Hansard, 1968-07-11

Mr Speaker, Sir, I propose that Mr Yeoh Ghim Seng be elected as Deputy Speaker of this House.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I second the proposal.

There being only one proposal, I declare Mr Yeoh Ghim Seng to have been duly elected as Deputy Speaker of this Parliament.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Labour if the Government has caused studies to be made of (a) the adequacy of the present limit of Singapore's territorial waters in the light of Singapore's vital interests in fishing, defence and the administration of revenue laws in these waters; and (b) the effect on Singapore's interest in these matters of claims to territorial waters made by neighbouring states; and if he will make a statement on these matters.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in international law the question of the width of territorial waters is one subject upon which there is unfortunately a divergence of views among states. The present position is that the vast majority of states claim territorial waters varying from three miles to 12 miles. So far as Singapore's territorial waters are concerned, their delimitation to the north is governed by agreement delimiting the territorial waters midway between Singapore Island and the State of Johore and which has been given effect to in our municipal law under the provisions of the Straits Settlements and Johore Territorial Waters Agreement Act of 1928. As for our remaining territorial waters, this is conditioned by our geographical position. In the absence of any specific agreement with neighbouring countries to the contrary, the line equidistant between Singapore and the adjacent territory would, therefore, constitute the limits of our territorial waters under the provisions of the Geneva Convention on Territorial Sea. However, since claims to territorial waters made by neighbouring states will have some implications for Singapore, the departments concerned are presently examining this question.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Labour whether foreign ambassadors or envoys in Singapore are permitted to hold office in registered societies or associations in the Republic.

Mr Speaker, Sir, foreign ambassadors or envoys are normally nationals of the countries they represent. In such capacity, they are entitled to various privileges and immunities, including immunity from criminal, civil and administrative jurisdiction of the receiving state. As such, the holding of office in local societies or associations by persons enjoying such immunities is considered irregular and constitutes interference in the internal affairs of the receiving state.

(In Malay): Sir, I know that Mr S. I. 0. Alsagoff, the Consul-General of Saudi Arabia, is holding a post in one of the registered associations in Singapore. To date, have any steps been taken by the Government in his case?

(In Malay): Appropriate steps will be taken in regard to the person mentioned by the Member for Geylang Serai.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Labour, in the registration for the issue of the new laminated identity cards, (a) whether attempts were made to use the same, or an identical, birth certificate by more than one applicant for registration, and the number of such eases; (b) the number of forged old identity cards discovered; (c) the number of late applications for registration received up to 31st May, 1968; (d) what action had been taken against the applicants in (a), (b) and (c); and (e) the number of old identity card holders who have not yet applied for the new laminated identity cards.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been asked by my Minister to reply. The National Registration Office has so far discovered 954 new identity card holders who made use of other persons' birth certificates. A total of 188 forged old identity cards were also discovered. Up to 31st May, 1968, 912 late applications for registration were received. All the above cases have been referred to the police for investigation. To date seven persons have been prosecuted and convicted for using other persons' birth certificates; 87 prosecuted and convicted for forged old identity cards, and 68 prosecuted and fined for making late applications for the new identity cards. Eight hundred and eleven cases under the three categories are still under investigation by the police. It is not possible to give the exact number of old identity card holders who have not applied for the new laminated identity cards, as many of the old identity card holders may have left the Republic permanently without surrendering their old identity cards. Further, the old identity cards of persons who have died may not have been surrendered.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour inform this House whether positive steps will be taken to remind old identity card holdrs who have not applied for the renewal of the new laminated cards?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think that is necessary.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary consider giving old identity card holders, say, a month's grace to apply for the new laminated identity cards without action being taken against them?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the relevant Ordinance has clearly spelt out the time allowed for the application of new identity cards.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary state whether the Government will consider making some arrangements to register aged or disabled persons at their homes, if such arrangements can be made?

Mr Speaker, Sir, that process has been going on all the time. Several invalids in the Chronic Sick Hospital were recently registered, because they had some difficulty in tracing their old identity cards. Some had lost their cards and had to take some time to trace them. There is no penalty attached in such cases.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not quite happy with the Parliamentary Secretary's answer. Does not the Government have a record of those who have not applied for new identity cards? Can the Parliamentary Secretary say why the Government cannot take some positive steps to send reminders to these persons?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to disagree with the hon. Member. The requirements are clearly spelt out in the Ordinance. This Ordinance was debated in this House some months ago and I do not see why there should be any person who has still not changed his identity card. If he chooses not to change it, I do not think any number of reminders will serve any purpose.

asked the Minister for Education if he will consider making adequate participation in the pugilistic arts, sports or in a cadet corps, or any other similar activity compulsory in secondary schools as a means of hastening the building of a rugged society.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been asked by my Minister to reply. My Ministry does not propose to compel every secondary school student to take part in one of the extracurricular activities associated with the development of a rugged society, such as the pugilistic arts, sports or the cadet corps, because voluntary participation will, in the end, produce far better results. Most, if not all, students participate in a physical fitness test. They are encouraged to play at least one game a term at various levels: class, house and school levels. The results produced so far, without having to resort to compulsory participation, have been encouraging. More than 200,000 students participate at school level and about 24,000 at inter-school level. The strength of the school cadet corps, army, sea, air and police, has risen from 7,500 in 1967 to 12,500 this year, and next year this figure will reach close to the 17,000 mark. This increase is in keeping with the expansion programme planned for the period 1966 to 1970, and the aim is to establish at least one cadet corps unit in every secondary school. In and after 1970 the increase in the establishment strength is in the addition of an extra platoon in every secondary school, provided funds are available.

asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the proposed re-organisation of the education system will result in some teachers being redundant; (b) what categories of teachers will be considered redundant in the context of the proposed re-organisation; and (c) whether such redundant teachers will continue to be employed in the Education Service; or whether plans are being made to provide alternative employment for every teacher who is found to be redundant.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been asked by my Minister to reply. The education system is still in the process of being reorganised and it is still too early to know the full effects of such a reorganisation. Plans are being considered to provide re-training of general teachers so that they can be deployed for vocational and technical education.

asked the Minister for Education (a) what scholarships, fellowships, study-grants, etc. offering professional (including technical training) and administrative training have been awarded to various applicants from the Ministry of Education in 1966 and 1967; (b) how many officers from the various categories of officers have received such awards; (c) how many such officers have completed their training courses; and (d) how these officers have been and are being utilised for purposes for which they have been trained since the completion of their training courses.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been asked by my Minister to reply. A total of 11 different types of scholarships, fellowships, training courses and training bursaries were awarded to various officers of my Ministry in 1966 and 1967. A total of 108 officers received such awards, 82 of them being teachers, 15 T.T.C. lecturers, five Inspectors of Schools, three principals of schools and three officers attached to my Ministry Headquarters. Of the 108 officers, 50 have completed their training, comprising 30 teachers, 10 T.T.C. lecturers, four Inspectors of Schools, three principals of schools and three other officers attached to the Ministry Headquarters. With regard to the last part of the question, Sir, all but seven of the 50 are being utilised for the purpose for which they have been trained. Of the seven, one has recently been selected by the Public Service Commission for posting to an oversea mission. Six are attached to secondary schools. It is possible that at the time of return there may be no suitable vacancies to hold the officers according to their specialised training. In such cases, they are often posted to secondary schools as a temporary measure. Those from aided schools are generally returned to the aided schools concerned. Such officers remain in the secondary schools until suitable vacancies occur or until the next promotion exercise.

asked the Minister for Communications whether he will consider issuing new driver's licence books to holders of old books which bear the words "Colony of Singapore".

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been asked by my Minister to answer. The driving licence books referred to by the Member for Punggol are books issued when Singapore was a Colony. These are being replaced by books bearing the words "Singapore - Driver's Licence" as and when licensees apply for replacements. The charge is $5 for each replacement. However, legislation is being drafted to provide for driving licences to be renewed at post offices. When this scheme is implemented, all the existing driving licence books will, on renewal, be replaced free of charge by new driving licence books bearing the words "Republic of Singapore - Driving Licence".

Sir, can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications inform this House when this scheme will be implemented?

Sir, I have mentioned just now that legislation is being drafted, and when it becomes law, all the driving licences will be replaced automatically upon renewal.

Sir, can the Parliamentary Secretary clarify the phrase "as soon as possible"?

It means as soon as possible!

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is impossible for me to add to that answer.

asked the Minister for Defence whether there is any provision for the construction of one or more community centres in the Geylang Serai Constituency and when construction will commence.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member for Geylang Serai will be pleased to hear that planning for a new rural type community centre at Jalan Pasir in the Geylang Serai district is at the advanced stage now. The Public Works Department has been commissioned to undertake the construction and it is expected that by mid-August actual construction will begin. The estimated date for completion would be two months after August.

asked the Minister for Defence whether he will consider allowing Pre-University students and students in institutions of higher learning to do part of their two-year National Service training during the long holidays and to complete the remainder of their training period after graduation, so that they can be available to industries earlier, as the Republic is in need of trained men during the crucial years ahead.

Sir, my Ministry is exploring the possibility of providing military training during the long holidays for men studying in higher institutions of learning. But it must be stressed, however, that the training given on the basis of disconnected periods, such as during long vacations only, cannot be as effective or as comprehensive as that given during full-time service.

asked the Minister for Defence if he will make a statement regarding the agreement reached at the Five-Power Defence Talks held in Kuala Lumpur recently.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I refer hon. Members to the communique which was issued at the end of the conference on the 11th of June. Press conferences were also given by each of the five delegations. As far as the Singapore delegation is concerned, we consider that the conference was useful. The problems arising out of the decision of the British Government to withdraw from the land bases in Singapore and Malaysia by the end of 1971 were examined and an integrated air defence system was agreed upon. A detailed examination of the form of this integration is being undertaken by an Air Defence Advisory Working Group. There are also working groups on joint naval defence, on the agreement in principle of a Jungle Warfare Training School run on a multi-national basis, and there will be further discussion of these matters in these working committees. In the first half of 1969, it is expected that the second joint Ministerial conference will be held to consider the progress made in these working sessions.

asked the Minister for Culture whether the National Library plans to set up a branch library in Jurong Town for the benefit of the workers and their school-going children in the area, or, alternatively, to send the mobile library to the Town at least once a week.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I appreciate the concern shown by the hon. Member for River Valley in asking for library services for the workers and their school-going children residing in Jurong. The present facilities of the National Library, especially mobile services, are still short of requirements. And on consideration of priorities, it has been possible to serve only 11 of the more densely populated areas in Singapore. The needs of Jurong have been considered and it is hoped that we can operate a weekly mobile service for Jurong sometime at the end of this year or at the beginning of 1969. The more ambitious suggestion for a branch library for this area covering the Jurong industrial complex must, unfortunately, wait some time for particular consideration. With our funds and policy for the present and the foreseeable future, we have to operate on the minimum requirements of a resident population of 250,000 for a branch library. In the case of Jurong, it has not yet reached that stage.

asked the Minister for Culture whether he is aware that certain newspapers which are, in Singapore, regarded as local newspapers are not wholly printed in Singapore and if he will take steps to ensure that all such newspapers are wholly printed in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, most of the major newspapers, whose history could be traced back several decades, originally based their headquarters in Singapore and operated from Singapore. This happy business arrangement continued well after the formation of Malaysia. Then the Malaysian Government imposed a law requiring newspapers in the Federation to be printed in the country of origin. That was the origin of "split" newspapers whereby, for reasons of survival, the major newspapers printed two versions - one for Malaysian readers and one for Singapore readers. Part of the plants had to be shifted to Malaysia and separate staff set up. Although it may be that no Singapore printed newspapers are permitted to circulate in Malaysia, it would be senseless to adopt tit-for-tat measures. This is essentially because we believe in and encourage the free flow of ideas not only from our neighbours but also from other countries. This is the meaning of an open society. Suppression of ideas and viewpoints not in accord with our own is not in our interest. An hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Sir, how many newspapers are not wholly printed in Singapore?

Mr Fong, are you prepared to answer that without notice?

Sir, I presume the hon. Member is referring to newspapers circulating in Singapore but not printed in Singapore. There are 14 of them with their headquarters based in the Federation of Malaysia.

Sir, can the Parliamentary Secretary say how many workers are unemployed because of this?

Sir, I am sorry to take the role of the Minister for Labour, but I do have some statistics here. Perhaps they might satisfy the hon. Member. As to the major newspapers which have already shifted their operations earlier, I do not have the statistics at the moment. I presume that the hon. Member is interested in the staff involved in the three Tamil newspapers. The Tamil Murasu has a total of 30 employees. Eighteen of them are citizens of Malaysia and they are given employment in Kuala Lumpur. The 12 who are Singapore citizens are now left unemployed. The Tamil Malar shifted its operations to Kuala Lumpur in February this year. I do not know how many of the staff have been transferred there and how many are left unemployed in Singapore. But there are still 15 employees who are still with the Tamil Malar in Singapore. As to the Malaysia Malayalee, it would seem that this particular newspaper will continue to operate in Singapore as its circulation is mainly in Singapore. As such, there is no effect on the employment of their employees in Singapore.

asked the Minister for Social Affairs (a) whether the Singapore Sports Council is still existent; (b) how much money it has received as general donations from the public for the promotion of sports; and (c) if it has received donations for particular sports, what these sports are and the sum donated in respect of each of them.

The Singapore Sports Council is still in existence. It was set up in 1966 following the success of the Festival of Sports Council in 1965 in organising the 1965 Pesta Sukan. The purpose in setting up the Sports Council was to organise subsequent Pesta Sukans and to advise the Minister on sports promotion in Singapore. On the second part of the question, Sir, in 1966, $251,341.97 was received through appeals and fund-raising events of the Singapore Sports Council. In 1967, $203,016.78 was received through donations, a film premiere, a dance and a donation draw organised by the Singapore Sports Council. In 1968, $29,582.09 was received up to 31st May, 1968. As to the last part of the question, the Singapore Sports Council has received the following donations for specific purposes: 1966 - Commonwealth Games in Kingston, Jamaica - $50,000 Football - $16,000 1967 - Table Tennis - $48,366 Volleyball - $ 3,000 Badminton - $ 2,000 Golf - $ 2,550 1968 - Badminton - $ 6,000 Golf - $ 100

Mr Speaker, Sir, what amount of monies is there in the present funds of the Singapore Sports Council?

In 1967, the excess of income over expenditure was $53,016.78, and for 1968 it is $65,113.

60. Is that the total amount the hon. Member wishes to know?

Sir, does that represent the amount of monies that is with the Council today?

I understood the Minister to say that those were the figures of excess of income over expenditure for the respective years. Would that be correct, Inche Othman?

Yes.

asked the Minister for Social Affairs whether he intends to build more creches to relieve difficulties of working women, and where those proposed creches will be located.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to refer the hon. Member for Delta to what I said on 13th May, 1968, in this House on the subject of creches during the debate on the President's Speech. I quote Hansard, Volume 27, No. 4, column 220, line 15: 'In order to utilise fully the facilities in the 10 creches, a number of vacant places in these creches will be offered to children of working parents in the higher income groups. But unlike those from families with incomes below 5500 per month who will continue to enjoy the heavily subsidized creche facilities, children from the higher income families will have to pay an economic admission charge.' The details of this new policy were announced by me on 6th July, 1968, at the fifth Annual Parents Day for children centres and creches held at the Singapore Conference Hall. They are as follows. The following rates of fees will be charged for each child admitted: (a) for morning session only, from 7 a.m. to 2 p.m. - $l; (b) for afternoon session only, from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. - 50 cents; and (c) for the full day, from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. - $l.

50. For children from the lower income families the following conditions will apply: any child below the age of six, either of whose parents is a Singapore citizen, may be admitted to a Social Welfare creche provided that satisfactory evidence can be produced to show that the parent is working or both parents are working or ill, and that there is no other adult in the family able to look after the child and that the combined income of the family does not exceed $500 per month. The maximum number of children for any one family to be admitted is four. Priority in admission will, however, be given to children in the lowest income group and orphans whose guardians can satisfy the citizenship requirement. A child whose parents are in receipt of public assistance allowance will be admitted free of charge. A child whose parents and other members of the family are earning a combined income not exceeding $300 per month will have to pay a nominal charge of ten cents per day. A child whose parents and other members of the family are earning a combined income exceeding $300, but not exceeding $500 per month, will have to pay a nominal charge of thirty cents per day. As there are still a substantial number of vacant places in the 10 Social Welfare creches and as the new conditions for admission to these creches have only been introduced very recently, my Ministry will have to assess the public response to the new open-door policy for creches over a period of time before any consideration can be given to the question of whether or not to build more creches in other parts of the Republic. Should it be decided that there is sufficient justification for building more creches, bearing in mind other priority needs, I can assure the Member for Delta that the location of any new creche will be carefully studied by my officials before a decision is made.

3.03 p.m.

"to implement the International Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of other States", recommendation of President signified (Mr E. W. Barker); presented for the Minister for Finance by his Parliamentary Secretary (Mr Tang See Chim); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

'to amend the Property Tax Ordinance, 1960 (No. 72 of 1960)", recommendation of President signified (Mr E. W. Barker); presented for the Minister for Finance by his Parliamentary Secretary (Mr Tang See Chim); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to implement the International Agreement for the establishment and operation of the International Finance Corporation and to enable Singapore to become a member thereof and for matters connected therewith", recommendation of President signified (Mr E. W. Barker); presented for the Minister for Finance by his Parliamentary Secretary (Mr Tang See Chim); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Holidays Act, 1966 (No. 54 of of 1996)", presented by the Minister for Law and National Development (Mr E. W. Barker); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I seek the general assent of hon. Members to move a motion for Parliament to adjourn at five o'clock today?

Do I have the assent of Members for the motion to be moved as proposed? Hon. Members indicated assent. Resolved, "That notwithstanding the Standing Orders, this Parliament doth adjourn tonight at five o'clock." [Mr Barker].

Order read for resumption of debate on Question [10th July, 1968], "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Question again proposed. 3.08 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will pick up from where I left off yesterday. I said yesterday that a person who retires at the age of 55 will have certain disadvantages. I said there are some workers who, on reaching 55 years of age, are preparing for their death. But, there are others who, on reaching this age, are still very energetic and full of spirit and vitality, in addition to having much precious experience gained from their work. At 55, they are beginning to launch into their ambitious enterprises. Such people constitute a good number. Let us look at the advanced countries, Britain and America, for some examples of these people. They normally reach the height of success at the ages of 70 to 80. This is a very good example to show that the retiring age for a worker should not be 55 years of age and there should not be any law to retire a worker when he reaches 55 years of age. I would say that the basis for assessing a person's retiring age should be his performance in the work. It should not be based on age. Another point is the standardisation of the number of hours of work per week. I should have supported this provision, but I have reasons to hope that the Minister for Labour should be aware that as a result of the increase of working hours per week, there is a risk that employers will make use of this provision as a pretext to retrench their workers. I therefore hope the Minister will caution the employers not to take such action. Before I wind up, I would like to say positively that this Bill, of course, is meant for the economic stability of our country hereafter and for its consolidation and continued prosperity. Therefore, all industries, whether pioneer or already established, and all business establishments should increase their productivity. This will also ensure that the 50,000 odd workers who will be left unemployed after the British withdrawal will have re-employment opportunities. This is also thinking in terms of the employment opportunities for our thousands of young people who will be entering the labour market every year. On these two matters - increasing productivity and providing employment opportunities - the first is an old problem, but the second is a new challenge. When there is a new problem, we must adopt new methods to meet it. There must be a new resolve to meet new problems. It is not surprising that we should encourage our people to work more diligently. When I began to speak on the Bill yesterday, I already said that there was nothing to cavil about it. But because of the few shortcomings which I have enumerated above - they are like bristle-tails and maggots which will eat away the whole body of the Bill - it is hoped the Minister for Labour will accept the constructive propositions of the Back-benchers. We have consulted the views of the electorate and we hope the Minister will deliberate on the Bill and amend it accordingly so as to make it perfect. It should be like a bright light lighting up the path to economic progress and national survival. It should not turn the relationship which now exists so harmoniously between labour and capital into, figuratively speaking, a volcano erupting on Bali Island. 3.17 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to lend my support to the Second Reading of the Bill moved by the Minister for Labour. If it is passed by this House, it will replace the existing three Ordinances, namely, the Labour Ordinance, 1955, the Clerks Employment Ordinance, 1957, and the Shop Assistants Employment Ordinance, 1957. The new Bill embodies most of the provisions in the three Ordinances mentioned above, and introduces some new ones. This new Bill is intended to rationalise and regularise the working conditions of both white-collar and blue-collar workers, whether they are employed in commercial and trading firms or industrial establishments in the new industrial estates, and to increase productivity and efficiency. It will do away with all the anomalies in the existing Ordinances and is more in keeping with our concept of an equal and just society. Unless our Government seeks to establish a healthy investment climate so necessary and vital for the setting up of export-oriented and labour intensive industries, our task to solve the unemployment problem will be hopeless. To encourage more investments in industries, both from local and foreign sources, certain terms and conditions of service should be so legislated that there is little room for prolonged negotiations under the present Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1960. In the national interest and to develop greater economic growth, such a Bill as the new Employment Bill is essential for the crucial years ahead. The measures as provided in the new Bill may on the surface appear to be repugnant and retrogressive to our trade unionists, but I am of the opinion that there are only a few clauses which may have to be amended to safeguard the interests of workers against unscrupulous employers. I will deal with the important clauses later. Members of this House must always bear in mind that newly emergent independent countries and other countries situated in this part of Asia which have achieved independence much earlier than we have, are also actively promoting their economic growth in diversifying their hitherto agricultural economy. This they do by encouraging the setting up of light and secondary industries. These countries have cheaper labour and unfavourable working conditions and the terms of employment of the workers are exploited to the full by capitalists. We in Singapore are already finding it difficult to compete in certain types of manufactures for export because of lower cost of products from these other countries. To compete with them, we will have to use automation and computers in our industries, which will mean that we will employ only a small number of workers. Therefore, we cannot provide jobs for our mounting unemployed employables who are flooding the labour market each year. For us, the alternative is to create the maximum number of job opportunities for our untapped labour force who can be trained to acquire new skills. Our people have a natural aptitude for work in labour intensive industries, such as the textile mills, electronic industries, metal and steel fabricated industries, ship-building and ship repairing industries, etc. In order to attain these latter objectives and to meet the challenges ahead brought about by the accelerated British withdrawal, we must have settled and stable labour conditions to give confidence and inducements to foreign, and local investors to make our Republic the industrial base of this region. The enactment of this Bill into law at this crucial period of our short history will go a long way to promote and foster that climate so necessary for our economic survival. May I advise hon. Members of Parliament who are from the trade unions that it is their bounden duty to pass on by every means to every worker at every level in the land the meaning and significance of the Employment Bill. The enemies of our State should not be allowed a chance to use this Bill as a rallying cause for their disloyal and unpatriotic motive to create industrial strife and thereby engender chaotic economic conditions. If they succeed, we will fall into their trap. Our nation will perish and we will never rise again. Our identity as an independent and sovereign Singapore in this part of Asia will pass into the limbo of history. The new Employment Bill, I agree, will generate with good cause, fears in the minds of the trade union Members of this House, as it will open opportunities to ruthless and less social conscious employers to exploit labour by extracting the maximum of financial returns and giving the minimum of benefit in return. But in the final analysis, it takes two willing parties to form a harmonious and understanding partnership, and with goodwill on both sides much can be accomplished. In industries and commercial houses, labour and capital must strive sincerely for a healthy and true partnership. There must be some measure of sacrifice for the national interest and not sectional interest in order to achieve productivity and efficiency at the highest pitch. When these twin objectives are achieved, then only can we produce goods at competitive prices for export. The sort of relationship existing between labour and capital will finally decide our destiny as to whether we can succeed as an industrial and servicing base for South-east Asia and a thriving and prosperous nation. Much depends upon the type of leadership we have in both camps. The last two years of industrial relations as compared with those of the 1950s, which gave a sour and bitter taste to labour, have demonstrated that we have progressive and enlightened management on the one hand and responsible and sensible trade union leaders on the other. I will now make a few comments on two or three new provisions in the Bill. If they are passed without amendments, they will have unsettling effects on the minds and morale of labour. Clause 15 - employment of a person after the age of 55 years. To retire compulsorily a worker earning less than $750 from his firm is unrealistic and not alive to our present developing economy. Our nation has just begun to industrialise and in many of our small and medium-sized local enterprises, supervisors, technicians, foremen and charge-hands usually draw salaries of less than $750. With the experience and expertise acquired during the long years of their working life, they are mainly responsible for running the firms for their employers. If these supervisory and shop-floor staff and experienced workers are retired at the age of 55, these enterprises will be crippled and replacements will be difficult to find. A more reasonable age to retire a worker in these special categories which may be spelt out in the Bill should be 60 years if they are still medically fit. Clause 47 - payment of bonus. In most existing collective agreements between management and trade unions, there is already a provision for payment of bonus ranging from half a month's to three months' wages. To take away these fringe benefits from the workers without giving back something to them would be unfair and harsh. A bonus is the equivalent of a red packet which the Asian employer as a matter of tradition or custom gives to his workers during the New Year as a gesture of goodwill. This bonus provides a source of ready cash either to purchase new clothes and shoes to celebrate the most important festive occasion once a year, or to purchase books, school uniforms, etc, for school-going children when school reopens at the beginning of each year. Therefore, it is necessary as a safeguard in the interest of workers against irresponsible employers to provide a clause to provide for bonus with a minimum of one week's wages and a maximum of one month's wages. As a further incentive to and as a reward for greater productivity and profit for the worker, we should consider provision for an extra bonus, additional to the statutory maximum of one month's wages mentioned above. This additional bonus has to be earned and must be related to the net profit of the firm. The worker's actual contribution, by working harder and putting in more effort to increase productivity, thereby producing goods at a more competitive price to earn more profits for the firm, should be recognised in some concrete and financial form. His entitlement to a share of the net profit is a just claim as he would be partly responsible for any favourable financial results each year. The quantum of his share should not be the subject of negotiation because, as often as not, such negotiations lead to industrial disputes and sours the industrial relations between labour and management. I would suggest that the share of the net profit of the company should range from two to four per cent among all workers drawing less than $750 per month. Provision of this small percentage out of the net profit may directly affect the yearly bonus and fees of the directors and management of the company. But in showing this generosity to the workers, the company will be more than compensated by the goodwill and co-operation that is expressed by the workers in more efficient productivity. There should be no bargaining on the quantum of bonus. It should be left to the sole discretion of the management. Existing collective agreements with the bonus clause should, in my opinion, be permitted to run out by the end of 1968, irrespective of their expiry date. New agreements should be negotiated in the spirit of the new Bill when it is passed by this House. With the enactment of this new Bill into law, it would be wise that the first agreement drawn up in the context of this Bill should be for a duration of five years instead of three years for new industries to be set up and industries already granted pioneer status. It takes a few years before any newly established industry can really stand on its feet and show a sound balance sheet. I may sound unreasonable in my views, but in the long run the country in particular and the workers in general will reap the benefit when the industries can progress and become viable to generate greater economic growth. This clause, if incorporated into the Bill, will also add impetus to more and more foreign investors coming into Singapore. Finally, I have to sound a warning. To make a success of the operation of this Employment Bill, both workers and employers must remember constantly that both labour and management have to make sacrifice in the national interest and to maintain industrial peace at all costs in the crucial years ahead. By maintaining cordial industrial relations, a good image of Singapore as a country of economic and political stability will be projected abroad with more foreign investors being attracted to our shores. In other words, with more industries established, more jobs will be created, more types of manufactures can be more exported, more profits can be earned and more revenue will go to Government for defence to maintain our security. The end result will be a more prosperous Singapore in which everyone - be he an employer or a worker -will share in this prosperity. Our citizens should discipline themselves and face the future economic problems with good sense, soberness and make some personal sacrifices. What is considered a sacrifice in the short-term interest will produce material and financial benefits in the future. Sir, I support the Bill moved by the Minister for Labour. 3.31 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore is not an agricultural country and has no natural resources. It is an industrial and trading centre. Therefore, the people should consider what future is in store for them. It follows that plans to provide for the future and ensure the country's prosperity should be our common responsibility. The labour laws, too, need careful review because this will affect the future of our people and that of the nation. A great majority of the population of Singapore comprises the labour force. Labour unrest means the people's unrest, and the people's unrest means a threat to the nation's prosperity in the future. Every piece of labour legislation should be carefully examined in its proper perspective and the trade union movement, that is, the National Trades Union Congress, should be consulted. We do not wish to see labour disputes in our country, as had happened before the P.A.P. assumed office. We need to ensure good relationship between labour and management which will result in increased productivity and prosperity for the country. The Government plays the role of an intermediary and steps should be taken to create an atmosphere of confidence in both parties. The Employment Bill has generated a heated debate not only within the House but also outside by the trade union movement. We realise that all workers will wonder what their fate will be as they will be affected in one way or other by the Bill. Perhaps they may be adversely affected. There are groups of workers whose interests have never been looked after and who have been exploited by their employers in the past. Such workers may benefit as a result of this Bill, because previously they had to work more than 44 hours a week. The Labour Ministry should not only introduce or amend labour laws but it must also be prepared to protect the workers from being victimised by unscrupulous employers. We have come across cases of workers who had to work more than 44 hours per week without being paid overtime; also cases of arbitrary dismissals of workers at the whim of employers. I hope this Bill will be able to overcome all these difficulties and ensure the security of the workers in the years ahead. 3.36 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, inner circles and rank and file members of the trade union movement have long awaited an employment law to cover all classes and categories of working people other than those in managerial and executive positions. The Employment Bill as introduced by Government, however, falls short of expectations as seamen, domestic servants, watchmen and security guards do not come within the ambit of the Bill. The rationale of our attitude is that every employee who enters into or works under a contract of service with an employer must receive the protection of the employment law of the country. In this respect, it is worth while to note that the scope of the law will embrace employees working in undertakings engaged in the transport of passengers or goods by road, rail, sea, inland waterways or air, including the handling of goods at docks, quays, wharves, warehouses or airports. From the point of view of the labour movement, it is acceptable in principle, to repeal the Labour Ordinance, 1955, the Clerks Employment Ordinance, 1957, and the Shop Assistants Employment Ordinance, 1957. These were introduced during the colonial regime to cause class distinction and to discriminate further between those covered by the laws and those falling outside the scope of the laws. In principle, it is acceptable to rationalise, to streamline and to standardise employment practices and to lay down minimum conditions of employment by enacting a new law to replace the outdated and messy laws. The replacement of the existing labour laws by one employment law is not a controversial matter. What is controversial are certain provisions in the Employment Bill which tend to remove the rights of the workers from enjoying fringe benefits, and the reasons propounded to justify their removal. To take away the benefits which workers are now enjoying through collective bargaining or through other legitimate ways is terribly unreasonable and unjust. One of the major offences against workers is the attempt to remove from the field of negotiations the matter of bonus and ex-gratia payments. In this respect, the loss of this right will be grievously felt. Bonus has become entrenched in the salary structure of the private sector and a vital supplement to the worker's income. It has become payable not only to workmen, clerks, shop assistants and other classes of employees, but even to executives in the private sector. The concept of negotiability of bonus has been established by the trade unions and accepted by the Industrial Arbitration Court. The concept that bonus is payable only when there are reasonable profits is prevalent in Singapore. This is the trend in Singapore and the emergence of this trend is consistent with the principle that employees should have the right to claim an equitable share of profits as a result of their labour. The proposal to remove bonus from the field of negotiations and outside the purview of the Industrial Arbitration Court is the rudest shock workers have had and an indirect censure of the Industrial Arbitration Court. I do not think that the President and the Deputy President of the Industrial Arbitration Courts and panel members have not used their good sense and judgment in giving awards on matters like bonus. In this respect, there is no necessity to circumscribe the jurisdiction of the Court unless the Court has been making haywire decisions. I believe that the Court, in making awards, has been guided by section 31 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1960, which reads as follows: 'In determining a trade dispute the Court may have regard not only to the interests of the persons immediately concerned but to the interests of the community as a whole and in particular the condition of the economy of the State.' The Court, I am sure, has followed the guidance in section 31 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance when it stated in an award in the case between the Chartered Bank and the Bank Employees' Union on 17th November, 1966, that: 'On the whole, in the present economic context, it would be preferable to effect adjustments in bonus whether upwards or downwards as the general economic condition, the particular circumstances of each case and the position of the parties in each particular dispute are being considered rather than to make adjustments in respect of basic salaries which are matters of more long-term application.' If the Industrial Arbitration Court is to consider all the policy statements made by the Government and stick to the principle enunciated in the case cited, there could be virtually a wage freeze. At this point, I venture to say that if in due course workers discover that there has been an overall loss rather than gain, it may well lead to an assault on the wage front. In view of the fact that employers can refuse to pay bonus in spite of higher productivity, it will be interesting to watch in which direction the Court will tip the scale. To my mind, it will be a good thing for the Government, as a matter of policy, to direct employers and trade unions to work out productivity bonus scales and payments rather than remove the payment of bonus from the purview of negotiability. Should any dispute arise between the parties, it could be referred to the National Productivity Council which, I expect, can reliably be depended upon to give correct advice. In this connection, the National Productivity Council can be given statutory powers to investigate and to make decisions on productivity problems. The question of increasing productivity in any firm or undertaking and the payment of productivity rewards can also be worked out between the particular employer, employees' representatives and the National Productivity Council. There must be the machinery for working out productivity plans, examining the results and for negotiating the payment of incentive awards to make any productivity drive achieve its objectives. The question of increasing productivity is an urgent matter and should be of serious concern to employers, Government workers and their organisations in the interest of economic progress. In this respect, if workers are asked to give their wholehearted support to higher productivity programmes and campaigns, they must be allowed to participate actively and constructively in formulating and implementing them. When there is success, there must be concrete and reasonable returns or rewards. In conjunction with the foregoing point, it is beyond comprehension why the payment of bonus to workers, a vital incentive to higher productivity, is to be non-negotiable. This is indeed a great injustice to workers. The trade unions do vehemently protest against the attempt by the Government to remove bonus or ex-gratia payments from the purview of negotiability. It cannot be expected that all employers will wisely and fairly pay productivity bonus. The game of the carrot or the stick may very well degenerate to the extent where an employer provides incentives for personal favours. It is too far-fetched to believe that all employers who are making profits will pay a productivity bonus notwithstanding the profits which can be attributed to the productivity of labour. If clause 47 stands unamended, workers can expect to lose everything in the form of bonus. Mr Speaker, Sir, at this juncture I wish to ask the Government to be ever watchful against unscrupulous employers taking advantage of the Employment Act and the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act to sour up industrial stability, harmony and progress. I am prompted to say this because there are indications that some employers are interpreting the introduction of the Employment Bill and the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill as a sign of "go-ahead licence to skin the workers". 3.50 p.m.

Yesterday, the Minister for Labour himself informed the House of two uncrupulous employers, whoever they may be, who have taken advantage of the situation. I hope the Government will be watchful against employers victimising the workers. This warning is necessary because the Minister has apparently now realised that employers can abuse the situation created by the introduction of the Employment Bill and the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill. I wish to tell the Government that the workers can take all the verbal snipings of the Minister in the proper spirit, but they will react in the most unfriendly way and manner if the Employment Act and the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act become beach-heads for the final assault on their job security and economic well-being. The workers, whether white-collar, blue-collar, or bare-neck, are not unconcerned about the economic expansion and advancement of the nation. I am sure they will be prepared to sacrifice some of their most important benefits if, by doing so, more jobs are created for their unemployed sons, daughters, relatives and friends. I am sure the workers who receive bonus will be prepared to contribute anything between 10 and 20 per cent to the Central Provident Fund if that can generate economic expansion and activity. This proposal has been made by the National Trades Union Congress, and the offer to the Government is still open for the free negotiability of bonus. This offer, which I have mentioned, is the workers' energy pact offer for national development. The employers can match it if they wish to accept the challenge. I will disagree with anyone, including the Minister for Labour, that workers are not squeezers of fringe benefits, trying to cover every contingency they can think of, from the altar to the hospital and from the cradle to the grave. More often than not, it is the employers who would be prepared to provide more fringe benefits than pay adequate wages and rewards for productivity. I dare say that if workers are properly remunerated, they will be least bothered about losses of fringe benefits, like sick leave which, I am sure, they do not hope to enjoy. With regard to the sick leave provision in clause 44, I do not consider it a productivity booster. I do not agree with the belief that a worker will be productive if he works under the fear that his family will suffer if he becomes sick. Under this condition, he will more likely put in the minimum effort to avoid sickness. The provision of 14 days' paid sick leave in each year, if no hospitalisation is necessary, and 28 days, when hospitalisation is required, is definitely inadequate. I do not imagine any doctor can cure anyone suffering from a chronic illness in 28 days. It is unimaginable how a malingerer can pretend to be seriously ill and get his employer's doctor to recommend his admission to a hospital. It is harder to imagine how such a malingerer can wrangle his way in getting admitted to a Government hospital. I do not see how a malingerer can abuse such a benefit. All I wish to say is that the National Trades Union Congress do not stand by workers abusing any benefit provided. We would agree to the Government and employers "smoking out" the culprits and punishing them. But the way the Government proposes to solve their dilemma is like that of a frantic man who, being unable to catch the rats in the house, burns his house and everything in it down, regardless of the lives of his family. However, I am gratified to know that the Government will consider the proposals made by the N.T.U.C. With regard to the provisions for annual leave and public holidays, I do agree that they are within reasonable limits for new pioneer industries. To show that the trade union movement does have a social conscience and responsibility, we agree to the inclusion of clause 42 whereby a worker who absents himself without excuse on the day preceding or following a public holiday will not receive any public holiday pay. This is an important and necessary punitive provision against those who interrupt the proper functioning of the undertaking. I would go to the extent of saying that any worker who makes a habit of taking "French leave" should be properly disciplined, because we cannot allow ourselves to behave like some others in another country where, in spite of the country's political and economic position, they fail to turn up for work following New Year's Day and other public holidays. To behave in the same manner would be disastrous for Singapore. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the next clause in the Employment Bill I wish to discuss is clause 53. This clause should be read in conjunction with clause 7 of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill. It is clear that only collective agreements of industrial undertakings that have commenced business on or after January 1968 are covered by the two provisions. The National Trades Union Congress fully support the encouragement and protection of pioneer industries. In this respect, it has formed the Pioneer Industries Employees' Union to look after the interest of pioneer industries and their employees. This particular union is a credit to the good sense of the people of Singapore. Last, but not least, I hope the Government will not only consider the amendments to be moved by the Member for Bukit Ho Swee but also accept them. 3.55 p.m.

Sir, I have to say that the intentions of the Employment Bill are good and though I am generally in agreement with the spirit of the Bill, I have certain questions to ask. Clause 15 requires that every person who attains the age of 55 may continue to work only after getting approval from the Commissioner who may impose conditions for continued employment. I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to the following. There are many old people - by "old" I mean people between 55 and 60 years of age - who still have many children to support, like myself. There are other old people who have grown-up children but these children are unemployed and are dependent on their father. Clause 15 gives the Commissioner arbitrary powers to decide on the livelihood of the whole family without any provision for appeal. For these reasons, I think this clause should be removed. The definition of "employer" in page 3 of the Bill does not include company, association, body corporate, etc. Although in page 10, line 37, "body corporate" is mentioned, I would like to know from the Minister whether the Bill is intended to cover employers such as companies, associations, bodies corporate as well as persons. In this connection, I wish to draw the attention of the House to the definition of "employer" in the Central Provident Fund Bill. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Part X of the Bill entitled "Employment of Women" deals with female workmen only. The definition of "employee" in page 2 includes workman, but the definition of "workman" in page 6 does not include all categories of employees. For instance, female clerks are included under the definition of "employee" but not under the definition of "workman". Hence, the restrictions provided in Part X under the general heading "Employment of Women" are, in fact, applicable only to female workmen. May I know from the Minister if this is intentional, and if so, why are female workmen discriminated from female clerks and other female employees? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I now refer to clause 112 (b) on page 37 of the Bill? I do not object to the requirement that employers should notify the Employment Exchange of vacancies available in their establishment. I do not understand why the Minister should prevent persons from engaging employees except through the Employment Exchange. He seems to have overlooked the fact that in many small establishments, the wife and children help out in the business. This clause prevents the sons of the proprietors of small shops from working in their father's business and requires them to seek employment elsewhere while the father has to employ other proprietors' sons in his shop. Furthermore, the engagement of an employee is not always accepted merely on his skill or ability. The factor of trust often comes in. Where trust is involved, the employer would certainly want an employee who is recommended to him rather than take on an unrecommended stranger. Would the Minister consider amending this clause to allow the employment of wives and children of small establishments and to allow employers to take on employees on their own where trust is involved? In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Bill is designed to increase efficiency and is based on the principle of a full day's pay for a full day's work. In the light of mounting unemployment when competition for jobs will be keen, I hope that this Bill will help in attracting foreign investment in Singapore and create more job opportunities for our people. It must be pointed out that this will call for greater sacrifices from the workers. I hope that the Minister will take appropriate steps before the Bill is implemented to explain to the workers and the people that it is designed to help increase employment opportunities. Furthermore, the Bill will, in effect, reduce the earnings of the lower income group. This will unavoidably cause hardship to them. But compensation for this hardship can be made if Government lakes appropriate steps to lower the prices of locally produced goods. With increasing protection given to manufacturers, it is possible that some irresponsible manufacturers will exploit this situation and raise prices unnecessarily. This will bring up the cost of living for the lower income group. I urge the Government to look into this seriously. 4.05 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am strongly against the provision in the Employment Bill which stipulates that a person shall retire at the age of 55. We all know the Chinese saying, "At thirty, one is quite young, and one enters middle age at 40 and 50." So with this provision in the Bill, a person will have to retire compulsorily on reaching the age of 55. He will be put in cold storage. That will mean that he will be frozen and starved to death. When a person is 55 years old, it does not mean that he is senile. I am 63 years old. When I was 55 I was elected a Member of this House. I have been in this House all this while and I do not admit that I am old. Mr Speaker, Sir, when Dr Lee Siew Choh of the Barisan Sosialis was in this Chamber, he shivered whenever he stood up to speak because he could not stand the air-conditioning here. As you can see, I am not clad in any cardigan or overcoat. There was one Parliamentary sitting which lasted up till midnight and the Chamber was extremely cold. I was still wearing my ordinary shirt and I did not shiver. If you order a person to retire at 55 years of age, it is too arbitrary and very unreasonable. We know that most Chinese people work for a living without the benefit of a pension. If these people are forced to retire at 55, whom do we expect to maintain their children? Can we refer them to the Social Welfare Department? Moreover, the Social Welfare Department pays public assistance out of public funds. This would mean that you are putting out of operation people who are still economically active and maintaining them at public expense. This is not fair. In my view, this clause should be deleted from the Bill. As I have said earlier, at 55 a person is still strong enough to work. He can even be at the forefront of our economic activities. This is a very important year in his life. He has got all the experience of his life when he reaches 55. He is cultured and at the prime of his life. The young people may still be suckling and without any experience to take over from the old-timers. I am in full support of young people working, but we must not allow them to take over everything. Due respect must be given to old people. They must be well looked after. I think I am the oldest Member in this House and I must speak my mind on this clause. I am representing many people in my age group. I hope the Minister will review clause 15 and take steps to delete it. Whether a person retires or not at 55 should depend on his performance and not on his age. If he has the ability to work, then he should be allowed to continue to do so. In fact, many people occupying top positions in organisations and in Government service are old people. There are some old people who are Presidents and Prime Ministers. It does not mean that when one is 55 he is incapable of doing anything. Mr Speaker, on the provision of payment of bonus, we should realise that people employed in Chinese firms draw a very low salary. They get a bonus only at the end of the year. This is utilised for extra expenditure on their family. It enables them to buy new shoes and new clothes and defray other expenses so that they can enjoy a happy New Year. So if the bonus is denied to the workers, how do we expect them to go through the New Year? Their salary is very low and they have no savings for the New Year festival. Where can they get the money to pay for their New Year expenses? They have to depend on the bonus. In my view, the provision restricting the payment of bonus should be deleted from the Bill.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, under the colonial government of Great Britain and later, during the semi-colonial days, the workers of Singapore were entirely at the mercy of the employers. They were exploited to the full and things took a better turn only when this Government assumed office in 1959. The conditions of employment of workers in Singapore then became more reasonable and rationalised. Various benefits were given to them. All these benefits were granted on a reciprocal basis between labour and management. The aim was to maintain social and industrial stability. As a result of this, there was tremendous improvement and progress in the commercial and industrial field. There was prosperity all round. A trade union house was erected for the working class under the leadership of a democratic trade union movement. This is a glorious page in the history of Singapore. It is a great achievement by the P.A.P. Government in striving for the interests of the workers of Singapore. This is an undeniable fact. It is there for everybody to see. It is a monument to the pro-labour policy of the Government. Mr Speaker, Sir. Singapore is a small island lacking in natural resources and an agricultural base. Ever since it was opened up as a port, it has been a base for the United Kingdom. Therefore, the accelerated withdrawal of British troops from Singapore will inevitably have grave repercussions on Singapore. Within the next few years, the problems confronting Singapore will be of the utmost importance. This will be the greatest challenge we have ever had. It will be the most difficult period that we have to go through. I am glad to know, however, that the Government has already taken steps to prepare for the worst to come. Steps have already been taken for a rainy day, as was indicated by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Labour in this House yesterday. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister said that the Employment Bill was introduced for various reasons. He then outlined these very carefully in this House. The Employment Bill, he said, was intended to pave the way for greater economic growth in Singapore in order to ensure our survival in the next few years. He also assured the House that it is not the intention of the Government to allow labour to be exploited through the Employment Bill. The long-term interests of the workers in Singapore will be safeguarded. It is also the intention to ensure that Singapore will be able to overcome the difficulties arising out of the accelerated withdrawal of British forces by the end of 1971. The problems have been picturesquely painted by the Minister. Because of the withdrawal of British troops, a sum of $450 million, representing the expenditure of the Forces, will be withdrawn from circulation in Singapore. As a result of the British withdrawal, more than 50,000 people will be unemployed, both directly and indirectly. 21,000 civilian employees in the British bases will be directly affected. Furthermore, a lot of other ancillary services provided by taxi drivers, amahs, shopkeepers, restaurants, bars and others will be adversely affected by the withdrawal of British Forces from Singapore. And added to all this will be the school-leavers numbering some 25,000 coming into the labour market every year. These massive figures of unemployment are frightening and indicate the seriouness of the unemployment problem in Singapore. When the British troops are withdrawn, Singapore will not get the assistance of the United Kingdom in its defence. So we will have to defend ourselves. As a result, we will have to build up our military capability. We will have to shoulder the responsibility of ensuring our security. Sir, in order to overcome these problems, massive economic financing is needed. We know that capital is a motivating force in industry. Without capital, industrialisation will be a flop. The success of industrialisation depends on the building of factories and this requires capital. Therefore, the Government has to encourage both local and foreign capitalists to invest in Singapore. The Government has also given investors many incentives and tax holidays as well as concessions. For instance, profits earned in Singapore by foreign capital will be allowed to be remitted back to the country of origin. We are fully aware of the problems and the necessity of concessions. But in spite of the attractive terms that we are giving to foreign capitalists, we have not been able to get enough foreign capital to invest here. That is why the Government has introduced the Employment Bill. It is to give better and favourable terms to the employers, even at the expense of the workers to some extent. I think this is unavoidable. But to ensure the survival of the country as well as safeguard the interest of our future generations, we have to view the Employment Bill dispassionately. I appreciate that the provisions in the Employment Bill are necessary and quite inevitable. I support this Bill in principle. However, there are certain clauses in the Bill which require amendments. I must indicate my support for the proposed amendments to be moved by the Member for Bukit Ho Swee, especially the deletion of clause 15 relating to compulsory retirement of employees at the age of 55. Another amendment is in relation to sick leave. Also the amendments to clauses 46, 47 and 53. Sir, I wish to put forward the views of the people of Thomson for the consideration of the Minister for Labour. The first point is whether he will consider restricting the application of this Bill to the Jurong Industrial Estate only so that workers in other sectors will not be affected as they are covered by existing agreements. If the experiment turns out to be successful in Jurong in attracting more foreign capital and creating more employment opportunities, then we may perhaps consider extending the scope of the application of the Bill to other sectors as well. If this Bill can really bring about the success that is envisaged for it, then the Jurong Industrial Estate will become more and more prosperous. The second point I wish to suggest is that before the provisions of this Bill are enforced, adequate publicity should be given to the intention of the Bill which is to safeguard the long-term interest and the survival of Singapore. The people must be told that it is their responsibility to make some sacrifices to ensure the survival and the continuing prosperity of Singapore, notwithstanding the withdrawal of the British forces. The people must be made to believe that it is in their own interest that this Employment Bill has been introduced. It is only then that they will realise the necessity of this Bill. When they are properly informed, we will be able to enforce the Bill more effectively. 4.25 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it is generally appreciated that this Bill has been introduced in order to meet effectively the serious economic challenges that we face. However, the Government appears to have made certain dubious assumptions. Factors like increased productivity, greater efficiency and the like are not hampered solely by the workers. Certainly there have been a number of restrictive practices by workers which have hampered productivity, efficiency and so on. But it would be a very grave error to assume that employers have nothing to contribute towards this situation. Those who have made a study of the reasons for the failure of British industry in recent years have very cogently pointed out that the guilt for the failure of British industry can by no means be attributed to the British workers alone. British entrepreneurs have also been seriously guilty of hampering industrial productivity and efficiency by persistent use of obsolete and antiquated equipment, outdated management techniques and so forth. Surely, something must be done to ensure that the employers also on their part remove obstacles to increased productivity and industrial efficiency. It must be appreciated that this Bill will fail to achieve its objectives if only the workers are expected to sweat their guts out in an effort to increase productivity when they clearly will be inhibited from making their contribution if they are expected to do so on the basis of antiquated equipment and outdated production techniques. To many employers, particularly local employers, increased productivity is of less concern to them than increased profits. They can be assured of increased profits without increased productivity if workers are expected to sweat out their guts for them. But managements themselves make no significant contribution towards increased productivity and industrial efficiency through the use of modern equipment and modern production techniques. This will be an appropriate moment for me to throw out this challenge to the employers of Singapore. Subject to certain amendments to some of the provisions of the Bill which will be introduced at a later stage, the National Trades Union Congress accepts the objectives of the Bill. We are ready to be patriotic and to discharge our patriotic obligations for a better and more prosperous Singapore. When it comes to the crunch, the Government knows that it will have to depend largely on the patriotic sentiments of our workers. All our stakes are in Singapore. The workers cannot run away in moments of crisis to more prosperous countries. By and large, we shall stand or fall with Singapore and are, therefore, ready to make our contribution. But I challenge the employers of Singapore, especially local employers, to state whether they will accept the spirit of this legislation and will make the same patriotic contribution as the workers are expected to do. By all means, let them make their profit, for profitability is a legitimate motive. But are they prepared to plough back a substantial portion of their profits into re-investment for industrial expansion? Will they be prepared to get rid of obsolete machinery and antiquated production techniques and take to modern machinery and methods of production? If they are prepared to do this, then the workers and the Government of Singapore will be able to respect them as being motivated more by patriotism than by mere consideration of profitability. But if our local employers do not do this, then their patriotism must be subject to serious doubt. In that event, they will show that, unlike the workers, they cannot be depended upon in a moment of crisis. In other words, when it comes to the real crunch, they will be men who will be ready to leave the sinking ship and fly off elsewhere with their ill-gotten gains. I throw out this challenge in this Chamber, the supreme legislature of our Republic, to local employers in the name of the workers of Singapore and in all seriousness. Let them answer it in clear and categorical terms. I am certain that the workers of Singapore will prove ready, by and large, to discharge Their patriotic obligations. But we would like to know publicly how and in what manner the employers propose to discharge their obligations. While accepting the major premises on which this Bill has been formulated, I must, nevertheless, question the need for some of the provisions in it and the validity of the reasons advanced in support of these provisions. The most glaring of the objectionable parts are clauses which seek to reduce certain vital terms and conditions of service to below the minimum level set by the former colonial administration. This may be deemed necessary to attract foreign investment, especially from countries with archaic or anarchic patterns of industrial relations. I concede to this. But what I do not concede to is that the Bill in its present form can achieve the purpose for which it is intended. Many factors govern a potential investor's decision to come and set up shop in Singapore. One of them is political stability. Another is the cost of labour. We must remember that the cost of labour is not governed solely by the level of wages and the kind of fringe benefits given. It is also measured by efficiency, by the morale of the men labouring on the factory floor, and how much effort they are prepared to put into their work to produce not only in quantity but in quality as well. It is measured by individual enthusiasm and it can be lowered by frustration, restlessness and the governing conviction that the worker is being exploited. Singapore workers are neither unruly nor pampered. Official statistics should prove this. But even if they were, would you attract investment merely by offering such labour on the cheap? Naturally not. But what could be attractive to many businessmen worth their salt is labour which is efficient, enthusiastic and, in terms of wages and fringe benefits, reasonably priced. For this reason, though I support the move to standardise working conditions for the blue-collar and white-collar workers at a level that will attract new enterprises, I question the need to regard such standardisation as an exercise to set the limit for one and all. In developing economies it is a fact of life that there are "rich" industries and "poor" industries. Let us be practical and regard new industries as the poor ones. That, of course, need not necessarily be the same. But the rich and established industries are rich industries. There is no getting away from that. It is equitable to ask workers to tighten their belt and sacrifice merely to enhance the profit of these rich industries. There would be a rationale for doing this if there were machinery to ensure that savings in cost, by reducing benefits for workers, would be channelled 'directly into expansion and diversification that would create more jobs for local people. And I stress the words "local people". There are two other considerations. One, how can we be sure that expansion or diversification is not already dictated by natural growth in the business, which should rightly be financed by the owners or from company reserves, rather than subsidised further by reductions in the share of profit allotted to the workers? Two, how can we be sure that the savings in cost from reduction of fringe benefits under the proposed legislation will not be used to enhance the terms and conditions of executives who are happily outside the scope of the Employment Bill? There is no such machinery. Perhaps it would not be in the best interest of Singapore's investment promotion programme to try to set up such machinery which might scare some of the weak-hearted among the potential investors. Workers are prepared to make sacrifices for the Republic. We do not expect foreign capitalists to make sacrifices for Singapore. They should come and make money and prosper just as we hope Singapore will prosper along with them. But we do expect our Parliament and our Government to make every effort to ensure that sacrifices will be called for from Singaporeans only where necessary and that their sacrifices will not be in vain. When this House moves into Committee stage, a colleague from the trade unions will move amendments to the Employment Bill. These amendments have been framed after most careful and heart-searching consideration. We have taken into account the overall interest of the Republic and the difficult economic challenges facing us all. We in the trade unions have decided that adjustments must be made and that workers must rise to the occasion. At the same time, we believe that certain safeguards are fundamental and lines must be drawn to distinguish sacrifice from sacrilege. We are not here as responsible leaders of a trade union movement to sloganise against the shortcomings of this Employment Bill. We are here to point out constructively to the Government how it can better achieve its purpose as outlined by the Minister for Labour in this House yesterday. Take, for instance, the provision of hospitalisation under clause 44 of the Bill. Hospitalisation leave, as the Bill proclaims, is to be limited to 28 days. No matter how seriously ill a person is or how seriously injured he may be through any event, he would only be paid for 28 days in the hospital. Would the Minister for Labour also care to legislate that a broken leg or a broken hand of a worker must be mended by the doctor in 28 days flat? If assurances can be given by the Hon. Minister for Health that his doctors would cure every serious ailment inside the period of 28 days, then we, on our part, will willingly concede to have 28 days as the maximum period for hospitalisation. I do not know by what rule of medical science the Minister for Labour has come to the conclusion that miracles can be achieved in hospital within 28 days. From the employers' point of view, this would be a most desirable feature of the Bill for the simple reason that after 28 days of hospitalisation, they need no longer pay a man his wages. Assuming that the sole bread-winner in a family is being hospitalised for two or three months, does the Minister for Labour not realise that the man's family would have to queue up at the Social Welfare Department for dole after the 28-day period is over? Perhaps the alternative to this could be for the hospitalised man to return to his employer, medically half or quarter fit for duty. In what way will this increase productivity and efficiency and be an added incentive for the employer is once again a closely guarded mystery that only the Minister for Labour can reveal. The other equally ridiculous provision on which a lot has been said by my colleagues in this House is clause 15 of the Bill. Suffice it for me to say that the effect of this clause will be this. If someone reaches the age of 55, he will be put in cold storage if he is unfortunate not to be employed by someone else. On the other hand, we are all bending backwards to improve the skills of our citizens with experience. On the other hand, we are advocating a complete wastage of skill by legislating against people who are mentally and physically fit to work beyond the age of 55. Take, for instance, the question of annual leave. Whilst I welcome the attempt to standardise annual leave for industrial and non-industrial workers, I feel that the Government must have a very good reason to divide annual leave into two categories, namely, 7 days for workers with less than 10 years of service, and 14 days for workers with more than 10 years of service, the principle being that an older worker needs a longer holiday than a younger person setting out on a career. At present, in the private sector clerical workers enjoy an annual leave going up to 21 days per annum. This has been the result of free negotiations between the employers and the trade unions. The Industrial Arbitration Court has in a number of awards accepted this as a pattern and there have been no significant complaints from the employers. Perhaps the Government's reason for shortening annual leave is to give an incentive to employers. If it is not so, why does the Government not think of a three-tier system whereby all employees can enjoy a maximum of 21 days' annual leave after they have put in, say, 15 years of service? I think the Government, as a large employer, has always accepted this principle. Similarly, there are other provisions in the Bill which have been introduced merely in the blind hope that it would serve as an incentive to the employers and not for any well-defined or cogent reasons. My other colleagues in the trade union movement, during the course of the debate on this Bill, will touch on the other provisions, such as annual bonuses in the private sector and so on. In short, far from sloganising on the ills of this Bill, we will, when this debate ends, make the House realise that certain provisions are utterly unnecessary for the aims and purposes that the Bill proposes to achieve. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Hon. Minister for Labour had occasion to warn employers against the misuse of the provisions of this Bill. In fact, he even drew their attention to his ability in wielding the stick. We in the trade union world are grateful to him for this timely warning. But we must point out that had the Minister not harboured any fears that the employers would indeed react in a manner different from what was really intended, then he would not have had occasion to issue this severe warning. Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, in the knowledge that prevention is always better than cure, I would most sincerely urge the Government to re-consider some of the harsher provisions in the Bill, particularly if these will not serve the larger interest of the community at large. The Hon. Minister also indicated yesterday that the Government will be making amendments to clause 38 to ensure that where an employee working in essential services of the Government or a statutory board is required to work part of a rest day, he shall only be entitled to part of a day in substitution. Sir, we agree that work essential to the community must be carried on every day of the week. But we must point out that if an employee is called upon to work on part of his rest day, then his rest day or holiday is completely spoiled. If this amendment is proposed, the trade unions will request that if an employee is asked to work on part of his rest day, he should be entitled to a complete day off in lieu. We are confident that the Government will be magnanimous enough to grant this request. The Employment Bill has no doubt placed restrictions on trade union practices in obtaining fringe benefits, but the trade unions in the private sector are free to enter into negotiations with the employers for better wages. But what about the employees in the public sector? In the past few years, every claim of the civil service for wage adjustments or removal of anomalies in the salary structure of the civil service has been brushed aside and the civil service has been told to wait for the findings of the Harvey Salaries Commission. The Commission's recommendations have been in the hands of the Government for some time. What is the intention of the Government with reference to the recommendations? Are the recommendations going to cold storage, or is the Government going to accept them? I hope the Minister concerned will make a statement on this during the course of this debate. We from the trade unions vote for the Bill but with the amendments we propose, and I am sure this House will not fail to note that the trade union movement has responded positively to the call for sacrifice. All we ask in return is that this House and the Government think again on some of the objectionable provisions so that this Act of Parliament will be a law based not on a panic decision but on a rational analysis of what is best for Singapore at this particular time. 4.54 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, posterity will either look upon this Employment Bill as the Magna Carta of industrial Singapore or it will simply dismiss it as an Act full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. My only hope is that posterity will not also add that it was a classic example of men who did not understand their fellowmen. Sir, we are dealing with human beings, not mere figures, and it is upon this understanding, or the lack of it, that the success or failure of this Bill would very much depend. But, first, let me hasten to add that I support the proposition that the Bill is a necessary alternative to what really amounts to national suicide, for it is clear to all of us that we cannot maintain the status quo any longer. And the status quo by any standard, whether in developing or developed economies, is grim, a continuing unemployment problem in an expanding population and an inadequate rate of growth of foreign markets for our manufactured goods; a loss of 15 per cent of the Gross National Product after the withdrawal of the British troops, and an almost insatiable need for new investments. These are formidable problems of this island Republic devoid of the economic buffers of a big nation with land and natural resources. To keep the status quo without redoubling our efforts would result in a situation very similar to the one which prevailed in the mid l950s. For it must mean that if every other person in the street is unemployed and, worse still, because of our education policy an educated unemployed, then social unrest and discontent would increase. In such a situation, there is no doubt as to how far and how well the Communists could capitalise. Only this time it would be greatly different. There will be no British air power or sea power to deter anyone inclined to fish in troubled waters. This could, therefore, mean our second phase of colonisation or our last experience of peace, stability and relative plenty. It is in this context that the long-term view of this Bill should be tested. The Bill seeks to set above all other things a new order, a new pattern of relationships between Government, labour and management for the future. Its over-riding intention is the eradication of weaknesses and abuses in the present system of our labour relations. Let those who are now fortunate to be in employment remember that without sound labour and economic conditions, their own jobs are insecure. Let those who are union members remember that they form but a minority of workers. Let everybody remember that widespread unemployment jeopardises not only law and order but the very social order for which so many have worked so long and so hard. This Bill will also create employment opportunities, increase productivity and attract investment. These are all very desirable objectives which must find full support not only from this House but also from all citizens. But good intentions alone are not good enough. We are dealing with the mechanics of a law which purportedly embraces these good intentions. The mechanics, therefore, must stand the closest scrutiny to bear evidence that the good intentions would in fact be applied. Sir, may I now touch on certain clauses of the Bill? In clause 15, from the employers' angle, the misgiving on this provision is that it is too wide. It covers everybody employed in Singapore, as the word "person" is used in this clause instead of "employee". This will cover any person from a peon to a managing director. If this clause is not amended and if it is applied rigidly, then instead of increasing productivity, we may create a reverse effect. For example, we are still short of very skilled personnel for our industries. We cannot afford at this juncture to retire them off when they are still fit to work after 55 years of age. The concept behind this provision is a sound one, as the object is to get rid of unproductive persons and those in "soft" jobs. In many collective agreements, there are provisions for retirement at 55. But there are also provisions for retirement benefits to be given. However, in the very large majority of small businesses, especially the family type businesses, there are no such provisions. An old employee may be related to the employer and most of these people, as in the small Chinese businesses, live on the premises. If such people were to be retired at the age of 55, they would have no place to go, let alone the means to earn a livelihood. To allay the fears of uncertainty and insecurity among our older workers, this clause must be removed. In any case, any sensible employer will not employ an inefficient and unproductive worker.

Mr Lim, is it convenient for you to stop at this stage? Mr Lim Soo Peng resumed his seat.

Order. It is now 5 o'clock and the debate will be resumed to-morrow. In accordance with the resolution of this House, the House will now adjourn. Adjourned accordingly at five o'clock p.m.