INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.20 p.m.

The Minister for Labour and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne): Mr Speaker, Sir, His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara has permitted me to signify his recommendation to the Legislative Assembly. I beg leave to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr Speaker, Sir, the explanatory statement published with the Bill summarises in considerable detail the main provisions of this Bill. In Committee I shall move certain amendments which will not affect the general features of the scheme embodied in this Bill. These are the encouragement of collective bargaining with a view to the free negotiation of collective agreements on matters affecting the relations between employers and employees, conciliation to assist in the negotiations and, as far as possible, to remove deadlocks in the negotiations, and finally, arbitration where agreement cannot be reached.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I refer first to collective bargaining, because I wish to lay the greatest possible emphasis upon the importance that this Government attaches to the bargaining provisions of this Bill. The Government believes in the value of freely negotiated industrial agreements and, indeed, I venture to say that few will deny that an agreement is the best method whereby in a free society the relations between people or groups of people can be regulated. The proposition that people ought to observe their agreements is one which commands universal acceptance.

Mr Speaker, Sir, conciliation has proved valuable in the past and we propose that the services of specially trained conciliation officers shall continue to be available where this can help those endeavouring to reach agreement. In relation to this aspect of the Bill, I would point out that provision has been made to ensure that negotiations initiated, as provided in the Bill, are not unduly prolonged; that collective agreements shall be enforceable in the same way as arbitral awards; and that where negotiations break down or where there is a refusal to negotiate, there is a means provided whereby disputes may be resolved by arbitrable awards. This, Sir, I emphasise, is the way in which the arbitral provisions should be viewed. One often hears collective bargaining and arbitration spoken of as if they were mutually exclusive alternatives. This, Sir, is not so, and we are providing a system which allows for the co-existence of agreements and awards. If matters work out in the way that we hope and expect, agreements will be the rule and awards we hope will be the very rare exception. Fears have been expressed that the court will, soon after its establishment, be faced with a volume of work which will be beyond its capacity to dispose of expeditiously. I hope that this will not prove to be the case, but one of the amendments which I shall move at a later stage will be designed to enable this position to be controlled should it arise. I hope, however, that it will not. Compulsory arbitration, unlike collective bargaining and conciliation, is I admit new to Singapore and I can well understand any reservations about it, and indeed any opposition to it that may be expressed. On the employers' side, it invades, for example, their liberty to engage labour at the rates established in a free market, that is, it may force them to pay more than they would otherwise have to pay. And equally, on the employees' side, it implies limitation on the right to use direct action to obtain the limit of what can be obtained by trial of strength, that is, awards must be accepted. On the other hand, there are correlative advantages to both sides. Awards are a great safeguard to employees particularly in times of economic adversity, and from the employers' point of view, there is the assurance that the system offers continuity of work and stability in industrial relations.

But perhaps the most important consideration is this. Strikes and lockouts and other traditional forms of direct action cause suffering and hardship to those involved, and economic loss to the community as a whole on a scale which a progressive society, aiming at a happier life and higher economic standards for all, cannot tolerate and cannot afford. I ask all of those who dislike the element of judicial regulation involved in compulsory arbitration to view the matter in the light o those considerations.

Sir, what we are setting out to do is to substitute the rule of law for the law of the jungle in industrial relations, to establish, in the words of the first president of the Australian Arbitration Tribunal, "a new province for law and order". But I repeat, Sir, the rule of law never means that one side can have everything its own way. A system of law implies rights and obligations and there can be no enjoyment of the rights without observance of the obligations. What we want to see is the general observance and acceptance of the awards and agreements by both sides. But, Sir, it will depend on the spirit in which employees and employers, and particularly their organisations and their leaders, approach the new system: their willingness to meet round the bargaining table, and their preparedness to place their respective points of view fairly before the court if matters go to arbitration. I appeal to all, who desire to see the establishment and maintenance of industrial peace, to approach the scheme in a spirit conducive to the achievement of those good results which I am confident it can yield. As I have already said, I know that certain features of the Bill will arouse dislikes and even fears in some quarters; fears that powers will be exercised, for example, sc as to impose ruinous obligations on employers or savage penalties upon trade unions of employees. I ask those who may think in that way to believe that experience will show that such disasters will not materialise.

The Court is, of course, tripartite in character. There will be members nominated by each side drawn from panels constituted by the Minister. But it will be the president on whom, if the members differ, the final decision will rest. It is, of course, our intention to appoint a man who will have a full sense of the high duties and responsibilities of his office and who will discharge his functions in a judicial spirit and with due regard to all the factors relevant to and the interests affected by the decisions of the Court.

It may be suggested that the president being, as he will be, an impartial person may, in the very nature of things, have neither a trade union background such as to enable him to appreciate the feelings and aspirations of the workers, nor the commercial experience which will enable him to understand the problems of management. But it is for this reason among others that we have provided that the two members who will join with the president in constituting the court will be drawn from panels constituted from among the nominees of the employers' and employees' organisations. In selecting members from the panels for particular cases, the parties' preferences will be given effect to. The members will be members in the full sense, not representatives of the disputants, much less advocates for them. Their membership should ensure that no aspect of a case is overlooked or not fully appreciated when the court comes to make its decision. With regard to the representation of the parties in proceedings before the court, it is our belief that this is a function which is best performed by officers of trade unions. We have not limited it strictly to officers, as clause 62 shows. I shall move certain amendments at a later stage with the object of making the clause less restrictive, because it is realised that particularly in the early stages of the operation of the Ordinance some unions may not have officers equipped to do this work effectively. But in a scheme such as this, the representation of union members in negotiations and before the Court should come to be regarded as the normal function, indeed one of the principal functions of a trade union leader. He has a part to play within the system and it offers him a new field for the exercise of his talents and for serving his members with credit to himself. This, Sir, is the consideration which has led us to provide that there will not be representation by an advocate and solicitor in arbitral proceedings. This provision is not intended as any reflection on the legal profession. Indeed we know that if the Bill permitted it, professional representation would be very frequently availed of. One difficulty relates to a matter always close to a lawyer's heart, as the Member for Farrer Park very well knows, and that is the question of costs; and the workers' organisations could be in real difficulties if they were confronted by Counsel on the other side as they have not the resources to pay for similar representation. This, however, is not the main reason why the Bill proposes as it does. It is desired to encourage union officials particularly on the workers' side to handle their union affairs. On the employers' side, the larger employers already include on their staff officers who are specialists in industrial relations.

Furthermore, it must be pointed out that proceedings before the Court relating to industrial matters are not judicial proceedings. The judicial function is the ascertainment and enforcement of rights under the law. The arbitral function involves the determination of what the rights and duties are to be in the future. The arbitrator's role is closer to that of the parties when they negotiate an agreement than that of a judge when he decides the matter litigated before him. Indeed, if there is an analogy, it is to delegated legislation. When this is realised, the exclusion of professional representation assumes a different aspect. Likewise, the question of appeals. It will be noted that an award is not subject to review except by the Industrial Arbitration Court itself upon an application for variation. If there were to be a review, this would not be a function of a court of law for the reason that I have just explained.

I have referred to fears that may exist that the Court may, through inexperience, do something which could involve us all in economic disaster. The Court is empowered by clause 32 to have regard to the interest of the community as a whole and the condition of the economy of the State. The Court includes members who will be aware of these considerations. Strong advocacy in the Court will ensure that such considerations are put before the Court. The Court is empowered to vary its decisions where sufficiently strong reasons are advanced. Finally, the President will, as I have said, be a responsible man chosen with the full realisation of the importance of the Court in relation to the economy. As the system develops. it could be that we may have to have more than one Court to deal with matters in the first instance. If that happened, the question of an appeal system would arise, but any appeal would naturally be to another arbitral body and not to the ordinary courts. However, all that is for the future.

The Bill has received the very careful consideration of myself and all my colleagues. We have had the benefit of advice and experience in the planning and in the drafting stage from Australia, where industrial arbitration has been in operation for over sixty years. But we do not claim that the Bill is perfect and we do not believe that the Ordinance will operate for any great length of time without amendments. We will, of course, watch its operation most carefully and I draw the attention of this Assembly to clause 87 under which the President is required to report annually to the Government on the working of the arbitration system. In this, we have followed the Australian law where a similar provision provides a regular opportunity to review the operation of the system. I assure this House that we will give very careful consideration to these reports and to representations made to us, and we will not hesitate to introduce amending legislation if the need to do so is shown.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have also decided to leave the Services and their employees out of the provisions of this Bill. This is because our State is fully self-governing in internal affairs but is not a sovereign State as far as external relations and internal security are concerned. For that reason, we are in no position to pass any local legislation binding on Her Majesty's Government. That being so, we consider that it would be advisable to leave it to the Services and their employees to decide whether they would freely wish to avail themselves of the machinery we have provided in this Bill for the settlement of industrial disputes, and it would be up to them therefore to decide whether they would freely come in or keep out altogether. In this connection, I have been advised by the United Kingdom Commissioner in Singapore, with whom both the Prime Minister and I have had discussions, that the United Kingdom departments are not opposed in principle to the objects of the Bill, since indeed arbitration courts have for long been a normal feature of civil service negotiating machinery in the United Kingdom. I have also been informed by the United Kingdom Commission here that the United Kingdom departments could not, however, agree to the Bill's application without modification to cover certain aspects which are governed by United Kingdom statute or practice and are not within the direct competence of the United Kingdom Service departments functioning in Singapore. I hope that it will be possible in the near future for the United Kingdom Service departments to reach an agreement with their employees on the application of the Bill on such terms as may be agreed between them, and, if such agreement is not possible, to settle their problems by other amicable means.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I commend this Bill to the Assembly and I do move.

Question proposed.

3.39 p.m.

Tun Lim Yew Hock (Cairnhill): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has given us reasons why he considers such a Bill is necessary at the present time, and while we do not disagree with him on some of the reasons, we do feel that certain provisions in this Bill go far beyond what is required. I will therefore go through this Bill and point out the various clauses where I feel that amendments have to be made in order to make it more effective or less reprehensible.

Sir, towards the end of his speech, the Minister tells us why it has been necessary that employees in Service departments have to be excluded from the operation of this Bill, but that if they, of their own accord, desire to enjoy the operation of this Bill they may do so. It therefore means, Sir, if I read the definition of "employee" correctly in page 2 of the Bill, that officers or servants of the Singapore Government are for the purposes of this Ordinance "employees". If that is so, Sir, then the definition of "employer" will have to be amended because the definition of "employer" restricts the class or classes of officers or servants in the employment of the Government. On the one hand - as I have said, if I read it aright - all employees of the Government are employees, but on the other hand, the Government as an employer is not an employer of all its employees.

Mr Byrne: On a point of information, Sir. I think the Member for Cairnhill is not aware of the amendments of which we have given notice.

Mr Speaker: Order. I might remind the Member for Cairnhill that we are on the Second Reading of the Bill and I trust that he will not go into the details of his amendments or the details of the clauses, because paragraph (2) of Standing Order 67 reads:

'On the order for the second reading of a Bill being read, a motion may be made "That the Bill be now read a second time", and a debate may arise covering the general merits and principle of the Bill.'

There have been several notices of amendments sent in, and I trust that the Member for Cairnhill will be patient and wait until the Committee stage before commenting in detail on the clauses.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, I understand that, but this is in relation to the principle whether all employees of the Government are employees for the purposes of this Ordinance and I am a little puzzled as to whether they are or they are not. If they are, then well and good: if they are not, then I have something to say on principle.

Sir, I see that one of the most important clauses in this Bill is clause 62. The Minister gave reasons why trade unions should not be represented by an advocate and solicitor. While I agree with him on those reasons, I cannot help but say that, previous to the tabling of this Bill, trade unions have found it not only desirable but also effective that they should be represented by an advocate and solicitor who knows what is going on in the trade union field and who is, shall we say, au fait with almost all labour legislation to help them in arguing conciliation cases or in the courts. It seems, Sir, that the trade union leaders of the P.A.P. who are advocates and solicitors as well now feel that such a thing should not be allowed because, in their view, the trade union leaders themselves are quite capable of carrying out their functions in arguing a case in the Arbitration Court. Sir, I do see that in denying a trade union the right of employing an advocate and solicitor to present their case in court the employer is also so barred, but then, as the Minister himself has said, most employers have employed personnel managers who are well trained and are specialists in their jobs. But I do not think that the same can be said of all the trade unions in Singapore. There are some officers of trade unions, of course, who are quite capable of representing their unions. But there are many - many more - who are not in that position. Therefore, I feel, Sir, that for the present, as the Minister himself has indicated that this law has to be tried out and amendments may be found necessary, that until all the trade union officers have enough training to represent their unions on their own, the assistance of an advocate and solicitor in representing the case of trade unions before the Arbitration Court should be allowed.

Sir, I am wondering whether the Minister, because he has said that he has several amendments to submit during the Committee stage in order to strengthen the Bill, would agree to refer this Bill to a Select Committee. If he does, then there is no need for a lengthy debate.

Sir, one is not so clear in regard to Part III, particularly clauses 18 and 20. According to my reading of these two clauses in relation to this Part of the Bill, when the Commissioner for Labour himself is notified by a trade union of workmen that it has submitted a request to the employer for negotiations, he must notify the Minister but he cannot notify the Registrar of the Court, unless the Minister so directs. We can understand, Sir, why that clause is necessary, because the Minister feels that he may consider it necessary that a further attempt at conciliation under his chairmanship or under the chairmanship of somebody appointed by him may help to resolve the trade dispute. But there is nothing, Sir, in this Part of this Bill to say that if such an attempt by the Minister has resulted in failure, the Minister shall direct the Commissioner to notify the Registrar of the Court. One can say that it is implied in those words, but I feel that it has to be inserted into the clause in order to make it abundantly clear that if any attempt by the Minister to bring about a settlement by conciliation results in failure, then the Commissioner shall be directed to notify the Registrar of the Court.

Clause 24, Sir, is rather complicated. This clause brings in the question of a union submitting a notice to more than one employer, or more than one union sending in a notice for a collective agreement to one employer. The clause is a bit puzzling. It brings in the question that unless all the employers or all the trade unions have reached agreement, the matter should be referred to the Commissioner for Labour. I think it would be desirable, if one trade union has to submit three notices to three separate employers, and if agreement has been reached between the trade union and one employer, that the matter should be taken out of this clause. But if it is not so, whether or not agreement has been reached between a trade union and one employer, all that must be reported to the Commissioner for Labour. I think that clause requires amendment.

I see, Sir, that in regard to the President of the Court, he shall be appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister. But in regard to the Acting President, who is to have the same duties and functions of the President, he is to be appointed on the advice of the Minister for Labour. I do not see why it should be necessary to have two appointing bodies. If it is going to be the Prime Minister, why not make him the appointing body for both appointees? Or the Minister for both?

Sir, regarding the qualifications of a member of the Panel. I feel that anyone who is a Committee member of any political party or any of its branches should be disqualified from serving on the Panel. The Minister has said that the members on the Panel are not there to look after any particular interest - that I accept. They are there with an open mind to try and understand the problems before them and to consider them in the light of clause 32, whether or not it is in the economic interest of the country that any improvements in their wages and salaries should be made. I feel that Committee members of political parties should not be on this Panel.

Sir, I have learnt during my few years of service in this House that the power to appoint carries with it the power to remove. But I see in clause 9, the removal of a person from the Panel in certain instances by the Minister, and in other instances by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara (obviously on the advice of the Minister). Surely, Sir, if removal is necessary of any member of the Panel, the Minister should have that power to remove such members. He need not have to advise the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to remove anybody who, according to sub-clause (2) of clause 9, has become permanently incapable of discharging his functions. Surely if he has become "permanently incapable", the Minister can say. "Well, sorry. You cannot serve because you are permanently incapable." There is no need to ask the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to declare that, because a member has become permanently incapable, he cannot serve on the Panel. But I think why the Yang di-Pertuan Negara has been brought into this matter to remove a member of the Panel is because of sub-clause (2) (b): that the Yang di-Pertuan Negara is of the opinion that that member is not a fit and proper person to be selected to constitute the Court. Sir, before any nominee of the Trades Union Congress or any nominee of the employer's side is appointed by the Minister to serve on the Panel, the Minister, under clause 6 sub-clause (6), must be of the opinion that that person is a fit and proper person. If he is a fit and proper person before his appointment how can he become not a fit and proper person after his appointment? It could only lead to speculation that such a case can only arise if that member on the Panel does not carry out his duties to the wishes or to the liking of the government of the day. I do not think that is so. I do not believe that it is so. Therefore, I would suggest, "Let us carry on with the normal way of legislating - that the power to appoint will carry with it the power to remove."

In regard to clause 23, Sir, in the case of trade unions which have reached agreement with their employers, they must prepare a memorandum of the terms of agreement and submit it to the President of the Court. But there is nowhere in this clause which says that it can be submitted in either of the four languages of Singapore - Malay, English, Chinese or Tamil. But in another clause, clause 45 (2), the Registrar shall cause copies to be made in these four languages. I am sure, Sir, that it is just an oversight, and it is not the intention of the Minister that the memorandum of the terms of agreement reached between a trade union and the employer must be in English.

Clause 31 is, I think, going a bit too far - giving unnecessary protection to the Government. Clause 31 says that before a matter or a trade dispute between the Government as an employer and its employees can be arbitrated upon, the President must get the sanction of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. But the matter cannot come before the Court; the Court cannot have cognizance of such a trade dispute unless the two parties, i.e. Government on the one side and its employees on the other, both agree to refer the matter to the Court, or where the Minister directs the Commissioner for Labour that such a trade dispute should be notified. Once the Commissioner has so notified the Court through the Registrar that there is a trade dispute between the Government as an employer and its employees, surely, Sir, the Court should go ahead without getting another "green light", shall we say, from the Yang di-Pertuan Negara?

The procedure is, I understand, that if a trade union and an employer cannot reach an agreement in negotiations, then the Commissioner for Labour will have a try. He will ask conciliation officers to bring the two parties together to try to conciliate to reach agreement. If he fails, he will then tell the Minister, "I have failed." The Minister, again, can under clause 21 say, "All right. I think there should be further conciliation." He steps in, either with he himself as the chairman or somebody appointed by him. And then if he finds that he has failed, he says, "All right. Refer to the Court." Then the President will have another try. Sir, this is dragging the matter unnecessarily. The Commissioner has one try, the Minister for Labour has one try, and when it reaches the Court, I think the Court should straightaway sit and arbitrate on the dispute, instead of having a further try. As we know, Sir, the longer a dispute is left to exist, the more heart-aches there will be between disputants. So I feel that, once the Commissioner for Labour has had his trial, and the Minister for Labour and Law has had his second trial, the President should not be given the power to say that there should be another trial. I feel that the Court should go straight ahead arbitrating on the trade dispute.

Sir, I read in the Press that the Trades Union Congress have called a meeting of its constituent members to seek their views on this Bill, but I have not read in the Press any more whether the Trades Union Congress have made representations to the Minister or whether the Minister has considered such representations, and that in the light of such representations, he is going to submit amendments during the Committee Stage of the Bill.

I think that this is a very important Bill. It is a Bill designed to bring about industrial peace. Everyone wants that. We know that in 1956, 1957 and 1958, because there was no such Bill and because there were no restrictions on trade unions on strikes, there had been a lot of industrial unrest. The Government may be profiting by the experience of their own sins in the past and may now have realised that to foster strikes and encourage trade unions to go to the limit irrespective of the economy of the country is all wrong, and that such things should not be allowed to take place again. And I even find, under clause 83, that an officer of a trade union cannot go into a place of work to talk about trade union matters. I think it is a good thing. But then I cannot help but say that it was because of an officer of a trade union being refused by an employer to go into the place of work to talk to members of a trade union on trade union matters that the union called a strike, and that particular union had for its legal adviser the Hon. the Prime Minister. Maybe they are learning their mistakes, or learning the folly of their ways, and they think that such a thing should not be repeated. I am with them. I think they are right now and that they were wrong in the past.

There is this clause 37, sub-clause (2)

• it is a bit difficult to understand why it is necessary. Now, it is right that there should be protection to ensure that the employer does not get out of an award by just transferring his business to somebody else. If an employer employs a devious method of getting out of an award, he should not be allowed to do so. That I agree, under clause 37 (1) (d), that is, any successor or any assignee or transmittee shall be bound by the award. But I cannot understand the purpose of sub-clause (2) of clause 37. What it means is this, if I have read it right. If A starts a business at, say, No. 51 Neil Road, and then later he finds that he cannot carry on any longer and he closes the shop. Then another man starts a business at the same address and does the same kind of business. Even though he may have no connection whatsoever with A, he is to be bound by this award - just because he happens to find that the premises are suitable for his business. He may have his own set of employees. He may have removed his business from a different address to this address - to No. 51 Neil Road, for the sake of argument. Is it intended that he should be bound by the award - he, who has no connection whatsoever with the previous employer who was a party to this award? I think it is wrong to encourage the premises to be left vacant.

I do feel, Sir, that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, and I am sure that trade unions and employers alike will greatly welcome the opportunity to submit representations to this Select Committee in order to make this very important labour legislation a welcome one by all sides. I would urge upon the Government to refer the Bill to a Select Committee.

4.05 p.m.

Inche Ahmad Jabri Bin Mohammad Akib (Southern Islands): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, in connection with the Industrial Relations Bill which is now being debated, I wish to support the findings and views of the Member for Cairnhill and hope that this Bill will be referred to a Select Committee, because, Mr Speaker, from the opinions expressed by the Member for Cairnhill, there is no doubt that there are many matters which require further consideration, and this coincides with the fact that the Government itself has given notice of a number of amendments. It is therefore appropriate that this Bill should receive proper consideration. At the same time referring this Bill to a Select Committee will give an opportunity to the trade unions to study it. They have had no opportunity to have close connections with the Government and are in the dark as to the contents of this Bill. They can give their views to the Select Committee in the interests of industrial peace in Singapore.

4.08 p.m.

Inche M. Ismail Rahim (Geylang East): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I fully support the Industrial Relations Bill because the Government have carried out a careful investigation into this matter and have reached an agreement with influential trade union leaders. Mr Speaker, the Government side is aware of all the matters affecting this Bill. Furthermore, it is also aware that the working class has been oppressed and suppressed by the employers whose objective is to cause disunity among the trade unions. Such was the fate of the labour movement in the past. The labour movement was designed to create unity so that the workers could earn a living for their families and their children.

The object of this Bill, Mr Speaker, is to help the labour movement. This Government has many trade union leaders on its side who are now leading their fellow workers in the unions. In addition, we on this side realise our responsibilities towards the labour movement. Therefore, we wish to safeguard the freedom of the labour movement in future so that it will not deteriorate as it did in the past. Hence, Mr Speaker, I fully support this Industrial Relations Bill.

4.11 p.m.

Mr John Mammen (Telok Blangah): Mr Speaker, the Industrial Relations Bill is, in fact, one of the outstanding Bills introduced by this Government. Before I go into the details of this Bill, I would like to mention certain things. When this Bill was first introduced into this Assembly, the Trades Union Congress and 16 unionists read through it very carefully, and afterwards submitted certain amendments to the Minister for Labour and Law. At the same time, the Federation of Employers and other employers also went into this Bill very thoroughly, and they submitted a 20-page memorandum to the Minister for Labour and Law.

The trade union side read this Bill through very carefully. We had the opportunity to meet the Minister for Labour and Law. In fact, we discussed the Bill clause by clause, and also discussed the amendments which will be introduced at the Committee stage.

The main aim of this Bill is to stabilise the relations between employer and employee in a more practical way with regard to trade disputes in Singapore. This Bill, in fact, is in line with our Party's policy which we put before the people of Singapore during the elections. And, of course, we then mentioned categorically that our aim was industrial peace with justice.

While I was hearing the speech of the Member for Cairnhill, I thought he was going to make an outburst against this Bill. In fact, he had not much to say. He just took clause 50. When the Minister made his speech earlier, he had said that he would make certain amendments to clause 50, and therefore clause 50 is no more valid. Even if he makes capital out of it, the trade unionists cannot carry on their union activities in their working place. When the amendment is introduced, that part is deleted.

Mr Speaker: Will the Member mention the clause?

Mr John Mammen: Clause 50 of the Bill, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Clause 50?

Mr John Mammen: I am sorry, Sir. It is clause 83. When the Minister introduces this amendment at the Committee stage, that part will not be in the Bill.

Since we took office in June 1959, Sir, and basing on the present Industrial Relations Bill or other Ordinances pertaining to labour disputes, neither the Minister nor his Parliamentary Secretary nor the civil servants of the Labour Ministry have been in a position to force the employer to come to any sort of agreement with the employees when they submitted demands for better wages and working conditions. But we are quite proud of the way in which the Minister dealt with labour disputes during the last six or seven months as compared with the way in which the Member for Cairnhill, when he was Minister for Labour and Welfare, dealt with labour disputes during his four and a half years of office.

The unions in their day-to-day dealings with the employers usually meet two categories of employers in Singapore. One is the unscrupulous type of employers, and when the P.A.P. took office they quite understood the P.A.P.'s policy - industrial peace with justice. The behaviour of the trade unions for the last six months has been creditable. I should like to say here that the trade unions, as a whole, stick to the Party's policy and they behave quite responsibly in that respect. But the employers, on the other hand, took advantage of the situation. They said that since the P.A.P. Government's policy was industrial peace with justice, they would make use of the fact, thinking that the trade union movement would one day or other go against this Government and create industrial disturbances in Singapore. To deal with this situation, therefore, we must have some kind of legislation to pin down this type of employers, and that is the main reason why we, the trade unions, support this Bill in principle.

The Minister is going to move an amendment in clause 28, and when this amendment is made, most of the fears of the trade unions will be removed. Clause 28 deals with the question when both parties jointly request arbitration. Paragraph (b) of clause 28 will be deleted when the Minister moves his amendment. Why I say the trade unions' fears will be partly removed is this. There is a time lapse when negotiation fails and the court takes cognizance of the trade dispute; and during this period the trade unions are at liberty to take industrial action against their employers. But the important point is this - that the court is only going to take cognizance of the trade dispute after the Minister informs the court. Of course, we agree in principle that when the matter is referred to the court there should be no industrial action.

Sir, again in this Bill, if any collective agreement is reached between both parties and that agreement is registered with the court, it has the effect of an award. In the situation in Singapore, Sir, we find in most cases that when employers negotiate with employees and reach a certain agreement, and when the time comes for them to put their signature on the agreement, the employers just say, "No, we are not going to sign it." So many of these cases are happening, even in the Labour Ministry. A union submitted a claim. Their employers negotiated with them and reached an agreement. But when the time came for the employers to put their signature on the' agreement and make it valid, the union found that the employers just flatly refused to sign and were not going to adhere to what they had agreed during the negotiations. At the present moment, in such a situation, either the unions will have to call for industrial action or go to the Ministry of Labour and Law. And if they go to the Ministry of Labour and Law on the existing rules and regulations, the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary or anybody cannot do anything, because the law is such and they cannot go beyond the law. But when this Bill is passed and an agreement is reached, it is notified to the Registrar of the Court and the Registrar will in turn inform the President who will sign the agreement, and that agreement will be valid for l½ years or 2 years or 3 years, or whatever period is agreed between the union and the employers.

One important fact is this. We find that there are people who take an active part in the trade union movement for their selfish interest. The employers know the situation well and easily buy these people over with prize appointments, so that they will become black-legs or traitors to their union; and when the union submits demands and something is achieved, these people are benefited both ways:-

(1) Being traitors to the union, they will get prize appointments.

(2) When the union makes an agreement with the employers, they will get the same benefit.

But one important fact to strengthen the trade union movement is this. So far, when a trade union puts up a demand and an agreement is signed, or it goes to arbitration and an award is made, that award is only applicable to members of that trade union. That is now going to be amended by the Minister. That one clause is very important for the growth of a healthy trade union movement in this country. Knowing that position, no employees can loyally work for an employer, or be traitors to the union. If they do, then the union is in a position to say that these employees are not eligible for that award for which the union has fought so hard.

As a result of the amendments which are going to be introduced by the Minister, I think, Sir, the majority of the trade unions in Singapore will be happy about this Bill. For the last six months the trade unions have shown a considerable amount of responsibility and cooperation with the Government. At the same time, the Minister for Labour and Law and the whole of his Ministry have tried their level best to bring about industrial peace with justice. The trade union movement has complete confidence in the present Government, and especially in the Ministry of Labour and Law, in seeing that this Bill, when it is passed and put into operation, will surely benefit the trade union movement as a whole, and any fears among the trade union movement, if there are any, will easily be removed.

4.24 p.m.

Mr Lim Cheng Lock (River Valley): Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill which we have before the House is an important piece of legislation and we must pay tribute to the Minister for Labour and Law who has done so much during these last eight months for the labour movement. We know that since he took office in June last year he has fulfilled the promise of getting a Trade Union House for the labour movement. He has also introduced a Bill to eliminate yellow and splinter unions so that the labour movement could be strengthened and be in a better position to bargain collectively and achieve better things from the employers. And we know that his Ministry has also been seeing to it that the legislation which has been in force is being carried out. No one can deny that during the less than nine months since the P.A.P. Government has been in control, there have been confidence in the Government and industrial stability. This Bill seeks to promote stability so that capital development and industrial expansion could be carried out. We all know of the growing unemployment in Singapore. We all know that, to survive, we have to industrialise; and we all know that no one will invest money unless there is stability. This piece of legislation will encourage such capital development and industrial expansion. At the same time, this Bill will also ensure that the worker gets his fair share of the fruits of his labour.

The hon. Member for Cairnhill has mentioned just now that if the Industrial Relations Bill had been in existence there would not have been disorder or industrial unrest during 1955, 1956 and 1957. I am glad he has realised that the introduction of this Bill will be good for the country.

4.29 p.m.

Mr A. P. Rajah (Farrer Park): Mr Speaker, Sir, it would be very interesting to speculate on what would have happened had such a Bill been introduced three or four years earlier. I venture to suggest, Mr Speaker, Sir, that if this Bill had been in force four years ago, quite a lot of the Members sitting opposite me might not have been in this Assembly. However, these are all matters of speculation. Any one's guess may be right.

The main thing is that we are here this afternoon to debate the principle involved in this Bill. Speaking for myself and for Members in the Opposition, I think it is a good Bill. It is a genuine attempt by the Government to hold the balance equally between the employer and the employee in the interests of the State.

That seems to be the principle underlying this Bill'. It is a principle accepted by the Opposition, and if anyone says it should have been implemented earlier he may be right or he may not be right. It may be that four or five years ago the time was not opportune. Perhaps this is the golden moment when it should be introduced and the golden moment is in the hands of the Minister for Labour and Law.

However, Sir, in seeking to bring- about industrial peace and good relationships between employees and employers, a principle which has been accepted in the past is being departed from and a new principle is being introduced. It is important not only to the employees but also to the employers that this Bill should be a success, because it is vital to the survival of the State. So I think, Mr Speaker, Sir, that all aspects of this Bill should be very carefully considered. The Hon. the Minister for Labour and Law himself said that he and his Government had given this Bill a great deal of thought even before they put it down as Bill No. 61. Apparently on this matter, the Government was assisted by an Australian expert loaned to them by the Australian Government. But at this late stage this morning, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has filed very important amendments which, to my mind, somewhat disturb the original balance held in the Bill. The amendments to be moved are important. The Bill itself is sufficiently important, but all interested opinion on this matter should be consulted before a new system whereby industrial peace may be achieved is to be implemented. I would therefore ask the Minister for Labour and Law to consent to this Bill being referred to a Select Committee in order that that end might be achieved. But if the Minister feels that he would not permit it to go to a Select Committee, could he consider deferring the Committee stage of this Bill in order that further and more adequate representation be made to him before final action is taken by the Assembly? The Minister himself, Mr Speaker, Sir, did not indicate to the House what representations had been made to him, either by employers or employees, but the Member for Telok Blangah, who seems to be very well-informed in these matters, made so bold as to say that representations had been made. But in so far as the Minister himself is concerned, he has not made any statement to the House as to what those representations were.

4.35 p.m.

Inche Mohd. Ariff Bin Suradi (Ulu Pandan): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully support the Bill because it contains provisions whereby small unions can be given the opportunity to derive benefits as a result of negotiations with big employers. With the existence of this Bill, such unions can fight in the interest of their members.

As my colleague the Member for Telok Blangah has pointed out just now, only employees who are members of unions will stand to benefit from agreements signed with their employers. This is a matter which employees should be proud of, because hitherto all employees derived benefits as a result of negotiations between employers and trade unions, despite the fact that some of them were non-members of the unions. We know that such people are obstructionists. They hinder a healthy labour movement. When this Bill is enacted, these opportunists will no longer be able to derive benefits from agreements signed with their employers.

Just now, the Member for Cairnhill stated that under this Bill, if, for instance, a business concern at No. 51 Neil Road, came to an agreement with its employees and it became bankrupt months later, its successor would have to abide by the agreement reached earlier. It was the practice during the past Government for a business concern, after having reached an agreement with its employees, to wind up its business on the pretext of bankruptcy. Then a few months later, this firm would establish itself under a different name and under a different management board; but the fact is that the same persons managed the new firm. The reason for that is that they wished to avoid paying the benefits to their employees. Therefore, with the existence of this Bill, I am sure that the employers who had been encouraged by the past Government to indulge in such malpractices will no longer be able to get an opportunity to oppress their employees in such a manner.

The Member for Farrer Park said just now that if this Bill had been enacted four or five years ago those trade union leaders who are now on this side of the House would surely not be here today. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to explain the stand of the trade unionists who are in this Assembly today. Their stand is different from that taken by the Member for Farrer Park. In the last election, he stood as an Independent candidate, but when he was returned, he became an S.P.A. member. But the stand of the trade unionists on this side of the House has never wavered. There is no doubt that, in spite of the fact that some of them are on the Government side, they will still continue to struggle in the interest of the workers, as they have done previously. We do not switch our stand from one side to another. Why I say this, Mr Speaker, Sir, is because when this Bill was read the First time, we trade unionists on the Government side and other trade unionists were invited to attend a conference to discuss the Bill which is before us today clause by clause. As a result, several amendments were put forward by the trade unionists. Therefore, we trade unionists on this side of the House fully support this Bill to which several amendments will be moved later by the Minister concerned.

4.43 p.m.

Mr Chan Chee Seng (Jalan Besar): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, although the Industrial Relations Bill which is being introduced by the Minister for Labour and Law has not reached the ideal stage, I do think, however, that it is practical, for the reason that it will substitute the legislation of the previous Government which has taken an irresponsible attitude towards industrial relations in this country. This Bill is an attempt to amend the legislation of the previous irresponsible Government and it is practical in the interest of the masses in this country.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the people have the power to run their own affairs. Therefore, the people who hold this power must be represented by themselves. An important fact arises out of this important piece of legislation. Those who are interested in the trade union movement believe that the Minister for Labour and Law has the final say. Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill has not been drafted in a day or two. It has been drafted after the Minister for Labour has put in much effort, energy and time in discussions with members of trade unions, and after agreement has been reached on many matters in this Bill. Because this Bill has been amended in many respects, we can see for ourselves that the P.A.P. Government is different from the previous Government. Our policy is based on the views of the masses of the people. Their views must be respected and given preference to and should be embodied in Government legislation. When that happens, we accept them and amend the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when going through the Bill, we found a clause in relation to disputes submitted by the Minister for Labour and Law to the Arbitration Court. The previous Government was cunning. They used to cheat and deceive the brothers and sisters of the workers. They used to refer disputes to the Arbitration Court. We know that the previous Arbitration Court was a fake. Therefore, in this sense, such a Court could only represent a one-sided view. On the other hand, the views of the other side were totally overlooked and neglected. But our Minister for Labour and Law has adopted a different attitude. If any dispute arises, and if our Minister thinks that it can be referred to the Arbitration Court, then he has the power to submit it to the ruling and findings of the Court. If the dispute between the employer and the employee can be solved by conciliation, he will then leave it to the conciliation officers to decide. This attitude is very practical.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I remember in the past I represented the Singapore Telephone Board Employees' Union in negotiations. When the workers submitted their terms to the employer, they got their victory. Many of the workers did not join the union, but they gave full support to the union in their negotiations with their employer. Thus those who did not join the union also enjoyed the benefits fought for by the union for the members. This fact was unique under the rule of the previous government. From this we can obviously see for ourselves that there were unreasonable things in society. The employers would blackmail the trade union movement; they would discourage workers to join trade unions. We could see for ourselves many workers sitting on the fence. They did not join the trade unions, but waited for others to fight for them. There is now provision in the present Bill to provide that any member who does not join a union in negotiations with the employer will not be entitled to enjoy the benefits fought for by the union for its members. This provision will enable the workers to understand that it is essential for them to join a union. It is in their interest to join a trade union. This provision fully represents the interests of the workers.

Thus when the Minister for Labour and Law introduces this Bill, I think it is practical for the reasons I have said.

4.52 p.m.

Inche Buang Bin Omar Junid (Kallang): (In Malay): Mr Speaker. Sir, when this Bill was debated just now, the Opposition Members - the Member for Farrer Park, the Member for Cairnhill, and the Member for the Southern Islands - put forward various amendments and views. I would like to say, as has also been said by my colleagues just now, that before this Bill was debated today, the Government had received representations from several trade unions in Singapore, and that we trade unionists had got together and discussed its pros and cons and reached a certain measure of agreement.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill not only protects the workers but also ensures industrial stability and peace. Under the previous government, when they enacted a Bill, it often appeared good outwardly, but in effect it did not give the workers anything concrete. What I have just said, perhaps the Opposition Members themselves will understand, for they know what happened in Singapore in the past. We had strikes and lockouts. The outdated Ordinance was not effective and had no provisions as are now embodied in this Bill. After this Government had assumed office for a few months, I myself, as a trade union leader, had negotiated with several employers for better conditions of service, such as overtime pay, involving sums amounting to not just hundreds of dollars but many thousands of dollars, which the employers were obliged to pay. This is the result of the present Government's genuine intention to better the economic status of the workers. Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, by this Industrial Relations Bill, as I have said earlier, not only will it protect the workers in Singapore but it will also ensure industrial peace. Therefore, as regards some of the Opposition Members, they should be ashamed of themselves for what they had failed to do in the past. When we enact such a Bill as this Industrial Relations Bill, we do not merely enact it for the sake of enacting it but, at the same time, we will carry out its provisions to the letter and take appropriate action against employers who fail to carry out their obligations.

Mr Speaker: It is a convenient time to suspend. I shall take the Chair again at half-past five.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.57 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.