INQUIRY INTO TRADE DISPUTE AT SINGAPORE HARBOUR BOARD (Implementation of recommendations)

4.26 p.m.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, this motion which stands in my name is a sequel to the motion which I moved in this House in April this year. On that occasion I had the unanimous support of all Members of this House urging the Singapore Harbour Board to accept and implement the recommendations of the Court of Inquiry which inquired into the dispute between the Singapore Harbour Board and the Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association. With the Kallang by-election on, and the proposed United Socialist Front which is a new ganging - up of the old actors on the political stage, it would be sanguine of me to expect the same unanimity in getting this motion through this House. I have come here today prepared to meet the kind of niggling excuses from Members who had pledged, in April, to support me in such a motion if in fact by the next sitting of the House, the Singapore Harbour Board had not implemented the recommendations of the Court of Inquiry.

I should be acquainted with the real core of the dispute before I go into the specific findings. And quite frankly I do not think the Chief Minister, as Minister for Labour and Welfare, will disagree if I said that the real core, the real reason why this thing has blossomed in this way with a threatened strike, is because the Singapore Harbour Board wants to break Mr Jamit Smgh, who is the Secretary-General of the Staff Association, and the Chief Minister is thoroughly dissatisfied with Mr Jamit Singh's conduct and is not in the least bit inclined to intervene or prevent the Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association from beating the brains out of Mr Jamit Singh. That briefly and succinctly is the position.

Now, Sir, I can view with equanimity the breaking of any individual trade union official provided it is fair and he asked for what he was going to get. But I will not view with equanimity a move calculated to destroy someone who happened to have displeased the Chief Minister, particularly if it involves at the same time the breaking up of a union; and that is what in effect the Singapore Harbour Board intends to do, and the Chief Minister intends to sit back and let them do it.

Now, Sir, the strike has been called off because the Singapore Trade Union Congress had made an appeal that there should be no strike and that avenues should be explored for settling it. But let us be frank and honest. The real reason is that the Singapore Harbour Board says, `Well, all right, this is the time. Let's call in all the blacklegs and you, the Government, give us all the arms of the police, Singapore Harbour Board Reserve and so on, and we'll break them up. Let's see who wins.' The Union, quite wisely, took stock of the position and thought that the time for a fight was perhaps some other day on some other occasion. But that does not absolve - although the fight is avoided because the Union understood the inappropriateness of the time - it does not absolve the Ministry of Labour and Welfare nor the Minister himself from responsibility in seeing that this dispute is solved in a way which does credit to courts of inquiries, which does credit to peaceful methods of solving labour disputes.

And the core of the dispute that remains outstanding is briefly this. Now there are 10 men, 9 to 10 men - my list shows 9, the Chief Minister says 10-men who have not been reinstated, none of them. The Chief Minister says that is because the Singapore Harbour Board cannot find the men. I have been plagued and pestered by these men every time I went to the Singapore Harbour Board Staff Asso ciation and I am astounded that the Singapore Harbour Board Chairman cannot find them because they have been told time and time again to present themselves - which they did - and never succeeded in getting employment and reinstated. And I have offered to, and I will give the names, addresses and present the list. I do not know if the Chief Minister would consider this is harassing tactics, but if he wishes, I will lead the nine people to his office, to prove to him that they are still there waiting for jobs. But if he feels that this is not gentlemanly, then I will just provide him with the names and addresses and hope that he will do something about it.

But that is just the fringe of the dispute. The real dispute is: does the Union, the Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association, represent the majority of workers in the Harbour Board to warrant recognition? And the reason why the Chairman of the Harbour Board has refused to meet the Union to talk it over is because it appears that if he meets the Union he has, ex hypothesi, acknowledged that the Union represented the daily-rated workers, which he does not acknowledge, therefore he will not meet the Union.

Now, Sir, there is a recommendation here that there should be a joint negotiating machinery and that a ballot should be taken to see who or which is the union the majority of the members of the Singapore Harbour Board staff support. I asked the question last year of the Chief Minister and he said he was enquiring from the trade unions to find out their views because although he understood that this was the practice in America, he was not quite sure whether it was appropriate here. Well, Sir, since then at the Ford factory the employers have agreed with the employees that that would be a very convenient and suitable method and a ballot was taken. Secondly, the Trade Union Congress has issued a statement, not just on the initiative of the Secretary who might be said may be sympathetic to the Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association, but after it had gone through the governing council of the Trade Union Congress, that the taking of a ballot is a fit and proper method of finding out whether or not a union represents the majority of members under a particular employer. And I would like very briefly and simply to have the answer of the Minister for Labour and Welfare. In view of these developments, does he intend to make further inquiries? I am quite sure the answer is yes. How long will he take? Will it go on until next year by which time a decision may never have been taken by him?

Now, Sir, I said before that there is a lot of politics involved in all this and it came out very clearly to the forefront recently when the Singapore Harbour Board, almost in a state of desperation, said, `Ah, well, never mind if the Union goes on strike.' It has got a negotiating committee already with six other Unions which the Court of Inquiry had found did not represent any sizeable proportion, or any proportion at all, of the members of the Harbour Board. Now, in the appendix to the report, the Court set out the membership register of the Unions which the Singapore Harbour Board claims represent its employees. If I may just briefly run through it, on page 10 of the report:

SHBLU (Singapore Harbour Board Labour Union) - number of members on the books, 491; Registrar of Trade Unions states 322 probably old members, 169 new members, another register shows 316 members, membership declining rapidly.

SW&SLU (Ship Wharf and Ship Labour Union) - number of members, 325; subscriptions book inspected by Registrar of Trade Unions; in the light of subscription receipts, membership declining.

CSCET (Confederation of the Singapore Chinese Engineering Tradesmen) - number of members, 292; Registrar of Trade Unions unable to say whether all working for Singapore Harbour Board.

HBEU of S (Harbour Board Employees Union of Singapore) - number of members, 270; official notification of this figure not submitted to Registrar of Trade Unions.

MSU (Malay Seamen's Union of Singapore) - number of members, 117; this figure said by the Secretary of the Union to represent employees of Singapore Harbour Board; Registrar of Trade Unions unable to say whether this statement correct. States however that only 16 members appeared to have paid subscription. The remainder paid no subscription during 1957, and many paid nothing at all for the last 2 or 3 years.

SHBEWU (Singapore Harbour Board Engineering Workmen's Union) - number of members, 34; after September 1956 nobody paid subscriptions.

SHBS & WWU (Singapore Harbour Board Stevedore and Wharf Workers' Union) - number of members, 307; only 62 applications for membership duly completed. Registrar of Trade Unions said that he was told by officials of the union that 245 who had defaulted had recommenced to pay subscription in June - just before the inquiry started. And the sum total of all that book membership does not clear 1,200 members out of a total labour force of over 8,000 members.

Now, Sir, how long can one pretend that these Unions exist when they do not, that members are there when they are not? The question of principle which the Minister for Labour and Welfare must decide is this: is he prepared to allow the employer to take advantage of the organs of Government to break a union, when in fact the Court of Inquiry has recommended that a ballot should be taken to see whether or not the Union has the support of the majority of members of the Harbour Board? Is the Minister for Labour and Welfare prepared to stand back and tell the Board, 'Yes, that's right. You carry on with this negotiating machinery with six unions that really do not exist, and refuse to negotiate with the one union that does exist'?

There is no possibility for the Minister for Labour and Welfare escaping responsibility by his saying, `Ah, well, this is a matter between the employer and the Union', because in this parti cular case the Court of Inquiry had been appointed by both sides. And I would like to remind him that I saw him before the Court was appointed; there was delay in its appointment and he told me that the delay was because he had been unable to persuade the Singapore Harbour Board to accept the recommendations in advance, because he saw no point in appointing a court unless both sides agreed to accept its recommendations in advance. Subsequently it did and then he appointed the Court. He cannot absolve himself from the moral responsibility of seeing that the Court which he appointed after both sides had promised to accept its recommendations does in fact have its recommendations accepted by both parties to the dispute.

Sir, I beg to move,

That this House condemns the unreasonable and obstructive attitude of the Singapore Harbour Board in not complying with the recommendations contained in the Report of the Court of Inquiry (Sessional Paper No. S 7 of 1957) as was unanimously urged in this House on the 24th day of April, 1958, and calls upon the Government to take steps to compel the Singapore Harbour Board to comply with the recommendations in that Report.

4.40 p.m.

Mr Goh Chew Chua: Sir, I second the motion.

Question proposed.

4.41 p.m.

The Minister for Labour and Welfare (Dr Lim Yew Hock): Mr Speaker, Sir, the dispute between the Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association and the Singapore Harbour Board has been the subject of many speeches in this House; even as far back as December last year, the hon. Member for Queenstown painted a very sorry picture of the workers belonging to this particular staff association going on a hunger strike on the advice of its General Secretary. I have listened to the points brought forth by the hon, mover of the motion and it would appear from his speech that there are only two main points to be settled, and that because of the fact that these two main points have not been settled, he felt it incumbent upon him to move the motion standing in his name.

Now what is the first point? He said that nine persons had not yet been reemployed. He said in this House that these nine persons had presented themselves to the Harbour Board and had not been taken back. I understand from the Harbour Board that these nine persons have not presented themselves and that they were not able to trace them although registered letters have been addressed to them. Representatives of the Harbour Board Staff Association came to see me about a week ago on this point, too. I pointed out to them that the Harbour Board could not reemploy people who could not be found, and if they were really in evidence, they should present themselves. They suggested to me about a week ago that they would bring the nine men to my office on my undertaking to take these nine men back to the Harbour Board. It is not a harassing tactic at all. In fact I welcome it. I suggested to the representatives who saw me that if they felt it infra dig, for them to bring the nine men to see the Chairman of the Harbour Board, they could bring them to me and I would bring them to the Harbour Board and see that they get re-employed.

Well, that much for the first point, that nine men will be re-employed if they will present themselves, and if the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar will bring them to my office, it will indeed be my duty and my pleasure to see that they are re-employed by the Harbour Board.

Coming down to the second point which is of greater importance - the taking of a ballot to ascertain whether or not a union represents the majority of employees in a particular organisation - the hon. Member quoted the Ford Company and said that there balloting had been accepted. The two cases are not the same. In the case of the Ford Company, what was required was to satisfy the employer that the majority of the workers belonged to the union or desired to be represented by the union. In the case of the Harbour Board, there are seven different unions, although it must be admitted that the Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association was the first union to be registered.

It was the first union to be registered but its membership was only thrown open to clerical and cognate workers, never, never to daily-rated employees until the present General Secretary came on the scene. How did he bring it about? He did so by a change in the constitution of the Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association to embrace daily-rated employees. He started with the registration of a new union called the Singapore Harbour Board Workers Union for daily-rated employees. He operated from the premises of the Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association. I do not like to go into the manipulations that have been taking place in the Singapore Harbour Board Workers Union and into what has happened to that particular union, but what is more important to the issue is that under our present Trade Union Ordinance only seven persons are required to sign an application form, to organise a trade union. To agree that a ballot should be taken of employees in any organisation when there are already registered trade unions representing certain sections of employees in that organisation is to allow a particular union to work in such a way as to (I would not like to say intimidate because it is so difficult to prove) capture all the employees in the organisation. This is definitely wrong and I, as Minister for Labour and Welfare and as a man connected with the trade union movement for so many years, have come to the conclusion, quite reluctantly, that the taking of such a ballot in the Singapore Harbour Board is not in the best interests of the workers.

Can we blame the Singapore Harbour Board on this point, blame them for something for which the Minister - I myself - have taken the full responsibility? The only thing that can be levelled at the Harbour Board today is the re-employment of the nine persons, but the Harbour Board has said time and time again that these nine men will be re-employed if they can be found, if they will just present themselves. Let us not cloud the issue by saying that the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar has a list of the nine names. When the two representatives of the Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association came to see me they said that they would produce the nine men and I am still waiting for them to do so. Produce the nine men and the first point to the motion would have been answered.

Now, I do not like to criticise the activities of any trade union leader. I do not like it. But when it becomes abundantly clear to me that the activities of any trade union leader is not directed in the interests of a trade union but directed in his personal interests, I must resist any attempt at intimidation to force me to toe the line. The General Secretary of the Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association saw me and said that if I would just call a meeting of the Singapore Harbour Board and the Staff Association he would withdraw the strike notice. In other words, he put the onus on me that if I do not call a meet ing, the strike would take place and I should be held responsible.

That is not the way to conduct a trade union. If it is genuinely felt that a trade dispute requires strike action, go ahead, but do not do it in such a way as to hoodwink the workers. He has been running back and forth. Every time he goes back to the Staff Association, he says, `Ha! ha! I have got this okay. Boleh, la, boleh menang; tungu sekijap, boleh menang.' It is not necessary to bluff the workers like that. It is not necessary.

Again it is most significant that the strike notice expires this morning and I would ask hon. Members to take note of that. Not content with trying to intimidate the Minister for Labour and Welfare, there is this attempt to intimidate this House into accepting a motion which is definitely most unfair and unfounded.

4.53 p.m.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I moved an amendment to the motion at the April sitting urging the Singapore Harbour Board to carry out the recommendations of the Court of Inquiry. I was most elated by the result of the resolution. I believe that workers must work in order to get their pay. Workers must stand together, unite, in order that they may better their lot. But I also believe that when they stand together to bargain for what would be more favourable conditions, there are also people who will come in to make use of them in order to further their own political aims. I am against this sort of manoeuvring. We are for the workers. We want them to have a higher standard of living. We want them to be treated fairly but we do not want them to be tools of people who promote their own interests.

We have heard the case of the Singapore Harbour Board presented to us many times. We have heard that on the orders of the Secretary, the paid Secretary, Harbour Board workers went on strike. They received no pay but I would like to know whether the paid Secretary received his pay. They had on his orders went on a hunger strike. I would like to know whether the man who ordered them on hunger strike also refrained from taking food, or that he must grow stronger at the expense of the followers who were sacrificed.

Today we have before us a complaint that there are workers who have not been given jobs even after the Court of Inquiry had recommended that they should be re-employed. There are two sides of the question. One side says they are there. They have presented themselves but there are no jobs. On the other hand, we have heard the Chief Minister say that he would take them to the Harbour Board if they would come to see him and they would have their jobs back. If this is the case, then there is no complaint whatsoever. The complaint should be withdrawn. In fact I was also interviewed one day by the officials concerned about the loss of jobs, but after inquiring from sources I did find that the claims had not been as true as they should be.

And under such circumstances, bringing of a motion and putting up a complaint like this when there is assurance from the Minister for Labour and Welfare that they will be given back their jobs is wasting the time of this Assembly. I personally think that this dispute is not one between the labourers and the Singapore Harbour Board; it arose from the General Secretary wanting a pass to get in and out of the Harbour Board; and when he could not get the pass, it means everything in this world to him - there is a loss of prestige and the workers must suffer until such time when he has restored himself in the eyes of his workers as the all-powerful man in the Singapore Harbour Board.

The next point I heard, and from a very unbiased stand, is that the Singapore Harbour Board should recognise this union or that union; or one union must be allowed to represent the workers to the exclusion of the other unions. Well, if we are going to do that, then let us have a change in the trade union laws and say that if there are two unions existing, then we must cancel one. But so long as the law agrees to allow people to form trade unions, then every one of the trade unions should have standing in the eyes of the law and the authorities.

However, I am not going to talk about recognition of these unions at length. The most important matter is not the recognition of unions, but that every worker should have a job! If there are not enough jobs to go round, then no matter whether you have one union or many unions, it will bring us no nearer to what we want. It will not help the workers a little bit! We must have unions that really fight for the workers. But, if unions are there to see that the workers are not going to get what they want, but what the leaders want, then I am sure Singapore will be happier if we do not have such people who call themselves leaders of unions. These are the bogus leaders!

5 p.m.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew rose-

Mr Speaker: In reply?

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: In reply, Sir, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sorry to say that I waited in vain to hear some coherent argument why the recommendation of this Court of Inquiry should be flouted, but at least I have the satisfaction of pinning the Hon. the Chief Minister down to a flat refusal to implement the finding that there should be a ballot.

Sir, let me, before I go into the argument, just read to the Hon. the Chief Minister and his new-found colleague (the Member for Serangoon) on the issue of recognition. I am reading now from page 7 of Sessional Paper No. S 7 of 1957:

"THE ISSUE OF RECOGNITION

(iii) It is because of the disorder in ad ministration 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 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."

Sir, I repeat the last words of that sentence - "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." I had read earlier to this House the finding of the book membership of the various unions involved and what I hope to hear from the Minister for Labour and his supporter (the Member for Serangoon) is why is that finding wrong, and why should that finding be rejected, and as a corollary to that finding why should this recommendation be rejected. The recommendation reads as follows:

"... 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 [Singapore Harbour Board Workers' Union] and the SHBSA [Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association]. 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."

That very clearly and simply sets out the recommendations which the Hon. the Chief Minister said that the Singapore Harbour Board had agreed beforehand to accept, and which the Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong), in a debate on 24th April, 1958, said that he would urge the Harbour Board to accept and implement and that if it did not do so by the next sitting, he would support me in a stronger motion to compel the Harbour Board to do so.

Now, Sir, the Hon. the Chief Minister has given reasons - I do not know whether it is 1� or 2� reasons - why the ballot should not be implemented. First of all, he said the Ford Company was slightly different because the ballot was taken as there was no other union involved and therefore it was taken just to find out whether more than half the members were in the union. I should have thought that if there were more unions involved, a fortiori it would be very necessary to have a ballot to find out which of the unions have more than half the membership but it seems that this is the reason why it should not be allowed. But the real reason - the first one is just a half reason, the second one is the real reason and I give him one point for that - he has decided in his words that it is now (after dilly-dallying for a year and more) not in the best interests of the workers. I thought that was what the Court of Inquiry was supposed to do - to find out what was the best thing to do in the interests of both the workers and the employers and this is what it suggested. The Hon. the Chief Minister for no rhyme or reason now tells the House - but for no obvious rhyme or reason although there are some not so very obvious ones, that I can have a good guess at - that it is not necessary to go on with this, and that it is not in the best interest, because there are six other unions already there, and that he is not going to allow any trade union official to capture the membership or the potential staff. In his own words, he would not allow any trade union official to capture the workers for his union.

Now, Sir, I thought that is the purpose of a union. When a union is formed, the first thing it wants to do is to expand membership. When a political party is formed, it is formed for the purpose of collecting members. If, of course, it fails in collecting members, then a new one has to be formed for the same original purpose. He now says that that is a reprehensible object to achieve, and particularly as it is likely that the object has already been achieved, he will not allow a ballot to be taken. Let us face the facts. If on taking a ballot the Staff Association is not expected to get half the ballot and these six piddling unions were expected to get the members to support them, then I suggest to the Minister that his stand would definitely be that it is in the interests of the workers to have a ballot and he would have arranged for it long ago. It is because he expects a ballot to expose the emptiness of the six unions, with whom I am told some Labour Front types are associated, that the ballot will not be taken. I expected the Minister for Labour to take this line eventually and I am sorry that he was forced to take it in this debate. But I am even sorrier to note the Member for Serangoon who is a great preacher of moral re-armament principles reminding me -

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Correction.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: - "Never mind who is right. What is right is the issue," and in a matter such as this, he has failed to see what is right.

Mr Lim Choon Mong rose -

Mr Speaker: Is it on a point of order?

Mr Lim Choon Mong: No, Sir. It is a point of clarification.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: No, I do not really want him to try to denounce the moral re-armament movement just because I have let it out that he is in favour of it. If he wishes to denounce it at some subsequent date, I think he could choose a more appropriate occasion. But he did tell us in a debate on 24th April that he would not want to take sides and that he wanted to see what was just and fair. In Hansard, Volume 3 No. 4, column 351-

Mr Speaker: Column 315?

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Bottom of column 314 and top of column 315, or should I begin perhaps for the benefit of hon. Members whose memories may have dimmed on this subject - column 314, last paragraph:

"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.

"... We would like to urge the Harbour Board to accept those recommendations."-

This is the middle of the last paragraph of his speech:

"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."

And so he moves his amendment. We forgive many of his failings because he is so obviously a sincere, if often a misled man. We know that he is genuine about youth clubs, he does worry about them. He may not know much about other things in life but nevertheless he tries very hard to do the right things. As he was, at one time, so very anxious to impress upon me - "Never mind who is right. What is right," says he, and I am quoting it back as a moral re-armament principle which he has quoted. Never mind whether the Chief Minister is right or the General Secretary of the Singapore Harbour Board is right! What is right is already what he stated the last time, that the recommendations of the Court should be accepted and implemented. If this is the price he has to pay to join the United Socialists Front - he has his basic relief in moral re-armament - then I say that he is really embarking on a most hazardous adventure that he may yet live to regret.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 2; Noes, 24; Abstention, Nil. Ayes. Noes. Goh Chew Chua. Abdul Hamid bin Haji Lee Kuan Yew. Jumat. Braga, A. J. Chew Swee Kee. David, E. B. Abstention. Ede, John. Nil. Goh Tong Liang. Hart, T. M. Jumabhoy, J. M. Lee Choon Eng. Absent. Lim Choon Mong. Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Lim, R. C. H. Jumabhoy, R. Lim Yew Hock. Lazarous, A. R. Mak Pak Shee. Lim Cher Kheng. Mason, J. M. Lim Ching Siong. Mohd. Sidik bin Haji Lim Koon Teck. Abdul Hamid. Nair. M. P. D. Seah Peng Chuan. Shanks, E. P. Soh Ghee Soon. Tan Siak Kew. Tan Theng Chiang. Tan, William. Thomas, Francis. Wong Foo Nam.

Motion accordingly negatived.