SINGAPORE HARBOUR BOARD (Refusal to accept recommendations of Court of Inquiry into trade dispute)

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I move the motion standing in my name, namely,

That this House deplores the unreasonable and obstructive attitude of the Singapore Habour Board in refusing to accept and implement the recommendations of the Court of Inquiry set up by the Minister for Labour and Welfare on the 16th day of July, 1957, as contained in Sessional Paper No. S 7 of 1957.

Sir, on the 6th of September last year there was tabled in this House a Sessional Paper setting out the Report of the Court of Inquiry into the trade dispute at the Singapore Harbour Board. The House will remember that this Court of inquiry was set up as a consequence of a motion which I moved urging the Minister for Labour and Welfare to set up a commission of inquiry to investigate a go-slow then in being at the Singapore Harbour Board. It is now seven months since the findings and the recommendations of the Court were published, and it is a matter for regret that I have to move this motion to draw the attention of the House to the fact that a quasi-government body had chosen to flout the findings and recommendations of the Court of Inquiry when they were not to its liking.

Sir, I would like to give a short historical outline of the beginnings of the dispute before I deal with the findings. The House will remember that in May and June of last year there was a great deal of unrest in the Singapore Harbour Board which was triggered off when a go-slow was called as a result of the confiscation of the pass of the General Secretary of the Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association. But as was clearly brought out at the Court of Inquiry, the causes of the go-slow went much deeper than that.

During the hearings of the Court, certain recommendations were made for an interim settlement to hold the position while the Court enquired into the facts. It is a matter for regret that on each and every occasion the Singapore Harbour Board chose somehow or the other to circumvent these recommendations for an interim settlement. Far from the position becoming clearer and more resolved, it has now reached the point today where there is open victimisation of any worker who is associated with the Union, that is the Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association.

Yesterday, the Member for Serangoon indicated that he thought the Singapore Harbour Board is a very important organ of the Singapore Government. He thought that it was imperative that the livelihood of Singapore should be looked after, and I am quite sure he will agree with me that it is a matter of paramount importance that industrial peace and harmony should be maintained between the labour force and the Singapore Harbour Board.

Sir, after a sitting of about two weeks the Court of Inquiry made these findings - these appear at page 7 of Sessional Paper No. S 7 of 1957:

"Industrial Relations

9.-(1) The evidence provided by the parties to the dispute before this Court showed that much could have been achieved towards minimising the conflict between the two groups if a better and more continuous use had been made of the joint consultative machinery created under the Agreement of 1955. If the machinery is, for some reason or other, clumsy and not capable of lending itself as a pliable instrument to smooth over industrial relations, then it is our opinion that it should be revised. It should not be difficult for the SHB and the unions working within the authority, to evolve a scheme similar to Joint Councils now so successfully in operation in the Civil Service and the City Council of Singapore.

The issue of the General Secretary's Pass is undoubtedly one of those matters that could have been treated much more speedily had discussion taken place in a relatively unclouded atmosphere at the level of the instrumentality we have mentioned. As a matter of fact, the entire dispute could possibly have been encompassed within narrower limits, had the parties been able to "talk things over" as it is possible in the Whitley procedure."

And then it goes on to the issue of recognition, and these are specific findings which the Court made.

"The Issue of Recognition

(iii) It is because of the disorder in administration that it was difficult for us to arrive at a clear-cut finding on the issue related to the second term of reference.

(a) It was quite clear that the seven unions, namely, the Singapore Harbour Board Labour Union, the Singapore Wharf and Ship Labour Union, the Singapore Harbour Board Stevedore and Wharf Workers' Union, the Confederation of the Singapore Chinese Engineering Tradesmen, the Singapore Harbour Board Engineering Workmen's Union, the Malay Seamen's Union of Singapore and the Harbour Board Employees Union of Singapore, were not-"

and this is my emphasis-

"not representative of all daily-rated employees of the SHB, nor in fact do they represent a majority or even a sizeable proportion of such group of workers.

(b) In the case of the SHBSA-"

that is the Union that was in dispute with the Harbour Board-

"the question of whether or not it is representative of a majority of workers in the SHB, is more difficult and clouded by the effect of disorderly administrative practices in the keeping of books, accounts and other papers, and with inadequate routine of notification of changes, particularly on the alteration of the Association's rules to include all employees of the S.H.B."

Then the Court made this recommendation:

"We would suggest that such evidence be collected in the form of a secret ballot by members whose names appear on the membership cards of the SHBWU and the SHBSA. The question to be asked should be whether or not each one of these men supports the SHBSA. The ballot could be easily arranged by the Ministry of Labour in co-operation with the Registrar of Trade Unions and the Supervisor of Elections."

Sir, I asked a question in this Assembly whether the Minister for Labour was going to implement the recommendation of a secret ballot, and he replied to me that he was investigating the matter and would find out the views of unions in Singapore on this issue to determine recognition or no recognition for the union. It is more than five months since the question was tabled and answered, and I would like to know whether he has made up his mind on this recommendation of the Court of Inquiry. That is a big issue, and I think it is only fair for me to put it bluntly - it is a political issue involving seven or eight little unions in the Singapore Harbour Board some of which are known to be connected with some Members of the Labour Front - like the Assistant Minister for Labour and Welfare - some connected with other political Parties, and the Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association, of which I am the legal adviser, and therefore believed to be connected with the P.A.P.

Sir, I think it is important that we should try and keep clear in our minds two issues: one, the simple issue of trade union practice and what the Government wishes to foster; two, the political consequence of implementing any principle or ruling of trade union practice and procedure. I have tried very hard in the last few months to arrange, if possible, to get all these little unions absorbed into one federation. Unfortunately it has not been possible to do this and I think we must take a stand on this question of the secret ballot and the recognition of whether the Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association does represent a majority of the workers in the Harbour Board.

Sir, what is more deplorable is that the Singapore Harbour Board had chosen to flout certain specific minor recommendations. This was the finding and recommendation as regards the case of the 26 lascars. It said:

"(iv) We have given a good deal of thought to the matter of the 26 lascars [who were dismissed]. From the evidence given and having regard to the danger to life and property which arose when the men stopped work, it is not unreasonable to expect the SHB to act as they did with regard to the 26 lascars. However, we consider that this stoppage was related to the general industrial unrest prevailing at that time and accordingly we feel that the men should be re-employed.

The SHB has stated before us that it considers itself a good employer. For this reason it did not dismiss the 3 serangs and the other 6 lascars and re-employed another. We feel that the Board following further this very wise and broadminded attitude, should re-engage the 25 dismissed lascars still out of work."

Sir, not only were these 26 lascars not re-engaged until very much later - and some 12 of them have still not been re-engaged - the Singapore Harbour Board also chose to ignore another finding and recommendation, that is in regard to other personnel who were suspended as a result of the go-slow.

"(v) There may be a number of former employees of the Board still awaiting reengagement. They may have been dismissed by the Board during the go slow and their place taken by new personnel. We feel that these men should not be too severely treated for following an industrial practice recognised where trade unionism is in operation. The go slow was a general movement and the men followed the instructions of their Union. They have already suffered a loss of wages and of overtime benefits. However, the Port is again in full operation and for the promotion of improved industrial relations, we are of the opinion that it is desirable that any such men should be speedily re-employed as the Board will find possible. We do not think that it would be very difficult - at least not as difficult as it was submitted to us during the proceedings-to convince serangs that they should take back their former gang members, and to re-engage the remaining M.E. personnel."

Sir, after the findings were published, there were some several hundred workers still unemployed. Throughout the whole of the proceedings the argument put forward by the Singapore Harbour Board about not being able to absorb these men rapidly was that it would dislocate the new gangs they had just put up, and that serangs and mandores were not very keen on getting back into their gangs men who had joined the go slow, and also because in the meantime they had engaged new men. Therefore the Court gave them some latitude and time to make the necessary adjustment. But far from making the necessary adjustment, the Board went out of its way in not taking back 200 odd men, keeping out the 25 lascars and punishing the men whom it had reabsorbed. I will come back to how it practised this mild form - I would not say "mild", I would say it is "oblique" form of punishment. But I think the Chief Minister will remember that I had seen him on many occasions both with and without Union Committee members, to try and get the Board to accept these men back to work, and he had on many occasions given his firm assurance that they would be taken back and that the recommendations of the Court of Inquiry would be implemented. In fact, the House will remember how certain gentlemen, who are not here today, tried to make political issue out of the hunger strike called by the 200 men who were not taken back to work. The Chief Minister then said that he did not want to succumb to political blackmail and refused to do anything until after the elections. Well, after the elections he took them back to work; but although some 200 men were taken back, the Board has still kept out 12 lascars and 10 other men who have offered themselves back for re-employment.

Now there is no reason given why this thing has not been done. The Chief Minister has called up, as I understand it - although I have no personal knowledge of it - he has called up the new Chairman of the Singapore Harbour Board on at least two occasions. After one occasion he informed me that it might be difficult to get the men back to the dockyard - the 12 lascars - because the Harbour Board felt very strongly about the lascars walking out on a ship coming in. Mind you, all this must have been carefully considered by a court of inquiry and a recommendation had been made that they should be re-engaged, and in fact more than half of the men involved in that walk-out had been re-engaged.

But nothing has been done. At one time it was believed that this was because the former Chairman of the Harbour Board, one Mr Chrimes, was a very obdurate and obstinate man and not susceptible to reason even from his superiors in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry. He has gone gratuitously on retirement and a new Chairman has taken his place. The new Chairman is a man who has also been connected with the Harbour Board during the years of Mr Chrimes' chairmanship. Now, Sir, quite briefly what I would like to know from the Minister for Labour and Welfare is this: Is he sincere when he says, yes, the men will be taken back and the recommendation of the Court of Inquiry will be honoured? If so, has he not got the power as the head of the Government to tell the Singapore Harbour Board what should be done and what is right and proper?

Very simply, as I see it, either the Chief Minister is not pressing very hard on the Harbour Board, or the Harbour Board is acting in defiance of his wishes. If that is so, I think the remedy is open in his hands. I stated earlier in this sitting of the House that if and when we form a government we would not just complain like the Minister for Commerce and Industry that heads of departments ignore circulars which are given to them that they should give preference to local goods and so on. They are prejudiced and of course he said he would like to take action. We would take immediate action if our directives were flouted. Now the Singapore Harbour Board may be a public corporation constituted under the Singapore Harbour Board Ordinance, but the appointment of the Board of Directors and the Chairman is one which is done by the Governor in Council, and if he does not know how to exercise his authority, and the Attorney-General cannot advise him how to exercise his authority indirectly, then I am quite prepared to advise him how it can be done.

Now, Sir, for various reasons there has not been direct industrial action taken as a result of all this. We patiently sent delegation after delegation to see the Chief Minister. There was some little result each time. First, two hundred odd men were taken back after the elections when the Chief Minister took them back. Then one of the men was not taken back. Contrary to what the Harbour Board had promised, they sent one of the men who offered himself for re-employment for a medical check, and they rejected him because they said he did not pass the medical check. But it had been agreed beforehand that there would be no medical check because they were old men, old workers offering themselves to be re-engaged; they checked this man out and applied pressure. They locked up his house and all his belongings, S.H.B. quarters. Again, representations were made to the Chief Minister; some pressure was put on the Harbour Board; the seizure of the quarters was cancelled and the quarters reopened. But the man is still not re-engaged.

Meanwhile, of course, those men who were not re-engaged had their housing passes confiscated. This is the kind of harassing which I consider contemptible when it comes from a public corporation. First, they took away the housing passes; then they sent the Harbour Board police on rounds and they said, "Ah, you are on these premises without a housing card -you are trespassing within the meaning of such and such a section of the. Singapore Harbour Board Ordinance." So the matter goes to court. So we went to court and we had the same gentleman, Mr Rhind, who has been investigated for corrupt practices, whose activities were thoroughly investigated by the C.P.I.B., and on whom there was a considerable amount of evidence, to give evidence. He agreed that on his instructions certain cards had been forcibly taken away from a man. He also agreed that two of the men who were prosecuted, and on whom they were hoping to get a conviction in order to apply the heat on all the other men, had been living in those quarters for not less than 10 years. They were prosecuted for trespass. But the magistrate threw out the case, as was only right and proper.

Now, there are still 12 lascars and 10 other labourers not re-engaged. The Chief Minister said he would try and get the 12 lascars absorbed, not into the dockyard, but into some other section. But meanwhile the Singapore Harbour Board, taking advantage of the patient attitude, and what they have interpreted as weakness on the part of the Union, have put the heat on inside the Harbour Board. So all those men who are known to be members and supporters of the Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association get punished.

And this is the subtle way in which they do it. They used to give these men a minimum of six kangs a week. As one kang is one period of eight hours, plus over-time as and when over-time is available, the average would be about 12 kangs a week; most probably they give some 12, some 14. Now during the go slow, the Labour Department, with the active co-operation of some of the union leaders referred to in the Report as those not representing any men at all, were able to get a number of new workers into the Harbour Board. I do not want to repeat allegations of corruption. But, apart from allegations of how they got the jobs, the Board, far from putting these new men into spare gangs, casual gangs, as was directed by the Court, and re-engaging the old men, have put all the old men into casual gangs, and kept the new men in the permanent gangs. And the new men are getting 12 to 14 kangs a week and the old men are getting as little as six, or even four, kangs a week.

And not only do they try and punish them in that way, by giving them a less number of kangs, they give them kangs which are not full kangs. If one works, a normal working day in the morning, one works eight hours and gets one full kang, eight hours' worth of work. If one works over-time, one works four hours, from seven in the evening to 11 at night, and is paid time-and-a-half- six hours. So they gave these men, who are members of, and loyal to the Union, night work paid at six hours instead of eight hours, and count that as one kang, cut down the number of kangs and thereby some of the members are getting as little as $15, $16, $17 a week.

Now there are two ways out. One, we resolve this thing in a reasonable way - talk it over and sort it out. Or, two, we compel the Union once more to take direct industrial action. I have been very reluctant to take direct industrial action for many reasons, and perhaps the Chief Minister, a man in possession of a great deal of the guessing faculty, will be able to guess at some of the reasons why we have avoided taking direct industrial action. But the point is now reached where, unless this matter is resolved, the Union may be compelled to take some direct industrial action. In that case it is not unlikely that the Board in its present frame of mind, including its new Chairman, may take retaliatory measures. That leads in turn to further action on the part of the Union and a full-blown dispute will be created.

Now, Sir, there are of course ways and means of dealing with such a dispute as the Chief Minister well knows. One could just smack the whole thing down. But if one does that, in this case where there is a genuine Union, and indeed, where the issue is not clouded by any question of subversion of any sort, if one does that, then the whole of the situation in the Singapore Harbour Board, the whole of the dock area, will be soured.

I do not see any reason why the Singapore Harbour Board should not be made first of all to follow what the Court of Inquiry has recommended. In fact the Chief Minister will remember that there was some delay in the appointment of the Court of Inquiry because he said there was no point in having a court of inquiry unless both parties agreed to accept its findings; hence the delay. We agreed to accept the findings, the Singapore Harbour Board was not quite prepared. Eventually, the Court of Inquiry was appointed presumably because they thought it over and decided that they also had better come into line and throw it over to an independent commission of inquiry to decide how best to settle the dispute. And I say it is no less than a breach of faith on the part of the Singapore Harbour Board to dishonour and to flout the recommendations and findings of the Court of Enquiry.

Sir, one could say, well, that does not matter. But it does matter, because the next time one has an industrial dispute, be it in the Singapore Harbour Board or elsewhere, and if it is sent to a court of inquiry and both parties have agreed beforehand that they will abide by its findings and recommendations, and if the findings turn out to be against the union's interests, the union may jolly well say, "We do not want it." In fact when the City Council Federation of Labour Unions did not want to accept the recommendations of the Court of Inquiry which the same Minister for Labour and Welfare appointed in their dispute, the Minister was the first to point out that they should accept the recommendations of the Court of Inquiry. Oh, yes, because they sent delegations to see him, as Minister for Labour and Welfare. I, in my capacity then as the adviser of the Federation, came to know that he had advised them that they ought to accept the recommendations of the Court of Inquiry. Well, in the case of the City Council Federation of Labour Unions, he was just the Minister for Labour and Welfare talking to an independent Union; but in the case of the Singapore Harbour Board, he is the Minister for Labour and Welfare, he is also the Chief Minister heading this Government. His Minister for Commerce and Industry is the Minister in charge of the Singapore Harbour Board, and he can very well see that these recommendations are implemented.

Now, Sir, all I am asking the House to do today is to join, first, in condemning the - I will use very restrained words, Sir, very mild and I should think most unobjectionable words - all I said was the unreasonable and obstructive attitude of the Singapore Harbour Board. I would ask the House to join me and to go further and say that it must accept and implement the findings and recommendations of this Court of Inquiry, in other words, Sir, take back the 12 lascars; take back the 10 other labourers; put the old men back into permanent gangs, and put the new men into casual gangs; and hold a ballot to decide whether or not the Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association does or does not represent the majority of the workers in the Singapore Harbour Board.

If the House is not prepared to do this, if the Government, for reasons of its own, is not prepared to do this, then it will put itself into a morally indefensible position if at a subsequent date, in trying to resolve an industrial dispute, this is cited as an example of how the Government and its quasi Government authority, the Singapore Harbour Board, had set a model of how not to settle an industrial dispute.

6.48 p.m.

Mr Goh Chew Chua (Ponggol-Tampenis): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to second the motion.

It is a shame that a public corporation like the Singapore Harbour Board should set such a bad example in employer-employee relationships. We all agree, Sir, that the port of Singapore is Singapore's rice bowl. It is important that industrial peace and harmony should prevail. Here we have a shameful example of how a semi-government employer has chosen to flout the findings and recommendations of a court of inquiry because they were not in favour of the Singapore Harbour Board and not to its liking.

Sir, if we allow this to pass unchallenged and let the Singapore Harbour Board get away with it, the Government have only themselves to blame. And if next time a big strike takes place and a court of inquiry is set up to solve the dispute, the union can refuse to accept the findings and the recommendations of the court, because it is not in the union's favour.

Sir, we must condemn the Singapore Harbour Board for refusing to implement the recommendations of the Court of Inquiry. If after condemnation they still refuse to implement them, the Government must take action against the Singapore Harbour Board and compel them to do what is right.

Question proposed.

7.01 p.m.

Mr Lim Choon Mong (Serangoon): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I move to amend the motion,

To leave out "deplores the unreasonable and obstructive attitude of the Singapore Harbour Board in refusing" and insert "urges the Singapore Harbour Board".

Amendment handed in.

Sir, before the coming on the scene of politicians, we seldom had strikes. At that time probably we heard from ex-Chief Ministers, Chief Ministers and politicians that the workers were exploited and that Singapore was built on their blood and sweat. However, there was one good thing - there was harmony. At least there was a measure of trust between employers and employees. And I think at that time too, employers looked after their employees and it was an unwritten law that it was their duty to look after them.

Times have changed. Workers must be given a better deal and indeed they should be given a better deal. And we have trade unions coming on the scene. If we have trade unions and people who are working members looking after their own affairs, I believe that things could still go on very smoothly and employer-employee relationships could still be good. But when we have people who are not connected with unions coming in, sometimes with good intentions for wanting to help employees, but more often than not coming in with the idea of creating chaos and gaining publicity for themselves, we then meet with a great deal of trouble.

Sometimes we find that there need not be a great deal of dispute. It could easily be talked over and the matter settled amicably, but when somebody is fanning the fire of hatred and another is infusing into the other party distrust we then get big troubles being cooked up, and we come to the stage where the employer will not trust the employee and the employee will regard the employer as his enemy. Indeed, Sir, it seems that if one can down the other, then one has scored a point; then one will have gained something. On the face of it, it does look like this.

But I would like everybody concerned to know that such action can only bring disadvantages to both sides. I have said in the debate on the Governor's Speech that the Singapore Harbour Board is a very important institution in Singapore. We depend a great deal on it for our trade and our livelihood. But because of its many disputes, because of its many troubles, trade is shifting away from Singapore. The employer may fight the employee, the employee may fight back, and soon we have trade going away to other lands. I ask the people of Singapore, especially the people concerned, as to whether they have any advantage when trade should dwindle to such a small amount, that no matter how great their earnings are per day, they will bring a very small packet home every month. Or ask the employer, no matter how much they can squeeze out of the employee, if there is no business to be done, then you find that there will be no income when you tally up the total for the year.

I ask, Sir, that employees and employers, for the good of Singapore, for the good of everybody in Singapore, should try and understand one another, should try and see that there should be less disputes and more harmonious working.

However, with many politicians who are interested parties coming on the scene, such may not be the case all the time, and we may have to face a large number of strikes and labour unrest in future. This must be avoided. One way of avoiding such a case would be to appoint a court of inquiry to find out things. And I would say that in many cases the best way to settle a dispute would be not to leave it to the employer and the employee, both thinking that they are right, but to leave it to independent people, independent and impartial people who have no axes to grind. And I think courts of inquiry should be established; arbitration courts should be established. And I believe that one day we must have compulsory arbitration with a panel of people agreed to by employers and employees alike, and they will sit to arbitrate. And I would say that whatever their decision should be, both sides should agree to their decision.

This is a case where the matter has been brought up to a court. The court has set out its findings, the court has made its recommendations. It consists of people trusted by all sides and I think that it would be wrong for any party not to accept the recommendations of such a court.

I think that the Singapore Harbour Board, as a quasi-Government institution, as a good employer, should accept the decisions of the Court. I, however, Sir, made the amendment because I believe that this is the first case that has come to this Assembly that recommendations of a court of inquiry have not been fully accepted. We would like to urge the Harbour Board to accept those recommendations. It will create a good precedent for other employers and employees to follow if we have courts of arbitration or enquiry appointed at a later date. Sir, I move that this House urges the Singapore Harbour Board to accept and implement the recommendations of the Court of Inquiry set up by the Minister for Labour and Welfare on 16th July, 1957, as contained in Sessional Paper S 7 of 1957.

7.13 p.m.

Mr Soh Ghee Soon (Cairnhill): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I second the amendment and reserve the right to speak at a later stage.

Mr Deputy Speaker: The original Question was,

"That this House deplores the unreasonable and obstructive attitude of the Singapore Harbour Board in refusing to accept and implement the recommendations of the Court of Inquiry set up by the Minister for Labour and Welfare on the 16th day of July, 1957, as contained in Sessional Paper No. S 7 of 1957."

Since which an amendment has been proposed,

To leave out "deplores the unreasonable and obstructive attitude of the Singapore Harbour Board in refusing" and insert "urges the Singapore Harbour Board".

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

7.14 p.m.

The Minister for Labour and Welfare (Dr Lim Yew Hock): Sir, on rising to speak on this amendment, I would like to say that the Government is not against the amendment because it only refers to "urging" the Singapore Harbour Board to implement the, according to the wording, recommendations and findings of the Court of Inquiry.

Sir, it seems very difficult for me to stand here as Minister for Labour and Welfare to speak on a motion in such a way that I do not take sides with the employers or the employees. The hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar and representatives of the Union have seen me many a time, and I have, too, seen the Harbour Board many a time, and so far what has been achieved is the re-employment of - I do not know the exact number - some 200 people, and only 10 from the ordinary labour force and 12 lascars have not yet been re-employed. This is a small number but my information is that the 10 labourers were not re-employed because they had not presented themselves for re-employment. I do not know whether that is correct or not. I do not wish to take sides but I would assure this House that if this amended motion is accepted, it would assist me as Minister for Labour and Welfare to present the case more forcibly to the Singapore Harbour Board and I hope that with the views of this House made known to them, they will take due note and re-employ the persons who have so far not been re-employed.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: What about the 12 lascars?

The Chief Minister: I said all the persons not re-employed.

There is one point, Sir. The Member for Tanjong Pagar did touch on the question of the secret ballot. That is not a recommendation of the Court. It is a suggestion of the Court - a suggestion that I have been considering. I find it difficult due to conditions in Singapore to agree to introduce a system of secret balloting on recognition. This is a system that has been adopted in America at a time when they had two big organisations - the C.I.O. and the A.F. of L. When workers who were not organised wished to be organised, the government machinery was set in motion to ascertain from the workers in the factory their views as to which particular organisation they would wish to represent them but under the present laws in Singapore any seven men can form a union and after forming one any seven men can demand a secret ballot and may upset well-established and older established unions. I do not think this question of introducing secret balloting to ascertain whether a union should be recognised or not under the present circumstances would be feasible and advisable.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Sir, I would be loath to miss the opportunity to get complete unanimity on the amendment, but I would very much like to add the following words to the amended motion so as to give some teeth to it. I was considering that the motion should be amended to read,

"That this House urges the Government to compel the Singapore Harbour Board to accept and to implement.'.

Now, Sir, I see nothing wrong in compelling somebody to do what is right. In fact, it is the duty of the Government to see that where commonsense and reasonableness do not prevail, then compulsion begins. However, I have not been able to obtain the support of the other Parties to this and I am therefore left in a position either to accept the amendment, or to lose my motion by default. On the balance, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am inclined to accept the amendment but on this very clear understanding, that if by the next sitting of this House, these findings have not been accepted and implemented, then the other Parties in this House will join me in asking the Government to take more drastic action to see that the findings and recommendations are accepted. I understand from the leader of the Liberal-Socialist Party that his Party would be very much in favour of that, should, after a reasonable period has elapsed, the Singapore Harbour Board and its new chairman and the old Chief Minister still be in the same position vis-a-vis the Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association and its 12 "un-re-engaged" lascars and ten workers still suspended.

Now, Sir, I cannot accept the Hon. the Chief Minister's view that it is just a suggestion of the Court of Inquiry that there should be a ballot. The actual words are:

"We would suggest that such evidence be collected in the form of a secret ballot.".

But in the context of the chapter under which this sentence appears, it is a clear finding and recommendation of the Court. It says here, paragraph 9 - Industrial Relations - Administrative Practices - The Issue of Recognition - and under "The Issue of Recognition", it is stated that it should be resolved by evidence "collected in the form of a secret ballot by members whose names appear on the membership cards of the SHBWU and the SHBSA." This is not a suggestion, particularly where one of the members of that Tribunal represented the shipping interests of Singapore, namely Mr D. W. Holder. This is a unanimous recommendation. There was no dissenting voice even from Mr Holder who represented the shipping interests and who is interested in the Singapore Harbour Board and its smooth operation more than any other businessman in Singapore.

Now, I would urge the Hon. the Chief Minister, before he commits himself to a statement of high policy on very short reflection that he is unable to accept this, to re-consider the matter and in particular to seek the advice of his Trades Union Congress as to whether or not this is good trade union practice. The Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association has taken the matter up with the Singapore Trades Union Congress and the Trades Union Congress, I am quite sure, will be able to assist and guide the Hon. the Chief Minister in arriving at the correct decision, namely, that the matter should be resolved by the free will of the members. One cannot have eight or nine unions each with the minimum number of members (seven). In the evidence of the Court of Inquiry, some of the committee members themselves were in default with their subscriptions. They are bogus empty unions and the sooner a sense of proportion and reality is established in employer/employee relationship between the Singapore Harbour Board and the union, the better it is for the smooth operation and development of the port.

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

Question put, "That the words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted."

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Division, Sir.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Clear the lobbies.

The House divided: Ayes, 16; Noes, Nil; Abstention, 1. Ayes. Noes. Braga, A. J. Nil Chew Swee Kee. Goh Chew Chua. Abstention. Jumabhoy, J. M. Lim, R. C. H. Lazarous, A. R. Lee Choon Eng. Absent. Lee Kuan Yew. Abdul Hamid bin Lim Choon Mong. Haji Jumat. Lim Yew Hock. Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Mak Pak Shee. David, E. B. Mohd. Sidik bin Haji Ede, John. Abdul Hamid. Goh Tong Liang. Nair, M. P. D. Hart, T. M. Soh Ghee Soon. Jumabhoy, R. Tan Theng Chiang. Lim Cher Kheng. Tan, William. Lim Ching Siong. Thomas, Francis. Lim Koon Teck. Seah Peng Chuan. Shanks, E. P. Sutherland, G. A. P. Tan Siak Kew. Wong Foo Nam.

Amendment accordingly agreed to.

Original Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House urges the Singapore Harbour Board to accept and implement the recommendations of the Court of Inquiry set up by the Minister for Labour and Welfare on the 16th day of July, 1957, as contained in Sessional Paper No. S 7 of 1957.