INDUSTRIAL UNREST

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the motion* standing in my name,

• The same motion also stood in the name of A. P. Rajah.

That this House views with grave concern the mounting of industrial unrest and calls on the Government to take all reasonable steps to ensure industrial peace with justice in the interests of the economic well-being of the people of Singapore.

First and foremost, Sir, I would like to say in unequivocal terms that this motion introduced by me is not a political move to embarrass the Government or to condemn the two political Parties, that is, the P.A.P. and the Barisan Sosialis, for fighting it out in the trade union arena as to who are the true champions of the workers in Singapore. The fight is the more bitter because it is a fight of Party comrades who have irreconciliably fallen out. Both have graduated from the same school of the art of using the workers' movement to achieve their own political ends.

Sir, I do not wish my motion for the present to get involved in the mischief created by the two political Parties. It is a motion in plain and simple language. The first part of my motion, that is, "That this House views with grave concern the mounting of industrial unrest" does not require me to say much to convince hon. Members. Facts and figures speak for themselves. The economic well-being of the people is the first and sacred task of the elected representatives of the people, the Government as well as the Opposition, and such being the case, this House cannot but view with grave concern the mounting industrial unrest. In the words of the Minister for Labour and Law, when he moved the Second Reading of the Industrial Relations Bill on 10th February, 1960, and I quote Hansard, Vol. 2, No. 3, col. 151:

`Strikes and lockouts and other traditional forms of direct action cause suffering and hardship to those involved, and economic loss to the community as a whole on a scale which a progressive society, aiming at a happier life and higher economic standards for all, cannot tolerate and cannot afford.'

Whether there has been mounting industrial unrest or not, hon. Members can evaluate from newspaper reports and statistics issued by the Labour Department. Official figures released last January showed that last year, with 113 strikes and four lock-outs involving 43,764 workmen, and resulting in the loss of 426,127 man-days, was the worst year of industrial unrest in the life of the present Government. In 1960, there were 45 strikes. In the last five months of last year, there was an average of one strike every two days, against an average of five a month in the first seven months. Of last year's 113 strikes, 78 occurred in the last five months, August to December, giving an average of 15 strikes a month. The number of disputes dealt with by the Industrial Section of the Labour Department last year was 1,225.

The worst strike month was November with 20 strikes involving 32,304 workmen and costing 300,842 man-days lost. Moreover, Sir, many new strikes have already taken place this year and there do not appear to be indications of an easing off on the strike front. From these facts and figures, hon Members cannot ignore the fact that industrial unrest has been on the increase and, as elected representatives of the people, we cannot but view this with grave concern.

Sir, while on the question of strikes, I want to take this opportunity to refer to the recent strike of the Singapore Bank Employees' Union at the Oversea-Chinese Bank which has not been amicably settled. Hon. Members will remember that during the debate on the Second Reading of the Banking Bill which was taken through all its stages last January, I had occasion to refer to this Union as a P.A.P. union. This reference drew forth a Press statement from the Acting Secretary of the Union declaring that his Union did not owe allegiance to any political Party, nor did it profess any political ideology. The statement went on to express the hope that I would withdraw my allegation. Well, well, I am glad, Sir, that this Union has made its stand clear vis-a-vis its allegiance to any political Party. I accept this statement and I would like to congratulate the Union for the wisdom of its stand. Its members should be proud that the Union will not allow itself to be geared to the machine of any political Party. Having paid all this highly deserving praise to the Singapore Bank Employees' Union, Sir, I do not think I was wrong in describing it as a P.A.P. union in my speech referred to earlier. Inasmuch as the Prime Minister has described unions which have Barisan Sosialis leaders associated with them as Barisan Sosialis unions and as Communist front unions, I have described the Singapore Bank Employees' Union as a P.A.P. union because it has Mr Devan Nair and also, mind you, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture closely associated with the union. If the Prime Minister is right, then I am right. In fact, Sir, I am more right because a Parliamentary Secretary, a representative of the P.A.P. Government, is connected with the union. Therefore, I am more right than the Prime Minister when I described the Singapore Bank Employees' Union as a P.A.P. union -

The Minister for Health and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne): You are a capitalist.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, having viewed with grave concern the mounting industrial unrest, this House cannot leave it at that. The second part of my motion, therefore, comes in, and that is:

`That this House...calls on the Government to take all reasonable steps to ensure industrial peace with justice in the interests of the economic well-being of the people of Singapore.'

Sir, the Industrial Relations Ordinance is a reasonable step in this direction. When the Bill was read a Second time in February 1960, I think it was the Prime Minister who said that this was the first attempt made by the Legislature to bring the rule of law into industrial relations where the rule of the jungle had prevailed previously. The Bill as drafted by the Austrian expert brought in specially for this purpose was a good Bill, and the Opposition quite frankly informed the House that they were in complete agreement with the principle involved in the Bill when it was read a Second time in February 1960. Unfortunately, Sir, during the Committee stage, there were rush amendments introduced by the Government which were forced through with the Government's strength then of 43 Members in spite of very strong objections from the Opposition. 50 amendments were introduced by the Government, and some of these mutilated the Bill and took the essence out of the genuine effort to promote industrial peace. However, the Minister did assure the House during his speech on the Second Reading that the Government would give very careful consideration to the Annual Reports of the President of the Industrial Arbitration Court required under section 83 of the Ordinance and that the Government would not hesitate to introduce amending legislation if the need to do so was shown. At long last, Sir, the President of the Industrial Arbitration Court has submitted his first Annual Report and this has been in the hands of hon. Members since last January. It is clear, Sir, from the Report and, in fact, it has been clear to us for some time, that the Court has been working at a feverish pace and I would ask the Government not to hesitate to give the additional staff asked for by the President in his Report. Certain suggested amendments have also been brought up by the President of the Arbitration Court with the Minister. I take it that these suggested amendments are aimed at improving the operation of this legislation as a result of experience gained over the past 15 months. I would ask the Minister to introduce, without delay, amending legislation as recommended by the President of the Arbitration Court. The present unhealthy situation in Singapore demands immediate action.

Sir, Table 4 of the Report discloses a sorry state of affairs and the Government cannot afford to be complacent about this. Table 4 shows that there are 8 cases pending before the Court. One case is being heard, while the other seven cases are still awaiting hearing two of which were submitted to the Court as far back as September 1961, that is, they have been in cold storage for many, many months and are still awaiting hearing. I can now understand, Sir, why it was that the Minister had been found to be hesitant in directing trade disputes to arbitration. It would be manifestly unfair to require the disputants, particularly workers' trade unions, to shelve settlement of their claims for many, many months awaiting the convenience of the Industrial Arbitration Court; for it must not be overlooked that once a trade dispute has been submitted by the Minister to the Court for arbitration, strike action must cease. The Minister for Labour and Law in his speech on the Second Reading of the Industrial Relations Bill in February 1960, said (Hansard, 10th February, 1960, Vol. 12, col. 154):

`As the system develops, it could be that we may have to have more than one Court to deal with matters in the first instance.'

Table 4 clearly shows that one Court is grossly inadequate. Moreover, Sir, let us look at section 29 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance which reads:

`Subject to the provisions of section 30 of this Ordinance the Court shall carefully and expeditiously hear, inquire into and investigate every trade dispute of which it has cognizance and all matters affecting the trade dispute and the just settlement of the dispute and shall determine the dispute by arbitration.'

I repeat, Sir, "the Court shall carefully and expeditiously hear, inquire into and investigate ...". The fact that there have been cases pending hearing for months and months is, to say the least, defeating the object of this special legislation. It is now evidently clear that the Government must set up more than one Court to do justice. I would like to receive an assurance from the Government that this will be done forthwith.

Sir, I will now refer to Part VII of the Industrial Relations Bill. This deals with boards of inquiry. This provision in the law has not been brought into play by the Minister. There must be a purpose for such provision, and it is my submission that the Minister should have exercised his power under this Part in regard to the recent strike at the Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation. Ltd, in this particular strike, the union claimed that the employers had done some act injurious to the union and demanded an apology. The employers were adamant and refuted the union's claims. As a result, the workers were called out on strike, which lasted more than a week before it was amicably settled. But the workers would not have to suffer some loss to achieve their ends and the public would not have to suffer inconvenience if the Minister had only exercised his power under this Ordinance. The Minister should have appointed a board of inquiry to inquire into who was right and who was wrong, and public opinion would be brought to bear on the culprits. I would ask the Minister not to hesitate to use this power when the occasion demands it and thus put a check on unnecessary industrial strife.

As I have pointed out earlier, one Court of Arbitration has been found to be ineffective to cope with the spate of trade disputes. More courts have to be established, and once this is done, the Minister should have no hesitation to direct trade disputes to be submitted to the Court of arbitration. Once a strike takes place, it is the duty of the Labour Ministry officials, including the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary, if they are not overburdened with work, to step in straightaway and try to bring about an amicable settlement. But if these efforts proved futile after a reasonable time, the Minister should without hesitation direct that the trade dispute be submitted to the Court for arbitration if the Industrial Relations Ordinance is meant to be a serious piece of legislation to promote industrial peace with justice, and the rule of law must be made to replace the rule of the jungle which, in the words of the Minister for Labour and Law uttered in February 1960, causes "suffering and hardship to those involved, and economic loss to the community as a whole on a scale which a progressive society, aiming at a happier life and higher economic standards for all, cannot tolerate and cannot afford".

Conciliation is the biggest factor in promoting industrial peace, and it is therefore vital that the Labour Department should have a full complement of trained conciliators. I do not know whether or not there is a strong and effective team of trained conciliators in the Labour Department, but if the Minister wants additional staff, we will give him all support.

Not very long ago in this House, the Prime Minister waxed eloquent. He said in vitriolic language that it was the policy of the Government not to allow non-citizens to play an active part in the industrial relations field. If he meant what he said and said what he meant, may I ask the Government when it proposes to introduce amending legislation to this effect? In the Industrial Relations Ordinance, non-citizens are not entitled to be appointed to serve on the panel of employers or of employees. Sir, in view of section 83 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, a number of secret ballots have been undertaken by the Labour Department to ascertain the workers' choice of a particular trade union to represent their interests. I cannot understand, Sir, how, after such secret balloting had disclosed the choice of the majority of workers in a particular place of employment, a rival trade union which lost in the secret balloting was allowed, to continue to function, in one particular case, it was even allowed to call and carry out a strike of the minority of workers. Does this not make a farce of the procedure of secret ballot undertaken by the Labour Department? Why go through this rigmarole as it will only bring the Labour Department into disrepute and contempt? If a secret ballot undertaken by the Labour Department does not settle the question, why should the Government waste public funds?

Sir, when the Industrial Relations Bill was read a Second and a Third time in February 1960, the Government quite rightly claimed that this legislation would bring the rule of law into industrial relations where previously the rule of the jungle had prevailed. The Bill which was assented to on 25th February, 1960, came into operation on 15th September, 1960 - a delay of seven months - and the Industrial Arbitration Court was officially opened on 24th October, 1960. All this happened in 1960 and yet, Sir, in 1961, there were 113 strikes more than in previous years. Has this piece of legislation achieved the object - that is, to bring the rule of law into industrial relations where previously the rule of the jungle had prevailed? To a lesser degree than in 1961, it has failed. Why and where it has failed, I have endeavoured in my speech to quote a few instances. This law, if it is meant to be a serious piece of legislation to promote industrial peace with justice, must be made to work, and it can be made to work, and I call on the Government to take all necessary steps to make it work.

Sir, I am sure the Government is no less anxious than we are to promote industrial peace with justice so that the industrialisation plans for the benefit of the people of Singapore can be assured of some measure of success. The P.A.P. have leaders who are very close to the trade unions. They are therefore in a position to know what reasonable steps other than the ones I have touched upon, the Government can take to ensure industrial peace with justice in the interests of the economic well-being of the people of Singapore.

Sir, on this note, my motion rests.

Mr Speaker: Before I propose the Question, may I enquire from the Member for Anson whether he intends moving his amendment?

Mr David Marshall: Yes, Sir.

Mr Speaker: In that case, may I suggest that the mover of the motion, if he wishes to deal with that amendment, can do so now so that the device which we have adopted on other occasions could be adopted - that is, the debate could range over the motion and the amendment, and then at the end of the debate the Question could be put first on the amendment and then on the motion.

Mr David Marshall: I seek your indulgence, Sir,I shall be unavoidably away in Penang on Monday. I have but a few minutes to deal with my amendment and if the Member for Cairnhill continues to speak, of course, I will be even unable to deal with that.

Mr Speaker: It is not my choice. It is the choice of the Member for Cairnhill. Perhaps he can just indicate whether he accepts that or not.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, I do not know what has prompted the Member for Anson to move an amendment to a very simple motion. I must listen to his views before I can even decide whether I support it or not.

Mr Speaker: Of course, the Member for Cairnhill has the right to reply at the end of the debate. At that stage, he can indicate his views on the amendment. But the point is that I would like the assent of Members to the device that the debate should proceed not only on the motion but also on the amendment, and that will save time. Is there any objection to that?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: May I suggest that the amendment be disposed of, because, depending on what the Member for Anson has to say, I may have a lot to speak against or for the amendment. If I support it, it will be all right, but I may speak against it.

Mr Speaker: The Member for Cairnhill does not understand. He will have the opportunity at the end of the debate to say whether he supports or rejects the amendment. This is a device to save time. Well, there is a dissenting voice.

Question proposed.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill speaks like a born capitalist. I congratulate him. It must be a comfortable position. He has so well hidden the antecedents of the days when he was a trade union agitator.

Sir, there is a touch of hysteria a little reminiscent of the Straits Tunes in this motion, and that is why I have sought to bring a sense of balance to it by my amendment.

Let us recognise that in a free competitive society, the worker is naked and defenceless in the face of the power of capital and his only real protection is the unity he gets from the trade union movement; and by the very nature of the structure of our economy, a trade unionist and a capitalist must carry on a constant struggle which is perfectly healthy, as healthy as hunger and the satisfaction of it.

Sir, the law can help to some extent, but the law cannot replace self-help in the industrial field any more than it can replace self-help in the individual field. This alarm displayed by the motion - grave concern; mounting industrial unrest - forgets that there are other countries, for instance, England, a land of democracy. I was just reading the other day a book and I noticed that in 1912, there were 40 million man-days lost by strikes, and there were far more in 1921 and in 1926. If we take our minds to Australia and America and to other democratic countries, there are far more man-days lost and, when they are compared to the population, there is far from cause for alarm. I would say, with respect to you, Mr Speaker. Sir, but for the malice of our newspapers, we would be conscious of the restraint and the dignity of our workers, Sir, let us not lose sense of the value of a strike to the worker. I speak as one who has suffered from unfortunate strikes when the Member for Cairnhill was himself the Minister for Labour, but even in spite of some strikes which were politically motivated and completely malicious and not intended for the welfare of the worker, in that one year in 1955, Sir, the standard of living of the worker was raised by 11 per cent; the industrial workers' wages rose from 65 cents to 74 cents in one year - an increase of 9 cents - and in the whole of the six years since 1955, it has increased by 6 cents. That year compared to last year was a year of turmoil, and last year was a year of comparative peace.

The Member for Cairnhill refers to the strike in the Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation which seems to touch his heart rather closely. Sir, of all the strikes I have heard of, that would be hardly the one I would consider compelling the worker to go to arbitration. May I remind the hon. Member that when I pleaded with him, as the Minister for Labour, to introduce provisions for arbitration, he said, "Marshall, not now. The workers do not like to be forced into arbitration. It is much better to have voluntary negotiations." There is nothing confidential about that. That was the advice of one Minister to his Chief Minister who was very much a tyro in these matters. The Minister was the experienced labour man and it was advice which I found to be good - and, frankly, Sir,I believe still is good - that compulsion in the field of industrial relations is by and large unwise. Although I cannot but agree that it is, I hope that greater advantage will be taken of arbitration proceedings.

I do move the amendment that stands in my name in order to bring a sense of balance to this debate, to recognise that there is industrial unrest - but this is natural and healthy - to recognise that that Government should do something but that it cannot take the entire burden to seek to repress all strikes; and because Mr Tan Chin Tuan does not like an O.C.B.C. strike, therefore, the Government should intervene, is really an unbalanced approach to an extremely important problem. What I am particularly disturbed about is that Government, I understand, has issued orders which have encouraged a small section of the trade union movement to indulge in excesses, orders to the police not to take action in respect of criminal offences without reference to a Labour officer. I say that the Government has acted in a grossly improper fashion.

Mr Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member wishes his amendment to go on, he must end his speech - this is near the moment of interruption.

Mr David Marshall: I move my amendment*, Mr Speaker, Sir.

• The amendment reads as follows:-

In lines 1 and 2, to leave out "views with grave concern the mounting of industrial unrest" and insert "takes note of the public manifestations of industrial dissatisfaction".

Mr Speaker: This is the moment of interruption.