Hansard, 1962-03-21

I have to report that I have been informed by His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara that on the 20th day of March, 1962, he assented to the following Bills:-

32 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."

Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday before the moment of interruption at midnight, I was dealing with some of the charges which the Member for Thomson had made against the Government. One of these charges concerns what he contended to be unwarranted police action against employees of certain commercial firms. I would refer the House to a report of what he said in this connection in the Straits Times of this morning. Mr Speaker, Mr Bani is reported as saying that these acts of violence have been defended by the Government Ministers as reasonable. He said: `We do not consider police action against pickets reasonable. Unwarranted use of the police on helpless workers cannot be termed reasonable by any stretch of the imagination. Soon after losing the support of the workers, the Government adopted a ferocious anti-workers' attitude.' Mr Speaker, Sir, he instanced police action in connection with disputes like those of Sassoon, the Glass Factory, the General Electric Company, the City Council, Robinson's, Shaw's and Guthrie's. I mentioned some of the facts concerning the Sassoon dispute. I informed the House that in that particular case, there was very bad blood between the employer and an employee who was the Secretary of the Branch of the Business Houses Employees Union in that firm. The employer threatened to sack this employee. The feelings of the men were aroused. They came to the Ministry. Mr Dominic Puthucheary represented them. I knew feelings were very high. I remained in the office late that evening. He gave me and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour (Mr Wee Toon Boon) an assurance that the men would go home peacefully that night and that nothing would happen. I told him that if there were any doubts in the matter I would have the Labour Inspectors posted on duty that night. He said, "Do not worry. They will all go home." And I told the House that when I was at Crawford that same evening, I received a telephone call from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture appealing to me to go down to the Central Police Station to see what had happened as there was a clash between the police and the strikers of that firm. I told the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture that I refused to do so because I had been assured that the men would go home peacefully that night. Then Mr Woodhull took the phone from the Parliamentary Secretary to, the Minister for Culture and phoned me. He made a personal appeal to me. He said, "Would you come down? If you do, it would buck the morale of the men up, and you could lead a demonstration against the police." I positively refused to do so. Next morning, I received a police report of what happened. I was informed by the police that the strikers remained in the office that night and the employer had to seek the assistance of the police to have them ejected. The police used reasonable force to eject them. Some went out of their own accord. A few had to be carried away. I checked on the police report and found that some of the men had a few contusions. Where was the police violence in this particular dispute? Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Thomson also mentioned the case of the Glass Factory. I told the House that when that dispute occurred, I brought with me to the site Mr Fong Swee Suan, Mr Dominic Puthucheary, Mr Kandasamy, Mr Woodhull, and Mr Bani. I also asked Mr Lim Ching Siong to accompany us. He said he had another important appointment that morning and could not go with us to the scene of the strike. When we arrived there, we found that the main entrance to the factory was obstructed with benches. Mr Woodhull would do nothing about it. I appealed to Mr Fong Swee Suan. He spoke to the workers and got them to remove the benches. That was a protracted dispute. It lasted for very many days. In the course of that dispute, some of the workers got very restive. They wanted to return to work. The majority of them were Malays. There were also Chinese and Indians amongst them. They came to see me at my office and asked for the protection of the Ministry to enable them to go back to work. In order that we would play completely fair with the union, I asked these workers if they would register their names on a register that was opened in the Ministry. They said they would agree to do so. They came into the Ministry. They recorded their names, their addresses, their identity card numbers, their employment card numbers, and signed a declaration that they wished to go back to work of their own accord. There were about 40 to 50 of them. I sent for the leader of the Branch Committee of that Union together with some of the officers of the T.U.C. In their presence, the men lined up in my office and they all stated both to the Branch Committee and to the representatives of the T.U.C. that they wanted police protection to go back to work; and on that, I arranged that labour officers should go to the scene of the strike and that police protection should be given to these workers. There was a general melee when they returned to work. The police protected them. Some of them were assaulted at the time when they tried to get into the factory. Feelings were very tense at that time, so that the men who returned to work had to live in for many days. They did not dare to come out. In the course of that dispute, there were complaints made that the management was taking out industrial property so that it could set up operations outside of Henderson Road. Every complaint made was checked in the presence of the union officials. Most of those complaints were found to be completely untrue. Mr Speaker, Sir, is it resorting to violence for the Government to get the police to give protection to workers who want to go back to work? In that particular strike, both Mr Woodhull and Mr Fong Swee Suan realised that the main instigator behind it was the Branch Secretary of that Union. They both took steps to get that man moved out of that position in that Union. Where were the acts of violence in the case of the Glass Factory strike? Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Thomson referred to the G.E.C. strike. That strike arose because the management proposed that if the workers wished for increases in pay, as they could not afford to give increases to all, some of the workers would have to be retrenched. They would not have it at all. We in the Ministry tried to resolve that dispute. We had many meetings with the management and the employees. We were assured that the employees would not take strike action. But eventually they did take strike action. In that dispute also, Mr Speaker, Sir, there were complaints that the management were removing some of their property, some of their electric motors, to outside shops to get work done during the period of the strike in order to break that strike. That was untrue. The workers even searched members of the management and we had to discourage them from doing so. In that case some of the workers also wanted to return to work. There was an act of violence committed, but it was not an act of violence against the workers by the police. One worker was charged for an act of violence against another worker under section 4 (d) of the Trade Disputes Ordinance. On 17th November, 1960, he was prosecuted in the police court and fined $20 for assault. Where were the police acts of violence in that dispute? Then the Member for Thomson referred to the Robinson strike. He said that Mr Dominic Puthucheary was there at 8 o'clock in the morning. He went there at 10 o'clock. Everybody was well behaved. He said the police acted violently. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Culture has drawn the attention of the House to pictures that appeared in the Straits Tunes in connection with the attitude of the workers in that strike. Everybody appeared to be very happy. Nobody was assaulted. As far as I personally was concerned, I was at that time in the Ministry of Health and I remember that the Commissioner for Labour called on me at about 8.30 on the morning of the Robinson strike and reported to me that the employees were out on strike. He said he had posted his labour officers on duty, and the latest reports were that they were behaving themselves. I was very pleased to know that. I had that morning to go to the Ministry of Finance to cover the duties of the Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee) when he was away. Between 11.30 and 12 that morning, I received a telephone message from Mr A. T. Rajah. He informed me that the men were blocking the main entrance of the building, and he asked whether it would be in order for him to take police action to clear the main entrance. I replied that it was his duty as a police officer to keep the main entrance open. But if the strikers were sitting around on the five-foot way, they should be left alone. Mr Speaker, in connection with this strike, this is what the Member for Thomson said in the House yesterday. I refer again to the report of the speech in the Straits Times this morning: 'Mr Bani then described how the Police had moved in against the Robinson strikers, although no reports had been made against obstruction by officials or any other persons.' Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr A. T. Rajah is a Government officer. He was the senior police officer on duty there. He had made a reference to me. He wanted to know whether it was in order for him to clear the main entrance as it was being obstructed. Surely, if the Member for Thomson had checked on his facts, he could not have made such a statement. Mr Speaker, Sir, there was nothing to show that the police had anything to do with the Ministry of Labour when the other strikes occurred - the City Council strike, the Shaw strike, and the Guthrie strike. I have no doubt that other Members on this side of the House will be covering those strikes in the course of their speeches. Another charge that the Member for Thomson made was that Government was partisan. Even in the matter of secret ballots where certain unions which were friendly to Government were concerned, even if they lost out on the ballot they were allowed to go out on strike. The Member mentioned a strike of the Manual and Mercantile Workers' Union at a rubber mill. Mr Speaker, Sir, things like this do happen when workers in any particular organisation belong to different unions and when the numbers are about even. If a ballot is taken where two unions contend for recognition, it can happen that the minority feel so strongly about it that they continue to strike even if they lose in the ballot, But our duty as a Government is to get them to call off the strike, which we did. Now, on this question of secret ballots, Sir. Who are the people who make the charges against us? I refer the House to an ultimatum that appeared in the Straits Times of Tuesday, 28th February, 1961: `UNION WARNING TO THREE FIRMS The Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union this evening [that was Monday, the day before] served a seven-day ultimatum on three big firms demanding recognition of its branches. The firms are: Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co., the Federal Dispensary and the agency house of Muller & Phipps (Far East) According to the union, all three firms have refused to recognise branches set up between them. The ultimatum was issued after an hour-long protest meeting of members of the three branches in the union's premises at Towner Road. The meeting passed a resolution which protested against the withholding of the right of the union to represent employees, condemned the denial of employers to recognise the right of workers to organise themselves, deplored the anti-union preparations of the employers and their intimidatory tactics and demanded recognition within a week. The statement, issued by the union after the meeting, claimed that the employers have directly and indirectly intimidated workers wins a view to dissuading them from supporting the union while negotiations on recognition were in progress. It added: "The union has been patient for the last six months. Recognition is fundamental as this union represents most of the workers employed in these firms. We have been patient long enough. The firms concerned represent American and British business interests. They live in a dream land and adamantly refuse to see reality. Today, any employer who refuses to recognise a union in Singapore must be out of his mind. The whole purpose and operation of the Industrial Relations Ordinance is to regulate relations between employers and employees and encourage industrial peace. We are of the opinion that the managements of these firms are ganging up together to fight this union. We are prepared to fight them if they want to."' Mr Speaker, Sir, this warning is described as an ultimatum. When I saw that in the papers. I sent for the Executive Committee of the Business Houses Union. I advised them that even if they felt strongly about this, they should not take strike action. So I proposed to them that we should, in all fairness, hold a secret ballot with regard to their claims for recognition in these three firms. There was a lot of argument. They who issued this ultimatum were afraid to face up to a secret ballot. But eventually, I decided that secret ballots would be held. Secret ballots were held and I agreed with the unions that before I took these secret ballots, I would speak personally to all the employees of these three firms and tell them of the Government's attitude towards the unions, that Government thought it very necessary that all workers should be organised in trade unions. I duly attended a meeting in the Ministry on the 14th of March, 1961, in the evening when the employees of Muller & Phipps were asked to come to the Ministry to find out if they were prepared to participate in this secret ballot. We checked the list of the employees of Muller & Phipps and found that those eligible to vote numbered 64. Of those who voted in this secret ballot after I had addressed them, 17 voted in favour of the Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union and 41 against. On the 15th of March, 1961, in the Ministry also, a secret ballot was held amongst the employees of the Federal Dispensary Ltd. We checked the employees' list of that firm and there were 88 eligible to vote. In the secret ballot that was held, 34 declared that they wished to be members of the Business Houses Employees' Union and 49 were not in favour. Then again, on the 23rd of March, 1961, we held a third secret ballot for the employees of Firestone & Co. We checked the employees' list of that firm and found that there were 106 eligible to vote. In the secret ballot, 94 said that they were in favour of being members of the Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union and five were against. The ballots were opened in the Ministry on 27th of March, 1961, and the results were declared. Following on that, the Business Houses Employees' Union, although it had lost in the ballots at the Federal Dispensary Ltd, and Muller & Phipps, demanded that they should be recognised with regard to those who voted in their favour. I refused this request. I said to them, "You have in the past accused employers of forming yellow unions. Here you are yourself proposing that unions who lose in ballots should still be recognised. Is that not a new form of yellow union organisation?" Mr Speaker, Sir, I have also referred to what the Member for Thomson has said about the difficulty he experienced in getting scales of pay for the commercial workers who were members of the Business Houses Employees' Union. I mentioned that, as a result of representations received from the T.U.C., 50 amendments were introduced into the Industrial Relations Ordinance. I also mentioned that before people like Mr Bani, Mr Woodhull and Mr Kum Siew Yee got interested in the affairs of the Business Houses Employees' Union, that union had come to see me and had asked me to do something to enable them to get redundancy terms, retirement benefits, proper scales of salary and bonus payments. They showed me a draft agreement which they had proposed to the Federation of Employers for consideration and which had been turned down. I chaired various meetings between them, but we could make no headway. As a result of that, Mr Speaker, Sir, we entered this particular clause in the Industrial Relations Ordinance. I refer Members to section 38 of the Ordinance which provides that: `In making an award in relation to a trade dispute the Court - shall not be restricted to the specific relief claimed by the parties or to the demands made by the parties in the course of the trade dispute but may include in the award any matter or thing which it thinks expedient for the purpose of settling the trade dispute or of preventing further trade disputes and may in fixing wages, salaries, allowances or other remuneration give effect to its decision by prescribing time rates, piecework rates, salary scales, bonus payments, severance pay, or retirement allowances or by such other prescription as it considers appropriate;'. Mr Speaker, Sir, we introduced a number of amendments to the original Bill. I dealt with one of those amendments - the first provision that there should be automatic reference of deadlocked disputes to the Court. We recognise that the unions should, in certain circumstances in a democratic society, be allowed to withdraw their services. That is why we made an amendment to the clause dealing with automatic references of disputes to the Arbitration Court. Mr Speaker, Sir, all the clauses of this Bill were agreed to between the Government and representatives of the T.U.C. except for two paragraphs of one clause. These are the penal clauses for contempts of the authority of the court. The T.U.C. asked us not to incorporate this particular provision in the Bill which provided that where a person failed to comply with an order of the court, the Court could place the person guilty of contempt under a restriction from trade union activities for a period of two years and if the provision was breached, then the person concerned could be brought before a District Court and punished for the offence. They said that it was derogatory of the whole of the trade union movement for such a provision to be entered in the Ordinance. But, nevertheless, we were firm about those two paragraphs of this Bill. As for the other paragraphs, they were completely and entirely agreed to - clause by clause - with the members of the T.U.C. The Member for Thomson was aware of the provisions of this Bill. be discussed them all with us. I was very surprised to hear him say that he respected the wishes of the employers in these matters. The employers he said had stated that the conditions of work in the commercial firms were unlike the banks and the insurance companies. They could not give the white-collar workers scales of pay. Sir, I mentioned in this House how Mr Woodhull got himself interested in the affairs of the Business Houses Employees Union. He came to see me on many occasions, telling me that he knew that agents of employers were planted in that union posing as advisers to the union, and he thought that they should be moved out. He told me that he was making plans to get a suitable person into that union. I mentioned yesterday that I was invited to a Christmas "do" by this union. When I went there, there was a dance on and I was surprised to see Mr Kum Siew Yee there. I have known him - I mentioned it in the House yesterday - for many years. I have known that he was under the influence of Mr Devan Nair who had indoctrinated him to be a Communist. So I was very surprised to find out that the man Mr Woodhull had put into this union was none other than Mr Kum Siew Yee. Lest I be mistaken about these matters - in fairness to Mr Kum Siew Yee - the moment I heard about that, I naturally checked up with Mr Devan Nair, "Do you know that Mr Kum Siew Yee is now interested in the affairs of this union?" He said, "Yes. Mr Kum Siew Yee came to see me." Mr Kum Siew Yee said that when the approach was made that he should enter this union, he asked Mr Devan Nair for his views as to whether he was doing the right thing by going into this union. Mr Devan Nair told me that he told Mr Kum Siew Yee, "It would be better for you to stay in the teaching profession and work with the Teachers Union." Mr Kum Siew Yee said to Mr Devan Nair, "I respect what you say, but nevertheless I feel that because of ideological differences, it is very essential that I should go and work in that union." He resigned his post as a teacher and joined this union. I saw that things were hotting up the moment these changes were made. An issue on the scales of wages immediately arose. That was in the New Year. The employers, out of the generosity of their hearts, were giving increments to their employees. Now at that time, the practice was for employers to grant rises in pay and increments to some of the employees and deny them to others. There was a tense position in three firms - Nestles Products Ltd., the East Asiatic Company and United Engineers Limited. Mr Dominic Puthucheary came to see me. He said that the employers were treating the unions very unfairly. The union was actually negotiating with the employers for a salary scale. This was refused. Nevertheless, the employers still paid merit increments to some employees and denied them to others. So I sent for Mr Woodhull. But before that, Mr Dominic Puthucheary said that he must teach the employers a lesson by having a demonstration. So I said, "Yes. I am all with you." He said that they would book the Victoria Memorial Hall, meet there and have a demonstration and say that these employers were unfair and unjust. He promised me that he would take no strike action. I heard later that the men went on strike at Nestles Products Limited. Then I sent for Mr Woodhull. I discussed the position with him and he confirmed that they had been negotiating for wage scales in these three firms. So I said to Mr Woodhull, "I will back you to the full. Will you demand that the employers enter a clause into these agreements that they will provide a salary scale for the workers in these three firms, and that they will not pay them anything in addition to what is provided for in those salary scales? If they are tough. I assure you that if they refuse to do that, that issue will be put to the Industrial Arbitration Court." Mr Speaker, Sir, he promised me many times he would do so. I rang him many times about this. He promised me that he would speak to the union and get that clause entered into the draft agreement. I had to wait for two or three months. Later on, I heard that on the quiet he went and concluded agreements with the employers for increases of $10 last year and $15 the following year. Surely this is a case in which the Government was doing its best to help the white-collar worker and offered to invoke a provision in the Ordinance to help the worker. The Member for Thomson knows about it. We were prepared to help them. But what did they do? They made agreements on the sly with the employers. Mr Speaker, Sir, they have registered these agreements. I accuse them of selling out the white-collar workers. The workers have been demanding all along for wage scales and retirement benefits. They have been asking for bonus payments. They have been asking for severance pay. Where are all these demands in these agreements? Mr Speaker, Sir, surely it is very unfair for the Member for Thomson, with a knowledge of these facts, to accuse the Government of being anti this particular union He stated in this Assembly that the P.A.P. Government disliked the white-collar workers so much that it was prepared to use force against English-educated clerks and salesgirls. Is that true? The Member for Thomson, in drawing the attention of the House to a statement which appeared in the Straits Tunes that the Minister for Labour had dissolved the T.U.C., said that they knew nothing about it; there was not even a meeting of the Council; these were Fascist methods of closing down unions, and so on. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now draw the attention of the House to the Trade Unions Bill which had its First Reading in this House on the 6th of April, 1960, and its Second Reading on the 13th of May, 1960. The Member for Thomson has charged that we introduced the original Industrial Relations Bill without any consultation whatsoever with the T.U.C. That is correct. But in the case of the Trade Unions Bill, there was the fullest consultation between the Ministry and the T.U.C. before this Bill was introduced. Now we as a Party have proclaimed our belief in the need for unifying the trade union movement. We have brought legislation into this House to do away with splinter unions and yellow unions. We got the approval of the House and we have taken action against splinter unions and yellow unions and put them out of business. Mr Speaker, Sir, at the time that this Bill was under discussion, the members of the T.U.C. knew of our intention to and assisted us in setting up different categories of trade unions; in fact, the 19 categories that are scheduled in the First Schedule to this Bill were prepared by the members of the T.U.C. themselves. Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill provided for the categorisation of trade unions on the basis of similarity of employment. All trade unions which were registered would have to be in one of these categories. It also provided that no union could be registered unless it was affiliated to an association of trade unions exempted under the provisions of this Ordinance. Clause 59 of the Bill dealt with the exemption from registration of the association of trade unions i.e, the T.U.C. and provided that: `The Minister may, on the application of any association of trade unions and after examination and approval of the rules of such association and after making such inquiries as he deems fit, exempt such association of trade unions from any or all of the provisions of this Ordinance.' The intention there was to recognise the T.U.C. as an association of unions and exempt it from this Bill under the provisions of section 59. This section further provided that: `An association of trade unions which is exempted by the Minister under subsection (1) of this section shall not change its rules without the written permission of the Minister. Any trade union or federation of trade unions may by resolution of its executive affiliate with an association of trade unions exempted under this section.' Mr Speaker, Sir, there are two other sections of the Ordinance dealing with the registration of a trade union, and the cancellation of the registration of a trade union which deserve attention. I refer the House to section 11 of the Ordinance which provides that: `The Registrar, if he is satisfied -

that the trade union being an association or combination of employees is affiliated to an association of trade unions exempted by the Minister under section 59 of this Ordinance;

shall,... register the trade union in the prescribed manner and if he is not so satisfied shall .refuse the application.' So that before any trade union, existing or to be constituted, can be registered, it must first of all be affiliated to the association of trade unions exempted under the provisions of section 59. And to section 14 of the Ordinance which provides that: `The registration of a trade union may be cancelled by the Registrar -

if he has evidence and is satisfied -

that the trade union, being & an association or combination of employees, has ceased to be affiliated to an association of trade unions exempted by the Minister under section 59 of this Ordinance;'. So that before any trade union could come on the register, it would first have to seek affiliation and get affiliation from the T.U.C., otherwise it is not registered. If after being registered it was disaffiliated by the T.U.C., it would also be deregistered. Mr Speaker, Sir, the transitional provisions of this Ordinance provide that within one year every existing trade union would have to seek affiliation to the association of trade unions exempted under section 59 before it could continue to function. I will read this section, Mr Speaker. Sir,It is section 77 (2): `Within a period of one year from the date of the coming into operation of this Ordinance or such longer period as the Minister may in any particular case allow, the Registrar may cancel the registration of an existing union ...', and it provides for cancellation (1) in the case of employers' organisations of an existing union if the Registrar is satisfied in the case of a trade union of employers that it is not an association or combination of employers in a trade, occupation or industry or in trades, occupations or industries which are in his opinion similar and (2) in the case of a trade union of employees that it is not an association or combination of employees within one of the categories specified in the First Schedule to the Ordinance or is not affiliated to an association of trade unions exempted by the Minister under section 59 of the Ordinance. So you will see, Mr Speaker, Sir, that from the provisions of this Ordinance the T.U.C. had absolute and entire control over the whole trade union movement. If any trade union failed to get affiliation to the T.U.C., it would cease to exist. Mr Speaker, Sir, these provisions were discussed with the T.U.C. and they urged that they be enacted into law. Mr Speaker, Sir, I will now deal with the registration of the three federations of unions. As the clauses of this Bill were under discussion, steps were taken by certain unions to organise themselves into federations for the purpose of bringing themselves within one of the 19 categories in the Schedule to the Ordinance. The Singapore Land Transport Workers Union was registered on 2nd January, 1960. The unions which were affiliated to this first federation were the Singapore Traction Company Employees Union, the Singapore Taxi Drivers Union, and the Singapore Bus Workers Union. At the same time, a second group of unions took action to constitute themselves into another federation, known as the National Federation of Building Construction and Woodworking Unions. This second federation was registered on 12th February, 1960. The affiliates of this second federation were the Singapore Woodworkers Union, the Singapore Sawmill Workers Union, the Singapore Brickmaking Workers Union, the National Union of Building & Construction Workers, and the Singapore Union of Workers of Boat-building Industry. At the same time, yet a third group of unions were constituting themselves into a federation. All this was done to bring themselves within the 19 categories which I have referred to, and of which they had advance notice. This new third federation was called the Singapore Federation of Factory and Workshops Employees Union. The unions affiliated to this federation are the following: the Singapore General Employees Union, the Singapore Rubber Employees Union, the Singapore Spinning Workers Union, the Amalgamated Malayan Pineapple Workers Union, the Singapore Shoe Employees Union, the Singapore Tailors Union, the Singapore Rattan Workers Union, the Singapore Union of Brewery, Bakery, Confectionery. Canning and Drinks Workers Union, the Singapore Motor Workshop Employees Union, the Singapore Metal Manufacturing Workers Union, the Singapore Metal Box Workers Union, the Singapore Machine & Engineering Employees Union; all to be in the new third federation known as the Singapore Federation of Factory & Workshops Employees Union. At the same time also, one union which had its membership restricted to lightermen, known as the Singapore Transport Vessel Workers Association, changed its name to the Singapore Water Transport Employees Union, and amended its rules to extend its membership to godown workers, carriers of rice and goods, and employees of sailing ships. This union registered its change of name and its new rules on 11th May, 1960. Mr Speaker, Sir, there are 19 categories provided for in the First Schedule, and there is one category, Category No. 5, which is designated "Land Transport Workers Unions." The first group of unions which called itself the Singapore Land Transport Workers Union formed a federation within that category. In the same way, there is a category for Construction and Building Material Workers Unions, Category No. 16 in the Schedule. Obviously the federation known as the National Federation of Building Construction and Woodworking Workers Union federated to come within that category. There was also a category, Category No. 15, for Factory Workers Unions, and obviously the federation known as the Singapore Federation of Factory & Workshops Employees Union was formed to bring itself within that category. The change in name of the transport workers union where it extended its membership from lightermen to godown workers, carriers of rice and goods, and employees of sailing ships, was made to bring itself within the category for Water Transport Workers Unions, Category No. 7. Mr Speaker, Sir, the provisions of this Bill were debated in this House on 13th May, 1960, that is, when the Bill had its Second Reading. The Member for Thomson spoke in that debate with reference to this categorisation of unions. This is what he had to say: I refer Members of this House to Hansard, Vol. 12, No. 11, of 13th May, 1960, column 755, second paragraph: `The Government does not intend to usurp the right of the unions to participate in the unification of the movement, and setting out the categories in the Schedule is merely establishing a basis for the unions to work on.' Mark the words he used, Mr Speaker, Sir - "the Government does not intend to usurp the right of the unions to participate in the unification of the movement". And he went on to say: `Without the provisions of the Bill and without the eradication of splinter and yellow unions, if we are to hope for the unification of the movement, I would say, speaking from my own experience, that it would take at least ten years for the hope to materialise. Therefore, in brief, what this Bill seeks to do is to propel the development of the trade union movement forward, and to encourage the unification of the movement. And I am certain that with the passing of this Bill and with the implementation of its provisions, we will have a stronger, a healthier and a unified movement in a very short time, perhaps in about a couple of years' time.' Now, they were trying to beat the gun. They were forming these federations sometime before this Bill had its Second Reading, and bringing their groups of unions within the categories provided under this Ordinance. In this debate the Member for Thomson also referred to section 59 of the Bill which required every union to be affiliated to the T.U.C. before it could be registered, whether it was an existing union or a union to be set up in future. This is what he had to say: `Thirdly, on the question of compulsory affiliation, I would say this. Whether compulsion is democratic or not is futile to ask. What is important is whether it is desirable. Slogans on democratic principles are beautiful but they are meaningless if the results they produce are undesirable.' That is from the Member for Thomson, who has accused the Government of being Fascist in its dealings with the workers. Another interesting thing that happened was the registration of the new T.U.C. At the same time that these unions were grouping themselves into these federations in the knowledge that this Bill would be introduced in the Legislative Assembly, the organisations of trade unions were taking steps to regularise their position. Before the new organisation was formed, there was a lot of discussion between the leaders of this organisation as to what sort of form this new organisation should take. The men in the leadership decided that there should be a new form of T.U.C., with an Executive Council, with a delegates conference and also with a permanent Secretariat. The permanent Secretariate was established to do away with appointments which were provided for under the rules governing the governing council of the old T.U.C. - appointments like the General-Secretary, three Assistant Secretaries and Treasurer. The old constitution provided for those officers. So this new organisation was to have a permanent Secretariat in substitution. It was intended that the Secretary of the new T.U.C. should be elected at a delegates conference, and he should have the right of appointing ten permanent Secretaries with various portfolios. There was a lot of jockeying for positions. They had discussions with me. I knew that they were not a united group. The men concerned were then trying to seek concord while maintaining differences. They were trying to unite while struggling at the same time. There were two opposing forces. Mr Speaker, I identify the members of this Secretariat as follows: In one grouping was Mr Kandasamy, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture, Inche Buang bin Omar Junid, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Law - he was at that time Secretary-General of the Singapore General Employees Union - Mr Ow Kheng Thor, who is in, the Government service, and Mr Devan Nair. That was one group. The other six consisted of Mr Woodhull, Mr Fong Swee Suan, Mr Lim Ching Siong, Mr Bani (the Member for Thomson), Mr Dominic Puthucheary and Mr Jamit Singh. There was a lot of jockeying for positions at that time. The group which was with Mr Devan Nair were trying to get one more member on their side and they were discussing as to who of these ten should be left out. At one point of time, it was suggested that Mr Dominic Puthucheary should be left out, and another man substituted. They could not reach an agreement. Mr Lim Ching Siong said that if Mr Devan Nair's group insisted that Mr Dominic Puthucheary should be left out, then he would have nothing more to do with all this. So eventually under pressure, this group was formed and they agreed to form the permanent Secretariat. Then they had to regularise the whole position. Meetings had to be held immediately after that to give it a facade that all this was done constitutionally. So a General Council of the general delegates conference was called. All members were present there. They had this mock election. The Executive Council was formed. The permanent Secretariat system was introduced. "Elections" were held. These ten became the permanent Secretariat. The delegates conference had no control whatsoever over them and this mockery of a T.U.C. organisation was formed. Mr Speaker, Sir, this is to comply with section 59 of the Ordinance where there was a provision that associations of unions should be exempted from the provisions of the Trade Union Ordinance. They duly went with this constitution to the Registrar and the Registrar told them that he would have nothing to do with it. He said that if they wanted to register this constitution they would have to register the office bearers. He told them that as far as he was concerned, the rules governing the Council of the old T.U.C. under the T.U.C. Ordinance still remained in force, and that if they had to register such an association, then they would have to disclose who the President was, who the three Vice-Presidents were, the General-Secretary, the three Assistant-Secretaries and the Treasurer. All that they could disclose under this arrangement was the President, Mr Mahmood bin Awang, the P.A.P. candidate for Anson; the three Vice-Presidents, Mr Tan Teck Wah, who was the President of the Singapore General Employees Union, the Second Vice-President, Mr J. A. Kurup, who was from the Naval Base Labour Union, the third Vice-President, Mr Ang Chin Chye, and the General Secretary, Mr Kandasamy, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture. They could not satisfy the Registrar that at the general meeting three Assistant Secretaries and a Treasurer had been elected, and he refused to register this organisation. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Thomson referred to these arrangements in the debate on the Second Reading of the Trade Unions Bill. This is what he had to say: `The Constitution of the T.U.C. has been amended and the organisation is being geared to meet the new situation. The future, as I envisage it, will create a democratic centralisation of the movement. But there are all sorts of wild talk in town. Wild talk about the so-called 10 Tall Men. But this is far too stupid to demand attention and to require clarification. But what I wish to point out is this. In the final analysis, it is not the Secretary-General or the Secretariat of the T.U.C. which will decide, but the workers themselves. The political pace in Singapore is set and dictated by the working class. Governments may change, personalities may fade, but the grim reminder of reality is the temper of the working class which will be the deciding factor, and history will continue to be made.' We all heard him say that in this House. Mr Speaker, Sir, that is not the language of a democrat. I mentioned earlier on that this Bill passed its Second Reading on 13th May, and on the 23rd of May, ten days later, the Government was advised of the great security risks that it would take if this Bill was assented to. It would have placed the whole of the trade union movement under the control of known undemocratic forces. On the 23rd of May, on the instructions of the Cabinet, I issued orders deregistering the Singapore Land Transport Workers Union, the Singapore Federation of Factory and Workshops Employees Union, the National Federation of Building Construction and Woodworking Workers Union, and also required that the Singapore Water Transport Employees Union should assume its former name and revert back to its former rules. There were protest meetings immediately after that was done. I advised the leaders of these unions not to do that. I had further meetings with them to see what we could do to remove from this Bill sections which were considered to be objectionable and a danger from the security point of view. I proposed to the T.U.C. - the Ten Tall Men - that clause 77 of the Bill should be amended. That is the clause which provides that all existing unions must within one year seek affiliation to the new T.U.C. before it can continue to exist. I suggested that we remove that clause, and that we introduce a new clause providing for the dissolution of all general and miscellaneous unions before any action is taken to categorise the unions under the First Schedule of this Ordinance. There was considerable opposition from the Singapore General Employees Union. They said that it was not possible for them to do that within one year, because they had so many contracts with the employers, and if it was known that they were to deregister, the employers concerned would act tough with them. They were also asked to consider an amendment to clause 59 of the Bill, the clause which exempts associations of unions from the provisions of this Ordinance, to provide that where this new organisation known as the T.U.C. refuses affiliation to any particular union, that union would have a right to appeal to the Minister. I held many meetings with them, asking them to consider these amendments. They rejected them. After these meetings, they promised that they would reply, but they did nothing about it. Now, for picketing rules. Mr Speaker Sir, I think the Member for Thomson said that when the Government was not anti-worker, the Government used to be very considerate, the Government used to require that policemen should be at least 50 yards away from any place where there was a strike. Mr Speaker, Sir, I know of no such arrangements. All that we have done is to insist that during a strike, an employer should not engage new labour. We have held firmly to that. I have also insisted that the men on strike have a right to picket. The right of picketing does not mean that the men on strike should only be allowed to stand around the gates of the firms or factories on strike, whilst the employer brings in new workers in lorries through the gates. There was a lot of trouble about picketing and we tried to come to some arrangement with the T.U.C. about it and with the organisations of employers. I held countless meetings with Mr Woodhull. I told him that it would be necessary for us to put this on a proper business-like footing. If necessary, we were prepared to amend the Trade Disputes Ordinance to give the Government the power to make picketing rules. He discussed this matter with me and said, "We will take it back to the T.U.C." Then he said, "Wait awhile. It is necessary on such a matter to consult all the unions affiliated to the T.U.C." The 10 Tall Men could not take a decision among themselves. The decision would have to be taken by all the unions affiliated to the new T.U.C. I waited for him. Nothing happened. I sent for him and he said, "We have agreed. At least we have taken a decision. Do not let Government do anything, but we will come out with a statement and we will see that the new rules are enforced." I sent him a draft proposal for his consideration, but as usual, Mr Speaker, Sir, nothing was done. The Member for Thomson also referred to the Army Civil Service Union. Mr Woodhull came to see me about this union. He was dissatisfied with this organisation. It had a loose federation. There was a delegates' conference and representatives were returned to this delegates' conference from various areas in Singapore. The members in any particular area were both the daily-rated and the monthly-rated staff. The monthly-rated and the daily-rated staff voted as one group to send representatives to the delegates' conference. He wanted these arrangements changed. He knew that as far as numbers were concerned, the white-collar staff were completely outnumbered by the daily-rated staff. He wanted new arrangements to be made whereby they would change the system of area representation and have a system of an election at a general meeting of all workers. They should not vote any more from their separate areas, but they should hold a general meeting and return representatives from the general meeting of all the workers. Mr Speaker, Sir, I looked into the constitution of this union, discussed it with the leaders of the Army Civil Service Union, and they were hostile to amending it. They said this organisation had been working satisfactorily for many years. They gave due regard to representations from the daily-rated group and they were satisfied with existing arrangements. In this case. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would accuse Mr Woodhull of deliberately meddling in this matter for subversive reasons. He had no other reason for wanting to make these changes than for the purpose of enabling him to get control of the daily-rated group in this union. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have refuted all the charges that were made by the Member for Thomson. Although he was in this House earlier on, he saw fit to leave the Chamber when I was speaking. I would have been prepared at any time to give way if he had stayed on and indicated that he would like to challenge any of the statements that I have made. We as the Government have made mistakes. There is no doubt about it. But there is one mistake that we have never made. We have never been unsympathetic to labour. We have done everything to assist labour against unscrupulous employers. It is galling in the extreme to know that these charges are made by our former associates who have now thought fit not only to separate themselves from us, but to make false and baseless allegations against us as well. 3.54 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when this motion was first brought up in this Assembly by the Member for Cairnhill, he knew in his heart of hearts that it would make the P.A.P. and the Barisan Sosialis quarrel about trade unionism. This has now actually happened. Sir, while the Member for Cairnhill can blame the trade unions and the workers without losing anything at all - he has no or little influence at all over trade unions - the P.A.P. Government cannot blame the trade unions and the workers. The P.A.P. is controlling some unions, and if all trade unions are blamed then their own unions are also blamed. Sir, the P.A.P. speakers have said this: "Yes, industrialists are scared by strikes. But they are misled by the Communists in the unions." So what they are telling the people of Singapore is that not all unions are bad; only some unions are bad -

Union leaders.

That some unions are not bad. That the bad unions belong to the Barisan Sosialis -

Communist leaders belong to the Barisan.

That the good unions belong to the P.A.P. This is a strange story. This is also the behaviour of the P.A.P. leaders. All the good things belong to them. But all the bad things belong to others. This is what we mean by P.A.P. arrogance. Sir, what the P.A.P. Government wants the people of Singapore to believe is that people can join unions, but they must join the "good" unions. They must join P.A.P. unions, accept P.A.P. men as advisers and leaders. Then even if they go on strike, they are not doing the wrong thing. But if they should join unions not belonging to the P.A.P., whatever thing they do, even if they are doing the right thing, they would still be blamed. Sir, I am told that because of this thinking, because of the belief that people in the non-P.A.P. unions are no good, the police are asked to set up a special unit to deal with strikes. This is only one aspect of the problem. P.A.P. and P.A.P. men as union people. The other aspect of the problem is, namely, the P.A.P. as an employer. I am told that the Harbour Board workers are still having a hard time with the employer, the P.A.P. or its agent, the Minister for Education. Two and a half years have passed, but I do not think that the Harbour Board workers are now having a better life. The people can still remember what the P.A.P, did to people in the Government service when the pay was cut -

You supported it.

No negotiations and no respect at all for the trade unions. Now they say that because of the so-called merger, the P.A.P. must give back what they have taken away from the unions and the civil servants. Sir, I do not think that even if the P.A.P. has now given back the pay cuts, this is bad money. But as I say, the civil servants have no reason to be thankful to the P.A.P. Sir, the P.A.P. as an employer in the City Council is not something I should pass judgment on. The City Council workers should be the judge. I must say that the strike that they went through recently is a very strong judgment that the P.A.P. is a kind employer that must be dealt with in strikes. A lot has been talked about industrialisation. How much faith has the P.A.P. Government in industrialisation? The P.A.P. say they want industrialisation and yet they use the surplus funds for investment outside Singapore. Sir, everyone will remember that before the last elections the people were told by the Minister for Finance that all monies invested overseas must be got back for investment inside Singapore. The recent financial statement of 1960 shows very clearly that the amount of investment is double the amount invested by the last Government. Sir, the people of Singapore can see very clearly that in this debate the P.A.P. are not as good as they claim, the P.A.P. unions are not as good as they claim, and that the P.A.P. employer is not as good as they claim. Let me give you an example. In the Wah Hin Rubber Factory, there were two rival unions: the Singapore General Employees Union and the Singapore Manual and Mercantile Workers Union to which Mr Devan Nair is an adviser. There was a strike and a secret ballot was taken. The result was in favour of the Singapore General Employees Union. And yet the P.A.P. Union to which Mr Devan Nair is an adviser called a strike in spite of the result of the ballot. Eventually 30 workers of that P.A.P. union were dismissed and they were very unhappy about the handling by the P.A.P.-sponsored union. Sir, this is the behaviour of a "good" union. It is the duty of the Minister for Home Affairs to defend the police. Let me point out here that the Minister is responsible for all the things that the police do. Whether the police are doing the right thing or the wrong thing, he is responsible. And so when the police are asked to do something to the unions, unionists or the strikers, he cannot run away from the responsibility. No one is blaming the police. But if they do the wrong thing, the supreme command is to be blamed. The P.A.P. should be blamed for ordering the police to do the things they want them to do. Sir, in this debate, we can say fairly that the P.A.P. and the S.P.A. - the Prime Minister and the Member for Cairnhill - have very much in common. The S.P.A. hate the workers and blame the Communists for the strikes of the workers. And the P.A.P. are now doing exactly the same thing. The only difference is that while the Lim Yew Hock Government did what they said, the P.A.P. Government are not prepared to do what they say. Now, the reason for the P.A.P. Government to just talk but to take no action is that they are more cunning. It is not because they are democrats. They want to do all the talking and let the foolish people do all the dirty work, like the closing down of trade unions, arresting unionists, banishing them, and so on. Sir, it is quite clear that the amendment to this motion by the P.A.P. Government is nothing new. It is merely playing an old and tedious record which the colonial Government and the previous Government were playing when they were about to topple. It is simply a case of who is playing the gramophone. The only difference is that the P.A.P. Government are using a hi-fi stereogram to make it sound more realistic.

And playing your record too. Mr Speaker, Sir, from the two principal speeches made by the Member for Cairnhill and the Member for Thomson, it is apparent that both the S.P.A. and the Barisan Sosialis have been thrown into a state of uncertainty and confusion as to the line they are to take on our amendment. The Member for Cairnhill was unable to deny the fact that mounting industrial unrest only took place after the Communists openly fought the P.A.P. over the question of merger from about the end of July last year. He went on to say that the Government was seeking by this amendment to place all industrial unrest as being caused by pro-Communist agitators for political ends. That is not our contention. There is no country in the world - Communist or non-Communist - which does not have friction between workers and management in industry. The only difference is that in non-Communist countries the workers can seek redress for their grievances over conditions of work and pay through collective action in bargaining or going slow or going on strike. But in Communist countries, any worker who goes on strike and hampers the production of the State becomes an enemy of the people in the definition of the Communist State, and punishments for an enemy of the people are well known. But in spite of this, in two instances in recent history - in Poland and in Hungary - barely five or six years ago, the workers rose up against the management and the State when living and working conditions became intolerable. And it required extensive reforms in Poland to maintain the regime without naked force and terror; it required the Russian Army in Hungary to brutally quell demonstrations of discontent against the Government. There can be no doubt that industrial peace requires a continuous and continuing process of adjustments between workers and management, and this is so whether the management is private enterprise or State industry. The old simple dogma that when the management is converted from private enterprise to State enterprise, contradictions between the workers and the State and the workers and management automatically disappear and industrial peace and happiness automatically follow, has been belied by the history of nationalised industries both in the Communist and non-Communist countries in Europe and in Asia. The point we make against the pro-Communist agitators in the unions is that they have not the slightest intention of helping to resolve the differences between workers and management, to correct and remedy injustice, and to create just and stable industrial conditions to help industrial development. On the contrary, what they wish is to aggravate and exploit dissatisfaction to heighten bitterness and hatred to aid the cause of their own Communist revolution. Sir, there were industrial disputes before and in 1959. There were industrial disputes in 1960, in the days when the Communists in the unions were still superficially accepting the Government policy of industrial peace with justice, but the protracted and bitter disputes which by-passed the conciliation and arbitration machinery of the Labour Ministry and the Industrial Arbitration Court was a feature which appeared only after the open break in July last year. Once again, Sir, I refer to the figures. In 1959, about 2,000 workers were involved. 19,000 man-days were lost in 500 disputes of which 40 resulted in strikes. I rounded the figures in order to present them more easily and graphically. In 1960, 6,000 workers were involved, 150,000 man-days were lost in 800 disputes of which only 45 resulted in strikes. In 1961, 40,000 workers were involved, 400,000 man-days were lost in 1,200 disputes of which 116 resulted in strikes. The figures speak for themselves. In 1959, 500 disputes, 40 strikes. In 1960, 800 disputes. 45 strikes. In 1961, 1,200 disputes, 116 strikes. Now even if we take out the strike of the City Council from the figures of 1961, there are still 30,000 workers involved with 200,000 man-days lost in 1,200 disputes of which 115 ended in strikes. I suggest further to the Member for Thomson that the City Council strike, though non-Communist in its origin, was encouraged by them when they invited 14 of the City Council unions to their S.A.T.U. inaugural meeting and when they sent out delegations of pro-Communist leaders from the Communist-controlled unions to see the City Council union leaders in order to heighten, prolong and aggravate the situation. Unfortunately for the Communist, the City Council Union decided that it was in their best interest not to have anything to do with the Communists and a great deal more bitterness was spared. The Member for Cairnhill said that by moving the amendment the Government was trying to shirk its responsibilities. His reason is not that the amendment is untrue but that having made the amendment he says that the Government does not propose to take strong action against the Communists to crush their organisation as his Government did. He went on to say that it was the sacred duty of the Government to deal with people who created mischief in order to prevent them from damaging the security and economic stability of Singapore. Sir, the Government accepts full responsibility for the handling of the labour situation in Singapore. But we have refused and we will continue to refuse to commit the errors and blunders made by the last Government in dealing with the political state of agitation in the unions caused by Communist cadres. They have to be dealt with and the situation contained and damage to the security and economic stability of Singapore prevented, but the time and the manner in which they are to be dealt with and the circumstances under which they have to be dealt with will determine whether their future influence is diminished or unaffected, and whether trouble is lessened or increased. The simple method of direct action of 1965 by the then Government -

Sixty-five?

1956, sorry. I am looking forward to it. [Laughter] But I must assure Members on the other side, in case they think there is any significance in the number "65", that there is really none. I just misread the figure on the script. I myself feel that there is nothing more to this very interesting story that we are unveiling before the people of Singapore. It is a very important stage in the history of Malaya, and it may take place with a rapidity which may astound even Members of the Barisan Sosialis, resigned though they may be to the inevitability of many things. But the point I want to make is that in 1956, while the direct action produced a temporary quiescent state in the unions - and they are borne out by the figures of strikes for 1957; there were 27 strikes and 115 disputes - it also created for the Communists and their cadres a great number of martyrs in the trade union world, and did not materially reduce their influence. In our view, the crude method and manner in which they are dealt with the last time - and we just had confirmation of that from the Member for Havelock who referred to the less crude manner of the present Government as cunning, I would suggest these are witch words, and if one wants to be fair, one says, "This is a much more intelligent, sensible and, in the long run, an effective way of dealing with the Communist problem." - enable the Communists to persuade the workers into believing that they went down not because they were Communists but because they were champions of the workers, active trade unionists working for the cause of the improvement of the workers' lives. That error must never be repeated again. When they go down at the proper time, there will be very little doubt in the minds of the workers as to why they, the Communists, have gone down and not the non-Communists in the unions. Meanwhile the position must be held and contained by countering and exposing their manoeuvres in the unions and by showing, albeit somewhat painfully in the case of the Ford factory workers and the Shaw workers, that when workers allow themselves foolishly to be persuaded to embark on ventures with Communist unions, they will find that they are sacrificed for a cause which is not their own. I suggest to the Member for Cairnhill that this is a much more effective way to deal with them. We must first expose their political machinations and, second, compete with them on the ground. His alternative of just smacking down the Communists in the unions without his being able to expose them and to convince the workers that they were Communists, and worse, without competing with the Communists for support of the workers, was ineffective in dealing with the long-term situation. Sir, it is true that this competition at ground level between the Communist and the non-Communist groups in the trade unions has in some cases led to more industrial aggressiveness leading to more industrial unrest. But it is an inevitable phase of exposing Communist machinations whilst convincing the workers that their best interests lie in not allowing the Communists to exploit their unions. When finally they are dealt with, it will be clear that it was: because they had not been working in the interests of the workers but of the M.C.P. And the best judge of how cold and unfavourable the ground position is are the Communists themselves in the unions. Never in history have they faced; a more cold and a more unresponsive situation, for the simple reason that the stock tactics of whipping up hatred, discontent, and unrest against a repressive reactionary Government using brutal methods through the police to suppress workers are just not present in this situation. The line taken by the Member for Thomson is equally uncertain and confused. His first contention is that there is no mounting industrial unrest. He says that the facts and figures which I have, produced are lies, but if they are true, then he says that if there is any industrial unrest he will set out to show that most of it was caused by P.A.P. unions. And if this was not a sufficient cause for the increase in unrest, then it was because the workers had suddenly become discontented. Sir, this is a different line altogether from that taken by the Member for Queenstown on behalf of the Party leadership on the first day of the debate before the amendment. He admitted that there was mounting industrial unrest to fit in with the amendment made by their friend, the Member for Anson, who wanted to note signs of industrial discontent. But the Member for Thomson explains by saying that the P.A.P. has suddenly changed itself and its policy after July last year, and now the workers have become anti-P.A.P. and are discontented with the Government; hence the increase in manifestations of industrial discontent. Sir, as I have explained on the facts and figures, even if we exclude the City Council strike from the 1961 total, may I repeat, for the benefit of the Member for Thomson, that there were 30,000 workmen involved with 200,000 man-hours lost as a result of 1,200 disputes. 115 ending in strikes, compared with the 1960 figure of 6,000 workers, 150,000 man-hours lost, 800 disputes, 45 strikes. He was the Joint Secretary of S.A.T.U. with Mr Rajendra. I do not know whether Mr Rajendra is still a Joint Secretary, because he is a bit silent these days. He invited the City Council Labour Unions Federation, 14 of them, two months before the strike, to a meeting.

All the trade unions.

Yes, including these 14, to egg them on.

Including the S.T.C., the banks, A.U.P.E.

To egg and encourage them on to take industrial action against the Government. After they did so, Mr Rajendra personally and Mr Dominic Puthucheary and a group of Chinese Communist trade unions in the Singapore General Employees Union and in the Woodworkers Union went to the City Council Unions Federation to encourage prolongation and intensification of the strike.

May I explain, Sir? The Prime Minister resumed his seat.

I think the Prime Minister is definitely getting his facts wrong. Mr Dominic Puthucheary, to the best of my knowledge, never went to the premises of this Union. It is true that a delegation from a few unions went to see officials of the Public Daily-Rated Employees Unions Federation. This followed a circular sent by the Secretary-General of the Public Daily-Rated Employees Unions Federation to all trade unions in Singapore, including the so-called non-Communist trade unions asking for moral help. I am sure the Prime Minister will agree with me that it is a proper and reasonable thing for any trade union, be it a so-called Communist trade union or a non-Communist trade union, to try and find out in what way it could help another trade union which has its members on strike. I am sure the Prime Minister, in his own experience as legal adviser to over 40 unions, would have advocated this to the union that it was entitled.

I am glad the Member for Thomson said that they went there in order to give moral and financial support. The circular asked for moral and financial support. And I know that not one cent was given by this group of Communist trade unions to the City Council Public Daily-Rated Employees Unions Federation. All they suggested were sympathy strikes.

Nonsense! You prove that.

I have already stated what transpired between Mr Rajendra, who was then on the premises of the Public Daily-Rated Employees Unions Federation, and Mr Dominic Puthucheary, then on the premises of the Singapore General Employees Union. If need be, if this became a point at issue. I can indicate the occasions on which the Member for Thomson himself, prior to the strike, went there: and so on. [Interruption].

Order.

He will be given ample time. What I want to say quite simply is this: they asked for moral and' financial support. They did not get one cent. What they got were suggestions of further intensification of the struggle. I know this because I met the union leaders. And very wisely they said, "No, we are going to have nothing to do with this." That was the reason why a great deal more bitterness was avoided. It is as simple as that. [Interruption] That, Sir, shows how sometimes blatantly crude the Communists are when they are out on a rampage. They are so crude that in the end, instead of exploiting the unions against the Government, they get the unions around to thank the Government. We are grateful to them for their stupidity. Often we profit from it. Of course, now that all their efforts did not altogether succeed, they disclaimed all responsibility of ever having done anything about the strike of the City Council Labour Unions Federation. Sir, I was also interested to know that in his 2�-hour speech, not as long as the Member for Queenstown's marathon one, the Member for Thomson never attempted to deny, as in fact he cannot, that the Communist unions in the S.A.T.U. group had consistently bypassed conciliation and arbitration machinery in the Labour Ministry for some time and had nothing to do with the Labour Ministry since the break in July last year. Of the 25 strikes called by the Singapore Business Houses Employees Union -

On a point of information, Sir.

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

Sir, I did point out that yesterday the Minister for Health and Law did make an inaccurate statement in saying that 24 strikes were called by the Singapore Business Houses Employees Union. The records show that ever since the Business Houses Employees Union was formed in 1954 up to date there have been only 19 strikes.

That is a simple matter which can be checked. In fact, I have the details of the strikes here, and my information from the Commissioner for Labour, in his latest minute to me -

Give exact figures.

Sir, that is a matter of opinion, but I am satisfied that the Commissioner for Labour has applied himself to the task of getting the data correct. He has enumerated that of the 25 strikes called by the Singapore Business Houses Employees Union in 1961, only one was referred to the Labour Department before strike action was taken. But whether it was 19 or 25, only one was referred to the Labour Department for any conciliation before strike action was taken. What is the intention?

Before strike action was taken.

Yes. What is the intention? Sir, he has said that quite a number of strikes in 1961 were brought about by P.A.P. unions, the Bank Employees Union, the Insurance Companies Union, and the Mercantile Workers Union. Sir, let me get the facts correct. There were a number of strikes called by non-Communist unions, and the fact that P.A.P. members (maybe leaders) advise this union does not make them P.A.P. unions. But let me give him the figures. Seventy-two per cent of the strikes called in 1961 were by the Communist-controlled groups in S.A.T.U., and 28 per cent by non-Communist unions. In none of the strikes called by the non-Communist unions was there any violence such as the burning of fellow workers with cigarette butts or the beating up of management officials. In almost every one of these disputes, the conciliation machinery of the Labour Ministry was first used before a strike was called. Sir, the Member for Thomson has not denied that only two - he cannot deny this - of the strikes called `by the S.A.T.U. group of pro-Communist unions had their cases sent to the Arbitration Court, and that was two out of 69 strikes. In the case of these two, they were directed by the Minister to the Arbitration Court, and by his silence on this point, he in fact admitted, in the face of the facts, that they had by-passed the conciliation and arbitration machinery set up by the Government, and that in fact the Communist unions had not the slightest intention of using conciliation or arbitration except when they were already in a lost position. What they wanted was direct action, a collision with the management, strike with the police and with the Government. Sir, the Member for Thomson has explained why Communist unions have not asked for salary scales. He said that he shared the views of the employers' representative. Mr Rattray, -

I never said that.

Well, he seemed to agree. He appeared to agree with the views of Mr Rattray, the employers' representative, that salary scales were not suitable and rather than share the views of the workers -

On a point of order. The Prime Minister resumed his seat.

Is it in order for the Prime Minister - I just want to get clarification from you, Sir - to misquote me or to make a statement giving a wrong picture of what I said yesterday?

Impressions always vary. The Prime Minister might have had a different impression from that of another Member of this Assembly. But if the hon. Member for Thomson says that he has been misunderstood in a major portion of his speech, there is a provision under our Standing Orders, which is Standing Order 43, paragraph (4), which reads: `A member who has spoken to a question may again be heard to offer an explanation of some material part of his speech which has been misunderstood; but he shall not introduce any new matter.' So that is the remedy.

Obviously the Member for Thomson finds it embarrassing to agree with Mr Rattray today when it is pointed out to him. But there was a general affinity of views, shall we say, that there should not be salary scales because it was unsuitable for these industries, rather than share the views of the workers' representatives who have pressed for salary scales. I suggest that they, the S.A.T.U. boys - not the Member for Thomson, but bigger boys behind him and bigger boys behind the bigger boys - An hon. Member: What about the girls!

So the girls too! They know that scales would be an effective method of bringing about a longer term of industrial stability. Mr Lim Ching Siong told Mr Devan Nair, "Do not fight for salary scales. They are bad." That cannot be denied. It has not been denied. From the point of view of the Communists, salary scales make the workers contented. What they want are sporadic and periodic increases as a result of periodic strikes - industrial strikes. Sir, there is no place in Asia where there is more advanced legislation designed to produce industrial peace with justice to the workers. Instead of giving this legislative machinery an opportunity to prove its worth as the non-Communist unions are doing, the Communist unions have avoided this conciliation and arbitration machinery, and instead have spread malicious rumours and smears that justice cannot be obtained through the Labour Ministry or the Arbitration Court, but can only be obtained by what they call "direct action". No one denies that there is industrial friction, sometimes leading to unrest, everywhere in the world where there are large numbers of industrial workers whose interests do not sometimes accord with those of the management, whether the management is by private enterprise or State enterprise. As I have said, this discord exists whether the State enterprise is a nationalised industry in a non-Communist country or in a Communist country. The question is, do we find channels of settlement which are fair to the workers and sound to the economy as a whole by producing conditions of stability leading to industrial expansion, instead of just simple exploitation and aggravation of the situation for the purpose of overthrowing the system of government? The Member for Thomson has spoken in medical terms about the conciliation machinery and all our other efforts as merely treating the symptoms and not the disease. Sir, I would like to quote to him a pronouncement made by a Communist against the Russian imperialist regime when the Communist was arrested and banished from Russia. Herzen, the Russian, said, "They [meaning the Russian Imperialists] are not the doctors. They are the disease." I think this statement is most apt when we look at the pro-Communist Barisan in the S.A.T.U. group of unions, in the Country People's Association and in the Rural Dwellers' Association. They are not the doctors. They are the disease. And I suggest that the disease will soon be effectively and efficaciously treated by the natural course of political developments. Sir, it cannot be treated in Singapore isolated from the Federation. The remedy lies not only in pan-Malayan unity and strength for political reasons, but more important, for economic reasons to provide the base for industrial expansion on which alone can the solution to our economic problems of unemployment, housing and a better life for the people be found. The Member for Thomson has every reason to know how the Government has handled Communist problems in the unions. They are now confronted with a situation which, in the simple and direct methods of the former Government, they did not have to face. Before, the position was simple and clear-cut. As he has been describing - alas quite inaccurately - a reactionary and heartless Government using brutal police methods to crush the just struggle of the workers for a better life. And so what happened was that all those who were dealt with, including those who went to prison for two and a half years, found it worthwhile to go to prison as martyrs for the working class. This time, the position is radically different. There is going to be a lot of sorrow for the Communists and their stooges. But there are going to be no martyrs. There will be no suppression of the working class. There will be no injustice and there will be no resentment against the reactionary regime because the Government is by its very nature far from reactionary. Sir, when their activities in furtherance of the M.C.P. are curbed in the interests of the workers, on the contrary the interests of the workers will be advanced. This is the sad prospect for them. Sir, the Member for Thomson has recounted how I saw Mr Dominic Puthucheary about a go-slow and a threatened strike of some workers in Hume Industry. In 1960 I was informed by the Minister for Finance that Hume was under a contract to supply several million dollars worth of pipes to a neighbouring Government, and would have to pay heavy penalties, under a penalty clause, if they did not supply the pipes in time. Hume claimed that they were being blackmailed by the union who knew of this penalty clause by staging a go-slow. I called Mr Dominic Puthucheary and asked him whether it was wise to do this when it was the policy of the Government, then accepted by the trade unions, to maintain industrial stability and to encourage industrial expansion. I told him that Hume had told the Minister for Finance that whatever happened now regarding this dispute, they were abandoning their plans for an expansion of their factory. As a result of my seeing Mr Dominic Puthucheary, the go-slow was called off, and a quick settlement was achieved. Those were the days before he threw his lot in with the Communists in the General Employees Union. Now, of course, what he wants is not industrial stability to encourage industrial expansion. What he wants are more industrial strikes leading to more bitterness, leading to less industrial expansion, leading to more unemployment, leading to more bitterness and finally leading to a revolution. Sir, I do not think that is likely to be the course of events in Malaya and Malaysia. Those who try synthetically to create industrial strife, instability, unemployment and unhappiness may find that only they themselves are personally involved in a great deal of unhappiness. The Member for Queenstown, when he spoke on the first day, may not have known what he talked about when he claimed that the industrial workers were solidly behind the Communists in the Barisan unions. The Member for Thomson knows the full position quite well. I think I can just list him a few of the industrial workers where the writ of the S.A.T.U. group does not run. The Printing workers, the oil workers, the Harbour Board workers, the Public Daily-Rated workers; Army, Navy and Air Force - 40,000 industrial workers. Surely the Member for Thomson will remember also that in a recent re-election in the S.T.C. Employees Union, both he and Devan Nair were absent. Mr Devan Nair was unanimously re-elected as adviser and he was quietly dropped from the union. These are facts. He is no longer associated with the union. Is he going to suggest that the S.T.C. Employees Union is not an industrial workers union because it does not toe the Communist line of S.A.T.U.? Is he going to suggest that the S.T.C. Employees Union has not been working for the benefit of the workers and that it is a stooge union? Is he going to suggest that since he dropped out of the union just a few weeks ago, the union has changed in its character and has become unfit to be called an industrial workers union? He has also referred to the white-collar workers in the Business Houses group joining the ranks of S.A.T.U. Sir, can he deny that there have been ten branches that have left the Business Houses Employees Union to join the non-Communist group in the Manual and Mercantile Workers Union?

I do not know how many have joined.

Can he deny - An hon. Member: Yes.

How many have joined from the other side? None. That is a fact. No branches defected the other way. Is he aware of the grave unhappiness of the workers when they were corralled into buses recently to attend a rally and they found on the buses slogans which said, "We will fight every inch of the way to Changi Gaol"? Sir, I did not quite believe it. Mr Dominic Puthucheary is a flamboyant person, a minor version and a much lesser version of the big J. J. Puthucheary. He is a great man who strikes poses. He will fight every inch to Changi Gaol if only for the sake of fighting, to prove something to himself, that he is more than just the sickly weak chap the people wickedly think he is. Then I quite believe the Member for Thomson will try and fight his way into Changi Gaol and so will Mr Kum Siew Yee; and so will Mr Woodhull, I think less happily now, because since those days he has acquired a lot of the graces of life, like running a car and enjoying the seaside air by the Esplanade or by the Straits of Johore, and so on. But I can quite believe that in the end, for want of a less honourable way out, he will fight every inch to Changi or Pudu as the case may be. It will have to be. An hon. Member: Pudu.

That is a tougher and harder place. The rocks there, I am told, are a bit harder. But, Sir, I was pretty sure that no white-collar worker wanted to fight every inch of the way to Changi Gaol. That is not their idea in joining the Business Houses Employees Union. What they wanted was fighting for more wage increases and salary scales which the union does not want to fight for them. Sir, the stock situation does not exist. The white-collar workers do not want to be sacrificed on the Communist altar. The problem that faces the Communists now is that the stock situation of a wicked reactionary Government using brutal methods which create hatred in the people against the Government does not exist. They have tested the ground in a series of mass rallies. The Member for Queenstown can remember. He called one in his own constituency. A few hundred chaps turned up, a big downpour came, and all scattered. He himself scattered -

Did you see our big picture?

All scattered into the car shed nearby and the first series was abandoned. They called another series -

Special Branch information?

No, no. Toa Payoh was American T.V., Ministry of Culture. They wanted democratic people. American T.V. came to town. They wanted to know life in Singapore. They took a picture of the Member for Queenstown spouting the C.P. line. They asked me about it. I gave a few casual comments. They wanted to know the dynamic life of revolutionary Singapore. They went down to Toa Payoh - An hon. Member: Not the Barisan.

Dispossessed. It is a bit on the down grade now. Dispossessed squatters out to kill and behead landlords; in this case, the Housing Board, the absentee landlord. It was a cold meeting. He was there. He knows. [Interruption] The T.V. was there; we could see the film. No trouble at all. We know exactly what happened. Where was the fire and the venom? Sir, they tried their first series of strikes with the Business Houses Employees' Union. They tried it with Shaw's; they tried it with Ford: and they tested the ground. I think they know that for this phase they have come out second best. Now all they can do is to list up the injustices of the Government. What are they? The Government's refusal to allow the reunification of the trade unions and the de-registration of the four federations of trade unions. Sir, we have not the slightest intention of allowing reunification of the trade union movement to take place under Communist domination, and we have made no secret of our stand. On May Day 1960, I said at the T.U.C. rally at Jalan Besar that it was our duty in a non-Communist State to ensure that the leadership of the trade union movement remained in non-Communist hands. I made no bones about it. I made it quite clear. The T.U.C., the trade union movement, must remain non-Communist or it just would not receive Government support. I mean, they have got to fight the Government. We cannot have a Communist-dominated trade union. It is as simple as that. Even if we wanted to allow a Communist-dominated and manipulated trade union movement, they could be quite sure that the Internal Security Council would not stand idly by and watch the situation deteriorate. If the Member for Thomson believes that it was I who wanted to deregister the four federations and that the I.S.C. was far more lenient and better and more tolerant to the Communists, then surely the sensible thing to do is to ask for the abolition of the P.A.P. Government and the Prime Minister, and not to ask for the abolition of the I.S.C. The Member for Thomson has referred, to my mind deliberately inaccurately, to my views of the political situation as expressed to him. This is what he said. The S.P.A., as far as I am concerned, was finished. That is quite right. The British, to my mind, would remain in the background and would not do a thing except if the Left-wing got out of hand. Sir, I never use vague words like "Left-wing". Left-wing? I am Left-wing; Mr Lim Ching Siong is Left-wing. But he is a Communist and I am a non-Communist. Mr Devan Nair is Left-wing; Mr Bani is Left-wing. They live next door to each other. They were such great friends once upon a time. He is a Communist. He is a non-Communist. That is how. It is simple. What I said was if the Communists got out of hand - I made no bones about that. He said if the trade unionists made too much noise, the British, according to me, would not sit back. What I meant was, and he knew quite well, the trade unionists were Communists. That was what we were talking about. He said so. I saw myself in a rather favourable situation. Not to worry from the Right and as far as the working class movement was concerned. Every time you get this long tirade, you just translate Communist for working class, Communist for trade unionists, and you get the real truth. An hon. Member: Socialism

Socialism. These are euphemisms. As far as the working class movement was concerned, they could not go very far for fear of British reprisals -

When you used them.

When I used them, I refer to non-Communists. When I say socialist, I mean somebody who is not a member of the Communist Party nor a follower of the Communist Party, nor a stooge of the Communist Party, nor people who once had connections like the Member for Havelock with the Anti-British League, and are somewhat scared about it now. [Interruption] Very real. That conference, Sir? Ah, dear! They were asked. Their credentials were challenged - two Communists, to my personal knowledge. There is a man who was a Communist with them. No credentials were checked. They merrily went on with the meeting -

They were thrown out.

We walked out. Because they did not have the courage to discuss our paper. So they had to pass a resolution, until finally in shame even the Member for Anson went away to Brunei. Fortunately he had a case there and his Party voted against him and so on. I say, without the slightest bit of embarrassment, that we were in a favourable position and we were not prepared to be made pawns of either by the British or by the Communists or anybody else. The biggest error the Communists made was in believing Lord Selkirk and disbelieving our analysis. As a result of the blandishments of the U.K. Commissioner and his officials that all was well and that they could assume power, they came out into the open, mounted an attack and embarked on the greatest blunder in history - next to greatest but one. The greatest being starting the armed revolt in June 1948. The second greatest, history will record, was fighting the nationalists and the non-Communist socialists and fighting merger, a nationalist and a sacred cause. Sometime they will have reason to rue for many a long year. In a way, of course, we are grateful to them for having bared their teeth so early and showing us their wicked intentions even before the final culmination of the anti-colonial struggle of independence through merger. Sir, my colleague, the Minister for Finance, has pointed out the damaging effects of industrial unrest on economic expansion. The Member for Thomson claims that there is no relationship between the two. He has advanced his arguments on the basis of what I said in the House on 3rd September, 1956. Sir, the Member for Thomson, like so many of his ghost writers, continually falls into the error of thinking that all they have to do is to repeat history. Under different circumstances, they are trying to repeat past history, just repeat what we did, hoping that it will have the same desired result. Sir, this is 1962 and not 1956 and there are basic differences in the situation then and now. In 1956 the Government of the day had no coherent plan for promoting industrial growth. They did not set apart any financial or technical resources in the interests of industrialisation. On the other hand, the present Government has made great efforts in this field. In 1956, it did not matter to industrial growth whether there was or there was not industrial unrest, because the pace of industrialisation would not be affected; because whatever happened, very little could have been achieved then under the policy of the Government at that time. The situation now is completely different. Large sums of money have been paid to the Economic Development Board, nearly $100 million, to promote new industries. $100 million has been put at their disposal to be called upon when required. A powerful team of experts have been recruited to push forward our industrialisation programme, and under these circumstances the presence of industrial unrest can be of vital importance to a successful enterprise. Sir, scattered throughout the long speech of the Member for Thomson was the persistent allegation that I am power mad and am doing a lot of wicked things to maintain myself and the Government in power. This is another of those what I call categorised and stock allegations made by the close circuit mind of the Communists behind the Barisan. The Member for Thomson knows full well that the problems they were faced with last year was that we were least interested in power for the sake of power, for personal ambition, or aggrandisement or personal reward. In fact, he can recall vividly how he agreed with me when he came to see me in hospital in June 1960. He was then a great supporter of the P.A.P. He came with Mr Woodhull once and Mr Devan Nair once. He agreed with me that if the Communists continued to create industrial unrest and trouble instead of following our policy of industrial peace with justice in order to allow industrial expansion, then we should join issue with them and bring things to a head. Sir, he knew of our desire to resign when we could see no solution to our economic problems of the common market and our political problems of merger after the Hong Lim by-election last year. At that time, they were most vociferous in asking us to stay in office and to ignore temporary manifestations of discontent. He cannot deny that. He spoke at the Party meeting. There were tape recorders to record what everybody said at the Party meeting for the records of the Party. He knew the causes of this discontent, like lack of housing, too strict immigration controls, unemployment. But at that time the Communists were not yet convinced by the U.K. commissioner that they could run amok with impunity. So they did not want us to resign. Now the position has radically altered. By their adventurous moves, as I have explained on a past occasion, they have brought about merger quicker than even we expected. But unfortunately for them, we are not as ham-handed as the last Government, nor are we desperate, nor are we just hanging on to power. Sir, the political and economic issues have been clearly put before the people.

Order. Will the Prime Minister be some time?

Can I just finish this paragraph? Sir, merger is around the corner. Merger is the only way to solve our problems in the long term, to produce a long-term solution not only to the problem of Communism and Communists in the trade unions, but more important, the long-term problems of economic growth, stability and industrial expansion.

I will take the Chair again at 5.

30. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.01 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

Debate resumed. Question again proposed.

Sir, the Member for Thomson was challenging the accuracy of my statement that 25 strikes were called by the Singapore Business Houses Employees Union and that only one was referred to the Labour Ministry before the strike was called. The data were supplied to me by the Commissioner for Labour and I have here the names of the 25 branches of the Union: Gramophone Company Limited. Nestles Products. Lindeteves-Jacoberg (Malaya) Ltd. Lindeteves-Jacoberg (F.E.) Ltd. Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co., Ltd. William Jacks. Industrial Gases. Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co., Ltd. Guthrie & Co., Ltd. Robinson & Co., Ltd. Everett Steamship Corporation. Tels & Company. Borneo Co., Ltd. Paterson, Simons & Co. Cathay Ltd. Paterson, Simons & Co. Gestetner (Eastern) Ltd. Lebel (China) Ltd. Gammon. William Jacks. Getz Bros. & Co. Guthrie & Co., Ltd. Austasia Line Ltd. International Computers and Tabulators Ltd. Optorg Co., Ltd. In several of them, more than one strike was called. Of the 25 strikes, only the first, the Gramophone Company Limited, was referred to the Labour Department before the strike was called. The strike was called on 30th January, 1961, and the dispute was referred to the Labour Department on 27th January, 1961. Sir, to illustrate the same point of their unwillingness to find a reasonable settlement to disputes or to use normally accepted channels of conciliation and arbitration, let me quote another very recent instance where the Paya Lebar Bus Company branch of the Bus Workers Union, without referring the matter to the Labour Ministry nor even discussing matters with the management, took direct action. According to newspaper reports of 14th March, the Paya Lebar Bus Company branch of the Bus Workers Union gave free rides to all from 6 p.m. to 9.30 p.m. last Saturday for the purpose of getting two workers who were not union members dismissed from the company. This direct action was taken when in fact, having seen what they called a conciliator or a moderator, they agreed to refer the matter, to take advice or to consult Mr Tann Wee Tiong together with representatives of the Bus Workers Union to try and find a way out. Without waiting to find a way out, action was taken go slow; free rides. This is in the nature of Communist strategy which has been elaborated by the Minister for Culture. All I need do really is to draw the attention of Members of the House to the 1anguage - not only the tactics but the language - of the pro-Communists. The cries - this is all from the speech of the Member for Thomson - "Use police on striking workers", Police action during City Council strike", "Transform City into military camp', "Robinson strike - clerks and salesgirls carted away like cattle into Black Marias" - are absolute falsehoods, Sir. They pushed themselves in. They wanted to go in, laughing away, because the police were gentle. "Carted away like cattle into Black Marias!" And so I can go on reciting the language of the pro-Communists. "Temptation of their colonial and pre-colonial predecessors regarding these disputes with hostility." Hostility, Sir'? We have heard the Minister for Health recounting his experiences when he was the Minister for Labour and the advantage they took of the confidence that he reposed in their good faith in wanting to work the conciliation and arbitration machinery. The Member for Thomson talks of wild men, repressive action, warn us, warn them, throttle expression of grievances. Nobody is doing that, Sir. This is exactly their trouble. We are giving them the free run of the place within the ambit of the law - do their worse and they will come to grief even more quickly than they would otherwise meet their fate. "Power-crazy Prime Minister", "Working class movement constant threat to his personal ambition". Since when have I suddenly changed from a nice anti-colonial revolutionary who was asked to lead the anti-colonial movement in June last year in Anson into a power-crazy and a working class threat to my personal ambition? And they talk of going about their business with the noise and vulgarity of turncoats. I have always stood for what I believe in - a democratic, non-Communist, socialist Malaya. It is he, the Member for Thomson, who is a turncoat - if anybody turned. He believed in it - an independent, democratic, non-Communist Malaya - and now he has thrown in his lot with the Communists and has become their willing aide. Then of course the final hope - the P.A.P. has travelled the same rotten route, has common ground with all opponents of the S.P.A. Sir, their trouble is that they have now embarked on a route, uncharted, full of pitfalls, and we do not intend to give them any guidance by doing any of the foolish things that were done by the S.P.A. in the past which made them martyrs. I have explained their ways of dealing with wild men in the unions and in Communist front organisations like the Barisan Sosialis. While these may appear to people like the Member for Cairnhill, who had no experience in these matters, who had in fact no alternative because he had no alternative solution, to be weak, the Member for Havelock knows. He was reading from a script. His masters know. He said that we are cunning. I suggest that that is so because we learn. We have learnt from the mistakes of the last Government. We have learnt from their doings. I say we shall show that our handling of this situation, with gentleness according to the law, and with firmness whenever they break the law, will produce a much more healthy situation in the end when there will be no tombstones for martyrs. There may be tombstones, Sir, but they will be unmarked graves for foolish adventurers who sought their own self-destruction. 5.41 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, regarding the problem before us, I am of the opinion that the amendment is not a new thing in principle. It is a usual thing which is not extraordinary in this Assembly. Mr Speaker, Sir, you have heard the non-Communist people speak, and also the people who have been accused as being pro-Communists, but who have not yet clarified their position. Mr Speaker, Sir, as you well know, I am an anti-Communist. Therefore, I think it is unfair for us to sit idle and witness as referees the non-Communists slugging it out wish the pro-Communists. It is proper that I should take part in the hope that my blow will be delivered at the right people. My previous stand was that I was not afraid and I did not hit as I did not have full faith. But now I am beginning to have faith in the attitude of the P.A.P. It does not mean that I want to join the P.A.P. - far from it. It is because the P.A.P. has demonstrated its stand by expelling its pro-Communist colleagues from the Party for many reasons. But is this enough in the field of trade unionism or in other spheres? Before I dwell on the Barisan Sosialis, let me ask the P.A.P. this question - as the Minister for Home Affairs well knows, I have asked this question on several occasions in this Assembly - why have these people not been arrested? Why? If they want to send these people to Pudu Gaol, the rocks there are rough. I think it is not the place, because Pudu Gaol is very far from Singapore. It is easier to send them to Changi Gaol or Pulau Senang. If they are really Communists, why are they allowed to go free? It is not my problem. If I am the Minister for Home Affairs, I will arrest them all. So this is the position in connection with the problems we are facing today. The Member for Cairnhill was indignant about the release of these people from gaol and then appoint them as Political Secretaries at $1,100 pay each. An allowance of $500 is paid to each of the people's representatives. Why pay the Communists? Why do we still make use of them when we can put them in a safe place where they can no longer receive any allowance? This is what it should be if you really want to face the Communist menace. So who is going to arrest these people? We ask the Government to discharge its duty, as I feel that the police are unjustly accused. The police are merely fulfilling their responsibility in maintaining peace and order. Now that they have been accused, we on the Front Bench of the Opposition are not satisfied unless we have our champions in the Government. Mr Speaker, for instance, at one time my colleague in U.M.N.O. was arrested because he got himself mixed up probably with the Lim Ching Siong group in Middle Road. And we from U.M.N.O. demanded a Minister, who is now the Member for Geylang Serai, to release my colleague. Similarly my ex-U.M.N.O. colleague, who is now the Parliamentary Secretary to the Hon, the Prime Minister, knows this full well. If Mr Speaker were to listen to his oration, I feel that he could not control himself. So I am not asking them, other than my colleagues who are of the non-Communist belief, why they have not fulfilled their obligations in the interests of the security of the State. I am quite sure a definite reply will be given so that we could together shoulder our responsibilities towards the people of Singapore. Let us not wait until the realisation of merger or Malaysia, or wait for Tun Razak or Dr Ismail to do their job of arresting or banning the Barisan Sosialis from the political field and from the trade union field. Mr Speaker, I have heard accusations in this Assembly that the Barisan Sosialis is this and that in the trade unions. Once again I ask the Hon, the Minister for Home Affairs: why is the Barisan Sosialis allowed to function as a political Party in Singapore? This is not a plaything, Mr Speaker. I am surprised. I am compelled to speak in a language which he can understand and appreciate. The Barisan Sosialis has one foot in the political field, and the other is allowed to go free. So if the Trade Unions Bill, which is awaiting the assent of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, is to be enforced, then I am quite sure that people who are non-citizens of Singapore cannot take an active part in the trade unions. That is the intention. We do not wish to see non-citizens taking an active part in trade unions. If we allow non-Singapore citizens to participate in trade union activities, we will be frustrated. The Police Force and the Government have all means at their disposal and they know more about Communism. Mr Speaker, after I have heard what the former Minister for Labour, who is now the Minister for Health and Law, has just said in this House, I ask this question - and if he cannot reply, perhaps his colleague may be in a position to help - who is in the wrong? Is it the fault of the Ten Tall Men? Or is the Government deliberately condoning the actions of these Ten Tall Men? Mr Speaker, the wind has now changed into a cyclone. When it subsides, the ship of the Seamen's Union can sail. Mr Speaker, before the Barisan Sosialis was formed, I had occasion to plead with the Government: why were the nominees to the Seamen's Registry Board not chosen from the other side? According to the explanation given in this House, the T.U.C. had not then been registered. But if the T.U.C. had not been registered, does it mean that all the nominees were selected in a proper manner? Why were we completely ignored? We give due respect to the Government, and we expect them to treat the people of Singapore in a just and fair manner. One nominee was nominated from our group, but since his death, nothing has been done. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture: what game is he playing? Is he playing chess, or what? I am completely surprised at this, Mr Speaker. Let us be frank in this House because everything that is said here is recorded in the Hansard and is kept in safe custody in our Library. Coming back to the question of Pulau Bukom, where the Shell Company is, I have a point but I do not wish to elaborate on it at length. There is a union, of which I am the representative, which was defeated in a secret ballot. I want to ask: are the seamen considered as people who live on land? Now this question has arisen, and I am sure the Minister for Education, who is the Chairman of the Port Commission, will give due consideration, and the Deputy Prime Minister will also give due consideration. There are vacant jobs of helmsmen or serang. The policy of the Harbour Board is to recruit persons through the shipping office at Fullerton Building. But when I enquired from the office, I learned that no register was kept of helmsmen because a helmsman can do the job of a Master of a ship of less than 25 tons and can sail within 25 miles of Singapore's territorial waters. Therefore, the Government policy is not good. So what has happened? I do not know who will become mad, whether it is the people or the Government. This causes a great deal of inconvenience to applicants who have the necessary qualifications. Another point, Mr Speaker, concerns the Harbour Board. I know Mr Jamit Singh is a member of the Barisan Sosialis, and I am in the U.M.N.O. The U.M.N.O. Alliance have been accused of working hand in glove with the P.A.P. We must be given a chance to explain. We know that the Harbour Board makes agreements with a union which I represent. The agreement might have lapsed, because when we wrote a letter, there was no reply. There was not even an acknowledgment.

Order. We are on an amendment which alleges that there is some Communist element in this industrial unrest. I do not know whether the hon. Member is alleging that the Communist element has crept into the Harbour Board.

I am coming to that.

I see. Inche Mohd. Ali.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I wish to reiterate this point in this Assembly because I feel that the pro-Communist influence in the Barisan Sosialis is strong in the Harbour Board Staff Association, and the Government ignore us. I tell them: do not be afraid of us. We will support the Government to the hilt if we are asked to fight the Communists. But we ask the Government to be firm in its policy towards Communism. Mr Speaker, we hate Communism. Ban Communism before it gains ground in Singapore. On the other hand, I ask the Government not to have the impression that we, in the U.M N.O., are sitting idle. If Government still does not believe that we wish to support them, if they are prepared to come to the Opposition, likewise we will be prepared to go to their side, so that we could discharge our duties just like the Alliance Government in Malaya has taken up the fight against Communism. Mr Speaker, to revert to the Communist problem. Whether there are pro-Communists or non-Communists in Singapore. I am really thirsting for positive replies, particularly from the Honourable Ministers who at one time were my comrades but who until now have not shown that they are courageous enough to take action, because I know that the P.A.P. has a bureau to look after the interests of the Malays. Why is it that that bureau has not come out with a resolution to demand that the Central Executive Committee of the P.A.P. take action against pro-Communist elements? Mr Speaker, I heard what the Prime Minister said just now when he emphasised in this House about martyrs. As for U.M.N.O. and as for myself, we are not surprised to hear this. If these 13 Members are really Communists who are trying to overwhelm Singapore, I think they should not make that futile attempt. If they do, they will face dire consequences. I say dire consequences because I am confident, not that I wish to commend the Malay members in the P.A.P., but because we in U.M.N.O. and elsewhere no doubt love our religion and as followers of the Islamic faith, we cannot accept Communism in Singapore. I wish the people of Singapore who are members of political Parties to declare whether they are really Communists. If they are, I promise U.M.N.O. will fight them unto death. The M.C.P. has been banned. The M.C.P. was the cause of many of our citizens being slain. There is no doubt that we will defend our nation, our religion and our fatherland from Communist conquest. 6.03 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, after debating the amendment moved by my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour, I think the people of Singapore, especially the Members of this Assembly who love justice and the prosperity of the State, will not oppose or reject the amendment. The amendment moved by the Government aims at protecting our State from destructive elements who are intent on bringing chaos to the country. This amendment is a challenge to Members of this House, a challenge at least to clear themselves from accusations that there are Members in this Assembly who associate themselves with members of Communist front organisations. If they are truly free from Communist influence, they must say so because I think this motion clearly says that we condemn the Communists. If they are not Communists, if they are not pro-Communists, what is there to be afraid of? I heard several Members saying, including the leader of the Barisan Sosialis (the Member for Queenstown), that the Government is brutal in accusing those Members of the Barisan Sosialis who have no opportunity to defend themselves in this Assembly. Mr Speaker, I do not know which members of the Communist Party have no opportunity to answer our charges. I am quite sure that their stooges and their tools have defended the open front Communist Party in this Assembly. This is clear. If they have no close connections with members of the Communist Party, there will be no such accusations, such as that the Government is repressive. Mr Speaker, I say that in this world, people who have no self-respect are those who are prepared to make use of other people's names for their own benefit. We have often heard that members who were previously Members of this Assembly who stood as P.A.P. candidates and who have now defected from the Party, now accuse the P.A.P. of being instruments of colonialism and Right-wing reactionaries. They accuse the Government of being irresponsible and say that the Government should resign. I believe they must first themselves resign from this Assembly.

Order. I suggest that the hon. Member do not raise his voice in such a manner, because it rather upsets the Chair.

(In Malay): If this upsets Mr Speaker, at least I hope the Barisan Sosialis will not turn a deaf ear to my speech. The best thing for people, with self-respect, to do before levelling accusations against others is first to clear themselves of such charges. Like the action taken by the former Minister for National Development, they accuse the P.A.P. of being reactionary and as an irresponsible Government, while they themselves were at one time elected on the P.A.P. ticket. Mr Speaker, many of the Barisan Sosialis Members have accused the Government of wishing to involve the Opposition Members in moving their amendment so that the Opposition will give their support so that Government can take oppressive action against trade unions. In this amendment, it is not the intention of the Government to suppress the trade union movement but what they wish to do is to take reasonable steps to remove the Communist elements to bring about industrial peace in Singapore. Mr Speaker, they are in a fix now. They do not know how to find a way out. The leader of the Barisan Sosialis challenges the Government to arrest the whole lot of the Barisan Sosialis members and bring them to gaol. Desperate people always adopt this attitude. This challenge is too naive. If a child is being beaten by his mother, the child would plead that he be killed rather than be beaten up. We know that Communism is an ideology. So with industrial stability Communism will have no place in Singapore. Mr Speaker, the Member for Cairnhill is trying to egg us on to take action. This is also a cunning move on the part of the S.P.A. The Government would be really irresponsible if it followed in his footsteps and put them all behind bars. We have our own stand. We will not be egged on by anybody. Communism will not be overcome if there is no alternative offered to the people. The people must awaken. It is our wish to eradicate the Communist elements. We have no surgeons: at least in the Barisan Sosialis there are two doctors. But if we wish to remove cancer we must carry out an operation. The purpose is to remove or to get rid of the disease. Similarly, this amendment is not calculated to curb the activities of trade unions but to eradicate Communism from trade unions. Mr Speaker, there is a tree by the name of Mandalu. The tree will die by itself. There is no need to speak at great length on this amendment. Many speakers have spoken on it. But I am surprised to hear the Member for Kampong Kembangan. He directed his speech towards his former members of U.M.N.O. I know that the Member for Kampong Kembangan is a Left-wing. He was the one who strongly opposed the P.P.S.O. We could find his name every day in the newspapers. But we found out later that there are people at the back of him. Our stand is clear on this problem. We need not be egged on. Our policy is to maintain industrial stability in the interest of the people. Mr Speaker, I see that the Member for Kampong Kembangan is trying to drag in Malay Members of the Government. I suspect that his intention is to split the Members of the Government, non-Malays from Malays. In facing this problem, we are prepared to sink or swim with the 26 Members on the Government benches. 6.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the motion as moved by my colleague, the Member for Cairnhill, was to the effect that the House views with grave concern the mounting of industrial unrest. Mr Speaker, you will notice that the motion is not concerning the mounting industrial unrest, but it is with the mounting of industrial unrest. By this was meant not so much industrial unrest arising out of industrial grievances as an extraneous source making use of industrial grievances to mount industrial unrest. That was what my colleague had in mind when he moved this motion. Because we, on this side of the House, understand that in the state of society we are in, where there is an employer and an employee, there are bound to be grievances, and grievances could lead to industrial unrest. What we on this side of the House were concerned with when we moved the motion was that some extraneous body or bodies not directly involved in industrial disputes were making use of these industrial disputes to cause industrial unrest. Since the moving of this motion, the Government have introduced an amendment to the original motion. The amendment as I see it, Mr Speaker, seems to be contained in three parts. The first part is a qualification to the mounting of industrial unrest: `That this House views with grave concern the mounting of industrial unrest by pro-Communist political agitators for political ends...'. If I may say so, it is a closer definition, from the Government point of view, of where the mounting of the industrial unrest comes from. Now, the second point of alteration in the motion is with regard to the calling on the Government - `...to take all reasonable steps to ensure industrial peace with justice [the amendment being] in the interests of industrial expansion so vital to the economic well-being of the people of Singapore...'. Yet again here is possibly a closer definition of the main theme my colleague had in mind. The main point of difference, as far as I can see, with the amendment is the third and last limb of this amendment which reads: `...and to prevent genuine industrial grievances from being exploited for Communist ends'. That, as far as I can make out, seems to be the substantial alteration which the Government has sought to the motion as moved by my colleague the Member for Cairnhill. Mr Speaker. Sir, on various occasions in this House, I have addressed the Prime Minister on the question of his responsibility to the State on the question of Communist interference with the apparatus of State. Naturally it is the Government's business to contain Communism and to see that in containing it the life of the country is not unduly disturbed; that is the problem for the Government which it must meet and solve in the best way it thinks the problem merits solution. But my immediate concern at the moment is with the amendment to the motion, and this amendment is to prevent genuine industrial grievances from being exploited for Communist ends. I read into that amendment a positive statement by the Government in the use of the word "prevent" to suggest that they will take positive preventive measures to prevent the Communists from exploiting industrial grievances. I have listened to various speeches on the Government side as to what positive preventive measures they intend to take to prevent the Communists from exploiting industrial grievances. As far as I could make out - and I hope I am not doing Government an injustice - the only positive contribution that came on this particular limb of the amendment was from the Prime Minister himself when he seemed to suggest to the House that what be proposed to do was to give the Communists a long rope within the ambit of the law and he hoped that the Communists would hang themselves with that long rope. That, to my mind, is not a positive preventive measure as this amendment seems to envisage. I know that all sorts of people, Communists and others not well disposed to the democratic form of government in this country, will do everything in their power - they will use foul means, they will infiltrate into legitimate State organisations, into legitimate trade union organisations - with a view to disrupting democratic government. Sir, I had hoped to hear from the Prime Minister, or from other Members of the Government, that in moving this amendment a definite statement would be made by Government that some positive action would be taken against known Communists or known pro-Communists who would use legitimate industrial grievances not for the purpose of settling the disputes of the workers for the ends of the workers, but for the purpose of exploiting their grievances for political ends of their own. Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel perfectly convinced that Government feel that they are doing the right thing for the country and that the measures they wish to take are the best which they can think of in this given situation. But I find it very difficult to support an amendment which suggests positive measures and yet, on the speeches made by the Government, no statement has been made as to what positive measures will be taken except a negative approach to the problem, and that is to give a long rope to the Communists to hang themselves with.

The Original Question was, "That this House views with grave concern the mounting of industrial unrest and calls on the Government to take all reasonable steps to ensure industrial peace with justice in the interests of the economic well-being of the people of Singapore." Since which an amendment has been proposed, 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". Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

Division. The House divided: Ayes, 24; Noes, 16: Abstentions, 6; Absent, 3; Paired, 2. Ayes. Noes. Buang bin Omar Bani, S.T. Junid. Chan Sun Wing. Byrne, K.M. Fung Yin Ching, Miss. Chan Chee Sang. Lee Siew Choh. Chan Choy Siong, Leong Keng Seng. Madam. Lin You Eng. Chor Yeok Eng Lingam, S. V. Goh Chew Chua. Low Por Tuck. Goh Keng Swee. Ng Teng Kian. Hoe Puay Choo, Ong Chang Sam. Madam. Ong Eng Guan. Kandasamy, G. Sheng Nam Chin. Lee Khoon Choy. Tan Cheng Tong. Lee Kuan Yew. Tee Kim Leng. Lee Teck Him. Teo Hock Guan. Lim Cheng Lock. Wong Soon Fong. Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi. M.Ismail Rahim. Abstentions. Ong Pang Boon. Abdul Hamid bin Rajaratnam,S. Haji Jumat Ramaswamy, S. Lim Yew Hock. Sahorah binte Mohamed Ali bin Alwi. Ahmat, Madam. Rajah, A.P. Tan Kia Gan, Seow Peck Leng, Mrs Toh Chin Chye. Thio Chan Bee. Wee Toon Boon. Yaacob bin Mohamed Yong Nyuk Lin. Absent. Paired. Koh, C.H. Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Mammen, John. Ahmad Jabri bin Marshall, David. Mohammad Akib Question accordingly agreed to.

Question, "That the words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted," put, and agreed to. Amendment accordingly agreed to. 6.30 p.m.

The Question, as amended, now is, "That this House views with grave concern the mounting of industrial unrest by pro-Communist political agitators for political ends and calls on the Government to take all reasonable steps to ensure industrial peace with justice in the interests of industrial expansion so vital to the economic well-being of the people of Singapore and to prevent genuine industrial grievances from being exploited for Communist ends." Tun Lim, in reply then?

Yes, Sir. It is very short. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been accused by the Government and the Barisan Sosialis of doing something which they themselves went to the trouble of proving. I did not ask them to prove it here. I just tabled a simple motion calling on this House to note with grave concern the mounting of industrial unrest. I said in my speech on my motion regarding the mounting of industrial unrest that this is not a political move and that there is no intention on my part to blame the two political Parties - the Barisan Sosialis and the P.A.P. - for fighting it out in the industrial field. And I asked this House, having viewed with grave concern the mounting of industrial unrest, to call on the Government to do everything reasonable to ensure industrial peace with justice, and in connection with that part of my speech I did not at any stage suggest repressive measures. All I said was that the Government rushed through the Industrial Relations Bill in 1960 and that on its Second Reading rushed through 50 amendments, using its weight of 43 Members then to put through what it now has to admit is a Bill weighted in favour of the Communist group of the trade unions in Singapore. And yet you find three days spent on a simple motion by the Barisan Sosialis and the P.A.P. who are both hammering it out -

And the S.P.A.

- and I sitting in between hearing, "How bad the Lim Yew Hock Government was. How bad this was," from behind and from the front. I want to tell this House that I am used to that. But one thing that must be an eye-opener to the people of Singapore is this: so long as those things that the P.A.P. now accuse the Barisan Sosialis of doing were done by the P.A.P., everything was all right. So long as they were done by somebody else, everything was wrong - Communist front, pro-Communist agitators. I said yesterday that the group which the Government is now accusing of agitating the workers for political ends is the same group that I had to contend with during my time. They said that I was foolish enough to arrest them and make them martyrs. But I would like to say this to them, that it is they who made them martyrs. It is they who stood in this House and said that they were the champions of the workers, that they fought and were prepared to go to prison. These words were said by them. They made these people martyrs, not I. I put them in the oblivion of prison. Instead of which, when they came to power, they refused even to take office until these comrades were released and after that they made them Political Secretaries, paying them $1,100 a month each from public funds. As if that was not enough, they made them the Ten Tall Men in the T.U.C. Now they are described by the P.A.P. as pro-Communist political agitators in the industrial field. If there is one thing that my motion has achieved, it is this. The P.A.P. are now prepared to admit that the group that gave trouble in 1956 is a pro-Communist political group. But then what does the Prime Minister say? He says, "Oh, we are not fools like Lim Yew Hock. We know that they are Communists. They can have their fun." And yet at one of the sittings two months ago, I compared his Government to a watchdog. I think it is only a mongrel that keeps on barking and never bites. It keeps on saying, "Communists, Communists," but it does not do any biting. What is the use of it? Why then call them Communists? Why then amend a motion to say that all this is the work of pro-Communists?

Order. The hon. Member must not attack the amendment. It has been accepted by the House. He must now speak in general terms.

Yes, Sir, in general terms. I pointed out that if they were serious in implementing their policy of industrial peace with justice and that if they were serious when they introduced the Industrial Relations Ordinance, they could have made it work. Now they say, "Oh, the Barisan do not Want the Arbitration Court." Sir, the law does not state compulsory arbitration, but it does give power to the Minister, if he considers that a dispute is detrimental to the economy of the country, to direct it to the Arbitration Court. The Minister need not have to wait for either party to suggest that it should go to arbitration. The law says that if both parties want it, it is all right. But if both parties do not want it and the Minister feels that it is in the best interest of the country that it should go to arbitration, he shall so direct in the Gazette. The fact that he has not directed any of the Barisan Sosialis or S.A.T.U. strikes - 69 strikes except for two as disclosed by the Prime Minister - shows that the Government is playing party politics itself. Just because it is not the P.A.P. unions calling a strike, "Never mind, let them stew in their own juice. We can now laugh at them on the Ford strike. They fought for 110 days and got just one cent." That is not the way for the Government to look after the workers of Singapore. Keep away from party politics. The law is there. If it was felt, as it is felt now by the Government, that all the 69 strikes that took place in 1961 were bad for the economy of the country, why did the Government not do something about it? I have not suggested that they should take repressive measures. I did suggest, and I do suggest, that the matter could have gone to arbitration under the law introduced by the Government. The Government does not want to do it, just because it is a Barisan Sosialis strike and not a P.A.P. union strike. Let us see how sincere the Government is in the administration of this law. I said that there is a Part of the Industrial Relations Ordinance which refers to a board of inquiry. A board of inquiry is to enquire into any trouble. I would like to read section 70(1) of this Ordinance: `The Minister may, by notification in the Gazette, appoint a Board of Inquiry and direct the Board to inquire into and report to him upon a matter defined in the notification being a matter included within the definition of industrial matters in section 2 of this Ordinance.'. I said that the power vested in the Minister under this Part of the Ordinance to bring the rule of law into industrial relations, where the rule of the jungle had previously prevailed, had not been made use of by the Government. In the case of the O.C.B.C. strike, it is a simple matter. The Minister could have appointed a Board of Inquiry and that would have saved the workers going all out on strike for 12 days. And that Board of Inquiry would expose - there was no need for the Minister to expose - if it was true, the anti-trade union activities of the Company as alleged by the union. Why did the Minister not make use of the power given to him under the law introduced by the Government itself? He did say that another way to promote industrial peace was to have a unification of the trade unions. The Minister for Health and Law just now gave an account of how the Trade Unions Bill was being considered by the Government, and how he, as the then Minister for Labour and Law, sought the assistance or consulted the Ten Tall Men who were at that time with the P.A.P., and how, as a result of those discussions, the Bill came to be presented in this Assembly, and how it was rushed through. It was the Opposition - it was still 8 at that time - that warned the Government that it would be very, very dangerous to insist that such a law should be passed, as it would give the T.U.C. a stranglehold on the trade unions. The Government could not care, because it felt that at that particular time it would be a P.A.P. T.U.C. And when the Government found that it could not be a P.A.P. T.U.C., we were treated to the wonderful spectacle of the Secretary-General of the T.U.C. throwing up his hands and saying, "Dissolve the T.U.C."; and his friend the Minister and the others replied, "Yes, dissolve the T.U.C." And even today we find that the T.U.C. is a registered body. And the Minister for Health and Law admitted how the people in the T.U.C. went about capturing the T.U.C. Of course, I must praise him for being very fair in his speech just now in exposing their erstwhile comrades who are now in the Barisan Sosialis. He went to the extent of saying that they amended the constitution of the T.U.C. to bring in the Ten Tall Men, and the constitution could not be registered. The Registrar of Trade Unions refused to register the new constitution. And yet the new T.U.C. was recognised by the Government and allowed to operate up to the time when the Secretary-General said, "Dissolve" without even calling a meeting of the constituent bodies of the T.U.C. Sir, I asked the Minister in my speech to say whether the Government would appoint one more Arbitration court just to meet the situation. The President of the Industrial Arbitration Court in his Report says that there are eight cases pending. In view of the increasing industrial unrest and the desirability of keeping a check on unnecessary industrial unrest, I would suggest that the Government should consider appointing more than one Arbitration Court. This assurance was given by the Minister for Labour and Law when he moved the Second Reading of the Industrial Relations Bill in February 1960. I would ask the Government to implement the assurance given by the Minister in February 1960. The Report of the President of the Arbitration Court also disclosed that there had been discussions with the Minister on certain amendments which would help to strengthen the law and make it more effective. I would ask the Government not to hesitate or delay any longer introducing amending legislation on the advice of the President of the Court. The Government gave an assurance to this House that if amendments to the law were found necessary, they would do so. The Report was submitted to the Government in early January. Today is nearly the end of March, and there has been no indication whatsoever that it will introduce amending legislation on the basis of the discussions which the President of the Industrial Arbitration Court had with the Minister for Labour and Law. Sir, the second part of my motion does not intend to call on the Government to take repressive measures. I cannot understand why it is that the Barisan Sosialis speakers should see in that simple motion a suggestion that I was egging on the Government to take repressive measures. And the Government too, in their speeches, also had the same kind of thought. It is very clear to me, Sir, that as a result of this debate the P.A.P. and the Barisan think alike in so far as the trade unions in Singapore are concerned. They are good meat. Make full use of them to achieve their own political ends. We have spent nearly four days on a simple motion, but I must say that it is a very important motion and I am glad that it is now reaching the closing stages. What the Opposition is more anxious to see is that the Government wake up to their responsibility and do everything in their power to see that the workers of Singapore are not being exploited by anybody - by the Communists, by the so-called non-Communists, by anybody - and that the industrial field in Singapore is made more calm, more peaceful and more conducive for foreign investment. 6.55 p.m. Question put, "That this House views with grave concern the mounting of industrial unrest by pro-Communist political agitators for political ends and calls on the Government to take all reasonable steps to ensure industrial peace with justice in the interests of industrial expansion so vital to the economic well-being of the people of Singapore and to prevent genuine industrial grievances from being exploited for Communist ends."

Division, Sir. The House divided and the Clerk proceeded to call out the names of hon. Members - Upon the name of Mr Lee Kuan Yew (who was absent) being called, Dato Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat rose -

Point of order, Sir.

Please be seated. The point of order being?

There was an arrangement made to pair with the Prime Minister, but in view of the fact that I am abstaining, I do not know whether it will be all right for me to abstain.

If the Member has made up his mind to abstain, he need not honour that arrangement to pair. He just abstains.

Thank you, Sir.

I do not know whether the Member for the Southern Islands knows of that ruling. The voting was as follows:- Ayes Noes Buang bin Omar Junid Bani, S.T. Byrne, K.M. Chan Sun Wing Chan Chee Seng Fung Yin Ching, Miss Chan Choy Siong, Madam Lee Siew Choh Chor Yeok Eng Leong Keng Seng Goh Keng Swee Lin You Eng Hoe Puay Choo, Madam Lingam, S.V. Kandasamy, G Low Por Tuck Lee Khoon Choy Ng Teng Kian Lim Cheng Lock Ong Chang Sam Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi Ong Eng Guan M. Ismail Rahim Sheng Nam Chin Ong Pang Boon Tan Cheng Tong Rajaratnam, S. Tee Kim Leng Ramaswamy, S. Teo Hock Guan Sahorah binte Ahmat, Wong Soon Fong Madam Tan Kia Gan Toh Chin Chye Wee Toon Boon Yaacob bin Mohamed Yong Nyuk Lin Abstentions Absent Abdul Hamid bin Haji Koh, C.H Jumat Lee Kuan Yew Lim Yew Hock Lee Teck Him Mohamed Ali bin Alwi Mammen, John Rajah, A.P. Marshall, David Seow Peck Leng, Mrs Thio Chan Bee Paired Ahmad bin Ibrahim Ahmad Jabri bin Mohammad Akib

There are 22 Ayes; 16 Noes; 6 Abstentions; 2 Paired; 5 Absent. Motion, as amended, accordingly agreed to. Resolved, That this House views with grave concern the mounting of industrial unrest by pro-Communist political agitators for political ends and calls on the Government to take all reasonable steps to ensure industrial peace with justice in the interests of industrial expansion so vital to the economic well-being of the people of Singapore and to prevent genuine industrial grievances from being exploited for Communist ends. 7.05 p.m.

Resolved, "That the proceedings on the remaining items of business set down in the Order Paper be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1."[Dr Toh Chin Chye].

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this Assembly is of the opinion that in the interests of young school children Government should not further delay the relaxation of the six-day week pending the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry.* * The same motion also stood in the name of Mr David Marshall. Sir, after such a prolonged and tiring debate on the industrial unrest, I am sure most Members are looking forward to a period of some relaxation Therefore, I trust they will be sympathetic to the subject before the House which seeks the relaxation as early as possible of the six-day week for schools in the interest of young school children. Sir, since the despatch of the original motion, the Government has appointed in a Government Gazette Extraordinary the long-awaited Inquiry Commission. It is unfortunate that the Government took such a long time to make the appointment as perhaps the motion would not have come on to the Order Paper. Sir, when the question of a Commission of Inquiry was raised, it was on 14th of November. Then on 17th of November, the Minister for Education announced his intention to revise the six-day week into something "lighter". If he had on to that, Sir, I am sure there would have been a great deal of goodwill. Then on 21st December, he decided to put the six-day week revision plan into cold storage pending receipt of the report of the Commission of Inquiry. That was a great disappointment to the many school children who were affected. Sir, my first point is that we as Assemblymen should apply the golden rule. We ourselves do not want a six-day week practised in this Assembly. Because of the nature of our work, we find that we have to have time after our sittings here to do work outside, interview people, visit constituents and attend meetings. All these other activities have to be taken into account. In the case of school children, their work is not done only during the days when they are in schools. If they are conscientious students, they have their homework to do and more outside reading to do. All in all, a five-day school week really means, in actual practice, a six-day week, and for the very conscientious ones sometimes even a seven-day week. So when the compulsory five-day school week became a six-day school week, in actual practice, the conscientious students were penalised and they spent about seven days a week. Parents have been saying that their children have been studying on Sundays. When the children were asked why, they said, "There is plenty of homework to do. There is too much homework." Sir, again I would stress that since we Assemblymen ourselves do not like a six-day week, we should be more considerate to the school children and relax the practice of a six-day week. My second point is that in the case of the adult education classes, the Minister for Education has already relaxed the ruling. Last year, they worked on a six-day week. There were regular classes six times a week. But it was found that there were many absentees from the Saturday evening classes and the organisers had to ask that the number of regular evening classes be reduced to five and that the Saturday evening classes be for extra subjects. Sir, that was granted. The adults could not stand a six-day week for study purposes. Now what more the young children? In the case of the adults, if they played truant, nothing happened to them. In the case of the school children, if they were to play truant, they would get into trouble. Having been taught to be obedient, naturally they dare not play truant and so they have just to stick on, going from six days to another six days working on Sundays too and making themselves more tired than they should be. If the adults can have a five-day school week, there is no reason why there should be no relaxation for the younger school children. Sir, the argument was made before that many parents would benefit by a six-day school week for their children. Their children would then be kept away from the streets. Sir, educationally, the schools are not meant for the parents but for the children. So educationally, we should think of the welfare of the children rather than the welfare or the convenience of the parents. If in certain areas the parents want their children to be kept occupied on Saturdays because they are not back from work, then other arrangements should be made in such a way that the welfare of the children is kept uppermost in mind. I am sure that reasonable parents would be able to see it from that angle, that schools must exist for the educational welfare of their children and not for their own convenience. It would be wrong human relations to put parents first and children last. Sir, another point was made that because the future citizens of Singapore must learn educational languages, they must therefore have an extra day for lessons.

Order. I know it is a very difficult matter to draw a line somewhere. But the hon. Member has mentioned that there is a Commission of Inquiry, and he is now urging whether or not there should be a five-day week as against a six-day week. I would suggest that details of that nature could best be argued before the Commission of Inquiry itself, and we should concentrate on the principle behind the motion, that is, as an interim measure, there should be some relaxation of the six-day week.

Sir, I was trying to bring out the point that a relaxation of the six-day week would not affect any purpose which the State might have for having the six-day week, because the six-day week has produced no better results than those attained in the Federation. In case they have a fear that by relaxing the six-day week they might be going against whatever might be recommended in future, my point is that there will be no ill effects, as shown by what happened in the Federation. In fact, the Cambridge Higher School Certificate results showed that the students in the Federation did better than our students in Singapore. This is very strange, because usually in previous years our students did better than the Federation students in the Higher School Certificate Examination! So, apparently, judging form the results of the Higher School Certificate Examination - I say the Higher School Certificate Examination; we do not know whether the Federation students did better in the Senior Cambridge Examination - the Federation students are definitely better. Sir, heads of schools have been telling me all these months that the children are showing signs of strain. They feel that the work has become a drudgery. That is bad because we want the children in school to acquire a thirst for knowledge. That is fundamental. Once they acquire a thirst for knowledge, we can leave it to them to spend six days or seven days a week to acquire more knowledge. But when the thirst is not there because of something compulsory - An hon. Member: It is up to the teachers.

- then, Sir, it is human nature that when we are compelled to do a thing, we do not like doing it. But when it is optional, we enjoy doing it. On the question of acquiring a thirst for knowledge, if we give somebody a little bit of water to drink but it does not quite quench his thirst, he wants more. But if we give him too much water, he does not want any more. If we keep on compelling him to drink water, then that water becomes something which he will need only when he reacquires a thirst for it. That is the comparison. As an educationist, I found that it worked that way. Where there is less compulsion and more incentive, so that there is a thirst on the part of the students to acquire knowledge for themselves, we find that they make quicker progress. Let us remember that we old people are human beings and that beyond a certain point we cannot absorb whatever we hear. We can only absorb up to a certain point, and beyond that point we find empty seats in the Assembly. I am sure that if the chance is given to the school children, the teacher will say, "All right, we will not make it compulsory. You go by your judgment. If beyond the point of absorption, you cannot understand what I have to say, you can go." Well, we can see the same thing happening -

Order. I think I ought to correct what perhaps might be a misunderstanding. The hon. Member has said he sees empty seats. I just want to say that the seats he sees empty do not include the Speaker's seat.

Sir, I must say here that we have admired your powers of endurance. I think you are exempted from this particular comparison. Sir, the school term will be ending at the end of this month. The Interim Report may not be ready when the schools reopen for the second term and naturally the Minister may say, "Well, why should we relax earlier? Let the thing be done when the Interim Report comes to hand." But when people are feeling depressed, surely the Minister can show his goodwill by relaxing the six-day week right away or by making an announcement that it will be relaxed pending the Report of the Commission of Inquiry, thereby giving the children a more enjoyable vacation. Sir, we all know that goodwill counts a great deal. We have talked about industrial unrest, if we have more goodwill between employees and employers, there will not be so much tension and strife. I am sure, Sir, that it is not too late yet for the Minister to take out this particular thing that he has put into cold storage, warm it up and make the announcement, because he may expect the Commission of Inquiry to put up the Report during the holidays. Well, I hope so. But we know that the members of the Commission are busy men and if they are sincere and conscientious about their work, they may want to hear the views of parents, school people, and so on; and all this may take some time. When a problem is difficult to solve, we often say, "Right, we go back to the status quo ante." The status quo ante would be a compulsory five-day week with the sixth day at the discretion of the heads of schools depending on the problems which each head encounters in his own locality and among his own students. In some schools, they had the 5�-day week; in the case of the Chinese-medium schools, they had the 5�-day week with work that was comparatively lighter than what they have now. The announcement would make them feel ready for any Report which the Commission of Inquiry might decide to put up. There would be this early relaxation that prepares the ground for something new and I am sure that it would be a good move on the part of the Government to do this, because they would not be showing that they are stubborn and that they are not prepared to be persuaded by the Opposition. We feel that if good sense comes from the Opposition the Government should welcome that. I think that is on the basis that there is no monopoly of wisdom. Sometimes wisdom comes from one side and sometimes from another. In this particular case, however, the circumstances are so clear that people expect a revision and, of course, the final revision would be made no doubt when the Report comes to hand from the Commission of Inquiry. But in the meantime before the vacation begins, if an announcement is made that the six-day school week would be relaxed as from the beginning of the second term pending receipt of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry. I should think it would change the atmosphere among the children and among those connected with the education of the children. Sir, some parents say they have very little time with their school children at home because it is study, study, study all the time. We believe that the children who study too much are missing a great deal during their childhood. They should have time to play and go on excursions. The present full six-day week really needs to be relaxed. The Minister may have some of his own ideas about relaxing the six-day week so that the extra- curricula activities could be done on Saturday, but on inquiries made, I find that the relaxation would really mean work for many people and that the voluntary activities would no longer be voluntary and may be objectionable. So really the best way would be to leave it on the basis of the status quo ante to the heads of schools to modify arrangements according to the needs of the school children in a particular area so that the school head could really do things the right way for the convenience and the benefit of the children and those connected with a particular school. Question proposed. 7.25 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, taking the advice of the Member for Tanglin about the limitation of human endurance, I will only say a few words. We have, right from the beginning, objected to the six-day week. The Member for Tanglin and I, having had experience as teachers and principals, know that it is a strain on the children. But that was at a time when the Government looked upon the Opposition as dead ducks and gunny sacks. So we got no further. But today, we hope that the Government will give some consideration to our proposal. We hope that they will turn a more human ear to it. I am quite aware that there is a Commission of Inquiry. But we do not know how long this Commission will take over its Report and no matter how right the Government is in other things, there is always the possibility that the policy of the six-day week may be wrong. We have seen articles in the Press from protesting parents. The Singapore Teachers' Union who are experts in children's education have protested to the Government about the ill-effects to children and teachers of a six-day week. It is not fair to say, "Well, it has gone on for over two years; so the Commission will not take more than a few months. Why can we not go on for a few months more?" If we are to give any credit to the parents who wrote to the papers and who should know about their children and to the Singapore Teachers' Union, a group of teachers who should know about school children, and if the Minister is to lend a human ear to two Members of the Opposition who have had over 30 years of experience of teaching school children, I think he should give some consideration to this appeal. At least, let the people who have suffered for 2� years relax now, let them go back to the five-day week pending the Report of the Commission of Inquiry so that they would not have to suffer any more. Sir, civic and social activities may be deemed to be very light and frivolous, but they are not. They are essential to the pattern of any civilised life. May I tell the Government that organisations have found it very difficult to get teachers together on any occasion at all? They used to resort to Saturdays - Sundays being unsuitable for religious reasons - to get these people together for charity work, civic work and social activities. They find it is impossible now to bring together the two batches of teachers who have now become strangers. There is no possibility of the morning school teachers meeting the afternoon school teachers on any occasion at all because they work on all the six days. Sir, the longer the drift away from the civic and social life of the country, the more detrimental - let me say especially to teachers who are supposed to manage the lives of children - it is to the morale of the teachers, and the more unhealthy the atmosphere of the State. So the sooner this is put to a stop, the better. If the Commission does find that the six-day week is better, then I do not think any harm at all would have been caused by this relaxation to the five-day week in the interim. It was pointed out by the Member for Tanglin that even the adults could not stand the strain. So the Government has to relax it. Is it because the children could stand the strain that the Government could not relax? No, Sir. It was because the children had no choice.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the motion before us is not to debate the question of the six-day week or the five-day week in the English schools. It is to debate whether we should wait for a few more months for the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Education which has been appointed by the Government, or whether we should revert back from the present six-day week to the five-day week in the English schools before the Report is published. Mr Speaker, Sir, the dispute is only on the matter of a few months by which time we hope the Report will come out. Sir, most teachers and students do not favour the six-day week in the English schools and the teachers have reported that the students have lost efficiency as a consequence. On the other hand, there are people who are for the six-day week and they argue that the parents prefer a six-day week to the five-day week because in the Chinese schools the six-day week which has been established a long time ago has been going on well with the Chinese students. Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a very controversial issue. Since a Commission of Inquiry has been appointed and many persons better versed in education will appear before it, we should decide whether or not there should be a revision of the present six-day week in the English schools when the Report of the Commission of Inquiry is published.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not an educational expert but I am a father of two children, one of whom is now in a secondary school and the other is still in a primary school. The Member for Hong Lim says that this is a matter of some intricacy for the Commission to decide and that therefore we should await the decision of the Commission. I think the Minister for Education will agree with me - I have time and again mentioned this matter in the House and I have told the Minister - that so far as I am concerned I see no case absolutely whatsoever for a six-day week in the primary schools. But I have conceded to the Minister for Education that in view of the four-language stream and the emphasis on languages and science, there may be a case for a six-day week in the secondary schools. I have an open mind on that and I await the Report of the Commission with interest. But insofar as the primary schools are concerned, I can see no case for it whatsoever. I wait to be convinced that a child of six that goes to Primary I needs a six-day week. Sir, I am not competent to judge Chinese education. Its problems may be different. But I know the English stream because I was in it myself and my children are in the English stream. It is very difficult to convince me that a child of six needs a six-day week and a child of seven in Primary II needs a six-day week. I am quite satisfied in my own mind that there is absolutely no case whatsoever for a six-day week in the primary schools; not only from the children's point of view but also from the parents' point of view. Now education, to my mind, is not merely a question of going to school, reading as many books as you can and cramming as much knowledge as you can. I think in the society which we are trying to build up for ourselves, schools are important; of course, they have a place - a very great place. But I think what we tend to forget is that the child in the home and the training that it receives in the home is what will ultimately fit it to be a good member of society. There is a lot of juvenile delinquency in Singapore. I think if we ask any social worker why there is juvenile delinquency he will tell you that it is because the child has no family background. It does not receive the love of its mother or its father for some reason or the other.

Order. I have suggested to the Member for Tanglin - of course I have not overruled these sentiments as being out of order - that these arguments could well be advanced in the Commission of Inquiry. I should imagine that the issue today would be: should there be relaxation now before the Commission of Inquiry gives its findings or should we wait?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the point I was trying to make is that from my personal point of view there is a case for the relaxation of the six-day week for the primary schools at the moment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we also welcome this motion and we agree that relaxation is necessary at the present stage. We all know that the present Commission of Inquiry has been set up just because this motion has been tabled. The Inquiry will help the Government to solve some of their problems and perhaps take away sonic of the fireworks from this Assembly. Sir, we do not disagree with the principle of a six-day week. But as with so many other things with the P.A.P. at the present moment, the principle has been distorted into something which is vulgar - just like on the question of merger and Malaysia, and in so many other -

Order. Let us not go into irrelevancies in this particular motion and start a battle between the right and the left. By that 1 mean the right and the left sides of the Chamber. I suggest, let us make a decision on whether or not there should be relaxation now or whether we should wait until the Commission of Inquiry gives its findings. Let us not complicate the issue, if possible.

There have undoubtedly been complaints from many parents that their children have not been able to do the things they used to do before and that there has been a slackening of extramural activities. By this, I do not mean to bring up any controversial discussion as regards the causation or effects of the six-day week, because, as you say, these can be dealt with by the Commission of Inquiry. But this six-day week has been going on for the last 2� years. Looking at it from any angle it has proved to be a failure. Since the Government have been talking so much about looking after the interests of the people, let them on this occasion prove that they are going to look after the interests of the children, admit that they have made mistakes, be honest and rectify the mistakes as soon as they can. I agree with the argument put forward by the Member for Tanglin that it would be a good thing for the children to enjoy the holidays now that the term is about to come to a close. But there is one factor which the Commission of Inquiry may not look into, namely, that the effects this six-day week has caused on the children have been due to a very great extent, to the high-handed manner and the arrogance of the P.A.P.

Order. I cannot see how that is relevant to this motion. I do not think we ought to prejudge what the Commission of Inquiry itself would be asked to judge. Dr Lee.

I know that it is very difficult to say what the Commission of Inquiry will judge on this issue. But as I say, this is a point which is very unlikely to be looked into by the Commission of Inquiry. However, I will not dwell on it. But let us ask the P.A.P. on this occasion to think of the interests of the children. If the children themselves and the parents are all asking for a relaxation of the six-day week, let the P.A.P. try and accommodate the views and the wishes of the children and the parents on this matter. This six-day week has become a farce because most of the children and the teachers regard it as a mere waste of time. It does not contribute to the improvement of the children's educational standards. In fact, it puts more strain on the pocket of parents in some cases, as well as more strain on the physical health of the children. So we hope that the P.A.P. will at least give way on this particular occasion especially when there are rumours that the Government has already decided to convert this six-day week as a sort of compromise to save their own faces into a 5�-day week.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the six-day week was imposed upon the teachers in the typical attitude of arrogance -

Order. I am not allowing this type of debate on this particular motion. I have already pulled up the Member for Queenstown. The motion is quite a simple motion. It asks this Assembly to hold the opinion that in the interests of, young school children Government should not further delay the relaxation of the six-day week pending the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. I should imagine that the only issue here is that the Assembly is asked to decide whether or not there should be relaxation now or whether we should wait for the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. I do not think it is proper for Members to anticipate how the Commission of Inquiry will view the six-day week. What the Member for Thomson and the Member for Queenstown wish to say, they can very well say before the Commission of Inquiry.

Sir, what I do want to say on this motion is that while we ask for the relaxation of the six-day week, we must, I believe, be aware of the reasons why we think this relaxation should take place. Sir, although the motion is worded in such a way as to say that this relaxation should be done in the interests of young school children it is nevertheless important to see what effects the six-day week has had on the teachers, because I believe the attitude of the teachers is significant as it would inevitably have an effect on the children. Sir, the six-day week for English schools is an idea which we in the Barisan Sosialis had supported. It had as its objective the increase of teaching hours in science and language subjects. This is a praiseworthy idea and we are not ashamed to say that we supported it. And I have no doubt whatsoever that the majority of the English school teachers would have accepted it had it been introduced and conducted in a proper manner. Sir, instead of consulting the Singapore -

Can I bring the Member back to the issue, which is whether or not there should be relaxation now or whether we should wait for the findings of the Commission of Inquiry? But, as I say, all these remarks would be appropriate before the Commission of Inquiry, because this Assembly is not a Commission of Inquiry and it is not asked to decide whether there should be a six-day week or a five-day week. It is merely being asked, as an interim measure: will the Government relax the six-day week?

Sir, briefly I just wish to say this: the original idea of introducing the six-day week, as I have said, was to increase the number of teaching hours in the language and science subjects. It has been proved in practice that, in fact, there has been no increase in the teaching hours of these two subjects. And I think it is well known to many of us that in schools when there are language periods, no language teachers are available. Sir, if the primary objective of having introduced the six-day week has not been achieved, I think it is only proper that immediate relaxation takes place. And if I may be allowed to say this: all that has happened is a stretching of the five-day week time-table to a six-day week. That is in addition to what I have earlier said. If this is all that the six-day week means, then I say, Sir, we in the Barisan Sosialis ask the Government to relax the six-day week immediately. In fact, it has been long overdue. It is somewhat difficult for us to say more because of the Commission which has been set up to inquire into the education system, but perhaps I can only say that we hope that the Commission would make recommendations that are in the best interests of our children. 7.50 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as stated by the Member for Tanglin, some four months ago, I had to answer an Oral Question from him in which he inquired whether the Minister for Education - I am quoting from Hansard, Vol. 15, No. 3, dated 17th November, 1961, Question No. 33, in which he asked the Minister for Education: 'if he will appoint an independent Committee of Inquiry to investigate into the effects,, both direct and indirect, of the compulsory full six-day week in Singapore's primary schools, especially in regard to the welfare of these school children, and to make recommendations for its continuance or discontinuance with effect from January, 1962.' My reply was that: `The Ministry of Education is at present in the midst of discussions with the Malay Teachers' Union, the Chinese Middle School Teachers' Association, and the Singapore Teachers' Union for a revised version of the six-day week for 1962. Arising out of these discussions, the question whether or not to appoint a Committee of Inquiry or aa Commission of Inquiry will be decided.' On 21st December, 1961, with the tabling of a motion by the Member for Anson, supported by the Member for Joo Chiat, for a Commission of inquiry into the Educational Policy of the Government which I accepted, I did at the same time mention that I would put into cold storage the proposal to bring about a relaxed version of the six-day week for 1962. It was, therefore, three months ago when I gave notice that the proposal would be put into cold storage. And now when the Commission of In quiry has actually been formed with a directive that it should produce an Interim Report on the six-day week itself, I am quite puzzled why the Member for Tanglin now supports the course adopted by Members of the Barisan Sosialis. They accepted the six-day week in principle but when it came into practice they said that it is a matter of urgency that there should be relaxation. Surely after having taken so much time to get members to sit on this Commission of Inquiry, which in my view would take at least six months to look into the educational structure of Singapore - a complicated system of four language streams - and having stressed to this Commission the need to produce an Interim Report on the six-day week, we should not prejudge the issue by either relaxing or going back to the five-day week. In fact, Sir, I have been given to understand that the Commission of Inquiry met for the first time today to plan out how they should proceed with the Inquiry. So I must say that, in my view and in the view of the Government, there is no necessity to make any changes and we should leave it in the good hands of this independent Commission of Inquiry to make suitable recommendations. I might add that it is rather fortunate that today I received a 1962 publication by U.N.E.S.C.O. on the organisation of the schools here, and this is a comparative study of a survey made by U.N.E.S.C.O. which covered 81 member States -Singapore is an associate member, not a full member - of U.N.E.S.C.O. There were 52 replies and it might interest hon. Members of this House, who talk of the five-day week as though it is the only ideal system for schools that is known to Singapore and Malaya, that according to this survey there are more countries in the world which adopt the six-day week than the five-day week. It is true that the five-day week is customary in English-speaking countries, and I quote from page 6 of the U.N.E.S.C.O. publication that for primary schools there are 25 countries which have a six-day week, five countries with a 5�-day week, and the remaining other countries with either a five-day week or even a four-day week. And for secondary schools, 31 countries have a six-day week, and three countries with a 5�-day week. The countries in Asia which have a six-day week are China (that would, of course, include Communist China and Formosa), India, Japan and Korea, and although Malaya did not send in returns to U.N.E.S.C.O. they did send Malay Education Advisory Council members to Indonesia in 1960; and in Indonesia they also have a six-day week. There are numerous countries in Europe which adopt the six-day week. I will just mention a few, Sir: Austria, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Rumania, Sweden, Switzerland, Yugoslavia, the U.S.S.R., Africa, Libya and the Arab Republic. So I think it should be quite clear that the six-day week is not something novel or unusual because right in Singapore itself -

Order. I would suggest to the Minister that if he goes on in that strain he will excite a debate on whether or not there should be a six-day week or a five-day week. I have indicated that that is an issue for the Commission of Inquiry. The issue before us is: should there or should there not be relaxation now?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall therefore conclude by saying that since the Commission or Inquiry have already started to sit, let us allow them to get on with their task and we should be patient enough to wait: for the recommendations which they shall be putting forward and which we shall table before this House.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the principle of relaxation of the present six-day week is not in dispute. The Minister for Education himself has said that in November he was already contemplating the introduction of a revised version, beginning from January 1962. So the principle was accepted, might I say, Sir, by both sides of the House. Now, if the principle was not in dispute then, it cannot be in dispute today. And as it is not in dispute, why wait? If the principle was accepted then and it is also accepted now, why wait? That is the question to be answered - why wait? If the Commission of Inquiry has been appointed, still it does not mean that we should wait. The relaxation can still be introduced.

You are prejudging the issue.

It is not a case of prejudging the issue. When two parties are at war, Sir, and there is a Boundary Commission appointed, then the forces go back to the status quo ante. Then, of course, the Boundary Commission will decide on what is the proper boundary line. That is the point I am trying to make, Sir,If the principle was not in dispute before and it is not in dispute now, why dig your toes in and say, "We will not budge because of this and because of that." That is my reply, Sir. Sir, there has often been an implied inference that the Member for Tanglin knows nothing about Chinese medium schools. Sir, I have not brought up here these two facts: I was in a Chinese medium school for l� years and I taught English as a subject in Tao Nan School which is a well-known Chinese medium school in Singapore. I taught English as a subject in Tao Nan School for 1� years and the 5�-day week carried a load that was equivalent to a five-day regimented week. If you ask the Chinese students themselves, Sir, they will say that the six-day week today is equivalent in load to a seven-day week before. That being the case, there is nothing complicated at all. In principle, relaxation is accepted. Why not introduce it now?

Question put, and negatived. Motion accordingly negatived. 8.02 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That Standing Order No. 31(2) be amended by deleting the words "and, in the case of a private Member's motion, the notice shall also be signed by a supporter or supporters not exceeding five in number".* * The motion also stood in the name of Mr Ng Teng Kian.

Is the Member not making a speech?

No. Sir. I believe this motion will be sent to the Standing Orders Committee.

It does not prevent the hon. Member, if he so desires, from going into the reasons why the amendment should be made, for the guidance of the Standing Orders Committee.

Mr Speaker, Sir, at present with the Standing Orders of this House, when Members wish to move a motion, they need two persons to move it. We know that in the case of a big Legislature, such a Standing Order would be more reasonable. But when we are faced with a Legislature of 51 Members, particularly when we have two Members of the Opposition who are on their own, sometimes it might be difficult for them to move motions, when they cannot get a supporter. Mr Speaker, Sir, sometimes there are political matters which the Member for Anson, who is alone in this House, or the Member for Joo Chiat, who is also alone in this House, may wish to bring up; and in the interest of parliamentary democracy, they should not be deprived of the opportunity to move motions in this House. Therefore, we are moving this motion to enable the Member for Anson alone, or the Member for Joo Chiat alone, to move motions in this House.

The motion stands referred to the Standing Orders Committee under the provisions of the Standing Order.

Resolved, "That this Assembly do now adjourn to Monday, 26th March, 1962." -[Dr Toh Chin Chye]. Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Eight o'clock p.m. to Monday, 26th March, 1962.