SEAMEN'S REGISTRY BOARD BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

10.42 a.m.

The Minister for Commerce and Industry (Mr J. M. Jumabhoy): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have the recommendation of His Excellency the Governor to proceed with this Bill. Sir, I therefore move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, the lot of the seamen in this region is a hard one. Not only has a seaman to work hard for a living but also, by the very nature of his occupation, he has to face stretches of unemployment on shore when he has finished serving articles on a ship, not knowing when he will be offered employment on another. In addition to this occupational uncertainty, he has in the past been the victim of unscrupulous ghaut serangs, who have fattened themselves on this unfortunate type of workers. These ghaut serangs were agents who were licensed to supply seamen, and who charged fees from seamen for this service.

In order, Sir, to eliminate the ghaut serangs, the Government of this Colony set up a Seamen's Registration Bureau entirely under governmental control in 1948. Legislation was passed setting up a Bureau for the registration of seamen and apprentices to the sea, at which they could make application for employment, and to which notifications of vacancies could be sent. The legislation also made it an offence to engage seamen, except in an emergency, other than through the Bureau, This amending legislation also constituted a Seafarers' Administration Board with an independent Chairman, three members nominated by the shipowners and three by the Seamen's Union. The Board was to act purely as an advisory board, to give advice to the Master Attendant on the procedure of registration and the working of the Board, and to advise the Governor on matters arising out of the working of the Bureau.

This Board never functioned smoothly or effectively from its inception and became hamstrung from March 1950, when vacancies in its membership were not replaced. From then on, it became moribund and shipowners and unions have never been able to offer their services or their advice on the working of the Bureau in matters which affect them vitally. The Bureau therefore continued to function entirely under the Master Attendant, with the result that it came under a great deal of criticism, especially from the unions, on the score that though a Register of Seamen was maintained, it was rendered ineffective because unemployed seamen were not offered employment according to the dates of their applications for employment, and because of the practice of pre-selection by masters of ships through their own agents. There has been bitter criticism of partiality and favouritism in the selection of crews by masters or agents. It has been said that though the ghaut serang system has been abolished certain individuals were able to set themselves up in a favourable position to the detriment of those seamen who did not co-operate with those individuals.

An enquiry commission was appointed in January 1950 to look into the working of the Seamen's Registration Bureau, the method of engagement of seamen, the constitution and duties of the Seafarers' Administration Board, the practice of pre-selection and the legality of the division of the roster of unemployed seamen into two parts, one for deep-sea seamen and the other for local ships. This commission reported in January 1951 but no major changes were recommended and no action was taken by the authorities on this report.

Then, Sir, into this confusion stepped in the newly appointed Minister for Commerce and Industry, my predecessor, Mr David Marshall, and, as a result of his intervention-

Mr Speaker: Order. The Hon. Minister has probably forgotten himself. He cannot refer to a Member by name.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: I am sorry, Sir. Into this confusion stepped the Member for Cairnhill, my predecessor, and, as a result of his intervention, an ad hoc committee was appointed by the Government in April 1955 to examine the working of the Seamen's Registration Bureau in the light of its experience since the commission's report. This Bill that is now before hon. Members mainly follows the recommendation made by this committee, except for a portion of the procedure set out for the engagement of seamen. The intention of the Bill is to incorporate a Seamen's Registry Board - on which will be represented in equal numbers, representatives of Government, shipowners and seafarers, under an independent chairman. This Board will in future be responsible to the Minister for Commerce and Industry for the registration of seamen at the Registry Board, and for their selection for employment according to the procedure laid down in the Bill. As it is the intention of Government that the Board will eventually be independent of Government, it is thought fit to set it up under a separate Ordinance rather than by an amendment of the Merchant Shipping Ordinance.

The main duty of the Board will be to establish and maintain one or more registers of seamen and, in its discretion, to limit its or their size by various qualifying requirements, so as to create a balanced labour market which will serve not only the needs of the shipping industry, but also, at the same time, ensure that there will be reasonable continuity of employment for all registered seamen in Singapore.

The procedure for engagement, Sir, set out in the Bill will guarantee to ship-owners reasonable freedom of choice of crew, and to the seamen concerned reasonable freedom of choice of ship. This will not only overcome the grounds of criticism that the present Bill is subjected to, but will also fully accord with the resolution adopted at the international Labour Organisation's Asian Maritime Conference in Nuwara Eliya, Ceylon, in October 1953, at which the Government of this Colony was represented. For the information of hon. Members, I may add that this conference was gravely concerned with the malpractices prevalent in the recruitment of seamen in a number of Asian countries, and recommended a solution on lines similar to what the present Bill proposes.

A reasonable freedom of choice of crew by the shipowner means that his choice of crew should not be unlimited. To this end, it is provided in clause 5 (2) (b) that, if a shipowner fails to select any registered seaman, or selects less than the number he requires from the names of registered seamen put forward for selection according to the priority on the Register, the shipowner will be given only one further opportunity to make or complete his selection from a second list of names of registered seamen next in order of priority on the Register. Clause 5 of the Bill introduces the principle of a strict roster for the selection of seamen by shipowners with a view to their employment. This provision is, likely to be very strongly resisted by shipowners for reasons which hon. Members may guess themselves.

On the other hand, it is a provision on which the unions will not compromise under any circumstances. I therefore repeat again, Sir, that the advantage of the strict roster system laid down in the Bill is that it will do away with favouritism by shipowners' selectors and lay at rest for ever the charge by unionists of favouritism by the Registration Bureau officials. It will also give all registered seamen a fair chance of finding employment.

The Bill requires all selection of seamen with a view to employment to be made by responsible employees of the shipowner or agent, or by the Secretary of the Board, and, in the case of foreign vessels, by consular officials approved by the Board to act as selectors. These selections have to be made at the Board's office. Seamen who are re-engaged within a period of seven days for service on the same ship will not be required to present themselves for selection through the Seamen's Registry Board, but with one very important proviso, and that is provided that these re-engagements are limited to a maximum period of four years on the same ship. This limitation of the period of service of a seaman on the same ship to a maximum of four years is necessary to enable the other seamen on the Register to have a reasonable chance of finding employment.

Seamen who come from territories other than the Federation of Malaya intending to join ships in Singapore will not be required to present themselves for selection at the Registry Board, provided that before their arrival in the Colony they have signed articles. This provision is necessary to ensure that foreign seamen are not given opportunities of seeking employment in Singapore without being required to comply with the procedure laid down in the Bill, and to protect local registered seamen from unfair competition by foreign seamen in the matter of employment.

Seamen who are left behind in the Colony and who have applied for engagement with a view to their being sent out of the Colony are not required to be selected in accordance with the procedure laid down in this Bill. The reason for this is obvious.

In addition, Sir, the Bill gives the Minister the power to make rules for the carrying out of the objects of the Ordinance, and also gives the Board power to make regulations after consulting the Minister to enable the Board to carry out its functions under the Ordinance.

Sir, I am sure that this legislation will be welcomed not only by all the Members of this House, but also by the ship-owners and the unions. Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, we support this Bill. The Minister for Commerce and Industry has recited in his speech the fact that the unions have made charges of malpractices in the old Registration Bureau. The tone in which he recited them in this House implied that they were baseless and without foundation, that these charges were in fact untrue. But I think the number of seamen that have sought help from their unions and are left without redress because of the completely arbitrary way in which the Master Attendant could operate the roster, has led to a great deal of dissatisfaction in the past. We therefore welcome, and the unions welcome, the fact that the method of selection will now be laid down in the Ordinance itself, in other words, the margin of discretion to whoever operates the roster is reduced to the barest minimum, and the reasonable choice offered the employer will be one which will mean that, whilst he is still given the freedom of choice, he will not be in a position to select those whom he desires but who are well down the roster.

It is true that when the Registration Bureau was first instituted, it got rid of the evil of the ghaut serangs, and I was glad to hear the Minister speak of them in derogatory terms. People like Mr Abdul Majid, founder-member of the Labour Party and one-time President of the Labour Party, he was a ghaut serang, and quite rightly they have now been assigned to oblivion. We hope that with this new Registration Bureau the seamen will get a fairer deal.

But I think the Minister is aware that there is one very thorny problem to which the unions have not found an answer; that is the declared intention of the Government to reduce the roster. As I understand it, there are no less than 20,000 on this roster, and it is proposed to reduce it to some 10,000. I do not say that, on principle, it is bad to reduce the roster if, in fact, there are innumerable persons on the roster who are no longer seamen, who either through sickness, infirmity or old age, or personal inclination, have given up the sea as an occupation. But what are these tests, what are the yardsticks, which will decide whether or not a man remains on the roster, is entitled to get a job, or whether he is struck off the roster and is forever debarred from going to sea to earn his living? Unless consultation takes place with the unions beforehand, and methods of selection or criteria of selection are agreed upon, there is bound to be a great deal of dissatisfaction and a great deal of trouble even before the roster is settled. That, of course, does not in any way detract from the merits of the Bill, but I do ask the Minister to bear in mind the fact that unless he can get the unions to feel that the roster has been properly settled, there will be no end of trouble over the roster itself.

Mr D. S. Marshall (Cairnhill): Sir, I take pleasure in supporting this measure which is yet another to the credit of the Government in seeking to protect the seamen of Singapore, who in the past have been in a completely hopeless state, bludgeoned by a powerful organisation of shipowners wholly responsible for the malpractices of which we have heard in the selection of seamen.

I am glad to see some further measure of protection for this group. The Bill is a fairly well thought out one, and I am happy to learn that the Opposition is supporting it. But I would like to draw the attention of the Minister responsible to the need for investigating the possibilities of applying sanctions to shipping which seek at present to avoid engaging our seamen - which they have been doing traditionally - and going abroad, to Karachi or Calcutta, for their needs. I know that the issues raised by that problem are of a far wider character, but they must be tackled, and I hope that this Assembly will, in the not distant future, hear more from the Minister.

In the meanwhile, Sir, I would like, as a citizen, to express my appreciation of a measure in the right direction.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy rose-

Mr Speaker: In reply?

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: In reply, Sir, the Member for Tanjong Pagar stated that I recited the allegations hurled at the Seamen's Registration Bureau in tones which implied that I thought the allegations were baseless and without foundation. Sir, in the absence of definite proof of favouritism and partiality, I cannot definitely state that it did exist, but I must say clearly here, Sir, that I have been unhappy with the working of the Bureau - and so has been my predecessor - and that is why the whole purpose of appointing this ad hoc committee to go into the working of the Bureau shows that both of us have been unhappy over the way the Bureau has been functioning. As an outcome of that unhappiness, this Bill is the result.

Now, Sir, I must warn this House that the principle proposed in the Bill has wide implications. The shipowners have told me that if the roster system is insisted upon, they will feel free to recruit seamen elsewhere, for example, in Hong Kong, which is one of our competitors for the supply of seamen. Therefore, I am proposing, Sir, that this Bill should go to a Select Committee. I do hope that this Committee will consider the Bill quickly and report back before the next sitting of the Assembly, so that we can have the measure passed as quickly as possible.

The other point that was raised by the Member for Tanjong Pagar was the reduction of the roster from 20,000 to 10,000, and his query about what tests are to be applied in the selection of names to be put on the roster. The tests to be applied, Sir, I leave entirely to the Board. Clause 4, paragraph (b) of the Bill, on page 3, states: "The duties of the Board shall be . . ."; then paragraph (b) "... upon application by a person desiring to be registered as a seaman and upon his satisfying the prescribed qualifications to enter his name in the appropriate register and issue him with a registration card;". These qualifications will therefore have to be worked out by the Board, on which the unions' representatives will be present in equal number to the representatives of shipowners and the Government.

Roughly, Sir, I can say that the present roster contains more than 20,000 names - in fact, about 25,000, if I am not mistaken - and possibly if a new register is opened, we may find that probably 10,000 of these may not register because they have found other employment, or some of them have died, shifted and so on. Many of them are not traceable at the moment. This fact alone may mean a reduction of about 10,000 names when the new register is being compiled. Further, the Board will conduct a medical test, and it may find that a few thousand more seamen may not be medically fit to be registered. This is a matter for the Board to decide.

The question raised by the Member for Cairnhill, Sir, about sanctions to be applied to ships which avoid recruiting seamen here and going to Calcutta or Karachi to do so - the main competitor against us for the supply of seamen is Hong Kong, not so much Calcutta or Karachi. This is a question which is very difficult to answer because you cannot force a foreign-registered ship - say, one registered in Britain or the Netherlands or Panama - to take on seamen here. Singapore is just one of the ports of call of such a ship and if we insist that any ship calling here must take on seamen here, India will insist on the same thing, and so will Indonesia. I do not think we can do anything about this.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.