Hansard, 1963-12-19

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." It may be of benefit to the House if I were to give a resume of the present practice of registering seamen for employment. Registered seamen are offered for selection in accordance with their priority on a roster. The employer is presented with his requirements plus 50 per cent subject to a minimum of two men. For example, if he requires four men, he is given a choice of six men. If the employer fails to complete his requirements from the first selection, he is given a second and last selection on the same basis. Seamen are permitted to refuse two offers of employment without any penalty. If a third offer of employment is refused, the seamen's name is removed to the bottom of the roster. Under the existing provisions of Section 4 of the Seamen's Registry Board Ordinance, 1957, the Board is required to enter a registered seaman's name in the roster according to the date of discharge from his last ship or, if the person concerned has not been previously employed as a seaman, then in accordance with the date of his registration as a seaman. This section provides that the Board may sub-divide a roster or rosters into such categories as it may consider necessary. The existing provision which requires that a registered seaman shall have his name entered in the roster according to the date of discharge from his last ship causes, in certain circumstances, some dissatisfaction among the seamen. An example of this can be seen as follows:- A seaman may be discharged from a ship on 1st January and he applies to the Board for three months' leave of absence. On reporting back to the Board after the expiry of his leave, the Ordinance provides that the seaman be replaced on the roster with effect from 1st January. Seamen who have been discharged after 1st January, and who had not taken leave, and have been reporting regularly for employment find that this particular person who had gone away on leave is still placed ahead of them. They feel quite naturally that those who had asked for leave and taken such leave should not be given preference over them in the roster. In a similar manner, a seaman who has been suspended for disciplinary offences would under the existing provision, after the period of suspension, be placed on the roster ahead of seamen who have not been under suspension. This again causes extreme dissatisfaction among seamen. The amendment Bill seeks to delete the requirement that the Board shall enter the seamen's names in the roster in accordance with the date of discharge from their last ship. The Board intends to specify the various conditions and methods of placing seamen on the roster in the Regulations which the Board is empowered to make with the approval of the Minister. To overcome these various anomalies and dissatisfaction caused by them, the Board intends that the names of registered seamen shall be entered in the appropriate roster in the following manner: -

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. -[Dr Toh Chin Chye]. Bill considered in Committee; reported, without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 2.37 p.m.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." In 1957, the Report of the Commission of inquiry into the Port of Singapore (Sessional Paper No. S10 of 1957) made the following main recommendations:-

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. -[Dr Toh Chin Chye.] Bill considered in Committee.

2.45 p.m. Clauses 1 to 131 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. First Schedule -

Mr Speaker, I have given notice that an amendment will be made to paragraph 3 of the First Schedule, i.e., In page 54, to leave out lines 38 and 39 and insert --- "(2) A Deputy Chairman so appointed may, subject to such directions as may be given by the Chairman, exercise all or any of the powers exercisable by the Chairman for the purposes of this Ordinance.". Amendment agreed to. First Schedule, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Second and Third Schedules ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported, with an amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 2.52 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Arising out of the Port Authority Bill, certain consequential amendments are necessary to the Merchant Shipping Ordinance, and these are embodied in the Merchant Shipping (Amendment) Bill. The provisions relating to the licensing and control of pilots, the control of movement of shipping within port limits and the handling of explosives and dangerous goods are being deleted from the Merchant Shipping Ordinance as these functions will in future be exercised by the Port Master of the Port Authority. The Bill was considered by a Select Committee of the last Legislative Assembly, but no Report was submitted because of the dissolution of the Assembly. The present Bill has been slightly amended in the light of representations made by various interested parties to the Select Committee.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. -[Dr Toh Chin Chye] Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 2.58 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." I have His Excellency's recommendation that the Bill be proceeded with. Sir, the suspension of trade by Indonesia following her confrontation against Malaysia saw the severance of over a century-old trade ties with that country. Since Singapore is in the front line of this economic confrontation, she has been hit hardest and certain trades and industries which have been traditionally dependent on supplies from Indonesia have naturally been the first casualties. Both employers and employees have been adversely affected, but whereas employers are used to the ups and downs of business activity and are generally able to withstand the hardships imposed by decreased activity, the employees, on the other hand, become the helpless victims of circumstances beyond their control. The Government have, therefore, set up the Department of Economic Defence with a view to formulating a scheme to protect workers of Singapore against the unpleasant consequences of unemployment arising from the trade suspension. The broad principle is that during a period of six months from the date a worker is laid off, he will receive an amount equal to two-thirds of his normal wages, of which one-third will be paid by the Government and one-third by the employer. I must emphasise here that this is not a relief scheme or a dole; the intention is that workers laid off because of trade suspension should continue to be on the pay-roll of the individual firms during the currency of the scheme unless and until they obtain employment elsewhere. Should confrontation be called off in the meantime, then normal activities will resume. It was recognised, however, that in the implementation of this principle, the special problems and peculiarities of the trades or industries concerned should be examined. Accordingly, consultations were held with representatives of the trade associations in the Shipping Industry, the Rubber Industry, the Copra and Coconut Oil Mill Industry, the Sago Industry, the Rattan Industry and the Coffee and Pepper Industries and with the National Trades Union Congress in order to overcome any practical difficulties that might arise in the implementation of the scheme. I am happy to state that these consultations have revealed that both workers and employers' representatives are, in general, agreeable to the scheme in principle but would prefer legislation so that the administration of the scheme could be put on a fair, impartial, comprehensive and effective basis. This is a sensible approach, for even though a scheme with the voluntary co-operation of all concerned is laudable, the detailed administration of the scheme is bound to generate difficulties that can only be effectively dealt with on the firm foundation of legislation. At the present moment, 1,300 workers are receiving benefits under the scheme. It is anticipated that, in due course, when the full impact of the trade suspension is felt, and more factories and establishments are likely to lay off workers, the total number of workers laid off may rise to somewhere around 8,000. The purpose of the Bill is, in the light of what I have already said, to provide financial assistance to the employees in certain businesses affected by the severance of trade between Malaysia and Indonesia. The businesses that are immediately affected are shipping between Singapore and Indonesia, rubber processing, sago, rattan, coffee, coconut oil and pepper. The Bill provides for the appointment of a Director of Economic Defence and such Assistant Directors as may be required. A salient feature of the Bill is that no employer or contractor, as defined in the Bill, may terminate the service of an employee for a period of six months from a date to be determined by the Director. This is important if the very purpose of this Bill is not to be defeated. The Bill also seeks to ensure that those whose earnings are affected by partial employment as against full employment will also receive benefits. An Economic Defence Fund is to be administered and controlled by the Director. Into this fund employers are required to pay in their contributions based on one-third of their monthly total wage bill. Whilst workers affected can enjoy the benefits prescribed for them, certain restrictions on the application of the scheme are imposed. It is provided that if any employee in receipt of payments under the Bill refuses, without reasonable excuse, an offer of employment or an offer of suitable training for alternative employment made by the Director or an offer of full employment made by the employer, further payments to him may be stopped. However, with regard to an offer of employment or of training for alternative employment made by the Director, he would have a right of appeal to an Appeals Board appointed under the provisions of clause 15 of the Bill when the decision of the Director may be reviewed. The decision of the Appeals Board on every appeal would be final and binding. You will appreciate, Sir, that while the rights of employees to enjoy benefits have been laid down, certain legal obligations of employers to their employees cannot continue during the period that employees enjoy benefits under this Bill. The Bill, therefore, provides that the employer, contractor or employee shall not be liable to pay contributions under the Central Provident Fund Ordinance during the period that the employee is in receipt of payments under the Bill. In addition, during such period, the employee will not be entitled to benefits in respect of holidays and annual leave as provided in the labour laws nor to any award made under the Industrial Relations Ordinance: he will, however, continue to enjoy any accommodation provided by his employer. Again, provision is made under clause 16 that an employer may terminate the service of an employee after 6 months from the relevant date but in such an event, the employer may set off the total amount paid by him in respect of an employee against wages payable in lieu of notice for terminating the service of the employee and against any other payments or award which may be payable or ordered to be paid for the termination of the employee's service. May I emphasise that this Bill, in concept and design, seeks to cushion the immediate adverse effect on the hardship of the workers for which positive concrete measures have to be taken. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.07 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to put forward my views on the Bill before I touch on the detailed clauses. I wish to speak on the background and the spirit of this Bill. We have said that because of the economic confrontation brought about by Malaysia, business in Singapore has suffered a lot and the extent of the loss is very great. Not only shipping workers, rubber, rattan, coffee and other trades have suffered, there are also many other trades and industries which have suffered indirectly. Workers are faced with unemployment. At the same time, it will push up the cost of living indirectly, so as to bring more suffering and hardship to the people. We had urged the Singapore Government to persuade the Central Government to settle our differences with Indonesia peacefully, but the Government did not do so. On the contrary, the Government put the blame on the Barisan Sosialis for the confrontation. If the Party in power did not want to accept our views and did not have the courage to face reality, we cannot do anything. How much can the Party in power, in introducing this Economic Defence Bill, make up for the loss brought about by the confrontation? It is only a palliative; it will not solve the problem fundamentally. It is amounting to cutting the flesh of a person to patch a sore. At present those hardest hit are the broad masses of the people, especially the workers. Normally they cannot make ends meet. They have to work very hard in order to feed themselves and their families. But now that they have become unemployed or under-employed, they have to tighten their belts and their burden of livelihood will be heavier. Therefore, if the Government want to look after those who are affected, these people should deserve the best care. Now I want to give some suggestions on the provisions. Because of the severance of trade between Singapore and Indonesia, the stevedores - several hundreds of them - have become jobless. These people are not within the orbit of this Bill. Why do the Government not include the stevedores within the orbit of this Bill? We urge the Government to implement this Bill so as to benefit even the waterfront workers and the stevedores. The so-called prosperity and development of Singapore are closely connected with the efforts of the waterfront workers and the stevedores. We can see ships all lying idle in our harbours. Many stevedores have become unemployed. But the Economic Defence Board do not help them. This is very unfair. These people should be looked after by the Economic Defence Board which should provide a safeguard for their livelihood. Because of the stoppage of the raw rubber from Indonesia, our rubber factories have closed down. According to our investigations there are at least 40 rubber factories which have closed down or partially closed down. Workers who are unemployed or under-employed are numerous. The workers in the rubber factories are not included in the Bill. But in our view, these workers should also be included. Because these workers have all along found it very difficult to make a living and the effects of the confrontation have worsened their means of livelihood. The temporary workers are not only not protected under the law but they have also been barred from the orbit of the operation of the Economic Defence Board. On the one hand, they are not protected by the law of the Government and, on the other hand, they are employed or under-employed. The present stipulation to exclude these workers from the orbit of the operation of the Economic Defence Board is deplorable. So my suggestion is that this Board should take this into consideration and bring these workers into its orbit. According to the Board's investigations, there are about 8,000 people affected by the confrontation. But in our view, more than 10,000 people are out of job. The figures given by the Minister are not very correct. He has minimised them. Up to now, we have not seen any achievement of the Economic Defence Board. We only read in the newspapers that the Board has been looking after this and that factory, and yet thousands of people are unemployed, facing difficulties in their livelihood. I hope the Government will not exaggerate the achievements of the Economic Defence Board. We are of the opinion that the workers who should be looked after should include all those affected directly or indirectly by the severance of trade between Singapore and Indonesia such as stevedores, waterfront workers, workers employed in rubber, pepper, copra industries and local produce. All these workers should be protected and looked after. The Bill provides that the employer is not allowed to sack the workers affected by confrontation within six months. This is not a long period. What will happen after this six-month period? The Bill also provides that the unemployed workers should be given priority in recruitment of jobs. It looks all right superficially but, in actual fact, it will not be effective because so far we can see many unemployed workers who are still not working today and many hawkers in the streets of Singapore. Why are there so many hawkers? It does not mean that they do not want to work. If we think carefully we will know the various reasons. Some of the workers have been retrenched or sacked, and some of them are unemployed for other reasons. If these workers are kept unemployed for too long a time, then their families will suffer. What will happen to their families after the period of six months? I urge the Government to take positive steps to persuade the Central Government to consider the sufferings of the people and the losses resulting from the confrontation. The Government should take effective measures to resolve their difficulties. The Bill provides that the six-month period will have to be decided by the Director of the Economic Defence Board. Now when will this period start? If it is to be decided by the Director, he must give earlier assistance to those workers who are affected. We know that trade suspension took place three months ago and the families of such workers have no savings. If the Government do not take steps to give them earlier assistance, then they will suffer.

On a point of clarification. Mr Poh Ber Liak resumed his seat.

Apparently the Member is under the impression that the scheme has not been running. Actually the scheme has been in operation for more than one month. And I have said, 1300 workers or so are receiving money under this scheme.

(In Mandarin): What I was saying is that the ambit within which the workers are protected is still very limited. The Director of the Economic Defence Board should take positive steps to expedite assistance to the workers who are affected. There should not be any delay in this payment. The Bill also provides that if the workers do not get food and employment in certain trades and industries, then the employers must contribute one-third of the workers' salaries to the fund. Such a provision means that the employers will have to share the burden with the Government, each paying one-third to the workers. If an employer is not in a position to pay one-third of the wages of a worker, then what right do the Economic Defence Board have to enforce this contribution by the employer? Another provision is that the quantum of the wages should be decided by the Director. We do not agree with this. Why should he decide the quantum of the wages since the workers have their own salary scale? What will that mean? Will it mean an increase or a decrease in the wages? Will the Government or the employers increase their wages? I do not think that is possible. Or will they decrease the wages of the workers? If so, I do not think this is good. The wages of the workers should be maintained and this question should not be decided by the Director. Another provision in the Bill is that during this period, the employees will not be entitled to holidays and annual leave benefits under other laws. We think this is not proper. The workers have been and are living from hand to mouth, and yet the Bill wants to deprive them of the benefits provided for in other labour laws. This will increase their hardship. I hope the Government will consider this provision. Another provision is that the employees can continue to enjoy accommodation and other facilities provided by the employers and contractors. This is well and good. We admit that. But I want to ask Members of this House: what will happen to those who do not enjoy accommodation and other facilities? Will the Government consider giving those living in Housing Board flats a housing allowance or granting them a reduction in the rentals or even exempting them from payment of rentals? We hope they will consider these points. Generally this Bill confers a few benefits on a certain section of the workers. The great majority of workers who are affected will not receive any benefit from this Bill. Therefore, we would like to advise the Government - apart from the payment of temporary relief - that they should take more positive steps to renew trade relations by peaceful negotiations with the country concerned. The Prime Minister has said that when diplomatic relations are resumed between Malaysia and Indonesia, the trade relations will not be the same as before. I hope he will put into practice what he has said.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to argue with the Government on the general principles of the Bill. However, there are two matters which I wish to bring to the notice of the Government. In the first place, it seems to me that the Bill does not cover most categories of people who are affected by the Indonesian economic confrontation. As the Minister for Finance has said, only over 1,000 people have so far been given relief, but in my own estimation, I believe that no less than 30,000 people have been unemployed.

On a point of elucidation.

The Minister will have a right to reply later.

You said 30,000. You are wrong.

Even in the rattan industry, there are about 2,000 workers - I believe the Ministry of Labour has taken statistics - and there are about 1,800 people unemployed. The relief measures given by the Government are only for 1,300. It is not even enough to cover those affected in one particular trade. The main defect of the Bill is that it might only be an eyewash to show to the people that the Government are doing something. But, as a matter of fact, in my opinion, taking some pictures of seamen getting a few dollars from the Economic Defence Board does not help matters very much. Mr Speaker, these three months are not so bad because many of the workers still have jewellery to go to the pawnshop, a bit of savings, some friends to go to. But after the New Year, when all these sources have dried up, when there is no more jewellery to pawn, no more friends to turn to, they will face a very serious crisis. And if the Government can prove to us that it is only 1,300 who have been affected, then I will agree with them that they have done much for the people. That is why, Mr Speaker, the first matter which I wish to bring up is that the Bill does not cover many categories of people. I think if we check with the coffee importers, there are 3,000 or 4,000 people alone who are engaged in the selection of coffee beans scattered throughout the whole island. They are not covered by the Bill.

They are.

They are? That is good. [Interruption].

Order.

But if they are covered, I do not understand how it comes about that 1,300 people could cover those unemployed in coffee bean selection, rubber industries, twakows, lorry transport, fishermen, boats' seamen.

They are not yet out of job.

There is still a lot of coffee!

So the Bill should be extended to cover everybody who is unemployed as a result of Indonesian confrontation. The second part of the Bill which is undesirable is this. The Government are going to compel all employers to pay one-third of the wage bill. Mr Speaker, in my opinion, it is very difficult to compel, for instance, rattan manufacturers, who are only doing a cottage industry, to pay one-third of the wage bill; or sago factories, which live from hand to mouth, to pay one-third of the wage bill. [Interruption] I am not an expert like the Minister for National Development who was more associated with the sago industry. But as far as I know, many of them do not have much capital and cannot cover one-third of the wage bill. In the processing of sago, the wage cost is a very important part of the cost. Most sago factories engage a lot of workmen. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, in my opinion, every employer should have the right to discuss with the Government, and if they can prove that they cannot afford to pay their part of the contribution under the Bill, the Government should pay their share and when times are better, they can recover back from them as some sort of loan. The Government have $420 million. In the case of such employers, the Government should not compel them to pay one-third of the wage bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, in my opinion, this Bill is only going to be an eye-wash. So far as I know, not many persons who are affected by the Indonesian boycott have benefited from the economic defence measures set up by Government. I suggest the Government learn from what President Roosevelt did in his New Deal measures which he introduced to counter the American depression. If some of the measures in the New Deal were to be re-introduced here, and if the Government are more keen and sincere in helping the unemployed, I think we could expect more from them than just this Economic Defence Bill.

We know the Barisan Sosialis will come forward to defend their friends in Indonesia. That is why they have kept quiet all the time in order to get on to this Bill. Sir, first of all, I must say that when the Barisan say there were 10,000 or more unemployed because of this confrontation policy, it is rubbish. I will challenge the Member of the Barisan Sosialis who said it to give me details if he can prove that it is correct. I think what he is trying to do is to spread further rumours so that their foster fathers in Indonesia will hear about it. Mr Speaker, rubber workers are included in this scheme. But stevedores are out because they are casual workers and they have no employers at all. How can they be included in the scheme? Our friends opposite say they feel sorry for those who have lost their jobs and so on. But whose fault is it, when the confrontation policy was introduced? Was it not because of the Barisan Sosialis? Why do they not today denounce the confrontation? Who was the cause of the l.800 workers from the S.A.T.U. unions losing their jobs? Was it not from the Barisan people?

The Member seems to be going away. I do not want this debate to develop into a debate on confrontation and the causes thereof. Could the Member come back?

The Barisan Sosialis will, of course, criticise this Bill. It is in the interest of their Indonesian friends that they should try and blunt the efforts of the Government to defend the workers against Indonesia's economic confrontation. Sir, in all civilised countries, when enemies of the State try to sabotage the defence arrangements of the nation against foreign aggression, they are put before a firing squad and shot. But in Singapore, the Barisan Sosialis, enemies of Malaysia, who try to sabotage our national defence effort, are free to speak on behalf of the nation's enemies. An hon. Member: And being paid $500!

Order. I must ask the Member to come back again to the Economic Defence Bill. Otherwise we will be going on and on to confrontation and Malaysia and the Barisan. I do not want this debate to develop into that. If I allow the Member to go on, I will have to allow others to go on, and we will be here again till 3.00 o'clock in the morning.

Mr Speaker [Interruption] ---

Talking bull!

Order.

Pai kar!

Will the Member please proceed?

The workers of Singapore welcome the bold approach made by the Government to protect the interest of the Singapore workers affected by the severence of trade relations by Indonesia. I say bold because, by introducing legislation i.e. the Economic Defence Bill at this stage, it has given sufficient indication of the stand that it is prepared to take in the interest of workers, however unpalatable such steps may be to the world of employers. I am glad to see that workers affected by this trade severence are not required to stand in queues awaiting charity and subjected to means test and such like methods. I, therefore, feel proud to be associated with a Government that has stood by its word of protecting the interest of workers at all times. With regard to the Economic Defence Bill, there are a few points with which workers in Singapore are directly concerned. It is on these aspects of the Bill that I wish to touch upon. It has become common knowledge that while certain employers have agreed to subscribe to the intentions behind the Economic Defence Scheme, they have subsequently had second thoughts and made attempts to wriggle out of their obligations under the Economic Defence Scheme. I refer specially to the aspect of their contributions of one-third wages to a Fund from which payments are made to workers. In some cases I am aware, particularly in the shipping field, there have been instances of companies that either pleaded exemption from payment on grounds of heavy financial losses and others who after making the first payment under the Scheme have now protracted subsequent payments under various pretexts. I am glad to see that this particular aspect is adequately provided for in the Bill in that sums due to the Fund may be used and recovered as if it were a debt to the Government. At least by this process adequate safeguards exist for the recovery of such monies. However, a point for the Government to consider is that legal processes in making such recoveries can take a considerable time. I feel I should at this stage say that while the process of justice takes time, the human belly cannot take this into account and await Court judgment. I hope that Government will in such cases provide for the payment of advances on the employer's contribution so that workers affected thereby are not seriously hampered. Mr Speaker, I hope that the Barisan Members will not take this constructive criticism as an anti-national criticism. At the same time, Mr Speaker, I wish to go back to the point I made at the beginning, when you pulled me up. What I was trying to say was that if the confrontation policy were to change into a military confrontation, then I would be the first one to register with the firing squad to shoot the friends of our enemies of this country who sit opposite these benches.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, from the Minister for Finance's speech, we can see how serious the position is. This Bill has now been suggested by the Government, but they have not pointed it out to the workers affected. But will this Bill be a fundamental solution of this problem? What is the real solution? The real solution is the taking of steps to restore trade relations. Only in this way will the hardship of the workers be lessened. The second point is this. This Bill only provides for six months' wages. What will happen after the end of the six months? The Government have said nothing on it. The third point is ---

Order. The points raised have already been gone into in detail by the Member for Tampines. If the Member has anything to add to what he has said, I am prepared to hear him. If the Member's speech is going to be a repetition of what he has said - and repetition is not being allowed - I will have to stop him. His second point is that this Bill makes provision for only six months. That has been dealt with in detail by the Member for Tampines. Please proceed.

(In Mandarin): What I want is a reply from the Government. Are the Government confident that those affected will have other work? Can this Bill really bring great benefits to those workers affected? We can see many loopholes in the Bill. For example, the Bill provides that the Government pay into the Economic Defence Fund an amount equal to that paid by the employer. That is equivalent to one-third of the wages of the worker, that is to say, the worker is only partially employed. Take, for instance, a worker whose monthly income is $150 -and, we do not know for how long he is employed. He works only four days in a month. What about the remaining days that he does not work? If that is the case, the Government and the employer will each have to contribute $40 per month towards the Fund. The result is that the worker will only get $40 for the whole month, and not $120. That is why I say there are loopholes in this Bill. And in order to plug the loopholes, the Bill should be improved, and can be improved by changing "one-third" to "two-thirds", so that the workers will really benefit. At the same time, there should be provisions to the effect that if an employer resumes his business or has invested his capital in some other small industries, the workers should have priority of employment, and not by nomination by the Director, which means that only those approved by the Minister will be nominated for employment. Talking about assistance for the workers, the Government make a provision of one-third of the wages and the employer also pay one-third. But normally when a worker is retrenched, the employer pays him three months' wages. Here, the assistance to be doled out to the workers is only operative for six months. So if the employer pays out severance pay for retrenching his workers, the workers can be sacked within six months. The employer will then have to pay one month's wages in lieu of notice. So this provision in the Bill is no real help at all.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill is meant to look after those workers affected by confrontation, as declared by the Minister. Actually there are many defects in this Bill. Since the Minister for Finance is an economist, he should he more realistic and practical, and should realise that there are loopholes in the Bill. 3.52 p.m.

The unemployment figures given by us are described as an exaggeration on our part. To prove our figures, I would like to give an instance of a factory which closed down as a result of confrontation. It is at the 10th m.s. Sembawang Road. On the closing down of the factory, the workers were the first batch to receive assistance from the Board. Over 100 of these workers were not recognised as normal workers because some of them had asked for medical leave. In the end, these workers did not receive any assistance from the Board. On what basis was the amount of assistance calculated? It was based on their August wages. Their August wages were the lowest for the whole of that year. This was based on business calculations. There was the case of a female worker who was injured, and did not work for two days. The monthly assistance amounted to only $3.

86. The employer reported the case to the Ministry of Labour. For that month, she got $5.80 for the two days she worked. So two-thirds of $5.80 amounted to $3.

86. What is the use of such meagre assistance doled out to her? Other workers were given from $7 or $10, to $20. This matter was addressed to the Ministry of Labour that the calculation of the assistance given was not correct. But the employer said that the figure was calculated by the Ministry of Labour. So I hope the Minister will look into this matter and normalise the situation. This is not just a triviality. Furthermore, out of the 500 workers, there were about 100 of them who did not receive any assistance at all because they were either temporary workers or because they did not work in August for medical reasons. So they did not get a single cent for that month for assistance. The calculations should not be based on their August wages. We say that the workers affected by confrontation number about 30,000 to 50,000, because the numbers of temporary workers, piece-rate workers, and hourly rate workers were not included in the figures. These workers should, in fact, be included in the aid scheme. The Minister accused us of exaggerating the figures. Actually he himself has underestimated the figures. And there are other workers who are also affected. For instance, in one week some workers can work for only one or two days. In the rubber industry, those who work in the smokehouse can only work for one or two days or, at the most, three days per week, when the smokehouse is in operation. Are they not also affected? How can they say that these workers are not affected and be excluded from the aid scheme? According to normal calculations, their wages are low. So the Economic Defence Board should provide some help for them. Instead the assistance for them is based on their low wages. The Minister has said that the unemployment figure stands at 8,200, and that next year it will probably be 18,000. But I say that it should be more. The unemployment figure for the present is higher than that given by the Minister. Can he send someone to investigate into this matter? If he can do that in this particular rubber factory, he can find out the actual facts. The Yen Chou Rubber Factory workers are the first batch of workers who received this economic assistance. This factory is situated at 101 m.s. Sembawang Road. This factory closed down sometime ago. Rubber factory workers fully out of job as a result of confrontation number 4,000. In the Yen Chou Rubber Factory, only 300 out of 500 workers received economic assistance. The other workers, especially working in the smokehouses and other processing departments, numbering about 1,000, are not included in the Bill. The Minister should pay attention to this. 4.02 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, as the N.T.U.C. is a party to this Economic Defence Bill, we can assure the Members opposite that most of the categories of workers who are affected by this Indonesian anti-economic confrontation are covered. We the N.T.U.C. are a national body of the representatives of workers and we know our jobs. The Government have consulted us before introducing this Bill. There are difficulties in implementing this relief. Take, for instance, the workers who are working in the rubber mill factories. As long as the workers are working on a monthly basis, they will receive two-thirds of their salary, one-third from the Government and one-third from the employer. But the difficulty is this. Most of the workers are not working on a monthly pay basis. They are casual workers. In one day they can be employed by five contractors. The workers themselves form a pool and whenever the contractors get a job, they come to this pool and engage them. So for this category of workers we are devising a means to give them relief. They cannot be categorised as monthly-paid workers. But we have to find the root basis of the cause of this Indonesian anti-economic confrontation. The workers, we agree, are unexpectedly hit by this economic confrontation. But this is no fault of anybody, except that it is the fault of the Barisan Sosialis and their Indonesian friends --- An hon. Member: Nonsense!

Nonsense? You have been repeatedly asking this Government to persuade the Central Government to negotiate with the Indonesian Government. If you really have the interests of the workers at heart, have you also appealed to the Indonesian Government to negotiate ---

Order. I think we have very thoroughly gone through this confrontation business, Indonesia, anti-national, in the last few days. It would be better if the Member proceeds with what he wants to say on this Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Barisan have really the interests of the workers at heart, they should have gone down to meet the workers themselves and find out whether they have really received the aid or not. They simply come here to publicise themselves and just pick up one or two cases which, as I have described, are casual workers. These people cannot fall under the Economic Defence Scheme. We are going to devise a scheme for them. The Barisan are very smart in making propaganda. They will come here and shout at the top of their voices and say they are the champions of the workers. But, as a matter of fact, they are not. I challenge them. We know the workers are very badly hit. Why do they not appeal to the Indonesian Government to stop the anti-economic confrontation? 4.05 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill clearly shows that the Government in every respect are considering to look after the interests of the people. If the Government do not concern themselves with the interests of the workers, then they will not put forward this Bill. This goes without saying, and we will not be here to debate it today. Just now the Member for Tampines has said that the hardship was brought about by Malaysia and that the loss was very great. Who caused this loss? Who brought about the loss to our people? Who brought about the sufferings to our people? This was brought about by Indonesia's confrontation. Why do they not condemn the Indonesian Government? Confrontation was first announced by the Indonesians on the pretext that Malaysia was a threat to the security of Indonesia. We have touched on this before. We have only a few troops and a few cannons and guns. How can we menace them? How can we be a threat to them? Why do they not go and condemn the Indonesian Government? Instead they condemn our own Government. They condemn Malaysia. They must know that they have sworn allegiance to Malaysia and yet now they turn round to condemn Malaysia to which they have pledged their allegiance in this House as well as in the Central Parliament. Malaysia is the object of their loyalty, but now they turn round to condemn Malaysia. What is their motive for doing that? When they are here in front of us, they say they are loyal to Malaysia. But outside the House, their Chairman talks about Malaysia not being the object of their allegiance and loyalty ---

Order. As I have said, enough of this confrontation, anti-Indonesia, anti-national. Would the Minister please get on to his comments on the Bill under discussion?

(In Mandarin): Their attitude shows that those who have beards are their fathers but the same persons who have their beards shaved are not their fathers and yet they claim themselves as the representatives of the people. How can they explain away all this? The speech that I make is written by me. But their speeches are not written by them. They are written by somebody else --- [Interruption]

Order. I will not allow all the interruptions that are going on from both sides of the House. I will ask the Minister please to discontinue this trend of his speech and to continue with the discussion of this Bill on the Table. Please proceed.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Opposition Members talk about solving our differences by peaceful settlement. We know this Bill is only a palliative. It will not go to the root of the problem. We have refused their request for a peaceful conference. It is not motivated by their real desire to solve our differences. Their friend Azahari is in Indonesia. Why do they not persuade Azahari to persuade the Indonesian Government to stop their confrontation? The Member for Nee Soon and the other Member who has disappeared are reported to be in Indonesia. They are not here. If they are here, they will be able to answer my allegation. It is their fault for not being present in this House. They have so many friends in Indonesia; they are in close contact with their friends in the Moshi Conference. They have also been able to contact their Indonesian friends ---

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we are debating the Economic Defence Bill. I do not know what the Minister has been talking up till now.

Mr Jek, I have ruled that we should not go into the discussion as to confrontation and Indonesian matters. Please come back to the Bill, otherwise I may have to stop you.

(In Mandarin): The Opposition Members talk about peaceful settlement and negotiations. I want to tear away their masks and expose their insincerity. They have so many friends in Indonesia. Why do they not urge their friends there to persuade the Indonesian Government to come to the conference table? They have no sincerity at all in putting forward the proposal for a peaceful settlement. The Member for Tampines and the Member for Thomson also talk about a peaceful settlement. They have all along been condemning the Malaysian Government and Malaysia. But they have not chosen to condemn the Indonesian Government for confrontation. The Government's industrialisation policy is the only solution to our present crisis. We know that Singapore has been an entrepot port. The Minister for Finance has pointed out in his Budget speech that we cannot rely any more on our entrepot trade. If we wish to stabilise our economy, then we must carry out a self-reliant economic policy. We can do so by implementing our industrialisation policy. If the Barisan Sosialis are not interested in our industrialisation programme, if they are not interested in creating jobs for the workers ---

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, he has been talking about industrialisation. I do not think this is the time to talk about industrialisation.

I think the Minister's reference to industrialisation has some connection with the Economic Defence Bill. I will allow him to proceed.

(In Mandarin): We have said that the Economic Defence Bill is not a radical solution to our problem. The solution lies in industrialisation. If they do not like industrialisation, that proves that they are not interested in providing jobs for the workers. When we are talking about the practical steps to be taken to solve our problem, they want to interrupt us.

(In Mandarin): We are debating the Economic Defence Bill. But his ferocious and savage attitude shows that he is not debating it but abusing us.

I am in the Chair. If there is any lowering of the decorum of this House, I will be the one to make a ruling. Will the Minister please proceed?

(In Mandarin): We are talking about industrialisation. We are not talking about opening gambling dens or Chap Ji Kee or other forms of gambling.

(In Mandarin): I cannot understand what he is talking about. If the Minister does not understand the Bill, then I would advise him to read it once more.

Will the Minister please remember not to pass personal remarks or attack hon. Members of this House? I do not wish to have further bickerings across the House. Please proceed with the speech as quickly as possible.

Mr Deputy Speaker, if the other side is not referring to me personally, I will not attack them personally. (In Mandarin) It is because they talk about my personal attitude that I have to say what I said just now.

Order. I have already ruled. I will see to it that the House observes a proper sense of decorum. There should be no personal attacks from either side.

(In Mandarin): The fundamental solution to our problem at this crisis is industrialisation which will provide enough jobs for our workers. The Member for Choa Chu Kang has said that the period of six months during which aid is given to the workers is not sufficient. If an employee is retrenched by the employer, he will be given three months' pay. The employer provides only one-third of the wages. The Bill provides that one-third of the wages is paid by the employers. This comes from their own wages. The Government also provide one-third of the wages. This is a sort of relief to help them in this transitional period. After the end of the six months, the employer can, of course, retrench the employee. When that time comes, it can be a matter of negotiations. It does not mean that the employers will not have to pay anything for retrenching the workers concerned. If the problem is not resolved when the factories are closed down, the workers will be affected. The Government have introduced this Bill to tide over the hardships of the workers for a period of six months. In the meantime, the workers will be able to look for other employment elsewhere. The fact that the workers have been unemployed due to the closing down of the factories should not induce us to blame the workers. The blame should not be put on them. If anybody is to be blamed, it is the Barisan Sosialis. If they are really sincere, they should put forward a plan to help the workers. Of course, the operative period can only be six months. How can you go on giving dole perpetually? If Members of the Opposition are really interested in the welfare of the workers, they should support the Government in their measures to solve the problem. They should also support the Government's industrialisation plan in order to provide more jobs to the workers. They should not attack Government's labour policy and the measures they have taken without rhyme or reason. The introduction of this Bill shows that at a time of crisis, and even before confrontation, Government have been able to foresee what is going to happen. The Government conducted a series of investigations and assessment in July before the Bill was drafted. Only two months after confrontation we have been able to produce this Bill to deal with the situation. Hence this Bill before the House today. I would like to tell the people of Singapore that the situation was brought about by the Barisan. They have inconvenienced the people of Singapore. If there is anybody to be blamed, it is the Barisan Sosialis who should be blamed.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will not follow the P.A.P. Benches in wanting to attack them. The introduction of the Economic Defence Bill by the Government may be a good idea because it may, to a certain extent, alleviate the problems of the unemployed workers as a result of confrontation. It is no use to put the blame on anybody. Both sides have seen the result of confrontation. We also agree to certain measures recommended in this Bill. Stevedores and water-front workers are the sinews of Singapore's entrepot trade. Yet many of them are not included in this scheme of assistance. Once trade between Singapore and Indonesia stops, the livelihood of these workers is affected. The burden of maintaining their families has not increased. If these workers are not included in the Bill, their hardship will be greater. I would also suggest to the Minister that these workers should also be included within the ambit of the provisions of this Bill. Another point is this. What happens after confrontation? The Minister has said that the workers who are directly affected by confrontation are those in industries like rubber, copra, and rattan. The stevedores are also affected. Other workers who are indirectly affected are those in the industries of shoe-making, fishery, etc. As a result of confrontation, there is a severance of trade. The markets for our local products are now closed. Many workers are now unemployed as a result of this. I hope the Minister for Finance will look into the plight of these workers who are indirectly affected by confrontation. Another point is the one-third of the wages to be contributed by the employer and the period of six months in which contributions will be made. Although there is such a provision here, there may be certain employers who may see some loopholes in this provision. In spite of the amount of their stock available in their storehouses at the moment - the stock may last for one month for all the workers - many employers extend the work to six months. They give, say, one or two days' work each week in order to spread the work over a period of six months, so that they could take advantage of the provision in the Bill relating to this matter. So on this point I feel that since the Minister for Finance is in charge of this Economic Defence Department, it is more convenient for him to look into this matter, and not let certain employers take advantage of the loopholes in the Bill. I advance this suggestion out of sincerity and I hope the Minister can carry it out.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am elated to hear the Member for Paya Lebar expressing his support for this Bill. This Bill is introduced in order to resolve the difficulties resulting from Indonesia's economic confrontation. Are the Barisan Sosialis Members really interested in the interests and welfare of the workers or the people of Singapore? No, they are not interested at all. They have tried to amend the motion of thanks of the Prime Minister to the Negara's speech by asking that negotiations with Indonesia be carried out. They oppose Malaysia, and the least they can do is to try to help bring about peace and prosperity to Singapore even if they do not wish to bring about peace and prosperity to Malaysia. Instead they talk about prosperity in South-East Asia. [Interruption] You are not concerned with Singapore. You have no right to talk about South-East Asia. This Bill, as I have said, is meant for the benefit of the unemployed workers, yet the Barisan Members persist in trivialities by mentioning two minor cases to show us that the Bill is not really perfect. But are they able to help us resolve the problem? When Singapore boats were detained by the Indonesian authorities, did the Barisan Members try to persuade the Indonesian authorities to release them, and to persuade them to release the property seized by them? And when they hear of Indonesian sabotage here in Singapore, none of them has dared to touch on it.

I wish the Parliamentary Secretary will come back to the discussion of the Economic Defence Bill and not stray away.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is because they in their speeches asked us to begin negotiations with Indonesia. That is why I have to touch on it in passing. I am of the opinion that the only way the Barisan Sosialis can help the people of Singapore to resolve their sufferings and difficulties resulting from confrontation is to support Malaysia. Instead all along they have been supporting Indonesia. I advise them to turn back and become decent citizens once again by supporting Malaysia and show their interest in working for the people of Singapore. But they are contented to be led by the nose by the Indonesians. On the matter of one-third contribution by the Government and one-third by the employer, the Barisan Assemblymen have not been able to advance concrete suggestions to help improve or to contribute something to better the life of the workers who are affected. The Member for Paya Lebar has been talking nonsense. Why do the Barisan Members not dare to attack Indonesia for all they have done? And they even support the rebellion in Brunei. Dare they say that they do not support the Brunei rebellion? They are traitors, treacherous people, abetting the enemies. [Interruption] When the Prime Minister made the statement in this House on Indonesian subversive activities, none of the Barisan Sosialis Members dared lift up their heads.

Order. I have already ruled that no remarks should be made across the House, because it delays the debate. Will the Parliamentary Secretary please continue without any further interruption from both sides of the House?

(In Mandarin): Under the circumstances, this Bill is a positive and practical measure to deal with the situation obtaining at present. If the Barisan Sosialis want to be practical, they can contribute towards this Economic Defence Fund, and the Government I am sure will be very glad to accept.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would also like to say something on this Bill. First of all, the Barisan Members should admit that whatever distortion or specious arguments or tactics they adopt, they can never succeed in smearing a responsible Government like the P.A.P. Even before the introduction of this Economic Defence Bill, when Indonesia began its confrontation against Malaysia, we had immediately initiated a plan to tide over the difficulties of workers affected. To help them in their living, we have urged upon employers concerned to take up their share of the responsibility to tide over the present crisis which has been caused by the Barisan Assemblymen across the Floor.

4.39 p.m. The Member for Choa Chu Kang has made a speech taken from statements of his own union. He says that waterfront workers are the backbone of Singapore's economy, and that the prosperity of these waterfront workers means the prosperity of Singapore. Can he deny that he has compiled his speech from statements and publications issued by his own union? He dare not deny it. All the speeches uttered by him have the same content. Who is thinking for him?

Order. Whether the Member for Choa Chu Kang writes his speeches or not is irrelevant to the Bill. Can the Member for Sembawang come back to this Bill?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, it is because Members across the Floor have levelled attacks against me, that is why I have to make such a reply to them. Talking about the Bill, it provides measures to help tide over the situation. Of course, the assistance given under this Bill is not a permanent measure, because it only helps to tide over difficulties for a period of six months. But during the six months the workers affected can seek employment elsewhere. So we do not claim that this Bill is able to solve the problems of the livelihood of the workers in one sweep. Our only hope of what the Barisan Assemblymen can do is not to oppose this Bill without any rhyme or reason. Their attack that the Bill is useless, has loopholes and is detrimental to the interests of the workers, will not help to resolve the difficulties of the workers affected. Instead they should try with all sincerity to think out measures to resolve the difficulties resulting from confrontation. If they are really sincere in the welfare and interests of the workers I hope they will give their support to this Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Members of the Opposition are worried on one point, i.e. the possibilities of employers by-passing the provisions of the Bill and not paying their proper contributions to the workers. There was reference from the Members for Choa Chu Kang, Paya Lebar and Thomson, about the loopholes of the Bill. They said that employers can give, let us say, two or three days' employment a month and then keep the workers without work for the rest of the month. And this can go on for the whole of six months, and therefore they avoid having to go into the scheme. Well, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I refer them to clause 5 (2) . Let me read it: `if the Director is satisfied, from information received from an employer, contractor or any other source, that for the reason set out in subsection (1) of this section [i.e. confrontation], any employer or contractor is unable to provide full employment or is able to provide only partial employment to any of his employees, the director may, after making such inquiries as he may deem necessary, determine the date from which the employer or contractor is unable to provide full employment or is able to provide only partial employment ..... and shall advise the employer or contractor in writing of the relevant date and of his obligations under this Ordinance.' Clause 2 of the Bill defines "full employment" and "partial employment". The definition of "partial employment" is, I think, of significance. The operative words are: `..... the employee's total wages per month are less than the wages received by him from his employer or contractor immediately prior to the adverse effect on the business of the employer or contractor.....'. So it is not possible for employers to escape their obligations by giving two or three days' work per month, if that happens, then the workers will get two or three days' full pay for the days he has worked, and for the days he does no work he goes under this scheme, that is to say, one-third pay to he paid by the employer and one-third pay to be paid by the Government. I hope this is made clear and is understood all round. If the employers try to evade their responsibility and avoid their legal obligation in this way, then, of course, they have committed an offence under this Bill and are liable to substantial penalties. So I think that will answer the doubts raised by the Opposition on this coverage of the Bill and the possibilities of evasion. The Member for Thomson has referred to a particular company in Sembawang Road. He says that there is some injustice there. This particular company is called Kota Trading Company, and the Chinese name is Yen Chou, 91 Sembawang Road. They now have 381 workers on the scheme. As far as we are informed, all the permanent labour force of this factory are under the scheme. They have been under the scheme for some time actually. He said that some workers arc offered only two days' pay as the basis of this two-thirds contribution. There are few workers attached to this factory who regard work at this factory as casual work. Normally they do not work there. They prefer hawking or fishing or farming or whatever they can do --- [Laughter]

Order.

These are facts. These are the people who have in the past been offered work by the employer, and the normal practice is that they do not want to work when it is offered to them. It is not that it is only in August that they got two or three days' work. That was the case in July, June and previously. These are the facts as established by investigation --- An hon. Member: Bluff!

Order.

If the Member for Thomson is still unconvinced, I shall be very pleased to get further details from him. This is as I am advised by the Director of Economic Defence. The Member for Thomson says, "Why August? August is a very poor month." This is all nonsense, Mr Speaker, Sir. August is a very good month. I have given figures to show how our business with Indonesia has been increasing from 1960 to 1962 and during 1963, until confrontation, it has been increasing all the time. I have further details about this Kota Trading Company. There are only six persons involved, belonging to the class of people who work one or two days a month. They cannot be considered regular workers because it is their habit to refuse work when such work has been offered to them. Other Members of the Opposition have referred to certain categories of workers who do not fall within the scope of this Bill. The Member for Paya Lebar particularly has pointed out that stevedores do not come into this scheme nor do fishermen. It is not possible to include stevedores in this scheme for two reasons. One is, there are no stevedores specifically engaged in loading and unloading Indonesian cargo. They unload all types of cargo. The loss of Indonesian cargo means that there is a partial loss of income to them, not a total loss. That is one reason. The second reason is that in the case of such people like stevedores, fishermen, and even crews on these twakows, there is no employer-employee relationship. Who are the employers of a crew of a fishing boat? They all work together on a collective basis and a profit sharing basis, and obviously it is not possible to get a chief fisherman or the head of the crew and ask him to pay one-third the normal incomes of the other members of the crew, because he is equally poor. So for these people, we are trying to solve their difficulties in some other way. A typical problem is for these people in wooden boats. You see quite a number of them laid off along Shenton Way. There may be about 40 boats and there may be about 300 or 400 people involved in this. They used to carry timber from the Rhio Archipelago - firewood, timber, raw sago, attap roofing, that sort of thing. We are trying to arrange to get alternative sources of timber and firewood for them. These alternative supplies are from the West Coast and the East Coast of Malaya. We are in consultation with the persons engaged in the firewood trade and if it is technically possible, the Government will be quite prepared to advance loans to them to start industries on the west coast of Malaya to produce firewood from the bakau timber which abounds there. The Member for Tampines says that if the employer cannot pay, then what happens? The Member for Hong Lim also says if the employer cannot pay, then the Government should pay. Under this law, if the employer cannot pay, then his assets will be liquidated and the worker will have a prior claim on whatever is left of his assets on liquidation. But both the Member for Tampines and the Member for Choa Chu Kang are worried about the authority of the Director to determine the normal wages of persons included in this scheme. They think that he may try to reduce it or to increase it. They are not happy. I am not quite sure on what grounds they are not happy about it. The reason is a simple one. In most instances, the pay for August can be accepted as a reasonable standard. It was a fairly active month for persons engaged in these industries. But you may have the odd case where a person is sick for a part of the month or he may have gone on leave. So under those conditions then, the Director will probably take the previous month. Anyway he has the right under this law to vary the basis of calculation in order to ensure that a just assessment of the average wages is arrived at. Obviously, without this kind of provision, then either you stick to a very rigid formula and get unfair results because of a few people being sick or being off work during that month, or you may get results which will in other ways be equally unsatisfactory. Now, the number of unemployed, Mr Speaker, Sir. 10,000, says the Member for Tampines; 20,000, says the Member for Choa Chu Kang; 30,000, says the Member for Hong Lim. May I say, obviously this is absolute rubbish? If they want me to believe it is 10,000 or 20,000 or 30,000, let me have a list - name of firm and number of workers. Then we can add. If it comes to 10,000, 20,000, or 30,000, then it is acceptable. But these wild statements made either to denigrate the Government or to demoralise the population or to encourage the Indonesians, are of no use at all. When I say, 1,300, Mr Speaker, Sir, I give figures. Firms Workers Rubber milling and smoking 1 374 Rubber packing and grading 2 216 Sago 5 184 Coconut oil mill 2 51 Seamen 14 495 ____ _____ Total 24 1,320 ____ _____ This is the position up to the 14th of December, 1963. The Member for Tampines says that he has made investigations and he has found that 40 rubber factories have closed down. I have a list of rubber factories closed down. They are being listed regularly to ensure that if they are closed down, the workers come under this scheme. They are still operating. So that is that, Mr Speaker, Sir, on these fantastic claims that 10,000 or 20,000 or 30,000 people are now unemployed. I think I have dealt with the main points raised by the Opposition. There are a number of minor points, nagging little points, but I do not think I need waste the time of the House in replying to them.

It is nearly five o'clock. I propose to suspend this sitting till half-past five. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.00 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. -[Dr Goh Keng Swee] Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. 5.33 p.m.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill, which is complementary to the Economic Defence Bill which has been passed by this Assembly, lays down, as it were, the second and more positive line of defence against Indonesia's economic confrontation. Members will accept that monetary assistance and loans to workers laid off will not solve for all time the difficulties that will he caused in the employment field; nor can the engagement or reengagement of the workers affected be left to the play of free market forces. It is therefore necessary to provide for the direction of employment in order effectively and expeditiously to reabsorb such workers in other industries. The purpose of this Bill is therefore to provide for the direction of employment for persons adversely affected by the trade boycott. Direction of employment is not a normal instrument of policy, but then these are not normal times and, without some form of direction, the chances are, if confrontation is prolonged, many of the 8,000 workers who will eventually be laid off, will remain unemployed for a very long time after they have drawn all the payments under the Economic Defence Scheme. I must stress, Sir, that the Bill seeks only selective direction, that the dangers of misuse of authority have been recognised, and that accordingly certain safeguards have been provided. Clause 4 gives powers to the Minister to make an order to be published in the Gazette requiring an employer who is subject to such an order not to engage or re-engage any employee outside those registered with the Economic Defence Department, without the written consent of the Director. However, the Minister may, before making such an order, refer a draft thereof to a Committee appointed by him for its advice. In this manner, the opinions of representatives of employers and employees will be taken into consideration before an order is made. I intend to avail myself of the advice and guidance which trade union leaders and business leaders are in a position to offer. As I said in my Budget Speech, this operation can succeed only on the basis of sensible co-operation between the Government, the workers and management. Clause 5, however, does not compel any employer to accept an employee nominated by the Director. He has the right to refuse to employ such person if he finds him unacceptable, and he may, with the consent of the Director, employ any other person of his choice. Another safeguard is that the employers can have recourse to an Appeals Board appointed by the Minister if the Director refuses to give his consent. It is also provided that any award made under the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1960, in relation to the engagement or re-engagement of employees by employers, both of whom are subject to an order made under clause 4, will have no effect. One final word on Government's policy with regard to the recommendation of workers on the laid-off list to prospective employers. There are two aspects to this policy. The first is to ensure, by suitable grading of workers, that those who are recommended for employment will have the requisite skills to perform the work. The second is to ensure that the employment of these workers will not prejudice industrial peace in the establishment or a prospective employer. To ensure this then, laid-off workers who are known to have close connections or to have held offices in pro-Communist unions will not be recommended for employment. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Order.

A black list has been compiled of these persons, both in industries affected by confrontation as well as in other industries; and this list will be used whenever direction of employment is carried out, in this exercise as well as on future occasions when Government wants to assist unemployed persons in getting jobs in private industries. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 5.40 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, after the Government has introduced the Economic Defence Bill, it is now introducing another Bill of the same nature - the Economic Defence (Direction of Employment) Bill. Looking at the Bills superficially the Government seems to have the intention of helping the laid-off workers and to try and resolve their problems. From the speech given by the Minister for Finance, however, we can see very clearly that he has brought political bias into the field of economic assistance for laid-off workers. The Minister for Finance in his Budget Statement made in this House told this House that he would give careful and deliberate consideration before he exercises his powers under the law. These soothing talks and beautiful promises made by him not very long ago have now been completely negatived by what the Minister has said just now. From this we can see that the passing of this Bill will provide the Minister for Finance and the Director with extensive and absolute powers. They can make use of their authority to monopolise the direction of employment for their political ends. Workers who have not been supporting the P.A.P. will he prejudiced against. These words came out of the horse's own mouth! At present the P.A.P. Government are launching full-out on their mean, low and suppressive policy which is despicable. From the Minister's Budget Statement, we thought that he would be behaving well, but in actual fact, he has now made us understand that the P.A.P. are trying to make use of their political power to further their political ends of suppression and monopoly; otherwise how can they explain that the Bill provides for them to concentrate all the powers and management in relation to direction of employment into the hands of one person, the Minister for Finance? Is it not very dangerous to put all the powers into the hands of one person! I would like to point out to you, Mr Speaker, the various improper stipulations in the Bill, because under this Bill the employer has lost his power and discretion in the engagement of workers. In this respect the Minister has entirely deprived the employer of his power. Perhaps they will turn round and accuse us of speaking on behalf of the employers. But I will say that in spite of the P.A.P.'s smear, our stand on labour and capital relationship is very clear. We only oppose all those suppressive actions and injustices meted out to the workers. As to the fundamental and legitimate rights of the employers, we will respect these rights. But according to the provisions of the Bill, the discretion of the employer in regard to his power of engaging workers, is entirely in the hands of the Minister. In this respect, the Bill has enabled the Minister concerned to monopolise the power. The Bill also stipulates that an Appeals Board will be established in case the employers concerned are met with a refusal from the Director. They can appeal against his direction. But I would like to point out that this Appeals Board will be appointed by the Minister for Finance himself. Moreover, the decision given by the Appeals Board may not necessarily be binding and the Minister need not he governed by it. So what is the use of this Board? The power given by the Bill to the Minister may very likely be used by him to further his political suppression and persecution, because he may direct any employer not to employ any worker. But I should say that the Bill should not enable the Minister to interfere with the legitimate relationship between the employer and labour. So from this we can see that the P.A.P. Government are resorting to legislation to further carry out their suppression and persecution of the workers and to exploit them. I would also say that the Bill also provides that the employer should get the consent of the Director in engaging any laid-off worker, and when he is not satisfied with the Director's refusal he can appeal to the Appeals Board which, after all, is appointed by the Minister himself. So, how can you say that this will give the people the impression of fairness or justice that can be expected from the Appeals Board? The Minister has said that only workers in the N.T.U.C. will be given the advantage, whereas other workers who are not in the N.T.U.C. will be excluded from all the benefits. Now, in this way, the P.A.P. will be able to recruit more workers into their camp and, at the same time, intimidate and coerce non-P.A.P. workers. At present we are facing a political crisis initiated by the P.A.P.; they are trying to resort to legislation to ride over the heads of the workers to further their own political ends. If ours is a democracy, I hope the P.A.P. Government in drafting this Bill will pay full attention to the provision of safeguards in the interests and welfare of the workers, and not try to resort to suppression of non-P.A.P. workers who do not support the P.A.P.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully agree with the Minister for Finance that the powers provided in this Bill should not be used to direct those S.A.T.U. activists to any employment. They are the persons who cause hardship and misery to the workers by bringing about confrontation through their constant agitation. In fact, they should be punished and I propose to punish them by not offering them any facilities of the State. Why should we offer them these facilities? They are the culprits. They should be punished and the Labour Ministry is in full co-operation with the Ministry of Finance in preparing a black list of these activists. Once the names of these activists are entered into this list, I can assure you that they will have no chance of finding employment elsewhere, especially in the Jurong pioneering industries. However, not all the workers in these unions will be affected. Only the trouble-makers will be affected, and in order to give them a chance to make their living, I recommend them to become hawkers or taxi-drivers. But not all will be given hawkers' licences or taxi-drivers' licences. They will be given the posts of assistant hawkers or assistant taxi-drivers whereby they can wash the bowls and plates of the hawkers or wash the cars of the taxi-drivers. They may even be made to be assistant gaol birds where only second-class treatment will be provided for them in Changi Gaol. I do not see why the State's facilities should be offered to these culprits and trouble-makers whose main purpose in life is to cause misery and hardship to the innocent workers.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker. Sir, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Labour seem to be very happy when they talk about their intention to fix those who, they say, have harmed the interests of the workers. To those who are power crazy, one can be sure that these people will make use of the privileges of this House and abuse them. It is not surprising that people of this nature should make such utterances. In fact, it is not necessary for them to make such utterances to annoy the Members opposite, because we in the Opposition know what they are up to. We are, in fact, very glad to have listened to what they have said, because when they are going further and further into the position in which they want to abuse their powers and privileges, they are, in fact, one step nearer to death. So we must give them our blessings, for they are one step nearer to death. But we want to bless them with the hope that they should not end in the way that Ngo Dinh Diem has ended. We hope that the fate of Ngo Dinh Diem will not befall them. They can talk about their powers and privileges, but I wish to point out one matter in relation to this Bill which gives wide powers to the Minister for Finance. As he has already said in his speech, he is quite prepared to abuse his powers to deal blows to those so-called Communists. That is his own admission. So he is quite prepared to try to draw a distinction between non-P.A.P. workers and P.A.P. workers. As a result of this distinction, some innocent workers will, under these powers, suffer some suppression and misery. In fact, they will suffer discrimination. Of course, the Ministers can do whatever they like according to their whims and fancies, but I want to give them a friendly piece of advice. If they want to persist in what they do, they are just digging their own grave. There will come a time when the water will come up to their necks and they will still fail to realise that death is near.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we are quite clear about the intentions of the Communist stooges and their friends in the S.A.T.U. unions towards their Communist leaders. This, Mr Speaker, to me is the best way to achieve industrial peace. Everybody knows that S.A.T.U. controlled unions are pro-Communist and these people are anti-State as well as pro-confrontationists. These Communist leaders and their stalwarts in the S.A.T.U. unions can consider themselves very lucky to be able to enjoy this two-thirds salary benefit, as listed by the Finance Minister. Mr Speaker, if I had my way, I would not let them have the two-thirds salary. They should not only be not given the two-thirds salary, but they should not be allowed to stay in this State. They should be driven out of this State and sent to the Indonesian Communist Party in Indonesia. After all, Mr Speaker --- An hon. Member: Rubbish!

I am saying that those who love the Communists must experience starvation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am very glad to notice that what my colleague, the Minister for Labour, and I have said on this subject has made an impact on the Members of the Opposition. This is only the first step. Now let us not forget that this is not the final step. Perhaps, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am tempted, just now, to give a review of the history of the fight between the traitors in the pro-Communist camp and the P.A.P., but I think you will probably rule me out of order. All I want to say is that we had two decisive engagements with them - September 1962, and again September 1963. They have lost the battle and now they are going to pay the penalty. Having said that, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I once again make it clear that we are not going to inflict any punishment on the workers, as a group? That would be quite wrong. We know there are large numbers of industrial workers - Chinese industrial workers especially - who are members of the S.A.T.U. unions. The general body of workers will be given every protection and will be able to enjoy all the privileges under this Bill as well as under other Bills. But in the course of our long struggle with the treacherous anti-national elements of the pro-Communist camp in the trade union field, the cultural field, the educational field and the political field, we have identified a number of activists who knowingly - not unconsciously - support their cause in the full knowledge that it is a pro-Communist anti-national line. Well, they must suffer. And I make no apologies at all that steps will be taken to deal with them. The Member for Thomson says that by so doing we bring ourselves nearer to death. I hope, Mr Speaker, Sir, that he means "nearer to political death" and not "nearer to physical death" like Mr Ngo Dinh Diem. Because if it was the latter interpretation, then, or course, he is threatening an honourable Member of this Assembly, and, quite apart from being out of order under the Standing Orders of this Assembly, he would merit more severe penalties than just being ruled out of order. Well, Mr Speaker, Sir, we are not Ngo Dinh Diems, we are not dictators. Why are they here? Being paid $500 to criticise the Government and propagate their pernicious and treacherous anti-national views? Neo Dinh Diem, Mr Speaker, Sir? Under Ngo Dinh Diem they would be whisked off when they come out of the Assembly into a car, brought to Changi Gaol, at six o'clock tomorrow morning lined up against the wall, and executed. Instead of which, Mr Speaker, Sir, in a few days' time just before Christmas they will certainly be getting $500 from Government funds so that they can have a Merry Christmas. Now, he says that what we are going to do, our policy, is to punish the workers who are non-P.A.P. and to reward the workers who are pro-P.A.P. Now that is not the distinction, Sir. The distinction is between a small group - a small group, Sir - of pro-Communist cadres and activists, and the general run of workers. The general run of workers would be unaffected. We give them full support, full protection. But this small group - and we know them now, having come into collision with them through all these years, we know who they are ---

And you are afraid?

Not afraid. This is only the first step, Mr Speaker, Sir. Worse is yet to follow, and at the end of five years, we shall review the progress made in all fields. Confrontation, not between Indonesia and Malaysia, but between the P.A.P. and the treacherous anti-national elements. At the end of five years, Mr Speaker, Sir, I assure you, Singapore will be a far happier State.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. -[Dr Goh Keng Swee]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

6.08 p.m. Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," Under the former local government legislation there was provision for a refund of rates on unoccupied buildings intended for renting. But when the property tax was imposed in 1961, no provision was made for a refund of tax on unoccupied buildings as the tax was on ownership of property as an additional source of general revenue. Unlike the former rates, it covered the cost of services provided by the local authorities. There was also at that time an acute shortage of housing and it was intended to discourage house owners from exploiting the situation by holding the houses in vacancy in the hope of collecting higher rentals later. Due to the successful efforts of the Housing and Development Board and due to extensive private development, the housing shortage has eased considerably since then. And it is now possible to allow a house owner, who has made a genuine effort to let out his house at a fair rental but has failed to do so, to claim a refund of tax for any period his house has been vacant for 30 days or more continuously. On 9th November last year I announced that this decision would be made effective from the 1st January, 1963. This was repeated in my Budget Statement of 7th June, 1963. The object of clause 2 of the present Bill is to give effect to that decision. At present aggrieved property owners may lodge objections against valuations with the Valuation Review Board. Over the last two years the majority of objections were minor ones which could have been satisfactorily settled by the Inland Revenue Department. The Bill provides in clause 3 for such objections to be lodged first with the Chief Assessor, while reserving to the property owner the ultimate right of appeal to the Valuation Review Board against the Chief Assessor's decision. This will make for more expeditious decisions without jeopardising the right of appeal to the Board. Clause 6 of the Bill will also confer on the Chief Assessor the right to appeal to the High Court against any decision of the Valuation Review Board on any question of law or fact and law. This right is being enjoyed at present only by the property owner, and not by the Government. Clause 7 of the Bill provides for property tax to be payable not only from the date of completion of the new building, but also from the date of completion of any alterations or improvements to buildings. Clauses 4, 5 and 8 to 14 of the Bill provide for minor and consequential amendments. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. -[Dr Goh Keng Swee] Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

6.13 p.m. Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker. Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The purpose of the Bill is quite straightforward, namely, to tighten the provisions of the Societies Ordinance in order to provide a more effective measure of control. It has been found in the light of some years' experience in administering the Societies Ordinance that the provisions have not proved adequate in dealing with societies already registered or applying for registration. For example, there is a large number of societies which were registered many years ago but whose rules have been found to be defective or inadequate for the proper running of the society, with the result that some of these societies have been either improperly run or used for purposes other than those fur which they were originally registered. Under the present provisions of the Ordinance, there is no power for the Registrar to require a society to change its rules once it has been registered under the Ordinance and accordingly clause 4 of the Bill amends section 17 of the Ordinance to enable the Registrar to require, where circumstances warrant it, any registered society to amend its rules. Where a society has been requested by the Registrar to amend its rules and has failed, without reasonable cause, to do so within three months of the request, the Minister may, where he thinks fit, order that such society should be dissolved. This is the only change proposed to the provisions of section 17 of the Ordinance. Under the present provisions, the Ministry already has powers to order the dissolution of any society which is being used for unlawful purposes, or is being used for purposes incompatible with the peace or good order of the State or with the objects or rules of the society. It has also been found that many societies are being mismanaged by persons who are not fit to be office-bearers. For example, persons who while being members of a society have been convicted for an offence involving the unlawful expenditure of the funds of a society or have been convicted for a criminal offence. Clause 3 of the Bill is designed to exclude such persons from acting as office-bearers of any society in cases where the circumstances warrant such exclusion. Clause 3 of the Bill also amends the Ordinance to provide that no registered society shall use any symbol without the consent in writing of the Registrar or an Assistant Registrar. It has been found that a number of societies and associations have adopted symbols which hear resemblance to one another and which have in the past led to no small measure of confusion. It is considered desirable to rectify the situation by providing the Registrar or Assistant Registrar with powers to ensure that a symbol adopted by a registered society is such that its identity is not likely to be confused with that of another society or association. When these amended provisions become law, the Government will, of course, allow a sufficient period for all registered societies with symbols to apply for approval of their symbols, and will only take action against societies which have not complied with the amended provisions after all registered societies have been given an adequate opportunity to do so. Under the present provisions of section 20 of the Societies Ordinance, where a society has been dissolved by the Minister under section 17 of the Ordinance, the Official Assignee in Bankruptcy or any other officer appointed for the purpose shall, after satisfying and providing for all the debts and liabilities of a society and the cost of winding up, divide the surplus assets, if any, amongst the members of the society according to their rules; and in cases where such division of the surplus assets is not practicable, according to a scheme which has to be prepared by the Official Assignee or other officer appointed for the purpose and submitted to a Supreme Court Judge for approval. It has been found, however, that the provisions relating to the preparation of a scheme for division of surplus assets and the submission to a Supreme Court Judge for approval have, quite apart from the cumbersome procedure involved, not worked out satisfactorily in practice. It is proposed, therefore, that in cases where the division of surplus assets of a dissolved society is not practicable - for example, in the case where the assets concerned are too unsubstantial to warrant the work involved in distribution - such assets should, where the Minister considers it desirable, be paid into the Consolidated Fund of the State. Clause 2 of the Bill amending subsection (2) of section 9 of the Ordinance to increase the penalty from $25 to $200 hardly needs any comment. It is quite clear that the penalty of $25 which was fixed many years ago is inadequate to serve as a deterrent and it is considered desirable to increase this penalty to the more appropriate sum of $200. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we are now debating the Societies (Amendment) Bill. The debate on this Bill is similar in nature to the debate that we had on the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill. This Bill gravely infringes the rights of certain organisations. We pointed out yesterday that Government is utilising its majority strength in this House and abusing its majority seats in this House to amend all the Ordinances. These amendments will enable them to deal with certain individuals, organisations, political Parties or certain trade unions. After studying the clauses in this Bill, we find that these amendments are of a serious nature. These amendments in the Societies Ordinance can control and influence all registered societies. They can also control any political Party. Mr Speaker, Sir, we all know that the political system in Singapore is based on the so-called democratic parliamentary system. Political Parties play a very important role in a democratic system. They are part and parcel of the democratic system. After this Societies (Amendment) Bill has been passed, it will be possible for the P.A.P. to deal with any political Party if they feel that this particular political Party will endanger the P.A.P.'s existence. Now let us study closely the clauses in this Bill. Let us examine them. In clause 3, new section 9B, subsection (1) provides that two types of people are not allowed to hold office in any organisation or political Party. The first category is as provided under (a) . That is, any person who has "been convicted for an offence involving the unlawful expenditure of the funds of a society; or (b) he has been declared, in writing, by the Minister to be unfit to be an officer of a society by reason of any conviction for a criminal offence other than specified in paragraph (a) of this subsection, unless the written permission of the Minister so to act is first obtained." These two small paragraphs infringe human rights. These two small sections will stigmatise a person if he has committed any offence. They will prohibit him from holding any office in any societies forever. He will be stigmatised forever. He will be branded as one who has committed an offence. Such provisions are very objectionable. They are unreasonable. I do not know why the P.A.P. want to make such legislation after they came to power. They have helped criminals who have been convicted in the past by releasing them from gaol and finding jobs for them. But why should they punish a person for his past misdeeds by prohibiting him from holding office in the society? The offences may not be the same. They may he committed under different circumstances and at different times. For example, if a person commits a certain offence during a strike; for example, he prevents the car of his employer from leaving the factory, he will commit the offence of traffic obstruction. If he is convicted by the Court, he will be penalised. He will be deprived of the right to hold office in any society or any political Party. Under a pro-Labour government this person will be declared innocent. But under a pro-employer government, this person will be convicted for having obstructed his employer. Therefore, he will he deprived of his opportunity and right to hold office. This is very wrong. If the P.A.P. find that certain officials in a political Party are very capable and they are a threat to the P.A.P., then the P.A.P. can conveniently dub them as criminals and thus deprive them of their right to work in a political Party. This is another instance to show that the P.A.P. want to interfere with the internal affairs of a political Party or society. The Bill gives too much power to the Minister to enable him to interfere with those societies and political Parties which one day may come to power. It gives the Minister power to stop another political Party from being returned to power by depriving the officers of that political Party of their right to hold office. The P.A.P. also intend to get rid of those union officials who do not support them. It is easy to convict such officials of any offence if the P.A.P. do not like them on some excuse or pretext. On the second page of this Bill clause 3 - new section 9C reads: `No registered society shall use any symbol without the consent in writing of the Registrar or an Assistant Registrar.' That is, a society cannot make use of any symbol without the consent of the Registrar. This provision is also unreasonable. For example, if there is an election pending and a certain group of people form themselves into a political Parts in order to take part in the election, they must have a Party symbol to enable the people to know what party they belong to. But the Registrar can abuse his power by withholding his consent to prevent the people from knowing the symbol of this political Party. This will greatly affect the chances of this political Party in the election. If the electors do not know the symbol of a political Party, how are they going to elect their candidates? This is a serious interference with the activities of a political Party. At the same time - new section 9c (3) - clause 3 reads: `In any case where a registered society uses a symbol in contravention of the provisions of subsection (1) of this section-

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, whenever the P.A.P. Government introduces a Bill, it is branded as dictatorial, anti-people and Fascist. How can they say so? If there are laws which provide certain powers, of course, the Minister can use those powers. How can you say that the Minister is abusing the powers provided by the law? If there are laws, you cannot say that the action taken under such laws is an abuse of power. What can the Barisan Members do? They can only level terms like "Fascist", "abusing power", etc. This Bill, in actual fact, gives power to the Minister and the Registrar to control societies, to safeguard their members arid to take action against those societies and office-bearers involved in unlawful acts. And yet the Barisan brand this Bill as a Fascist Bill. In the Bill it is provided that only when office-bearers of a society commit unlawful acts, will they be dealt with by the law. All those law-abiding office-bearers and members have nothing to fear. If any member of a society carries out subversive activities detrimental to the security of the State, such as abetting Indonesia in her confrontation, then such activities are unlawful. Any one collaborating with Indonesia at a time when Indonesia is suppressing and persecuting Malaysians and seizing Malaysian properties is deemed to have committed an illegal and unlawful act under this Bill. Of course, it is the responsibility of the Government to enforce laws to ensure that such activities can be curbed in order to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests and welfare of the people. The Barisan Assemblymen have been using terms like "Fascist", "dictatorial". This attack is futile because our laws provide for the interests of the majority, and not for the minority.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the purpose of this Societies (Amendment) Bill is to regulate and suppress societies in Singapore and political Parties. The speech of the Member who sat down just now gave us a clear indication of the intention of the Government. Whoever is against the Government is committing an unlawful act, and therefore the provisions of this Societies (Amendment) Bill must be applied. Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel that this Bill is unnecessary. It is undemocratic. First of all, the new section 9c enables the Government to regulate symbols of all societies and political Parties. In the case of non-political societies, symbols are not so important. But in the case of political Parties, a symbol is very important because during polling the voter only votes for the symbol. We have experience of the Government asking that party symbols be changed. So section 9c enables the Government to refuse party symbols which have been known for some time. There is no proviso to assure political Parties that symbols which have been in use will automatically be approved, and any party has to accept the decision of the Registrar and the Minister, without any opportunity of appealing to the Court. Under this new section, if the Minister says that this party must change its symbol, it has no right of appeal to anybody; the decision of the Minister shall be final. Another undemocratic aspect of the Bill is that the Government may ask any society to change its rules that have already been approved by them. Mr Speaker, we know that when rules are submitted to Government for approval, the Government normally take some time to consider them, and in almost all cases questions are asked on the rules and amendments suggested. And now we have a new clause enabling Government to repeal or amend rules that have already been approved by Government. Let us suppose the constitution of a party or a society has been approved by Government. Now the Government want power to amend or repeal those rules, Mr Speaker, Sir, this power is very undemocratic. The Government already have enormous powers to take action against societies that come under section 17 of the Societies Ordinance. Clause 4, amending section 17, says: (1) Whenever it appears to the Minister that -

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to say a few words on this Bill. I would like to ask the Opposition why they are scared of this amendment Bill. If the Bill is passed, they will not be able to manipulate societies for their own political ends. It is the practice of the Communists to manipulate the societies for their nefarious designs. Likewise, the Communists carry out their struggle by using the societies as their tools. I would like to say to them that as long as they carry out such designs detrimental to the interests of the people, then they will suffer the consequences of their actions. So in this House they should not pretend to believe that this Bill is undemocratic. If we are undemocratic, surely the opposition Members would not be here in this House. This is unlike the democracy that is obtaining in Indonesia.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in respect of this Bill, I feel that the difference between the Government's stand and the Opposition's stand is this. We, as the Government, have the right to look after the legitimate rights of societies and their members. But the Opposition Members here are asking us to give latitude to those unlawful members and office-bearers of societies to carry out their unlawful activities. Now, here is the distinction. The Members opposite have asked us: what does "unlawful" mean? I will try to enlighten them as to what the term "unlawful" means. This is a very glaring example. If a society is used to carry out treacherous activities detrimental to the security of the State, then we say that such actions are unlawful. Another example of an unlawful act is this: the funds of a trade union without the approval of its members are being doled out after a meeting of only some of the executive members to fellow travellers. Another example is when the society is being used for purposes other than in the interests or in keeping with the rules of the society. In Singapore there are a great many varieties of societies, some with aims and objectives which are not in actual fact directed at the interests and welfare of the members, but for the purpose of making money. So I do not understand why the Barisan Assembly Members, on whatever piece of legislation we introduce, should always support unlawful actions and always speak on behalf of such actions. They say that we have denied the societies the right to appeal to the Court, because the Minister's decision is final according to the Bill. But when there are provisions for them to appeal to the Court, they will say that the Court may not be a good means to meet this situation. They are very eloquent in their specious arguments. They are trying to obstruct the passage of whatever legislation we want to introduce into this House. [Interruption]

(In Mandarin): Ah, he has said too much. You know, all this is bunkum. The P.A.P. is renowned for its integrity and honesty. We are not boasting. Only a handful of Assemblymen opposite us are telling us that they represent the broad masses of the people of Singapore! How can they claim this?

Has the Parliamentary Secretary anything further to say on this?

(In Mandarin): Yes, I am winding up.

I do not want to appear impatient, but let us not have a discussion as to who represents the people. We are on the Societies (Amendment) Bill.

(In Mandarin): Sir, I am talking about the symbols used by societies. The Member for Hong Lim expressed his dissatisfaction in regard to the symbol of his political Party. He realised that it was similar to that used by Nanyang University and the People's Association; it is even used as a trade mark. The Barisan Members have been shouting day in and day out that this is illegal, that is no good and that they are the representatives of the people. All this is sheer nonsense. [Interruption] They accuse us of being dictators. If we are dictators, these people will no longer be sitting here today.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will not take up much of your time. I just wish to clarify a few points. I do not think it will take up more than ten minutes. The Member for Thomson has accused the Government of intending to use this amending Bill to deal with opposition Parties or societies that are in opposition to the Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have no intention of abusing our power. In fact, the whole purpose of this amendment is to protect the ordinary members - the lawful members - of the society. For the Member to accuse us of abusing our power, I think, is a bit of distortion. In fact, it is people like the Member for Thomson who have been abusing the power. Take, for instance, the O.B.A.

Order. I do not want the Minister to make any personal attacks on the Member.

Mr Speaker, Sir, take, for instance, the old boys' association. The object of an old boys' association is to promote friendship amongst the old boys of the school in whatever way they can and to promote the welfare of its members. That is the object of most of the old boys' associations. But what do we find? We have discovered from experience that the O.B.A. has been used for political purposes. In fact, most of the O.B.A.s in Singapore have become the political wings of the Barisan Sosialis. During the referendum campaign the O.B.A.s played a prominent part. They canvassed among the people against the Government. Even at the last election the O.B.A.s came out actively to campaign on behalf of the Barisan.

They do not support the P.A.P.

The O.B.A. is not a political organisation. If it is a political organisation, of course, such an association is at liberty to campaign at the election. But it is not a political organisation. It is the same thing with the Hawkers' Union. The object of the Hawkers' Union is supposed to look after the welfare of its members. But instead we find the Hawkers' Union running around Singapore and taking an active part in the anti-merger, anti-Malaysia campaign, and campaigning for the Barisan. These are the people who abuse the objects of the society. [Interruption]

Order.

Mr Speaker, Sir, just now both the Member for Thomson and the Member for Hong Lim spoke of the clause about the symbol. We have found from experience that many of the societies, not necessarily political societies, have used symbols which some other societies have already adopted, with the result that confusion has arisen. This is particularly important when election time comes. And it is to prevent this confusion that we have introduced the amendment. Take, for instance, the symbol of the U.P.P. It has been pointed out that it is a symbol that has been used by many associations. Take, for instance, the Barisan symbol - the circle and the star. I wish to inform the House, if the Members opposite are still unaware of it, that this very identical symbol is used by a Communist organisation in China. That identical symbol of the Barisan Sosialis is reproduced in a dictionary published by the Government Publishing House in China. I would advise the Members of the Barisan Sosialis to be very careful about it. [Interruption]

Order. Inche Othman.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to prolong the debate. All that has been raised by Members of the Opposition has been answered by my colleagues. I would only like to say here that the purpose of our bringing up this amending Bill is not to curb political Parties. Our main purpose is to protect members of societies, whether ordinary societies or political societies, from being manipulated by irresponsible people, thereby bringing about undesirable results to them. The reasons have been given by me just now, and so I do not wish to elaborate on this. Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Division. The House divided: Ayes, 26; Noes, 8; Absent, 15; Abstention, 1. Ayes Noes A. Rahim Ishak Chia Thye Poh Buang bin Omar Junid Chio Cheng Thun Chan Chee Seng Koo Young Chow Chiok Hock Kow Kee Seng Fong Sip Chee Ong Eng Guan Gonzales, R. A. Ong Lian Teng Govindasamy, P. Poh Ber Liak Ho Cheng Choon Tan Cheng Tong Ho See Beng Jek Yeun Thong Abstention Lee Teck Him Barker, E. W. Lim Kim San Mahmud Awang Absent Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi Bani, S. T. Ng Kah Ting Chan Choy Siong, Madam Ng Yeow Chong Chan Sun Wing Ong Pang Boon Fong Kim Heng Othman bin Wok Goh Keng Swee Rahamat bin Kenap Lee Kuan Yew Rajoo, S. Lim Cheng Lock Bernard Rodrigues Lim Huan Boon Sia Kah Hui Lingam, S. V. Sim Boon Woo Loh Miaw Gong, Miss Teong Eng Siong Nair, Mrs. Devan Toh Chin Chye Rajaratnam, S. Wee Toon Boon Wong Soon Fong Yaacob bin Mohamed Al-Haj Yong Nyuk Lin Question accordingly agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Inche Othman bin Wok] Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Resolved, "That items 8 and 9 on the Order Paper be taken after item No. 10." -[Dr Toh Chin Chye]

Order for Second Reading read. 7.22 p.m.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This is a straightforward Bill which makes certain non-controversial amendments to the Public Utilities Ordinance No. 1 of 1963. The first amendment provides for the appointment of a Deputy Chairman of the Public Utilities Board who is empowered to exercise the powers of Chairman when the Chairman is unable to act or the office of the Chairman is vacant. The Deputy Chairman will also preside at meetings during the absence of the Chairman. At present there is provision in the Ordinance only for a member to be appointed temporary Chairman whenever the Chairman is unable by illness or otherwise to be present, and this process has to be repeated every time the Chairman is similarly incapacitated. The Bill also seeks to amend the Ordinance so as to make it clear that only the members of the Public Utilities Board, its employees and persons acting under the Board's direction who are not to be subject personally to any action, liability, claim or demand whatsoever for any matter or thing done for the purpose of executing the provisions of this Ordinance and that the Board itself is not protected from any such actions, liabilities, claim or demand. At present it is possible that section 20 as worded may be construed as extending protection to the Board itself from any liability. Again, although there is nothing in the Ordinance at present to say that the Board can make ex gratia payments to any person sustaining any damage by reason of the exercise of any of the powers vested in the Board or its employees there is nothing to preclude the Board from making such ex gratia payments. However, for the removal of any doubt, the Bill includes a new provision which explicitly states that the Board can make such ex gratia payments. Lastly, the present provisions of the Ordinance state that tariffs in connection with the supply of water, gas and electrical energy and hire of apparatus shall be prescribed by regulations made by the Board and that all regulations shall be published in the Gazette but any prices charged by way of special agreement do not require publication in the Gazette. This amendment Bill now provides that other prices which are charged by special agreement shall also be published in the Gazette as soon as may be after the signing of such special agreement. I have also, Mr Speaker, given notice of an amendment which I will move at Committee stage. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker. Sir, this amendment Bill provides that the Public Utilities Board shall have powers to appoint a Deputy Chairman who shall preside over all meetings in the absence of the Chairman and exercise his powers in his absence. We know that the Chairman of the Public Utilities Board is Mr Oehlers and the Deputy Chairman is a P.A.P. Member, namely, Dr Fong Kim Heng. I believe that Members in this House know that Mr George Oehlers was the ex-Speaker of this Chamber. Because he was very impartial in this Chamber in exercising his duties he was not prepared to ---

On a point of order. Mr Speaker, I think the Member for Jurong is digressing from the principles of the Ordinance. He is making specific references to the ex-Speaker of this Legislative Assembly and I do not think that it is relevant at all to the debate under consideration.

Yes, I rule in your favour, Dr Toh. I must tell the Member for Jurong that we are not discussing the ex-Speaker here. We are discussing this Bill. So please, if he has anything to say, confine it to this Bill.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I just mentioned this matter in passing in order to remind this House that when the P.A.P. tries to amend the Bill, there is some ulterior motive behind the amendment, because of the fear that Sir George Oehlers, who was the ex-Speaker of this House, may not agree with the policies of the P.A.P. and the dictatorial behaviour of the P.A.P. in the Public Utilities Board. This is the amendment moved in order to meet this possible exigency, so that when Mr Oehlers is away, Dr Fong can come in and act on his behalf. But, if you say this is irrelevant, I shall stop now.

Mr Speaker, it is difficult to believe how stupid the Barisan Sosialis can be. If they really think that the purpose of moving this amendment to the Public Utilities Ordinance is because we are afraid of the present holder of the post of Chairman of the Board, the simplest procedure would be not to appoint him at all. We are not under an obligation to appoint the ex-Speaker of this Assembly as Chairman of the Public Utilities Board. I think that is the simplest answer to his, I would say, not very clever remark.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Dr Toh Chin Chye] Bill considered in Committee.

7.30 p.m. Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 3-

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, In page 1, to leave out all words from "3." in line 12 to the end of line 20 and to insert- "Section 5 of the principal Ordinance is hereby amended-

Order for Second Reading read. 7.35 p.m.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Under the provisions of subsection (1) of section 15 of the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance, the Registration Officer is required to complete the revision of the registers of electors on or before the 15th day of September or such later date in that year as the Minister may appoint for the purpose by notification published in the Gazette. The revision for the year 1963 was not completed before 15th September, and in accordance with the provision of subsection (1) of section 15 of the Ordinance, the date of completion has been extended to 31st December, 1963. However, the revision cannot be completed before April 1964, and the purpose of this Bill is to provide for the extension of time for the revision until 30th April, 1964. There are two reasons for the delay in the completion of the revision of the registers. The first is the delay in the completion of the 1962 revision of the registers of electors. This revision was completed only in June 1963, and consequently work on the 1963 revision could not be commenced early in the year as usual. The second reason for the delay was the holding of the general election in September 1963. The staff who would ordinarily have been engaged in the revision of the registers were employed in the preparations for and conduct of the election. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the clauses in this amending Bill are meant to extend the time for the revision of the electoral registers to April 1964 or to a day appointed by the Minister. According to the Elections Ordinance, the electoral registers should be completed by 15th of September of that year. Therefore, the revision of the Registers of Electors should be completed this year. Why has there been such a delay? Why has the revision of the registers not been completed in time? Just now the Deputy Prime Minister gave two reasons for the delay. One of the reasons was the election in September. If you remember correctly, the ex-Minister for Home Affairs has said that the revision of the registers for 1963 commenced in June this year. At the same time, he also said that work had started in March this year. The period from March up to now is nine months. So there were nine months in which to complete the revision of the Registers of Electors. The Government should have completed the revision of these Registers of Electors long ago. The Registers of Electors were exhibited during the snap elections held recently. Lists A and B were exhibited to the public. Those whose names were struck off from the registers of electors could apply for the restoration of their names within two weeks. The registers of electors should have been completed long ago. The work of this revision should not entail any difficulty. In fact, we have a lot of money and we have enough staff. Since the Government have spent a lot of money and effort on the training of youth leadership, why did the Government not provide new staff and funds for the completion of the revision of the electoral registers? We have seen that the revision of these electoral registers has been postponed from time to time. If you remember correctly, there was a similar amendment in the past. There were similar provisions for the extension of the revision of the electoral registers for 1962 from 30th September, 1962, to 30th June, 1963. I would not like to touch on the reason for the delay. In extending the time for the completion of this work, the P.A.P. intended to exclude certain qualified electors from the registers of electors. That is, those who had attained the age of 21 in July 1963 were excluded from the registers of electors. At that time, the P.A.P. intended to hold the general election in 1964. If the revision was completed in June, then those who could vote in the elections will be those whose names appear in the registers of electors for 1962. Thus 50,000 people who had the right to vote in 1962 will not have their names included in the Registers of Electors. In doing so, the P.A.P. did not give the people who did not support the P.A.P. a chance to vote in the elections. The Registers of Electors for 1963 will have to be extended again to 1964. Perhaps the P.A.P. are playing another game in respect of the revision of the Registers of Electors. They want a longer period of time to enable them to include those people who had no right to vote in the general elections. In the recent elections, we heard that many people could not find their names in the registers. By manipulating the registers, the P.A.P. hope to perpetuate their regime. Another secret which they dare not reveal to the public is this. From the speeches of the P.A.P., we have some hint that the Member for Moulmein would resign her seat to enable her husband to contest in a by-election, so that he could be elected to the Central Parliament, if he was elected. But in order to be a candidate, Mr Devan Nair must have his name entered in the registers. If the registers had been completed in September this year, then the name of Mr Devan Nair would not have appeared in them. Thus, he would not have been able to stand for election next year. But if the P.A.P. extend the time of revision to next year say, April or June, or even later, it will facilitate Mr Devan Nair, who has no qualifications, to stand for election - coming in by the back door. If this is so, then they should be ashamed of what they want to do. Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to remind the House that the one-man-one-vote system should be carried out in a fair, impartial and democratic manner. If it is just for the sake of the P.A.P.'s interests, if they can revise the electoral registers according to their whims and fancies, or to extend the time of revision of the registers, then parliamentary democracy will have no meaning, and is turned into a dictatorship. The one-man-one-vote system has been abused by the P.A.P., that is to say, they make use of this system, through the powers of the State machinery and propaganda machinery, to carry out unreasonable elections. The P.A.P. have been talking of democracy all the time, and so we hope that they do not undermine or destroy democracy. 7.50 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the purpose of section 15 of the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance is to ensure a clean, fair and honest election within the democratic framework. This section compels the Government to have the register ready by the 15th of September each year, or, at the latest, the 31st of December of that particular year. Now, Sir, we are having this perennial affair appearing so often of the Government's attempt to circumvent section 15 of the Elections Ordinance, so that the electoral register of each year can be delayed for a maximum period of 12 months. If this Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections (Temporary Provisions) (No. 2) Bill is passed, the Government can have the 1963 register ready not by 15th of September. 1963, but by the 31st of December, 1964. Clause 4 of the amendment Bill enables the Government to complete the register in whatever way they like. They can complete it before the 30th of April, 1964, or before the 31st of December, 1964. Mr Speaker, Sir, the two reasons given by the Deputy Prime Minister are not very convincing. The first reason he gave was that because there was a postponement last year, there has to be a postponement this year. Next year we shall have to postpone again and we will postpone every year. I suggest in that case, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government should be bold, come forward and delete section 15 (1) of the Elections Ordinance, in which case the Government will have the full liberty to complete the electoral register at any time it chooses. They can have the 1963 register completed by 1965, 1966 or 1967. There is no time limit ---

Are you suggesting an amendment?

Yes. Then it will not be so embarrassing, Sir, for the Government to bring up every now and then a Temporary Provisions Bill each year. Mr Speaker, with this cat and mouse democracy, we see the Government every now and then bringing in Temporary Provisions Ordinances. The second reason given by the Government is not very convincing either, because although the elections were held in September, the Government have completed its first part of the revision - they have asked for claims and objections and returns to be made and these have been done. As far as I know, it will only take a few more months to complete. If the Government is really short of staff in the Printing Office or in the Elections Office - which I doubt very much - it can ask for an extension of one or two months till February or March, but they should not ask for an extension until the 31st of December, 1964. Mr Speaker, many people give many reasons for the Government's postponement each year. Some people say the Government can juggle with electoral registers by putting in names of people who do not stay in the particular constituencies. Some people say the Government want to postpone certain by-elections, particularly the by-election in Moulmein. Many reasons are given, but I do not know the genuine intentions of the Government in having this type of Temporary Provisions Bill brought up every year in this Assembly.

Mr Speaker, I think I have to emphasise that the staff in the Elections Department have a backlog of work this year. They had not only to revise the registers for 1962, but, at the same time, they had to do a similar job for 1963. Under normal circumstances, they would probably have completed their task. But, as I have stated earlier, on account of the general elections held in September, the crucial month of the year, most of the staff, who would normally be engaged on this work, were turned towards running the general election itself. It is not the intention that we should deliberately defer or delay revision of the registers. Human capacity is limited and, therefore, we have to consider this when taking into account when the revision would be completed. In fact, in the Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance, which the Member for Hong Lim quoted just now, there was a specific clause which provides for any undue delays that might occur in revision. The Member for Jurong was talking about Mr Devan Nair - I think Mrs Devan Nair was quite frank during the general elections about her standing in Moulmein in place of her husband. It was not a secret at all. It was publicly stated that at a suitable date in the future, she would give way to her husband and when that happens there would, of course, be a by-election in Moulmein. There is no secret about that. That fact was made known during the general elections. It is obvious that if Mr Devan Nair's name is not on the electoral register, no by-election will be held in Moulmein. I do not know why the Member for Jurong is making great play over that, as if it were a secret which we were hiding away from people. I agree with the Member for Jurong that the system of one-man-one-vote must, as far as possible, be maintained. It is because we have maintained the democratic system of one-man-one-vote, that is why the Barisan Sosialis lost in the Referendum and in the general elections. As long as we give the opportunity to the people in Singapore to express their support for a candidate or for a political Party by a secret ballot, I do not believe that the Barisan Sosialis will ever win at all. From outward appearances, when the Barisan Sosialis regimented several hundreds of their supporters to attend mass meetings in their campaign during the general elections, one would have thought that they were going to win the general elections. I think the people of Singapore now are too sophisticated to be taken in by such an advertisement. Neither did their attempts at bringing in hundreds of their supporters to certain constituencies during the general elections to canvass for their candidates help them at all. Such intimidation will not work as long as the electorate can express their will in secret by the ballot box. Finally, may I just dismiss the Member for Hong Lim's insinuation that we are fiddling with the registers so that we can include names of people, who do not exist, in certain constituencies. He should have thought better before he uttered these remarks. There are always petitions which can be made and it will be very foolish for a government, or, for that matter, anybody to try to fiddle with the electoral registers.

Order. Moment of interruption. Further consideration, what day?

Tomorrow, Sir. Resolved, "That this Assembly do now adjourn." -[Dr Toh Chin Chye] Adjourned accordingly at Eight o'clock p.m.