Hansard, 1968-08-01

asked the Minister for Education if the Educational Advisory Council has hitherto been an efficient source of advice on matters of educational policy and development.

Mr Speaker, Sir, although the individual members of the Educational Advisory Council have rendered invaluable service, the Council, as a whole, has not been an efficient source of advice on educational matters, mainly because of its unwieldy composition. The Council has a membership of no less than 21, including six members of the Education Finance Board, a body which has become defunct as a result of the changes in the financial procedure of the Government. In order that educational planning may keep pace with our unprecedented expansion of school enrolment in the past, and with the rapid changes which are now taking place in the educational system, it has been found more expedient to seek advice on educational matters from small committees of specialists on an ad hoc basis. Consequently, the Educational Advisory Council has been largely inactive since May 1962.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I understand the Educational Advisory Council, it is a body set up by the Education Ordinance, 1957, and the provisions setting up this body also make it mandatory for the Educational Advisory Council to sit a number of times a year. In the circumstances, how is it possible for the Parliamentary Secretary to say that this body is defunct?

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I explained earlier, seeking advice from a large committee is inefficient. We find it more efficient to seek advice from small committees or from individual members. As this method has been so effective, we find that it has not been necessary to convene the Educational Advisory Council since 1962.

Mr Speaker, Sir, since the Educational Advisory Council is inefficient and too large, would the Government consider abolishing it?

There have, in fact, been a couple of advisory committees on educational policy. Since the Educational Advisory Council is so ineffective, I would say it will die a natural death.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us who are the members of the smaller ad hoc committees?

(In Mandarin): The smaller ad hoc committees are established under various circumstances. For instance, if my Ministry require advice on technical education, we set up a small committee under the Ministry of Education to provide such advice.

Mr Speaker, Sir, from what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, do I understand that he will advise his Ministry to seek certain amendments to the Education Ordinance of 1957 so that a more effective body can be set up?

The question of amending the Education Ordinance of 1957 is, in fact, under consideration.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I see it, it is the taxpayers and the public that are paying for the cost of education. As such, I think there should be some representation from the general public regarding educational policies. With the Educational Advisory Council becoming defunct, it seems to me that only professional people are involved in the direction of policies. Perhaps it might be a good idea to retain the Educational Advisory Council but with certain modifications to see that its functions ---

Mr Conceicao, you should ask a supplementary question. You are now making a speech and what you are saying would be appropriate to any Bill that may be introduced to amend the relevant provisions of the Education Ordinance.

asked the Minister for Education (a) whether measures have been taken to assess the effectiveness of educational television as it is currently programmed to schools as a medium of instruction; and (b) whether there are plans to expand the department of educational television in the immediate future.

Mr Speaker, Sir, (a) a continuous system of evaluating the effectiveness of E.T.V. programmes has been in operation ever since the Singapore Educational Television Service was launched by the Ministry of Education in January 1967. All secondary schools in the Republic are required to send in weekly returns containing information on the reception of programmes telecast in the previous week. This information is processed and analysed by machine and the findings are used for effecting further improvement in future programmes. In addition, courses on evaluation and utilisation of E.T.V. programmes are conducted periodically for all E.T.V. officers and teachers using the programmes. (b) Plans for the expansion of the E.T.V. Service were submitted to the Economic Planning Unit of the Ministry of Finance as early as April 1967. In July the E.P.U. conducted an independent survey of the effectiveness of E.T.V. and reported that expansion should not be embarked upon until the service has consolidated itself. Subsequently, the E.P.U. relented on this decision and recommended expansion. More recently, an internationally known expert on E.T.V. was provided by the Ford Foundation at the request of the Government to make recommendations concerning the E.T.V. Service. This expert has submitted a favourable report recommending expansion. Whether the service is to be expanded now is purely a question of financial consideration.

Mr Speaker, Sir, do I understand that the intended expansion of television is going to displace radio broadcasting to schools? Also, what is the future of radio broadcasting to schools?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the expansion of E.T.V. in relation to radio broadcasts to schools is still under consideration. The running up of the E.T.V. Service and the running down of radio broadcasts to schools has still to be worked out.

Mr Speaker, Sir, what measure of success has been achieved as a result of the introduction of E.T.V. programmes in secondary schools?

Mr Speaker, Sir, my original answer to the hon. Member for Serangoon Gardens answers this supplementary question. E.T.V. has been successful and that is why we are planning expansion.

asked the Minister for Law and National Development (a) when work will commence to widen Upper Thomson Road between 4¾ m.s. and 6½ m.s.; and (b) what measures he proposes to take to safeguard the interests of the residents and shop-keepers who will be directly affected by the project.

Mr Speaker, Sir, work on the widening of Upper Thomson Road between 4¾ m.s. and 6½ ms, has been carried out up to the maximum possible width. Further widening can only be carried out when the existing shops and houses which line both sides of the road are demolished. The Housing and Development Board plans to construct two shopping centres with residential flats to re-site the occupants of the shops and houses along this stretch of road. One centre will be built at the 4¾ m.s. Thomson Road, near the Home of the Little Sisters of the Poor, and the other near the junction of Thomson Road and the Island Club Road. In order to build these two centres, a few structures will have to be demolished and their occupants resettled. The occupants of the other structures along both sides of this stretch of road will only be resettled when the building of the two centres is completed, after which Upper Thomson Road will be widened into a dual carriage way.

Can the Minister tell the House how many residents and shop-keepers will be directly affected by this project?

Mr Speaker, Sir, a survey carried out has shown that there are 124 shop-houses and 211 residential homes along this stretch of road. I cannot say exactly how many persons will be affected. 2.41 p.m.

Order. Further to the statement by the Minister for Finance yesterday, I will now take questions for answers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to seek some clarification in respect of employees who opt to be on the existing salary scales and draw variable allowance personal to themselves. Will the Government give an assurance that such variable allowance will not be altered in any manner whatsoever to the prejudice of the employee who has so opted for as long as he remains in Government service?

Sir, I cannot give any assurance that the salary scales will never be changed to the detriment of the officers for all time. But I can give the assurance that they will remain substantially in their present form unless there is another major exercise in salary revision downwards. In other words, if there is no general revision of civil service salary scales downwards, those who opt to remain on salary scales personal to themselves with the retention of the variable allowances will continue to receive them.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to raise two questions. Firstly, in his Ministerial statement yesterday, the Finance Minister said that the Government propose to introduce two Superscale posts, 'A' and 'B' into the civil service. In the case of Superscale 'B', the salary would be $2,700 a month, and Super-scale 'A' $3,000 a month. This salary is more than a Minister's salary, which is only $2,500 a month. Generally speaking, the responsibilities of a Minister are greater than those of a Permanent Secretary. If that is the case, I wish to ask the Minister for Finance, if the pay of Ministers' pay will be correspondingly increased. I warmly welcome Government's acceptance of the recommendations of the Salaries Commission in respect of Division IV employees. In the Primary Production Division there are about 90 employees. I wish to ask the Minister if these employees are covered by the Report. If they are not, I would ask him whether he would consider extending the implemented recommendations to cover these employees.

Dr Goh Keng Swee, may I suggest that you answer Mr Teong Eng Siong's first question first, so that if there are any questions from other Members on the same matter you can take them in sequence before going to his second question on employees in the Primary Production Department.

Sir, Ministers' salaries will not be revised in this exercise.

Sir, I have a series of questions to ask.

Do your questions arise out of Mr Teong's first question?

No, Sir, they arise out of my first question.

In that case, I will let the Minister answer Mr Teong's second question and I will come back to you. Dr Goh.

The Commission did not deal with the salaries of people who administer injections to chickens, whatever they are called. The posts of these people are temporary. I think they carry a salary of $100 a month and are probably held part-time by farmers. It would not be true to say that there is a general upward revision of Division IV salary scales. What has happened is that the number of salary scales has been reduced, with the result that some people benefit by having a longer salary scale so that they will continue to enjoy more increments. It does not mean that they get an immediate increase in pay. Since the temporary inoculators are not on any salary scale but receive a fixed salary, they do not enjoy the benefit of a better salary scheme. I hope I have made myself clear. There is no way of bringing them in because the Commission did not recommend a general increase.

Will the promotion prospects of an employee who opts to remain in the present salary scale be prejudiced merely because he has so opted?

His promotion prospects will not be prejudiced.

(In Mandarin): Sir, the Minister for Finance yesterday dealt with the recommendations of the Salaries Commission in respect of the increase in salaries of Division I and Superscale posts. In my view, these Superscale officers already have enough to live well and Government should more properly look after the interest of the lower-income groups. In the case of the latter, there should be some increase in salary. This is only right and proper because we in Singapore practise parliamentary democracy. We must respect these people who are not so well off. Those officers who are getting $2,000 or $3,000 a month already have enough. Many people sleep by the roadside and many do not have enough to eat. How can these top civil servants ask for more pay? We Members of Parliament get only $500 a month each and we have to contribute to the party funds. How can we live on this small pay? Of course, I too want to ask for a pay rise and hope that the Minister will be sympathetic.

Sir, Members of Parliament do not get salaries or pay. They get an allowance which is meant to help them out by way of transport expenses and for work in the constituencies. Again, there is no question of increase of salaries to Members of Parliament. As regards the suggestion that Super-scale officers are overpaid, I completely disagree with the Member for Ulu Pandan. Let me give him an example of how pay in the top level of the civil service compares with pay in commercial firms. A managing director of a reasonably prosperous company in Singapore may get a total pay of $10,000 per month or more, which is four times what the Permanent Secretary of a Ministry is getting. The work of the Permanent Secretaries is more onerous and more responsible. To say that they are overpaid when they get only one-quarter of the pay of people of equivalent ability in the private sector is, I think, completely misleading. The increases which we are recommending for the top posts in the civil service, in my view, are in themselves inadequate to do justice to the situation. But we expect that people will make a career in the civil service not entirely for the purpose of making money and becoming rich.

Mr Speaker, Sir, firstly, I want to make it clear that I do not grudge Government's proposal to increase the salaries of Superscale officers. My point is that at this juncture when the Government is asking the private sector to make a big sacrifice, is it wise for the Government to increase the salaries of those who are well provided?

If we want to attract and retain talent in the civil service, this is what we must do. It is, therefore, a very wise move, in my view.

Sir, I agree that we need talent. But I think these talented people should also be considerate. When the country is in difficulties, they should make sacrifices. Just because they are talented, they should not get everything. An hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Sir, does the Government propose to accept the recommendation of the Commission in paragraph 588* of its Report on the restoration of commuted * Paragraph 588 reads as follows: 'We recommend the Treasury's proposal for consideration' pension to a pensioner who outlives the period in respect of which his pension was commuted, i.e., 12½ years?

The answer is "yes".

Sir, since Government accepts a good proportion of the recommendations of the Salaries Commission, it means that more expenditure will have to be incurred each year. Therefore, I shall be grateful if the Minister for Finance can enlighten the House on how much the additional recurrent expenditure will be for each year.

If we had accepted all the recommendations of the Salaries Commission, the additional cost to Government would be of the order of $6.8 million a year. We have not accepted the recommendation in respect of a general increase in Division I salary scales and in Superscale. This recommendation would cost $1.8 million. Therefore, we are left with an increase of $5 million a year. Then we have decided to allow married women, bachelors and married women without children to convert to the new salary scales without restrictions arising out of their marital status. This costs another $¼ million. So the total additional sum is $5¼ million a year.

Sir, does it mean that the taxpayers will have to dig deeper into their pockets if Government pays $5¬ million more each year?

Sir, since we do not print our notes as some countries do, I am afraid that is the case.

Sir, the Hon. Minister for Finance has mentioned just now that one company pays its director $10,000 a month as director's fees. Can the Minister enlighten the House as to which company pays $10,000 a month as director's fees? My second question is: are civil servants who are serving on the boards of public companies entitled to director's fees?

I was not referring to directors or members of the board of directors. I was referring to the chief executive of companies and they are usually known as "managing directors". For a managing director of a big firm in Singapore to get a pay of $10,000 a month is by no means unusual. Civil servants who are members of the boards of directors of companies in which either the Government or the Economic Development Board has a share of equity, do receive director's fees. They do retain these fees if they are paid out because of the contribution that they make to the firm. I may say that these director's fees are in most cases very small. In some cases, the firms, being new ones, do not pay any director's fees.

Mr Speaker, Sir, does the Government's acceptance of the recommendation of the Salaries Commission for a unified salary scale for non-graduate trained teachers imply that the Government also accepts the Commission's recommendation in paragraph 202* of its Report for a lower commencing salary for technical teachers * Paragraph 202 reads as follows: 'We recommend the following points of entry on the basic Timescale for Trained Teachers, Non-Graduates :-

I think this point was raised in a letter to the newspapers this morning. This looks to me to be an oversight on the part of the Salaries Commission. For reasons set out by the Member for Telok Blangah, technical teachers will convert on no less favourable terms than other grades of teachers.

Sir, yesterday the Minister mentioned promotion exercises. I would like to know how frequently promotion exercises will be held so as to enable Division I officers to be promoted e.g, to Superscale C, B or A posts.

It is the Public Service Commission which decides on the frequency of promotion exercises. Government can only propose to them that more frequent promotion exercises be carried out, but the decision rests with the Public Service Commission, it varies from Ministry to Ministry and from service to service. So far as the services under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Finance are concerned, it is mainly the Administrative Service. The last promotion exercise was held some 18 months ago and I think we should have one pretty soon. If possible, one would like to see annual exercises carried out. But the trouble may be the lack of suitable candidates. So, subject to these reservations, I would say that we should carry out more frequent promotion exercises starting from now. I am afraid I cannot be more definite than that.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I have come across a number of cases where senior civil servants have been acting for quite a long time. I am inclined to agree with the Minister that promotion exercises should be more frequent. I hope the time factor will be taken into consideration, that is, instead of a lapse of 18 months, let us have promotion exercises on a yearly basis so that we will not have senior officers acting for two or three years. If they are found to be unsuitable for promotion, another officer ought to be found to act with a view to finding the right man for the right place.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I know from the Minister whether the Government is prepared to accept the suggestion of the Commission as contained in paragraph 227* of the Report regarding medical benefits to aided school teachers? * Paragraph 227 reads as follows: 'We suggest that consideration should be given to the possibility of extending to Government-Aided Teaching Personnel the Medical Benefits applicable to Government School Teachers.'

Yes, Sir, the Government accepts this recommendation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, will the Minister say whether the Government accepts the Commission's recommendation that all trained teachers, graduates and honours graduates, be emplaced on the Division I salary scale?

The Government accepts this recommendation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have two questions. Firstly, regarding the mode of salary conversion, I would like to ask the Minister whether he is aware of the following: One officer, "A", who is married and another officer, "B", who is not married are now on the same basic salary. As officer "A" is married he draws a higher variable allowance and therefore his total emoluments are greater than those of officer "B". According to the Commission's mode of conversion, officer "A" will move to a higher step in the new salary scale. Should officer "B" get married after the implementation of the recommendations of the Salaries Commission Report, he will still be on a lower step vis-a-vis officer "A". How does the Minister intend to correct this? Secondly, may I know the reason why the date of implementation of the recommendations of the Report of the Salaries Commission is 1st January, 1969?

I thought I made it clear in my speech yesterday that we do not accept the Commission's recommendation in respect of conversion, having a difference of conversion between the married and unmarried officers. They will all convert on the same basis, that is, the bachelor officer will convert in the same way as the married officer. In effect, he will get an increase in total pay on this exercise costing the taxpayers a quarter of a million dollars a year. Why is the date of implementation 1st January, 1969? If we regard our decisions as final and refuse to hear representations, we can probably implement it from 1st October, 1968. But we want to hear the views of unions, associations and other people and, therefore, we have to give them time to make their representations. It will probably be sometime in October when we can make up our minds. Therefore, it is necessary to allow another two or three months to pass and 1st January, 1969, seems to be a very convenient date.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the Government's proposal to create two new Superscale posts, that is 'A' and 'B', does it mean that in future, we will have a Permanent Secretary who will be placed in any one 'of these three Superscale grades, i.e., Superscale 'A', 'B' and 'C'? If it is the intention of the Government to create different grades of Permanent .Secretaries, does the Government propose to determine the grade of each Permanent Secretaryship on the basis of the importance of the Ministry to which the Permanent Secretary is attached, or on the basis of the personal merits of the holder of such a post?

Permanent Secretaries will be promoted on the basis of individual merits and not by reason of their holding of posts. Of course, I accept that this is a departure from the normal civil service practice. But, in effect, it will probably not make all that difference because obviously we have got to post the ablest of them in the most important positions.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in our debate on the 1968 Estimates I noticed that we have various categories of Ambassadors and High Commissioners. Would all these come under one and the same category?

I think the Salaries Commission makes no recommendation in this respect. I do not think I am called upon to make any comment on this subject.

Mr Speaker, Sir, according to the Estimates, the Ambassadors and High Commissioners are placed under certain grades like 'E' and so forth. I think they do come into this?

If they are paid on Grade 'E', then they will remain to be paid on Grade 'E'.

Mr Speaker, Sir, at the moment Domestic Science teachers trained abroad and Physical Education Inspectors trained abroad are placed on various assorted scales. However, the Commission has made some recommendations on this. Will the Government accept the Commission's recommendation that these two categories of teachers be entered into the basic Timescale as recommended at the point of $385?

Mr Rodrigo, can you identify the paragraphs to which you refer?

The Salaries Commission Report - *paragraphs 214 and 216. * The paragraphs read as follows: '214. It was also represented to us that there is a great disparity in the salary scales at present paid to Domestic Science Teachers who received their training Overseas. Some are placed on the Honours Degree salary scale while others are placed on the Pass Degree salary scale. A number are on the Old Certificate Trained salary scale while others are on the New Certificate Trained salary scale. In paragraph 200 we have recommended a basic timescale of $295x20-335 / 385x20-505 /560x25 /660/ 750x35-925 (Scale 5 in Division II) for Trained Teachers, Non-Graduates and in paragraph 202 we have recommended that Domestic Science Teachers should enter the basic timescale at $385 per month.' '216. A similar situation exists with regard to Assistant Specialist Inspectors (Physical Education) who received their training overseas. Some are placed on the Pass Degree salary scale while others are placed on the Old Certificate Trained salary scale. In paragraph 202 we have recommended that Teachers specialising in Physical Education should enter the basic time-scale for Trained Teachers, Non-Graduates at $385 per month.'

Subject to any views from the Ministry of Education on this recommendation, my Ministry proposes to accept this recommendation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the comment contained in paragraph 198+ of the Commission's Report, will the Government consider setting up another commission to inquire into the basic reorganisation of the structure of the Ministry of Education? + Paragraph 198 reads as follows: 'A basic reorganisation of the structure of the Education Service as proposed by the Ministry of Education's Scheme would not be within our Terms of Reference, and although we make no specific recommendations with regard to this matter, we consider that the Scheme warrants further serious consideration.'

Sir, I think we had better get through the implementation of the recommendations of this Commission before we start on another one.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the pharmacists in this country are not particularly happy because they have not been classed as a professional group. Perhaps the Minister may be able to clarify this point?

The responsibility of keeping everybody happy is not really mine. If the hon. Member can refer to the paragraph containing the recommendation of the Commission on this grade, perhaps I may be able to venture an opinion.

It is on page 48, **paragraphs 141 and 142. ** The paragraphs read as follows: '141. The Association in their representation proposed that Pharmacists should be' included in the Scheme of Service for Professional Officers. They proposed that Medical Officers, Dental Officers and Pharmaceutical Officers should all be emplaced on a, common Professional Timescale but Pharmaceutical Officers should enter the proposed Timescale at a lower point of entry. We have given consideration to this proposal but do not support the suggestion since we do not feel that a case was made out for giving Pharmaceutical Officers parity of treatment with Medical and Dental Officers and other officers in the profession, e.g., Legal, Engineering, Architecture, etc. 142. We recommend that Pharmacists should continue to be emplaced on the non-professional salary scale.'

Sir, in paragraph 142 the Commission recommends that pharmacists should continue to be emplaced on the non-professional salary' scale. Therefore, I am afraid that is the recommendation which the Government will accept. It must be assumed that the officers concerned have made out a case as thoroughly as possible to the Salaries Commission, and if the finding is adverse, then that is that.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was hoping that the Minister may be able to clarify the position of pharmacists being on the "non-professional" salary scale, because in my opinion I think they are, in fact, professional men.

This so-called "non-professional" salary scale is really a misnomer. It is something like the holy Roman Empire which is neither holy nor Roman nor an Empire. There are many professionals who are emplaced on this scale.

Order read for resumption of motion, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," [31st July, 1968]. Question again proposed. 3.13 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, at the moment of interruption yesterday, I explained clause 7. I am now going to speak on clause 8 of the Bill which amends section 34 of the Ordinance by providing that the Industrial Arbitration Court shall not inquire into disputes relating to the dismissal or reinstatement of an employee unless such an employee has been dismissed in circumstances arising out of the contravention of section 79 of the Ordinance. I have already mentioned, in connection with clause 5, the remedial action that may be taken by an employee if he considers that he has been dismissed without just cause or excuse. I would, however, add here that the Minister's decision in this regard is final and conclusive and shall not be challenged in any court, and that the Minister may direct the employer to reinstate the employee in his former employment and to pay him an amount that is equivalent to the wages that the employee would have earned had he not been dismissed by the employer, or to pay such amount of wages as compensation as may be determined by him. If the employer does not comply with the directions of the Minister, then the employer shall be guilty of an offence under the Ordinance and shall be subject to the punishment prescribed. Clause 13 amends section 57 of the Ordinance by extending the circumstances whereby the powers of the Industrial Arbitration Court can be exercised by the President sitting alone. The inclusion of sections 24A, 34, 37 (4) , 39, 42, and 79 is consequential upon other amendments in this Bill and is intended to expedite the proceedings in the court. Clause 14 amends section 77 of the Ordinance by substituting a new proviso for the existing one. This new proviso enables an employer to require, as a condition for the appointment or promotion of a person to a managerial or executive position, that that person shall not continue to be an officer or member of a particular trade union, unless the trade union is a trade union whose constitution and rules restrict its membership to persons in managerial or executive positions. This amendment is consequential upon the amendment in clause 4 of the Bill which requires separate representation by employees in managerial or executive positions as distinct from other subordinate employees. The existing provision merely states that an employer can object to his employees being members of a particular trade union. This by itself does not prevent an employee in a managerial or executive position from joining another trade union catering for employees in these grades. I have already explained why separate representation is necessary in the course of my discussion in clause 4 There is, therefore, no need for me to repeat it here. Clause 15 of the Bill amends the Ordinance by introducing a new section 78A which sets out the circumstances under which a trade union officer may obtain paid leave of absence from his employer to attend to trade union duties. It provides that a trade union officer shall apply in writing to his employer for leave of absence stating the duration of and the purposes for which such leave is applied. It further provides that an employee shall not be entitled to paid leave unless the purpose of his leave is to represent members of his trade union in relation to industrial matters affecting his employer. Hon. Members will appreciate that there have been considerable difficulties in this regard. For instance, where a trade union represents employees in more than one establishment, it is not unusual for the officers of the union to come from one and the same establishment. In such an event, the employer is penalised in that he either loses the services of his employees for the duration of their business for reasons quite unconnected with his own establishment, or he incurs additional costs by having to employ additional staff to cover the duties of his absent employees. This, it will be appreciated, is most unsatisfactory. There must be reason and logic in such circumstances and it is precisely to regularise matters that this amendment has been made. Paragraph (b) of clause 16 of the Bill amends section 79 of the Ordinance by the addition of a new subsection (6) which allows the Industrial Arbitration Court to commence proceedings in respect of the reinstatement of an employee who is alleged to have been dismissed in contravention of section 79 of the Ordinance before proceedings have been commenced in a District Court. At present, allegations in respect of such cases are heard before a District Court which also has the power to order reinstatement. However, thorough and time-consuming investigations must necessarily precede such proceedings. This has caused long delays which are frowned upon both by the unions and the employers. Mr Speaker, Sir, the amendments to the Industrial Relations Ordinance, particularly in the context of management rights, have evoked fears among some trade unionists. The principle of collective bargaining is in no way impinged. Collective bargaining is of the essence in a free and democratic society but vital management rights must not be eroded if we are to create the necessary climate of stability for investors to come in. There are, however, built-in safeguards, for safeguards there must be if abuses are to be minimised both by employers and trade unions. Some wise person has stated that private rights may become public wrongs. There is, therefore, the urgent necessity for both parties to make responsible decisions - decisions which are compatible with the well-being of the country. It is, therefore, in the interest of all concerned to ensure that rights are related to functions. Employers have their functions just as trade unions have, and it is imperative that their respective rights have a, correlation with their respective functions. The amendments embodied in this Bill are obviously designed to correct wrongs, balance rights and functions and equate responsibilities so that an independent Singapore can move through the crucial years ahead without coming to grief. The Government will, however, keep a very close watch on the workings of the law on industrial relations in the light of the amendments that are being made. If there are abuses, the Government will not hesitate to make the necessary adjustments. We hope, however, that employers will exercise their rights with responsibility, and that they will take a far-sighted view of their real interest. It is in their long-term interest not to abuse, as they can, this Bill, because then I think there can be no expectation on their part that the trade unions themselves will act with the restraint and responsibility which they have so far shown. We hope, therefore, that employers will exercise their rights with responsibility and that it will not be necessary to take corrective action. The objectives of these two pieces of legislation - the Employment Bill and the Central Provident Fund (Amendment) Bill - are, as it should be very clear by now, to help Singapore as an independent nation not only to meet the storms ahead but also to ensure that we ride them successfully. I hope that co-operation will be forthcoming from the employers in this regard and that the trade unions will make the necessary adjustments in face of the new situation. The delineation of management functions and trade union functions will do away with the "Heads I win, tails you lose" attitude. Let us resolve to replace this with "Heads we all win, tails we all lose". Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.25 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to comment on the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill which is now being read for the Second time. As the Secretary-General of the National Trades Union Congress, I am very pleased to note that the Government has incorporated into the Bill some of the suggestions made by the N.T.U.C. When we were first informed by the Government of its intention to amend the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1960, we were very much taken aback by the rather drastic scope and extent of the amendments intended by the Government. We then strongly represented to the Government that its objectives could still be achieved by modifying its intended amendments so as to minimise the adverse effects on the workers. Evidently, as it appears from the Bill, the Government has given heed to our representations.

3.26 p.m. For instance, it was intended that the power of the Industrial Arbitration Court to reinstate in employment an employee who has been wrongfully dismissed was to be confined to cases where the employee had been allegedly dismissed for trade union activities. We pointed out that such a provision restricting the power of reinstatement in employment would give rise to many malpractices or abuses by unscrupulous employers. At present, such employers are deterred from dismissing their employees summarily without justification because of the protection given to employees under the Industrial Relations Ordinance. It would have been unduly and unnecessarily demoralising to an employee to have been deprived of the protection given to his employment under the Industrial Relations Ordinance. Not every one who has been wrongfully dismissed by his employer can claim to be a trade union officer or a member actively engaged in trade union work. Paragraph (d) of clause 8 of the Bill, however, takes care of cases of dismissal arising out of circumstances other than those in contravention of section 79 of the Ordinance by amending section 34 thereof to provide for such cases of dismissal to be referred to the Minister who may himself, or through the Commissioner of Labour, inquire into the dismissal and who is empowered to order the reinstatement or payment of compensation to an employee who is found to have been wrongfully dismissed. I am also happy to note that clause 7 of the Bill has given effect to the N.T.U.C, representation that the provision cutting across collective agreement should not be unduly wide. The original intention of the Government was to enact that no collective agreement should contain provisions with regard to terms and conditions of service more favourable to employees than those contained in Part IV of the Employment Act, 1968. The N.T.U.C., however, pointed out that since the intention of such an amendment was to stimulate and promote industrial expansion in Singapore and that since the existing collective agreements relate to employees in existing firms and factories, it was only logical and reasonable that such a drastic amendment should be made applicable only to firms or factories which have not yet been established. We note here with satisfaction that an acceptable compromise has been made by the Government in proposing that only employees in certain specified industries which are established on or after 1st January, 1968, are to come within the scope of the proposed section 24A. We also note that the proposed section 24A provides that the proposed restrictions on collective agreements governing the employees within the specified industries are to be valid for the first five years of the existence of the specified industries. Such measures, though they may appear to be rather drastic to employees engaged in the new industries, are necessary to stimulate new industries and will then lead to the creation of more job opportunities. While we are happy that the Government has taken into consideration our representation by incorporating some of our suggestions into the provisions of the Bill, as I have just mentioned, we cannot help noticing that the Bill also contains provisions which appear to be unnecessarily unfavourable to workers. For instance, in clause 4 of the Bill, by which a new subsection (3) is to be added to the existing section 16 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, it is provided that any trade union representing subordinate staff may seek recognition in respect of employees in managerial or executive positions or serve a notice under section 17 of the Ordinance in respect of those employees. We are apprehensive of the position of such trade unions at present representing employees who may be considered to be in managerial executive positions. These unions, whose members consist mainly of employees in non-managerial or non-executive positions, have been given recognition in respect of employees in managerial or executive positions and have concluded collective agreements on behalf of such employees. If such unions are not to be allowed to continue to represent employees in managerial or executive positions on the expiry of the existing collective agreements, then these employees would be placed in a most untenable position. It must be emphasised here that the Industrial Relations Ordinance gives protection to workers only if they are members of a trade union which has been accorded recognition by an employer. Where an employee does not belong to any trade union, or belongs to a trade union which has not been accorded recognition by his employer, he has no effective remedy or redress against victimisation by his employer under the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The position is complicated by the fact that there are few trade unions to cater for managerial or executive employees. In fact, there are, as far as I know, only two unions catering for employees in managerial or executive positions in the private sector. It is inconceivable that these two unions would be in a position to cater for all the employees in managerial or executive positions engaged in the various industries in the private sector in Singapore. Even if they are, there has to be an inevitable lapse of time before a union can be given recognition in respect of employees in managerial or executive positions who have been formerly represented by a trade union consisting mainly of non-managerial or non-executive employees. While we appreciate the principle that employees in supervisory positions should belong to unions different from those of the subordinate employees, we are rather apprehensive that, in view of such a radical change to prevailing practices, the Government has not made any transitional provisions to safeguard the interests of employees who are in a managerial position and who happen to be members of the trade unions representing mainly employees in non-executive positions. If such managerial or executive employees have nothing to fear from their employers, they would never have found it necessary to be members of the trade unions representing employees in non-managerial or non-executive positions. It is a fact which should be duly noted by the Government when implementing tile proposed amendment to the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The other point which I wish to comment on concerns clause 5 of the Bill which seeks to amend section 17 of the Ordinance. A new subsection, which seeks to make certain managerial functions non-negotiable between an employer and the trade union representing his employees, has been proposed. The managerial functions refer to the rights of an employer in relation to (a) promotion, (b) transfer, (c) employment, (d) retrenchment, (e) dismissal and reinstatement, (f) assignment or allocation of duties. We must point out that it seems most dangerously lopsided to enact that such managerial functions are exercisable at the absolute discretion of the employer without providing for adequate safeguards for the workers. In the first place, such managerial functions exist in common law and it appears rather unnecessary and superfluous to give statutory protection to such managerial functions. But granted that it is necessary from the Government's viewpoint to give statutory protection to these managerial functions, the failure to provide ample safeguards for the workers does not appear to be justifiable. To be more specific, in respect of the management functions pertaining to promotion and recruitment, no attempt has been made to spell out the criteria or limits within which an employer can reasonably exercise his rights. Thus it is open to an employer to adhere most rigidly to the publicised conditions for promotion or employment of persons he does not like and to waive such conditions on any pretext in respect of applicants favoured by him. It all boils down to whether an employer can he relied upon to exercise his management functions in good faith. Although the provisions pertaining to the rights of an employer to transfer, retrench, dismiss or order his employees contain certain safeguards for the employees, such safeguards are effective only if the assumption that an employer always acts in good faith is justified. On this point, we in the N.T.U.C., being used to seeing the uglier side of the employer's face, do not share the .optimism of the Government that employers can be depended on to behave responsibly and decently towards their workers. We are fully aware that industrial or commercial organisations are profit-making organisations and that it is in the own interest of the management, whether it be professional management divorced from the ownership of tile business or otherwise, to employ the best talents available or to deploy staff in the most advantageous manner. But the fact remains that employers and managers are only human and may occasionally behave in an irrational and perverse manner. Our concern is that such behaviour may have adverse repercussions for the workers and that the Ordinance does not seek to safeguard the rights of the workers. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Labour in his speech yesterday referred to the incidence of 389 work-stoppages involving a loss of 1,284,029 man-days during the period from 1960 to 1967. The impression that appears to be given is that the trade union movement has been irresponsible in the past and cannot be relied upon to ensure that work-stoppages of such magnitude would not occur again so as not to prejudice Singapore's future industrial expansion programme. I wish to point out that work-stoppages must necessarily arise out of trade disputes and that it takes two parties to make a trade dispute. It is not fair and correct to blame the occurrence of each and every dispute on the union involved. For in the first place, if an employer can be trusted to give a fair deal to his workers, it would never have been necessary for the Government to enact employment legislation such as the Industrial Relations Ordinance. I also wish to point out that the reference to the period, 1960 to 1967, whether intentional or otherwise, was extremely misleading, to say the least. The fact is that the Industrial Relations Ordinance was enacted in 1960 to meet the need for promoting peace and stability in the field of industrial relations in Singapore. It takes a few years for the Industrial Relations Ordinance to be in operation before its effect becomes evident. This is substantiated by the published data of the Statistics Department pertaining to work-stoppages. For the period 1964 to 1967, the second half of the period referred to by the Minister, there were only 94 world-stoppages involving the loss of 11,715 man-days which do not amount to even one per cent of the total for the whole period. The only conclusion I can draw from this comparison of figures is that the Industrial Relations Ordinance has become increasingly effective during the last few years even without the gift of managerial functions to employers. Even now as we are discussing this Bill, there are employers who are seeking to exploit the provisions of the Bill to their best advantage, regardless of the intention of the Government. I have been given to understand that one commercial organisation, which has previously applied for the extension of a collective agreement to which the trade union concerned has indicated its agreement, now seeks to oppose its own application before the Industrial Arbitration Court. The reason for its action appears to be that the employer anticipates certain provisions to be superfluous in a collective agreement in view of the Government's gift of management functions. Such being the case, workers cannot be blamed for feeling nervous that some employers are clearing the decks for wholesale exploitation of workers. While it is heartening to know that the Government has given an assurance that it will not hesitate to cane the naughty employers, it is our hope that the Government will not be found wanting in decisiveness and firmness when it comes to dealing with recalcitrant employers. The N.T.U.C. will not be silent if it finds that some employers take undue advantage of the powers of managerial functions given to them under this Bill.

3.43 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, what is the true industrial relations situation? Are the workers suppressed or are the employers terrorised? Neither proposition describes the real situation. But apparently the former Minister for Labour has quite suddenly come to think that the workers have gone out of hand and must be straightened up by harsh administrative and legal sanctions. It is also apparent that he has not given a factual account of the real situation. Those who are deeply involved and concerned with industrial relations will readily say that labour and management have matured since the turbulent years of the 1950s. From Labour Department sources we gather that there are fewer and fewer strikes and lock-outs. The number of work-stoppages for each year since 1955 are as follows: - 1955 - 275 1962 - 88 1956 - 29 1963 - 47 1957 - 27 1964 - 39 1958 - 22 1965 - 30 1959 - 40 1966 - 14 1960 - 45 1967 - 30 1961 - 116 In the first five months of 1968 there have been only two work-stoppages. Although there were 18 more strikes, in 1959 than in 1958, there were fewer man-days lost in 1959 than in 1958 due to work-stoppages. In the 1950s the work-stoppages were mainly politically motivated, and so were those in the early l960s. Whatever the laws might have been, they would not have made any difference to the trend and line of action in those years. However, since those days, industrial relations have gradually progressed and found their own balance, and restrictive laws will not at all be conducive to the further development of better industrial relations. Industrial relations have made a marked improvement in the last few years, and this is eloquently stated in the Singapore Year Book 1966, which is published by authority. In Chapter Eight, page 189, it states: 'The marked improvement in industrial relations noted in 1965 continued throughout the year. There were only 14 work stoppages during the year - the lowest since 1961, the peak year for work stoppages when there were 116 strikes. For the first time, at the end of the year there were no outstanding strikes.' In the same chapter, in page 200, it states: 'The two noteworthy features in the fields of industrial relations were firstly, that there were only 14 work stoppages - the lowest since 1961 - and, secondly, the short duration of these work stoppages. Nine stoppages lasted from 1 to 5 days, four from 6 to 40 days and only one lasted for more than 40 days, which altogether involved 1,288 workers as against 3,374 in 1965 and 43,584 in 1961. The number of man days lost as a result of the 14 work stoppages was 17,807.' Mr Speaker, Sir, surely there have been disputes - disputes on union recognition, dismissal and retrenchment. Some were settled by direct negotiations, some were settled in the Labour Department, and some were settled in the industrial Arbitration Court. The cases brought up to the Labour Department were settled under the very eyes of the former Minister for Labour, and in some of the cases, the employees' objections were upheld. It was true also that the Industrial Arbitration Court has ruled in favour of the trade unions in some dismissal and retrenchment cases. These decisions of the Labour Department and the Industrial Arbitration Court prove the point that employers can abuse their powers, and that employees should be allowed to protest, to object and to dispute the actions taken by management which they consider are prejudicial to their own interests. The very fact that an employer can act, intentionally or unintentionally, against the present or future interests of his employee, should be convincing enough to any man with common sense and, more, with a sense of justice, to accept the plea that an aggrieved employee should be allowed to have the full protection of his trade union against the high and heavy-handed action of his employer. If we accept the concept of a free society, and a society of law and order, then we must accept accordingly the democratic right of an individual to protest, to object and to dispute an action which he considers is against his own interest. I firmly believe that an aggrieved employee should be given the right to seek justice in the Court, and it would be a shame to clip the powers of the Industrial Arbitration Court. The Industrial Arbitration Court is a sound industrial relations procedure, and any attempt to circumscribe the jurisdiction and function of the court is unacceptable. The Industrial Arbitration Court has obtained the respect of the workers because it operates on sound principles. In this connection, I quote Chapter Eight, page 202 of the Singapore Year Book, 1966: 'The principle upon which the Industrial Arbitration Court operates is that of offering to employers and trade unions of employees an award or decision which will fairly and justly reflect not only the interests of both parties to an industrial dispute but also to the community as a whole, as well as the economy of the Republic.' With these words of the Labour Department in mind, it is hard to understand the move to take away the powers of the Industrial Arbitration Court to hear cases on dismissal and retrenchment, and the contingent powers to reinstate dismissed or retrenched employees and grant suitable reliefs. It is imperative to note that all dismissal or retrenchment cases that came up before the Industrial Arbitration Court were either disputes arising out of the operation of collective agreements or disputes jointly referred to the court, or disputes directed to the court by the Minister, and included in the latter category would be cases which his Ministry had failed to mediate successfully. In all these cases, the trade unions have more than accepted the awards of the Court. In fact, they have come to respect the court as a place of wisdom and justice. Notwithstanding this realisation, the trade unions have discreetly settled their disputes out of court. The records of the court show this attitude. In 1967, the Court heard four dismissal cases, three union recognition cases and five retrenchment cases; and in 1966 the court heard 13 dismissal cases, five union recognition cases and two retrenchment cases. The Labour Department, however, still have the monopoly of dismissal and retrenchment cases referred by the trade unions for conciliation and arbitration. Of the 702 disputes referred to the Labour Department in 1966 for conciliation, 34.9 per cent were dismissal cases; and according to the same Report (Command 7 of 1968), "Retrenchment was again a minor cause amounting to only 6.6 per cent." Is the former Minister for Labour suggesting that trade unions are also terrorising him, his officials and the court when they were defending their members in the Labour Department and in the court? Is the former Minister for Labour claiming that there is a free-for-all situation with organised workers terrorising the employers? I think it is a figment of his imagination. If anything is true, it is that he possesses the quality of a fiction story-teller quite common among some reporters who rub in highly sensational ideas to make a no-story a tall story. I wish to point out to the Minister that the general consensus of opinion of workers, not just trade union members, is that clause 5 and clause 8 of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill to amend section 17 and section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1960, is an open invitation to wield the axe. However, much depends on who the Minister is, and if the Bill is passed, I think workers will have to cross their fingers, and wait and see how he plays his hand in dealing with the bully-boys amongst unenlightened employers. This attitude, rightly or wrongly, arouses the hopes and fears of workers, because the proposed labour legislation is brimming with prejudice. The fear created by the new labour legislation in the worker is that if he is unfortunate to be sick for too long, he will not get a vacation leave, and probably he will leave his family destitute. The fear created in the worker is that if he proves, in the opinion of his employer, to be not so useful any more, he will lose his job. The worker is told if the new labour legislation is not introduced, there is the prospect of a grim future for him, and when the economic situation becomes bad, unlike money and managerial men, he is stuck fast here. It is fear, fear, fear without limit. I think it would be more sensible to invoke the patriotic spirit to work hard to be more efficient and productive, and to make the necessary sacrifices. I think the workers must be made to feel they are important, useful and effective digits in society. They must be allowed to decide the future of the country, and feel that they do not get the worst deal, whether the circumstances are favourable or poor. Some may be inclined to believe that the workers in Singapore have never had it so good, and if things are going to be bad, they must have the worst. This is not the correct attitude to take towards the workers. I firmly believe that there will be greater participation by the workers in the affairs of the undertakings if they are to understand most clearly, to give out the most and receive the best in return. The common assertion that it is the employers' right to make business decisions free from collective bargaining is based on property rights. Such a contention is valid as far as the right to organise and to direct machinery, materials and money is concerned, but never men. As far as men are concerned, the property basis of management carries no legal duty, and no legal compulsion to co-operate. An authority on industrial relations has this to say: 'While property rights carry with them a power of disposition of goods, they do not carry an equal power to use those goods if the co-operation of others is necessary to that use. Co-operation, without which the property right is reduced to a power of disposition, cannot be commanded. It can be won only by consent. And there is no legal compulsion upon the workers to cooperate. There is no legal statement of the terms on which co-operation must take place. The definition of those terms is left directly to those parties involved, and there is nothing in law to stop the union from demanding as the price of the co-operation of its members a voice in some matter previously independently determined by management. Since the property rights do not mean that one has command over others, management may find it essential to share its authority as a means of inducing co-operation, in order to maintain the value of a going business. Over a period of time, it becomes customary to share authority in order to win co-operation in certain recognised areas of business decisions - for example, wages, hours, or perhaps the speed of assembly lines.' The only institution where a man can be managed and ordered about is the military institution where authoritarian relationship exists by consent. However, a military-like regime can never run an undertaking successfully for long. I have strongly emphasised the need for greater participation by workers in the management of undertakings, because this is a world-wide phenomenon. The International Labour Organisation's Recommendation 130 lays down that workers' representatives should participate in the framing of personnel policy and the solution of social questions within the undertaking. The problems that require the workers' participation cover conditions of work, welfare services, safety, employment and discipline, training and a range of matters involving the workers and having social consequences. I think it is clear now that the introduction of clause 5 to prohibit collective bargaining on procedures on promotion, transfer, employment, termination, dismissal, re-employment and assignment of work is a denial of the workers' right to participate in the affairs which immediately affect his life and that of society. Let me be explicitly clear that trade unions have never desired to arrogate to themselves the functions of management in directing the affairs of the enterprise. Labour only wants the establishment of rules for management to follow in exercising their functions. This must necessarily be so, for workers will suffer if the undertaking is managed inefficiently or may have to suffer if the undertaking is to be run more efficiently. In the former case, it is clear how all those involved in the enterprise will suffer, but in the latter case, because of the workers' own productivity, some of them might be dispensed with. Arising from the points I have just made, I think no self-respecting worker and trade unionist will agree to the matters listed in clause 5 being withdrawn from the field of collective bargaining. Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 8 of the Bill seeks to remove from the Industrial Arbitration Court the power to hear and decide upon claims by unions for the reinstatement of employees and to order the reinstatement where the court is satisfied that the dismissal was wrongful. Perhaps we in this House should try to trace the events that led to the amendment that was made to the previous section 38 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (now section 40 of the Reprints Supplement). A glance at the original provisions contained in section 38 of the Ordinance seems to indicate that the court had extremely wide powers. Section 38 gave the court the power to make an award on any matter or thing for the purpose of settling a trade dispute or of preventing any further trade dispute even though the matter or the thing was not one of the specific reliefs claimed by the parties before the Court. My trade union colleagues, who had occasion to appear before the Industrial Arbitration Court in cases for reinstatement, had on every occasion been told by the senior representative of the Singapore Employers Federation, who had argued against the unions, that the court did not possess the power to reinstate. His main argument was that, in the absence of a specific provision empowering the court to order the reinstatement of a dismissed worker, the court could not order any reinstatement. Also, he had, on occasion, compared the powers given to industrial tribunals in Australia where the tribunals were specifically given the power to reinstate and he had proceeded to emphasise that without such a power the court could not reinstate any dismissed employee. The present provision contained in section 40 of the Reprints Supplement of the Industrial Relations Ordinance was a direct result of certain proposals put forward by the National Trades Union Congress following the adoption of a resolution urging the Government to amend certain sections of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, particularly those contained in section 38. This took place on the 4th of April, 1964, at the Victoria Memorial Hall, at its first Annual Delegates Conference. The Recommendations of the N.T.U.C. on the amendment to section 38 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance were as follows: 'The powers of the Court are very wide as set out in this sub-section. There ought to be a provision here ensuring that before the Court makes any award, especially in relation to a matter which does not come within the specific relief originally claimed by any party, the Court must first bear in open Court the submissions thereon of all the parties who are eventually to be bound by the award. A specific clause ought to be included here stating that the Court has the power to order the reinstatement of employees no matter for what reason they have been dismissed if for any good and sufficient reason the Court thinks it fit that such employees should be reinstated.' It was as a result of this proposal that the Government decided to amend section 38 (now section 40 of the Reprints Supplement) giving the court specific powers to reinstate an employee who is dismissed. I have already stated my objection to clause 5, but my opinion on clause 8 is quite neutral because it does not matter very much whether general termination cases are dealt with in the Industrial Arbitration Court or the Ministry of Labour. However, I give my support not to withdraw the jurisdiction of the District Court to hear cases subject to section 79 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. Mr Speaker, Sir, at this juncture I wish to make an observation on the futility of clause 5 and clause 8. Even if the matters listed in clause 5 are non-industrial matters, as defined in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, there can be disputes not arising from the terms of the collective agreement. Such disputes are not necessarily bound to be referred to the Minister under clause 8. That is the defect I wish to point out. I come now to the crucial point where it may be necessary to take extra remedial legislative measures to make it unlawful to take industrial action over "non-industrial matters". Sad is the day when more restrictive laws are adopted. Let there not be such a day.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill must not be considered in isolation. It is to be taken together with the Employment Bill and the Central Provident Fund (Amendment) Bill as each is part and parcel of a deal designed to achieve new norms in industrial relations, terms and conditions of service and to increase domestic savings which will benefit our people. The Government has already explained fully that, in connection with the Employment Bill, the purpose is to strengthen our economy and ready us to face the economic challenges ahead. The other Members of this House, leaders of industry, commerce and labour have expressed their views. Academicians and economists have studied and debated it and the general consensus of opinion has been that the Government is not only right but indeed has no other choice. It has to take stringent measures even at the risk of being unpopular. The Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill sets industrial relations in its true perspective. This Bill may appear to the superficially minded and the superficially inclined as a move against the interests of labour, but in reality it is not so. What it seeks to do is to rationalise the position to prevent in-roads into functions which properly belong to management. These inroads, whether made consciously or unconsciously, have led to aberrations in industrial relations which in turn have dampened the incentive for some employers to continue in business, have made them hesitate to expand business and, worst of all, discouraged potential new investment. Mr Speaker, Sir, the function of management is to manage and workers must accept this fact. It is only under such conditions that we can hope to maintain the present buoyancy in our economy and promote a climate of stability for further expansion of our economy so that more jobs can be made available for our people. The Government's measures are an attempt to establish a balance between the needs of the workers and the requirements of entrepreneurs in the context of our national interest. The Central Provident Fund (Amendment) Bill, for example, will enable our workers to own houses and have a stake in our country. Although the employers will have to pay more under the new rate of Central Provident Fund contributions, I am sure none will grudge the extra payment when the money is put to good use.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise not to oppose the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill; neither do I completely support it. It is obvious that the Government has good intentions for moving the amendments. I think the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill has the same motivations as the new Employment Bill. It would, therefore, be superfluous for me to go into the whys and wherefores for the introduction of this amendment Bill. But I will not be discharging my duty as a Member for Parliament with labour interests at heart if I do not point out the objectionable portions of the Bill as they appear to me. These amendments seek to vest in the management absolute power and a completely free hand in dealing with the employees without any real safeguards for the interests and welfare of the workers. Such are the provisions of this Bill that even the most scrupulous of employers would be stupid not to take advantage of them to the detriment of their employees. In the overall interest of the working class, the dangers and threats posed to their security by this amendment Bill must be squarely faced in the hope that employers would also rise to the occasion and not abuse the absolute managerial functions handed to them in this "silver statute". I wish to seek a further amendment to this Bill, but it is obviously not possible because neither I, nor my colleagues from the unions, have given notice. However, I would like to bring to the notice of the Minister the necessity of further protective measures in the provisions of clause 5 of this Bill. Sir, I refer to new subsection (2) (d) of section 17 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance relating to termination of service on the grounds of redundancy and reorganisation. I do not wish to imply that all employers are anti-labour; neither are they pro-labour. It therefore stands to reason that there must be some employers who will not hesitate to exploit the provisions quite blatantly and, under the guise of reorganisation, create redundancy where none exists in order to retrench some of their employees. Here I would like to quote an example to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Labour who was an editor of a newspaper before. He knows that if a sub-editor is made to read the proof, at the stone, there will be redundancy in the proof-reading department. That kind of reorganisation cannot be justified. If a part of the proof-reading job is taken over by the "stone" editor, the proof-readers will lose their jobs. I do not doubt that the Minister knows all about this. There is nothing in this Bill to prevent such employers from engaging their relatives or friends a few months after their alleged reorganisation to fill the positions previously held by the retrenched employees. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have no intention to take steps to negative this clause, but I do ask the Government to qualify this clause with protective sub-clauses so that no employer may be able unjustly to exploit it. As the proposed amendment now stands, an employer may effect a retrenchment and the union may only discuss the terms of severance pay for those retrenched employees who have more than three years' service. The Employment Bill, which was read a Third time yesterday, makes provision for the payment of such retrenchment benefits should the union and the employer agree on the benefits to be paid. The issue can obviously be referred to arbitration. It is the criterion for the termination of service which only is precluded from the purview of negotiation or arbitration. In some ways, it may be even cheaper for an employer to retrench his serving employees and save whatever compensation is due to them, because the amount so paid up will be more than recouped by the subsequent savings from employing new and cheaper labour. Further, the employer can always retrench employees every two years and eleven months and thereby pay no severance benefits. Such a situation is not as far-fetched as the Government would have us believe. It is because of the distinct possibility of such malpractices and abuses that I urge the Government to provide more safeguards for workers. The protective clauses I seek are: '(1) Where the union feels that the retrenchment is justified, both employer and union make a joint application to the Arbitration Court to determine the issue. This should be determined by the President sitting alone. While the issue is under the Court's jurisdiction, the employer may go ahead with the implementation of the re-organisation or retrenchment. The Court's decision, when handed down, will determine whether the retrenchment was justifiable or not.' Sir, it will neither cost the employer anything nor will retrenchment be delayed, but such a provision will prevent abuse. '(2) Where retrenchment has been effected and upheld by the court or where the union has agreed that it was justifiable, the employer is free to engage new staff to fill the vacancies within six months from the date of retrenchment. If the employer finds it necessary to recruit staff, then he shall offer the appointments to those who have already been retrenched.' Sir, I do not believe that any enligtened employer will object to these protective provisions, because he will not abuse the powers that are, as the Minister has said, restored to him. Sir, in the case of dismissal, there is an avenue for appeal under the pro-visions of the Employment Bill when it becomes law. The dismissed employee may appeal to the Minister through his union. If the employer feels that the dismissal cannot be justified and in order to obviate the risk of ministerial intervention, he will effect the dismissal as "retrenchment" it is only calling it by another name - on the pretext of "reorganisation". This can happen. As the amendment stands today, the Minister will be in no position to intervene and wield the much publicised "big stick". Sir, these are my reasons for asking the Government to consider giving some form of protection to workers by means of restrictive clauses designed to prevent abuse of the provisions by employers. 4.23 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am of the view that the introduction of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill is mainly for the purposes of creating a climate that is conducive to investments in Singapore. It will also allay the doubts and fears of foreign investors who intend to set up business here. If a wrong impression is created, it will be detrimental to our policy of encouraging more foreign investors to come here. As a result of our pro-labour policy of industrial peace with justice, the industrial relationship between employer and worker has been very good in the last few years. Many trade disputes have been resolved by arbitration. There has been a marked reduction in the number of strikes and trade disputes. We must try to maintain the present good relationship between employer and worker. This Bill is quite fair to both employer and worker because it provides that the transfer of any employee must not be detrimental to his existing terms and conditions of service. It will therefore prevent unscrupulous employers from exploiting their employees. The Bill also provides that in the case of an employer who abuses his rights by sacking an employee, the latter can, within a month, appeal to the Minister for Labour for a withdrawal of the notice of termination of service and for reinstatement. Mr Speaker, Sir, the trade union leaders in the National Trades Union Congress look after not merely the interest of labour but also that of the nation as a whole. In doing so, they seldom interfere with the rights of employers. They merely advance advisory opinions and this is not construed as interference with the rights of employers. I hope that the introduction of this Bill will not affect our policy of industrial peace with justice and that this policy will be maintained. The present era is not the time for employers to increase their wealth at the expense of the workers. The employers should treat the employees fairly and, at the same time, the employees should work harder. It is only in this way that we can contribute to our economic development. I support this Bill for all these reasons. 4.29 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with the enactment of the new Employment Bill into law, a new chapter in the history of labour legislation in the Republic will have been written with the complete overhaul of three previous Acts which were legacies of the colonial past. It engenders a fertile and attractive investment climate for both local and foreign capital. But even with these new terms and conditions of employment as set out in the new Bill, investors will still be wary about investing in our Republic unless certain management functions such as employment, promotion, transfer, dismissal, retrenchment and reinstatement are restored to the rightful party. These are the inalienable rights of a company's management. In other words, the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill, 1968, is a natural follow-up of the Employment Act. These two pieces of legislation are just like Siamese twins and cannot be separated if they are to produce the desired objectives which the Government has in mind. During the years before 1966 when the history of our industrial relations was nothing to be proud of, the unions encroached upon the management functions of commercial and industrial companies. For instance, it was almost impossible in those years to get rid of a malingering and bad worker because he could take shelter and protection under the umbrella of his union. Very often if a single worker was dismissed on strong and legitimate grounds, it would result in protracted negotiations between union and management, and if the negotiations came to nought, it usually ended in a strike resulting in heavy losses of revenue to the company. Very often, if it was a foreign concern and the losses were too heavy to bear, the concern would just fold up and go away. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have to remind the trade union Members of this House that no sensible and responsible management will try to get rid of a trained and exemplary worker when he is a manpower asset in the viability of the company. The profits of the company depend on his productivity and skill and the effort he puts into his work. How then can an employer afford to dismiss such a worker? Instead, management has to think of incentives to reward his contribution to his company and to induce him to work as long as possible for the company, because a worker takes many years to be trained before he is really effective in his contribution. Moreover, provisions are incorporated in the Bill by which wrongful dismissals, as stated by the Minister, can be referred to him, and his decisions to redress any wrong are final. This is a more satisfactory procedure to avoid time-consuming dialogues between the two parties to justify each other's actions. Therefore, these two Bills will provide a solid foundation to woo local trading companies, which are now hesitant, and foreign industrialists to invest in our island state, as investment is necessary for our economic survival. The presence of the British military bases provides almost 20 per cent of our national income. This 20 per cent income comes from abroad. With the British withdrawal by 1971, the whole of this source of income will be reduced to zero. We will face a cruel world which does not owe us a living. We must make up for the loss of this income derived from the presence of the British military bases here. We also face competition with other industrial countries in Asia. We must also maintain our present standard of living which is the second highest in Asia. To succeed in all this, we must raise the quality of our goods and improve the efficiency of our services to the maximum. Workers, like any other Singapore citizen, will no longer be in a privileged position. They will be called upon to make sacrifices in the national interest by increasing productivity and efficiency. Therefore, the trade unions will now have to play a more positive role in educating their members to respond to these changes of circumstances which are crucial in the years ahead for our existence as an independent and sovereign nation. The Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill, 1968, merely re-establishes the status quo between labour and management which is long overdue in industrial relations. With an enlightened attitude and positive co-operation on both sides, our nation will co down in the annals of history that we have achieved the impossible by the enactment of these two Bills. Our labour will earn the hallmark of being the most hard-working, intelligent, responsible, skilled and industrious in Asia. When this objective is reached, these two Bills will have generated the establishment of more and more industries. This will mean more avenues of employment for our citizens. With that, Mr Speaker. Sir, I beg to support the Bill. 4.35 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before I deal with some of the points raised by the hon. Members opposite, I think I should correct the misapprehension of one of the hon. Members that I had quoted statistics relating to strikes to blame the workers. If he will re-read my speech, he will see that that was not the intention. The intention was to show that during the period in the early 1960s, something like 57 per cent of the disputes arose out of quarrels over management rights, retrenchment, the right to hire workers and so on. This was the basis on which this Bill was introduced, because obviously there is considerable misunderstanding between workers and management about what are management rights. The Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill now, for the first time, spells out something which hon. Members, and especially the trade union themselves, admit are common law rights. These rights have been there. They are accepted as such. The rights of the management to manage have not been queried, except by the Member for Kallang who has suggested that workers should also participate in the management of industries. That is something for the future. But, at the moment, there is no dispute and no quarrel over the essence of the Bill. Where there is misgiving is in regard to the abuse of these rights by certain employers. Of course, if one assumes that all employers are madcaps, then not only this legislation but all other pieces of legislation go by the board. But employment laws are normally made on the basis that employers are reasonable and we frame legislation to suit reasonable conditions. But where it appears to us that the number of madcap employers becomes very substantial, then, as I made it quite clear in my speech, we will reconsider amendments to our Industrial Relations Act with a view to controlling unreasonable employers. But as things are at the moment, we work on the assumption that most employers are reasonable, as most trade unionists are reasonable. If that feeling prevails and if employers and trade unionists work on the basis that both parties are reasonable men, then I think this Bill, when passed into law, will achieve what we really want to achieve. In the debate not only on this Bill but also on the Employment Bill, there are different objectives or immediate objectives. Naturally for the trade unionists, they are only interested in the trade unions and the workers. The employer is concerned only with his own sectional interest. But, as a Government, our interests are national. We are interested in the welfare of Singapore as a whole - workers, employers and professional men. One of the main objectives of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill, as with the Employment Act, is to resolve serious and real problems of economic expansion, new investments, increased productivity. And the overriding test to which we submit any legislation is, will it help to bring about these objectives - economic expansion, new investments, increased productivity? If it can or if it gives a reasonable assurance that it can, then the legislation must over-ride the sectional interests, whether of employers or workers or any other groups. And this, I am convinced, will help and definitely bring about industrial expansion, economic expansion, new investments. If we do not achieve these objectives soon enough before 1971, at least in the 1970s, then the arguments about the right to hire and fire and retrenchment would become superfluous and unreal, because there would be massive unemployment. Employers would be checking out and concerns would be closing down right and left, in which case even the exercise of the need for unions would become problematical. My colleagues and I, and I am quite sure Members opposite also, are convinced that this Bill will, when enacted into law, bring about new investments, industrial expansion and, in the long run, bigger, more prosperous and stronger unions.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Mr Rajaratnam, before we get to the Committee stage of this Bill, I propose to suspend the sitting now. I will take the Chair again at 5.00 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.42 p.m. until 5.00 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.00 p.m.

Bill 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: reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 5.04 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill is the third of three Bills which are designed to meet the challenging economic problems that loom ahead. Whilst the purpose of the Employment Bill and the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill is to have more realistic terms and conditions of service and employer-employee relations consonant with the need to induce greater investment, generate higher productivity and employment, this Bill deals with another inter-related problem -- the marshalling of domestic savings for the economic and social benefit of our people. Before I deal with the Bill itself, hon. Members will no doubt like to have the air cleared in regard to the Fund itself. At the end of 1967, there were 456,029 members with balances totalling $477,315,488. The number of active accounts in 1967 was, however, 299,157 and contributions received during the year amounted to $55.8 million. An interesting feature of the Fund is that about 60 per cent of the members earn less than $200 per month, whilst about 31 per cent earn between $200 and $500 per month, and only about 9 per cent earn more than $500 per month. It would also be interesting to note that about 57 per cent of the total membership have a balance of less than $500, but if we were to consider the total number of members having a balance of under $1,000 the percentage would be about 71 per cent. The analyses given here will help hon. Members, in the light of what I have to say later on, to appreciate the effect the proposed amendments to the Central Provident Fund Ordinance will have on the wage earning population of Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, the principal purposes of the Bill are: (i) to increase the contributions payable to the Central Provident Fund by employers and employees; (ii) to enable arrangements to be made for members of the Fund to use their savings in the Fund for the purchase of houses or flats for their own occupation; and (iii) to enable the provisions of the Central Provident Fund Ordinance to be extended to cover persons who are self-employed and who do not at present contribute to the Fund. I shall first deal with the proposal to increase the contributions. An amendment is made to the Schedule to the Ordinance whereby new rates of contribution payable are prescribed. The effect of this amendment is that the current rate of contribution of 5 per cent each by employer and employee is increased by 1½, per cent to make it 6½ per cent each, and the existing provision that limits the employers' and employees' contributions to a maximum of $25 per month from each is removed and a new maximum of $150 per month from each is substituted. It should be noted, however, that employees who earn less than $200 per month, will not, as at present, be required to contribute to the Fund. This means that the payment of an additional 1½ per cent by the employer will, in respect of about 60 per cent of the members of the Fund, mean contributions only by employers towards enhancing the savings of workers. In an indirect way it is an addition to workers' pay. The same advantages would also apply to employees in the higher wage groups. However, it is not intended to apply the new rates to the United Kingdom Government and its employees and they will therefore contribute the present rate of 5 per cent each. The reason for this is obvious as hon. Members know that the British are leaving and retrenching their employees. The Minister is given powers to vary the schedule of contributions. The intention behind these powers is to increase the rate by another 1½ per cent in the second stage. Therefore, the total savings each month for the worker as a result of contributions payable both by employer and employee will be 16 per cent - that is 8 per cent each by employer and employee. In the third stage, the contributions will be increased by a further 2 per cent to make it 10 per cent from each side, or a total savings of 20 per cent of salary each month. This will considerably increase the savings of the employees and build up their reserves in the Fund which will stand them in good stead both by enhancing savings and accumulating sufficient money to purchase houses or flats. A very significant departure from the existing law are the amendments to section 25 of the Ordinance, as embodied in clause 14. This is to enable members of the Fund to use their savings in the Fund for the purchase of houses or flats for their own occupation. A reasonable question that can be asked in this regard is the basis on which Government has assessed the situation. I must inform hon. Members that the Government has assessed the purchase intentions of the people through a feasibility survey conducted by the Economic Research Centre in conjunction with the Housing and Development Board. This survey has shown that 49 per cent, or nearly half of the householders in Housing Board flats, expressed the intention to buy them, 10 per cent expressed uncertainty and 41 per cent did not wish to purchase flats. Among those who wish to buy flats, 16 per cent live in one-room flats, 30 per cent in two-room flats and 54 per cent in three-room flats. 29 per cent of those who expressed uncertainty live in one-room flats, 35 per cent in two-room flats and 36 per cent in three-room flats. An interesting feature was that 53 per cent of those who did not wish to buy flats live in one-room flats, 27 per cent in two-room flats and 20 per cent in three-room flats. These figures indicate that the proportion of households wishing to purchase flats varies directly with the number of rooms in a flat. While only 24 per cent of those living in one-room flats wish to buy, 50 per cent of those living in two-room flats and 68 per cent of those living in three- room flats have expressed a wish to buy them. In regard to Central Provident Fund balances of households surveyed, an interesting revelation is that about 31 per cent have between $1,000 and $5,000 and 13 per cent above $5,000. About 10 per cent have between $500 and $1,000 and 21 per cent less than $500. There are, however, a good number of people in these households who do not contribute to the Central Provident Fund but who wish to buy flats. These people are generally self-employed. Hon. Members will see that there is, therefore, justification in enabling members to make use of their savings in the Fund to purchase houses as a sizable proportion of our people, whether in or out of the Fund, are keen to own their own homes. This should give the lie to those who allege that people are forced to buy Housing Board flats. With the enhancement of savings through increased contributions, it can reasonably be expected that more people will have enough funds in due course to make down payments and pay instalments. Central Provident Fund members who already have sufficiently large balances in the Fund would be allowed to use their balances to purchase flats outright, while those who have already purchased flats will be allowed to use their monthly contributions to pay the instalments of their housing loans, but they will not be allowed to use their balances to settle outstanding balances of any existing loans. I must inform hon. Members that regulations will be introduced to make the necessary arrangements for implementing the housing scheme. The other notable amendment is the provision to extend coverage to self-employed persons, that is to say, persons who derive income from any trade, profession or vocation. Any such person, however, need not contribute after he has attained the age of 55 years. Provision is also made to ascertain from the Comptroller of Income Tax the incomes of such persons. These are contained in clauses 2 and 14 which amend sections 2 and 25 of the Ordinance. The necessary regulations in this regard will also be made in due course. The other amendments to the Central Provident Fund Ordinance are in part consequential and in part designed to improve the drafting and the administration of the Ordinance. These amendments, however, include a number of others which are considered necessary for other reasons. In particular, provisions have been made in clause 6 to require employers to contribute to the Fund in respect of employees over the age of 55 years and to require such employees to contribute. Clauses 7 and 8 of the Bill introduce two new sections designed to clarify the procedure and conditions of withdrawal from the Fund. The rights of members of the Fund to withdraw will be affected: -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Central Provident Fund (Amendment) Bill. This Bill makes a welcome change from the Employment Bill and the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill in that it contains provisions mainly for the benefit of workers in Singapore. The Bill seeks to increase the existing rate of contribution to the Central Provident Fund payable by both employer and employee from 5 per cent to 6½ per cent, 8 per cent and 10 per cent respectively during the next three years. It appears to be the intention of the Government that such increases in the rate of Central Provident Fund contributions are to be treated as wage increases. The Government is to be congratulated on moving such an amendment to the Central Provider Fund Ordinance as the increased rate of contribution would, in effect, increase the savings of workers. In conjunction with the increased rate of contribution, the Bill also seeks to provide that the amount of existing deposits credited to each employee in the Central Provident Fund can be utilised for making a down payment for the purchase of a Housing and Development Board flat and that the subsequent contributions to the Central Provident Fund at the enhanced rate of contribution can be utilised for paying the monthly hire-purchase instalments for the purchase of such flats. As I see it, such a provision would enable many workers to make their dream of owning their own homes come true. This is particularly so when the Central Provident Fund rate of contribution is increased to 10 per cent in three years' time. While I appreciate that the provisions in the Bill are for the general benefit to workers, however, I wish to draw the attention of the Government to the fact that whatever benefit the Government proposes to give to the workers under the Bill may be largely negatived by the action that would be taken by most employers. It is the valid fear of workers that employers may offset the increased rate of contribution payable under this Bill against the gratuity benefits payable by them under a collective agreement. Members of the House may be aware that in most collective agreements, provision is made for the payment of gratuity benefit to an employee on his resignation or retirement from the service of his employer. The amount of this gratuity benefit depends on the length of his service. The rate usually averages five per cent of the last drawn monthly salary for each year of service, in addition to the Central Provident Fund contribution payable by the employer. As it is proposed under the Bill to increase the Central Provident Fund contribution ultimately to 10 per cent, and if the employer is allowed to offset the increased rate of contribution against whatever gratuity benefit is payable by him to the worker under the collective agreement it would, in effect, mean that the worker would not obtain the benefit of any wage increase as envisaged under this Bill. I would therefore urge the Government to look into this problem and ensure that the employer does not offset the increased rate of Central Provident Fund contribution against whatever gratuity benefit is payable by him to his workers under the collective agreement. If employers do this, it will defeat the very purpose of this Bill which is to enable the workers to enjoy any increase in wages. I wish also to comment on an important point which seems to be ignored under the Central Provident Fund (Amendment) Bill. I refer to the problem of persons who are unemployed before reaching the age of 55 years, at which age they are only allowed to withdraw whatever sum of money is standing to their credit in the Central Provident Fund. Such persons, particularly those whose ages range between 45 and 50, may find themselves unemployable in the labour market which is being flooded with young school-leavers. The tragedy is compounded by the fact that such persons are usually family men. The result is that they find themselves in a most unenviable situation. They have no jobs and no means to support the family. They find that they cannot withdraw some of the monies which are credited to their names in the Central Provident Fund. I would, therefore, appeal to the Government seriously to consider allowing such persons to withdraw some of the monies credited to them in the Central Provident Fund. I would suggest that a person who has been unemployed for five years and has attained the age of 45 years should be allowed to withdraw up to 30 per cent of the amount of money standing to his credit in the Central Provident Fund, and if he still remains unemployed at the age of 50, he should be allowed to withdraw a further 30 per cent of the money standing to his credit. Such a measure will allow him to make use of the money when he most urgently needs it either for supporting his family or for commencing a small business. This measure also allows him to retain 40 per cent of the sum of money so deposited in the Central Provident Fund for use in his old age, by which time some members of his family may be able to take over the task of maintaining the family. 5.32 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, a few moments ago, the Minister said that the Central Provident Fund (Amendment) Bill was to be introduced in the interest of the workers. He also stated that there will be 1½ per cent increase in the amount of contributions and that there will be provision to enable members of the Central Provident Fund to utilise money in credit with the Fund to buy flats. In my view, this may not be quite correct. The most important factor is whether or not the products of our factories are cheap and of good quality. It is only under these circumstances that we can compete in the international market. If the products of our factories are not of good quality and are expensive, how can the workers be expected to contribute 1½ per cent more to the Central Provident Fund? The factories will not be able to sell their goods. They may even have to close down. Therefore, in my view this is not a very practical solution. Contributions to the Central Provident Fund should be reduced so that the cost of production to employees may be reduced and our goods will be more competitive in the international market. If there are more factories, there will be more jobs created. I am afraid that if workers spend their money and their rate of contribution to the Central Provident Fund is increased, many factories will not be able to keep down the cost of production. As a result, they may have to close down and unemployment will increase. 5.35 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the fact that hon. Members are relieved that at least this Bill is the silver lining in the black cloud which has been hanging over them for the past few weeks, I think there are only two points to which I need reply. The first point is about the question of offsetting the increased contributions to the new Central Provident Fund against gratuities payable under collective agreements. I suggest this is one instance where the trade unions can legitimately pursue their job of protecting the interest of the workers by insisting that --- An hon. Member: It is also good for the Government!

- the employers do stick by their agreements. The other point is the possibility of allowing people who are unemployed before the age of 55 to withdraw their Central Provident Fund contributions. As hon. Members will know, I gave some statistics which will show that this will not really help anyone who is unemployed to set up business. Something like 70 per cent of the contributors, as I have indicated, have a balance of $1,000 each. Thirty per cent of that is about $300. Any man who decides to set up business with $300 is obviously going to lose that $300 which will be there if he does not withdraw it when he is 55. So I suggest that this Bill will safeguard at least many of the younger people. If the Bill is passed, 20 per cent of their wages every month will be put into a Central Provident Fund which, over a period of 10 or 20 years, will be very substantial enough for them to buy a house and perhaps go into business.

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; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 5.41 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, as a result of higher living standards and the compelling desire of more and more people in Singapore to acquire what may be called luxury consumer goods, such as motor-cars, refrigerators and television sets, there has been a tremendous growth in recent years of instalment credit transactions carried out by resort to hire-purchase agreements. The Bill now before this House is principally designed to control the form and contents of hire-purchase agreements and to spell out the rights and duties of parties to such agreements. It is also designed to control instalments-sale financing to achieve certain objects, namely, to curb inflation by restricting credit facilities; to specify classes of goods for particular purposes, or to divert manufacturing activity and the lending of money to more productive purposes. The legislation provides for the exercise of this control by laying down minimum deposits on hire-purchase agreements or by restricting periods for which payments by instalment buyers may be spread. Quite apart from this, a more pressing reason that prompts Government to introduce this proposed legislation is the urgent need to confer protection upon the less sophisticated members of the community who enter into hire-purchase agreements and often experience hardship because of the harsh and oppressive conditions which sometimes appear in these agreements. The Bill takes, as it were, a middle course between, on the one hand, the policy adopted by the United Kingdom legislation (which limits the application of the legislation to hire-purchase agreements where the hire-purchase price does not exceed £2,000 sterling and applies to all classes of goods) and, on the other hand, the Australian and New Zealand legislation (which sets no financial limit to hire-purchase agreements and applies to all classes of goods). The policy in our Bill is that it should apply only to certain categories of goods which from their nature are normally purchased under hire-purchase agreements. No financial limit is specified. It is with these broad principles in mind that the present legislation has been drafted and this Bill, like the Malaysian Hire-Purchase Act, 1967, incorporates many of the recent concepts that have been written into the existing hire-purchase legislation of the United Kingdom and Australia. The Bill has, as its foundation, three points fundamental to consumer protection of any kind. Part II provides adequate disclosure requirements in a written statement. Built-in terms in favour of the buyer as to the title to goods and their merchantable quality with implied warranties and conditions are found in Part III. Finally, the Bill in Part VII prohibits contractual provisions that are unconscionable in their purpose or operation. The term "hire-purchase agreement" is defined in clause 2 of the Bill. The provisions of this Bill will cover all hire-purchase agreements relating to such goods as may be specified in the Schedule by the Minister. The goods to which this proposed legislation will apply are motor vehicles, radio sets, television sets, gramophone sets, tape recorders and any combination thereof, refrigerators, deep-freeze food preservers and any combination there of, air-conditioners, washing machines and sewing machines. The effect of this provision is, on the one hand, to limit the application of the legislation to certain specified goods, and, on the other hand, to enable Government to adapt this legislation to meet Singapore's changing economic and social needs. I must stress, however, that, in the preparation of this legislation, the Government has not overlooked the consideration that protection should also be given to the unpaid seller's interest in the hired goods; he can re-possess the goods 21 days after serving a notice for non-payment of instalments due. Further, the rights of third parties who may acquire possession of goods that are the subject of a hire-purchase agreement have also been taken into account. It will be observed that in the definitions of the terms "hire-purchase" and "contract of guarantee", transactions in which the hirer is a dealer of goods have been excluded. The reason for this is that, being engaged in the business of hiring, a dealer does not need the protection that this Bill is designed to give to the ordinary members of the public. Stocking arrangements that are entered into between a hire-purchase company and a dealer are accordingly outside the scope of this Bill. It will also be noted that jurisdiction over transactions in respect of hire-purchase agreements is vested in the High Court except in some matters arising under clauses 10, 14 and 23 of the Bill. In so providing, this Bill follows the statutory provisions to be found in most Commonwealth countries that have legislated on this subject. The principal reason for this is that questions of law arising from hire-purchase agreements are invariably complex and are, it is considered, more suitably dealt with by the High Court. A novel provision, which does not appear either in Australian or United Kingdom legislation, is clause 14 (5) of the Bill which confers protection upon the owner where the hirer terminates the hire-purchase agreement. The Explanatory Statement to the Bill outlines in a general way the various provisions of the Bill. I would like to mention here that the Singapore Advocates and Solicitors Society has been consulted in the drafting of this Bill and many of its suggestions and recommendations have been incorporated in the Bill. In spite of this, it is the intention of Government to refer this Bill to a Select Committee so as to provide opportunities to other interested bodies and members of the public to present their views on the Bill which I commend to Members as a useful measure for coping with the social and commercial requirements of our developing nation. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 5.50 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, for a long time our society and economy needed and received the boost that hire-purchase provides in financing what consumption and consumer need. But equally for a long time there was no referee, save a rather unsatisfactory one originating in the United Kingdom, and even then ill-tailored for the needs here. More often than not, the free play of forces between the borrower and the lender ended in the borrower losing to the lender. This must be so, for you cannot afford to quarrel with the man to whom you are in debt. With this Bill, a new referee has come into the ring. The provisions in the Hire-Purchase Act, 1968, as intituled, seek to regulate the form and contents of hire-purchase agreements and the rights and duties of parties to such agreements and matters connected therewith. Whether the provisions contained in the Bill will make a good and impartial referee is something only time can tell. At this moment the provisions appear to be absolutely necessary. They also appear to have been carefully considered and drafted. Even forms are being prescribed and the terms and charges laid down. Going through the provisions of the Bill, I feel that the future borrower will have his rights protected and the future lender will know precisely where his relief lies. The Courts are being given exact areas of jurisdiction, and I think everyone will be happy except the borrower who borrows with the intention to abscond, and the lender .who lends with the intention to squeeze the purchaser. But the regulation and control of hire-purchase is a field in which there is little experience in this country. It is true that the Bill has the benefit of experience in other countries. But the experience of the other countries is not necessarily the prescription for us. We are an emerging country. We are beginning to produce more and more goods for our own consumption. It is essential that while we try to curb abuses in hire-purchase financing, we do not kill such financing. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill and I should like to ask the Minister charged with implementing it to consider representations carefully and to introduce any amendments whenever needed.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Resolved, "That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and the following Members: Inche Abdul Aziz Karim Mr E. W. Barker Mr Hwang Soo Jin Mr Lim Soo Peng Mr Ng Kah Ting Mr Sim Boon Woo Mr Tang See Chim." - [Mr E. W. Barker].

5.55 p.m. Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the Bill flow before the House seeks primarily to repeal section 32 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1966, and re-enact it on the lines of the corresponding provision in the repealed Land Acquisition Ordinance (Chapter 248) to provide, inter alia, that when the claim of an appellant exceeds by 20 per cent or more the amount awarded by the Appeals Board, he shall not be entitled to his costs, and to give discretion to the Board to reduce his costs or require him to pay part of the Collector's costs when his claim is considered excessive or where he has been negligent in putting his case before the Collector (clause 4). It is desirable to effect this amendment, as under the existing section 32 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1966, it is provided that the costs of an appeal to the Board shall be in the discretion of the Board and shall either be fixed by the Board or, on the order of the Board, taxed by the Registrar or Deputy Registrar of the High Court in accordance with the scale prescribed by the rules of the court for the time being in force. As this leaves the question of costs completely to the discretion of the Board, it could be interpreted that the normal High Court practice in awarding costs to the successful litigant is to be followed, which, in its application to land acquisition appeals, will result in costs going the way of the appellant even if he succeeds in obtaining from the Board only a very small fraction of his claim. The proposed amendment will restore the position to what it was before 1966, and deter owners from making excessive claims and act as a restraint against an owner proceeding with an appeal regardless of the Collector's award and the amount of his own claim, as even if he succeeds in obtaining a slight increase, he will not be entitled to any costs. Clause 3 of the Bill is merely a re-enactment of the existing provision of section 32 (3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1966. Although it is proposed to repeal section 32 of the Act, this particular provision, section 32 (3), is being retained as it does not really deal with costs but with the power of the Appeals Board to confirm, reduce, increase or annul the award made by the Collector. Opportunity is also taken, in clause 2 of the Bill, to amend section 8 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1966, to enable the Collector to require the person interested in any land acquisition to furnish information relating to the basis, or mode of valuation by which the amount of compensation claimed by such person is arrived at. This will enable the Collector to rationalise the basis of such claim. Sir, I beg to move.

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 Barker]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 6.03 p.m.

Mr Chan Chee Seng. I beg the pardon of the House. Mr Barker, the Bill stands in your name. Mr Barker.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Holidays (Amendment) Bill seeks to reduce the number of public holidays in Singapore to 11 per annum. The number of holidays in Singapore has always been set out in an Ordinance and the number of 'public holidays has from time to time been varied in such a manner that it would appear that each time there is a change in the number of public holidays in Singapore, this has been, more often than not, towards an increase in the number of holidays. I think it fair to observe that until we joined Malaysia, the number of holidays was fairly constant. Although the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, now the President of the Republic, is empowered by notification in the Gazette to appoint special days to be observed as public holidays, such discretion accorded to him lay only when an increase in the number of holidays or when a substitution for an existing holiday was being contemplated. When we joined Malaysia, this Ordinance was repealed and in substitution therefor the Malaysian legislation was introduced to Singapore. In 1966 we re-enacted the Holidays Act setting out the legality or otherwise in regard to certain acts which may or may not be done on public holidays. By then, of course, the number of public holidays had increased to the present number of 16 per annum. Quite apart from these holidays, there were certain rest days provided for in the various Ordinances and Acts dealing with workmen and labourers. These enactments set out certain compulsory industrial holidays which had to be observed and for which certain benefits would be paid to workmen who were required to work on these days. In the recent measures introduced by Government in order to prepare the country for the eventual departure of the British Armed Forces and for the economic upheavals that may follow in its wake, we have decided that the number of industrial holidays should be reduced to 11. At the same time, it was also thought proper that the number of public holidays in Singapore should correspondingly be reduced to coincide with the total number of industrial holidays per year. Not only then would the workers, but also all those resident and working in Singapore, whether in Government departments or in the private sector, be given every opportunity to make their contribution towards the national effort to remain viable economically, and progress even during the difficult years ahead. It would perhaps be appropriate for me, in making this speech, to tell the House that Government sought the views of the various religious communities in our society on the proposed reduction of public holidays. The Hindus, for example, given the choice of having Deepavali or Thaipusam as a public holiday, have chosen the former. The Muslims have, after discussions and correspondence with the Muslim Advisory Board, retained Hari Raya Puasa and Hari Raya Haji to enable members of our community who are of the Muslim faith, to discharge their obligations and attend mosque on those specific days. The Christians have retained Christmas and Good Friday, the two most important dates in the Christian calendar. The Buddhists have retained Vesak Day. Thus it will be seen that the choice of holidays that will be retained in Singapore have had the blessings of the Inter-Religious Organisation, an organisation represented by all the religious persuasions in Singapore. The result of this Bill will bring us back to the less playful conditions which existed before we started to add on to our holidays as we had to please more and more religious and cultural groups in Singapore and Malaysia. I am sure I have the support of hon. Members. In common with all the measures that have been introduced in this House at this present sitting, the main object of this Bill is to contribute more towards the national well-being. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 6.11 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the proposed holidays are reasonably distributed racially and religiously and I also agree that the number of holidays should be reduced in order that we can increase productivity. But I would like to propose that the Government reconsider the deletion of Thaipusam from the list. Thaipusam has been celebrated in Singapore since the later part of the nineteenth century and it has become an important religious celebration not only for the Hindus but also for the whole population. The kavadi procession is an attraction to everyone in Singapore, young and old. Moreover, it is a tourist attraction, as we all must have seen tourists following the procession and busily taking pictures. It will be a great disappointment both to the local people and to the tourists if the number of kavadi processions is reduced because Thaipusam is not a public holiday and, therefore, workers will not be able to take part in the processions. I therefore propose that Government, in order to encourage the tourist trade, should reconsider the deletion of this very popular public holiday. Sir, whenever the Government reconsiders the question of public holidays, I hope Deepavali Holiday will not be abolished. 6.13 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to support the Bill for a somewhat different reason from that advanced by the Minister for Law and National Development. Of the six days allocated to the four major religions in Singapore two go to the Christians, two to the Muslims, one to the Hindus and one to the Buddhists. Quite apart from this, we have a responsibility to ourselves, in reaching our goal of nation-building amongst a community made up of so many races, religions, cultures and linguistic groups, to look to the other five holidays, examine what they should signify and how we should celebrate them. New Year's Day is, of course, an international day of rejoicing. Whether it is in the West or in the East, i.e., in Communist countries or in Japan or China, the 1st of January is New Year's Day. This is one occasion for rejoicing and celebration among all races and all communal and linguistic groups in Singapore. But much more significant than New Year's Day is National Day which is Just around the corner. This is not a day merely for Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists or the other minority religious groups in Singapore. For that matter, it is not just for any linguistic or cultural group. It is a day which all Singaporeans celebrate by taking part in various activities organised in the various constituencies. Just as we used to celebrate the 3rd of June as Constitution Day, you will find that in the last three years since we became independent, National Day in Singapore has been celebrated by people of various races and religions, and by cultural and linguistic groups as a day of national significance, as a day when we' achieved full self-government. On 9th August we will celebrate National Day as a day when we brought independence and sovereignty unto ourselves. In my view, National Day transcends all other religious holidays which, in effect, are sectional celebrations, although on these days people who do not belong to these religious denominations take part in the festivities too. For example, Christmas is celebrated by Christians as well as by non-Christians in Singapore. Likewise, Chinese New Year is also celebrated by the non-Chinese; Hari Raya Puasa by the non-Muslims. Yet there is nothing to compare with National Day. The celebration of New Year's Day and National Day, besides the other three holidays upon which I do not wish to dwell, transcends all races, religions, or cultural and linguistic groups. It is for us, the leaders of the country, to help promote the significance of National Day to an even greater degree amongst the people. National Day is a day of rejoicing which we should celebrate with even more festivity and greater significance and feeling. Unless and until this can be brought home to the people, we will be back in the old situation where Christmas, Han Raya Puasa and the other religious festivities of the other religious groups mean more to these religious groups than does National Day. This, I think, would not be a trend towards progress in nation building. National Day in the present context of an independent and sovereign Singapore is perhaps comparable to the 7th of November which is celebrated in the U.S.S.R. to mark the Great October Revolution. This has nothing at all to do with Islam, Christianity and all the other religions which exist in the Soviet Union. Yet in that country and in other countries with similar national days, the celebration of Independence Day or National Day, whichever you call it, has meant much more to the people over the years than just the purely religious festivals celebrated by certain sections of the people. I hope in the years ahead, as we slowly grow to understand the meaning and significance of independence, the meaning of being free to rule ourselves, National Day will be celebrated with greater feeling and significance by people of all races in this country.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we all know that Singapore is a multi-racial society and therefore in the provision of public holidays we give equal treatment to all racial and religious groups. I would like to raise one point. I wonder whether the Minister will consider the addition of one more holiday to the Schedule to the Bill so as to enable women folk to celebrate a common holiday. I recollect that the proposal for a public holiday for women was raised in 1957. At that time the People's Action Party was not in power. It was during the Lim Yew Hock Administration and the colonial era that we proposed Women's Day as a public holiday. But we have not achieved our purpose. The introduction of the Holidays (Amendment) Bill provides an opportunity. We should consider the inclusion of a Women's Day in the Schedule. I believe you will agree, Mr Speaker, that in the course of Singapore's history from the colonial era through the self-government stage to today, when we are independent, women have contributed much towards Singapore's history. There are, however, still many women who are trapped in the coils of family life. While men are able to enjoy holidays almost all the year round, women are confined to the kitchen. Women's Day can be a day when women will be able to enjoy their freedom and equality with men. The inclusion of a Women's Day is, therefore, proper and necessary. I hope the Minister will consider my proposal.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel that the Holidays (Amendment) Bill introduced by the Minister for Law and National Development is just and fair to all sectional interests or groups. The Member for Delta has suggested the inclusion of another holiday - Women's Day - saying that women are in a less advantageous position. They are really looking down upon themselves. If that is agreed, we can also suggest a Men's Day.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I remember that in 1957 when the women members of the People's Action Party raised this suggestion for a Women's Day, the Member for Sembawang supported it.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel that what the Member for Delta has proposed is not quite proper, because today both men and women have equal rights. Both have contributed towards nation building. Therefore, we must not claim special rights or privileges for either women or men. I feel that the proposition by the Member for Delta is not appropriate at the present juncture. I suggest that if there is a Women's Day, there should also be a Men's Day.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Delta has said that there should be a day set aside to enable the women of Singapore to take time off their kitchens. I support this a hundred per cent. There are 58 Members in this House but there is only one woman Member. What is the reason for this great disparity in numbers? This is because there is no Women's Day for women and they cannot come out of their kitchen to serve the nation. There must be a Women's Day so as to encourage women to take part in national affairs and so that there will be more women Members of Parliament. I fully support the proposition by the Member for Delta.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the five Members who rose to speak in support of the Bill. I am sure the other Members who have not spoken would have spoken to support the Bill had we not been running out of time. As you can see, it is easy to add on holidays - whether it be Thaipusam, Women's Day or Men's Day - because that pleases everybody. But the moment you cut down on holidays, then people get sad. It is my unpleasant duty tonight - in fact, one of my most unpleasant duties in Parliament today - to move the passage of this Bill. As you can see, Mr Speaker, Sir, you yourself called the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Affairs, thinking that the Holidays Bill was within the portfolio of the Ministry of Social Affairs. I can assure this House that the subject of holidays does not come within the portfolio of the Ministry of Law. Neither does it come under the Ministry of National Development. But somehow I am here today moving something which has got nothing to do with any of my Ministries. But as I said just now, if you take something away, people get sad. If they do not get up and support the Bill, we can understand it. The Member for Anson wants me to reconsider and make Thaipusam a public holiday. Like the Member himself, I myself would prefer Thaipusam to be a holiday! Like the Member for Delta, I myself would like a women's holiday! An hon. Member: What about a Children's Day?

But in spite of the Women's Charter, the Member for Delta is still not satisfied. In this respect, we in Singapore give consideration to women every day. In fact, every day is a women's holiday. So I really do not understand this request. But she has support from the Member for Ulu Pandan. Mr Speaker, Sir, suffice it to say that like other Members of the House, I myself would prefer more and more holidays. But as I pointed out earlier in my opening speech, in view of the British withdrawal - I hope perhaps with no severe unemployment or economic problems following in its wake - this is one of the measures we are taking to ask our people to work harder - which means you, me and everybody else. I ask Members to bear with me. If our island prospers, I am sure the Government will ask me to come :back here and on that day it will be my pleasure to move amendments to increase the number of holidays. But let us first show that we can work hard and that we deserve more holidays.

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 Barker]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 6.36 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." In the Addendum to the President's Speech at the opening of Parliament, it was stated that public health legislation is being consolidated into a comprehensive Environmental Health Code, capable of maintaining the highest standards of public health required in a modern complex urban society. This Bill before the House is the first of such codified new laws which will be introduced to bring about effective control over public health. In this case, it covers disease-bearing insect vectors, principally mosquitoes and flies. This Bill replaces the 50-year old Destruction of Mosquitoes Ordinance (Cap. 139) which was mainly for the control of malaria by measures specifically aimed against malarial mosquitoes. The control and destruction of what are commonly known as "nuisance" mosquitoes has become a major problem in recent years. The laws, however, have been inadequate to cope with the health problems created by these "nuisance" mosquitoes, such as the Aedes and Culex mosquitoes which are now established to be capable of transmitting diseases. Similarly, the laws are also found to be inadequate to deal with health problems created by disease-bearing insect vectors, like flies, fleas, etc. The Aedes aegypti mosquito, which breeds in artificial water-bearing receptacles, is the vector responsible for the transmission of haemorrhagic fever, dengue fever and yellow fever. There is also the danger of bancroftian filariasis which is transmitted by Culex fatigans, a mosquito which breeds in polluted stagnant water in blocked drains. The common house-fly is a carrier of food and water-borne diseases of the gastro-intestinal tract, namely, cholera, typhoid, food poisoning, enteritis in children and poliomyelitis The flea is a parasite which lives on the rat and is responsible for rodent plague, a disease which has shown recrudescence in some countries in Southeast Asia. Complaints of mosquito nuisances have remained consistently high over the last ten years. Factors such as the efficiency of the Health Ministry's work force and the quality of the supervision and discipline are important but not enough to effect a reduction or elimination of these nuisances. Effective action against all the creators of these nuisances is not possible under the existing Destruction of Mosquitoes Ordinance or the Local Government Integration Ordinance because of its limited provisions aimed essentially, despite its title, at malarial control. The rapid urbanisation and other physical development in Singapore in the form of vast building schemes and land reclamation have led to the indiscriminate dumping and storage of building materials and the blocking of natural drainage. As a result of these activities, ideal conditions are created under which disease-bearing insects can harbour and propagate, unless the necessary precautions are taken by those responsible for these activities. The high incidence of haemorrhagic fever with 815 cases, including 21 deaths, in 1967 reflects a serious health hazard which makes it vital that there be effective urban control of mosquitoes which can no longer be regarded merely as nuisances. The evolution of Singapore as the fourth largest port in the world and the increasing air traffic at our Paya Lebar International Airport require adequate provision to deal with the disease-bearing insects likely to be brought into the country from ships and ocean-going vessels and from aircraft. Singapore is a "yellow fever receptive area", which means that conditions exist under which this disease can be introduced into the country. Effective powers to deal with aircraft and to carry out disinsectisation when indicated are therefore necessary.

6.40 p.m. In the light of the seriousness of the mosquito and other insect vector problems, as well as the recognition of the fact that much of this is man-made, new powers and methods to cope with the situation are needed. These insects cannot be allowed to proliferate unchecked as they will constitute a serious danger to public health. Effective legislation, based on modern scientific methods of eliminating and controlling these insect vectors, need to be enacted to cope with this growing problem. In framing this new piece of legislation, the opportunity has been taken to enhance the preventive and control measures and its enforcement by providing for more effective action and deterrent penalties. Powers for summary action and for composition of the lesser offences have been included in this Bill. The emphasis is on preventing the creation of harmful conditions rather than allowing the conditions to occur and then taking remedial action. The Bill also aims to recognise the changes in the administrative structure since the integration of local authorities by adopting the styles of titles and form consistent with the present and proposed administrative organisation of public health services. The main features of the Bill are: (a) It retains the basic provisions in the old Ordinance that are required for the control of malaria - transmitting mosquitoes. (b) It streamlines the administrative lines consequent on the integration of the local authorities; defines the functions and powers to be exercised at different levels - the Minister, the Director of Medical Services, the Commissioner of Public Health and/or the Medical Officer of Health and the Public Health Auxiliary. (c) It broadens the powers to take action to cover all disease-bearing insects and vests new powers for summary action, medical examination of infected persons, blood examination and insecticide spraying. (d) It provides powers to obtain information necessary for epidemiological investigations and control measures. (e) Ships and aircraft are for the first time brought within the scope of this Bill, as they are now regarded as a potential source of introduction of new vectors of diseases from some other territories. Distinction is made between the overall policy direction and the routine implementation and execution of the various provisions in the Bill. Clause 3 provides that the Director of Medical Services shall have general superintendence of all matters relating to this Bill, subject to the general or special directions of the Minister. The task of administering the Bill will be largely in the hands of the Commissioner of Public Health and/or Medical Officers of Health (as defined), who are to be assisted by Public Health Auxiliaries. The Commissioner of Public Health and such number of Deputy Commissioners and Assistant Commissioners of Public Health shall under clause 4 be appointed by the President. The Minister may also, by clause 3, invest any other medical practitioner in the service of the Government with all or any of the powers conferred on a Medical Officer of Health. Clause 5 provides that the Commissioner, or the Medical Officer of Health, or a Public Health Auxiliary may enter and examine any premises or vessel between the hours of 6 o'clock in the morning and 6 o'clock in the evening to ascertain whether such premises or vessel or anything therein is in a condition favourable to the propagation or harbouring of disease-bearing insects and further to carry out, if necessary, the spraying of such premises or vessel with insecticide. The Medical Officer of Health may, in addition, examine any person from such premises or vessel to ascertain whether such person is suffering from or is a carrier of any insect-borne disease. If so, he is empowered to treat medically such person or to cause a post-mortem examination to be performed on any corpse found in such premises or vessel. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this power is absolutely neces sary since we know that it is quite a fashion among some youths in this country to grow long hair that may harbour the flea that may carry the plague. Where it is expedient for inspection of premises to be made after the prescribed hours, at least 24 hours' prior notice shall be given to the occupiers thereof. Clause 6 prohibits any person from taking, doing or performing any act or thing which may or is liable to create conditions favourable to the propagation and harbouring of disease-bearing insects. Every person shall comply with all such reasonable directions as may he given by the Commissioner, or Medical Officer of Health or a Public Health Auxiliary. Clause 7 prohibits the breeding, collecting, distributing, importing or exporting of any disease-bearing insects without the express written permission of the Commissioner or Medical Officer of Health. Such permission may be granted at the discretion of the Commissioner or Medical Officer of Health, if he is satisfied that the application is made for the purposes of science, education or research and shall be subject to such conditions as the Commissioner or Medical Officer of Health may deem fit to impose. Any person who undertakes or carries out any operation likely to create conditions which may be favourable to the propagation or harbouring of disease-bearing insects must have his plans approved under clause 8. Clause 9 specifies the powers of the Commissioner or Medical Officer of Health to direct any owner or occupier of premises to carry out specified mea sures with regard to the premises for the treatment, destruction or removal of anything therein as may bring them into a condition unfavourable to the propagation or harbourage of disease-bearing insects. If the circumstances so warrant, discretionary power is given to tile Commissioner or the Medical Officer of Health to execute the necessary measures himself. The costs and expenses will, of course, be charged to the owner or occupier, as the case may be. This is an important power that gives tile authorities a speedy means to bring about the destruction and removal of conditions favourable to the propagation and harbouring of disease-bearing insects and charge the occupiers or owners for the costs and expenses incurred. The clearing of undergrowth under certain conditions without the previous sanction of the Commissioner or Medical Officer of Health is prohibited under clause 10. Clause 11 sets out the general measures which may be taken by the Commissioner or the Medical Officer of Health, or the Public Health Auxiliary with the consent of the occupier of any premises to whom due notice has been given. The newer method of spraying premises or vessels with residual insecticides is provided for in clause 13. The power to examine medically any person who is infected or suspected of being infected with an insect-borne disease is provided for in clause 12. Epidemiological investigations of insect-borne diseases will be facilitated by clause 14 which enables the Commissioner or a Medical Officer of Health to demand relevant information. The procedure for enforcement and service of orders under the Bill is dealt with in clauses 15 and 16 respectively. Any owner or occupier who is dissatisfied with any of the measures specified in the notice may, by clause 17, appeal to the Minister within 14 days of the date of such order. Clause 20 places the responsibility on the owner or occupier of premises to look after any works which have been executed by the Government with the object of preventing the breeding of disease-bearing insects. Clauses 21, 22 and 23 provide penalties for offences under the Bill, while clause 24 provides for police assistance where needed. These penalties have been enhanced. In order to deal with offenders more expeditious1y, clause 25 gives power to the Commissioner or any public officer authorised in writing on that behalf by the Minister, to compound any offence committed under clauses 6, 7, 8, 10 and 13 by accepting from a person reasonably suspected of having committed such offence a sum of money not exceeding $500. Clause 26 repeats the previous provision in the Destruction of Mosquitoes Ordinance, making the Bill applicable to all property, including that of Government. This Bill will provide the legal foundation to enable more effective control of disease-bearing insects, so that we shall be able to prevent the creation of foci of infections, the wastage of manpower through ill health and the needless expenditure of large amounts f public money to correct many situations which need not have arisen in the first place. A new outlook is called for. The Environmental Health Services must be considered on a broad and integrated basis with the emphasis placed on preventive rather than on remedial action. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 6.56 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as I understand it, the main purpose of the Bill is to destroy harmful insects so as to safeguard the health of our people and thus make Singapore the cleanest city in Asia. I think the introduction of this Bill has a particular significance to the Minister for Health. Only a few days after he took over the reins of office, there occurred several cases of cholera in Singapore. Of course, according to investigations made later, it was discovered that the disease was brought into Singapore from outside. In any case, the occurrence of this disease indicated that, on the one hand, the health of the public was endangered and, on the other, it posed a challenge to our young and energetic Minister for Health to show whether he had the ability to deal with this matter.

6.57 p.m. The result showed that our young and energetic Minister for Health had the capacity to deal with this matter, although he is suffering from a cold today! When the cases of cholera came to light, he immediately launched a counter offensive by implementing new health regulations. A nation-wide health campaign was launched. With the full co-operation of all the people of this country, we have officially declared war on all harmful insects. We are determined to exterminate them entirely. The definition of "disease-bearing insect" in this Bill is very extensive. In addition to mosquitoes and flies, it also includes the eggs, larvae and pupae of such insects. The Bill is quite meticulous and thorough. Its aim is to eradicate all sources of harmful insects. No doubt this is praiseworthy. But the question is whether its aims can be achieved. This depends on whether the department charged with the carrying out of this work can do its work efficiently. Another important aspect is the co-operation of the general masses. It is only when they understand the importance of maintaining hygienic conditions anti comply with health regulations - that is, by not throwing rubbish on to open spaces and into the drains - that we can effectively maintain a high level of public health. Towards this end, the Ministry of Health has decided to launch a nation-wide health campaign in October. This is a very appropriate measure. At the present moment, the most pressing problem is how to destroy mosquitoes and flies. As we know, the reason for the breeding and multiplication of mosquitoes and flies is the existence of stagnant water and the choking of drains. There are two factors which have brought about this situation. First, the inefficiency of the Public Cleansing Department. Second, the indiscriminate throwing of litter by some people. If this is so, we must apply allopathic treatment to hit the nail on its head. First, we must remedy the inefficiency in the Public Cleansing Department. It must maintain its work of steadily and efficiently clearing the drains. Second, we must educate our people to abide by the health regulations and instil in them a sense of civic consciousness. And all this with a view to impressing the tourists, because the first impression of the tourists is the health condition of our people. With regard to hawkers, they must be persuaded to clear their own rubbish after their business is over. In this respect, we hope the hawkers' organisations will come forward and persuade their members to comply with the health regulations. This will very soon make Singapore the cleanest and most beautiful garden city in Southeast Asia in the true sense of the word. In this way, we will have a better reputation in the world. Sir, I support the Bill. 7.00 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in rising in support of this Bill I have two queries to make. (1) How is the Ministry going to destroy fleas by not destroying rats? (2) Why is it that cockroaches are not included in the Bill? Sir, as the Minister has rightly pointed out, fleas, if infected, can cause plague and I can see no way of getting rid of fleas by means of insecticides unless rats are destroyed at the same time. I was hoping that the Minister was going to tell us of a "get rid of rats campaign" in Singapore. I hope he will do that. As regards cockroaches, they are, as everyone knows, scavengers among the insect world and may easily be disease-bearing insects. I understand in certain medical quarters, cockroaches might be considered to be carriers of viral hepatitis. Everyone knows that viral hepatitis is quite a fatal disease. I gather from the Ministry of Health statistics that there were 700 cases of hepatitis last year of which 47 were fatal. I hope the Minister will find ways and means of telling us how he is going to destroy cockroaches in Singapore. 7.01 p.m.

Sir, while I welcome the purport of this Bill, I must express my uneasiness at what appears to be and could be an unbridled enthusiasm with which the provisions of this Bill may be implemented by the officials of the Ministry once it becomes law. I note that this is a Bill of 29 clauses. One-third or nine of the provisions are penal. In the nine penal clauses which impose various penalties for various offences, one clause - clause 6 - does not specifically describe the offence for which a penalty is imposed. There is another clause which encroaches upon the universal rule that a person's body is inviolate and should not be medically examined unless he gives his permission. There is also one clause which disallows compensation for expenses incurred by a person for damages. I hope, therefore, that the rigour expressed in this Bill does not herald other Bills that will be issuing forth from the Ministry of Health, since the Minister himself has said recently that this is only the beginning. 7.03 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to comment briefly in strong support of this Bill. There seems to be too many beelzebubs, lords of flies and insects, who, with impunity, encourage the breeding of insects by their irresponsible actions. I am personally acquainted with a situation in which river dredgings have been decanted on to a vacant piece of land with all the consequent effects on the health of the people who live in the vicinity - dredgings which contain receptacles, rotten logs, broken pails and so on. I hope, Sir, once this Bill becomes law, it will be implemented most promptly and with great vigour. In this, I beg to differ from the hon. Member for Serangoon Gardens. I agree with the Member for Sembawang who says that the composition of this Bill is most thorough. There is even a clause which states that if there is any quaint person who wishes to breed, keep, collect, distribute, sell, import or export any disease-bearing insects, all he needs is the permission in writing of the Commissioner or a Medical Officer of Health. Sir, I support this Bill. 7.05 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill and all the effective measures to destroy disease-bearing insects in order to improve the environmental health of Singapore. We should not deal with this matter only on paper. We should also take effective action at the same time. Last year, we were told of an anti-mosquito campaign. But until today, we have not heard anything further. There has been no vigorous action in this direction. The result is that mosquitoes breed everywhere in Singapore. Flies can be seen all over the city. We can even see flies in Parliament House. All this is because of two factors. The first is the inefficiency of the public cleansing workers. I have been told that there will be a thorough reorganisation of the Cleansing Department. I feel that the present reorganisation has not been effective. There must be a thorough reorganisation so that the Public Cleansing Department will be efficient. The second factor is the behaviour of the public. These two factors, in my view, must be considered together. The officers of the Public Cleansing Department must necessarily make an overall review of their own position. In respect of the public, the Ministry of Health has recently taken some action to inculcate in them the importance of health. In this respect, I have a suggestion to make. In launching educational campaigns, such as the campaign to be launched in October this year, action should be taken to rally all civic organisations and form an anti harmful insects organisation. For example, last month there was a seminar conducted by the People's Association on the role of community centres and environmental health. The main theme of the seminar was how to promote a healthy environment. The participants were from various civic organisations and they were ready to co-operate with the Government to improve environmental health and to turn Singapore into the most beautiful and cleanest city in Southeast Asia. Therefore, I suggest that the Ministry of Health call a meeting of leaders of civic organisations to discuss the question of improving the environmental health of Singapore. At the same time, there should be a competition to name the cleanest streets in Singapore. These should be given recognition and rewarded. In this way, we can encourage our people to improve environmental health more positively and expeditiously. This is my humble suggestion. 7.09 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, I wish to thank all the hon. Members who have spoken giving ardent support for this Bill. I would also like to make some general comments on what they have said. First, I would like to deal with what the Member for Sembawang has stated. He says that the problem of mosquitoes and flies can only be tackled by a two-pronged attack on it. Firstly, the public health workers must be a disciplined and efficient force. Secondly, there must be co-operation from members of the public. I could not agree with him more because I myself have stated in this House that that is the only way to solve this very big problem in our Republic. As regards the reorganisation of the public health cleansing force, I wish to tell hon. Members that this is now nearing completion. The reorganised set-up will be in force as from 15th August this year. Reorganisation started less than four months ago. But I assure hon. Members that after 15th August, there should be some results because the reorganisation will then have been implemented. The other matter about which I wish to inform hon. Members is that with the passing of the Employment Bill yesterday, it is now possible for the Ministry of Health to implement another very important programme, i.e., to get its public cleansing workers to work 365 days a year, including Sundays and holidays. I assure hon. Members that this will also have its effect on the problem of flies and mosquitoes. The Member for Joo Chiat has mentioned two specific problems posed by rats and cockroaches. I would like to correct him by saying that although I did not specifically mention that cockroaches are also included in the Bill, the Bill covers all disease-bearing insects. If the Member for Joo Chiat says that cockroaches are disease-bearing insects, then by definition they must come within the purview of the Bill. He is a medical man and as he has given an expert opinion, I will accept that. Therefore, cockroaches are included in the Bill. As far as rats are concerned, I agree with him that we must first catch the rats in order to get at the fleas. It is not that the Ministry of Health have not in mind a rat-catching campaign, but they must first deal with the disposal of rubbish. We will launch this anti-litter campaign in October and I assure hon. Members that as soon as we finish with that, we will go on to cockroaches, rats and so on. I am sure many hon. Members here who are young and energetic will certainly co-operate and support us physically in our rat-catching campaign. I also hope that the Member for Ulu Pandan, who is past 55 years, will also support us in the rat-catching campaign. The Member for Serangoon Gardens has said that certain provisions in the Bill, when implemented, might result in unbridled enthusiasm on the part of my Ministry's officials. I will be very happy if that is the case. The Member for Delta, on the other hand, has expressed some misgivings that this campaign, although announced, might not come off at all. I assure her and other hon. Members that it will be conducted with vigour, and this time I hope we shall succeed. As for the suggestion by the Member for Delta about seeking the aid of all civic organisations, that is certainly what we have in mind in our October campaign. We will be seeking their participation and if they have a mass following, we shall invite them to participate. The Member for Delta has also another good suggestion - that we should hold a competition to name the cleanest streets in Singapore. But we have an even better suggestion. We shall not only name the ten cleanest streets but also the ten dirtiest streets in Singapore, and woe betide hon. Members within whose constituencies those ten dirtiest streets might happen to be! Finally, may I say something about the provisions on compensation? It is stated in clause 19 of the Bill that no compensation will be paid for any expense incurred or damage occasioned by any act done in pursuance of the provisions of the Bill unless such damage has been occasioned maliciously or without reasonable cause. In such matters as control of mosquitoes, flies and disease-bearing insects, such a provision is necessary. I can assure hon. Members that, in the exercise of their duties, my officials will be instructed to handle with care the property of the occupiers on whose premises they conduct an inspection, and that they will be given strict instructions that they should not take any action which will unnecessarily result in damage to property.

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 Chua Sian Chin]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

7.23 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the motion* standing in my Minister's name on the Order Paper. * The motion reads as follows: That this Parliament, pursuant to section 3 of the Departmental Titles (Alteration) Ordinance (Chapter 55), resolves that the Schedule to the said Ordinance be amended by the addition under the headings of "Old Title or Name of Office" and "New Title or Name of Office" respectively of the following: - "Principal Probation Officer. Chief Probation and Aftercare Officer". The Departmental Titles (Alteration) Ordinance provides for the substitution of new titles or names of officers where there has been a change of departmental title. Section 3 of the Ordinance provides that Parliament may, by resolution, add to or amend the Schedule to the Ordinance. The change of title from "Principal Probation Officer" to "Chief Probation and After-care Officer" is the result of the implementation of the recommendation of the Prisons Inquiry Commission, 1960, wherein the probation service of the Social Welfare Department was reconstituted with effect from 1st January, 1967, as the Probation and Aftercare Department of the Ministry of Social Affairs. The change of title in the Schedule to the Ordinance will enable the powers and duties of the Principal Probation Officer in the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1951 (No. 27 of 1951) and other legislation to be exercised by the Chief Probation and Aftercare Officer. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Parliament, pursuant to section 3 of the Departmental Titles (Alteration) Ordinance (Chapter 55), resolves that the Schedule to the said Ordinance be amended by the addition under the headings of "Old Title or Name of Office" and "New Title or Name of Office" respectively of the following: - " Principal Chief Probation and Probation Aftercare Officer". Officer.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." - [Mr Chua Sian Chin]. Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five minutes past Seven o'clock to a date to be fixed.