SHOP AND OFFICE EMPLOYEES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

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

I believe, Sir, that since this Bill requires provision of money to run it, I need the Governor's consent on this matter and I hope the Minister will indicate that.

Mr Speaker: May I have the Governor's recommendation or consent signified?

Mr Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Governor has signified his consent in order to enable a debate to take place on this Bill.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Hurrah!

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Sir, this Bill was introduced some two months ago. At that time, there were some misgivings as to what our attitude was. Today, the Second Reading of this Bill coincides with the emergence of the new Liberal-Socialist Party, and the first act of this Party is to introduce a piece of social legislation that will be good for all, especially so for the clerical people and the shop assistants.

As you will have seen in the explanatory note, this Bill is intended to protect a large number of employees who find it difficult to come together to carry out collective bargaining with a large number of employers in various trades and industries. The largest section of these workers comes under the definition of shop employees. As hon. Members are themselves aware, Singapore is a city of many shops. You find them more highly concentrated in the city, but even in the remote areas you do find many shops. Born and bred in Singapore, and constantly rubbing shoulders with the common man in the city - I have many friends working as clerks and shop assistants - I see how they work, the opportunities given to them to rest and play, and also the remuneration they receive for their employment. By and large, I should say, shopkeepers do keep a large number of their shop assistants contented. But there is a section of employers, by whatever name we may define them, who are really slave-drivers, and they extract from their employees the fullest amount of work that a human being can afford to give without injury to health. It is within my knowledge, Sir, that some shop assistants wake up as early as six o'clock in the morning and they start working and they are kept working until about eleven or twelve o'clock in the night. I believe, Sir, that this sort of treatment is not the best that we can accord to a fellow human being. I believe that no one inside this Assembly House or outside this House will disagree with me when I say that shop assistants are not machines. They are just like you and me. They must work for their living, but I believe also that they should be given sufficient time to relax and sufficient time to recoup their lost energy.

The case of the clerks, generally speaking, is not as bad as that of the shop assistants, except that there are proprietors who will make a clerk do more than his fair share of work. In quite a number of instances, I know that clerks do carry home a lot of work to do. Sometimes they have to carry on working in the shop itself until very late at night. Most of them are accounts clerks and correspondence clerks. As to ventilation and place of work, you will find that the shop assistants usually work either in the front of the shop or in the backyard. Clerks, however, are usually given a desk in one obscure corner that is least useful to business. In that sort of a place, you will usually find insufficient lighting and ventilation. Perhaps a few of these employers try to improve those conditions and put in a dingy lamp or a little fan, but this will not help to cool the place or change the air sufficiently for the clerks to work in healthy surroundings. I need not say it too often, but I know that it is within your knowledge that clerks and shop employees are not having an easy life. They are employed in small numbers. One shop may probably employ two or three shop assistants. Some may even employ just one assistant and because the shop assistants are so disunited and because it is so hard for them to get together, it is difficult for them to make justifiable demands - demands for better working conditions or better wages.

It is therefore the duty of every Assemblyman here to help them to get a square deal through legislation. I have come into contact with many employers. In fact, some employers have written to me. I am very happy to say that the employers today are not the employers of yesterday. Most of them agree that more favourable conditions should be established. Many of them have gone through my Bill, and, after that, have written to me saying that it is in line with what they would like to see done.

This Bill, Sir, aims at giving every shop and clerical employee a total of fourteen consecutive paid holidays for one year's work. This is in addition to the weekly holidays. There might be cases, Sir, where an employer may want to employ a clerk for eleven months and, after that, dispense with his services. In this Bill, Sir, we have made provision that, if that should be the case, the employee will still be entitled to one day's paid holiday for every month of service he has given.

Another important part of the Bill, Sir, aims at giving maximum protection to a worker in the matter of hours of work. It advocates that a shop assistant can only be asked to work up to a maximum of eight hours a day or forty-five hours a week; for a clerical worker, seven hours a day or thirty-nine hours a week. Good employers have already observed these conditions for a very long time. This is nothing new to people who are considerate, but what we do want here is for other employers to follow that good lead. The case that I am talking about applies, Sir, especially to clerical workers. I believe that all employers and those who have contacted me and written to me will support this Bill wholeheartedly.

You will remember that we had in the past a measure called the Weekly Holidays Ordinance. When it was enforced, proprietors feared that their businesses would be adversely affected. They thought probably they would lose one-seventh of their business in a week. However, when that Bill became law, businessmen soon discovered that they were continuing to do the same volume of business in six days instead of seven. Even many of those proprietors who can keep their shops open for seven days a week are also following that lead and they set aside one day as a holiday. In fact, Sir, customers are already aware that Sunday is a rest day and they do their buying during the other six days.

Similarly, Sir, today we find our shops opening from six o'clock in the morning until twelve o'clock at night. We find that the shop assistants will have to wake up early, attend to the customers during the first few rush hours up to about ten o'clock, and after that, we find that they are just made to hang around the shop doing nothing but wait for the next rush period at one o'clock. Thereafter, there is another lax period, and another wait for the next rush period. Later on in the night, you will find that the shop is open to a few stragglers who will come to buy their goods at the latest hour possible. If this Bill should become law, Sir, and if shopkeepers can regulate their hours and make the workers work in shifts, I envisage that business can probably start at about eight o'clock and end at about six o'clock in the evening. This will not adversely affect business. I believe the result will be the same as that achieved by the Weekly Holidays Ordinance and that people will learn to buy their things early before the shop closes. Instead of the shop waiting for the customer, it will be the case of the customer knowing when to buy.

We now turn to another very important part of the Bill which affects wages. Now, we may have a large number of workers doing the same type of work but in different shops. Some of the workers are paid more. Some of them are paid less. Some are paid even lower than what they should get. Now there is a great difference of pay and many workers are dissatisfied, but the present set-up is such that if they are dissatisfied with their pay, the only alternative they have is to resign from their jobs. We know, of course, that this weapon cannot be used by many of the shop assistants and therefore legislation must be brought about to help them. We would like, Sir, to see that a worker be paid a minimum wage. The minimum wage is not to be determined by the employer or the employee. We believe, Sir, that there are many people in this world who have a conscience, and we believe that, if one side will give to the other side what it hopes the other side will give to it, then this world will be a better world. We do not believe that the workers' best solution to have their demands met is the strike weapon. We believe that the best weapon should be negotiation. We believe that if the workers can band themselves together, say, a small number of workers in one whole street banding themselves together and negotiating with their employers, come to an agreement among themselves and then bring their case to the Labour Department, much waste of time and dissatisfaction will be avoided. Here, I am talking about how they arrive at a minimum wage. They arrive at that minimum wage by negotiation first and after that have it confirmed with the Ministry of Labour.

Now, talking about minimum wage, Sir, I would like this House to know that there are many in Singapore who would want to make the workers misunderstand what is actually a minimum wage. They are, in fact, spreading rumours round - and they are mischievous rumours too - that the minimum wage is actually the highest wage they should get, or they will get, if this Bill goes through. I know that we, who are sitting here in this Assembly, know what is a minimum wage but I would like the workers at large to know that if we fix a minimum wage of say $150, then an employer cannot pay a worker less than that sum but may pay him, say, a sum like $200 or $250 or anything that is higher. I say this, Sir, for the benefit of many people outside this Assembly who cannot understand what is a minimum wage.

In this Bill, the provision is centred on co-operation between worker and employer, but in many cases there may not be full agreement on this subject and things may come to a deadlock. In this case, Sir, we have the Tribunal coming into the picture where both sides are represented by equal numbers and another equal number of independent people sitting on that Tribunal to find out what should be the most equitable wage. Once that determination is reached and signed by the Minister, it will then be fixed. However, Sir, in many cases, we do find that determinations, whether they are arrived at by negotiation or by the findings of the Tribunal, leave things that are much to be desired. In all probability, one side of it is discontented, and we do not feel that it is good to tie any party down. Hence, provision is also made in this Bill that a determination can also be revoked if both sides agree to it, or if one side is dissatisfied, but if they revoke it and it comes to the Tribunal, then the Tribunal will fix it.

In a matter of wage disputes, we do find that we have a big class of people whom we call shop assistants but we must also understand that although there are shops in the city and shops in the rural areas doing the same type of business, yet one type may be doing better business, having a busier time, and the other type may not be as busy or as prosperous. Therefore, to draw a hard line and make this determination binding on all classes of people or on all shops is not quite right. In this Bill, we have made provision that a small area may be taken into account or a certain type of business may be classified together for such purposes for a determination to be made.

Another part of this Bill - clause 4 - is also important. This clause provides that all employees who are employed on contract or agreement before this Bill becomes law, and whose terms are even more favourable than those provided for, shall not be deprived of such benefits but shall continue to enjoy such advantages.

It is my intention, Sir, that this Bill should be committed to a Select Committee of the House before it comes up for the Third Reading. Contrary to the opinion expressed by some Members in this Assembly that we have the cooperation of the Government in drafting this Bill, we say, "No, we have done this all on our own. We have done our best." But we believe, Sir, that this Bill can be further improved. We know that there are many people inside this Assembly as well as outside it who can give us valuable assistance. We do not say that what we say must be right, but we say, "We will take what is best from everybody and incorporate what is most practicable and what is most useful for the workers in Singapore." I have noted, too, that Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 11 of 1956 has been published giving the Government's version of what the Shop and Office Employees Bill should be like. I feel, Sir, that if this Bill goes into Committee, the good ideas that are in this Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 11 may also be incorporated into this Bill. Further, Sir, before I conclude, I would say that we are grateful to the Hon. the Chief Minister for expressing his intention to co-operate with us on this Bill when I move it for the assent of this Assembly. Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, the rousing cry of the Member for Serangoon for social justice for clerical workers and shop assistants is, I respectfully submit, an echo of what I have been saying for years and years in the Legislative Council and is an echo of what I have been saying in the trade union field and of what I have said since I became the Minister for Labour and Welfare.

Sir, when I moved the Second Reading of the Labour Bill, now the Labour Ordinance, 1955, at our June meeting last year, I did make mention that I had not lost sight of, and would introduce, further legislation to ensure that shop assistants and clerical workers should also be given fair conditions of employment. Even in the discussions in the Select Committee on the Labour Bill, Sir, I reiterated my intention to introduce such further legislation.

At our October sitting last year, Sir, when the Member for Serangoon sought leave to introduce a Bill governing the conditions of employment and the rights and privileges of clerical and shop assistants, I drew the attention of this House to the reasons for the delay in introducing my proposed Bill. I said that I was awaiting the passage of the Labour Bill which was committed to a Select Committee and that I had been confronted with difficulties over the scope and extent of the proposed legislation. However, Sir, the Hon. the Chief Minister at that sitting said, inter alia, and I quote from column 815 of the Official Report:

"...I am so happy to see hon. Members opposite taking their responsibilities seriously that the Government will support this motion and will permit this Bill to be placed before the House; and I trust that when we produce our own, we will co-operate on the ultimate Bill to be discussed by this Assembly. "

Sir, the Bill was introduced by the Member for Serangoon last November, and when printed copies were available, I made a very careful and lengthy study of it and I have come to the conclusion that the provisions in the Bill are not practicable under local conditions. However, Sir, as the principle of the Bill is to give legislative protection to shop assistants and clerical workers - which principle is in line with the Labour policy of the Government - I will not oppose the Second Reading, especially as the mover has stated in his speech just now that it is his intention to co-operate with the Government when the Bill is referred to a Select Committee and to co-operate on the ultimate results. But I do wish to stress, Sir, that other than the principle of the Bill, the Government cannot accept the provisions contained therein, which, I repeat, in my view, are impracticable under local conditions.

I would like now, Sir, to draw the attention of this House to Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 11 of 1956. This lays down the Labour policy of the Government and includes, as an annexure, a draft Bill to regulate the conditions of employment of clerks and shop assistants. This Bill would have been introduced by me in this Assembly had it not been for Government support of the motion of the Member for Serangoon when he sought permission to introduce his Bill, which is now receiving its Second Reading today. Referring to Cmd. Paper No. 11. Sir, and arising out of the remark made by the Member for Telok Ayer (Mr R. Jumabhoy) yesterday in the debate on multi-lingualism, may I draw his attention to the fact that the Bill, which is an annexure to this Report and which he has been preaching with all enthusiasm, is a Government Bill and not the Bill of the Member for Serangoon?

I will now, Sir, make a comparison on general lines between the Bill of the Member for Serangoon and the annexure to Cmd. Paper No. 11, and for ease of comparison in my speech I will name them as the Member's Bill and the Government's Bill.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: No, the Liberal-Socialist Bill.

Mr Lim Yew Hock: The Government's Bill, Sir, is based on the Labour Ordinance which, although it has been recently consolidated and amended, has been in force for many years. The Labour Department has therefore considerable experience of the problems of administering this type of legislation. Considerable expansion of the Labour Department will be necessary, but this is inevitable if a department, which has previously looked after the interests of only one section of the working population, is now to extend its activities to cover almost the entire working population. The Member for Serangoon, Sir, in his speech just now said that he did not discuss the drafting of his Bill with the Government. He did it all on his own. May I respectfully draw the attention of this House, Sir, to the fact that the Member's Bill is taken from the Ceylon Shop and Office Employees Regulation of Employment and Remuneration Act, 1954? It contains 38 clauses as against 72 in the Ceylon Act.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Send it to Sir John Kotelawala!

Mr Lim Yew Hock: These 38 clauses, Sir, are, in the main, taken word for word from the Ceylon Act. Its provisions make it necessary for the Minister to bring the various parts of the Ordinance into force by Order, and every such Order must be approved by a resolution of the Legislative Assembly. It is certain, Sir, that the Minister will be subject to continuous pressure until Orders have been made to cover all shops and all offices in all areas of Singapore, and it therefore seems simpler to apply the provisions of such a Bill to all shops and all offices in the first place, as in the Government's Bill.

Briefly, Sir, the Government's Bill regulates contracts of service, lays down conditions of payment of wages and limits the type of deductions which may be made from wages. None of these points is covered in the Member's Bill, and in the case of shop assistants at least, who are seldom paid regularly and in full, they are very, very necessary. The Government's Bill provides for paid holidays, paid annual leave, paid sick leave and overtime rates, and fixes the number of hours of work per week beyond which overtime must be paid. The Member's Bill provides for regulations to be made regarding overtime but does not provide for paid public holidays or paid sick leave.

Both Bills, Sir, prescribe certain registers to be kept by the employers and give powers of inspection. Clerks and shop assistants are given, under the Government's Bill, the right to have their claims heard in the Labour Court in the same way as workmen under the Labour Ordinance, 1955, but no such right is given under the Member's Bill. The Government's Bill makes it an offence for contracts of service to restrict the right of employees to join, participate in or organise trade unions. No such provision is made in the Member's Bill.

The Government's Bill, Sir, limits the scope of the interpretation of a clerk to a person employed in or about the business of an office whose wages are not more than $400 or such other sum as the Minister may from time to time declare, but does not include persons employed in positions of management, or workmen or domestic servants already covered by the Labour Ordinance, 1955, or any class of persons which the Minister may from time to time declare not to be classed for the purposes of the Ordinance. It also limits the scope of the interpretation of a shop assistant to a person employed in or about the business of a shop otherwise than in an office or clerical department, or in a position of management with the same wage limit as a clerk. The Member's Bill, Sir, does not provide for such limitation. The interpretation is all-embracing. A clerk means a person employed in or about the business of an office, and a shop assistant is a person who is employed in or about the business of a shop. This, in effect, means, Sir, that the manual worker, right up to the manager or even the managing partner in any office or shop, will be covered by this Bill. It also ignores the fact that a good number of workmen within the meaning of the Labour Ordinance, 1955, who are employed in offices and shops, are already covered by such an Ordinance. This particular aspect of the Member's Bill, Sir, has been attacked, and attacked very strongly, by the Singapore Employers Federation. I bring this out, Sir, because the Member for Serangoon did say that he did receive praise from employers in Singapore.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Those are his friends!

Mr Lim Yew Hock: Sir, the Government is opposed to Part III of the Member's Bill and will seek, through its Members on the Select Committee to be appointed, to have this Part rejected. I will now explain the Government's objection. This Part is concerned with the regulation of remuneration. This again is done by order of the Minister. In the first place, it directs the Commissioner for Labour to endeavour to determine the minimum rate of remuneration. The determination of the Commissioner for Labour shall not be made applicable to any shop or office unless the consent of the employer and of the employee has been obtained. The chances of agreement seem slight. It is therefore, Sir, on the Remuneration Tribunal, to which the Minister may refer any case when the Commissioner for Labour has not been able to make a determination with consent that most of the work of regulating wages will fall. The Tribunal makes the draft determination which is published in the Gazette and objection may be made in writing to any determination. The Tribunal then confirms with or without amendment its determination which, once it receives the Minister's approval, is published in the Gazette, and then it comes into force. There is little doubt that there will be a lot of applications from unorganised workers for determinations to be made regulating wages in shops and offices, and it will certainly take years and years before all can be settled and decided. In the case of organised workers, however, the trade unions will certainly prefer to seek improved wages through negotiations as a more effective and a more satisfying method. It seems preferable, Sir, to wait for the Report of the Commission on the Minimum Standards of Livelihood rather than to start regulating wages for certain groups in a piecemeal fashion such as this. In any case, Sir, the Remuneration Tribunal seems to be similar to a Wages Council which can be set up under the Wages Councils Ordinance, 1953. Under that Ordinance, a Wages Council can be appointed for any class of shops or offices in which it may be considered that it is desirable to regulate wages and conditions of employment.

Part IV of the Member's Bill, Sir, provides for closing orders which may be made by the Minister. Such orders are going to be very difficult to enforce owing to the construction of Singapore shops which are often dwelling homes and owing to the habits of the public. A large inspectorate would be necessary for this purpose and this would involve Government in much expenditure.

There is still evasion of the Weekly Holidays Ordinance, 1949, referred to just now by the Member for Serangoon, in spite of frequent checks by the Labour inspectorate. An enforcement of closing orders would be still more difficult to carry out. This Part of the Bill, Sir, is just an expansion of the method of application of the Weekly Holidays Ordinance, 1949.

The Government's Bill, which gives shop assistants and office workers a civil right to overtime, has the virtue of simplicity. Enforcement of this Part of the Bill will, in most cases, be done by shop assistants and clerks themselves by laying their complaints before the Labour Court. Although an increase in the staff of the Labour Court will be necessary, the Government's Bill would be much less costly to enforce than that of the Member's Bill, apart from another important factor of the practicability of enforcement.

Sir, to adopt legislation from another country without conducting enquiries regarding its efficacy there would be the highest folly. Ceylon has had legislation providing for closing orders for many years before the 1954 Act, and in his 1950 Report the Commissioner for Labour in Ceylon stated that there was an almost complete lack of co-operation on the part of shop employees who feared reprisals by employers and that shop legislation was regarded as nuisance legislation.

Sir, we have written to the Ceylon Commissioner for Labour and we have received his reply to our questionnaire, and this reply, Sir, strengthens my view that the provisions of the Member's Bill are not practicable under local conditions.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, I must congratulate the Minister for Labour for having corrected a political mistake made by his hon. Leader. Some months ago, his hon. Leader decided that it would be a good thing if the Opposition started to help them to govern, and he welcomed with open arms the possibility of having legislation of this nature introduced by the Opposition. I hope the Opposition today has learnt that its job is not to introduce legislation of this nature which only a government with the apparatus of state is competent to formulate, and that it should confine itself to constructive criticism.

The Chief Minister: Constructive?

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, we all agree with the principle of the Bill. The Progressive Party says, "We have done it and we want the kudos." Says the Minister for Labour, "We agree with the principle of the Bill. The Member for Serangoon has not done it well and it is all wrong. We are going to do it." Says the P.A.P., "Let us get on with the job. Send it to the Select Committee and, if need be, the P.A.P. will be there to assist you."

The Chief Minister: From the contributions made in the past two days by the P.A.P., Sir, the Lord preserve us from their assistance! All that I can remember in two long days is nothing but destructive criticism with nothing constructive at all.

Sir, we are dealing with the conditions of livelihood of a humble, loyal and timid section of the population - a section that has never pushed itself upon the public and that would take what is given - and it is therefore all the more necessary that there should, in all sincerity, be genuine co-operation in this matter. When Government received the Bill, Sir, perhaps you will remember - I think it was in November last - that in happily granting consent for the motion of the Member for Serangoon to introduce this Bill, I did indicate to the Assembly that Government had on the stocks a similar Bill and that we would appreciate co-operation with the Opposition.

Now, Sir, having studied the Member's Bill, we believe - and this is not because it has been borrowed from a neighbouring territory, because we freely confess that ours is a compendium wherein we also borrow from a number of Commonwealth territories - from the experience of the Labour Department, that the Bill submitted to you under this White Paper in one that better meets the conditions in this country. The Bill introduced by the Member for Serangoon, as has been pointed out, is only part of the Ceylon Act. It does not cover the field if one would only look at the number of parts covered by the Government Bill; but I rise to say this, Sir, that, in the normal course, it would have been the duty of Government to oppose the Bill because of its very grave inadequacies. We would have done so, Sir, but for this fact - that our Standing Orders provide that if a Bill is rejected, no Bill of a similar character embodying the same principle may be introduced in the Assembly, not merely during that sitting but during that session, so that if we were to reject this Bill we would be in the unhappy position of having to wait until the next session, if any, because you are aware, Sir, that the life of this Government and the existence of parliamentary democracy is in the balance next May, and we would not wish to delay and perhaps defer indefinitely. So we are, as a Government, with a whiff of life supporting this Bill but I do not wish the House to be misled.

I understand that the mover of this Bill, the Member for Serangoon, is content to send it to a Select Committee and to take into consideration the Government White Paper, which is an excellent idea. But I trust that it is clearly understood that, on the Third Reading, if any matter passes through the Select Committee which is not acceptable to us, the Government is free to take up the issue as though it is on the Second Reading. It is an unusual procedure, Sir, but it is permissible, and in order not to mislead this Assembly I rise to make it clear that we are happy to support the Member for Serangoon because we want, as I know he wants, early legislation controlling the living conditions of these humble workers. The details, I am hopeful, in fact I believe, can be amicably worked out in the Select Committee, particularly if my hon. Friend the Member for Serangoon is a Member, where matters can be explained in detail by the respective professional officials. It may well be that there will be no trouble with the Bill, but I think it is right that it should be understood that our support at this juncture does not preclude us from criticising any aspects at a later stage, if we consider necessary.

Mr Nair: Mr Speaker, Sir, while I have no quarrel with the principle of having a Bill to protect the interests of office and shop workers, I shall be doing a great disservice to a very large number of my electorate if I do not remind the hon. Member, who moved this motion, that he has forgotten a very large number of workers in the Service departments in Singapore. It is a retrograde step to have omitted them in the hon. Member's Bill and I do not think that there is any provision at all made where the office workers can be included in the interpretation clause in the Member's Bill. Sir, I think I should point this out because the new Liberal-Socialist Party has some supporters in the Service departments and it is for me now to champion their cause by pointing out to the mover his omission.

I think, Sir, that the Select Committee would be wasting a lot of time if the Bill, as presented by the hon. Member, were to be discussed in detail. At the same time, I am very surprised at the Government's agreement to send this Bill to a Select Committee, because the Hon. the Minister for Labour and Welfare himself has opposed many of the principles in this Bill. I cannot find the logic of his agreement for this Bill to be referred to a Select Committee. I think the hon. Member's Bill is beyond repair and although I feel that there should be some sort of legislation along these lines, I shall not vote for it to be referred to a Select Committee because there are many things involved in this Bill which we will never be able to do in a Select Committee. We should have another Bill introduced in the way that we want and in detail, so that we will be able to sit around and talk the matter over. I do not regard this Bill, Sir, as serving any useful purpose by having it considered in a Select Committee, and I do say this with all honesty and sincerity.

The Chief Minister: But then, we cannot have it.

Mr Speaker: Mr Lim Choon Mong, in reply?

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Mr Speaker, Sir, it seems that the Government side has said that this Bill is not adequate and that it falls short in many respects. I would like to inform the House, Sir, that before this Bill was prepared, a public meeting was held in the Badminton Hall and we invited everyone who felt that he wanted to improve the lot of the shop assistants or the clerks to that meeting to make his contribution. We have proposed what we think should be the minimum that would be asked for the clerks and the shop assistants. We are only making a start with this Bill. We do not say that it will cover everything but the minimum requirements that we propose therein were passed unanimously at that meeting. That does show some support for the Bill.

Now, one of the Members here did say that it is a mistake for the Opposition to put up such a Bill, that we should not co-operate with the Government, but that we should keep on criticising it. We do not believe in such views. We believe that we should only criticise Government if they go wrong. We believe that if we can make a contribution, we should make that contribution.

You are aware, Sir, that we have not the machinery at our command to make all this detailed legislation, but we have done our very best. We did not claim, at the Second Reading, that it was a perfect Bill, but that it could be made perfect. That was the reason why it should be referred to a Select Committee.

In this world there are people who have gone before us. They are wiser and they have expressed a great deal of views. I believe, Sir, if you look through all the Bills in this House - every Bill - you will see that there is not one that can be said to have been originally drafted by the Government. I say that these Bills have sometimes been borrowed from England, sometimes from India, and sometimes from Australia or somewhere else. We should not say that a private Member has copied from certain other Bills because we are now and have been all these years doing that very same thing. Sir, we must copy what is best in this world and leave out what is not good. In Ceylon, you say that there is an Act of a similar nature running into something like 70 to 80 sections, and covering many aspects of legislation. Today, Sir, we present a very short Bill. I have been told that it falls far short of requirements. I have been told that the Ceylon Act is not workable. Sir, as I say, we are only making a start. We may still find a lot of mistakes that will have to be corrected. This Bill will have to be further amended even if it should become law, just like any of our old Bills. Many amendments may have to be made later to make it suit local conditions as the days go by.

It has been pointed out to me by the Hon. the Minister for Labour and Welfare that the clause relating to wages is not as good as it should be and that the Tribunal will be made to work very hard because agreement may not be reached between the shop assistants and the shopkeepers, and, as a result, he will be loaded with work. I cannot subscribe to this view, Sir. I know that many who work in this island as shop assistants are not discontented, and I know that the good relationship that exists between the shopkeepers and their employees will help to bring about agreement in more than seventy per cent of the cases affected. I believe that only in a very small number of shops have we discontented employees. If they were really discontented, they would have left the shops because there has been no legislation to protect them up to now. They would have left, but they are there, and I know many of them have been working there for many years - some running to ten years, twenty years or thirty years. In fact, Sir, my view is that even if we have a Tribunal, that Tribunal will not be made to work very hard. What it will have to do is to send agreements to the Minister for him to sign on the dotted line. Probably some work will be involved in the signing. I do agree with that!

The Chief Minister: You can buy a chop!

Mr Lim Choon Mong: That might help, but I do not think that it is going to be a terrible problem!

He has hinted at another point - about closing orders. I say that, in the same way as the Weekly Holidays Ordinance can be enforced, closing orders can also be enforced, if you cannot enforce the Weekly Holidays Ordinance and see that the shops are closed on that day, then that is admitting defeat. If you say you can enforce the law, it is successful. If cases of people going against the law are few and far between, then you have made a success of it. A similar result can be achieved with these closing orders. The Hon. Minister envisages that the best way would be for shop assistants to form themselves into one big union and then negotiate with employers who have formed themselves into another big union. Then, everything can be signed, the closing order will affect everybody, and everybody will be happy. But I say that in Singapore the most difficult section of the workers that can be persuaded to form a union would be the shop assistants. Similarly, the most difficult type of trades where employers: can come together will be the shop owners. It is also very difficult for us to fix a wage for everybody. I dare say that a shop in North Bridge Road and one doing a similar business in Ponggol end will not have the same volume of business. The workers in these two shops will not be working the same number of hours or, I should say, putting forth as much energy on one side as on the other. Therefore, to say that their wages and working conditions should be the same is, I think, wrong. That is why we put into that Bill a wage determination which can be fixed by the employer on the one hand and by the employees on the other. We believe that we can fix wages by regions and not on the whole, probably by streets but certainly not affecting the whole of Singapore.

There is another point which has been brought up by the Hon. Minister, and that is about the definition of shop assistants or clerks. Here, I agree with him that probably a better definition can come by and by and I would certainly welcome a better definition of the terms "clerk" and "shop assistant".

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.