INDUSTRAL RELATIONS BILL

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Order read for resumed consideration in Committee.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

2.31 p.m.

Clause 62-

The Chairman: An amendment has been proposed*:

• An amendment proposed by Tun Lim Yew Hock on 12th February, 1960.

In page 26, to leave outlines 3 to 7 inclusive and insert "but may be represented by an advocate and solicitor if so desired.".

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

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): There was an oblique reference yesterday by the Member for Tanglin, that perhaps Government may have infamous intentions to prevent the resuscitation of dead men. Sir, we do not require a steamroller to crack such little nuts as ex-Chief Ministers who have disgraced themselves. As a matter of fact, -

The Chairman: Present company excepted!

The Prime Minister: The present company always excepted. We are all honourable men here.

Nothing is more likely to expose the hypocrisy of one's political convictions than continued demands on one's time for no monetary rewards. I can assure Members on the other side of the House that, whilst there may be a, lot of hard work and maybe some political kudos, there is no money in this. I can only say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that my friend and colleague, the Minister for Labour and Law, has assured me that it is his consistent experience that things are more quickly resolved, and issues are more quickly and honestly joined without garnishing, when two parties face each other across the table without the assistance of skilled advocates. It is our sincere hope that this, in fact, will continue to happen in these Courts when employers and unions are made to present their cases, in the case of the employers through their officials, and in the case of unions of employees, through the Industrial Relations Officers.

For myself, I would like to add that I think it is a matter for some regret that what was once believed to be the royal road to acknowledgment as a champion of the cause of labour, should now be trodden by those who are prepared to he champions not Only for the few weeks that they may be in the Arbitration Court but for an extra period of six months prior to arbitration. I am quite sure there will be up and coming, earnest, dedicated men and women who will, in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Relations Bill when it is enacted, make the sacrifices necessary in order to qualify co be champions of labour.

Mr A. P. Rajah (Farrer Park): Sir, before I speak on the amendment, I would be obliged to the Minister for Labour if he would inform the House what exactly is meant by "intervener" in line 40, page 25 of the Bill, in reference to these proceedings? Does it just mean anybody who intervenes, arid what interest must he have before he intervenes?

The Minister for Labour and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne): Mr Speaker, Sir, "intervene" means to intervene. Any party who can show an interest or any person, who can show an interest in the intervention, intervenes. And it will be up to the Court to decide whether to accept that interest as a legitimate intervening interest when such intervention is made.

Mr Rajah: I submit, with respect, Sir, that "intervener" probably had a meaning when "trade union" meant a trade union of employers, too. But so far as "employer" is concerned at the moment, I do not see how anybody can intervene on his behalf. Maybe an intervention could still take place with regard to a trade union of employees, but with regard to the employer, I do not see how anybody can intervene on his behalf except he himself - he is left to fight his own battle. But if an employer has been served under clause 16 by a trade union of employees, then a trade union of employers could intervene under clause 62. Now that a trade union of employers is out of the picture entirely, and the employer is left to fight his own battle, I do not see who would be foolish enough to intervene on his behalf - in a losing battle anyway.

The Chairman: Has this anything to do with the amendment before the House?

Mr Rajah: Yes, Sir, it will have something to do with it when I speak later.

The Prime Minister: I think the Member for Farrer Park has not envisaged a situation which very often can arise. Let us say a dispute arises between the Aerated Water Workers' Union and the Phoenix Aerated Water Company as to what would be the fair rates of pay for the workers. The decision on that would affect Fraser &Neave, and members of the union who are in Fraser & Neave. Therefore, it is quite open for another firm, also in the aerated water business, to want to intervene and say, "Whilst the Court is considering the wages and conditions of service and the state of the industry, I would like to give evidence." It is true that the award would only be binding on the immediate parties before the Court, but a party in a similar industry might want to come in and say, "Let me present my facts as I see them." In that case, the employer would be an intervener. Or vice-versa, it might be that the workers in Phoenix Aerated Water Company might belong to one trade union, and the workers in Fraser & Neave in similar occupations might belong to another, and they might want to come in and give evidence.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, the latest submission by the Member for Farrer Park adds considerable weight to my suggestion earlier - that the Front Benchers opposite have taken very little trouble to understand the meaning of this Bill. If the Member for Farrer Park would look at clause 61 (1), he would see that there is provision for the State Advocate-General to intervene in any dispute in the public interest. Going on to sub-clause (2), it expressly provides that:

"Where the State Advocate-General has intervened in proceedings before the Court the Court may grant leave to any trade union or person to intervene in those proceedings."

Surely that must have some reference to clause 62 - there is the provision of intervention in addition to what the Prime Minister has just indicated to the House.

Mr Rajah: I would point out to the Minister for Law, in regard to his interpretation of "intervener", that the "intervener" I was thinking of was the "intervener" as it appears in line 40 of page 25. However, I will come back to that.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is on the Order Paper a notice of amendment on page 26 of the Bill in respect of the definition of "officer" in so far as this particular clause is concerned. Sir, may I be allowed to dwell on that too while I address the House on this particular amendment, because it would be relevant to my submission?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr Rajah: Sir, as I said yesterday, whether or not clause 62 is a fair clause depends entirely on the concept of the Bill. In the Bill as it was originally, the concept was to hold the balance evenly between the two disputing parties. In my view, clause 62 is not unreasonable in trying to shut out advocates and solicitors, because it also shuts out everybody else, so far as the union of employees was concerned. The clause says that only a person who is a full-time secretary or assistant secretary may appear for a union. That is fair enough. But after representations have been made by trade unions of employees to the Minister, the Minister now proposes to alter the definition, Mr Speaker, Sir, as appearing in page 54 of the Order Paper Supplement [12th February, 1960] -

The Chairman: We are now on the new Supplement.

Mr Rajah: Anyway, the proposed new paragraph reads:

'(a) "officer", in relation to a trade union includes for the purposes of any proceedings before the Court a person appointed by the body, by whatever name called, to which the management of the affairs of the union is entrusted, to represent the trade union in those proceedings.'

As I understand it, a trade union of employees could appoint anybody, other than an advocate and solicitor, to represent them under that paragraph. So that X union could appoint the secretary of Y union, or vice-versa. Or they could appoint a complete outsider who has specialised in trade union activities. So far as the trade union of employees is concerned, there are two additional weights in their favour. First, they have been given the use by Government, at government expense, of an Industrial Relations Officer, who is himself an officer trained in such matters and who would be able to plead for the trade union of employees in a manner perhaps even better than can some advocates and solicitors, because he has been trained in that particular branch of Government work or trade union work. Over and above that, there are also persons at the disposal of trade unions of employees who themselves are specialists. Mr Speaker, Sir, recently we had an instance where one Political Secretary attached to the Government was given leave of absence. He went and so ably conducted the case for a trade union of employees that they won the case. Such a person would be available to all trade unions of employees who find themselves in difficulties with their employers. Now, the balance has again been upset.

So long as a trade union of employers could take up the cudgels on behalf of an employer, there were some reasons to exclude advocates and solicitors, because the trade union of employers themselves might have secretaries who were well versed in these matters, and therefore those persons would have been able to appear for the employer in question. But now that too has been shut out. An employer must stand on his own. He cannot go to a trade union of employers.

So you get the position, Sir, where two weights have been added in favour of the trade union of employees, and one weight which was in favour of the trade union of employers has been taken away. It is not always true, Mr Speaker, Sir, that an employer is a very rich person. An employer might be just struggling along like an employee. There are several very small employers in Singapore- persons who run a sewing business, a tailoring business, or a little coffee-shop -and they might have employees. And the employees might have a dispute with such an employer. The employer might be an illiterate person. Though very keen and clever in his business, he might be quite incapable of presenting his case to the Arbitration Court or even before a conciliation officer. Do we not know of instances, Mr Speaker, Sir, where people who are so voluble outside dry up once you ask them to stand on their feet and talk? It is a gift to be able to talk sensibly under pressure, and not all persons can do that. So at every point, the employer is faced with a disadvantage. How then can this be weighted in his favour again? If he cannot avail himself of somebody, then who could plead his case without fear or favour? Would not that person be an advocate and solicitor? Why is he being shut out? Originally, Sir, there was some point and purpose in the Bill, because things were balanced. Only secretaries and assistant secretaries of unions could appear for the unions. But now that has been extended to cover everybody, provided he is not a paid agent or an advocate and solicitor.

2.45 p.m.

According to the Minister for Labour and Law, the main objection to employing an advocate and solicitor was that it was an expensive business. Sir, if an employer wants to engage an advocate and solicitor at his expense, why should the Minister object to that? Also, why should a trade union of employees object to an employer incurring expense in order to put his case correctly? If, as the Minister says, advocates and solicitors charge high fees appearing for trade unions of employees, well, the unions are not interested in advocates and solicitors. They have got the Industrial Relations Officers, who would be doing these jobs and doing them very well, available to them. So the unions are all right. Therefore, to say that because of expense an employer should be deprived of the services of an advocate and solicitor does not somehow seem right to me.

The Minister also said, Sir, that skilled and orderly presentation of a case would give a trade dispute a forensic character. I beg to defer with the Minister on that point, because a good administrator can present the facts with skill and order. He need not be an advocate, and because he is doing that, is his Ministry a place where forensic matters are being thrashed out? All that is needed is somebody to put the points succinctly and clearly to the Arbitration Court. That is what is normally expected of an advocate arid solicitor.

I think another point the Minister made was that if an advocate and solicitor appeared, there would not be that informality which is so essential in the Arbitration Court. I would submit to the Minister with respect that if the Minister wanted the Court to be informal, I am sure an advocate would make it very informal.

There is a further point that advocates tend to become technical. Advocates do not become technical on their own, Mr Speaker, Sir. I take it that the President of the Court would lay down rules for the guidance of the Court, and advocates and solicitors would be guided by those rules. So why then is it necessary to shut out advocates and solicitors, particularly now that an employer has been deprived of the assistance of a trade union of employers, and the employer has to stand on his own feet?

If I may come to clause 62 (1) (a) again, it says:

"being a trade union may be represented by an officer of the trade union;"

and with the amendment;

"or, in the case of a trade union of employees, by an officer of the trade union or by an Industrial Relations Officer selected by the trade union."

As the Minister himself has said, a trade union must now exclude a trade union of employers, and paragraph (a) refers to a trade union of employees. And paragraph (b), Sir:

"not being a trade union," -

I take it this now refers to an employer

"may be represented by an employee of that party" -

in other words, an employer may either appear himself or get his employee to appear for him, or an intervener. Sir. "represented by an intervener" means, I take it, somebody who appears on his behalf. Who could appear on his behalf? Not a trade union of employers - they are shut out. And not the State Advocate-General. So it must be somebody for and on behalf of the employer and at his behest! If that is an intervener, I do not know whether we have got the right meaning of "intervener".

The whole objection to an advocate and solicitor, in the first instance, Sir, was that he would upset the balance, because the employer would be able to employ him, but not the trade union of employees. Now that the trade union of employees has been sufficiently and adequately protected, in so far as their representation is concerned, why then should they now object to the employer seeking to get what he considers adequate representation for himself?

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am afraid, in the course of the debate, we would be teaching others! As the definition of "officer" appears in clause 62 (2) (a), you will see that representation is restricted to persons in the employment of a trade union as a full-time secretary or assistant secretary. We felt that that was unduly restrictive against the unions as far as representations before the Arbitration Court were concerned. You will see in clause 62 (1) (b) (ii) that employers can be represented by officers of their trade unions. I have mentioned this before: although an employer is not a party to the proceedings, an employer may nevertheless be a member of a trade union. For the purpose of representation, therefore, an employer can make use of the services of an officer who is employed by his trade union. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have in Singapore the experience of seeing big organisations of employers employing specialist officers as trade union experts. I do not wish to mention any names to the House, but it would sound a bell in their memory when I say that. The employers can get the services of trade unionists who sell their skill to the employers as specialists. Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of that, it was considered unduly restrictive to limit the representation on behalf of a trade union of employees to a full-time secretary or assistant secretary of a union. For that reason, we have proposed this amendment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Farrer Park has overlooked the provisions of clause 62 (1) (b) (ii), where it is provided that all paid agents are excluded. What is a paid agent? A paid agent can be an accountant or a firm of accountants. If we allow them to advertise the fact that they are experts in trade union matters, they could then assist the employer. For that reason, we have excluded all paid agents from espousing the cause of disputants before the Arbitration Court.

As the clause originally stood, you will see that it was unduly weighted in favour of the employer, and we have sought to redress that balance. That is why we have amended the definition of "officer" for the purposes of representation to give the committee of the trade union the right to appoint any person whom they consider competent to represent them before the Arbitration Court.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Farrer Park said that the services of advocates and solicitors are also available to trade unions. Is that so? Out of the whole Bar in Singapore, I know of very, very few lawyers who are really interested in trade union work, and who will offer their services to trade unions for a nominal fee. They can be counted on your finger-tips. As against that, the employers have got the services of the whole Bar.

You can see quite clearly how everything is weighted against the trade union of employees, and it is for that reason that Government has proposed a further amendment to clause 62 to provide for the appointment of conciliation officers as well as Industrial Relations Officers, whose services will be available to a trade union of employees. On balance, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government can not be charged with favouring the trade union of employees at the expense of the trade union of employers.

On the question of legal representation before the Arbitration Court, I have repeatedly told this House that there is a very great difference between the functions of the Arbitration Court, which we propose to set up, and the ordinary Courts. The Courts of Arbitration are not Courts of Judicature - I have repeatedly said that. Their functions are more like those of bodies which concern themselves with delegated legislation. At a glance the process of arbitration and conciliation is not a judicial process. By conciliation, a third party tries to bring the two disputants together, and to narrow down their differences. It is only when he cannot get them to reach an agreement that the question of arbitration arises. And when the question of arbitration arises, it is proper, to our way of thinking, that there should not be a formalistic approach The training of lawyers is such that they are prone to think in terms of precedents; they tend to stand on their rights. Far from helping to bring the parties together, lawyers more often than not make them drift apart.

3.00 p.m.

Our purpose right through has been an honest purpose. We have repeatedly said that, though we want both sides to accept the principle of compulsory arbitration, it is our intention that as far as possible they should try to reach agreement, and that only in the last resort, when agreement is not possible, will they submit the dispute to arbitration. That surely is reasonable.

On the question of the intervener, Mr Speaker, Sir, I have indicated that the State Advocate-General can be an intervener in arbitration proceedings. There might be reasons why he should intervene. When he does, he would be looking to the public interest in that dispute. If he comes in, then we have allowed legal representation. It is not true that we have excluded all legal representation, as the Opposition Front Benchers have charged. If this clause is looked at carefully, it will be seen that we also allow legal representation when the Court is looking into the question of contempt of Court under the provisions of clause 54. In the case of ordinary disputes, where no legal problems are involved, where no question of contempt is to be looked into, and where there is no intervention by the State Advocate-General, it is right and proper that lawyers should not come in. The Prime Minister has already made the point that if lawyers are interested in this kind of work, they can give up their legal practice. If they give up their practice six months before they get themselves mixed up with these matters, praise be to them.

Tun Lim Yew Hock (Cairnhill): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have just one little point to add, from personal experience too. The Prime Minister has said that he has been informed by his colleagues that it has been his experience that when parties are represented by advocates and solicitors, matters are not so quickly resolved and not so honestly joined. I am sure he does not mean that, because when he was representing one of the parties during my time, I paid him a tribute, since it was because of his presence that the issues were joined more quickly and more honestly. Now it seems to me that he is of the view that if he had not been there, matters might have been still more quickly and still more honestly resolved!

The Prime Minister: I am glad that the Member for Cairnhill appreciates that there are lawyers and lawyers! I can assure the Member for Farrer Park that in my personal experience - this is not hearsay - I have as yet to meet an employer who has not got a managerial staff to put his case across. The problem of an orderly and disciplined marshalling of facts, figures, and arguments arises, in most cases, with the unions. It is in the nature of things that the managerial side has always the intellectual talent to put facts, figures, and reasons logically and succinctly. In the unlikely event of an employer not being a member of a trade association or a trade union of employers, and himself being bereft of intelligence, then I say that, far from the employees' union worrying about how to get more money from him, I think they will be worrying about where they are going to get jobs when their employer's firm goes bankrupt!

Amendment negatived.

The Chairman: We are now on Supplement No. 14. We are on clause 62. Will the Minister move formally? I think we have had a debate on this amendment already, unless any Member wishes to speak further on it.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Yes, I want to speak on the amendment.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

In page 26, lines 9 to 11, to leave out "a person in the employment of a trade union as a full-time secretary or assistant secretary" and insert -

"for the purposes of any proceedings before the Court a person appointed by the body, by whatever name called, to which the management of the affairs of the union is entrusted, to represent the trade union in those proceedings".

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, if I understand it right, the Minister said earlier in the debate on my amendment that the trade unions had objected to the limitation on a secretary or assistant secretary, and therefore, in order to widen the provisions of paragraph (a) he is tabling the amendment. But I would like to say, Sir, that the wording of the amendment throws the gate wide open. Not only does it make it an offence, but it is also not meant to meet the objection. If it is meant to meet the objection, I am sure the amendment should allow for a full-time officer, by whatever name called. He could be a clerk, a general affairs officer, or he could be anybody. But the amendment as proposed by the Minister could mean anyone, it could even mean a Political Secretary. He could even be anyone not connected with the trade union movement. I think the unions' objection is that they are being tied down to the secretary or assistant secretary. Why cannot it be a general affairs clerk? Why cannot it be an organising secretary? Why cannot it be a full-time official who does not carry the title of secretary or assistant secretary? I am sure the Government will have no objection if I amend the amendment to read, "full-time officer, by whatever name called", if that is actually the intention of the amendment.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, the purpose of the amendment is to enable the trade unions to get the services of people in the trade union movement who are skilled in the presentation of arguments before an arbitral body. The Member for Cairnhill must realise that the purpose of this legislation is to set up an industrial court, and it would be necessary for the unions to obtain the services of people who are skilled in presenting their arguments before the industrial court. Now one union may not have an official who is so skilled. Surely it cannot be wrong for that union to look around for some other union which has a conciliation officer, to enable it to have an official skilled in the type of service that it wants. If you write into the clause the provision that

so and so is to be full-time, will you really achieve your purpose? There is nothing to prevent any union committee from deciding that X, who is a stranger to the union, will, for the purposes of the arbitration, be employed full-time. It means nothing. It does not add anything to what you are trying to do. The mere fact that you employ a person to represent your case before the Arbitration Court suggests that he is employed full-time for that purpose. Because arbitration proceedings take a long time, they are not over in the course of one day. I know that some arbitration proceedings take as much as two or three weeks before they are concluded. We leave that latitude to the unions. Surely there is nothing wrong in that.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Did the Minister say that the union is free to employ any person to help it to negotiate? Did he use the word "employ"?

Mr Byrne: Yes, or engage if you like, or obtain the services, or what have you. What we do not want is a paid agent. A paid agent is a person who sets up business to assist parties before the Arbitration Court. We do not want a group of undesirables unconnected with the trade union movement putting up notice boards and saying that they are, for the purposes of arbitration, paid agents whose services would be at the disposal of any union which wants to employ them. That would make a farce of the whole proceedings. You can leave the unions to look after their own affairs. We are trying our best to develop a sense of responsibility. We think it unfair that those persons who are in the trade union movement should spend so much time in conciliation proceedings, and when it comes to the presentation of their case before the Arbitration Court, to see lawyers coming in on various pretexts to cash in. We are not trying to make it impossible for the employees to find persons who are skilled to assist them. All that is not our intention.

Mr Thio Chan Bee (Tanglin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it is one of the aims of both sides of the House that there should be industrial peace with justice not only for the workers but for the employers. The other aim, as given by the Hon. Prime Minister, is to establish conditions conducive to industrial expansion, so that that will lead to further employment of more workers. That really is the ultimate aim of this Bill. The intention of setting up this Arbitration Court is to create an atmosphere of confidence in this country so that employers will expand their business and there will be more opportunities for employment. If this clause is amended, then the question is, will it give the employers that confidence so that they will expand their business and employ more people? Let us regard these two groups as human beings. We sometimes take sides. If you are workers, you naturally take the side of the workers. If you are employers, you take the side of the employers.

An hon. Member: Which side are you on?

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Sir, I am a paid man. In this particular case, the Government in a way are employers. When they drafted the Bill - and remember, this is a Government Bill - they balanced competing interests. With the help of their expert draftsman, they produced this Bill, and, all of a sudden amendments are made which show that they have retreated from their position.

3.15 p.m.

The Chairman: Order. I think the Member is probably going a bit too far from the amendment before the House, which is to amend the definition of "officer" in sub-clause (2) (a). Let us not go back to the whole principle of the Bill. Let us try and confine ourselves to this particular amendment.

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have to refer to the principle because this particular clause goes against that principle. By opening the door so that anybody and everybody could be brought in, it will bring into the field of trade disputes irresponsible people who might be interested in prolonging disputes, and, therefore, the object of creating an atmosphere which will promote industrial expansion would be lost. For that reason, Sir, if the Government feels that the paragraph could not be limited to a full-time secretary or assistant secretary, then it could amend it so that it could include a further class, such as their own legal officers or their own Industrial Relations Officers, without opening the gate to every Tom, Dick or Harry and every trouble-maker in Singapore.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, we are not objecting to this amendment at all. But what we fear is that the wording, as it is now, throws the gate wide open. We have already had experience of Political Secretaries being given leave to appear before a court to represent a trade union. I think what the Minister actually aims at is to see that a trade union can have any member of that trade union or a member of any other trade union of employees to come and help. If it is limited to a member of a trade union or a member of any other trade union of employees, then I think that could be understood by all. It is just that the trade union movement, as a whole, can be depended upon to come to the assistance of one union in regard to arbitration.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill is referring to the intervention of Political Secretaries in trade union affairs. May I remind him that the Political Secretaries he has in mind are Political Secretaries who are also members of trade unions? When they intervened, they intervened on behalf of their respective trade unions. That is exactly what can be done under the provisions of the amendment that we propose.

Amendment agreed to.

The Chairman: Is the Member moving his amendment?

[In page 26, to leave out lines 12 to 17 inclusive.]

Tun Lim Yew Hock: I am not moving, Sir.

Clause 62, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 63 and 64 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 65-

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to move,

In page 27, line 32, after "which", to insert "he knows".

Mr Speaker, a person who makes a statement to an officer is punishable if his statement is false or misleading. But it does sometimes happen that the statement which he makes is, according to his knowledge and belief, not false or misleading. Therefore, I think it but fair that you only punish a man who makes a false statement knowing it to be false.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, we must not try to place an undue burden on the prosecution to prove knowledge that the statement is false. Anybody who makes a statement to an official when he is inspecting premises - in this case the person who would be inspecting the premises in relation to a dispute would either be the President or a member who constitutes the Court, or a person authorised by the President - must ensure that he is careful in the statement that he makes. If he is negligent or careless, or if he does not give sufficient care and attention to his replies, I think he should be penalised. The question of knowledge and so on - that he did not know, and that he did not understand the question that was put - is one which he can very fairly put to the Court if he is charged with an offence. If the Court believes that, in fact, he did not know the question that he was asked, then it could be left to the Magistrate to acquit him. But I can see no reason why this extra burden should be placed on the prosecution, if proceedings are brought against a person for making a false statement under the provisions of this clause.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: In view of the explanation, may I beg leave to withdraw?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 65 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 66-

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

In page 27, line 45, at end, to add-

"(3) The decision of the Court upon a trade dispute or matter shall be given

within two weeks after the completion of the hearing of the dispute or matter or within such extended time as in special circumstances the Court considers to be required for the proper consideration of the dispute or matter.".

Mr Speaker, the purpose of this amendment is to avoid as far as possible delays in giving a decision.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 66, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 67 to 69 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 70-

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

In page 29, line 18, at end, to add-

"Provided that where evidence is taken in private a person representing a party to the proceedings shall have the right to be present unless the Court otherwise orders.".

Mr Speaker, this is to make clear that, in normal circumstances, representatives shall be present whenever evidence is taken in private. It is not to be expected that the contrary direction would be given save in very exceptional circumstances.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 70, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 71 to 76 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 77-

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

In page 32, line 20, at end, to add-

"Provided that it shall not be an offence for an employer to require as a condition of the appointment or promotion of a person to a managerial position that that person shall not continue to be an officer or member of a particular union.".

Mr Speaker, the Opposition Front Bench has charged that we have been very unfair in the amendments that we have made. They have said that we have given due regard to the representation of the unions of employees, but have paid very little attention to the representation of the employers. Mr Speaker, we are moving this amendment to clause 77 because of the representation we received from the employers. Clause 77 deals with the case where skilful employers hold out carrots in a general way before employees who seek ad vancement in their service. In the terms of clause 77, an employer is committing an offence if he says to an employee: "If you sever your connections with the union, I will in due course see to it that you are promoted to a superior post in my employment." That sort of inducement is penalised under this provision. But the employers said that under the terms of this clause, if they in fact genuinely wanted to promote anybody in their employ who is a member of a trade union to a superior post in their employment, they would still be committing an offence under this clause. That was a reasonable submission to make, and we have therefore provided in this proviso that where, in fact, an employer offers an employee a promotion, he can say to the employee that the condition of the promotion will be that he severs his connections with the union.

An hon. Member: Corruption!

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, that is not corruption. In Government service, in private employment and elsewhere, there is such a thing as management. We feel that it is quite improper, if a person wants to seek advancement to the position of management, that he should continue his association with any trade union movement, particularly in the position of a committee member of a union, because the functions of management are such that if the employer is to pay him for the services that he is to render in the position of management, it is essential that he severs his connections with the trade union to which he belongs. That is a reasonable request for the employers to make. It is for that reason that we are moving this amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 77, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

3.30 p.m.

Clause 78 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 79-

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

In page 33, lines 12 to 15, to leave out "not being a trade dispute as to which the President has signified his intention not to give a direction under section 28 of this Ordinance".

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is consequential on our amendment to clause 28.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 79, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 80 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 81-

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

In page 34, line 25, after "section", to insert "77,".

The purpose of this amendment is to make it necessary for prosecutions under section 77 to be instituted with the sanction of the State Advocate-General.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 81, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 82-

Question proposed, "That clause 82 stand part of the Bill."

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is intended that the question "That the clause stand part of the Bill" be negatived.

Mr Speaker, Sir, after further consideration by the Government, it was found that the provisions of this clause would cause embarrassment to the trade unions of employees.

I was very concerned to see in the memorandum of the employers that they urged the Government that not only should the officers who incited the go-slow or the work-to-rule be punishable under the provisions of this clause, but that all those who participated in the go-slow should also be punishable. They went on to say that the Trade Disputes Ordinance should be amended so that any go-slow would be considered to he an illegal strike.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we find that the amendments which have already been made to this Bill give the President of the Court of Arbitration sufficient powers to deal with situations where the provisions of awards are wilfully disregarded. In the circumstances, where a go-slow can be considered to be a breach of an award, it will be open to the President of the Court to proceed under clause 53 of the Bill. You will note, Mr Speaker, Sir, that clause 53 provides:

"The Court shall have power-

(a) to order compliance with an award proved to have been broken or not observed; and

(b) to enjoin a trade union or person from committing or continuing a contravention of any provision of this Ordinance or a breach or non-observance of an award."

So that if there is any evidence that an award is being disregarded, then the Court - in this case it will be the President - will summon those who are responsible and will make the order that the provisions of the award be obeyed and be carried out. If there is further wilful disregard of the Court's order, then the Court can proceed under the provisions of clause 54. As you will see, under the provisions of clause 54, the Court can fine the unions and it can also place the leaders of the union who are responsible for these activities under restriction against participation in union activities for a period of up to two years. We say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that there is already ample provision in this Bill for the Court to deal with such situations should they arise.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill had been described by the Opposition as a good Bill, because they were not fully aware at the time of the Second Reading that there had been proposals to negative this clause and the following clause. Sir, the Prime Minister has said that what the Government aims at achieving by this Bill is industrial stability, industrial peace and confidence. This particular clause has been inserted by the Government, and because it has been inserted, those people who have suffered the disadvantage of the go-slow policies of some trade unions in the past are relieved to learn that the Government is aware of this industrial pest in their midst and is making a genuine and honest effort to see to it that this industrial pest shall not rear its head again. I do not see any reason why this clause should be deleted when it is in regard to a breach of an award. If there has been no award, it is a different matter. The trade union can take whatever action it desires in order to achieve its aims to improve the conditions of employment of its members. But once an award has been given by the Court of Arbitration to which that trade union is a party, surely, for the confidence of the parties in the Court, it is necessary that any attempt to advise persons found by the Court not to be observing the award should be punishable. If the Government had not inserted this clause in, one could understand why they had felt that it was not necessary. But after having put it in in order to instil confidence in the public, to withdraw it at this juncture is going to shake the public's feeling of confidence in the Government's aim to achieve industrial stability and peace.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sorry that the confidence of the Member for Cairnhill has been badly shaken and that he was misled during the Second Reading. To my recollection, Sir, notice of these amendments was given before the Second Reading. If the Opposition leaders subsequently chose to say that, at the time when they were commenting on the principle of the Bill, they were unaware of the position of the Government, that surely is a matter for regret that they did not give the Order Paper and the Notices of Amendments to the Bill the consideration which they warranted.

Sir, I do not want to go into the rather long-winded argument as to how confidence was first created and then shaken by the withdrawal of this clause. All I want to do is to explain briefly why we accepted the arguments put forward by a committee consisting of many union representatives, to delete clauses 82 and 83

One of the principles on which this Bill was based is a balance of interests and balance of responsibilities, duties and punishments. There is already sufficient power under clause 54 for the Court to see that its awards are honoured. and to impose penalties on the unions and union leaders if the terms of an award were to be flouted. Clauses 82 and 83 deal specifically only with unions of employees, because it did not occur to the human mind that employers can go-slow. Employers either lock-out or they close down altogether. Therefore, the unions argued that clauses 82 and 83 were, in effect, an extra penalty against unions for being unions. I would just like to point this out to Members on the other side - that, as drafted, clauses 54 and 55 can adequately deal with the situation where union officers are flouting the terms of an award by going slow. I am quite sure that the Member for Farrer Park, if he applies himself to the wording of clause 54 as now amended - penalties on trade union leaders for flouting an order for compliance by the Court - will see that there is sufficient scope there to ensure compliance by punishment, if compliance is, in fact, negatived by a go-slow.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: But, Sir, the punishment is going to be meted out to those persons who listen to the agitator coming along and saying, "You should not do this and you should not do that." It is not the agitator only who will himself be punished, but also the persons who are foolish enough to listen to him will be punished.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker. Sir, the Member for Cairnhill, I think, has paid very little attention to what I have just said. I draw his attention to the provisions of clause 53. When there is evidence that an award is being disregarded, what the Court would do is to send for - in the case of a trade union of employees - the leaders of the trade union who the Court thinks are responsible for the breach of the award. It would then take evidence, and if it was satisfied that there was a wilful disregard of the award, it could make an order that the terms of the award be carried out by the union of employees. If there was a disregard of the order of the Court, then the Court could proceed to punish as in clause 54, that is, to fine and to place the leaders under a restriction. The persons who would be bound by the order of the Court would be the persons who were summoned before the Court and who were ordered by the Court specifically to carry out the terms of the award. That order clearly would not apply to the other committee members of the union who knew nothing about the matter. So I cannot see the point of what the Member for Cairnhill has just said.

3.45 p.m.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, does not clause 82 take in the person who goes and encourages them to go slow? Clause 54 only deals with officers of the union who do not comply with the award. I think the gentleman who should be dealt with more severely is the gentleman who is outside the union but goes along and incites them to go slow.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, we are now delving into niceties and intricacies. I think it is by implication admitted by the Member that the powers of enforcement are there, and that is basically what we want to achieve. If by the deletion of clauses 82 and 83 we deprive the Court of the powers of enforcement, then I would say we are departing from a point of major principle. By debating whether or not we should so draft the clause as to get the man who may not have been brought before the Court, who has incited them, and who is not an officer of the union, then I say, by implication, it is admitted that there are sufficient powers in clauses 53, 54 and 55 to compel compliance. That basically is what we intended to do. The reason why clauses 82 and 83 were agreed to be deleted from the Bill was that there was no similar provision for employers because, by the nature of things, they cannot go slow but the employees can. Therefore, having to hold the scales against competing interests, we decided, since there was no competing interest on the other side which would merit similar or commensurate punishment, to delete clauses 82 and 83.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of information. As the debate has been on clause 83 as well, I would like to point out that what is mentioned in clause 83, that is, union activity in working time, really does not form part of this Bill. It has got nothing to do with collective agreements as such or the course of arbitration. That weighed considerably when a decision was made that the provisions of that clause be deleted.

Mr Thio Chan Bee rose -

The Chairman: Is the hon. Member going to speak on clause 82 or 83?

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Clause 82, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, do I understand from the Hon, the Prime Minister that clause 82 has become superfluous, because the powers are provided for in clauses 53 and 54?

The Prime Minister: The niceties of the argument which were advanced by the Member for Farrer Park should, I think, convey to the Member for Tanglin that the clauses do not exactly duplicate themselves. They are slightly distinct. Clause 82 deals specifically with situations where there is a go-slow. Clause 54 deals with general situations. Unlike clause 82, a person to be punished under clause 54 must be a member of a trade union of persons that is continuing a contravention of any provision of this Ordinance, or committing a breach of non-observance of an award. If one of the ways in which an award is being defeated is by a go-slow, then the officers who have incited the go-slow, the leaders and maybe some of the men, or the shop stewards may be called up before the Court and warned in the, first instance. Subsequently, if there is a breach, then clause 54 springs into operation and there is contempt of court, and the penalties come into being. All that I wanted to draw the attention of the Members of the House to is this, that if it is complained that by the deletion of this clause 82 we are, in fact, making awards unenforceable because the unions can flout them by going slow, then I accept the stricture that they have passed. But if it is conceded that all that we are doing is to hold the balance between unions and employers by not putting in a special provision for the-punishment of unions for going slow, when we cannot put in a similar provision for punishing employers for going slow, then I say there is no point in carrying this debate any further.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, in addition to what the Prime Minister has just said, I should like to draw a distinction between the procedure in clause 82 and the procedure in clauses 53 and 54. You will see, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the punishment for go-slow is the punishment (as clause 82 stands) which is meted out by the ordinary Court - the District Court. It is our view that this sort of punishment should be handled by the Court which makes the award. But under the procedure in clauses 53 and 54, it is the Court of Arbitration which makes the award and which also supervises the execution or the carrying out of that award. If there is to be a punishment, it is but fair (if the punishment is to be meted out on a charge that the award is wilfully disregarded) that the power to inflict that punishment should be in the hands of the Court which makes the award. If you bring it before the ordinary Courts, they may not be aware of the circumstances which led to the award, and it will be unduly penalising the unions if we allow this clause to stand.

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Mr Speaker. Sir, we are interested in seeing that, when the Arbitration Court makes an award, it will be enforceable on both sides and respected by both sides. Then only can we have industrial peace. Therefore, Sir, we felt very perturbed because we thought that if these provisions were negatived, then it would mean that the award would be practically unenforceable.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, there is one thing for which Government cannot be responsible, and that is the feebleness of comprehension of those who are expected to apply themselves to these matters.

Question put, and negatived.

Clause 82 accordingly disagreed to.

Clause 83-

Question proposed, "That clause 83 stand part of the Bill."

The Chairman: Does the Minister wish to add anything further?

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have nothing further to add to what I have already said.

Question put, and negatived.

Clause 83 accordingly disagreed to.

Clauses 84 and 85 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 86-

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

In page 36, line 8, to leave out "two years" and insert "eighteen months".

I have already explained the reason for this amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 86, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 87 and 88 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4-

The Chairman: We have a postponed clause. It is clause 4. There is an amendment moved by the Member for Farrer Park:

In page 3, lines 27 and 28, to leave out "not be deemed to be a public servant but" and insert "be deemed to be a public servant and".

The Question before the Assembly was, "That the words proposed to be left-out, be left out.'

The Prime Minister: I think the point which troubled the Member for Farrer Park is that the clause, as drafted, would enable the Minister to appoint a Member of this Assembly. Since he would not be deemed to be a public servant, the argument was that he might continue to be a Member of the Assembly. I had not paid sufficient attention to the formula used, but I have since inquired from the legal draftsman, and I am informed that the way in which it was drafted would make it quite clear that if a Member of this Assembly should be appointed to the post of President, then he would automatically vacate his seat as a Member of the Assembly. Further, the reason for the emphasis that he shall not be deemed to be a public servant is to take it out of the Public Service Commission. Otherwise, there would be considerable argument as to whether or not the appointment to this office is covered by the general provisions in the Constitution which require all public officers to go before the Public Service Commission.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, the only point which troubled me about this clause was that anybody who is in Government service is a public officer. Anybody who is paid from the funds of the Government is a public officer. If the Prime Minister assures the House that from that point of view the President of the Court will continue to be a public officer just like the High Court Judges (High Court Judges are not public officers for the purposes of only a certain part of the Constitution, but in respect of other matters, they continue to be public officers) and if the Government say that that is the intention and that they will carry it out, then I have nothing further to add. That is the only difficulty.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Farrer Park has, I think, overlooked the provisions of the Constitution, where "public service" includes "service ... after the appointed day ... under the Government of Singapore, or service as a Judge of the Supreme Court." The provisions of the Constitution lay down that all public offices must be filled through recruitment through the Public Service Commission. It is only for that purpose that the Judges of the Supreme Court are deemed not to hold public office. But they are in the public service. We have got to so provide that the President of the Arbitration Court is not deemed to be a public servant if we want to shut out the provisions of the Constitution with regard to his recruitment; because clause 3 (1) of the Bill indicates the manner of his recruitment, that is, he will be appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara after consultation with the Prime Minister. To give effect to that intention, we have had to use these words, that he "shall not be deemed to be a public servant". That is all there is to it.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish the Minister for Labour and Law would not try and pooh-pooh my objection, it is a very genuine objection that I am taking. According to the Constitution, a Judge is not a public servant for the purposes of Part IX of the Constitution. In every other part he is a public servant and in the public service. Section 75 of the Constitution reads:

"Except for the purposes of sections 83, 84 and 85 of this Order, and except where the context otherwise requires, in the interpretation of this Part of this Order-".

That is Part IX. In so far as this Part is concerned, the office of a Judge of the Supreme Court is excluded, merely because that appointment should not go to the Public Service Commission. It is only from that point of view. But as drafted in this Bill, it would appear that for all purposes he is not a public servant. Section 42 of the Constitution says:

"(1) Every Member of the Assembly shall cease to be a Member at the next dissolution of the Assembly after he has been elected, or previously thereto if his seat becomes vacant under the provisions of this Order.

(2) The seat of a Member shall become vacant -

(c) if he is appointed to or to act in any public office;".

Without this section, Sir, if a Member of this House were appointed to the post of President of' this Arbitration Court, then he would have to leave the Assembly: but with clause 4 as it stands, I am afraid that he need not have to resign his seat. That is as I read it, Sir, If my reading of that is incorrect, let the Minister for Labour and Law say it. If he will assure the House that that was not the intention of the Government and that the Government will not do that, then I am satisfied, But I do not want to be made a fool of by the Minister for Law.

The Prime Minister: What I have indicated to the Member for Farrer Park is that the legal draftsman, who is an expert in these matters, and on whom the Government must rely, has given us the assurance that the clause, as drafted, would automatically cause any Member of the Assembly to resign his seat if he were appointed. While I myself had not gone through the intricacies of the argument, I would suggest to the Member for Farrer Park that whilst we can, in the Order in Council, make an exclusion in certain parts of that Order in Council with respect to Judges, we cannot in this legislation get out of the comprehensive terms of the Order in Council unless we say that the President of the Arbitration Court is not a public servant. To leave the matter in any doubt whatsoever means that the over-riding provisions of the Constitution prevail and that the person is deemed to be a public servant, that this is a public office and it must go to the Public Service Commission.

4.00 p.m.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, might I suggest that that difficulty could quite easily be got over by putting in a proviso:

"Provided that this appointment shall not go to the Public Service Commission",

or something to that effect?

The Prime Minister: The Ordinance cannot over-ride the general terms of the Order in Council. I am advised that if there is any doubt whatsoever, that if it is deemed to be a public office and the incumbent is deemed to be a public servant, we cannot shut out the over-riding powers of the provisions of the Constitution by saying, "But, nevertheless, it shall not go to the Public Service Commission," because the Constitution overrides the Ordinance.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New clause-

The following amendment stood in the name of Tun Lim Yew Hock - "Directive "Where the Minister is of the to Com- opinion-missioner. (a) upon receiving a notification under section 18 or 20 of this Ordinance that it is unlikely that conciliation or further conciliation will assist the parties concerned to reach agreement; or (b) that the conference directed by him under section 21 of this Ordinance has failed to assist the parties concerned to reach agreement, he shall direct the Commissioner to notify the Registrar that a trade dispute exists.".

Tun Lim Yew Hock: My new clause is consequent upon my amendment to paragraph (b) of clause 28, and as that paragraph has been left out, there is no purpose in moving the new clause.

The Chairman: Consequential amendments will be made where necessary.

Schedule-

Question, "That the Schedule stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Schedule accordingly disagreed to.

Clause 2-

The Chairman: We are now back to clause 2. Under the provisions of Standing Order 71(11) , which reads:

"After all clauses and schedules have been gone through, any Member may, with the leave of the Chairman, move an amendment to a clause or schedule already passed, provided that the amendment is made necessary by an amendment made to any other clause or schedule."

The first point that arose on clause 2 was on the definition of "trade union". The term "trade union" means "a trade union of workmen or employers registered under any written law for the time being in force relating to the registration of trade unions." I understood that the Minister wished to alter the word "workmen" to read "employees".

Mr Byrne: That is so. Sir, I beg to move,

In page 3, line 9, to leave out "workmen" and insert "employees".

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7-

The Chairman: The next point that arose was on clause 7 regarding consequential amendments which have been made to other clauses. Will the Minister move formally the two amendments standing in his name?

Mr Byrne: Yes, Sir.

Amendments made:

In page 5, line 24, to leave out "an order made under".-[Mr Byrne].

In page 5, line 25, to leave out "56" and insert "54".-[Mr Byrne].

Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported with amendments: read the Third time and passed.