EMPLOYMENT AGENCY BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

11.18 a.m.

The Minister for Labour and Welfare (Tun Lim Yew Hock): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Governor has signified his consent to this Bill being proceeded with and I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Not so long ago reports appeared in the Press of exploitation by employment agencies of job seekers. Some of these bogus employment agencies have closed down as a result of Police investigations. It has been found that in the absence of legislation it is extremely difficult to investigate the activities of these bogus agencies and bring to book those responsible for exploiting job seekers. Hence, the introduction of this Bill for the regulation of employment agencies.

Under this Bill, Sir, every employment agency must obtain a licence; charge only prescribed fees for registering a worker for employment; keep proper registers, and submit monthly returns. Appropriate penalties are provided for; in particular, it is sought to prevent such agencies being used for trafficking in women and girls. As it is intended to apply the provisions of the proposed Ordinance to certain types of workers only, it is hoped that the Government Employment Exchange will be the normal and only avenue for all other types of workers who wish to register for employment. This will make the employment exchange a more effective instrument for placement of such workers and, at the same time, prevent the exploitation complained of.

Sir, the placing of this Bill on the Statute Book will not only bring Singapore in line with the recommendations in the relevant convention of the International Labour Organisation, but it will also mark another milestone on the road of social progress in Singapore.

Sir, the implementation of this Bill is expected to cost the Government about $2,500 per annum, which will be the salary for additional staff. Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

11.20 a.m.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Mr Speaker, Sir, the introduction of this Bill is most welcome, although it is a known fact that job seekers or those unemployed in Singapore have been exploited by these bogus agencies. The Minister himself has just admitted that during the last one or two years the Police have been making investigations, and unless some kind of legislation is introduced, it would not be possible to investigate into these bogus agencies.

I have, after much trouble in the past one and a half years, got the Government to introduce this Bill. My first attempt was in April last year. I will quote, Sir, from the Hansard, my Question tabled on the 24th April, 1957, which appears in col. 1491 of Vol. 2, No. 21:

"Mr Lee Choon Eng asked the Minister for Labour and Welfare whether he is aware that some private employment exchanges in Singapore are exploiting employment seekers, and what does he propose to do about such concerns.

Mr Lim Yew Hock: Sir, I am aware of one recent case in which four aggrieved employment seekers made a report to the police which led to the arrest and conviction of a man who had been operating a private employment agency. I have good reason to believe that although some private employment agencies are long established, there are others which exist only to exploit employment seekers. I am looking into the possibility of introducing new legislation under which private employment agencies can be effectively regulated. However, most of the bogus agencies which exploit the unemployed are mushroom growths, here today and gone tomorrow. The remedy in such cases is not new legislation but for the intended victims to make early reports to the police so that prompt action can be taken against them under the existing law."

Sir, my second attempt was made in July 1957. I waited for a few months because I expected the Government to introduce such legislation. Until July, Sir, there was not a step taken by Government. Therefore, on the 17th July, I again tabled another question. It appears in Vol. 2, No. 29, col. 2081 of the Hansard. It reads:

"Mr Lee Choon Eng asked the Minister for Labour and Welfare-

(a) whether he has taken steps to investigate the activities of private employment exchanges;

(b) whether he is aware of any complaints made to the Police against private employment exchanges; and

(c) whether he has taken or will take steps to protect the public from exploitation."

A very short reply was given.

"The Minister for Labour and Welfare (Mr Lim Yew Hock): Mr Speaker, the activities of the employment exchanges have been investigated by officers of the Labour Department on an unofficial basis.

In reply to (b) and (c) of the hon. Member's question, I would refer him to the answer I gave to a similar question he asked on 24th April, 1957. I have nothing to add to the reply I made on that occasion."

I had the patience, Sir, to wait, and wait, and wait until June this year when I was forced to table yet another question on 11th June this year. It appears in Vol. 3, No. 5, col. 324:

"Mr Lee Choon Eng asked the Minister for Labour and Welfare what progress he has made in his examination of the possibility of introducing new legislation whereby private employment agencies can be effectively regulated and controlled.

Mr Braga (for the Minister for Labour and Welfare, Dr Lim Yew Hock): An Employment Agency Bill is now in its final stage of preparation and it is intended that this will be introduced at the next sitting of the Assembly."

That was in June 1958. Sir, I was expecting that a Bill of this nature would be introduced in July. This is now December - five months after the "next sitting of the Assembly". However, it is better late than never, because this Bill, although late, seeks to protect the job seekers and the unemployed.

Even to this day there are still unemployed persons who are being exploited by these bogus agencies, although the Minister said that during the year quite a number of them had closed down.

These bogus agencies, Sir, have gone to the extent not only of exploiting unemployed persons but luring innocent young girls into the social evil profession. This is a known fact and in support I will quote, Sir, from the Week-Ender, which has taken the trouble of making a detailed investigation -

Mr Lee Kuan Yew rose -

Mr Speaker: On a point of order?

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: On a point of order, Sir. Is it right and proper for the Member for Queenstown to bring into this Assembly, and quote to this Assembly semi-pornographic material?

Mr Speaker: I do not think I am in a position to judge until I have heard the passage.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, we all know the nature and quality of the Week-Ender, though I imagine most of us will only admit to having seen its outer cover. It must border on the very risque!

Mr Speaker: I do not think the hon. Member is really asking me to anticipate what will be placed before the Assembly, but I take it that the hon. Member for Queenstown, as an honourable Member of this House, will be careful as to what he reads.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I will be very careful. In this particular case it refers to the investigations made by a reporter of the paper and does not refer to the pictures as expected by the Member for Tanjong Pagar!

After the thorough investigation by the reporter of this newspaper, it exposed certain facts, and this is what it said:

"During this series of articles, compiled from the files of our investigators this newspaper has tried to show its readers how thousands of them when searching for a job can be tricked by the ghouls who prey on the workless."

And these are a few of the facts exposed:

"WE REVEALED how poor handicapped ..." -

X-I will not mention her name -

"and hundreds more like her are considered 'fair game' by the mobsters running phony employment agencies.

WE EXPOSED the smarties, who told how their 'immediate vacancies' existed in the columns of the daily papers.

WE PICTURED what happened when an astute investigator asked for time to read 'a registration form' only to be shown the door on the plea of: 'I have no more time to spend on difficult people.'

WE WARNED readers to beware of the smooth-tongued scamp with the pal, who, 'for ten bucks can fix you up with a job in no time.'

AND WE HAVE ADVISED you to seek the aid of the Government Employment Exchange should you need a job."

A bouquet to the Government!

"Now WE UNCOVER the more sinister side of the phony employment racket - THE USING OF OUR YOUNG WOMEN AS HUMAN BAIT TO CULL DOLLARS FROM THE POCKETS OF THE MORALLY WEAK.

PERHAPS IT IS HARD FOR DECENT FOLK TO ACCEPT THAT THERE ARE HUMAN BEINGS WHO ARE PREPARED TO SINK SUCH SLIMY DEPTHS."

This was reported in the Week-Ender and that, I think, is decent enough for the Member for Tanjong Pagar!

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: A great man!

Mr Lee Choon Eng: A great man! Sir, this Bill is a very good one, but after going through it I find it is not adequate enough to deter some hardcore professional criminals. A matter of $500 fine for the first offence is not heavy because it can easily be met from an income of a few thousand dollars a month. In Singapore, Sir, we have many types of crimes - robbery, etc. - but exploitation of the unemployed and the luring bf innocent girls into this social evil profession is more serious than crime. Robbers can only rob those who have. But to exploit the unemployed who do not even have funds is certainly a far more serious offence than robbery. Some of these unemployed might have borrowed money to get themselves registered [Laughter]. This is no laughing matter, because I was once unemployed myself and I know how difficult it was to get not only a dollar but even ten cents. For the unemployed to get themselves registered, a fee has to be paid, and they might have to borrow or even go to the extent of pawning their wives' jewellery. [Laughter] This is no laughing matter at all. These are real facts. I have even known of cases of the unemployed who have had to sacrifice the milk meant for their children or even the rice meant for their family just to get themselves registered. Sir, is this exploitation by employment agencies not a far more serious crime than robbery? As I have said, you can rob only those who have, but the unemployed, who do not have money, are being robbed. Only by strict control and heavy penalties can you deter such criminals from establishing these bogus employment agencies. When a person is unemployed, Sir, he is definitely downhearted, and it is really disheartening to learn that after trying to get a few dollars to get himself registered, he is being exploited and cheated. In case he has borrowed the money, what will his family think if, by getting himself registered, he finds that the money is going into somebody's pocket without getting anywhere? Some may even go to the extent of trying to commit suicide after having gone through so much trouble to get the money to get themselves registered.

When this Bill becomes law, Sir, I hope the genuine employment agencies will co-operate with the Government by coming forward and informing the Government of the existence of any bogus employment agency. It is only through such co-operation that we can maintain the existence of genuine employment agencies.

Sir, in this Bill, I see that it is only envisaged to control employment agencies. There should be some provision for exemption of charitable organisations or trade unions. This matter has not been looked into. As far as I know, the Singapore Ex-Services Association helps its members in obtaining jobs. I also understand that the Trafalgar Home for lepers and S.A.T.A. make an attempt to find employment for those patients who are cured. The After-Care Association, which is an Association for ex-prisoners, also tries to find employment for them.

Recently, I read in the papers that the President of the After-Care Association, the Acting Chief Justice, Mr Tan Ah Tah, made an appeal to the public and to big commercial firms to find employment for these ex-prisoners. In some trade unions and voluntary organisations like community centres and the Straits Chinese British Association, they have set up employment sections within the organisation itself. Certainly all these organisations cannot be considered as employment agencies, because they function within their own organisation and do not cater for the general public. These organisations also do not charge any fee for registration because it is only confined to the members themselves, in clause 4 of the Bill there is a provision which enables the Minister to make exemptions, but the clause is not very clear to me. I hope the Minister, in his reply, will enlighten me on this point.

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must realise that we are now debating the Second Reading, and that he must confine himself to the principle of the Bill. These details are details which he could raise in Committee. The hon. Member knows that the Minister proposes to go into Committee today, and if he had any amendments to suggest to the Bill, it was his duty to give notice of those amendments. But in any case, it does not prevent him from commenting on the details in Committee, of course; but at this stage, will he please confine himself to the principle of the Bill?

Mr Lee Choon Eng: I will try my best to confine myself to the principle of the Bill or to the clause itself. What I was trying to point out is that in this clause the interpretation of the words "employment agency" is far too wide and it does not, in fact, exempt charitable or voluntary organisations. Since you have ruled that I have to confine myself to the principle of the Bill, Sir, I will not then speak on clause 4. Sir, if there is no provision in this Bill which will cover these voluntary or charitable organisations, then all the sections devoted to seeking employment for the members within the charitable or voluntary organisations will come within the meaning of employment agencies. I certainly believe that the Minister does not want to classify all these sections as employment agencies. As I have pointed out, these sections within the organisations do not charge a fee for registration, and, apart from this, the officials of these organisations work without any pay. They help the members to get employment. So I do not think it is fair that these sections should come within the meaning of "employment agency".

Sir, when this Bill becomes law, I hope that the newspapers will give it the widest publicity so that the unemployed will know that Government has introduced it and there is legislation for the control of such agencies.

When this legislation comes into force, job seekers should always try to ascertain the reputation of the firms with which they register, because in most cases, although there is control, some of these firms do ask for a deposit for some type of employment; for instance, bill collectors, cashiers and so on. If the unemployed do not ascertain the reputation of the firm, they will find that, after paying the deposit or the cash security or whatever it is, that firm will vanish after a few months. Big and reputable firms, I am sure, do not require cash deposits. What they require is either a security bond or a fidelity insurance, and if that be the case, well and good. Wherever a cash deposit is demanded, I appeal to all the unemployed to look into the nature and reputation of the firm before paying such a deposit.

This Bill, Sir, is a very important Bill. It is being introduced in the interest not only of the job seekers themselves but also of the genuine employment agencies.

I have in mind, Sir, to ask the Government to allow me to refer this Bill to a Select Committee, because it will give a chance to those unemployed who have been victimised to come and make representations. It will also give an opportunity to the genuine employment agencies who have studied the Bill to make improvements. May I then formally move,

That the Employment Agency Bill be referred to a Select Committee with you, Mr Speaker, as Chairman and such other members as may be nominated by the Committee of Selection.

Mr Speaker: Is not the Member too previous? We have not even completed the Second Reading!

Tun Lim Yew Hock: He must have been reading the Week-Ender!

11.41 a.m.

Mr William Tan (Tiong Bahru): Mr Speaker, Sir, I strongly support this Bill, but I think if Government has the interest of the unemployed at heart, it is not necessary to introduce this Bill. We have a Labour Office in the Ministry of Labour and Welfare at Havelock Road. Unemployed people go there to get themselves registered for jobs. It is the responsibility of the Government to provide jobs for these unfortunate people. Such people got themselves registered, and after registration they made daily calls at the Labour Ministry to see if they could get jobs. In spite of the fact that they had spent time and money in going there, they were told that there were no jobs for them. They came back feeling frustrated because the Government is not in a position to solve the problem of unemployment and to provide jobs for them. So they eventually got fed up and lost faith in the Labour Office to find jobs for them.

Then what happens? A group of unscrupulous private employment agencies have cropped up like mushrooms all over the City to exploit the jobless. These unemployed are asked to pay $5 to get themselves registered in order to get a job. Some have even to contribute their first month's salary to these agencies. In spite of the ridiculous demands made by these employment agencies, the unemployed still go to them, with the result that they are squeezed dry. These unfortunate people with so many dependants to support have experienced the pangs of hunger. I wonder how many hon. Members sitting opposite have experienced these pangs of hunger. As the Member for Queenstown has asked, what did these unemployed people do when they were jobless? They turned anything valuable into cash. They pawned their goods. Some even sold their children to support other members of their families, just to keep them alive. A few very desperate people, at their wits' end - what did they do? As my good friend, my colleague on this side of the House has said, they committed suicide.

If the Government is doing a proper job, it is its duty to find jobs for these people and to control these private employment agencies so that they could not exploit the jobless. The unemployed have no faith in the Labour Office, Sir. I also have no faith in the Labour Office, and it may be as well for the Government to close down the Labour Office and not waste the public's money.

11.45 a.m.

Tun Lim Yew Hock rose -

Mr Speaker: In reply?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: In reply, Sir. We are indeed entering more and more interesting times as we approach the elections which will take place early next year. The Government, in moving the Second Reading of a Bill to look after the interests of job seekers and to see that they are not exploited, took just three minutes on the Second Reading without making a political speech; whereas some Members of the Opposition - the Member for Queenstown and the Member for Tiong Bahru - stood up to tell the people of Singapore how sad they were at the spectre of unemployment, how bad this Government was, and what the Government should and should not do.

Let us take the speech of the Member for Tiong Bahru first. He said that Government should do its duty to find jobs for all those who apply for employment. Surely no government in the world can find jobs for all those who apply for employment if jobs are not available. We are just trying to do a service free of charge - to try to help place the unemployed in employment and we have to seek the co-operation of employers. So long as the employment potentiality is not there, the Government Labour Exchange cannot find a job for each and everyone who applies for employment. The Member for Tiong Bahru also said that if the Government had done its duty properly, then there would have been no need for this law. Then in the same breath, he asked, "What is the Government doing about controlling these employment agencies to see that they do not exploit job seekers?" Sometimes, Sir, in the desire to make a political speech one does say things rather recklessly without considering what one is saying and in the next breath contradicting oneself. He said, "There is no need for employment agencies if the Government Employment Exchange is doing its job properly", and then he said that we must control these employment agencies -

Mr William Tan: After the Government has failed.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: - if job seekers are not to be exploited. Then we have the Member for Queenstown who took about 174 minutes trying to explain how good he is to the poor and the unemployed. Quite rightly, he pointed out that he took this matter up as far back as last year but he must remember also that since then I have been getting my Ministry to get on with the job and it takes time to draft a Bill for my consideration. He even went to the extent of quoting The Week-Ender. He also stated that perhaps the newspapers could give wide publicity to this Bill. I therefore hope that The Week-Ender will in its forthcoming issue give him full coverage.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Mr Speaker, Sir, though I originally intended to move that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee, it appears to me that the Minister and his Government are rather unhappy about it.

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Member either moves or he does not. Is the hon. Member moving? If the hon. Member is moving he should move simpliciter.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the fact that I do not intend to move that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee, may I move that it be discussed -

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Member either moves, "That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee," or he does not say anything. He will have an opportunity to say what he wants to when we go into Committee. Is the hon. Member moving under the provisions of Standing Order 48 which reads:

"When a Bill has been read a second time it shall stand committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly unless the Assembly on motion commits it to a Select Committee. Such motion shall not require notice, must be made immediately after the Bill is read a second time and may be proposed by any Member; the question thereon shall be put forthwith and shall be decided without amendment or debate."

I trust that that is clear.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Mr Speaker, Sir, can I then seek your guidance? I would like to ask the Government to defer consideration of the Bill in Committee until 14th January, 1959, instead of going through the Bill today in order to give me an opportunity to table amendments, if necessary, because I have not prepared my amendments to any of the clauses.

Mr Speaker: I continue then with the Standing Order which reads:

'On the Member in charge of a Bill asking for the committee stage of the Bill, to be taken forthwith, he shall move "That this Assembly will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill" and a debate may arise thereon.'

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly.

Mr Speaker: Tun Lim Yew Hock, Committee stage, what day?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Now, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, "That this Assembly will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill."

Question proposed.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you very much for your guidance. Although I do appreciate that the Minister would like to push the Bill through today in the interest of the unemployed, I feel that some amendments are necessary to two clauses in the Bill. I have indicated earlier that I propose to move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee but since I have an indication that the Minister is not happy about it, I will ask the Government to defer consideration of the Bill in Committee today until 14th January, 1959, when I can be given the opportunity to move amendments if necessary. I have not prepared any amendments today and even if I had done so I would have had to give two clear days' notice, and this would disqualify me from moving any amendment now. May I then appeal to the Government to defer consideration of this Bill in Committee until 14th January, 1959?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Order of the Day has been in the hands of the hon. Member for some time and he knew, when this Bill was introduced last month, that the Second Reading would take place today. If, I respectfully submit, Sir, the hon. Member had spent more time in studying the Bill than The Week-Ender, perhaps he would have been in a position today to submit amendments which he thought were necessary to strengthen the Bill and to look after the interests of the organisations which he has named.

Sir, I can assure the hon. Member that all the points brought up by him can be easily met in the "exemption" clause - clause 4. I can assure the hon. Member that it is not the intention of the Government to make things difficult, or to require that the organisations named by him should have to go through the process of keeping registers to observe the requirements of this law. If that is satisfactory to him, Sir, I will ask that he let us go into Committee on this Bill straightaway so that, as from 1st January next year, all employment agencies will have to be registered in Singapore.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

11.55 a.m.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2-

The Chairman: Mr Minister, in page 1, lines 18 and 19, it is suggested by me, subject to what the Minister has to say, that after the word "Ordinance", there should be a semi-colon and that the word "and" in line 19 be deleted.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Is it necessary for me to move that amendment?

The Chairman: If the Minister agrees, then we will do that as a typographical correction.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: I agree, Sir,

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4-

The Chairman: The Member for Queenstown was interrupted at the Second Reading. I do not know whether he wishes to say anything further now on this clause in detail.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Mr Chairman, Sir, since I have the Minister's assurance, I will leave it to him to cover the points I have raised as far as he can.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 5 to 15 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16-

The Chairman: Mr Minister, in page 5, line 26, it is suggested by me that a comma should be inserted after "same". Is that agreed?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Yes, I agree.

The Chairman: That will be inserted as a typographical omission.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18-

Question proposed, "That clause 18 stand part of the Bill,"

Mr William Tan: Sir, I wonder whether the Minister would consider, in view of the seriousness of the offences under clauses 16 and 17, he is prepared to increase the fine of $500 on conviction in respect of the first offence to $2,000 so that this will deter people from running bogus agencies?

The Chairman: Debate on that matter cannot take place unless there is a motion to amend. If the hon. Member wishes to comment on it, he can do so. On the other hand, if the Minister considers that the amendment should be made, then he can act under Standing Order 23 which dispenses with notice of amendments with the consent of the Speaker and the general assent of Members present. Perhaps the hon. Member would like to comment further on clause 18 before the Minister replies.

Mr William Tan: As we all know, Sir, these bogus agencies are exploiting the jobless and I feel that a fine of $500 is inadequate. In order to deter this exploitation of the unemployed, would the Government consider increasing the fine?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: A fine of $500 is intended for a first offence. After that, it will be a fine of $1,000 and imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Mr Chairman, Sir, I also have the same point in mind but, as I have said, I do not like to obstruct the passing of this Bill today. I am prepared to accept it as it stands today but I would appeal to the Government, if there is any necessity of increasing such penalties, after the passing of this Bill, not to hesitate to introduce an amendment to this clause so that heavier penalties could be imposed on subsequent offences, even to the extent of imposing the same penalties as for murder, because, as I have said in my speech, the exploitation of the unemployed is a crime which is far more serious than robbery and murder.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, when this Bill is passed, it will give my Ministry the necessary powers to investigate thoroughly into allegations of the existence of mushroom or bogus employment agencies which have not been properly licensed. At the present time, it is because of the absence of this law that employment agencies could function with impunity, but once the law is on the statute book, they will not dare to do so. They will have to apply for a licence before they can operate, and once licensed, they will have to observe the conditions of the licence, otherwise they too will be deprived of the means of earning their livelihood and they might have to go to other employment agencies to register for employment.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Mr Chairman, Sir, I do appreciate that these bogus employment agencies, after the implementation of this Bill, will not dare to function; but, as I have said, there are hard-core criminals who are prepared to take the risk. After the passing of this Bill, as I have said, if the Government do find that this Bill is not adequate enough to exercise sufficient control over these mushroom employment agencies which might operate in the dark, then I appeal to the Government not to hesitate to introduce any amendment to impose heavier penalties.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 19 to 23 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.