SEAMEN'S REGISTRY BOARD BILL (Report from Select Committee)

The Minister for Commerce and Industry (Mr J. M. Jumabhoy): Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

That the Report from the Select Committee on the Seamen's Registry Board Bill, as contained in Sessional Paper No. L.A. 6 of 1957, be adopted, subject to the recommittal of the Bill in respect of clauses 3 and 5 to a Committee of the whole Assembly.

The Report, Sir, of the Select Committee is before the House. Representations were made to the Select Committee by all interested parties, that is shipowners and the seamen's unions, and witnesses from both sides appeared before the Select Committee and were examined very thoroughly. The salient feature of this Bill is the provision for a roster system, and on that particular feature, there was great divergence of opinion between the shipowners and the trade unions. On the rest of the Bill, there was not much difference of opinion between the two sides; in fact, representations and suggestions for amendment made by one side (except of course on the roster clause), were not objected to by the other side and, in some cases, even accepted.

On the roster system, the employers were very emphatic that it would operate harshly and that the harshness of the system would make Singapore less attractive for recruiting seamen. In fact, they even thought that it might drive the recruitment of seamen away from Singapore to other ports, probably Hongkong. The unions, on the other hand, were equally emphatic that the roster system was the only one which could prevent corruption and the financial "squeezing" of seamen, and give seamen a fair chance of getting employment without their being preyed upon by unscrupulous persons in charge of the Registration Bureau, and also by agents or servants of employers who were unscrupulous enough to demand money for giving them the jobs.

Sir, I would like to read a letter addressed to the Select Committee but which arrived after the Report was prepared; it is addressed to the Select Committee in fulfilment of a promise made by the unions to submit this information to it. It is a letter from representatives of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions and I will read out the relevant paragraph. I may say here that the roster system was established in the ports of Bombay and in Calcutta in 1953, or three years ago, and it was put up by the shipowners to the Select Committee that the system had failed in Calcutta as far as they knew. On this point, this is what the I.C.F.T.U. representatives have to say:

"The roster register system of selection and engagement prevailed in both recruitment centres under rules and regulations found generally acceptable." -

that is referring to Calcutta and Bombay-

"The two offices have now been in operation for some three years. Speaking for the large body of seamen, we can say most emphatically that the scheme has proven, a success. It has ensured fairness and equity in selection and engagement matters . . . It has, to our personal knowledge, freed seamen from the stranglehold of interested petty unions, and company and government officials. We are not in a position to state whether any avenue for corruption still exists, but this we do know from our personal knowledge and investigations - that job-buying no longer holds sway and that the seamen, by and large, are satisfied with the working of the scheme."

After a great deal of deliberation, the Committee, on balance, decided that the roster system should be preserved as it appears in the draft Bill, and therefore provisions for the system still remain. However, the harshness has been lessened to a great extent by removing the four-year limitation clause. The original draft Bill contains a limitation clause whereby the shipowner could retain the services of old seamen - those who had served with him - for up to a maximum of four years, provided he signed them on within seven days. That four-year clause has now been removed so that a seaman can continue to work for an employer for as long as he likes, provided he is signed on within seven days, and the Minister has certain discretionary powers to waive even this seven-day limit.

Allowance is also now made for the transfer of seamen between ships of the same owner. In the previous Bill, a seaman had to sign on with the same ship within seven days but he was not allowed to sign on with a different ship although it belonged to the same owner. That has now been provided for.

The main amendments to the Bill therefore, are the removal of the four-year limitation clause, and provision for seamen to sign on with different ships of the same owner. There is also provision whereby a seaman who wants to take two months' leave and go, say, to the Federation, can inform the Registry Office that he will not be available for employment and thereby not lose his place on the roster. There is also provision for the emergency recruitment of seamen when the Board's office is closed or in case of other emergency, subject to report being made to the Board. These, I think, are the main changes to the Bill which the Committee has made.

I mentioned a little while back that the Minister has been given discretion to waive the seven-day requirement. That was found necessary because in some cases ships sailing regularly from Singapore to neighbouring ports are put in service in the harbour limit of Singapore while they are here. Seamen working on these ships cannot, therefore, be articled; they cannot sign articles when they are working within the harbour limit - it is only when they go out of harbour limits that they sign articles. Therefore, what would happen if these ships operated within harbour limits for, say, a month? When the ships want to leave the Singapore harbour limit for another port, the owners would then have to go to the roster to engage a new crew and to discharge the old crew. It is in such cases that the Minister has the discretion, provided a recommendation to that effect is put up to him by the Board.

Of course there will be a lot of criticism on the roster system - I do not expect that there will not be any. The whole spirit of the legislation can only be realised if there is co-operation between the representatives of the employers and the unions on the Board. Sir, I beg to move.

3.25 p.m.

Mr Marshall: If it please you, Sir, it gives me great pleasure to second the motion before the House. I am conscious that the Minister has for a very long time - almost two years now - been engaged in laborious efforts to bring about some protection for seamen, and I think that after the exhibition yesterday on the Education Bill, the House must be delighted to find a Minister who is, in fact, thoroughly conversant with the Bill which he is propounding to this House.

I support the principle, Sir, of the roster. There is no other way of protection for the seamen, and in this connection I think it my duty to bring to the attention of the House a somewhat ugly incident which occurred a few days ago. Sir, I received a telephone call from a person who purported to represent a group of shipowners; he told me how very dangerous the roster system was for Singapore, how detrimental it was to our entrepot trade; and he assured me that I would be very well paid as a solicitor for this group if I would undertake to vote against it in this Assembly.

Now, Sir, I was so angry at the time, so rude, that I forgot to take note of the name. Probably acted in good faith, but I think, Sir, that perhaps it might be well if you were to make some statement which the Press could carry, that any attempt by any person or organisation to pay a member of the Assembly, whether a lawyer or not, to vote or not to vote, for any Bill, is an attempt to bribe that Member, an act which can carry the gravest consequences detrimental to the person.

Mr Speaker: Since that point has been raised - and the Member for Cairnhill was good enough to inform me beforehand that he was going to mention it - all I need do, I think, is to draw the attention of the Assembly to the relevant section in the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance, Section 18, which makes it an offence for any person who "offers to any Member or Officer of the Assembly, any bribe, fee, compensation, reward or benefit of any kind in order to influence him in his conduct as such Member or Officer, or for or in respect of the promotion of, or opposition to, any Bill, resolution, matter or thing submitted or intended to be submitted to the Assembly." The penalty on conviction is a fine of $2,000 or imprisonment for two years, or both fine and imprisonment.

Question proposed.

3.29 p.m.

Mr Sutherland: Mr Speaker, Sir, I felt, in listening to the debates yesterday and today, that we are all getting rather used to one another and that we have a fair idea of what we may expect to hear when any particular Member gets to his feet; though, speaking for myself, I am no longer as impressed as I was in the early days by the oratory of the legal Members. I still would be disappointed if the Member for Cairnhill did not rage, storm and cajole, and if the Member for Tanjong Pagar did not finish up his speech with hints of dire peril in store for somebody, Singapore headed for destruction and the British for the sea.

Well, you heard this morning, Sir, that I am the only non-Socialist in the House, and Members will therefore have a good idea of what I am going to say on this Bill, but I can assure you, Sir, that no one has attempted to bribe me in the matter!

During the Easter holidays, I read through the 90 pages of Minutes of Evidence on this Bill taken at the sittings of the Select Committee, and I must admit, Sir, that I did so not so much from zeal as an Assemblyman, as in order to study how you, Sir, conducted those meetings, in order that I might improve on my own amateurish efforts in the Committee on Public Accounts. However, on completion of my reading, I really was astonished to find that the roster clause was still included in the Bill. I gained the impression from the Minutes of Evidence that the Members of the Select Committee themselves entertained a good deal of anxiety about this clause and, indeed, had very grave doubts about the wisdom of introducing the roster system.

The evidence on the shipowners' side appeared to me to be perfectly clear, and of course there was no doubt that they were definitely not in favour of the roster system. Now, it seems to me that the shipowners had no real financial stake in this and that their opinion was genuine and objective. The evidence on behalf of the unions was given by the representatives of the Seamen's Council of Action and, in my view, that evidence was sometimes rather vague and unconvincing. In Appendix I of the Sessional Paper L.A. 6 of 1957, the Council of Action state that they represent all 12 registered seamen's unions in the colony-

Mr Marshall: What page?

Mr Sutherland: I beg your pardon- it is just at the beginning, Appendix I, page 5 of the Sessional Paper. They state that they speak with full authority on behalf of the seamen. Well, Sir, I have been given to understand that the Seamen's Council of Action was called into being for the sole purpose of forming one single non-communal union. This purpose has not so far, I understand, been achieved by the Seamen's Council of Action, and indeed there have been reports in the newspapers of unions resigning from the Council and rejoining it. I have also been informed that the Singapore Chinese Seafarers' Union is against the introduction of the roster system.

The spokesman of the representatives of the Seamen's Council of Action admitted to being a landsman and to have no knowledge of the sea, and some of his evidence was not evidence at all. It was, in fact, sermonising and giving gratuitous advice to Government. He claims success for the roster system Calcutta, and I gathered this was the only port which had this system, but I have since learnt from the Minister that it also exists in Bombay. He claims success for this system but was unable to substantiate his statement to the Committee at that time. We have since heard this afternoon that the system has been successful in these two ports, but I did not know that when I came into this House at 2.30 p.m. today.

Of the other two representatives, one was a bank employee and the other a trade union leader.

Well, Sir, one wonders whether those gentlemen fully realised the importance of having a crew in a ship working in close harmony together, and of the importance of selecting them to that end? We often hear the expressions "happy team" and "happy office", and often a "happy home", but it seems to me that a "happy ship" is of greater importance than any of these, for obvious reasons.

Perhaps I am being rather naive, but I also felt, in reading the Minutes of Evidence, that the shipowners' representatives seemed to have the interests and welfare of their seamen at heart.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Mr Sutherland talks about having a "happy ship" and selecting a happy crew - can he inform us as to how the roster system prevents this from coming about?

Mr Sutherland: Have patience, and I will try to do that. I was saying that the shipowners' representatives seemed genuinely to have the interests and welfare of their seamen at heart, and that they were convinced that the roster system, which is, after all, an untried novelty in Singapore, will not be a success in Singapore. For my own part, I feel rather apprehensive of the system - and I will now answer the Minister - because of the multi-racial population of this City of Singapore, so much of it Chinese and so much of it Chinese clansmen. Added to that are the problems of different religions and sundry inhibitions. The limitation, therefore, of two rosters seems to me to be a very grave difficulty to get over; and there is another point - no other industry has a roster system imposed on it, so why pick on the shipping industry?

I appreciate, Sir, that the main purpose of this system is to eliminate corruption, but has that been referred to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau for investigation and subsequent report? If not, why not? Would it not be better to refer this matter first to that Bureau before introducing a system which obviously has defects and has been tried out in only one country, where its success, as we know it, is based merely on one letter which we have had read to us this afternoon by the Minister for Commerce and Industry?

Sir, I do not intend to vote against this Bill, but it seems to me that there are one or two points I have raised which require consideration.

3.37 p.m.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy rose-

Mr Speaker: In reply?

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: In reply, Sir. I can understand the grave doubts and apprehensions expressed by Mr Sutherland but I am sure that those fears will not be found to be true when the roster system is working. Perhaps I must explain at the outset how I envisage the roster system should work. The Bill provides for a roster or rosters. In addition to that, I have made an amendment to it in Select Committee setting out that the Board may also subdivide the rosters into category or categories. In Singapore at the moment, seamen are recruited by clans, especially where the Chinese are concerned. There are three main categories of seamen - deck crew - sailors who work on deck - engine room crew, who work below in the engine room; and catering staff, who are the waiters, cooks and so on. The Board can provide three separate rosters, one for deck crew, one for engine room crew and one for catering staff. These rosters can again be sub-divided into racial categories or sections - Malays, Hainanese, Cantonese, Foochow and so on. If on a certain ship you have say, only Hainanese catering staff, and if that ship wants to recruit two more caterers, they go to the catering staff roster. The employers see the two names at the top are of Cantonese caterers. If these are engaged, there is going to be trouble on board the ship. What they do then is that they are referred to the Hainanese section of the catering staff roster, and so they get their Hainanese seamen. The same thing will apply where deck crew are concerned. Some ships have Malay deck crew and must therefore recruit only Malays; so they will be referred to the Malay section of the deck crew roster.

The shipowners' real objection, as I see it, is based on the fear that they will have to recruit some seamen who have in the past been found to be useless or idle or are loafers, who they know are not going to do their work efficiently. If that is so - in fact I raised this point in Select Committee - the answer is that if a seaman is found by a captain to be loafing, idle or useless, he should then not give the seaman a good discharge, so that he will then be penalised by the Board and will not then be put in the proper place on the roster. But if seamen are given good discharges, then there is no case against them, and I do not see why they should be refused employment by a shipowner claiming that they are lazy when in fact their discharges are good. If the captain finds a seaman to be lazy, incompetent or insubordinate, he has a right to give him a bad discharge. So that is the answer.

The other real fear, I think, is that shipowners are afraid that there will be no choice and that they will get trade unionists on board ships; that is, I think the real fear behind their minds. But I do not see any way of preventing trade unionists - provided they are good workers, and take interest in their work and discharge their duties efficiently - why trade unionists should not get employment.

The Bill provides a shipowner with two choices. If he comes round to the Board's office and says, "I want 10 Malay deck crew", he may be given 12, 15 or 20 names to choose from, as the Board may decide. Great latitude is given to the Board. The number of names offered is not fixed by the Bill. The Board can decide that if an owner wants 10 seamen, it offers 15, where he wants 20 it offers 30, where he wants 100 it offers 150, or where he wants one, it offers two - the Board can decide how many names to offer for selection. Now when 10 are asked for and 15 offered, the shipowner has a choice. He may pick not 10 out of the 15 but only seven, and say, "Sorry, the rest are no good to me." He still wants three more - and he will be given another three from the next on the roster; so he has a second choice then. That latitude has been provided for; to say, therefore, that certain seamen who are "residue" and whom shipowners do not want to employ will get to the top of the roster, is unfair. Probably they do not want to employ them because they are known trade unionists, or, as the owners call them, "agitators".

On the Council of Action, Sir, I admit it was set up for the purpose of uniting seamen into one union. I have received a letter today, dated 25th April, from the Seamen's Council of Action, and it says:

"To date, seven seamen's unions, including practically all the big unions, have signed the resolution of amalgamation to form one single seafarers' union under the auspices of the Seamen's Council of Action to be called the Singapore Union of Seafarers with autonomous sections of ship officers, seamen, harbour craft workers, and an interim committee has been set up . . . The remaining five seamen's unions will also be asked to dissolve themselves and get their membership to join the new union for the sake of unity. Whether they do or not, little difficulty is expected."

As far as I know - and I have some knowledge as far as these unions are concerned - out of the remaining five, only one matters.

It has been suggested that this roster system is an untried novelty and, therefore, there is apprehension about its implementation. Sir, the Rendel Constitution and this Assembly also were untried novelties two years ago. Well, there is a difference of opinion on how it works - some are satisfied, some are not - but the point is that if you stick to the conservative practice, of refusing to introduce reforms or to try out new things, you will never advance; you will not, for example, have the hydrogen bomb. That is not, therefore, a valid reason for refusing to try something which you do not know may prove a success; if it proves a failure, and if shipowners go out to other ports to recruit seamen, probably we will have to come back to this Assembly and repeal that portion of the Ordinance.

The answer to the question why no other industry has this roster system, why only this particular industry has it, is simple: in no other industry are persons engaged on a casual basis. In most industries on land, there is permanent employment. When a man is taken on, he continues working with the firm, provided he is efficient, is not insubordinate and is found to be suitable, or provided the firm does not close down. But in a ship, a seaman signs articles for that, six months or, if it is an ocean-going, long voyage ship for two years. After that period, he comes back and is thrown out of employment. There is no obligation on the part of the employer to reengage him, and therefore he may not be able to find employment after returning from a particular voyage, or after he has finished his term of service with that ship. The roster system, therefore, is necessary in order to give him some security of employment. He knows that when he comes back, he can put his name down on the roster and has a reasonable chance that in so many months he can work in another ship.

However, as I said, the system can fail if there is no co-operation between shipowners and unions, and that is what I fear. If only shipowners and unions will co-operate, I am sure the system will work. If any defects are found, we can always legislate to remove them.

The final question which Mr Sutherland asked was that if corruption is prevalent, why has there not been an investigation? There has been an investigation into corruption; I mentioned it at the Second Reading of this Bill. I believe it was in 1950 but the report was that no proof of corruption was found. We tried to abolish the ghaut serang system and put in the present system, but it has not worked successfully and we know that in fact there is some amount of financial "squeeze" of seamen by interested parties. I will not name them here.

Question put, and agreed to.

Mr Speaker: Committee stage, what day?

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Now, Sir.