Mr Speaker, Sir, one of the early declarations of policy by the Government is the encouragement of the formation of national unions of workers. The Opposition does not find fault with this policy. In fact, the Opposition supports and welcomes this policy. But then, Sir, the declaration of a policy is one thing, and the method employed to implement that policy is quite another thing. I do not propose now, Sir, to go into details the many acts of suggestive intimidation and of the many manipulations that are being practised by the P.A.P. trade union leaders in an endeavour to win over uncommitted unions and organised workers. Today I wish to speak on a national union for workers in the petroleum industry. I want to make it clear that I am not speaking as adviser to the Singapore Petroleum Workers Union, but that I am speaking today as a trade unionist. Sir, the distribution of oil has been classified as an essential service under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance. It is, therefore, imperative that everything must be done to see to it that industrial peace and justice are not upset as a result of irresponsible activities on the part of employers and unions alike. Sir, when the Government came into power in June 1959, there were in existence four trade unions representing workers in the petroleum industry. The Singapore Petroleum Workers Union, the oldest union, was registered in 1952. The Shell Employees Union, the Stanvac Employees Union and the Caltex Employees Union came into being in succeeding years. To strengthen themselves, these four unions formed into a Federation of Oil Workers Unions in 1958. Hon. Members will recollect that with the formation of this Federation, there was a joint demand on the oil companies for recognition and for a bonus. And if I remember rightly, the advisers to this Federation at that time were the Hon. the Prime Minister and the Minister for Labour and Law. Sir, after the Government had made known its policy on national unions, the Shell Employees Union, the Caltex Employees Union and the Stanvac Employees Union held several meetings with a view to the formation of a national union. It was because of the deliberate exclusion of the Singapore Petroleum Workers Union, which was then and still is the oldest registered union, that these discussions did not result in the formation of a truly national union for oil workers. The Shell Employees Union and the Caltex Employees Union became amalgamated into a National Union of Oil Workers. The Stanvac Employees Union, however, pulled out of the discussions. Sir, the N.U.O.W., which is led by P.A.P. members, was registered on the 27th January, 1960. And consequent upon this registration, the Stanvac Employees Union was notified by the Registrar of Trade Unions that it would be deregistered. This was obviously, Sir, due to the Government playing politics in this particular field. If the Stanvac Employees Union had toed the line and agreed to become absorbed into the National Union of Oil Workers, then the Singapore Petroleum Workers Union would have been deregistered for the same obvious reason. Sir, because of the registration in January 1960 of the P.A.P.-controlled N.U.O.W., because of the deregistration of the Stanvac Employees Union which refused to become absorbed into the NU.O.W., and because of the P.A.P.-controlled T.U.C.'s acceptance of affiliation of the newly registered P.A.P.-controlled N.U.O.W. and their unjustified non-acceptance of affiliation of the Singapore Petroleum Workers Union, which was registered in 1952, it became obvious to people outside that the P.A.P. was playing party politics in this particular sector. Sir, it was also inevitable that there would be trade union rivalry in the petroleum industry. As a trade unionist, I could see that this rivalry would be to the detriment of the workers in the industry. So when I was approached in February this year by the Singapore Petroleum Workers Union to be its honorary adviser, I accepted the appointment on one condition: that the S.P.W.U. agreed to empower me to see the Minister for Labour and Law to take steps towards the formation of a truly national union of oil workers. With this authority, Sir, I saw the Minister for Labour and Law and offered my services to bring unity among the oil workers. Under the chairmanship of the Minister, Sir, there was a meeting with representatives of the N.U.O.W. and the Secretary-General of the T.U.C. At this meeting I put up my suggestions for the formation of a truly national union of oil workers and I was told that I would be informed at a later date of the views of the N.U.O.W. No such information materialised. Sir, rival union activities intensified. The leaders of the P A.P.-controlled N.U.O.W. in campaigning for members made full and free use of the Minister's name. They intimated that the Minister had told them that he would deregister the S.P.W.U. So why join the S.P.W.U. which had earned the displeasure of the Minister? The S.P.W.U. then, in an attempt to resolve this issue, requested the oil companies to conduct a secret ballot among the employees to ascertain which union the employees would wish to have to represent them. The N.U.O.W. objected to this and intimated that the proper thing to do was to conduct an industry-wide secret ballot of all direct employees to ascertain which union should be the union to survive to represent the workers in the petroleum industry. Because of the intimation of the N.U.O.W., the S.P.W.U. then requested the Minister for Labour and Law to conduct such an industry-wide secret ballot of all direct employees. This request, Sir, did not elicit any reply from the Minister for some time. The S.P.W.U. then called a general meeting and explained the situation to its members. At this particular meeting it was unanimously resolved that strike notices should be issued to the oil companies to gain recognition. Sir, the issue of these strike notices coincided with the sending of a letter by the Minister to the S.P.W.U. inviting them to send representatives to a meeting together with representatives of the N.U.O.W. and of the oil companies to discuss the arrangement for conducting an industry-wide secret ballot of all direct employees. Press reports, Sir, in this connection indicated that the Minister was very, very angry indeed with the S.P.W.U. for having sent strike notices, and it was also indicated in the Press that the Minister threatened to take action against the S.P.W.U. unless the S.P.W.U. withdrew the strike notices. Sir, this meeting arranged by the Minister duly took place in the Ministry under his chairmanship. At this meeting the Minister quite rightly pointed out to the representatives of the S.P.W.U. that there could be no discussion on the arrangement for conducting an industry-wide secret ballot of all direct employees unless the S.P.W.U. withdrew the strike notices. The representatives of the S.P.W.U., in order to discharge their responsibilities to their members, elicited from the Minister that the strike notices were not contrary to the laws of the State and that should an industry-wide secret ballot take place, the union winning the ballot would survive. The representatives of the S.P.W.U. told the Minister that they had no power to withdraw the strike notices but that they would go back to the general body and advise them of the wishes of the Minister. The meeting then terminated. The S.P.W.U., Sir, issued a circular to their members calling them to a general meeting and informing them of what took place at the meeting in the Ministry of Labour and Law. This circular telling the facts obviously got under the skin or the Minister and he rushed to the Press and denied that he ever gave an assurance at that meeting to the representatives of the S.P.W.U. that should an industry-wide secret ballot take place the union winning the ballot would survive. As was to be expected, Sir, this caused great resentment in the minds of the members of the S.P.W.U. Therefore, I was asked to attend their general meeting because it was felt that the meeting might become highly critical of this kind of double talk. I therefore attended the meeting. And I must say, Sir, that that meeting was very, very firm in its feelings against the Minister for denying what they believed their representatives had told them the truth. There was strong talk of not wanting to withdraw the strike notices. Sir, I was able to pacify the meeting. I explained to them that they should not take heed of any kind of double talk that had been going on; that if any industry-wide secret ballot were to take place, it would be ridiculous and foolish on the part of the Government to ignore the union that came out successful in a ballot conducted by the Government. Therefore, the meeting should take no heed of whether or not the Minister did or did not give an assurance. I was also able, Sir, to persuade the meeting to withdraw the strike notices, because I explained to them that it was a proper thing to do; that if the discussions at the Labour Ministry with all the parties concerned were to be conducted in an atmosphere of cordiality and in a spirit of goodwill, then the strike notices should be withdrawn. Sir, some spies of the Minister rushed to him and misinformed him of my speech at that general meeting. And behaving in a manner that is typical of the Minister, he rushed into press and accused me of saying things that I did not say and threatened a probe into my alleged utterances. Sir, a probe in this particular context can only mean one thing - a form of suggestive intimidation. I read this Press report when I was in Brunei. The Hon, the Prime Minister was also there attending the Sultan's birthday celebrations. And believe me, Sir, I had a good laugh about how silly a P.A.P. Minister could be. Sir, this kind of suggestive intimidation is really typical of the Minister for Labour and Law. The public has not yet forgotten the threat that he issued against an employer - the threat of using the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance on an employer. The public has not yet forgotten that. Sir, even if I had, as misreported by the spies of the Minister, said the things that it was alleged that I had said, surely it was in the exercise of my democratic rights; or are we to understand that under the P.A.P. Government there is now no longer freedom of speech as there is now no longer freedom of the Press as stated by the Member for Hong Lim? Sir, the meeting then agreed to withdraw the strike notices, and so the representatives of the S.P.W.U. attended another meeting at the Labour Ministry. At this meeting the N.U.O.W. turned about face and did not agree to an industry-wide secret ballot of all direct employees although it was their original demand. And they then insisted that the secret ballot should only be confined to members of the unions. Sir, if the Minister for Labour and Law had really been impartial, he would have insisted that the N.U.O.W. stick to their original demand. But then, Sir, could one expect a P.A.P. Minister to render a slap to a P.A.P.-controlled union? So the second meeting was again abortive. A third meeting took place again on the 11th of October. Nothing came out of it. But it was left to the two unions to talk among themselves and find a way out of this difficulty. The S.P.W.U. then wrote a letter after this meeting to the N.U.O.W., inviting them to a meeting to discuss ways and means to resolve their differences and form a truly national union for oil workers. Sir, while this correspondence was going on as to when, where and how such a meeting should take place, the Justice Chua Court of Inquiry submitted its report to the Minister for Labour and Law. This report had been given publicity in the Press. Among other things, the Court recommended that to put an end to this union rivalry it was imperative that one national union be created. The Court also found that the action taken by the N.U.O.W. was a strike within the meaning of the laws of the State. As the N.U.O.W. had not complied with the law by giving a 14-day strike notice, the N.U.O.W. had therefore indulged in an illegal strike. The union leaders and the N.U.O.W. are therefore liable to prosecution. Sir, the report of the Justice Chua Court of Inquiry came out in the Press on the 24th of October. The S.P.W.U. submitted demands to the three oil companies for better conditions of employment and these demands were given prominence in the Press on the 25th of October. On the 26th of October - just a big knife. The union was told by the Registrar of Trade Unions that the Registrar was satisfied that this union should be deregistered. Both unions were then told by the Registrar of Trade Unions that they would be deregistered. Sir, the action against the N.U.O.W. was called for because of the findings of the Justice Chua Court of Inquiry. The N.U.O.W. had indulged in an illegal strike. The leaders of the N.U.O.W. had behaved in an irresponsible manner. Therefore, it was quite right that the union should be deregistered. But why penalise the S. P.W.U. also for an act committed by a rival union? Sir, according to the notice issued by the Registrar of Trade Unions, the ground for such proposed cancellation was that "the Registrar is satisfied that the trade union is likely to be used against the interest of workmen in the petroleum industry." Let us take note of the operative words "the trade union is likely to be used" and not "the trade union has been used" against the interest of workmen in the petroleum industry. Sir, is it against the interest of workmen for the union to submit demands on the employers for improved conditions of employment? Or is it because the Government is very anxious to protect the interest of employers, and that is why the R.T.U. had to clamp down on the trade union which had submitted demands to the employers for improved conditions of employment? Sir, if the Registrar of Trade Unions had not taken that action against the S.P.W.U., the union and the employers today would be sitting round a table negotiating for a new wage agreement for workmen in the petroleum industry and certain benefits were bound to accrue. And yet the ground for the cancellation of registration is that the union is likely to be used against the interest of workmen in the industry. Sir, during the general election, the P.A.P. promised that it would help to raise the standard of living and help to improve the conditions of the workers in the State. I do not want to suggest, Sir, that the P.A.P. has forgotten its promise, but if it has not forgotten its promise, how can we reconcile this with the fact that the Government had to close down the union one day after it had sent in a demand for improved conditions of employment for workmen in the State of Singapore? Sir, the N.U.O.W. have accepted the justification for the deregistration. Obviously, they could not protest because they were in the wrong; but the S.P.W.U. have strongly protested against this unjustifiable action. They claim that it is not fair and justifiable on the part of the Government to punish them for an irresponsible act perpetrated by a P.A.P.-controlled union. They say that they should not be punished for what they did not do. I would like to know what the Government proposes to do about this. It is not right and proper that this union should be deregistered. But then again one can ask the question, "Will this solve the situation in the petroleum industry?" But I, Sir, know the leadership of the S.P.W.U. quite well, and I can say this, that this leadership is prepared to reorganise the union and bring in the leaders of the N.U.O.W. to form a truly national union of petroleum workers. 4.50 p.m.