Hansard, 1963-07-26

asked the Minister for Education in 1962 (a) how many Nanyang University graduates were recruited (i) into the Government services and (ii) to teach in Government and Government-aided secondary schools; and (b) how many graduates were rejected in each case.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I suggest to the Member for Moulmein that the first part of his question "how many Nanyang University graduates were recruited into Government services in 1962" should be addressed to my colleague, the Minister for Finance, who will, I am sure, be pleased to supply the answers when the question is put to him? As for Nanyang University graduates appointed to teach in Government and Government-aided secondary schools in 1962, the answer is 98. The breakdown is as follows: Government secondary schools 26 Government-aided secondary schools 72 The number not selected for teaching appointments in 1962 was 62. However, 53 others who were considered suitable for teaching appointments were put on the reserve list for 1962 pending vacancies. Of these, 29 have since been appointed to fill vacancies in 1963.

asked the Minister for Education in 1962 (a) how many University of Singapore graduates were recruited (i) into the Government services and (ii) to teach in Government and Government-aided secondary schools; and (b) how many graduates were rejected in each case.

As in the previous question, may I request the Member for Moulmein for the second time to direct the first part of his question to my colleague, the Minister for Finance, if he desires information regarding the number of University of Singapore graduates recruited into Government services in 1962? As regards the number of University of Singapore graduates appointed to teach in Government and Government-aided secondary schools in 1962, the answer is 44. The breakdown is as follows: Government secondary schools 28 Government-aided secondary schools 16 No University of Singapore graduate desiring to teach has had his application rejected because the number of applications is less than the number required for ideal staffing in English medium secondary schools.

asked the Minister for Education how many teachers in Government and Government-aided secondary schools are from Taiwan and Hongkong.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am afraid the question from the Member for Moulmein is somewhat ambiguous. I presume that by "teachers from Taiwan and Hongkong", he is referring to those teachers who, immediately before they were allowed employment in Singapore, were either residents of or were employed in Taiwan or Hongkong. If so, the total number of teachers is 27, the breakdown of which is as follows: From From Total Taiwan Hongkong In Government - 3 3 secondary school In Government- 11 13 24 aided secondary schools Total 11 16 27 All the 27 teachers are on Professional Visit Passes and are allowed to continue in employment on a year-to-year basis. May I add that 21 of these teachers were employed before June 1959, four before July 1961 and two in 1962?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has given information about teachers from Taiwan and Hongkong. But there are many Nanyang University graduates who were not recruited into the Government education service. From this, we can see that the P.A.P. Government -

Order. We are now on Question Time. The hon. Member now must ask a question. If he wishes to debate this matter, then he must find another opportunity. He must ask permission to raise this matter on the adjournment or file a notice of motion. He can now ask supplementary questions to get any further information he requires. Mr Lin You Eng.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not understand it. Since there are many local graduate teachers, why should the Government recruit so many teachers from Taiwan and Hongkong? I hope the Minister will clarify this.

It is very simple, Sir. I have already explained that of the 27 teachers, 21 were employed before June 1959 and 4 before July 1961, making a total of 25 of the 27 teachers who are on year-to-year Professional Visit Passes. I think he can ask his colleagues, the Member for Upper Serangoon and the Member for Serangoon Gardens, who were my Parliamentary Secretaries at one time and who approved them every year, why they approved them then. These are teachers who are here mainly to teach in secondary and upper secondary classes in the Chinese secondary schools and they all have been reported as extremely competent in their subjects by the principals of the schools, the supervisors and the Inspectorate.

Can the Minister inform us whether there are teachers with equivalent qualifications in Singapore, because, according to the Minister's information, these 27 teachers from Taiwan and Hongkong are on Professional Visit Passes?

I have already explained that the majority of these teachers are in Government-aided schools - 24 out of 27. If the management committees of these aided schools together with the principals and professional officers think well of their work, I think they should be allowed to continue.

Can the Minister further inform us how many of the 27 teachers are teaching Science?

That is a question of detail of which I would like more notice.

asked the Minister for Education how many students passed in 1962 (a) the Chinese Senior Middle III Examination, (b) the Chinese Secondary IV Examination, and (c) the Cambridge School Certificate Examination; and how many of them in each case have been employed in the Government service.

The number of students who passed the following examinations held in 1962 were as follows:- Chinese Senior Middle III Examination 366 (the last of its kind) Chinese Secondary IV examination 2,331 Cambridge School Certificate Examination 4,532 As regards the latter part of the question seeking information as to the number in each case having been employed in Government service, may I remind the Member for Moulmein for the third time that he has the wrong address? He should be directing the question to my colleague, the Minister for Finance.

2.42 p.m. Order read for resumption of motion [25th July, 1963], `That this Assembly condemns the People's Action Party Government for its use of State machinery against workers and their organisations in an attempt to disrupt non-P.A.P. trade unions and thereby further P.A.P. interests: and demands that this abuse of State power he forthwith stopped, that the Singapore Association of Trade Unions he given immediate registration and that the fundamental rights of association, assembly and publication of all workers he recognised and respected by the Government.'-(Mr S. T. Bani).

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Government has shown complete disregard of the principles and ethics of trade unionism. It has abused State power in an unprecedented manner. Sir, we have seen how in the case of the Singapore Harbour Board dispute the whole State machinery was used ruthlessly and in full force regardless of ethics and principles in industrial relations. Sir, because of the control over the Press and other media of propaganda, confusion has been brought about as to the basic issues involved in the dispute of the Harbour Board workers, and also a deliberate distortion of facts has taken place. Sir, the Singapore Harbour Board workers have been subjected to all sorts of victimisation for quite some time now. They have been subjected to victimisation since the days of the previous Government. Today, the Singapore People's Alliance led by the Member for Cairnhill comes out championing the cause of the Harbour Board workers. I notice the Member for Cairnhill wishes to raise the dispute of the Port workers in an adjournment motion. Sir, I would like to say here that he and his Government have not been any more tolerant or sympathetic to the water-front workers. The Lim Yew Hock Government encouraged union rivalry, sponsored yellow unions and victimised generally the Harbour Board workers because they rejected the anti-labour policies of his Government. It will be remembered how his Government had refused recognition of the union and had withdrawn the citizenship certificate of the Secretary-General. Therefore, I suggest that today if the Member for Cairnhill comes out and support the cause of the Harbour Board workers, it is because elections are around the corner and he has some vested interests in going to Tanjong Pagar as we can see from the newspapers. Sir, to understand the dispute of the Harbour Board workers in the proper perspective, it is necessary to go back a little to trace the source of dispute. In 1957 -

Order. I trust the hon. Member is not exciting a debate on the Harbour Board dispute as a dispute, because the motion is in general terms. It does not refer specifically to the Harbour Board dispute. It can be mentioned, of course, in passing. But we are not debating at the moment the Harbour Board dispute.

Sir, I wish to touch on the Harbour Board dispute merely to show how and to what extent the present Government is using State machinery to disrupt unions which reject political control by the Government. Before I could touch on the actual acts indulged in by the present Government in the recent Harbour Board dispute, acts which show conclusively that the motivation is political, I think it is necessary to understand briefly the problems that the Harbour Board Union is concerned with. We submit that the Government has been completely unprincipled in its handling of the Harbour Board dispute. Today, the Harbour Board Staff Association registration has been cancelled. The Prime Minister has unilaterally appointed a committee on behalf of the Harbour Board workers. All this has been done in the name of solving the dispute of the Harbour Board workers. But we say this is just a cover, and the Government act in the Harbour Board only confirms our contention that the Government has consistently been using State machinery to break trade unions and trade union unity in the sector where the P.A.P. has no influence. Sir, if I may just briefly say this. In 1957 a Court of Inquiry was appointed by the previous Government which made certain recommendations to be accepted by both disputing parties - the Board and the workers. The present Prime Minister was the legal adviser to the Union then and he presented the case on behalf of the Harbour Board workers. But since the recommendations were published, they have never been implemented. After the elections in 1959, there was a general expectation that these recommendations would be implemented, but the major recommendations up till now have not been implemented. Ever since 1959 after the elections, the Government attitude to the Harbour Board Staff Association has been governed by political considerations. The P.A.P. Government sought to make the Harbour Board Staff Association a tool of the Government. It was decided that if they could not get control of the Harbour Board Staff Association, it would discredit and disrupt the organisation. Sir, in the minds of the P.A.P., it was a very clear decision. Either the Harbour Board Staff Association had to be a P.A.P. organisation or it had to be broken. All attempts since 1959 to control the Union failed. Then, having failed in this, the force of State machinery was introduced. Leaders of the Union were prosecuted and smeared. Following the court case, the Secretary-General of the Union, Mr Jamit Singh, and the Vice-President, Mr Chok Koh Thong, were detained under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance. Immediately following this, yet another attempt was made to capture the Union. In the process of it, the State machinery as usual was used. The C.I.D. called up Committee members, questioned them and threatened them. The Registrar of Trade Unions meddled and interfered with the affairs of the Union. But unfortunately for, the Government, Sir, these attempts again failed. In March, the State machinery was used to a greater extent. On instructions from the Prime Minister, the Harbour Board management withdrew recognition of the Executive Committee of the Union on the grounds that there were two Committees. Sir, I wish to explain this myth of two Committees because a certain amount of confusion has arisen because of Government propaganda. The position in March in the Harbour Board Staff Association was that there was only one Executive Council led by Mr S. Markandu, and that had been the position since November 1961. In November 1961, there were elections in the Union. The Executive Council led by Markandu was elected. A member had taken a case out and the High Court is to determine whether these elections were in accordance with the constitution of the Union. Sir, my understanding of the legal position is until such time as the High Court decides that the elections conducted in November were not in accordance with the constitution of the Union, the Committee that had been elected was the rightful authority in the Union. The Harbour Board management had recognised this position and had entered into industrial relations from November last until March this year. But in March, when the Government had failed in all its endeavours to capture the Union, it gave instructions to the Harbour Board management to withdraw recognition of the Union and seize the Union premises. The Government instructed the Registrar of Trade Unions to freeze the funds of the Union, amounting to $120,000. This was a very blatant abuse of State power. Following this, further attempts were made but they could not deceive the workers, and the resistance to Government control remains. Then, Sir, the Prime Minister called officials of the new Committee to his office. Perhaps one reading the newspapers would have felt that it was the officials of the Union who were going to see the Prime Minister. The fact is that the Prime Minister sits in his office; he decides he wants to have Mr Markandu and company and someone else on the old Committee to come to his office; and all he does is to phone up the Harbour Board management and tell them to put these officials in the car and bring them safely to the Prime Minister's Office. Sir, it is not an exaggeration to say that these officials had to be manhandled in order that they could be brought to the Prime Minister's Office, to have their pictures taken by television cameramen, Press cameramen and so on, to give the impression that the Prime Minister was neutral and impartial, trying to solve the dispute by getting two rival groups together. There were no two rival groups. There was only one group. The other group was a group being instigated by the P.A.P. to put up some rivalry. But the legal status, as I have said, was such that there was only one committee. However, in the process of all these so-called conferences in the Prime Minister's Office, the P.A.P. Government succeeded, to some extent, in giving the public the impression that there were two Committees in the Harbour Board, that there was rivalry, and that therefore the Government was justified in asking the Harbour Board to withdraw recognition of the Union, to take away the Union's funds, to take away the Union's premises. It all suited the Government's machinations, Mr Speaker, because what the Government wanted was to set up a Committee of stooges in the Harbour Board; and if they could play up this myth that there were these two Committees fighting each other, that both had no legal status, then the Government hoped they could give some justification in selecting a handful of henchmen to represent the Harbour Board workers. Sir, at these meetings, the Prime Minister put up a suggestion of electing a Committee and it was turned down. The Union's view was, briefly, that if a negotiating Committee or, for that matter, any other Committee, was going to be elected in the name of the Harbour Board workers to represent them and their Union, then that right of selection must be with the workers and not with the Prime Minister. Sir, it is particularly farcical in a situation like this where the Singapore Government is, in fact, the employer. Sir, no employer in Singapore arrogates to himself the right to appoint a negotiating Committee on behalf of its employees. This is a farce and no trade unionist worth his salt will ever accept such a position. Needless to say, Mr Speaker, if tomorrow every employer follows the example set by the Government, which claims to be pro-labour, which claims to be a model employer, and insists on unilaterally setting up a Committee on behalf of its employees, then there will be chaos and unrest all round. Sir, the Union took a strike decision to get the demands met, and the demands were very simple. One, recognition of the Executive Committee. It was pertinent at that moment to have this matter fought out, because if the Union had kept quiet, the Prime Minister would have proceeded to appoint his own Committee. Sir, we know what happened after the workers took a strike decision. The Prime Minister got panicky. The Government got panicky. The Prime Minister, who since 1959 had not gone to the Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association to see the Harbour Board workers, who had not gone to the Harbour Board to see the workers, went to the Harbour Board this time. We saw grand pictures in the newspapers of workers shouting pro-Malaysia slogans and greeting the Prime Minister. Sir, here again I would like to take just one moment to say how the facts were distorted. There was no justification for the Government to refuse recognition if the Union and its Executive Committee. They knew that when the workers took a strike decision, they were caught out publicly. To overcome this, the Prime Minister instructed the Harbour Board to get all the workers together for a meeting. He decided to go direct to the members to get a decision from them. We know that the Harbour Board had a lot of gates. All the gates were locked up. Riot squads and police personnel stood by at the Tanjong Pagar Police Station; plainclothes men filled the Harbour Board area, and Harbour Board personnel were used to go around to force every worker to attend this meeting. The instructions were very simple. "These are working hours. You are an employee of the Harbour Board. The orders are, `You attend this meeting. If you do not attend this meeting, you will be subject to disciplinary action.'" At this meeting the Prime Minister announced that he would make this award of a Malaysia bonus. Sir, in the first place, his conduct was very unprincipled, because he had no business to go direct to the workers on an industrial matter that a trade union was representing. In the second place, the State power was used to intimidate and coerce the workers and to get them to see his point of view. There was no fair play. It was all described as a big victory for the Prime Minister. But he had no courage to allow Union officials to address the meeting. The whole exercise carried out by the Prime Minister was to prevent a strike, because if it had taken place, the misdeeds of the Government would have come to public attention. To prevent a strike, he, together with responsible people like Hon Sui Sen, Chairman of the Harbour Board, and other Harbour Board officials, indulged in completely unethical and unprincipled conduct. Even at these two meetings with the Harbour Board workers, we found that they were determined to proceed with their fight to gain recognition; and to prevent this, Sir, with a stroke of the pen, the registration of the Harbour Board Staff Association was cancelled. Sir, it is a pity that the Prime Minister is not here. Since he believes in open confrontation, perhaps this would be an appropriate moment to hear what he has to say. But I say that in the Harbour Board dispute it was not the Union which was being political but the Government. The Harbour Board even today, Sir, is faced with an explosive situation, because the Government wants to play politics with unions and workers. The fact that the Harbour Board Staff Association registration is cancelled by an arbitrary decision of the Government does not resolve the dispute in the Harbour Board. The Prime Minister has set up a Committee of six people to try and look after the affairs of the workers. In the first place, Mr Speaker, he has no right whatsoever to appoint such a Committee. In the second place, the appointment of this Committee does not solve the problem. Sir, if a strike takes place, either today, tomorrow, or one week or two months from now, it is not because there are Communists trying to create industrial unrest. Sir, for ten years now the Harbour Board workers have been patient. They were patient when their leaders were arrested. They were patient when their claims were referred arbitrarily to the Arbitration Court. They were patient when their premises were seized. They were patient when $120,000 of their funds was frozen. But they could not be patient any longer when the Government proposed to set up a Committee, a P.A.P. Committee, to represent them in industrial relations. The fact that today the Government have cancelled the registration of the Harbour Board Staff Association only increases the problem. The struggle of the Harbour Board workers continues, and I have no doubt, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the victory will be that of the Harbour Board Staff Association members, and Harbour Board workers as a whole. It is not going to be a personal victory for any individual, be it the Prime Minister or anybody else. Sir, the Harbour Board issue is a very clear example of the extent to which the Government is prepared to use State power for its party political interest. Sir, in the past, we have quoted numerous small examples of C. K. Tang, Tiger Breweries, and the Steam Laundries and so on. I do not think I have to repeat all this at this moment. There is no doubt in the minds of the officials of all unions of the intention of the Government. All trade unions, all employers and many people who are one way or the other connected with industrial problems, industrial relations, know full well that today the Singapore Government's abuse of State power for its political purposes in the trade union field is unprecedented. On the one hand, attempts are made to disrupt the unions which are non-P.A.P., to discriminate against them, to deny them of their fundamental rights and privileges. On the other hand, State power is used to foster the growth of the N.T.U.C. The P.A.P. outfit is led by renegades and discredited leaders in the trade union field. Sir, today, the N.T.U.C. is a big racket. It is supposed to be the P.A.P.'s vehicle for working class support, and it is used to make P.A.P. propaganda to gather support for the P.A.P. amongst the workers. Sir, I have had occasion in the past to say in this House how public funds have been used to assist in the running of this organisation, the Labour Research Unit, $300,000 annually to pay salaries to P.A.P. trade unionists; how the Labour Ministry is being used to pressurise employers into meeting the excessive demands made by this organisation; how the office of the Commissioner for Labour is being used to order secret ballots, to withhold secret ballots in the process of determining union representation, etc. Sir, I would like to quote from a letter that appeared in the Malayan Times. I do not have the paper, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Order. I have mentioned time and again that if a Member wishes to quote from a newspaper, the newspaper ought to be brought. Which date is that?

23rd of July.

I take it the newspaper must be in the Library. But in future I might be a little stricter.

It is a letter in the People's Parliament column in the Malayan Times, 23rd of July. Sir, I quote this letter because the Government has a sickness. Everything we say is branded as Communist propaganda. I think it is worthwhile taking note of what this gentleman has said because, in the first place, I do not think this gentleman is a Communist by any standards. He starts off by condemning the S.A.T.U. as well. With your permission, Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to read this part because it gives a clear picture of what sort of racket exists in the N.T.U.C.: `One of the biggest unions affiliated to the N.T.U.C. is AUPE whose leader is Mr G. Kandasamy. He has been at loggerheads with Mr Devan Nair since the very inception of the N.T.U.C. This resulted in the division of the N.T.U.C. into two factions. Overseas scholarships came in as a handy instrument, which the two groups used to attract promising unionists who, in turn, would help to outdo the other group in their empire building.' Incidentally, Mr Speaker, this article is entitled "Empire Building": `A few months ago when Mr Kandasamy was able to secure a studs course to Israel, sponsored by the ICFTU, he handpicked his adherents from the various unions without reference either to the N.T.U.C. or to the unions concerned. On the other hand, the majority group in the N.T.U.C. pampers one or two unions on whose potentialities they have great hopes. For instance, let us take the United Workers of Petroleum Industry which represents the employees in oil companies. All the good scholarships, such as study trips to Canada, America, United Kingdom, Germany, and Switzerland are reserved for these pampered chaps. Last year one member from this union went on a Canadian and Continental trip. This year another member, Mr Aziz Karim, has gone on a similar trip abroad. A third one will soon be going to Japan and Vienna.' In fact, they have since left, Mr Speaker. `Members of this union occupy positions in the Adult Education Board and Central Provident Fund Board. These blue-eyed boys are given pride of place in all public functions. When the affiliated unions of the N.T.U.C. strained their very nerve to make this year's May Day celebrations a success [which, Sir, was not a success because they had an attendance of only about 3,000], not even the members of the executive committee attended the rally. For instance, Mr Aziz, Karim, an official of the United Workers of Petroleum Industry, who was nominated by the N.T.U.C. to work in the Labour Research Unit, had not even shown his face there throughout the last seven months under the pretext of ill-health. It must be noted here that all those unionists, who are seconded to the Labour Research Unit, are paid by the Unit which receives an annual grant of $300,000. For his seven months' absence Mr Aziz Karim has received a grand sum of $3,000 [an average of about $400 a month, Mr Speaker] - the hard-earned taxpayers' money. Neither the Director of the Labour Research Unit, nor the Chairman of the N.T.U.C., who is also seconded to the above unit, despite their full knowledge of this, took any action against Mr Aziz Karim. This man, who was so indisposed that he absented himself for seven months from his place of work, woke up one fine Monday morning (July 15, 1963) found himself hale and healthy, produced his health certificates at the Singapore Airport, and flew to Canada, leaving a group of unionists stricken with bewilderment. This means, in addition to his seven months' absence with pay, he will enjoy another four months with pay in Canada and in the Continent. What a terrible waste of public money!' Sir, I solemnly swear this is not from a Communist. I only read it from a paper, and it is signed "PRO BONO PUBLICO". But as I have said earlier on, he could not possibly be anybody connected with the S.A.T.U., because there is an initial criticism of S.A.T.U. and its control, etc. [Interruption] Well, you can read it.

Order.

Sir, I have nothing to hide here. If the Member is quite interested, he can take the Malayan Times and read it in full - five times over in this House - and I will have no objection. My point here is to stress the fact that today the Government uses State machinery for its own use, State funds for its own purpose, and forces a few civil servants to carry out work for the advancement of the P.A.P.'s political interests. Sir, this is only one side of it. On the other side, I hear that all is not well even in their unions. I hear that in the Singapore Manual and Mercantile Workers Union, $12,000 is missing, and Mr T. V. Gomez has taken a holiday. I do not know what the Government has done about this. In the Federation of Public Daily-Rated Employees Union, $2,000 is missing. A report was made in the Kandang Kerbau Police Station, but nothing was done. On the other hand, practically every day every union in the S.A.T.U. group is being persecuted by the Registrar of Trade Unions on instructions from the Government. The mess in the Manual and Mercantile Workers Union is known to the workers. If the Government have any decency, I believe they will make a categorical statement either confirming it or denying it. If they have courage, I say hold a public inquiry and get the Rediffusion workers to testify as to the truth or otherwise of what I have said. Sir, the N.T.U.C. today is given full blessing and official recognition, whereas S.A.T.U. is denied the right to hold any activity. The application for the registration of S.A.T.U. was made in August 1961. It was the first application following the resolution of the Trades Union Congress. Up to date the Registrar of Trade Unions has not even the decency to communicate with us. In order to give an appearance of impartiality, I hear the N.T.U.C. is not officially registered but it can hold its conference. The S.A.T.U. annual conference was banned. The Internal Security Council was made to take the responsibility for the ban. We asked for a police permit to hold a rally, but there was no police permit. Sir, the fact that the N.T.U.C. may not be legally registered does not mean that it is subjected to the same treatment that is given to the S.A.T.U. It is only for purposes of convenience and to give the impression of impartiality that the registration has not been given. But otherwise it has the official backing of the Government. Sir, the trade union movement in Singapore today is no doubt divided. But this division is not something new to Singapore. In one way or another this division has always existed because there is a minority of working people who are servile and backward in their thinking and are fearful of the authority of the day. Hence, this minority group has from time to time lent its support to the government of the day and has become a tool of the ruling circles. During the years preceding 1959 when there was an upsurge of trade union activity, this minority section of the trade union movement persistently played its role of reaction. Now this group once again indulges in reaction and stirs up differences amongst the workers with the aid of the State power and a handful of renegade leaders. Sir, the only difference is that it is now the P.A.P. Government and renegades like Devan Nair and T. V. Gomez instead of it being the previous Government and renegades like Jaganathan, Lee Chwee Lim and Ang Leong Seng. The P.A.P. came to power in 1959 with the support of the progressive trade union movement. One of the major election pledges was to unify the trade union movement. As was pledged, a unified trade union movement was recognised as a pre-condition for industrial peace with justice. Today the Government have completely forgotten their pledge, and, besides not doing anything to unify the movement, have perpetuated and deepened the division by their use of State machinery. Sir, the trade unions that are today accused of being Communist-led had more than demonstrated in the past of their willingness to work with the new Government after the elections in order to bring about a unified strong trade union movement which, as I have said, would be a necessary pre-requisite for industrial peace. However, it was Government's fear born out of political opportunism that prevented the unification of the trade union movement. It was the Government's failure to manipulate and control the T.U.C. in 1961 to serve its own purpose that led to the open breach in the T.U.C. Instead of letting the unions decide their future, the Government announced the dissolution of the T.U.C. with the shameless connivance of their henchmen in the T.U.C. Secretariat. Sir, ever since 1961, the Government have been giving official blessing and active support to the N.T.U.C. and disrupting and discriminating against S.A.T.U. Sir, we find it necessary to warn the Government of the consequences of their actions, of the consequences of their labour policy based on political bias and discrimination against the majority of trade unions and trade union members. The Government alone are solely responsible for any uneasiness and tension in the industrial field. S.A.T.U. is the main stream of the working class movement in Singapore. The Government attitude to S.A.T.U., in effect, means denying S.A.T.U. its rightful place in the country. Sir, S.A.T.U. cannot be crippled and choked out of existence. Any attempt to do so would only mean inviting retaliation by the majority of the workers. Sir, the Government would do well to take stock of things and accord S.A.T.U. its rightful place. S.A.T.U. must be registered forthwith and S.A.T.U. unions' rights recognised and respected by the Government. Question proposed. 3.33 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Thomson seems rather to be under an illusion that any union which is not within the S.A.T.U. organisation is automatically P.A.P. controlled. He has been in the trade union movement for some time and I am sure he understands that there are about 128 unions in Singapore of which 34 unions or so are in S.A.T.U. Therefore, for the Member for Thomson to come and say that 90 odd unions in Singapore are under the control of the P.A.P. or that the P.A.P. controls 94 unions, I do not think he is doing himself or the trade union movement any good. Sir, by such an appraisal, he is tacitly admitting that the 34 unions who are in S.A.T.U. are controlled and dominated by the Barisan Sosialis. I think the Member for Thomson who moved this motion in April had slightly different ideas. Indeed I would have thought the speech would have been different, had he delivered it in April, from the speech that we heard yesterday and this afternoon. I can sympathise with the difficulties in the trade union movement in the industrial field. The pace is fast and from April to now, several changes have taken place that perhaps the Member for Thomson, busy as he is in preparing black banners, or rather giving advice as to how to prepare black banners, has not had much time to concentrate on the motion that he moved. Subsequent to the motion being placed on the Order Paper, the S.A.T.U. group of unions have adopted another definition of what "P.A.P. union" means. It is quite open in Singapore in the trade union movement that the S.A.T.U. group of unions have said those unions whose leaders were honoured in June by awards - I have forgotten the names of the medals - that were given for public service, hence only those unions were P.A.P. controlled and unions whose leaders were not honoured in such a manner were not P.A.P. controlled. Sir, it seems today the Member for Thomson has gone off the track again from what the S.A.T.U. leadership have said. Because if the unions whose leaders won awards in June were the only unions controlled by the P.A.P., then a close examination will show that there are only six unions whose leaders have been so honoured. Sir, I think the Member for Thomson would have done the House a favour if he had defined what he meant by "non-P.A.P. trade unions" -

It includes yours. You have fallen out -

I am still on this side of the House. The Member is not suffering from any disease of the eyes and I hope he will not suffer. There is no such thing as "my unions" in the trade union movement. The trade union movement does not belong to any individual. It belongs to the workers. But the Member for Thomson apparently has different ideas. He probably believes that the trade unions belong to him personally -[Interruption]

Order.

Sir, last evening the Member for Thomson touched upon the Amalgamated Union of Public Employees. He said that the balloting that was conducted by the Ministry of Labour on the dispute involving nurses was stopped by the Amalgamated Union of Public Employees. Very subtly he said perhaps that was because there were P.A.P. members in the Amalgamated Union of Public Employees. Sir, I would like to explain this. The Member for Thomson should have spent more time reading the Industrial Relations Ordinance and other Ordinances, and if he had, he would have found a means of avoiding the difficulty he found himself in in the Breweries case. Sir, when the dispute was directed under section 28 (b) to arbitration, from that time onwards, from the moment the Gazette was issued in accordance with the Industrial Relations Ordinance, the dispute comes within the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Court and any action taken by the employer or the Ministry of Labour before the issue of the Gazette is usually null and void. Sir, as soon as the Amalgamated Union of Public Employees came to understand that the Ministry of Labour were going to count and declare the ballot which they had conducted, they promptly reported the matter to the President of the Industrial Arbitration Court. They informed him that if the ballot boxes were opened, counted and declared, that would be prejudicial to the case before the Court. The Court, being an independent body as it is, promptly ordered the Ministry of Labour not to open the boxes, not to count the ballot and not to declare. I think even the Ministry of Labour were caught by surprise, because when the moment arrived for the opening of the ballot boxes, newspaper reporters photographers and various other functionaries were there, and it was only at the last moment that the Court's order was conveyed and obeyed. If the Member for Thomson had done some reading of the Industrial Relations Ordinance and had done a little bit of research into the precedents set up by the Australian Courts, I am sure he would have saved a lot of time in his speech about the Harbour Board workers and Brewery workers. He would have found that in Singapore there are enough laws, enough avenues, to seek redress of the matters that he had raised. Sir, the T.U.C. was mentioned by the Member for Thomson. Sir, in the case of the Sassoon workers, he forgot to mention that the P.A.P. and the present non-P.A.P., including him, when we heard of the arrest of the workers who were involved in the Sassoon strike, promptly went to the Central Police Station and not only publicly protested but we also had a meeting with the then Minister for Labour. The next instance was the deregistration of the Federation of Transport Unions. The Member for Thomson was one of the Secretaries of the T.U.C. then, and when the deregistration took place, an explanation was given and there was no protest. Now for him to come out at this late hour and accuse others in the T.U.C., I think, is not doing justice to his former colleagues; neither is he doing justice to himself because he was, until 1961, a member of the Secretariat. The trade union movement cannot be united by legislation. No trade union movement in the world has been united by legislation. Legislation has been of assistance. Legislation sometimes has been a hindrance. But for the trade union movement to unite, such unity can only come from the workers and nobody else. The Member for Thomson touched upon the Harbour Board workers. I have some experience dealing with the Harbour Board workers, not since 1959, if I may say so, Sir. My experience goes before that. Strangely enough, Sir, with regard to the Harbour Board workers, the disputes since 1955 have involved two ex-Chief Ministers and the present Prime Minister. As far as I know, the trouble of the Harbour Board workers arises from two factors. One factor is that the Committee of the Harbour Board workers from 1955 to 1962 have never prepared their cases for the workers or created an administrative machinery, an organisation, to look after all the workers in the Harbour Board. Unfortunately, Sir, some of the leaders - I will not say all - have been more interested in the political aspect than in the industrial aspect. Had the Committee concentrated on the industrial aspect from 1955, I do not think we would have reached the position today where the workers are now finding themselves without a union, very confused as to what is to be done in the present situation. Their claims have been directed to the Arbitration Court. They have received a bonus at the same time. And the responsibility for all this rests squarely on some of the leaders of the union. Surely the Member for Thomson realises it. The former General-Secretary was a colleague of both of us. He was a good friend, I think, of the former Chief Minister, the Member for Cairnhill, with whom he had certain difficulties at certain times. He was also well known to the previous Chief Minister, the Member for Anson at the moment. If the Member for Thomson had been able to advise as early as 1959, then the General-Secretary and the Committee should have gone to work on organisation and administration, Sir, whatever has happened to Mr Jamit Singh, I think the organisation would have been there looking after the interests of the workers, and any negotiations would have been conducted by the workers' representatives, by the workers of the Harbour Board, and not by people who have nothing whatsoever to do with the Harbour Board. If we are to assist the Harbour Board workers, may I advise the Member for Thomson that the best that can happen is for persons who are not connected directly with the Harbour Board to leave the Harbour Board workers to resolve their own difficulties, to elect their own representatives, and to conduct the affairs of the union by leadership elected from the rank and file of the port workers without any interference whatsoever from outsiders'? Sir, I do not say this because I am not in any way involved or interested, while the Member for Thomson is directly, I believe, its adviser, but I think he would be doing a great service to the port workers to advise them to look after their own affairs without any advice or interference from outside; whether it is the Member for Thomson or whether it is the N.T.U.C. I should think that both of them should keep away from the port workers. Sir, the Amalgamated Union of Public Employees has serious difficulties with its employers, the Government of Singapore. It also has some difficulties with the N.T.U.C. But that is no excuse whatsoever for the Member for Thomson to say that there is a Kandasamy faction in the N.T.U.C. For his information, I might as well say this - when the N.T.U.C. was formed, it was I who proposed that Mr Devan Nair be its General Secretary; and I declined the post of General Secretary. I can assure the House that I have no intention whatsoever of standing for election to any office in the N.T.U.C., and therefore there is no need for me to create a Kandasamy faction. The Kandasamy faction that the Member for Thomson has said is his own imagination and not a reality. Regarding scholarships, I do not have any authority or the power to award scholarships to anyone, whether it be the Israel scholarship that the Member for Thomson mentioned or any other scholarship. Scholarships are offered to the Ministry of Labour. The normal procedure, I believe, lies with the N.T.U.C. And between them they select the participants for the courses. I do not have an opportunity to offer scholarships, but as a member of the N.T.U.C., I may propose certain persons who may have the support of the N.T.U.C. and thus be awarded scholarships. But that does not in any way substantiate the accusation made by the Member for Thomson that the Kandasamy faction, in trying to win members over, is offering scholarships. Finally, I would say to the Member for Thomson - since he has found himself to be in a difficult situation in regard to the brewery workers and the Harbour Board - perhaps if he had done his homework better and had spent more time reading up the Ordinances, the possibilities that are there, and had spent less time with black banners, I am sure he would have found solutions to his problems and he would have done better for the workers of Singapore, instead of having to make his very lengthy speech on the Harbour Board workers. 3.55 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as the Member for Thomson has touched on the workers of the Harbour Board, I feel it is my duty to clarify certain points which I believe he has been wrongly informed about by certain employees in the Harbour Board. In his speech he mentioned about the recommendations of the Court of Inquiry appointed by the previous Government. The previous Government did not try to implement the recommendations up to 1959, and after 1959 the present Government implemented the main or important aspects of the recommendations. In fact, in 1961 Mr Jamit Singh, I and Mr Latiff signed an agreement on behalf of the Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association which stated quite clearly that all major recommendations of the Court of Inquiry had been completely and fully implemented to the satisfaction of all the workers concerned; except for one item which at that time - and even Mr Jamit Singh and the whole Committee agreed on this - was practically impossible to implement because of the nature of the work of the Harbour Board. Mr Speaker, Sir, on this particular operation - from December 1959 right up to May 1961 - the Harbour Board and the Union sat together. We discussed all the problems and did our best. Even though we differed politically with Mr Jamit Singh, who was a good friend of mine, we did this to the best of our ability and to the satisfaction of all the Harbour Board workers concerned. That is the first point I want to clarify and that the Member for Thomson has got the wrong information. The second point is the victimisation of the Harbour Board workers. He said that this has been going on since 1955, i.e., about eight to ten years from the time of the previous Government. He is now accusing that this is going on in the time of the present Government. On this matter of victimisation, I would say that as one who worked in the Harbour Board and as one who is closely associated with its Union, I cannot find any reason to put the blame on the present Government. The whole setup of the Harbour Board is such that any officer of the Harbour Board, if he wants to play dirty, can play dirty, so that the reflection falls on Government. As far as I can see it now, this victimisation is not primarily or mainly directed towards the present new Committee or because the workers are supporting the Barisan Sosialis or S.A.T.U. I do not think that is the case. The other point that the Member for Thomson has mentioned is the election of the new Committee and the legality of this Committee. He has suggested that there are virtually two Committees. Sir, the one problem which we were faced with in 1955 is this. In the period from 1955 to 1959 there were unions in the Singapore Harbour Board having trouble with one another. The problems of the Harbour Board workers had accumulated since 1955. All the time we were asking for one single union for the Harbour Board workers. After a critical strife, we formed one union but the Board refused to recognise this. There were yellow unions then. So the problems had accumulated up to 1959. The reason why the new election of Executive Committee members, as suggested by the Member for Thomson, is illegal, or seems to be illegal because an employee of the Board has taken a case in the High Court. Before this particular election of the Executive Committee members, all sectional representatives met Mr Jamit Singh - at that time the Member for Thomson was not an adviser to the union - and also all employees of the Harbour Board met Mr Jamit Singh and requested him that elections should be held. He refused. He said. "According to the constitution of the Harbour Board Staff Association, you cannot hold elections because the Association cannot represent 10,000 workers." And he was correct. I also said this. But what happened was that they suddenly conducted the elections ultra vires the constitution.

Order. I understood from the Member for Thomson that that matter is sub judice. It has been referred to the Court. If that is so, then, of course, it cannot be mentioned.

I am just mentioning it in passing and I will not be going into details. As my colleague, the Member for Kampong Kapor, has stated, the position of the Singapore Harbour Board workers is a very difficult one. They were made to suffer for the last eight years because of their active participation in politics. I am in complete agreement with my colleague that the Singapore Harbour Board workers should be given a chance to elect their own representatives who are employed in the Singapore Harbour Board itself. After the election of their Committee, let them he given the authority to run a union democratically in their own interest. If there is no outside interference, I think the Singapore Harbour Board workers are quite capable of electing their own leaders. I think there are quite a number of good chaps who can run the union quite efficiently for the betterment of the Singapore Harbour Board workers. The other point, as the Member for Thomson has suggested, is that the Prime Minister went there and that ten gates were closed. The Singapore Harbour Board employees are from Gate 1, that is, East Reclamation Road to the Pasir Panjang Power Station and partly the Singapore Slipway at Tanjong Rhu. Can we believe that 10,000 employees scattered over four miles can all be locked up within 10 or 12 gates? If they refuse to go to a meeting called by the Singapore Harbour Board or on the instruction of the Prime Minister, there the problem ends. Nobody can force the 10,000 employees from Tanjong Berlayer right up to Tanjong Rhu to go to a meeting. So, this exactly shows that the workers in the Singapore Harbour Board have come to a position where they are fed up with all these things and they are too eager for somebody to tackle their problems. They are too eager to get something, because for the last eight years they have never received any rate increases and there has been no change in their working conditions. Therefore in that sense, they thought it best to go to the meeting called by the Prime Minister. They went there to listen to him and the President of the Union was given a chance to be on the platform; for that matter, everybody was given a chance to be on the platform. Instead of prolonging the matter, let the workers of the Singapore Harbour Board get something as an interim award. They have been given a chance to elect their own representatives to run their union. I think once they elect their own representatives and the Executive Committee, they should be left alone so that they can look after their own interests.

No other Member wishing to speak? 4.05 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this motion is moved not because there is cause for concern that the fundamental rights of association, assembly and publication of the workers are being ignored or disregarded by the Government as alleged in the motion. On the contrary, it is due to the Government's pro-labour policy that revived the workers' movement immediately after the present Government took office. This has led to the restoration of the workers' fundamental rights of association, assembly and publication which were suppressed by the Lim Yew Hock Government. The emergence of such a favourable situation instilled strong confidence among the workers, so much so that they took full advantage of the situation created to reorganise and strengthen their unions. It is due to this consolidation of the unions' position that has enabled the workers to achieve better terms and conditions of service. Mr Speaker, Sir, why do the Barisan move this motion? To them, the primary role and function of a trade union is to advance the aims and aspirations of particular political ideologies, parties or personalities. But as a result of the successful implementation of the Government's pro-labour policy, the pro-Communists in the Barisan Sosialis have failed in their attempt to reduce trade unions into playthings of political forces out to advance their own narrow aims and ideologies. It is therefore understandable that this motion is only an attempt to distort the facts to conceal their misdeeds that have caused so much loss and damage to the workers in the past. The Member for Thomson has touched on the subject of the reunification of the trade union movement. Mr Speaker, Sir, unification of the trade union movement is to consolidate the bargaining position of the workers with their employers. This is the real purpose for the move to reunify the trade union movement. Let us examine the development of trade union organisations during the days of the Lim Yew Hock Government and the present Government. During the period January 1955 to May 1959, while the previous Government was in office, 139 new employees' unions were registered. This represents an average of nearly three new unions registered every month. When the present Government assumed office in June 1959, there was a total of 226 employees' unions with an aggregate membership of 134,650. There are at the moment only 121 employees' unions with an aggregate membership of 189,221. This represents a net decrease of 105 unions and a net increase of union membership of nearly 55,000 since we assumed office. The above facts and figures in themselves constitute the conclusive evidence of what the Government has done to achieve the object of reunification of the trade union movement. The trade union movement in Singapore is in fact forging ahead in spite of the hue and cry of the Barisan Sosialis. The Government understands that it is not so much because trade union movement in Singapore makes no progress that is lamentable, but rather that the Barisan Sosialis is deprived of the opportunity to control and make use of the trade union movement in the State as their open front political instruments. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Thomson has also accused the Government of having deviated from its pro-labour policy and that it is now no more a pro- labour Government. Let me quote the facts of what we have done in the past: to provide the necessary facilities and machinery to assist the workers to achieve better terms and conditions of service, to uphold and to implement the policy of industrial peace with justice, the Government has taken the necessary steps to set up the requisite machinery such as the Industrial Arbitration Courts. It has augmented the conciliation service and the Labour Courts in the Labour Ministry and has set up a Labour Research Unit. The extent and amount of benefit the workers have derived from the pro-labour policy of the present Government has been laboriously dealt with by the Minister during the Budget sittings. There is no necessity for me to repeat. Mr Speaker, Sir, on the provision of such effective machinery and facilities for the workers to better their terms and conditions of service, the Member for Thomson accused the Labour Office of being discriminatory between the N.T.U.C. and S.A.T.U. unions. Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no truth in it. The facilities of the Labour Ministry are open to all unions, whether they belong to N.T.U.C. or S.A.T.U. The pro-Communist leaders of the S.A.T.U. unions, of course, do their best to keep their members away from the conciliation facilities offered by the Ministry of Labour. But even when workers belonging to the S.A.T.U. unions come to the Ministry, they are treated fairly without any discrimination whatsoever. This is basic and fundamental to the policy of the Government. We can assure the workers belonging to the S.A.T.U. unions that while we will fight the pro-Communist leaders on every front, we shall be fair and just in all our dealings with workers who have the misfortune of being under pro-Communist leadership, provided, of course, that their grievances are genuine and that they press their claims within the framework of the law. I say genuine grievances because the pro-Communist leaders of the Barisan are past masters in the art of manufacturing grievances where none exists. The Member for Thomson spoke on the registration of S.A.T.U. Mr Speaker. Sir, you will recall that after the split in the leadership of the Singapore Trades Union Congress sometime in July 1961, Lim Ching Siong, Fong Swee Suan, S. Woodhull, Jamit Singh, Puthucheary and the Member for Thomson came out and organised the Singapore Association of Trade Unions. Now why did they come out to organise S.A.T.U.? It is quite apparent that they know that they must exploit trade disputes for political purposes instead of maintaining industrial peace with justice mainly to serve the interest of the workers. I am sure the Member for Thomson will give other reasons for the split. But for the record, Mr Speaker, Sir, the primary cause of the split in the Singapore Trades Union Congress was the constant by-passing of the S.T.U.C. by these six members of the Secretariat and their repeated utilisation of a group of trade unions closely allied to them to advance factional political aims and to bring pressure on and to manipulate a properly elected Government. After the split, these persons could no longer carry out their anti-national activities within the framework of S.T.U.C. Therefore, they had to look for a new setup so that they could continue to manipulate the trade union movement in the interest o, foreign anti-Malayan and anti-Malaysia forces. Hence the formation of S.A.T.U. Now what has S.A.T.U. done for the workers? It came into existence on 16th August, 1961. The activities of S.A.T.U. since its inception, including its close adherence to the anti-Malaysia line of a foreign power and voicing the new colonial charges of the P.K.I., have clearly shown that its first interest is political and that its inspiration to say the least is pro-Communist. The record of S.A.T.U.'s affiliated unions on labour affairs over the past months has been most deplorable. Over 1,000 workers have lost their jobs because of their misdeeds. Therefore, they have to move this motion to cover their evils. Because of the sabotage of our industrial progress for political reasons, hundreds of workers have lost their jobs and countless young men and women have been deprived of the prospect of work. Mr Speaker, Sir, I will now deal with the details of the cases that were mentioned by the Member for Thomson. Yesterday, he mentioned the holding of secret ballots. At the last sitting I have explained to this House why in the case of C. K. Tang a secret ballot could not be held when it was asked for. I will just briefly say that at that time there was legal advice to the Commissioner for Labour that when it was a collective and registered agreement, no secret ballot could be held. So the Commissioner for Labour was not happy with this advice because this goes against the principle of freedom of association. He took up this matter further with the State Advocate-General's Chambers. The State Advocate-General's Chambers then later reviewed this decision and advised the Commissioner for Labour that secret ballot could be held even in a case where a registered and certified collective agreement is in existence. So, therefore, there is no fix-up or arrangement to suit the convenience of any non-S.A.T.U. union. He also mentioned yesterday, the Plywood case. Mr Speaker, Sir, this is the very thing I am going to say to refute the allegations he made. When the S.A.T.U. union came to know that there was a piece of advice that if there is a registered agreement, a secret ballot cannot be held, they quickly availed them selves of this opportunity to go to Court to get an old agreement registered. This agreement was signed in 1961 and it was due to expire very soon. But the union, afraid of losing their membership, quickly availed themselves of the legal position then and asked the Court to certify and register that agreement. After the registration and certification, the union claimed that they were covered by this ruling and therefore a secret ballot could not be held. Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no such thing as discrimination between a S.A.T.U. union and a non-S.A.T.U. union. The Member for Thomson yesterday mentioned the Minister for Finance and me coercing the management of the Plywood not to implement the agreement that they had signed. This is far from the truth, Mr Speaker, Sir. He threw a challenge yesterday and I am prepared to accept his challenge. They have cunningly availed themselves of the technicality I have mentioned just now to get the old agreement signed, and then later on, by that course of action, prevent a secret ballot from being held. So they then entered into negotiations with the management. Arising out of that negotiation, they have reached agreement on the question of bonus. But then, according to the Industrial Arbitration Court's practice, though negotiations have been concluded and an agreement has been signed, it should not be implemented until that agreement has been registered and certified by the Court. Now, because of this technicality again, Mr Speaker, Sir, the management could not implement the agreement reached between the two parties. There is no such thing as that we want to deny the workers of the benefits they have achieved. That is far from the truth. As I have pointed out just now, Mr Speaker, Sir, we are going to face leaders like the Member for Thomson and his colleagues who try :o manipulate the unions for political purposes. But as far as the workers are concerned, we are all with them to better their terms and conditions of service. Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, we are very glad indeed that the Member for Thomson has moved this motion. This shows that we have been successful in implementing our pro-labour policy. There is no cause for us to be alarmed. That is why he is in a very difficult position to hoodwink the workers. According to his own interpretation, the fundamental rights of the workers mean that the workers should group together and they should be used and manipulated by the pro-Communists for their own ends. But right from the beginning, we have made it very clear that we are going to see that the trade union movement is going to be developed into a national independent trade union movement for the betterment of the workers and not for anti-national elements to make use of it. The Member for Thomson has mentioned the Harbour Board case. This is also another example of why because the pro-Communists have failed to control a union for political purposes, they have made a hue and cry over it. They raise this up not because of the interests of the 10,000 workers. They do not care two hoots whether the workers' conditions are improved. Well, I will prove it. There are facts down here. First of all, I will briefly deal with the deregistration of the Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association. In October 1962, the Registrar of Trade Unions inquired into the affairs of the Association. It was found that the Association had committed many breaches of the Trade Unions Ordinance and its own rules and constitution. The inquiry also reviewed a case of misappropriation of $7,634 of the Association's funds. Following investigations into the Registrar of Trade Unions' report made on 12th October, the police arrested the Association's General Secretary, Jamit Singh, and the Treasurer, Yeow Fook Yin, and later charged them in Court with criminal breach of trust. After a trial of 23 days in the First Criminal District Court, both accused were convicted on 1st of March. Jamit Singh was gaoled for 18 months and Yeow Fook Yin nine months. However, they have given notice of appeal. On 26th October, the Registrar of Trade Unions served a notice on the Association calling upon it to show cause why its certificate of registration should not be cancelled for having committed eight breaches of the law and its own rules and constitution. The eight breaches are as follows -

Order. I do not think we should go into those details. There were breaches and I think we do not want to list the eight breaches. We are not debating the cancellation of registration of the Harbour Board Association. I think the fact of the cancellation is sufficient. The reasons for the cancellation, yes, but not too many details.

As you wish, Mr Speaker, Sir. In case the Member for Thomson would like to obtain more details, I will reiterate them. So the Association submitted a lengthy memorandum in reply to the Registrar of Trade Union's notice to show cause. As the memorandum contained many inaccuracies and inconsistencies, an inquiry was held in accordance with the provisions of the Trade Union Ordinance on the 15th and 16th of January by the R.T.U. to give the Association an opportunity to clarify these inaccuracies and inconsistencies. However, the R.T.U. was compelled to call off the inquiry because at the two meetings, the officers of the Association were not only unwilling to answer questions, but also deliberately concerted to disrupt the proceedings. The Association was given another opportunity on 18th January and a further opportunity on 11th February to clarify the major inaccuracies and inconsistencies in its memorandum. Up to date the Association has not done so. The cancellation of the Association's certificate of registration was therefore made last week. Now, on the point of the mystery of the new Committee and the old Committee, as the Member for Thomson put it, Mr Speaker, Sir. On the 15th of November, 1962, the Association elected a new Executive Council. Immediately this new Executive Council was elected a member later filed a writ of summons in the High Court asking that the elections be declared null and void. This action is still pending. Therefore, under those circumstances, the Board and the R.T.U. could not recognise which is the regular and legal body that represents the workers. Mr Speaker, Sir, I will go on to the claims later on. Regarding the Member for Thomson's allegation that because the Prime Minister or the Government failed to control the Harbour Board Staff Association, therefore, it has to take this action, this is not true. Why? For instance, the holding of the annual general meetings. This Association for the past four years has failed to hold any meeting to elect office-hearers. And mind you, Mr Speaker, Sir, a reminder was sent to the Secretary General, that is, Mr Jamit Singh (who proclaimed that he had the interests of the workers) on the 5th of November, 1959, informing him that his Association had failed to hold a general election to elect new office-bearers. That is a provision laid down in his Union's constitution. Again, on the 9th of January, 1960, a further reminder was served on the Secretary-General informing him of the holding of annual meetings. Again it went unheeded. So, on the 2nd of March, 1960, a further reminder was sent to the Secretary-General, but he still refused to hold a meeting. This is the point, Mr Speaker, Sir. They know they are going to lose control of the workers' organisation if they do hold a meeting. They will never think or bear in mind what the fundamental rights of the workers mean. No, to them, that is immaterial. As long as their interests are being served, that is, as long as they can maintain control of the organisation, to their minds, the fundamental rights of the workers are being upheld and maintained. Apart from not holding an annual general meeting every year, the Secretary-General, Mr Jamit Singh, also failed to submit to the members and to the Registrar of Trade Unions the yearly financial accounts. You will remember, Sir, he was prosecuted during the term of office of the previous Government for failing to submit the accounts. Mr Speaker, briefly, these are the causes why the Registrar had to step in to regularise the position. Of course, for the Government, this is a matter of concern. For the past few years, these people have not only failed to allow the workers to run their own organisations, but they have been making use of them for their own political purposes and have neglected the interests of the workers. Now they are talking about the interests of the workers and asking for more pay and better conditions of service for them. Mr Speaker, Sir, just now my colleagues, the Deputy Speaker and the Member for Kampong Kapor, have pointed out how this claim came about. During the Anson by-election, the Member for Thomson and all his colleagues decided to part with us because we were going to seriously and sincerely seek the achievement of the establishment of Malaysia. So in order to find an opportunity to rally the workers round to their side, they therefore made out a set of demands to serve on the Harbour Board. This is just another cover to show that they have the interests of the workers at heart. So during the Anson by-election, they served the claims of the workers on the Harbour Board and made a hue and cry about it. Chok Koh Thong, one of the members in the Executive Committee, who was then on our side and also an official on our Election Committee, bad been treacherously making use of this issue to betray us in that by-election, and as a result -

Order. I have tried to follow the Parliamentary Secretary very closely, but I cannot see how that part of his speech has any bearing on the motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have to make this point in order to refute the allegation made by the Member for Thomson that the Government and the Prime Minister want to get control of the union and also to frustrate the workers' attempt to better their terms and conditions of service. So when the claims were served, negotiations started and agreement was reached on almost all of them, except on three or four items, but after the Anson by-election the Secretary-General and the Member for Thomson just conveniently forgot about them. Then again at the time of the National Referendum, this issue was revived. Again in this instance, when we are coming to the realisation of Malaysia, the Member for Thomson is again trying to make use of this opportunity to create industrial unrest. Now here is the point, Mr Speaker, Sir. The Member for Thomson always makes a solemn pledge to this House that he maintains industrial peace with justice and he wants to make use of the State machinery to resolve trade disputes. He is fully aware that this dispute had been directed to arbitration, and there is a provision in the Industrial Relations Ordinance which states that if the Court takes cognisance of the dispute, then no further industrial action, either on the part of the employer or the employee, can be taken. So there you are, Mr Speaker, Sir. The Member for Thomson, who outwardly proclaims to protect the interests of the workers, is trying to mislead the 10,000 workers into defying the law and thereby suffer the consequences. He claims to look after the interests of the workers. During the period when the notice was served on the Association to call for an explanation why the cancellation should be withdrawn, if his colleague, Mr Jamit Singh, failed to make a case out of it, why did not the Member for Thomson, if he really had the interests of the workers at heart, help him to make out a case to withdraw the cancellation. No, Mr Speaker, Sir. The Member for Thomson did not do that. And here again he talked about negotiations and said that there are two Committees. In fact, the workers have filed a motion in the Court against the validity of the new Committee. This is a fact. Nevertheless, he still tries to deceive the workers by saying that they still have a legal and regular Committee and that the Board should recognise it. Mr Speaker, Sir, in that case, the Harbour Board will have to over-ride the Court and recognise this new Committee. And he is the man who always says that he is law-abiding, that we are undemocratic and that we always go above the law. On the cancellation of this Association, if the Member for Thomson was really serious, he could have answered the nine questions that were posed to the Association to answer. If he had done so and sincerely made an effort to regularise the position, the Registrar of Trade Unions might have reconsidered the case and the deregistration might not have been necessary. But no, Mr Speaker, Sir. He did not do this. He asked the workers - and by making use of Mr Markandu - to do something irregular and illegal. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have dwelt at length on refuting the allegations made by the Member for Thomson. The main purpose of this motion is to smear those people who really sacrifice a lot of their time to work for the interest of the workers such as, as he mentioned just now, Mr Gomez, the Secretary-General of the Singapore Manual and Mercantile Workers Union. The Barisan know that the Singapore Manual and Mercantile Workers Union have been sincerely and diligently working for the interest of the workers and it is because of this effort that this union has increased its membership -

On a point of order.

Point of order.

Do we have a quorum?

We do not have it quorum. Notice taken that thirteen Members were not present, Members summoned as if for a division pursuant to the Standing Order, and meeting resumed upon a quorum being then present.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will conclude my speech. With the formation of Malaysia and the materialisation of our economic development plan in the offing, the ground is ready for the establishment of a healthy industrial relations through which the present Government policy of industrial peace with justice will blossom and bear fruit to the best benefit of our workers. I wish to alert our working brothers and sisters that they should always be vigilant against the hypocritical clamouring of the anti-national elements, as these anti-national elements know that they have been defeated in this round of the battle for Malaysia. But we must always be prepared to meet any renewed attack before 31st August, and there will be the grim long-term battle thereafter.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this motion in the names of the Member for Thomson and the Member for Upper Serangoon bears an old stamp. The language used is singularly the same as in previous motions submitted by Members belonging to the Barisan Sosialis. The basic substance is no different. The intent is common. And what is more, the tone and the language is tense. There does riot seem to be any relaxation, let alone any change, in their approach to the whole situation. Sir, the motion, among other things, speak of the disruption of trade unions and the furthering of P.A.P. interests. This motion is clearly a pro-Communist manoeuvre. It seeks to condemn the Government because the Government is supposed to have disrupted trade union activity inimical to its own interests. The pro-Communist adventurers in the Barisan Sosialis can thank their lucky stars that they are still living under a democratic system of government where they can still make use of their democratic right to fight the parliamentary system of democracy. If the Singapore Government had wanted to abuse its powers, there would not have been a single pro-Communist union in existence in Singapore today. It would have been the easiest thing in the world to stifle and liquidate Communist unions.

You dare not do that.

Yet the people know that such has not been the case. The people know that the Government has given full freedom to trade unions led by pro-Communists, to function under the law. And where these pro-Communist unions have failed to comply with the law, Government may be obliged to step in to see that they do recognise the law. If it does not do this, it would be failing in its responsibility of governing the State. Mr Speaker, Sir, lengthy reference was made by the Member for Thomson to the cancellation of the registration of the Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association and various false political motives were given except the real reasons. The certificate of registration of the Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association was cancelled because the Association had contravened the Trade Unions Ordinance and the Association's own rules and constitution on eight grounds. These eight grounds are: (1) The Association had wilfully, after repeated notices from the Registrar, contravened the provisions of section 44 of the Trade Unions Ordinance for failing to submit its annual returns for the financial years 1960/61 and 1961/62. (2) The General-Secretary of the Association had contravened the provisions of section 44 of the Trade Unions Ordinance and Rule 11 of the Association's rules for failing to deliver to the members of the Association audited statements of account for the financial years 1960/61 and 1961/62. (3) The Treasurer of the Association had contravened the Association's Rule 11 (e) for failing to prepare monthly financial statements. (4) The accounts of the Association for the year 1961/62 had not been audited by the internal auditors in contravention of the Association's Rule 12. (5) The Executive Council of the Association had failed to exercise proper control and supervision over the duties of the General-Secretary as required under the Association's Rule 10 (b) . (6) The officers of the Association had, from time to time, on matters of importance affecting the Association, passed resolutions by a show of hands, contrary to the Association's Rule 15 which requires such matters to be decided by secret ballot. (7) The constitution of the Association's present Executive Council is unlawful, as the Association had not held an annual general meeting to elect new officers for four consecutive years, in contravention of its Rule 8. (8) The funds of the Association had been expended in an unlawful manner and its Executive Council had failed in its duty to protect union funds against extravagance and/or misappropriation as required under Rule 10 (f) . Mr Speaker, Sir, the S.H.B. Staff Association was unable to answer these eight charges. When an inquiry was arranged to give the Association opportunities to reply to these charges of contravening against the law and the Association's rules and constitution, the officers of the Association were not only unwilling to answer questions - probably because they could not answer the questions - but deliberately disrupted the proceedings of the inquiry. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Thomson yesterday accused the Government of using the Police against the strikers of Sassoon Company. This is one of those stock charges regularly used by the Communists. Mr Speaker, Sir, the allegation is untrue. There was a strike in this company on 21st July, 1960. The strikers, however, refused to leave the premises after its normal closing hours. On the advice of the State Advocate-General's Chambers that the strikers were committing trespass, the strikers were politely advised by the police to leave the premises and to come again and picket the next day. The repeated advice of the police, however, was ignored and the police were eventually forced to take seven strikers to the Central Police Station. On arrival at the police station, the leader of the strikers feigned illness anti alleged that he was assaulted by the police. He refused to sit and preferred to lie on the ground and roll on the floor. Seeing this, another striker also complained of assault by the police, and he too rolled on the floor. The police immediately summoned the ambulance to take the two complainants to the hospital. However, when the ambulance arrived, these two strikers refused to go to hospital as they wanted their union representatives to witness their condition. About 15 minutes later Messrs. Lim Ching Siong, S. Woodhull, and Fong Swee Suan arrived. They interviewed the strikers and persuaded them to go to the General Hospital for a check-up. So an ambulance was called a second time, to the inconvenience of everybody concerned. Even then on arrival at the hospital one of the complainants changed his mind and refused to be examined by the doctor. A few days later, when I had the occasion to meet Mr Woodhull and challenged him as to the truth of the allegations of assault made by these two strikers, he laughed heartily and had to admit that they were rather childish in making such allegations. On the other hand, Mr Speaker, Sir, there was the famous case of the Roneo Company strike in which the President and Secretary of the Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union were charged and convicted in Court for assaulting non-strikers and customers who had burning cigarette butts pressed on their necks. Mr Speaker, Sir, who were the violent aggressors? Not the police. The police were there to safeguard the right of ordinary people to work and to ensure peace in society. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is becoming clear that what the Member for Thomson meant by disruption of trade unions is quite something else. As I have said, there is nothing to show that Government is doing anything to shut down unions led by the pro-Communists. This disruption that they are worried and concerned about is none other than the steady flow of workers from the unions led by them into the ranks of non-Communist unions. If anybody is disrupting the pro-Communist unions, it is the workers who, having realised that the pro-Communists and anti-national elements in their unions are making use of them for their own political ends, are now determined to free themselves from the grip of the pro-Communists and anti-national elements. Ever since 1962 more than 5,000 workers and 38 union branches have broken away from the pro-Communist S.A.T.U. to the side of democratic trade unions. These pro-Communists have only themselves to blame if large numbers of workers are disrupting their sinister political designs. Surely they must know that they cannot mislead the workers all the time. Mr Speaker, Sir, if it were not for the fact that the Government has faith in the ultimate wisdom of workers, it would itself be complaining about the disruption of unions in Singapore. As is well known, it is the policy of the Government that whenever union representation in any particular place of employment is in question, recourse is made to the holding of a secret ballot to determine such representation. Very recent cases have shown that this provision in the State machinery has, in fact, resulted in an advantage to some of the pro-Communist unions under the control of S.A.T.U. Secret ballots taken among workers in the Singapore Plywood Company and the C. K. Tang Co. Ltd, have resulted in a victory for the S.A.T.U. group of unions. Sir, the unions which have lost as a result of this recourse to the secret ballot have not uttered one word of complaint. Surely this cannot be the use of State machinery for the disruption of trade unions, as is so vehemently contended in the pro-Communist motion submitted by S.A.T.U. The Member for Thomson knows this very well. I now wish to deal with that part of the pro-Communist motion about the registration of the Singapore Association of Trade Unions. Mr Speaker, Sir, time is running out for all anti-national and pro-Communist elements in Singapore. Malaysia is around the corner. In the past the doings and utterances of leaders of S.A.T.U. have only helped to confirm their anti-national and pro-Communist character. Their anti-Malaysia and anti-merger postures prove that they are working in line with foreign forces which are also anti-Malaysia and anti-merger. They have repeated the anti-Malaysia slogans of alien and foreign forces hostile to Malaysian nationalism. Under the circumstances, do they expect people to make them out to be other than anti-nationals and pro-Communists? Or do they think that the Government and the people are blind to their anti-national activities? If the Member for Thomson wants S.A.T.U. to be registered, he had better convince the Internal Security Council, and soon the Minister for Internal Security of the Federal Government of Malaysia, that his S.A.T.U. is not foreign-inspired and not a Communist front organisation. He had better take a lead from Mr Dange, the Secretary-General of the Communist Party of India, who realises that in the face of foreign hostility and foreign aggression, national interests must supersede ideological considerations. The Member for Thomson can rest assured for a long time to come that the Government is a patriotic Government and that it will do nothing to register a group of unions which constitute a Communist front organisation and whose leaders have their ears tuned to foreign centres for inspiration and guidance. The Member for Thomson must never deceive himself into believing that any government in the world will ever allow or encourage internal forces hostile to itself to work in conjuction with foreign elements to down the government. Only traitors will try to do such a thing. The Government and the people of this country will ensure that this type of treachery will not be permitted, and if there is the slightest evidence that it is going to be perpetrated, then it will be the Governmen's bounden duty to prevent it well before it is carried out. Mr Speaker, Sir, S.A.T.U. is supposed to be an association of trade unions with trade union objectives. Not only is it political in origin, but since its formation its activities clearly show that its major interest is political. Its main preoccupation is to bring about the downfall of the Government, to frustrate merger, and to prevent the establishment of Malaysia. It does not even attempt to hide its true aims. The record of S.A.T.U.'s affiliated unions on labour matters confirms beyond a shadow of doubt that they want to bring about a state of unrest and later a state of chaos with which they hope to bring down the Government, leading to a halt progress towards merger and Malaysia. As a result of their sabotage of our industrial progress for political reasons, thousands of workers have lost their jobs and countless young men and women have been deprived of their prospects for work.

I take it that the Minister will take some time?

About ten more minutes.

Then this is a very convenient time to suspend for tea. I shall take the Chair again at half-past five. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.00 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, post-war history in most Afro-Asian nations have shown that those countries which have won their freedom from colonial domination have realised that no fundamental rights can be conceded to those who do not recognise fundamental obligations of patriotism and national interest. Let the Member for Thomson remember that the Government is not the first in Asia or Africa nor will it be the last to take stringent and positive measures against anti-patriotic and anti-national elements who are prepared to sell their country and their people to foreigners. Mr Ben Bella has done it; Mr Nehru has done it; Prince Sihanouk has done it, and we shall not hesitate to do it. I would like very much if the Member for Thomson can give examples of the fundamental rights provided for the Opposition in totalitarian countries of which he and his colleagues in the S.A.T.U. are apparently great admirers. The Member for Thomson knows very well that it is not at all likely that he will be able to introduce a motion like this in any of the countries from which he draws his inspiration. Even if he tried to, he would probably be lined up against the hard wall and shot. In this country, he knows of course he will not be shot for tabling a motion like this, and that. Mr Speaker, is the irony of it all. Under this Government, he can table a motion and still sit there comfortably and enjoy, and make another speech at the end of it. This fundamental right is also extended to him and other pro-Communist elements to form organisations, hold rallies, demonstrations, print and publish journals and other literature. But let the Member for Thomson give examples of these rights provided for the Opposition in the totalitarian countries which he admires so much. The Member knows that so long as he issues his union publications to advance labour and union matters and protect the interests of workers, then the right will be recognised and respected. But he also knows that if any of these rights are misused and abused by using them, for instance, to disseminate political material prejudicial to our national interests and calculated to help foreign forces hostile to the national interests, then these rights must be denied them. Mr Speaker, the Government is committed to the encouragement of a free, democratic and independent trade union movement in the State as an essential prerequisite for the success of its social, economic and industrial policies. However, as the Director-General of the International Labour Organisation has observed in his Report to the I.L.O. Conference held in Geneva in June 1963, the paramount consideration of any government must be the preservation of the security of the State against foreign-inspired and anti-patriotic elements. This is what the Director-General has said on page 25 of his Report under the heading "Political Conditions" and I quote: `The first imperative for government is the preservation of the state, of public order and of the political conditions for carrying out any policy whether in economic, social or other fields. The problems of maintaining political stability are a greater claim upon the attention and the resources of leaders in many newly emergent nations and in other countries as well than they may he in certain of the historically longer established states.' Mr Speaker, Sir, this statement of the Director- General of the I.L.O. fits us to perfection. The Government of Singapore is a patriotic Government hut finds itself in a situation in which it has to deal with dangerous anti-national elements. Some of these anti-national elements happen to be trade unionists who have allowed themselves to become sub-servient tools of foreign powers. Mr Speaker, Sir, all law-abiding states deny rights of association to criminals. Similarly, all states which value their national integrity and independence must of necessity be obliged to deny rights of association to anti-patriotic elements who look for inspiration from foreign sources. However, for all practical purposes, the fundamental rights of association as contained in the I.L.O. Convention No. 84 is, in fact, implemented in Singapore in respect of the free, independent and democratic trade union movement in the State. This Assembly might do well to remember that the democratic trade union movement in Singapore is very often at odds with the Government, but for them the rights of association and assembly are guaranteed for they do not endanger national security. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Thomson knows that he is not going to get away with it. He knows that every word in this pro-Communist motion which goes under his name is downright hypocrisy to which no one who believes in democracy will concede. The only reason left for having brought this old, old song is that the Member for Thomson enjoys the freedom to waste the precious time of this House just because he and his friends have to wait for orders from the Communist underground. Mr Speaker, Sir, I oppose this motion.

Does any other Member wish to speak? No.? Mr Bani in reply. 5.40 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it always amuses me to see the great display of hypocrisy of the P.A.P. Sir, first of all, I would like to deal with the Communist bogey which is being raised once again. We have told them in the past and we tell them again that if they accuse us of being Communists, pro-Communists, Communist sympathisers, they have all the courts they need, they have all the laws they want. They can take us to the courts, have an open fair trial and prove that we are Communists. Having proved that, they can lock us up and we say, "Well, fair enough." But not to lock up 134 chaps simply because the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Home Affairs, the Prime Minister, three gentlemen from the British High Commission and the Minister for Internal Security in the Federation think that we are security risks to this country! Sir, it is hypocritical for anybody on the P.A.P. side to say that we are anti-nationalists. A man who is pro-national must necessarily have a love for his country. He must be prepared to fight for the integrity of his country. He must be patriotic. These people who sit across the Floor are right now selling the country to the British colonialists and the imperialists, and they call themselves patriotic! Sir, the first thing any patriot ought to do is to fight for the freedom of the country, as Mr Nehru did. They have the cheek to stand up and quote names like Pandit Nehru, Ben Bella, Soekarno. Sir, Soekarno fought for years. He took up arms and fought for the independence of Indonesia. Mr Lee Kuan Yew, our Prime Minister, has not even spent ten seconds in prison. Sir, which anti-colonialist in this world has independence without going to gaol? Nehru - 10 years and over! Soekarno, Ben Bella! And these men who sell the interest of the country to the British, Americans, foreign powers, and colonialists who have exploited and seek to further exploit it by having a constitutional arrangement which will give covert control to the British, call themselves patriotic! Sir, secondly, this question of S.A.T.U. being political. I say with no reservation that S.A.T.U. is political, that S.A.T.U. trade unions are political. There is no qualification. We are not hypocrites like Mr Devan Nair. It is true that S.A.T.U. unions are anti-Malaysia. We have never made this a secret. It is hypocritical for the Government to suggest that to be anti-Malaysia is political, to be pro-Malaysia is not political. Devan Nair, the N.T.U.C. come out supporting Malaysia. The Prime Minister goes to London; Devan Nair sends a letter to all N.T.U.C. unions asking them to go to the Airport to express support. N.T.U.C. unions have often come out supporting Malaysia. In their logic, Mr Speaker, if you express support for Malaysia, it is non-political. If you say you are anti-Malaysia, it is political. Sir, I do not have to waste my time dealing with such hypocrisy. The S.A.T.U. unions are political because we believe that over 90 per cent of the population are composed of workers and their families, and trade unions as organisations of workers in a society must necessarily interest themselves in the political affairs of the country. Nobody can tell the workers not to be political. Those who tell the workers not to be political are people like the colonialists and big business who have fear of the majority of the people in the country. Sir, the trade unions in the S.A.T.U. group are political. There is one difference between the P.A.P. type of political activities in the trade unions and the S.A.T.U. type, and this is a fact that is borne out. While they believe that the trade union movement must be part and parcel of the P.A.P., while they believe that the trade union movement must be a subsidiary organisation of the P.A.P., the S.A.T.U. unions believe in being an independent socialist organisation. The Member for Kampong Kapor is not here. He knows, Mr Devan Nair knows, the Member for Kallang knows and Ow Kheng Thor, the Deputy Secretary-General of A.U.P.E. knows. Four members of the T.U.C. secretariat. They know very well why there was a crisis in the T.U.C. Secretariat. It is all in the record, in black and white. The Prime Minister wanted to make the T.U.C. a subsidiary organisation of the P.A.P. in 1960. We were in the P.A.P. at that time and we said no. That is a fact. Minutes of the T.U.C. Secretariat meetings, which I have, can be published. Minutes of meetings of the Secretariat with the Prime Minister can be published. When the Member for Hong Lim was expelled, the Secretariat was intimidated into issuing a statement in favour of the ruling Party, all over a matter which was purely internal party politics, and which we resisted; and we were threatened that if we did not do that, the T.U.C. would be closed down. These men want to call themselves independent democratic trade unionists. I say this is hypocrisy. Sir, the Minister for Culture, who is also not here now, once told me in the presence of the full Secretariat - 10 members, including Devan Nair and the Member for Kampong Kapor - that if there was no P.A.P. there would be no T.U.C.; and this again is in the record. We do not believe that the trade union movement must become a tool of .my political Party. We believe that trade unions as organisations of workers, as organisations which represent the majority of the people, the majority of human beings, the majority of the people who compose the electorate, must interest themselves in political developments, must give expression to their political feelings and must be politically active. Unlike the N.T.U.C. and the P.A.P., we have never hidden this from the members of our unions. When the P.A.P. became anti-labour, anti-trade unions, we did not hesitate to come out openly and condemn them. Sir, the Minister for Home Affairs says that fundamental rights must be deprived from certain individuals. Now, I say this, Mr Speaker, Sir, either you are a democrat or you are not a democrat. The Minister talks about what happens in so-called totalitarian countries. Sir, none of us from the Barisan Sosialis and none of us from the S.A.T.U. unions have ever asked the Singapore Government to set up a totalitarian government in Singapore. We have never preached the establishment of a totalitarian government as the Minister for Home Affairs suggests. Our starting point has always been democracy, and democracy must mean the people deciding freely what they want. Democracy does not mean the Minister for Home Affairs arrogating to himself the right to decide who should have fundamental rights to exercise. Democracy does not mean that a handfull of discredited, power-crazy individuals can decide what is good for the people. Anybody in Singapore can examine our records and they will find from the very beginning till today our claims and demands have been on the basis of democracy. We opposed the Referendum Bill as undemocratic. We said we wanted a constitutional arrangement to let the people freely decide. General elections - we say you do not manipulate; let that be under United Nations supervision. The Harbour Board Staff Association. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Association called for a general meeting of all its members on the 15th July, 1963, on the grounds of the Singapore Railway Recreation Club so that the workers could decide freely and in a democratic manner whether they should take a strike decision if the demand for recognition was not met. The police banned that meeting. Every single demand that we have made has been on the basis of democracy. Sir, we believe in true, open, free and fair competition with all political forces, be they Fascist, opportunist, or Right-wing reactionary. We believe we can eliminate the forces of reaction and colonialism. We believe that in a free and fair competition the people will naturally choose socialism and democracy. It is because we are confident in this belief that we are not afraid of democracy, that we are not afraid of giving them citizenship status, not afraid of their having their trade union meetings. We are not afraid of the N.T.U.C. unions coming out supporting Malaysia. We are not afraid because we are confident of our convictions. We are confident that we are right. We are confident that truth will triumph. I venture to suggest, Mr Speaker, that in the history of mankind, it is those who do not have this confidence, those who do not have the confidence that in a free and fair competition they will stand a chance, that they indulge in undemocratic acts cancel trade unions, deregister trade unions, deny registration, deprive citizenship, lock up people without trial, it is these people who do not have confidence that they can beat their opponents in a free competition who indulge in repression, and history is full of such examples. Sir, I would like to spend a few minutes to try to answer one or two points raised by the Government speakers. First of all, Mr Speaker, the Member for Kampong Kapor and the Member for Telok Blangah. It is well known in Singapore today that the Members for Kampong Kapor and Telok Blangah are trying to ride on two horses at the same time. This is a very difficult job. They cannot do tight-rope walking unless they are prepared to get their necks broken one of these days. Sir, they are, sooner or later, going to quit the P.A.P. and come out and save their independence, more independent than the N.T.U.C. trade unionists and, therefore, now they are laying the basis. They say, "You know, the Prime Minister may be wrong; he must not go to the Harbour Board. But the S.A.T.U. chaps also must not go to the Harbour Board." This is elementary politics. We know how the Member for Kampong Kapor had difficulty in dealing with Government over the nurses' strike. We know how he had difficulty in dealing with Government over the police strike; and the motion says, Mr Speaker, Sir, "non-P.A.P. unions". By non-P.A.P. unions, we mean unions which are not submissive to the Government, which are not controlled and led by Government men. As far as the A.U.P.E. is concerned, the Union of the Member for Kampong Kapor no doubt was at one time completely controlled by the Government. The Member for Kampong Kapor was the blue-eyed boy of the Prime Minister, and that is how he got elected as Secretary-General of the T.U.C.; he was the most acceptable man to the Prime Minister. Lim Ching Siong could not be Secretary-General because his conviction was stronger than the Member for Kampong Kapor. But recently there has been some trouble inside the P.A.P. and the Member for Kampong Kapor is not on the right side. He has been fighting against the Government, calling a nurses' strike, a police strike. He wanted to call the midwives out on strike; the dispute was referred to the Arbitration Court. He has now called the Tamil Murasu strike and God knows what other strikes he will call in future. Sir, if these people, particularly the Member for Kampong Kapor and the Member for Telok Blangah, think they can deceive the workers by trying to appear to be more independent, and more democratic than Mr Devan Nair and company, I think they are sadly mistaken, because, in the first place, Mr Devan Nair cannot cheat the workers and even if he has deceived some sections of the workers, he cannot hope to deceive them forever. It is interesting to note from the speeches of the Member for Kampong Kapor and the Member for Telok Blangah that they did not deny that the Government uses State machinery against certain unions. The Member for Kampong Kapor wanted to know what were non-P.A.P. unions and what were P.A.P. unions. But they did not deny it and that is the confirmation of what we have said. Sir, during the time when the Police civilian personnel were out on strike, posters were put out condemning the Government for using the police to break the strike, and all the hundred-odd police personnel knew that the Government was trying to break the strike led by the Member for Kampong Kapor. That was because the A.U.P.E. was fast ceasing to be a P.A.P. union, and this only gives substance to the contents of the motion. The Member for Telok Blangah said that the victimisation in the Harbour Board at the moment is not because of the Government. He said that it is because of the management. Sir, in May, when the Prime Minister started calling out the Executive Council members and intimidated them in `in attempt to make them accept his appointment of a Committee, there were not less than four officials of the Union who were victimised. We know that the citizenship of the President of the Union, Mr Markandu, was withdrawn; the Vice-President, Mr Chan Joo Tong, was demoted and transferred; an Executive Council member, Mr Han Teng Kwang, was also demoted and transferred; and two weeks ago, Mr Tan Kwee Tee, who is an Executive Committee member, was dismissed. Surely, even if we leave out all the hundreds of other workers who are being and who have been consistently demoted, transferred, suspended and dismissed, these four people could not have been victimised just because some junior officials in the Harbour Board felt like victimising them. Mr Markandu's citizenship was withdrawn because somebody in the Harbour Board felt his citizenship must be withdrawn. Sir, events in the Harbour Board are conclusive proof that the Government uses the State powers to the full to advance P.A.P. interests. Mr Markandu was told quite openly that if he did not behave himself, he would be put on a boat to Ceylon on the 28th of this month. Perhaps, Sir, on the 28th he will be going off. There is no possibility, no matter what the Government Members attempt to say in this House, to cover un the use of State machinery in the dispute of the Harbour Board workers. Sir, finally, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour and the Minister for Labour have suggested that the S.A.T.U. unions are not interested in wage increases for the workers. This is utter nonsense, and they know this is not true. Sir, if they look up the Government Gazettes and list out all the collective agreements that have been gazetted, they will find that the collective agreements signed by the S.A.T.U. unions are more in number than those signed by the N.T.U.C. Practically every day, the processes of negotiations for wage increases and increased benefits go on and they have not stopped. Sir, I tell them this in conclusion. They accused us of not looking after the workers, no pay increases for the workers, not being interested, we harm the workers through our acts, and, therefore, thousands and thousands of workers become unemployed. This is a point which has been made. They say that thousands and thousands of workers are leaving the S.A.T.U. and running to the N.T.U.C. In other words, Mr Speaker, they are trying to paint this picture that S.A.T.U. is on the verge of collapse, unpopular, and if this were true, why deny us our right to organise? If, in fact, S.A.T.U. is unpopular because it is led by big monsters called Communists, thousands of workers become unemployed, we use workers as political pawns, why are they afraid In allow S.A.T.U. even to call one meeting? We challenged them last time to allow us to call a S.A.T.U. public rally in Hong Lim Green. We chose Hong Lim Green particularly, because the Member for Hong Lim recently has been trying to flex his muscles at us. So it would be appropriate if we hold a rally at Hong Lim Green. And we have challenged the Government. We have had no reply. Mr Speaker. They say that we are given democratic rights. Police permits for meetings are not granted! As far as possible, they try to prevent them. The publication of the General Employees' Union, Suara Kesatuan, in 3 languages is banned. The official publication of the Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union, Bebas, is banned. Sir, no printer in Singapore dares to print the Barisan publication. For political purposes, they have given us a licence but indirectly they have told the printers not to print it. And, Sir. S.A.T.U. meetings are banned. Sir, if they want to fight the giant, let the giant loose. It is no use talking tough inside this Chamber when they have the giant tied down and restricted. In spite of the denial of democratic rights, in spite of the use of State machinery, in spite of all the unprincipled, unethical conduct of the Government, the progressive working class movement continues to grow, and we have no doubt, whether they register S.A.T.U. or do not register S.A.T.U., whether they lock us up, we will continue to grow in the future.

Question put, and negatived. Motion accordingly negatived.

Resolved. "That this Assembly do now adjourn to Monday, 29th July. 1963." -[Mr Rajaratnam]. Adjourned accordingly at Fourteen minutes past Six o'clock p.m. to Monday, 29th July, 1963.