GENERAL ORDERS AND RIGHT TO STRIKE BY GOVERNMENT SERVANTS

Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, in the past two weeks there has been one strike by a group of Government servants, namely men in the Customs Branch, and a threatened strike by another group of Government servants, namely the English school-teachers. In both these instances the Government issued strong warnings in the Press and in letters to the Unions that it intended to exercise its powers under General Orders 207 and 208. General Order 207 reads:

"Any officer who, without leave or reasonable cause, is absent from duty for any period of more than 7 days may be held to have vacated his office."

And General Order 208 says:

"(a) Absence from duty for any period whether more or less than 7 days, without leave or subsequent sanction, constitutes a break in service and no officer may be paid salary for any period during which he is so absent.

(b) The Head of Department is responsible for ensuring that the proper deduction from salary is made."

In view of the uncertainty which this step has created and was designed to create in the minds of Government servants who were either on strike or intended to strike, I think we should clarify, first the legal position, and second, the trade union position.

We are not suggesting, as the former Member for Cairnhill did at one stage, that a strike should be legalised in the form that it is a lawful breach of a contract. The position in English law is that any strike constitutes a breach of the contract which an employee enters into either orally or in writing with the employer. But the Trade Union Ordinance says that no union can be held responsible either for conspiracy or for any other tort in bringing about the breach of this contract as a result of collective action by the Union. Therefore, in any strike by any group of employees there are two aspects to consider, first, that of the union, and second, that of the individual members.

As far as a union is concerned, there is no offence either in law, criminal or civil. But as far as a striking union member is concerned, in any strike he goes over from the province of law into that of politics; he is fighting it out with his employer. It then becomes a tussle of strength, of bargaining power, between the employer and the employees collectively. If the strike fails, as sometimes strikes are known to have failed, then the employees are sacked. In law he can be sued individually for breach of the contract of service for not having given the required notice of termination of service which may either be implied or expressed in his contract. If the strike succeeds, then the union bargains collectively with the employer not only that its members should go back without incurring any penalty for breach of the individual contract, but also that they should go back on better terms.

And so it is with the Government, and for Government to introduce General Orders 207 and 208 into a trade dispute is, in my opinion, a deliberate attempt to queer the pitch of Government workers. Every Government servant who goes on strike, acting collectively through a union, runs the risk of having breached his personal contract of service with his employer, and that breach may not only bring about the forfeiture of pensions, but also the right of the employer to sue for payment in lieu of notice, implied or expressed, in his contract of service. Therefore there is in fact no difference in a strike by a group of workers be they in the Government service or in private employment.

But once you have accepted that, the Government, which should conduct itself as a model good employer, should not go out of its way to try to brow-beat its employees by threatening them that their pensions will be lost, or that they will be assumed to have vacated their posts, just in order to prevent collective action by a group of its employees. If the Government takes this stand, the bluff will sooner or later be called because one group of Government servants will go on strike, win that strike and compel the Government not only to take them back with no break of service and with pensions secured, but also with better conditions of service and enhanced remuneration.

I should imagine, therefore, that it would be a good policy on the part of the Government not to try to introduce a red herring into a trade dispute. Government knows what the legal position is. So do some, but not all, of the employees. What the Government is seeking to do is to make us of this ignorance of some of its servants to try to intimidate them into giving up their right of collective action.

I did not consider this matter vital enough to be the subject of a motion. I was approached by both the Unions involved to raise this matter in the Assembly, and I think it should receive proper ventilation in this House. If the Government is going to act in this high-handed and authoritarian manner, it will be setting a bad example to all other employers. I therefore ask the Government to consider seriously whether it is wise, first, to make a threat, and second, having made it to provoke its employees at a later date to call its bluff.

4.09 p.m.

The Chief Secretary (Mr W. A. C. Goode): Sir, I welcome this opportunity to explain the position of Government servants who go on strike and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar for his courtesy in giving me ample time to say something in this matter.

I think the position is fully understood by the Staff Side of the Civil Service Joint Council and I think it is also fully understood by the leaders of the big Staff Associations, but I do agree in part with the hon. Member there are other sections of the public service, particularly those led by persons who are not themselves Government servants, who do not yet understand this.

But before explaining the position, I should like to deplore the continued emphasis in the terms of the notice given by the hon. Member, on rights rather than duties, on the right to strike. If we would all apply ourselves wholly to our duties to others and to the community, I think our so-called rights would look after themselves and that Singapore would be a better place. Public servants are the servants of the public. They have a duty to serve the public and we should never forget that.

In principle, a Government officer holds office at the pleasure of the Crown and can be dismissed at any time. That is the principle, the theory. In practice, his employment is safeguarded by rules and regulations designed to give him security of tenure of office, subject only to good behaviour. Government servants cannot be sacked arbitrarily by a senior officer, as employees in industry and commerce can be and are. And as the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar indicated, trade unions have developed because of the exploitation of labour by bad employers. It was because the individual worker had no remedy against the boss that workers banded themselves together into trade unions and through trade union organisations were able to bargain collectively with their employers from a position of strength. It was because of this that they adopted the final weapon of the strike.

As the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar rightly pointed out, a strike is the withdrawal of labour by employees designed to compel the employer to make concessions, and it amounts to a termination of a contract of service. It is a cruel weapon for the striker because he deliberately terminates his contract of service with his employer and depends on successful negotiations, on victory in the strike, to get his job back again.

Now Government servants have never been in the same position as other workers. They have always been protected by a code of service regulations from victimisation and unfair treatment. They have always had security of office, a fundamental characteristic of responsible employment by a government and indeed one which is often criticised by members of the public. The greater the responsibility which a Government officer has, the more protection does he get from arbitrary dismissal or unfair treatment. Officers on the pensionable establishment can only be dismissed in accordance with a complicated semi-judicial procedure.

I have emphasised these privileges and the particular position of Government servants because these privileges and safeguards in the public service must carry with them a corresponding obligation of loyal and conscientious public service, a duty to serve the public and to put the public interest first. The public rightly expects this loyal service. Now to strike is clearly inconsistent with loyal service to the public. A strike puts the interests of those on strike before the interests of the public.

You may ask what about genuine grievances? How are they to be put right if Government servants are not to strike? And again I say, Sir, that public servants are in a specially favoured position. First of all, they are employed not by an individual boss but by the Government, and the Government is answerable and responsible to this Assembly and to public opinion. Secondly, every officer has the right of appeal from his immediate superior right up to the Governor if necessary. Thirdly, we have strong Staff Associations able to talk with authority and influence. Fourthly, we have the Civil Service Joint Council which is able to discuss staff problems and grievances at the highest level; any Staff Association which gets the full backing of the Staff Side of the Civil Service Joint Council is certain of the utmost consideration for its claims. And finally - and most important of all in this context of striking - the constituent members of the Staff Side of the Civil Service Joint Council have the right to take the Government to arbitration, the right to compel the Government to submit a dispute to impartial arbitration, a right which several Staff Associations and Unions have exercised and are today exercising.

So I say, Sir, that a strike should be the last resort of any association of public servants, remembering both their primary duty to serve the public and the very special means at their disposal for settling their grievances without resorting to strikes. But in the last resort if Government servants insist on taking strike action, they are of course at liberty to do so.

I accept the proposition of the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar that a Staff Association or a Union which calls a strike of Government officers does not, providing it observes certain limitations, lay itself open to any charge of having committed a criminal or civil offence. The Government stated in this House on 22nd May that it recognises the fundamental right of a trade union to strike. But when a Government servant goes on strike, like any other person going on strike he terminates his contract and employment. He breaks faith with his duty of service to the public who pays him and safeguards him from arbitrary treatment. He also faces certain peculiar consequences which flow from his position as a public servant whose terms and conditions of service are governed by statutory rules and regulations.

It is important that all Government servants, before they resort to strike action, should be fully aware of these consequences which flow from their special position. A Government servant who is absent from duty on strike breaks his service, just as any other person on strike breaks his service. And it follows that if a Government servant breaks his service, he forfeits his pensions and his other service benefits will be seriously prejudiced. Government pensions are governed by law and the law quite rightly says that to count for pension, service must be continuous. Therefore a break in service caused by striking will automatically forfeit all previous service for pension purposes.

This is a very serious consequence indeed. It follows from the provisions of the Pensions Ordinance and from General Orders. And it is to make sure that Government servants do not go on strike forgetting that they stand to forfeit their previous service that recently we have always tried to issue specific warnings. The hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar interprets them as threats and intimidation. I say we issue specific warnings to remind them that if they do carry out their intention to strike, there will be a break in their service, they will be deemed to have vacated their offices and they will therefore forfeit their pensions.

We want to make sure that they realise that their position is not the same as that of employees of bus companies or rubber factories. The hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar stated that there is no difference between an employee of a private concern and a Government servant going on strike. That, Sir, I submit with all respect, is a most dangerous misconception. There is a fundamental difference between them and the difference is this, that a public servant and his conditions of service are governed by the law. In the case of public servants, it is not a matter simply of direct bargaining between a number of employees and an employer. Their conditions of service are governed by the law. So I do not feel any remorse, Sir, over the fact that warnings were issued. I have the notices in front of me here. What we did was to tell these officers in the Customs and Education Departments - let me read the one which was issued to the Customs Department:

"You are reminded that if you strike, you lay yourselves open to dismissal under General Orders."

And what do the General Orders say? They say that if you are absent from duty for any period of more than seven days, you may be held to have vacated your office, and that absence from duty will be a break in service for which no pay can be given.

The important thing is to bring home to public servants that if they go on strike they do stand to lose a great deal more than an ordinary employee. And it is not easy or necessarily possible for the employer, the Government, to remedy any consequences which may follow from a strike. I am told, for example, that some years ago in Nigeria it was necessary to enact special legislation in the Legislature to enable a period during which railway workers had been on strike to count for pension purposes. I mention this to show that very serious difficulties will stem from strike action by Government servants who are pensionable. I myself think that it is fitting. When a man is a pensionable public servant, the strike should be his very last resort, and he should remember that if he does adopt it he does so at his peril.

4.24 p.m.

Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, in spite of all the explanation given by the Hon. the Chief Secretary, I think he has not even answered the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar. One simple illustration I can point to is that of the postmen who went on strike sometime ago; they were taken back into service and did not lose anything.

The Chief Minister (Mr Lim Yew Hock): Sir, for the information of the hon. Member the postmen were not pensionable.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: They were; most of them were. [Interruption] I need no clarification, because I was negotiating with the then Chief Secretary, the Colonial Secretary, and the present Chief Secretary is probably unaware of the facts and circumstances.

Mr Goode: The point at issue, Sir, was whether they should be made pensionable.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved.

That this Assembly do now adjourn.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Four o'clock p.m. to 18th July, 1957.