LABOUR BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

In the Governor's Address on 22nd April, 1955, it was announced that the Government intended to introduce a Labour Bill to replace the present outmoded Labour Ordinance, and today the new Bill is before hon. Members for its Second Reading.

The old Ordinance arose out of, and was designed to meet, the need to protect the large numbers of Indian and Chinese immigrants who were recruited at that time of rapid expansion of the tin and rubber industries. Its emphasis, naturally enough, tended to be on the control of conditions of immigrants, and on the provision of satisfactory living accommodation for the immigrants. Inevitably, large portions of the old Ordinance have become meaningless for present-day Singapore. Nevertheless, those provisions of the old Ordinance, which have proved their value over the years of the operation, have been retained, and their meaning has been considerably clarified to enable them to be more readily understood by the workmen. For example, the power of the Commissioner for Labour to hear claims for wages, etc., is retained. This has proved a free and speedy method for a workman to settle such claims, and he is thus spared the expense and formality of laying his complaint in a Civil District Court.

There are many new features which bring the Bill into line with the latest International Labour Office's Conventions on labour conditions. The definition of "workman" has been widened to include drivers, and by making United Kingdom departments functioning in the Colony liable to inclusion as employers, the workmen employed by them are brought within the scope of the Bill. An entirely new part has been added, Sir, regulating the recruitment of workmen, which gives effect to the principal provisions of the I.L.O. Convention on this subject.

Another new section makes main contractors jointly and severally responsible with sub-contractors for the wages of the workmen, even though they are engaged directly by the sub-contractor. In the past, Sir, a great many of the claims for arrears of wages heard by the Commissioner for Labour had involved defaulting sub-contractors, and the workmen had suffered considerable hardship.

Under the Bill, Sir, more protection is given to children and young persons. The employment of children under 12 is prohibited, and I am given powers to prescribe minimum rates of pay. To make certain that there will be no abuses associated with their employment, all children and young persons will be registered, and the Commissioner for Labour has powers to require that they should be medically examined in order to ascertain their fitness for the employment proposed.

Maternity allowances were compulsory under the old Ordinance, but were based on they female workers' wages. Under the new Bill, these allowances are fixed, in order to give effect to the principle that these benefits should be sufficient for the full and healthy maintenance of the mother and her child.

Other sections of the old Ordinance, Sir, have been amended to give greater protection to workmen. For example, the workmen can now claim up to 4 months' arrears of wages instead of 3, under the section guaranteeing the priority of workmen's wages.

Hours of work have been reduced from 9 to 8, with overtime at one and a half times the ordinary rate for any hour in excess of 8. If the workman works on rest days, he is to receive double pay, or a substitute day of rest. And in passing, Sir, I would like to mention that I have given notice to move an amendment for a 44-hour week.

Sir, the Bill is in 17 parts, and the purpose of these parts is given in the Objects and Reasons. This Bill, Sir, is designed to protect artisans and manual workers, but I am very conscious that there are other classes of workers in Singapore, such as shop assistants and clerical workers, who need more protection than they enjoy at present. These classes of workers may rest assured that they have not been forgotten. It is my intention to introduce further legislation to ensure that they, too, have fair conditions of employment.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Lim Choon Mong (Serangoon): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill was brought up to replace the old Ordinance which, as the Minister for Labour and Welfare has said, is now outmoded. We welcome such a change, but I think it should have been brought in much earlier. So far as it goes, we find that during this short period since this Bill was printed - on 21st June - a matter of about ten days, reactions have not been unfavourable. However, I think for a Bill of this type, which affects a great portion of the people in Singapore, people should have been allowed time to air their views. We have seen in the papers a protest from some of the trade union groups, and I believe that if there were more time, probably industrialists, employers and employee unions would have come forward, either with criticisms or with better suggestions.

Sir, the Bill, as we see it, can be accepted generally in principle, it has brought nothing very new. As I see from the Comparative Table, we have introduced into this Bill what has already been introduced in other parts of the world. We have inside it the I.L.O. and other sections from Burma and India, and the Children and Young Persons Ordinance. Nothing objectionable could be found in that, and I think there is nothing very revolutionary. I believe, too, that good employers would have by this time carried out most of these laws without any urging from the Government.

However, I maintain that to allow the very short time of a week for the Second Reading of a Bill of this size is not correct. Most of the old Members of this Assembly probably have read the Bill a number of times, but I think for other Members who have come into this Assembly only very recently, they should be given time to read the Bill through carefully, consider it, and gather opinions from all interested bodies, in order to make their contributions. Like the other Bill which has just been passed, I believe, Sir, this Bill would have probably about the same effect. There will be plenty of Ayes on the Government side, but we may not be able to take part in it as fully as we would like to.

For this matter, however, it is important that this new Bill should come into effect as soon as possible. And I would suggest that the Committee stage of this Bill be not taken today, but be postponed for a month. Perhaps by that time we will have gathered sufficient material for discussion.

I have noticed, too, from the Bill that there is a clause concerning medical examination of workers, and it requires that workers be brought to the Commissioner for Labour for examination. Probably in this instance it might help workers, if they are large in numbers, for the doctors to examine them at the factories, rather than for large numbers of people to go and crowd themselves in the Labour Office to be examined. I think that clause should be amended for that purpose when it comes to the Committee stage.

Sir, before I conclude, I would like to remind the Government side that party government should always operate on a line that will enable the Opposition to have some chance of discussing a Bill. It is, indeed, very undemocratic for the Government side, who knows everything, to keep everything back until the very last minute, and then pounce on the Opposition. We are not lawyers. A Bill of this nature, even given to a lawyer, probably would have taken him quite a lot of time to read over; and as laymen, trying to understand what lawyers want to put into words, it would take us far more time. If this Bill were placed in the hands of an ordinary labourer, he would not even understand a little bit of it, unless it has been explained to him.

Mr Speaker: Are you discussing the merits of the Bill?

Mr Lim Choon Mong: I am talking of -

The Chief Minister: On a point of information, Sir. If the hon. Member would permit, it might assist him. May it please you, Sir, the Government is conscious of the complexity of this Bill and its importance for the welfare of a tremendous section of the population. The intention is that it should go to a Select Committee to report back in six weeks, so that everybody should have an opportunity of studying the Bill. I hope that helps my hon. Friend, Sir?

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Thank you, Mr Chief Minister. I think if the Government takes such an attitude as suggested by the Chief Minister, we will definitely be satisfied.

Mr Nair: Sir, it is very sickening that Members of this Assembly often plead for time. I have heard it often, but I do believe that on a measure of this kind, of which Members are fully aware, they should not take two weeks or one month to express an opinion in principle. As legislators we can easily understand the various clauses in this Bill if we have some idea of what labour conditions are, and if individuals cannot understand I presume their Party would be in a position to brief them. I have no such complaints, Sir, but I am very glad that the Chief Minister has expressed the Government's intention to refer it to a Select Committee. If the Government had not made that announcement, I would have moved formally that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.

Sir, I have a large number of people in my constituency who are employed by the Services, and I take this opportunity on their behalf to express their appreciation for including them in this Bill. I would also inform this House that their confidence in this Government is increasing, as measures of this kind which would benefit those employees are being introduced.

The hours of work, which was a subject of very keen discussion in labour circles, has now been resolved. For a long time the manual workers of this country have been struggling hard in negotiating with their employers for less hours of work, and I think the amendment envisaged by the Minister is really a good move in the right direction. I have heard it said that 48 hours can be worked by any manual labourer, and it is also argued that this is being done all over the world. But we in this part of the world are situated differently. Our climatic conditions do not allow our manual labourer to work for 8 hours a day.

The Singapore Trades Union Congress, Sir, has declared, in one of their statements to the Press the other day, that various clauses in the Bill need special consideration, and I do hope that the Select Committee which is going to examine this Bill will invite representatives, not only of the Singapore Trades Union Congress but of all those trade union organisations which are interested in the welfare of their employees, to give their evidence. As a result of this, when the Bill comes up at the next Assembly sitting, it will be one which will have no criticism from any quarter.

Mr A. R. Lazarous (Farrer Park): Mr Speaker, Sir, the measure under discussion is a wise and far-reaching one, and the Government is to be congratulated for the initiative it has taken to implement it.

Singapore has just passed through a phase of acute industrial unrest, and it is to be hoped that at last something is going to be done for the worker.

Sir, when I look at this Bill, one problem seems to be needing urgent attention. In a large number of industrial concerns, no steps have been taken to bring the worker into the general scheme of things and convince him that he is also a part of the industry. On the other hand, the feeling is stressed to the worker that "You are asked to do certain things. If you like to do them, you do so. Otherwise you get out and look for a job elsewhere."

Sir, it is my considered opinion that a new scheme be set up to bring the worker and management into Advisory Boards, bodies which will send representatives of the workers and management to discuss the day-to-day problems in a spirit of friendship and co-operation.

When this measure is done, there will be a lessening of the tension and frustration that exist today, and this will lead to industrial peace and prosperity.

Mr John Ede: Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome the statement of the Hon. the Chief Minister that this Bill will be referred to a Select Committee. There are therefore only two small points which I would like to bring to the attention of this House, and subsequently to the Select Committee to be appointed.

The first refers to clause 3, sub-clause (2), which reads as follows:

"The Governor may also appoint such other officers with such powers as may be necessary for carrying into effect the provisions of this Ordinance, and may incur such expense as may be necessary for the purpose."

I take it, first of all, Sir, that it does not mean that the Government will not have to come to this House for the sanction of such sums as may be required from time to time. Further, I would like my hon. Friend the Minister for Labour and Welfare to indicate what expenditure will be required per year on new staff. I am not suggesting that this important new Labour Code can be operated without staff, but we on this side of the House would like to have some idea of the cost involved.

The other matter to which I wish to refer is maternity benefits, with particular reference to clauses 94, subclause (2), and 96. These read as follows:

Clause 94.-(2) (Rate of maternity allowance).

"A female workman who has worked under the employer from whom she claims maternity benefit on not less than one hundred and eighty days within the period of one year immediately preceding the notice required under subsection (2) of section 98 of this Ordinance shall be paid maternity allowance at the rate of four dollars per diem during the benefit period."

Clause 96.-(Payment of maternity allowance).

"The amount of the maternity allowance shall be payable in two instalments, the first for the period up to and including the day of confinement, to be paid within seven days of the date of confinement, and the second, for the period after confinement, to be paid within seven days of the end of that period."

At the outset I want to make it very clear that we welcome maternity benefits. We welcome the 8 weeks' benefit period, and we approve the $4 per day rate of payment for those who have worked for 180 days for one employer out of the preceding year. We would, however, like to suggest an improvement in the method of payment and the time of payment for the consideration of this House and of the Select Committee to be appointed.

As at present drafted, a female workman will be entitled to $224 as benefit - $112 payable within one week of confinement, and the balance of $112 a month later. This means that she will receive no payment of any kind for one month before confinement, and possibly for one week afterwards - surely at a time when it is most needed. I suggest, Sir, that it would be more humane and helpful to continue to pay the normal rate of weekly wages up to a maximum of $4 per day throughout the benefit period, and make a lump sum payment of the balance one week before the expected day of confinement when money is most needed. That is to say, if the normal rate of wages is $3 per day, which is quite common in Singapore, this should be paid weekly in the normal way throughout the benefit period, that is $168 in all; the balance from the $224, namely $56, to be paid as a lump-sum ex-gratia payment one week before the expected day of confinement.

In the case of female workmen earning at the rate of $4 per day, or above, they should receive the payments weekly at the rates laid down under clause 94 (2).

I hope I have made my point clear. I do not seek to reduce the period of benefit or the rate of benefit. I seek to improve the method of payment.

Mr Speaker: Mr Lim Yew Hock, in reply?

Mr Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, in reply to the points raised by the Member for Tanglin (Mr John Ede), I would like to assure him that they will be fully considered by the Select Committee that is to be appointed. I would, however, like to explain why it had been found necessary to fix the date of payment as one week after the date of confinement. It is because it is difficult for any employer, or even the female worker herself, to know when she is going to be confined. But this matter -

Mr John Ede: On a point of clarification, Sir. It is perhaps more difficult to know one month before when the benefit period starts! [Interruption.]

Mr Lim Yew Hock: In regard to all the other points raised, Sir, as the Bill will be referred to a Select Committee, they will, of course, be taken into consideration when the Select Committee deliberates on the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.