SEAMEN'S REGISTRY BOARD BILL

Order for Recommittal read.

Resumption of debate on Question (25th April, 1957),

"That clause 5, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

10.10 a.m.

Question again proposed,

"That clause 5, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr Lim Choon Mong (Serangoon): Mr Chairman, Sir, resuming from where I stopped yesterday, I would like to point out a few flaws in this roster system in connection with the employment of our seamen, seamen who are registered in Singapore. They are faced with a number of disadvantages. We are aware that ships call not only at Singapore but also at such ports as Penang, Port Swettenham, Malacca, Kuching and so on. If the roster system is disliked by the shipowners and they decide that they are going to destroy it, then unless a parallel roster system could be instituted in other ports, employment would then be taken, not in Singapore, but in other Malaysia ports. I therefore query whether this roster system is going to help our seamen or whether it is going to prevent them from further getting employment. It is very unwise, I think, for Singapore to start this roster system until other governments, such as the Federation and Sarawak, start a similar one. Seamen will then have a better chance of getting a job.

I am told that this roster system is prompted by the desire to eliminate bribery. The question of bribery is now being taken up by Government which is appointing a commission to enquire into it. Bribery should be stamped out. There is administrative difficulty; but this problem must be eradicated and we cannot eradicate it by just having a roster system. Let the people who are concerned come forward to Government and report those people who are responsible for such deplorable acts which deny reasonable employment to seamen unless they bribe. Let them come forward and complain to the Government and bring the culprits to book. If Government will take very strong action on this, then that aspect of the argument will be met. However, if Government feels that this roster system will help the seamen - but I do not think it will - then I would like the Government to think carefully about it. Let the system be given a trial, if it must have a trial, but let it be for a fixed period. If the result is that it is not going to create better opportunities of employment for seamen, then the system must be dropped. The idea of this roster system is to protect our seamen. If it fails in its aim, then we must think of other ways of protecting them. I am of the opinion that this system will not achieve this aim and I wish the Government would reconsider it.

10.15 a.m.

Mr G. A. P. Sutherland (Nominated): I have just one small point to make, Mr Chairman. I would like to ask the Minister for Commerce and Industry whether it is not a fact that under the roster system the seaman will lose his freedom of choice. He has to take whatever job is offered to him by the vessel or the shipping company, whether he likes it or not, in order to secure employment.

Yesterday the Hon. the Minister for Commerce and Industry mentioned how a ship could have a multi-racial crew and yet at the same time work in harmony. He mentioned, for example - it does not really matter if I quote him accurately - that the engine-room hands, for instance, might all be Hainanese. Now I would like to ask: supposing the master of a vessel required two engine-hands, would he, in the ordinary way of things, seeing that his choice is restricted to two rosters, be able to get the men he wanted?

Mr R. Jumabhoy (Telok Ayer): Sir, I would like to make a few points and also ask a few questions. Will the roster system consist of seamen of all races and of all nationalities, or is the system meant to protect only our local men? If it is for all seamen, is it not our duty to do first justice to our seamen who may remain unemployed? If everyone has a chance, it may be that our own men may be last on the roster. Is there any preference given to them?

Protests have been made by the ship-owners in regard to the roster system when employing seamen. On the other hand, I understand the Government wants the roster system to protect our seamen. "Our seamen" means I hope those who are born locally.

Sir, there are two aspects to the problem. Some say that because of the roster system, seamen may not have sufficient opportunities for employment whether they are of Indian, Pakistan, Chinese or Indonesian nationality and that they may have to go to other ports in search of employment, and the ships might avoid Singapore to get men of their choice. That is the shipowners' point of view. If that happens, of course, we are bound to lose. The other side of the argument is that Singapore is the only port which offers opportunities to the employers to pick and choose seamen of any nationality. Sir, there are certain shipping lines which employ only Chinese seamen. There are others which employ only Indians and Pakistanis. There are still others which employ only Indonesians. Sir, Singapore is a good market for employment for seamen, but if we have a roster system, the situation might arise where a shipping company might find trouble in getting the right men because the seamen selected for employment might not fit in with the other seamen already employed; so the shipping company might have to go elsewhere for seamen. However, I have no strong views about this. If our seamen suffer as a result of this roster system, then the Government will have to amend the Ordinance.

The Minister for Commerce and Industry (Mr J. M. Jumabhoy) rose -

The Chairman: In reply?

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Yes, Sir. Mr Chairman, the first and most important misunderstanding which is in the mind of the Member for Serangoon is that Singapore might lose trade as a result of ships being diverted to other ports because they cannot recruit seamen here as they like. That is a very fallacious argument. Ships come to a port not solely for the purpose of recruiting seamen. They do so primarily if an inducement offers. If they can get cargo and it is paying, they will come to a port, if they recruit seamen while at that port, it is just incidental, if the port facilities offer it. They may perhaps stop at an intermediate port on their route if there is urgent necessity to recruit seamen, but they will not go out of their way just to recruit them; and therefore if there is any loss, it is not going to be a loss of commerce to Singapore, a loss of shipping, a loss of transport facilities or diversion of shipping away from Singapore, but it is going to be solely a matter of losing employment for Singapore seamen. So let us get this point clear - it is not going to be a commercial loss to Singapore, it is going to be a loss to seamen as far as gaining employment is concerned.

I asked the representatives of the Seamen's Council of Action pointblank in Committee: "Are you prepared to take the risk of shipowners going to some other port to recruit?" And they said, "Yes, we are prepared to take the risk because we are thoroughly fed up with the manner in which the seamen are being exploited here in Singapore." Sir, these people were the representatives of all the unions in Singapore. Should the Committee accept their word as representing the wishes of the seamen, or should it accept the word of some ship-owners who said that, in spite of the unions' assurances that they wanted the roster system, they knew that the seamen would not want it? This is not in accordance with democratic principles. If you have representatives nominated by a certain body, it is their views that you should take as being representative of that section. You cannot claim the oppositions views as representing them. Therefore, if there is any diversion of recruiting seamen away from Singapore to other ports, and as a result the seamen suffer, the best thing for them to do is to throw out the representatives who came to the Select Committee to make representations and appoint a new set of representatives and get them to make representations to Government to abolish this provision in the Ordinance. If that happens after giving the roster system a fair trial - it will take a year to implement it in the first instance - I am sure that the Minister (whoever he is at that moment) will take steps to prevent anything detrimental happening to the people or to a section of the people of Singapore and therefore steps will be taken to rescind that portion of the Ordinance.

The Member for Serangoon raised the point as to how we are going to help the Malays if we are going to have a sectional or racial register. What happens if one particular race is not represented on the register? I think a similar point was touched upon by the Member for Telok Ayer. Sir, when I mentioned a separate register for Malays, a separate one for Chinese which is subdivided into sections for the various clans, the same system could apply to other races. But if there are not many seamen of other races, probably we could have a general roster for them: for example, Indians and Pakistanis. These seamen are only a handful in Singapore. The majority of seamen are Malays and Chinese. Therefore it does not mean that the other races who are domiciled here would suffer as a result of this roster. But we cannot force a shipowner to take on a person of a certain race whom he does not want, because that would not be conducive to a happy atmosphere on board the ship. So if a shipowner wants two Hainanese, he could go straight on to the Hainanese category of that roster and recruit them. But which two Hainanese - Mr A and Mr B, or Mr C and Mr D? That is where, as far as the employer is concerned, the shoe pinches - I know.

Now seamen from other territories cannot go on to this register in Singapore. They are barred by this Ordinance. But seamen could be signed on outside, say Hongkong, and brought to Singapore. We cannot stop that because those are reciprocal facilities which other ports offer to us. Our seamen can be signed on here and flown over to Hongkong or Sydney or any other port and taken on board there, and if we stop that, then those other countries will stop the same facilities to our seamen. It is possible that Penang or Malacca or Port Swettenham might have a better system of selecting crews and thereby attract shipowners to make their selection of seamen there, but in the past it has been proved, as the Member for Telok Ayer has pointed out, that Singapore can offer the most multiracial type of crews, and most of the Malays who are recruited from Singapore are Federation men - they are from Malacca and Johore. Besides, not all the ships which call at Singapore call at Malacca. In fact, I do not think any big ship calls at Malacca, and only some of them call at Penang and Port Swettenham. Our immigration laws are tight. We do not allow any seamen to come into Singapore.

Sir, this Bill is not the result of my being moved by the pleas of the Seamen's Council of Action to do something for the seamen. I have been in the Ministry watching how things are going on, and my heart bleeds for these unfortunate seamen. I have not got the eloquent language which the Member for Cairnhill has at his command, but I say in all sincerity that I feel sorry for them. They are in fact in a much worse plight than the clerks are, because they are not educated. So if you talk of asking them to go and report corruption, it is impossible for them. To a person who is illiterate and who is offered a job but is asked to pay $50 in order to get it, his first inclination will be to pay the $50 and get the job. He will rather do this than get involved if he goes to a police station where he will have to spend time reporting this case of corruption. He will then have to go and give evidence and, for all you know, his word will not be believed because he is held to be a man of straw. It will be his word against that of an official in the Seamen's Bureau or an employee of the shipping company who will probably have backing, and who will say "This man is a liar", and probably the magistrate will believe him.

Sir, I have spent a lot of time over this Bill. I have studied every word of it so that it should be as perfect as humanly possible.

However, all the Opposition's arguments are based on the idea that the roster system is not going to be successful. Now why should they conceive the idea that it is not going to be successful? First of all, in most cases, most of the employers will not have to go to the roster. They are allowed to sign on their own crew as many times as they like, which means that probably 60 or 70 per cent of the crew can be re-signed on every occasion, and they will only have to go to the roster for the wastage and for replacement of that part of the crew who go on leave or die or leave their employment, which probably will not be a big percentage. Now, when they go to the roster for that small percentage, if they can get efficient seamen from the race and even the clan that they want, then why should the system not succeed? The only hindrance is that they cannot get the person they particularly want - Mr A or Mr B - but they can get efficient men from the race or the clan that they want, and they can have two choices.

Now, if a man is not efficient, he has very little chance of getting on the register and subsequently on the roster. If hon. Members have studied the Bill, I will point out clause 7 (c) which reads:

"The Minister may make rules not inconsistent with this Ordinance for the following purposes-

(c) to prescribe the conditions under which the Board may cancel, suspend or alter the registration of seamen;"

and the Minister naturally will take advice front the Board before he makes these rules which means that the Minister could, under the rules, make it a condition that a seaman who has not served well or who has been guilty of inefficiency or laziness would go down on the roster and be penalised, and so on, so that there is every chance of only efficient seamen being put on the roster. Again in clause 8 (f):

"The Board may make regulations...

(f) the particulars to be furnished by applicants for registration as seamen and by registered seamen and masters or employers, upon the discharge of such registered seamen."

The masters or employers, when they discharge a seaman, will give particulars of that seaman to the Board and the Board will then be in a position to know what type of seaman is going to he placed on the roster and they would probably make rules to fit him in an appropriate place on the roster if he is not a good man. So that again goes for efficiency. My purpose is to get efficiency in our seamen but, at the same time, not to get them exploited by the shipowners.

Now, to get on the register, a seaman must, first of all, undergo a medical test. That would probably eliminate half the number who are on the present register because many of them are not medically fit - I believe probably at least about 30 per cent. Then after that, I am sure that the Board will put a qualification and say that he must be experienced as a seaman for a number of years or a number of months (it is up to them to specify it). But there again, that shows that the man has got the necessary experience and I am sure that the Board could ask the Minister to make a regulation saying that he must have had a good discharge. If those conditions can be put up by the Board and can be made by the Minister, I do not see why the shipowners should worry about efficient seamen not being available, in other words, the seamen who go on the roster will be bona fide seamen.

I suspect, Sir, from hearing the Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong) that the threat of some ship-owners to go and recruit from other ports - and probably they may carry out that threat just out of spite - is because they do not want anything to fetter their choice. They do not want anything to hinder them from choosing the particular persons they want and just out of spite they might go out of Singapore for a few months to recruit from outside. But I do hope that they give up that idea. Our local companies, many Chinese companies and the Straits Steamship Company, employ almost all their crew from Singapore and I am sure that they will not wish to go outside. They will prefer to carry on here so long as the system is workable. If the system is not workable, then it is in the interest of Singapore to change that system and I will see that it is changed then.

I give this assurance to the House also that I shall be watching very closely the workings of this Board and I shall not hesitate to remove any member of the Board whom I find to be obstructive, whether he is a trade unionist or whether he is representing the shipping interests, and I have powers under clause 3 (6) where it says "unless earlier removed by the Minister" and that power is expressly put for the purpose of-

Mr Marshall: Benevolent dictatorship!

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: It is necessary at times; when you know that the affairs of seamen are in such chaotic conditions and when you know that a certain section of members are out to wreck anything that you do. Some sections could remain away from the Board and refuse to form a quorum and therefore the Board could not function and have meetings. Now if that happens or if they wilfully obstruct, then I am going to remove them under that subclause and I purposely put in that power. If any Member of the House has any doubt as to my ability to administer that or to my bona fide intentions, I would ask them to move a motion to delete that. In fact, I did point it out yesterday or the day before when the debate arose on some other Bill on the same clause.

Mr G. A. P. Sutherland: I am sorry to flog this point, Sir, and I will be very brief about it. I hope I am not being very obtuse but it seems to me that, in fact, there are not two rosters, there are two lists of choice; but if you place your Pakistanis, your Indians or your Hainanese on separate lists, then, in fact, there are several rosters. Would the Minister agree with that?

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Sir, the Bill says "roster or rosters" and again it gives power to sub-divide roster or rosters into categories. It is a matter of name. You can call it by any name you like but you have separate lists. The seamen themselves also have been given a chance to have a choice. There is a clause which provides that the Board will decide, if a seaman refuses employment, on what his position on the roster should be. For the first refusal, I am sure the Board will say that there will be no penalty but for a subsequent refusal, they might put him down a few places on the roster; so that the seaman has also a choice.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: On a point of information, Sir. Will it be possible for a shipowner to sign on a person say in Penang or in Malacca and then send him over to Singapore to join his ship when it calls here? Is that possible?

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: I think that that is possible but I do not think that they would do it.

Question, "That clause 5, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill, as amended on recommittal, be reported to the Assembly."

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments.

Third Reading

Mr Speaker: Third Reading, what day?

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Now, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill, as amended, be now read the Third time."

The Minister for Education (Mr Chew Swee Kee): Sir, I second it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, accordingly read the Third time.