Hansard, 1962-03-20

2.31 p.m. Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment [19th 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 from "unrest" to the end and 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 Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour-Mr Wee Toon Boon). Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, as I said yesterday, the Party in power moved the amendment with two objectives in mind: first, to shirk its responsibility for the industrial unrest and to put the blame on other people because it came about as a result of the dictatorial attitude of the Government; and second, to threaten unions and organisations so that the leaders of the workers will not be able to protect the interests of the workers. In this way, the Government will be able, by taking advantage of intimidation and other excuses, to achieve their aim of suppressing the working class and their organisations. I want to point that the arguments in favour of the amendment cannot stand because the amendment reads: `That this House views with grave concern the mounting of industrial unrest by pro-Communist political agitators for political ends...'. I feel that the insertion of these words is not reasonable and cannot stand up to any argument. In this connection, I would like to quote the Minister for Health and Law when he said yesterday that industrial unrest was not unique to Singapore. I am now quoting from yesterday's Sin Chew Jit Poh in which the Minister is reported to have said that industrial unrest was not unique to Singapore. He went on to say: `There is industrial unrest even in all industrialised countries in the world. In England, civil servants, traditional moderates and trade Unionists are now in the frontline o the industrial battle because the Government had rejected the wage claims to offset inflationary pressures and adverse balance of payments. The industrial strife in England came about as a result of the industrial struggle.' Mr Speaker, Sir, this paragraph of his is enough to explain that the arguments put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour cannot stand. From this, we can see that liars cannot always explain things away.

Order. Has the hon. Member alleged that the Parliamentary Secretary or any Member of this House is a liar? If he has, he must withdraw the expression.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I must thank you for your directive and I withdraw the term "liar". But I say that the people who put forward such arguments are really unreasonable people. For example, the Minister said that industrial unrest is not unique to Singapore but the Parliamentary Secretary said that industrial unrest has come about as a result of the trouble created by the Communists. From this we can see that the arguments put forward by both the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary on the same day were contradictory. I would like to remind Members of the Government that industrial unrest has come about as a result of the irresponsible and dictatorial attitude of the Government. We can therefore draw the inference that the Government are trying to make use of the amendment to deal a blow at their political opponents. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to acquaint you with certain facts to prove why their arguments cannot stand. For example, they talk about Mr Fong Swee Suan as a man who rose in life with a good reputation because of his connection with the Bus Workers Union. In the eyes of the Government, Mr Fong Swee Suan is now a Communist and the Bus Workers Union is now a Communist organisation. But we can see that for a long time now the Bus Workers Union have not started any trouble to inconvenience the people of Singapore. All these facts go to show that it is false and untrue to say that industrial unrest is generally as a result of agitation by the Communists. They also show how irresponsible the Government are in respect of strikes and industrial unrest. Their argument is that anything that goes wrong in the industrial field should be attributed to the Communists. I would like to say that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour was not speaking the truth when he said - I am quoting from a newspaper - that there were about 116 strikes between 1961 and 1962 of which 96 strikes were started by the Singapore Business Houses Employees Union and the other strikes by the non-P.A.P, unions. He also said that most of the strikes were started by the Singapore General Employees Union. His statement is not correct because he tried to describe these organisations and unions as pro-Communist and open front organisations of the Communists. Mr Speaker, Sir, this reasoning is really illogical because the S.G.E.U. and the S.B.H.E.U. are interested in a very wide range of workers. These organisations take into consideration the interests of thousands of workers. There are many, many workers who are members of these two unions. Now if the people are dissatisfied with their employers, they will certainly organise themselves to fight against injustice. I will take the City Council strike as an example. The Daily-Rated Employees. Union was confronted with an unreasonable employer and so there was a strike. I feel that the leaders of the S.G.E.U. and the S.B.H.E.U. are sensible and, reasonable people and that is why they are able to deal with industrial disputes in a peaceful manner with the minimum number of strikes involving so many people. Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour also said - this is also reported in the newspapers - that the Communist-controlled unions and the non-Communist unions were different in their attitude towards the workers and that non-Communist unions were more reasonable in their attitude when dealing with industrial disputes but that the Communist-controlled unions, which include the S.B.H.E.U. and the S.G.E.U., were unreasonable. I say that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour was quite malicious when he made this allegation. We can see from political history that whenever there are any new developments in a country, they are always described as bad. For example, when the P.A.P. was not yet in power, the Lim Yew Hock Government used to describe it as Communist-controlled. And now the P.A.P. is resorting to the same tactics used by the previous Government, that is to say, anything that is started as new should be oppressed and suppressed, and a smear campaign should be started against it. So I say that this argument is illogical and unreasonable. Again, the Parliamentary Secretary said yesterday that pro-Communist unions very often made Press statements accusing the Government of using the police against strikes. He also said that non-Communist unions were quite different from pro-Communist unions. Is there any reasoning in his argument? I say there is none because if the workers go on strike and if the Government is aware of its responsibility, then it should not use the police against the workers. If that had been the actual case, then there would have been no need whatsoever for the unions to issue Press statements against the Government for using the police on the workers. Now, if the Government had not resorted to police action, such statements would not have been made against the Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, actually I have a lot to say about this motion and the amendment, but I feel that other colleagues of mine will further explain this point, and I am not going to speak any more.

Is there any other Member who wishes to speak on the amendment?

On the amendment, Sir?

Yes. 2.49 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it appears strange to me that a motion introduced by me on an important issue couched in plain and simple language, free from high-sounding and ambiguous words, has brought forth two amendments, both as wide apart as two opposing forces. I ask this House to view with grave concern the mounting of industrial unrest. The Member for Anson, by his proposed amendment which was speedily knocked out yesterday, attempted to distort a truly disgraceful situation into something highly praiseworthy. And now the P.A.P. Government, by the amendment proposed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour, is saying that the same truly disgraceful situation is something for which they should not be held responsible, although it is fond of claiming that it is a strong, responsible Government, dedicated to serve the best interests of the people of Singapore. I say there has been a mounting of industrial unrest. The Government says, "Yes, yes, quite true. There has been a mounting of industrial unrest. But all this industrial unrest is caused by pro-Communist political agitators for political ends." Sir, as a responsible Opposition which has the sacred duty of looking after the well-being of the people of Singapore, it behoves us not to play party politics in a matter that means life and death to the economic well-being of the people of Singapore. The Government has made a very serious charge. Let us examine that charge, not as an opposing political Party out to down the P.A.P., but as a responsible Opposition discharging its sacred duty in the best interests of the people. Personally, as Chief Minister in the previous Government, and as its Minister for Labour and Welfare who had occasion to face these forces now described by the P.A.P. as pro-Communist political ends at a time when these forces were glorified by the P.A.P. as their comrades in arms, I am therefore in a better position than many in this House to pass judgment. Sir, the Lim Yew Hock Government fought these forces openly and squarely facing up to its responsibilities as a Government and guided by only one principle - that the security and well-being of the people is greater than the survival of a political Party. We fought, because we wanted security for the people of Singapore. We preserved the well-being of the people of Singapore, but we lost in the general elections in 1959. And how and why did we lose, Sir? It is because these leaders who form the Government today, unashamedly, as disclosed in ,the 12 Confessions of the Prime Minister over Radio Singapore recently, joined forces with these mischief makers and bluffed their way to power in 1959. I could quote instances upon instances of the treachery of the P.A.P. in selling out the interests of the people of Singapore to achieve their own political ends, but I do not propose to do so because the people now know the P.A.P. for what they are. Take the case of Mr Lim Ching Siong. He was a Member of this Assembly and yet the Lim Yew Hock Government had the courage, in the best interests of the people of Singapore, to arrest and detain him under the P.P.S.O. because he was found to be closely involved in the 1956 riots. And the abuse and harsh words heaped upon me by the Prime Minister when he was on this side of the House can be found in Hansard, and I need not quote them. Sir, the P.A.P. won the 1959 elections, but it refused to take office until it had secured the release of Mr Lim Ching Siong and his group of top-notchers. Not content with their release, the P.A.P. Government appointed Mr Lim Ching Siong and his group of top-notchers to be Political Secretaries - handsomely paid at $1,100 a month each out of public funds. Moreover, it appointed this group - Mr Lim Ching Siong and his top-notchers - as Assistant Secretaries in the T.U.C. - Ten Tall Men (tall indeed) - because they hoped that in this way through the T.U.C. they could capture the trade unions in Singapore. What do we see today, Sir? Comrades have at long last fallen out, anti Mr Lim Ching Siong is now described, in the words of the Prime Minister, as the most important open front Communist leader in Singapore. The amendment proposed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour would make it that all the industrial unrest is due to Mr Lim Ching Siong and his group, and that this group is responsible for the mounting of industrial unrest. In other words. Sir, it is now openly admitted in this House that the group that caused the industrial unrest at the time of the previous Government is the same group that is causing the industrial unrest today. The previous Government fought them and contained them. The present Government released them; worked with them; accused them; but did nothing about it. From these facts, Sir, the public can form their own estimation of the standard of political morality, of political integrity, and of public conduct of the previous and the present Governments. Sir, by the amendment proposed by the Government, it would seem that they are putting the blame for this industrial unrest on pro-Communist political agitators for political ends, instead of trying to search their conscience and find out who are the real culprits. I say, and I speak from experience, that the pro-Communistic political agitators are involved in this industrial unrest. And I say too that the Government is not free from blame. Having tried to get them to work for them, having done all they could to get them to be on their side, and having used them to achieve their own political ends during the last general elections, they are no doubt in a better position than I ant to see and to know that these forces are out to destroy them, now that they are no longer with them. But what did the Government do? Just for the Prime Minister to stand up here and say, "Oh, we know all that. All these strikes are political strikes for political purposes - ha, ha!" And that is that.

What would you do?

I did the right thing that a responsible Government did. If they can he found and can be proved to damage the security and the well-being of the people of Singapore, and that is the first sacred task of any Government, the Government should not shirk its responsibility. Do not just say, `Ha, ha, yes, politics, Communist, Communist, Communist' and do nothing about it in this way the Government are doing more damage to the security and the economic well-being of Singapore. Is it expected of foreign industrialists to want to come to Singapore when the Government itself says, `There are Communist political agitators.'

Nature will take its course!

They know, of course, that the reason why they are playing this game is that to them the survival of the P.A.P. is greater than the interest of the people of Singapore. But I say this to them here, as I have said before, and I repeat it, the P.A.P. is dead, and no kind of political maneuvering will make it live again. Its funeral day will be the general election day.

Whose? An hon. Member: S.P.A.

Let us see whether the P.A.P. is free from any blame. It was said in this House of Communist front trade unions, and how they described the other group as the non-Communist front trade unions. Why cannot the Government come out openly and say, there is one group, the Barisan group, and there is the other group, the P.A.P. group, and there is keen rivalry in the trade union field today; and because of this keen rivalry and their attempt to try to prove to the workers of Singapore that each is better than the other, there is this industrial unrest. When it was found that the Business Houses Employees Union had to go on strike because of their failure to achieve their object through negotiations, the Bank Employees Union would stage something too. What is this? This competition that is doing damage to the economy of Singapore is nothing but open competition. What is the use of saying that the Barisan unions had called 69 out of the 96 strikes? What about the balance? There were 27 strikes organised by the P.A.P. group of unions.

You are not competing, are you?

As a man who has been in the trade union field for years and as a man who believes in, works and strives for and is prepared to die for the interest of the people of Singapore, I say that a political Party must not make use of workers' organisations to achieve its own political ends. I have not done it. That is why I have not come out into the trade union field.

What about the old T.U.C.?

The old T.U.C. Laughable, Sir! It was the old T.U.C. that made the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture the Secretary-General in order to show to the world and to the workers of Singapore that there should be no politics in the T.U.C. And quite rightly. A strong P.A.P. supporter was made the Secretary-General of an organisation that has been labelled a Lim Yew Hock organisation. But look at the P.A.P. T.U.C. There are P.A.P. men everywhere. Every kind of man - tall men, short men - is in the P.A.P, and because there has been a break-up between the Barisan and the P.A.P., the Secretary-General of the T.U.C. says, "Oh, Mr Minister, dissolve the T.U.C.". And the Minister says, "Yes, dissolve it." And yet we are told today that the T.U.C. is still a registered trade union. What is all this?

Order. I know the Member for Cairnhill was jockeyed into the last part of the speech, but we are now on the amendment. Let us try and dispose of the amendment because it seems to me that if we go on this strain we will have overlapping. Let us dispose of the amendment and then, if it is carried, the debate can go on to the motion as amended.

Sir, that little bit that I have said about the T.U.C. is a very clear illustration of the attempt of the P.A.P. to try and capture the trade unions for their own political ends. They have failed miserably and now they are accusing the Barisan Sosialis and suggesting that these pro-Communist political agitators are creating industrial unrest for political ends. In other words, what they have done, what they are prepared to do, what they are still prepared to do is all right, so long as it is done by them. But if it is done by somebody else, they say "pro-communist political agitators". That is not the way to run a government. The Government is there to look after the best interest of the people of Singapore; not one group against the other group! That would be wrong. That would bring unhappiness to the people of Singapore. Before I go to the other side, the previous speaker and other speakers of the Barisan Sosialis said, "Now the P.A.P. is behaving like the Lim Yew Hock Government." All I can say is, "God forbid!" We will have nothing to do with the P.A.P. We hope the P.A.P. is learning the error of its ways and is prepared to admit the error of its ways. As a responsible Opposition, we are only guided by one principle. That is the well-being of the people of Singapore. If the Government is out to discharge its duties responsibly and courageously, a responsible Opposition must support and must not try and play politics. All the Barisan Sosialis Members who have spoken said, "Repressive measures. Look at the Lim Yew Hock Government. What did it do? They arrested the trade union leaders and put them in gaol!" They were speaking out of ignorance. The people who were arrested were people who were found to be indulging in subversive activities and because there was proof, these people were detained. The Barisan Sosialis were on that side before they left and came to this side. And the P.A.P. Government, as a government, of course had to consider the security of the country. The fact that there are today still some detainees - those detained by me - is sufficient evidence that what I did was right and could not be wrong. I do not say that the P.A.P. is wrong in still detaining them. I say that it is the responsibility of an elected Government, even if it were to be a Barisan form of government, to look after the security of the country, and in the discharge of that duty, unpleasant and unpopular things have to be done. They have to be done if the Government wants to claim that it is a responsible and strong Government meant to look after the interest of the workers. Some Members of the Barisan Sosialis behind me said, "Look at the Lim Yew Hock Government. They arrested trade union leaders." They were arrested not because they were trade union leaders working in the trade unions. They were arrested because of their other activities which were of a subversive character and damaging to the security and well-being of the people of Singapore. They said the Lim Yew Hock Government closed down the unions. As far as I can remember, Sir - in fact, I had hoped I would have the time to go through Hansard - the only union that I dissolved was the Shop and Factory Workers' Union led by Mr Lim Ching Siong. That union was dissolved because $120,000 of its funds simply disappeared. As a Government, we had to take action against the people who were using legitimate trade union funds for their own political ends. $120,000 disappeared! I do not know where. I do not think even the Prime Minister, although he was very closely connected with that union, knows where it has gone to. That was the only union we closed down. Let us come to the P.A.P. at the time when the Barisan was on that side of the House. As soon as they came to power, there were so many unions closed by them. Registration was withdrawn on the ground that they were yellow, splinter - I do not know what -

Order. I do not know whether the allegation is that they were closed down on the grounds that they were Communist-inspired. We are now on the amendment. Will the Member please keep to the amendment? I have already suggested that he will have an opportunity later on of expanding on this theme. We are now on the amendment.

I have said just now, with respect, Sir, that it is in reply to the speeches made on the amendment.

Order. That makes no difference at all. An irrelevancy does not excuse another irrelevancy, especially if there is an opportunity of answering the allegations made.

I bow to your ruling, Sir. There is a next and better time. Sir, now coming to this amendment. First, it says industrial unrest is "by pro-Communist political agitators for political ends". Sir, I cannot accept that amendment because it would mean that all the industrial unrest is because of pro-Communist political agitators for political ends. That would not be true of the present situation in Singapore. It is true, and I am prepared to admit it and accept the Government's contention, that there have been pro-Communist political agitators in the trade union field. But I accuse the Government of indulging in similar tactics of trying to win the workers to their side by mounting industrial agitation. If one were to go through the newspapers. one would find this. Take the case of one known P.A.P. union, the Singapore Manual and Mercantile Workers Union, a well-known P.A.P. union, a union that was knocked out in a secret ballot conducted by the Labour Department; and yet because it is a P.A.P. union, it was allowed to call a strike. Take the Amalgamated Union of Public Employees too. In the Health Ministry, a secret ballot was undertaken by the Labour Department. The result showed that the A.U.P.E. was not accepted by the majority of workers in the Health Ministry, in so far as manual workers there were concerned. Yet the Minister for Health says the A.U.P.E. can collect subscriptions. Is it not instigating pro-Communist political agitators? They say. "Look at this." The Government is making the ground fertile ion political agitation. We are happy that we have not made use of this given Opportunity to get the workers out against the Government. As I have said earlier, a political Party should not, if it has any conscience at all, try to lead or mislead the workers to achieve their political ends. Sir, we then conic to the last part: `and to prevent genuine industrial grievances from being exploited for Communist ends.' Sweet-sounding words, Sir, but what do they mean? We do not understand what they mean. If the Government will only tell us what is meant by that. If it is meant that as a result of the present chaotic situation in Singapore today, the Government, in the discharge of its responsibilities to the people of Singapore, is going to put an end to political strife, then say it. We will support it. But do not just put in sweet-sounding words and do nothing about it. I remember the Prime Minister in his radio broadcasts - his 12 confessions - described Lim Ching Siong as the most important open front communist leader in Singapore. He kept on repeating it. In fact, Mr Lim Ching Siong receives honourable mention here in this booklet. What does all this mean? Does it not mean that the Government is condoning Communism? Does it not mean that as far as the P.A.P. Government is concerned, it is all right to be a Communist, you can receive honourable mention by the Prime Minister over the radio and in publications and newspapers? It is all wrong. If the Government believes that Communism should be allowed in Singapore to compete with democratic forces in a parliamentary democracy, then say so. But do not try to describe anyone as an open front Communist leader with ridicule and contempt and yet do nothing about it. We want to know from the Government and we want to know it because it has been proved in this House many and many a time that the P.A.P. sometimes say what they do not mean and mean what they do not say. We will ask them to say in this House what is to be achieved by the amendment proposed by the Parliamentary Secretary. If what is meant by it is that the Government have now accepted the challenge and will fight it out to preserve the security and economic well-being of the people of Singapore, we will be with them. But if it is just another way of trying to shirk their responsibility and say, "Oh, it is not my fault, not my fault. Communist. Communist," then we are not going to be a party to this kind of mishandling of public interest.

I do not know whether the Government are confident that they are going to win that amendment. If they are, then I would suggest that we dispose of the amendment and then when the motion, as amended, is put to the House, the Government can still speak on the same theme. I am only suggesting a method of saving time. 3.20 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Victorian melodrama consists of a standard plot enacted by stereotyped characters. The central figure is a villain usually with a sinister moustache who goes around with diabolical cunning to ensnare the innocent heroine into a fate worse than death. His machinations, however, are inevitably frustrated by the timely intervention of the hero. Stories of the Wild West also run according to a standard pattern. The scene of activity is usually a small town in the middle of nowhere. Large tracts of scrubland and desert surround this town which is inhabited by cowboys, wicked gunmen and, of course, the inevitable hero. The populace is terrorised by villainous gunmen, banks are robbed, innocent women are insulted, and the whole little town is reduced to a state of impotent terror until it is liberated by the hero who, after vanquishing the villains, rides off into the sunset as the film fades off in the last scene. And so Hopalong Cassidy rides again. Sir, literature and films of this kind cannot be considered great literature by any standard. But that does not detract from their merits as popular entertainment. But no one will regard cowboy films or Victorian melodrama to be serious attempts to portray the great truth of human life. It is just not intended to be that. Sir, when I hear the speeches of the Barisan Sosialis on industrial strife, I am immediately reminded of the intellectual standards of cowboy stories and Victorian melodrama. There is exactly the same utter simplicity in stereotyped roles. For villain, read "the wicked employer"; for arch-villain, read "the P.A.P. Government"; for innocent heroine read "the helpless worker"; and for Hopalong Cassidy, read "Barisan Sosialis". It is all so utterly simple. The worker is oppressed by wicked and avaricious employers supported by a villainous Government, i.e. the P.A.P. Government. Unhappily the Barisan Sosialis have not been as dextrous as Hopalong Cassidy in disposing of his adversaries. So from each and every one of the speeches of the Barisan Members emerges this grotesque caricature of what is happening in Singapore. I venture to suggest that no one except the most stupid and idiotic of the Barisan Members would believe in this absolute trash, and yet we have this caricature being repeated time after time in this Assembly, and in the midst of it all, a comedian flits across the stage to declaim -

Harold Lloyd.

- strikes "What is wrong with strikes'? Strikes are good. Strikes are normal for society. Every sound democratic nation has strikes. The more strikes, the merrier. When I was the Chief Minister we beat the world record for strikes." And yet the same hon. Member, on exactly the same day, had previously asked the Government why employment in industry had been declining over the last five or six years. In the face of this assault on our sanity, it requires an effort of will to retain one's sense of proportion and to preserve balance of objectivity in approaching this question of industrial disputes. Let me try to put the events during the last 2½ years in proper perspective. Once this perspective has been established, then the real significance of the mounting industrial strife will be plain to everyone. When we formed the Government in 1959, we had the Communists with us. But we never integrated into one unified movement. We stood for an independent, democratic, non-Communist Socialist Malaya. They? The Communist People's Republic of Malaya. On their part, the Communists attempted to infiltrate our Party organisation while maintaining an increasing stranglehold over certain trade unions, farmers' associations and sections of the student movement. During the first year of our office, it was clear that with the freedom they enjoyed under the P.A.P. Government, they were able to expand their influence and consolidate their position. They always maintained separate identity as a group from which they attempted to manipulate the Government for their own advantage. By the end of 1960, we had arrived at the conclusion that this state of affairs could not continue indefinitely. The activities of the Communists were motivated entirely by their own political ambitions. While paying lip service to Government policies in labour matters, they always reserved the right of complete independence of movement and action for themselves. The basic problem confronting the Government, the people and the country was economic and industrial expansion. This is necessary to give jobs to our growing population. But economic expansion cannot take place without stability in labour-management relations, and because of the influence of the Communists in important trade unions, the Government's policy of economic expansion could be frustrated at any time the Communist wished. We therefore wanted to pin down the Communists and the union leaders to a firm commitment to ensure just and stable relations between labour and management. That was the purpose of the series of meetings which we held with them and to which I referred when the question of unemployment insurance was discussed in the Assembly. We had agreed with Messrs. Lim Ching Siong and company on the list of industries in which industrial stability was to be maintained. This is a very comprehensive list and includes all industries of any significance in Singapore. Direct industrial action was to be avoided in this sector of the economy. The welfare of the workers was to be safeguarded by properly negotiated long-term agreements where the full apparatus of negotiation and arbitration was to be applied should there be differences of opinion between unions and employers. Agreement was reached in principle between the Communists and us in January 1961. Further discussions were scheduled to take place on the exact and detailed manner in which the proposals in this agreement were to be implemented. In this way we hoped to bring about a relaxation of tension in relations between employers and trade unions. This would give a decided impetus to industrialisation. Whether the Communists intended to honour the agreement and work in good faith to carry out their obligations we shall never know. But we had decided then that if they did not do so then we must part company with them on this issue. However, as events turned out, we never reached this stage. The Hong Lim by-election intervened and after that the Anson by-election. In the course of this latter by-election, as everybody knows, the Communists and the P.A.P. parted company. We wanted to pursue merger with Malaya as vigorously as possible. The Communists, on the other hand, wanted to pursue the anti-colonial struggle, but pursue it in a very odd way which I, for one, cannot understand. They wanted to fight the colonialists not by getting rid of them by independence for Singapore through merger, but by demanding that they remain in Singapore. In other words, they wanted British sovereignty to remain in Singapore which should be satisfied with internal self-government with, of course, internal security in the hands of the Government. Their stand, of course, has led them to an impossible contradiction which they cannot resolve. After their break with the P.A.P., the Communists decided to attack the Government with all the means at their disposal. I have already described these attacks in detail and I only wish to refer to them in passing. First, there was a direct assault on the Party organisation and on Assemblymen and Parliamentary Secretaries of the Party. Here they achieved notable success as evidenced by the 13 Members across the Floor. They then proceeded to attack the Government through other channels, such as the People's Association, the Work Brigade, the middle school students and the City Council daily-rated workers. They even attempted to manipulate the Chinese Chamber of Commerce. But in all these attempts, they failed disastrously. The result of their effort was merely to bring misfortune upon those people who were foolish enough to believe them. Some 160 former employees of the People's Association have lost a useful career and are now unemployed. 500 young men and women in the Work Brigade for whom we tried to find useful work are now without any hope. Another 800 misguided middle school students have wasted a year's effort in their futile and unsuccessful boycott of the examinations last year. So in all, 1,400 young men and women have been sacrificed. In the meantime, of course, the Communists were stepping up agitation on the industrial front. Strikes were called before the full process of negotiation and conciliation had been exhausted. What was the net result of all this? Eventually the workers had to settle on terms hardly better than those offered by the employers at the beginning. So here again, tens of thousands of workers have been sacrificed. They have lost many weeks or many months of wages through unnecessary strikes which brought them little or no benefit over what they could have obtained without these strikes. My colleagues, who are better acquainted with the details of these strikes, will inform the Assembly of just how the workers have been cheated in these strikes. Sir, no one, least of all the P.A.P., will condemn all strikes out of hand. A strike is a necessary weapon of the working class so long as there are stubborn and unreasonable employers. But the ultimate justification for a strike are the benefits that the workers get from such a strike. The Communists will disagree with this criterion. They believe - though they may not say so openly - that a strike is justified even if the workers lose by it provided the fighting spirit of the workers is heightened thereby, that is to say, that more hatred is generated which they can exploit to strengthen their stranglehold upon the unions. I suggest that this is a purely selfish political objective intended to advance not the livelihood and the interest of the workers but the political power of the Communist open front organisations. By the test which I have described, that is, whether the workers have obtained improved conditions sufficiently to justify the loss of income during the strikes, the strikes which the Communists have mounted in the last 7 or 8 months have not been in the interest of the workers. All the evidence points to the fact that the workers could have got as much, if not more, by negotiation, conciliation and arbitration. There is another way in which workers suffer in strikes. And in this respect, the loss is more serious than the direct loss of an unsuccessful or unnecessary strike. This loss results from the serious check which industrial strife applies to the growth of new industries. I have already stated on my recent return from Japan that the industrialists in Japan and Hongkong who are contemplating the investment of capital in new industries in Singapore are seriously disturbed by the labour situation here. I have yet to receive intelligent comment on this from the Communists and their stooges in the Barisan Sosialis. Everybody knows that the Government is mounting the maximum effort to create new industries. The range of inducements which we are offering to new enterprises is without parallel in this part of the world. Let us not forget that there is keen competition all over Asia to attract new industries. Unless we can offer better terms than others, we are not going to get new industries. The Government has done its utmost, and if the result has not been as gratifying as the people of Singapore would wish, then the blame rests on those trade union leaders who mount industrial strikes for political reasons. The blame rests fairly and squarely on them. I wish to say this to the growing army of Singapore's unemployed. New industries can be established in Singapore which can give you good jobs with good pay. If they are not coming fast enough, you are entitled to know why. You should try to get the answer from Mr Lim Ching Siong and his accomplices who are stirring up trouble and tension between workers and employers. And you will continue to be unemployed so long as these men continue with their mischievous and anti-social activities. Mr Speaker, Sir, the purpose of the Government's amendment to the motion is twofold. First, it seeks to expose the political basis of the Communist-inspired industrial unrest in Singapore. Second, it seeks to show the direct loss suffered by workers and the even greater loss to those deprived of a decent hope of early employment as a result of industrial unrest. Men who deliberately stir up unrest for political ends deserve the strongest condemnation, as also those who try to conceal their mischief by various pretexts and pretences. 3.40 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, today we have heard the Member for Cairnhill and the Minister for Finance and the conclusion we can arrive at is that they are playing the same tune on different instruments. The Member for Cairnhill accused the Government of not facing up to its responsibilities in dealing with those leaders it terms as pro-Communist and in closing down the so-called pro-Communist trade unions. The Minister for Finance said that if Mr Lim Ching Siong, the leader of the Communist front organisations, were allowed to carry on, then Singapore could not have industrialisation and the unemployment situation could not he resolved. Mr Speaker. Sir, we can clearly see from the speech of the Member for Cairnhill that he is trying to ask the government to take drastic measures to deal with those trade union leaders who are really working for the interest of the workers. Actually the Government should have the courage to shoulder this trade union work. But according to the Minister for Finance, the Government is willing to shoulder this responsibility but not alone by itself. According the him, the responsibility for taking such drastic measures against the so-called pro-Communist elements should be shouldered by the whole Assembly and not by the PAP. Government alone. It was because of this that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour put forward this amendment to the motion before us. In the past and also at present, the P.A.P. have been saying and are still saying that they are for the workers. But now the question of the true struggle for the workers has been termed by them as a, kind of pro-Communist struggle. Mr Speaker, Sir, the workers of Singapore and their organisations have been termed pro-Communist and their activities have been termed pro-Communist activities: We are not hearing such accusations for the first time today.

It is true.

(In Mandarin): Why should a pro-workers' Government like the P.A.P. Government describe such genuine trade unions and organisations as pro-Communist? Mr Speaker, Sir, one logic of the P.A.P. Government is this: if there is no P.A.P., then there will be no Government; if there is no Government, then there will be no trade unions. In other words, if these trade unions want to continue existing, then they must kow-tow to the leadership of the P.A.P. If they do not toe the line of the P.A.P., then the P.A.P. will think of various methods to inflict a deadly blow on these trade unions. In order to implement this kind of policy of disrupting and damaging the true trade unions, the P.A.P. must find some convincing pretexts so that the Press and the people will think that the policy of the P.A.P. is correct and justifiable. Mr Speaker, Sir, in carrying out this kind of subversive activities, the P.A.P. has a very good pretext of accusing these genuine trade unions as pro-Communist trade unions, because it knows that it cannot call them yellow unions, because the organisation of such trade unions and their leaders cannot be made use of by the capitalists, and because they cannot be controlled by the P.A.P. These trade unions are, therefore, sincerely working hard in the interests of the workers. Therefore, if the P.A.P. wants to brand them as yellow unions, then the minds of the people can never be convinced and they will never believe such accusations. I can give a very simple example. The Prime Minister mentioned the strike at Ford Company. The Ford workers had been on strike for 110 days. In the end this industrial dispute was resolved. The demand of the workers was met by getting an increase of 6 cents per hour and not 6 cents per day as said by the Prime Minister. And their bonus was also increased by 4 days' pay more than in the past. Mr Speaker, Sir, in order to correct certain wrong information given by the Government, I wish to say that labour wanted to sign longer contracts with capital but capital conceded to only a two-year contract. Therefore, we can clearly see that if such a trade union is to be accused by the Government as a yellow union, then, first and foremost, members of this trade union cannot believe it. The leaders of the trade unions are always on the labour side in their struggle for the benefit of the workers. And since the Government cannot use the label of "yellow union" to destroy genuine trade unionism, they therefore have resorted to a second method.

Order. The hon. Member has been using the expression "yellow union". By that, I take it, he means "alleged pro-Communist unions". If he does not, then he is irrelevant to the amendment, if he does mean "an alleged pro-Communist union", then he is in order.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, what I was saying was that I did not mean that a yellow union is a Communist or a pro-Communist union. I was referring to the P.A.P. because I wanted to point out to you that the P.A.P. has been using this kind of tactics to break up the unity of the workers of Singapore.

Order. I must remind the hon. Member then that we are now on the amendment which has brought in the Communist element. And if he wishes to pass remarks on other aspects of the motion, he will have the opportunity when we come to debate the motion in general.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I was only trying to prove to you that before the Government can break up the unity and organisation of the workers, the Government is trying to use this label of pro-Communist to break up the workers' organisations. Mr Speaker, Sir, at present in Singapore in the field of trade unionism the workers are more rational and intelligent and the leaders of the workers are more sober and rational in all dealings with industrial disputes. We cannot term this industrial dispute as pro-Communist and say that these are pro-Communist activities. It is entirely wrong to make such accusations. Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. now is hoping that there will be more industrial disputes and more strikes, so that in future when they want to resort to the action of selling out, they will have more pretexts to show to the people. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now quote the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour who said this yesterday when introducing his amendment to the motion - I am quoting from the Sin Chew Jit Poh of today, page 1 - `The Parliamentary Secretary said that the Prime Minister, in his letter to the Deputy Prime Minister, had already pointed out that because three Political Secretaries, namely, Lim Ching Siong, Fong Swee Suan and Wood-hull, are openly opposing the Government's policy of achieving independence through merger, this is causing the Government serious difficulties. The Prime Minister continued to say. "Lim Ching Siong and his friends wilt resort to industrial action, and are trying to use tactics to prevent the Party and the Government from achieving their merger policy."' Mr Speaker, Sir, talking about trade union leaders, they can see from this that trade unionism in Singapore in the future will meet with certain unpleasant situations, and certain unpleasant events will happen to these leaders. They have already expected long ago the beginning of this smear and the resultant political actions. Mr Speaker, Sir, I can therefore say the leaders of these trade unions and workers, since the parting of ways with the P.A.P., have now become more sober in dealing with all trade union disputes. The Government is trying to say that all trade disputes now have been organised by pro-Communist elements. Such an accusation is groundless. Mr Speaker. Sir, in order to point out to you this groundless smear, let me quote what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour said. I am quoting from today's Nanyang Siang Pau: `The Parliamentary Secretary said that last year on the 17th November at the Seiclene Company the workers blocked a military truck for five hours from leaving the Company. The strikers under the direction of Tan Teck Wah, President of the Singapore General Employees Union, prevented the truck from leaving by using two vans to block it. Tan Teck Wah ordered the workers to do such things, and to sneer at the police. Later on, Fong Swee Suan arrived and persuaded the workers not to insult the police. In the end the police had to move the two vans away in order to let the military truck leave the Company's compound.' Mr Speaker, Sir, from this we can really see, and this speech of his can clearly prove, that the recent picketing by the strikers has always been done in a peaceful way. If these trade union leaders had wanted to create confusion, then they could very easily have created unhappy incidents in such a case. We can also come to another conclusion like this. If Mr Fong Swee Suan, who has been alleged by the Government as having close connections with the Communists, wants to achieve the so-called pro-Communist purpose, then why should he persuade the workers on strike to picket peacefully? [Interruption]

Order. May I suggest to the Member for Delta that if she wants to intervene, she should stand up, and I am sure the Member for Choa Chu Kang will give way to a Lady.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, if at that time Mr Fong Swee Suan had wanted to achieve his political aims, then he could have asked Tan Teck Wah and the strikers to have an incident and come in conflict with the police. Why should Mr Fong Swee Suan persuade the leaders of the strikers to carry out peaceful picketing? Mr Speaker, Sir, from this we can see that if we blame all the present Singapore industrial disputes as tactics by the Communists to achieve their political purpose and treat them in such a way, then the Government should bear the consequences for doing so. Mr Speaker, Sir, at the same time, the Government, through this amendment, have clearly told us what their future policy will be in relation to these so-called pro-Communist trade unions. The object of the Government is not to carry out their past promises to unite the workers, but to label those who shout these slogans as pro-Communists. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is very regrettable to hear that the P.A.P. today could have said such things. This goes to prove that they are not really working for the interest of the workers. They are really working for their political interest and to break up the workers' organisations and their unity. But I believe these workers' organisations will not he weakened by Government's smear of pro-Communist or pro-Communist activities, because all along they have been used to such smears being levelled at their leaders and their organisations. Therefore, this amendment of the P.A.P. is only presaging what they will do in the future to deal with genuine trade unions and to shirk their responsibility to this Assembly. Therefore, we are here to expose their true face. 4.03 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Communist tactics the world over are basically similar. In their struggle for power, the Communists invariably resort to exploiting the grievances and dissatisfaction of the workers by posing as their champions, and, having won their confidence, to deceive and lead them to violent collision with the State. The purpose is obvious to everybody. That is to stir up hatred against legally constituted authority if it stands in the way of Communist expansion. Bearing this in mind, Mr Speaker, Sir, we can understand why in any trade dispute involving the pro-Communist unions, the normal peaceful means of negotiation, conciliation and arbitration are ignored in favour of direct action, more often than not followed by violence. What is the result? Misery and suffering to the workers and their families for the meagre increase in wages, if any indeed, if normal peaceful methods were adopted, the workers could gain very much more than direct action without a great loss and sacrifice to the workers especially when there is a pro-labour Government in office. But why do the pro-Communists prefer the violent form of class struggle to peaceful means, especially if they are made available by a pro-labour Government, such as the P.A.P.? The answer is that violent industrial action by the pro-Communists is preferred because it serves two purposes. Firstly, it provides a recruiting and training ground for pro-Communist cadres. Only those cadres who have been thus steeled in the crucible of struggle are acceptable to the Communists. The second purpose is that the resulting suffering and misery of the workers as a result of violent direct action will leave them embittered and, by skilful manipulation, deceit and false propaganda, the bitterness and hatred and suffering of the workers could be exploited against the State. Of course, the pro-Communists would not tell the workers that these are their genuine purposes of an avoidable strike. Instead, they seek to divert the workers' attention by claiming that violent class struggle is inevitable and exhort the workers to sacrifice in the violent struggle so as to raise their political consciousness. Having understood the purpose of agitating workers to strike for political ends we should not be surprised if the pro-Communists in Singapore in the last few months have refused to make use of the normal channel of peaceful methods for settling trade disputes and preferred violent direct action which resulted, in many cases, in more losses than gains, as, for instance, the Ford Motor strike and the Shaw Brothers strike. The conclusion is therefore obvious. The sudden mounting of industrial unrest in the last few months since the open break with the pro-Communists in July 1961 was more for political purposes to frustrate merger and Malaysia than for the economic betterment of the workers. That also explains why prior to the open break there were relatively few strikes, and in most cases peaceful. But after July 1961, there was a sudden increase of strikes by pro-Communist unions, and in most cases violent ones without first going through the normal channel of peaceful negotiation. conciliation and arbitration. Mr Speaker, Sir, when peace is disturbed and violence and disorder take place, the police, as guardians of peace and order, must step in to ensure that the life and security of the people are not threatened and the people can go about in their daily pursuit of earning a living without danger. This duty of the police unfortunately conflicts with the aims of the pro-Communists in mounting strikes for political purposes, and that is the reason why the police, the disciplined arm of the State, must necessarily come under heavy fire of the pro-Communists, be they in Singapore or elsewhere. Similarly, the laws of the State are another important target of attack and hatred to the pro-Communists. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I table a copy of the Suara Kesatuan, a fortnightly publication of the Singapore General Employees Union, issue No. 13 dated 31st December, 1961. There is no need for me to explain that the Singapore General Employees Union is a pro-Communist union. The picture in this issue illustrates my point. The picture on the front page is a cartoon of the Government in the form of a human being whose right hand held a rifle and the left hand a police baton, and with his right foot armed with laws and his left foot disciplinary rules, crushing a worker on the ground. Is there anything which speaks more vividly the pro-Communist thinking than this cartoon that they depict the police and the law as instruments of oppression against the workers, and, therefore, as objects of resentment and hatred that must be swept aside so that the pro-Communists could have a free run in carrying out their intimidation and violence against those who oppose them? All other pictures published in the front page were specially taken to show the police in the act of maintaining peace and order in all the strike-bound areas where the pro-Communist unions were involved. The impression intended to he conveyed is quite clear to everybody. It is that the police is an instrument of oppression against the workers, and because the police is the disciplined arm of the State in the maintenance of law and order, therefore, the P.A.P. Government is anti-worker. Mr Speaker, Sir, from the speech made by the Member for Queenstown, it is obvious to everybody that the Barisan Sosialis is a Communist front organisation Out to discredit the legally constituted Government to further its anti-nationalist cause. In a colonial or semi-colonial State, the police is particularly vulnerable to attack for being the instrument of oppression. And the attack made by the Member for Queenstown on the police force and the law is therefore no surprise, because nothing could evoke public sympathy more than a physical clash between the police and the workers and the students. If therefore the pro-Communists in the Barisan Sosialis could deceive the innocent workers through their agents in the unions and manipulate them into a clash with the police, then a classic situation will develop with the Government being accused of using Fascist methods on the one hand and the poor workers as victims of brutal violence. In that kind of situation, the pro-Communists hope that they can whip up resentment and hatred amongst the workers and the public against the elected Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, allegations have been made by the Member for Queenstown that the police force, previously trained to oppress the students and workers, have been increasingly used by the present Government against students and workers, especially English-speaking workers of the Business Houses Employees' Union. The Member for Queenstown also alleged that the police have been used to break strikes and to protect new workers and employers. If the Member for Queenstown is not speaking with his tongue in his cheek, then he is just repeating a set speech given to him by his masters like a parrot without consulting his own conscience. Whether the police was really trained to oppress the students and workers in the past, that is no responsibility of the P.A.P. Government. But no sensible person is going to take this fantastic allegation seriously. That I can assure. Although no worker in his right senses will believe that the P.A.P. Government is against workers, nevertheless, it is just as well to disillusion the infantile politicians in the Barisan Sosialis. Mr Speaker, Sir, when we first came to power, we made it a point to re-orientate the outlook of the police. The police were told that they were the public servants of the people whose duty it was to safeguard the life and property of the people. They were however, to deal firmly with criminals and law-breakers. In their dealings with the people, they should be polite and tactful. Their duties as guardians of the people's economic and social institutions in a self-governing State become all the more heavy than before. The people were told of the role of the police and were asked to cooperate with them in the maintenance of law and order. Towards this end, political courses were arranged for police officers. Meetings were held where police meet the people and have their role in society clarified. I remember many Assemblymen of the Barisan Sosialis organised these meetings between the police and the people. Nobody can fail to see that there is a new spirit being instilled into the police. The Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen were the first to make full use of the new spirit of the police until a difference over the issue of merger and Malaysia developed in the Party, culminating in the open break between the pro-Communists and their stooges and the non-Communist P.A.P. There was not a squeak about Government using the police to oppress the workers. Indeed the efforts of the police to be friendly with the workers and on the side of the people were appreciated and on occasions compliments were made by the 13 Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen opposite. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Law cited yesterday, police protection was even sought by the Singapore General Employees Union to protect their members. However, when the open break came, what other better means to discredit the Government than the classic Communist target of mounting hatred against the police and anything connected with the machinery of the law and order which hampers the Communist objective of creating violence and disorder? The P.A.P. which has consistently adopted a pro-labour policy could not have been anti-labour overnight. The police has always adopted a neutral and impartial attitude in strikes. I wish to quote a statement issued by the Government on 15th January, 1960, showing the attitude of the Government towards strikes. A statement was issued after there was some indication that the police might be made use of by employers or employees in furtherance of their cause. I quote: `Some unscrupulous employers are trying to get the police involved in industrial disputes with a view to creating illwill between workers and police. In a recent case an employer invited a union official for a discussion at his office and then surreptitiously rang up the police alleging intimidation by the union official. The police are duty bound when complaints are received to make investigations on the spot. But where the complaints are frivolous or malicious, the police are brought into contempt and ridicule and not the ill-intentioned complainant. The duty of the police is to protect and safeguard the interests of the people and maintain peace and good order. The police give orders or take measures to safeguard the interests of the people and so such orders must be obeyed. The authority of the State must be obeyed. The rights and wrongs of the decisions of the police are a matter to be argued subsequently in a calmer atmosphere before the proper authorities. For this reason, the Government is prepared to deal sternly with employers who through malice and mischief seek to turn the workers against the police and thereby to interfere with the Government's instrument of authority.' Mr Speaker, Sir, this clearly showed how pro-labour the Government was. Far from the police being used to break strikes, the Government even went out of its way to dissuade new workers from being engaged by employers during a `strike although the employers had a right to do so. In fact, the police always make it a point to consult labour officers and to get a labour officer to explain to the strikers the laws governing picketing. But were all these pro-labour measures appreciated by the pro-Communists in the unions? No. The pro-Communist elements in the Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union exploited the pro-labour policy of Government to their own advantage. The impartial and friendly attitude of the police was interpreted to be a sign of weakness, to be exploited to the maximum advantage for the Communist cause. Mr Speaker, Sir, much as I should like to cite examples of the tact and restraint exercised by the police in cases of strikes recently, however, I cannot do so as most of the cases are still sub judice. Nevertheless, the cases cited by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour yesterday showed that in every case the police had shown considerable restraint and tact in the face of intense provocation, ranging from jeers and boos to obscene abuse by the pro-Communist officials. The police intervened only when violence and disorder resulted or threatened to result and that only after repeated warnings had been given. As for the allegations that the police had singled out the English-speaking white-collar workers in the Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union for attention, the answer is obvious. The time has not come yet for the pro-Communists to mount a final and concerted assault against merger and Malaysia. They are still hoping against hope that a miracle may happen to delay the inevitable reunification of Singapore and the Federation. Besides, they think that the white-collar English-speaking workers in the S.B.H.E.U. are not traditionally connected with pro-Communist activities and a little flexing of the muscles in this field is not likely to receive as much attention as they would in the traditionally Communist hot houses in the S.G.E.U. and its affiliates and the Rural Residents' Association and the Country People's Association. Allegations have also been made of police using force on students, and the Member for Queenstown specially mentioned Chinese school students. Everybody knows that far from using the police against the students, the Government went out of its way to ensure that no police were used in the last student boycott of the Secondary IV Examination. This, however, does not prevent the pro-Communists from repeating blatant lies against the Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, the speech of the Member for Queenstown revealed the classic tactic of the pro-Communists in using their agents and stooges in the trade unions to deceive and egg on the innocent workers to go on strike for political purposes and to use illegal methods in the strike, hoping thereby to provoke a clash between the police and the workers so that they could exploit the sufferings of the workers to whip up hatred against constituted authority. The Prime Minister warned against the mounting of industrial unrest by pro-Communists in August 1961 when the open break came, and we can look forward in the near future to more of these violent political strikes mounted by the pro-Communists on the back of the innocent workers in their losing battle against the inevitable historical process towards reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. 4.32 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Finance always makes me sick. Sir, he is a very foolish man. He has said in the past - once or twice as early as this year - that there is no capital investment because there are militant trade unions. He said today, "There is no industrialisation because there are militant unions who are Communists." Sir, I do not want to waste too much of my time in replying to this man. I suggest that he read some of the speeches his master, the Prime Minister, made when he was in the Opposition. I refer to Volume 2 - this is the speech made by the Prime Minister on 5th September, 1956 - column 78. It is in the middle of the page: `It is a fallacy to suggest that because there have been strikes, because unions are militant, therefore we have this lack of industrialisation.' I repeat, Sir: `It is a fallacy to suggest that because there have been strikes, because unions are militant, therefore we have this lack of industrialisation.' I am quite certain that if the Minister for Finance will take the trouble to read all the speeches made by the Prime Minister when he was in the Opposition prior to May 1959, when he was the legal adviser to about 47 trade unions in Singapore, he will find a lot more quotations than this to show that if there is a lack of industrialisation, it is not because there are Communist agitators, it is not because there are militant trade unionists and it is not because there are militant trade unions. Sir, I am sure many of us can remember that only recently in the Straits Times there was an extract of a report from a London newspaper giving us some statistics about the strikes in Western industrialised countries including Japan. If I am not mistaken, according to the extract, America has the highest number of strikes. Sir, I think the Minister for Finance will not be foolish enough to suggest that there is a lack of industrialisation in America. I am sure he would become the worst enemy of the Americans if he ever did venture to suggest that. Japan and the United Kingdom - countries that are supposed to be progressive in the field of industrialisation - have militant trade unionists. In Japan, the Communist Party is recognised and Communist Party officials are in key positions in trade unions, and yet there is no lack of industrialisation. Mr Speaker, Sir, once again we have in Singapore people in responsible positions taking up the stand that industrial disputes are generated by a few disgruntled people. Of course, they term these people Communists.

Are they not?

For the information of the Minister for Culture and others, I am quite prepared to say quite categorically that they are not Communists. Sir, today the term "Communist" is being used to refer to every Tom, Dick and Harry who is not a stooge of the P.A.P. The P.A.P. thesis is that industrial disputes take place only because there are Communists. All others, with the exception of the P.A.P., go about creating industrial disputes. Sir, one should have thought that this rather pigheaded attitude should have died long ago, but evidently that is not the case. These people seem to cling to the childish notion that industrial disputes are in themselves evil things and the result of the activities of evil men. Therefore, the solution they put forward is to put a stop to militant trade unionism; dig a big grave and bury all these so-called Communists and there will be no industrial disputes. Mr Speaker, Sir, at the outset, I wish to make it quite clear that trade disputes will continue to arise irrespective of what the Minister for Home Affairs, or the Minister for Internal Security of the Federation of Malaya who, incidentally, I gather, will be commissioned to solve industrial disputes in Singapore after the P.A.P. merger, may do in terms of eliminating militant trade unionism and trade unionists. Sir, this is so because industrial disputes are the results of the conflicts between workers and employers in the process of production. These conflicts arise because of the failure to reach mutual agreement on problems relating to conditions of employment. In other words, an industrial dispute is the expression of the economic struggle between workers and capitalists. Sir, workers came into being the very first day capitalist appeared and industrial disputes will continue so long as there are capitalists and workers, so long as employer/employee relations exist. If we are to have a constructive debate, then let us not forget this truth just for the purposes of temporary expediency. Sir, I will be only too happy if any of the Government Ministers can stand up honestly, touch their hearts and perhaps put the other hand on the Bible and give an assurance that in operating the system of private enterprise there will be no strikes, assuming that there will be no Communists. Give them the opportunity of arresting everybody who they think is a Communist and putting them behind bars. Give them a situation without the presence of the so-called Communists. See if they can still stand up and honestly give an assurance that there will be no strikes. I say I will be much obliged and I am sure all trade unions and trade unionists and all the workers in Singapore will appreciate it. Sir, these trade unions that are termed pro-Communist - mind you, Sir, pro-Communist trade unions in Singapore mean every union -

S.A.T.U.

- other than the Singapore Bank Employees Union, the Singapore Insurance Companies Employees Union, the Singapore Traction Company Employees Union, the Singapore Printing Employees Union [Interruption]. You have only a few. I still have one small finger in my hand. And the Manual and Mercantile Employees Union - five or six, other than -

The A.U.P.E.

- the A.U.P.E., a union that is definitely not Communist because the Secretary-General of the Union is the P.A.P. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture. Other than these unions, every other union is pro-Communist. These unions that are termed pro-Communist are all in favour of industrial peace. Sir, we are in favour of employing reasonable steps. We are in favour of doing everything that is possible and is non-Communist to maintain industrial peace with justice. But we must know and understand, first of all, the concept of industrial peace with justice as is propagated by the Government of today - the P.A.P. Government. We have no illusions as to what the Member for Cairnhill means by industrial peace with justice. We saw a demonstration of his form of justice during the years 1955 to 1959, and his version of justice is no justice at all for the workers; and the rejection of his anti-worker policies was very categorical in the general elections in May 1959 and I do not have to elaborate that here. The people have not forgotten the type of law and order the previous Government maintained. Sir, nearly three years of P.A.P. labour policies in practice has shown, unfortunately and regrettably, very little difference. We doubt the integrity of this Government. Therefore, we are not going to give them a blank cheque and allow them the right to take reasonable steps against the so-called Communist agitators and the so-called Communist trade unions. Because, First of all, when they say reasonable steps, we know they do not mean reasonable steps. Secondly, when they say they are going to take action against the Communist, as I have said earlier, it means taking action against all unions other than five or six unions which happen to have P.A.P. personnel in their leadership. Sir, both the previous Government and the present P.A.P. Government used the police on striking workers. Is `hat what they term "reasonable steps"? The P.A.P. Government authorised police action in disputes like Sassoon's. That was early in 1960 when we were all in the P.A.P.; all because they were unable to understand the aspirations of the workers. They used the police in disputes like the Singapore Glass Factory, the G.E.C., the City Council, Robinson's, Shaw's, Guthries, etc. - just to mention a few. And in recent cases they have used this Communist excuse. These police acts have all been defended by the Government Ministers as reasonable, because they say they were used against professional Communist agitators. Sir, we in the Barisan Sosialis do not consider police action against pickets as reasonable. Unwarranted use of the police force on helpless workers cannot be termed reasonable by any stretch of the imagination.

Were they beaten up or something?

The P.A.P. Government, soon after losing the support of the workers, adopted a ferocious anti-worker attitude. We saw how this so-called pro-Labour Government was prepared to use the police and military forces against the workers. The scene of police action during the City Council strike is still vivid in our minds. We saw how the whole city was transformed into a military camp, all for the sake of fostering upon the Government daily-rated workers a Government-sponsored union. Unlike the previous Government, the P.A.P. was more vicious, and they used force against the English-educated clerks and salesgirls. Sir, history was created in the Robinson strike by clerks and salesgirls being carted away like cattle in Black Marias. Sir, I want to spend some time touching in some detail on the strike at Robinson's. We have seen how the Minister for Health and Law (the former Minister for Labour and Law) and the Minister for Home Affairs spent some time saying how in the Robinson strike, the so-called Communist agitators were agitating the workers. I had this advantage over the Government Ministers - when they were perhaps safely confined to some cool rooms and perhaps were just reading from time to time reports of what was happening in Robinson's - that I was there. First of all, there was this charge that the so-called Communists obstructed the entrance to the Robinson premises. I was there from about 10 o'clock. There were my colleagues. Mr Dominic Puthucheary was there from about 8 o'clock in the morning. It is true that at 8 o'clock all the strikers went and sat on the steps: the Company's doors were closed and nobody could go in without walking over the strikers. But when Mr Dominic Puthucheary went there, he told the strikers to clear the passage, and the passage was cleared. At 9 o'clock when the Company's officials came in, there was no obstruction. They all walked into the Company's premises. At 10 o'clock or so when the police arrived, people like Mr A. T. Rajah and other' senior Police officers all walked into the Company's premises. When I went there, all these people were inside the .Company's premises. And I was told that then management of the Company agreed that there was no obstruction, and yet Mr A. T. Rajah - An hon. Member: T. T. Rajah.

A. T. Rajah, the police officer who was in charge of operations there, said he had to clear all the strikers, irrespective of whether they were obstructing or not, irrespective of the fact that they were all sitting aside with a wide open space given for anyone to enter the premises. Sir, the Company's officials in my presence persuaded this police officer and other police officers not to remove the strikers. They said, "As far as we are concerned, we have access to our premises. We don't care. They can sit there. We want to carry on talks with the union immediately so that we could solve the dispute." I spoke to this police officer, Mr A. T. Rajah, and he made a telephone call, obviously to his political boss. When he came back, he said, "Sorry, Mr Barn, I can't do anything. I have orders to clear the strikers." Sir, under our Trade Disputes Ordinance, a striker is arrested for obstruction if, in the first place, he forcibly prevents Company officials from going into the premises. There was no such incident. No company official up to date has made his report saying that he was stopped. If a worker prevents a non-striker from going into the premises, then it is also classified as obstruction. But there was no such incident. There was nobody who wanted to go to work who was stopped. No one up to date has made a report saying that he was forcibly stopped from going into the premises. If a customer wanted to go in and if the strikers had prevented him, then that would have constituted obstruction. There was no such case. If the Company's officials had wanted to remove their goods from the premises, and if the strikers had forcibly prevented them from removing them, then that could have been obstruction. There was no such case. Sir, there was no case of any complaint of any obstruction, and yet the police arrested everybody. The former Minister for Labour, i.e, the Minister for Health and Law, who obviously was not there - I am not sure whether he was Minister for Labour at that time - said yesterday: `In the case of the Robinson strike, there was genuine provocation by the employer.' That is true. The Minister said: `But Mr Dominic Puthucheary and company never intended to take the dispute to the Labour Ministry. Many people saw Dominic Puthucheary urging the strikers to be arrested when the police were called on to the scene. Charges of obstruction against a number of strikers were eventually withdrawn.' Sir, he said, "urging the strikers". This is the Straits Times of today - "urging the strikers to be arrested".

Point of information, Mr Speaker, Sir. Mr Bani resumed his seat.

When that strike occurred, Mr Speaker, Sir, I remember I was covering the duties of the Minister for Finance, who was then away. I was in his office at about half-past eleven in the morning when I got a telephone call from A.S.P. Rajah saying that this was the strike position - that the men were crowding round the main entrance and he could not get entry into the premises. He said he wanted a clearance from me as' to what his duties should be. I said to him that if they were physically blocking the entrance, then it would be his duty as a police officer to clear a passage so that people could get in and out of the premises. Mr Speaker, Sir, I was not in my cool room. I had left my office in my car and went round the premises of Robinson & Co, that morning on my way to the Minister for Finance's office.

It is a pity the Minister could say it only now. The fact is that there was no case of a report for obstruction. That is the point. And the Company said, "Look, don't remove my strikers. Let them squat where they want to, so long as we as officials of the Company have access to the premises."

On a further point of information, Sir.

I am sure the Minister will have - [Interruption].

Order.

- his time to reply. In the Robinson incident, the Prime Minister committed contempt by talking over Radio Singapore. In fact, a very prompt statement was issued immediately after the Robinson incident, and to keep our mouths shut, all the workers were arrested, and 34 out of the 200 were charged in court. So we could not comment on the Robinson strike. If there had been no case pending, then there would have been a motion of censure on the Government for their acts at the Robinson strike. Sir, I do not want to go into this any more than is necessary. All that I want to say is this: there was no case of obstruction because there was no case and there was no report of obstruction made. So the police arrested everyone present. Sir, this was supposed to have been a Communist strike. And the police came with their Black Marias and Riot Squad with about 500 men from the Riot Squad to handle about 200 workers, most of whom were young girls and Christian girls. They were singing "Onward, Christian Soldiers", when the police arrived. Sir, when they were being arrested, we saw that the police were using force. We thought it was not necessary because if the workers were to be arrested for an offence which they had not committed, we were quite prepared to tell the workers, "Get yourselves arrested. If the police were to arrest you for an offence which you have not committed, then do not resist arrest." And we knew very well that if there had been resistance on the part of the workers, we would have been playing right into the hands of the Government and given them the opportunity of picking up the strikers. Therefore, all that Mr Dominic Puthucheary told the workers was. "Do not resist arrest." First of all, they arrested 34 people; took them to the Central Police Station, took down particulars and released them. The 34 came back and squatted on the same place. The police then found that it would be embarrassing to arrest them in batches, take them to the police station, and then release them., because they would come back and squat on the same place. So they said, "Pack up the whole lot." They arrested over 200 workers and union officials, took them to the Central Police Station, and held them there until one o'clock, when we knew very well that all that was required was to take down their particulars and let them go. But they kept them until one o'clock. I remember the Commissioner of Police was in the Central Police Station and I did have a chat with him. I told him that, in my opinion - and I was advised by counsel - that all that was required was to take down their particulars and let them go. He said it would take a whole day to take down the particulars. Sir, we knew that their purpose was to prevent the workers from going back to Robinson's. Somehow, perhaps because of the threat I made to the Commissioner of Police that if the workers were going to be detained longer than necessary, then we would make sure that we would take up the matter further, the workers were released. And this time it took them less than one hour to take down the particulars. The next point I want to make briefly is that when these workers went back to Robinson's, they were prevented from picketing. We were supposed to be Communists, or supposed to be people who were creating trouble. The workers went hack. Why should Government deny them the right to picket? Sir, picketing is guaranteed to the workers under the laws of the country, laws made by so-called democratic governments. These are so-called democratic rights given to the workers. Yet these workers were prevented from picketing. I have taken some time over this because this is an example of the truth in all these so-called Communist disputes that take place.

I suspend this sitting. 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.

And so, Mr Speaker. Sir, that was the Robinson strike, a strike called by a legitimate trade union; a strike which involved legitimate workers: a strike which, in the words of the Minister for Health and Law, had a legitimate cause; and yet, Sir, the Government's criticism of the strike was completely unsympathetic. All that they could think of saying was that this was a strike called by Communist agitators to bring about disorder. Mr Speaker. Sir, we say that law and order on the industrial front brought about at the expense of the legitimate claims of the workers is deplorable. Industrial peace is not for the exclusive protection of vested interests. Law and order to advance the interests of the employers but to neglect the economic advance of the workers is unjust to the workers. Sir, today the P.A.P. Government, through its stooges, is concentrating all its efforts on the English-educated section of the working class. This is because it has completely lost the support of the industrial workers who were the backbone of the Party, who were the mass base of the good old P.A.P. Now they are compelled to look for support in other directions. When the P.A.P. came to power through the backing of the industrial workers, its leadership became arrogant and began to insult and humiliate with vengeance the English-speaking section of our population. Sir, it went to such lengths that Mr Lim Ching Siong, who is today accused of being the most important Communist cadre, had to tell his colleague, Mr Woodhull, to write an open letter to the Prime Minister to cut out all this anti-English-educated talk. Sir, it took some time for them to realise their mistake. But when they lost the support of the industrial workers through their foolish anti-labour policies, they switched their line and began to woo the very same people they had insulted and humiliated. The P.A.P. was naive to believe that the English-educated would support them in spite of the past insults. Sir, this was the measure of respect the P.A.P. showed to this section of the population. But to the dismay of the P.A.P. leadership, they found the English-speaking workers organising themselves along militant lines in independent unions like the Singapore Business Houses Employees Union. Then the Government started a two-prong attack on the English-educated workers, singling out the Singapore Business Houses Employees Union as their main target. They had to cook up a reason for this attack. They could not say that the Singapore Business Houses Employees Union was a good union and a powerful union that stood to safeguard the interest of the English-educated commercial workers. They could not say that this was a union that did not want to be controlled by the P.A.P., and therefore, they must attack it. They had to cook up a reason that would give an apparent justification for the attack, and what better reason than the Communist bogey? So the Singapore Business Houses Employees Union today is supposed to be a Communist front organisation. Sir, I may state here that the Singapore Business Houses Employees Union was formed in 1954. The first time anybody ever accused this union of being Communist was just about the time of the Robinson strike last year. Sir, those of us who are in the Barisan Sosialis and who are associated with the Business Houses Employees Union were associated with this Union long before the break with the P.A.P. We were associated with this Union as early as 1960. Yet neither the Prime Minister nor anyone of the Ministers ever said that this was a Communist front organisation. Even the Member for Cairnhill, a former Chief Minister, during 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957 and 1958 never ever said that this was a Communist front organisation. Today, the Government of the P.A.P. is directing its attack on the Singapore Business Houses Employees Union, by, on the one hand, persecuting the Union with the whole State machinery and by, on the other, enticing its membership into the Singapore Manual and Mercantile Workers Union, a union that is managed by P.A.P. stooges and backed to the hilt by the State machinery, a union whose sole purpose seems to be to split the trade union movement and thereby weaken the strength of the commercial workers. Sir, in strikes called by the Singapore Business Houses Employees Union, police actions have been very severe. The political wing of the Labour Ministry is hostile towards this union. The Press and the radio are used against this union. Even the English Petir, organ of the P.A.P. which recently made its reappearance after a long absence, has devoted an editoral against this union. Sir, it is interesting to examine why this is so. Yesterday the Minister for Health and Law said, as is reported in the Straits Times of today: `Twenty-five of the SATU strikes involved expatriate firms, while only six strikes called by the non-aligned group involved such firms. The Minister also revealed that the majority (24) of the SATU strikes were called by the Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union.' Sir, either the Minister did not know the facts or he was deliberately making an inaccurate statement. I was saying that the Business Houses Employees' Union was a union organised in 1954. The Minister says that last year the majority of the strikes were in expatriate firms, 24 of the 25 were called by the Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union. Ever since this union was formed, it has called only 19 strikes. The first strike took place in August 1959. Sir, I do not see the purpose of going to this extent of fabricating the truth -

Order. I cannot allow that expression "fabricating the truth" said of a speech of a Member of this Assembly. It is equivalent to saying it is a lie. Will the Member please withdraw that expression?

I withdraw that, Sir, but I do not understand, as I have said, why they want to go to this extent. Sir, it is noticed that in the speeches of the Ministers, the Prime Minister, the Minister for Home Affairs, there has been a concentrated attack on the Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union. Sir, you will recall that one of that accusations was that this union was only asking for flat increases in salaries and was not asking for a salary structure. The reason they gave was that the Communists did not like salary structures because salary structures stabilised the position. Let me briefly say what this union has done and what it stands for, and also explain why salary scales are not embodied in all its claims. First of all, I must say that during the past one year, this union has entered into something like 50 collective agreements with 50 employers, providing for salary increases ranging from $40 to $120 per month over a period of two years. Everybody recognises that in the commercial field the achievements of this union have been tremendous. Never in this sector has there been in the past a union which has achieved so much in so short a time. Mr Speakers. Sir, just to give a clearer picture, I say that since 1954, up to about the middle of last year, definitely up to the end of 1960, there was not even one single agreement signed by this union. This was at a time when this union was not branded as a pro-Communist union, when the union was run perhaps by people who never understood the employers they were dealing with. It was only after the union realised the need to organise' along militant lines to call strikes, if necessary, that this achievement has been brought about. It is ridiculous to say that the leadership of this union, which is alleged to be pro-Communist, does not look after the interests of the workers. More than 5,000 workers have benefited by the collective agreements that I have just mentioned. And salary scales, Sir? The Prime Minister was quite categorical when he said the Communists did not like salary scales. Sir,I have never before heard a sillier statement than this. I know the situation as it exists in the commercial world. I did say yesterday that the people who were against salary scales were the employers. The Prime Minister's logic must necessarily mean that the employers are Communists, and I am sure an employer who chooses to be honest will bear me out on this. I have had personal experience of being told by employers that they do not want salary scales. I do not want to go into details and quote every single example. I will just quote one example to start with. I am sure government Members can check the truth of it. Nestle's (Malaya) Products Ltd. The claims were negotiated for six months by the Business Houses. Employees' Union and I personally spent two months negotiating with the employer on a salary scale. At the end of the two months, he said "No". He said "no" after agreeing in principle to a salary structure, after agreeing to a salary structure as such, after agreeing to the ladders in the salary structure and before final confirmation. The reason he gave was that employers in the commercial world felt that a salary structure would take away the incentives that were necessary for the workers. The employers' arguments are that if we have a salary structure like the one in the bank where there is no bar, where one starts from the minimum and every year goes up the ladder right up to the maximum without any stoppage whatsoever, then incentives do not exist for the workers. The commercial firms have the practice of giving increments on the basis of merit. Sir, as a unionist we disagree with this. We disagree with the employer. We feel there must be a salary structure, but we realise, as practical people, that if we press on with the call for a salary structure, we will be having a lot more strikes than we have at the moment. Sir, there was a time when employers whose workers were members of the Business Houses Employees' Union refused to negotiate on wage increases. They said wage increases were at their discretion. It took a few strikes to drum sense into the heads of these employers, and I am sure, I have no doubt whatsoever, that if we want to force the business houses employers to accept a salary structure, we will have to call a number of strikes in the first place. What are the Government trying to do? Do they want us to call more strikes so that they can come here and say Communist agitators are calling strikes? Sir, to the best of my knowledge, there is no trade union in Singapore that has anything against a salary structure. If what I say is doubted, I ask Government Members, as I asked them yesterday, to get in touch with the employers. Mr J. J. Rattray, Industrial Adviser to the Employers' Federation, has had several discussions with my colleagues and me, and I am quite sure if the man chooses to tell the truth, he will confirm what I say. Sir, this is just another example of the extent to which the Government are prepared to go just to make their Communist smear stick. In their haste to do this, they do not consider the validity of the argument. The Prime Minister also touched on the Ford strike that has just ended. He again said this was a strike which was called by the Communists, not for the benefit of the Ford workers, but simply because the Communists wanted to agitate the trouble. He also said how the results did not favour the workers. He said yesterday that they only got six cents per day. This again is a P.A.P. bluff. It is an inaccurate statement. Surely, responsible men like the Prime Minister should assess the facts first, unless, of course, he thinks all the people in Singapore are fools and he can bluff them and get away with it. Sir, the agreement signed by the union for Ford workers provides for a rise of six cents per hour as from the 1st of March, 1962. As from the 1st of January, 1963, another five cents per hour. It works out for this year at 52.8 cents per day, and for 1963, 96.8 cents per day additional increase on the workers' pay. Sir, in the past, the average has been 88 cents per hour. In 1962, the wages would be pushed up to 94 cents per hour, and in 1963 they would be pushed up to 99 cents per hour. Also, as a result of the agreement, the workers are expected to work only 42½ hours but they are paid for 49 hours and they work a five-day week. Sir, the Prime Minister said that that was a Communist strike. I believe he also said that the Communist do not normally refer these disputes to the Labour Ministry for conciliation. I wonder if he is aware that the Ford negotiations were carried out in the Labour Ministry soon after the strike. Sir, I am going into some detail on this again because I want to expose this Communist bluff that is being put forward. Once and for all, let us see to what extent the Government will go in attempting to make this smear stick. Everybody knows - once the Minister for Finance told me - that Ford is internationally known to be a bad employer. I am sure we have all read of the Ford strikes in Canada and the United Kingdom. The Minister for Finance himself told us that Ford is a bad employer. There have been three strikes since 1957. In 1957, there were dismissals and union officials were victimised - there was a strike, in 1960, there was a strike because of retrenchments. In 1961, the last strike took place because the management wanted to negotiate on salary increases only subject to the employees agreeing to produce 14 cars per day. This was nonsense. No union worth its salt would accept such a situation in the context of an industry like Ford where hitherto the pay has been on the basis of a time rate. The union was quite right - as I am sure Members on the other side of the House will accept - if the employer wants to relate any further increases in the salary to production. That was the primary cause of the strike. The Prime Minister made it appear yesterday that the Ford workers were all dissatisfied and that they were on strike for three months - 110 days - all for the sake of helping the Communists to make propaganda. Sir, I have told the Government Members before - and I say this again - in the first place, if they want to know how the Ford workers feel about the strike, I say they feel "jollified" because they have got a substantial increase in their salaries and a substantial improvement in their conditions of work. This could not have been brought about if not for the strike. If they do not believe this, they are at liberty - they have the whole State machinery - and they are in a position to go and interview every Ford worker. Sir, we do not have to go through the process of calling a strike and having to combat with the police force to discredit the Government. I have said this before. We are satisfied that the Government are sufficiently discredited. We do not have to go through this motion. The truth of the statement can be checked - hold general elections.

Why do you not resign?

It is as simple as that. Sir, I do not want to throw challenges, but what I am saying quite simply is this. We do not have to go through the process of strikes to prove that the Government is a bad Government because this has been proved abundantly clear. If the Government doubt that statement, they are always welcome to check the truth or otherwise of it. Sir, the Government now is creating the Communist bogey. This is like the old P.A.P. gramophone record - a record that has a tiny little hole in the groove and it goes on the same groove repeating the same tune - Communist, Communist, Communist... Sir, they attempt to attribute all industrial actions to a few individuals who are termed Communists or pro-Communists. The P.A.P. desperadoes are deliberately misleading the public. Today strikes are being called not just by unions that the Government chooses to describe as Communist trade unions, but I am sure we are all aware of some of the recent strikes. I wish I can list down every single strike that took place and show which union called a strike and explain the cause of the strike, but I cannot do this because I may have to go on till midnight. I am quite sure that you, Mr Speaker, Sir, will not allow me to do that. Therefore, I will just try and quote a few examples. Let us take the City Council strike called by the Public Daily-Rated Employees Unions Federation. Their basic grouse was against the Government's intention to foster the A.U.P.E. against the wishes of the majority of the Government daily-rated workers. This was sufficiently proved by a secret ballot held by the Government after the strike was over where the A.U.P.E. suffered a humiliating defeat. No amount of cry Communism can deceive our workers as to the real cause of this strike. Sir, we in the Barisan Sosialis had nothing whatsoever to do with the strike.

You had a conversation with Rajendra.

I used to tell the Minister for Culture that as far as we are concerned we have the guts to say that this is a strike called by us and defend the strike on the merits of it. We do not want to take credit for which we are not due. All that happened was that Mr Rajendra, who has been for quite some time associated with the City Council Federation of Labour Unions and the Public Daily-Rated Employees Unions Federation, was at the premises of this union in Race Course Road. [Interruption]. There is nothing to laugh about this. The Minister for Education knows next to nothing of what is going on on the industrial front. Mr Rajendra is the Secretary of the Staff Side Council. Sir, I am not holding a brief for Mr Rajendra.

For S.A.T.U.

I am not here to defend him. But let us examine the facts. I do not want to be as foolish as the Minister for Culture to throw accusations. It is simple. All you have to do is to say, "Mr Lim Ching Siong is a Communist. He is associated with so and so who is in S.A.T.U. That person is a Communist and therefore S.A.T.U. is Communist. Therefore, all those people who associate themselves with S.A.T.U. must necessarily be Communists." Sir, a five-year old child can repeat this. It does not take brains from the Government Bench to cook up a story like this. But let us see the facts. The day Mr Rajendra was in the City Council Unions Federation premises there was a meeting of Government unions scheduled, and he was there to get information about the strike and to report to his unions in the Government service - a very legitimate act. Sir, here was a dispute involving Government workers, and if the Government unions wanted to have a meeting to discuss the City Council strike I do not see anything wrong in that. Anyway, this is what I was told by Mr Rajendra after the Prime Minister made this accusation. While Mr Rajendra was there in the premises, the officials of the Public Daily-Rated Employees Union asked him whether he knew to which union certain workers who were manning the lorries and who were breaking the strike belonged to. Mr Rajendra, who did not know very much of the situation in the non-Government sector, phoned the Singapore General Employees Union in Middle Road, got Mr Dominic Puthucheary and asked him, "Do you know to which unions these workers belong to?" Mr Dominic Puthucheary said, "They belong to the Singapore Manual and Mercantile Employees Union, a union led by a Government man, a union that is used quite naturally to break a strike which is against the interest of another Government union, the A.U.P.E." That was all that happened. A mountain was made out of a molehill. Sir, the telephones were tapped. The Special Branch takes the liberty of tapping the telephones of trade unions. Even the telephones of the Presidents of some trade unions are tapped.

Yes, and Assemblymen too.

And Assemblymen, Sir. I wonder whether we can talk about it at a later date. That is exactly what happened. And because the telephones were tapped and because the Government received their reports saying that on such and such a day Mr Rajendra was seen in the premises and that at such and such a time he phoned Mr Dominic Puthucheary, a big story of a Communist plot was cooked up. Sir, I tell the Government to at least try and be honest. They can disagree with us. They can say that they disagree with our policies, that they want to fight us in our policies. We are quite prepared to face them and fight them anywhere they choose. But let us conduct this fight at least with the decency of being honest. They know very well, Sir, that none of us has anything to do with this strike. But they want to make it big. They knew that this was a big strike, and they wanted to cover up their mistakes. They knew they were caught because of their attempt to foster a Government sponsored union - a strike of 10,000 workers took place affecting the essential services of the country - and they built up this smear. Sir, a little later I shall deal with the figures that were juggled yesterday by the Prime Minister, the Minister for Labour - sorry, the Minister for Health and Law. I only know the Minister for Health and Law as the Minister for Labour, and every time I look at him I still think that he is the Minister for Labour.

He knows a great deal about you.

Sir, it is very disturbing for me, especially to notice that the Minister for Labour's seat is always vacant. I do not know whether -

Order. I do not think the hon. Member is fair in passing a remark of that nature, because he knows why the Minister for Labour is absent.

Quite honestly, I do not know why the Minister is absent. If I had known, I would not have said a thing like that. Anyway, Sir, I shall privately ask the Government Ministers why the Minister for Labour is not here. But, Sir, -

Order. The Minister for Labour has been given permission of absence by the Speaker.

I am much obliged. Sir, before I deal with the figures that were juggled yesterday, I just want to go through a list of a few of the unions that called for strikes. We remember that the A.U.P.E. sometime back served a strike ultimatum on the Government. Although there was no strike, nevertheless the A.U.P.E. served a strike ultimatum. I believe they served it twice: once in connection with some issue affecting the firemen, and the other one quite recently. We all know that the Secretary-General of the A.U.P.E. is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture, an eternal P.A.P. henchman. Sir, does the Government propose to say that this strike threat was also the machinations of the Communists? Or does the Government propose to say that the P.A.P. is creating industrial unrest? I am sure we are also aware that a few months ago the workers of the Bank of America went on strike. Following that, the employees of the Chartered Bank went on strike. Then the employees of the Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation went on strike. All these workers are members of the Singapore Bank Employees' Union. Mr Devan Nair and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture are advisers to this Union. Does the Government propose to say that all these strikes were caused by Communist machinations? Some insurance company workers recently went on strike. They are members of the Singapore Insurance Companies Employees Union. This Union again is led by P.A.P. men. The Singapore Manual and Mercantile Workers Union have merrily been calling numerous strikes in recent months with Government blessing. Everybody knows that T. V. Gomez, Secretary General of this Union, is an obedient P.A.P. stooge. Mr Devan Nair is the adviser to this Union. Sir, everyone of us knows that strikes have been called; strikes are being called today, not just by unions that are termed pro-Communist and Communist. But the speeches of the Ministers - and now with this amendment moved - give one the impression that all the strikes in Singapore are due to the Communists. There is this talk of mounting of industrial unrest. Yesterday we had figures being used to show justification for their allegation that there is mounting of industrial unrest. Sir,I do not deny there is industrial unrest; there is industrial dissatisfaction. I shall go into the reasons why this is so in a short while. But let us just examine the figures that have been played with, Sir. Sir, this is a Monthly Digest of Statistics - Vol. 1, No. 1, January 1962 - and I am sure the Government will not doubt these figures. Unlike the Minister, I do not have the facilities of getting a whole list of up to date strikes. But let us just briefly examine these figures. First of all, let us take the man-days lost for one-whole year 1961. According to page 26, industrial stoppages by major industries: 1961, 410,891, as compared with 152,006 for 1960. Sir, so a big show was made yesterday. 1960, 150,000; 1961, 410,000 - mounting of industrial unrest. You will note, Sir, that out of these 410,891 man-days lost for that year, 274,849 man-days were as a result of the strike affecting electricity, gas and water. In other words, this relates to the strike called by the Public Daily-Rated Employees Unions Federation. I am sure some of us can remember that towards the end of last year there was a one-day strike called by the Army Civil Service Union which is a union with which we have no connections whatsoever, a union which has not been named by the Government Ministers as a Communist-front union. For all I know, maybe after this they may say that this union also is a Communist front union. So far they have said nothing. As a result of this one-day strike, Sir, there was a loss of about 17,000 man-days. This was in the month of November 1961. This union membership is about 17,000. So roughly speaking, Sir, 17,000 man-days were lost as a result of the Army Civil Service Union strike, plus 274,849 man-days lost as a result of the City Council strike. That makes 291,849 man-days lost for last year - no, I am sorry, Sir; if I may go over it step by step to make it clearer. [Interruption] I am quite certain, Sir, that I am better than the Prime Minister in numbers. In fact, when he was juggling with the figures yesterday, I thought I should tell him that I would at any time like to have him in my class if I ever should go back to teaching, and pull him by the ear and tell him to do his figures properly. If I may just go through it stage by stage. 274,849 man-days were lost as a result of the strike of the Public Daily-Rated Employees. 17,000 man-days were lost in the Army strike. That gives a total of 291,849 man-days. You deduct 291 from 291,849, and that resulting figure from 410,089, and we get something like 119,000. Sir, 119,000 compares favourably with 152,000 in 1960. Sir, just one more comparison. The Government has been naming the Singapore Business Houses Employees Union and the Singapore General Employees Union as the two important Communist front organisations. The members of these unions are mostly employed in manufacturing industries and commercial houses. If we look at the Government statistics for 1961, we find that in the manufacturing industry there were only 71,580 man-days lost as against 129,894 man-days lost in 1960 - a definite reduction. Let us take commerce. Commerce includes not just the S.G.E.U. and the S.B.H.E.U. but also unions like the Singapore Bank Employees Union and the Singapore Insurance Companies Employees Union. The statistics for commerce show 19,840. Even if we add the man-days lost for commerce and manufacturing, it is yet lower than the man-days lost in the manufacturing industry in 1960. Sir, there was also one comparison given by the Prime Minister yesterday in respect of August to December or so, last year. I have calculated, in so far as man-days are concerned - that nearly 80 per cent or so of the man-days lost during this period were due to the City Council strike and the Army Civil Service Union strike. Therefore, to suggest that the so-called Communists and pro-Communists are mounting industrial unrest is, to say the least, malicious. The nakedness of this untruth is quite easily exposed. In their eagerness to brand their political opponents as Communists and thereby prepare for repression, the P.A.P. leaders are making inaccurate statements. They are not telling the people the truth.

Sir, on a point of elucidation. Mr Bani resumed his seat.

Sir, I have stated publicly without privilege that the Member for Thomson, Mr Dominic Puthucheary, Mr Kum Siew Yee, and Mr Woodhull are the four pro-Communists in the Business Houses Employees Union engineering all these things on behalf of -

Order. That is not elucidation. I think the Member for Thomson is on a different tack entirely. The Prime Minister will have an opportunity of speaking.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have to draw your attention to the allegation made by the Member for Thomson, that all these are reckless and inaccurate statements. I invite him to take legal remedies for those inaccurate and reckless statements.

I just tell the Prime Minister this, Sir. I do not have - An hon. Member: Scared!

I do not have the facilities that the Prime Minister has to employ - I am speaking for myself, Sir - and that is high-powered lawyers. I tell him this quite bluntly and straight. Let him take me to court and prove that I am a pro-Communist cadre. I am quite prepared to go to court and face anybody who can try and prove that I am a pro-Communist cadre. It is not my business to go and waste my time taking legal action against the Prime Minister. My quarrel with the Prime Minister is essentially a political quarrel. I am quite prepared to take him to the people in Tanjong Pagar to pass judgment. Let him choose. I was saying that the Prime Minister and other Government Ministers were not telling the people the truth in their eagerness to brand their political opponents as Communists. Sir, I tell them that the increasing industrial unrest is not the creation of political opponents of the P.A.P. Sir, if there is an increase in the number of strikes, it is clear evidence that there is increasing discontent among the workers, be they members of the unions which are P.A.P. led or otherwise.

Increasing discontent after Anson!

As far as we are concerned, we stand with all workers irrespective of which trade union they belong to. Sir, unlike the P.A.P. leadership, we do not go and condemn their actions. I tell this to the Prime Minister. This discontent is not something that has just come about after Anson. The Prime Minister knows very well that ever since the P.A.P. assumed office, I have been telling him that there is increasing discontent among the workers.

Political discontent among the workers.

The Prime Minister, if he chooses to be honest, will at least confirm what I said. My disagreement with him on the sort of labour policy that the Government has pursued after the election is well known to many people in the P.A.P. I had criticised the Government's labour policy long before the Anson by-election or the Hong Lim by-election. And they know it well. I am sure the Prime Minister will very vividly recall one incident affecting the Hume Industries workers. The Singapore General Employees Union submitted a wage claim in respect of the industrial workers. Mr Dominic Puthucheary, my friend, was negotiating. The employer said, "I cannot give even a five-cent rise. If I have to give five cents, I have to close down the company." This was in 1960, long before Anson and long before Hong Lim. The union knew the financial position of the company. So they just pressed on with their claim. There was a go-slow. The employer went to a sympathetic man, the Minister for Finance, and produced I do not know what figures and papers. But somehow the Minister for Finance believed the employer's story and went to the Prime Minister. And the Prime Minister called Mr Dominic Puthucheary to his office. "Dom, you withdraw the claim."

Was the Member present?

Point of explanation? Mr Bani resumed his seat.

Was the Member present?

Sir, I was not present.

You were not present.

I was not present, but I am sure the Prime Minister can take me to task if I am making a wrong statement.

I will.

The Prime Minister knows full well that subsequently we had discussions on this together. He had discussions with me and Mr Dominic Puthucheary. We are quite prepared to go to court and swear on oath that this is true [Laughter]. This is not a laughing matter. Sir. Once upon a time, the Prime Minister was very fond of saying this. "You go to court and swear on oath." I am quite prepared to go to court and swear on oath.

Swear on oath that you are not a Communist or pro-Communist.

Anyway, Mr Puthucheary was told to withdraw the claim. He refused. Then he was told to accept something like 30 cents. He refused. These were the days when we were in the P.A.P. Sir, I remember very clearly the day when we discussed with the Prime Minister. And we criticised the Prime Minister's action very severely. To cut the whole story short. At the end of it all, the workers had a wage increase ranging from 70 cents to $1.

50. And Hume Industries has not closed down. It is still prospering, and only recently, sometime last month actually, a new agreement was signed giving a wage increase for the clerical workers. Today, we have the ridiculous talk about the mounting industrial unrest and the need to curb it. But no effort is made to examine the causes of these disputes and the circumstances in which they arise. Instead, we have people in responsible positions in Government falling into the same temptation of their colonial and pro-colonial predecessors, and regarding these disputes with hostility. Let me state simply and clearly that disputes flare up for a number of reasons, the foremost of which is the sense of oppression and injustice felt by our working people in Singapore. Anyone who pretends to champion the cause of all these strikers must, first of all, get it into his head that there are definite grievances among the workers and that strikes take place not because workers are unreasonable. It is no use for any Member of this House to come here and cry "Communism". It is useless to suggest that there are strikes because there are professional agitators at work. Mr Speaker, Sir, crying "Communism" is not going to solve any problem, though it may be used by the Government as an excuse to carry out repression. Sir, the Government cannot remove the sense of grievance by crying "Communism". The people of Singapore have heard this cry of wolf once too often. It is a futile exercise to try the childish gimmick of crying "Communism". Sir, those who profess concern for the increase in the number of strikes must be objective in their analysis. Sir, strikes do not take place out of the blue. The strike is the ultimate weapon in the hands of the workers. And the workers do not use this to play marbles with. Strikes demand sacrifices on the part of the workers. If there are workers prepared to sit it out, to go on strike indefinitely, then there must necessarily be very legitimate grievances. I thought that the people in power would understand this rather simple fact. Sir, when we were in the P.A.P., in the days when it was fighting the previous Government, there seemed to be some appreciation of this fact. But once the P.A.P. leaders came to power, they seemed to overlook this fact very easily. The taste of power is a terrible thing. It makes one forget one's own past, forget even the hopes and aspirations of the very people who brought the Government to power. I need not repeat the old dictum about the corrupting influence of power. It is such a stark truth and we have it in evidence. Sir, the Government is making every attempt to attribute industrial disputes to the machinations of a few individuals, and these individuals are conveniently labelled Communists. Sir, the Government is merely playing politics. It is trying to coerce the trade union movement and, in so doing, it is plugging the same line, resorting to the same measures in espousing the same philosophy of the previous Government. Sir, the P.A.P. Government's hostility to the unions is evident. Its attempt to connect industrial disputes with its own bid for survival is equally evident. The old colonial cry of Communist wolf is being made time and again. Sir, industrial disputes that emerge as a result of dissatisfaction among the working people are now being viewed with a blatant hostility. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me tell these rather wild men in power that they cannot remove the sense of grievance unless they remove the causes of the grievance. Let me tell these men that they cannot use the trade union movement as the scapegoat for their various repressive actions. Let me also warn them that they will only be increasing the sense of dissatisfaction among the working people if they seek to throttle their expression of grievances. Sir, they cannot destroy the trade union movement by putting a few individuals behind bars. Sir, if it has not been made plain to them before, then let it be made plain now. Industrial dissatisfaction there certainly is. It is not because of the machinations of a few individuals. It is unless to sit in this House and pray for industrial peace. Industrial peace will not drop from heaven like manna. To achieve industrial peace and stability calls for the co-operation of workers and employers alike. The prerequisite for this, however, is political stability provided by a strong and stable government which will be unbiased in industrial relations. Sir, to imagine that by curtailing the freedom of expression and activity of trade unions, one would achieve anything would only be folly amounting to lunacy. Sir, one cannot cure anything by treating the symptoms. It is the disease that needs treatment. The first step, therefore, is to make the right diagnosis. Today the Government simply attempts to attribute the manifestations of industrial dissatisfaction to the Communist bogey. But let us examine and see what has gone wrong, so that we understand in proper perspective the present situation on the industrial front. It was primarily on the strength of the trade union movement that the P.A.P. was brought into office. With the advent of the P.A.P. Government, there was political stability. Employers ceased to play politics; workers and their unions made determined efforts to negotiate peaceful settlements and used the conciliation machinery of the Government with confidence. There was, in fact, unprecedented peace on the industrial front. There was industrial peace. But this was short-lived. The beginning of 1960 showed a change in the situation. The power crazy Prime Minister, who had, prior to the 1959 general elections, identified himself with the trade union movement, with the emotions and sentiments of the workers, and who finally achieved power, became crazier and crazier with power. He wanted to curb everybody's influence. He wanted to make sure that he was in a position of power for life. He wanted everyone else to be responsible for his unpopular measures. In short, he wanted others to do the dirty job for him. He saw in the trade union movement the solidarity of the workers. It was a solidarity that he did not approve of, because he feared the strength of the working class movement, for he knew full well that this was a constant threat to his personal ambitions which were contrary to the interest of the working people. [Interruption] Therefore, he set about trying to undermine it. Sir, I can jeer "Running dogs barking." I do not want to take more time than necessary -

Order. Perhaps the Chair is getting a bit tired. Was that expression "running dogs barking" meant to refer to a Member of this House? If it was, then he must withdraw it.

Sir, if I may make an explanation -

Order. I just wish to know whether that expression was meant to refer to a Member of this House. If it was, the Member must withdraw it without explanation.

Sir, I am quite prepared to withdraw it. But what I was about to say was that the term "running dog" is not used for dogs with four legs -

Order. I do not want any explanation. The Chair has considered the expression offensive and it must be withdrawn.

I withdraw, Sir,I remember the Prime Minister once put his dream picture to me. The S.P.A., as far as he was concerned, was finished. The British, to his mind, would remain in the background and would not do a thing except if the Left-wing got out of hand. If the trade unionists made too much noise, the British, according to him would not sit back and watch. So he saw himself in a rather favourable position. There was nothing to worry about from the Right. As far as the workers and the working class movement were concerned, they could not go very far for fear of British reprisals. To his mind, he was an indispensable figure. The Right had to accept him. The Left had to work with him. He thought he could do anything and get away with it. He saw the opportunity to curb the power of the trade unions, and to curb the influence of the workers in the affairs of State. Aside from reintroducing the P.P.S.O. and carrying out other severe measures, he compelled trade unionists to identify themselves with all his acts, hoping thereby that they would incur the wrath and the displeasure of the working people of Singapore. Privately, he talked tough with us, but publicly he allowed the impression of unity. He went further and openly ignored the election pledges. Union leaders working with the Government were not even consulted over legislation. We ourselves pressed for consultation in the hope and belief that we must make the Government a success. Instead, our desire and sincerity were being unashamedly abused by the Government. Sir, when the Industrial Relations Ordinance was first introduced, there was some consternation among trade unionists. The whole purpose of this Ordinance in its original form was designed to silence the workers and their trade unions. There was hardly any prior consultation with trade unions and trade unionists who were working with the Government. We had to force the Government to listen to our representations. Again I am sure the Prime Minister will recall that I was quite prepared to come to this House, sit on the Government side and oppose the Industrial Relations Ordinance if it had been pushed through. This was in early 1960, long before Anson, Hong Lim and long before the time when there ever was this talk of merger. Sir, many of my colleagues in the trade union movement felt the same way, not because we were Communist cadres, but because we had all along believed that the trade union movement must be organised on an independent basis. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture will remember the May Day celebrations in 1960. People who are now in the Barisan Sosialis had to move a resolution for adoption at the May Day meeting, a resolution that stressed the independence of the trade union movement. People like the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture and Mr Devan Nair were hesitant. These are facts and I am sure anyone who chooses to be honest cannot deny them. Now there is this talk of Communists mounting industrial unrest and controlling trade unions. Sir, we had to stomach quite a lot when we were with the Government, At times, our patience was tried. As for example, when the police forcibly evicted peaceful strikers at Sassoon & Co, in early 1960. That again was before the Anson and Hong Lim by-elections and before this merger. As trade unionists we, including the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture (there was only one man who was absent and that was Mr Devan Nair; he was at home on that day) went down to the police station and immediately protested forcefully in a statement issued to the Press. Sir, the next thing that happened to us was we were called up to the office of the Prime Minister and rebuked for criticising the Government. Sir, we were prepared to tell the Government then at the time when we were in the P.A.P. openly and publicly if we disagreed with their labour policies. The former Minister for Labour knows this to be a fact. In fact, - Mr Byrne rose -

On a point of order?

On a point of information.

The Minister can have his time to say, Sir. But I want to refresh the Minister's memory. I am sure he is able to recall discussions he has had with Mr Woodhull, with me, with Mr Devan Nair and with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture on this Sassoon incident. If I may just say this. Mr Woodhull phoned the Minister for Labour in his residence that night before we issued a statement Mr Byrne rose -

Is it a point of information?

It is a point of information.

It is the parliamentary practice that if a Member thinks he is being misrepresented, the Member speaking generally gives way so long as the Member who asks for intervention does not abuse that courtesy.

It is not that I do not want to give way to him, Sir, but the only problem is I do not want to take more time than is necessary to finish my speech. But if the Minister really has something important to say, let us hear him.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Thomson did not know that before the men decided to sit in the office in the Sassoon strike, they had come to see me. I had asked Dominic Puthucheary to see me and he had assured me that though the situation was tense, they would all go home that night. I waited in the office till 5.30 p.m., met him personally and he gave me that personal assurance. Mr Speaker, Sir, that very same night I was not in my residence but was working at Crawford, and I got a telephone call from Mr Kandasamy asking me to go to the Central Police Station immediately. I said, "For what?" He said there was an incident and the men in Sassoon & Co, were involved in a clash with the police and some of them were injured. I said to Mr Kandasamy that if the men were injured, they should be brought to the General Hospital. Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Woodhull then got on to the phone. He was not satisfied with what I had said to Mr Kandasamy. He spoke to me personally. He said, "Byrne, will you come to the Central Station? We need you because if you come here, you can lead a demonstration against the police." I said, "Woodhull, I have nothing to do with a thing like that." Now that is not known to the Member for Thomson.

I am sure the Minister for Health and Law must now feel happier. Sir, all that I was saying was that we condemn the use of the police on the striking workers. We condemned it when we were in the P.A.P. just as we condemn it now. That is the point that I want to make, it is not Communist propaganda if we condemn a government for using the police in a trade dispute. Subsequent to the Sassoon strike, as a result of the discussions with the Government Minister - particularly the Prime Minister - we got them to tell the police to stop interfering in trade disputes. I believe the Minister for Home Affairs instructed the police to keep away from trade disputes. But today, all that is forgotten. Today we not only have police officers merrily intervening. There was a ruling that no police officer should be within 50 yards of a trade dispute. Now police officers mingle with the strikers. They carry tape-recorders.

On a point of information, Sir.

Sir, I am sure the Minister for Health will have ample opportunity to say whatever he wants to say. If he wants to deny this, he is at liberty to do so.

On a point of order, Sir. Surely there should not be a misrepresentation of facts.

Order. That is not a point of order. [Interruption] Order. There should be no frivolity when the Speaker is on his feet. The Minister for Health will no doubt make a note of that and correct any misrepresentation there is. Mr Bani.

Sir, if the Minister feels that I am not telling the truth, he has always recourse, but unlike him I go around and I know full well what happens. At least, Sir, when I was in the P.A.P. I had the privilege of being somewhat respected by the police but -

Order. May I suggest to the Member for Thomson that if he goes on in this way, the Minister for Health will be provoked to intervene again? Perhaps he can carry on with his speech.

The point I wanted to make was that today police intervention in trade disputes is an every-day occurrence. Coming back to where we were, those of us in the trade union movement were deliberately being placed in an awkward position. We were not being consulted on Government actions and legislative measures; but by our association with the Government we were supposed to bear the brunt of responsibility. It was a situation where I would say the Prime Minister called the tune and we were supposed to play the piper. We worked with the Government because we believed that we would see through a rather difficult situation and it was in the interest of the workers to show moderation and restraint and pay full attention to the economic facts of our existence in Singapore. We were quite prepared to shoulder responsibility, though the political sense displayed by most of the Ministers was of grave concern to us. In fact, they had no political sense and no respect for the workers who brought them to power. The Minister for Culture and the Minister for Finance are two clear examples. The Minister for Finance, not long after he became Minister, once told me, in the presence of Mr Woodhull in the C.P.A. Room, that he would bust the unions if it was necessary. It was on the eve of his departure to London for financial talks. [Interruption]. The Minister for Culture knows I am quoting the Minister for Finance correctly because this is not the first time I have quoted him. I have quoted him as having said this before in the Prime Minister's Office at a meeting when the Minister for Culture himself was present. He made it quite clear to a number of us that if there was no P.A.P., then there was no T.U.C. He was trying to intimidate us into giving our unqualified support to some stupid and blind measures that the Government had in mind. [Interruption]. Sir, the T.U.C. functioned from early 1960 but the Communist talk is only now. I am going back briefly into the past purely to show the reasons why they have to talk about the Communists today. I have said earlier on - I was specific when I was talking about the Business Houses Employees Union - that they could not attack the Business Houses Employees Union because it is doing good work and it has drawn up 50 agreements providing for wage increases. They had to have an excuse. What excuse could they think of for attacking the trade union leaders? They could not possibly say, "Mr Lim Ching Siong is a young handsome man who is loved by the workers because he: stands for the workers." They had to cook up some reason or other. Today the one way they hope to fight their political opponents is to brand them as Communists - a ready-made excuse which has been used by the previous Government at least to the extent of carrying out repression. I have no doubt the P.A.P. Government is quite prepared to use it. Sir, we had reasons to be gravely concerned at the attempts of the Government to muzzle the trade union movement when we were in the P.A.P. Nevertheless in the overall interest of co-operation, we were quite prepared to tolerate a number of things, hoping eventually to get the Government to rethink and change its ways. When the T.U.C. was constituted, we allowed some rather obedient servants of the Prime Minister not just to take charge but even to throw their weight about. We were aware of a growing working class discontent. We were aware of the need to take immediate steps to unify the trade unions in the interest of industrial peace and stability. We have told the Government Ministers this ever since. After a great deal of haggling, the Trade Union Bill was introduced. It was debated and passed by this Assembly. We all know what has happened to it. Overnight, there was a reversal of Government policy. The registration of four federations of trade unions was cancelled. The Trade Union Bill was not allowed to become law. The P.A.P., before they came to office, had pledged to unify the trade union movement. We repeatedly pressed for the unification of the trade union movement, for only with unification could there be order, discipline and fairness in industrial relations. Sir, I am not suggesting that tomorrow if they bring in the Trade Union Bill and have a stooge central organisation which is not representative of the trade unions, and attempt to unify by bulldozing the unions they will get industrial peace. Dr Toh Chin Chye rose -

Dr Toh.

7.11 p.m. Resolved, "That the proceedings on the business set down for this day be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 until 12 o'clock midnight."-[Dr Toh Chin Chye].

Debate resumed.

What I am saying is that if the Government are genuine in wanting industrial peace and stability, let them be fair and reasonable; let them stop playing politics; register and recognise a central organisation of trade unions that is representative of the trade union movement, that would have the respect of the trade unions and the workers, that would be able to influence individual unions in industrial relations that would supervise the unification of the trade union movement and try to bring about order in the industrial front. Sir, only with unification could collective bargaining processes be put on the level of stability and good sense. This seems to have been obvious to the P.A.P. during the elections, but once in the saddle after the elections, other considerations came to operate. For the sake of being in power, the P.A.P. leaders were prepared to promise quite a bit for the workers, but once they came to power, their opportunism was amply demonstrated. Today they go about their business with the noise and vulgarity of turncoats. Sir, in spite of all the things that happened in the days when we were in the P.A.P., we supported the Government in the hope of getting them to rectify themselves. But in spite of all this, there was no unification of the trade union movement in sight. We had been taken for a jolly good ride. When the time came to test the Government's honesty, we saw very clearly that unification was out of the question as far as the P.A.P. was concerned. As we all know, the T.U.C. was dissolved and I do not know why today contradictory statements are being made. I am sure we are all in a position to remember the news item we read on 26th July, 1961 - "BYRNE TO DISSOLVE THE T.U.C.: KANDASAMY TO ORGANISE NEW SET UP: FUNDS WILL GO TO AFFILIATED UNIONS". Sir, this is supposed to be a democratic Government. You will remember that we are supposed to be Communists, the people who do not believe in democratic institutions and who are working to wreck the democratic system. Here is a Government which self-profess to be democratic, and what do they do, Sir? The Minister for Labour and Law, Mr K. M. Byrne, acting on a request from the T.U.C. Secretary-General, Mr G. Kandasamy, also arranged for the registration of trade unions, to distribute the T.U.C. funds to all affiliated unions, and noted that Mr Kandasamy and a number of his colleagues are to organise a National Trade Union Centre on a non-Communist, national, democratic, socialist basis, and also dissolve the T.U.C. Sir, in this democratic Government, we see a P.A.P. man going to another P.A.P. man and saying, "Please dissolve the T.U.C." The T.U.C. had a Secretariat. There was no meeting of the Secretariat. The T.U.C. had an Executive Council. There was no meeting of the Executive Council. It had delegates. Under the constitution of the T.U.C., the dissolution of the T.U.C. must be authorised by the delegates concerned. There was no delegates conference, no Executive Council meeting, no Secretariat meeting. All that they had to do was for Mr Kandasamy, the Secretary-General of the T.U.C., to tell the Minister for Labour and Law, "Dissolve the T.U.C.," and the T.U.C. was dissolved. I suggest that the decision to dissolve was taken by the P.A.P. Central Executive Committee. Who wants to play politics in the trade union movement? Mr Speaker, Sir, why did they dissolve the T.U.C.? Was it because there were Communist agitators? Was it because there were people who were termed evil men, or was it because they did not have a majority? They did not have a majority of men who would be prepared to make the T.U.C. a subsidiary organisation of the P.A.P. Mr Speaker, Sir, we stood for an independent trade union movement then. We stand for an independent trade union movement now. I am told some of the unions are concerned as to what has happened to the funds of the T.U.C. The Minister then said that he would redistribute the funds to the affiliated unions. But I understand that to date nothing has been done. We know the reason why the P.A.P. Government does not want to see a central body of trade unions, for it knows that such a workers' organisation could not be controlled by the P.A.P. Sir, the train of events has made clear the loss of confidence in the Government within the P.A.P. and outside it, and the Government's hostility to the unions has become complete. As I have said, it is no use coming here and trying to make suggestions that there will be industrial peace. The first thing that the Government ought to have is the respect of the workers. For only then can it be in a position of prestige to maintain industrial peace. But this is certainly not the case. The Government knows full well what I say to be true. In 1959, immediately after the general elections, there was industrial peace; as I have said earlier, unprecedented industrial peace. I am sure, as the Prime Minister has said, we have 300 Communists in Singapore. These 300 Communists were also in Singapore in 1959, May, June, July, August, September, October, November and December. Early 1960 strikes increased, as the Government statistics quite clearly show. I believe that in 1960 there were very many more strikes than in 1959 because the workers were getting disillusioned. Sir, the Government having completely lost the support of the workers is now using the Ministry of Labour and other Government machinery to break and discredit trade unions and trade union leadership which are not prepared to toe the P.A.P. line. Today, arbitrary Government intervention in legitimate disputes of the workers is an everyday occurrence. The Government show bias against the majority of the unions which are unions not under the control of the P.A.P. The best thing the Government can do in the circumstances is to resign. But since they do not wish to do that, the only sane thing for them to do is to let the unions and the employers work things out among themselves. There is a far better prospect of peace if employers and unionists could iron things out between themselves; if the Labour Ministry ceases to be a P.A.P. instrument - it strikes me sometimes that the Labour Ministry is the only branch of the P.A.P. left ticking. I think it is necessary to warn employers that the Government of today may well have a vested interest in industrial unrest. The sensible thing for them to do is to be realistic and come to a lasting settlement with the employees. We do not trust the Government to act in a responsible manner. We know that all this talk of Communist agitators and Communist unions is merely to carry out a repression of political forces that are against the P.A.P. Sir, the P.A.P. came into office with a special recommendation, lt had the support of the workers and their trade unions, and was therefore in a position to make the slogan "industrial peace with justice" a meaningful one. But the power crazy Prime Minister was too smug once he became Prime Minister. He saw himself in an indispensable role and wanted to ensure his position in that role. Today, the P.A.P. Government, by their own actions, have lost the support of the workers who brought it to power. In fact, they have incurred the anger and hostility of the workers. The Labour Front came into office on a militant Left-wing platform and ended up a totally reactionary force. The P.A.P. has travelled the same trodden route, and has common ground with its old opponents now in the S.P.A., and so they both talk in the same terms. They both talk of the Communist threat. Sir, the same policies that were rejected by the people are now being put into force. Mr Speaker, Sir, I need hardly state the outcome of the anti-worker policies of the Government. I have no doubt that at the end of it all, all this cry of Communism can only mean the graveyard for the P.A.P. 7.25 p.m.

Mr Speaker, one thing I must say about the Member for Thomson -

He is like an old gramophone.

- is that his speeches are written by him, unlike the Member for Queenstown, who is his boss -

Thank you.

- who really talks like a gramophone.

What about the Minister for Finance?

For the best part of the day the Member for Thomson spent a great deal of time -

G. G. Thomson, is it?

- saying what a terrible Government this is - police brutality. He used the phrase "using the police". He never told you what was the police used for. The impression left behind is that we used the police to beat up workers and arrest them. If we were really against the workers and trade unionists, there would be empty Benches here.

You have not got the guts.

The Member for Cairnhill can tell you that there are ways and means of doing these things.

At least the Member for Cairnhill had the guts.

A little bit more, and many of them would have had more nervous twitches than they have at the moment. So, Sir, all this long rigmarole, implying police brutality, using the police, the P.A.P. is doing this and that - let me first say that if the Barisan Sosialis and the Communists who run them can get one single picture of actual police brutality, of police beating up workers, I think the General Employees Union would be prepared to pay $50,000 to publish just one such picture. I have looked through their publications and those of the S.G.E.U., Suara Kesatuan. They have been publishing pictures intended to convey to the workers the extent of police brutality, Government brutality. I refer to the issue of 3lst December, 1961. An hon. Member: In Chinese?

In Chinese, Sir. Unlike the gentleman there, I can even read Chinese without being able to understand a word of it. To that extent I emulate the Member for Queenstown. In this publication there are six pictures intended to convey how brutal and how wicked this P.A.P. Government is. The first picture shows two gentlemen looking through a window - police brutality. The second picture shows two policemen talking to another gentleman - police brutality. The third shows three policemen, with hands folded, watching six other gentlemen, obviously conversing - police brutality. The fourth picture shows four policemen just facing the camera - police brutality, using police action. The fifth is a very bad photograph but it shows the back of a policeman - police brutality. The only picture where it shows police brutality is the sixth picture, which is a cartoon that they had to draw. That is the only picture they can produce of police brutality. It shows a policeman with a club and a rifle stamping on what looks like a worker. That is the only instance of police brutality that the Barisan Sosialis could produce and the Communists, who run them, can produce. That is police brutality out of their imagination.

Order. I have noticed the Minister for Culture pointing at the opposite Benches, and I have not stopped him until now. I think he is probably overdoing it.

Probably the pointing finger could be used on some occasion outside the Assembly. So that is all they could produce of police brutality. You have a lot of words, pen portraits, fairy tales, but not a single iota of evidence. Then the Member for Thomson, in order to build up his myth of an oppressive Government beating down workers and to produce evidence of that, spent a great deal of time talking about what he called the historic Robinson strike. This is his evidence of police brutality, Sir. So I looked up some of the photographs, both in the Chinese Press and in the English Press, to check up on any evidence of a bloodstained worker, of a worker being dragged about with his arm twisted and so on. All I could find which could come something near to the use of violence was on the front page of the Straits Times of 12th September. It shows a picture of a gentleman called Foo Yong Fong who, I understand, can also write because the Member for Queenstown read a very polished piece of prose by Mr Foo Yong Fong, obviously with a view to impressing upon the workers of Singapore that, apart from rather strange habits like pressing cigarette buts into people -

Order. I understand that particular case is sub judice.

Apart from other accomplishments, he could also write in excellent language. Sir, the only evidence I could find was a picture here [Indicating] of two policemen trying to hold back Mr Foo Yong Fong who was trying to get into a Black Maria. Evidence of police brutality! Here is a gentleman who is so afraid of the police that he is struggling to get into a Black Maria. That is the nearest one I could come across of the use of any kind of violence on the part of the leader of the workers. The first picture shows the police holding arms to allow the workers, the terrified workers, the workers who were going to be beaten up by the police, oppressed by the Government, to give them a chance to get into the Black Maria in an orderly fashion. There is another picture here [Indicating] showing salesgirls and women clerks of Robinson walking out of the store, laughing and smiling, into a waiting police van. Evidence of police brutality and oppression! Sir, in a country where there are no strikes - the strike problem has been solved by the People's Democracy which they admired so much - if there is any suggestion that a police van is anywhere around the vicinity, it is an occasion for considerable alarm, and perhaps there would be a hasty exit by the back door. But here, under the oppressive rule of the P.A.P., salesgirls and striking workers were smiling as they walked into the van. Not only did they walk into the van with great enthusiasm but the police had to keep control, saying, "You can get in there, but, please two at a time." These are the evidence of police brutality! As you know, Sir, the Member for Thomson spent a great deal of time quoting instances of what had happened: "The police were used. The police were used." In other words, what were the police used for? Obviously in this case to help strikers to get into a police van in an orderly way. In the same issue of the Straits Times of 13th September, 1961, after the strike was over, we heard a great deal about the terrible things the Government did and the police did. This is one portion of the report. Dr Lee Siew Choh said: `All reports clearly indicate that the strike at Robinson was peaceful from the outset. In fact, there was a great deal of friendliness between the strikers and the police officers who were placed on duty.' And yet the Member for Thomson spent, I think, the best part of an hour on this historic Robinson strike where the brutal police, the terrible Government, was oppressing the workers. And there was the Member for Queenstown, the Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis - at that time I do not think the Barisan Sosialis had yet been formed - saying that there was a great deal of friendliness between the strikers and police officers. How is it that the police who were going to beat up and oppress the workers could be friendly with them?

Would you allow me to explain, Sir? Mr Rajaratnam resumed his seat.

I wanted to say that there was a lot of friendliness between the police and the workers until the police were ordered by the Government to take action against the workers.

Sir, I have already indicated what happened after that. The police were helping smiling girls to get into the police van where they insisted on going. If we had stopped them from going, there would have been another statement to say how brutal this Government was because it prevented salesgirls who were on strike from getting into the police van. Either way it would have been wrong. But whatever you might say, Sir - and I think the Member for Queenstown was quite right - either way the police officers were friendly. They were helping the salesgirls who wanted to go to the police station and to get a free ride at the tax-payers' expense; though it is quite improper, Sir, to ride in a Black Maria without lawful reason. But the P.A.P. Government is always obliging. An hon. Member: Committing trespass!

Lest it should be thought that we were oppressing the workers by refusing to allow them to get a free ride in the Black Maria, we suggested that perhaps the police should indulge their fancy. All this business of the Robinson strike is an attempt to suggest that when they used the words "using the police", any implication that we were using the police to heat up the workers is obviously not true. If it had been true, there would have been a few more illegal posters of the photograph all over the city. All they could do, as I have said, was to draw a cartoon suggesting that the police had used violence and intimidation. That is a measure of the accuracy of many of the statements by the Barisan Sosialis. I can understand what happened, because, just to be fair to the Barisan Sosialis, obviously when the Member for Queenstown has nobody prompting him, he is a cornered man. He was with the P.A.P., so he spoke honestly. On the same day there was another meeting of the Preparatory Committee of the S.A.T.U. Nobody had phoned him up and told him what the line was, because at that meeting there were denunciations of the police. Obviously if the reporter had gone there a couple of hours later, the Member for Queenstown would have given a different version. As we know, Sir, in this Assembly very often he takes the wrong line, much to the consternation of many of his colleagues outside this Assembly. I do not think any of the workers are very much taken in by the Barisan Sosialis' attempt during the last nine months to build up hatred and indignation against the Government. So today they are put in a position of saying, "We are really not interested in strikes." In fact, the Member for Thomson did not know how to end up his peroration. So he decided that we, the Government, have a vested interest in promoting industrial unrest. This is the first time we have heard it. Obviously the whole thing has misfired. I shall show later the whole purpose of this industrial unrest which the Barisan Sosialis have generated. There are two different types of industrial unrest. There is industrial unrest based on genuine discontent. There have been many strikes by non-Communist-controlled unions, and the P.A.P. Government has in no way suggested for one moment that those strikes are Communist strikes or Communist-controlled strikes. There was the City Council strike. Nobody ever said that those strikes were Communist-controlled or Communist-inspired. There was the Army Civil Service Union strike. A lot of individual firms had strikes. But we must make a distinction between strikes by leaders who are interested in promoting the economic welfare of the workers and the Communists who are using them for political ends. As I shall show later on, the Barisan Sosialis are not interested in promoting the welfare of the workers, but in promoting the cause of Communism. It is very interesting that throughout yesterday and today, Members of the Barisan Sosialis kept on saying, "Communist bogey"; "so-called Communists"; "Communist smear". But they never said one word which would dispose of our allegation - deny that they are Communists; deny that the men who run the Barisan Sosialis or some of them are not Communists. They never denied that. That fits in with the Communist strategy, Sir. According to the textbook manual, Lenin says, a good Communist must be prepared to lie to cover up the fact that he is a Communist. That is part of the Communist technique.

You never read the statement of the Barisan Sosialis.

In fact, Sir, a few days ago, the Member for Nee Soon, in the course of an argument, said, "I am not a Communist." I say very good. It is the first time I have heard a Barisan Sosialis Member saying categorically that he is not a Communist. Then I asked, "Would you therefore be prepared to tell the people of Singapore - the Government is prepared to give you radio time to go on the air - 'Why I oppose Communism. Why I reject Communism.'?" First he said, "Yes." Then he said, "No. I will consider it." Then he said, "Please write to me." I have written to him two or three days ago, and not a peep out of him. Whatever they might say - they might say smear and so on, which they do say - they have not said, "We are not Communists. If you say we are Communists, we are prepared to come and repudiate it." Better still, come out and say why you are not a Communist. That is the most convincing way to say I am not a Communist, and say, "These are the reasons why I am not a Communist." If any Member of the Barisan Sosialis can say that publicly - come out anywhere, write in any newspaper, talk over the radio, "Why I reject Communism," then we will believe him. But I can give an assurance, Sir, that not a single Member of the Barisan Sosialis or the men who run the Party will be prepared to accept this open invitation to come and talk over the radio, saying. "Why we reject Communism. Why we think Communism is unsuitable for Singapore." It is quite clear that they are getting more and more uncomfortable over this motion, because the essence of Communist strategy, as I shall read out from extracts, from the big Lenin - these are the small Lenins -telling how it is necessary for Communists to conceal their identity when working in unions and political Parties. And these are men who are learning the task. A good Communist would not use these tactics, saying, "It is a smear". He would say, "I am not a Communist. I am prepared even to swear that I am not a Communist." He is prepared to argue. A good Communist should be able to do that. But these are only tenderfoots. So, therefore, they have been reduced for the time being to saying, "Oh, it is all a smear. It is a bogey." Let me therefore start off with the whole thesis of our argument about the industrial strife. Some of the 13 Assemblymen will get an opportunity to reply to this. There are two categories of industrial unrest. One of them springs from the genuine discontent of the workers motivated by the desire to improve their lot. To that extent, the Government has never in any way made any attempt to hamper them in so far as they go about their business of carrying out the industrial dispute against employers in a lawful and constitutional manner. In fact, the Government has often gone out of its way to assist them. But where we know that the Communist industrial dispute has not the slightest intention of increasing the living standard of the workers but has other objectives, to that extent we single it out. The Member for Thomson kept on saying, "Oh, the Government is smearing trade unionists," and so on. We are not smearing trade unionists, Sir. We are smearing certain trade unionists whom we have named. One of them is the Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis, a prominent trade unionist who, we have said repeatedly in statements outside and inside the Assembly, is an open front Communist leader. The Member for Queenstown kept on saying, "Oh, this is a bogey," and that we were imagining things. All right, Sir. Is this imagination? This is from the Battle For Merger, about which hook a lot of questions were asked. So I can understand why this hook becomes more and more embarrassing because there is a document here by Mr Lim Ching Siong, part of which reads as follows [Page 120]: `We must forever remember: We have already sworn before the Red flag and old Stalin. We must resolutely uphold the interests of the Organisation at all times and under all circumstances.' Bogey, Sir? Old Stalin and Red flag. Is it a bogey, imagination, a forgery? He is placed behind the Barisan Sosialis and the trade union movement associated with the Barisan Sosialis. Communist bogey? Denial? We would have laughed, if they said it was a forgery. There is no denial. All we had was "a smear"; not that it is false; not that it is a forgery; it is a smear; it is a bogey. Then, remember, Sir, not so many years ago, when the Member for Cairnhill was in the saddle, certain gentlemen -

Why call them gentleman?

- comrades were suddenly accused in those days of being pro-Communists and Communists. They used to say it was a smear and they still say it is a smear. Sir, may I quote also from the Battle For Merger documents, which certainly show that far from Communism being a bogey and a smear and a figment of our imagination, these gentlemen are conscious of the fact that the Communists are here. This is a statement signed by Woodhull, Fong Swee Suan, Lim Ching Siong, Devan Nair and Chan Chiaw Thor: `"It was not the might of British arms which defeated the armed revolt led by the M.C.P....".' Sir, I cannot imagine British arms fighting a bogey; eight years, nine years, they obviously fought an organisation which exists. In fact, the truth must be told. The M.C.P. is the oldest political Party in Malaya. Has it vanished overnight? Are we imagining things? Here are Messrs. Woodhull, Fong Swee Suan, Lim Ching Siong, Devan Nair and Chan Chiaw Thor talking of real things that exist. Again in another statement called "The Road to Socialism in an Independent Malaya": `No sane person can claim today that the M.C.P. revolt is directed against British Imperialist domination of Malaya.' Were they talking of a bogey directed against British imperialism? A figment of the imagination being directed against the British imperialists? Or was it something real? Another statement by James Puthucheary who now says all this is a smear. In fact, he says he is not quite sure there are Communists, and yet he has written a letter. Sir, this is the hard cover edition, page 196, in which (just the relevant part of the sentence) he says: `...I broke with my political friends in 1951,...'. Lest we should be in doubt as to who these political friends are, he goes on to say: `Though I had rejected some of what were considered basic tenets, and was critical of Communist regimentation...'. Sir, I cannot imagine Mr James Puthucheary being regimented. A figment of the imagination. Then he goes on to say: `My return from Communism ...'. And yet he used to say it was a smear. He says it does not exist and the Members opposite today say the same thing - "It is a smear. Communism does not exist." A figment of their imagination. Maybe one day they will be writing documents for us saying "My return from Communism". Therefore, before we start discussing the problem of industrial unrest, it is necessary to start with the basic reality that Communism is a movement which exists with specific aims and purposes, and that in this industrial unrest, it is a big factor and the Barisan Sosialis are one of the factors in the Communist conspiracy in Singapore and Malaya and in Malaysia. If you start off with the assumption that it is all a smear, a figment of the imagination, the whole thing becomes meaningless. The hard facts are there. The gentlemen who know this admit and concede that these are the realities of the political situation. So once we work on that basis, then all this business about the Government being brutal and oppressing the workers becomes clear. Why they are saying this and why they are fomenting industrial unrest is because, as a Communist Party and a Communist group, they are doing the things which are expected of them as Communists. Their brutalising techniques are things which are expected of them as Communists. It is my purpose to start from the realities, the facts, that the Barisan Sosialis is a Communist front organisation being manipulated for Communist ends, and that all the stories we have heard are explainable if this basic reality is accepted. Sir, nobody who is of sound mind - and that includes the Barisan Sosialis - will deny that there is mounting industrial unrest and that it is on a scale to warrant concern by this Assembly. Even the Member for Anson, who argued that there was no cause for alarm because he loved strikes, was nevertheless constrained to move an amendment asking the Government to take all possible steps to ensure industrial peace with justice. Even he accepts the fact, whatever the reason, that there is industrial unrest. Sir, insofar as the Member for Cairnhill confined himself to facts to show that there has been an abnormal increase of strikes in recent months, he was being objective. However, when dealing with a politician of the calibre and experience of the Member for Cairnhill, one must be a little bit wary of some of the not so helpful suggestions he occasionally offers to the Government. He professed to offer us buckets of water yesterday and today to help put out the fires of industrial unrest, but occasionally I noticed he was slipping in buckets of kerosene. In fact, one of the great sources of disappointment for the pro-Communists in the Barisan Sosialis and in their unions is that the Government has not tried to dampen industrial unrest by pouring buckets of kerosene -

Pouring oil on troubled waters.

What has been and is annoying the pro-Communists is that the Government has not sided with the employers as they say we do; that it has, in fact, not sided with employers to bust up strikes, including political strikes fomented by the pro-Communists, or persecute labour leaders or use the police to beat up strikers. We have denied the Communists opportunities for sparking off violent clashes between workers and police. We have not behaved in the way that Communist manuals say that an anti-worker government should behave. Sir, we know that the ordinary worker even when on strike does not resort to violence unless he is provoked into it either by a blundering government or unless he has a violent and abiding hatred for the government. None of these factors are present at the moment. That is why though the pro-Communists have tried their level best to convert legitimate workers' grievances into a violent political assault against the Government, they have not been able to make much headway. The ordinary worker is ready to go on strike to get better conditions and where he has done this purely to get better working conditions, the Government has either offered to help him settle the dispute; or even where he has been manoeuvred by Communist politicians into carrying on with the strike, the Government has not interfered with his right to strike peacefully -

Order. I think it is a convenient time to suspend. I propose to suspend until 9 p.m. I will take this Chair again at 9 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 8.00 p.m. until 9.00 p.m. Sitting resumed at 9.00 p.m.

Debate resumed.

Sir, the Member of the Barisan Sosialis kept on repeating that the Government is trying to criticise workers for going on strike. As I have said, there is a distinction between workers who go on strike wholly and primarily to improve their conditions of work, and strikes organised by certain leaders for the purpose of furthering Communist ends and Communist objectives. We concede to workers who are willing to go on strike to get better conditions of pay, and where they have done this the Government has either offered to help settle the dispute or, even where they have been manoeuvred by Communist politicians into carrying on with a strike, has not interfered with the workers' right to strike peacefully. Therefore, the Communist myth of a wicked, oppressive, brutal and anti-worker Government is difficult to sustain. This being the case, the Barisan Sosialis leaders and the trade union leaders are reduced to merely creating imaginary pictures of violence and brutality on the part of the Government. Sir, the mere presence of the police near the pickets to ensure that peace and order are maintained is, in the Barisan Sosialis propaganda, transformed into Fascist oppression by the police. Any and every wordy altercation between the police and the workers, which often happens during a strike, is distorted by the Barisan Sosialis propagandists into a bloody oppression and persecution of the working class. Sir, this sort of fabrication can only serve to puzzle the workers who may have seen with their own eyes that these instances of brutality were no more than the usual incidents where the police are called upon to ensure the preservation of peace and order during a strike. Because the police have not resorted to acts of violence and brutality against workers on strike, it has become necessary for the pro-Communists in S.A.T.U. to resort to acts of violence and intimidation against the workers. The motive is obvious. By carrying out acts of violence and intimidation themselves, the Communists know that they will be inviting intervention by the police who have a duty to see that law and order are preserved. But since the police have refused to be provoked into acts of violence, the Communists themselves indulge in displays of violence against the workers in order to attract their attention and genially to create an impression that industrial violence is taking place and that the Government and the police are somehow responsible for such incidents. So such an intervention could then be presented as evidence of police violence and intimidation. However, it is quite clear from the agitation of the Member for Thomson that these fairy tales about intimidation and oppression by the State have so far failed to cut any ice with the workers. So the Barisan Sosialis are reduced to merely uttering the refrain that the P.A.P. Government is anti-worker, Pro-capitalist and is working hand in glove with Japanese capitalists, as the Member for Queenstown alleged, that the workers are groaning under the reactionary heel of the P.A.P., and that they live in fear of P.A.P. brutality and oppression. Sir, it is quite clear that not even the Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen really believe all this. If we are what they say we are, then not a single Barisan Sosialis Assemblyman will be in this Chamber to make tongue-in-cheek allegations of this sort. If we are really anti-worker and pro-employer, if we are really determined to use violence and oppression against the workers, then I can assure you, Sir, that there will not be a single strike in Singapore today. May I suggest to the Barisan Sosialis that even falsehoods, to be effective, must at least be plausible. They cannot convince the people that the P.A.P. is an enemy of the workers and is using violence against them when, in fact, it is the Barisan Sosialis strong-arm men who have to intimidate fellow workers and do violence to other workers. That is the situation. There is not a single instance, and they cannot produce a single instance, where the Government has used unlawful violence or unjust force against the workers. But the Barisan Sosialis leaders have had to use violence to intimidate the workers into supporting them. In fact, the Member for Thomson, who always plays about with half-truths, said that an editorial of the Petir attacked the workers of the Singapore Business Houses Employees Union. If he had read the editorial, he would have discovered that it was not an attack against the workers of the Singapore Business Houses Employees Union but against the pro-Communists who are manipulating the white-collar workers for Communist ends. In fact, the editorial gave an account of the rally that the Singapore Business Houses Employees Union organised under the cloak that they were calling a mass meeting to explain the problems of the commercial workers in Singapore. That was the pretext given to entice workers to come to this mass rally. But, in fact, what happened was that on the day of the meeting numerous buses were parked outside the various business houses, and as the workers came out they were shepherded by the stewards who told them to go into the buses because they had to go to this meeting. So they were dragooned into going to this mass rally where it became clear to the workers, who had gone there expecting to hear something about the problems of the white-collar workers - the meeting did not start until well past the schedule time; then at seven, there was a long harangue all about merger, Malaysia and so on - that there was nothing about the problems of the white-collar workers. At about seven o'clock, the Chairman of the meeting said, "Well, our Muslim brothers are here and it is the Puasa month. So those who want to go and break their fast may leave." So the hail became spectacularly empty because the Muslims and the non-Muslims made a bolt for the door. There were little altercations. A number of ladies said, "Well, I have come to this meeting to hear about the problems of the white-collar workers. I have a child who has not been fed and I have been sitting here at this meeting listening to merger. Malaysia, and so on." This editorial was intended to show the typical Communist strategy: first you urged people into buses and made quite sure that nobody escaped at five o'clock. The buses were waiting there; gentlemen were looking around and everyone was given a card so that they knew who came and who did not come to the meeting. Then at seven o'clock, the people became hungry. Everybody wanted to break the fast - Muslims and non-Muslims. The hail was half-empty. Mr Bani, who was supposed to be the last speaker, appealed to the members, "Please, it will not be a long speech," and the meeting closed earlier than expected. This is a typical strategy of the pro-Communists. So when the Member for Thomson said that the editorial was attacking the workers in the Singapore Business House Employees Union, he was obviously stating a falsehood. But the attack was on the way the Communists are trying to dragoon the white-collar workers to their revolutionary machine. I do not think they are getting very far with it. That is why you notice that the Member for Thomson today spent a great deal of his time making a speech intended for the white-collar workers. He said. "We are reasonable chaps. It is the Government which has a vested interest in starting strikes and industrial strife." By and large, the white-collar workers are beginning to realise that they might welcome assistance from the Barisan Sosialis insofar as they manage to get better conditions of work. We are not denying that the Barisan Sosialis have not done that. But they are doing that only as an inducement and a bribe to see that the white-collar workers are hitched on to a revolutionary chariot which everybody knows is set on a course where the end of the line is a cliff. Everybody knows that, even the Barisan Sosialis. So when they talk of the P.A.P. Government being anti-worker and being repressive, nobody believes it. How genuine are the Barisan Sosialis leaders when they say all these things about the P.A.P, being an anti-worker Government? Again in the Petir of 17th June, 1961, Mr S. Woodhull wrote an article. This was about nine months ago. Sir, Mr Woodhull is something of a pundit in the Barisan Sosialis, and echoes of his literary style from time to time emanate from the mouth of the Member for Queenstown. The article is entitled "Two Years of Concrete Progress". It was published in June last year, just before the split, and the progress, I can assure you, Sir, did not relate to the progress of Mr Woodhull but to the progress which he claimed the P.A.P. Government had made. Let us see what Mr Woodhull, now the script writer for the Barisan Sosialis, had to say about the labour policies of the P.A.P. Government which his mouthpiece, the Member for Queenstown, now denounces as anti-worker, as having done nothing for the workers. Let me quote from a rather lengthy article - obviously we had made -a lot of progress during the two years, so it took him four pages, 12 columns, to set down our achievements. But I shall not weary the House with all of it but take some extracts in so far as they relate to our labour policies. This is what he said: 'As a reflection of the new spirit that now obtains in the trade union front, considerable changes and improvements of working conditions have been brought about since the P.A.P, came into office.' Yet the same script writer gets the Member for Queenstown to say that nothing has been achieved. Workers have suffered under the P.A.P. Government. Here is Mr Woodhull saying on the contrary that "considerable changes and improvements of working conditions have been brought about since the P.A.P. came into office." He says that one union has drawn up over 300 agreements concerning improved wages and other working conditions in the last 18 months. That was something like one agreement every three days during the past two succeeding years.

They must have been working overtime.

They were not only working overtime, but obviously working all the time. `This historic change [not just a change, Sir, but a historic change] in the industrial situation has been made possible because government has made it clear to employers that they will have to respect the rights of trade unions.' This was written nine months ago-two months before the break occurred between the non-Communists and the pro-Communists in the P.A.P. Again Sir, we have heard a lot about the P.A.P. victimising the workers, pushing them around, no sympathy for the workers, lost contact with the workers - you have heard all that, Sir. Mr Woodhull had this to say: `The days of victimisation of trade unionists and workers are over. The law is now being effectively implemented and workers are having the full benefit of it all. As a result of the effective application of the law, workers have received $l,628,670.47 due to them.' Now, Sir, you will note that Mr Woodhull was such a stickler for accuracy that he worked it out to the last 47 cents. I cannot say of the script which he now writes for the Member for Queenstown as regards accuracy of facts. But in this case there was $1,628,670.47 cents. These were the things that the workers got in addition as a result of the effective application of the law during the past two years. Yet again, Sir, Mr Woodhull wrote: `The Minister for Labour and Law had informed the Chinese bus companies that they could no longer exploit the workers and, as a result of this, $700,000 was paid to the members of the Singapore Bus Workers Union. These are only a few examples of how Government has actively helped improve the bargaining position of hundreds of unions.' Sir, as he said, these are only a few examples. We gave him four pages due to lack of space, and due regard for the modesty of the Government no doubt prevented Mr Woodhull from specifying further examples of the concrete progress that had been made by the P.A.P. during its two years of office. Then, Sir, like a good non-Communist democrat, he sums up the whole thing in two very punchy slogans - it is all in black type, Sir: `Gone are the days of repression of trade union activity.' Yet we hear the Barisan Sosialis Members saying how we are oppressing the workers. As far back as June, which is less than a year ago, there was nothing of that kind. "Gone are the days of repression of trade union activity." And still further, a second slogan: `Trade unions have achieved a new dignity under a new Government.' Sir, I do not know what Members of the Barisan Sosialis think of Mr Woodhull. Obviously there must be two Mr Woodhull. The problem that the Barisan Sosialis have is to decide which is the genuine Mr Woodhull that they have to live with; the one who wrote this or the one who writes some of the speeches that Members of the Barisan Sosialis utter from time to time. Mr Woodhull was either lying here or he was lying in the speeches that are often read out in this Chamber. I do not know, but would they say that Mr Woodhull, the real revolutionary, a man of the people, wrote this for $1,100 as Political Secretary, or is he writing other speeches for far less pay for the cause? That is the problem that the Barisan Sosialis must decide for themselves: which is the real Mr Woodhull who is speaking the truth? Or has he got two tongues in his cheek? Sir, on the one hand, we are told that we are oppressors of the workers; we are terrible people; we have no contact with the workers. And here is Mr Woodhull, who is not only a prominent member of the Barisan Sosialis but I understand he now conducts political classes for Barisan Sosialis cadres in the trade unions, especially in the English-speaking trade unions. Sir, is he a searcher for truth? Is he conducting the same type of classes, of writing or speaking with his tongue in his cheek as he did here, or is he, since he left the P.A.P. no longer a non-Communist socialist? Or has he, therefore, taken to the ethics of the Communist techniques, which say that it is necessary for a good revolutionary sometimes to conceal his ideas and, if necessary, sacrifice truth, i.e., it may be necessary for him to speak falsehoods? So this is one of the problems that the Barisan Sosialis will have to decide. In this connection, Sir, I notice that the Member for Thomson and a few others took great care to fasten their attack on one of their former colleagues. Mr Devan Nair. In fact, some rather scathing remarks were made suggesting that Mr Devan Nair is a phoney trade unionist, that he also was one of the chaps who joined in to oppress the workers. Let me contrast him with Mr Woodhull, who wrote this when he was Political Secretary drawing $1,100. As for Mr Devan Nair, let us tell them that he was offered the same job as Political Secretary, carrying a salary of $1,100. And very early on i.e, a few months later, having worked with the gentleman who now says that he is a phoney, he said, "I am afraid lots of things are going to happen. So it is better for me not to accept this job because when I signed the statement saying that I really believed in non-Communist socialism for Malaya, I was sincere about it. And there will come a time when those who signed that statement with their tongues in their cheeks would smear me." So he decided to quit the job to take on a job as a teacher for $530. That is his salary today. He is now in the Council for Adult Education, and he is getting far less than many of the Junior Officers connected with the Adult Education Board. He was a far-sighted man. He knew that if he had stayed on, they would have smeared him. Today they cannot smear him, but Mr Woodhull, Mr Lim Ching Siong, Mr Fong Swee Suan, and Mr James Puthucheary, cannot say either that they were working as paid hacks for the Government for $1,100 each and were sincerely carrying out their duties, or they were working for the Government because they believed in the things that they said they believed. Therefore, Sir, let them not query the sincerity of people who have nothing to be ashamed of. Mr Devan Nair draws $530 a month and has been drawing that for the last two years, and yet he wrote things which he believed in. Whether Mr Woodhull and his friends can say the same thing is a different matter. I do not want to weary the House, Sir. Even Mr Lint Ching Siong and Mr Fong Swee Suan have made similar speeches praising and giving credentials to the Government for the way in which they have stood on the side of the workers. Apart from these testimonials from Mr Woodhull, Mr Fong and Mr Lim, there is yet another reason why no worker believes the Barisan Sosialis charge that we are now oppressing the workers and have joined up with the capitalists. The simple reason is that none of us on this side of the House are capitalists. We own no shares or enterprises or factories. So what capitalist interests are we out to protect? So on every count there is not a shred of evidence to sustain the Communist myth that we are anti-worker. We are not capitalists ourselves or in the pay of any capitalists. We have not beaten up workers, or broken up strikes or persecuted workers. And until the political break less than a year ago, Sir, Mr Lim, Mr Woodhull and the rest who are now bearing the Barisan Sosialis chop, were openly proclaiming that this was a pro-workers' Government. Therefore, when - that is the problem - did we cease to be a pro-workers' Government? As far as the evidence goes, obviously in June last year we were all right. We were on the side of the workers. So when did we cease to be on the side of the workers? If you look at the facts, Sir, the time is roughly after the Anson by-election. So what happened? As far as we know, we have not changed our policy. There have been no drastic changes. So what happened between June and September to convert us from a pro-Workers' Government, a Government which is on the side of the workers, into one which has now become Fascist, pro-capitalist and anti-worker? I suggest that the reasons are political. The reasons have to do with our decision to get the Communists to declare their stand on merger. It was since then that the Communists in the Barisan Sosialis - in fact, Sir, I think the term "Barisan Sosialis" is a deception. Nobody believes the Barisan Sosialis. It is a better thing for them to change the name and call themselves Barisan Communists. Everytime they keep talking of socialism, socialism, socialism, everybody knows that they mean Communism. Probably all the troubles that they have landed themselves in were because they started with a false name, a false chop, and false credentials. Because of that, they are in extreme difficulties today. The reason why they are no longer pro-worker socialists, progressives, arises out of political differences, more immediately over the question of merger and Malaysia. It is because of that that they have hit back at the Government through the use of the industrial weapon. The Barisan Sosialis are committed to fomenting strikes in order to further the political aim of the pro-Communists who direct the Party and in accordance with the Communist technique. The immediate political aim is to halt merger and Malaysia. Merger and Malaysia may be good for the people, but it does not suit the immediate interest of the Communists, and it must therefore be sabotaged and destroyed. Now, if we accept the proposition that the Barisan Sosialis and the unionists who work for them are open front Communist stooges, then the recent tactics in the field of labour becomes clear and necessary. We can see why they are fomenting strikes and we can discern the techniques they use to trap workers into unwittingly supporting Communist objectives. What is most interesting is that the pro-Communists in the Barisan Sosialis are not even able to apply Communist techniques or manipulate with imagination and originality. That is their tragedy. These Communist manipulators have applied these techniques mechanically and blindly, and that is why today they are up to their necks in difficulty. These are the bar-room Lenins and they have the mental agility of trained parrots. Let us examine some of the recent antics of these pocket Lenins. One thing that has been made clear by the speeches of my colleagues is that all the strikes led by the Barisan Sosialis and the little Lenins in S.A.T.U. have political motivations: that is to bring about the downfall of the Government and stop merger. You will notice, Sir, that this political objective was exemplified by the Member for Thomson who, up to the end of a long speech, came to the inevitable conclusion that the Government should resign and let us have a national election. It is quite clear, Sir, because the other tactics have failed. The use of the industrial weapon to bring down the Government has failed and, therefore, now they repeat, "Please resign; please resign." It is no accident that this outburst of industrial unrest started in July or August when the Communists discovered to their horror that merger was now a practical proposition. The little Lenins, with and without beards, have since August been talking boldly and confidently of the October Revolution which they had to postpone to November and then postpone to December, and which they have now postponed indefinitely. I am not denying that many of the workers whom they persuaded to go on strike may have done so because they had genuine economic grievances which they believed that the pro-Communist Barisan Sosialis 1eaders were out to resolve. The truth is that the Barisan Communists were interested first in the political objective, that is, to bring down the Government, and only incidentally, or not at all, in the economic grievances of the workers. This fits in with the Leninist dogma that a good Communist must look upon unions primarily as the tool of the Communist Party. That is the basic tenet and belief of all good Communists: that a good Communist must look upon unions as primarily a tool of the Party. Let me quote from Lenin himself. He says: `The task of bourgeois policy [that is, the policy of non-Communist trade union leaders and so on] is to assist the economic struggle of the proletariat.' That is what Lenin says. Non-Communist leaders are interested in assisting the economic struggle of the proletariat. `The task of the Communist is to make the economic struggle assist the Communist movement'. So, Sir, Lenin condemned bourgeois policy. "Bourgeois" is a term of abuse as far as the Communist is concerned. Bourgeois policy, he said - the non-Communist unions - is to assist the worker to get economic gain. The task of the Communists - the Barisan Sosialis - I am translating for their clarification, Sir - is to make the economic struggle assist the Communist movement. If we examine many of the things which seem inexplicable in recent industrial activity here, we can understand why the Barisan Sosialis are doing things which, from the point of view of the unionists who are interested primarily in getting benefits for the workers, seem inexplicable, because the Leninist technique says that the economic benefit of the workers is unimportant. It is secondary. The primary objective is a political one, to assist the Communist movement. Yet again, Sir, there is another quotation. This was something which was said by Lenin in one of his less sober moments. He says: `For a Communist, the economic struggles serve as a base for the organisation of the workers in a revolutionary party, the consolidation and development of their class in the struggle against the whole capitalist order.' So what it means is that the economic struggle should be used not to advance the interests of the workers but to help in the organisation of the revolutionary worker and in the consolidation and development of the class struggle against the capitalist order. Again Lenin speaking: `If you regard the economic struggle as something self-sufficient then in it there is nothing socialist.' So if you are only interested in the interest of the worker, then you are not a good socialist and you are not a good Communist. You are not a good Barisan Sosialis!

Will the Minister name the source of the quotation?

This is from a book called, "Lenin on trade unions", which is an anthology of Lenin's writings by Thomas Taylor Hemon. Mr Lin You Eng (Moulmein) rose -

Is it on a point of order?

(In Mandarin): Yes. Mr Rajaratnam resumed his seat.

(In Mandarin): I would like to know whether you can buy this book on the market.

The Member took the words out of my mouth. That is exactly what I was going to ask. It is whether the book is easily available in the Assembly Library, or the National Library or any other library.

Sir, not only is it available here, but I think it came to me through the courtesy of the United States Information Service. Moreover, it is published by the Columbia University Press. My only regret is that it has not been translated into Chinese so that the gentleman (the Member for Moulmein), whose constituency I go to every fortnight, could share with me some of the delightful things that Lenin said of how the Barisan Sosialis should be conducted and, even more important, how the Communist Party should use stooges without their knowing that they have been made stooges of. So if the Member for Moulmein is interested, I could give him the address and he could have a look at the copy without any fear that the Minister for Home Affairs would ask inquisitioning questions. So it is quite clear from this book that a good Communist should not be interested as far as the workers' interests and improvements are concerned. They are secondary. The most important thing is whether it promotes the Communist cause. If it is necessary to sacrifice the interests of workers to promote the Communist cause, then the interests of workers must be sacrificed. If workers must suffer to promote the Communist cause, then workers must suffer. That is a good Communist technique. The Barisan Sosialis have not denied that they are Communists. All they have said is that it is a smear. That is a different thing. They are therefore following the Communist strategy, but with this difference, i.e., not as intelligently and as imaginatively as Lenin did for different circumstances. So, increasing the living standard of workers and solving their economic problems is only incidental at best to the major task, which is the major political objective of the Communists. When he meets a trade dispute, a good Communist does not suffer by asking, "Is there a genuine economic grievance to be resolved?" That is not the first question he asks. A good Communist asks, "How can I exploit the economic grievance to further the Communist revolution?" That is the first question. If it is not in the interest of the Communist revolution to resolve the economic grievances of workers and to win them more money and better conditions, then it is the duty of the Communist to see that the conditions of workers grow worse in order to increase their revolutionary ardour. That is again part of the essential dogma of a good Communist. If it is in the interest of Communism for workers to be both discontented and suffer more than necessary, then it is for the good Communist to create those conditions. Sir, I again quote from Lenin on trade unions. This is a quotation from him at page 108: `We cannot and will not "in every way" promote the improvement of the situation of workers under existing conditions.We struggle only for such an improvement of the situation of the workers as will increase their ability to lead the class struggle,' - that is not to increase their standard of living. "We only fight for these things if they will increase the ability to lead the class struggle.": `that is, under which an improvement of the situation is not connected with a corruption of political consciousness...'. If a Communist finds that by giving them a higher standard of living their political consciousness will be corrupted, then a good Communist will say, "Better keep this. Do not improve their living standard." I will again quote Lenin: `We also struggle for reform but only in a Communist manner, only in a revolutionary manner do we struggle for reform.' Sir, reducing all this Marxist jargon to simple language, what Lenin is saying -

You are a Leninist, are you?

He is your God. You worship him. Do not utter blasphemy. I am just warning the Member for Thomson that this is a gentleman who is revered but who, unfortunately, the little Lenins or the pocket Lenins cannot emulate him, and that is why they are - Mr Bani rose -

On a point of order?

On a point of explanation.

If the Minister will give way. Mr Rajaratnam resumed his seat.

Sir, I have never in this House or elsewhere quoted extracts from Marxist/Leninist writings. In fact, I have never, for a moment, ever suggested that I am a Marxist/Leninist. I am sure we can all remember the Minister for Culture quoting Marx and Lenin time and again. Sir, from a simple and logical point of view, he must be a bigger Communist than anyone of us in Barisan Sosialis.

Sir, there is a saying that Satan must know how to quote the scripture and to that extent - [Interruption] Yes, Sir. Just like the Jesuits. I have known Jesuits who do not believe in evolution for obvious reasons. But one thing I have seen is that many gentlemen who claim to be evolutionists are completely floored because the Jesuits read books which they think they should not read. Similarly, Sir - I am sorry the Member for Thomson has missed what I have said earlier. One of the essentials of a good Communist -

It is for you.

- is to conceal his identity. The best way to conceal his identity is to disclaim any knowledge of Lenin. So to that extent, Sir, I can assure the Member for Thomson that Lenin would be very pleased to hear him say that he knows nothing about Lenin. We who are not Leninists can quote Lenin freely without fear or favour of being accused of being Leninists. I notice that the Member for Thomson did not accuse me of being a Leninist. He only thought it strange that I should be quoting the scriptures to him. Sir, there are a few more quotations coming which I think you will find very interesting and the Member for Thomson will find very enlightening. Lenin himself enjoins a good Communist not to be interested in the welfare of workers. That is secondary. The first thing is: Is it useful for the revolution? If it is necessary to keep the worker happy and contented to further the revolution, please do so. But if it is necessary to keep the workers depressed and miserable, please do so. That is the simple approach of the Leninist. So what Lenin is saying is that the Communist must riot fight to so improve the conditions of workers that they are no longer dissatisfied with things. That is the meaning of the earlier quotation. In fact, it goes on to say that prolonged prosperity, prolonged satisfaction, to quote Lenin, "only demoralises the workers". The Barisan Sosialis know the technique and many of the things, starting with Ford factory and so on. You begin to see daylight. Do not get the workers completely satisfied. Do not give him everything he wants. If he is satisfied, he is not interested in revolution. In ther words, Sir, a decrease in the misery of the workers hinders progress towards the revolution. The Communist theory is that workers can never be happy and can never get justice in any but a Communist society. You will have noticed, Sir, that in many of their speeches, they say you can never solve the strike problem in a capitalist society. You must go to basic causes. Again, what are the basic causes? How do you solve it? I know, Sir, in the fatherland - Au hon. Member: Where is that?

- of the revolution there are no strikes. The strike situation has been solved. You cannot strike. And the theory is that in a Communist country, a worker who strikes is striking against himself because the State belongs to him. He is the State. Very good theology and good metaphysics. But, unfortunately, a couple of years ago, the workers of Poland, a Communist country, decided to go on strike. That threw all the Communist theoreticians into confusion because they could not explain how these terrible Polish workers could strike against themselves. The truth is that we agree that there is no final solution to the strike problem. There will always be a conflict of interests between the worker and the employer, whether that employer is a State or a private individual. We have a Government service. Technically we are a nationalised Government and all its enterprises are owned by the people collectively and yet the workers go on strike. They can go on strike in a non-Communist democratic society. But in the kind of society that some of the Barisan Sosialis leaders have in mind, you cannot go on strike. Therefore, there are no strikes and, therefore, they solve the problem of strikes. So you see, Sir, they must work on that basis. They must drive home the fact that in any except a Communist society there can be no solution to the problem of conflict between labour and capital.

You make a good Communist preacher.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I know the Member for Thomson gets extremely agitated when he sees another non-Communist talking intelligent Communism. The trouble with the Barisan Sosialis, as I have said, is that they are tenderfoot Communists, tenderfoot Leninists - [Interruption]. When I was a young schoolboy, one of my uncles (just to stress a point) gave me a chemical set and said, "If you take this little chemical and mix with that chemical and light a fire, there will be a red glow." But somehow something went wrong. There was not a red glow. There was a red explosion. That is precisely the situation in which the second-class Leninists find themselves today because they are applying a technique which is all right in Czarist Russia, where you had a brutal government, where you had to work underground, where Lenin said because of the situation in Russia, it was necessary for every Communist Party to have a legal organisation and an illegal organisation. You must have an organisation which was legal and another one which was illegal. There is no Czarist Russia here, but still Members of the Barisan Sosialis are a legal organisation and somebody else carries on an illegal organisation which operates the Barisan Sosialis. Therefore, they get into difficulties. Therefore, they all say, "No. Communism is a smear." We say, "Well what about all these documents?" "Oh, that is a smear too." So, Mr Speaker, Sir, let us therefore go on to explain why they are behaving in this way - the usual things that they do. First they say they are fighting for the workers - many of their workers wallop the workers. They say they are fighting to improve the lot of the workers - lots of chaps get unemployed. In fact, I understand one of them was an unemployed member of the Singapore General Employees' Union who absconded with $4,500. So these are the little difficulties that come about when you operate a Leninist chemical set without exactly knowing the right formula. Sir, one of the stresses laid is that a Leninist is a good Communist. A good Barisan Sosialis must deliberately create strikes, violence and distress among the workers. The point has been repeatedly stressed by Lenin. Here again I' quote from "Lenin on Unions", page 31, and this is what he said: `The spontaneous development of the labour movement [that is, in their jargon, "spontaneous development" means unions that are not controlled by the Communists; anything that is not controlled by the Communists becomes spontaneous development] leads to it becoming subordinated to bourgeois ideology.'.

What does it mean?

I will explain it later. Obviously the Member for Thomson is a really good Leninist. He not only pretends that he does not know this gentleman called Lenin hut he even pretends that he does not understand what it is all about. The Member for Thomson is a labour leader, a trade unionist who has been carrying out these operations, and yet he says, "I do not know what it is all about." Anyway, Sir, as we go along, I am quite sure that not only will this become clear but I will also send him a copy of my speech at the expense of the Ministry of Culture. This is what Lenin said: `The spontaneous development of the labour movement leads to it becoming subordinated to bourgeois ideology .for the spontaneous labour movement [that is, a labour movement which is not controlled by the Barisan Sosialis or by the Communists] is trade unionism and trade unionism means the ideological enslavement of the workers to the bourgeoisie.' So trade unions which are not controlled by the Communists is an enslavement of the workers to the bourgeois ideology. Sir, we begin to understand why any unionist who is not associated with the Barisan Sosialis and pro-Communists becomes the oppressor of the workers, a capitalist stooge, a running dog - sorry, Sir, I am not applying this term to anybody in this House - because according to the Leninist technique any trade union which is not under the control of the Communists becomes mere trade unionism and must eventually lead to the ideological enslavement of the workers to the bourgeoisie. `Hence our task [that is, the task of the Communists and the Barisan Sosialis] is to combat spontaneity, to divert the labour movement from its spontaneous unionist strivings [that is, striving for pure economic gain] to go under the wing of the bourgeoisie and to bring it under the wing of revolutionary Communism.'. Therefore, it is the duty of any good Communist when he sees workers developing trade unions and fighting for better wages and so on to condemn it as wrong. That means that we could improve our lot under a non-Communist society. Therefore we must divert it among other ends to create revolutionary Communism. In other words, it is the task of the Communists to organise and use trade unions not to improve the lot of the worker but to punish him through strikes and other forms of labour agitation that bear no hope for him in any but a Communist society, and that in a non-Communist society the lot of the worker must be an increase in misery, repression and continual strife. Sir, I now turn to another aspect of the Communist technique - the role of strike in labour agitation. The non-Communist unionist's strike is a weapon to bring pressure on employers to get concessions for the worker. That is how a non-Communist trade unionist sees the strike weapon. The strike weapon is something which he uses against employers to get concessions for the workers. But it is not so with the Communist. The winning of concession is only incidental as I have shown, Sir, from my earlier quotation. By winning concessions the Communists hope - this is their real objective - to enlist the support of workers for the Communists in their major political objective, because to the Communists a strike is the training ground for revolutionary violence, for building up hatred among the workers against the Government, the police and all instruments associated with the authority of the State. That is the real political objective of a strike. Now we can see why speaker after speaker in the Barisan Sosialis spent a great deal of time elaborating on the violent brutality of the police. It is necessary for them, through a strike, to create in the workers who are not politically conscious a dislike and hatred for the police and for all the authority of the State. Therefore, this becomes revolutionary training. Now, Sir, we begin to understand. The Barisan Sosialis say, "We are not Communists. We do not know what Communists are. That is a bogey." But whether they are or they are not, they are doing the things that a Communist should do, though they are doing it badly. Sir, let me again quote Lenin: `Every strike concentrates all the attention and all the efforts of the workers first on one then on another evil from which the working class is suffering.' Therefore, they have to tell about the terrible Government, the terrible police and the sufferings of the workers. Lenin goes on to say: `Every strike gives rise to a discussion of these evils and helps the workers to appraise them, to understand when the oppression of the capitalist comes in.' That is the objective of a strike. Therefore, when a Communist unionist starts a strike, he is not interested in using the strike to settle a dispute but to instil revolutionary fervour and revolutionary hatred for the State, the Government and the police among the workers. That is the objective. You can see why strikes are prolonged when they could be settled. Why is it necessary to create scuffles and why is it necessary to put up banners charging the State and the Government as being brutal and oppressive? Because that is the real objective of a strike weapon - to build up revolutionary fervour and hatred among the workers. In fact, Lenin further enjoined the Communists, and I quote: `...to use every strike, every manifestation of economic oppression for the widest socialist and revolutionary propaganda.'. That is the objective again. He did not say, to use every strike to cow the capitalist into making concessions. He said `...to use every strike, every manifestation of economic oppression .for the widest socialist and revolutionary propaganda.'. He further declared: 'All sundry manifestations of police tyranny [I think that strikes a chord in the .Member for Thomson] and autocratic outrage, besides the evils connected with the economic struggle are equally widely applicable as a means of drawing in the masses.'. You must use strikes to instil in the workers a hatred for the police, the Government and so on, but not to settle disputes with the employers. That is incidental. If you decide on anything, then it is suitable. These are roughly the agitating techniques recommended in the Communist manuals and which the Barisan Sosialis - being only second-class Leninists - carry out with ineptitude. This accounts for the general air of depression that occasionally descends upon them.

You are a first-class Leninist, are you?

Sir, if we analyse some of the techniques used by the pro-Communist Barisan Sosialis in the strikes they organised in Singapore, you will discover - I am sorry that I said "second-class Leninists"; I withdraw the term-that it was the third-class Leninists who tried to apply these techniques.

Why do you not pass me some of those books?

Yes, I think the Member for Thomson was not here because his colleague, the Member for Moulmein, was most interested and most agitated as to whether he can get a copy of this "Lenin on Unions" and whether it is all right, and I have given him an assurance that it is all right because I got it myself from the U.S.I.S.

You should have borrowed it from Mao Tse-tung.

And it is published by one of the respectable Universities the Columbia University Press.

Where is it sold?

It is not sold. You can borrow it.

Order. There seems to be an exchange of pleasantries across the Floor. Shall we carry on? I think the Member for Thomson was a bit worried with interjections from the Opposition Benches but now he himself is guilty of interjecting too often.

Sir, if the techniques that the third-class Leninists used have not been successful, it is not because Lenin had been wrong but it is because the people on the Government side have also read Lenin perhaps a little more intelligently than the half-baked revolutionaries in the Barisan Sosialis. They have a propensity to follow the Communist manuals mechanically, hut we in the Government are fortunate in that we can anticipate what they will do in a given situation. This is how, I am told, big game-hunters trap animals. Knowing their propensities and weaknesses under given conditions, they are then trapped accordingly. This has an obvious moral which I think Members of the Barisan Sosialis will no doubt appreciate. Sir, a thought has struck me. The Member for Thomson is becoming increasingly agitated as to why I am quoting Lenin, my reading Lenin and what particular book of Lenin I am reading. It is quite clear that he has an inkling that we are always anticipating his or his Party's moves many, many weeks before they actually begin to move and, to that extent, they have been getting into greater and greater difficulties.

I am not agitated. I am just trying to follow you.

Therefore, Sir, I do not want to go further and anticipate things to come for the Barisan Sosialis, because we can see not only weeks ahead but months ahead. But if they look a little bit less buoyant and a little more bewildered it is because things have not quite worked out as the good Leninist book said it would. We know why the Barisan Sosialis started these strikes. They were political strikes intended to thwart merger. Well, they have not thwarted merger and there were a lot of strikes on their hands - strikes, as it were, all dressed up and no place to go. But if the little Lenins, with or without whiskers, had read Lenin properly, they would have learnt that they cannot start a revolution unless the conditions as laid down by Lenin for a revolution are right. Anyway, it is not my purpose to teach little Lenins how to suck eggs because I am quite sure they too can read Lenin in their own way. We know why the Barisan Sosialis leaders have refused to have things like social security schemes and proper wage scales; to settle strikes peacefully, to use the conciliation machinery, arbitration procedure, and so on. My quotation earlier has made it quite clear. Lenin said that the first thing you ask is not how to solve the economic problems of the workers but how to use their economic grievances to further the revolution. These are two different approaches to the labour problems, and that is why in the case of Singapore there are what they call the conditions for a revolution but these are not yet ripe. They would not start a revolution or attempt to start a revolution, and the whole thing has gone haywire. We also know now why the Barisan Sosialis have been trying to precipitate clashes between strikers and the police: why they have been trying to build a myth of police violence and intimidation of workers. We also know why, as in the case of the Ford and Shaw strikes, they have refused to use the conciliation machinery [Interruption]. You will get all the facts - I am sorry, Sir. The Member for Thomson has given a version - we call it the Barisan Sosialis' authorised version - of the Ford strike; but we will be giving a revised version of the same incident -

Authorised version.

He counts up to only the fingers of his hands, but our trade union leaders count not only up to the fingers of both hands but also both feet, and therefore are more accurate in figures than the Member for Thomson.

The Ford negotiations were held in the Labour Ministry.

All the facts will come out in due course, and the Member for Thomson will have the privilege of having a quick consultation with his colleagues outside this Chamber before the Member for Queenstown is allowed to give his reply. Sir, a strike, from the point of view of the Communist, is a training ground for Communist cadres and for the sparking off of violence. If workers can be maimed and suffer loss of lives, then they can be mobilised for a revolutionary overthrow of non-Communist leaders. And that has been the purpose during the last nine months - to provoke the Government into staging clashes with the police so that they could get martyrs. If you will remember, Sir, during the Hock Lee riots when I was with a newspaper, there were clashes between students and the police where a youth was badly injured, in fact, almost dying. Instead of taking him to the hospital, a group of them, who obviously were trying to make Capital out of the incident, carried the body of the dying student all the way to one of the Chinese newspapers here and the boy died. They had a martyr. The next day at the big funeral, I think the then Chief Minister, who is now the Member for Anson, sent a big wreath, and as an act of demonstration they pulled the wreath aside. But they had a martyr, a dead boy, and throughout the last nine months the Communists who run the Barisan Sosialis have been trying to get the Government to provide them with martyrs. The latest disappointment and the greatest anger that we are causing them, so far as we are concerned, is that we have not provided them with martyrs and, therefore, some of the leaders or the strong-arm men of the Barisan Sosialis have been trying to create martyrs among other workers who have been annoying and intimidating. So we also know why the Barisan Sosialis leaders deliberately led Ford workers into a strike where they got the worst of the bargain. It was a political strike which they bungled. The workers lost more than they were likely to gain. Maybe the Barisan Sosialis can divert the resentment of the workers by suggesting, "Well, even if you had a bad bargain, it is not the fault of the Barisan Sosialis. Here we have the oppressors of the poor, the capitalists, and a bad Government." Just to leave some resentment. In fact, by the time this debate is over, the whole thing will be twisted as, "There you are. This proves that in a non-Communist society, there can be no justice for the workers." Therefore, it is necessary in every trade dispute to leave behind some measure of dissatisfaction to convince the workers that there can be no workers' paradise except as laid down in the good book and, as you are likely to find in Communist countries, where there are no strikes because there cannot be any strikes.

Is something wrong with you?

However, let me tell the Leninist tenderfoots in the Barisan Sosialis that the workers of Singapore are not all that dumb, nor is the Government all that dumb. It is not the business of this Government to save the little Lenins who, of their own accord, are getting into deeper and deeper waters. But to the best of its ability, the Government will ensure that these political adventurers do not lead the innocent workers of Singapore into deep waters. The workers of Singapore are already becoming aware of what the Barisan Sosialis and their Communist cohorts are really up to. They are becoming increasingly resentful of the violence and intimidation that the desperate men of the Barisan Sosialis' S.A.T.U. have been forced to use against workers, of the loss of employment to hundreds of people by ineptly handled labour disputes, by forced collections to finance strikes which have got them nowhere. People are also becoming aware that the real objective of the desperate Communists is not to better the life of the workers but to make life worse for them so as to mount a revolution on the misery they have created. The Communists hope to frustrate industrial development and expansion because these would enable the non-Communist Government to provide a better life for the workers in a non-Communist society. The increasing resistance the Communists in the Barisan Sosialis are meeting from the workers is proof that the Barisan's one star - there is only one star - is on the wane. The day is not far off when it is more likely that the Barisan Sosialis Members would be seeing stars than to be holding their star aloft and leading it towards victory. 10.25 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, originally I did not intend to speak on this question, but as one who has worked in a union as a responsible official, and as one who has worked with the workers, and since the Government intend to amend this motion - the amendment proposed by the Government is very malicious - I am therefore compelled to say something on this amendment. The Government attribute all the industrial unrest to those unions which are not going to toe the P.A.P. line and which are branded as pro-Communist unions. The Government say all this industrial unrest is the result of pro-Communist union activities in order to destroy those unions which do not kowtow to the P.A.P. Government. Through this amendment the Government intend to deal with those unions which are really working for the benefit of the workers. There are many reasons for industrial unrest. For example, political instability is one. So to put the blame of industrial unrest on the Communists is not fair. The Government intend to make use of this tactic to create the impression that all these troubles are agitated by the Communists and they should be responsible for it. But in Singapore the Communist Party is an illegal Party. Therefore, the Communists are not able to defend themselves. So the Government intend to shirk their responsibility by saying that all these troubles are created by the Communists in order to divert the people's attention from the Government's failure, and to cover up many bad things which they have done. The Government hope to convince the people that all these troubles have been created by the Communists. The Communist Party, being an illegal Party, could not come out into the open to defend itself. In the past the Lim Yew Hock Government also accused certain people of being Communists. So now you do not have to laugh at it. This is proof that what I say is true. The day before yesterday, the Member for Anson in this Assembly also touched on this point. Certain speakers said that strikes had also taken place in non-Communist countries. But here we can quote something from the P.A.P. speeches made by P.A.P. Ministers. The Minister for Health and Law perhaps was somewhat honest in saying those words. I am now quoting from the Sin Chew Jit Poh of today (local page 5). The Minister said: `Industrial unrest was not peculiar to Singapore. It was a feature of industrialised countries throughout the world. In England, civil servants, the traditional moderates in trade unionism, were now in the front line of an industrial battle because the Government had rejected wage claims to offset inflationary pressures and adverse balance of payments.' This was said by the Minister for Health and Law. He also knows something about labour problems. I have been working with him, so I know he is somewhat like a great man, and I know that it was uttered in honesty and sincerity. So it is unfair for the P.A.P. to say that industrial unrest is all the result of Communist agitation. We cannot say that as long as there is industrial unrest whipped up by non-P.A.P. unions, these people must all be Communists. The present issue is very clear. It is that the Government are indifferent to the establishment of industrial peace. What they are actually interested in is how they can deal with such people as their political opponents. For example, a few days back, the Government brought up the National Referendum Bill and talked about the blank votes which were in support of the Government, saying that those votes, even with the drawing of a tortoise On them were also votes for the Government. That is to say, they want all things that are good. For example, the claims of A.U.P.E., the union of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture, are good. They are all right. So A.U.P.E. can go ahead and carry on, because he himself is the leader of the union. You just cannot say that this is also Communist. You will make yourself a laughing-stock. For example, regarding the vote with the drawing of a tortoise on it, you say, "If you do not want it, I want it myself." If you want a turtle drawn on a blank vote, then the vote will go to the Government as well. But all the bad things, such as strikes not conducted by the P.A.P. members or P.A.P. union leaders, must have been done by the Communists. All the strikes of the P.A.P.-led unions will always result in success and wage increases. That is to say, on certain conditions; if you get some benefit out of the wage increase, you must make some contribution to the unions. That is the condition imposed by the P.A.P. unions. All those which do not belong to this group must be Communists. That is their argument. It is said that the present P.A.P. Government are very clever at playing tricks. They are trying all sorts of means to prolong their political life. So they will use all means to smear all the others who are against the P.A.P. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government know full well that there are many unions which are not supporting the P.A.P. Government. In order to deal with such unions, the Government hope to create confusion and to give them trouble. It is the aim of the Government to be successful in this manner, but they just cannot succeed. For example, the one-time Labour Front Government had various experiences in dealing with unions which were opposed to them. That is, they tried to put all the blame of industrial unrest on the unions. Mr Speaker, Sir, what I am trying to say is that union leaders do not resort to industrial action unnecessarily, because if they do, then they will only be giving the Government an opportunity to smear them. The Government are supporting all the P.A.P.-dominated unions at the expense of the non-P.A.P. unions. In this manner, the P.A.P. hope that they can hand over the true unionists into the hands of the Federal Government after their phoney merger. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to tell my friends in the P.A.P. that smears, compulsion and oppression will be met with greater resistance. We can see clearly that since 1958 there have been many people who have been trying to work for the interest of the workers hut these people have either been branded communists or pro-Communist cadres. Because of this smear and allegation, many people have been put into gaol. Even those who are truly fighting for the interest of the workers are still remaining in gaol. These people number about 20. Many unions have been closed down because of the Communist label. In spite of all this, the people and the workers are not afraid. The trade union movement is going on all the same. We can see from this that to go through the process of oppression and smear is useless. It is futile to do this thing. Mr Speaker, everybody knows that to get industrialisation in Singapore, we must not only have the co-operation of the workers themselves but we must also get co-operation from other parties concerned. Only with this co-operation can there be industrial peace and industrial development in Singapore. If there are fewer strikes in Singapore, the capitalists will, of course, be happier. But the question of whether foreign capitalists will come to invest in Singapore does not solely depend on the number of strikes in Singapore. The main thing will be whether there is political stability in Singapore. If the political situation is not certain, then foreign capitalists will hesitate before they come to invest in Singapore. But the present P.A.P. Government are not trying to do anything about the creation of political stability. Instead they talk of Communists everywhere. As a result of this cry of Communism, everybody in Singapore seems to be suffering from the Communist phobia. Just now we have seen how the Minister for Culture talked a great deal about Leninism and Communism: this is Communist and that is Communist, and everything is Communist. According to the arguments put forward by the P.A.P., you have Communists everywhere in Singapore. They seem to say that Singapore has become a Communist State. Now this behaviour of theirs will certainly not induce foreign investors to come to Singapore. In fact, it will frighten them away. Mr Speaker, Sir, let us say you are a foreign capitalist, with the intention to invest in Singapore by setting up factories. But when you hear the Government shouting Communists here, Communists there, and that all the unions are Communist-dominated, and you think of the necessity of getting workers to work in your factories, you will think twice before you come to invest in Singapore. There are so many workers in Singapore under so many unions, but they say that only those unions under the leadership of Mr Devan Nair and Mr Kandasamy are non-Communist. How can you believe that so many unions in Singapore are all Communist and only those under these persons are non-Communist? So because of this cry of Communism, foreign capitalists will not dare to come and invest in Singapore, and because of the absence of investment in Singapore, the Government will put the blame on the Communists and say it is all because of the Communists that foreign investors have been frightened away. In fact, they themselves are guilty of frightening away foreign investment. The Government themselves have to admit that they are guilty of frightening away foreign investment, and not the Communists. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government are now branding all the non-P.A.P. unions as Communist unions. But this tactic of theirs will not frighten the workers of Singapore. There has been the question of a Common Market between Singapore and the Federation. In the course of two years, the Government of Singapore have been negotiating with the Federation Government on the question of a Common Market, but so far there has been no result. So we will say that before the Common Market can come into existence, this Common Market is also one of the factors that have to be considered by foreign investors because they are not sure whether there is going to be any Common Market between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. From this we can see that the question of a Common Market has been talked about for over two years without any success. In spite of all this, the P.A.P. Government keep on bragging about merger and the benefits they can derive therefrom. How can you say that merger will bring great benefits to the people of Singapore when the simple question of a Common Market cannot be solved? From my personal point of view, the people are quite right in saying that the P.A.P. are selling out their interests by merger. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been a worker myself and, as a worker, I am not in a position to talk a great deal like the Prime Minister who can argue, by all sorts of reasoning, that Federal citizens and Singapore citizens are the same and that Federal nationality -

Order. I hope the hon. Member is not embarking now on a debate on merger. We are still on the motion before us. We are not discussing merger.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I must thank you for your advice. I was just drawing a sort of analogy from the question of merger but I am leaving it at that now. What I was trying to say is that, as a worker, I am not able to speak with eloquence like the Minister for Culture who brings .a great deal of arguments into h-is speech so that he can turn black into white. I very much appreciate his intelligence in being able to do such a thing. But what I will say here is that, from my personal experience, the present P.A.P. are only putting the whole blame of industrial unrest on the so-called Communist and pro-Communist unions. I will say that this attitude of the P.A.P. is really ridiculous. Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe that not everybody in the P.A.P. is as clever and intelligent as the Minister for Culture and the Minister for Finance. Many people in the P.A.P. still have a sense of righteousness, and I believe there will come a day when they will discover this kind of people in the P.A.P. itself. That is to say, at the present moment, some people in the P.A.P. are being misled by a few leaders into believing that all the strikes have been agitated by the Communist and the pro-Communist elements. But one day they will come to discover that they have been misled by their leaders into believing so. For example, the former Labour Minister said, with all sincerity, that there were strikes everywhere in the world and they were not peculiar to Singapore alone. In this respect, I will say he is really a man of good conscience - Mr Byrne rose -

On a point of order?

On a point of elucidation. Mr Lin You Eng resumed his seat.

It is true I have said that, but I have said very much more than that also.

(In Mandarin): Yes. I agree that the Minister has said something about other things too, and I am quite appreciative of his arguments. I believe the workers will discover in due course that the minority leadership of the P.A.P. will gradually resort to the tactics employed by the Lim Yew Hock Government, and the people will discover the P.A.P. leadership for what they are. If there are some workers with a sense of righteousness, they will awaken to the fact that the present Government will fall, as the Lim Yew Hock Government did fall, in a very dishonourable manner. It is not a question of our remaining in office as Members of the Assembly. The main thing is that after our term of office in the Assembly, we can go about everywhere with a clear conscience and get the applause and the support of the people, instead of getting criticism from them. But if these leaders were to go and meet the people, the people would say, "Oh, these are the people who at one time sent my husband and my children to gaol." Under these circumstances, some of the P.A.P. leaders will not discover the wrong they are doing. I would like to tell Members of this House that the Government should not take advantage of this amendment and this motion against the interests of the people in Singapore. If they do, then the days of the P.A.P. are numbered. In fact, if the P.A.P. should take advantage of this motion to deal with the people of Singapore, then they will be doomed. The P.A.P. must not say, "Oh, since there are people jumping into the sea to commit suicide, we must follow them as well." If they persist in this way, they will perish in the end. 10.56 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, every time the Member for Cairnhill speaks on labour matters, he constantly prefaces his remarks that he is a trade unionist. He also expresses profound sympathy for the workers. Sir, perhaps the House is not aware that the Member for Cairnhill was the President of the Clerical and Administrative Workers Union, the trustees of which were Mr G. H. Kiat, the proprietor of G. H. Kiat and Company, a capitalist and an adviser to the Chung Khiaw Bank, and Mr Lim Chuan Geok, the proprietor of a firm of auctioneers, another capitalist. The activities that went on in the Clerical and Administrative Workers Union were confined to mahjong, jackpot, skittles and card games. Indeed. Sir, the Member for Cairnhill should preface his remarks by saying that he was the president of a gambling den and not a trade unionist. But his remarks do not bear sufficient importance. The workers now have no faith in him, and they do not have any regard for what he says on these matters. But the Barisan Sosialis is another matter. The Member for Upper Serangoon yesterday stated that there were strikes in the U.S.A., the U.K. and India. We do not deny that at all. Indeed that was what the Minister for Health and Law stated. But we also say that the only countries where there are no strikes are the Communist and Fascist countries like China, the U.S.S.R. and Portugal. The Member for Upper Serangoon further said that Government Members claimed that all strikes were Communist inspired. He argued that since Government Members had said that, and those were his words, therefore, the strikes called by the A.U.P.E., the Bank Employees' Union, the Singapore Manual and Mercantile Workers' Union, were also Communist inspired. Either the Member for Upper Serangoon was not listening attentively to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour, or he was deliberately misrepresenting the facts. The Parliamentary Secretary reported that there were 69 strikes which were called by the Communist-controlled trade unions, and 24 strikes were called by the non-Communist unions. It is true that the A.U.P.E., the Bank Employees' Union and the Manual and Mercantile Workers' Union have called strikes. But these unions were also willing to accept arbitration in the Industrial Arbitration Court. That is the difference, Sir. The Communist-controlled unions, however, always avoid arbitration unless they are compelled to go to arbitration. Let me explain in detail two strikes called by the S.A.T.U. unions in order to illustrate how the pro-Communist trade unionists ruthlessly exploit the workers to mount up discontent and tension. The Singapore General Employees Union called out the workers in Shaw's cinemas on strike in support of a claim for arrears of overtime. The strike lasted from 21st December, 1961, to 1st February, 1962 - a total of 33 days. 419 workers were involved and 14,036 man-days were lost as a result of the strike. The Commissioner for Labour recommended that the dispute be referred to the Labour Court. The Labour Court is the machinery provided in the Labour Ordinance to adjudicate upon matters involving rights provided by the labour legislation. Many other unions have appeared in the Labour Court and they have had arrears of overtime amounting to thousands of dollars. But the Singapore General Employees Union refused to refer the matter to the Labour Court. At the end of 33 days of strike, when the workers had lost 33 days' wages, the dispute has now been referred to the Industrial Arbitration Court. The Member for Thomson and the Member for Choa Chu Kang spoke on the Ford strike, but they always kept on saying how successful the union was in the negotiations and that it had obtained - according to the Member for Thomson - 52 cents per day increase, 42½ hours per week and a five-day week. Anyone who did not know the background would have been impressed by this. Let me explain to the House what really happened. The Singapore Motor Workshops Employees Union, one of the unions of the S.A.T.U. group, called out the industrial workers of the Ford Motor Company on strike on 21st November, 1961. Though the strike may have had legitimate economic grievances, the Barisan Sosialis commissars had intended this strike as a prelude to the November revolution which they had been proclaiming in order to bring down the Government. The strike lasted 110 days and the workers resumed work on 10th March, 1962. Before the strike took place, the union did not make any specific claims regarding wages. Before the strike, the company offered to increase the hourly wages from 88 cents per hour to 93 cents per hour for 1962, an increase of 5 cents per hour per man in 1962 and it also offered to increase to 98 cents per hour, an increase of 5 cents per hour per man in 1963. Now this, to one who is not familiar with trade union negotiations, may sound a bit confusing. Perhaps I had better explain this in greater detail. The industrial workers, on an average, were receiving 88 cents per hour. The Ford Company is an American company which employs all hourly-rated people. The Company before the strike offered an increase of five cents per man per hour for 1962 and another increase of five cents per hour per man for 1963. The union refused and the workers were out on strike for 110 days. During the 110-day strike, each worker lost an average of $7.90 per day and a total of $576 for the whole period of the strike, that is, 73 working days. Though the strike lasted 110 days, the working days were 73 days and the total wages lost amounted to $576 per man. By this time the Barisan Sosialis commissars had come to the conclusion that their November revolution had turned out to be a flop and there was no point in continuing the Ford strike; so they spent some anxious moments begging the employers to come to any settlement because many workers had come to realise by then that they had been made dupes of by the Barisan Sosialis political agitators. After 110 days of strike, the union agreed on an increase of six cents per hour. This is the increase of six cents the Member for Choa Chu Kang and the Member for Thomson tried to explain as a victory! Sir, let me repeat: before the strike, the company had already offered an increase of five cents. At the end of the strike, the union agreed on six cents. They have been telling the workers that they got this increase of six cents after 110 days of strike. What this really means in terms of hard cash is that after 110 days of strike the union has obtained one cent increase per worker per hour. With this one cent increase over what was offered before the strike, each worker will have to work five days a week for 28 years before he can recoup the $576 that he has lost in wages during the strike. He will have to work for 28 years before he can make up the lost wages. This is the great victory of the Ford Motor Workshop Union - General Secretary, Mr Low Pen; negotiator, Mr Fong Swee Suan! By that time, the General Secretary of the union, Mr Low Pen, and the gentleman who negotiated this agreement, Mr Fong Swee Suan, a leading member of the Barisan Sosialis, will be comfortably earning old age pension from the Government - no doubt a democratic Government - while the workers will still be struggling to make up the losses. Before the strike, the workers were receiving an annual bonus of 20 working days' wages subject to a deduction of about ten per cent of a day's wage for every day of unauthorised absence. I notice that the Member for Thomson did not touch on the subject of bonus. The company offered to increase it to 30 working days' wages subject to a deduction of two days' wages for every (lay of unauthorised absence. In other words, if a worker was not guilty of absenteeism - he could be on sick leave or on vacation but not unauthorised absence - during the year, he would have received under the company's offer 30 working days' wages as bonus. This was offered before the strike. The union - one of the principal unions of the S.A.T.U. group - led by Messrs. Fong Swee Suan and Low Peng refused this. After 110 days of strike, the union agreed to an annual bonus of 24 working days' wages subject to a deduction of ten per cent of a day's wage for every day of unauthorised absence. What this really amounted to was that after 110 days of strike, they lost six days of what the company had already offered, which was a ten-day increase, and they obtained four days. In other words, before the strike, the workers were getting 20 working days' wages as bonus. After 110 days of strike, the union reached an agreement - we are told a very successful agreement - of a four days' bonus. As I have said earlier, Sir, each worker lost about $576 in wages. He has now gained four days' wages as additional bonus. Putting it in another form, each worker will have to work 18 years before his additional bonus of four days' wages makes up for the loss he has suffered. This is the great victory, Sir! The victory is that the worker will have to work 18 years before he can make up the loss he has suffered! To obtain the increase of one cent and four days' wages as bonus, the union has accepted the company's "Personal Conduct Rules" as part of the agreement. This was not mentioned by the Member for Thomson. This is very interesting. There are 27 rules and any employee committing any of these offences will be subject to disciplinary action even amounting to dismissal. No other union in Singapore has been subject to such conditions and this is the great victory it has obtained after 110 days of strike! I shall refer only to five of these rules to indicate the types of rules which have been accepted by the union. Rule 3 - using abusive language. A worker can be subject to dismissal for using abusive language. Sir, even the Member for Cairnhill will say that the language in a factory is not the language of Parliament. If a worker in the Ford factory uses abusive language, he will be subject to dismissal. Rule 5 - running in any building. If there is a fire in the factory, a worker should not run because he will be dismissed. Rule 9 - smoking in restricted areas or lavatories. You should not smoke in lavatories in the Ford Company. This is the agreement the union agreed. Rule 26 - Sitting in Company cars and trucks during rest period. During rest periods you should not sit, and this is a company that assembles cars. There are a lot of old trucks but he must not be seated there. Rule 27 - Obscenity. I imagine, Sir, the Managing Director of Ford Co, must belong to that strange sex who does not smoke, drink, and use abusive language, and all that sinful, and he has imposed these conditions on factory workers in Singapore. And Mr Fong Swee Suan, after 110 days of strike and after the Union obtained a one-cent increase, an increase of four days' wages as bonus, agreed not to use abusive language in the factory. The Member for Queenstown said that their unions fought to improve the standard of living of the workers. If the results obtained in the Ford Co, strike by Mr Fong Swee Suan is the way that the Barisan Sosialis improves the standard of living of the workers, then, Sir, God help the workers, because they will have to work over 25 years to enjoy the benefits. When the industrial workers were out on strike, the clerical workers who are members of the Singapore Business Houses Employees Union stayed out from 21st November, 1961, to 29th September, 1961. I wonder who is going to pay for the loss of salaries that they have suffered during that period. When the clerks stayed out, I am told that the S.B.H.E.U, sent a letter to the Ford Co, claiming that their members - these are their words - "their members have expressed their fears and will not be able to work." This is a letter written by the General Secretary of the Singapore Business Houses Employees Union writing to explain to the Factory Manager why the clerical workers who were members of the S.B.H.E.U. would not be able to attend work, while there was a strike organised by one of the unions in the S.A.T.U. group itself. The S.A.T.U. leaders frightened their own members by their actions. Then they could no longer control them and turned the clerical workers into strike breakers. On 29th December, 1961, while the strike was still on, the clerical workers were instructed by the union to return to work. After the strike was over, belatedly they came crawling into the Industrial Arbitration Court for a decision on their claims for the clerical workers, which they could have done long before the strike. Sir, there are good strikes and bad strikes. There are good strikes that are won, and there are good strikes that are lost. The Ford strike was lost, and no amount of speeches by the Members for Choa Chu Kang and Thomson is going to deceive the workers that that strike was lost, and they went crawling back to the Factory under the conditions laid down by the Factory. The strike was lost because the leaders asked the workers to sacrifice themselves and they themselves were not prepared to make the same sacrifice - a loss of 110 days of wages, a loss which will take years to make up. This could have been avoided except for the political policy of the union's pro-Communist leaders to avoid the Arbitration Court so that the Government would not get credit for its policy of justice for the workers. The economy of Singapore was denied the production for which Singapore workers would have been paid wages which foreign workers enjoyed. If those cars that were sold during the 110 days had been assembled in Singapore, the workers would have been paid wages which these foreign and alien Workers who had assembled them had gained during that time. The effect on the economy which the S.A.T.U. leaders pretend to consider is a mockery. They want to depress the economy for their political ends. Let us explode the myth that these are trade union leaders genuinely interested in the welfare of the workers. They are, as the history of this strike shows, dragging on a strike for political purposes. I contend, Sir, that if the S.A.T.U. leaders had followed the practices in our own laws, the workers would have been spared this sacrifice. They had to accept the restrictive measures imposed on them by the Company, which are unprecedented in Singapore - 27 of them. The S.A.T.U. leaders accepted the restrictions because they wanted to increase the misery of the workers for political ends. What are the benefits obtained after all their strikes? The Labour Report shows that the lowest wages earned by workers in Singapore are by workers led by S.A.T.U. unions where daily-rated workers are maintained as casual workers year after year. Not only do these workers get less than $3 per day but they never know how many days of work they will have in a month. The workers in the rubber industry are represented by the Singapore General Employees Union and the Singapore Rubber Employees Union. The wages in this industry have persisted with little change throughout the period of prosperity of this industry. The S.A.T.U. unions do not want to go to arbitration because they have to hide the low level of wages which they have agreed with some local employers. The court proceedings will show the actual wage levels of the workers led by the S.A.T.U. group. The S.A.T.U. group of unions are not fighting to improve the standard of living of the workers. They want the workers to be dissatisfied, bring them out on prolonged strikes, and at the end, no benefits. All that S.A.T.U. strives for is dissatisfaction, misery and tension in order to use the workers for the political ends of the Communists. Sir, it is a matter of pride that Singapore has the best labour legislation in South-East Asia, and I challenge Members of the Barisan Sosialis to refute this and show proof of any country in Southeast Asia which has better labour legislation than Singapore. There is no other country in Asia which has legislation similar to our Industrial Relations Ordinance which gives the force of law to certified agreements and an arbitration system that provides justice and fair play. Our legislation could be used to the maximum benefit for the workers if only the pro-Communist trade union leaders in the Barisan Sosialis wanted genuinely to better the lives of the workers. 11.25 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, tonight, when the Member for Thomson was speaking, he told the House that the P.A.P. Government had changed its attitude to the worker. He instanced four strikes in which he claimed that the P.A.P. Government deliberately brought out the police to mishandle the workers. The first strike that he mentioned was the Sassoon strike. In that strike there was trouble between the Secretary of the Branch of the Business Houses Union and the employer. There was very bad feeling between the manager of that firm and the Secretary, and tension was mounting. The matter was brought to the Ministry and after a lot of discussion, the Parliamentary Secretary persuaded the men that they should not under any circumstances resort to any violence, or do anything that would put them in the wrong. When tension was mounting, Mr Speaker, Sir, I remember remaining in the office right up to about half-past five or six in the evening, and Dominic Puthucheary came to see me at my request and assured me that though there was a lot of tension in the office there would be no trouble but that the men would quietly go home. Later that night I went to the Crawford Branch and was working there when I received a telephone call from Mr Kandasamy saying that there was trouble between the workers of Sassoon & Company and the Police and that the men had been injured. And he asked me to go to the Central Police Station and see things for myself. I told Mr Kandasamy that before I left office -

Order. I think the Minister ought to refer to Mr Kandasamy as the Parliamentary Secretary.

I beg your pardon, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture. I told him that I had received an assurance from Mr Dominic Puthucheary that there would be no trouble that evening; he had assured me that the men were going home peacefully; that they would leave the office. And I expressed great surprise that they could have been hurt, in view of that assurance, and even if it was true that they had been hurt, I said I was the last man who could be of any assistance. All that they could do was to make a police report and bring them to the General Hospital for treatment. Immediately after that, Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Woodhull rang me up at the Crawford Branch. He asked me to come and see for myself. He said that the men were rolling in pain. He said, "You come. We could lead a demonstration against the police. You come with us to the Central Police Station. You come with us to the General Hospital and we can make a song and a dance about it." He said we should have a go at the police. That was the situation as far as the Sassoon strike was concerned. Mr Speaker, Sir, the next morning I made inquiries. I found that, in fact, after the assurance Dominic Puthucheary had given me, the men remained in their office and took possession of it. The police had to be sent for and they were evicted as trespassers because they had no business to be in the office of their employer after regular office hours. Now, is it fair for the Member for Thomson to say that the police were brought in by the Government to injure the strikers in that particular wage dispute? Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member also mentioned the Glass Factory strike. There was trouble there. A strike position developed. I had reports that the main entrance to the factory was barred. The men had put benches at the main entrance. The management could not have free access to their own factory. On that report, I took action. I asked Mr Lim Ching Siong to come with me to see for himself. He refused positively to come, saying that he had another engagement. But I was able to get Mr Fong Swee Suan, Mr Bani, Mr Woodhull, Mr Dominic Puthucheary and Mr Kandasamy, to go with me to the factory gate. When we arrived there, we found benches right across the entrance. Nobody could get in or out of that factory. I called the attention of the party with whom I was to this obstruction at this main gate. Mr Woodhull said nothing. He would say nothing, Mr Speaker. But I was able to persuade Mr Fong to speak to the men and to tell them that that was wrong. So we spoke to the men and the position was explained to them, and those benches were later removed. That was a strike which lasted for a very long time. The upshot was this, Mr Speaker. Many of the Malay workers insisted on going back to work. They were being kept out by the Chinese picketers. They came to see me in the Ministry, and they asked me to open a special register for them. I opened a special register. They gave me their names, their identity card numbers and put their own signatures on to a long list, saying that they wanted to go back to work, but that they were being kept out. Eventually I had a meeting with them. I explained to them that if they did that, then they would be strike-breaking. They said never mind, the responsibility was theirs. They wanted to go back to work but they were prevented from doing so by the other strikers. Now police assistance had to be rendered to them. Then there was a fight naturally. There was resistance by the strikers who did not want to allow the Malay workers to go to the factory, and something had to be done about it. Eventually with the help of the police, these Malays were able to get back to the factory to work. When they were in, Mr Speaker, other strikers laid siege to that factory, so that those men were not able to get out. They had to be supplied. Their food had to be brought in to them. Both Mr Woodhull and Mr Fong Swee Suan realised that the men were acting unfairly in this strike, and it was through the help of Mr Fong Swee Suan that the Secretary of the Branch union was removed from his office. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Thomson patted himself on the back and patted members of his group on the back for the good work that they have been doing for the Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union. Mr Woodhull had for a long time been interesting himself in the affairs of the clerical employees in the commerical world. He first got an entry into the Mansfield Employees Union. I remember his coming in to tell me that things were being very badly managed in the Business Houses Union. There were people who were pretending to be advisers of the Business Houses Union who were, in fact, agents of the employers in that union, and they were betraying the cause of the workers. He told me that it was about time that he moved in. So I suspected then that he was trying to penetrate that union. In December 1960, I was invited by the Business Houses Union to their annual Christmas gathering at the Victoria Memorial Hall. I got there rather late that night. I saw at the main table Dominic Puthucheary, the Member for Thomson, and Kum Siew Yee. There was a dance on, and in the course of it the music was stopped. Then Mr Dominic Puthucheary and the Member for Thomson got on to the stage and harangued the crowd. They were dressed in shirts and trousers. But I noticed that Mr Kum Siew Yee was fully clothed. He had his coat on, a nice tie and fully dressed for the occasion. I have known Mr Kum Siew Yee for a very long time. In fact, when we were engaged in the non-pensionable expatriation pay fight, he helped to organise the teachers for us in that fight. I have known that he had been indoctrinated by Mr Devan Nair, who had fed him with Marxist literature and he was his tutor and mentor. I have also known that a great change has come about Mr Devan Nair. He once was a Communist, but he had broken with the Communists. But at the time that I spoke to Mr Kum Siew Yee, I knew that he was a Communist, and that he had not broken off his connections with the Communists. So I said to him, "Kum, what are you doing here?" He said, "You know, Kenny, I really do not like all this. You know we are dealing with this English-educated lot. I have got to put up with it." There was a girl who was scantily clad. She was doing the hula-hula. He said, "Look at all this. I have got to put up with this. I wanted a demonstration. I wanted a rally. I want to organise them. But here we have got to make allowance for all this. I have got to sit around and see all this go on." Woodhull was not at that Christmas gathering. It was then that I knew that, for the first time, Woodhull had planted his agent in that union. Mr Speaker, Sir, before all this, and shortly after we became the Government, I remember the leaders of the Business Houses Union coming to see me and asking me to help them to get a wage agreement with the Federation of Employers. They brought to me a draft agreement and asked me if I would assist them to chair meetings between them and the Federation of Employers. I did so on two or three occasions. Those men were asking for four things. The first thing that they wanted was a gratuity scheme for the people who were serving the commercial houses for many years and were retiring from the service. Some of these business firms did give retirement benefits to their employees. There were many others which gave no retirement benefits to their employees. And the delegation wanted a uniform system of retirement benefits. That was their first claim. Their next claim was that there should be proper redundancy agreements drawn up in cases where the staff were laid off. Their third claim was for bonus payments. The employers had always contended that a bonus was an ex-gratia payment, in the sense that when profits were good, a bonus was paid. If there was no profit, no bonus was paid. Whereas the union contended, and I think with justice, that it had been a traditional way of employment here where employers treated a bonus as some sort of a deferred payment in the sense that if a man works for, say, a lower rate of wage, the employer would agree to pay him 13 months' pay for 12 months' work or 14 months' pay for 12 months' work. That was their contention. Their fourth claim was for wage scales. They were very tired of leaving all this to the good sense of the employer to award his employees a wage increase on merit. These were their four claims which they regarded as fundamental. I chaired meetings between them and the Federation of Employers but we could not make any headway. The employers would not give in. It is true what the Member for Thomson said. They would have nothing to do with a wage scale. Mr Speaker, Sir, because we knew all this, we had meanwhile done something to bring in new legislation so that we could provide machinery whereby an independent tribunal could order that an employer introduces a salary scale where he has refused to do so and that provision is written into the Industrial Relations Ordinance. Later, Mr Speaker, Sir, in the early months of 1960, the Business Houses Union attempted to get agreements with three firms. They were Nestle's Products, United Engineers and the East Asiatic Company. At the time that they were negotiating with the union, the employers, it was I think just after the New Year, started paying merit increments. That meant some employees got increases in pay, others got no increases in pay. Mr Woodhull, who was in control of this union, came to see me and said that this was very unfair. "We want a wage scale, we have been asking them to give us a wage scale. They refuse it and they pay merit increments in this way. Some get an increase in the New Year; others get nothing." So I said to Mr Woodhull, "Would you promise me one thing? I am prepared to help you." I know that he was negotiating these agreements at the time. "Would you provide for them? Would you insist on writing into those agreements that the employer would be restricted to paying only a wage scale and nothing beyond it? Demand wage scales and say that there can be no payments other than those provided for in the wage scale. Go ahead. Put that in; demand that it goes in. If the employer refuses to put it in, I am telling you here that I am prepared to refer that dispute to the Arbitration Court. You make the demand, please. If it is refused, then the dispute will go to the Arbitration Court." Mr Speaker, Sir, for two or three months I kept calling him regularly on the phone. "What about it, Woodhull? Have you made the demand?" He put me off with one pretext after another. He did nothing. Mr Speaker, Sir, I heard that he had quietly signed an agreement with the employer which provided for no salary scale; just increases. "This year we get $10, next year we get $15," that was the sort of game he was playing. He signed agreements making no provision for a salary scale, and quietly. Everybody got his $10 increase or $15 increase for the year, $15 increase for the next year, and those who got the merit increments pocketed those merit increments as well. Is that not selling out the white-collar worker? What is the use of their coming to this Legislative Assembly now and saying that they have tried very hard with the employers to get salary scales for the clerical workers, but conditions are entirely different and it is a different industry. They spoke of Mr Rattray and said that Mr Rattray also confirmed that it is a different industry. The employers cannot give anybody any salary scales. We were offering them every assistance so that the clerical worker could get a salary scale. Now they say that they have championed the cause of the white-collar worker. Where is the truth in all that? What protection have the men got? They do not have a salary scale; they have no retirement benefits. Some agreements provide for bonus, not all, and very few provide for redundancy agreements. Where is the service they have rendered to the clerical workers? Mr Speaker, Sir, at the very same time that all this was going on, the Singapore General Employees Union was able to negotiate long-term agreements for messengers of a bank. I know of an agreement entered into between the Chung Khiaw Bank and the Singapore General Employees' Union which provides for a 21-year scale with increments at the minimum beginning from about $160 up to a maximum of $319 a month, a 21-year scale for messengers. And yet the Business Houses Employees' Union said they could not negotiate a salary scale for the clerical workers. Mr Speaker, Sir, all this was done, I would say, with deliberate intent. Here we were honestly and sincerely offering them every help so that they could get the workers salary scales and here was Woodhull evading responsibility on one pretext after another. Mr Speaker, Sir, the intent is this, that they want these workers to be ever beholden to them. They do not want to see anybody who is satisfied and contented. They want the workers as soon as the agreement expires, to come hack to them so that they can negotiate again and again and be in control of these men for all time. That is their purpose for refusing to negotiate for a salary scale for clerical workers. So that it is no use of time Member for Thomson now coming to this Legislative Assembly and making all sorts of accusations against the Government which he knows to be completely untrue. It is no use his trying to pretend that the Government has been anti-worker, that the Government has been bullying the workers. He knows all that is not true. As to industrial relations, it is true that we introduced the Industrial Relations Bill without any consultation with the unions. We also did not consult the employers. We thought that it would be necessary for us to introduce that legislation and then receive representations. As a result of the representations received from Messrs. Woodhull, Lim Ching Siong, Fong Swee Suan and the group which was known as the 10 Tall Men, we put in the 50 amendments that were referred to by the Member for Cairnhill. Mr Speaker, Sir, the original Bill provided for automatic reference to arbitration where an issue was deadlocked. They talked vehemently about it, particularly Mr Woodhull. Surely that was a denial of the worker's right to strike. In a democracy all workers must, in the last resort, have that right. At the most, they were prepared to leave it to the discretion of the Minister. But if the Minister considered that the dispute should go to arbitration, well, he could put it to arbitration. We were prepared to be reasonable with them. We knew that situations can arise where it will be necessary for a union to strike. Take the case of the Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation dispute. In that case, there was no dispute over wages and conditions of service. It was just that the management were being cussed. They were trying to deal with individual employees behind the back of the union. The union protested and said, "Do not do that. It is unfair that you should do that. Treat with us. You have treated with us. Since you have made a mistake - we know that you have made a mistake - if you will just formally apologise to us and give us an undertaking that you will not treat us like this in future, we will call it a day. We will take no action." They just ignored them, with the result that the men went on strike. We recognised that such situations could occur and it was for that reason that we were prepared, us the Government, to take out that provision from the Bill which provided for an automatic reference of every dispute that was deadlocked to the Industrial Arbitration Court. Mr Speaker, Sir, that Bill was passed. It was enacted in this House with the complete approval of these gentlemen. I had many meetings with them. Every amendment that they put to us was considered on its merits and properly discussed, and when it was eventually brought to this House, it was with the absolute consent of all these gentlemen. As soon as we introduced that Bill, they started sidetracking it. They had no intention of ever using its provisions. I was offering it to them in the case of the clerical employees. I told Woodhull, "Do not be afraid of the employers. I am prepared to put it to the Arbitration Court. If you have the guts to write into the agreement that you want it to be provided that the employers shall pay their employees the salaries that are provided for in a scale, and if they refuse to do it, then the dispute will go to arbitration and you could get an award on that." He was not willing to play. Why was he not willing to play? Because he had the intention of being completely dishonourable and dishonest about this matter. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have dealt fairly with them right through. They will never bring any dispute to the Labour Ministry. They go off on their own. The House heard what the Member for Thomson said, that he preferred to bring these disputes to Mr Booker. He was happy to bring them to Mr Booker. He challenged me. He said, "There is nothing to prevent us from doing it. Show us where it is provided in the Bill that we cannot see Mr Booker." They were the ones who asked us to keep the lawyers out when we passed the Bill. They wanted us to keep the lawyers out. They said it was unfair. If lawyers were allowed to come into all this, the employers would be able to engage the best talent available. They would then be at a disadvantage. It was they who made those representations to us. It was because of them that we had to get the lawyers out. Yet the Member for Thomson - what did he say? - said he preferred to go and deal with Mr Booker. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have watched them for over a long period and we are quite satisfied that they have not the slightest intention of ever wanting to use the provisions of that Bill. They have also referred to the Trade Unions Ordinance. They said that we enacted a piece of legislation and that we subsequently backed down; that we let the unions down; that we let the workers down. Mr Speaker, Sir, that Ordinance provided for what is known as the unification of the trade union movement. In that Ordinance it is provided that a union can only be registered if it comes within one of the 19 categories that are provided for in the Schedule. It does not mean to say that there must be only 19 unions, but that the union must be in one of those categories -

Order. It is 12 midnight. Dr Toh.

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

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I received a letter on 14th March, 1962, from Nanyang University students addressed to all Members in this House. This letter requested that all those people's representatives with a sense of responsibility should question the Government on the reasons for refusing to issue a permit for a series of academic publications to the students' organisations under the Printing Presses Ordinance. It also referred to the smear made in the statement by the Minister for Home Affairs on the students' union. I have therefore risen to say something on this. Mr Speaker, Sir, some people may ridicule me by saying that when I was Parliamentary Secretary I spoke for the Government, but that when I am now no more with the Government I speak for those who are dissatisfied with the Government, and that therefore I am an opportunist. Well, I do not wish to argue against this kind of criticism which may be levelled against me. The question whether I am an opportunist or not can best be decided by facts as time goes on. Let me now come back to the main issue. Mr Speaker, Sir, from what I read in the Press of the open letter from the Nanyang University Students' Union and of the statements by the union and the Minister for Home Affairs, I got the feeling that it was the union which was reasonable. Every year the union takes the opportunity of the University Convocation in March to hold a University Week, recreational and cultural concerts, exhibitions and academic forums, and to publish books on academic topics. This practice has become a very good tradition of the students in Nanyang University. The University Students' Union has decided to issue books on Natural Science, Social Science, Arts, Political Studies and other topics concerning Malayan History and Geography during University Week. It is doing this in order to promote studies within the University itself and to show to the people outside - especially those in society - what the University students have achieved in the field of academic studies. At the end of last year, it sent an application to the Minister for Home Affairs for a permit under the Printing Presses Ordinance for a series of publications, but the Government insisted that the application should come from the Vice-Chancellor of the University. The Minister for Home Affairs wrote a letter officially on 19th February to the Students' Union stating that the Government had refused its application for a permit. No explanation was given in the letter of the Minister for Home Affairs as to why it was insisted that the application should come from the Vice-Chancellor instead of from the Students' Union. The Students' Union was set up as a legal organisation under the Nanyang University Ordinance. It has statutory status and the capacity to act independently. In this connection, the Vice-Chancellor of the Nanyang University has informed the Students' Union that he would not be responsible for the publications. In fact, the legal adviser to the union, Mr David Marshall, wrote to the Minister for Home Affairs requesting the Government to respect the legal position of the union and not to delay the issue of a permit. But the Minister for Home Affairs still refused to issue a permit to the Students' Union and no explanation was given for the refusal. University Week is just around the corner and the students are very anxious about the whole thing. On 22nd February, they issued a Press statement making a report of what had taken place. They also sent representatives to see the Minister for Home Affairs. Unfortunately, he did not grant them an interview. On 2nd March, the Ministry of' Home Affairs issued a Press statement alleging that the Students' Union was unreasonable in its attitude, that it was the intention of the union to produce propaganda material against the Government, and that therefore it could be seen from all this that the so-called academic publications were in fact publications with political ends in view. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Nanyang University Students' Union has experienced many difficulties in this matter, and it has been wronged. So those who are interested in the university education of Singapore should not take an indifferent view of this matter. The students do not understand why they cannot get a permit under the Printing Presses Ordinance for their publications. They also do not understand why in 1960 the union was successful in its application for a similar permit for its publications, but that this year's application was not approved and that it has instead invited a smearing attack from the Government. They do not understand why there is this difference in these two years. Can we say that it is a bad intention on the part of time students to publish books in order to show how much they have achieved in their studies? Does it mean that the getting of economic and financial support and winning the sympathy of members of the public should be interpreted by the Minister for Home Affairs as non-academic political ends? Does it also mean that before Nanyang University can see eye to eye with the Gwee Ah Leng Report, the Government does not wish to see the students of the University making individual improvements? University education is a very important factor in giving an impetus to social progress. University undergraduates should have freedom in their studies, including studies on political problems. The Government should allow University students to express all forms of political views and philosophies. The Ministry of Education, together with the Ministry of Culture, can influence the students of tile University through arguments but time Government should not make use of an order from the Ministry of Culture to suppress the views of the students. They should not try to curtail the freedom of speech of the students. Mr Speaker, Sir, we are no longer living in a medieval age when those who went against traditional thinking were oppressed. We must give encouragement to young people to develop new thinking and accept the challenge of new thoughts. It is only by doing this that we are able to make social progress. I hope that the Minister for Home Affairs will correct his present attitude in dealing with this question and rectify his mistake accordingly. I appeal to the Minister concerned to approve immediately the application of the Nanyang University Students Union for a permit. We also hope that he will in a just manner try to get the support of the Nanyang University students. 00.17 a.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, just now the Member for Upper Serangoon said that the Government's act in refusing the application for a permit by the Students Union was to curtail the academic freedom of publication of the students. If this allegation can stand, then why should the Government want the Vice-Chancellor to send in the application? This means that the Government had no intention to refuse the application of the Students Union to issue its publications. What we wanted was to get the Vice-Chancellor to be responsible for these publications, because we were of the opinion that if the Vice-Chancellor was responsible for the application for the publications, then everything should be all right. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government will definitely not interfere with genuine academic freedom and the freedom to publish, unless some people want to make use of academic freedom and the opportunity to publish books for political ends. We have records of the activities of the applicant and the members of the editorial board. From these records we have reason to believe that they may carry out anti-national and anti-people propaganda in their publications. Now, if they say that there is no academic freedom of publication in Nanyang University, then we will tell them that since its inception there have altogether been 16 societies of the students registered under the Societies Ordinance. Because of the shortage of time, I would not like to list all the societies' names, but just want to mention a few. They are the Political Science Society, the Dramatic Research Society, the Chinese Language and Literature Research Society, the History and Geography Society, and so on. I only mention a few to save time. If they say that there is no academic freedom, how is it that there have been 31 different types of publications by the Nanyang student bodies permitted under the Printing Presses Ordinance? Because of shortage of time, I would not like to mention all the 31 publications. I will mention only a few. They are the University Tribune, the University Youth, the Suloh Nantah and Political Science. The registration of these 16 student societies has been allowed, and the 31 publications by these 16 societies have been approved by the Government also. All the University academic forums and debates conducted by the students have not been interfered with in any form. From the 31 publications, we can see many articles and the Government has not interfered with them at all. This goes to show that there is academic freedom of publication in the University. As a matter of fact, there are many publications by the University students, such as the University Tribune, which contain articles outside the scope of the so-called academic studies. For example, the 26th issue of the University Tribune, in celebration of Women's Day, has published with superficial changes an article by a person known as Yu Tze Niu with the title of "The Women's Movement in Singapore and Malaya in Retrospect and Prospect". This article has been written on the lines of Communist arguments based on a similar article by Lie Kiu, a member of M.C.P. Because of the shortage of time, I would just like to quote a short paragraph from this article to compare with Lie Kiu's to show its true nature. The paragraph reads as follows: 'The women's movement in Malaya started roughly after 1925. At that time Malaya was in the midst of a world economic crisis because the capitalists were trying all out to exploit the colonies: and being in a colonial Malay a, women had to suffer from the exploitation by the colonialists. So there was a common objective to combat and struggle against the exploitation and suppression of the imperialists in our country for women's emancipation and national emancipation.' There was a paragraph in Lie Kiu's article in commemoration of Women's Day. This was contained in Vol. I of `The New Women's Monthly' published on 8th March, 1946, in which it was stated that: `Tile Overseas Chinese Women's Movement in Malaya started after 1925. At that time Malaya was in the grip of a world economic crisis and all the time the imperialists were trying to take advantage of the colonies, particularly of women, ...' and so on, and the rest also about the same. So we can see that these two articles were quite similar. The only difference is that in the Communist magazine the words "Overseas Chinese" were mentioned, but in the Nanyang University Tribune they have thought fit to leave out this term because it is already out of place at the present time. From this also we can see clearly that the M.C.P. is a Party which owes its allegiance to a foreign country. Apart from this, there are many other articles of a Communist nature. In fact, these articles are a reprint with a changed appearance of some Communist articles. For example, in March 1961 there was an article published in the Political Science entitled "The New Spirit of Seeking Concord while Maintaining Differences", written by an underground worker of the M.C.P. named Lim Hock Khoon. Does it not mean that there is academic freedom and freedom of academic publications? What they are trying to get is Communist academic freedom. Mr Speaker, Sir, we are under no obligation to protect this kind of academic freedom. As a matter of fact, the behaviour of the Nanyang University Students Union is an insult and an affront to the true sense of academic freedom. They call it academic pursuit, when in fact it is not so. They are just making use of time terms "academic freedom" through students' publications to carry out Communist propaganda work. They themselves are short of inspiration and so they have to copy from banned Communist magazines and articles. The fact is undeniable, though they may say it is a smear. The Member for Upper Serangoon has brought up this question. We are aware of his intention. He has brought it up in order to raise his personal prestige, because when he was in the P.A.P. he was quite arrogant, and because of his behaviour he lost the confidence of many people. This is a common fact among the students in Nanyang University. If he should refer to a criticism written then by Ign Hsentan then he will know about all these things. He himself was a member of an underground Communist organisation before. So he would like to see propaganda work for Communism carried cut under the pretext of academic freedom in order to restore his personal prestige. Perhaps he will say that I am saying this just to smear him. Now, perhaps he says this is a smear, how is it that when this House was debating the question of Malaysia, the Minister for National Development openly accused him of being an open front worker of the Communists, and at that time he dared not deny it'? Because he knew if he did he would be confronted with many irrefutable facts.

Point of order.

Is it a point of order'?

Yes, because the Minister has made a personal attack against me.

That is not a point of order at all. It is only a waste of time.

(In Mandarin): So, Mr Speaker, Sir, to put everything in a nutshell, the Working Committee of the Nanyang University Students Union, in applying for a permit to the Ministry of Home Affairs, mentioned that these journals will contain articles concerning the political events in Malaya between 1945 and 1960 and the educational economic and political problems of the three territories in North Borneo. Because the applicant himself and other members on the editorial board have carried out certain activities in the past, we can well expect what these publications will be up to, and it is because of this that we made a request that the Vice-Chancellor should be responsible for the journals because we believed that if the Vice-Chancellor was prepared to shoulder the responsibility, then perhaps these journals would not be made use of for political ends and propaganda. The Question having been pro posed at Twelve o'clock midnight on 20th March, 1962, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr Speaker adjourned the Assembly without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. Adjourned accordingly at half-past Twelve o'clock a.m.