us not go back to the whole principle of the Bill. Let us try and confine ourselves to this particular amendment.

INDUSTRAL RELATIONS BILL Mr Speaker, Sir, I have to refer to the principle because this particular clause goes against that principle. By opening the door so that anybody and everybody could be brought in, it will bring into the field of trade disputes irresponsible people who might be interested in prolonging disputes, and, therefore, the object of creating an atmosphere which will promote industrial expansion would be lost. For that reason, Sir, if the Government feels that the paragraph could not be limited to a full-time secretary or assistant secretary, then it could amend it so that it could include a further class, such as their own legal officers or their own Industrial Relations Officers, without opening the gate to every Tom, Dick or Harry and every trouble-maker in Singapore.