Hansard, 1968-07-12

Under the provisions of clause 2 (d) of Article 30 of the Constitution of Singapore, I have granted permission to the following Member to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any committee of Parliament to which he has been appointed) for the period stated: - Mr Phua Bah Lee (Tampines), Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications - from 15th to 24th July, 1968. (P. COOMARASWAMY) Speaker, Parliament of Singapore

asked the Minister for Law and National Development whether he is aware that the drainage system in the Joo Chiat Constituency is inadequate and whether and what steps he proposes to take to improve it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I agree with the hon. Member that the drainage system in Joo Chiat Constituency is inadequate. This situation has been made worse by indiscriminate and thoughtless dumping of rubbish into the drains by some residents of the area. The lands in this area are generally low-lying and the drainage system rather antiquated. Overall radical improvement would be extremely costly and could only be carried out in conjunction with an urban renewal scheme. However, the Public Works Department is at present taking steps to carry out minor improvements to the main outlet drain running parallel to Haig Road and the subsidiary drains. The Department is also stepping up the making up of private streets in Joo Chiat. These works include the making up of earth drains into concrete ones. When these earth drains are reconstructed together with the other minor improvement works, the situation should improve. However, as my colleague, the Minister for Health, has pointed out the other day, the residents of the area must help to do their best to see that rubbish is not thrown into the drains.

asked the Minister for Law and National Development when work will commence on the conversion of the reserved portion of Jalan Bahar in the Jurong Constituency into a dual carriageway.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the existing single 24 feet wide carriageway of Jalan Bahar is sufficient to cater for the present volume of vehicular traffic. However, if in the future the need for a second carriageway arises, Jalan Bahar can be easily converted into a dual carriageway as all the necessary earthworks and kerbs have already been completed and only the metalling need be done.

asked the Minister for Law and National Development whether he can confirm that the many structures, erected in Alsagoff Estate in the Kampong Kembangan Constituency and used as metal-works and saw-mills, are authorised structures.

Sir, most of the structures erected in Alsagoff Estate in Kampong Kembangan Constituency are unauthorised. Many of these structures are used as metal-works and saw-mills. Court action has been taken in respect of most of these structures, and the Chief Building Surveyor's Department will continue to take such action in this area which has become somewhat notorious for unauthorised structures.

asked the Minister for Law and National Development what is the policy of the Chief Building Surveyor's Department in regard to the submission of plans for the reconstruction of temporary dwelling structures in Alsagoff Estate.

The policy of the Chief Building Surveyor's Department with regard to the submission of plans for the reconstruction of temporary dwelling structures in Alsagoff Estate is the same as that for all other areas in the Republic. Applications for reconstruction of temporary dwelling structures are required to be submitted with the following documents: (1) the sketch plan for the proposed structure; (2) a temporary permit licence issued by the Chief Building Surveyor's Department to prove that the existing structure is an authorised one; and (3) either ground rent receipts and/or property tax receipts to prove ownership of the building. The construction or reconstruction of temporary structures without the Chief Building Surveyor's permission is an offence under the law. In order to contain the growth of unauthorised structures which finally become slums, the Chief Building Surveyor's Department is continually taking enforcement action against the persons responsible.

Sir, can the Minister inform the House why some applicants are requested to submit architect's plans and the landowner's signature?

If the area of the building is over 700 square feet, then you need an architect's plan. If the applicant can satisfy the third requirement which I have referred to - ground rent receipts and/or property tax receipts - to prove ownership of the building as against ownership of the land, then you do not require the landowner's permission. Perhaps in the cases referred to by the hon. Member, the applicants could not produce any documentary evidence of ownership of the building. I say "perhaps", but I would be happy to look into and cause investigations to be made in respect of any particular case of which the hon. Member may come to know.

asked the Minister for Law and National Development whether he will consider establishing an agency under Government supervision to assist in the control and export of tropical fish.

Sir, the Government does not consider that there is any need to control or interfere with the export trade of tropical fish and the Government does not intend to establish an agency for such control. However, I can assure the hon. Member for Punggol that the Primary Production Department is always in close contact with producers and exporters of tropical fish and, in fact, the Department renders considerable assistance to these exporters.

asked the Minister for Law and National Development what measures are being taken by the Primary Production Department to stabilise the prices of pigs and poultry.

Whilst the prices of pigs and pork in the market have increased somewhat, the prices of poultry have not and are, in fact, slightly lower than normal. The increase of pork price is due to a temporary shortage of the supply of pigs from the farms consequent on the outbreak of swine fever in the latter part of last year. However, this shortage is only temporary and I expect the situation should improve when the young pigs at present in the farms have grown to marketable weight.

asked the Minister for Law and National Development if he will ascertain from the Public Utilities Board what steps will be taken to improve the electricity supply in areas where metal and wood works are carried out, as the operation of the heavy machinery used in those works often adversely affects the electricity supply to other consumers in the vicinity.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Member for Kampong Kembangan could indicate the specific localities where there are complaints of voltage fluctuations, the Public Utilities Board will carry out detailed investigations and take the necessary remedial action. There has been a general increase in electricity demand in the hon. Member's constituency. The Electricity Department of the Public Utilities Board is examining the need for reinforcing the distribution system to cope with the power demand as well as to obviate the adverse effects of voltage fluctuations.

asked the Minister for Law and National Development whether any survey has been carried out into the mineral deposits potential of Singapore including its islands and foreshores, and what are the results; or whether such a survey will be carried out.

In 1950, a survey into the granite resources on Singapore and the surrounding islands was carried out for the purpose of determining its availability for construction purposes and road works. A report on this survey was published and presented to the then Legislative Assembly on 19th December, 1950. Since then, no other geological surveys have been carried out. If circumstances warrant it, Government will be prepared to undertake or authorise such survey into the mineral deposits potential of Singapore, its surrounding islands, foreshore and sea-bed.

asked the Minister for Law and National Development if he will ascertain from the Public Utilities Board whether the Board will take steps to revise water charges from the commercial to the domestic rate in respect of some consumers in the Thomson Constituency who are charged commercial rates but who do not use the water for poultry-rearing or other commercial purposes, where this is genuinely found to be the case.

The answer is "Yes". If the premises are not used for poultry-rearing or other commercial purposes but exclusively for residential purposes, then the Public Utilities Board will charge the domestic water rate and that only.

asked the Minister for Finance whether the intake into all grades of the public service recently has been of male officers mainly, and if he will consider taking steps to promote the recruitment of more female officers to the service.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not true that the intake into all grades of the public service recently has been mainly male officers. For instance, most appointments as nurses and nursing assistants are women, More than 60 per cent of the teachers recruited in 1967 were women. On the other hand, some posts are unsuitable for women, for instance, combat troops, night watchmen and lighthouse keepers. Male and female candidates are considered strictly on their suitability for the posts concerned. For the first half of this year, 955 female candidates were offered appointment out of a total recruitment of 2,849. As regards the second part of the question, it would be wrong to give preference to women in recruitment to the public service. The P.A.P. Government has accepted that women are equal to men; it has not accepted that they are more equal.

(In Mandarin): Sir, I would like to ask two supplementary questions. First, according to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, the Government has no bias against females in recruitment to the public service. He has pointed out that in cases like nurses or nursing assistants and teachers -

Madam Chan, can you get to your supplementary question without repeating what Mr Tang has said?

(In Mandarin): My first supplementary is this. Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree that in other departments many female applicants have been rejected? The second question is, does the Parliamentary Secretary acknowledge that all members in the Public Service Commission are males and whether this fact would not lead to prejudice and bias against females?

Mr Speaker, Sir, as regards the first question, I can only repeat what I have said, that there is no prejudice against women and that candidates are considered strictly on their suitability for the posts concerned. As to the second question, I am afraid I cannot accept the hon. Member's contention that the P.S.C. is biased against females. As regards membership of the P.S.C., perhaps if a suitable female candidate could be found, I am sure the President would be delighted to appoint her.

Order read for resumption of debate on Question [10th July. 1968], "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Question again proposed. 3.47 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 47 as it stands in the Bill is a very good one. It gives discretion to the employer to pay a bonus to his employees, the amount varying from employee to employee, depending upon their performance and productivity. At present, the bonus provision in collective agreements applies equally to all employees. Whether a person is a good worker or a bad worker, he gets the same bonus. In other words, a good worker is penalised in that he gets the same reward in the form of bonus as another who is inefficient and unproductive. However, there are some genuine misgivings on this provision, as not all employers are enlightened employers. Some employers may take advantage of this provision and give no bonus or ex-gratia payment whatsoever. This should not be the case if they make a profit. To allay the fears of the workers that they might be deprived of a bonus, the amendment to be moved by the Member for Bukit Ho Swee is a reasonable one and should be supported. It makes the payment of bonus negotiable up to one month's wages, and any payment above one month's wages is at the discretion of the employer. In this manner, bonus can still be used as an incentive for higher productivity or as a reward for good performance. Mr Speaker, Sir, the standardisation of working hours at 44 hours a week as contained in clause 39 is a very good provision. It does away with the distinction between a white-collar and a blue-collar worker. The limitation of overtime work will help to create more needed jobs for our people. However, in view of the shortage of skilled workers in special trades, this provision has to be applied intelligently. It may not be possible to limit overtime work to 48 hours a month in all cases. I am glad to note that this has been recognised and is provided for in sub-clause (4) of clause 39. As this law is new in more respects than one, we must tread cautiously. We must be magnanimous. We must always be willing to listen and always ready to change. With an open mind and flexibility, we must entertain and process all reactions to this legislation, from the workers and trade unions to the employers and the public. Our future will, in fact, be more dependent on the goodwill and understanding of all citizens in operating this Bill than on the clauses contained therein. I feel that if given a fair trial, this Bill will undoubtedly succeed. 3.52 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if this Bill had been called our survival or salvation Bill, it would have been less controversial and would have been more receptive. A great deal of misapprehension, fears and doubts on the provisions of the Employment Bill were created in the minds of our working citizens even before this Bill was introduced in this House. True, it was openly admitted that there had been consultations and discussions between the Government, N.T.U.C, leaders and employers, and in discussions of this nature it is not possible to contain and confine the contents of the discussions. But the allegations and rumours concerning the provisions of the Bill, which had been circulated to the public prior to the introduction of the Bill in this House and even after its introduction in this House, have, I feel, caused much harm, particularly as to the real purpose and intent which this Bill is designed to do. Mr Speaker, Sir, rumours, however unbelievable, have their source of origin. I feel it will be worth the while for the Government to inquire whether there had been any unauthorised leakage of information or intentions in regard to the Employment Bill. It is unwise to spread rumours, more so in this House. If you would allow me, Mr Speaker, Sir, to cite one point which was alleged to be a provision in this Bill just to illustrate how harmful these rumours were. The rumour was that married women, whose husbands are employed, would not be permitted to work in order to create more jobs for the unemployed. Such a rumour in the prevailing situation would be difficult to disbelieve. Nevertheless, as I say it, it had a very harmful effect on the people. In order to appreciate the intent of this Bill, which is essential and vital to accelerate economic growth and expansion so that more jobs can be created, it is absolutely necessary, first, to remove those doubts and fears and restore the confidence of the workers in the pro-labour policy which the Government has always pursued and practised, so that the implementation of this Bill would have a fair chance of success. I feel it is absurd to suggest that the leaders of the Government have all of a sudden turned anti-labour and taken sides with the employers. What could they benefit at this stage of their political career and what benefit could the country gain from a weak labour force and a beaten N.T.U.C.? There has been in the past a total lack of discipline in the labour force. Now is the time for all good trade union leaders in the Republic to be honest and courageous enough to enforce strict discipline among the members, particularly those who are malingerers, lazy, inefficient and unproductive workers. They should stop giving them protection. By and large, our citizen workers are a hard-working lot and if only our trade union leaders will stop giving protection and cover to this very small percentage of malingerers and unproductive workers, we will no doubt achieve a much healthier situation. The existing Labour Ordinance, the Clerks Employment Ordinance and the Shop Assistants Employment Ordinance, which became law more than 10 years ago, were enacted against a different background and in different circumstances. They are all now outdated and no longer serve the needs of the people at present and for the future. With the introduction of the Employment Bill as well as the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill and the Central Provident Fund (Amendment) Bill, a new era in the employer and employee relationship will emerge. The intent of the Employment Bill is to secure on a firm and sound basis a healthy, disciplined and competitive labour force in the Republic which will ensure our continued survival. It is designed to standardise and regulate the working conditions of all workers regardless of whether they are white-collar or blue-collar workers or shop assistants. It seeks to remove malpractices and restrictive practices which make enforcement and maintenance of discipline difficult and, therefore, hinder economic growth. If we are to increase productivity, there must be discipline in our labour force. Without discipline there can be no efficiency, and without efficiency it is not possible to increase productivity. Mr Speaker, Sir, it has often been said that the island of Singapore has no natural resources of its own and that we owe our living to the ingenuity and skill of our people. If we are to meet the challenges of the l970s, if we are to continue living as a people with an identity, if we are to make progress, then we must be prepared to make sacrifices now to ensure our survival as a nation. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not propose to go into the controversial provisions of the Bill in detail, as many other Members have already dealt with them. There will be ample opportunity to do so when we are in the Committee stage. But I would like to touch on Part XI, consisting of clauses 109 to 112 which incorporate changes to give Government a measure of control over the hiring of workers. In particular I refer to clause 112 which empowers the Minister to make regulations to control the engagement of employees by employers. On this I would sound a note of caution to the Minister and his Ministry. Present indications are that the machinery of the Employment Exchange is totally inadequate and it is not efficient enough to cope with additional work. This provision should not be implemented until the machinery of the Employment Exchange is adequately geared to its new task. There should be consultation with employers and the N.T.U.C, on the proposed regulations so as to ensure that their implementation does not impede efficiency and retard employers from recruiting the right type of persons they require in the shortest possible time. Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill in its present form is unacceptable without amendments. Several amendments have already been tabled by the Minister for Labour and the Member for Bukit Ho Swee and I urge that these amendments should be seriously considered. While the Employment Bill updates the working conditions of workers in the private commercial sector, Government should not overlook updating similar working conditions in the public sector. Both are complementary and must be implemented concurrently if we are to achieve results. Government should also expeditiously consider and release the Report of the Salaries Commission and to take steps to remedy and correct any anomalies so as to ensure also an efficient, productive and contented civil service in the Republic. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill with amendments. 3.04 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to speak on some of the provisions in this Bill. I look forward to the amendment of some of the provisions therein, especially as some of my colleagues have already tabled amendments to certain clauses in the Bill. When it comes to the Committee stage, I would like to move to amend the amendments proposed by my colleagues. First, I refer to the spirit of this Bill and the mood and reaction of the people to the Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, the masses have been gravely concerned since the Employment Bill was read the First time in this House. Many groups of people, either in the streets or in the coffee shops, have gathered and discussed the contents of the Bill. At the same time, another class of people living in luxury flats gather together in their offices and discuss the Bill. They rack their brains over it. Obviously, this class of people represent the employers. They appear quite satisfied with this Bill so far because we have not heard any opposition to it from them. The only people who are not happy about this Bill are the working class. They have discussed its contents in coffee shops, in the streets and many other places. Many of the provisions in the Bill are the same as those contained in the original labour laws. However, there are some new provisions which will affect their future livelihood and their family. As a result, they are grumbling and have complained that the Government is trying to change its attitude towards them and that it has changed its consistent stand on labour. Some of them have even gone to the extent of saying that because there is only one party in Parliament, it can do things arbitrarily without regard to anybody's opinions. This is a very good opportunity to be made use of by the Barisan Sosialis and others like them. If we examine carefully the arguments of these people and assess them against the spirit and content of this Bill, we will find that there is a certain degree of discontent among some of the people. We will also realise that some of the provisions should not have been included in the Bill at all, or at least they should be amended in the process of debate. Viewed this way, I regret to say that the contents of this Bill are entirely divorced from the realities of present-day society. Those who drafted this Bill have not gone among the people to assess the living conditions of the general masses. If it is said that the Bill gives the correct definitions for reward, efficiency, effort, productivity, then we are neglecting the common interests between labour-cum-consumer on the one hand and the employer on the other. This neglect arises because the long-term interests of the employer depend on a large consumer market. This market in turn depends on the price of goods and on whether the people have the means to buy such goods. At the same time, in order to increase production, there must be a demand for them. The fact remains that labour-cum-consumers do not have the money to buy them. I believe all loyal citizens will do their best to meet the challenge of the 1970s. The solution cannot be dependent on merely passing a Bill, or on any passive way of readjustment to the distribution of wealth, because that is not enough. We must take all measures to maintain our economic prosperity for the long-term stability of Singapore and to strengthen our economy. It is important also to prevent any grave repercussions in our society. When people are desperate, they cannot contribute anything worth while to the country. Therefore, we must pursue our scientific studies actively in order to promote our economic progress. We must study the potential effects that science and technology can play in our economic development and stability so that we may step into a new era of industrialisation in which there will be innovations and more employment opportunities. It is necessary to have innovations and modern techniques of manufacturing in order to meet the increased needs of the consumers. There should also be improvement in the techniques of production. There should be modern equipment and co-operation between employers and employees in order to increase productivity. Labour's demand for wage increases and fringe benefits is usually a stimulant to economic progress. In other words, this demand will also stimulate technical progress. In this present age, trade unionists realise that wage increases without increased productivity will result in a rise in the prices of goods and a reduction in the number of people employed. Therefore, they try to get fringe benefits for the workers. The present Employment Bill seeks to take some of these away. This is contrary to the concept of industrial psychology and is also against the mood of the workers. It is a retrogressive act. I believe most people can understand the labour policy of our Government. The original policy of bias towards labour will not be changed. Undoubtedly, as an efficient Government with long-term political objectives, it will preserve its pro- labour policy. The enactment of the Employment Bill into law is only a change of technique. The basic pro-labour policy of our Government will never change. What can be changed is the technique in order to meet the requirements of the nation and the changing situation. As democratic socialists, the first step for us is to seek independence and to raise productivity. Unless we can concurrently increase national productivity, we will not have a fair, just and equal society for the people. It is therefore necessary to get a larger market. We must industrialise in order to improve the livelihood of our people. Now that Singapore is an independent country, we can depend only on our human resources. We have to carry out the great tasks of our country. The people should meet the challenge of this age and march forward in unity. The source of economic strength cannot be separated from our resources. Even with natural and human resources, we cannot ensure our country's prosperity and progress. There should be some catalyst to promote economic progress. One mode of bringing this about is by way of legislation. The introduction of the Employment Bill can be said to have come from the consideration of trying to ensure full-scale economic prosperity. The Minister for Labour explained the true purpose of this Bill in Parliament the other day. After 1971, the economic welfare and survival of Singapore lies in the hands of our people. In a small island like Singapore, we cannot plant cotton or other crops or foodstuffs but we have to maintain the livelihood of many people. One square mile in Singapore will have to support 8,000 Singaporeans. So a stagnant economy will mean starvation. This Bill is introduced so as to meet our political and defence requirements and so that the people can adjust themselves to face the new situation when the British troops are withdrawn. I support the views of the Minister for Labour. The introduction of the Employment Bill does not mean that the Government has already adopted a policy of suppression of the workers. Certain provisions in the Bill have, on the other hand, caused some anxiety among the workers. On the surface, the provisions can easily be construed to be anti-labour or contrary to the Government's policy of bias towards labour, because, to a certain degree, these provisions will adversely affect the future livelihood of the people. For this reason, I am of the view that if the Government can be enlightened enough to accept certain amendments tabled by my colleagues, it will still be possible to avert any wrong impression gained by some people about the Government. The President in his speech in May mentioned certain Bills which reflected the general mood, thought and spirit of our people. He also exhorted the Government and Members of Parliament to give a lead in the thinking and feeling in the country. In view of these considerations, I hope Government will accept the amendment which will be moved by the Member for Bukit Ho Swee (who is also the Secretary-General of the National Trades Union Congress) to clause 15. If the Government does not accept the amendment, it will have to consider the consequences that will follow. If this clause is passed as it now stands, the Government will not achieve any good results. On the contrary, it will achieve the opposite of that which the clause intends, because there will be quite a number of people who will be retiring prematurely. The purpose of this Bill is to provide more jobs for the unemployed, but its enactment into law will mean driving more people into unemployment. If these people are unemployed when they are forced to retire, what can they do thereafter? if they want to be non-criminal types, they may resort to becoming hawkers or pirate taxi drivers. Does the Government wish to see more hawkers appearing and more pirate taxis running on the roads? Clause 15 as it appears in the Bill must not therefore be passed into law. The Government must accept the amendment tabled by the Member for Bukit Ho Swee. There is another point on which the workers are unhappy. This is the question of bonus. My colleagues have touched upon this issue. I would like to say that the amendment tabled by the Member for Bukit Ho Swee fails to meet the objections. If the discretion is given to the employer alone, the workers will be at his mercy, because it is not likely that he will be generous or charitable to them. I would like to suggest that the quantum of bonus should be a certain percentage of the workers' wages and should depend on the employers' profits. If the employer is satisfied with the productivity and performance of his workers, he may also give them certain rewards in the form of a bonus. Thus, there will be no animosity between labour and capital. Instead, there will be co-operation to increase productivity. These measures, if embodied in the Bill, will encourage the workers to raise their productivity, and good relationship between labour and capital will last longer. They will be able to co-operate even more and this will lead to a more stable situation in Singapore. The maxim whether a country survives or perishes depends on its citizens is valid. To ensure its survival is the highest virtue that any patriotic citizen can aspire to attain. Everyone should be prepared to struggle and make sacrifices for our country's survival. United, we should be able to meet the coming challenge. This should be the task of each and every one of us. The Government should however give the capitalists opportunity to show their patriotism and sense of loyalty by donating a certain percentage of their profits towards our Defence Fund. So far, it seems that the Government has been too generous to them. The introduction of the Employment Bill has given a very bad impression to the broad masses of people who wish to support the P.A.P. Government. I would like for the reasons outlined in my speech to support the amendments proposed by my colleagues. 3.40 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I speak in full support of the Bill. It was only after prolonged and soul-searching discussions with industrialists, investors, employers and responsible trade unionists in the past years that we have arrived at the conclusion that we must do something for the good of our national economy. One of the crucial things we have all agreed upon is to boost the economy of our country if we want to survive in this turbulent region. To achieve this, our workers must be more efficient and more understanding and, like soldiers on the battle front, they must be prepared to accept discipline. But with the present-day restrictive practices indulged in by some of our trade unions, it is rather difficult to persuade entrepreneurs to expand or even to keep existing factories here, let alone attract new capital. Perhaps, it is significant that out of our total working population of about 500,000 persons, only a minority, roughly one-fifth of them, are unionised. It is not illogical to suggest that complete unionisation might have retarded rather than contributed to progress and development in Singapore in the past 10 years. Take the Housing and Development Board flats, for example. We show them to the world as one of the major achievements of the Government. The houses and buildings are printed in stamps, books and pamphlets. Architects the world over study them, sociologists discuss them, and foreign dignitaries visit them. But it is common knowledge that not a single housing board fiat was built by unionised workers. These are the fruits of the labour of contract workers. Only after the flat had taken shape and the feat accomplished did the unionised workers come into the picture. Through the agitation of a few misguided leaders they then began to demand work on Sundays and public holidays in order to qualify for double pay and they went to sleep on Mondays or Tuesdays. Similarly, the foundation of the Jurong Industrial Estate was not laid by unionised workers. The results in Jurong are the fruits of the labour of non-unionised workers. Only after the factories were built, machinery installed and the factories on their way to full production did the unionised workers become active, bringing in their wake a whole series of restrictive practices and abuses, copied wholesale from the British trade unions. We are not condemning unionised labour nor are we suggesting that in order to achieve economic progress, we should abolish all trade unions. We are not against the unions at all. We want them to grow and play a useful role in the development of our country. We are however against the malpractices indulged in by some of the unions. If we want to have a healthy and responsible trade union movement in Singapore, we must legislate in such a way that no trade unionist can be tempted to indulge in such malpractices. What we must make clear is that when we talk about uplifting the living standards of the workers, we must think of the 500,000 working population as a whole and not just focus exclusive attention on the 100,000 odd unionised workers. It is true that in the past we have tended to think in terms of only the unionised workers. The uplifting of living standards and social levelling has always been confined to the unionised workers to the exclusion of the non-unionised workers. In other words, the 500,000 hard-working people of Singapore together created the prosperity that we see today, but the fruits of their labour were enjoyed by only a fifth of the working population. Social organisation on this basis is unhealthy and is likely to create divisions among our people where, on the one side, we find the privileged few getting ever fatter and better pay and more fringe benefits through the intervention of their unions and, on the other side, we have the general working population who are over-worked and underpaid, not forgetting the many thousands of unemployed who will be willing and able to perform the same type of work as our unionised workers perform for a fraction of their pay. Such a situation will inevitably lead to an explosion in which all will be lost. We certainly do not wish to deny our workers better food, better clothing and more leisure, but this should not be at the expense of other people. All these, the better things in life, must be made available to all workers and not just a privileged few. The creation of equal opportunities in enjoying the fruits of labour cannot be attained unless we can persuade some of our unions to give up overtime malpractices, infringement of managerial rights and the wrong attitude of conniving at the laxity and indiscipline of some unionised workers. It is not that we want to be harsh with our workers. But adequate measures are necessary since we feel impelled to look after the working population at large, the unemployed and the many young persons who yearly enter the labour market. It is against this background that we are introducing the Employment Bill and the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill. Essentially these are the two doses of medicine administered to stimulate our economy, to boost our productivity and to enhance the image of our labour force at international level. As the Chinese saying goes. "The mouth is bitter when taking good medicine; the ear is hurt by true words." So trade unionists and workers must not whimper to find the medicine a little bit too bitter and unpleasant to swallow. If we want to seek recovery from our economic ills, if we want economic robustness and health for a long, long time, then we have no alternative but to administer this medicine. The effects of these two pieces of legislation can only be seen in the future and we must not judge them too hastily in the present-day context. The concept and objects of the Employment Bill have been very clearly enunciated by the Minister for Labour in his speech. Yet the Bill has met with mixed feelings. From the ranks of the democratic labour movement have come responsible and reasonable criticisms and, as expected, from the minority pro-Communist Barisan Sosialis group, violent and vehement outbursts. The clear sight and thinking of the democratic labour movement have generated light. On the other hand, there have been heat and fire, the twin elements of destruction, from the pro-Communists. 3.50 p.m.

It is certainly heartening to note that the majority of the people of the country have recognised and appreciated the problems facing us. But recognition of the problems is one thing, understanding them is another, and finding solutions to them is yet another. Everyone knows that we already have a massive unemployment problem on our hands. But inadequate thought has been devoted to the question of how we are going to deal with the situation. The question is not whether we can contain the existing unemployment problems but how, with the aggravation of these problems through increasing numbers entering the labour market every year and the sudden injection of those who are currently employed with the British Services into the labour market, we can generate job opportunities to absorb a significant number of unemployed people into the industry. The records of the Unemployment Exchange of the Ministry of Labour reveal that at any given time in Singapore from 60,000 to 70,000 persons are seeking jobs. More than 25,000 young people enter the labour market each year and we will have in the near future another 21,000 or so of our citizens joining the ranks of the unemployed in the wake of the British withdrawal, all of them competing for jobs which are scarce. It is true that we have made significant advances in industrialisation. But what has been achieved is insufficient to solve our problems. No parents like to see their grown-up children let loose in a society which offers them no hope of obtaining jobs. A society bereft of hope will be a frustrated one with automatic outlets for anti-social acts like crime and delinquency, riots and arson. What is more important to realise is that a situation like this can well undermine the foundation of society and threaten the security of those already in employment. A teeming labour market will not only depress wages but also generate demand for cheap labour by employers, with dire consequences to the ordinary workers. We cannot, therefore, allow matters to drift along and take their natural course. On the other hand, we must do something about it even though these actions and measures may be unpleasant and unpalatable for some time to come. The logic of the circumstances, therefore, necessitates that we should plan now to meet the situation looming ahead. Metaphorically, it is too late to start planting crops after we have reached starvation level, because we will never live to enjoy the harvest. In the face of an impending food shortage, the logical step to take is to plant food crops well in advance to prepare to avert the calamity of starvation. Another way of saying it is that if we dig a well in search of water only when we feel thirsty, then that will be too late. We must start digging a well even at a time when thirst has not yet set in and while there is still more drinking water left. Our future is grim and, therefore, demands strong, stern and determined action. It is only on this basis that we can meet the challenges and hope for partial, if not complete, solutions. There is, at the moment, a mild boom in Singapore. But we cannot afford to sit back and let everything drift. Time will creep up inexorably and 1971 will come sooner than we think. A Government worth its salt, therefore, must plan for the eventualities ahead. If it does not, then it does not merit the confidence of the people of Singapore who have elected it. We must not postpone the search for solutions and allow events to overtake us. The basic prerequisite in order that our goal can be more attainable is the creation of a climate to inspire confidence and to attract investments, local and foreign. Confidence connotes political and industrial stability, and an efficient and productive labour force which will lower production costs. Hidden fringe benefits must be axed and other anomalies abolished. This is to promote social justice in which a person's reward should be commensurate with and not out of proportion to his contribution and, not least of all, bonuses should be determined in accordance with this principle. The days of unearned bonuses are over. There has been much talk about bonuses in economic theory, that bonus is an incentive payment and, in the strict application of the term, it should be left to the discretion of the employer to decide whether or not his workmen merit bonuses. The rule should be that it the employer generally makes a profit he grants a bonus to his workers. If he makes more profit, he gives proportionately more bonuses, and ii he makes less profit, he gives less. The bonus is a device to encourage the workers to work hard so that they can help the employer not only to maintain the same level of profit but also to try to surpass that of previous years in order that together they may enjoy bigger slices from a bigger cake. Only foolish employers refuse to utilise this device, in which case there is no incentive for workers to give of their best, with the result that the profit of the employer is bound to slide down and perhaps eventually the profit is turned into a loss. It is obvious that by properly and intelligently applying this device, the employer can benefit as much from a bonus as the workers. But it must be given in such a way that it is related proportionately to the profit of the firm and not otherwise. But once the bonus is made bargain-able, its meaning is lost. It becomes no longer the incentive instrument that it should be. In a runaway system of bonus payments, the workers, with the backing of their union, can demand to be paid so many months of extra salary a year as their bonus regardless of whether the firm makes a profit or not, and if the employer refuses or cannot afford to pay, then the workers can always back up their demands by industrial action. What is more, in order to forestall further losses, the employer may have to give in. It is not uncommon to find firms, which have incurred financial losses for the year, end up by paying one week's or one month's pay bonus to the workers. In such cases, the word "bonus" becomes a misnomer. It is actually an increase of salary or a pay rise except that the payment is deferred to the end of the year or to some festive occasion. Sometimes the bonus may even be written into the collective agreement. In this case, the employer is committed to pay bonus during the three-year period in which the collective agreement is in force. In the three-year period it may happen that the employer makes a profit in the first year for which he willingly and thankfully grants a high rate of bonus. In the event of his sustaining losses in the following two years, he still has to pay the same rate of bonus as he did the first year. The negotiable bonus opens itself to another disadvantage. As things are now, the unions tend to demand the same rate of bonus for each and every worker, regardless of whether he belongs to the hard-working, lukewarm or indifferent category, or the intermediate shades. If a hard-working worker obtains the same reward as his easygoing counterpart, then clearly the so-called incentive is really no incentive at all. It is against this background that we proposed to make bonus a non-bargainable item. However, since the introduction of the Bill, the N.T.U.C, has raised strong objections to this provision. The Member for Bukit Ho Swee has put in an amendment to make bonus bargainable up to one month of salary a year. The Minister for Labour has promised to consider it very carefully. It should be repeated that the Employment Bill and other complementary pieces of legislation such as the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill seek to create better conditions more conducive to the attainment of our objectives. The Employment Bill has evoked much discussion. Unfortunately, many views have been based on misconception and misunderstanding and twisted from the context of the Bill. There has been an unending drone over the provisions regarding hours of work, overtime, annual leave, sick leave, public holidays, bonus, retrenchment and retirement benefits; and the repeated charge has been that workers' rights are being sacrificed. In actual fact, the Bill does not affect the benefits of the majority of the workers. Even to the white-collar workers, the sacrifice is not much. According to the Singapore Sample Household Survey, 1966, about 576,700 persons are classified as being economically active. Of this number, about 67,300 persons, including nearly 16,400 employed by Government and statutory boards, are clerical and related workers. On the assumption that a clerical worker starts working at the age of 20, the figures indicate that about 27,500 are in the age group of 20 to 29. The remainder, that is, about 39,800, are in the age group of 30 and over. Let us take the question of annual leave first. It can be safely assumed from these figures, therefore, that the bulk, or roughly 60 per cent of the total number in the clerical and related trades, would have had more than 10 years' service, which means that in effect they would still be getting the 14 days' paid annual leave which they are getting now. On the other hand, workers in manufacturing and servicing industries who form the majority of the economically active population would get not 7 days' paid annual leave perpetually but an enhanced period of 14 days after they have completed 10 years' service. There is no ground for these grouses. In other words, with the standardisation of terms of service under this Bill, the same benefits will be extended to all workers. In regard to sick leave, some restrictions are embodied in the Bill. No doubt, this will entail some inconvenience for the genuinely sick. At least those who used to feign sickness have now to be really sick whenever they claim to be sick and they can no longer malinger by means of a $2 medical certificate of dubious validity. Many workers have not clearly understood the provisions on working hours. The Bill provides for a standard 44-hour working week for all workers, regardless of whether they are white-collar or blue-collar workers. The great majority of workers are, however, not affected by this provision. Only some 12 per cent of the working population comprising white-collar workers will be affected. Even in such cases, they can continue to work the same number of hours as they are working now if their existing collective agreements provide for a lesser number of hours of work per week. Overtime rates, however, will become operative only after they complete 44 hours work a week. In regard to overtime work, the position is that the present economic situation is one whereby it is preposterous to permit people to enjoy unlimited overtime work. In the past, since overtime work was paid at double rate, the usual abuse was to "manufacture" overtime. Work that could and should be done during normal working hours was shelved in order to create overtime work. This has no doubt affected the productivity of the workers in that false values have been inculcated, so that the worker is more interested in stalling than in finishing his job in the way a responsible and conscientious worker should. We have, therefore, restricted overtime work to 48 hours per month but exemptions can be granted for employees in any particular industry or undertaking. The restriction imposed on overtime work will result in two important factors which are beneficial to our economy. Firstly, by this restriction, the need to fabricate overtime work is removed: the worker seeing no purpose in prolonging his job, will then want to finish the job quickly so that he can go home early. This means increased productivity per unit of labour. Secondly, it will create more jobs for new workers. For example, last month, the Port of Singapore Authority's restriction on overtime work and the introduction of a three-shift system resulted in the creation of over 400 new jobs. This is an example of what can be mobilised to increase employment if other establishments reorganise their work programme along the same lines. There is every reason to believe that by so doing, many more new jobs could be created. 4.08 p.m.

I would suggest that all those who have bitterly complained about the Employment Bill should compare it with the labour laws of other countries in this region. By comparison, our Bill remains a much better piece of legislation than any that exists in this part of the world. We have a 44-hour working week, adequate annual leave and 11 public holidays a year. No labour legislation in these countries can challenge comparison in terms of good conditions of employment. Let me illustrate my statement by citing a few examples. Malaysia has a standard 48-hour working week and 11 public holidays a year as compared with our 44-hour working week and 11 public holidays a year. Even in comparison with more industrially advanced countries, our Employment Bill is still much more favourable. This can be seen from the following statistics: Name of Standard working Number of Public Country hours per week holidays per year Japan 48 12 United States 40 8 United Kingdom 40/42 6 France (now) 40 10 France 46.9 10 (prior to the strikes) Germany 43.9 11 It is therefore an utter misconception to believe that our workers will be groaning under the weight of this Bill. From the patriotic point of view, it has been suggested that workers and employers should alike bear the same sacrifices for the good of the nation. This is only wishful thinking. There is no reason why a foreign investor should make one-way traffic type of sacrifices merely for our benefit. They have not come in with their finances to save us from starvation. They have come in with a profit motive. And if we make life difficult or unprofitable for them, they could just sell out or liquidate their firms and go elsewhere. The ultimate sufferers will be the people of Singapore. A cruel fact of life in the world today is that money can move, but not men. On the other hand, the employers must not form the idea that, because of this Bill and the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill, they can have the whole world to themselves. We have heard of complaints that some small employers have actually threatened to reduce the pay of their workers. One shopkeeper I know of has in fact told his shop assistants that from now, they must work 7 days a week without rest. This kind of attitude is not only wrong but also dangerous. To illustrate how some employers can exploit the situation for their own selfish ends, I will quote an example of an employer who is running a daily newspaper in Singapore. Immediately after the Employment Bill was tabled in this House in May, he instructed his editors to write editorials to condemn the Bill, stating that the provisions therein were harsh and that they should be deleted. In doing so, his foremost aim was to play along with the taste of the workers in order to boost the sales of his newspaper. However, after some time when his workers and journalists staked their claims for better working conditions, he turned around and told them that since the Employment Bill was going to be passed, he was not prepared to give them anything at all. In fact, he even suggested slashing their pay and withdrawing their yearly bonuses. What is this employer trying to do? He is using both edges of the blade to his own advantage. Firstly, in public, he condemns the Bill to the point of misleading his readers in order to boost the sales of his newspaper. On the other hand, in private, he exploits the Bill to the full even to the extent of misinterpreting it in order to deny his workers their rightful share of the profits. This is the kind of unscrupulous and double-faced employers we have to watch out for and we have enough power to deal adequately with them. The employers should realise that without the co-operation of their workers, they cannot hope to reap profits from their factories or establishments, and that they cannot afford to have disgruntled and discontented employees. They must also realise that whatever labour laws we are introducing, we do so only to ensure the survival of the whole country and not in order to enrich a few employers. I am quite sure in the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill there are adequate provisions with which we can restrain the unscrupulous employers from abusing our labour laws. Mr Speaker, Sir, in the pages of this Bill are embodied balances and brakes which, on the one hand, ensure that managements perform their functions properly and responsibly and, on the other, promote and protect the interests of the workers both in the short run and in the long run. This Bill is the prescription for unimpeded economic health and uninterrupted progress. Only future generations can judge the decisions we take today, and if they find themselves living in a happier society from which hunger and want have been banished, and where they can hold their heads high, they will be proud of us; they will be grateful to us who have struggled and fought for their benefit in these difficult days. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to support the Employment Bill.

Order. I propose to take the suspension now. I will take the Chair again at 4.40 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.18 p.m. until 4.40 p.m. Sitting resumed at 4.40 p.m.

Mr Barker, I believe you have a business motion?

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I seek your consent and the general assent of hon. Members to move a motion for Parliament to adjourn earlier at 5.45 tonight?

I give my consent. Do I have the general assent of Members for the Minister to move the motion as proposed? Hon. Members indicated assent. Resolved, "That notwithstanding the Standing Orders, this Parliament doth adjourn tonight at quarter to six". -[Mr Barker].

Debate resumed. Question again proposed. 4.43 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, they are not wanting in Singapore, people who give no thought for the future and who seem to think that the purpose of trade unionism is generally not to think at all but to rave and rant, to strike up heroic postures and beat the war drums of industrial strife. This is the kind of trade unionism that has led to all the broken-back States which today litter the developing world. Judging by some of the anonymous correspondents who get regular publicity in the Eastern Sun, it is apparent that the formidable and daunting economic challenges which await the people of Singapore just around the corner do not concern these gentlemen at all. They are more interested in painting the leaders of this Republic as a lot of anti-labour ghouls and accusing the responsible trade union leadership of being stooges. If we go by the standards which these anonymous cowards set, then the one qualification which no trade unionist should possess on any account is the capacity for careful thought and analysis in depth. Rather should trade unionists say, in effect, to blazes with the unemployment problem, and to blazes with the need to create 100,000 new jobs by the early 1970s, or to blazes with everything except the satisfaction of the organised creed of the labour movement. It is to the lasting credit of the labour movement in Singapore that today we can boast to a much larger extent than previously of the trade union leadership which thinks in terms of social priorities and of the collective effort and discipline necessary if the people of Singapore are to survive in the gruelling years ahead. Not for us any more the empty-headed sloganising of the past, nor the striking of idiotic and thoughtless postures. It is to the lasting credit of the people of Singapore that they have thrown up a political leadership which refuses to play up to any sectional gallery but, instead, has the courage to take the people into their confidence and tell them, even brutally, the harsh facts of economic life. The Government has placed a premium on intelligent trade unionism. It must, therefore, be prepared to subject the measures it proposes in this Bill to intelligent and searching criticisms. Other trade union colleagues in this House have touched on various aspects of this Bill and have pointed out some of its serious defects and shortcomings. For my part, I would like to ask the Government to re-examine very carefully the provision in clause 47 which proposes to remove bonus payments altogether from the sphere of collective bargaining. Let me grant straightaway that bonus payments have sometimes been abused and that there have been occasions when profit sharing bonuses were claimed even when no profits existed. Let me also grant that potential investors may not be forthcoming if such abuses are not checked and if unions are expected to demand bonus payments even before any industries have established themselves on a stable and profitable basis. Throw the bath water out by all means. But must the baby also be thrown out with the bath water? This, in effect, is what this particular provision proposes to do. The more intelligent thing to do would be to provide the necessary checks to prevent obvious abuses. I would ask the Government to give serious consideration to the observations which I propose to offer. Long established banks, insurance companies, petroleum companies and various other commercial undertakings, which have long enjoyed comfortable or more than comfortable profit margins, have been in the habit of paying annual bonuses to their employees without any qualms and. indeed, quite cheerfully. Such payments have very often been sanctioned or awarded by the Industrial Arbitration Court. Every year millions of dollars are being distributed to commercial employees by way of bonus payments. It is now proposed to remove these annual payments altogether from the sphere of collective bargaining. Indeed, assuming that all bonus payments are stopped, can the Government tell us what employers will do with these millions of dollars which they have been in the habit of distributing annually as bonus payments? Does the Government have any guarantee that all these large sums of money will go into reinvestment in Singapore? The chances are that they will go into nothing of this kind. Rather they are likely to go into private pockets. I can give up the benefit gladly if I am convinced that the surrender of this benefit will lead to greater social benefit. But in this case I have no such assurance. All I know is that the bonus payments will, in all likelihood, be taken away without leading to any corresponding social benefit. Indeed, the only outcome of my renunciation is that the bulging purses of a few will bulge even more. The Government has not given sufficient thought to the fact that bonus payments can be made to serve as an incentive to increased productivity. We all know that it is desirable to give an increase in the profitability of an undertaking. 1 would submit that the best way to cultivate such a desirable interest is for management to declare categorically that the workers shall be entitled to a fair share of any distributable profit. In this event, the workers will see that it is in their direct self-interest to increase productivity and thereby to enhance the profitability of the undertaking which employs them. For they know that the higher the profitability, the larger the bonuses that will accrue to them. There are some other considerations which I would urge the Minister for Labour and his colleagues to consider more carefully when the leader of the N.T.U.C. moves his amendments to this clause. Not to do so would be to turn a deaf ear to sane and rational arguments, which is what the Government professes to encourage in the trade union movement. 4.50 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when we first sat here as a new Parliament of the people's choice, we were promised that the Employment Bill would standardise and regulate the terms and conditions of service for all grades of employees. It was to be a package deal designed to lessen abuses of fringe benefits and malpractices amongst our work-force and, more important still, to aim at increasing productivity and promoting and hastening industrial growth. Sir, I consider it a task and responsibility we owe to the people of the Republic to provide the leadership in seeing this Bill through. In considering any piece of legislation, the basic consideration, as I see it, must be whether or not such a piece of legislation and its provisions are relevant to the prevailing circumstances. It is not my intention here to reiterate all the difficult problems we are going to face in the next few years. The Hon. Minister for Labour has, for the benefit of - the more absent-minded, listed facts and figures and has dwelt on them in great detail. It is essential to have these problems in mind when examining whether the present Bill is relevant to our circumstances. It calls for more than ordinary courage to face the situation and make the necessary adjustments and sacrifices to overcome these problems. Our workers must be made to understand the problems ahead so that they know why and for whom they are making the adjustments and sacrifices. We have all agreed that the years ahead are difficult and cruel. To survive these years, Singapore must launch a programme of rapid economic growth and promote speedy industrial expansion. This will then provide employment opportunities and, in so doing, ensure continuance and consolidation of stable political and social conditions. For all these things a price must be paid, because history has shown that neither economic growth nor industrialisation has ever been achieved on the cheap! We know that many of the more advanced countries of today have paid a very high price in toil, discipline and sacrifice to achieve this. In some totalitarian countries, human lives were deliberately sacrificed so that the country could achieve rapid industrialisation. In our case, thanks to the democratic principles we uphold in Singapore and the practices we carry out, the cost demanded for such development cannot be made and are not being made so high as to make life intolerable. We have here in front of us a Bill that merely sets out to curtail malpractices and lessen opportunities of abuse of fringe benefits. A very small section of our work-force is asked to work five hours more a week only when requested. And 1 say this particular section of the work-force has for many years in the past been living on the fat of the land. As the Hon. Minister for Labour has put it, the medicine we are now administering is not really that bitter. And I say that it is well worth it if at the end of it all we see progress and stability emerge all the more flourishing. Let us see what will happen if we in this Parliament are weak and try to seek an easy way out. We can sit back and admire the Government's achievements for the last nine years (of which we in the P.A.P, are extremely proud). We will let the problems of the l970s take care of themselves. Maybe some of us will kneel down and pray that by some good fortune, conditions in Britain would improve so much that the Pound would overnight become so strong that the British Government would be prepared to maintain the bases here longer. Then the sum total of all this is that our people will make merry, drink and dine. Our Prime Minister will turn round and say he is the happiest man because his people know how to enjoy life. But, Sir, the truth is that this is not going to be the case. If we just sit back and relax, we will be on the sure way to economic stagnation and eventually we will collapse. The result of such a collapse is too horrible even to imagine, when we consider that here in Singapore we have a population density of something like 8,500 or so to a square mile. The Hon. Minister for Labour has predicted here in this Chamber, when expounding his philosophy of development and consumption, that we can only live by eating one another and the Prime Minister sums it up by saying that we must then all perish! This must be the case because we just have not the agricultural base to allow us to plant anything to feed ourselves. I am confident, however, that this is not going to be the end of a people and a country that has over the past one and a half centuries built out of a fishing village a prosperous and flourishing island State! We have that spirit of self-reliance that even with all the problems coming on us as a result of the British pull-out, we will emerge all the more stable, secure and flourishing. That is what I see the Bill sets out to prove. The attitude of the workers shall be and will be remoulded. Because our people understand the problems, we have decided to make certain adjustments and sacrifices at this stage of our country's history. Our workers cannot depend on abuses of fringe benefits to deprive their unemployed fellow citizens of jobs. Each and every worker will get a day's pay for a day's honest work. These adjustments and sacrifices are made not for some tribal chieftains, not for a group of capitalists, not for a set of self-seeking politicians, not for some fortunate sons of the soil, but for a more prosperous, secure and flourishing Singapore wherein every citizen shares equal rights and obligations, enjoys equal privileges and opportunities! The fruits and the end result of all these adjustments and sacrifices shall feed not only the generation that will see through the 1970s, but also for the many others who will come after them! So I say - I again quote the Hon. Minister for Labour - that we should "postpone immediate rewards for greater gains in the future". Sir, if our workers are not prepared to work just five hours more a week, forego a few public holidays, restrict scoring on overtime now, let me say to them, in the very near future they will have to strive very much harder under sterner rule of a chaotic and disorderly state which must come about when our unemployment could not be checked and has reached such unmanageable proportions that many workers will want to work even for a dog's reward! Sir, let me now confine myself to one or two specific clauses in the proposed Bill. The provision on the payment of bonus has aroused great interest. To me this must necessarily be non-negotiable. But I understand from my N.T.U.C. friends in this Chamber that they would want to make it negotiable up to one month's wages. I do not see the logic of all this. I foresee what the employer will do is to evaluate the annual worth of his workers and divide it by 13 rather than usually by 12, thereby leaving himself a quantum of one month's wages for negotiation. Sir, this is what we set out to eliminate. Bonus should be an incentive. It should not be part and parcel of the take-home pay of the worker at all. What I would rather see is a law to request every employer to declare his profits and some kind of profit-sharing schedule drawn up. In this way, both the employer and his employees will make it a point to increase productivity so that the net profits will go up and everybody in the company gets more. However, let the N.T.U.C.'s scheme be tried out first. I envisage that at the end of the trial period, my N.T.U.C. friends will want to see the system changed. In this respect. I really do not understand why the traditional ang pows given at the end of the year by the Chinese towkay to his coolies in Chinese business circles cannot really work. In this system, the question of how much to give is entirely up to the employer who, I believe, after he has done his calculations - Chinese businessmen are very calculating - will give the most to his most productive employees. And I do not see how this cannot be extended to the unionised sections of the work-force. Sir, clause 42 (2) of the Bill is of particular interest to me. When I was in the public service, I noticed that every so often a worker would conveniently absent himself either on the Tuesday after or the Thursday before the Easter holidays so that he could enjoy watching the Grand Prix in grand style without worrying whether at the end of it, he would be fit to work or not.

He should join the Army!

The introduction of this provision will put a stop to such nonsense. Sir, on a more general coverage, the Bill seeks to bring the white-collar workers' conditions of service in line with those of the blue-collar workers. This, as I see it, will definitely enhance the status of the latter. As I pointed out in the debate on the President's Speech, this must be done if we want to lure more of our youngsters into taking up blue-collar jobs. Maybe at the end of the trial period of this Bill, we will be in a better position to provide better conditions of service for blue-collar workers. In conclusion, may I say that basically, this Bill, far from being designed to deprive the workers of their rights, actually sets out to outline the minimum and basic conditions of service for our workers. These basic conditions are in no way inferior to those existing in the countries surrounding us. I am confident that our work-force is mature enough to understand the problems of the day and accept the position that what is asked of them is really relevant and necessary under the present circumstances. And I am sure that they will work harder and make the neccessary adjustments and sacrifices so that we may emerge in the 1970s more stable, better organised and more flourishing. With the passage of the Bill, I am sure many more foreign investors and industrialists - I must echo what the former Minister for Labour has said, that they do not owe us a living - will bring their money here and stake it with us. Because they can then safely say that here in Singapore, we have a brave and sane government and an intelligent work-force that understand problems and care, not only for the future of their children, but that of the country as a whole. Sir, I am sure the Bill will prove a success. 5.05 pm.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the. Bill. I do not intend to make another analysis of the Bill. I have been preceded in this respect by competent hon. Members. The controversial provisions of the Bill have been extensively illustrated and, when set against the magnitude of our economic problems, I think they become reduced to sacrifices which our workers can afford to make. For myself, the merits of the Bill are simply that it seeks to achieve a situation which is the logic of the present limitations of our economy. And that it is a facet of a vast definite programme for national consolidation, if not national construction, made necessary by our assumption of sovereignty on the 9th of August, 1965, and rendered imperative by the impending British withdrawal. A trading and servicing centre and on the way towards being a manufacturing nation, Singapore depends on the saleability of its goods and services for a living. Productivity, therefore, is a basic concern of our economy. Labour must be adjusted accordingly. Labour's role of merely producing the goods for wages must, in my opinion, at this-phase of our economic development, be refashioned in order to produce more goods at a lower cost per unit of output and, at the same time, maintaining quality. The structure of our economy is such that if our country is to continue to bustle and thrive and our living standards to remain as high as they are today or 50 years later or 100 years later, our chief productive resource, i.e. labour, must be consistent with capital and their co-ordination must result in-high industrial productivity. Sir, this Bill has been dictated by sheer necessity. For years, our labour force has operated under conditions of strife. In the public sector, it had to-contend with an arrogant, unyielding colonial government, in the private sector, it was engaged in a relentless struggle against forces of exploitation. Responses assumed a pattern and became set. Labour's response to capital was largely governed by the principle of work for fair wages and as soon as the employer showed profits, labour said, "Share." Labour conducted its role of protecting the workers' welfare without a national context. In the pre-Malaysia and Malaysia periods, this may have been a valid role because, if the chips had been down then, at least one could still have opted for a new life elsewhere. Today we are sovereign and, simply put, it means that we together are on our own for better or for worse. And if the worst happens, we will have to take it. Mass option for a new life elsewhere is out of the question. In such a situation, labour's agitations, however legitimate, must be tempered by the exigencies of the nation. These exigencies result from the impending British withdrawal by 1971. As detailed by the Minister for Finance, we need to spend the sum of $900 million in the course of the coming four years to counter the recession that will be caused by the progressive reduction. In British military expenditure over this period. This expenditure of $900 million will have to be above the normal public expenditure for the same period. $200 million of this $900 million represents the total of private investment we would have to induce in the course of the coming four years. This figure is in addition to the prevailing scale of $250 million per annum. Sir, we can expect to succeed in inducing at least half this amount if, in addition to the political stability of our country and the industrial peace which we have achieved, we can offer investors an enthusiastic labour force conditioned to secure high industrial productivity and an assurance of a reasonable freedom to manage, and generally an industrial climate which is favourable to industrial expansion and confidence in the future. Both these offers are spelt out in the Employment Bill and the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill. But high industrial productivity is the cumulative result of a number of basic industrial needs and processes like buildings, factories, equipment, power and transport, skilled labour, managerial and technical know-how and efficient services. These are all immediate objectives in our overall reorganisation for survival and development through our urban renewal, industrialisation, technical orientation in education, markets discovery, quality control and so on. As I have indicated earlier, we are reorganising now to remain a nation in the future. Though the problems before us are vast, they are not beyond solution. But woe betide us if we fail, for we shall fall into an economic stagnation from which we can hope to recover only after many years and much grief. What is urgently required is a national mood for productive work at all levels motivated by a realisation of the full consequences of failure. If this Bill and the debate on it inside and outside this Chamber can stir in our workers the beginnings of this mood, it will already have begun to achieve results before its operation. Sir, there will be criticisms on this Employment Bill. But whatever may be said against the Government for introducing this Bill, I think even the devil would blush at the allegation that this leadership is helping the capitalists to get rich at the expense of the workers. This leadership has gone down in our political history of the last decade as a government that has sought the survival of the country and the realisation of the common good. I do not think any serious minded quarter would question the truth of this. This Bill has been introduced at this stage for no other reason than that it would help the survival of the country and the realisation of the common good. Amendments to some of the controversial clauses will be moved by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Labour himself. Amendments to five clauses will be moved by the Member for Bukit Ho Swee. The alleged severity of the Bill would be reduced as a result. In addition, the Central Provident Fund (Amendment) Bill offers a worthy compensatory privilege. However, it has been disturbing to hear of the cases of two employers already attempting to abuse the provisions of the Bill. I am heartened to have been told that the Minister would wield his stick if the need arose. Let the Minister not find that the stick has been misplaced when the time comes, for I am sure that our workers will respond favourably and management is not all that angelic. Enthusiastic and earnest labour alone will not suffice. There must be progressive innovations at the managerial and technological levels by capital if the hopes and intentions of this Bill are to be realised. Productivity promotion itself needs, in my view, an infrastructure for care, control and research. The Government is urged to consider this aspect of our reorganisation for survival and development. In conclusion, Sir, there is a period in the history of a nation when the people begin to be a nation. For ourselves, this is it. 5.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, since this Bill was first introduced in Parliament, it has generated, understandably, a great deal of public interest and comment, some favourable, some controversial, some adverse. All this has helped us reflect further on the requirement in the best interest of our country and people in time to come. It is, however, heartening to see that there has been a general appreciation, if not acceptance, of the motivation and need for this legislation from all sectors, including labour, management and the press. Criticisms, most of them constructive, have been on aspects of detail, on provisions for hospitalisation, payments of bonus, overtime and fringe benefits and the like. It is further reassuring to see that the Minister for Labour has an open mind for argument and persuasion and will consider seriously necessary amendments arising out of a rational review within and outside this Parliament. May I make my observations now on the necessity for and urgency of this legislation? There were interconnected factors behind this Bill - higher Gross National Product and the creation of more jobs. It is not the intention of the Government to inflict pain on the workers by introducing this Bill. With its introduction, a more favourable climate for established enterprises to expand and to attract more foreign investments into the Republic will be created. This is an inevitable measure to prevent our country from going down as the result of the impending British withdrawal. We can just imagine the plight of thousands of our workers thrown out of work when the British leave Singapore by the end of 1971. Not only will the employees of the bases be affected, but also those who provide ancillary services like domestic servants, etc. Already, true unemployment is reckoned to total anywhere between 52,000 and 100,000. To this will be added another estimated 100,000 people who, it is calculated, will lose their jobs as a result of the withdrawal. This round figure of 100,000 is made up of 47,000 workers in the British bases, including enlisted personnel and domestic servants, who will forfeit their jobs directly, plus another 53,000 people who will be directly affected by the withdrawal of service expenditure here. The service presence directly or indirectly generates one-fifth of Singapore's Gross National Product of around S$3,200 million a year. The Forces' direct spending alone accounts more than S$400 million a year. In addition, 25,000 school-leavers enter the employment market every year. The process may be likened to pulling off the main root of a plant for transplanting which will undoubtedly damage some of the roothairs. The Government's task is to ensure as little damage as possible when this main root is removed. That is why these radical changes are necessary, however painful they may be. The present leadership has never faced a greater and more crucial test in its fight for economic survival after the announcements by the British Government last year that it intended to withdraw all its military commitments east of Suez. During this short period discussions between top Singapore Government officers led by the Prime Minister and British personnel have taken place and these talks have not only been fruitful but have also helped to pave the way for Singapore's accelerated role as an industrial nation. This kind of situation calls for prompt and effective action. There is no time for us to brood, but to get down to work since our future is at stake. This sudden flood of responsibilities thrust upon us includes that of looking for sources of revenue in order to pay for the high defence expenditure. By the end of 1971 Singapore will have its squadron of subsonic Hunter Mark Nines, flown by our own pilots, now beginning their initial training. Singapore cannot afford to carry passengers and we want our people to carry and share this burden equally together through these difficult years. Singapore, being important not only as a sea and air route because of its geographic position but also as the nerve centre of Southeast Asia, must and will exploit all the resources that she has in the form of human expertise and skills. By introducing this Bill, we hope to be able to produce two or three times the goods and services we have been producing now, and in return for the meaningful sacrifice made by the workers, the Government expects to provide better facilities for all. We cannot afford to allow our workers to go on strike to ask for increased wages especially at this juncture, as has happened in some countries overseas. The United Kingdom Government has lost millions of dollars as a result of industrial action during the last four months. Mr Speaker, Sir, the people of Singapore trust in the leadership of our Government. We must now make realistic approaches to ensure the economic survival of Singapore. The introduction of this Bill is one way of fearlessly facing up to the problems ahead. Let us hope for the best but prepare for the worst. 5.20 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, much has been said in this Chamber on some provisions of the Employment Bill. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Labour has stated that only six per cent of the clauses in the Bill are new and some of these new provisions have been designed to cut out bonus abuses practised by workers. The old labour laws were brought into force about 14 years ago to stop malpractices by employers and to prevent the exploitation of workers. But the Employment Bill does give one an impression that what the Minister is trying to convey is that one of the reasons for the introduction of certain restrictive clauses is to prevent workers and trade unions from exploiting the employer.

- to prevent anybody exploiting the country.

If Government manifestly indicates that it is soft pedalling when it comes to the employer, it may well be that we will have to return to the 1950s. If the employers blatantly exploit the workers, are we then to come back to this Chamber again to repeal the present measure to prevent the exploitation of workers, or are we going to amend the labour laws every few years to prevent employers or employees from exploiting each other? Everyone knows that this P.A.P. Government has got the interests of the workers at heart. It assists them to have a fair share of their labour and we also know that this Government, too, has the reputation of allowing employers to have their just due. One can therefore understand that the introduction of these new clauses is aimed at giving a boost to capital investment with a resultant reduction in our unemployment. Of course, there is no doubt that this is a good intention. This new Bill will give most citizens employment and in the long run the workers will be better off and the country as a whole will have prosperity. We all fully agree that this is what the Bill sets out to do. But intentions alone are not good enough. They must be translated into realities. Does the Government seriously believe that some of the restrictive clauses in this Bill will create a good industrial climate? Is the Government sincerely of the opinion that this Bill as it stands now will achieve its objectives? I ask, can frustrated and disgruntled workers give of their best and thus increase productivity? If the answer is "No" to the above three questions, then I suggest to the Hon. Minister for Labour that he must be prepared to concede to the amendments proposed by some of us here. But, on the other hand, if the Minister is of the opinion that the answers to my three questions are "Yes", then I am prepared to accept this Bill in toto. This Government, I know, however, is too honest to give a dishonest reply. [Laughter] I do not stand here because some fringe benefits have been taken away from the workers, but if, as a result of the sacrifices made by them, there is overall benefit to Singapore, then I am all for it. Unfortunately, some of the sacrifices made by the workers would only go towards enriching some of the unenlightened employers who would invest their savings not in industries, but in their big houses and property, thereby increasing their own wealth without any direct benefit either to Singapore or to the workers. On the other hand, if the Government can assure us that savings will accrue as a result of this Bill by lowering production costs and that the profits made will be ploughed back into industry thereby increasing the work force, I am fully in support of the workers making sacrifices. It is also obvious that one of the objectives of this Bill is to increase the wealth of the country by attracting foreign investors because of lower production costs. The Government also hopes that these foreign investors will plough back their profits into industry, thereby increasing work opportunities for our school-leavers. Highly developed countries like Russia, America, England, West Germany and Japan have reached their present standards because of the utter exploitation of workers during the nineteenth century. The capitalists in those countries, while getting rich at the expense of the workers, did not forget to plough back their profits into industry. But the same cannot be said here in Singapore. Are the foreign capitalists also prepared to plough back some of their profits into expanding the industry and helping us to reduce our unemployment? This is very doubtful. I have mentioned that capitalists in the nineteenth century exploited the workers and ploughed back their profits into industry not because they had sympathy for labour but because of their selfish motive to make still more money. But this evil motive did, in fact, bring good to the country. More workers were employed and industry expanded. The workers in these countries today are-really reaping the harvest made possible by the sacrifices made by their fore-fathers. Can the Singapore Government assure us that the employers who are now given advantages by the introduction of this Bill will do what the capitalists did in the countries I have mentioned, that is, plough back their profits into industry? I am not asking the investors to sacrifice their profits, but I am only asking the employers to reinvest their money so that they can make more money and at the same time reduce our unemployment figure which stands at nine per cent today in the active labour market. Every year there are 20,000 school-leavers and in five years there will be 100,000 young adults who should have been absorbed in industry. Our workers are not beyond understanding of these problems. The sacrifices asked of them must be worth while and they will be prepared to make more sacrifices, if necessary, if they are assured that their children will reap the harvest as a result of their sacrifices today. If after having made sacrifices there is within the next five years no reduction in our unemployment figure, then the workers, are going to ask us, "What have we sacrificed our fringe benefits for?" Only the investors have become rich. The Government must induce confidence in the working class if it wants them to give up some fringe benefits. It can only do this by seeing to it that the employers also play their part by expanding their industry and providing more employment. If this is not done, then disillusionment must set in and the propaganda of the Communists will provide an alternative for industrial unrest. Sir, let us not forget this point. Workers alone cannot be held responsible for the economic well-being of the country. Employers, and others, too, must be called upon to play their role and, if necessary, the Government should enact laws to compel investors to plough back some of their profits into industry annually. If this is not done, then what will happen is that while the workers have sacrificed fringe benefits, investors make more money and unemployment increases. The Communists will be able to exploit the situation and we will all be in trouble. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to touch on some of the clauses here. What I cannot understand are the precise reasons for the introduction of some of the new provisions in the Bill. Let us consider at this stage the exact nature of the new clauses introduced, such as clause 15, which seeks to fix the age of retirement for all and sundry at 55. The Hon. Minister in his policy speech did not adduce one single reason why this should be so. What is it that the Government hopes to achieve for the country through the introduction of clause 15? What medical evidence, if any, has the Minister to be so categorical that a person should retire at the age of 55 as opposed to any other age? As for the ill effects of the clause on all concerned, I think enough has been said by my colleagues. I need not elaborate. Now I wish to draw the Minister's attention to clause 42 - for all this, of course, the present Minister for Labour is not responsible; the former Minister for Labour is responsible.

It is collective responsibility.

Yes. We too were responsible to some extent! Now I wish to touch on clause 43 (annual leave) and clause 44 (sick leave). The Bill purports to standardise annual heave at a flat seven days and 14 days irrespective of the type of job a man does. I am all for standardisation of benefits as between industrial and non-industrial workers. But why has the Minister not taken into account the prevailing practice in the public and private sectors whereby the employers, of their own volition, grant leave up to a maximum of 21 days - and even 21 days for the industrial workers? In the first place, have the civil servants in the Ministry of Labour compiled statistics on this matter? I am certain that they have not done so. On what research has the Minister based seven days' and 14 days' leave provision other than on the demand of a few local employers? Can he prove to this House that irrespective of the nature of the work a man is engaged in, 14 days' annual leave is absolutely sufficient for a worker at the age of 50 or 50 plus? Similarly, Sir, on the sick leave provision, where are the Minister's facts and figures to show abuse amongst employees in the private sector? For instance, I myself work for a big private enterprise and my employers have never had occasion to complain to me or against me as a trade union president that my colleagues who work with me take excessive medical leave or that they are malingerers. How many complaints has his Ministry received from private sector employers to this effect? If so, who are the employers? What is so magical about the 14 days' intermittent medical leave? Presumably the Minister has taken advice from medical experts on averages. If so, would he care to reveal the details of any such study? As for the arbitrary figure of 28 days' leave for hospitalisation, I need only say this. Even the doctors in the hospitals are clearly shocked. They say. "What rubbish is this 28 days!" This provision lacks not only research on the matter but shows a complete absence of common sense. Mr Speaker, Sir, my other trade union colleagues have said, "We are prepared to make the necessary sacrifices, but not without assessing the precise nature of the sacrifices we are called upon to make." If I am asked to make sacrifices, like returning to work half-way through sickness or from treatment in the hospital, at least I am entitled to question the wisdom of such a demand. Clause 47 is the controversial bonus clause removing bonus payments to workers. I need not have to elaborate much on this. The other day I asked the Ministry of Labour if it could give me any good reason for the Government's interfering with free negotiation on bonuses between trade unions and the management. There seemed to be no satisfactory answer. We in this Chamber have to take full responsibility for any repercussions that may arise as a result of this Employment Bill. Let us not be hasty about passing it; otherwise it will be a case of acting in haste and repenting at leisure. I ask the Minister to consider seriously the amendments that will be moved by the Member for Bukit Ho Swee. These amendments have been tabled not so much to increase benefits for the workers as in the sincere belief that they will remove any discontent from the minds and hearts of the workers and they will rise to the occasion and give of their utmost in the interest not only of themselves and their children but of the nation as a whole. 5.40 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, what is really striking in the discussion that has taken place on this Bill up till now is the remarkable degree of sobriety with which we have discussed it. Perhaps this is due to the increasing awareness that politics in Singapore now is not a venture in recklessness but that it is the science of the possible. In the present historical context, I believe there are two main factors which have conspired with each other to make the introduction of this Bill inevitable. The first is the increasing need to build up a completely rationalised economic system that would in toto, not merely in its parts, be able to compete with the economies of countries such as. Hong Kong and Japan who are our main competitors for international markets. This first factor is merely the function of the second one which is the need to convert our society into art industrial society as swiftly as possible. There are a few specifics when one talks about the industrial society which needs to be created. All over the developing world, the under-developed world or the backward world, the ambition of governments is to create as quickly as possible an industrial society with a manufacturing base. Although it is difficult to define clearly what is meant by an industrial society, there are a number of attributes that can be pinpointed. Primarily, it is the application of a scientific mentality to the production process. Secondly, to change the psychology of the human beings, especially the workers, who participate in the industrial process. In other words, to convert the individual digit that works in the factory itself, to change its attitude towards work and play, and to change its attitude towards tools, which means that we have got to create the scientific capability. We will have to create a manufacturing capacity which will build the tools which will set up the factories and produce the machinery. There are two ways in which industrialisation in a country can be induced. One is indigenously from the inside which is the method that has obtained in the Western countries and possibly Japan, and the other one is to induce industrialisation from the outside, from impulses from developed countries into the developing country, which is what is happening all over the world today. We, unfortunately, because of our serious physical limitations and our lack of scientific capabilities for the purpose of inducing internal industrialisation, belong to the second category. And a price has got to be paid for this. Unfortunately, the price that we have got to pay today is this Bill. It may not be completely humanistic in terms of the minimum standards that obtain in advanced countries, but at least, as has been pointed out by a number of speakers, it is humanistic in relation to what obtains in surrounding countries. The factors that really stand in the way of the conversion into an industrial society are manifold, especially in developing countries. The first one, of course, is a backward leadership that does not understand modernism. Secondly, the allowance in the political process of the emergence of ghosts from the past. In other words, linguistic chauvinism in a multi-racial society, communal clashes and the lack of ability on the part of the political leadership to organise scientifically their policies in such a way as to mute whatever conflicts and contradictions there might be between communities and languages. And worse still is corruption in high places, especially among the political leadership and among the Ministers and others who go into politics because they feel it is a very attractive business.

Order. Mr Selvadurai, it is now 5.45 p.m. Will it be convenient for you to stop now? Mr Selvadurai resumed his seat.

In accordance with the resolution made earlier, the House will now adjourn. Adjourned accordingly at Fifteen minutes to Six o'clock p.m.