UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE SCHEME (Debate on Ministerial Statement)

Mr David Marshall: If it please you, Mr Speaker. Sir, the question arose in all good faith as a result of a question I had asked, which was tabled and answered on the 29th November - 3½ months ago in this very House. The question then was to the Minister for Labour asking whether the Government would consider tabling a White Paper on the Report of the Committee on Minimum Standards of Livelihood (Cmd. Paper No. 5 of 1957) and the Report to the Government of Singapore on Social Security Measures (Cmd. Paper No. 56 of 1957), and whether the Minister for Labour would indicate what measures Government had in mind for the session in the fields of social security and Unemployment. We received a reply from the Parliamentary Secretary -

Mr Speaker: Order. Perhaps I had better explain the procedure because I see that the Minister for Finance is making notes. He will not have an opportunity of replying. Another Minister will have to do that. There is no opportunity to reply in a motion for the adjournment. I just want to make it quite clear.

Mr David Marshall: The reply to this question was made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour. Sir, though we do not have the Hansard, I am taking the liberty of quoting from the preliminary draft which is sent to Members in which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour on the 29th of November last said:

`The unions and employers will be asked for joint discussions and the Government hopes that after a thorough exchange of views, agreement can be reached on unemployment insurance as the first step to a more comprehensive social security scheme.'

In answer to a further question, he said:

`Mr Speaker, Sir, as far as consultations between union leaders and the Government are concerned, they have taken place, but not discussions between Government and the employers yet.'

In answer to a further supplementary question, he said:

`As I have said just now, Mr Speaker, Sir, Government hopes, through discussions with the parties concerned, i.e., employers and unions, that it will be able to find a basis of introducing the social security scheme.'

And when I inquired when it was anticipated that these discussions would be held, he said:

`Of course. Mr Speaker, Sir, as soon as the Minister feels it is convenient to look into this matter.'

So, Mr Speaker, it was not with a view to inviting any controversy but with a view to eliciting facts which we were legitimately entitled and led to by the replies from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour. Now I gather - and I trust that it is not correct - that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour has led this House up the garden path with completely false statements. I should hate to think that was true, Mr Speaker, but in fact that is a necessary inference from the statements that you heard from the Minister ;for Finance who told you that through 1960 and January 1961, that is, up to 14 months ago, discussions had been held; but since then conscious of the attitude of the dreadful devils in the trade union movement, Government intends to take no further steps except in order to make it known to the people. The plague carrying rat was - since the Prime Minister seeks to remind me - specifically directed to a gentleman by the name of Mr Devan Nair who then assisted the Prime Minister who led a most vicious campaign of an extraordinary character, as it was unconstitutional in fact. That was the plague carrying rat.

Now if we may go back to a very serious matter, Sir, the social security for [Interruption] - must the Prime Minister press me to be discourteous directly?

Now, Sir, if we may go back. We are dealing with a vast number of our people, Sir, possibly a larger number - and we are entitled to have at least the facts. If the Government did in truth take a decision last year, that we are not going to pursue this matter any more, then how, Sir, I ask, is it that they authorised - because I am quite sure, knowing the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour, that he would not take it upon himself to make a false statement. He is incapable of evolving one of his character. How did they authorise the Parliamentary Secretary to make an extraordinary statement to this House that discussions would be held with the parties concerned, i.e, employers and unions, and Government hoped that it would be able to find a basis of introducing a social security scheme? There is an expression of a firm intention and an expression of a legitimate hope, and that it would take place as soon as the Minister finds this convenient.

Sir, I am interested in the facts. I do want to know from the Minister whether, in fact, he now repudiates the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour; whether he repudiates the information that Government has any hope of achieving social security measures; whether he repudiates the suggestion that there will be discussions between the Government and employers, and whether we are in fact to give up all hope that there will be social security measures so long as this Government is in office, because as far as I can gather, he says that when we are in heaven, we can all have manna. Well, thank you very much. But what about now? Are we to give up all hope now? Sir, it is not for me to defend those who were in part responsible for some of the most agonising moments during the time when I was sitting opposite. But I would like to say this. Though I recognise that there are in truth and in fact persons in the trade union movement who are prepared to take advantage of the workers for political purposes -

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): The Communists.

Mr David Marshall: I have never had proof, Sir. If I did, I give you my word that I would have put them into Changi Gaol without hesitation. But I never had adequate proof from those on whom I had to depend and that was my Chief Secretary who was in charge of the Police and who received the reports. I had no proof that Lim Ching Siong was a Communist at any time, and I made direct inquiries. So if the interruptions can now be left aside. Let us go back to the main issue. I consider it cynical and pathetic on the part of the Government to make the suggestion that there are trade unionists who do not seek the welfare of the workers. That I do not believe. That they may seek the wrong methods, Sir, I do believe. That there are some who seek the wrong methods, it is perfectly true. That there are some who seek to take advantage and bring about momentary chaos, it is perfectly true. But that there is any trade union at all amongst the leaders of the trade union movement, whether of individual unions or the movement as a whole, who do not seek the general welfare of the people is rubbish.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): They captured your Party!

Mr David Marshall: It is rubbish. They have captured my Party, but nobody can capture me!

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): They captured your Party in K.L.!

Some hon. Members: In K.L.!

Mr David Marshall: Sir, I do hope that this frivolity, which seems a disease which follows the Government everytime it is in a position of acute embarrassment.. will at least pass in order to let us discuss with gravity a very grave issue. And that is the issue of social security for our people. If in truth and in fact there is a plan whereby we can be of assistance, and the Government has a plan and there is no administrative difficulty, then I do ask the Government - why do they not present it to the Assembly and let us see for ourselves, instead of having vague allegations from the Government Benches about the evil fork-tailed gentlemen who sit opposite? Let us see them proved that they are fork-tailed gentlemen by rejecting the provisions of measures and' laws which are for the welfare of our people. It does matter to me whether, in fact, the social security measures the Government has in mind would be adequate. I say we must take a step forward now. I do plead that this issue be treated with gravity, that the internecine warfare between the husband' and the wife who have recently divorced does not obscure the welfare of our people, and that this issue be treated, on its merits. And if there are measures which can be implemented now for the welfare of the helpless unemployed, then those measures should be introduced and the Opposition and the people of Singapore be given an opportunity to indicate whether, in fact, they will support the Government.

Mr S. T. Bani (Thomson): Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want briefly to deal with one or two points that the Minister for Finance has dealt with in his statement. First of all, lest there should be misunderstanding, I wish to make it clear that, as far as I myself and my colleagues in the trade union movement are concerned, we will not only support in principle any social security scheme -

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): Contributory.

Mr Bani: But also in practice. As to the merits or demerits of the proposal made by the Minister for Finance during the discussions that were held early last year, I shall deal with them in due course.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): When? After you have consulted the Boss?

Mr Bani: Sir, first of all, it is necessary to understand what was the background when the discussions on the so-called social security scheme were conducted. Sir,I am sure that it is vivid in all our memory that sometime at the beginning of 1961, the Minister for Finance sent a memorandum to the then T.U.C. entitled, I believe,"Industrialisation". This memorandum was considered by the T.U.C. and the reply to it was also published in the local papers. It was in the process of a sub-committee meeting which was subsequently set up to consider these two memoranda that the question of a social security scheme was first raised by the Government. Sir, the members of this Committee, besides the four of us named who represented the trade unions, were the Minister for Finance on the Government side, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Mr James Puthucheary, the ther Manager of the Singapore Industrial Promotion Board.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): Now adviser to the Barisan Sosialis!

Mr Bani: Sir, the discussions were started primarily to agree on a stable sector, i.e., a sector where long-term collective agreements could be drawn up and where the Government thought industrial peace must prevail. To make this proposition attractive, the Minister proposed a social security scheme. The basic quality of this social security scheme' was that it should be confined only to this sector. This sector, the so-called stable sector, referred to all pioneer. industries and certain other industries which had limited export markets. Sir, we who were in the Committee were representing the T.U.C. of which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture was Secretary-General and Mr Devan Nair, Mr Ow Kheng Tor and the Member for Kallang were Secretaries. Here, I would like to make it clear that if the four of us expressed our dissatisfaction with the details of the social security scheme proposed by the Minister, it was not because the Communists did not like the social security scheme, but because it was the decision of the T.U.C. in which, as I have said, there were notorious P.A.P. henchmen, like some I have mentioned. As I have said, Sir, it was in this context that the social security scheme was proposed. Our attitude was that we supported this scheme in principle. We supported the need to have a social security scheme. In the first place, we said it must be an extensive scheme so that all sectors of our economy were covered. Secondly, we said that in our view, the workers were overburdened with contributions to the C.P.F. and other local provident fund schemes which various employers were having. Therefore, if the workers were expected to contribute, then it would not be acceptable to the unions. We suggested that contributions to this scheme be made by employers and the Government. Sir, unfortunately, I do not have at the moment the records of these meetings. I do not have the papers with me, but I am sure if the Minister for Finance would like to be fair he would agree that towards the end -

The Prime Minister rose -

Mr Speaker: On a point of order?

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): Sir, on a point of elucidation before the Member sits down.

Mr Bani resumed his seat.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): Could he just tell us at what particular meeting, because there were records kept of every meeting which took place, at which he made the suggestion that the Government and the employers should contribute and the workers should not. Could he indicate which meeting?

Mr Bani: I cannot remember offhand on what date and at what time the suggestion was made, but -

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): You never did.

Mr Bani: - as I have said, the Committee was composed of seven people and I am quite certain I could get six people to swear on oath and say that this was the case. The Minister for Finance knows full well that this .was one of our primary objections to the scheme that he had in mind. I am sure that if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture refers to the minutes of the T.U.C., then he ought to get sufficient evidence to give to the Minister and the Prime Minister for checking the statement.

Sir, the Minister for Finance was trying to give the impression that there was the Government - all reasonable and nice and on the side of the workers - who wanted to introduce a good scheme for the workers and that we opposed it. This, in fact, is inaccurate. At the moment, whether or not it is possible to discuss with the unions a social security scheme depends on the attitude of the Government to the unions. The discussions of this Committee were held, I believe, sometime in January 1961. As we know, a few months after January 1961, the T.U.C. was dissolved. I think it is wrong for the Minister to suggest that this Committee met and agreed to support the social security scheme in principle and that he had waited long, because the T.U.C. was not given the opportunity to sort out things and carry out the work for which it was reconstituted in early 1960. Sir, at the moment, whether it is possible or not depends on the Government. We have all the time maintained that in order to have a stable sector to work out long-term agreements and to have, in the first place proper consultations with The Government, it was necessary to have an effective central organisation, if a central organisation does not exist, or if a central organisation which is effective and has enjoyed the confidence of the majority of the unions does not exist, it is not the fault of those of us in the Barisan Sosialis and it will be wrong for the Government to say that the decisions of this Committee were not carried out. As I have said, the T.U.C., the then central organisation was not given a chance to iron out its problems.

Sir, I wish to say that to have industrial peace and stability, the cooperation of the employers and the unions and a Government that is neutral in industrial relations is needed. If the government of the day is biased against the majority of the unions which do not toe the P.A.P. line and wants to seek to make political capital out of every trade dispute, I do not see how industrial stability can he brought about.

Sir, those of us in the Barisan Sosialis who were members of the T.U.C. which has been dissolved made it very clear that if they wanted the Government's industrialisation programme to succeed, then they must necessarily strengthen the hands of the central organisation by providing for the unification of the trade union movement. We all know what has happened to the Trade Unions Bill that was introduced by the Government, the Bill that was supposed to have laid the basis for reunification of the trade union movement. Sir, if today the Government accuses us of not wanting industrial stability, then I say it is completely absurd. In the first place, the T.U.C. that was reconstituted was not allowed to function. In the second place, the Trade Unions Bill, which was supposed to have laid the basis for the strengthening of the trade union movement, was not allowed to become law. Thirdly, Sir, the application made by the new central organisation formed has not been considered, although, I believe, more than six months have passed. I tell the Government frankly that if they want industrial peace and stability, let them not, sit inside this House and cry "Communism!" If they want industrial peace And stability, let them, in the first place, stop playing politics in industrial disputes, and, secondly, let them be democratic enough to register the S.A.T.U, and let there be facilities provided -

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): For all Communist-organised movements.

Mr Bani: - to effect the unification of the trade union movement.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): Is that all?

Mr Speaker: Order.

3.40 p.m.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: It was indeed a very, shocking revelation on the part of the Minister for Finance when he said in this House just now that although he held discussions with representatives of the trade unions who at that time were members of his Party, some of whom at that time were Political Secretaries drawing wages out of public funds, he harboured the doubt that these persons were not earnest and sincere in their .dealings with the Government. Yet when the Opposition on every previous Budget Day, had occasion to criticise and challenge the Government for the misuse of public funds in giving appointments to their political comrades as Political Secretaries - in fact, the person named by him, Lim Ching Siong, was the Political Secretary to him - he stood up in this House and defended him and said that he was a very good young man. Today, from his very lips, although we have been hearing that from the 12 "confessions" of the Prime Minister during the trouble they had at the time of the split in the P.A.P., he said that he harboured the doubt that they were not sincere, that they were not honest. Then why, keep on paying that particular man about whom he harboured doubts, $1,100 a month out of public funds just for the P.A.P. to play party politics? Here again, Sir, the P.A.P. in trying to play party politics thought they could capture the T.U.C. The matter of the T.U.C. has been brought up by the Member for Thomson. He repeated it many a time. He said the T.U.C. was disso1ved. If it were dissolved, how could it be in existence today? The Parliamentary Secretary has said the T.U.C. is still a registered trade union. Where is the dissolution? The secret is not far to seek. It was because the P.A.P. when it came to power tried to corner the trade union movement and change the constitution of the T.U.C. to such an extent that its Secretary-General can remain in power for five years and he has the power to appoint stooges of his Party. But now -

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Member for Cairnhill is now embarking on quite a different debate. We are now on the topic which was raised by Question No. 4, and that is the unemployment insurance scheme.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: With respect, Sir, four of the Assistant Secretaries appointed by the Secretary-General of the T.U.C. have been named by the Minister for Finance in his charges. He said that whatever plans the Government proposed for social security were damaged by these four persons. So what I am trying to point out is that - these four persons, plus another six, were the accredited agents of the P.A.P. at that time. It was because there was a split in the P.A.P. that they said the T.U.C. should be dissolved. The Minister for Labour and Law said that the amendments to the Constitution of the T.U.C. could never have been registered. So it meant that since 1960 the T.U.C. had been functioning under an amended constitution which had never been registered. That is the P.A.P. type of government. Just because it is a P.A.P. organisation, go ahead, never mind about the law. That is not the way to instil confidence in the Government or in the Party. Now, four of them have been named to be the people who were not sincere, who were not earnest, who had no desire whatsoever to work for industrial peace with justice. But hon. Members will remember that at that particular time - I mean in January 1960 - it was, if I remember rightly, the Minister for Finance who, in order to regain some of the lost prestige of the P.A.P., introduced a Four-Year Development Plan and then not -

Mr Speaker: Order. I have indicated that we must try and keep to the topic which we are discussing. I think the Member has made his point. Let us come back to the unemployment insurance scheme.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: With respect, Sir, I brought this Four-Year Development Plan in because the Member for Thomson said it was as a result of the discussion on the Four-Year Development Plan that this matter was mooted with the four trade unionists. Anyway, he that as it may, we want to say to the Government that if it sincerely believes that a social security scheme is in the best interests of the workers of Singapore, then introduce it. We are for it. Do not try to make excuses and try to blame Party comrades who have defected. The Minister for Finance has always said that he has sonic sort of a scheme. I would ask him to make known his scheme in this Assembly and have a full debate. I would like to say that a social security scheme cannot be non-contributory. It has to he contributory. When the Central Provident Fund was introduced by the previous Government, the workers were up in arms because it was contributory but the workers are people who can listen to explanation. It was explained to them that the Central Provident Fund was meant for their good and then they accepted the part they had to play in contributing 5 per cent of their wages. In the same way, if it could be made known to the workers that a social security scheme is in their best interest and that, in order to run it, it has to be contributed to by the workers and the employers and subsidised by the Government, I do not think the workers will object. I would ask the Government not to delay any more. Bring a scheme to this House and the Opposition will give it their fullest support.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): Sir, we have heard three speeches from the Opposition, and if everyone is looking for proof that parliamentary democracy can lead to utter confusion, we have just had it.

The Member for Anson leads his from time to time allies in the Barisan Sosialis into an embarrassing position. He has just led them into on; by starting this debate which has made it necessary for the Member for Thomson to try and soft-pedal and explain away a few foolish things for which they were responsible.

First, let me put the picture in perspective. Nobody in his right mind is in the least bit concerned with social insurance in the immediate present. It is not included in any resolution passed by any union. It is not on the platform of any political Party at this particular juncture. Nobody is shouting these slogans. The Member for Anson is out of tune. He ought to read the resolutions-passed by the Barisan Sosialis at a meeting of the S.G.E.U. and at other meetings, "Down with phoney merger! Down with Malaysia!" That not being successful, they go to Toa Payoh and say, "Down with the wicked landlord, namely the Housing and Development Board!" They want big emotional cries that will get the people up in a bloody frame of mind to man the barricades. Not all this soft social democratic talk of security and comfort in old age. sickness and unemployment. The Member for Anson is out of line, out of tune.

The Member for Cairnhill often plays various roles at various times. But I think the role he is now playing as: the occasional jester in this Assembly is one which could amuse sometimes. It could be boring at other times. In this particular instance, I would say he is just being mischievous.

First, the Member for Anson asked a question with a laugh, all this business of being sincere and honest in wanting to get information. He wants to be the champion of the workers. He wants to be the chap who gets them benefits. It is a pity he never pressed harder for equal rights for women. He would have claimed the benefit for what the Minister for Finance has been castigated for having done. But since he cannot claim it, he arrogated the credit to the Member for Mountbatten. He thinks that social insurance is a good issue - something for nothing, all got for by the Member for Anson. He gave the Minister for Finance the opportunity to put in perspective the picture regarding social insurance. If it must be unpleasant to the Member for Thomson to hear his recital of foolishness, then it cannot be helped. What the Member for Thomson and his colleagues are interested in is the line about merger and anti-merger, Malaysia and anti-Malaysia, not all this frivolous and less important issue such as social security.

But, first, let me dispose of the facts. I am indebted to the Member for Anson because I think it might be useful to clear the air. He elicited for honest information and he is going to get it as honestly as we can give it to him. There is no contradiction between what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour said and what the Minister for Finance said. What the Parliamentary Secretary said is a projection into the future in expectation of what his Minister is going to do at the right time, in the right place and under the right circumstances. What the Minister for Finance undertook on behalf of the Minister for Labour to explain today is why up to now our efforts to have a comprehensive social insurance scheme have failed. It is as simple as that.

Mr David Marshall: On a point of clarification, Sir.

The Prime Minister resumed his seat.

Mr David Marshall: The assurance was given 3½ months ago. I would like to ask The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): was any effort made during these 3½ months to hold the proposed talks?

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): I do not know if the Member for Anson is as naive as he makes out to be in asking these questions. Perhaps he is, and on that basis, I will give him the answer. Does anybody in his right mind believe at this moment that there is any more fundamental issue to be settled than the survival of the whole of Malaya arising out of merger?

Mr Bani: The survival of the P.A.P.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): The P.A.P, can come and go, and Ministers can come and go. But the reunification of these two territories to form a stable and viable State is an absolute must. Out of that will stem stability. Out of that will stem economic girth and width. Out of that will stem development.

Mr David Marshall rose -

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): I will give him an opportunity but let me first answer the Member for Anson's point. First, we settle the political situation and then we settle all the other things. The Member for Thomson understands that. All these discussions and all the effort made do bring about stable industrial conditions with justice to the workers. It is not going to be abandoned. Solid work has been put into it by officials, Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries. The then Chairman of the Central Provident Fund, Mr James Puthucheary, who is, in his lucid moments, an extremely intelligent and an able exponent of in dustrial peace, stability and expansion, worked out together with the Minister a comprehensive contributory insurance scheme which was discussed and which he tried very hard to get accepted. But Mr Lim Ching Siong - and his other supporters who really do not matter; they are there because it helps the facade - represents the militant Communist group. If he says yes, it is yes; if he says no, it is no. The Member for Thomson knows that. Let us cut away this pretence. Is he really going to say to the workers, "Chin ai kok wei."? He does not know what to say to them. Who makes this appeal? Who is in a position to pull the heart strings and say, "Boys, let us gird and rush." Not Mr Sandra Woodhull, the Member for Thomson -

An hon. Member: Mr Devan. Nair.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): Mr Devan Nair at least does not depend on the strength of others. He believes in what he believes in and he fights with his own strength and he is prepared to die for his beliefs.

Mr David Marshall: On a point of elucidation, Sir.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): Let me finish. E will give the Member for Anson ample opportunity. I want to meet his point. First, we dispose of this mockery about social security. He was not here when I mentioned it. We are not interested in it. The Barisan Sosialis are not interested in it. There are many other more urgent problems - merger and Malaysia. That will put them in a real big -

An hon. Member: Fix.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): I do not know whether one calls it a fix. But anything that brings about national unity and solidarity and dilutes their strength in a larger whole is a setback for them, and this is going to be a setback of large dimensions for a long, long while. We settle the basic and fundamental issues. Having settled the basic and fundamental conditions, we will proceed with social insurance and a lot of other things which will ensure that, within the democratic processes, we can allow a great deal of ballyhoo by members of the trade union movement, because sufficient balance and sufficient raps are on to prevent the economy from being thrown out of gear.

Sir, Mr James Puthucheary worked this out with the Minister for Finance - and I am now reading from the minutes of a meeting held on 30th December at 11 a.m. in the Conference Room of the Minister for Finance: `Present The Minister for Finance. The Manager, Industrial Promotion Board. The Chairman of the C.P.F. (Mr J. J. Puthucheary). Mr Lim Ching Siong. Mr Woodhull. Mr Dominic Puthucheary. Mr S. T. Bani'.

An hon. Member: Year?

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): 1960. This constituted part of a series of meetings in which we were either going to have firm and categorical lines set on industrial peace and stability or the parting of the ways. They knew it. That is why they kept minutes. That is why every word in the minutes was challenged before being agreed to.

Mr Bani: You did not bother to correct them.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): Yes, corrected often. They know that these minutes would be agreed and could be quoted, and I now quote from paragraph 7:

`At that time, one of the key problems for industrial peace and stability was the question of redundancy which led to unemployment and which often became the source of strikes. Therefore, a solution must he found to resolve redundancy in a peaceful way, satisfactory both to workers and employers.'.

Now on redundancy, Mr Woodhull pointed out - from that minutes now - that:

`Unions accepted retrenchment if the employers could prove that such a situation existed. Agreement procedure proposed by the Singapore Trades Union Congress would serve as a framework for negotiations when redundancy materialises. The fear of unions was that employers would use redundancy us a cover for dismissing workers and subsequently taking on new hands.

The Minister said that in the view of Dr Winsemius, the employer must have the right to hire and fire if maximum efficiency in industry is to be achieved. Dr Winsemius even rejected the principle of first in last out as it was not conducive to efficient production. Mr Woodhull pointed out that if it was genuinely agreed that the quality of labour in Singapore was high so that the dismissals on the grounds of inefficiency might not be justified, the Minister replied that the point made by Dr Winsemius was that any means which led to increased output and efficiency should he accepted and adopted if Singapore products were to he sold competitively on the world market.

Redundancy led to strikes because unemployment was the fear. Therefore, unions that dug their toes in had to fight. Therefore, unemployment insurance [which is the heading of the next paragraph] was the cornerstone to the then issue of industrial peace.

The Minister reiterated his belief that until industrial expansion took place, Unemployment insurance had to he introduced to reduce the fear of retrenchment arising out of redundancy. The Manager of the Industrial Promotion Board further pointed out that no trade union had sufficient expertise to give technical opinion on redundancy, even if unions agreed in principle that retrenchment should take place when redundancy was proved, as stated by Mr Woodhull. It was agreed that the Manager. Industrial Promotion Board, should convene a meeting between the Singapore Manufacturers' Association and the Employers' Association and the Singapore T.U.C. to discuss redundancy in industries.'.

And then the Minutes go on to read:

`Though the Trades Union Congress representatives' - really it was Mr Lim Ching Siong, because from my report of what took place, he set the pace. He is the open front leader. He decides the line, and the argument, of course, can be put by the Member for Thomson. The Member for Thomson is not in a position to take a firm line. But a line has to be taken. He welcomes all this on principle. But who sets the line on any issue at any particular moment? The Member will recall what Mr Lim himself told me once upon a time, "Better settle with Lim, you know, to see what he says." That is an honest to God's position, is it not? He is the open oracle of the open front.

`Though the Trades Union Congress representatives supported unemployment insurance in principle, they pointed out that workers would oppose it basically because of its contributory nature. Therefore, they had suggested in the memoranda that unemployment insurance he treated separately from long-term agreements.'.

They were not prepared to discuss it. That is what it came to - to be treated separately.

`The Minister said that he was anxious that a start he made with unemployment insurance which would be the first benefit to a wider social insurance scheme. Sickness benefits would follow next. The Manager. Industrial Promotion Board, stated that if unions' views were agreed to by the previous Government, the Central Provident Fund would never have been started.'.

That is a fact.

`However, it is pointed out that unemployment insurance should not be imposed on workers.'.

That is the important thing. The Member for Anson has indeed this desire to play the united front line with the Barisan. "I do not know whether they are Communists. Please let me have proof." Well, I am going to read what he said about them - the same persons. You know, they are friends, good and honest men; their methods are bad but their intentions are good. I thought he said exactly all the opposite and contrary things when I was sitting over there and listening to him, and he was delivering to me pious homilies on how to be a good democrat. Perhaps one of the reasons why I am still a democrat may be because of the exhortations that I have received from time to time from him, amongst others. They pointed out that unemployment insurance should not be imposed upon workers. There the matter rested. We can impose it. But to what purpose? To strikes, to agitation? Conditions will alter; everybody knows that. Events have been set in motion. Since the fateful meeting on July the 20th last year, when the line `was drawn between those who were prepared to dig their toes in and stand up to what they believed to be right and those who were masquerading or just did not have the guts. A chain of events have been set in motion that must find their logical and inevitable conclusion, and a new equilibrium will be established. We are now in this period of flux. Hence there is no need to get agitated about S.A.T.U. or the National Trade Union Congress. These are matters of relative unimportance, not that they are unimportant but are relatively unimportant. There are bigger issues that the Communist front organisations are more concerned with. Any -brief scanning of their mass of resolutions which they pass from time to time is really a simple way of saying, "Look, let's get excited about these things." This is one of the first things. The Member for Anson should learn. He should pick up the Chinese newspapers, If he cannot read them, he can pick up the Ministry of Culture's day-by-day Press Digests, which are supplied free of charge to all Assemblymen, and scan the resolutions. There he will find out what are the things that really agitate them. And this is not One of them. They do not want social insurance. We are now invited by the Member for Cairnhill, willfully and mischievously, to push it through so that there will be strife and trouble. The Member for Anson, of course, just does not understand these things. He does not understand the mechanics of the thinking, either the legal or the emotional mechanics, on the ground. He just thinks it is a wonderful thing to pose on behalf of the workers and say. "I ask for social insurance benefits. I ask for dissolution of the British bases, and disbandment of the bomb," quite forgetting that 40,000 workers may suddenly be unemployed and may clamour for his blood. Even Mr Sandra Woodhull goes slow on bases. These are things that require a certain amount of contemplation and the weighing of the pros and the cons. And the line on bases is "go slow". They are not worried about bases.

Mr David Marshall: I do not follow their line.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): That is the tragedy. That is why I only say, from lime to time they get him to follow-travel with, because there must be a consistency of intention and purpose. Erratic fellow-travellers can be a source of great embarrassment, and even danger.

Sir, let me now tell the Member for Thomson that the Government is not worried about unions toeing - or not toeing the P.A.P. line. What the Government is worried about is that unions should be subverted and manipulated by a few individuals. He knows the mechanics, and so do I. Let us be frank. When it was against a lot of inept, lazy types that used to associate with the Member for Cairnhill, it was easy. We - I mean he and I - knocked out Mr Seah Peng Chuan and all his other underlings in the S.T.C. Employees Union. That is that, 100 per cent. Men got benefits; men solidly on the side of the P.A.P. But when he tried the same tactics, this time not against lazy and corrupt Seah Peng Chuan but honest men like Mahmood bin Awang, who went to prison -

Mr Bani: He was a Communist, you know.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): No, he was never a Communist.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: He lost in Anson.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): You are wrong. He never was a Communist. I represented him.

Mr Speaker: Order. Sometimes I do like the Speaker being ignored, but the Prime Minister should address the Chair.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): The Member for Thomson is wrong. His recollection is defective on the point. Mahmood bin Awang never was, and still is not. He is a good Muslim amongst others. Mr Devan Nair was. He now is not. He is prepared to fight for his beliefs, because he thinks the Communists are wrong. When he had to meet a different situation, lie found himself far from able to manipulate the workers. He was out of the Singapore Traction Company Employees Union. It is not so simple, Mr Speaker, Sir, to go around and just tell the workers, "The P.A.P. is anti the workers." It just does not sell. It is as foolish as those slogans which we allow even today on the lamp-posts - Siau mieh hwa wen chiao yu (P.A.P. out to destroy Chinese culture) - if you do not mind. Stick it up. Who believes it? The ground is cold. They went to Toa Payoh, and an American T.V. - was it American T.V.? - went down. Here were the great revolutionary leaders. They were going to decapitate the heads of the wicked landlords, the Housing and Development Board, for exploiting the farmers. What did they get? A cold reception, was it not? 150 local residents and all the others brought in from outside - a sum total of 500 or 600. In the really united front days of 1955-56, they were fighting really stupid opponents - colonial Governors, two ex-Chief Ministers. We never called a meeting on issues like dispossession of farmers and squatters. Just minor issues, you know, like women -

Mr Speaker: Order. Could I just bring the Prime Minister back to the topic-unemployment insurance?

Mr David Marshall: He loves his voice,

Mr Speaker: Order.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): Sir, I had no intention of speaking, but by your ruling in making it impossible for the Minister for Finance to reply, the burden has been cast upon me. But let me explain to them - the real united front action, anywhere you went, 5,000 to 10,000 to 15,000 turned up. Real excitement, yes.

Mr David Marshall: In Anson?

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): This is just once. [Interruption] No, we are talking of united -

Mr Speaker: Order. There seems to be a very nice conversation going on between the Government Front Bench and the Opposition Benches there. Perhaps the Prime Minister could try and come back to the subject of unemployment insurance.

The Prime Minister: The point I want to make quite simply is this, Mr Speaker, Sir. The mechanics of government mean, do not throw into your enemy's hands long big sticks to beat you with. And to push through a comprehensive contributory social insurance scheme would be to give a big stick to your enemy. First, establish the conditions - and they will be established in the not too distant future. Members on the opposite side know that. There are no pretences when we meet in the C.P.A. Room. We always commiserate with them for their misfortunes. They find our sympathies so touching that they have betaken themselves away from the C.P.A. Room. And we are not going to make that mistake.

Sir, let me remind the Member for Anson of the real issues. What he said first was about plague-carrying rats. He has a facile memory when he said it was Mr Devan Nair who, of course, had the misfortune of having to deliver a report to the P.A.P. conference of what happened in Kuala Lumpur and therefore incurred the displeasure of the Member for Anson. But Mr Devan Nair is an honest man and he has got to say that the Member for Anson -

Mr David Marshall: That is not true.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): - did not have the guts to stand up for what he believed in, like freedom of speech, support of the P.A.P, right to put in a paper on Malaysia. The Pilot Committee kept quiet in the open session when the paper was ruled out. He absented himself when his Party voted against Malaysia, when the President voted for Malaysia. We do not mind that, Mr Speaker, Sir. We have no desire to -

Mr David Marshall: These are misinterpretations - a point of order, is it not? If so, I would like to rise on one.

Mr Speaker: The Prime Minister has sat down on, a point of elucidation.

Mr David Marshall: Elucidation - I am much obliged, Sir. First and foremost, it is not true that I ran away from Kuala Lumpur. I had a case in Brunei, Sir. Secondly, he himself is aware that when I referred to plague-carrying rats, he was in this Assembly and Mr Devan Nair was up there.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): So was Mr Lim Ching Siong.

Mr David Marshall: And Mr Lim Ching Siong, who was included. The Prime Minister himself was the leader of that plague-carrying campaign. But, Sir, can we come back to the issue? Are we to understand that when 3½ months ago the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour told this House that unions and employers would be asked for joint discussions, and Government hoped that after a thorough exchange of views agreement could be reached on unemployment insurance as a first step to more comprehensive social security schemes, he was actually misleading this House and there was no intention whatsoever of holding these discussions in the near future, and they may take place, if at all, in the never, never land after merger? Is that the position?

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): I thought there was going to be a momentous clarification. But I am sorry that we have now come back to the same thing about the Government's intention. We have every intention at the right time, in the right place and in the right circumstances to do it, and it will be done. A lot of effort has gone into this, and the Minister for Finance, who has spent a lot of time on it, has every intention to take the credit of getting through this House a comprehensive Bill for social insurance.

An hon. Member: When?

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have already explained the moment - and that is when the situation in the unions has been clarified and settled, and that will be in due course. I have no doubts about that. Neither has the Member for Thomson any doubts about it.

But now, if I may have the temerity to remind the Member for Anson of what he said. I have the privilege often of having heard him say these things and so from time to time I am reminded when he speaks in this House of the cynicism to which sometimes we are involuntarily reduced. I mean if he finds us in mirth and merriment it is because otherwise we would be in tears, tears at the utter faithlessness of man to his basic beliefs and convictions.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin (Nee Soon): How about your own speeches?

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): Yes, I stand by them, every one of them. I ask for them to be quoted. Mr Speaker, whatever my many shortcomings, I never inflict this House with mc quoting myself. I never like to do that. It is unpleasant. It is a matter open for the Member for Nee Soon. Part of his political education, he said, was the reading of my speeches, and I am glad if he finds them of any benefit in the instruction of his political beliefs. He can quote them. But I would rather not inflict Members of this House with the virtues or defects of what I have said in the past. But this is what the Member for Anson said. You can well remember, Mr Speaker, Sir. This is from the Hansard of the First Session, Vol. 1, No. 16, dated 12th October, 1955, col. 835. There is the Member for Anson as he then was, the Chief Minister:

`The only danger to trade unionism' -

and I can remember those words reverberating in this Chamber, because whatever his weaknesses, a resonant voice is not one of them -

`comes from the dishonest professional agitators Who have never been labourers in their lives,' -

The Member for Anson had been in the coal mines or salt mines of Japan. He got four medals for it, as the Minister for Finance had said -

`but take paid posts as agitators in P.A.P, trade unions. As for murdering trade unionists, Sir, I will just draw your attention to it to indicate the extent to which these plague-carrying rats' -

That is plural, Sir. And then the gallery I remember, seven years ago -

An hon. Member: Devan Nair.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): Not Mr Devan Nair. The bossman is the Chinese, not the Indian trade unionist. Let us be frank and honest. Mr Lim Ching Siong, Mr Fong Swee Suan. Mr Devan Nair was the intellectual -

Mr David Marshall: On a point of clarification, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Point of clarification.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): Sir, there are a few more, after which I shall be happy to leave the Floor to the Member for Anson because he has a lot to clarify.

Mr Speaker: Order. It is only a question of whether the Prime Minister will give way or not. If the Prime Minister does not give way, then the Member for Anson must sit down.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): I have every intention to give way, Sir, but first I want to read out two passages because he will have to clarify both of them at the same time. They need some clarification.

Mr David Marshall: I rise on a point of order.

The Prime Minister resumed his seat.

Mr David Marshall: The Prime Minister informed this House that Mr Lim Ching Siong was in the gallery. Mr Lim Ching Siong was holding his hand by his side on the Front Bench of the Opposition. That is the Prime Minister's memory!

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): I am obliged and indebted to the Member for Anson: Yes, he was present. Mr Fong Swee Suan, Mr Devan Nair, I think Mr Woodhull was also there. Woodhull, Fong Swee Suan, Devan Nair - yes, Mr Lim Ching Siong. He was not holding my hand. I would like to clarify for the Member for Anson a bit further. Mr Lim Ching Siong used to sit behind me-he together with a few others. I have forgotten now.. Yes, the Parliamentary Secretary to, the Deputy Prime Minister. He could not be, holding my hand. He has to have long hands! But never mind. This is what the Member for Anson said:

"...plague-carrying rats can carry their falsehoods. They do not wince from lies, Sir. Lies are part of their daily bread. They will tell you that they are not pro-Communists; they are not anti-Communists; they are not Communists; whatever lies best suit them - lies every one! By lies they live, and lies have ridden the streets these past weeks!'

Well, Sir, "dishonest" - now he says they are honest. "professional agitators" - now he says they honestly seek the benefit of the workers, the welfare of the workers. These are things that need clarification. Therefore, I have every intention of giving way to the Member for Anson in order to allow him to clarify. On that same occasion, at column 237 of the Hansard, Vol. 1, No. 4, on 16th of May - this is just after the Hock Lee riots -

Mr David Marshall: Which you fomented!

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): I did not, Sir. I was listening to the radio at the height of the riots, and I heard the then Chief Minister, instead of firmly talking of law and order and the maintenance of the integrity of the democratic system, say, "Dear workers, I have telephoned Professor Arthur Lewis, the well-known West Indian economist, to come from London to help us develop the country." And look at this - a new riot, said he. I was so astounded as I listened to the radio that I did not know whether a government then existed in Singapore. This is what he said:

`We have had these remarks about Government seeking to stir up anti-Communist hysteria'.

These were the same honest gentlemen seeking the welfare of the workers - Mr Lim Ching Siong, Mr Fong Swee Suan, Mr S. Woodhull - saying that the Member for Anson was stirring up anti-Communist hysteria.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Nair and Mr Lee Kuan Yew.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): No. Whatever T have accused the Member for Anson of, I think "hysteria" was the operative word as far as I was concerned. I was not so much concerned about whether it was of the Communist or anti-Communist variety. But his emotional state was, I think, appropriately described by the operative word "hysteria". He said:

`This is not hysteria. These are facts. Singapore is a political balancing point of Asia today.'. 1955/1956, Sir, is the hey-day of Singapore.

`I love Malaya...[momentous words, Sir] as much as any man in this House, and I am working for a Malaya that will not be a satellite of England or of any other nation in the world. And I am appealing now to persons who are honest, to persons who are genuine, and to persons who are able, to open their eyes to the evils within their own camp.'.

I harken to his words, Sir:

`You cannot have one foot in the Communist camp and one foot in the democratic camp.'.

Mr David Marshall: The P.A.P. line in 1955.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): Yes, and -

Mr Speaker: Order. I think if the Member for Anson carries on with his interruptions, we will go on to 8 o'clock.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): I try to oblige the Member for Anson in any way we can, in so far as it helps the democratic process in the clarification of man's mind. And this helps. Today perchance he started off on social security; a recital of the facts caused him a great deal of embarrassment and interjections leading to a debate, all of his own making, Sir. He asked the question; he got the answer; he interrupted; this led to a debate. He forced the Member for Thomson to have to make a statement, to exculpate himself, a rather weak and feeble one, but never mind. He tried his best. He gave an opportunity to the Member for Cairnhill to urge the Government to the mischievous courses of action, to ram things down the throats of the workers.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: And got it cornered.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): Cornered? That fortunately is not the position we are in. Others may be in tight corners at this moment. To those who lack sufficient red blood corpuscles and iron in their stomachs, well, good luck to them. But we are grateful to the Member for Anson for this opportunity. He is interested in social insurance, to the glory of the Member for Anson for having got it for the people of Singapore just by asking one question, or referring to some committee appointed in his time as Chief Minister. Fair enough. That is a fair political gambit.

Mr David Marshall: It is a very cheap remark.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Member for Anson is getting a bit excited. If he objects to a remark made by a Member, he rises on a point of order. He must not shout across the Chamber in that way.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): All I wish to say now is this. Having sweated over this comprehensive social security scheme which is opposed by Mr Lim and his group of Communist unions, we are not likely just to forget about it. But to push it through right now would be an act of political folly. Other situations will emerge. This is changing in a fluid situation. The ground now is cold - cold for them. The American T.V, team that went down to Toa Payoh was disappointed, Mr Speaker, Sir. No landlords were there to be harangued, to be buried alive, to be beheaded; and the shots they wanted to take of real, fierce slogans being shouted and chaps running amok did not take place. We intend to keep it that way, by talking peaceably, acting peaceably, and persuading peaceably. But, of course, if people want to do foolish things, how can we save them from their own folly? We can only persuade them. But after it is more stabilised - and it must be - a scheme will be presented. I have every confidence that it will be the Minister for Finance and my colleague, the Minister for Labour, who will have the pleasure of presenting it to this House. At the appropriate time, we will give due acknowledgement, as we always do, to those who have helped us, like the present adviser to the Barisan Sosialis, Mr James Puthucheary, a man of considerable intelligence, as I have said, in his lucid moments. In one of his unlucid moments he got involved in the Barisan. I saw him yesterday and had a pleasant conversation with him. The Member for Queenstown saw it he got excited. He called Mr Puthucheary away. He was wondering what I was doing with Mr Puthucheary with so much bonhomie. But we will acknowledge the contribution Mr Puthucheary made to this contributory scheme: first, to cover unemployment and redundancy; next sickness; then old age; and finally, of course, the Central Provident Fund can be dissolved in this wider and bigger institution to ensure stability and security for the worker, and the absence of tension, discontent and hatred at social conditions which is so vital an element on which to mount barricades. A man who is reasonable, in a reasonable frame of mind, with a decent job, a roof over his head, with his kids going to good schools and learning for a better future, is not a man who mans the barricade and takes a stone or a stick or a match to burn up the society that he is enjoying. That is what Mr Lim Ching Siong does not want. That is what he told Mr Devan Nair. "Do not have salary scales. Have one wage increase at any one time, gather more hatred and then one, step forward and temporary satisfaction." The workers relapse into mild apathy to enjoy the fruits of their victory. Then work up more discontent. After a while - a year has passed - no increment, because there are no wage scales. If you get wage scales, you get a yearly increment. A chap is on good conduct in order that he can jump bars on the wage scale. So, after one year, because there is no wage scale, you come back for more. It is an annual return. The union's annual return is to talk, at least have a token strike. Even if the employer wants to settle, have a showdown, so that there will be a militant spirit of hatred. I have gone through all this.

The Member for Anson is not all that naive. He may not have, as I fortunately have, personal knowledge of the manipulation of human emotions, because I had to run around underground and understand these things. But he knew what was happening. I was explaining all this to him when he was Chief Minister. He was grateful to me and shook me warmly by the hand. Has he forgotten Hock Lee? I went to his flat in Meyer Mansions. He plied me with champagne out of gratitude for my helping him to resolve all these troubles which in the end Mr Fong Swee Suan stymied by refusing to allow the settlement to go through, and riots eventually took place. That is the real trouble with trade unionism in Singapore today, that the S.A.T.U. group led by - let us make no mistake about it - I estimate at the most 70 or 80 chaps in about 30 unions, not 85. I mean 85 unions were the sum total they got together for the first inaugural meeting -

Mr Speaker: Order. Those remarks will come in very appropriately on item 2 of the agenda.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): Thank you. Sir, this is a point which perhaps the Member for Thomson can take instructions on. I like to be fair to my debating opponents. It started off with 85 unions, 14 of which were the City Council Labour Unions Federation. They have dissociated themselves from S.A.T.U. So that number has been reduced. Several others melted away when they discovered what it was all about. I notice lately that all the joint statements have only about five or six unions at any one time. The sum total of unions is really about 20 or 30. The real trouble is these few cadres, and I give them credit for their ability to work hard and manipulate the unions - thousands of workers - against industrial peace against industrial stability, against industrial expansion on principle. After one year, we suspected that was what Mr Lim Ching Siong was up to. A series of meetings, of which faithful records were kept, were designed to force an issue - either the line of industrial stability and expansion was accepted and faithfully implemented or the break must come, as it came. The Member for Thomson knew that. That was why we kept minutes. That was why he challenged every single word in the minutes when we came to confirming them. Since he has chosen to follow the group that persists in selling the Communist Party line in the class struggle and class hatred at all costs, then I say the solution to it does not lie in passing legislation in this Chamber. The solution lies in a basic resolution of the ground position, the remoulding of men's minds in a bigger society, and then the building up of checks and safeguards within the democratic system to ensure that at a later stage no more such reckless adventurers are allowed to assume positions of importance in the trade union movement or in any other organisations within the State. It is as simple as that. First things first. And the first thing is the resolution of the political situation. Then we will resolve all this social security and all the other matters.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I ask leave to withdraw.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.