CLERKS EMPLOYMENT BILL

Consideration in Committee resumed.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

2.31 p.m.

Clause 15-

The Chairman: There are two amendments standing in the name of the Member for Cairnhill (Mr D. S. Marshall) which appear to be complementary:

[In page 19, line 1, after "15.", to insert "-(1) ".]

[In page 19, after line 6, to add a new sub-clause numbered (2) as follows:-

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

Unless any hon. Member has an amendment to the clause itself, I propose to call the second amendment. If the second amendment is accepted, then, of course, the first amendment will be made as a matter of course.

Mr Marshall: If it please you, Mr Chairman, Sir, thank you. I was wondering what the proper procedure would be.

Mr Chairman, Sir, this is a provision that is absolutely vital to the labour movement of the country. You will permit me, Sir, to remind this House that in true colonial tradition, the workers of Singapore had no right to organise in trade unions until after the Second World War and that up to, I think, late in 1941, it was a criminal offence and a criminal conspiracy for any employees to get together and to press their demands on their employers on the understanding that if they did not get them, they would strike. Under pressure from the Labour Party of the United Kingdom, there was introduced in this colony in 1951 trade union legislation. I say under pressure from the Labour Party of the United Kingdom; perhaps I should add, and in view of the crumbling and disintegrating situation in Singapore as a result of the Japanese threat when imperialist capital was seeking every means to placate those it had persistently made their enemies, but the 1941 legislation was of no effect until after the war. Not one single organisation registered itself as a trade union under that legislation until 1946. So, Sir, trade union law and protection for the worker is very new. There is a law and it is no longer a criminal conspiracy to go on strike or to take other action on a collective bargaining basis against unreasonable employers but, Sir, though it is no longer a criminal offence, it is a civil offence to go on strike - something very few people seem to know. It is a civil offence to go on strike, tantamount to a breach of contract from which damages can flow. I see that the hon. Mr Sutherland looks with surprise. Perhaps the Hon. the Attorney-General - I know Mr Sutherland no longer, Sir, he says, takes what I say as being accurate - will correct me if I am wrong or at least indicate how far I am right. But let me repeat in case there is any misunderstanding. It is today a civil offence to go on strike amounting to a breach of contract, attracting immediate dismissal for misconduct.

Now, Sir, we have the privilege of having as Chief Minister and as Minister for Labour and Welfare a man who has told you that he has laboured in the trade union movement all his life and he should understand what it means to the workers of Singapore that the principle should be recognised not only of non-criminality of the right to strike but of the absolute legality of the right to strike, that the right to strike should not be considered a civil misconduct warranting instant dismissal. We, Sir, in this House are all Socialists with the exception of the Nominated Members. I grieve to see that the most socialist of Socialists, according to their views, are entirely absent - the People's Action Party, all of them. I grieve to see that the Independent Member for Sembawang (Inche Ahmad bin Ibrahim) absent on so important a motion. I grieve to see a large section of the Liberal-Socialists absent on so important a motion, but, Sir, we have the Labour Front that stands for Socialist principles and I say to you, Sir, that to any true Socialist, it is axiomatic that the right to strike should be lawful. You cannot say it is lawful if it comes within the definition of misconduct and if it warrants instant dismissal.

Sir, the Hon. the Chief Minister today received the praise and the accolade of British capital whose confidence he has gained. I would ask him to remember the labour movement. I would ask him to remember the need of this country and of any government of this country to have the faith and confidence of the labour movement. I would remind him. Sir, of something that perhaps he knows and he does not often remember, and that is, since his coming into office, many genuine and sincere constitutional trade unionists are frightened. I say, Sir, that the acceptance of this amendment which makes lawful the right to strike will go a long way to restoring the confidence of the labour movement of this country and the present Government of this country would go a long way to allay the fears of the labour movement of this country and would also go a long way to giving justice to the worker. There is nothing unreasonable in strike action, Sir. All I ask here is that strike action, not what they call "wild-cat" strike action, but "strike action at the lawful request"- you will notice that phrase, Sir:

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

I do plead that, in this House that claims 9/10th Socialists, this very modest axiomatic protection for the worker should be conceded.

In the circumstances, Sir, I move,

In page 19, after line 6, to add a new sub-clause numbered (2) as follows-

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

Mr Lim Yew Hock: Mr Chairman, Sir, the Government cannot accept the amendment.

Sir, the right of workers to strike is not a right which is given or taken away by legislation of this kind. The Clerks Employment Bill is concerned with the contracts of service. As far as possible, rights and duties under this legislation as between the employers and employees should be reciprocal. It is a common law right and workers are protected from most of the common law consequences of strike action by the Trade Disputes Ordinance. However, a strike must still be regarded as a declaration of war and a declaration of war automatically severs diplomatic relations. In the same way, a strike severs contracts of service. After all, the usual purpose of a strike is to secure new and better contracts of service.

The Member for Cairnhill describes the right not to allow anyone to go on strike a civil offence. Sir, I am not a lawyer. As far as I know, there is such a thing as criminal offence and a civil wrong but there is no such thing as a civil offence.

Sir, when a trade union asks its members to go on strike, the purpose behind that strike action is actually to terminate the old contract of service as not good enough and therefore to seek a better contract of service.

Sir, the Member for Cairnhill brings in a lot of facts that are rather misleading to the point at issue. His amendment merely asks that in the case of a strike:

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

A strike is merely the co-ordinated withdrawal by workmen of their labour and may or may not be a breach of contract. Strike notices are probably sufficient in most cases to terminate the contract of most men engaged and in such a case, there is no breach of contract. The withdrawal may be without notice and there is therefore a breach of contract. In either case, the contract of service is ended, that being the very purpose of the strike - to end a contract that does not appear to be good to the employees concerned - and the only question that remains, Sir, is one of reinstatement or a new contract.

If we were to allow this amendment to go through, it would encourage wild-cat strikes and confusion in industries and would prolong strikes as workers would have nothing to lose. The employers would be held liable to pay the wages of employees who are on strike and who, by the very fact that they are on strike, have clearly indicated their understanding that the contract of service which they had with their employers is not good enough and that they want a better one.

2.45 p.m.

Mr Marshall: Mr Chairman, Sir, I am rather surprised that the Minister in charge of the Bill himself should be unconscious of the provisions of his own Bill. If the Minister will read clause 27, he will see there that the employer may deduct from the wages of an employee an adequate amount for absence without good reason. Therefore, when the Minister tells you that the employer would have to pay wages during a strike, he informs you inaccurately, Sir, no doubt, through not having sufficiently carefully read his own Bill. Sir, it is not true that to say a strike is not a breach of contract would mean that the employer would have to pay the wages during the period of strike and it is not true to say that every strike is a termination of contract because it is not good. I am not a trade unionist, Sir. The Minister for Labour and Welfare is. May I remind the Minister of some notorious fact, that unions go on strike when there is victimisation of trade union leaders by employers? Does he not know of that? Has he not himself intervened in a recent case in the Singapore Pilot Association when all the employees walked out because a vice-president of a union was sacked? They did not seek to improve their contract of service. They said, "You have wrongfully dismissed and victimised one of our members. Therefore, we are going on strike in order to force you to be reasonable."

Sir, what the Minister asks for is that the employers should have the monopoly of unreasonableness. Why? He again says that it would encourage wild-cat strikes. Sir, I have just explained that my amendment says that only strike action in pursuance of a lawful request of a lawful trade union shall be deemed not to be a breach of contract. So there again, Sir, he has misunderstood my amendment - I do hope so - because, it is, I repeat, vital to the trade union movement of this country and to the labour movement throughout the world that their right to strike be protected. A great deal, Sir, depends upon their right to strike. They have no strength like the employer has. The employer will still eat, sleep and drive in his car when there is a strike but it is the employee who takes the risks of starving, who takes the risks of real privation to his family when he goes on strike. The employee does not go on strike, Sir, just for the fun of it. There is no fun in economic privation but if you do not give him this protection, Sir, he immediately gets dismissed. As a consequence, he might be thrown out of the house which he occupies as an employee of the company. Let me point this out, Sir: the fact that you protect the right to strike does not prevent the employer from giving you a proper notice dismissing you from his service. He can still dismiss you but dismiss you with notice. All I am pleading for in this amendment is that the right to strike shall not be deemed misconduct sufficient to warrant instant dismissal. How can Members of this House, Sir, all of us who seek the welfare of the people, all of us who claim to be Socialists, reject and refuse a very modest and a very reasonable plea?

Mr Butterfield: I will say quite frankly, Sir, that I had hoped not to intervene on this particular matter but one or two observations which have fallen from the Member for Cairnhill make me feel that I should say something.

First of all, what I would like to say is this, Sir, that I am not very sure that I follow the argument of the hon. Member and insofar as it related to the amendment which we are considering now, and was based on the provisions of clause 27 of the Bill. I am sorry that I cannot say more about it but all I do say is this, that I do not follow the argument.

I would also like to refer to the concluding part of his argument, that is, his argument in his second address in Committee on this particular point, and that was, I think - correct me if I am wrong - he was pleading that where employees strike, the action they take in striking should not be regarded as misconduct justifying dismissal without notice. That is what I understood his argument to be, Sir, and that seems to me to be confused in some way with the provisions of clause 14 which deals with dismissal without notice on grounds of misconduct which we discussed this morning. It seems to me - I may be a little obtuse on this matter - to have very little to do with the amendment which we are considering now. The amendment which we are considering now is to the effect, as I understand it, that for the purposes of clause 15, where employees go on strike, their going on strike should not be deemed to be a breach of contract. That seems to me to be an entirely different matter and to conclude what I have to say, Sir, I would remind the Committee that, on the question of whether or not a strike involves a breach of contract, that must depend upon whether the withdrawal of the employees has followed on notice which would bring their contract to an end or whether it does not follow on such notice.

I do not think that there is anything further I can usefully add, Sir, to what has been said.

Mr Marshall: I might help, Sir, the Attorney-General and I would like to read clause 27. It says:

"Deductions may be made under paragraph (a) of section 26 of this Ordinance only on account of the absence of an employee from the place where, by the terms of his employment, he is required to work, such absence being for the whole or any part of the period during which he is required to work."

What I am saying there, Sir, is: if a man goes on strike, the employer does not have to pay his wages or his salary because under the provisions of clause 27, he may deduct from his salary the monies that would have been payable to him had he attended work and that, in fact, he is liable to these deductions if he absents himself from work.

Now, Sir, whether a strike action amounts to a breach of contract without misconduct or a misconduct which affects the express or implied terms of a contract is really not very material. All I am saying is that under the common law at present, a trade unionist who obeys the order of his trade union to go on strike can legally justify an instant dismissal by his employers without any notice and I am asking that he should have adequate protection.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Mr Chairman, Sir, I am a little bit confused. The Member for Cairnhill wants this. If the employees go on strike, they should be paid the wages-

Mr Marshall: No.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: -and that the wages should not be deducted - when he referred to clause 27.

Mr Marshall: No.

Mr Lim Yew Hock: He did not say that.

Mr R. C. H. Lim: Mr Chairman, Sir, if absence from work caused by strike is not to be a breach of contract, then surely under clause 26 (1) (a), the employer shall not be allowed to deduct for absence from work because no deduction could be made for absence from work as a result of the strike not being a breach of contract. We are not a court of law, Sir, and you do not sit as a judge but looking at clause 26 (1) (a) together with the proposed amendment, surely it does not make sense. If strike action is not a breach of contract and absence from work is a result of strike action, no deduction can be made.

Mr Marshall: I still have to persist, Sir. Would the hon. Member read clause 27 (3) :

"If any employee absents himself from work otherwise than as provided by this Ordinance or by his contract of service, the employer may, subject to any order which may be made by a court or by the Commissioner on complaint of either party, deduct from any salary due to such employee the cost of food.".

Now, that is one. Look at clause 27 (1) again, Sir:

"Deductions may be made under paragraph a) of section 26 of this Ordinance only on account of the absence of an employee from the place where, by the terms of his employment, he is required to work.".

Now, Sir, I have a contract with you whereby I am required to work for you in your office. I absent myself for one day, for two days, for three days, and I come along and say, "I am sorry, Sir, I was attending my grandmother's funeral," but, Sir, that does not necessarily justify instant dismissal and I should not be penalised. As an employer, therefore clause 27 (1) permits you to deduct from my wages the wages which should have been paid for those three days. What I am asking for in this amendment is not that they should be paid as the Minister for Commerce and Industry (Mr J. M. Jumabhoy) suggests. I am not asking that they be paid any wages or salary during their strike. All I say is that their action should not amount to a breach of contract which attracts instant dismissal. That is all that my clause says and if there is any change in wording that this House should want in order to make the intention clearer either in clause 27 (1) or in clause 15, I will be only too happy to concede and to co-operate to the utmost. All I ask is that the principle be accepted, that it is no civil wrong to go on strike and that an employer cannot dismiss you summarily because you have gone on strike.

3.00 p.m.

Mr Butterfield: I feel bound to say, Sir, that so far as the Government is concerned, we are unable to see the relevance of clause 27 at all. It seems to us to have nothing to do with the amendment with which this Committee should be concerned at the moment.

Question put, "That the new sub-clause proposed to be added, be there added."

Mr Marshall: Division, Sir.

The Chairman: Clear the lobbies.

The House divided: Ayes, 1; Noes, 20; Abstentions, Nil. Ayes Noes Marshall, D. S. Braga, A. J. Butterfield, C. H. Absent Chew Swee Kee. Abdul Hamid bin Ede, John. Haji Jumat. Goh Tong Liang. Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Jumabhoy, J. M. Goh Chew Chua. Lim Cher Kheng. Jumabhoy, R. Lim Choon Mong. Lazarous, A. R. Lim, R. C. H. Lee Choon Eng. Lim Yew Hock. Lim Ching Siong. Mak Pak Shee. Lim Koon Teck. Mohd. Sidik bin Haji Seah Peng Chuan. Abdul Hamid. Thomas, Francis. Nair, M. P. D. Ong Piah Teng. Abstentions Oon Khye Kiang. Nil. Stewart, S. T. Sutherland, G. A. P. Tan Theng Chiang. Tan, William. Wong Foo Nam.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 27-

Mr Lim Yew Hock: Mr Chairman, Sir, I move,

In page 21, line 27, after "of", to insert "subsection (1) of".

Sir, this is a purely formal amendment for the purpose of improving the drafting.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 27, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28-

Mr Lim Yew Hock: Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move,

In page 22, line 3, after "of" to insert "subsection (1) of".

This is also a formal amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 28, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 29-

Mr Lim Yew Hock: Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move,

In page 22, line 14, after "of", to insert "subsection (1) of".

Sir, this is another formal amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 29, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 35-

Mr Marshall: If it please you, Mr Chairman, Sir, in the light of the voting on clause 2, there would be no useful purpose in pursuing my objection to the division of clerks into clerks and industrial clerks, which is the subject of clause 35 and, in the circumstances, Sir, I withdraw my amendment which appears in the Notices of Amendments.

[In page 24, lines 15 to 33, to leave out the whole clause.]

Clause 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 36-

The Chairman: Are the hon. Member's amendments similarly withdrawn?

Mr Marshall: If it please you, no, Mr Chairman, Sir. May I beg leave, Sir, to move my amendment because it seems to me that although we have some top secret reason for dividing clerks into clerks and industrial clerks, nevertheless no reason at all, top secret or otherwise, has been indicated as to why a clerk should get 13 days annual public holidays and why industrial clerks should have only 11 days annual public holidays. It is a distinction without meaning to me, without a logic that I can see anywhere and, in the circumstances, Sir, I do move.

In page 24, lines 36 to 40, to leave out from 'specified" to the end and insert "in the Schedule to this Ordinance".

The Chairman: Can I have that in writing, please?

Mr Marshall: If it please you, Sir, I have got it here "in Schedule A to this Ordinance". If the amendment proposed is accepted, Sir, there will not be Schedules A and B. So I am saying "in the Schedule to this Ordinance.".

The Chairman: The difficulty, of course, is that the Schedules themselves have not been committed.

Mr Marshall: Yes, I appreciate that, Sir. Very well, Sir, in that case, I leave my amendment as it stands reading:

"In page 24, lines 36 to 40, to leave out from "specified" to the end and insert "in Schedule A to this Ordinance".

This is in accordance with the amendment of which I have given notice.

Mr Lim Yew Hock: Mr Chairman, Sir, industrial clerks are clerks who have close connection with the workmen under the Labour Code with whom they work. Under the Labour Code, the workmen are entitled to 11 gazetted holidays and it is felt that these industrial clerks, because of their classification, are entitled to the same number of holidays as the workmen with whom they work together.

Amendment negatived.

The Chairman: I take it that the Member for Cairnhill will not move amendments (ii), (iii) and (iv) in consequence?

[(ii) In page 25, lines 1 and 2, to leave out "or B, as' the case may be".]

[(iii) In page 25, line 4, to leave out "or B, as the case may be,".]

[(iv) In page 25, line 21, to leave out "and B".

Note: To leave out "Schedules" and insert "Schedule".]

Mr Marshall: No.

Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 37-

Mr Marshall: If it please you, Mr Chairman, Sir, I know that this House is in no mood to listen to my amendment but I appeal to it again to consider here that an industrial clerk does the same work as an ordinary clerk and there is no logic in his getting seven days annual leave and the ordinary clerk getting fourteen days annual leave. It cannot be said that if the industrial clerk gets fourteen days, he would disorganise anything, Sir, because you do not take your leave simultaneously with the workmen with whom you work. You take your leave staggered. In the circumstances, I think we could do just a little justice to the industrial clerk here, Sir, by recognising that he is the same type of human being as the others to whom we are giving fourteen days annual leave.

I therefore move,

"In page 25, lines 22 to 24, to leave out from "to" to the end and insert "fourteen days".

3.15 p.m.

Mr Lim Yew Hock: Mr Chairman, Sir, the same reasons apply to this amendment as the reasons I gave with regard to the amendment to clause 36. I do not say that industrial clerks are not human beings, but I do say this: that workmen are human beings just as well, and under the Labour Ordinance they are given a minimum of seven days; and as industrial clerks are being classified in the same category, they should be given the same number of annual holidays. Although the Labour Ordinance provides for seven days annual leave, most unions have, by active negotiation, secured for their members 14 days annual leave. In the same way, it is hoped that organisations of industrial clerks may be just as active to get for their members what unions of workmen have secured for their members.

Mr Marshall: Mr Chairman, Sir, I was just going to make one point. If in fact the Minister for Labour believes that employers have recognized, in agreement with the trade unions, the reasonableness of 14 days annual leave for this type of employees, surely that is all the more reason for this House to put that as a minimum? Would he not reconsider the position, Sir? A vital principle is involved; there is a very large section of the people of Singapore to whom this means a great deal. Why does he throw the onus on unions, who are weak at the present moment, to strive to obtain the minimum? This Bill is there to assist in fixing the minimum, and surely 14 days leave for a clerk is not too much?

Amendment negatived.

Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38-

Mr Butterfield: Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move an amendment to clause 38, that is,

In page 25, line 41, after "employer", to insert "or in default of such appointment by any duly registered medical practitioner".

Sir, I think you will remember that, at an earlier stage, references were made to the provisions of this clause, and amongst other things it was suggested that it was defective because the position of the sick employee would be difficult, if not impossible, in cases where an employer declined or failed to appoint a medical practitioner whose certificate he would accept for the purposes of this clause. And for that reason, Sir, this amendment is now proposed, its effect is that, where an employer does not appoint a medical practitioner to whom his employees can go for a certificate when they are sick, they may go to any other registered medical practitioner.

I think I should add, Sir, that this amendment anticipates in part the amendment of which the Member for Cairnhill has given notice. It anticipates it because we on this side think that, so far as it goes, it would be more appropriately made at this particular point in the clause. It omits any provision for any time limit during which the employer's doctor is required to examine his patients, and it omits references to maternity leave, both these points being included in the Notices of Amendments to this clause which has been given by the Member for Cairnhill. With regard to these two points, I may perhaps rather in anticipation say that the Government takes the view that it is unnecessary to prescribe a time-limit within which a doctor should examine his patients, and so far as maternity leave is concerned-

The Chairman: We shall consider that point when it comes.

Mr Butterfield: If it please you, Sir.

Mr Marshall: I am glad, Sir, that Government has recognised the weakness, the lacuna, in this clause, and I am happy to accept the proposed amendment by the Hon. the Attorney-General. But, Sir, he forgets one thing. The whole concept is that the employee should be examined by a doctor to be appointed by the employer and to be paid by the employer; but supposing we have an unreasonable employer, I asked what should happen and I proposed certain amendments. Now the Hon. the Attorney-General, anticipating my amendment, proposes "in default of such appointment by any duly registered medical practitioner" but you do see, Sir, that what happens here is that the employee will have to pay this medical practitioner. I do not see why an unscrupulous employer should be permitted to evade his responsibilities, and I would ask, Sir, that there be an amendment to the amendment,

That after "practitioner" in the amendment moved by the Hon, the Attorney-General, to add "to be paid by the employer".

Amendment to the amendment handed in.

Have I got it in the wrong place, Sir?

The Chairman: Clause 38 (1) as it appears now reads:

"Any employee who has served an employer for a period of not less than twelve months after the coming into force of this Ordinance shall, after examination at the expense of the employer by a duly registered medical practitioner appointed by the employer."

and, if we accept the amendment, it goes on- "or in default of such appointment by any duly registered medical practitioner, be entitled to...".

Mr Marshall: Thank you, Sir. I see that my amendment is in fact covered by the over-riding words "at the expense of the employer" in the foregoing sentence. I withdraw my amendment.

Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment agreed to.

The Chairman: Amendment (ii) to clause 38 standing in the name of the Member for Queenstown (Mr Lee Choon Eng):

[In page 25, line 42, to leave out "twenty-eight days" and insert "fifty-two days full pay and twenty-six days half-pay".]

The Member is not here, but I might say that that does not prevent any other Member, who wishes to adopt the amendment, to propose it.

Mr Marshall: If it please you, Mr Chairman, Sir, my objection to clause 38 having been satisfactorily met in so far as the lacuna is concerned, I come to an important principle, and that is the question of maternity leave to employees. I would like to move that a new sub-clause (2) be added, reading:

"Every employee shall be entitled to additional paid sick leave during terms of four weeks each before and after her maternity confinement."

Sir, I did make a plea in my observations on the motion for recommittal pointing out that clerks as well as labourers need protection in this instance, and the Minister for Labour and Welfare had only one argument in reply. He said that the more benefits we give to female clerks, the less the number of female clerks will be employed. Well, Sir, surely he has given these benefits under the Labour Ordinance? Is it then suggested that such benefits in respect of maternity are intended to deter employers from engaging female labourers? Obviously illogical. I know, Sir, I keep pressing the need for logic in the conduct of Ministers and in the application of Ordinances. The Labour Ordinance provides that female labourers are in need of four weeks before and four weeks after confinement. Surely, Sir, women clerks are in need of the same period of leave. They are made of the same stuff, they go through the same trials, and I cannot understand the oversight. I had at first hoped that it was an oversight, but it seems it is not, and I shall listen with interest to the explanation why women clerks have been excluded from the provisions on maternity leave. Is it suggested, Sir, that it is because they have 28 days sick leave under the Ordinance? If so, let it be pointed out that everybody, including males, have 28 day sick leave (that is in case they are sick). Surely this is something totally different - a woman, like a man, may be sick for 28 days in respect of other matters but, in respect of maternity confinement, she should be entitled to special consideration. In any event, Sir, if 28 days leave is not adequate for a female labourer, how can it be considered adequate for a typist or any of the other women who labour as fodder in our business machine?

Mr Lim Yew Hock: Mr Chairman, Sir, it has been suggested that it is illogical to grant maternity leave to female workers under the Labour Ordinance and not to female clerical workers. Sir, it is common knowledge that in many industries, female workers (who are covered by the Labour Ordinance) are engaged because they are ideally suited for particular jobs. In the case of clerical work, however, what a girl can do a man can do just as well, and I say that if you provide maternity leave for female clerks, impose it by legislation, it will make it more difficult for them to get employment because it is inevitable that an employer - call him unscrupulous if you like - will then engage only male clerks. If it is the intention to deprive female clerks of employment, then you can go ahead and impose maternity benefit leave.

3.30 p.m.

Sir, the Member for Cairnhill in his speech on my motion quoted the names of good employers - I believe he mentioned Messrs. Boustead. Much can be done, Sir, by example and precept of good and progressive employers. If employers are good and progressive, it is immaterial whether a benefit is provided or not by law; they will give maternity benefits to their female clerks to the extent that they feel they can afford. Sir, as I said the other day when moving the motion, Government is opposed to this amendment because it does not want to deprive female workers of the opportunities of employment as clerks in offices.

Mr Marshall: Mr Chairman, Sir, I would like to understand whether I am wrong in thinking this: I am an employer and have a lady working for me. She is a married woman. I do recognise the possibility that one day she will become pregnant and that, in the normal course of nature, she will have a confinement one day. I do not expect her to drop the baby in the waste-paper basket by the side of her typewriter. I do recognise the fact when I employ a woman that one day she is going to have a confinement and that she needs maternity leave. Every man, every industrial worker, every employer who employs a woman, must recognise that. So the fact that they are employing women today means that they recognise that she will, at some period, require maternity leave. What I am seeking here, Sir, is to fix a reasonable minimum period of maternity leave. I know the Hon. the Minister for Labour and Welfare is enamoured of these gentlemen, the employers, who are "reasonable and progressive", as he calls them, but if in fact his experience as a trade unionist suggests that employers are reasonable and progressive, there will be no need for the legislation which we seek to enforce minimum standards and conditions of service. Sir, this provision is intended for recalcitrant employers. Those who are today employing women will continue to do so because in commerce there are women with special ability as there are specially suitable women labourers in industry. For example, quite frankly I think that a woman stenographer-secretary is far more competent than any male stenographer-secretary I have come across. Stenography is one line in which women are supreme, where you cannot do without them and where they will continue to be employed even if you give them this additional benefit. So, I say, Sir, this is for the protection of women clerical workers against unscrupulous employers who may seek to give them only 28 days or less sick leave. Surely it is our duty to protect these women from this type of exploitation? It is not true that employers will be deterred from employing women in offices because of maternity leave. If you take it by and large, how often is maternity leave given? Not every woman is married, Sir. Not every married woman has a child every year. Let us be reasonable. A confinement occurs rarely and the question is to protect women employed in offices from unscrupulous employers who seek to deprive them of the necessary time to recuperate from their confinement.

Question put, "That the new sub-clause proposed to be inserted, be there inserted."

Mr Marshall: Division, Sir.

The Chairman: Clear the lobbies.

The House divided: Aye, 1; Noes, 19; Abstentions, nil. Ayes Noes Marshall, D. S. Braga, A. J. Butterfield, C. H. Abstention Chew Swee Kee. Nil. Ede, John. Goh Tong Liang. Absent Jumabhoy, J. M. Abdul Hamid bin Lim Choon Mong. Haji Jumat. Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Lim, R. C. H. Goh Chew Chua. Lim Yew Hock. Jumabhoy. R. Mak Pak Shee. Lazarous, A. R. Mohd. Sidik bin Haji Abdul Hamid. Lee Choon Eng. Nair, M. P. D. Lim Cher Kheng. Ong Piah Teng. Lim Ching Siong. Oon Khye Kiang. Lim Koon Teck. Stewart, S. T. Seah Peng Chuan. Sutherland, G. A. P. Thomas, Francis. Tan Theng Chiang. Tan, William. Wong Foo Nam.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

The Chairman: There is a further amendment standing in the name of the Member for Queenstown (Mr Lee Choon Eng) who, however, is not here to move it.

[In page 26, line 6, to leave out 'twenty-eight days" and insert "fifty-two days full pay and twenty-six days half pay".]

Clause 38, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 46-

The Chairman: There are two amendments in the name of the Hon. the Minister for Labour and Welfare (Mr Lim Yew Hock) which are complementary. I suggest that we take the second amendment unless any Member has an amendment to make to the clause itself.

Mr Lim Yew Hock: Mr Chairman, Sir, I rise to move,

In page 27, after line 44, to insert a new sub-clause numbered (2) as follows: -

"(2) No answer which a person shall be legally bound to give under the provisions of paragraph (a) of the preceding subsection shall be proved against him in any criminal proceeding, except on a prosecution for giving false evidence by such answer."

Sir, this amendment has been suggested by the Member for Bukit Panjang, who sat on the Select Committee. Its purpose is to ensure that any person, employer or clerk, need have no fear that his answers to the queries of an inspecting officer will in any way be used against him in any criminal proceeding.

Amendment agreed to.

The Chairman: The first amendment-

[In page 27, line 27, after "46.". to insert "-(1) "]-

will be made as a matter of course.

Clause 46, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr Lim Yew Hock: Mr Chairman, Sir, I move,

That the Bill, as amended, be reported to the Assembly.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments.

3.43 p.m.

Third Reading

Mr Speaker: Third Reading, what day?

Mr Lim Yew Hock: Now, Sir. Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill, as amended, be now read the Third time."

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

Question proposed

Mr Marshall: If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like very briefly to go on record as deeply regretting that this House should have missed the opportunity today of passing legislation which goes to the root of the problem of protecting workers. Much has been rejected which I think is valuable, including one which stands not merely head and shoulders above the rest but is the beacon - the principle of the protection of the workers' right to strike. I would like to go on record, Sir, as deeply regretting that this House should have refused to recognise the need to protect the right to strike to the extent not only of declaring it not to be a criminal offence, but also declaring it not to be a civil offence, that this House has refused to protect workers from the suggestion that a legitimate strike constitutes a breach of contract.

Mr Butterfield: I would just like to say this, Sir, that I assume that the remarks just made by the Member for Cairnhill were on the amendments which he proposed to clause 16-

Mr Marshall: Clause 15.

Mr Butterfield: I am very much obliged - to clause 15 - and I would only say this, Sir, that those remarks, if they are related to the amendments which he proposed to clause 15, seem to be in the view of the Government quite irrelevant.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, accordingly read the Third time.