INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Order read for resumption of debate on Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Question again proposed.

5.31 p.m.

Mr G. Kandasamy (Kampong Kapor): Mr Speaker, Sir, the responsibility for the maintenance of the country's industrial peace is tripartite. It rests on the Government, on the employers and on the workers. But Government up to 1959 had been nothing more than an administrative machinery to be used by the employers, and a machinery for the enforcement of order over the workers, so that the exploitation of the workers could continue unhindered. In those circumstances, it was not surprising to find that all arbitration tribunals and courts of enquiries had been directed against the workers, and had never been impartial bodies at all. We have had examples of these in the case of the Naval Base Arbitration Tribunal whose Chairman was on the reserved list of the Admiralty.

Not very long ago, We former Government set up a Court of Inquiry, and when its findings were not favourable to the Government, the Government refused to implement the findings of that Court of Inquiry. It was not long ago that the Member for Farrer Park was a member of the so-called independent panel of the Industrial Courts Ordinance. Those were the conditions under which the workers found themselves. We were faced with so-called independent Chairmen and independent persons, but they were, in fact, not independent at all but, in one way or another, were associated with the employers.

The employers, too, have a responsibility for maintaining industrial peace. But the employers of today have never progressed from the days of indentured labour, the Kangani system. The trade unions have quite often found it difficult to expect employers to abide by collective agreement, and even to observe the minimum requirements of the Labour Ordinance. Even now we come across employers who are not observing the Labour Ordinance, the minimum standards laid down by the Shop Assistants Ordinance and the Clerks Employment Ordinance. With these experiences the workers could do nothing else but resort to industrial action. Their frustrations and discontent found expression in strikes.

Sir, my Party contested the election on a policy based on industrial peace with justice. Its leaders have for a very long time worked with trade unions and with the workers, and were trusted by them. True to the policy of my Party. this Bill has been introduced.

This Bill introduces a new chapter in the history of our country. For the first time it introduces a new concept, the concept of the force of law to collective agreement voluntarily reached between employers and workers. Never before has a collective agreement been binding. Never before has a collective agreement been enforceable. Employers have just ignored agreements whenever it suits them. Agreements have been signed on one day, and on the following day, the employers have just ignored them. To my mind, this is the most important step taken to promote collective bargaining in this country.

The Bill also aims at promoting collective bargaining between employers and their respective trade union of workers. As the Bill will, at a later stage, be amended, it will be found that collective bargaining is being kept between employers and trade unions of workers. This is to avoid the present situation whereby an association of employers reached agreement with a trade union of workmen, and subsequently the individual employers resigned from the old association and refused to abide by that agreement which they were a party to when they were members of the old association. In order to prevent employers from cluttering up the work of the Arbitration Court by forwarding, by default, all disputes to the Court, the Bill will enable the unions to decide whether or not to take strike action. The right to strike is still maintained. It must be maintained, otherwise we might find a situation where the Arbitration Court will be cluttered up with all those trade disputes which can rightly be solved by negotiations.

But the right to strike must be exercised in a responsible manner. As long as it is exercised for the benefit of the workers, it must be maintained. This Bill provides sufficient freedom, and, at the same time, sufficient protection to see that this weapon is not used by wild men to enhance their personal power or to coerce the Government. The trade unionists have accepted the principle that trade union leaders who obstruct the proper functioning of the Court should be punished, but not the union as a whole.

The Minister for Labour and Law must be complimented for agreeing to the deletion of the provisions dealing with the cancellation of the registration of unions whose leaders deliberately flouted the orders of the Court.

The denial of the right of representation before the Court to an advocate and solicitor is in order to direct the attention of the Court to the merits of the case before it, rather than to engage in legal technicalities and formalities. This particular clause will enable trade unions to be represented by persons who are considered to be most suitable for this task.

The Member for Cairnhill cast a slur on the trade union movement when he said that the trade unions did not have sufficient experienced officers to represent the case of the workers before the Arbitration Court. Sir, the trade union movement is capable of looking after itself. It is capable of representing the interests of the workers before this Court - so long as we know that the Court is there to judge and decide on the merits of the case and not on the form of representation or on the technicalities of the law.

The Bill must be supported if we are to solve our economic ills and expand our economy so that we may abolish unemployment from our country. I believe this Bill is one that will keep labour disputes to a minimum.

Compulsory arbitration is not a popular solution. It is not a solution wholly acceptable to the unions. But in the situation that we find ourselves in today, there is no better instrument than compulsory arbitration. In this Bill the emphasis is on collective bargaining. But when collective bargaining fails, there must be arbitration, and arbitration, if it is to succeed, must also have the force of law. It must be binding on the parties that do appear before the Arbitration Court. This Bill provides such force of law. I, for one, am sure that responsible leaders on either side of the labour dispute will resort to collective bargaining. But both sides have their wild men, perhaps the employers more than the workers, and to ensure that these wild men do not destroy our standards of living and our economy, this Bill is necessary. Sir, I support the Bill.

5.43 p.m.

Mr S. T. Bani (Thomson): Mr Speaker, Sir, I must say that I am terribly disappointed at the performance of the hon. Members in the Opposition. Perhaps they are not sure on which side the Bill is weighted, whether it is on the side of the employers or on the side of the workers. However, the Bill before the House today is, as a matter of fact, the most important piece of legislation introduced by the Government so far, and one that has initiated widespread interest and discussion. Employers and bodies of employers have quite obviously scrutinised the Bill carefully. The Straits Times has editorially commented on the Bill more than once, and has even aired the unsaid fears of the employers. On the other hand, Sir, the trade unions have set up special sub-committees to study the Bill and have gone over, clause by clause, the provisions for and against their interests. The unions and employers have made representations to the Minister.

Sir, it is indeed my duty today to speak both as a trade unionist and as a Government Member, as one who understands and shares the aspirations of the workers and recognises the legitimate democratic rights of the trade unions in the field of industrial relations, and as one responsible for the ideals and objectives of the Party. I think, Sir, at the outset it is important to mention the fact that although both sides - the employers and the employees - seem to have expressed certain fears with regard to the application of the Bill, no one so far appears to quarrel with the intention of the Bill. The underlying principle of the P.A.P.'s labour policy is industrial peace with justice. This will be the objective which the Bill in its final form is intended to achieve, and the truth of all truths is to put into practice this principle in the most effective and workable manner. Fears we all have. I am sure Members of this House have various fears, just as the employers and the trade unions have fears on the result of the operation of this Bill. I am being frank and honest when I state here in clear and unambiguous terms the fears and the worries of the workers and the trade unions in regard to this Bill.

But before I proceed any further, I must state quite definitely that despite the fears and concern of the workers, they are quite prepared to accept the Bill, with the amendments, in the final form in which it appears after the trimming. This is solely because they have hope and confidence in the men who are going to be responsible for operating this Bill, namely, the Members of the Government.

At this stage, Sir, I just want to refer to a statement by the hon. Member for Cairnhill. He sounded as though he was sorry that he did not have the opportunity of introducing such a Bill during his term of office. Let me tell the House quite plainly this. If it is the Lim Yew Hock Government which were to introduce the Bill, then I say today there would be workers outside holding placards, his the faith in the leadership of the Government and in the basic intention of the Bill, i.e. to mete out justice to the workers while preserving peace on the industrial front, which led the trade unions to take this decision.

I wish to refer very briefly to a few clauses which are causing some apprehension among the workers. To start with, it is necessary to examine the difference between the Party's election pledge and the provisions of this Bill. In the Party's manifesto during the elections in regard to the Arbitration Court, it was stated that the union could opt to be brought within the jurisdiction of such a court. When the union so opts, the employer is automatically brought within the jurisdiction of the court. This, Sir, is no longer the case now under this Bill, and quite rightly there is some uncertainty and worry creeping into the trade unions of workers.

Clause 28 of the Bill, as the amendments to be moved by the Minister will provide, will allow employers and the trade unions who are parties to a trade dispute to make a request jointly in writing to the Registrar that the trade dispute be submitted to arbitration, and when this is done, the court shall have cognizance of the trade dispute. The fear of the trade unions is on the opportunities which this clause will give employers to refer, or refuse to refer, disputes with the unions according to their particular benefits and thus make the workers helpless. But the safeguard against this possible abuse is provided by a sub-clause under the clause, where the Minister will have the authority to direct a dispute to arbitration. Here it is appropriate to) draw an illustrious example of what I said just a little earlier. While the unions strongly desire what was promised to them during the elections, they are prepared to accept the amendments to this principle, in the belief and faith that the Government, in particular the Minister who has to operate this Bill, will do so judiciously and in a manner that will preserve the unity of the workers and add strength to the working class movement. But sad to say, Sir, if the Minister were to be, for example, the Member for Cairnhill, then we would have to be prepared to face another round of the industrial unrests of 1955 and 1956.

Let me refer to clause 32. Here, the Court in reaching its decision may have regard not only to the interests of the persons immediately concerned but to the interest of the community as a whole and to the economy of the State as a whole. This clause is considered by workers to be an employers' clause, for the simple reason that it appears to transmit the frequent howls of employers. We all know that employers are in the habit of crying about the interests of the community and the conditions of the economy of the State every time the unions make claims for just and improved conditions of employment for the workers. It must be stated that this clause in the Bill affords opportunities for employers to try and seek to prejudice the reaching of a just and reasonable settlement through arbitration. As a matter of fact, without any Ordinance to cite, the counsel for the Singapore Traction Company, in its recent dispute with the union, at the actual hearing roared something to the effect that the eyes of the industry were upon the Tribunal, and that the eyes particularly of those investors who sought to invest money in the City were watching carefully the deliberations of the Tribunal, it is well known now, Sir, what effect this has had on the Tribunal which was fairly constituted and it is not unlikely that there will be many more Mr Hills in the future casting intimidatory words at the proposed Court and the President. It is also not unlikely that it may affect adversely the case of the employers. But nevertheless, I must warn that if the decision of the Court is to go contrary to the interests and feelings of the workers, because of the over-emphasis of this clause, there will be grave dangers in that the Court will not only be brought into disrepute in the eyes of the workers and the whole machinery of arbitration jammed, but the employers will also have to bear the consequences. Sir, this is not to say that the interests of the whole community and the whole eco nomy should not be considered, but they should not be a blind for all kinds of spurious argument advancing selfish interests.

Next, Sir, I have one point to make on the penal clauses. Here, what is of deep concern to the trade unions is the provision that will appear after the amendment which will prohibit a trade union leader from holding office for a certain period. To forfeit the trade union leader the right to be an officer is something that no union would like to see happen, and I am sure that nobody on this side of the House is particularly keen to deprive any leader of the right to be elected. The intention of the Government to check irresponsible Trade unionism is appreciated by the unions. But the fear remains on the grounds that this clause may be abused. However, this fear will be rendered groundless if the officer is of obvious integrity. These are the main clauses which remain a source of uncertainty and worry to the trade unions, but what is of the utmost importance is the actual function of the Court and the implementation of the various provisions of the Bill. Hope for the workers emerges as a result of the confidence in the men who are going to operate this Bill. As far as the trade unions of workers are concerned, the passing of this Bill in whatever form is not the be all and end all of the matter. I might say that certain employers who have yet to learn the lessons of the past - lessons of reality - may feel that they can use the provisions of this Bill to harass and irritate the unions. And there may be undesirable elements, pimps and stooges of vested interests, who may want to sabotage the proper functioning of this Court. Sir, it is common knowledge to those who have witnessed and who have participated in the combats between the employers and employees how jolly well employers desire to maintain industrial peace but resist justice from being done to the workers. If this is going to be the case, then I must point out that the trade unions of workers are not going to let the employers get away with that. The employers will have to face the force of a united and determind trade union movement, and while the Government has decided to establish and foster industrial peace, it has made it abundantly clear that it will not allow injustice to be meted out to workers. Let there be no doubts in the minds of employers that if and when such a situation develops, the whole machinery of the Government will be trained on the employer.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, I have no doubt that the trade unions will give every co-operation and assistance to the Government to work the Bill, and my only hope is that the employers do likewise.

6.05 p.m.

Inche Mohd. Ali Bin Alwi (Kampong Kembangan): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to speak on the Bill which we are now debating. I understand that the purpose of this Bill is to promote industrial peace. I have heard it expressed by several experts or champions of the labour movement that this Bill aims at protecting the interests of the workers. However, there are many provisions in this Bill which affect the prosperity and economy of our State. On the whole, Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not entirely disagree with this Bill. It is foreseeable that this Bill will not be referred to a Select Committee and that it is necessary that certain provisions therein should be amended. I do not wish to be a defender of the Government on this issue. But we must be careful if we want to ensure the peace and prosperity of the State. I know, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the Members on the Government side have declared that it is the policy of the P.A.P. to fight for the interest of the workers. I, as a Member on the Opposition side, do not deny this. It is a fact and we have had proof that it is the policy of the P.A.P. to be the champions of the workers on this island.

We know that most of the workers in the labour movement are illiterate in the English language. When this Bill is enacted, all the provisions will be printed in English. I am sure not all the workers will be able to comprehend the true meaning of the provisions of the Bill which we are now debating. Therefore, I think the time has come for the champions of the workers who are now on the Government side and who, as I have said earlier, have achieved successful results in the field of trade unionism, to guide the workers in their interest. In this situation, Mr Speaker, Sir, lawyers should also be given the opportunity to represent either the employers or employees in a trade dispute when it is referred to the Arbitration Court for settlement, because if the workers are not represented by a lawyer in the Court, I am confident that the employers who have all the necessary resources will be able to put forward their case better than can the employees.

As I have said earlier, Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not disagree with the Bill as a whole. But I have not yet received any clarification concerning the reported agreement reached as a result of the discussions between the trade unions and employers. We should have clarification in this House as to what percentage of trade unions in Singapore support this Bill.

I do not wish to dwell on this Bill at length, Mr Speaker, and I am prepared to receive any explanation from the Government. But if this is unacceptable to us, it is just like the proverb of the camel having to surrender to its master.

6.11 p.m.

The Minister for Health (Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, we are fully aware that the Industrial Relations Bill has been discussed at great length during the past few weeks. The labour movement and the employers have expressed their intention to join with the Government to stabilise the economy through industrial relations. We are determined not to allow an atmosphere which would create industrial chaos. We are also determined to make an all-out effort to maintain industrial peace. We have heard the views of the Members on the Opposition side on this Bill and all the criticisms that have been put forward will be considered by Government. The implementation of this Bill will be carried out judiciously. The Government has considered carefully the amendments put up by the labour movement and employers and after careful consideration of these amendments, the Government has made several amendments to this Bill.

It should be understood that all those concerned in a trade dispute should be asked to reach an amicable settlement, but there are times when such a settlement cannot be reached because of the attitude adopted by one side or by the other. Mr Speaker, Sir, in such a situation, the Minister then should be empowered to have a say in the matter and thus avoid what would otherwise be a bad situation. If it is felt that the only recourse to the trade unions is to be given complete freedom to take industrial action or resort to strike action in order to achieve their objectives, it is not the intention of the Government to deny them this right. However, it is important for the Minister and the Government to have powers to achieve industrial peace. Therefore, it is found necessary to give such powers to the Minister who will, no doubt, implement the provisions of this Bill judiciously in any trade dispute which may arise. This Bill at first was considered to be too drastic, but it was subsequently found necessary to strike a balance between the employers and the workers. For instance, it is admitted that clause 82 of this Bill concerning "go slow" action will be carried out by the workers because it is feared that certain unscrupulous employers will exploit this clause to the detriment of the workers. We, the Government, admit that the workers and employers now have a new sense of consciousness and we feel that such a state of relations should be reflected in agreements which are backed by law. Such agreements or decisions reached in the Court will definitely stabilise conditions and benefit the workers.

Mr Speaker, this Bill particularly aims at achieving industrial peace with justice in this country. Not only does this rest with the Government, but all concerned must make an effort to achieve industrial peace with justice. Therefore, anyone who shirks his obligations and responsibilities will find that there are clauses in this Bill whereby action can justifiably be taken.

6.18 p.m.

Mr Lin You Eng (Moulmein): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, since the introduction of the Industrial Relations Bill in Singapore, everyone has concentrated his attention on it. We all know that Singapore is a small island. If any sector of the community is not well looked after, then there will be no peace in industry.

When this Bill was moved for Second Reading, our friends on the Opposition side felt very interested and made speeches in the hope that they would become the champions of the workers. So they criticised this and that, saying that this Bill was not appropriate. Of course, we know that if any clause of this Bill is contrary to the interests of the people, then the people will not welcome the Bill and will not support it. We can see for ourselves very clearly that during the Labour Front Government the representatives of the trade unions had discussed with them at that time the impracticability of a Bill which they had wanted to put through concerning the trade unions. At that time, if they could have looked after the people well and had listened to them, then there would not have been so many placards and slogans against them. It is evident that their actions and attitudes were against the interests of the people. But today they feel that the P.A.P. Government will neglect the interests of the workers and put through the Bill. They are under the impression that, in criticising the Government Bill, they will become the champions of the workers. However, my colleagues have explicitly declared that in drafting this Bill they have accepted representations from every sector of the community. And we can say that in the interests of the people, we have tried to repeal the old Ordinance without fear. They are putting a mask over their face, being themselves cheats.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think I did read the appropriate Standing Order which says that on the Second Reading, the debate should be on the general merits and principle of the Bill. I have allowed the honourable Member to carry on up to now in his exordium. Perhaps he could now come back to the general merits of this Bill.

Mr Lin You Eng: (In Mandarin): I was just giving an example just now without any ulterior motive at all. We can see for ourselves today that if the Bill is not passed, the people of Singapore will suffer. The Minister has said that we can get full support from the trade unionists. We have discussed with them their views and these have now been incorporated in the Bill. So we can say that if the Bill cannot get the support of the majority of the people, then they will not support it and therefore it will not be passed.

The Member for Farrer Park has stated that if this Bill was put through three or four years ago, he would not have been able to see us on this side of the House today. It a little childish of him.

Mr Speaker: Order. The honourable Member has been interpreted as having called another Member of the House "childish". If that is correct, then I think that word should not be used of an honourable Member of this House and should be withdrawn.

Mr Lin You Eng: (In Mandarin): I beg your leave to withdraw, Mr Speaker, Sir. I cannot help laughing at the Member for Farrer Park's speech. He said that if the Bill was put through, then he would not have been able to see the Government side today. We can see for ourselves that the previous Government, under the leadership of Lim Yew Hock, could not look after the interests of the people of Singapore. Thus if they had passed such a Bill, then the people of Singapore would have given him an even bigger blow. This Bill, I think, is beneficial to the security and well-being of the country. This being so, I fully support it.

6.27 p.m.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker. Sir, this Bill is the first attempt to bring order into the field of industrial relations, and to allow reason to prevail. It is in pursuance of the Labour policy of the People's Action Party. At the outset, I would like to point out that in one respect we have departed from the set programme of the Party, namely, in giving power to the Minister for Labour and Law to send a matter to arbitration, regardless of the wishes of the union or the employer. It was our original intention to try and work out a scheme whereby all unions could be affiliated to a Trades Union Congress, which would opt for arbitration on behalf of all unions. However, the Minister, after eight months' experience in his Ministry, has assured us that, regardless of the ultimate shape and form of the T.U.C. and its constitution, it is necessary for the Minister to have this reserve power in order to ensure that, in the unlikely event of both union leaders and employers being recalcitrant, matters should not be allowed to take their illogical course and end in an industrial strike and confusion.

Sir, I do not intend to deal with points of detail - they have been raised by Members of the Opposition. I shall leave that to my colleague, the Hon. Minister who is moving the Bill. But I would like to answer Members of the Opposition on their request that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee. My colleagues and I have given careful consideration to whether or not this Bill should go to a Select Committee. The conclusion we came to is that the sooner the Bill is enacted, the sooner we can get the provisions worked out, and the better possible it is for the Minister to implement our Labour policy. It would take several months to have the Court set up, the form agreed, and the machinery set in motion. To send the Bill to a Select Committee where it may lie for another three or four months would be another three or four months lost.

On the question of principle, may I say that this is a new field of legislation? Whether these provisions are practicable and workable, or whether they are academic and unsuited to local conditions, will not depend upon an academic debate in a Select Committee, but upon the actual implementation of the provisions of the Bill. On principle, we are determined - as indeed we have the right to be, having stated it quite clearly in our election programme - to bring about industrial peace which, at the same time, ensures that justice is done to the workers. If there were a question of principle involved in which employers or unions could make representations on the basic features of the Bill, then some useful purpose might be served by sending it to a Select Committee. But as far as the main features of the Bill are concerned, its framework and its structure have already been decided upon, namely, that the emphasis must be on negotiations. Provisions have been laid out whereby unions can either get or not get recognition. Provisions are laid out as to how negotiations can be commenced and must be commenced. Provisions are made as to what is to be done if either negotiations are not commenced, or a deadlock is reached in negotiations. There is no question of principle involved on which we can give way. The only question is on the smoothness of the implementation of the intentions and objects of the Bill. That is a matter which we can only learn from experience.

There are two principal objectives which this Bill seeks to achieve. First, that the workers receive their fair share of the fruits which their labour helps to create. Second, that it should establish conditions which are conducive to industrial expansion.

Sir, if only the first objective is achieved, namely, that workers get their fair share, or more than their fair share, without creating conditions conducive to industrial expansion, then our problems of unemployment will mount over the next four years to disproportionate figures by 1964. Therefore, it is fundamental that we should also achieve stability in industrial relations, to assist the necessary expansion of industry, to create employment for the 20,000 to 30,000 young men and women who every, year enter the field looking for jobs.

But, on the other hand, if this Bill only succeeds in creating stability for industrial expansion, without bringing the benefits and ensuring that fair shares are given to the workers, then we will have failed as a movement dedicated to the advancement of the working class.

It is our hope that an intelligent application of the provisions of this Bill by the Government will prepare the conditions under which both objectives can be secured. Needless to say, it is fundamental to the working of the whole Bill that the Court must be so constituted that it earns the respect, if not the admiration, of both workers and employers. That is, the awards must be balanced and fair, made on the merits not only of the dispute but of the dispute within the context of the whole complex of our economy.

I will not pretend that all parts of the Bill commend themselves to employers or to unions. There are several provisions in the Bill to which the Federation of Employers takes exception. Indeed, as some Members on the Government side of the House have informed you, Mr Speaker, Sir, the unions are not without their views as to the possible effects of certain provisions, particularly the penal ones on trade union activity.

In the last analysis, it is the balancing of competing interests - first, fair shares for the workers; and, second, industrial conditions which will encourage investment and expansion - which has resulted in the Bill and its proposed amendments.

Sir, we could have done one of two things. The first one is to proceed with the Bill, which we are doing. The other is to leave things alone. The second alternative really means the state of affairs which prevailed for many years past, in which there were no adequate and proper legislative controls, resulting very often in unlimited scraps between employers and unions, and the intervention of the Government not through legislation designed for the purpose of controlling industrial disputes, but intervention through legislation designed to maintain law and order. In the last analysis, if the law is flouted and disorder prevails, then the Government must abdicate and allow disorder to be supreme. It is hoped that these special legislative provisions will work and operate to maintain the balance of these two competing objectives, and that it will be unnecessary ever to invoke those provisions meant for the supreme crisis where order must be re-established at all costs.

Sir, if this attempt to re-establish sense and stability in a field so far left untouched by detailed legislation succeeds, if only in part, then I think we should all be grateful for the advance the whole country would be making towards sense and stability in our industrial relations. In the earnest hope that the sooner we achieve even part of that objective that we have set out to achieve the better it will be, we have decided to go through with the Bill - the Second Reading, the Committee stage and the Third Reading - at this sitting of the Assembly.

Mr Byrne rose -

Mr Speaker: Mr Byrne, in reply?

6.41 p.m.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am indeed very disappointed with the performance of the Opposition Front Bench this afternoon. I am indeed very surprised that the former Chief Minister of the State of Singapore -

An hon. Member: Not the State. The Colony of Singapore.

Mr Byrne: I beg your pardon, Mr Speaker - the Colony of Singapore, and the former Minister for Labour and Welfare should have shown that he had paid so very little attention to the provisions of this Bill, which he himself said was an important piece of legislation. What he tried to do just now was to pick a few holes in a few clauses of this Bill and suggest to the House that the Government had given very little attention to these matters. He then expressed regret that he, as head of the former Government, was unable to introduce similar legislation when his Government was in power. Then he passed on the buck to the Member for Farrer Park who graciously admitted that this was a good Bill, but regretted that it had so many clauses, that it affected so many interests, that he really had not much time to consider the contents of this Bill, and that it would be most agreeable to all the Members of the Opposition Front Bench if this Bill could be sent to a Select Committee for further consideration, and for further inaction.

It is also noticeable, Mr Speaker, Sir, that today the Member for Tanglin has shown a very great reluctance to perform.

Mr Speaker: Order. I have also allowed the Minister to carry on up till now with his exordium, but I do not think he ought to attack the personal conduct of Members in that way.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, when I was about to begin, I was very much tempted to point an accusing finger at the Member for Tanglin opposite, but I resisted the temptation to do so.

Mr Speaker, I will just deal with a few of the points that were raised by the Member for Cairnhill just now. He appeared to be very confused about the question of the appointment of the President of the Court. He wondered why it was necessary for the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to appoint the President of the Court after consultation with the Prime Minister, and why it should be left to the Minister for Labour and Law to appoint the Acting President. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have given this question of the appointment of the President of the Court considerable attention.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the wording of this Bill is so phrased as to shut out the provisions of the Public Service Commission in relation to the appointment of the President of this Court. It will be appreciated that it would be crass stupidity on the part of the Government if it ever was tempted to let the Public Service Commission put out an advertisement calling for applications for this appointment. If we did so, I think the Opposition Front Bench might lose another Member.

Mr Speaker, Sir, you will see from clause 4 of this Bill that it is the intention of the Government that the person who is appointed to this high office will have the rights, privileges, protection and immunity of a Judge of the Supreme Court. The constitution of the State of Singapore provides that Judges do not hold any public office; that they hold public office only for the purposes of ensuring their pension rights. It was very necessary, Mr Speaker, Sir, that this method of appointing an independent President of this Court should be adopted by the Government. In the case of the Acting President, when the President is away, we felt that such an appointment could be safely entrusted in the hands of the appropriate Minister. In this case, the Minister will be the Minister for Labour and Law.

Mr Speaker, the Member for Cairn-hill has suggested that it would be a good thing if all those who serve on the committees of political Parties were excluded from either the employers' or the employees' panel. Mr Speaker, we are always accused by the Opposition of being very illiberal in our ideas. We are accused of wanting to place shackles on trade unions and wanting to inhibit political Parties from functioning. I would suggest to the Member for Cairn-hill that it would be unfair to place such a restriction on persons, who are connected -

The Prime Minister: A democratic person's rights and privileges.

Mr Byrne: - with political Parties, from serving on these panels. Mr Speaker, it may be open to this Government to put the Member for Cairnhill on the employers' panel. Mr Speaker, surely he would not think it unfair that we should even consider such a proposal.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member for Cairnhill has not understood the intentions of sub-clause (2) of clause 9 of this Bill. Would it not be more appropriate to allow a member of a political Party or a committee member of a political Party to serve on these panels? If they show by their attitudes that they are not persons to be trusted, and if they show that they are not persons who will serve impartially on these panels, it could be left then to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to remove them from these panels on the grounds that they are not fit and proper persons to be selected to constitute the court. Would not that be a fairer thing to do? Why prejudge the issue?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will now refer to another criticism which the Member for Cairnhill has made with regard to clause 23 of this Bill. He expressed surprise that this clause provided that a memorandum of any collective agreement should be in writing, but did not indicate that the writing of the memorandum should be in the Tamil, Chinese, English or Malay language. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is the intention of the Government to leave it to the parties to express their agreement in whatever language they choose. If they do so, then there is provision in clause 45 sub-clause (2) for copies to be made of the document in the Malay, English, Chinese and Tamil languages. Is there anything unfair in this? Are we placing any shackles on the parties? Mr Speaker, Sir, -

Tun Lim Yew Hock: On a point of elucidation, Sir.

Mr Speaker: If the Minister will give way?

Mr Byrne: Yes.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Minister - [Laughter].

Mr Speaker: Order.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Minister was not attentive when I said that truly I did not believe that it was the intention of the Government to insist that the writing should be in English, because it is clear from clause 45 that all the four languages are to be used. I said that in order to make it abundantly clear such an amendment is necessary. He has failed to understand.

Mr Speaker: It was an explanation and not elucidation.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker. I can very well understand the embarrassment in which the Member for Cairnhill now finds himself. He is obviously trying to talk himself out of a very difficult situation.

Tun Lim Yew Hock rose -

Mr Speaker: On a point of order?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: On a point of order, Sir. Well, let the records show!

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, it has been remarked in this House before that the Member for Cairnhill has great aptitude as an angler, in the sense that he loves to fish in troubled waters. He has made a reference to clause 31 of this Bill and has said quite blithely here - why should the civil servants be put to the trouble of getting an endorsement from the Yang di-Pertuan Negara before a civil service issue is to be put to arbitration? Mr Speaker, unfortunately for the Member for Cairnhill, I was a civil servant when he was the Chief Minister of the Colony of Singapore. Amongst my other duties was the duty of drawing up an arbitration agreement on behalf of the civil service with the Government of which the Member for Cairnhill was the Chief Minister. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Chief Minister understands very well that it is very necessary in civil service issues to write in safeguards into any arbitration agreement, because the civil service does not run like ordinary businesses in the sense that it is geared to produce a profit. In the civil service the Government is not entitled to use the taxpayers' funds improperly. For that reason, it is very necessary that no reference to arbitration should be allowed which involves any expenditure from the public funds, or which in any way affects the discretion of the Public Service Commission, unless the approval of the Head of State is first obtained. That is the practice in all democratic countries which run or operate civil services.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Farrer Park has stated that other members of the Government have referred to the discussions which the Minister has had with representatives of unions, but he has expressed great surprise that the Minister himself was silent in regard to these matters when he moved the Second Reading of this Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am now going to inform the Members of the Opposition Front Bench that I have taken the trouble to discuss the clauses of this Bill with members of the trade unions who have shown more interest in this Bill than any of those who are sitting now on the Opposition Front Bench. I will refer particularly to clauses in this Bill which were discussed during the time that I held my discussions with the representatives of the trade union movement in the State.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if you will look at clause 16 you will see that the intention there is that the collective bargaining procedure should be available both to the employer and to the union of employers. The unions complained that it would be unfair to allow a trade union of employers to negotiate any collective agreement with a trade union of employees in the sense that the bargain ing strength of one was much stronger than the bargaining strength of the other. It was also represented to me that it would not serve the interests of the economy of the State if employers were allowed to reach collective agreements with a trade union of employees through a union of employers. The more prosperous employers could get themselves linked up in a union and thereby try to get an agreement with a trade union of workmen. The effect would be that the employer who is not in the trade union of employers would not be able to pay the same wages as those employers in the union would be able to do, in which case the smaller businessman would be put out of business. And the result of that would be that the worker in that small business would lose his job and would be the person most likely to suffer. It is for this reason, Mr Speaker, Sir, that I shall be moving an amendment to this clause later on.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the unions also did not like the provisions of sub-clause (3) of clause 18 of this Bill. That is a sub-clause which enables an employer to say to the Commissioner for Labour that the workmen in his undertaking are not members of the trade union which claims to represent them; and it also enables an employer to say to the Commissioner for Labour that even though his employees are represented by a particular trade union which claims to represent them, nevertheless, in his opinion, he believes that his own employees do not desire that union to represent them. Now, the unions were particularly unhappy with clause 18 (3) (b) as it stands. The Government has now decided that it will keep clause 18 (3) (a), but delete clause 18 (3) (b) on the grounds that if effect is given to it, it would unduly restrict the activities of trade unions and would enable employers to meddle in trade union affairs.

Mr Speaker, Sir, another provision in the Bill which gave considerable concern to the unions was clause 28 (b) where it is provided that the President of the Court should be given the last opportunity to try to effect a conciliation between the parties before he decides to refer a trade dispute to arbitration. Mr Speaker, Sir, it was pointed out that it would be unwise to allow the President to be in a position where he could conciliate and, at the same time, be the judge of a Court of Arbitration. In the process of conciliation, it is very likely that the conciliator forms an opinion with regard to a dispute. That being so, he might consider that the union is either unreasonable in not agreeing to the terms of the employer, or the employer is unreasonable in resisting the claims of the union, and, therefore, it would be unfair, after he forms such an opinion, to require him then to adjudicate on the same issues as President of the Court.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill also referred earlier on to the provisions of clause 18 (4) and clause 20 (b) of the Bill. You will see there, Sir, that the Minister has the power to stop the Commissioner from notifying the Registrar of the Court that a trade dispute exists. In clause 18 (4), he has the power to stop a notification reaching the. Registrar of the Court where the parties have refused to negotiate; and in clause 20 (b), he has the power to stop a notification reaching the Registrar of the Court where a deadlock has resulted during the negotiations. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill himself has proposed an amendment in this part of the Bill. He has suggested that the Commissioner should be required to notify the Court of a trade dispute where the parties have refused to negotiate, where a negotiation has broken down, and where the Minister has failed to conciliate after making an attempt to do so. Mr Speaker, Sir, in discussing this clause with the unions, they pointed out that the Government was, in fact, receding from its position with regard to a union being given the sole right to opt to bring a case before the Arbitration Court as the employer would, under the Party's policy statement, be required to submit to arbitration if the employees union requested arbitration. Mr Speaker, Sir, the difficulty was to reconcile the bargaining position of unions with the principle of compulsory arbitration. The unions have a right to threaten to use their collective strength during the bargaining process. They might be able, by the mere fact that they are able to use this threat, to induce the employers to reach an agreement with them, and they felt that that position should be safeguarded for them in this clause of the Bill. They recognised also that it was the Government's policy to promote industrial peace with justice, and that being so, they accepted the position that power should be placed in the hands of the Minister to direct that any dispute, whether an ordinary trade dispute or a dispute in an essential service, should be put to arbitration. For that reason, clause 28 (c) of the Bill is to be amended as appears in the notice of amendments which the Government has given.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the unions also had a fear that if the impression gained ground that arbitration was automatic, it was likely that all issues would be submitted to arbitration and that the Court would be cluttered up with numerous pending issues. And to that extent, the whole policy of the Government would be completely frustrated. It was for that reason that they agreed that the Minister should have the final say as to whether a trade dispute should be put to arbitration or not.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Thomson has already expressed to this House the misgivings of the unions with regard to the application of clause 32 of this Bill which provides that the Court shall have regard not only to the interest of the persons who are affected by the dispute, but also to the interest of the community and to the economy of the State. He felt that the employers would try to put this to their use. Mr Speaker, Sir, in our policy statement, we have made it clear that when an Arbitration Court was set up, it would be required to have due regard to the complexities of our economy and, for that reason, we have had to tell the unions that we felt that clause 32 is vitally necessary for the operation of this Bill. But we have made a concession. Instead of requiring the Court to have regard to these matters, we have left it to the discretion of the Court to do so. The Court will, therefore, be fully informed of the position before making up its mind.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Thomson has also referred to the penal provisions of this Bill. We have taken counsel with the unions and after considerable discussions the Government has agreed to delete the provisions of this Bill affecting the deregistration of trade unions. But the Government has decided to retain the provision which places irresponsible trade union leaders under restriction against participation in trade union activities if they are found guilty by the President of the Arbitration Court of contempt of the authority of the Court. Mr Speaker, Sir, we ourselves on the Government side have said that we hope that it will never be necessary for these provisions ever to be implemented, and that with the experience gained from the operation of this law and with goodwill on both sides, the tradition of collective bargaining will be built up, which will make it unnecessary for the penal provisions of this law ever to be applied against any trade union leader.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are other provisions of the Bill which also gave considerable concern to representatives of the unions, but I do not propose to take up much time by referring to them, because the opportunity will be given to me to deal with these misgivings and fears when the Bill is dealt with at the Committee stage.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have also had discussions with the Federation of Employers. They have said in a very lengthy memorandum that they also do not like the provisions of this Bill. They have misgivings with regard to certain clauses, and they frankly admit that they do not understand a lot of these clauses. Mr Speaker, Sir, they are particularly concerned with the clause in the Bill which denies a disputant a right of appeal from the decisions of the Court of Arbitration. They consider that the disputant has a fundamental right of appeal, and they say that it might very well be that the Court might make a mistake which would cause considerable damage to their interests. For that reason they have suggested that there should be an appeal from the decisions of the Arbitration Court to the ordinary Courts. Mr Speaker, Sir, I pointed out, when I moved this Bill, that the Court that will be set up under this law is not a Court of Judicature. Its function will be to make an agreement for parties where they fail to agree, and as I have pointed out earlier, that function is more akin to delegated legislation; so that if there is to be an appeal from the decision of the Court, that appeal must lie to a superior Court of Arbitration; it cannot lie to the ordinary Courts of Judicature.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Federation of Employers also told me that they did not understand the provisions of clause 55 of the Bill. That clause is designed to ensure that either party may not be allowed to pick and choose the parts that they agree to accept in any award. The Court has the discretion under that clause to say to either party, "You will either have the whole of that award or no award at all." Sir, after a long discussion with the representatives of employers, they were satisfied that the Government was doing its best to provide to both employers and employees of their organisations the machinery whereby disputes could be settled, which would otherwise result in strikes and lock-outs and other industrial action which could cause considerable damage to the economy of our State.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister just now has given the House reasons why the Government has decided not to refer this Bill to a Select Committee. As the Prime Minister has pointed out, there is a lot of work yet to be done under this Bill-regulations will have to be made, the Court will have to be set up, and we will have to get on with the job of making this Bill operate. And it would not do for us to spend our time arguing the clauses of this Bill in protracted discussions before a Select Committee, and for that reason Government has decided to proceed with the Second Reading and Committee stage of this Bill at this sitting.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly.

Committee Friday, 12th February, 1960.