CLERKS EMPLOYMENT BILL

Order for Recommittal read.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

10.54 a.m.

Clause 2-

Mr Marshall: If it please you, Mr Chairman, Sir, I move,

In page 13, line 11 to page 14, line 11, to leave out all the words after "office" to the end, and insert-

"or who is employed in clerical work complementary or supervisory to the work of workmen within the meaning of the Labour Ordinance except persons employed in positions of management workmen or domestic servants within the meaning of the Labour Ordinance 1955 or any other class of persons which the Minister may from time to time by notification in the Gazette declare not to be clerks for the purposes of this Ordinance and includes such employees of the Government or Her Britannic Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom or such categories classes or descriptions thereof as may from time to time be declared by the Governor by notification in the Gazette to be clerks for the purposes of this Ordinance or any Part or section thereof."

The purport, Sir, of the deletion is to delete all reference to a wage ceiling and all reference to a distinction of clerks and a division of clerks into three categories: those from $500 and under, those who are industrial and those who are otherwise, and to put them into one category - clerks. I would, however, point out, Sir, that there are other ceilings. I have sought in this insertion to bring together the definitions of "clerk" and "industrial clerk" into the one word "clerk" and I have combined both of them and the ceilings, Sir, that are left are "persons employed in positions of management" and they are excluded from the definition of "clerk". Also, all workmen within the meaning of the Labour Ordinance and all domestic servants. There are these ceilings and also, Sir, you will notice that there is the additional ceiling that Government servants and those in Her Britannic Majesty's employment are excluded otherwise than by express declaration by the Minister and furthermore, Sir, the Minister has power to exclude specifically any class of persons. You might think it odd, Sir, that i should support this provision which is incorporated there but I do recognise that this is a new Bill and a new departure in that we seek to give protection to a group of people who have had no protection before and in the working out of the law, there might be anomalies of a character which might require urgent attention. I think, therefore, Sir, that perhaps it is not unreasonable, as a temporary measure, to give the Minister these somewhat extensive powers of exclusion and inclusion but I think that it is wholly illogical and absolutely unnecessary to make a division of three classes in respect of what is a clerk. Sir, this division has been resisted by employees as well as by employers and, if I might draw the attention of the House, you will see, for example, the representations of the Singapore Clerical and Administrative Workers' Union at the top of page 4 of the Report before you being Sessional Paper No. L.A. 2 of 1957 which reads:

"It is suggested that the words 'whose salary' is not more than five hundred dollars, per mensem or such other sum as may from, time to time be fixed by the Minister by notification in the Gazette and, subject to such salary limits,' be deleted from the interpretation as it is felt 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."

That is one union, Sir. Then if you will look at page 38 of Appendix I, the Confederation of Singapore Chinese Engineering Tradesmen Branch No. 8 wrote saying:

"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."

11.00 a.m.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Mr Chairman, Sir, on a point of clarification, on page 38 I see a blank sheet of paper.

The Minister for Health (Mr A. J. Braga): You are looking at the wrong page.

Mr Marshall: Page 38, Sir, of Annexe I of Appendix IV to the Report.

The Chairman: It is column 37.

Mr Marshall: Yes, Sir. Thank you. Now, Sir, you will also find it in Appendix IV, Sir, column 1, where Mr Siow Tiong Choon of the Singapore Administrative and Clerical Workers' Union right through questions 1, 2, 3 and 4 resists strenuously this division of $500.

Sir, it will be suggested to you by the Minister that in certain types of industrial employment where the worker is doing more than 39 hours, is working 44 hours, the person who works with him in a clerical capacity should also be required to work that number of hours. I say, Sir, that a clerk is a clerk wherever he is employed, and that the maximum number of hours in this instance should be as indicated for a clerk. In fact, Sir, this point is supported by the employers themselves. If you look at page 6 of the Report, paragraph 2 (about a third down the paragraph), the Singapore Employers Federation say:

". . .Unfortunately, however such a distinction between the two categories of clerks will also, be impossible to operate in practice because in many factories and workshops it will be extremely difficult to draw a dividing line between the two classes, and there will be a large number of borderline cases, the exact classification of which will give rise to considerable difficulty and probably disputes between employers and the staff concerned, in addition it is the custom of many members of this Federation to transfer clerks from time to time from their factories or workshops to their office staff or vice versa especially for training purposes and to have two different sets of conditions of work, particularly in regard to working hours, will obviously lead to very considerable complications indeed."

This is stated by the Singapore European Employers Federation, Sir. You will notice that they are definitely against the two classifications. They continue:

"It appears to the Federation that these difficulties could be easily surmounted if the Ordinance merely stipulated the one set of conditions for all clerks, particularly in regard to working hours, these being the same as those provided for industrial clerks in the present Bill."

Quite naturally, they want to reduce the conditions for everybody to the lowest minimum, that is, to make all of them work 44 hours. But they say distinctly that this question of dividing the clerks into two groups is impracticable; and I would say this to you, Mr Chairman, that I know of no such division in any other country in the world.

The Chairman: May I interrupt the hon. Member?

Mr Marshall: Yes, Sir.

The Chairman: Is the Member contending then that his amendment is connected with amendments in respect of industrial clerks, and that a vote on that amendment will affect all his other amendments in respect of industrial clerks?

Mr Marshall: Yes, indeed, Sir. You will see, Sir, that my amendment deletes all mention of the $500 ceiling and all mention of industrial clerks, and it combines the definitions of both "clerks" and "industrial clerks" into a single group of workers to be known as "clerks" with a single set of minimum conditions of service. This amendment goes to the root not only of the $500 ceiling, but also to the division into industrial clerks and clerks. If this amendment fails, Sir, then all the consequential amendments will fail, because the question of industrial clerks is now incorporated in this particular amendment. If we take up this division, then everything else must succeed and we have one set of clerks. So it is vital, Sir, that this House understands the objections to the division between clerks and industrial clerks on the part of employees as well as on the part of employers. So whom are we seeking to please?

Sir, if you will look at page 11 of the Report, the employers, who had legal advice on this matter and who were assisted in the presentation of their case, said this in their memorandum, in paragraph 4:

"One of the most important sections of industry which will be adversely affected by the proposed division of clerks is general transport which is so vital to the existence and development of the Island and in support of this we would quote the following extract from a letter received from the Singapore Traction Co. Ltd."

This is what the letter quoted says:

" 'We have two departments in which it will be very difficult to differentiate between "clerks" and "Industrial Clerks". These departments are-

'(1) Traffic Department, in which the work varies from clerks keeping personnel records and preparing duty lists ("clerical" work), to time clerks and depot clerks whose work is connected with the operational side of the business and who are therefore "industrial" clerks,

'These clerks work together in the same office and on occasions must assist each other. There is also a large body of clerks in between these two extremes whose daily work is connected with both and whom it would be very difficult to divide into "clerks' and "industrial clerks".'" Now, you see, Sir. The letter continues:

" '(2) Engineering Department, in which the clerks' work varies from time-keeping ("industrial" clerks), to costing ("clerks"), and covers all intermediate work. It would be practically impossible to divide these into the proposed categories without disorganising the work.'"

So the suggestion of the Government, Sir, meets with the favour of nobody. The employers say it will disorganise their work and the employees say it is utterly unfair.

If you continue on page 11, Sir, you will read the following:

"Another important industry which has stated it will experience considerable difficulty is the motor industry, as will be seen from the following extract from a letter received from Borneo Motors Ltd.:-

'We give below two examples of our difficulty in practising a distinction in working hours: -

'(1) In our Stores Department, we have Stock Control clerks, Sales Counter clerks and Workshop Counter Issue clerks. A Stock Control clerk records the receipts and issue of spare parts. His work is closely related to that of the other two categories of clerks, but is not complementary or supervisory to the work of our workmen in the Repair Shop. The work of a Sales Counter clerk is also not complementary or supervisory, as he sells spare parts over the Counter to the public. A Workshop Counter Issue clerk issues spare parts to the Workshop for the repair of vehicles and is, therefore, an industrial clerk within the meaning of the Ordinance. All these three categories of clerks now work the same number of hours. It will be difficult to make a distinction in working hours as their work is closely related and in the case of Sales Counter clerk and Workshop Counter Issue clerk, very similar. The fact that the Sales Counter clerk serves the public is not good reason why he should work shorter hours than the clerk who serves the Workshop.' "

Turn to page 12, Sir:

" '(2) In our Workshop, we have Bill clerks and Time clerks. The latter do clerical work complementary or supervisory to the work of our workmen and are industrial clerks within the meaning of the Ordinance. Bill clerks are office clerks and not industrial clerks but their work is nevertheless closely related to that of the Time clerks. Before a Bill clerk closes a job he has to refer to the Time clerk for the time spent by workmen on the job and he has also to refer to the Workshop Counter Issue clerk for the spares issued to the job. At present, the clerks work the same hours and it will be difficult to treat the Bill clerk as an office clerk and a Time clerk as an industrial clerk.' "

Further down, Sir, we have the Singapore Cold Storage letter:

"'(a) Bulk Stores Clerks, Orchard Road work in close connection with the shops whose staff under the new Bill are on a 44-hour week. Although these clerks do not work in the shops and serve customers, they are in a way very similar to shop-assistants. Issues of groceries, tin provisions, etc, are constantly made so long as the shops are open and a 39-hour week will entail overtime to these clerks with unavoidable complaints from shop-assistants.'"

Quite right. And I say, with respect to you, Sir, that what we should provide is an inducement to reduce the working hours of the industrial clerks and, if necessary, to take on more employees, and thus, to some extent, meet the growing urgency of the unemployment problem.

Finally, Sir, I will read the third last paragraph of the employers' memorandum, on page 12:

"If time permitted, many more such examples could be cited but the Federation feels that those given above will be sufficient to show that genuine difficulty will arise. The Federation appreciates that on the occasion when previous legislation on this subject was under consideration, employers may generally have taken the view that the division between ordinary clerks and those employed in industry was workable, but it is convinced that this was due mainly to their natural alarm at the proposal of a 39-hour week for all clerks. Now that an opportunity has been given for more careful examination of the matter the difficulties and dangers attendant upon the proposal-"

that is, the proposal to divide them into clerks and industrial clerks-

"as set out above have been appreciated."

Now, Sir, I have already read to you the objection of the employees appearing at column 37 of Annexe I. Nobody wants this distinction which divides clerks into three categories: one earning above $500 having no protection at all; one who has a 39-hour week, 14 days annual leave, and 13 days public holidays; and finally the poor second-class clerk who has a 44-hour working week, only seven days annual leave and 11 days public holidays. Sir, the Hon. the Chief Minister has indicated that the division into those earning under $500 and those earning over $500 is because those earning over $500 can protect themselves and can brief lawyers. Sir, I do not know how that is logical; it seems to be a non sequitur, and I would merely add this (if there is any merit to it) that the Minister is in charge of an Ordinance which provides for free legal aid, and that, if that Ordinance is actively and honestly implemented, the people of the country - not only those earning more than $500 but the people who need it - will be able to have free legal aid, man, woman and child. I know of no express intention on the part of the Hon. the Chief Minister to repeal that Ordinance and, in the circumstances, it seems to me illogical to provide for a division at $500 on the assumption that those earning more than that figure can afford to pay for legal aid. Sir, I say that, under the provisions of the Ordinance which he has the responsibility of administering, those earning less than $500 can also have access to lawyers.

I say, Sir, that this division is unjust. It will cause a great deal of heart-burning to people doing the same work. It will encourage the employers to a great deal of litigation in order to press clerks into the industrial clerks category. It is not wanted by the employers, who say that it will disrupt work. It is not wanted by the employees. And I say to this House that if it accepts my amendment, these distinctions will be wiped away, but it leaves power to the Minister, in genuine cases where there is need to make the distinction, to take specific groups out of the definition of "clerk". That power should be exercised very sparingly, Sir, and I have no doubt, I hope, it will be exercised sparingly; in any event, if there are complaints, this House can hear about them. But the main thing to remember is this: If it is suggested that there are some industries which require that their clerks should work the same hours as their industrial workers, the answer is two-fold: one, employ more clerks or pay the clerks for over-time; and two, apply to the Minister for special exemption.

Sir, I do plead with this House, even though the amendment may come from me, to consider it with impartiality and with a sense of justice to a group of people who have not been articulate, who are extremely timid, but who are, Sir, worthy of our honest and sincere efforts in assisting them to get the protection they need.

The Chairman: It has been moved, as an amendment in page 13, line 11, to page 14, line 11, to leave out all words after "office" to the end and there to insert the words as appear in the Notices of Amendments.

It has been suggested by the hon. Mover that that amendment has reference to all his other amendments in relation to industrial clerks. That being so, I think it would be convenient to all Members if discussion could range over all those amendments which are further amendments to clause 2, that is:

amendment (ii) -in page 14, line 18, to leave out "or industrial clerk";

amendment (iii) -in page 14, line 33, to page 15, line 13, to leave out all the words, that is, the definition of "industrial clerk";

in page 2 of the Notices of Amendments, clause 35, (having reference to shift work by industrial clerks), to leave out the whole of the clause; and

clause 36 (having reference to holidays);

the four amendments to delete all reference to industrial clerks; and clause 37 (having reference to annual leave), a similar amendment to delete reference to industrial clerks.

I think I have not left out any of the amendments of the Member for Cairnhill?

Mr Marshall: I think you have got them all, Sir.

11.18 a.m.

The Minister for Labour and Welfare (Mr Lim Yew Hock): Mr Chairman, Sir, ever since I became Minister for Labour and Welfare, I have exerted a lot of effort to try to introduce legislation to protect clerical workers. I started life as a clerk and by profession am still a clerk, and I think I will die a clerk too. The Member for Cairnhill said there is a lot of heartburning over this division of clerical workers. I would like to assure this House that there has been a lot of heart-searching in me, a clerk, as to what is right and what is not right, what is fair and what is not fair, in this Bill designed to protect the class of workers from which I am proud to come.

Sir, first of all, let me explain the ceiling salary of $500 in so far as the interpretation of clerks is concerned. It is felt that clerical workers, industrial or office, drawing under $500 are in need of special protection. The protection afforded them under this Bill only relates, shall we say, to contracts of service - annual holidays, sick leave and one or two other things - but it does also provide to such clerks the free services of the Labour Court in settling disputes with their employers. Surely, Sir, employers will not wish to deny to their senior clerks what they have granted to those of their employees drawing below $500. We all know that men in senior appointments are better treated and are, in fact, given better conditions of employment. What this Bill seeks to give to clerical employees are therefore only the minimum provisions; workers' organisations can strive to improve them and thus make their organisations live and active ones.

With regard to industrial clerks, Sir, I have given the matter very serious thought. It was considered very carefully by the Select Committee, and we came to the unanimous conclusion that there should be this distinction, not because we consider industrial clerks to be a lower grade of clerks, but because we feel that they should, by the very nature of their employment, be classified in the Statute Book with the workmen with whom they closely work. The Member for Cairnhill has pointed out that the term "industrial clerk" has been opposed by employees and employers alike. As far as the employers are concerned, Sir, their objections are not because they want to give industrial clerks a 39-hour week or 14 days annual leave a year - it is because they feel that if there is this classification in the Clerks Employment Bill, it will be necessary for them to give improved conditions to those of their employees at present working as industrial clerks but who should have been classified as office clerks. It is suggested that their best way out is to give a 44-hour week to all clerical workers. The employees also objected to the classification but they, quite rightly, demand that there should be a 39-hour week for all clerks. Members of the Select Committee very carefully considered this and we decided as we have. This Bill, Sir, as I say, has also been considered by the Labour Advisory Board on which employers and employees are adequately represented.

One of the other points raised was on the limitation of $500. On this, I would like to assure the House that if, say, after six months' operation of the law, I should find it necessary to raise the limit to, say, $600 or even $700, I will definitely introduce amending legislation.

The Member for Cairnhill also touched on the Legal Aid and Advice Ordinance. He said that if Government really actively and honestly implemented it, then all clerks - in fact, I should say every individual in Singapore - would have the benefit of this law. What the degree of activity is, Sir, is a question of individual interpretation. I say that we have actively pursued this matter and to suggest that we have not honestly implemented it is something I cannot accept. The difficulty which the Government is encountering today arises from the opposition of the Bar Committee to certain sections in the Ordinance, and this opposition was because of the way the Bill received its Second Reading in this House. The Bar Committee, however, assured me of their co-operation in working the Ordinance, but because of the heavy pressure of work on me, particularly on the constitutional issue, I have not yet been able to hold further discussions with the Bar Committee. Now that the constitutional issue has been settled, I will take the earliest opportunity to hold further talks with the Bar Committee and to do my best to see that the law is implemented.

Sir, I therefore object to the amendment.

11.29 a.m.

Mr John Ede (Tanglin): Mr Chairman, I was not on the Select Committee in the Second Session of this Assembly, but I was on the Select Committee on this Bill in the First Session. As you will remember, Sir, this Bill has been given consideration by two Select Committees, and on the Select Committee in the First Session we did give very considerable thought to this problem, as I have no doubt the Select Committee of the Second Session did also; and we appear to have come to the same conclusions. I therefore think it can be said that this knotty problem has been given very wide consideration by a large number of Members in this House, and they have come to this conclusion that this distinction or classification does meet with the wishes of the majority.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Mr Chairman, Sir, I rise to support the amendment. Why should we draw a line between clerks, Sir? If a Bill is to be introduced to protect the interests of and improve the working conditions of clerks, let us cover all clerks. Why divide them into those earning below $500 a month and those above $500 and industrial clerks? I do not think that what their particular income is should come into the question. The question is whether we are to introduce a Bill to protect clerks and, if so, it should cover all clerks irrespective of what income they draw, with the exception, of course, of those who are covered in the amendment which says "except persons employed in positions of management workmen or domestic servants within the meaning of the Labour Ordinance 1955.". Mr Chairman, Sir, the Chief Minister says that it is a question of the nature of employment that is involved. I may agree to a certain extent. It is the nature of employment. But why then penalise or victimise the store clerks, tally clerks and so on? Why not classify an accounts clerk as an industrial clerk then? Why not classify a solicitor's clerk as an industrial clerk then? There are so many types of clerks. A clerk working in a solicitor's firm is entirely different from one working in a bank, and a clerk working in a bank is quite different from one working in an insurance company. Why not separate all clerks and have all sorts of classification rather than industrial and non-industrial clerks? If we do not classify the clerks in different categories, the question of industrial and non-industrial clerks will not arise, and every clerk will be given the chance of learning other types of clerical work found in commercial firms. If I am a clerk and I confine myself to a particular job, I will not be able to know what another clerk working in another capacity is doing. Even in government service we find clerks transferred from one department to another. Why do they transfer the clerks from one department to another? It is to enable them to acquaint themselves with the nature of the employment covered by the word "clerk". If we are going to have a dividing line between industrial and non-industrial clerks - calling them tally clerks, store clerks, accounts clerks, how then are we going to effect that transfer?

On the question of leave, Sir, is not a clerk a human being? Is not an industrial clerk a human being? Are they not the same? Are they born of different categories? Why then should a clerk enjoy 14 days' leave and an industrial clerk only seven days? If an ordinary clerk has to work for 365 days in a year, the industrial clerk also has to work that number of days. So why should there be this difference in leave?

I would also like to draw the attention of the Member for Cairnhill to the question of holidays. He said that a clerk is entitled to 13 days' paid holiday, as covered in page 36, whereas an industrial clerk gets only 11 days (page 37). He is wrong on this issue. According to this Schedule, the clerk is allowed 16 days and not 13 days - five days more than an industrial clerk. Does it necessarily mean that an industrial clerk does not enjoy holidays? [Interruption.] As a Chinese, I would say that most Chinese enjoy at least 15 days during Chinese New Year and not a day or two. Under Schedule A we see "Chinese New Year's Day and the following day", but under Schedule B it is only "Chinese New Year's Day". Why the difference of one more day? Is not the person coming under Schedule B a Chinese? Is he not entitled to enjoy another extra day during Chinese New Year? Why then bar him out? Let us treat all human beings as equals.

Now coming to protection. The Minister for Labour and Welfare said that this Bill is to give special protection to those whose incomes are below $500. He has said earlier that it is a question of the nature of employment. I would say that it is the nature of his living which is involved. The way of living of a clerk whose income is $300 is entirely different from that of a clerk whose income is $500, and if a clerk earns more than $500, then his standard of living would be higher. That leaves him with no balance of money out of his monthly income. He has no savings at all. If that be the case, then why give protection only to those clerks earning less than $500 if the clerks in a higher income group also have no savings out of their monthly income? Then let us give protection to all clerks, irrespective of $500 or above, or below. Where legal aid is concerned, it is not because those who draw $500 could not afford and those drawing above $500 could afford. As the Minister has said, some employers might try and give better treatment to those drawing $500. I doubt there is much discrimination there. If a clerk draws above $500, his status is such that he warrants that special treatment, not because he draws above $500; and if his income is below $500, he is given the treatment that he deserves. So why differentiate between the clerks? I fully support the amendment.

Mr Marshall: If it please you, Mr Chairman, Sir, it is extraordinary, the poverty of argument in defence. The Member for Tanglin, who is always worth listening to even if one disagrees with him, has just one argument. "Gentlemen," he says, "we have discussed this at length in Select Committee and we came to this conclusion after considerable deliberation." But the arguments which convinced that Select Committee seem a top secret from this House, and this House may not know, Sir, apart from reading the Report, what those arguments were. Nor did the Member for Tanglin seek to enlighten this House on the weighty reasons which no doubt existed - or did they exist? - which made him decide that there should be this division between a clerk and an industrial clerk. The Minister for Labour and Welfare puts in an emotional plea. He says, "I am still a clerk." And the assumption is that, being a clerk, he would naturally want only good for the clerks. Let me remind him that it is not unknown that people get into office in order to help the poor and remain in office in order to serve the rich. An illustrious patron of those gentlemen, Sir, is the late Mr Ramsay MacDonald, who got into power by support of the trade unions and remained in power in order to support big business. The Minister says, "I am still a clerk." I do not understand how a Minister can be a clerk, unless one understands the definition of a clerk as being a man who carries out the wishes of his bosses. Sir, that emotional argument has absolutely no weight.

Then the Minister says, "If $500 is too low, I will put it to $600; I will put it to $700." But he has not answered the simple question: Why any salary ceiling at all? Why? I have two clerks. They both get more than $500. Why should they not have the benefit of the protection of this Bill? I do apologise, Mr Chairman, Sir. I misled you in saying that a clerk gets 13 days' holiday. In fact, the Member for Queenstown is correct. He gets 16 days, but his poor brother doing the same work, dubbed an industrial clerk, gets 11 days' public holiday. Why? Sir, I do ask this House to reconsider this question. At one time, Sir, this House was afraid during election time of becoming nothing but a committee of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce because of the Democratic Party. Now, Sir, it looks like we are becoming a committee of the Singapore Chamber of Commerce if we are to accept what the Singapore Employers Federation asks. I have omitted - it was pointed out to me - to read the second last paragraph of their memorandum on page 12:

"We are therefore directed to express the hope that the Select Committee will see their way to accept the proposed change in the Bill so as to make the 44-hour week standard for all clerks. If, however, this is not so, then the Federation would reiterate what is stated in its original memorandum namely that the existing division of clerks should be retained, difficult as it may be to operate, in preference to a 39-hour standard week."

So we are going to carry out the wishes of the Singapore Employers Federation; or are we going to give the protection which these clerks seek?

Sir, it is the Member for Serangoon, in the name of the Progressive Party at that time, who introduced a Bill - it was not perhaps appropriate, let us put it no higher than that - seeking gallantly, urgently, to protect these workers. I appeal to all Members of this House, irrespective of party affiliation, to realise that this distinction is not merely unworkable, as the employers state, but it is utterly unfair to the employees, and not one single argument has been adduced in this House, apart from the Whip, to suggest that there is logic or justice in this distinction which the employers want.

Mr R. C. H. Lim: Sir, this Bill is an attempt to confer benefits, and the complaint is that the benefits to be conferred are insufficient. It is not a Bill to reduce benefits. It is to confer the minimum benefits.

Sir, in answer to the Member for Cairnhill about this $500 more or less, if a clerk getting less than $500, is to receive all the benefits which this Bill, when it becomes law, will confer upon him, can you imagine, Mr Chairman, a clerk receiving more than $500 will also not be entitled to the benefits, or even more? It would, I think, be a most unjust and ridiculous office management if clerks receiving less than $500 get some benefits and those receiving more than $500 do not get the same benefits, if not more.

The other point, Sir - reference has been made to the letter by the Singapore Employers Federation. Sir, these are employers and if they do have the interests of their clerks at heart, may I suggest to them, Mr Chairman, that in case of doubts, they give the benefit of the doubts in favour of the clerks so that the doubts which they raise in their letter, will no longer remain doubts.

Mr Lim Yew Hock: Mr Chairman, Sir, I had thought of speaking further on the subject, but because of the insinuations which have been levelled by a man who is emotionally unstrung, I feel that-

Mr Marshall rose -

The Chairman: Is it a point of order?

Mr Marshall: A point of order, Sir. We have had the debate on Merdeka, which decided the fate of Singapore, degenerating into a personal vilification-

The Chairman: Can I have the hon. Member's point of order?

Mr Marshall: The point of order is this: Have my personal merits or demerits anything to do with the merits or demerits of the amendment? And how long is this going to be permitted, Sir, these personal insinuations?

The Chairman: If an hon. Member passes insinuations about another hon. Member, he must expect to receive similar insinuations.

Mr Lim Yew Hock: Thank you, Mr Chairman, Sir. As I was saying, Sir, because of the insinuations that could only have come from a man emotionally unstrung, I think the best way is to ignore such emotion.

Mr Marshall: I would like to reply to the Minister. He said that this Bill does not reduce anything. Would the House again, Sir, read column 38 of Annexe 1? This is what the workers say. They have received a letter from United Engineers which states "that they [United Engineers] will adhere strictly to the provisions of the Clerks Employment Ordinance.". The workers say that this Bill "provides less benefits than currently enjoyed by United Engineer 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." These are the people we are seeking to protect and these are the representations, Sir, which you have received. So it is inaccurate to suggest that this Bill takes away nothing. It does, in fact, take away what they have, and according to the workers themselves who are affected, United Engineers being one firm which intends to implement the letter of the law, and the minimum possible, and the minimum possible will be much less than what they get today.

Mr R. C. H. Lim: Mr Chairman, Sir, I maintain that what I have said is correct. This Bill, when it becomes law, will take away nothing. If any employee in any firm gets more benefits than what this Bill intends to confer, there is no penalty clause in the Bill which says that an employer who grants more benefits than set out in this Bill, is liable to a fine or to imprisonment.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

Mr Marshall: Division.

The Chairman: Clear the lobbies.

The House divided. Ayes Noes Lee Choon Eng. Abdul Hamid bin Lim Cher Kheng. Haji Jumat. Marshall, D. S. Braga, A. J. Seah Peng Chuan Butterfield, C. H. Chew Swee Kee. Ede, John. Abstentions Goh Tong Liang. Sutherland, G. A. P. Jumabhoy, J. M. Jumabhoy, R. Absent Lim Choon Mong. Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Lim. R. C. H. Goh Chew Chua. Lim Koon Teck. Lazarous, A. R. Lim Yew Hock. Lim Ching Siong. Mak Pak Shee. Thomas, Francis. Mohd. Sidik bin Haji Abdul Hamid. Nair, M. P. D Ong Piah Teng. Oon Khye Kiang. Stewart, S. T. Tan Theng Chiang. Tan, William. Wong Foo Nam.

The Chairman: There are now 31 votes to be accounted for. The seat of the Member for Tanjong Pagar is vacant. I have received his letter of resignation. There are 4 Ayes, 21 Noes, 5 Absent, and one Abstention. The Noes have it. The amendment fails.

There are two more amendments standing in the name of the Member for Cairnhill (Mr Marshall).

Mr Marshall: If it please you, Mr Chairman, Sir, I do not think any useful purpose would be served by pursuing the next two amendments in respect of clause 2, and I therefore withdraw them.

[In page 14, line 18, to leave out "or industrial clerk".]

[In page 14, line 33, to page 15, line 13, to leave out all words from beginning to end.]

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6-

Mr Marshall: If it please you, Mr Chairman, Sir, I drew the attention of the House on the motion for recommittal that this clause, in fact, provides for the continuation in force of agreements which are less favourable to the employee than the conditions given by the Bill. I have since had conversations with the Hon. the Attorney-General and have collaborated with him, Sir, and I am happy to say that we have agreed to a common amendment, and I now move,

In page 17, lines 6 to 11, to leave out all words after "6." to the end and insert-

"Subject to the provisions of section 7 of this Ordinance all contracts of service valid and in force on the date on which this Ordinance comes into force shall continue to be in force after such date and the parties thereto shall be subject to and entitled to the benefits of the provisions of this Ordinance."

You will see, Sir, that under clause 7, in fact, any less favourable condition is now void and of no effect. I therefore move the deletion of clause 6 and the incorporation of the new amended clause.

The Attorney-General (Mr C. H. Butterfield): Mr Chairman, Sir, the Committee will appreciate from what was said by the Member for Cairnhill, that the Government supports this amendment, and I would like to take this opportunity of saying that we are grateful to him for drawing our attention to the imperfection - if I may put it like that - in the drafting of this clause, and I am grateful to him, too, for his assistance when it came to the question of agreeing this amendment.

I would like to take this opportunity, Sir, of emphasising that it has never been the intention that the provisions of existing agreements between employers and employees, which fall short of the minimum standards which are prescribed in the Bill, should be preserved; and I would like just to touch on clause 7 in this context which depends to some extent on the amendment which is going to be made, we hope, to clause 6. I would like to say this, Sir, that it has never been the intention of the Government that agreements which give employees more than the minimum standards provided by the Bill should be prevented.

I would also like to say, Sir, that we do not go so far by any means as the hon. Member in his construction of the clause in its present form, but we do agree that the drafting can be improved and should be improved.

12 noon.

I think Members generally will know that in their present form clause 6 - and I am speaking also of clause 7 - corresponds precisely with sections 6 and 7 of the Labour Ordinance, and this Ordinance has been in force for some 18 months, and so far as I am aware, the construction of those sections has never been challenged in the sense that it has never been suggested that they do not carry out the intentions to which I have referred.

But, Sir, to conclude what I have to say, we do support this amendment because we think that it will make the clause abundantly clear and indeed I think this is one of the occasions on which one can say with some confidence that the amendment will achieve our purpose - what must always be the purpose of legal draftsmen when they are drafting any legislation - and that is so to draft it that it cannot be misunderstood, not only by a person who wants to understand it but also by a person who wants to misunderstand it. Sir, we support this amendment.

The Chairman: It would appear then that it is for the convenience of Members to discuss also the next amendment. That is allowable.

Mr Marshall: Mr Chairman, Sir, I think it has been sufficiently discussed.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7-

Mr Marshall: Mr Chairman, Sir, my objection to clause 7 are the words "any term of a contract of service which is contrary to the provisions of this Ordinance shall be illegal, null and void". Sir, it must be quite obvious that there can be contracts of service which are contrary in that they are less favourable, as well as contrary in that they are more favourable. I am happy to report, Sir, that I have had the full co-operation of the Attorney-General on the subject who sees the point, and I have collaborated with him, Sir, in the amendment which I now put before the House and which I understand is fully acceptable to him-that we delete clause 7 completely after the figure "7", and insert a new clause. So, Sir, I move,

In page 17, lines 12 to 16, to leave out all words after "7." to the end and insert-

"Every term of a contract of service whether made before or after the date on which this Ordinance comes into force which provides a condition of service which is less favourable to an employee than any of the conditions of service prescribed by this Ordinance shall be illegal, null and void to the extent that it is so less favourable."

Mr Butterfield: All I wish to say on this, Sir, is that the Government accepts this amendment, and the observations which I made in relation to the amendment to clause 6 which was moved by the hon. Member also apply. I think I indicated at the time, to this amendment. I do not think it will be useful, Sir, for me to repeat what I have already said.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14-

Mr Marshall: If it please you, Mr Chairman, Sir, here again I am happy to report to you agreement with the Attorney-General as a result of my drawing the attention of the House to the Privy Council case of Clouston and Corry which decided that not all acts of misconduct are grounds sufficient for instant dismissal. I have been in consultation with the Attorney-General who stated that it was not, in fact, the intention of the Government to extend the area of the grounds on which an employer could dismiss an employee, and therefore, Sir, in the words of the case of Clouston and Corry, I move,

In page 18, line 41, after "misconduct", to insert "inconsistent with the fulfilment of the express or implied conditions of service".

The Chairman: Hon. Members will note that the notice of amendments is not complete, that is, the addition of the words "express or implied".

Mr Butterfield: Here again, Mr Chairman, the Committee will appreciate from what has been said by the Member for Cairnhill, that the Government supports this amendment, and here again I would like to say that I am grateful for the assistance which he gave me when we were discussing this particular matter. I would like to say this, Sir, that it has always been the intention of the Government that this clause should only permit dismissal without notice for misconduct where that misconduct is serious or substantial. It follows, Sir, that the Government is concerned that this clause should not be capable of being construed more widely, and for the reasons which I think the Member for Cairnhill has indicated, the Government takes the view that it would be wise to adopt the amendment to it on the lines which he has moved. We support this amendment, Sir.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 14, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Chairman: I think this is an appropriate time to suspend?

Mr Marshall: If it please you, Mr Chairman, Sir.

Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

Mr Speaker: The sitting is suspended. I will take the Chair again at half-past two.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.12 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.