Hansard, 1962-03-19

asked the Prime Minister (a) how many expatriates are still holding posts in the City Council; (b) when these posts will eventually be Malayanised: and (c) whether experienced local officers are receiving training locally or abroad to prepare them for taking over from the expatriates.

Sir, at the moment there are 10 expatriate officers in the Departments of the City Council which have been integrated with the Departments of the Government. Two of the expatriate officers are on the permanent service, having been offered guaranteed employment by the former City Council under its Malayanisation scheme, one up to 1964 and the other up to 1966. Eight expatriate officers are on contracts, of which four will expire during the course of this year: two in 1963 and one in 1964. One expatriate officer is on a month-to-month basis. Local officers in City Council Departments which have been integrated with the Government are receiving training locally and overseas or have been earmarked for further training and will replace expatriate officers as planned for in Government service. There are 27 expatriate officers now holding posts in the City Council Departments that will form the Public Utilities Board. Twelve of these officers were offered guaranteed employment by the former City Council under its Malayanisation scheme as follows:- 4 up to 1964 2 up to 1966 1 up to 1967 4 up to 1969 1 up to 1976 Two other expatriate officers are on the permanent establishment, hut their services are subject to a six-month notice of termination on either side. They will attain the retiring age of 55 in 1968 and 1969. Thirty expatriate officers are on contracts, of which one will expire this year, one in 1963, 10 in 1964, one in 1969. Local officers in the City Council Departments that will form the Public Utilities Board are being given training locally as well as overseas to enable them to qualify for the higher appointments at present held by expatriate officers. Eight of them are studying for electrical engineering degrees, and five for chemical engineering degrees in Australia. The final selection of all local officers for higher appointments, including those held by expatriate officers, will be made by the Public Service Commission.

asked the Minister for Finance (a) how many expatriates are still holding posts in the Government; (b) when these posts will eventually be Malayanised: and (c) whether experienced local officers are receiving training locally or abroad to prepare them for taking over from the expatriates.

There were 509 permanent expatriate officers in the Government service before Malayanisation. Today there are only 13 permanent expatriate officers still in the service. Therefore, Malayanisation has been proceeding faster than scheduled. According to the Malayanisation programme, there should still be 113 permanent expatriate officers in the service. There are, in addition to the 13 permanent expatriate officers, 54 expatriate officers on short-term contracts in the Government. Of these, 47 are either technical or professional officers whose services are required because of the shortage of local professional and technical officers. Suitable local officers are receiving training locally or abroad to prepare them for taking over from the expatriates. We now have no less than 105 persons studying abroad on training courses at Universities and professional institutes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wonder whether those local officers who are sent abroad for training are chosen because of experience in their work or seniority, or is it because they are new people just receiving training.

The persons sent abroad for training can be conveniently grouped into three grades. First, there are serving officers who are sent abroad on short-term training courses; for instance, the staff of Civil Aviation who were sent either to Australia or New Zealand to take specialist courses in Airport Management, in radar control, and so on, and when they come back they will be more efficient after having undergone these training courses. Then there are specialist professional courses which we offer to serving officers in certain senior technical grades. Most of these really are courses leading to post-graduate or specialist qualifications which are offered to doctors, and a fair number of doctors are studying in the United Kingdom and Australia. Then there are first professional training courses or first degree courses which we offer to young persons. Under the previous Government, recruitment for such training courses has been from serving officers in the junior grades; for instance, P.W.D. architectural or engineering technicians or Telecommunications technicians have been given the opportunity to take full professional courses, say, in England. We have found that this policy is wasteful because quite often these junior technical officers have not either the intellectual capacity or the academic background to benefit from these courses. They either just scrape through with a very low pass degree or, as happens only too often, they fail in their professional or academic examinations. So for such courses - for instance, we are having any number of persons doing professional degrees in Engineering or Science or Quantity Surveying etc. - we are getting them straight from those who have passed the Higher School Certificate Examination, and each year we are getting some of the best of these persons for these higher professional training courses.

Mr Speaker, is it true to say then that at the top where there are senior officers serving under the expatriates, the senior officer is being trained to take over the expatriate's job, apart from the junior officers?

I think the question may give the impression that expatriate officers are always above the local senior officers. In fact, all the top posts, i.e, the highest posts in the civil service, like the post of Permanent Secretary, have already been Malayanised, and the expatriates do not occupy them. Take the P.W.D., for instance. The Director of Public Works and his Deputy are local officers. That is the case too in the Ministry of Health. But we need bodies - that is the main thing. You have to have a doctor, or a surgeon, or an engineer. Because we ate so short of these persons. and if they are expatriates and willing to work here. I would say it is all for the good if we can get an extra body to carry the load.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sorry I did not make it clear to the Minister. I did lot mean that the expatriate is always at the top. What I meant is that if a serving expatriate is to be Malayanised, is the local officer immediately beneath him, irrespective of whatever post he holds, being trained to take over his post?

I would say that is the general position. But, of course, there are exceptions. For instance, in the Deputy Prime Minister's portfolio there are Departments such as the Marine Survey Department where you just do not have any local officer, or very few of them, with the requisite professional qualifications. But apart from such rather exclusive services, the position is that local people are being trained to take over.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether he would consider giving two days' holiday to Muslims for Hari Raya Puasa when Hari Raya Puasa falls on the day after the gazetted holiday.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on occasions when Han Raya Puasa falls on the day after the gazetted holiday, the practice has been, after consultation with the Muslim Advisory Board, not to declare an additional holiday, but for the Government to give Muslim Government servants time off in the morning to perform their prayers. Under merger, public holidays other than State holidays will be a Federal responsibility.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as the House is aware, we have four motions more on the Order Paper to deal with in this sitting of the Assembly and the House is also conscious that we have a number of Bills to be proceeded with next week. Now, it is necessary that the work and business of the Government must be proceeded with expeditiously and without delay and therefore it is our desire that these four motions on the Order Paper must be completed within this week. However, as we have no desire to stop any Member from speaking on these motions, I therefore give notice to the House that it will be the intention of the Government to extend the sitting time of the Assembly to 12 midnight from tomorrow. I am just giving the Assembly due notice.

The statement is open to questions. There will be no debate, but questions.

Sir, if the Assembly could dispose of one or two more motions on the Order Paper would it not be better for the suspension to take place tonight instead of tomorrow?

If the House so wishes, I will have no objection.

On the contrary, Sir, since it is Government's intention to finish all business by the end of this week, I see no reason why we should rush like that.

The question being?

The question then being: would it not be better for tile Government to suspend Standing Orders either on Wednesday or Thursday, if it should reach that stage?

Sir, I do not think it would be possible, because I am giving the House due notice, and, as you know, some of the motions here are very controversial. I am making due allowance so that in four days' time, that is, from tomorrow to Friday, we should be able to finish these four motions if we were to extend the sitting to 12.00 midnight.

Further to the explanation of the Leader of the House, today is only Monday. He wants to make sure that all the motions will be finished by the end of the week. If it comes to Wednesday or Thursday, and if the motions are still not finished, would it not be better then to extend the time to 12 o'clock?

The Member for Queenstown suggests Wednesday. I suggest Tuesday.

2.46 p.m. Order read for resumption of proceedings on Amendment [16th March, 1962] to Question [16th March, 1962], "That this House views with grave concern the mounting of industrial unrest and calls on the Government to take all reasonable steps to ensure industrial peace with justice in the interests of the economic well-being of the people of Singapore.". - (Tun Lim Yew Hock). Which Amendment was, `To leave out "views with grave concern the mounting of industrial unrest" in lines 1 and 2 and insert "takes note of the public manifestations of industrial dissatisfaction".' - (Mr David Marshall). Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

The debate now must be confined to the amendment. Any Member wishing to speak on the amendment?

On the amendment?

Only on the amendment.

Sir, I cannot accept the amendment proposed by the Member for Anson. It is my submission that this House views with grave concern the mounting of industrial unrest, have quoted facts and figures to show beyond any doubt that there has been mounting industrial unrest, and surely, Sir, as representatives of the people, we cannot but view this with grave concern, because such a situation is detrimental to the economic well-being of the people of Singapore. Sir, let us now examine the amendment proposed by the Member for Anson. He does not view the mounting industrial unrest with grave concern. By his amendment, he wants this House not to view the mounting industrial unrest with grave concern. Strange, Sir. But is it really strange, especially as this comes from the Member for Anson? in his short speech last Friday, he made reference to the time when I was Minister for Labour and Welfare when he was Chief Minister. When he took office, there was too a spate of strikes, some of which were of a political character. He did not view this with alarm. He did not view this with grave concern, in fact, when he was surrounded by the Press, who were anxious to hear from him what plans he had to meet this challenge, he said with a broad smile. "I love strikes." He loves strikes, Sir. indeed, it might be that it is because of his love for strikes that the Hock Lee strike in 1955 culminated in a bloody riot and the then Chief Minister became a sick man. One would have thought, Sir, that he would have learned something from his bitter experience. But it would seem from his manifestations last Friday in this House that he is incurable, in so far as this particular economic ill is concerned. He wants this House to take note. Take note! Surely hon. Members of this House, as well as the public, have been taking note for some months past of the mounting industrial unrest. And we, having taken note of the mounting industrial unrest now feel grave concern for such a situation as it has created havoc in the economic field in Singapore. There may be some hon. Members who may not view this mounting industrial unrest with grave concern, but if there are such Members, they have failed in their sacred duty to look after the economic well-being of the people who elected them. Sir, what does the Member for Anson want us to take note? He wants us to take note of the public manifestations of industrial dissatisfaction. I say there has been mounting industrial unrest and there are facts and figures to bear me out. This simple statement of absolute truth appears to have stung the Member for Anson into attempting to interpret the present lamentable situation as a public manifestation of industrial dissatisfaction. High sounding words indeed, Sir. Behind them is implied the attitude of the Member for Anson. By his own words, he takes the stand that all the strikes that have bedevilled the country are just, and that trade unions should be given free rein to do damage to the economy of the country and thus to do damage to their own members. I have not in my speech condemned the trade unions for the industrial unrest. What I have sought to do in my motion is to call on the Government to do everything possible to bring about industrial peace with justice, because without industrial peace the economic well-being of the people of Singapore will be jeopardised. A sober speech of mine seems to have made the Member for Anson see in it a touch of hysteria. Sir, it is only one who has been on the fringe of hysteria who can see hysteria where there is no hysteria. This is a sort of illness which one would call a hallucination. Sir, the Member for Anson says that lie has put in his amendment with a view to restoring a sense of balance into the industrial picture. A sense of balance indeed! The hon. Member wants us to accept something that is not borne out by facts in place of something that has been borne out by facts. And he calls this as "restoring a sense of balance". Sir, I cannot accept this because I refuse to allow my mind to be unbalanced by this senseless sense of balance.

He is gila!

Sir, the hon. Member for Anson in his short speech took it upon himself to ridicule me when I made mention of the strike at the Oversea-Chinese Bank in relation to Part VII of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. When I heard him raise the objection. I listened more attentively to his speech and tried to find out from him the reasons for his objection. I heard nothing at all, Sir. This would make me feel that the hon. Member was speaking through ignorance. For his benefit - although he is not here at the moment - and for the benefit of Members who may share the same view as the Member for Anson, let me explain in greater detail what Part VII of the Industrial Relations Ordinance is meant to do.

Order, Is this part of the hon. Member's speech in relation to the amendment? If it is not, then he will have the opportunity of answering that argument at the end of the debate when he replies to the whole motion.

I feel that it will be better if I reserve this. I brought it in just now because it was referred to in the speech of the Member for Anson. I think he brought that up in order to explain away his sense of a touch of hysteria in my very sober speech. I would prefer, Sir, if I may to leave this till the main motion.

Any Member who wishes to speak on the amendment? If not, I will put the Question on the amendment. The original Question was. "That this House views with grave concern the mounting of industrial unrest and calls on the Government to take all reasonable steps to ensure industrial peace with justice in the interests of the economic well-being of the people of Singapore." Since which an amendment has been moved, To leave out "views with grave concern the mounting of industrial unrest" in lines 1 and 2 and there to insert "takes note of the public manifestations of industrial dissatisfaction".

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out," put, and negatived.

The amendment falls. We are now back to the original motion. Question again proposed. 3.01 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am surprised that a subject of such importance should not evoke a greater response from the other Parties. Perhaps that shows that all the Parties represented in the House are agreed that the state of industrial unrest in Singapore is such that it causes grave concern to all who are interested in the welfare of the people of Singapore. Sir, there was a time when the general public would read a report of some industrial trouble with a smile, with passing interest, and make it a subject of conversation at tea parties and so on. Today we are all conscious that when we view this problem, we view it against a sombre background of an ever increasing number of unemployed. The problem is not merely a question of getting fair wages and increasing wages, of which we are all in favour, hut it is a question of encouraging more industries and encouraging traders to expand and employ more people, so that this grave social problem of unemployment can be solved. It is quite frequent coming across a family of five or six depending just on one member. I was visiting some families in an attap house area and I came across a family with about five able-bodied young men, and a widowed mother. Of these five, only one was employed. This one had taken his Senior Cambridge examination and, after a year of unemployment, had at last got a job as a watchman at $4.75 a day. When he looked at me wondering what my opinion was, I said, "You are very lucky to be employed. Never mind false pride. Take it on for the sake of your family." I asked the young men around him. One said, "I too applied for the post of watchman, but there were so many applying that I could not get the job." What about the others, who were not highly educated? They would not be able to get jobs even as casual labourers. There is a case of another man, who had a good job and then was retrenched. He has a large family. After a desperate search for a job, he gave up and his young son who had just left school managed to get a job as an apprentice at a salary of slightly over $100 a month. The whole family, about five or six of them, are dependent on this particular youngster. Naturally, he cannot make ends meet. Meanwhile, the schools are producing thousands of youngsters. Youngsters are leaving the schools by the thousands looking for jobs, and instead of finding more jobs in Singapore, they find a situation where jobs are decreasing in number. Sir, we have read out statistics to prove that since 1957 there are probably something like 15,000 to 17,000 jobs less than before. It is against this background that you have to study this problem of industrial unrest. Yesterday in the Sunday Mail, Sir, we had almost a full-page article entitled "In Search of a Job". The article describes how the writer in 1945 found he could choose any of four jobs. Today there is just a scramble. There are the job-seekers, but there are no jobs. Sir, the Minister for Finance was optimistic that his industrial plans could be effected and he went to Japan optimistically trying to attract Japanese capitalists. When he came back, he admitted that the Japanese investors were worried because of the possibility of more labour troubles when they had invested their capital in Singapore enterprises. The question now is this: who are responsible for these labour troubles? Some people say the Communists are responsible. When I spoke to some of these workers, they admitted that, viewed selfishly, they liked these labour troubles because at the end of every strike they gained higher wages. One cannot but view sympathetically when we look at the problems simply from that angle. But they have to see that if by getting an increase they thereby penalise their unemployed sons and daughters, that price may be too high. I suggest that, instead of viewing this problem from two sides - we usually talk about two sides to a question - we should view it this time from four sides. There is the viewpoint of the workers. We are all very much in favour of giving them higher and higher wages. The Government has a grouse against me in particular because I have kept on digging at them because of the pay-cuts. We are all in favour, if the Government earns more, it gets more revenue, and we want better treatment for the employees. In the same way, if the employers earn more and make more profits, we want higher wages for their workers. We look at it from the point of view of the merchants, the investors, the capitalists. If they dump money into Singapore, they expect returns. Just two weeks ago, a man was telling me that he was building a factory. I asked him, "Where?" "Not in Singapore," he said. Where? Johore Bahru. That means more employment for the people across the causeway and not enough employment, for us here. Naturally, the investors look at it from the angle of profits themselves. But look at it from the point of view of the unemployed. I sometimes wonder whether they should not be allowed to organise themselves into another trade union in this situation where in their own interests, if industrial unrest reaches a high proportion, they could demand that the Government should step in and compel every dispute to be submitted to arbitration. Perhaps when we look at it in that light from the point of view of the unemployed, we see reason, we can see that there is need for another approach to this problem, not merely for ourselves, but of service to the unemployed. Now, what about the other people the general public? The general public suffer inconvenience. The general public are made up of not only people who are unemployed, but they are also made up of the wives and children of the strikers. I remember talking to one trade union leader who led a strike in the Singapore Traction Company for over five months and the Communists supplied him with money to enable him to go on with the strike. But he said a year after that when he had seen the sufferings of the wives of the strikers and their children, he decided that thereafter if he could find a way of solving a deadlock without a strike, he would do it. The strike would be the last weapon and the last resort, because innocent people would be made to suffer. I hope, Sir, that we look at this problem of industrial unrest therefore not merely from the view point of the workers and the businessmen, but also from the point of view of the unemployed in particular. Some people say it is natural that in a strike there is a clash of interests. Any political Party must be on the side of the workers, it is agreed. But let us look at it from another angle, using another approach. Why should the interests of the workers and the employers clash? Are not these two like the wings of a bird? If we damage one wing, what happens to the bird? It cannot fly any more. if we can look at it in that way, that workers and employers both play important parts, that both are like the wings of a bird, and if both are equally strong and cooperating, the bird can fly to greater heights and Singapore can reap greater prosperity, and this prosperity can be shared among more people. The unemployed will have a chance in life and the young people coming out from schools will have a future they can look forward to. If we can look at it from that point of view, Sir, then we can have a hope of solving this problem of industrial unrest. But if we look at it from the point of view of a political struggle, if one Party must outbid the other Party, then, Sir, God help the unemployed. 3.12 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, industrial unrest is not peculiar to Singapore. It is a feature of industrialised or industrialising societies all over the world, in England today, the Government is faced with balance of payments difficulties, and to offset inflationary pressures for general wage increases, has refused civil service claims for improvements in pay and conditions, with the result that teachers, local government employees technical staff, postal clerks and civil service clerks, who are the traditional moderates of the trade union movement in England, have been forced into the front line of the industrial battle. A strike can arise for a variety of reasons and not necessarily because of a dispute about wages and conditions of work. In the B.O.A.C. strike which took place last July, the engineering staff were up in arms against the reorganisational programme of the management with which the union disagreed, even though the management could prove that in the reorganisation, not a single worker would lose his job. The P.A.P. Government has consistently been pro-worker. The first thing we did as a Government was to amend the Trade Union Ordinance to give the Registrar of Trade Unions the power to cancel the registration of trade unions who were splinter or yellow unions and to refuse registration to dissident groups who sought to set up breakaway unions. This prevented the manipulation of the trade union movement by unscrupulous employers. The next thing we did was to ensure that the labour laws were enforced. All employers were required to send in returns of their employees to the Ministry and whenever a report reached the Ministry that the labour laws were not being observed, an inspector was sent round to make an on-the-spot enquiry. If the enquiry disclosed that an employer was not observing the labour laws, immediate action was taken to compel compliance. The Labour Court was strengthened and employees who were wrongfully dismissed or who were denied the benefits of the labour legislation were given every facility to claim payments in lieu of arrears of overtime pay and annual leave which had been denied to them. A sum of more than $1½ million was recovered from employers for the benefit of their employees in this way. To assist the unions, legislation was enacted to make it obligatory for all collective agreements to be registered with the Industrial Arbitration Court and every registered collective agreement is published in the Government Gazette. Where the parties fail to reach agreement, the Industrial Arbitration Court, which is constituted by an independent Chairman and two members, each of whom is drawn from a panel of employers and union nominees, is empowered to take evidence from the disputing parties and to make an award. Both the award and the registered agreement are legally enforceable by the Court. The Court has the power in trade disputes to fix wages, salaries, allowances and other remuneration by prescribing time rates, piece work rates, salary scales, bonus payments, severance pay, retirement benefits, or to make other prescriptions which it considers to be appropriate. In addition, the same legislation provides ample machinery for conciliation when a trade dispute is threatened or arises and recourse to arbitration can be had by a joint request by the contending parties or by a reference of the dispute to the Court by the Minister and, in the case of the Government service or the essential services, by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. For the period 15th September, 1960 to 31st December, 1960, eight awards were made by the Industrial Arbitration Court in industrial disputes and a total of 121 collective agreements covering a total of 36,269 employees were certified and registered by the Court. Up to date, there are eight cases pending before the Court, two of which are considered to be major disputes. This indicates that the machinery for conciliation and settlement of industrial disputes is being used by the bona fide union leaders in the non-Communist unions. But these facts by themselves do not give us a true picture of what is happening in the trade union field. There were 45 strikes and lockouts in 1960 involving 5,939 workers and 152,005 man-days were lost. The split in the trade union movement between unions affiliated to the S.A.T.U group of Communist-controlled trade unions and unions not so aligned took place in July last year. From the 1st July, 1961, to the 31st January, 1962, there were altogether 96 strikes as compared to 27 only for the first six months of 1961. Of the 96 strikes, 69 were called by the unions affiliated to the S.A.TU. group, 24 by unions not so aligned and three by employees not presented by any union. Of the 69 strikes called by the S.A.T.U. group of trade unions, 25 strikes involved expatriate firms whereas only six of the 24 strikes called by unions not aligned to the S.A.T.U. group involved expatriate employers. Twenty of the 31 strikes against expatriate employers were called by the Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union, two by the Singapore Motor Workshop Employees' Union and one each by the Singapore General Employees' Union, the Singapore Spinning Workers' Union and the Singapore Shoe Employees' Union. The larger number of strikes called against expatriate employers by the S.A.T.U. group of trade unions is clearly indicative of an intention on the part of the leaders of this group of unions to create dissatisfaction against foreign capital. It has been noticeable that whereas the pickets in the strikes called by the non-aligned group of trade unions were comparatively well behaved, the behaviour of strikers in strikes called by the S.A.T.U. group was aggressive and offensive. European executives of the firms were often assaulted and subjected to various forms of humiliation. A comparison of the strike action taken by the S.A.T.U. group of trade unions in the same period that the new machinery for conciliation and settlement of trade disputes has been working for the benefit of bona fide trade unionists .shows clearly that there is ample machinery provided by law for the settlement of trade disputes where these disputes spring from genuine grievances; hut where the industrial unrest is simulated and created for political purposes, the Communists invariably resort to direct action by-passing the conciliation machinery available to them and forcing settlements by way of direct strike action. This is done in defiance of Government policy for the promotion of industrial peace with justice and lends support to the forecast of the Prime Minister in this House on the 20th July, 1961, when he pointed out that after the open split of the P.A.P. there was a possibility that the pro-Communists would mount an offensive in the labour and industrial and other fields. I would refer hon. Members to Legislative Assembly Debates, Volume 14, No. 23. In considering the question of industrial unrest, we must therefore be very careful to distinguish genuine industrial unrest from industrial unrest simulated or created for political purposes. What the S.A.T.U. group of pro-Communist trade unions are always seeking to do is not to advance the interest of the workers per se as this is always to them a subsidiary consideration hut to convert genuine grievances into political campaigns against the Government. For instance, in the case of the Robinson's strike there was genuine provocation offered to the workers by the employer but Messrs. Dominic Puthucheary and company never intended to take the dispute to the Labour Ministry. Strike Acton was taken, the main business entrance of the company was obstructed and when the police had to remove the picketers who were illegally obstructing the entrance under the pretence that they were picketing, a demonstration was mounted against the police and the Government. There were many witnesses of this demonstration and when the police vans turned up for the purpose of removing those who were illegally obstructing the main entrance. Dominic Puthucheary was seen by mans to urge all the strikers to get into the police vans to go to the police station. A prosecution was brought against those who were guilty of obstruction but this prosecution was later withdrawn by the State Advocate-General as, on a closer examination of the case, the State Advocate-General thought that the strikers had been misled into their foolish actions by Dominic Puthucheary and company.

To save the Prime Minister.

No, Sir, it was not to save the Prime Minister. There were a lot of witnesses to all this. In view of the new situation created on the industrial front by the leaders of the S.A.T.U. group of Communist-controlled trade unions, the Ministry of Labour has strengthened the Industrial Relations Department by increasing the number of experienced conciliation officers from 4 to 9 officers as on 8th January this year, and, at the same time, new rules are being devised to regulate peaceful picketing so that workers will not be victimised if they wish to work and not participate in such strikes. Labour officials arc posted on duty at establishments affected by strikes and police assistance is sought whenever violence is resorted to either by the picketers or by the employers. As a result of the close watch kept on these establishments by labour officials, a number of prosecutions have been instituted against employees who have been involved in acts of violence whilst picketing, and an employer has also been charged for assault of an employee during a strike. Some employers, too, have failed to learn that their disputes can be processed in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. We have seen recently a bad example which the members of the Exchange Banks Association have set by refusing clearing facilities to members of the public whenever there was an industrial dispute in one of their associated banks. This was done to bring pressure on the union to get a settlement on their terms without any regard to the merits of the union's claims. They would have been the first to complain that the union was acting irresponsibly and unreasonably if it decided to call out all its workers whenever there was an industrial dispute with any member of the Association. The Member for Cairnhill has drawn the attention of the House to Table IV of the Report of the President of the Industrial Arbitration Court, in which eight pending cases are listed, and to section 29 of the Ordinance which requires cases to be heard expeditiously by the Court. The latest information I have received in a letter from the President of the Court dated 16th March is that the number of pending cases has been reduced as the least important of these cases are presently being dealt with. No new cases have been notified to the Court and he expects the Straits Times case to end within a fortnight and the only other big case is the Standard Vacuum Oil Company case which is expected to begin on the 19th May. The Member for Cairnhill has also referred to the strike of the Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation and suggested that if a Board of Enquiry had been appointed under section 7 of the Ordinance the strike might have been avoided. This strike, as he very well knows, was not over wages and conditions of service but because the management had attempted to deal with some of their employees on an individual basis at a time when the bank was negotiating new terms with the Bank Employees Union. The union had come to know about this and had asked for an expression of regret from the management and an undertaking by the management that it would in future deal exclusively with the union. But this request of the union was refused, with the result that the strike was called. There was no question which could have been put to a Board of Enquiry for determination. The bank eventually saw the error of its ways and it has been reported that a sum of $30,000 was paid to the union by a Director of the Bank to compensate the workers for the period when they remained away from work. I cannot see how a hard-headed businessman could have made such a settlement with the union if the bank had been without blame. The Member for Cairnhill has said that all trade disputes which are dead-locked should be referred to the Court for arbitration, but the Member for Anson has mentioned in this House that when he was Chief Minister and the Member for Cairnhill was Minister for Labour and Welfare, the Member for Cairnhill had advised his Chief Minister that he was opposed to compulsory arbitration, because he was of the view that nothing should be put in the way to prevent the unions reaching negotiated agreements with their employers even if industrial action had to be resorted to for the purpose. Sir, the Member for Cairnhill also referred to a case where a secret ballot was held but the party that lost in that secret ballot nevertheless continued to strike. Sir, the Labour Department concluded a total of 21 secret ballots since August 1959 to settle the question of union representation in all cases, the employers accepted the result of the ballots and gave recognition to the union which won a majority vote. Only in one case, the union with a minority of votes continued to strike after a secret ballot had been conducted. This was the Hwa Heng Rubber Company case and eventually the company duly recognised the union that won in the ballot. The strike was nevertheless continued by the union representatives of the minority of the workers. Sir, the Member for Anson referred to the loss of earnings of the workers. He made the point that the workers got a better deal when he was the Chief Minister than they get now. Mr Speaker, Sir, the average daily earnings of manual workers in 1955 was 74 cents as against 65 cents in 1954 - an increase of nine cents. In the last six years, the hourly earnings have increased by another six cents, that is, up to 80 cents per hour. Sir, there is a reason given for the increase of 9 cents average hourly earnings of workers from 1954 to 1955, and our economist tells us that this is probably due to the economic effects on wage earnings felt as late as 1955 after the boom in trade as a result of the Korean war in 1951-52. Sir, reasons have been given for the gradual increase of the hourly rate from 1955 to 1961, and it is suggested that after 1955 there was a gradual decline in trading conditions in Singapore resulting from the world recession in trade which reached its height in 1958. This caused many establishments in Singapore to retrench workers, others to close down and workers were put on a rotation basis. There were also restrictions on trade imposed by neighbouring countries, particularly Indonesia, which affected the rubber milling industry and the copra industry. Sir, we as a Government have implemented our policy of industrial peace with justice, and since we have been in Government, we have done everything to advance the cause of the workers without killing private enterprise, on which the entrepot economy of Singapore is based. We have not been able to put an end to the exploitation of the workers by unscrupulous employers, but we have reduced the opportunities for their exploitation and have ensured that all workers get the benefits of the labour laws which have been enacted for their protection. We intend to take immediate action to plug the loop-holes in the present Industrial Relations Ordinance which enable the had employers as well as the pro-Communists in the S.A.T.U. group to by-pass the lawful channels of conciliation, settlement or arbitration which have been placed at the disposal of all bona, fide trade unions and good employers. The recommendations of the President of the industrial Arbitration Court are now being closely studied by Government and action will be taken to give effect to the improvements which he has suggested.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson said earlier on, in moving his amendment to the motion, that he wanted to restore some semblance of balance to the industrial picture. On this we heartily agree with him. But, unfortunately, the Member for Anson has now helped the Member for Cairnhill in exciting a hit of hysteria in this industrial unrest, as he calls it. By enumerating a whole list of strikes, lock-outs, man-days lost, and what-nots the Member for Cairnhill as well as the Member for Anson have been trying to give us a picture of grave industrial turmoil in Singapore. In a way, Sir, we cannot blame the Member for Anson for saying that the speech of the Member for Cairnhill had a touch of hysteria, because we do know the forces and in-wrests that he represents. The Member for Anson has called the Member for Cairnhill a capitalist.

A born capitalist.

A born capitalist. But in truth, Sir, he is more a capitalist agent than a real capitalist, although we also know that since he has acquired some wealth, he has also become a capitalist of sorts.

Point of elucidation, Sir.

If the Member will give way. Dr Lee Siew Choh resumed his seat.

If the hon. Member will show me where my wealth is, I shall be very grateful to him. I could then have three meals a day instead of two.

I did not know whether he wants me to tell him right now, Sir, but I understand he has acquired some shares in a housing estate. I do not know how true that is - he can deny or confirm it [Interruption].

Does the Member for Cairnhill wish to rise further on a point of elucidation?

No.

In fact, the Member for Anson was quite surprised because he knows that in our present society, workers are defenceless, and, I quote him, Sir, "in the face of the power of capital can only seek protection in the unity of their trade union movement." Sir, how true that is. But apparently this self-evident truth has now been forgotten by the P.A.P. Government. That workers have to struggle at heavy odds against the capitalists is a painful fact known to all workers. The workers know from their own experience the difficulties they have to face and the class struggle they have to undergo in order that they may earn enough to keep themselves, their wives and their children from starvation, and in order that they may raise their standard of living. Getting a small increase in wages from the rapacious capitalist who is making a huge profit sometimes can be as difficult and as impossible as trying to squeeze blood out of a stone. Nevertheless the struggle goes on unceasingly and unremittingly. As has been pointed out by the Member for Anson, it goes on in all modern countries - in the United States of America, the United Kingdom. Australia, New Zealand, Japan, France; all over the world. And it goes on also in Malaya and in Singapore. Thousands and thousands of man-days are lost, usually not because of the workers wanting it but because of the stupid, unreasonable and stubborn attitude of the capitalists and the employers in resisting the legitimate demands of the workers. In Singapore, because of the struggle of the workers, we now have the Member for Cairnhill expressing grave concern, as he calls it, for the so-called industrial unrest, and which the Member for Anson has earlier on called "public manifestations of industrial dissatisfaction". Of course, Sir, "public manifestations of industrial dissatisfaction" is an ingenious phrase and certainly is a phrase more appropriate than "industrial unrest". Because when one talks of industrial unrest, one is automatically led to think of quelling the unrest, and this would suit the P.A.P. very much and lots of other people besides. In Singapore today, there is undoubtedly a large section of workers bubbling over with their pent-up dissatisfaction. This is not a difficult thing to recognize. All we have to do is just to look around. Neither is this the thing which we all need express grave concern or alarm about. And a false alarm, Sir, is not only mischievous but also misleading to all concerned, and it will certainly do nobody any good. Except, of course, people who want to suppress the legitimate aspirations of the workers. Sir, it is easy to paint a horrifying picture of the labour turmoil in Singapore today. All one has to do is to point an accusing finger at the workers and their trade unions, or their trade union leaders, and then start listing the crimes and the sins of the workers, the number of strikes that have taken place, the number of man-days lost, the damage done to the economy of the island, the fright and the flight of capital on which the workers depend for their employment and survival, and so on and so forth. The vicious forces will perhaps be quick to say - and on this the Member for Anson has joined in in quickly mouthing the same platitude - that this is all caused by subversive elements and the Communists. From this reasoning, Sir, it would appear that had there been no Communists and such people, there would have been no strikes and no industrial unrest. What a simple solution it would be if only it were true. All you have to do is to finish off the subversives and the Communists and you get rid of - according to the Minister for Finance - the labour plague. The trouble is this: this sort of simple formula simply does not exist, and it can never work. Whether the Communists and the subversives are finished off or not, labour will forever be in ferment, at least until we get a more equal and just society.

Such as?

A Communist State.

The Member for Cairnhill and also the Member for Anson both called on the Government to take all reasonable steps to ensure industrial peace. What are these "reasonable steps"? According to the Member for Cairnhill, the rule of law must replace the rule of the jungle -

Correct.

- and that is achieved by improvement in the conciliation machinery. Conciliation, he says, is the biggest factor in ensuring industrial peace, and towards that end he suggests giving additional stair to the Arbitration Court, introducing amending legislation as suggested by the President of the Industrial Arbitration Court, and getting more trained conciliators in the Labour Department. I do not doubt that all these measures would help to remove the present delay and dissatisfaction in the work of arbitration and conciliation in labour disputes. But will these measures really bring about industrial peace? If the Member for Cairnhill is so naive as that, what is the correct approach?

Register S.A.T.U.

How do we bring about industrial peace? Conciliation only relieves the symptom. It will not cure the disease. Sir, the correct approach to this problem is to try to find out the real root cause of what the Member for cairnhill in hysteria calls "industrial unrest", and what the Member for Anson terms "industrial dissatisfaction". Only then can we hope to arrive at a sound and .sane solution as to how industrial dissatisfaction may be diminished and ultimately done away with. Diagnosis before treatment has always been our guiding principle in medical practice. This axiom similarly applies to what we are discussing today. That the motion asking for industrial peace is moved by none other than the Chief Minister of the previous government. who was also its Minister for Labour and Social Welfare, cannot but make one doubt the real motives behind this motion. For we must ask, what is the ulterior motive behind this motion?

Prosperity for all.

Does the Member for Cairnhill imply that the workers of Singapore should go down on their bended knees and thank the gods that they now have the jobs that they are holding? Does he imply that they should not seek or fight for their rights through their own trade unions with all the legitimate means at their disposal? Does he imply that it is not the capitalists and the employers but the workers who should be blamed for the so-called troubles in the industrial field! Sir, you will recall that when the Member for Cairnhill was in power, he had pursued a policy which was pro-capitalist and anti-worker with unprecedented vehemence. He was then perhaps greatly inspired by the Concept of the so-called affluent democracy of America and West Germany, not unlike our present Minister for Finance who is inspired by the militarist capitalists of Japan.

On a point of elucidation.

When this policy -

Order. There is a request for a point of elucidation. Will the Member give way! Dr Lee Siew Choh resumed his seat.

The Member has referred to the militarist capitalist system in Japan. We know who the capitalists are. Could the Member say who the Japanese militarists are, how strong they are, and to what extent they control policy in their country?

I am surprised that the Minister for Finance should ask a question like that. He just went to Japan only a little while ago. He should know all the answers. It is best that he should tell us rather than that we try to tell him. Sir, when this policy of the previous Government was translated into practice, with the tacit agreement, at that time, of Lee Kuan Yew and company, it came to mean legalised violence against the mainstream of the trade union movement in Singapore. It meant arbitrary arrests of trade unionists under the pretext of fighting so-called subversion. It meant deportation of trade unionists and untold hardship for hundreds of families.

Created by you and your Communists!

It meant the closing down of trade unions. As the saying goes, Sir, they created a wilderness and they called it the "industrial peace" of the Member for Cairnhill. In fact, Sir, it was an industrial peace imposed with power and force from above, that is, the rich and the foreign capitalists -

Sir, on a point of information.

If the Member will give way. Dr Lee Siew Choh resumed his seat.

Sir, will the Member inform us who has led him to this revealing analysis of events which took place when he was not interested in politics?

Since when, Sir, I have learned, and learned, a great deal.

Who?

Definitely not from the Prime Minister of Singapore. Of course, the Prime Minister of Singapore is omniscient. He knows all the answers, except how to win the hearts of the people. That is his greatest fault, and that is the whole trouble with him. Now he is trying to sell away the rights of the people of Singapore. I was saying, Sir, when I was interrupted, that the rich and the foreign capitalists were sitting pretty because the trade union movement was suppressed. In fact, the labour policy of the Member for Cairnhill and his record as Labour Minister are best remembered for his hatred for, and his reckless violence against, the legitimate trade union movement of Singapore. Now this man is crying for industrial peace. Does he mean the same type of industrial peace which he imposed on the workers when he was in power? Is he trying to encourage the type of industrial peace advocated by the Minister for Finance on his return from Japan when he said that Government should deal firmly with the workers?

Both - employers and workers. That is what I said.

Only Fascists deal firmly, and in the way that he thinks, with workers.

Sir, on a point of elucidation.

I do not think I need any elucidation on this.

On a point of -

The whole of Singapore knows that the Minister for Finance -

Order. The Member for Queenstown also gets completely out of order. When the Speaker is speaking, he must be quiet. He obviously does not wish to give way to the Minister for Finance. So the Minister for Finance cannot say a thing at the moment.

Sir, on a point of order.

If it is a point of order, it must be a point of order. Otherwise the Minister will be out of order. Is it a point of order!

Yes. Sir, the Member for Queenstown quoted from a statement I made after E returned from Japan. Is it in order for the Member to quote just a part of the statement, there by misleading the House on what I actually did say? Would that be in order?

I suppose it is a tactic which is used by many politicians. The Minister for Finance, of course, will have the opportunity of contradicting the Member's statement. Even after he has spoken, there is provision in the Standing Orders for him to speak again if he has been misunderstood.

On a point of order.

Point of order.

Sir, would it be in order for me to request the Member for Queenstown to read the full statement?

That is not a point of order. As I have indicated, the Minister for Finance will be able to correct any misimpression that has been given.

I think the Minister for Finance will have a lot to explain, Sir, and he will not be able to explain them away too. I do not know if this is the motive behind this motion, the motive of the Member for Cairnhill. Anyway, I would imagine that it needs considerable courage for a man to try and advise the Government on a matter in which he himself has proved to be a total failure. The Member for Anson has hinted on this in his speech. Therefore, let us ask: Does the Member for Cairnhill really know the key to the labour problem in Singapore today? Does the S.P.A. really believe that peace will prevail and tranquillity will reign only if there are a few more Arbitration Courts functioning? What does the Member for Cairnhill mean by the term "reasonable"? By "reasonable", does he mean that the rich and the foreign capitalists should be pleased and that the workers should be disappointed? Does he want to see trade unionists put behind bars and the trade unions dissolved? Does he want to see workers surviving at the mercy of rapacious employers and yellow trade unionists at large? Sir, the P.A.P. has learned from the mistakes of the S.P.A., and though there is hardly any difference today between the Prime Minister and the Member for Cairnhill -

That is what you are hoping for!

- at least in one respect they differ. We had occasion to refer to this before, Sir,It is that the Prime Minister has a much better command of the English language, and when he formulated his labour policy, it came to be known as "industrial peace with justice". Industrial peace with justice! What a wonderful phrase! For neither the capitalists nor the workers can disagree with this perfect terminology. Peace and justice are what the capitalists want. Peace and justice are what the workers want. It may be said that, on the face of it, both the capitalists and the workers appear to have very significant common ground in this slogan of industrial peace with justice. But peace and justice are not merely things of absolute standard, things abstract and vague. When these concepts are translated into realities, they assume definite forms and have definite meanings. Thus it is that when the capitalists and the employers talk of industrial peace they mean that the workers should not make demands on them. They mean that the workers should be obedient, pliable and be subservient to the bosses. They mean that the workers should not talk of joining trade unions and ask for higher wages and better working conditions. By industrial peace they also mean, of course, that the Government should be on the side of the employers, that the Government should not hesitate to put the workers in their places by using the police and the law courts on the workers, arresting their leaders in the trade unions, and dissolving forcibly the working class organisations. Sir, to the capitalists, industrial peace means that, in fact, the workers and their trade unions should be so weakened and so disorganised as not to be able to assert themselves in any legitimate way. This sort of industrial peace confers on the capitalists and the employers the right to exploit, bully, oppress and suppress the workers, and this was the kind of industrial peace that prevailed in Singapore during the lime of the Lim Yew Hock Government. But it was industrial peace that was devoid of justice. This type of industrial peace is a dangerous peace, because the pent-up feelings of the workers will inevitably burst the lid wide open and disaster will inevitably follow. So let us not lose our sense of proportion, because industrial peace by itself is not necessarily a virtue, just as industrial dissatisfaction or unrest is not necessarily a vice. By this, I do not mean to suggest that I am in favour of industrial unrest. What I would like to say is that if the workers can no longer tolerate their oppressive working conditions, then it is perfectly legitimate and necessary that they organise themselves and try to do something to improve their lot within the framework of the law. This is the basic right of workers, a right now recognised the world over. Sir, everybody talks of industrial peace these days, but it is easier to talk of industrial peace with justice than to carry it out. The important question is: justice for whom? Justice for the workers or justice for the employers? That is the rub. If it is going to be justice for both then the interests of both parties must be reconciled. It is no mean task trying to reconcile two different poles of interests. It means doing justice simultaneously to two antagonistic classes of people. This task is rendered more difficult for the simple reason that justice cannot be split into halves. You cannot have half justice for the employers and half justice for the workers. It just cannot be done. Sir, in the present context of our society the employers, generally speaking, enjoy an overwhelming advantage over the workers and more often than not justice is denied to the workers. For example, what justice can there be for the workers when their employers acquire the help and support of the weighty police force in their dealings with the workers? It is a recognised fact, Sir, that the law is weighted heavily on the side of the employers. Who does not know that it is always an uphill battle to fight against social prejudices and economic oppression? The Member for Anson recognises this. But do the Member for Cairnhill and the Government benches know this?

We know more about this than you will ever learn in your life time.

This is just like those arrogant people who think they know everything -

More than you do.

When they are about to topple, they still want to show off their supercilious arrogance. I think it is time they learn how to be humble - [Interruption].

Order.

Sir, when the workers manage to pressure the employers into making limited concessions through their trade union organisations, a struggle deemed legitimate and healthy by the Member for Anson, employers will work themselves up into fits and frenzies and accuse the workers of bringing chaos and disorder. Newspapers, particularly the Straits Times, owned by foreign capital - this was quoted by the Member for Anson; if you will remember, Sir, he said it was entirely due to the malice of newspapers and it can only be the malice of English newspapers, because the Member for Anson does not read any other newspaper but English newspapers, and there is only one English newspaper until recently, and that is the Straits Times - will play up the theme of the so-called organised irresponsibility of the workers of Singapore. The Member for Anson has said correctly about the malice of newspapers and, of course, the pro-colonial and pro-capitalist politicians like the Members from the S.P.A. - the Member for Cairnhill, and the Member for Tanglin - will jump in and join in the brow-beating of the poor workers. An hon. Member: What about the unemployed?

Yet when the trade union movement is knuckled under and suppressed, not a murmur is heard. They then call it industrial peace. Is this not a mockery, an irony, the peace of the wilderness? It is important, therefore, that the P.A.P. Government makes its policy of industrial peace with justice a meaningful and living reality especially with reference to the workers who, in their unfortunate position in our society today, are yet to receive a just and fair share of the fruits of their labour. Of course, for this to take place, for a just and fair share of the fruits of their labour to be given to the workers, it will have to mean that the Government that implements the policy of industrial peace with justice must necessarily he a worker's government. It will mean that the aim of the Government must be to encourage and to build up a strong socialist movement both in the trade union field as well as in the political field so as to realise a socialist society within the shortest possible time. It will mean that the Government, with the cooperation of the trade union movement, should allow free enterprise to function before the coining into being of a socialist society, provided such free enterprise does not hamper the growth of the socialist movement in general and the trade union movement in particular. Sir, these are the pre-requisites if the policy of industrial peace with justice is to become a meaningful and living reality as far as the people are concerned. Then the workers will not be unhappy even if it means that they have to exercise restraint in their organised efforts and even if it means that they have to put up with certain temporary hardships. Because the workers will then know that the Government is really On their side. They will know that the Government will work in the interests of the welfare of the people and will need their help in the struggle ahead, and they will then place their trust and confidence in the Government when they have no reason to doubt its sincerity. Sir, such conditions existed at one time, or so the workers thought. Thus it was that there was a period of industrial stability and calm following the general elections in June 1959. Because the workers of Singapore in the trade union movement thought and also felt at that time that they had created a pro-labour government; a government which they then felt confident would do justice to labour a government that had also pledged to work hand-in-hand with the trade union movement towards bringing about the earliest establishment of a socialist society. Of course, there were sporadic cases of workers showing a tendency to over-exuberance as a result of the resurgence of their organised power. But then the union leadership had gone out of its way to exercise a restraining influence on the excesses of trade unions in industrial matters. Sir, this post-election period was also the time when the employers did make efforts to readjust themselves to the new political situation. They had to readjust themselves to the realities of industrial democracy and to the growth of the socialist trade union movement in Singapore. In such a situation the Government had no difficulty at all in maintaining industrial stability. The Prime Minister conveniently attributed and arrogated all the industrial stability to the P.A.P.'s wonderful and sagacious Government. But unfortunately the confidence of the workers and of the trade unions cannot be gained by lip service and tricky manoeuvres. If the workers are convinced that the Government is only interested in its own selfish political gains, that it is no longer interested in working together with the trade union movement for the building up of a strong socialist movement, that it intends to depend entirely on foreign capital to solve the problems of unemployment difficulties, and that it intends to advance the interests of foreign capitalists at the expense of the interests of the workers and their trade unions, then the Government ceases to be a government on the workers' side. It then ceases to be a workers' government. Today, Sir, industrial peace with justice has become a meaningless and an empty slogan. In spite of what the Minister for Health and Law has said and his efforts at trying to give a list of the good things the P.A.P. has done for the workers, the P.A.P. has lost the confidence of the workers. Everybody knows the P.A.P. Government is no longer interested in doing justice to the workers of Singapore. All its talk of wanting social security as revealed by the Minister for Finance shows how one-sided the Government has become. The Minister for Health and Law has said that the P.A.P. is a pro-labour Government and a pro-workers' Government. But he has very conveniently forgotten to mention that the Government has banned the Federation of Trade Unions, has not lived up to its promise of unification of the trade union movement, and has withdrawn the Trade Union Bill which was passed by this Assembly. All these things are very, very conveniently forgotten. All the requisites for the successful implementation of the policy of industrial peace with justice are no longer present in Singapore today. The P.A.P. Government has now ceased to struggle for the ultimate goal of establishing a socialist society. The P.A.P. has made all Left-wing political Parties and organisations its bitter enemies, whether they be in Singapore or in the Federation of Malaya or in the Borneo territories. The Socialist Conference recently held in Kula Lumpur and to which the P.A.P. was invited had to pass a resolution expelling the P.A.P. from the conference. As everybody knows, the P.A.P. is now seeking refuge under the banner of nationalism. The P.A.P. today does not call itself a socialist Party any more. It calls itself a nationalist Party. Even that umbrella will not save it from doom. Now following its change in policy, the P.A.P. Government today increasingly allows the service of the State machinery to be used by the employers for the Purposes of union-busting. We see nowadays the P.A.P. Government eagerly rushing the police force, Labour Ministry officials and even the law courts to the help of the employers whose sole purpose is to break the industrial action initiated by the workers through their own trade union organisations. Sir, a very curious phenomenon has arisen in today's curious political situation in Singapore. The police force, hitherto trained for the oppression of labourers and of the Chinese-educated is being used more and more to deal with strikers who are predominantly English-speaking commercial workers and who happen also to be members of the Singapore Business House Employees Union. The police are supposed to enforce law and order as stipulated in the Trade Disputes Ordinance, a law which the P.A.P. had pledged to amend to the advantage of the working people. But now the police are more and more being used to break strikes and to protect non-union workers working in strike-bound establishments. As regards the Labour Ministry, it is known to have provided facilities so that expatriate personnel may be employed to overcome difficulties arising out of industrial action initiated by English-speaking commercial workers. Sir, all this clearly indicates that the P.A.P. Government has indeed become anti-worker. I suppose it is only a matter of time before the Government will even go so far as to recruit blacklegs and provide them with the facilities of police protection in order that they may go to work in a strike-hound establishment and so break a strike, all because the organised workers do not see eye to eye with the Government - a discredited P.A.P. Government. Sir, it is quite clear, as I have said, that the Government has gone over to the side of the employers. It finds more and more things in common with the capitalists and their Right-wing political representatives, and less and less things in common with the workers and their Left-wing political representatives. I have no hesitation in saying that the P.A.P. Government, contrary to its past protestations, is today pro-capitalist and anti-worker. It is only a matter of time before the P.A.P. Government goes all Out in resorting to repressive measures like those of the Lim Yew Hock Government to maintain their so-called industrial peace. The Minister for Finance hinted as much when he said that the Government should deal firmly with the workers. We see at the present moment late efforts being made by the P.A.P. Government and its Finance Minister to induce Japanese capitalists to invest in this country. The Minister for Finance on his return from Tokyo on the 10th of this month made a statement of censure against the trade union movement. He said that the local labour in Singapore was the key to Japanese investment in Singapore. By that he meant that the conduct of the trade union movement constituted the greatest obstacle to foreign capital coming into Singapore for industrial investment. I would like to ask him, why must he blame the labour situation? Is not political instability the real cause of the lack of industrial investments? Surely he should know that the real plague on economy is - An hon. Member: The Barisan Sosialis.

- political instability and the about-to-topple position of the P.A.P. Government. It is the distrust and the lack of confidence in a discredited Government in an unstable political situation that is the cause of non-investment in the industrial field. And crying Communism with the object of isolating the Barisan Sosialis will not help matters. That is why I have said that what the Member for Anson has touched on is not conducive to industrial peace. It can only help P.A.P. propaganda. In fact, crying Communism will actually help to frighten away whatever investment there is that may want to come to Singapore. This fact is very important and I wonder if the Government realises it. There is even an editorial comment in the Sin Chew Jit Poh a week or so ago on this matter. The Government should really look into this. It will not help the industrialisation of Singapore and it will not help to solve unemployment in Singapore. Sir, there is one important fact that the P.A.P. Government seems unable to understand. It is that the capitalists are always on the look-out for opportunities to pressure the Government into taking anti-labour measures. Such measures, of course, will allow them to exploit the workers and blackmail the Government at the same time. When there was industrial stability immediately after the last general elections, the complaints of the capitalists then were that high wages and high taxes deterred large-scale industrial investment by private foreign capitalists. Now that the P.A.P. has lost the confidence of the workers and their trade unions, the complaints of the capitalists are that the conduct of the organised workers constitutes the greatest deterrent to such investment. Well, the P.A.P. says the same thing as the capitalists say. Is this not evidence that the P.A.P. is already succumbing to the pressure and blackmail of foreign capitalists? Let us ask, how can such a Government achieve genuine industrial peace with justice? Surely the Government knows that to achieve industrial peace with justice, it needs co-operation all round. As is well known and as repeated time and again by the P.A.P. in the past, it takes three parties to achieve industrial peace with justice - namely, capital, the trade unions and the Government. Now with the Government on the side of the employers, how can Singapore have genuine industrial peace with justice? Let the Government explain. As far as foreign employers are concerned, they need very little encouragement in their policy of exploitation and oppression of workers. Their conduct has been largely governed by two main factors - the political situation of the day and the attitude of the Government. Sir, it is common knowledge that whenever there is political uncertainty, the employers are inclined to flex their muscles before the workers. We may still recall the speeches made by the Prime Minister immediately after the 1956 purge when he launched very scathing attacks on employers like the Naval Base authorities and the Tay Koh Yat Bus Company. That was the time when many employers thought fit to mount a capital offensive against labour, especially when the trade unions and their leaders had been severely curbed. A similar political uncertainty prevails today in Singapore. There has been a lot of talk about Malaysia and this so-called merger between Singapore and the Federation. The encouragement employers have received from statements made by political leaders in the Federation is considerable, particularly when the Government Ministers say that there have been far more strikes than are desirable and that the Federation Government will not tolerate the existence and expansion of the trade union movement in Singapore. May I refer, Sir, to the statement made by the Tunku and printed by the Straits Times on 12th January, saying that after merger "we will try to reduce the number of strikes." These were the words of the Tunku, Sir. "I do not know how he will do it, but our Minister of internal Security will do it." Such words! And this statement, by the way, also clearly proves what we have said all along. The P.A.P. has been trying to tell the people that there is autonomy in this White Paper merger of theirs. This statement of the Tunku proves conclusively that there is no autonomy - An hon. Member: Communist subversion.

- in labour in this P.A.P. merger, and therefore all this talk about autonomy is a bluff, and a deception on the people.

I do not follow that. The Barisan want it.

Sir, I understand many capitalists nowadays think that the time has come at last for them to be no longer placed under any restriction. They feel that they need no longer put up with the so-called nonsense of the employees and the trade unions, and they feel that they must uphold and defend their so-called management rights. Sir, I am told provocation from such type of employers constitutes a rich source of trade disputes. The point is that such employers are no longer afraid of creating disputes with the workers, when they know full well that they have the State machinery, the Labour Ministry and even the law courts all on their side. Sir, the labour situation in Singapore today is further complicated by the Government deliberately pursuing a policy of union rivalry. We all know for a fact that it has always been the intention of the P.A.P. to dominate and monopolise the trade union movement in Singapore. The pity of it is that this aspiration of the P.A.P. has turned out to be merely a pipe-dream. Sir, Government's patronage of certain trade unions in Singapore is well known. Through Mr C. V. Devan Nair (whose salary I believe is paid out of State funds) and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture, together with all the facilities of the State machinery, the P.A.P. is trying to control as many trade unions as possible. Thus you find certain pro-P.A.P. union boys running around trying their level best to outdo the main stream of the trade union movement, i.e., the socialist trade union movement. I understand they go round telling workers not to join unions that are non-P.A.P. And I stress "non-P.A.P." They go round promising workers heaven on earth if they would only join the P.A.P. unions. This is the cause of many a strike in Singapore today. You will remember the recent City Council workers' strike. It was actually sparked off because of A.U.P.E., of which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture is its leader, fighting against the trade unions of the daily-rated workers. Everybody knows that this is a clear case of union rivalry sponsored by the P.A.P. And because of the P.A.P.'s policy of union rivalry, the people of Singapore were greatly inconvenienced and the public health gravely endangered. When it was clear to the P.A.P. union boys that the City Council workers could not be broken, they quickly beat a retreat and covered up their complete fiasco with a lot of Communist bogey propaganda, and blaming the Barisan Sosialis for the P.A.P.'s own machinations and intrigues. We have been in the P.A.P. for quite some time, Sir, and we have learnt -

That we speak the truth.

- the maze of thinking that the triumvirate of the P.A.P. indulge in. An hon. Member: Triumvirate?

Triumvirate, of course. The Prime Minister, the Minister for Finance, and the Minister for Culture - the triumvirate of the P.A.P. The others, well - An hon. Member: What others?

- I do not want to talk too much about it.

No one will stop you. Carry on.

Sir, in the situation facing us today, we feel confident that the socialist trade union movement, with its virility and its resilience, will be able to adapt itself to the changing circumstances. I am in complete agreement with Mr Foo Yong Fong, President of the Singapore Business Houses Employees Union and Chairman of the Pro-tem Committee of S.A.T.U., when he says in his recent statement -

You are not building him up, are you?

That is the chap who burns people with cigarette butts, is it not?

May I quote, Sir, from a speech made -

Order. I think the Minister for Finance is guilty of disorder. He is referring to a case which is sub-judice. It is on appeal. I think. He should never mention anything concerning a case which is sub-judice. Dr Lee.

This is a message by Mr Foo Yong Fong, President, S.B.H.E.U., to all members on the eve of the New Year. Here is a passage and it reads:-

Who wrote it? Woodhull?

- it is on page 5. `The only sensible thing for us, therefore, is to begin the year with a demonstration of goodwill with an expression of our determination to achieve industrial stability. If employers are prepared for serious discussion, they shall find us quite serious. But if they want a trial of strength, they shall find us equally serious. It is with these thoughts that I ask you to consider the coming year. It shall be a year when we shall discharge our duties with far greater calculation, It shall be a year when we can afford more time for discussion' -

True, that may be so.

- `than for demonstration, more time for an examination of the implications of all we do than for a concentration on the mere act of doing.'

Are you sure he wrote it?

Sir, I quote this just to inform those hotheads -

In the Barisan.

- in the P.A.P., the Police Force, and in the Labour Ministry that today they are facing very reasonable people. But in spite of all this, the Government is placing all its resources en the side of employers with only one aim in view - to help employers break the strike so as to break the organised strength of the unions and to make sure that they also break the support of all legitimate -

Peace-loving.

Peace-loving organisations that are struggling very hard -

To survive.

- not to survive; they will survive at any time - but to raise the standard of living of the poorer classes of people. That is the thing which I hope the Minister for Finance will bear in mind, although I know things like this will take quite some time to penetrate.

I want to give them social insurance, but they do not want it.

Sir, as for the employers, I believe they are practical people, and as such it would help matters all round if they understand and recognise the legitimate role of the trade unions. This means that the employers should do all they can to promote industrial democracy in their establishments, and it means that they should refrain from coercing the powers that be to restrict the fundamental rights of the working people. Sir, we would also like to take this opportunity to inform the employers that, for the sake of industrial peace in Singapore, they should keep themselves away from the political ring. If they use their economic position in our economy to try to play havoc and try to subvert the trade union movement and thereby hope to influence the political situation, then they are making a great mistake. Similar warnings were given by the Prime Minister in the hey-day when he was fighting for the rights of the workers.

Under different circumstances.

And I am merely repeating what the Prime Minister had himself championed with great gusto at that time. These employers would only be creating trouble for themselves as well as for others. There would then really be chaos because mounting a capital offensive on labour is sheer stupidity, sheer unadulterated stupidity. Sir, in the Singapore situation of today, the trade union movement is fully conscious that it has to contend with three hostile forces. They are (1) the P.A.P. Government with its big stick of the State machinery, the Police Force, the Prisons, the Law Courts, Senior Crown Counsel, all the top-notchers, and so-called "witnesses"; (2) the P.A.P. union boys backed by the might of the Government and also by the Government's Police Force; and (3) the employers who look upon Malaysia as their opportunity for unleashing an attack on the main stream of the trade union movement. If these three forces flock together and join forces together against the main stream of the trade union movement in Singapore, then there will be trouble for everybody. Under those circumstances, Sir, I have no doubt that the people of Singapore will know wherein lie the responsibility of industrial unrest. Let us hope that such a day will never arrive. 4.45 p.m.

Sir, it was not my intention to speak so early in the debate. But I feel that if I am given an hour to produce certain facts and figures, it may perhaps help the other speakers of the Barisan Sosialis to come more directly to the point. As the Leader of the House has indicated, we are prepared to sit every night up till 12 o'clock to listen to one harangue after another, and from time to time, if we may, peacefully make a few comments, albeit humorously, on the futility of the closed circuit mind. The speech that has just been read out by the Member for Queenstown, and I say accurately read out by the Member for Queenstown, illustrates the inability to think out of fixed classified situations. Governments that do not toe their line are always pro-employer, supporting the capitalists, and using the police to coerce and intimidate the workers. Governments which are not amenable to their pressures always consist of desperate men who are always on the verge of toppling. If the industrial situation is unquestionably worse, it cannot be because of any other reason connected with the unions or the wisdom of their leadership, but surely it must be because the employers have no confidence in the Government. Sir, the tragedy with the closed circuit mind is simply this. It often produces contradictions. One of the first contradictions I want to point out to the Member for Queenstown is that he has to make up his mind. If as he or his ghost writers would like us to believe, and like the people of Singapore, particularly the workers, to believe, we are pro-employer and pro-capitalist, and are willing to employ the State machinery, that is, the police, the courts and everything to crush and oppress the workers, then surely this is an ideal situation for the employers. On the other hand, they say employers do not like it because there is no stability, created by the same instability which the forces behind them have launched. Sir, the motion speaks of mounting of industrial unrest. Nobody has denied that. It is a fact. It also talks of the Government's policy of industrial peace with justice. There are certain facts and figures which have to be explained away by those responsible for the switch in the policy of the Communist sector of the trade unions. In the whole of 1960, there were only 5,939 workers involved in strikes with a loss of 152,000 man-days, compare this to the five months from August. You will remember the fateful day when we sat here till the early hours of the morning of the 21st of July. From August till December last year, there were 39,000 workers involved in strike with a loss of 370,000 man-days. In other words, in five months, after the break following Anson, the increase in the number of man-days lost is 120 per cent extra, 220 per cent of the whole of 1960. This is a fact, a fact for which I claim not much credit in predicting in July. What is all this about? Is there a change in the industrial situation? Is there a change in policy of the Government? Has there been a sudden right about turn - employers sacking people all over the place and becoming unreasonable? A change took place in Anson when the P.A.P. refused to be brow-beaten or intimidated into taking the Communist-front line of the abolition of the Internal Security Council and full internal self-government. Once we said merger, the fight started and it went on to its logical conclusion. The fight is still going on, not an industrial fight, but a political fight using industrial means to coerce the Government and upset the economy. I suggest to the Member for Cairnhill that perhaps this Government, having the advantage not only of having seen what happened in the last seven years since 1955, but also knowing the minds and the workings of the Communist cadres in the unions, is wise enough to treat this basically as a political and not as an industrial problem. It is not the shortage or the inadequacy of the machinery for conciliation and arbitration. They are there. We can quadruplicate it and we can improve it a hundred thousand times. The men who mount this unrest have not the slightest intention of making use of conciliation or arbitration proceedings. Let me explain that out of the 96 strikes called last year, 69 or 72 per cent of them were called by the unions connected with the Communist front S.A.T.U. As I have explained earlier, the majority of them took place after August. Let me just compare the figures January/July last year with August/December. In January/July, there were 2,400 workers involved in strikes with a loss of 40,000 man-days compared to, in seven months, 2,400 workers and 40,000 man-days. In five months August/December, 39,000 workers and 370,000 man-days.

On a point of clarification, Sir.

If the Prime Minister will give way. The Prime Minister resumed his seat.

I wonder whether the Prime Minister will clarify how many man-days were lost as a result of the City Council strike.

That may be so. I will give the figures later on. I have not got the figures with me here.

Find out.

Yes, and that was a strike which the S.A.T.U. group tried to exploit. We frustrated the attempts of the S.A.T.U. group to exploit it. Let us make no bones about it. The Member for Thomson's other friend, Mr Rajendra, the co-Secretary in S.A.T.U., was there, bringing up the S.G.E.U. strike, getting Mr Dominic Puthucheary to try and fix up a few things here and there just to warm things up. There is no denial. There can be no denial. These are facts. We are fully conversant with the methods and the technique, and the position cannot be resolved. In an industrial unrest created by political agitators for political reasons, it cannot be solved by the industrial conciliation machinery. Let me further exp1ain, Mr Speaker, Sir. Of these 69 strikes - these were unions connected with the Communist front S.A.T.U. - none of them went to arbitration. They did not want arbitration. They wanted a fight, to slug it out, to have incidents with the police, to have incidents with the employers, to try and sour up the situation and show the workers, "Look at the Government - wicked, cruel, unjust." Two cases - Guthrie's and William Jacks' - had to be ordered by the Ministry to the Arbitration Court. Only 15 cases throughout the whole period were referred to the Labour Ministry by the Business Houses Employees group for conciliation. A minor puffing problem! Let me explain how these disputes are fought out, "for the benefit of the workers," says the Member for Queenstown. I say, explain a few facts away. In the case of the Ford Motor Engineering and Workshop Employees Union, they went on strike for 110 days and lost pay for 110 days and ended up with a seven-cent per day increase.

Six cents.

Six cents. Just tell me, Mr Speaker, Sir, and I hope Members on the other side will explain, how many months, and how many years have they to work to make up for the loss of pay during the strike?

What about the People's Association?

What about them? They were stupid and ignorant enough to follow the Barisan Sosialis.

Because they refused to obey you!

They were never organised into a union! They thought they could capture the Government, coerce the Government and rattle the Government. The net result is they are going to lose. Many of them have found other jobs because they have lost faith in the Barisan Sosialis forming the next government and winning the next victory. They have folded up. They have gone to look for other employment. Only those who are not good enough to look for other employment are still hanging around, hoping somehow or other that something may fall down from heaven or the Barisan may give something to them. Let me give them another example for the benefit of the workers. There were four Shaw disputes, Mr Speaker, Sir. None of them was referred to the Labour Ministry even for conciliation, or brought to the notice of the Labour Ministry. They did not want the Labour Ministry to intervene. They went on strike for 33 days for an overtime claim of arrears. A 33-day strike. They have not got the arrears. What they have definitely sustained is a loss of 33 days' wages. All they have succeeded is to get the matter referred to the Arbitration Court, which they could have done and achieved without a strike of 33 days. It is a defeat. It brought misery and suffering to the workers. They thought, of course, why not increase the hostility? Government moves in with the police in steel helmets and batons. It is not as simple as that. If Members on this side were innocent, stupid, guileless, willing tools of the employers, reactionary capitalists, then perhaps. But no amount of harangue can convince the workers of Singapore that they have never had a Government so good. It is a fact. They have never had the employers put in a position where they are always willing to talk, where reason and argument is the only thing that can prevail. Now, Sir -

Order. Is it convenient to suspend?

Perhaps I could speak another five minutes and wind it up.

Yes, certainly. 5.00 p.m.

I would suggest to the directors behind the S.A.T.U. group that perhaps a repetition of the technique against the Lim Yew Hock Government will not bring the dividends it did when it is against the P.A.P. Government. Police action? Law and order, Sir, is maintained always with a more than reasonable bias in favour of the workers. Police action, repression, broken bones, broken heads, fire hoses? Never. But, of course, let me be the first to admit that it is the business of the police to prevent people from having cigarette butts stuck into their necks when they refuse to be intimidated, it is the duty of the police to prevent people from being assaulted and molested when they refuse to join or are being intimidated by the unionists. But if the unionists want to go on strike, let them. There is a limit beyond which they cannot go, because beyond that limit the goose is killed, the workers are put out of jobs, and it rebounds back on the union. There is no need for hysteria. Everybody knows the situation is a political one and has to be settled politically. I am glad the Member for Queenstown has referred to the statement made by the Prime Minister of the Federation about the number of strikes in Singapore. There are two kinds of strike, Mr Speaker, Sir. One is a genuine industrial issue, not complicated either in the issue or in the pushing of it by political factors. These cases can find settlement, sometimes with a little bit of difficulty, through strikes and other open methods of protest, but always inevitably they end up, with reason in arguments, in an agreement, either with or without conciliation with the Labour Ministry or arbitration in the Arbitration Court. This is the sector that is the autonomy of the State of Singapore after merger. And it is our business, with the experience that we have gained, to make it really work. The principle of industrial peace with justice will work. There will be more Arbitration Courts. There will be more reasonable people who will actually seek the welfare of the workers and of the people of Singapore. But chaps refuse to have agreements which have any finality even for a relative period of time, and of the hundred over agreements made by the groups connected with the S.G.E.U. and the Business Houses, there are only two cases that we have been able to discover, on going through the records, where there are salary scales. All the others are straight, flat increases. After six months, after eight months, after a year.

The employers do not want it.

We have gone into that.

On a point of explanation.

If the Prime Minister will give way. The Prime Minister resumed his seat.

If the Prime Minister will take the trouble to contact the Employers Federation and ask them to confirm from their member whose workers are in the Business Houses Employees Union, I am sure he will find that the commercial employers reject salary scales.

That is not my information. I know the non-Communist sector of unions are having - and I can produce and I think I will produce - any number of agreements which show salary scales. And we will show the whole lot. These are facts which can be established from the record. Their aim is not industrial peace. It is industrial aggressiveness; make aggression pay in order that they can keep the workers continually on the move. From time to time the workers have to be placated. Then their appetites are whetted again for the next onslaught. There is not the slightest intention of having industrial peace with justice. What these unions want is a constant state of industrial excitement upon which they could expand and mount their world revolution. As I have said, these are facts and figures related to the activities of the pro-Communist cadres in the union. I claim no credit for it. I do not see any conceit in my having painfully exposed these machinations. The fact of the matter is that after merger, internal security will ensure that the Communist element of the political manipulation of unions will be checked and free play given to really collective bargaining for the purpose of arriving at an agreement which is fair to the employer and the employee, to the workers and the State, to ensure industrial stability for industrial expansion, without which Members on the other side know full well that there will be utter chaos and disaster, but chaos and disaster which the Communists are quite prepared unabashedly to bring about in order that they can bring their world revolution one step further.

Order. I suspend this Assembly, I will take the Chair again at 5.35 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.05 p.m. until 5.35 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.35 p.m.

Debate resumed. Question again proposed.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, it is the opinion of my Party that we should not only express grave concern over the question of industrial unrest but that we should also consider the question in all seriousness. That is why it is essential to find the cause of the deterioration in labour and capital relationship. No matter what the motive of the mover of this motion is, and no matter how he criticises and ridicules the Government in dealing with strikes, I would say that during his term of office in the Labour Front Government, he sided with the capitalists and the employers, sent trade unionists to gaol and used the police to intervene in strikes. I would also say that the previous Government did not only fail in alleviating industrial unrest but it also exploited the workers and sided with the employers, thus giving rise to general discontent among the workers. So I would say that if the Member for Cairnhill is urging the present Government to resort to similar tactics in dealing with the industrial workers, then it would bring about a worse situation than it is now. This is because if this line is taken, all the workers in Singapore will do their best to counter-attack the oppression imposed on them. The present industrial unrest started during the second half of last year when the Government took action to close down the T.U.C. at a time when there was a political crisis within the Party in power. It is undoubtedly true that the present instability in politics is one of the important factors of industrial unrest. Before the Labour Department Report was given in 1961, we were unable to find out the number of strikes in Singapore. But from information published in newspapers, we find that in November last year there were about 20 strikes affecting some 33,000 workers with a loss of a few hundred working days. An important strike at that period was the strike of the Daily Rated Employees Union of the City Council. The worst industrial unrest in Singapore took place last year. From records of the past we can see why there were so many strikes. As we know, the P.A.P. came to power with the support of the left-wing people, especially the workers. When the P.A.P. took office, they promised to bring about unity among the labourers, amend the labour laws and carry out all the election pledges they made to the workers of Singapore. That was why they were so welcomed by the people of Singapore, especially the workers who had full confidence in them and who hoped that their lot would be improved. So in the first two years of the P.A.P. Government, it was a most difficult time for the Government to deal with all the problems of the workers. At that time, the number of labour disputes was not as great as it is now. This was because of the fair attitude adopted by the Labour Department, as a result of which the employers did not take advantage of the situation and they had to cooperate with the unions. It was because of this that there were more cases of labour disputes being settled. In the meantime, the workers also understood that they should not ask too much of the employers. Mr Speaker, Sir, if the leaders of the P.A.P. are sincere and are prepared to keep the promises they made during the election to carry out the reunification of the trade union movement and bring about industrial peace, then in all sincerity the Government should cooperate with the workers and the unions and improve the relationship between the employers and the workers. This is very possible. In fact, the reorganisation of the Government had, to a certain extent, brought about industrial peace. This came about as a result of the cooperation between the Government and the T.U.C. at that time. This attitude of cooperation was very promising. All this was done in the interest of the workers. But from what we see now, it is very difficult to ensure industrial peace. The Government has lost the confidence of the workers at present and it is only the irresponsible P.A.P. leaders who should be blamed for this. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is the contention of the P.A.P. to use the Industrial Arbitration Court as a means to bring about industrial peace. On 1st March, 1959 the Prime Minister said at a rally in Geylang Serai that the setting up of the Industrial Arbitration Court was only a means to try and settle industrial disputes legally. If the workers and the unions did not want this to be legalised by law, then they could decide for themselves whether industrial disputes should be submitted for arbitration in the Court. But after the Party came to power, the Prime Minister and his colleagues wanted to force compulsory arbitration on the workers, that is to say, if the workers and unions wanted to resort to a strike, they could not do so. Then there would be consultation and conciliation between the Government and the workers' leaders, such as Lim Ching Siong .In this respect, the Government has not been able to contribute anything to industrial peace. And the present situation is the responsibility of the present Government. In fact, before the Arbitration Court was set up, the union leaders were very disappointed. Now there is an indication that the Government has the intention to enforce the Industrial Relations Ordinance. We must point out that the present Ordinance has already given enough powers to the Government, powers which can be abused by it to restrict the freedom to strike by workers; especially so in respect of the non-P.A.P. unions. As a matter of fact, Government already has got an occasion to make use of this Ordinance to negate the right of non-P.A.P. unions to strike. The Industrial Arbitration Court gives union leaders, especially leaders of non-P.A.P. unions no chance for any defence or argument. So we have doubts whether the Government has true intentions to amend the Ordinance in the interests of the people. And we are doubtful whether there is not an ulterior motive in the amendments to be made. The closing down of the T.U.C. by the Government has given rise to a situation in which there is a split in the trade union movement. This act of closing down the T.U.C. has encouraged anti-union employers to take advantage of the present situation and to be stubborn against union leaders. This clearly shows that there is a 180-degree change in the labour policy of the Government. In September last year the Minister for Labour openly said, in regard to the Shaw Brothers' trade dispute, that he urged the Shaw Brothers management to disregard the appeal of the workers for negotiations. The Government instead urged the management of Shaw Organisation to have individual talks with officials of the unions. In another case the Singapore General Employees Union won a victory in a secret ballot conducted by the Labour Ministry, but the Singapore Manual and Mercantile Workers Union, which is pro-P.A.P., was very unhappy about the situation, and its members resorted to stone-throwing. But the Minister for Labour turned a deaf ear to this complaint. And so there is a conflict between the P.A.P. unions and the non-P.A.P. unions. This is another factor which can be attributed to the present split in the trade union movement. During the City Council strike the Government made use of new workers to break down the strike of the union. The Government at that time pointed out to the union that the trade dispute was politically involved, and so such steps were necessary. On the contrary, the Amalgamated Union of Public Employees is given special privileges by the Government whenever there is any strike, and A.U.P.E. is headed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture. From all this, we can clearly see that the Party in power is now adopting retrogressive methods and is siding with the pro-P.A.P. unions at the expense of the non-P.A.P. unions. These acts really are some of the causes of the present industrial unrest. Mr Speaker, Sir, as we all know, the trade dispute is a social problem. Trade disputes and labour troubles cannot be solved easily in a capitalist society. It is only when there is a policy which is in the interests of Labour and which is carried out by the Government supported by the workers that industrial relationship between workers and employers can be improved. It is only in these circumstances that industrial peace can be brought about to improve the lot of the workers, especially the relationship between labour and capital. This policy must have the cooperation of three parties concerned, namely, the Government, labour and capital. As a matter of fact, it is because there was cooperation among the three parties at the beginning of P.A.P. rule that there was some form of industrial peace. In 1955-57 there were some very great strikes in the bus companies. In the last two or three years there was cooperation between workers and management. We would not say that the Hock Lee Bus Company and the Tay Koh Yat Bus Company have changed their attitude towards the workers. Neither do we say that there has been a change of attitude of the leaders of the bus workers. All we say is that these two parties, i.e., labour and capital, have come to some agreement concerning working conditions and wage increases. Therefore, strikes have been avoided in the bus companies. But unfortunately, the Party in power, in order to deal their political opponents a blow, have assisted and helped out their colleagues. So there has been no balance in labour and management relationship, and this move is not good to the bringing about of industrial peace. Mr Speaker, Sir, we are of the opinion that the main way to bring about industrial peace lies in the cooperation of all parties concerned, especially in the mutual interest of the parties, so that the questions concerning industrial peace and industrial relationship can be solved. We are of the opinion that the workers in Singapore are responsible people. They have a great sense of responsibility and as long as employers do not take advantage of the present situation and try to prevent and restrict their activities in union matters, then there is no reason whatsoever for any deterioration in relationship between labour and capital. 6.57 p.m. Mr Ong Eng Guan (Hong Lim): Mr Speaker, Sir, there has been quiet and silence in the industrial field for nearly two years, since June 1959 when the P.A.P. formed the Government, until not long after the defeat of the P.A.P. Government in the Hong Lim by-election. During this period, for some reason or other, we seldom hear of industrial disputes, industrial strike, not to say strikes. It was a comparatively long period of silence and certain trade union leaders were then under the impression that the P.A.P. was a Left-wing Government and was cooperating with the workers. It was not so much a fact that for two years there were no deep-seated grievances of the workers, not that the workers were satisfied with their wages and conditions of service; but it was said that when certain workers wished to press on with their industrial demands, they were asked to give this so-called Left-wing Government a chance to prove its worth. Then, Sir, came the Hong Lim by-election and we have seen -

Historical. Mr Ong Eng Guan: Historical Hong Lim by-election. And we have seen more strikes in the past few months than in the first two years of the P.A.P. Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, why are there so many strikes and so many industrial disputes? It is because the workers' deep-seated grievances have been pegged down for two years. We were faced with a similar situation in 1955 when, with a new Government coming in, there was a wave of industrial disputes which restored wages to their normal position. So this period of industrial activity during the last few months, in our opinion, is to catch up with what has been lost by workers in the first two years of the Government. There is no need for experienced political agitators to tell a worker that he should strike to get more. Mr Speaker, Sir, when workers do not get subsistence wages, there is a necessity to resort to industrial action in order to get better conditions of living. One characteristic during the past few months is the spate of industrial disputes of white-collar workers, i.e., clerks of British and foreign commercial houses. This is because of the fact that since the return of the British in 1945 these white-collar workers have not generally resorted to collective bargaining. They have not obtained any general wage increase, and after so many years of silence, they have woken up to the fact that they would be able to get better wages and better conditions of service if they resorted to industrial action. Mr Speaker, Sir, if a worker is contented, and if a white-collar clerk is contented, however much agitation is being brought about, it is very difficult for us or for political agitators or industrial agitators to make them strike. We are thus faced with a situation where in this semi-colonial society we are trying to bring about equilibrium between the workers and the employers. During the past two years, the Government have not done much to bring the workers into their confidence. They have never shown in any concrete way that they are sympathetic towards the workers. Mr Speaker, Sir, when I was in the City Council we voluntarily raised the wages of the workers, the peons, the messengers and the poorly paid workers of the City Council. Not that we could do much for them - 40 cents increase a day for the workers, and $10 a month increase for the peon would not go along way. But it was a gesture of goodwill and sympathy for the working class. But what has this P.A.P. Government done? [Interruption] That is right, Mr Speaker. And why not the P.A.P. Government now also do the same thing? They should have done the same thing also. They still have the same Central Committee -

Order. To get the record right, perhaps the Member for Hong Lim will translate what the hon. Member for Delta said. I do not think it has got into our official record. He chose to answer the interjection. I think he should also translate the interjection if he can. Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Delta said that the increase of the wages of the workers in the City Council was also the work of the P.A.P. That is why it is necessary for me to clarify the position, that is, if the P.A.P. Government are really sincere, they could have done it when they are in the Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, there was no wage increase. There was instead a deflationary situation where many workers lost their job. Some received less pay. There was also a situation where more taxes were taken from the poor workers. Therefore, the workers are faced with a Government in whom they have no confidence and they feel that it is only through industrial action that they could get what they want. Mr Speaker, it was very long after the Government was formed that they set up the Industrial Arbitration Court to try to conciliate the contradictions in this capitalist society between the employer and the employee. Now we have one Industrial Arbitration Court. But from what I gather, that one Industrial Arbitration Court is not sufficient for the purpose, and many unions and employees have to queue up for a long time before they can send their cases to arbitration. The Prime Minister has said just now perhaps that is the reason why many employees do not want to send their case to arbitration. It takes months before the cases could be heard. So I would suggest that the Government should set up more Industrial Arbitration Courts. Now the snag in industrial arbitration is that you need qualified men who have much experience, and there are not many in Singapore who are prepared to do it without a price - not necessarily in terms of dollars and cents - to put up the cases of the workers before the Court. Therefore, we must have certain substitutes, for instance, like wage councils, or whatever name we call it, where the employees can bring up their case in an informal atmosphere before these wage councils and the employer will be asked to meet and settle their dispute. Mr Speaker, Sir, we support the principle of industrial peace with justice not only in name but also in practice, and we hope that the Government could set up more Industrial Arbitration Courts, put up more wage councils so that we would be able to bring more employment and more stability to the present industrial position. 6.07 p.m. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Law (Inche Buang Bin Omar Junid) (In Malay): Mr Speaker, many Opposition Members from the Barisan Sosialis have accused the Government of using the State machinery to suppress trade unions. The Member for Toa Payoh, my former colleague, after having undergone such an experience, has no further interest in labour problems. But, Mr Speaker, I myself have been in the Singapore General Employees Union right from the beginning. I was a Committee member. Subsequently, I became its Chairman, then Vice-Chairman, and finally I became its Secretary-General. I am fully conversant with how the front-line Communist leaders have manipulated the labour movement in order to oppose the P.A.P. Government now. When the Government wanted to establish an Arbitration Court, Mr Fong Swee Suan exchanged views with me. He expressed his objection because he considered that this was not in the interest of the trade unions. At first I was unable to grasp the motive behind the reasons of Mr Fong Swee Suan. Later on when I made inquiries, I discovered that the setting up of the Industrial Arbitration Court would be a disadvantage to the Communists because they would then have no opportunity to use the labour movement in its struggle to oppose the Government. In addition, Mr Speaker -

Order. The hon. Member is addressing the Chair as Mr Chairman, that is Tuan Pengerusi, I think the correct address is Mr Speaker - Tuan Speaker or Tuan Yang di-Pertua. Inche Buang Bin Omar Junid (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I apologise for the mix-up in the usage of the terms "Mr Chairman" and "Mr Speaker". Mr Speaker, when the Government intended to bring about the unification of the trade union movement in Singapore, similarly Mr Fong Swee Suan expressed his views against the step taken by the Government. I fail to understand this in the beginning. But later I was fully convinced that the reason was this. Mr Fong Swee Suan himself was the adviser to the S.G.E.U. when I was the Secretary-General, and the reason for his objection was that the S.G.E.U. itself comprised various classes of workers, so that when the unification took place, the S.G.E.U. would lose its strength. Another point, Mr Speaker. Just now many of the Barisan Sosialis Members have charged the Government for using the State machinery, that is, using the police force, to suppress the trade unions. I ask the Barisan Sosialis to go back and ask their S.G.E.U. leaders like Mr Lim Ching Siong, Mr Fong Swee Suan, Mr Dominic Puthucheary and others, whether or not there were occasions when the unions sought help from the police, as in the case of the Malayan Tin Printing dispute. During the dispute, the S.G.E.U. sought police help from the workers of the Lighterage Company. I am telling nothing but the truth. As its Secretary-General then, I know the position very well. I think the Barisan Sosialis in this Chamber are merely receiving directives from irresponsible trade union leaders to utter unfounded charges which they themselves do not know. It is because of the unreasonable tactics adopted by them that I, of my own free will, resigned as the Secretary-General of the S.G.E.U. Concerning the accusation by the Member for Hong Lim, he said that during the past two years, deep-seated industrial unrest has been prevailing. Mr Speaker, during the last Government, labour legislation was introduced concerning public holidays and so on. But the previous Government took no action to enforce these provisions according to the law. When the P.A.P. assumed office, all workers came forward to claim for overtime pay, such as the employees of the Raffles Hotel and the Adelphi Hotel. They were successful in their claims. The reason can easily be seen. The P.A.P. Government took all steps to bring both parties to negotiation in the Arbitration Court and then settlement was reached. Such accusations hurled by the Barisan Sosialis are merely designed to confuse the workers so that they will be anti the P.A.P. Government. There are many problems in trade disputes and certain leaders, particularly from the S.G.E.U., do not like such disputes to be referred to the Arbitration Court. The reason can easily be given, Mr Speaker, Sir, because if the Arbitration Court is successful in affecting a settlement, the workers can claim that it is not the Communist front that has made the settlement. It is the Government who does it. Therefore, the Barisan Sosialis leaders have found ways and means to prevent such trade disputes from being brought before the Arbitration Court. I say so. Mr Speaker, because earlier I have already said what transpired in the discussions I had with Mr Fong Swee Suan. I know very well what is going on in the S.G.E.U. Unlike the Barisan Sosialis Members who merely receive directions to read speeches in this Assembly, the leader of the Barisan Sosialis, the Member for Queenstown, wants publicity that he is championing the cause of labour. But he himself is in the dark as to what is going on in the S.G.E.U. 6.17 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government do view with grave concern the mounting of industrial unrest, but what was the cause of it? Surely the Member for Cairnhill is not too naive to suggest, as he did, that it was entirely due to the defect of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. Just now the Minister for Health and Law and the Prime Minister have dwelt on the figures on the strike position. But let me go through the following table once again:- Year Strikes No, of workmen Man-days Disputes involved lost 1959 (January-May) 2 256 614} 2 1959 (June-day the P.A.P. } took office-December) 38 1,683 18,212} 502 1960 45 5,939 152, 005 804 1961 (January-July) 39 2,431 41, 126 690 1961 (August-December) 77 39,153 369, 763 535 From the table it will be observed that there was a marked increase in the number of strikes from August 1961 immediately after the Anson by-election and the split that took place in the Trades Union Congress. The total number of strikes during this period was 77 as against 116 for the whole year. Why this sudden perceptible increase in industrial unrest after the Anson by election? Mr Speaker, Sir, you will recall that during the Anson by election the call for merger and Malaysia was in the air, and the Government took a firm stand in response to that call; but Mr Lim Ching Siong and the pro-Communist elements in the unions came out with a statement to ask for complete internal self-government only, with the Internal Security Council abolished instead of merger and Malaysia. Therefore, it was over a political issue between the Government and the pro-Communist Party elements in the unions that they have waged a political battle against the Government over the issue of merger and Malaysia. The historical and inevitable event of the reunification of the people of the two territories of Singapore and the Federation was taking shape day by day and the pro-Communist elements in the union became agitated and decided to use every means to fight the Government with the view to frustrating the materialisation of merger and Malaysia. They therefore mounted the industrial unrest with the view to forcing the Government to shift its stand on the issue of merger and, failing which, to topple the Government in order to frustrate the reunification of the people of Singapore and the Federation. Mr Speaker, Sir, I therefore move an amendment to the motion as follows: (i) to add after the words "industrial unrest" in line 2 - "by pro-Communist political agitators for political ends"; (ii) to add after the words "in the interests of" in line 3 - "industrial expansion so vital to" (iii)to add at the end of the motion after the word "Singapore" - "and to prevent genuine industrial grievances from being exploited for Communist ends". The amended motion will thus read: "That this House views with grave concern the mounting of industrial unrest by pro-Communist political agitators for political ends and calls on the Government to take all reasonable steps to ensure industrial peace with justice in the interests of industrial expansion so vital to the economic well-being of the people of Singapore and to prevent genuine industrial grievances from being exploited for Communist ends." Amendment handed in. Mr Speaker, Sir -

Order. I might mention that it is usual for the proposer of an amendment to be moved to clear that amendment either with the Clerk or with the Speaker, because there is a format which is generally adhered to in these matters. I would suggest that the amendment, which in substance is in order, should be: To leave out all words from "unrest" to the end and substitute the words suggested, "by pro-Communist political agitators for political ends and calls on the Government to take all reasonable steps to ensure industrial peace with justice in the interests of industrial expansion so vital to the economic well-being of the people of Singapore and to prevent genuine industrial grievances from being exploited for Communist ends." Is that accepted?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg your pardon. I did not catch you just now. If all the amendments that are being moved by me in what you have said, then, of course -

In substance, the amendment is in order. It is a question of format. The amendment should be: To leave out all the words in the motion from "unrest" to the end and there to insert the words as they appear in the cyclostyled amended motion handed up.

Yes.

Copies of the cyclostyled amended motion will be handed round. Copies of amended motion distributed to hon. Members.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it was over the political issue of merger and Malaysia that caused the split in the non-Communist Left and the Communist Left in the Party and in the trade union movement. It therefore led to the test of strength between the non-Communist Left and the Communist Left. The Government had anticipated that pro-Communists would mount industrial unrest for political objectives. Let me quote from the letter of the Prime Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister who is the Chairman of the P.A.P. The Prime Minister in his letter pointed out the grave difficulties that faced the Government then because of the three Political Secretaries (Messrs. Lim Ching Siong, Fong Swee Suan and S. Woodhull) who had openly opposed the Government's policy for independence through merger. The Prime Minister then said: `It is most likely that mounting industrial action will be taken by Mr Lim Ching Siong and his confederates to coerce the Party and the Government to abandon its plan for merger. Up to now, because they were openly committed to our stand of industrial peace with justice, strikes and industrial unrest have nearly all been of an industrial character and without political objectives. Now that an open break has come, it is most likely that there will be a mounting offensive on the trade union front with political and not industrial objectives.' Now, let us go through the statistics and see how the pro-Communist elements mounted the industrial unrest. The number of strikes and lockouts during 1961 was 116, involving 43,584 workers and resulting in a loss of 410,889 man-days as against 45 strikes and lockouts in 1960 involving 5,539 workers and resulting in 152,005 man-days lost. There was a marked increase in the number of strikes from August to December 1961, i.e. the period immediately after the Anson by-election. The total number of strikes during this period was 77 as against 116 for the whole year. For the period from 1st July, 1961 to 31st January, 1962, there were altogether 96 strikes, as compared to 27 only for the first six months of 1961. Of the 96 strikes, 69 were by Communist-controlled or Communist-penetrated unions, 24 by non-Communist unions and three by employees not represented by any union. The Singapore General Employees' Union called 31 strikes; the Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union 25; and the Singapore Textile and General Merchants Employees' Union seven, making a total of 63 strikes or about 54 per cent of the total number of strikes during the year. For the period under review, the Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union, on the one hand, called a total of 25 strikes but, on the other, referred only 13 minor disputes to the Labour Department. Again, in the case of the dispute between the four Shaw Companies and the Singapore General Employees' Union in September 1961, no attempt was made by either party to avail itself of the machinery provided before taking industrial action. There was also a difference in behaviour of strikers between the non-Communist unions and the Communist-controlled unions. The pickets of non-Communist unions were comparatively well-behaved, while the behaviour of strikers of the Communist-controlled unions, particularly those of the Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union, was aggressive and offensive. Executives of the firms were often assaulted and subjected to various forms of humiliation. The following diary of events gives the picture of the extent of misconduct by pickets: On 18-8-61 - Robinson and Co., Ltd. Following breakdown of negotiations over the recognition of S.B.H.E.U. as the representative of the firm's employees, members of the union staged a "go-slow" on 18th August, 1961, and prevented non-strikers from entering the premises before 9 a.m. When Mr Warren and Mr Hazel, employees of the firm, attempted to enter the store at 8.45 a.m., they were assaulted by four or five persons. An optician, Mr Meyer, who went to, the aid of the two Europeans, was also assaulted. Mrs Khoo, a non-striking Chinese woman worker, was knocked down when she insisted on entering the store. On 11-9-61-Robinson and Co., Ltd. Thirty-two pickets were arrested and charged in court for causing obstruction. At the time the arrests were effected, other obstreperous strikers present insisted that they should also be arrested and taken to Central Police Station. Altogether 216 were brought to the Central Police Station where it was found that of these persons only 150 were actual employees of the firm, the other 66 being members of the S.B.H.E.U. employed at other firms. On l7-l1-61 - Seiclene Laundry and Dry-Cleaning. On that day during the strike, the workers held up a British Army truck which had gone to the laundry to reclaim unwashed linen sent there for washing under contract. The strikers under the instructions of Mr Tan Teck Wah, President of the Singapore General Employees' Union (which represents the strikers), used two of the company's vans to block the entrance to the firm and so prevented the Army vehicle from leaving. It is known that the strikers were instructed by Mr Tan Teck Wah to make the police feel ridiculous once it was decided to disperse them. However, Mr Fong Swee Suan who arrived later advised the strikers not to defy the police. In the event, the police had to push the company's vans out of the way in order to clear a passage for the military truck. Finally, when the police formed up to leave, they were jeered at and had exploding crackers flung at them. On 25-11-61 - Gammon (Singapore) Ltd. The workers went on a one-day strike on 25-11-61. At about 8.15 a.m. when an engineer of the firm was being driven into the firm's premises at Bukit Timah Road his car was stopped by about 70 pickets including members of the S.B.H.E.U. who were not employees of the firm. The Malay driver was ordered to leave the car and when the engineer tried to drive on, he was assaulted by two of the pickets who were not employees of the firm. Timely intervention by two uniformed constables on duty saved the engineer from serious injuries. The strikers were defiant and the two police constables had to draw their revolvers to deter the crowd from further assaulting the engineer. On 2-12-6l - Guthrie and Co. Ltd. At 9.30 a.m., a mercantile assistant of this firm, Mr Walker, was escorting two women employees - non-union members of the firm - to office. The ladies were prevented from going in to work at the staircase leading to the office. Mr Walker was fisted by a male picket. On the same day at 12.30 p.m., the director of the firm and the manager of the Pan-Malayan Imports were leaving the Chartered Bank Chambers.

On a point of order. I think the Parliamentary Secretary is referring to a matter which is sub judice.

I was on the point of enquiring from the Parliamentary Secretary whether all these cases he is now quoting are not sub judice. If they are sub judice, then he cannot mention them.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sorry. Only this one that I am mentioning is sub judice.

If that is so, the Parliamentary Secretary cannot even mention it.

I will therefore take your advice, Mr Speaker, Sir. Then on 4th December, 1961, at 3.50 p.m., a group of 14 European employees of the firm were leaving the premises under police escort. As they passed the pickets, they were jeered at, and one of the picketers threw two paper bags full of rotten eggs at them. The police constable who caught the assailant, Mr Teo Kim Eng, the Guthrie Branch Assistant Secretary of the union, in the act, was assaulted by Mr Teo who was then rescued by others. Mr Teo, however, was rearrested by the police constable with the assistance of Inspector Seah Wai Toh. Mr Teo was most violent and he punched and kicked Inspector Seah. The two police officers who took Mr Teo to a police pick-up were surrounded by the picketers who prevented the vehicle -

On a point of order. I believe that is also a matter that is sub judice. You have just ruled on such matters.

The Parliamentary Secretary must be very careful about his speech because Standing Order 46 (2) says: `Reference shall not be made to any matter which is sub judice, except by means of or in the course of consideration of a Bill...'.

My memory may fail me, but I believe that this case was heard in court and disposed of by the court. However, I will take your advice, not to mention it. Now after the Anson by-election, why this sudden upsurge of industrial unrest? It was not because the Government had changed its attitude towards the working class and frustrated the moves made by the workers for better terms and conditions of service. It was entirely due to the pro-C.P. elements who were opposed to merger and Malaysia. They picked a quarrel with the Government over this political issue and they wanted to create the impression in the minds of the workers that the Government was unsympathetic to the workers so that the workers would be discontented with the Government and so fight against the Government. They, therefore, had purposely mounted an industrial unrest and deliberately led the workers to clash with the police. But they have failed in the attempt to cause discontentment and ill-feeling of the workers towards the Government. They have failed because the Government did not allow the employers in the present political confusion which was created by the pro-C.P. elements to take advantage of it and to oppress the workers as the previous Government did. No opportunity was given to the employer to weaken the workers' bargaining position or the employers being allowed to repudiate agreements which they had concluded with the workers. Further, the Government, unlike the previous Government, did not allow itself to be manipulated by obstinate and reactionary employers nor allow itself to be made use of as a tool against the workers. As a result of the consistent labour policy of the Government, the workers had confidence in the Government that they could have their grievances redressed with the assistance of the machinery provided under the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The House will notice from the Press from time to time the improved benefits that the workers had achieved from the day the P.A.P. took office up to now. Just now I have illustrated a few cases in which the pro-Communist unions agitated its workers to use violence in the course of industrial disputes. Their main object was to lead the innocent workers into a clash with the police so that they could convince the workers that the Government was wicked and anti-worker. Therefore, through these means, they could exploit genuine trade disputes for their own selfish aims by implicating the workers in a political struggle against the Government. The pro-C.P. unions always issued statements blaming the Government for using the police against strikers. It is quite clear now from the incidents enumerated just now that the police had no alternative but to step in when violence was resorted to. The pro-C.P. elements in the unions raised a hue and cry over the question of reunification of the trade union movement. Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have pointed out earlier, the split in the trade union movement was caused by the pro-C.P. elements over a political issue. They wanted the consolidation of the working class not for the workers' interests but for them to manipulate the trade union movement for their own selfish political ends. They made every attempt to capture control of the trade union movement so that they can bring pressure on and manipulate an elected Government to advance their own factional political ends. They have made use of the trade union movement for political manoeuvres calculated to create conditions of political unrest and instability in the State of Singapore. This was the cause of the spilt in the trade union movement, and the blame should go to the pro-C.P. elements and no one else. Though there was a split in the trade union movement because they opposed the Government's realisation of merger, the Government has done everything possible to preserve the collective organisation of the workers in order that their own interests can be protected. You will therefore observe, Mr Speaker, Sir, that though there was a split in the trade union movement, nevertheless the Government has preserved an impartial and fair attitude in the face of provocation. Though there was a split in the trade unions, the P.A.P. Government sees to it that no employer is allowed to create yellow unions to weaken the bargaining position of the workers, as the Lim Yew Hock Government had done.

What about the A.U.P.E.?

For that matter, there are records and it can be dismissed as a distortion. From the above, you will now see that no matter how hard the pro-C.P. elements have attempted to create discontent and to instil in the workers' minds the fact that the Government has abandoned its labour policy and is unsympathetic towards them, they have failed because we in the P.A.P. are genuinely working for the interests of the workers by not allowing the employers to exploit the political situation or allow itself to be manipulated by the capitalists. I would therefore take this opportunity to warn the pro-C.P. elements in the Barisan and in the unions that they have to be responsible and answerable to those workers whom they have misled by creating industrial unrest, as a result of which the workers themselves have lost their jobs or suffered, as a consequence of which their families have also suffered, and they have to be responsible for these workers and their families. Mr Speaker, Sir, just now the Member for Queenstown has accused the Government of being pro-employer. Let us see who really has the interests of the workers at heart and who really is interested in maintaining industrial peace so that economic development could be proceeded with. There are many cases which I could cite to, prove that the pro-C.P. unions are making use of these genuine trade disputes for their own ends. For instance, the Malayan Theatres, i.e, the Shaw Organisation, the Prime Minister has cited it just now but I would like to give more details of this case to show how they have put the workers to unnecessary suffering and loss of income. The dispute in this case was over claims for arrears of public holiday pay and allowances for morning and midnight shows. Mr Speaker, Sir, they are quite aware that there is an Ordinance which provides for all these amenities and employers have to abide by them, and in case of a breach of this section of the Ordinance the workers do not have to fight for it but they could just simply either raise the matter with the management or report it to the Labour Department, and the Inspectorate of the Labour Department will no doubt look into the complaint of a breach of this section of the Ordinance. But the pro-C.P. union, as is usual, claimed that what they had done was for the benefit of the workers without political motives. In this case, if that was their intention, in their failure to resolve this matter with the management directly, why did they not just lodge a complaint with the Labour Department? Instead, Mr Speaker, Sir, they decided to mislead the workers and ask them to take industrial action. In this particular case, they had a previous discussion at the Labour Ministry and it was adjourned to the following day. But the union, knowing full well the situation and that there was no breakdown in the negotiation, called off the workers on the eve when negotiations should be resumed. Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a clear example of what they claimed to be acting in the interests of the workers. As a result of their unscrupulous exploitation of a genuine trade dispute for their own political ends, the workers had to lose wages when they went on strike from the 21st December, 1961 to 31st January, 1962. Both parties have now agreed to refer the matter to the Arbitration Court, but as the Prime Minister has pointed out just now, the management had, in fact, offered to refer the matter to the Labour Court or to the Arbitration Court, because in this case the dispute was purely over a matter of facts and figures. So I do not know to what extent they can substantiate their claim. Anyway, 419 workers had been asked to go on strike unnecessarily for 2½ months, and they had to suffer during this period as they would derive no income. I wonder if they would or could ultimately get back a substantial sum to offset this period when the workers went on strike which resulted in a loss of income. Let us examine the non-Communist trade unions and the Communist-controlled trade unions. Do they make every attempt and effort to bring about long-term industrial stability in industry? Surely, Mr Speaker, Sir, if you were to examine the agreements that were concluded between the Communist-controlled unions and the employers, you will notice that in most cases they just asked for a nominal sum of increments to which, I believe, in any case they would have been entitled. They had made no attempt to study their claims or to put up claims where the workers did not have to go through the same procedure and the trouble to ask for revision of terms and conditions of service. In the non-Communist trade union group, they always study the case, consult their members, and put up claims which lead to ultimate long-term stability in employment. The House probably will have seen from the newspapers that in every agreement concluded, for instance, by the Bank Employees Union, the Insurance Employees Union, the Singapore Manual and Mercantile Workers Union, and other unions, i.e, under the non-C.P.-controlled group, they always asked for salary scales. So we see that once these unions take the trouble to fight for better terms and conditions of service, they achieve real benefits and they do not have to negotiate again every year or every two years. Why is there such a difference in their tactics? It is very simple, Mr Speaker, Sir. The Communist-controlled unions accuse the Government of being pro-employer, but how was it that the non-Communist-controlled unions concluded agreements with employers on time scales which the Member for Thomson said the employer always refused to accept? Apart from this nominal increment, they always conclude an agreement for only a period of 18 months or two years, and they are very, very reluctant to conclude an agreement for two years or more. This shows the intention behind their move. On the whole, Mr Speaker, Sir, they always say the workers are dissatisfied with the Government. Let us look at this statement and see what is the real dissatisfaction, as they allege, the workers have with the Government. This is a Press cutting of the Sunday Tunes of 10th July, 1961. This is what is exactly reported in the Press of the speeches made by Mr Dominic Puthucheary and Mr S. T. Bani. members of the 10-man T.U.C. Secretariat. They were addressing the 5th Annual Delegates Conference of Industrial Workers Union at its premises in Kallang Road.

At that time we were in the P.A.P.

Yes, that is the period when you had already decided to betray the Party.

Order. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary is addressing the Chair. I do not think the Speaker has betrayed any Party so far.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am referring to the Member for Thomson. "They said: `A chief cause of dissatisfaction was the Government's failure to implement the Trade Union Bill which would provide for the reunification of the trade union movement. Another reason was the Government's loss of its anti-colonial fervour and the fact that it would not take a courageous stand against the Internal Security Council.' They said: `The Government had deprived active trade unionists and anti-colonialists o citizenship rights and had not implemented the unionists' demand for release of all political detainees and the granting of freedom of speech and Assembly for anti-colonial purposes.'" Mr Speaker, Sir, what has this got to do with the general workers? Again, at a meeting of the Singapore Business Houses Employees Union, which was reported on 16th February, 1962, in the Straits Times, Mr Foo Yong Fong, the Union's President, said this.

Wrong statement, it seems!

These are Communist virtues which they are trying to impress on the white-collar workers. He started off with saying: `All the time we are told that the Communists are supposed to be had people.' And he continued. `Countries such as Russia, China and Cuba which can supply us with cheaper things are bad countries. Many people are not aware that they can get cheaper goods, such as clothes, shirts and canned food from countries like Russia and China than from America, Britain, Holland and South Africa.' Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not have to waste this House's time to go through the resolutions and the statements the Communist-controlled unions issued during the Anson by-election and even up till now when merger is taking shape. The main theme of their resolution was nothing else but to try and deceive the workers. They want to incite them to fight against the Government on the ground that the P.A.P. Government has sold out the people of Singapore because it wants a merger with the Federation, and the P.A.P. Government was reluctant to fight for internal self-government with the abolition of the Internal Security Council. Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, from all this, we can see that it is not the Government, due to this political situation, that has lost interest in the workers. On the contrary, it is the pro-C.P. in the unions which do not want to see the realisation of the unification of the people of Singapore and Malaya. Just now many Opposition Members criticised the Government for not providing enough facilities for the trade unions in order that they can settle their disputes without resort to industrial action. Let me reveal to this House what the Government has done in order to help the workers to achieve better terms and conditions of service without undue hardship by going on strike. There is the Industrial Relations Ordinance under which an Industrial Arbitration Court was established to maintain industrial peace with justice. The Government has taken steps to strengthen the conciliation team in the Ministry of Labour. The number of conciliation officers in the Labour Department was increased from 4 to 9 officers as from 8th January, 1962. The organisation was also changed. In this new set-up there are five officers with considerable experience in conciliation work. But, Mr Speaker, do they really ask for this conciliation machinery in order that they will make use of it to maintain industrial peace? No, Mr Speaker, Sir. Conciliation and arbitration machinery is not what the pro-C.P. elements in the unions want to make use of. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, they have brought trouble on their own shoulders and they have to face their own medicine when, in spite of all their evil deeds, they still fail to prevent the historical, inevitable reunion of our territories on whose political and economic stability we can build a more prosperous society for our workers.

The original Question was, "That this House views with grave concern the mounting of industrial unrest and calls on the Government to take all reasonable steps to ensure industrial peace with justice in the interests of the economic well-being of the people of Singapore." Since which an amendment has been moved, To leave out all the words from "unrest" to the end, and there to insert "by pro-Communist political agitators for political ends and calls on the Government to take all reasonable steps to ensure industrial peace with justice in the interests of industrial expansion so vital to the economic well-being of the people of Singapore and to prevent genuine industrial grievances from being exploited for Communist ends". The Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is surprising that the amendment should have come from someone who sits behind the Government Front Benches. One would have thought that the Prime Minister, with all his knowledge about Communism and his twelve talks, would have been the first one to bring this amendment before the House. If he should fail, then, of course, there is his next best, the one who knows all about Communism, who depends on the Special Branch for his information, the Minister for Home Affairs. What is the real meaning of this amendment? It says here, in the second part, "in the interests of industrial expansion so vital to the economic well-being of the people of Singapore". Who disagrees with a statement like that? But the Government, having failed in its responsibility, having failed in its industrialisation programme, now tries to find a scapegoat. And where else better than to pin it on the Communists and the pro-Communist elements? Crying "Communism", as I have said already a little while ago, is not going to benefit anybody, except in this particular case the P.A.P. and all those forces allied with the P.A.P. for the suppression of the legitimate aspirations of the workers. Crying "Communism" is not new. It has been done before, Sir, and on many occasions, we had also touched on this. We have also told the House that long ago the cry "radical" was directed against anti-anyone who happened to be against the Government. Later on the smear word was "socialists". A thing which a lot of people may have forgotten is that 1900 years ago the smear word was "Christian". Of course, today, they use other smear words. They are "red", "pink", "fellow-travellers" and "Communist". Do they not have anything new? Is the P.A.P. Government today so utterly bankrupt that their leaders cannot think of anything to salvage their sinking prestige? Sir, the motives behind this amendment are very clear. First, in moving the motion here they want to adopt the same tactics which they adopted at the last Assembly sitting; namely, they want the Assembly to cover the action which they want to but dare not take. It is clear to everybody that the whole intention of the Government is to take repressive action against the workers. But they have not got the guts to do it. They want cover from the Assembly. Then they would say, if anybody should complain, that the action was endorsed by the Assembly. In the Assembly the Opposition too is there, and, therefore, the whole responsibility of such repressive action would not fall on the P.A.P. alone. That is their line of argument. But that will not deceive anybody. They are always trying to get the Assembly as cover. It is a very foolish thing because it is becoming too common. Everybody knows it already. By crying "Communism" at this stage, Sir, of course, they also want to create an atmosphere of fear, doubt and uncertainty; and when they have created this atmosphere of tension, they hope that a lot of people will get frightened so that when ultimately they take repressive action very few people will dare raise their voices in protest. These are tricks which have been adopted in the colonial mother countries on many occasions, and the P.A.P. are trying the same tactics today. But let me tell them this. In their trying to create doubt and uncertainty, fear and suspense in the minds of the people, they are actually trying to shove responsibility away from the Government in their inability to carry out their industrial programme. Everybody knows that the fear of industrialists in coming forward today is because of the political instability. They would not want to invest in a country when they know that the government of the day may be pushed out at any minute and when they very well know that the Government has no earthly chance whatsoever of ever being returned to power. Such being the case, the P.A.P. think it might be a good idea to pass the buck over to the unions instead. They have been stigmatizing the unions for a long time. It is always an easy way out crying "Communism", Sir, because it is very safe. When you cry "Communism", the Communists who are underground will not come forward to defend themselves, and we in the constitutional arena will also not come forward to defend Communism. So is it not nice, is it not easy? Always blame the Communists. Nobody can answer anything. When it comes to talking of Communism, I would like to tell them a few home truths, namely, that it is only people who are utterly bankrupt of ideas and who are hopelessly irresponsible who will go on this particular line. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour has listed so many instances of so-called Communist and pro-Communist activities. Why not be brave enough to identify those people concerned? Name them. Then carry out what you have long intended to do; send them to the country, put them behind bars, so that the people who are now against the P.A.P., the people who are supporting the Barisan Sosialis, the people who are completely disgusted with the present Government, can be put away, so that they may not be able to come forward to oppose the P.A.P. Then maybe the P.A.P. hope to isolate the Barisan Sosialis, reduce our strength and perhaps when there is a general election, they hope that they might still have a fighting chance. And if they could take away the core, the real ground work from our Barisan Sosialis, then our organisation, our strength, will be reduced and then, so they think, they will be able to take us on at an advantage. All these actions and intentions of the P.A.P. are very reminiscent of the days of the Lim Yew Hock Government. I have already said that the Prime Minister of today does not differ very much from the Chief Minister of the previous Government. Now that the amendment has come forward, it makes me wonder what is the real intention and motive behind that original motion. Is it to allow a chance for the P.A.P. to move their amendment about the pro-Communist elements? Is it or is it not? I wonder, Sir, what really was in the mind of the Member for Cairnhill. Because we know during the days of the previous Government repressive action was taken on the slightest excuse against workers. They called them subversives. They called them so many things - Tun Lim Yew Hock rose -

On a point of order?

On a point of elucidation.

If the Member will give way.

I think the Member for Cairnhill can speak his mind afterwards. Sir, it is very clear to us today that the P.A.P. and the S.P.A. are in cahoots. They are going along the same road. You can see, Sir, everything that the P.A.P. does, the S.P.A. supports. Arguments put forward by the P.A.P. and the Prime Minister, the S.P.A. and the Members for Cairnhill, Tanglin and Farrer Park all echo. They are all from the same bunch. Sir, I wish also at this particular stage to remind the Back-benches of the P.A.P. (since so many of them are not here, I hope they will pass the word round). Do not let yourselves be used by the selfish Front benches just to keep their own positions. Do not lend your names to such repressive action. Never allow your names to be linked with people who want to suppress people just for their own selfish ends. Never do a thing like that. We all know the Prime Minister is trying to prove himself not only an anti-Communist in Singapore. He is anxious to gain repute as an international anti-Communist. By so doing, he hopes to gain a lot of support from the Americans and from other sources. Then all the power of capital and capitalists from outside Singapore will also help to influence the power that be to keep him in power. The only snag is, in spite of all this, the P.A.P. will still not be able to make it. The people will see through all their stratagems and tricks and will tear them to pieces one by one. Crying "Communism" will not be able to keep the P.A.P. in power, and it will not be able to frighten the people into supporting the P.A.P. if ever they should go to the country at any time, they will find that even their deposits may be lost. If any one of them on the Front benches should ever dare come forward for a by-election at any time - An hon. Member: Resign first.

We will do it. Yes, I can tell you the same thing - resign. I will resign if the Minister for Home Affairs will follow me and resign straightaway. Give an assurance right here -

Order. These challenges being thrown across the Chamber surely are completely irrelevant to the issue. Let us come back now to this amendment and try and save some time of this Assembly.

I will not take the House very much longer, Sir. I feel that this amendment to the motion is all meant to pass the responsibility for the failure of the P.A.P. Government on to other people and to blame those who cannot reply. Crying "Communism", instead of helping the industrial expansion of the country will, in effect, drive away whatever investment that may be forthcoming. That is a thing which the P.A.P. does not realise and I hope someone will tell the Minister for Finance so that he may stop all this tomfoolery and smear tactics of the P.A.P. Only then will there be a possibility of foreign investment coming into the country to develop industries so that people may have a chance to get employment and so that the living standard of the people may rise as a result. 7.27 p.m. Mr Chan Sun Wing (Upper Serangoon) (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, looking at the amendment put forward by the Government, I feel that it is rather ridiculous and preposterous. Speaking on the amendment, I feel that the present leadership of the P.A.P. see Communists with their eyes open and also with their eyes closed. Even when they sleep and dream, they dream of Communists. I would like to suggest to them that this kind of behaviour is something like a disease. They have been enchanted according to the Chinese, and the best thing for them to do is to go to Sago Lane to have a Chinese Taoist to drive away the evil spirits, so that their bewilderment can be driven away. In this manner, they will not be so confused when they look at things. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is said that when Radio Singapore was moving on to the present site, there was some sort of evil spirit there. At that time the Government invited all the leaders of the various religious groups to drive away the ghost. Since there has been a precedent in this matter, I would like to suggest to the P.A.P. that they should have some religious man to drive away the spirit of the Communists. The best course for them to take is to go before the Government building in the City Council, put up there a very huge paper figure representing the Communists and then set this paper figure on fire.

Order. Mr Serjeant-at-Arms, will you see that order is kept in the Gallery? There is unnecessary laughter in the Gallery and even as I look up there, I see some strangers indulging in laughter. I would like you to keep order in the Gallery. Mr Chan Sun Wing (In Mandarin): I believe that if the Government accept my suggestion of burning the effigy of a Communist they will then calm down and come to their senses. Mr Speaker, Sir, now I am going back to the motion itself. I do not claim to be a trade unionist. Because of this, I am not very sure about trade union matters. But according to my common sense, I feel that this amendment of the Government is very preposterous and illogical. In the first place, I would like to ask: if this House does accept this motion, then the Government will take steps to suppress and gaol all the pro-Communist people - does it mean that there will be industrial peace in Singapore after this action? I would like to ask a Minister of the P.A.P, to answer that question. Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe that everybody who reads newspapers knows that in industrially advanced countries like the United Kingdom and the United States of America the Communists are not supported and welcomed by the people. Although the people in those countries do not welcome the Communists, are there no strikes? There are widespread strikes and there is industrial strife. What explanation can be given for such a situation? We will leave the U.K. and the U.S.A. and take India for example. Not long ago, there were widespread strikes in India. The leaders of the Indian Government servants were not manipulated by the Communists, and therefore the union was not manipulated by the Communists. Yet there were unprecedented strikes. Therefore, it is a distortion of fact and a deceiving statement to attribute our local industrial unrest to the Communists. I personally do not know the details of every case of industrial unrest or strike. But from reports in the newspapers, I understand that the strikes by non-P.A.P. unions were blamed for the industrial strife. But we do remember very well that the Daily-Rated Employees Union of the City Council held a three-week strike. Can it be said that the leaders of this union were manipulated by the Communists? From the newspapers it can be seen that the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture is the head of the A.U.P.E. which has given notice of strike action. Another sponsored trade unionist of the P.A.P. is Mr Devan Nair who is the leader of the Singapore Bank Employees Union which has taken industrial action. There is also another union - the Singapore Manual and Mercantile Workers Union - led by Mr Gomez. This union has often given notice of strike action. In all the instances I have mentioned, the cause of industrial strife and industrial unrest cannot be purely attributed to the Communists. You cannot say that all strikes are Communist inspired. If you say that that is so, then all unions including the A.U.P.E. and those led by Mr Devan Nair can be so classified. If the Government intends really to take action against these people, then they must treat other people alike. They must put in gaol all those responsible for industrial unrest. If the Government were to take action against unions which are their political opponents, then they would not bring about industrial peace in Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am rather reluctant to disclose this, but since the P.A.P. Government now pretend to be a Government in the interest of the workers, I feel compelled to disclose the facts I know. When I first began to work in the P.A.P., I was engaged in the Trade Union Research and Advisory Bureau of the P.A.P. I was the only paid worker of this organisation and there was also a person who was paid but did no work. If you want to look up this matter, you can find out that the man who held this post was a sinecurist. You can also find out the amount of provident fund in respect of my post. This so-called Trade Union Research and Advisory Bureau was one in which I worked as an investigator. At the beginning, I was very enthusiastic in my work. But what was there to investigate? There was no plan. I did not know the kind of work I was to do. I had to draw on my experience as a journalist to carry out the work in my capacity as an investigator when talking to the leaders of the unions in order to get their views. Who asked me to do this kind of work? It was none other than the Prime Minister who was then the Secretary-General of the P.A.P. The Trade Union Advisory Bureau had a signboard next to the P.A.P. signboard. They were using the same office and the same table. So from this experience I know all about the labour policy of the P.A.P. Now if they were just to keep quiet about it instead of boasting about their labour policy, then I will not have to disclose the facts.

Order. I do not know whether what the hon. Member is saying is relevant to the amendment. We are now debating the amendment. It seems to me that he is debating the whole motion. But if he can satisfy me that what he is saying has some connection with the amendment as shown in the cyclostyled paper he has, then he can continue. Mr Chan Sun Wing (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I was just giving an example to show the people the whole truth in regard -

Order. I am only interested in finding out whether the hon. Member is speaking to the amendment. He is entitled to tell the people the whole truth. But as far as the Chair is concerned, is what he is saying relevant to the amendment, which introduces the element of pro-Communist political agitators for political ends creating industrial unrest, and calls on the Government to take all reasonable steps to ensure industrial peace with justice in the interests - and this is the addition - "of industrial expansion so vital to the economic well-being of the people...", and with a further addition in order "to prevent genuine industrial grievances from being exploited for Communist ends"? The Communist element has been introduced as well as the element of industrial expansion vital to the economic well-being of the people. The hon. Member has not spoken to the original motion. He can later on speak again to the original motion. We are now dealing with the amendment. Mr Chan. Mr Chan Sun Wing (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, what I was saying was actually aimed at the amendment because I have already said that I was rising to speak on the preposterous amendment moved by the Government. What I was trying to show was that the P.A.P. originally did not have any labour policy. Now that they cannot get the support of the workers, they are therefore very worried that the leaders of the workers and the broad masses of the workers themselves will discard the P.A.P. policy. And so the Government have moved this amendment. I feel that this amendment aims at the political achievements of the P.A.P. instead of aiming at bringing about industrial peace.

Is there any other Member who wishes to speak only on the amendment? 7.45 p.m. Mr Tan Cheng Tong (Jalan Kayu) (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, originally I did not intend to speak, but having listened to the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour on this amendment, I have a feeling that the P.A.P. Government at present is trying to shirk its responsibility, instead of facing the people. Take, for example, the question of industrial peace. All the people of Singapore can see clearly that it is because of the failure of the P.A.P. to keep their promises that there is industrial unrest in Singapore. And so just for the sake of their own interests, the P.A.P. have set up many unions. The City Council strike actually came about as a result of their manoeuvres.

Order. I thought I made it clear that the debate now is on the amendment only, and that is, the introduction of the Communist element in the motion as well as the effect of that on industrial expansion vital to the economic well-being of the people. That is all we are debating about at the moment. Later on, the hon. Member for Jalan Kayu will have every opportunity of saying what he wishes to say on the general aspects of the motion. Mr Tan Cheng Tong (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am only trying to say that it is not the Communists who are trying to bring about strikes. It is the Government itself that is causing strike. It cannot shirk its responsibility and blame the Communists who just cannot stand up to defend themselves. So, as a representative of the people, say that there is a lot of work not yet done by the Government. Instead of carrying out their responsibilities, they are trying to use the name of Communists to cover up their failure. This term "Communists" was frequently used by the colonial Government and the Lim Yew Hock Government because at that time they were trying to suppress the people instead of trying to serve the people. So whenever anyone criticised the Government for not doing work for the people, he would be called a Communist. The P.A.P. Government now is resorting to the same tactics employed by the previous Government and the colonial Government. So I am just saying that there is an ulterior motive in the amendment - to put the responsibility partly on the Barisan Sosialis and partly on the Communists. They are trying to create this Communist phobia in order to use it as an excuse to suppress the people in future. In the past two years of its office, the Government has failed in many respects, especially in dealing with strikes. It is now trying to put the blame on the Communists in order to confuse the people. Mr Speaker, Sir, about seven or eight months ago, the People's Association was set up by the Government to take charge of community centres. We all know that the setting up of the People's Association, as stated in its constitution, was to give proper recreation facilities to the people. But in actual practice this was not done, because the P.A.P. Government gave directives to the workers in the People's Association that they should serve the P.A.P.

Order. Can the Member satisfy the Chair that this has something to do with the Communist element which has been introduced into the motion? If he can, he can carry on; otherwise I suggest that he reserve his remarks until later on when he has an opportunity of speaking. We are now dealing with the amendment. Let us come to a decision in so far as the amendment is concerned. Mr Tan Cheng Tong (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the People's Association went on strike for seven to eight months, and because the Union or the organisation of workers was involved, the Government did not recognise this strike. Instead it disregarded their grievances and put the whole blame on the Communists. So I say that -

Order. The hon. Member has not as yet satisfied the Chair that this trouble in the People's Association has anything to do with this Communist element which has been introduced into the motion. Is he alleging that there was a Communist element there? Or is he saying that the Government have alleged that there was a Communist element there? I do not know. But will he come to the point, and the Chair will be satisfied? Mr Tan Cheng Tong (In Mandarin): r Speaker, Sir, the strike in the People's Association was described as one agitated by the Communists, and since the Communist element has been introduced into the amendment, I am trying to link them up to show that instead of trying to settle the strike, the Government put the whole blame on the Communists, unless the workers' organisation can be exploited by them. Now, if the unions in the industrial organisation cannot be exploited and manoeuvred by the P.A.P., then action would be taken against them. That is why I say that this incident in the People's Association is related to the amendment. I am just giving an example to show that all the blame regarding strikes is put on the Communists. Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel it is necessary to criticise the Government for trying to shirk its duties. The Government is not doing anything for the workers. Let us take the incident at the Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation as an example. The strike at the O.C.B.C. was a cause of great inconvenience to businessmen in Singapore.

Order. Is this another of the strikes which the Member alleges that the Government say was Communist-inspired? If so, then he is in order. If not, then he is out of order. I would suggest to the hon. Member that he has the opportunity, and he will have the opportunity, of speaking about these strikes individually when we come to the main motion. We are now dealing with the amendment. Mr Tan Cheng Tong (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, because this union concerned is inclined towards the P.A.P., and since this amendment says that industrial unrest is the result of agitation by the Communists, I dare say that not all the blame of industrial unrest should fall on the Communists. Even without Communist agitation there is industrial unrest or industrial strife. This is the position as I know it, and it is because they want to oppress the workers and fail to keep their promises made to the workers that they have to find a way out. Mr Speaker, Sir, we all know that the P.A.P. is afraid of the freedom for people to organise. This amendment aims at threatening people in regard to freedom of speech. Because of the tone contained in the amendment, if future union leaders who want to fight for the interests of the workers should carry out a struggle, then they have to think twice, in view of this amendment, as it claims that the so-called industrial unrest is the result of agitation by the Communists. So if they should take any industrial action, they would be described as Communist agitators and be dealt with accordingly. Therefore, I feel it necessary to express my views to the Government Benches. It is my opinion that the struggle of the workers sometimes, if not always, is reasonable. In this respect, the Government should try its best to help solve the problems of the workers. Here, I would like to quote the incident of the Shaw Organisation. According to my understanding of this case, the strike at the Shaw Organisation -

Order. Is the hon. Member now alleging that the Government alleges that the Shaw strike was Communist-inspired? If he alleges that, then he is in order. If he does not allege that, then I suggest once again that he wait for his opportunity when we deal with the main motion. Mr Tan Cheng Tong (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir - 8.00 p.m.

Order. Moment of interruption.

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

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, since the Government announced its plan in April this year to start the Toa Payoh development project, 25,000 residents there have been worried. They are dissatisfied with and have strong feelings against the Government. What they are dissatisfied with is not the scheme for the development of Toa Payoh itself, but the Government's rate of compensation in regard to the question of resettlement for the care of the residents. The Government has not taken into consideration the losses incurred by the 25,000 residents there. It has never taken their interest into consideration. It has only passed decrees to carry out its plans without such consideration. This rude attitude and action of the Government is contrary to the promises made by it to the people at the time of the general elections. The present rate of compensation is based on the Lim Yew Hock Government rate which was stipulated in 1956. In the P.A.P. Government promises at the general elections to the people in respect of rural development -

I think the Interpreter will probably find it a bit difficult to follow the hon. Member if he is speaking too fast. He should be slower.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, today naked facts have shown that the P.A.P. have been acting contrary to their election promises. According to page 2 of the P.A.P.'s pamphlet, Book I, it says in regard to the P.A.P.'s rural policy: `The position of all agricultural lands at present in the occupation of squatter farmers which have been zoned in the Master Plan as sites for satellite towns or potential industrial estates will be reviewed and the fullest consideration will be given to the representation of the members of the farming community before any decisions are made as to the future use to which such lands shall be put.' Mr Speaker, the most important part which merits our attention in this passage is that the fullest consideration would be given to representations of members of the farming community. The request of the Toa Payoh residents to the Government is that the Government should fully consider their representations. But what has the P.A.P. Government done? It should consider carefully the views and representations of the Toa Payoh residents. But has the P.A.P. Government done so? Their representations are very simple and clear. They are not like the P.A.P. promises made at the time of the general elections, which were some kind of trickery and were of a very confused nature. First, the request of the Toa Payoh residents is that when they are asked to remove, the Government should give them adequate, reasonable and just compensation for the loss of their agricultural produce and all the structures built on the land. At the moment, the Government's rate of compensation is based on the Lim Yew Hock Government's rate of compensation which was fixed in 1956. The rate of this old scheme of compensation was very low. Thus the rural residents would have to incur great losses if they were to be paid according to this old rate. Secondly, the request of the residents of Toa Payoh is that after they have resettled, the Government should look after their welfare. It should not let them be homeless or unemployed so that they would suffer the misery of unemployment. But according to the present Government measures, the Government has not given any safeguard to the residents who are affected in respect of their future livelihood. At the present moment, most of them are carrying on farming. In future, when they are removed to new resettlement areas, they will be faced with the problem of a shortage of land and they may not have adequate land to carry on with their own trade, that is to say, farming and other things. Hawkers perhaps will also be unemployed. There is always such a danger and uncertainty before them. About 1,000 residents who have been engaging in the bean-curd business and rattan industry will also be faced with the problem of unemployment. Therefore, the Toa Payoh residents are rather worried about their future. They have all sorts of misgivings and uncertainty. I would like to ask the P.A.P. leaders whether they have given full consideration to the representations and views of the Toa Payoh residents affected by the development scheme. The answer from them is obviously no. In order to present their representations and views to the Government, the residents of Toa Payoh convened mass rallies. They launched signature campaigns in the area. The Country People's Association also spent over one month interviewing the residents in the area and seeking their views. In the end the Association drafted two memoranda which were presented to the Government. These memoranda systematically presented the views of the residents and their request to the Government. But the Government's attitude towards these representations was very bad. The Government entirely ignored the representatives from the people. The representatives of the people wanted to see the Minister, but the Minister and the officers responsible refused to see them. They used all kinds of pretexts and elusive tactics not to see them. Can this attitude on the part of the Government be satisfactory to the Toa Payoh residents? Can this kind of Government be pleasant to the people? Can the people have any confidence in such a Government? The Government's barbarity and its wrong attitude towards the Toa Payoh problem have incurred the ill-feelings and misgivings of the Toa Payoh residents. The P.A.P. Government has involved itself in a way which is just like hitting itself with a stone. The P.A.P. Government has not tried to review its past mistakes and rectify them. On the contrary, it is levelling accusations against me and the Country People's Association for creating troubles against the Government. All this is absurd. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Toa Payoh satellite town plan was proposed last year. At that time I was still with the P.A.P. Government. Ever since the plan was proposed, it has caused worry and misgivings to the Toa Payoh residents. This is because the Government did not at the same time announce a reasonable and adequate rate of compensation and they did not announce its plan for resettlement of the residents in Toa Payoh. After several contacts, with them, I came to understand their misgivings and worry. On many occasions I told the leaders o, the P.A.P. about the views and the requests of the people affected. As early as 3rd May, 1961, I presented a memorandum to the Minister for National Development, and also to the leaders, to remind them of the worries and the views of the people. I suggested that the three parties, that is, myself, certain representatives from the people and the Country People's Association, should form a consultative committee to look into the Toa Payoh resettlement problem. At the same time, the Toa Payoh P.A.P. Branch representatives also convened a joint Branch and Headquarters meeting to discuss various matters affecting the Toa Payoh residents which were detrimental to their interest and to the interest of the people living there. At that time, that is, in May last year, about 20 Branch secretaries and assistant secretaries had presented their representations to the leaders of the P.A.P. on the question of the Toa Payoh development scheme and resettlement problems. The representations said that in implementing the Toa Payoh satellite town plan, the Government had held no prior consultation with the residents there and had no understanding of the living conditions of the residents there. In fact, it had not paid much attention to the problems of resolving the livelihood of the people affected by the scheme. Though the plan itself is good, nevertheless the Government has never taken into consideration the interests of the people affected. The People's livelihood depends on business and trades. These are closely linked with the place they live in and the people affected will incur certain losses in respect of their property and belongings. This should also be taken into consideration. Mr Speaker, Sir, the request and views of the people affected can be likened to a stone which has sunk in the sea. They did not evoke any response from the P.A.P. Government. The Government has entirely ignored the misery and the difficulties of the people affected. On this point we, the people who have suggested various views and requests to the P.A.P. Government, had in the end to part ways with the P.A.P. leadership politically. At present the P.A.P. leadership have incurred the great displeasure and dissatisfaction of the Toa Payoh residents. Now the P.A.P. leaders are trying to seek some other side issues in order to divert attention. They now construe the Toa Payoh problem as a kind of political question and put the blame on the Barisan Sosialis. They are accusing us of purposely trying to create confusion and trouble and also create ill-feelings against the Government. These tactics on the part of the P.A.P. disclose the Party's barbarity, rudeness and unreasonableness in dealing with this question. This kind of levelling accusations and throwing blame will not help solve the various matters arising from the Toa Payoh development plan at all. If the P.A.P. Government had sincerely respected the views and representations of the people and the Rural People's Association in thinking out a good plan to deal with the Toa Payoh problems, i.e., to look after the interests of the people affected and to have a certain kind of safeguard for their livelihood, then this question could have been resolved amicably. It is now trying to pay for its phoney merger and Malaysia Plan with the money it has, but it is not willing to settle the Toa Payoh problem. It has spent about $130,000 on Malaysia Week and the Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee. It has spent about $40,000 to $50,000 in distributing Mr Lee Kuan Yew's pamphlets for his personal propaganda. These are issued in small pamphlets numbering a few thousands. But as to the request made by the 25,000 Toa Payoh residents, the P.A.P. Government is not even interested in their livelihood and after-care. On the contrary, the P.A.P. Government is issuing statements in the newspapers and trying to show that it is helping the Toa Payoh residents to move into a kind of paradise, whereas we, on the other hand, are trying to prevent them from resettling in a paradise. It has been said that we have lost the support of the people of Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, the people are the supreme authority and the final judge on the question of what is right and what is wrong, what is true and what is false. I would like to draw the attention of the P.A.P. leadership to this fact. I would like seriously to challenge the P.A.P. leadership. If any of them wants to resign now, I would like to contest him in a future by-election in order to let the people pass their final judgment on us. 8.19 p.m.

Sir, I would like to quote from a Government Press release dated 10th March, 1962. It started off briefly: `It has now become clear that the Barisan Sosialis having failed to work up public opinion against the Government among the workers, students, People's Association employees and members of the Work Brigade, are now, in conjunction with their sympathisers, the Country People's Association, turning their attention to farmers and other rural people. Towards this end, they are now trying to work up anti-Government feeling over the Ton Payoh Development Scheme.' Sir, everyone of us knows that they are turning their attention to the farmers and the rural people. One week ago, the Member for Toa Payoh and his Party held a mass meeting in Toa Payoh. We heard from the Member for Toa Payoh just now that there are about 25,000 settlers in Toa Payoh, and out of this 25,000 settlers, only 150 of them turned up at this meeting. The other 400 or 500 who made up the crowd were brought in. It just shows that the people who voted for the Member for Toa Payoh voted for the P.A.P. They did not vote for the Barisan Sosialis. Sir, when the Member for Toa Payoh was still in the Government, he vigorously advised the people of Toa Payoh to accept the Government's terms of compensation as fair and reasonable, and he urged them to move out to resettlement areas set aside for them by the Government. Now that he is in the Barisan Sosialis, he sings a different tune. The Member for Toa Payoh and his friends in the Country People's Association have been told of the many amendments this Government has made to the compensation terms. They pretend, however, that they do not know. To refresh their memories, I will mention some of these items. For concrete water ponds in the agricultural areas, which were previously not eligible for compensation they are now compensated for by the Government according to their cubic capacity. This was introduced on 8th October, 1959. Again on 11th July, 1960, the Government enlarged the list of items for which compensation would be paid by including such other items as Buah Namnam, Daun Pandan and orchids, all of which are crops grown fairly widely by the country people. On 15th January, 1962, a further amendment was made to provide for compensation to be paid to owners of prawn ponds due for clearance based on the cubic yardage of the earth fillings to bunds and the number of sluice gates and Bakau payas. These new rates of compensation for prawn ponds proved so satisfactory to all parties concerned that the clearance of settlers at Tanjong Kling and Joe David Road for the development project was affected smoothly and without disruption. In addition to expanding the list of items for which compensation will be paid, Government has also removed from the schemes of compensation the limitation as to the maximum amount of payment a settler with less than one acre of land may obtain from Government by way of compensation. This amendment, which was introduced on 28th April, 1960, enables a farmer with a holding of less than one acre to be eligible for the possible maximum compensation of $1,500 for his crops, fruit trees and flowers. In November 1960, the Government revised Resettlement Scheme C to provide for a settler who cannot be classified as a farmer to get compensation also. Under the unrevised scheme, such a settler was not entitled to any compensation for improvements effected to the land he occupied. Now, not only this settler, but also his bona fide sub-tenants will be eligible for compensation for improvements. In addition, each of them will be given a free basic house and a small plot of land on which he can continue to carry on his present occupation. Government has already announced its intention to apply this revised Scheme C together with a special scheme of house exchange to meet the special conditions in Toa Payoh. A $5,000 terrace house with its own yard along Kim Keat Road will be given free to the owner-occupier of an existing hut in Toa Payoh, who, is willing to give up his whole hut in exchange for a Government-built terrace house. He will pay a ground rent of $5 per month and will be free to carry on his previous occupation of beancurd-making, poultry-rearing, etc. This exchange will, in fact, mean that the settler concerned will be getting a $5,000 terrace house with all the amenities laid on in exchange for an old and often unsanitary hut worth less than $2,000. The allegation by the Member for Toa Payoh and his friends that the people of Toa Payoh did not know where they were going to be resettled is without foundation. The settlers had been told individually by resettlement inspectors where they were going to be resettled. They were also told that they would be free to carry on the same occupation in their new homes. The further charge that the settlers were not or would not be given full compensation is nonsense. Government compensation terms have been given wide publicity in the last few days. Yet the Member for Toa Payoh, the Country People's Association and the Rural Residents' Association keep on repeating that the terms of compensation are insufficient and are pressing their fantastic demands. For instance, they want the Government to pay compensation at the rate of $30 per vegetable bed to farmers. Sir, one acre of land can easily accommodate 300 such beds and the compensation would amount to $9,000. Again, for earth orchid nurseries, the Association wants a compensation rate of $100 per plot and, on the basis of 300 plots to an acre, the total compensation for one acre of orchid nurseries works out to $30,000. They know full well that no government can afford to pay such fantastic compensation terms. But then, Sir. their objective is not to reach any amicable settlement of the issue, but only to create chaos and confusion among country people to suit their own political ends, i.e., to involve country folks in the Barisan Sosialis' futile fight against merger. Sir, the Government's schemes of resettlement are aimed at assisting the people affected by clearance to settle down quickly and continue earning their livelihood in their new homes. The Toa Payoh Development Scheme will provide not only accommodation for thousands of people who have no proper homes, hut also employment, both direct and indirect, for many thousands of its inhabitants. 250,000 to 300,000 people will be housed in the 50,000 housing units and 100 shops that will rise up in this area. There will be four markets, 20 primary and secondary schools, community centres and theatres, and other amenities will also be built to cater for these people. But more important than anything else, the Toa Payoh scheme will provide employment for 8,000 people engaged in construction work and the supply of building materials over a period of about 5 years. The earth that will be cut off from the hilly parts of the Toa Payoh area will be used to reclaim about 400 acres of land in the Kallang Basin. The land so reclaimed will be used for resettlement for establishment of industrial estates that will provide employment for some 30,000 to 40,000 people of Singapore. Sir, because of the tremendous benefits that the Toa Payoh scheme will bring to the people of Singapore, the Government will not allow its intentions and its objectives to be deterred by the agitations of the Barisan Sosialis and their political stooges in the Country People's Association, whose sole interest is to see the failure of the Government's Four-Year Development Plan so that the pro-Communists can thrive on the resultant widespread chaos and unemployment that will arise from the failure of this development scheme - An hon. Member: Will you resign?

Sir, there is no cause for me to resign because I have not changed camps and I have not changed colours. But the people who are saying that now have changed camps. They were elected on the P.A.P. ticket, the P.A.P. platform; now they have changed camps. They have yet to receive a mandate from the people for this change, and if they have any guts, they should prove their worth by resigning and then see whether they will be voted again and returned to this Assembly - The Question having been proposed at Eight o'clock p.m., and the time appointed for the termination of the sitting (half -past Eight p.m.) having arrived, Mr Speaker adjourned the Assembly without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. Adjourned accordingly at half-past Eight o'clock p.m.

Monday, 19th March, 1962 The following Question for Oral Answer stood on the Order Paper of 29th January, 1962:-

To ask the Minister for Finance whether he would (a) name the Members of the Committee investigating the question of equal pay for women, and (b) indicate when the Committee commenced investigations and when it anticipates finalising its report.". The Member for Anson (Mr David Marshall) not being present to ask the question, the following answer was supplied on 14th March, 1962, pursuant to Standing Order No. 20 (2) :- "(a) The Committee consisted of the Minister for Finance (Chairman), the Minister for Health and Law and the Minister for National Development. (b) The Committee has reported to the Cabinet on the basis of which the Minister for Finance has replied to the Chairman of P.A.P. Women's League the text of which has been made public.".