CLERKS EMPLOYMENT BILL (Report from Select Committee)

10.31 a.m.

The Minister for Labour and Welfare (Mr Lim Yew Hock): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to move the motion standing in my name, namely,

That the Report from the Select Committee on the Clerks Employment Bill, as contained in Sessional Paper L.A. 2 of 1957, be adopted, subject to the recommittal of the Bill in respect of clause 27, clause 28, clause 29 and clause 46 to a Committee of the whole Assembly.

Sir, the Clerks Employment Bill was committed to a Select Committee and from Sessional Paper L.A. 2 of 1957, it will be seen that the Select Committee held five meetings. The minutes of the proceedings of these meetings can be found in Appendix III. The Bill reproduced in Appendix II contains all the amendments to the Bill recommended by the Select Committee. Most of the amendments made are minor ones for the purpose of improving the drafting of the Bill to clarify still further its provisions. The representations made by unions and employers have been duly considered but they are not considered to be of such substance as to make necessary amendments to the Bill.

It must not be overlooked, Sir, that the Bill is an improvement on the previous Bill introduced by the Government during the last session and that account has already been taken of the representations then made. Moreover, the Bill has been considered by the Labour Advisory Board on which workers and employers are adequately represented.

Sir, with reference to the telegram from the Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union, the points raised therein have been given due and careful consideration and it was felt that there should be a distinction between clerical workers in offices and those whose work bears a direct relation to the workmen in the same employment who are covered by the Labour Code. There are tally clerks, supervisors, store clerks, etc.

The Report of the Select Committee has been in the hands of hon. Members for some time and I do not therefore propose to deal with it at great length. I am confident that this Assembly will support my motion and so ensure that the conditions of employment of clerks are set to a standard of which Singapore can be proud and that our clerical workers can enjoy this new charter on Labour Day.

The proposal, Sir, to recommit the Bill in respect of the clauses named is merely to tidy up the Bill and improve further its drafting. Sir, I beg to move.

The Assistant Minister for Labour and Welfare (Mr Mak Pak Shee): I would like to second the motion and reserve my right to speak at a later stage.

Question proposed.

10.35 a.m.

Mr Marshall: Mr Speaker, Sir, the clerical workers of Singapore are undoubtedly the most docile, the most humble, the most timid group of people in the island and a group with less money to spare than most. This group, the clerical workers of Singapore, unlike the Singapore Federation of Employers, did not have a lawyer to present their views to the Select Committee at the last time or this time. We have promised them for a long time not a maximum standard of living Bill but a law to protect them against unreasonable exploitation, a law to give them statutory minimum conditions of service. There is much that is very good in this Bill. There are nevertheless provisions of a character which by some extraordinary oversight have slipped in which make it not a clerks Bill but an employers Bill and not even an ordinary employers Bill, because there are many very decent employers, but the Singapore Federation of Employers Bill, that Federation which through the pages of these reports and last year's Select Committee's reports comes through as a mean and crafty scrooge.

Sir, I have had an illuminating talk this morning with the Attorney-General and I am glad to note that at least in respect of clauses 6 and 7 there was never the intention to have the effect which they do have but I shall take, clause by clause, the clauses to which I take objection and then I shall ask this House to give me an opportunity to put the arguments before you in Committee. I do not ask you to accept at this stage what I am suggesting to be true but I do ask you to permit me to amend this motion before you so that we can recommit ten other clauses to a Committee of the whole House to consider them quietly.

Sir, the first clause which I shall ask for recommittal is clause 2. Clause 2 creates three classes of clerks. God created only two classes of human beings, men and women. We are asked to create by law: one, clerks earning more than $500 a month and clerks earning less; two, clerks working in offices; three, industrial clerks. They are all different. Clerks earning more than $500 a month have no protection whatsoever. Industrial clerks as compared to clerks have to work 44 hours instead of 39 hours a week, get only seven days holidays instead of 14 days for annual leave and 11 days instead of 13 days for public holidays. The Minister for Labour and Welfare is a Socialist, as we all are in this House, barring Mr Sutherland - no offence meant, Sir. He frankly said, "I represent capital, so what! And I am proud of it." Fair enough! Everybody else in this House says that he is a Socialist. Well, Sir, let us then look at it as Socialists, as honest people who seek to assist these really helpless people - this group known as the clerical workers.

Sir, the Singapore Clerical and Administrative Workers' Union at page 4 of this Report protested against limiting clerks to those under $500 a month. It says:

"... that all persons clerically employed should come within the meaning of and benefit by the Ordinance otherwise clerks drawing salaries exceeding $500 would not be able to claim the privileges contained in the Ordinance."

Now, Sir, again the Confederation of Singapore Chinese Engineering Tradesmen Union at column 37 of Annexe I protested against this and in its letter of 12th November, 1956, it says:

"Our interpretation of the contents of United Engineers' letter is that they will adhere strictly to the provisions of the Clerks Employment Ordinance, when passed, and, in its present form, apart from giving no protection whatsoever to clerical workers drawing more than $500 per month, it provides less benefits than currently enjoyed by U.E. workers who would be classified as "Industrial Clerks" under the Ordinance, in that they would be allowed one week annual leave against two weeks now enjoyed by them, and they would work 44 hours weekly, instead of 40 hours at present."

Sir, the Attorney-General in Select Committee seemed to suggest that the $500 limit was necessary for ease of administration and I think you will find that at columns 2, 3 and 4 of the Minutes of Evidence.

Sir, I for myself would like to ask the House to permit the recommittal of this clause for closer scrutiny. I say that there is really no valid reason whatsoever for putting this arbitrary limit of $500 except that the Singapore Employers Federation, seeking the maximum possible control in the minimum possible conditions of service for these workers, has asked that there be a limit and it be $400. Any decent human being who has read the representations of the Singapore Employers Federation should take the attitude that everything they say is suspect. It is evil: those documents that they have put in and the control that they seek to have over these entirely helpless human beings whom they employ as fodder for their obscene profits.

Mr G. A. P. Sutherland (Nominated): Come, come!

Mr Marshall: Come, come! I have asked repeatedly in this House, Mr Speaker, Sir, for a declaration as to the profits earned by these companies and it has never been available. The Financial Secretary and this House know exactly why I am not given those figures because it is feared that publication of the "obscene profits" (I repeat) made by these organisations would shock the conscience of this country. But that is the Singapore Employers Federation. Yet it is interesting, gentlemen, that the Singapore Employers Federation does not want the distinction between "clerk" and "industrial clerk". So here you have got the poor trade union saying, "Please, why a clerk who gets 14 days leave and doing 39 hours a week and then why an industrial clerk who is also a human being doing the same work doing 44 hours a week with only seven days for annual leave?" And the Federation agrees but for different reasons. You will see them in a minute. Sir, may I refer you to pages 6, 10, 11 and 12 of the memorandum of the gentlemen I have called Scrooges:

"The Federation appreciates that this feature of the Bill has probably been introduced to meet objections put forward when previous draft legislation of this nature was under consideration that to impose a standard working week of 39 hours for all categories of clerks, irrespective of whether or not they were employed in industry, would make the effective working of industrial concerns virtually impossible. Unfortunately, however such a distinction between the two categories of clerks will also be impossible to operate in practice... (this distinction between clerks and industrial clerks)".

And they go on to say that the Federation suggests that the clerks should all be reduced to the status of industrial clerks and that they would all be very happy. Now, Sir, I would like to go in detail through the arguments used for the division of these clerks and industrial clerks. I say that the Minister for Labour and Welfare errs and errs gravely when he suggests that it is necessary that there be this distinction of two different types of clerks: one a superior human being and another an inferior human being. I say that if in some concerns it is necessary to have different working hours then there can be overtime pay and in the last resort he can always accept that organisation in accordance with the terms of clause 2 from the provisions of this Code.

Now, Sir, clause 6 perpetuates exploitatory contracts. If there is a contract in existence which gives the clerk much less favourable terms than the present Bill, then that agreement continues in force. Why should we condone and endorse contracts which fall below what we consider a minimum standard of conditions? I would be ashamed, gentlemen, to be in any way associated with a clause of that nature. I say that no true Socialist would seek to perpetuate and to give the authority of statutory law in support of provisions which are contrary to what he considers to be minimum human needs. Why should we endorse these contracts?

Clause 7 says:

"... any term of a contract of service which is contrary to the provisions of this Ordinance shall be illegal, null and void."

Now, in fairness to the Government, let us get it straight. They did not mean it. The Minister for Labour and Welfare has been engaged and busy elsewhere. Fair enough! He did not mean it and now that it has been drawn to his attention, I have reason to hope that he will correct it but that clause 7 if you do not recommit it to this Assembly means that these are not minimum conditions of work but maximum conditions of work; because let us take the instance of clause 36. Clause 36 gives to clerks 13 days public holidays a year but, gentlemen, I had the privilege of being associated in negotiations with Boustead and Co. Ltd, who, though a member of the Singapore Federation of Employers, is of a totally different type. They showed a sympathy, an understanding and a goodwill that was very heartening and we obtained from them 16 days in respect of this particular aspect - 16 days public holidays a year. Now, according to the terms of clause 7, that agreement with Boustead is illegal. Sir, I do ask that you permit that that should go back for reconsideration despite the fact that two Select Committees have sat and the satisfaction of the Minister in charge of the Bill.

Now, look at clause 14, gentlemen:

"An employer may without notice dismiss an employee on the grounds of misconduct."

The clerks went before the Select Committee last year and said, "Look, is this not a bit harsh? Supposing I speak to my employer in a loud voice. That is misconduct, is it not?" And the Attorney-General said, "Gentlemen, do you not agree that for misconduct, an employee shall be dismissed?" So they just withered and made their protest. Then let me show you something, gentlemen, of which the Attorney-General should have been aware. Sir, I quote the case of Clouston and Company versus Corry, 1906 Law Journal Reports, 75 Privy Council at page 20; also, Sir, reported in 1906 appeal cases -a Privy Council case, an appeal from New Zealand, Sir. Why I emphasize the Privy Council is because what is decided here, as you are aware, is applicable to Singapore. The decisions of the Privy Council are law in Singapore. What does Lord James of Hereford, Sir, who delivered the judgment say about misconduct:

"There is no fixed rule of law defining the degree of misconduct which will justify dismissal. Of course, (please notice this) there may be misconduct in a servant which will not justify the determination of the contract of service by one of the parties against the will of the other."

Now, may I repeat it, Sir:

"...there may be misconduct in a servant which will not justify the determination of the contract of service...".

But what does this clause say? All misconduct. You can dismiss your clerks. Why? May I read on, Sir, so that you may fully understand what is intended here, Sir? The common law says that only misconduct which goes to the root of the contract of service, which nullifies the terms and conditions of your service, only that kind of gross and grave misconduct is a ground for immediate dismissal. But this clause is seeking to protect whom? The Singapore Employers Federation says all misconduct is a ground for immediate dismissal without notice. Let me read on, Sir, from this judgment of Lord James of Hereford:

"On the other hand, misconduct inconsistent with the fulfilment of the express or implied conditions of service will justify dismissal. Certainly when the alleged misconduct consists of drunkenness, there must be considerable difficulty in determining the extent of conditions of intoxication which would establish the justification for dismissal. The intoxication may be habitual and gross and directly interferes with the business of the employer or with the ability of the servant to render due service but it may be an isolated act committed under circumstances of festivity and in no way connected with or affecting the employer's business. In such a case, the question of whether the misconduct establishes the right to dismiss the servant must depend upon facts."

So, gentlemen, all I ask is that we do not put the shackles even more firmly on the employee and that we recommit clause 14 in order to add such a phrase as "misconduct inconsistent with the implied and express terms of service". Sir, the present law applies if the employers think it necessary to have it but do not let us make things worse for the clerks than they are today.

And, Sir, clause 15. There is nothing wrong with clause 15 except its silence. Sir, for many years now, workers have been bedevilled in their efforts to obtain honest conditions of service by the fear that if they go on strike, they may be legally committing a breach of contract which justifies their immediate dismissal and you know, Sir, that in this colony even recently there have been successful efforts to dismiss employees who went on strike on the ground that this is a breach of contract. Now, do we as Socialists all believe in the ultimate right to strike? If we do, Sir, then we should make it lawful and if it is lawful, then it should not be a breach of contract and I ask that clause 15 be recommitted to this House so that this should be made clear by the insertion of subclause (2) reading:

"Strike action by an employee in pursuance of the lawful request of his registered trade union shall not be deemed to be a breach of contract."

Let them be at peace, these workers. We are saying that this is a clerks charter, a lighthouse for the future for the protection of these humble people. Let them be at peace and know where they stand. If they take strike action in pursuance not of the request but of the lawful request of their registered trade union, then they shall not be deemed to have committed a breach of contract.

Then, Sir, in respect of clauses 34, 35, 36 and 37, they are consequential to my request for amendment of clause 2 and I say, "Please let us consider them in Committee."

Now, Sir, clause 38 is an absolute beauty, it says that you are entitled to a maximum aggregate of twenty-eight days of sick leave if your employer's doctor has examined you and so certifies but I ask the Minister: what happens if the employer's doctor refuses to examine him? [Interruption] Are you suggesting that it is impossible? What happens then? Supposing the employer says, "I will have no doctor. You are sick, well, psk!." If you read the Singapore Employers Federation memorandum, you will not have much respect for employers. What happens? Are we to give no protection to the clerk if the employer is obstructive? So I say that we should add a further clause:

"or if the employer's medical practitioner does not examine the employee within twelve hours of the employee's request reaching him on the certificate from any registered medical practitioner whose charges shall be paid by the employer."

Is that unreasonable? I wait twelve hours and I am sick. I wait twelve hours for my employer to send a doctor or to tell me what doctor to go to and he tells me, "Take a running jump." After twelve hours, I can consult any medical practitioner and that certificate protects me for the twenty-eight days. Is that unreasonable?

Then, Sir, the Minister for Labour and Welfare spoke with considerable weight when it came to the question of how they labour in his Ministry, particularly on the Labour Code in respect of maternity leave. But under this Bill he forgot about that aspect of his labour - there is no maternity leave. Under the Labour Code, a woman is entitled to four weeks; under this clause she has none. I do not know whether it is suggested, Sir, that there are no women clerks, or that women clerks do not have babies, or that women clerks are of such sturdy character that they can drop their babies into the waste-paper baskets? Why do not clerks have maternity leave? I have not got a right to it as a clerk; it does not matter to me. We are seeking to make provision for the protection of timid human beings who cannot speak for themselves. Why is there no provision for maternity leave? There are 28 days sick leave for everybody. Is a woman not entitled to be sick whilst a man is entitled to be? Is she not entitled to some rest if she has a baby?

Sir, I am going to move, if the House will permit me, the recommittal of this clause 38, that every employee shall be entitled to additional paid sick leave during terms of four weeks each before and after her maternity confinement, and I hope the Hon. the Minister for Labour and Welfare, who has the privilege of being a married man with lovely children, will remember that his wife needed maternity leave and so do those who are less fortunate and have to work in offices.

So, Sir, I move that these clauses be recommited to the House. I say to you, let us have an opportunity to examine them in Committee - that is all I ask at present - and I move to delete all the words after the words "in respect of" and insert in place thereof the following words "clause 2, clause 6, clause 7, clause 14, clause 15," (then the Government clauses) "clause 27, clause 28, clause 29," (my clauses) "clause 35, clause 36, clause 37, clause 38," (Government clause) "and clause 46 to a Committee of the whole House".

Amendment handed in.

Sir, before I sit down, I would state that I do not quite know what the procedure is, but I think that I ought to disclose to this House that I am the legal adviser to the Singapore Business Houses Employees Union which has 4,000 clerical members, that my remuneration is an annual retainer of $1 a year, and that I am not here before this Assembly either as counsel or as solicitor; let me add, $1 a year not per member but for the whole Union.

Mr Speaker: Does the Member for Cairnhill not consider that a clause providing for maternity leave should be a separate clause?

Mr Marshall: Sir, I am grateful to you for drawing my attention to that. In fact, I had thought of consulting you but it seems to me, Sir, with respect, that it does come under clause 38. "Sick Leave", and I would ask, Sir, that it be included.

11.03 a.m.

Mr Lee Choon Eng (Queenstown): Mr Speaker, Sir, in Singapore we have so many labour unions which arc so strong that we see a number of strikes by labourers but, unfortunately, the clerks in Singapore are not bound together as one single body. As you can see from their numerous unions, they are separated, one section from the other, and as such they do not represent such a strong force. I believe that this Bill is now introduced to exploit the clerks because they are not united and have not got a strong union to protect them.

An hon. Member: Shame!

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Shame! Real shame! Why then, should we exploit the clerks because of the fact that they do not have a strong union? A clerk is always a clerk. Why should we classify them into three categories - those earning $500 a month, those below $500, and industrial workers? Does this mean that a clerk whose income is above $500 is not a clerk? There are many firms and many organisations which do have clerks whose incomes are above $500. Why do they not come under this Bill and so get protection? Why should we bar clerks drawing above $500?

Coming to industrial workers, Sir, if a clerk is a clerk, why should we call him an industrial worker? A labourer, a foreman and a technician are industrial workers, but not a store clerk or a tally clerk. If he is a clerk, he should be a clerk. What is the difference between an ordinary clerk and a store clerk? I do not see much difference between them. A clerk sits at a table; he performs clerical duties. A store clerk also works at a table and also performs clerical duties. The only little difference I may see is this, Sir, that a store clerk is responsible for the goods within his store: and that should give him more responsibility in his employment, and, with more responsibility, he should have better conditions of service rather than that his status should be lowered. By classifying him as an industrial clerk, we are trying to create a sort of inferiority complex in him, and that will just kill his initiative. Is that fair, Sir? We should not classify clerks into so many categories.

Coming to clause 14, Sir, on "misconduct" I am not a lawyer, so I do not know how to interpret the word. I was working in the Army as a senior clerk. My status at that time was equivalent to a warrant officer, class one. At that time, a sergeant came up to me and said. "Mr Lee, I want you to address me as 'Sir'." I told him that my status was far above his and asked him why I should address him so. I firmly refused to call him "Sir". Was that misconduct?

An hon. Member: No!

Mr Lee Choon Eng: If you say that it was not misconduct then I would call it insubordination - and that is a worse term than misconduct. Would that refusal to call him "Sir" mean that I would have to lose my job? No, I hope it does not; but the word "misconduct" is not clear to me. If a clerk can be dismissed without notice on this account, is that not exploitation?

On clauses 35, 36 and 37, the Member for Cairnhill has said that we will elaborate on them when we go into Committee.

Coming to clause 38, on the question of 28 days sick leave in a year - is the period sufficient? As the Member for Cairnhill has said, if a firm's doctor refuses to examine its clerk, where else can the clerk go? He will not be entitled then to any sick leave at all. Apart from this, is it sufficient that a human being should have only 28 days sick leave, that he will only be sick for 28 days and no more? Is that fair? He may have put in 15 years of efficient service with the firm and within that time he has not taken any sick leave but, unfortunately, on the sixteenth year or so, he falls sick, and it may be a very serious illness. According to this Bill, he is only allowed 28 days; he must be sick for only 28 days and no more, or else he gets no pay. Is that fair? I think this clause should be amended so that there should he at least 52 days full-pay leave plus another 26 days half-pay leave. Why should we limit a man to being sick for only 28 days? Let us extend the limit and, if he falls sick, let him enjoy that privilege; and if he exceeds that period, at least give him half pay. If he falls sick, he has to incur medical expenses; yet, with all the cost of medical attention, he will get no pay after 28 days! Is that fair? Clerks, as the Member for Cairnhill said, are among the lowest paid workers: clerks are the most modest people in Singapore. Then where can they get the money to pay for medical attention? Cannot we grant them half-pay leave or so, so that they can continue to get some income not only to maintain their families, but also to pay for medical expenses?

On the question of maternity leave, I fully support the Member for Cairnhill. Women give birth and it takes at least 30 days for a woman to recover from it. According to Chinese custom, the period for recovery is set at 100 days before they come out into the open; they are confined to their rooms for 100 days.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Red Indians say one year.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: What, a hundred days per year? That is new mathematics to me! Are we going to say to a woman that we cannot give her maternity leave? She has to regain her health, to look after the child, to give the child food; and, again, she has to pay for medical expenses. We have to grant maternity leave! This issue has been fought in many organisations for a long, long time, and I hope that, with the introduction of this Bill, women will no longer be exploited. I support the Member for Cairnhill on committing the Bill to a Select Committee.

11.10 a.m.

Mr Speaker: The original Question was,

"That the Report from the Select Committee on the Clerks Employment Bill, as contained in Sessional Paper L.A. 2 of 1957, be adopted, subject to the recommittal of the Bill in respect of clause 27, clause 28, clause 29 and clause 46 to a Committee of the whole Assembly."

Since when, an amendment has been proposed, to leave out "clause 27, clause 28, clause 29 and clause 46", and there to insert "clauses 2, 6, 7, 14, 15, 27, 28, 29, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 46".

I see that the Member for Cairnhill has repeated the Government clauses.

Mr Marshall: I have indeed repeated the Government clauses, Sir. They are clauses 27, 28, 29 and 46; I have not deleted a single one. I do not want to be obstructive, Sir; I am a Socialist.

Mr Speaker: I will propose the Question in a different way, then. The Original Question was as I have read out. Since when, an amendment has been moved,

After the words "clause 46", to insert the words "and clauses 2, 6, 7, 14, 15, 35, 36, 37 and 38"

The Question is, "That the clauses proposed to be inserted, be there inserted."

Mr Lee Kuan Yew rose-

Mr Speaker: On a point of information?

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Yes, Sir. Is the Government going to let the House have the advantage of the expert advice of the Hon. the Attorney-General on the criticisms made against the technical accuracy of the Bill - on construction and interpretation - as distinct from the question of principle and policy? Certain criticisms have been levelled, particularly against clauses 6 and 7, on certain provisos in clause 14, and on the clause on sick leave, that is on the question of the lapse or alleged lapse in the Bill in not providing for the contingency where an employer deliberately obstructs. In drafting this Bill has consideration been taken of the same difficulties which arose in the Labour Ordinance during the Select Committee stage?

Mr Speaker: I think those points could probably best be raised if and when this House resolves itself into Committee. They are matters of detail affecting clauses which might be recommitted, matters which perhaps would lend themselves to debate, and I suggest that they could be raised in Committee, in passing, I might mention that the practice is that, if an hon. Member asks for a clause to be recommitted, it is almost a matter of form that that clause is recommitted, so that a detailed debate on that particular clause can take place in Committee rather than in open Assembly.

11.15 a.m.

Mr Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, all my life I have been a clerk, and when I am no longer Chief Minister, I will still be a clerk and I will die a clerk. I am therefore deeply touched by the great concern which the Member for Tanglin has for clerks - I am sorry, I mean the Member for Cairnhill. Being a clerk, and having been in the trade union movement ever since there was one after the war, may I respectfully submit that, since 1946, I have been looking after the interests of clerical workers and of other workers? Yet I am told now that what I hope to do for the clerks is to tie a knot around their necks for the benefit of employers! Sir, this Bill lays down the bare minimum. If we are to lay down the maximum, there will be no necessity for trade union organisations, or for such organisations to have legal advisers at a nominal fee of $1; there will not have been the chance or opportunity for trade union organisations to grow, or for advisers coming on - and coming off - the scene.

In regard to clause 2, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill asked why we limited the salary to $500 per month. Sir, may I respectfully point out to this House that when the Member was Chief Minister in the last Government, he approved the presentation of a Bill to this Assembly fixing the salary limit at $400?

Mr Marshall: He was depending on his Minister for Labour.

Mr Lim Yew Hock: It is the same thing. Now, when we fix the salary at $500, we are told that we are -

Mr Marshall: On a point of information, if I may, Sir?

Mr Speaker: Yes, if the Minister will give way.

Mr Lim Yew Hock resumed his seat.

Mr Marshall: It has been indicated to the Minister that it is a convention that when a Member of the House asks for the recommittal of certain clauses, the request is conceded. This would imply that the Minister has conceded that these clauses be recommitted so that we can debate them in Committee?

Mr Lim Yew Hock: Sir, I am always pleased to concede anything which can help to point out either to me or to other Members of the Assembly the error of my ways or the error of their ways - it is always a pleasure to concede.

Regarding the other clauses on which the Member for Cairnhill has spoken with such vehemence, he has made me feel that something must have been wrong with me or something must have been wrong elsewhere, because all the clauses which he attacked are clauses taken from the Labour Code, which Code was approved during the time when he was Chief Minister and when he was proud to say, "This is the Labour Code for the workers of Singapore!" Today, however, we are told that that Code, of which he was then proud, is a set of shameful laws imposed on the workers of Singapore!

It does happen, Sir, that when one has responsibility one speaks one way, and that when one has less responsibility, one speaks another way. But at least I have been consistent, Sir, by introducing the same sections in the Labour Code into the Clerks Employment Bill and the Shop Assistants Employment Bill.

On clause 2, we are asked why there should be three classes of clerks. The reason is this: We lay down minimum conditions of employment for clerks and workers who are unable to look, or who have difficulty in looking, after themselves. We lay down a maximum salary of $500 because we feel that those drawing above that figure are in a better position to fend for themselves in court, and to have the advantage of legal advice in court as to the interpretation of "misconduct" or some other term of law.

Sir, we have defined clerical workers into office clerks and industrial clerks- the industrial clerks are already there. What we propose to give them is the minimum, and in fact the Bill is going to help a good number of industrial clerks who do not have the advantage of trade union organisations or the benefit of a good employer. It does not detract from those clerks who are industrial clerks because of their close relationship with the labourers - or workmen, as we now call them under the Labour Code - who work under them. A store clerk has to be in a store to keep it open so that workmen can bring goods in and out - there is that relationship; or a supervisor has to keep on working when there are workmen for him to supervise. It is felt that there should be a direct relationship between the two classes of workers.

Now, in regard to this limitation of $500, Sir, it will be seen that, under clause 2, the Minister can at any time, or from time to time, raise the figure. If the Minister is satisfied that, as a result of this limitation of $500, a large number of clerical workers drawing say from $600 to $700 are, shall we say, being ill-treated by their employers and are unable to fend for themselves, I am sure that the Minister for Labour and Welfare, whoever he may be at that time, will alter the limitation to cover this unfortunate class of workers.

In regard to all the other points brought up, I would say that the relevant clauses have been taken from the Labour Code, and I do not think any useful purpose will be served if I were to speak on them and so lengthen this debate. The points brought up will, of course, be mentioned again at the Committee stage, when I will explain the policy of the Government on the points as they arise.

The question of maternity benefits is one which requires a reply now. We did not insert a clause in the Bill on maternity benefits but this does not mean that there should be no maternity benefit for women clerks. However, as a worker myself, I can say this: If you want to drive women out of work and see that men remain in work, demand as much as you can for female workers, for they will no longer be in employment.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, we are all glad soon to have the opportunity to discuss in Committee the various criticisms which the Member for Cairnhill has levelled against this Bill. There are two distinct types of charges he has made. One is purely on the technical soundness of the draftmanship of the Bill, the way in which the intentions of the Government (which are, I think, fairly certain) have been expressed, and what they will in fact presume to have expressed. The other is on questions of principle - whether or not there should be this distinction between industrial and non-industrial clerks, and whether sick leave should include maternity leave.

On the technical point, I hope that it will be sufficient to clarify the position, because some of the points which the Member for Cairnhill raised were raised by me in the Select Committee on the Labour Bill - as to the interpretation of "misconduct" and on clauses 6 and 7. I would like to point out that clauses 6 and 7 of the Clerks Employment Bill are in identical terms with sections 6 and 7 of the Labour Ordinance No. 40 of 1955. The word "misconduct" in clause 14 appears in section 17 of that Labour Ordinance. The Hon. the Attorney-General will remember that when I raised the point whether "misconduct" was not too broad a term and the whole matter was thoroughly debated. Again, as to the lapse - the alleged lacuna - in clause 38, as to what would happen if an employer deliberately refuses to appoint a medical practitioner to examine his workmen, the clause is in identical terms with section 48 of the Labour Ordinance.

The Member for Cairnhill is at a disadvantage, for he must be responsible for this Labour Ordinance, he was then the principal advocate of it. He and his Government assured me then that there were no such doubts in existence, that in fact-

Mr Marshall rose -

Mr Speaker: Is it on a point of order?

Mr Marshall: On a point of information, Sir.

Mr Speaker: If the hon. Member will give way?

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: I am sure there will be ample opportunities for explanation, but if the Member for Cairnhill wishes to explain now before he forgets it by all means let him do so!

Mr Marshall: I would like to correct the inaccurate memory of the Member for Tanjong Pagar - I never gave him such an assurance. The whole matter was handled by the Minister for Labour.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: I thought, Sir, that there was such a thing as cabinet responsibility, and that the leader of a cabinet, like Sir Anthony Eden, accepts full responsibility for whatever goes wrong. I am sure the Member for Cairnhill would not like to be in undistinguished company in this matter, and that he will accept full responsibility for all the errors and omissions in the Labour Ordinance. I am in the fortunate position of never having been a chief minister but I hope I shall never, if placed in that position, allow myself to be led up the garden path by a subordinate Minister.

Now, on these questions of construction and interpretation, let us by all means have the whole matter reopened. If it is finally conceded by the chief legal draftman to the Government that in fact there may be ambiguity, then amendment must not only be made to these clauses, but also to the Labour Ordinance. Let us always put right what has gone wrong, even though the wrong was done by someone else.

On the question of principle, I support the Member for Cairnhill - that there should not have been this distinction between industrial and non-industrial clerks - and I am not satisfied with the explanation given by the Minister for Labour that, because industrial clerks work with workmen, therefore they must have the same reduced number of holidays and longer working hours per week as workmen. I think it is a non sequitur to say that because workmen work 44 hours a week, if a tally clerk who works with the workmen does 39 hours per week, there will be five hours in which there will be no tally clerk working with the workmen. It does not follow because you can always make the employer pay overtime for the five hours. I know the counter which the Minister for Labour has put in Select Committee, namely, that that would be compelling industrial clerks to work overtime, which is contrary to one of his major tenets on Labour relations. Before the Bill was sent to Select Committee, I drew the attention of the Assembly to:

(1) The ceiling of $500 and how that arbitrary figure was reached;

(2) This distinction between industrial and non-industrial clerks.

I think we would all be grateful to know in Committee once again whether, first, the figure of $500 represented in actual fact the distinction between supervisory clerks and ordinary clerks, whether that can be supported by evidence on the current rates paid to supervisory clerks and ordinary clerks. Second, let us again debate this question of industrial and non-industrial clerks and all the consequential disadvantages of the industrial clerk.

Question, "That the clauses proposed to be inserted, be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Question,

"That the Report from the Select Committee on the Clerks Employment Bill, as contained in Sessional Paper L.A. 2 of 1957, be adopted, subject to the recommittal of the Bill in respect of clause 27, clause 28, clause 29 and clause 46 and clauses 2, 6, 7, 14, 15, 35, 36, 37 and 38 to a Committee of the whole Assembly,"

put, and agreed to.

Mr Speaker: Committee stage, what day?

Mr Lim Yew Hock: Now, Sir. Sir, I move,

That this Assembly will immediately resolve itself into a Committee to consider the clauses of the Bill recommitted.

Mr Speaker: Before I propose that Question, may I suggest to the Minister that it might be fair to hon. Members if notice of these amendments is, in fact, given so that hon. Members will have the opportunity of studying those amendments and considering them before the next sitting, that is, the 22nd of May?

Mr Marshall: Speaking for myself, Sir, I hope to be in a position to hand copies of my proposed amendments by 2.30 p.m. if the House will adjourn now.

Mr Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, as it is not improbable that the business set down for today will not be completed before the moment of interruption and that there may have to be a sitting tomorrow, would it be in order if the Committee stage be taken tomorrow, thereby allowing Members of the Assembly time to consider the amendments proposed?

Mr Speaker: So that, Mr Minister, your reply to my request "Committee stage, what day?" would be tomorrow?

Mr Lim Yew Hock: Tomorrow, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Tomorrow it will be. Mr Minister, there will have to be a motion that we sit tomorrow because tomorrow is not a sitting day. Perhaps that motion could be moved after the suspension?

Mr Lim Yew Hock: That was my intention, Sir.