Hansard, 1968-07-15

asked the Minister for Defence how many vehicles used illegally to ply for passengers have been confiscated since 1st July, 1966.

Mr Speaker, Sir, during the period 1st July, 1966, to 6th July, 1968, the Traffic Police impounded a total of 1,306 vehicles that were used illegally to ply for passengers. The court ordered confiscation of 918 of these vehicles.

asked the Minister for Communications whether he will increase the number of Second Class Hackney Carriage Licences to enable drivers of vehicles plying illegally for passengers the opportunity to apply for the licences and to operate their vehicles legally.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I regret to inform the Member for Anson that there is no intention at present to increase the number of taxi licences so that those now operating illegally as pirate taxis may thus apply to operate as licensed taxis. It should be noted that there are at present 3,800 licensed taxis of which 3,500, or more than 90 per cent, are owned by taxi drivers themselves. These licensed taxi drivers are already having quite a difficult time earning a reasonable living. The situation has been worsened by the activities of an estimated number of 10,000 pirate taxis. To allow the free issuance of another 10,000 taxi licences will mean that the present 3,800 licensed taxi drivers will be put in a worse situation than at present. However, as the problem of pirate taxis has partly arisen through the present inadequacy and inefficiency of the bus transport system now operating in Singapore, I have decided to establish a Transport Advisory Board with the following terms of reference:- Firstly, to study ways and means of how to improve the present public transport service, i.e., buses, taxis, etc.; and, secondly, of how to reduce congestion in our streets, including the possibility of introducing staggered working hours for Government as well as for business firms and even of schools in the city areas. The membership of the Transport Advisory Board will include representatives from four sectors. Firstly, workers, the majority of whom would be associated with road transport. Secondly, owners of bus companies or taxis. Thirdly, organisations or individuals who are interested in the improvement or safety of road users. Lastly, Government departments representing the Registrar of Vehicles, the Traffic Police and the State and City Planning Office respectively. I shall be making an official announcement of those appointed to serve on this Advisory Board soon.

Order read for resumption of debate on Question [10th July, 1968], "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Question again proposed. 2.36 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when we rose yesterday, I said that in looking at the development process of backward and developing countries, the factors which stood in the way of the necessary social change are a compound of outmoded usages in production and historical survivors which in any event the political leadership are not either capable or strong enough either to eradicate or sublimate. The second one is, of course, corruption on the part of the political elite. Fortunately for us, Sir, we do not - mercifully, in fact -face this problem in Singapore. I think, institutionally, we are poised to bring about the necessary change to usher in an industrial society. This must be the whole purpose of this Bill. And if this Bill does not ultimately bring about this change, then, of course, it has failed. What is curious about our present organisation and economy is this. We have a tertiary sector which is, in fact, the social apparatus of the secondary sector. We have a tertiary sector without a secondary sector and, curiously enough, we will have to reverse the process of development for the purpose of creating an industrial sector. Studies have been made on the growth of societies changing from one state to another. I think it is recognised by most critics that the change from one stage to another is not a continuous simple change, but that it is a mutation, which means that in order to make the grade, you will have to take, in fact, some giant strides and leaps. This can only he brought about, as I have said earlier, by changes in attitude on the part of our citizens and workers who would be vitally concerned with this change. Here, I would like to say that the responsibility of the employers and the captains of industry is indeed great, to devise a system of incentives that would bring out the best in every worker and produce the necessary attitudes and responses so that the change is made on the basis of representative parliamentary institutions which, historically in most societies, was made on the basis of dictatorship. Sir, I support this Bill. 2.40 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Employment Bill has aroused much public interest since its introduction, and many have criticised it. If we analyse these criticisms carefully, it is not difficult to find out that generally they support the common principle, namely, that when our country is facing major problems and difficulties in the coming years, the spirit of the Employment Bill is worth supporting. This is necessary for and beneficial to the implementation of the industrialisation programmes in our existing social conditions. From the viewpoint of our history and our geographical position, we need foreign capital, managerial expertise and technical know-how for the industrial development of our country. Our merchants have all along been used to the entrepot trade and other commercial enterprises. They have all along felt that it is easier to make money by this means. They are not keen to go into industries which need more capital and more attention, because they dare not venture into the unknown. The point we must recognise is that we must march towards industrialisation. We have to attract foreign capital and expertise and managerial skills to assist our economic progress and growth. We cannot achieve all this just by giving some talks. It is not that simple. Many developing countries are making intensified efforts to attract more foreign capital into their countries. In this respect, we will be faced with rather keen competition from other countries. The capitalists are most interested in making profits. They prefer to invest in countries where they can make huge profits. So we must create a more favourable investment climate in order to attract foreign capital and make them believe that Singapore is more suitable for their investment. We have no other alternative but to achieve this. We have to make adjustments in the distribution of profits so that the capitalists may reinvest the profits earned here to create more employment opportunities for our workers. This will help us to solve some of our employment problems. Sir, if we are still firm in the belief of the pro-labour stand of the P.A.P. Government and if we care to make a study of the crux of the problem, we will have no difficulty in understanding the Government's real intention in introducing the Employment Bill and its aim to make it a success. The main purpose of the Bill is to ensure the long-term interests of our workers, to prepare us to overcome the coming problems and difficulties, and to maintain our present prosperity. In a nutshell, this is in the long-term interest of our people. It is not meant to deprive our workers of their hard-earned rights. It is not meant to make their livelihood more difficult or to sacrifice their interests to make the rich richer. I think it is necessary and important to make the workers understand these points, because in the past they have shown their patriotism which has contributed much to our favourable investment climate, which is one of stability and peace. If the workers can understand that the sacrifices expected of them are meant for the long-term interest of the people and not for just a handful of capitalists, they will surely be able to respond and contribute their effort to raise productivity as they have done in the past. From events happening in foreign countries, we realise that we must not permit the episodes that have taken place in France and England to happen here. Due to short-sightedness, the workers there have taken actions which have led to the economic deterioration of their respective countries. England was faced with the depreciation of sterling and France was faced with a crisis caused by the depreciation of the franc. Let us look at Japan. After the end of the Second World War, Japan was a defeated country and its economy was ruined. Every enterprise was in ruins. But in the short period of 20 years, Japan has been able to revive its economy and even make it the best and most active economy in Asia. Its living standards have become the highest in the whole of Asia. All this has come about from the people's energy, sacrifices, understanding and efforts, it is important for us to have all these qualities. With all these facts before us and from the experiences and lessons gained from elsewhere, we must get our people to understand the realities of life and tell them that we must work hard if we are to face successfully the difficult challenges ahead of us. The Employment Bill is both necessary and realistic. I support it as a whole. But I cannot agree with certain provisions therein because they are not realistic enough to meet our situation. If they are compulsorily implemented, I am afraid they may not achieve what the Government intends them to achieve. It may lead to results which are contrary to what the provisions are meant for. One of the most important clauses is clause 15 which provides that a worker, on reaching the age of 55, should retire. According to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Labour, this provision is to ensure that those who are inefficient and incapable of further productivity will not be engaged so that more capable, energetic young people capable of greater productivity may be engaged. According to his explanation, it seems that he is telling all workers reaching the age of 55 that they will become unproductive and decrepit. Generally speaking, there are many instances of people reaching the age of 55 who are not senile; they are actually in their prime. On reaching this age, they will have accumulated a lot of experience and will be more skilled in their respective trades. To do away with the good workers who have reached the age of 55 just because of a few bad cases is not quite fair. The Minister for Science and Technology has said that we must make full use of all available human resources in the process of our economic growth. This shows that human resources are one of our treasures. In view of this, we must not allow this provision to be passed Un-amended. If this provision is implemented without amendment, then when higher paid workers retire, the lower paid workers will be engaged, and this will not solve our unemployment problem because an "old hand" is replaced by a "new hand" and this will decrease efficiency in the work concerned. There are other more realistic problems. For instance, in the smaller commercial firms which do not provide pension and where the productive workers on reaching the age of 55 must retire, to whom will the members of their families look for a living and on whom should they depend for their livelihood? Therefore, the amendments that will be moved by the Member for Bukit Ho Swee are worth our support. There are also other unsatisfactory provisions. Members of Parliament have earlier in their speeches referred to them. Since I have no better views to add, I will just make my stand known when we come to the clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill. Whilst Parliament is debating this Bill, we have been trying our best to explain the naked facts of our situation to our workers, and that the Bill is intended for their long-term interests. On the other hand, we must make the employers understand that the tolerance and sacrifices made by the workers are meant for the welfare of the whole country, so that the employers may not abuse their rights and exploit the workers. This is the worry we have when the Bill is passed and implemented. According to the Minister for Culture and the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Labour, there are certain short-sighted and unwise employers who have already taken steps to reduce the workers' wages and are trying to threaten the workers by referring them to certain provisions in the Bill. This is like trying to fish in troubled waters. I appreciate the timely revelations by the Minister for Labour of the ugly faces of those employers who have been warned severely by him and that the Government will not stand idly by to see them exploit their workers and destroy the industrial peace and stability that we have taken so much pains to build up. This assurance by the Minister for Labour is sufficient to allay the doubts the people are having. The sincere co-operation of labour, employer and the Government in the process of economic development is the very factor of our economic growth. The non-cooperation of one party will damage not only our economic growth but also the interests of our people. It is hoped that the Government will supervise closely the implementation of the Bill when it is passed. 2.55 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we understand that the new Employment Bill is introduced by the Government in order to achieve increased productivity, to attract new investors and to create more jobs for the unemployed and the school-leavers. The Employment Bill increases the working hours from 39 to 44 per week for the non-industrial white-collar workers, reduces the number of public holidays to 11 days, and makes bonus not negotiable. It may be noticed that a few of us in this House who are closely connected with the trade union movement in Singapore have deliberately refrained from sloganising or uttering platitudes in advancing constructive criticisms on certain provisions of this Employment Bill. On the other hand, it has been the Hon. Minister for Culture's role to sloganise against the organised workers and the trade union movement in Singapore. It is a fallacy on his part to think that before we advance arguments against an encroachment of certain well-defined principles, we must go and unionise everyone in Singapore. A trade union cannot be judged in this way by its numerical strength. A trade union movement, worthy of its name, must be judged by the responsible manner in which it puts forth its views. Never has it been suggested by any one of my colleagues from the trade union movement in the course of this debate that the employers, or better still, the foreign investors, should make one-way traffic sacrifices merely for our benefit. On the other hand, we have put forth closely reasoned arguments only on the undesirability of certain provisions of the Bill, while accepting the tenor and purpose of the Bill as a whole. Therefore, the Hon. Minister for Culture's observation of how workers are demanding work on Sundays and public holidays, and go to sleep on Mondays and Tuesdays, is utterly irrelevant and highly objectionable, to say the least. If he is referring to Government or statutory board workers going to sleep on Mondays and Tuesdays, he has only himself to blame for not providing adequate supervision to see that they do not shirk their duties. How on earth can the Minister, who has had dealings with the labour movement in Singapore for so many years, make ill-founded statements like that is beyond our comprehension. On medical leave the Minister refers to $2 medical certificates of dubious validity. If this practice is indeed widespread, what has he done to the doctors who, in the first place, issue these so-called dubious certificates? We in the trade union movement do not quarrel with the maximum of 14 days' intermittent sick leave as provided for in clause 44 (1) (a) . But we have pointed out the gross inadequacy of 28 days' hospitalisation leave. Why has the Minister for Culture neatly side-stepped that issue? We would like to ask him about it. The unions, through many years of struggle, have managed to obtain various fringe benefits and now they are requested to sacrifice several of them. The workers naturally prefer to retain all the benefits they are enjoying. It is ridiculous to deprive them of their annual bonus which has been a practice in Singapore for so many years. Depriving them of their annual bonus will never help to increase productivity. We are quite concerned that the employer may take advantage of this Bill especially to increase the working hours from 39 to 44 per week. With so many extra hours available for the employers, they may reorganise their company and reduce the number of workers by retrenchment under various pretexts. However, a representative of the Employers' Federation did mention in the Press that employers would respond positively to Government's efforts to generate more jobs and that the Employers' Federation would see that no employer would take advantage of the new provisions in the Employment Bill. We sincerely hope that the Employers' Federation would keep their promise. The N.T.U.C. and the workers in Singapore are fully aware of the coming crucial years and the great task and difficulties we have to face. We have about 70,000 registered unemployed and every year 25,000 school-leavers are seeking jobs. With the final withdrawal of the British military forces in mid-1971, another 30,000 workers will lose their jobs and indirectly thousands of others will be affected, like shop-keepers, amahs, taxi drivers, etc. In addition to that, the Government has to spend millions of dollars on military equipment to build up our national defence so as to preserve our independence. This expenditure is necessary. In view of these circumstances, it is necessary that workers should co-operate with the Government to find ways and means to attract foreign investors to build more factories here so that more jobs will be available. It is necessary for workers to work harder and make some temporary sacrifices, as a result of the enactment of the Employment Bill into law, for the sake of national survival and economic stability. Employers, too, must come forward and give their co-operation by not taking advantage of the provisions of the new Bill. They must expand their business and engage more workers. Workers, especially in established firms, must be allowed to enjoy all the benefits which they have obtained by negotiation. The best way to achieve increased productivity is to see that workers are well treated, happy and contented in their work and to reward them with a productivity bonus. Sir, several speakers have already expressed their criticisms and views and made suggestions on the Employment Bill, and in this debate I have observed the following: (1) All agree that we are going to face a lot of problems and difficulties in the coming crucial years. (2) All agree that with the complete withdrawal of the British forces in mid-1971, the problems will become more acute and serious. (3) All agree that plans must be made now to solve these problems. (4) All agree that the Government, employers and workers must help to create a good climate to attract more investors to build more factories in Singapore. (5) All agree that the objective of the Employment Bill is to attract more investors to create more job opportunities and increase productivity. (6) All agree that some amendments to the Employment Bill are necessary. (7) All agree that employers must not make use of this Bill as a legal licence to abuse and to retrench workers under false pretences. (8) All agree that the Government, employers and workers must co-operate to achieve the objective of the Employment Bill. The N.T.U.C. has studied the Bill and I am directed to move the deletion of clause 15 on the employment of a person after the age of 55 years, and amendments to the following clauses: clause 44 on sick leave; clause 46 on retrenchment benefit; clause 47 on payment of bonus; and clause 53 on offences. During the Committee stage, when moving these amendments, I shall give my reasons for doing so. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, I consider it very necessary that before the passing of this Employment Bill, the Government must give an assurance to the N.T.U.C. and the workers in Singapore that it will review the Bill whenever it is necessary and when further representation is made by us should there be abuses or exploitation by the employers. On our part, we will give our full co-operation to achieve the objective which will be beneficial to the Government, employers and workers. 3.05 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the wake of the British withdrawal from Singapore completely by the end of 1971, Singapore must forge ahead in economic development in all fields, particularly in industry, in order to meet the challenges in the crucial years ahead. Labour, therefore, becomes an important factor in economic activities. There is an urgent need to make modifications in our existing labour legislation so as to help accelerate the development of economic growth to ensure industrial peace and stability and to create more job opportunities for our unemployed citizens. Both employers and employees should not have any misconceptions in their minds that the enactment of the new labour law is designed to favour any party. Employers should bear in mind that under the provisions of the Employment Bill, they have more opportunities to expand their establishment with their accumulated profits. They should not take this as an opportunity to exploit or victimise their employees under any pretext. Though the employers have openly pledged their support and have promised to co-operate with the Government to achieve the ultimate aim of the Employment Bill, the Government must see to it that their word is honoured. Employees, on the other hand, must be aware that economic expansion will bring more revenue to the Government. This will help to provide adequate security which, in turn, will encourage more and more investment from local and foreign industries. If more industries are set up in our Republic, more and more job opportunities will be created for our unemployed citizens. Employees must also understand that the sacrifice of some fringe benefits on their part will be compensated with facilities to own homes, additional C.P.F. benefits, better education for their children and other social benefits which the Government will seek to provide. You will agree with me, Sir, that a nation's well-being is, in effect, inevitably tied to its economic growth and the high productivity of its people. The emphasis now is on the need to increase our labour productivity to accelerate the economic growth of our Republic, especially in the industrial field. It must be remembered that labour represents the largest input of all factors of our economic productivity. An increase in labour productivity means a reduction in the cost of goods and services. This is vital and essential if Singapore is to meet competition in the world market for our export-oriented industries. This is what the Employment Bill hopes to achieve. If Singapore is to survive and progress as an industrialised nation, there must be concerted effort by labour, management and the Government to steer the country through the crucial years. A nation's advancement depends on the determination and the will of its people to live as a nation. We have to adapt ourselves to changes if such changes are for the good of the whole nation. It is the long-term interest and not the short-term interest of a country which should be given a high degree of consideration. It is the national interest and not the personal or sectional interest which should be given consideration. We should look to Japan and its people as our example. Japan's enterprises experienced rapid economic growth through its industrialisation which started in the Meiji era. The growth of Japan's economy played an important role in Japan's modernisation. Though the country was in ruins at the end of World War II, it has made a great recovery in the post-war era. It has made great advances in all fields of economic development and has now become one of the world's leading industrialised nations. What has made this possible? It is not only because of the foresight and able leadership of the Japanese Government, but also because its people take pride in building their nation. We, the people of Singapore, should emulate them. Mr Speaker, Sir, with the exception of a few new clauses, the bulk of the provisions in the Employment Bill are merely a re-enactment and modification of the provisions contained in the three existing labour Ordinances. I do agree that there are shortcomings in the Employment Bill, such as the clauses relating to retirement age, payment of bonuses, sick leave, annual leave, etc. I understand these will be given re-consideration when the Member for Bukit Ho Swee moves his amendments at the Committee stage. On the whole and although unpopular, the Employment Bill is by far the most important piece of legislation which the P.A.P. Government has ever introduced since it came to power in 1959. But this piece of legislation has to be introduced not to enhance the popularity of the P.A.P., but because the nation's economy and the survival of its people are at stake. On this note, I end by expressing my support for this Bill in the hope that the amendments of the Member for Bukit Ho Swee will be accepted by the Government. 3.12 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, one of the reasons why we called earlier General Elections was that we have to adjust 'our plans to meet the military and economic consequences of the British Government's decision for an earlier withdrawal from her bases in Singapore and Malaysia, i.e., by the end of 1971. The overall objective is simple enough: to attract expertise, know-how, enterprise and capital, to use Singapore's domestic capital and her workers to greater advantage in the manufacturing, assembling and servicing sectors. We must also stimulate expansion of existing industries and enterprises and encourage them to new lines of business, all with the accent on export. We must get our young men and women trained and skilled in the techniques of modern industry, so that the quality and costs of our products are competitive on the export markets. This will increase our Gross National Product, give us a higher standard of living, and pay for the ever-increasing cost of our own defence. There are ample funds in Singapore, as every banker can tell hon. Members. Every sound share issue put on the market has been over-subscribed, sometimes by more than four times. But until we have enough industrial expertise, managerial talent and export promotion know-how, this capital will not be used effectively to give meaningful jobs to our ever-increasing numbers of educated but not technically trained workers. The objective can be vividly illustrated if hon. Members will allow me to over-simplify the problem. Given what we have at present in Singapore, the total performance, the value of goods and services produced per annum, the Gross National Product could treble if our two million people were made up of people from the highly developed countries, like workers from Japan with their intensity of purpose and high skills, technicians and engineers from Germany with their efficient and specialised apprenticeship training, scientists and technologists from Britain with their sophistication and imaginative research, and executives from America with their well-developed disciplines in business administration and management with their "hard-sell" approaches. Such a two million people would not be just repairing ships. They would be building ships. They would be running their own merchant fleets like the Norwegians, and deep-sea fishing fleets like the Japanese. They would be running a full-fledged round-the-world international airline. They would be a centre for the maintenance of airframes and aircraft engines in the region. They would be a centre for computers and computer servicing for the whole of this region. The problem, therefore, is how to educate and train our people to reach the standards of these technologically advanced countries as soon as possible. First, we must ask if our people have it in them, for otherwise this will be a vain and futile exercise. From the record of the last nine years since we started to manage our own affairs, I believe that nearly all our people have got the stuffing in them to make the grade. What they need are the opportunities and the training. One way to educate our young people to higher degrees of technical skill is to send them abroad. But this is only possible for the relatively few, since it is costly. The more practical, the more economical and the more productive way is to import outside expertise to manufacture or assemble, or set up the servicing organisations for which there is a demand. With in-service training, our workers will develop higher and higher skills. However, this is what a few other countries are also trying to do. Some have more attractive inducements with non-unionised and cheap labour and a bigger protected domestic market to offer these industries a chance to get established. But they often have disadvantages and disabilities, like workers who are less educated, not so striving nor trained, nor disciplined, and less stable and favourable political, social and economic conditions. We must put to maximum advantage the capacity of our workers for intense effort and rapid acquisition of skills. Their readiness to learn, an almost irresistible impulse to improve themselves, when combined with politically stable and socially healthy conditions, make Singapore attractive to those manufacturers who can get either a freight or a wage advantage to manufacture or assemble in Singapore for Singapore's consumption and for export. Let me illustrate this point in another way. Given the same Singapore but substituting the present two million Singaporeans for some other two million people, more pleasure-loving, less hardy, less willing to work, and less willing to learn; compound this with inept administration and corrupt government; then I say overnight Singapore's Gross National Product could be halved or reduced to a third of what it presently is. This should illustrate how much the final performance depends upon the ability, stamina, skills, knowledge, expertise and discipline of our population. There are testing times ahead. Details of British withdrawal plans have been made known to us. They show an ever-increasing rate of redundancy of both local civilian workers and repatriation of British service and civilian personnel. The heaviest blow will fall in 1971. From the experience of the Economic Development Board, we know that it takes two to three years from first discussions on a project, through its planning and construction stages, to first production. Therefore, unless we attract manufacturers on new projects now, there will neither be the factories nor the jobs in 1970, 1971 and 1972 when the pressure of unemployment will be heaviest. The first major task of this new Parliament is to take through this series of legislative amendments that will put our working population into better trim. This is a package which is both fair and attractive. These amendments are designed to make everyone put in a greater effort for higher performance to bring in higher rewards. This, coupled with the home-ownership plan for the mass of our workers and not just the higher salaried groups, will enable more and more of our working population to have a growing personal stake in the continuing prosperity and stability of our society. There are some enterprises that can profitably work round the clock for every day of the 365 days in the year. They should do so. The harbour, the dockyards, the airports, and some factories whose export orders make this worth while will do this. We must cut out unnecessary stoppages of work. Over the years, each cultural and religious group has had holidays added on to our annual list. We were well on the way to having the highest number of public holidays per year for office workers anywhere in Asia. Now we shall go back to 11 paid public holidays a year which is what it has always been and still is for industrial workers. In the essential services work will carry on, holidays and Sundays notwithstanding, providing more jobs for our unemployed. Singapore will be kept clean and green. Shops and restaurants can open on Sundays and public holidays - the whole year round if they find it profitable - so that they can better cater for their customers and for tourists. But workers will get one rest day per week, and double pay for a public holiday if the employer wants them to work. But if it is the employee who wants to work on a public holiday, then he gets only single pay. The assumptions made in the 1950s and 1960s by the trade unions and their advisers, of whom I was one, were that our workers wanted more leisure to enjoy their pay. These assumptions were based on British practices which were and are completely irrelevant to our social conditions. Every-body knows this. Our workers want work, and more work for more money - not more leisure to spend the inadequate sums they earn. For the vast majority of workers, over three-quarters of whom are not in any unions at all, the new legislation means an improvement in their working conditions. It is only the minority, probably less than one-tenth of our work force, the better unionised clerical groups, who will have to make some adjustments in their working hours per week before being entitled to overtime. This is a helpful change, for it will bring blue-collar workers into line with the white-collar workers. And we need more blue, and less white, collar workers. This is a legacy of the education policies of the past when it was never envisaged that we would be other than a dependent people assisting in the lower ranks of a trading and administrative capital of one part of a vast empire. If we accept all the amendments which are being sought by the Member for Bukit Ho Swee, nobody will lose anything either in wages or fringe benefits. In other words, all existing agreements between unions and employers will continue until they expire. We are seriously considering this. Because we know that when these agreements expire, unless we have succeeded in creating new jobs, the redundancies that are taking place, plus the annual inflow into the labour market from the schools, will alter the supply and demand situation so radically that the wages and other fringe benefits being re-negotiated are bound to be fundamentally different. So unions and their members have a vested interest to help create conditions under which more industries and enterprises are established creating more demand for workers and reducing the supply of unemployed workers. We are also checking the tendency to increase labour costs, not by wage increases but by fringe benefits, hidden costs which can be easily abused, like casual sick leave which is taken whenever a worker feels like a day off, often when he is not sick. Sir, I cannot over-emphasise that what we have not attempted to do is to regulate agreements between unions and employers on the wages to be paid. We have not fixed maximum or minimum wage levels. That wage will depend upon what a particular industry or enterprise can afford, taking into consideration the rate for that kind of job. The performance of a particular company's workers and the profits of that enterprise. In other words, with less hidden benefits and more open rewards with higher incentives for higher performance when industries and enterprises prosper, so wages will go up. So will bonuses also go up. The legislation is also designed to help improve management discipline and establish a sensible relationship between unions and management. It goes without saying that as new and better management techniques are introduced by subsidiaries of the large international concerns who go into partnership with our citizens, so our own established enterprises must modernise and improve work methods, machinery, organisation to keep up their own productivity, or they will go under. In the earlier stages of our labour movement, the trade union often became a place of refuge for the inefficient, the slack, the lazy and the anti-social. As has happened elsewhere, these are the first to join the union to seek protection against the natural desire of any employer to be rid of bad workers. When some Russian trade unionists were in Singapore several months ago, they told our trade union leaders that Russian trade unionists report to and require of management the dismissal of inefficient workers and thereby increase productivity. I am not asking our trade union leaders, in an open democratic society to take on the role of management. But I do urge them, with the help of these new laws, to stop giving cover to those who do not pull their weight. We must avoid slipping into a situation where trade unionism is the practice of protecting the weakest and the slowest worker and, with everybody being paid the same wage, nobody will have the slightest incentive to work harder than the weakest and the slowest. But just as there are bad workers, so too there are bad employers. From my discussions with the various employers' organisations and Chambers of Commerce, it is clear that the old-fashioned family type businessman has no conception of the wider and longer term relationships between management and labour in an age of educated and organised workers who are conscious of their indispensable part in the production of the wealth of the whole community. These employers will have to be educated and taught the facts of present-day industrial life. We call upon everyone for improvement and effort. This is our duty as a government. No one is asked to sacrifice for the benefit of the privileged and the corrupt, nor will revenue go into wasteful and extravagant expenditure. With higher performance and greater output, there will be more industries and more jobs, better trained artisans, technicians, engineers, and executives. From the higher Gross National Product will come greater revenue. From this revenue will flow improved standards of education, health services, social amenities and housing for all. We are all human beings. The Government does not expect workers to put in more effort for nothing. So we are putting more into the kitty. In the private sector the higher Central Provident Fund benefits mean that workers getting less than $200 per month will still not have to contribute to the Central Provident Fund. But their employers will have to contribute an additional 5 per cent. The increase will be implemented in three annual stages by increases of 1½ per cent, l½ per cent and 2 per cent. At present the maximum contribution an employer has to make for workers earning more than $200 per month, without special pensionable schemes, is $25 per month. This is also the maximum the worker has to pay to the Central Provident Fund. Now the maximum contribution will be $150 per month instead of the present $25 per month. So if a young executive is earning $1,500 a month, he will contribute $150, and his employer will contribute $150 every month for his C.P.F., whereas formerly each contributed only $25. Present C.P.F. balances can be set off against down payment for Housing and Development Board flats, not privately constructed houses. The present employer plus worker total of 10 per cent monthly contributions will go up to 13 per cent, 16 per cent, and 20 per cent in three annual stages. These monthly contributions can be set off against monthly instalments of Housing and Development Board or privately constructed homes. The distinction is crucial, because in one case the money already accumulated in the central Provident Fund has gone into public works expenditure, and with a Housing and Development Board flat, it means a book transfer. But with a privately-built home it means an actual payment out by the Central Provident Fund of a sum of money to a private developer. Legislation will also be introduced to allow workers to authorise their employers to deduct monthly sums from salaries direct to the Housing and Development Board or private developers. I want to stress that nobody is getting less; in fact, everybody is getting more. What we have the right to expect is that everybody puts in more. Only then can we have better social, educational and medical services. And I want to stress again the ever-growing annually recurring costs of defence. It is not just a question of buying aeroplanes. Having bought them, we need to train our pilots to fly them. We need the ground crew to maintain them for flying by our pilots every day of every year so that both planes and pilots are in top form all the time. Again, it is not just buying fast patrol craft. We have to maintain them and re-fit them. And our sailors have to man them all the time. Then every so many years a new generation of weapons have to be bought and obsolete aircraft, vehicles and weapons discarded or sold second-hand. Let me briefly recapitulate. Our plans are to put our capital and labour -to greater use. We must attract more capital and more expertise from those who know how to use capital in a place like Singapore to maximum economic advantage. Several factors are in our favour: stable political conditions for the indefinite future, a sound currency, clean, heal-thy living conditions. Most important, we have workers who are intelligent, industrious, resourceful and positive in their approach to life. In the end, it is the combined effort of the Government, workers, and management that will accelerate the growth of our economy. Finally, we will be judged as a government by results. These results depend, among other things, upon the morale and enthusiasm of the people, and the pace set by their leaders in Parliament and outside. If we were a soft community, then the temptation would be to leave things alone and hope for the best. Then, only good fortune can save us from the unpleasantness which reason and logic tell us is ahead of us. But we are not an easy-going people. We cannot help thinking, calculating and planning for tomorrow, for next week, for next month, for next year, for the next generation. And it is because we have restless minds, forever probing and testing, seeking new and better solutions to old and new problems, that we have never been, and I trust never shall be, tried and found wanting. I ask hon. Members to consider their responsibilities in the context of this sombre perspective of the 1970s when they come to deliberate at the Committee stage on the amendments to all the legislation. They together comprise what I have stated a not unattractive package. 3.42 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I crave the indulgence of this House to take the debate off the profundities of detailed and analytical scrutiny on to less deep waters of generalisation which it may still be useful for us to negotiate? I do not propose to cause hon. Members needless anguish by going over, unnecessarily, points already made in this House by others who have spoken on this Bill. But certain fundamental emphases must, I feel, be driven relentlessly home. I have, therefore, risen to make a few observations on the Employment Bill and the circumstances of its general design and intention. The Minister for Labour has already painted a graphic picture of the compelling necessities that face us all in Singapore. He has referred frankly to the grim possibilities of widespread unemployment unless rigorous measures are taken to enable us to fight ourselves out of this situation. Various economic measures have been mentioned, including more industrialisation, further encouragement of tourism, ship-building, ship repairing, all of which will certainly require the investment of public moneys. The imperatives resulting from the need to generate a defence credibility have also been dwelt upon. As has been pointed out frequently, the cost of this will be quite formidable. But our problems come, not apparently in single spies, but in battalions. For I would like to add somewhat to the picture that has been drawn of the stern demands of our circumstances. While we have to work hard and build up our defence sinews, we have at the same time to strive mightily to maintain the extent of our social provisions - health, education and recreation. These are indeed inextricably associated with what we are trying to do in the sphere of industrialisation and defence. Our workers and citizen soldiers must be well trained and in good physical condition. Our society must be geared, in the fields of education and health, to the challenges ahead. Our education system is already receiving a firmer and more definitive orientation to the manpower needs of industrialisation and technical development. The echelons of the Health Ministry, under an almost military direction, are intent on making our morale even more tidy. The Minister for Health, while not allowing the grass to grow under his feet, will certainly be able to confirm that health measures cost money. So, too, with regard to education, will the Minister for Education be able to testify. His concerns are multifarious, as I am sure the Member for Serangoon Gardens will agree. Thus, in addition to the demands of our urgent industrialisation programme and defence on our financial resources, there are also demands from other sectors which we can elude only at the cost of defence and industrialisation themselves. I would like to draw the most serious and sober attention of the House to the fact that these conditions add up to the inevitable picture of a forbiddingly taut survival situation as our prospect for the immediate future. In the face of this prospect, it may well be a sterile academic exercise to expatiate on rights, incentives and the like. The main thing about the philosophy of survival is the right to survive. The principal point about the psychology of survival is the incentive to survive. This message must be put across with all possible vigour and appeal. The misunderstandings that have prevailed about the purpose of this Bill must be cleared with all possible despatch not only within but without the House. The Bill seeks to lay down the minimum conditions for a worker to operate in and, at the same time, to set the right conditions for productivity. The continued enjoyment of better than minimum conditions in the case of those sectors which enjoy these better conditions is not precluded by this Bill. The ventilation of views during this debate and the forthright statement from the Minister for Labour have clearly indicated the consensus of the House that it is in the enlightened self-interest of employers that they interpret this Bill both wisely and well. The support of labour has been promised provided that their views, incorporated in the various proposed amendments, are given full consideration. The Government has shown its goodwill by undertaking to give deliberate consideration to the amendments proposed by the N.T.U.C. Indeed, the Government may well ask our people to judge its intentions by its example in the past. The Government's integrity and skill in socio-economic diagnosis may be amply demonstrated by the record of its widely acknowledged achievements. If the Government's current prescription is plenty of hard work and a spartan fare, then it is good that this prescription comes when our body politic is in a healthy condition. While I agree with the Member for Moulmein that our remedy should not be unnecessarily bitter, the cure will have to be even more drastic if we allow our body to become sick. Indeed, prevention is better than cure, if I may quote the Member for Telok Blangah. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I make a final point which I do not think is too peripheral to this debate. It is this. We may consider it necessary to leave no stone unturned to bring home to our people the meaning of this Bill, coupled with the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill and the new Central Provident Fund (Amendment) Bill. From the long-term view, we should also do our best to encourage the emergence of our workers' education movement based within the trade union movement itself. 3.51 p.m.

It is acknowledged that workers do not need to adopt an outmoded militant stance towards employers. A clear sight of the true objectives of the labour movement can be obtained if the workers organise their own further education to keep up with the tremendous changes in our environment and in the world around us. At the same time, our managers, especially those who are controllers of enterprises in the sense of being the proprietors or part proprietors, should be encouraged to keep up even more readily with the latest developments in management technique and philosophy. We acknowledge that the manager and the entrepreneur make profit for the country while they make profit for themselves. But the businessman should not be merely a profit-maker. He is not simply an economic man. He is also, we hope, a wise man. And a truly wise businessman will also try to operate within the human context of moral, national and social objectives. The long view, Sir, is the only view for the wise businessman educated in the dynamics of our survival. The Employment Bill has my support in principle. 3.53 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in the last few days, my colleagues have spoken with enthusiasm on the Employment Bill which will affect the future of our country. They have given their opinions freely. I would like to give my views now. Like my colleagues, I support this Bill in principle. I think all reasonable men will appreciate the Government's intention in introducing it. It is not to satisfy the personal interests and welfare of the Ministers. It is also not to exploit the workers. The main concern of the Bill is the future welfare of our country. Its aim is to build a strong foundation for our society. All reasonable men should support this objective. We have been independent for almost three years. Under the able leadership of the Government and with the co-operation of the people, we have been able to overcome many difficulties during this period. The people are now enjoying a secure and -prosperous life. Some people think that by their not affording economic co-operation, we will be doomed and we will have to submit to their demands. In fact, the effect has been to the contrary. Some Singaporeans have, on their own, tried to develop various fields of industry so that our economic productivity will be increased year by year. Our housing, education, social welfare and public health services are the best in Southeast Asia. If we have the opportunity to go overseas and compare the social conditions of our country with those of other countries. We will understand the situation. We will be surprised to find that Singapore is, after all, a lovely country. Indeed, our country is a paradise in Southeast Asia. It is a place where people would like to stay. There is a Chinese saying that what is good will not stay long. The implications in defence and the effects on our economy are very serious with the withdrawal of the British troops. At this stage, we have to assess calmly the problem in great depth. We have to plan and make provision for the future. With the withdrawal of the British Forces, the annual Forces' expenditure of $450 million will be no more. We will have to look for other sources of revenue, otherwise our country will experience an economic recession. Moreover, the 20,000 workers at present working in the British bases will become unemployed. This number, together with the existing number of unemployed plus the annual number of school-leavers who will be entering the labour market, will be increased to an estimated figure of 120,000 unemployed - a total of 20 per cent unemployed. This is a very big percentage in our economically active population. In the last few years we have tried our best to industrialise to create employment opportunities. The Jurong industrial estate was started in September 1961. Seven years have elapsed and there are now, in all, 116 factories. The total number of jobs created is 12,000. The number of jobs created each year is only 2,000. However, the population density in Singapore is 8,000 per square mile. According to statistics, from 1963 to 1967 the average number of babies born yearly was 55,000, but the number of deaths yearly was 10,000. The net increase in population is 45,000 per annum. With this rate of population increase, our population will soon reach the figure of three million. The average population density will be 12,000 per square mile. Men have to eat to survive. We do not have any natural resources. We have no land for planting food crops. Unless we plan properly now, we will not be able to meet the demands of the future. If our economy stagnates, then in a few years' time our society will degenerate into unimaginable chaos and trouble. These examples are found in many newly emergent countries. If we do not wish chaos and trouble to occur here, we have to plan and resolve to utilise fully our human resources. We have to learn from the more advanced countries, especially Japan and Germany. Only 20 years ago, these two countries were defeated in the Second World War and were in ruins. But today, they are among the highly industrialised countries. If we analyse carefully the reasons for their growth and prosperity, we will find that their peoples are willing to learn all the time. They are willing to work hard and persevere. These are the reasons for their prosperity today. Sir, we must industrialise rapidly. Only then can our country have a future. As many of my colleagues have pointed out, to attain these objectives, we have to create a favourable investment climate. In order to achieve this, we must have political stability, good labour and employer relations and other factors such as export incentives and so on. Since the P.A.P. came to power, the relationship between employers and employees has gradually improved. With the establishment of the Industrial Arbitration Court, many industrial disputes have been settled peacefully and strikes have been reduced in number. Quite apart from good labour and employer relations locally-manufactured products must be of good quality and cheap if they are to compete in overseas countries. In order to achieve this, we have to increase productivity and lower production costs. As we do not have natural resources or raw materials, we have to import them from other countries. The cost of raw materials, therefore, will be higher than that obtaining in other countries. The only way to lower the cost of production is to try to increase our productivity. To increase productivity, we require modern machinery, skilled workers and the spirit and willingness to work hard. Sir, the Employment Bill provides ways and means to raise productivity. The intention is most commendable. However, there are certain provisions in the Bill which are not clear or convincing enough to dispel some of the fears of the people. Some provisions are not clearly drafted. This Bill has given rise to some controversy, especially in regard to bonus, annual leave, retirement age and so on. These provisions will have to be carefully considered by the Minister for Labour. If we are to pass these provisions as they stand, it is doubtful whether our objectives will be attained. On the other hand, if the workers become depressed and lose interest in their work, I do not think we can increase productivity. Some provisions in the Bill allow the employers to control the fate of the workers. I think these provisions will be easily abused by some employers who may take advantage of the situation and exploit the workers. If this happens, I do not know what the Government intends to do. For example, the Minister for Labour and the Minister for Culture have mentioned that a certain employer who owns a local newspaper took advantage of the situation when the Bill was introduced to fish in troubled waters. I would like to know what steps Government proposes to take to check employers who exploit workers. If the Minister for Labour can look into this problem, I will fully support this Bill. 4.08 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, one fact that has emerged from the debate on the Bill is that even the most critical Member of the House agrees with the essential aims and broad principles of the Bill - and it is this: employer - employee relationship must have as its primary and over-riding concern the promotion of economic growth and economic expansion without which ruination faces both workers and employers alike. The criticisms have been in regard to some details of the Bill though some of these details are of major importance and could, if radically modified, substantially hinder the achievement of our major economic objectives. Other criticisms derive, I think, from a misunderstanding of the provisions criticised. I would like, therefore, to deal with some of the relevant criticisms and offer either clarification or explanation. First a matter of clarification. The Member for Anson, for example, said that he could not understand why this Bill should seek to prevent employers from engaging employees except through the Employment Exchange. He pointed out the difficulties and hardships it could cause to small establishments which have members of the family working or in cases where it may be necessary for the employer to have someone whom he can trust on the basis of his personal knowledge. On this, I would like to say that Part XI of the Bill, especially clause 112, enables the Minister to make regulations to require employers to notify vacancies in their establishment and to prevent employers from engaging or re-engaging employees except through the Employment Exchange. 4.10 p.m.

However, the provisions of this part of the Bill will not be invoked until the necessary machinery and regulations are ready. One of the reasons why this provision has been included in the Bill is to make it easier for us to find jobs for national servicemen on their discharge. No one will quarrel with the principle that those of our young men who have gone through national service and are committed to defending with their lives, the lives and property of employers as well, should have preference in the matter of jobs - provided they can perform these jobs. Let me, however, assure the Member for Anson that in making these regulations the points made by him will be taken into consideration, It is not the intention of Government to direct employment in all cases. Employers will still be free to engage employees through other sources. The Member for Kampong Kapor has pointed out that before this provision can be implemented the Employment Exchange must be reorganised to implement this provision effectively and fairly. I fully agree with him. This would also involve the availability of trade-testing facilities and this matter is now being looked into in conjunction with the Technical Education Department of the Ministry of Education. The Member for Anson also wanted to know why the provisions on maternity benefits are not applicable to female employees other than female workmen. The existing Labour Ordinance confines payment of maternity benefits only to female workmen and no cogent arguments have been advanced why we should depart from this established practice. He also asked whether the definition of "employer" in clause 2 of the Bill includes corporations and associations. For his information, I would point out that in keeping with the Interpretation Act, the word "person" in the definition of "employer" should be construed to include any company or association or body of persons, corporate or incorporate. On the question of definitions, the Member for Kallang has asked why seamen, watchmen and security guards are excluded from the definition of "employee". The reason is that the nature of the duties of this category of employees is not amenable to regulation by ordinary labour legislation. For instance, the normal working day of 8 hours for the average employee cannot possibly be applied to the working conditions of seamen, watchmen or security guards. The nature of their duties requires them, as a rule, to be "attached" to their place of work. Under the circumstances, it is best that conditions of employment for this category of workers be left to be determined by mutual agreement. Moreover, hon. Members will note that seamen watchmen and security guards are already excluded from the definition of "workmen" in the Bill. It is therefore logical that they should be excluded from the definition of "employee". I would like now to deal with criticisms in regard to major provisions of the Bill. It would appear that clause 15, relating to retirement at 55 years, has attracted considerable criticism. The sum total of these criticisms has been to convey the impression that once a person has reached the age of 55, this Bill would ensure that he is consigned to the dungheap - including, as one hon. Member not unkindly pointed out, me and the Minister for Finance. This is, of course, to misread the intentions of the Bill, because clause 15 gives the Commissioner powers to approve persons over 55 to continue working. This means that the Commissioner will make his decision on each case on individual merits - whether the person is medically fit to continue working, whether his skill and experience persist unimpaired despite advancing age; whether his employer finds him useful for his enterprise and so on. Since the purpose of this Bill is to promote economic expansion and productivity, it would be illogical to retire workers who, whatever their age, can still contribute effectively towards this goal. What this clause seeks to do is to give the Commissioner the power to review the continued employment of older persons so that the inefficient and the unproductive do not indefinitely block job opportunities for the vigorous and productive and skilled young men who yearly enter the labour market. The next most controversial provision is clause 47 on bonus. Here again the criticism of hon. Members, though understandable, seems to have been mis-conceived. It is apparent that bonus has been regarded not as incentive payment, which it is by definition and should be in regard to purpose, but as part and parcel of wages. The Minister for Culture did in his speech point out convincingly the prevailing confusion between bonus and wages. The essence of bonus payment, he noted, is that it is discretionary. It has to be discretionary if its character as incentive payment is to be maintained. This was what the Government was trying to achieve in providing that the payment of bonus shall not be a matter for negotiation but that it should be tied to productivity and performance. The point our trade union officials appear not to realise is that through the course of the last decade or so trade union pressure on the employer has succeeded in elevating the payment of bonus into something payable as of right. It is the contention of the Government that in order to achieve the common purpose of accelerated economic growth, trade unionists should, in future, clearly recognise the distinction between wages and incentive payments like bonus. Wages are what is regarded as fair reward on the basis of what an average worker can command in the labour market. A bonus is incentive payment to induce the worker to do more than what is normally expected of him in return for his ordinary pay. In this Bill there is nothing to prevent workers from negotiating for better wages if they feel they have a case for better wages. But it is not going to help our objective of economic expansion if the incentive element in bonus is maintained in theory but not in fact. On the subject of sick leave, the provision in the Bill was primarily intended to regulate the malpractice of malingering. On this subject, the Member for Telok Blangah relapsed into heart-rending melodrama about whether the Minister had miraculous powers to command broken legs to heal within the period prescribed by the Bill. Unfortunately, I have none but I have a near substitute for it. This is the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance. The hon. Member should know that injuries sustained in the course of work are governed not by this Bill but by the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance. I would strongly suggest that in the case of broken bones and other injuries, trade unionists would do well to invoke this Ordinance and not the non-existent miraculous powers of the Minister to heal the sick and the maimed. Secondly, some Members appear to have forgotten that the existing labour legislation provides for only 28 days' sick leave irrespective of whether hospitalisation is necessary or not, and therefore the total number of days provided in this Bill is no different from the provisions in existing legislation. However, Mr Speaker, we are a reasonable Government. We have no wish to railroad through those provisions of the Bill to which strong objections have been taken by some hon. Members and to which they have proposed their own amendments. I refer to the four amendments proposed by the Member for Bukit Ho Swee - namely, to clauses 15, 44, 46 and 47. What I propose to do with your permission, Mr Speaker, is to debate these 4 clauses and the amendments at Committee stage but move to postpone voting on them until the next sitting of Parliament. This will give the Government time to consider fully all the implications of the proposed amendments before accepting, rejecting or modifying them. The Member for Bukit Ho Swee has also moved an amendment to clause 53. Hon. Members are also aware that subsequent to the hon. Member's notice of amendment, I have also given notice that I will move an amendment to that clause. I will deal with this matter when we discuss this clause in Committee. This Bill has, not unexpectedly, provoked considerable debate and has, no doubt, helped to dispel the imaginary fears and unfounded alarms based largely on misconceptions and ill-informed rumours. I am not denying that this Bill demands painful adjustments on the part of some workers, but for the vast majority of them and, in particular, the blue-collar workers, it confers rights and opportunities which they did not enjoy before. However the major objective of the Bill is to enhance prospects for rapid economic growth and with it a political and economic stability capable of resisting the buffetings Singapore could be subjected to in the next few years. I am convinced, Mr Speaker, that even those who are now critical of this Bill will, in the nineteen seventies, be thankful that as a result of the inoculation administered through this Bill our economy will have acquired sufficient immunity against such calamities as it may be exposed to in the years ahead. This is the negative aspect of the Bill. Positively, whether there are calamities or not, this Bill will accelerate economic growth and make more certain not merely Singapore's survival but also its capacity to prosper and advance as a modern technological, industrialised society. We would not be merely a society struggling to keep afloat in a twentieth century world but we would be of the twentieth century. We would be intellectually and technologically equipped to move smoothly and confidently with the other advanced societies into the twenty-first century. This Bill is only one of the many planned long-term measures to prepare our people to face the ever-changing future. We have repeatedly said that our purpose is not to encourage our people to join our ancestral past; to rummage in the dustbin of the past to find models for our future; to revive the real and imagined glories of our ancestors because we have not the capacity to build glories of our own. Only a people without talents of their own and without a creative spirit of their own live with the dead, are overwhelmed by the present and decimated by the future. This Bill should therefore be read in conjunction with the other long-term changes we are making in the social, cultural, educational and political fields to infuse our people with new ideas and new spirit so as to enable them to cope with the problem of existence in the world of today and tomorrow. Rapid economic modernisation cannot be achieved on the basis of an unending ruthless conflict between workers and employers, for this must eventually end in economic stagnation and chaos in which all, including employers and workers, become the tragic victims. This Bill gives a new basis for employer-employee relationship. It seeks to ensure the prosperity of both in one common goal - sustained economic expansion and rapid industrial growth. The sectional interests of both must be subordinated to this central goal. Conflict there always will be, but workers and employers must realise that conflict must not be carried to the point where the economy as a whole is immobilised. There must be acceptance of the fact that wages and profits can increase only so long as the enterprise on which both are dependent grows and expands. This Bill tries, in so far as a Government can, to give legislative encouragement to this new outlook. But legislation, by itself, is not enough. Workers and employers must themselves be imbued by this outlook. Only then can this Bill produce the results expected of it. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. -[Mr Rajaratnam]. Bill considered in Committee. 4.30 p.m.

Perhaps for the guidance of Members, I may indicate what I propose to do. Where there are groups of clauses to which no amendments have been tabled, I will merely call the numbers of the clauses out. If any hon. Member wishes a debate on a particular clause I have called, he will have to give me some indication of his desire. I will pause and propose a separate Question on that clause. Clause 1 - Question proposed, "That clause 1 stand part of the Bill."

The Short title and commencement of a Bill do not commonly come up for debate. I cannot think of any occasion when it did. The Employment Bill repeals and re-enacts, with amendments, the Labour Ordinance, 1955, the Clerks Employment Ordinance, 1957, and the Shop Assistants Employment Ordinance, 1957. I support the introduction of a unified employment Bill. For the interest and benefit of hon. Members of the House who were then not even in their political cradlehood, I wish to say that nine years ago, in 1959, leaders of the Singapore Trade Union Congress, the predecessor of the N.T.U.C., did recommend the unification of the labour laws. From the speeches of some hon. Members, I have the impression that the N.T.U.C. is criticising the Employment Bill because of vested interests. This is not true. The N.T.U.C. fully supports a unified employment Bill, but it opposes some of the new provisions in this Employment Bill in the interest of workers at large, whether they are organised by the N.T.U.C. or outside the N.T.U.C. fold. The N.T.U.C. itself had recommended the introduction of a unified employment Bill on several occasions. But its plea went unheeded until now. This is many years too late. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do agree that the Bill, when passed by the House, should, with the exception of certain parts, come into effect immediately in the national interest. For example, I would suggest that the Government should put into effect the provisions of clause 47 after it has directed all employers and trade unions to work out a productivity bonus scheme. That is all I wish to say.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 2, line 40, after "include", to insert "any seaman, domestic servant, watchman or security guard or". The purpose of this amendment is to exclude seaman, watchman, or security guard from the definition of "employee". The reason is that, as I have said earlier in reply to the Member for Kallang, the nature of the duties performed by these categories of employees are not amenable to regulations by ordinary labour legislation. Amendment agreed to.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 3, lines 28 and 29, after "manufactured,", to insert "assembled,". This amendment is to provide for an omission. Amendment agreed to.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 4, line 5, to leave out "steel" and insert "steam". This amendment is to remove a clerical error. Amendment agreed to. Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 3 to 8 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 9 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 8, to leave out lines 4 to 6 inclusive. The purpose of this amendment is to remove the proviso to sub-clause (1) of clause 9 of the Bill. The proviso to this sub-clause (1) of clause 9 lays down that a contract of service for a specified period of four weeks or less shall be deemed to be a contract for an unspecified period, and in sub-clause (2) of the same clause it is provided that a contract of service for an unspecified period shall be deemed to run until terminated by either party in accordance with the provisions of the Bill. Such a contract would, therefore, under the provisions of sub-clause (2) , have to be terminated by notice even though it is, in fact, a temporary contract of service. This would mean that if a labourer was engaged and told he would be employed for one day, nevertheless, an employer would have to give him one full day's notice under paragraph (a) of sub-clause (3) of clause 10, even before the employee began to work. Moreover, the employee in such a case would be getting two days' pay for one day's work. This would be absurd and the deletion of the provision of sub-clause (1) of clause 9 is designed to rectify this. Amendment agreed to.

There will be a consequential amendment: In page 8, line 3, to leave out the colon and insert a full-stop. Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 10 and 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 12 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 9, line 9, after "service", to insert "as an employee". The existing clause 12 of the Bill enables a minor, that is, a person below the age of 21 years, to enter into a contract of service either as an employer or as an employee, and it also provides that no contract of service shall be enforceable against a minor and no damages or indemnity shall be recoverable from such a person in respect of such contract of service unless it is for his benefit. Whilst it is reasonable to protect the interest of a minor when he enters into a contract of service as an employee, it is considered unjustifiable to treat him in a different way from other employers when he enters into a contract of service as an employer. In fact, such unnecessarily favourable protection to the minor in his capacity as an employer may well lead to his abusing his legal position to the detriment of his employees. The purpose of this amendment is to confine the protection granted by this Bill to minors in their capacity as employees only. Amendment agreed to. Clause 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 13 and 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Order. I propose to take the suspension, but I will take the Speaker's Chair before indicating the time for resumption. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

I will suspend the sitting now and will take the Chair again at a quarter past five. Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.44 p.m. until 5.15 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.15 p.m.

Consideration in Committee resumed.

Clause 15 - Question proposed, "That clause 15 stand part of the Bill."

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the deletion of this clause. With due respect to the explanation given earlier by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Labour, I still consider it necessary to delete this clause. After all, employers are intelligent enough and it is up to them to decide whether to continue employing employees who reach the age of 55. If an employee reaches the age of 55 and is of no use to the employer, I doubt whether the employer would continue to engage him. Clause 15 of the Bill is a new provision and did not exist in any of the former three Ordinances which this Bill consolidates. If this clause is allowed to remain in the Bill, its effect will be to enforce compulsory retirement of persons at the age of 55. Sir, the ill effects of this provision have been severely criticised by most Members of the House. Whilst I concede that most of the collective agreements existing today contain provisions to retire employees at the age of 55, I feel that legislative powers to achieve the same purpose will put fetters on both employer and employee where it is mutually agreed that the worker concerned should, at the request of the employer, continue to render his services for any special reason. I understand that in Singapore a man's economically active life stretches well into the seventies. Therefore, it is extremely unwise to introduce compulsory legislative measures to see a man out of job at the age of 55.

(In Malay): The main objective of the Bill has been repeatedly stated by the Ministers and Back-benchers to be an increase in productivity. Therefore, employees who have worked long must necessarily have acquired a lot of experience. With this experience behind them, they can discharge their duties efficiently. But if this clause is passed, they will be forced to retire when they reach the age of 55. How then can the Bill attain its main objective? Although there is a clause to retire workers at the age of 55, employers can still make use of such people if they so require. For instance, if the employee is still useful to the employer because of his experience and skill, he can continue to work by being paid a salary of more than $750 a month, as stated in the Bill. However, the employer can, with the concurrence of the person concerned, be saved from paying income tax. Therefore, I cannot see how this provision can be implemented.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in my view, 55 years is not an old age to retire from work. I support the Member for Bukit Ho Swee for proposing the deletion of this clause.

(In Mandarin): Sir, when I spoke on the Second Reading of the Bill, I said that there are certain clauses which require amendment. For example, I consider this amendment moved by the Member for Bukit Ho Swee is one of the most important amendments, and I give him my full support on the following grounds. Although the Government has already taken a long time to consider this provision in the interest of our nation and in view of the difficulties ahead of us, we are trying to solve this problem legally. In my view, if this clause is passed, I do not think the Government will get any good results because there are certain problems on the question of age which require careful consideration. Firstly, at the age of 55, a person is still full of energy. In European countries, this is the age at which people begin to get prosperous. The second point is that in Singapore, there is a law to retire employees, especially Government servants, at 55 compulsorily. After retirement, many of these Government pensioners go into the private sector for employment. If we pass this clause, these pensioners will not be able to enter the private sector for further employment. In some cases, these people got married at a rather old age and their children are too young to take over the responsibilities of looking after the family. So if workers are asked to retire at the age of 55, at a time when their children are not able to shoulder the responsibilities of the family, then what will happen to the family? We do not expect them to live on water. Even if they have to live on water, they have to pay 20 cents a gallon for it. So this is a very important factor to consider in the context of our society. Clause 15 affects not only individuals but also the families of the persons affected. The third point is that at the present moment, the Government has already stated that the citizens of Singapore will in future be able to get the benefit of pensions or their Central Provident Fund contributions to buy Housing Board flats. This is , of course, very encouraging to the workers. But if a worker should retire at 55 and live on his C.P.F. contributions or pension, he will have no funds left to pay for his house or flat. For example, if I begin to pay instalments on a flat at the age of 45 and continue paying for it for 15 years, and if I retire at 55, then I have only 10 years of working life. How am I going to pay the instalments on my flat after my retirement at 55? This is another factor that we should consider. In view of all this, I think the Government should accept our views. The Parliamentary Secretary of the Minister for Labour(Mr Sia Kah Hui): Mr Speaker, sir, just to correct a mis-statement of fact. I think a gallon of water does not cost 20 cents! An hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am quite prepared to accept the assurances by the Member for Bukit Ho Swee. But people at the age of 70 obviously relapse into a second childhood. However, I have already indicated that there are certain clauses on which the Government needs time for consideration, and this is one of them. Sir, may I formally move?

Before the Minister moves postponement of further consideration of this clause, it is necessary for me, as Chairman, to withdraw the Question that I have proposed. May I say that I am not withdrawing the clause. I am merely withdrawing the Question that I proposed earlier. Do I have the assent of Member for the withdrawal? Hon. Members indicated assent.

The Question is withdrawn. Resolved, "that further consideration of clause 15 be postponed to the first available sitting after the 25th of July, 1968." - [Mr Rajaratnam]. Consideration of clause 15 postponed. Clauses 16 to 37 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. 5.30 p.m. Clause 38 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 17, to leave out lines 11 to 23 inclusive and insert - "(2) Any employee who at his own request works for an employer on a rest day shall be paid for that day at not less than the ordinary rate of pay for one day's work. Ord. 26 (3) Any employee who at the request of his of 1955. employer works on a rest day shall be paid an extra day's salary at the ordinary rate of pay for one day's work in addition to the ordinary rate of pay for that day. (4) Subsection (3) of this section shall not apply to any employee who is employed by the Government or a statutory body in any of the essential services as defined under Part V of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance, 1955, but any such employee who at the request of his employer works on a rest day or part of a rest day shall be given a day or part of a day off, as the case may be, in substitution of such a rest day or par thereof.". Mr Speaker, Sir, this amendment involves two points. Firstly, as a matter of wording, the amendment is clearer that the existing corresponding working of the Bill. The main objective of this new wording is to avoid using the expression "double the ordinary rate of pay" because, as Members are aware, it is this expression which has in the past led to the triple pay situation which this Bill, among other things, is designed to abolish. The second point involves employees who are employed by the Government or a statutory body in any of the essential services as defined under Part V of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provision) Ordinance, 1955. In respect of to sub- clause (3) of clause 38 of the Bill provides that if such employee works on a rest day, whether it be for only one hour, tow hours or any part of a rest day, then the employer is bound to give the employee a full day off in substitution for the employee's work on that rest day. The purpose of the amendment is to provide that if such an employee works only on part of a day, then the time off in substitution for his work on a rest day shall be proportionate to the period of his work on that rest day. I would emphasise, for the information of hon. Members, that this latter amendment only affects employees employed by the Government or statutory bodies in the essential services defined by the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance, 1955.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to comment on the proposed amendment by the Government to clause 38 of the Employment Bill. Clause 38 provides that employees of the government and the statutory bodies are not to receive overtime payment for working on a public holiday but to receive, instead, another day off. The proposed amendment by the Government goes further by providing that such employees who are required to work for one hour on a public hoiliday would be given one hour off instead. This particular provision affects members of the various statutory bodies, especially the daily-rated employees who at present do not seem to be in good standing with the public because of their ill-considered and irresponsible conduct in the past. But I am most concerned that their interests might be unnecessarily prejudiced. In the course of the debate on the Employment Bill in this House, I have the impression that Members approached the question of overtime payment compensation for overtime work. But there is another aspect of overtime payment which is equally important and that is, overtime payment as a penalty on an employer against his making his employees work overtime. The object of overtime payment in this respect is to ensure that an employer does not necessarily require his employees to work late in the evenings on rest days and public holidays. In the context of Singapore's economy, the Bill not only provides for overtime payment but also restrict overtime work to 48 hours per month in order that more employment opportunities may be created through an employer obtaining more staff rather than making his employees work more overtime. My objection, therefore, to the proposed amendments is based on the following two grounds. Firstly, the Employment Bill presupposes, in so far as overtime payment is concerned, that the managerial and executive staff of private establishments should be able to draw up a work schedule in the establishments in such a manner as o minimise over-time work. If such managerial and executive staff fail to make sufficient allowance for unforseen contingencies or to engage sufficient workers, then the penalty of overtime payment is incurred. But the Government does not seem to have any confidence that similar grades of employees may be able to discharge their administrative function s without causing the Government servants and the statutory board employees to incur unnecessary overtime payment. The position becomes more ridiculous when it is realised that the public daily-rated employees are entitled to 11 public hoilidays both in the past and under the present Employment Bill. A most pertinent question that may be asked is, why does the Government find it necessary to make such a provision for itself when it considers that the vital export-orientated and tourist industries can do without such a provision? The other ground of my objection is that the provision of the proposed amendment is patently unfair to the Government and statutory board employees who come within the scope of the Employment Bill. An employee who is required to work one hour or even ten minutes on a public holiday would find that the holiday is spoilt for him and his family. Giving him another hour or 10 minutes off on another day would never make up for his spoilt holiday. It is also true that overtime payment for so working on a public holiday cannot make up for the spoilt holiday, but the overtime payment serves as a compensation which can be utilised by him and his family in many ways. The more I think of it, the more I cannot help concluding that the amendment is intended to serve as an easy way out for bureaucracy which is too lazy to provide, or is not up to the exacting task of providing, for unforeseen contingencies in drawing up work rosters. For the Government to move such an amendment is to compound the error of bureaucracy that has gone crazy. May I request the Hon. Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Labour to state categorically how this time-off during holidays and public holidays and off days for one or two hours a day would be compensated in the form of a day off in lieu of a working day?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have already explained the main reasons for introducing these two amendments. However, the hon. Member for Telok Blangah has raised one valid point, that it would be manifestly unfair to call upon a worker to work during a holiday or on his day off for such a short period as to nullify the compensation he might have at some subsequent day of one or two hours in lieu of his holiday. I would like to give him this assurance, that my Ministry will give administrative directions whereby employees who are called upon to work on a holiday or rest day would not be unreasonably made use of by asking them to come to work for just one or two hours. Where possible, and in fact in every case, it would be that they should work for a considerable part of the holiday or part of the day on which they are called upon to work. I would like to assure the hon. Member that in implementing this provision, due regard will be taken to ensure justice and fair play for the employees.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to speak about the difficulties in implementing this provision, as has been explained by the Member for Telok Blangah. For instance, in the Singapore Telephone Board, workers are required to work on off-days or public holidays for the whole day in order to repair technical faults. When they report for work at 8.00 a.m. on a rainy day, the engineers at Fault Control may decide that it is useless to retain them up to 5.00 p.m., because the repairing of faults cannot be carried out on rainy days. These workers who have turned up for duty on rest days or holidays are then asked to go home. Since they have been asked to wait for only two hours, they will therefore be given two hours off in substitution, which is unfair. There was also one occasion where the Board employees were exploited and they were asked to work. How are such matters to be rectified? Can the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Labour clarify these points?

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I say that I missed the first half of the translation but I assume that the second half is the substance of what the Member for Kampong Kembangan wanted to say. I am not aware of the particular case that he has mentioned just now. But as I said, if the facts are true

It is true.

- then naturally there has been a case of unjust dealings in this matter. If such instances come to light, they will be looked into and if necessary there will be directions to ensure that this provision is applied fairly and justly in regard to employees. Amendment agreed to. Clause 38, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 5.45 p.m. Clause 39 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 18, line 6, to leave out "or on a holiday". The removal of the words "or on a holiday" from clause 39 is designed to avoid a conflict between that clause and sub-clause (3) of clause 42 of the Bill. Sub-clause (3) of clause 42 provides that an employee may be required by his employer to work on a holiday. This is also the position under the existing three employment Ordinances. On the other hand, through an inadvertence, the existing sub-clause (2) of clause 39 of the Bill also provides that an employer may require his employee to work on a holiday only in certain specified circumstances. This was not the intention, and the deletion of the words "or on a holiday" is designed to enable the existing position to continue. Amendment agreed to.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 18, line 14, to leave out "and which is not of a recurring character". The purpose of leaving out these words is to make the existing paragraph (e) of sub-clause (2) of clause 39 workable. Under this paragraph, an employee may be required by the employer to exceed his normal working hours or to work on a rest day or holiday where there is an interruption of work in the work establishment which it was not possible to foresee and which is not of a recurrent character. This might well create difficulties. For example, an interruption of work can be due to a breakdown of machinery, and while the breakdown cannot be foreseen, it may well recur. The removal of the words specified in the amendment would, therefore, make the provision of paragraph (e) more practicable. Amendment agreed to.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 18, line 24, to leave out "this section" and insert "paragraph (f) of this subsection". The purpose of this amendment is to provide that the proviso to sub-clause (2) of clause 39 shall only apply to paragraph (f) of the same sub-clause. Paragraphs (a) to (f) of sub-clause (2) of clause 39 set out the circumstances under which an employer can require his employee to work in excess of normal working hours or to work on rest days or holidays. The proviso provides that in the event of any dispute, the Commissioner for Labour shall have the power to decide whether or not the employer is justified in calling the employee to work in the circumstances. It is considered that the circumstances set out in paragraphs (a) to (e) cannot be made subject to the proviso. Some of the examples of the circumstances set out in paragraphs (a) to (e) are work essential for defence or security, work to be performed in the event of accidents, urgent work to be done to machinery or plant. Such work has to be done on an urgent basis and cannot await the Commissioner's decision on whether the employer is justified in calling upon the employees to work in the circumstances. Furthermore, the circumstances listed under paragraphs (a) to (e) are also not restricted by such proviso in the existing labour legislation. Paragraph (f) of the same sub-clause provides that the employee may be required by an employer to work outside normal working hours or on rest days or holidays if the work to be performed is in respect of any industrial undertaking essential to the economy of Singapore or any of the essential services as defined under Part V of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance, 1955. It is obvious that such circumstances can be determined well in advance if there is any dispute to that effect. Hence it would be in order for the proviso to apply to paragraph (f) . Amendment agreed to. Clause 39, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 40 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 19, line 18, to leave out "part of the work done" and insert "specific amount of work required to be performed". This amendment is intended to clarify further the existing clause 40 of the Bill. Amendment agreed to. Clause 40, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 42 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 20, line 1, to leave out "Schedule B to this Act" and insert "the Schedule to the Holidays Act, 1966,". Sir, since it is intended that the holidays specified in the Schedule to the Holidays Act, 1966, be applicable to all employees under the Employment Act, it is no longer necessary to set out the same holidays in Schedule B to the Employment Bill. Amendment agreed to.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 20, to leave out lines 29 to 34 inclusive and insert- "(4) Subsection (3) of this section shall not apply to an employee who is employed by the Government or a statutory body in any of the essential services as defined under Part the Criminal Law (Temporary of 1995 Ord.26 Provisions) Ordinance, 1995 but any such of 1955. employee may notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section be required by his employer to work on a holiday or part of a holiday to which he would otherwise be entitled under that subsection, and in any such case he shall be given a day or part of a day off, as the case may be, in substitution for such holiday or part thereof.". In so far as it concerns an employee employed by the Government or a statutory body in any of the essential services as defined under Part V of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance, 1955, it is intended that any work done on a rest day or on a holiday shall be remunerated by way of proportionate time off in substitution. The purpose of this amendment is to make this clearer. Amendment agreed to.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 20, to leave out lines 38 to 40 inclusive. This is consequential to my first amendment to this clause. Amendment agreed to.

As a result of the amendments, In page 20, line 1, marginal note, to leave out "Schedule B" and insert "Act 54 of 1966". There are also consequential amendments, In page 20, line 28, to leave out the colon and insert a full-stop. Sub-clause (4) to be renumbered (5) . Clause 42, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 43 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 20, line 42, to leave out "working".

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I would like the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Labour to explain the position of workers who are now enjoying the privilege of 28 days' leave per year and who have already taken 21 days, i.e., 14 days more than what is now set out in this Bill. If this Bill is implemented, will the pay of these workers be cut because they have taken more leave than is now stipulated in the Bill?

Mr Rajaratnam, do you have any difficulty in understanding the translation?

Perhaps it is the difficulty in the translation, but I am not familiar with this particular case. I understand they are having 28 days' leave now?

(In Malay): Yes, and they have taken 21 days.

Sir, since I am not familiar with the matter, I will look into it and find out what is to happen. Amendment agreed to. Amendment made: In page 21, line 1, to leave out "working". - [Mr Rajaratnam]. 6.00 p.m. Clause 43, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 44 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 21, line 37, to leave out "twenty-eight" and insert "sixty". Sir, clause 44 (1) (b) curtails the entitlement of paid sick leave of a worker to 28 days in each year in cases where hospitalisation is necessary. Once again, I must draw the attention of this House to the undesirability of this particular provision. Hospitalisation in the event of illness is not a fringe benefit but a necessity for the proper care of a worker's health. The need to be hospitalised is never at any stage determinable by the worker concerned, but by a competent medical authority appointed by the Government of Singapore. Besides, as my various colleagues in this House have rightly pointed out, the accommodation facilities in hospitals in Singapore are such that only the seriously ill cases are admitted. The length of stay in the hospital also depends on the seriousness of the illness. If any provision in this Bill can be described as harsh beyond imagination, I, for one, would say that it is this particular provision. Even in freely negotiated agreements, I have not come across any employer, whether enlightened or unenlightened, foreign or local, who has objected to a longer period of hospitalisation leave. Therefore, I urge the Government to give the most serious consideration to the objections raised against the retention of this provision in the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have already clarified at length the justification for this particular provision. But, as I have indicated earlier, in view of certain points raised by the Member for Bukit Ho Swee and other hon. Members, I am prepared to defer voting on this provision to give the Government time to consider the Member's proposal.

Sir, this will, of course, include consideration on amendment No. (2) of clause 44 - in page 21, line 42, to leave out "fourteen" and insert "forty-six" - so that it will be complete.

Yes. If the clause is postponed, consideration of the two amendments will consequently be postponed. If you accept that, Mr Seah, will you seek withdrawal of the amendment you have moved?

Mr Speaker, Sir, in order to enable further consideration of this clause to be postponed, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment but reserve my right to move the amendments when the clause comes up again for consideration. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Resolved, "That further consideration of clause 44 be postponed to the first available sitting after 25th July, 1968." -- [Mr Rajaratnam]. Consideration of clause 44 postponed. Clause 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 46 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 22, line 36, to leave out "seven" and insert "five". Clause 46 of the Bill states that retirement benefits arc confined to employees who have been in continuous service with the same employer for seven years and more. We feel that this period of time is too long, particularly in view of the fact that employees in the private sector without the benefit of a collective agreement get nothing more than the paltry sums saved up through contributions to the Central Provident Fund. No doubt the Provident Fund benefits are to be increased by the introduction of the Central Provident Fund (Amendment) Bill. Even then, it is felt that the sum payable under the C.P.F. on cessation of service is inadequate to sustain an employee after his retirement. Therefore, a reduction in the period by which an employee becomes eligible for retirement benefit would necessarily increase the quantum by a small margin. I would urge the Government to give due consideration to our views on the matter and reduce the period to five years.

Sir, in view of the statement I have made earlier that this is another of the clauses which the Government requires time to consider, I would like to request that this clause be postponed for consideration at some future time.

Mr Seah, will you seek leave to withdraw your amendment?

Sir, in order to enable further consideration of this clause to be postponed, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment but reserve my right to move the amendment when the clause comes up again for consideration. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Resolved, "That further consideration of clause 46 be postponed to the first available sitting after 25th July, 1968." - [Mr Rajaratnam]. Consideration of clause 46 postponed. Clause 47 - Question proposed, "That clause 47 stand part of the Bill."

Sir, I propose to move a new clause.

Mr Seah, the Question I have proposed is that the clause do stand part of the Bill. Obviously your intention is to speak against the clause as it now stands. Perhaps you could for the present confine yourself to the question.

Sir, I object to the clause remaining as it is, because it is a well-known fact that bonus is a matter that has been negotiated between employers and employees. Taking away the opportunity of the workers to negotiate with the employers on the bonus issue, I think, is most unfair and cannot be accepted by the workers in Singapore, for the simple reason that the payment of bonus is a traditional practice. Most employers are quite willing to pay an annual bonus. Therefore, I proposed that the clause as it stands should be deleted.

Mr Rajaratnam, is it your intention to have consideration of this clause postponed?

Yes.

In that event, I will withdraw the Question and ask the Minister to move that further consideration of the clause be postponed. Mr Seah Mui Kok rose -

Yes, Mr Seah.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before the Minister moves that further consideration of the clause be postponed, may I be allowed to proceed further to give more arguments in support of what I have said earlier?

Yes.

Sir, in addition to what I have already said earlier, I would like to say that clause 47 is a provision dealing with the payment of bonus. The clause, as it stands in the Bill, prohibits agreement on bonus payment in collective agreements though it makes it permissive for an employer to grant a bonus or an ex-gratia payment commensurate with the employer's profits as an incentive to an employee to increase productivity. We in the trade union movement, representing a class of employees whose contracts of employment include receipt of a bonus or an ex-gratia payment from the employer, oppose the provision removing the payment of bonus from the purview of negotiability. Bonus has become an entrenched feature of the salary or wage structure of the employees in the commercial sector in Singapore. It has been made payable in the private sector not only to those who come within the definition of "workman" but also to those who are categorised as executives. Though peculiar to this part of the world, bonus, described as deferred payment of wages or as an incentive payment related to profits, is in our view necessary in private or commercial undertakings. If this is indeed the case, there is every justification to say that bonus serves as an incentive to higher productivity which, in reality, would mean higher profits for the employers and overall economic growth for the nation. The general wage level in the private sector in most cases is lower than that in the public sector. This, coupled with a high dependency ratio of population which is 1: 3, i.e, one worker has, besides himself, to support three dependants, the payment of bonus is far from being a mere ex-gratia concept. It is, in fact, part of a worker's take-home pay which the employer should not be allowed to vary at will. Besides with the 1960 Price Index as a basis, the Monthly Digest of Statistics now shows that in 1968 the overall increase in the prices of essential food items is 13.5 per cent. The breakdown percentage increase of the bare essentials to feed a family shows that vegetables have gone up by 16 per cent in price, fish has gone up by 25 per cent, and rice, a staple commodity, has soared by a 31 per cent increase. If bonus as a deferred wage is made non-negotiable, how else can a worker ask for adjustment in wages to cope with the increase in the cost of living over the years without upsetting agreed salary structures? If bonus is not to be made negotiable, should it not in the circumstances, at least, be incorporated into a worker's wages? Even the Government, as the largest employer, has a cost of living allowance, ranging from between 25 and 35 per cent, thus increasing the quantum of take-home pay as opposed to basic salary. So far, our experience in collective bargaining with the employers has shown that managements' decisions on wages or wage scales are made in terms of total wage costs which include, among other things, bonus. The other view on this matter is bonus as an incentive to higher productivity by workers. In return for this higher productivity, they are given a share in the profits. Indeed, the trend in Singapore over the last few years has been towards the emergence of a pattern consistent with this proposition of an equitable share in the profits of the undertaking. In our representations to the Government, we have made it very clear that we subscribe, on the ground of social justice, to their idea that bonus be tied to profits and productivity where this is indeed possible. But, for practical reasons, and to avoid indiscriminate and arbitrary demand of bonus payment by the workers, the Government has declined to accept that proposition. The solution is certainly not to remove the item from the ambit of negotiability altogether. Indeed, we have thought of a formula that will cause the minimum of hardship both to the employer and to the workmen. Since bonus is the key to productivity the achievement of which is an important national purpose, we suggest that a legislative maximum be fixed for bonus as a negotiable issue, leaving the payment of the quantum over and above this maximum to the goodwill of the employers based on profits, productivity and incentive schemes.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have some doubts on the N.T.U.C.'s suggested amendment to the provision on bonus. Is there any difference between the proposed amendment and the original provision in the Bill? It appears that there is not much difference between the two; to me, they are just the same. According to the suggestion of the Member for Bukit Ho Swee, the trade unions will negotiate with the employers on the payment of bonus but, ultimately, the employers will have the right to decide whether or not to give a bonus. I feel there is not much difference between the original provision in the Bill and the proposed amendment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, firstly, I wish to express my regret that the Government is attempting to withdraw the payment of bonus from the field of collective bargaining. I have already fully expressed my views during the Second Reading of the Bill, but now I wish to draw the attention of the House to certain important facts regarding this matter. The first is that the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1960, as it stands, allows the Industrial Arbitration Court to make awards on bonus under section 40. The law, as it stands, allows bonus to be a negotiable matter, something which you can dispute in court. It is really disheartening to note that the Government now proposes to withdraw this matter from the purview of the court. This proposal upsets the workers very much. The Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1960, was drawn up and introduced just after the Government came to power in 1959. Surely the Government has not changed its views since then.

In view of the Minister's indication that he desires to have this clause postponed, do I have the general assent of Members to withdraw the Question that I proposed earlier? Hon. Members indicated assent.

The Question is withdrawn. Resolved, "That further consideration of clause 47 be postponed to the first available sitting of Parliament after 25th July, l968."-[Mr Rajaratnam]. Consideration of clause 47 postponed. Clauses 48 to 52 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 53 -

Mr Speaker. Sir, I beg to move, In page 25, after line 3, to add - "(2) The provisions of this section shall not apply where the terms of service under which a person is employed are provided for in collective agreement entered into before the corning into operation of this Act and while such collective agreement remains in force. (3) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section it shall not be an offence for an employer to grant to his employee terms of service relating to leave more favourable than those contained in sections 43 and 44 of this Act." The intention of the Government is to make the terms and conditions of service provided in Part IV of the Bill the norm of conditions of employment in respect of collective agreements entered into after the coming into operation of the enacted Bill. After the Bill becomes law, collective agreements, other than existing ones, cannot deviate from the provisions of Part IV in respect of terms and conditions of service except to the extent provided under clauses 43 and 44 relating to leave. The intention, in respect of sick leave and annual leave, is that it shall not be an offence for an employer to grant more favourable terms than those contained in clauses 43 and 44. The purpose of the amendment is to clarify this further. Mr N. Govindasamy: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to comment on the Government's amendment vis-a-vis the amendment tabled by the Member for Bukit Ho Swee to clause 53 of the Employment Bill. The Government's reason for making this amendment is apparently to give effect to the intention of the amendment. There is no denying that the Government's amendment is logical and valid in relation to what the Government seems to construe as the intention of the amendment tabled by the Member for Bukit Ho Swee. But our intention is not so much to make clause 53 restrictive to the application of Part IV of the Employment Bill as to ensure that an employer does not use clause 53 as a pretext for not granting his employees more favourable terms and conditions of service in relation to Part IV of the Employment Bill. In retrospect, it would appear that even the wording of our amendment does not reflect our true intention. I must admit here that to a certain extent we have been confused by the widespread publicity given in advance by the local press on the proposed Employment Bill and the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill. At the time we drew up our proposed amendment to clause 53 of the Employment Bill, we were under the distinct impression that the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill would contain a provision cutting across all collective agreements, whether existing or otherwise. It was in anticipation of such a radical provision that we decided to move an amendment to clause 53 of the Employment Bill to ensure that in two areas where the collective agreements contain far more favourable benefits than are provided for in the Bill itself, workers would still continue to enjoy their benefits after the Industrial Relations Ordinance has been amended. But when we had a closer look at the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill which was introduced on Wednesday, 10th July, 1968, we found that our amendment ran contrary to the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill by being unduly and unnecessarily restrictive. Clause 7 of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill provides that collective agreements covering workers in specified industries established after 1st January, 1968, shall not contain terms and conditions of service more favourable than Part IV of the Employment Bill. But the effect of our amendment to clause 53 of the Employment Bill and the Government's amendment vis-a-vis the amendment to be moved by the Member for Bukit Ho Swee is to prohibit all collective agreements, whether covering workers in the specified industries established after 1st January, 1968, or otherwise, from containing terms and conditions of service more favourable than all the provisions, excepting clauses 43 and 44, of Part IV of the Employment Bill. Moreover, the power of the Minister to approve the provisions in a collective agreement more favourable than Part IV of the Employment Bill seems to be exercisable only in cases where clause 7 of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill applies. Such specific reference to the Minister's power to grant exemptions in relation to Part IV of the Employment Bill and to clause 7 of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill can only denote that the over-riding intention of the Government in respect of the Employment Bill and the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill is to ensure that the export-orientated and tourist industries in Singapore are not hamstrung by a continuously increasing level of terms and conditions of service of the employees engaged in such industries. Since the Government by its subsequent notice of amendment finds it desirable to give better effect to our intention as expressed in the amendment to be moved by the Member for Bukit Ho Swee, I wish to avail myself of the opportunity to clarify the correct intention underlying our amendment to clause 53 of the Employment Bill. If the Government has no objection, may I suggest that the expression "sections 43 and 44" appearing in the fourth line of sub-clause (3) proposed to be added to clause 53 of the Employment Bill be deleted, and the expression "Part IV" be inserted in place thereof? 6.30 p.m. Such an amendment would give effect to the true intention behind our amendment to clause 53 and, at the same time, remove a clear and unintentional discrepancy between the provisions of clause 53 of the Employment Bill and those of clause 7 of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully support the views expressed by my colleague, the hon. Member for Telok Blangah.

Mr Govindasamy, were you moving a formal amendment to the words proposed to be added or were you merely indicating that you wished that that had been done?

I am just suggesting to the Government whether they would, in their amendment to clause 53, delete "sections 43 and 44" appearing in the fourth line of sub-clause (3) and in place thereof insert "Part IV".

In that case, the best thing would be for the Minister to consider your suggestion and, if he finds it acceptable, he can move to re-commit this clause at the Third Reading stage?

That is acceptable to me, Sir.

Mr Rajaratnam, do you wish to reply?

It is not so much a reply as a statement that this clause 53 of the Bill has been carefully considered and drafted and I do not think that even the suggestion proposed by the Member would be accepted by the Government because this clause is far more comprehensive than was intended. So I am afraid that, as far as the Government is concerned, we cannot consider any variation in the clause in the amendment as submitted by me. Amendment agreed to.

Mr Seah, in the light of the decision of the House on clause 53, there is no point in moving your amendment*. There is, however, no necessity to withdraw it. So long as you do not rise to move it, it will not be debated or discussed. * Mr Seah Mui Kok's amendment to clause 53 reads as follows: '(2) In page 25, after line 3, to add - "(2) The provisions of this section shall not apply -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would still like to make a special appeal to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Labour. Although he has already decided on his stand, we, the workers of Singapore, sincerely hope that the time will come when there will be a relaxation of this clause.

Mr Seah, the House has just decided that clause 53 be amended. At the moment there is no question before the House which you can debate. I am now going to propose "That clause 53, as amended, stand part of the Bill," and what you are going to say appears to me to be appropriate to that question. Question proposed, "That clause 53, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

I have just said that we hope the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Labour will consider our appeal that, instead of limiting the scope of the amended clause 53 only to clauses 43 and 44 of the Employment Bill, he will extend it to include Part IV of the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause 53, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

In consequence of the addition of the two sub-clauses, In page 24, line 37, after "53.", to insert "--

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 49, line 41, to leave out "C" and insert "B". Sir, this is a consequential amendment. Amendment agreed to.

There is a note, In page 49, line 41, marginal note, to leave out "C" and insert "B". This will be done. Clause 148, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 149 - Amendment made: In page 50, line 19, to leave out "C" and insert "B". -[Mr Rajaratnam].

There is a note, In page 50, line 19, marginal note, to leave out "C" and insert "B". This will be done. Clause 149, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 150 to 159 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 160 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 56, line 1, to leave out "XV" and insert "XVI". The purpose of this amendment is to rectify a clerical error. Amendment agreed to. Clause 160, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 161 to 170 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. 6.45 p.m. Schedule A ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule B -

It is the Minister's intention that this Schedule be deleted. Those hon. Members who agree with the Minister, please say "No" when I put the Question, "That Schedule B stand part of the Bill."

Question, "That Schedule B stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived. Schedule B accordingly disagreed to. Schedule C ordered to stand part of the Bill.

As a result of the deletion of Schedule B, Schedule C, which has been agreed to, will now be renumbered as Schedule B. Mr Rajaratnam, will you report progress on the Bill? Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee has made progress on the Bill and ask leave to sit again on a date to be fixed.

So be it.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." - [Mr Rajaratnam]. Adjourned accordingly at Twelve minutes to Seven o'clock p.m, to a date to be fixed.