EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, equal pay for equal work is the heart-throb of every trade unionist, and wherever workers get organised this call is taken up and repeated from time to time. In Singapore the demand for equal pay for equal work by women teachers and women in other professions in the Government service dates back many, many years. And political Parties join in the fight. The S.P.A. too stands for parity for women. This is a very important issue and the Government's acceptance of the principle of equal pay for equal work is one which we welcome and support.

Mr David Marshall: Hear, hear!

Tun Lim Yew Hock: We accuse the Government, however, of insincerity, of playing party politics and of using this apparent acceptance as a vote-catching device. We accuse the Government of insincerity. If it were sincere, why should it delay full implementation until 1965? And why should new women recruits be engaged at the starting point of the scales for women? Why 1965, when the natural life of the Government will come to an end by May 1964? Why 1965, when equal pay for equal work was one of its election pledges? We accuse the Government of playing party politics. And we base our accusation on the fact that the Minister for Finance made known the Government's acceptance of this principle through pre-arranged correspondence with the Women Affairs Bureau of the P.A.P.

Mr David Marshall: Hear, hear!

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Whereas equal pay for equal work is a long-standing demand of Government trade unions. I would not like to say, Sir, that, because the Singapore Teachers' Union is not under the control of the P.A.P. that was why this Union was conveniently brushed aside in this manner. I cannot help but recall that in the partial restoration of the pay cuts, the Minister for Finance made full use of the Amalgamated Union of Public Employees through their Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture. Unfortunately for the P.A.P., this political stunt resulted in the disgrace and exposure of the A.U.P.E., because what the A.U.P.E., through the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture, was prepared to accept was thrown out by the gathering momentum of resentment of the large number of civil servants who belong to other trade unions which look upon the A.U.P.E. as the biggest yellow union. Why is the Women Affairs Bureau of the P.A.P, used in this particular instance? Is it because the scheme is so insincere and that the P.A.P.'s Women Affairs Bureau can be relied upon to keep mum? As a Member of this Assembly, I insist that the proper place to make such an important pronouncement is in this Chamber, and the political stunt indulged in by the Minister for Finance in this regard is to be thoroughly condemned. We accuse the Government of using this apparent acceptance of the principle of equal pay for equal work as a vote-catching device. The people know that the P.A.P. as a Government and as a political Party is dead.

Mr David Marshall: Hear, hear!

Tun Lim Yew Hock: And they are waiting impatiently to do the burial service when general elections take place.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: For the S.P.A., is it not?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Although the natural life of the Government extends to May 1964, the P.A.P. cannot hope to last that long and they know that general elections will be sooner than they like. Therefore, the P.A.P. are desperate and must make full use of -

Dr Goh Keng Swee: The Barisan.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: - the opportunity while they are still in office to cash in on vote-catching devices. Women voters form half the electorate of Singapore, and so parity for women will provide the draw they hope.

Mr Rajaratnam: The Member for Mountbatten had better watch out!

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Three years of P.A.P. misrule have caused great hardship to the people of Singapore, and it is the women who suffer the most. It is the mothers and wives of the unemployed and the under-employed who suffer more than the men themselves.

The Prime Minister: You are doing better than you were doing before, you know.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Do the P.A.P. hope in this way to make out that they are the staunch champions of women's rights? Can, they explain, if they are staunch champions of women's rights, why they have refused to allow 8th March to be celebrated as Women's Day? Such celebrations [Laughter] - the Minister for Finance may laugh - were allowed to be held even during the reprehensible colonial days -

Dr Goh Keng Swee: And the Lim Yew Hock Government days.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: - and during the time of the previous Government.

The Prime Minister: You embarrassing yourself, you know.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, I have raised this matter on the Adjournment in order to make it clear to the Minister that the place to make any important pronouncement is here, and that he should refrain from indulging in playing political stunts in, matters of this character.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I will not take very much time, Sir. The P.A.P. has degenerated so much that even its new-found allies have to attack it.

This proposal of equal pay for equal work, as everybody knows, is a very insincere vote-catching device of the P.A.P. They know that all the women in Singapore as well as women all over the world have been campaigning for equal pay for equal work. And just when Women's Day was about to come along, they took the opportunity to send special letters to the Women's Bureau of the P.A.P. and announced to the whole of Singapore that now they intend to treat women equally.

As has already been divulged by the Member for Cairnhill -

The Prime Minister: Are you a staunch supporter?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - this is a belated effort of the P.A.P. because it was originally a P.A.P. election promise.

Mr Rajaratnam: We have kept our promise.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The whole idea at the present moment is to buy votes. That it was really a sudden impulse and not a thought-out effort on the part of the P.A.P. to give equal treatment to the women can be seen from the fact that the Minister for Finance does not even know how much money is involved in their effort to please the women in the civil service.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: What makes you think I do not know?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: If it were really known, it would have been mentioned in the debate on the Budget. But no such thing was mentioned. Even today the Minister for Finance does not know how much money is involved. This completely shows what a sudden impulse it is.

We agreed this is a very good effort, although belated, because this is another step forward towards the emancipation of women. But the only unfortunate part is, as has already been pointed out by the Member for Cairnhill, if they are really sincere about the whole thing, then how is it that they do not recognise 8th March as Women's Day? I remember in the heydays when the P.A.P. was popular, the present Minister for Home Affairs himself led a delegation to see the then Chief Minister about Women's Day. At that time the P.A.P. wanted the 8th of March to be proclaimed as Women's Day as well as a public holiday. But unfortunately they have now changed their minds. So how can they really be sincere about their intention to help the women in our society?

At the present moment, one must remember that there is this merger proposal of the P.A.P. and the forthcoming referendum. So the P.A.P., knowing that their days are numbered and hoping to push through their merger proposals all the same, want to make sure that they gain as much support as they can. But let us remind the P.A.P. leaders: while they say they are trying to help one section of the people, they are also trying to mask the fact that they are in fact selling out the rights of all the people of Singapore. And in their helping the women in the civil service at the present moment, they are only helping a small section of the women of Singapore. The really deserving cases, the poor who really need all the help from the P.A.P., have yet to get any support and help from the P.A.P. And we with that they will see -

The Prime Minister: You are even reading his script now, is it not?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - about this matter. Yes, this is written by the Prime Minister of Singapore, Sir.

Mr Chan Chee Seng: Dr Lee Siew Choh.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: There is another matter that I would like to bring to the attention of this House. At the present moment, the P.A.P., knowing that they will have hardly any hopes in any future general elections, are now trying to do all the best things they can. They want to do all the things that they can do, all the things that appeal to the people, and ignore all the really important and difficult tasks. For example, they want to build houses. Every time they open a school, it is advertised in all the papers. They want everybody to know about it. When they build a standpipe, it again is in the papers. And again they want everybody to know about it. All these are simple things which can be seen and can appeal to the people. They want to make sure that they have some results to show to the people when the time comes. But the really difficult tasks like industrialisation, the education policy, and the unemployment problem - what are they doing about them? They do not seem to know what to do.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: So?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: So they ignore the important tasks which will help to improve the lot of the people and instead do things which they know are insincere, and are not meant to help the people.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng rose -

Mr Speaker: Only three minutes.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Mr Speaker, Sir, as one who has been fighting for equal pay, I am very glad to hear that the Government is implementing the principle of equal pay for equal work for women at last. But I am disappointed that the years of struggle, the years of appeal by myself, the struggle by professional women associations and the Teachers' Union have all been ignored. All of a sudden, from nowhere, out of the blue, the Chairman of the Women's Section of the P.A.P. said in a memorandum - and there you are, it was granted. Everybody can judge what it is. There is no need for me to describe it. But what I want to draw the attention of the Minister to is this. The fact that the Government have accepted this means that they have the money. I would like to remind the Minister of the injustice that is still being perpetrated by the Government concerning the pay cuts. If they find that they have the money, they should correct this injustice. When the restoration of the pay cuts was made, it was said that it was a result of the closer relationship with the Federation. May I inquire whether this equal pay is also a result of closer relationship with the Federation?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a story in Aesop's Fables about a fox. The fox tried to eat some grapes, but after jumping for them several times, it did not succeed in getting at the grapes and eating them. So the fox went away saying that the grapes were sour. Right across this Table, Mr Speaker, Sir, we see, so to speak, a bunch of foxes.

An hon. Member: A vixen!

Dr Goh Keng Swee: A vixen. It is quite inappropriate for one former Chief Minister to say the grapes are sour. Why did he not do it - this vote-catching? And another former Chief Minister saying, "Hear, hear!" They had their chance when they were in control of the Government, Mr Speaker, Sir. All these women professional associations, this, that and the other appealed for years. They listened to their voice which went unheeded in, the desert air -

Tun Lim Yew Hock: On a point of explanation.

Dr Goh Keng Swee remained standing. Mr Speaker: Order. The Minister has very little time in which to reply.

Dr Goh Keng Swee resumed his seat.

Mr Speaker: He has given away.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: During the time of the two ex-Chief Ministers, finance was in the hands of a colonial master and he was the man who said "yes" or "no", and not the Chief Minister.

The Prime Minister: Poor chaps. You were stooges.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, this is a ghastly admission that the Government could not tell the Financial Secretary what to do. I mean this is just a feeble excuse and a pretext. The two foxes in this instance never even attempted the jump. Sir, let us not be so stupid as to say that this is a vote catching stunt. There is no general election round the corner.

Mr David Marshall: On a point of order. If the Minister cannot speak without abuse, I suggest he does not speak at all. I take objection to the word "fox". I take objection to the word "stupid".

Mr Speaker: I think probably the Member for Anson is a bit too late in taking objection to the word "fox". It was used five minutes ago. But as regards the word "stupid", I think that is a very laudable parliamentary word in certain circumstances and has been used, I think, very often by Members of the Opposition Benches.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I am rather surprised that the Member for Anson should raise an objection. I mean, Sir, you must allow me to say that he has a very rich vocabulary -

Mr Speaker: Order. In fact, the Chair has more or less indicated that that is so. The Member for Anson has a very rich vocabulary. But I do not think the Minister for Finance should debate that.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: So, Sir, we will dismiss all these allegations of vote-catching with the contempt that they deserve.

Then they say, why announce this thing in a letter to the P.A.P. Women's League? Why not write, for instance, to the Singapore Teachers' Union, the professional women's association and so forth? The reason is quite simple. On the 3rd November, the Women's Affairs Bureau of the Party sent a memorandum to me and, indeed, sent a delegation to see me about this matter. From November to March we had to do some pretty rapid calculation of what would be the consequences of implementing the proposals that they set out in their memorandum. I do not think we have been too dilatory about this. The simple fact of the matter is that from November to March the researches that my Ministry conducted showed that it is financially possible immediately to implement this policy of equal pay for equal work. The Member for Queenstown was foolish enough to say that we had made no such calculations. In fact, we did. If it might interest him, the cost of this exercise for the next three years, after which the female salary scales would be abolished - it has been worked out in close detail - amounts to this. This year we will spend an additional $395,000. Next year we will spend an additional $92,000, and the year after $404,000. After that, further additional increments the full effect of which will span the whole salary scales in the occupations affected. So it is quite untrue to say that this decision came about by way of a sudden impulse. We clearly stated in our election campaign that the Party, if elected to power, would carry out the policy of equal pay for equal work. Indeed, if I may be permitted to quote the actual text of the speech made by Madam Chan Choy Siong on 8th March, 1959, when she spoke on behalf of the Party at a pre-election rally at Bukit Panjang:

`There is no place in a socialist society for exploitation of women. The PAP, believes in the principle of equal pay for equal work. This may not be possible immediately. It must he achieved step by step without dislocating our economy.'.

And the present policy that we are now implementing is just the fulfilment of a pledge that we made before the electorate in March 1959.

As I have said, although we announced this policy of equal pay for equal work in reply to a memorandum received from the P.A.P. Women's League, we do not intend to disregard the efforts and campaigns of other women's organisations. They made their representations in the past. Unfortunately, these appeals fell on stony ground and bore no fruit. But I am sure the Member for Mountbatten, for instance, could hardly expect us to announce this new policy to such associations as have never made representations to us on this point at all.

Now, one surprising thing about this issue is that, strange to behold, the Barisan Sosialis, the Workers' Party and the U.P.P. have joined together.

An hon. Member: Not necessarily the Barisan!

Dr Goh Keng Swee: As I have said, this is just a question of sour grapes. The foxes cannot get the grapes and so they say the grapes are sour. May I suggest to the foxes that the next thing they should do is to cut off their tails?

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, Sir, the gentleman who has just referred to all of us as foxes is unfortunately too churlish to recognise the contribution of the Member for Mountbatten in persuading him to come to his fox-like decision. Let us recognise in this House that it is the Member for Mountbatten who is no member of my Party, nor any ally of mine, who has persistently and consistently pressed for this matter, who has been asking questions since I remember being in this Assembly, questions which were evaded in a most pathetic fashion by the Minister's Ministry and his Parliamentary Secretary. It is a matter of shame for the Minister, if he is capable of shame, that he should be incapable of recognising the contribution of the Member for Mountbatten to his coming to his decision in this matter. He should also recognise that it was in answer to persistent questions here that he suddenly found it valuable to direct his mind to some petition that came from a women's organisation of the P.A.P. - bless their little hearts! And he cannot recognise that it is to this House, and this House principally, -

Dr Goh Keng Swee rose -

Mr Speaker: On a point of order?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: On a point of information.

Mr David Marshall: If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, he has had plenty of time. I have very little. He has used his time in order to abuse us, to call us foxes and stupid. Where it is a question of measuring stupidity, measuring malice, measuring a lack of respect for one's political opponents, I know where the weight would be. But I say here and now that I am more than a little ashamed that the Minister for Finance of this country cannot at least give a little credit to a political opponent who did a magnificent job in egging him and prodding him on, and that because she is not a member of his Party -

The Question having been proposed at Eight o'clock p.m., and the time appointed for the termination of the sitting (half-past Eight o'clock p.m.) having arrived, Mr Speaker adjourned the Assembly without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Eight o'clock p.m.