Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill before the House is significant, not for any vigorous controversy it has aroused in trade union circles in Singapore, but for the misconception entertained in certain international labour circles regarding the intentions of the Bill. It has come to my knowledge, as Secretary of the International Relations Department of the N.T.U.C., that certain international trade secretariats have been seriously and grossly misled about the purpose and intention of this Bill. These quarters have been led to believe that the Bill has the most despicable motivations, and that the Prime Minister of Singapore is behaving just like an African despot, and that he is out to cut the A.U.P.E. down to size, and particularly Mr Kandasamy down to size. I do not for a moment believe that this is the intention of the Government. Besides I also understand that the A.U.P.E. at the moment does not pose any threat or danger at all. The people of Singapore would laugh at such stories because we know that they are simply not true. The A.U.P.E. also knows that this is not true. Indeed, the A.U.P.E. has issued a statement to the effect that the Prime Minister "took great pains" to explain to them the reasons for the introduction of this Bill. Nevertheless, certain international trade union bodies, hitherto friendly to Singapore, have been led to believe, by certain persons in this region, that the Bill is motivated by the basest of considerations. My information is that some damage has been done, at least in some international labour circles, to Singapore's image. As a loyal Singaporean and as a patriotic trade unionist, I call upon the Government to give the lie to the mischievous interpretations which have been given to the Bill internationally. I am glad to report to this House that the Central Executive Committee of the N.T.U.C. met on Saturday, 20th May, 1967, in order to consider certain representations on the Bill which had been submitted to the N.T.U.C. only a few days earlier by the A.U.P.E., and after due consideration agreed as follows: (1) That the Central Executive Committee of the N.T.U.C., after having listened to the explanations offered by the Prime Minister at a recent meeting, was satisfied beyond all doubt that the Government's bona fides in introducing this Bill were completely above-board, and that the Bill was not aimed at any particular trade union or at any particular trade unionist. (2) That the N.T.U.C, was, nevertheless, concerned about the application of the provisions of the Bill, and to this end, certain representations would have to be made to this House by trade union representatives in Parliament with regard to the removal of certain anomalies which might arise from the application of the Bill. I am also happy to announce, both for national and international information, that almost the entire Central Committee of the N.T.U.C., including Mr Kandasamy, accepted the bona fides of the Government as being above board, and appreciated the fact that the Bill was not directed at any particular trade union, but was motivated by considerations of the national interest. All members of the Central Committee of the N.T.U.C. met the Prime Minister last week and he explained to us exhaustively what he meant by the "national interest", and I do not recall that anybody, or any particular trade unionists representing employees of the public sector (who would be primarily affected by this Bill) disagreed with or in any way countered the considerations which the Prime Minister advanced. Mr Speaker, Sir, I myself have laboured this point to some extent, simply because the N.T.U.C. is concerned to squash, once and for all, rumours generated in certain international labour circles which tend to have a damaging effect on the international image of Singapore, which we in the patriotic trade union movement deem it our duty to cherish and uphold. Now I shall deal with some of the critical observations that the N.T.U.C. has to offer. Normally, the Minister for Labour discusses the provisions of any proposed labour legislation with the N.T.U.C. This has happened on all past occasions, but this time the N.T.U.C. was by-passed. I would like an explanation from the Minister for Labour as to why this was allowed to happen. It must be appreciated that relations of understanding and co-operation between the Government and the democratic labour movement can only be maintained and strengthened through closer consultation on all matters affecting the interests of labour; not to say, "Well, we are not afraid of the trade union movement. At this moment we are very strong," and so on. I believe that closer consultation on all matters is very necessary. Coming to the applications of the provisions of this Bill, it will have one unfortunate result, and that is the creation of a number of peanut unions. For example, the Minister for Labour has said earlier on that in the transport section, there are members from the P.U.B., members from the Housing Board, and members from other sections. If this Bill is passed into law, instead of solidifying or getting the employees together to form a union, it will create a wide division of workers and various small unions will be formed. This, I think, is not in the interest of the workers. You will remember that our Government has done a great deal in the past to do away with smaller unions or peanut unions. We all remember the days when our port workers were divided into at least eleven peanut unions. Today, as a result of Government policy, the port workers of Singapore come under a single union. A number of similar examples may be cited, but if this Bill is passed into law, the Government will have taken a backward step. Let us examine some of the implications. Employees of the larger statutory boards, like the S.T.B., the P.U.B. and the Housing and Development Board, can form fairly sizable unions. Where the P.U.B. is concerned, the Bill might indeed have a progressive effect. At the moment, employees in the Water, Gas and Electricity Departments belong to separate unions, while monthly-rated employees in the P.U.B. belong to yet another separate union. So where the P.U.B. is concerned, this Bill would make it possible for all P.U.B. employees to be united into one single union, rather than being distributed among four separate unions, as is the case at present. This is only confined to a sizable union. But in the case of the transport workers, it is not in their interests. Therefore, as I said, where the P.U.B. is concerned, this Bill would have a progressive and beneficial effect. Employees of the Housing and Development Board are also distributed at the moment between two different unions, a daily-rated union, and the A.U.P.E. They too will now be able to amalgamate into a single union. But let us take a look at the other side of the coin. Statutory bodies like the Currency Board, the Economic Development Board, the Central Provident Fund Board, the Adult Education Board, the Polytechnic, the University of Singapore, the Asian Seamen's Club, the Seamen's Registry Board and the National Theatre are small-time employers. Some of the Boards employ as few as 15 to 20 persons. Employees of most of these Boards are at present represented by the A.U.P.E. But according to the provisions of this Bill, they will now have to form unions of their own, with the result that we will now have to deal with at least nine new peanut unions. This is surely a retrogressive effect. It is true that the Bill provides for a federation of unions representing statutory board employees, subject to the prior approval of the Minister. But why should it be necessary to specify that trade unions representing employees of statutory boards may not form a federation without the prior approval of the Minister? I am prepared to accept that employees of statutory boards may not be affiliated to any other trade union or federation of trade unions whose membership includes direct employees of the Government, without the prior approval of the Minister. But why should such prior approval be necessary for unions representing employees of the various statutory boards to federate among themselves? This, in my view, is an unnecessary stipulation, and should be specifically deleted from the Bill. One wonders too whether it is really necessary to stipulate that it is in "the national interest" that trade unions representing employees of statutory boards may only affiliate with the N.T.U.C., for instance, subject to the approval of the Minister. It surely cannot be held that the N.T.U.C. is a subversive organisation. It is possible that employees of statutory boards, who at present belong to various unions, may have their own views as to how best they ought to organise themselves. I am therefore to suggest to the Government that it should consider sending this Bill to a Select Committee, with a view to studying some of the undesirable results that may ensue from the application of the Bill, particularly the creation of a few peanut unions. The Select Committee would also be able to consider representations from the trade unions involved, so that necessary changes may be made to the Bill with a view to securing a more intelligent and more effective organisation of employees in statutory boards. If the Government's intention is good and sincere, and they wish to make us believe that, I appeal to the Minister for Labour to consider referring this Bill to Select Committee. I hope he will not just simply steamroller it through, knowing full well that he is capable of doing it, as he has so many Back-benchers to support him. If this Bill is referred to a Select Committee, I feel it will do justice to the unions and they will be given a chance to make their representations on the Bill. 6.00 p.m.