INDUSTRIAL UNREST

2.46 p.m.

Order read for resumption of proceedings on Amendment [16th March, 1962] to Question [16th March, 1962],

"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.". - (Tun Lim Yew Hock).

Which Amendment was,

`To leave out "views with grave concern the mounting of industrial unrest" in lines 1 and 2 and insert "takes note of the public manifestations of industrial dissatisfaction".' - (Mr David Marshall).

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

Mr Speaker: The debate now must be confined to the amendment. Any Member wishing to speak on the amendment?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: On the amendment?

Mr Speaker: Only on the amendment.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, I cannot accept the amendment proposed by the Member for Anson. It is my submission that this House views with grave concern the mounting of industrial unrest, have quoted facts and figures to show beyond any doubt that there has been mounting industrial unrest, and surely, Sir, as representatives of the people, we cannot but view this with grave concern, because such a situation is detrimental to the economic well-being of the people of Singapore.

Sir, let us now examine the amendment proposed by the Member for Anson. He does not view the mounting industrial unrest with grave concern. By his amendment, he wants this House not to view the mounting industrial unrest with grave concern. Strange, Sir. But is it really strange, especially as this comes from the Member for Anson? in his short speech last Friday, he made reference to the time when I was Minister for Labour and Welfare when he was Chief Minister. When he took office, there was too a spate of strikes, some of which were of a political character. He did not view this with alarm. He did not view this with grave concern, in fact, when he was surrounded by the Press, who were anxious to hear from him what plans he had to meet this challenge, he said with a broad smile. "I love strikes." He loves strikes, Sir. indeed, it might be that it is because of his love for strikes that the Hock Lee strike in 1955 culminated in a bloody riot and the then Chief Minister became a sick man. One would have thought, Sir, that he would have learned something from his bitter experience. But it would seem from his manifestations last Friday in this House that he is incurable, in so far as this particular economic ill is concerned. He wants this House to take note. Take note! Surely hon. Members of this House, as well as the public, have been taking note for some months past of the mounting industrial unrest. And we, having taken note of the mounting industrial unrest now feel grave concern for such a situation as it has created havoc in the economic field in Singapore. There may be some hon. Members who may not view this mounting industrial unrest with grave concern, but if there are such Members, they have failed in their sacred duty to look after the economic well-being of the people who elected them.

Sir, what does the Member for Anson want us to take note? He wants us to take note of the public manifestations of industrial dissatisfaction. I say there has been mounting industrial unrest and there are facts and figures to bear me out. This simple statement of absolute truth appears to have stung the Member for Anson into attempting to interpret the present lamentable situation as a public manifestation of industrial dissatisfaction. High sounding words indeed, Sir. Behind them is implied the attitude of the Member for Anson. By his own words, he takes the stand that all the strikes that have bedevilled the country are just, and that trade unions should be given free rein to do damage to the economy of the country and thus to do damage to their own members. I have not in my speech condemned the trade unions for the industrial unrest. What I have sought to do in my motion is to call on the Government to do everything possible to bring about industrial peace with justice, because without industrial peace the economic well-being of the people of Singapore will be jeopardised. A sober speech of mine seems to have made the Member for Anson see in it a touch of hysteria. Sir, it is only one who has been on the fringe of hysteria who can see hysteria where there is no hysteria. This is a sort of illness which one would call a hallucination.

Sir, the Member for Anson says that lie has put in his amendment with a view to restoring a sense of balance into the industrial picture. A sense of balance indeed! The hon. Member wants us to accept something that is not borne out by facts in place of something that has been borne out by facts. And he calls this as "restoring a sense of balance". Sir, I cannot accept this because I refuse to allow my mind to be unbalanced by this senseless sense of balance.

The Minister for Health and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne): He is gila!

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, the hon. Member for Anson in his short speech took it upon himself to ridicule me when I made mention of the strike at the Oversea-Chinese Bank in relation to Part VII of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. When I heard him raise the objection. I listened more attentively to his speech and tried to find out from him the reasons for his objection. I heard nothing at all, Sir. This would make me feel that the hon. Member was speaking through ignorance. For his benefit - although he is not here at the moment - and for the benefit of Members who may share the same view as the Member for Anson, let me explain in greater detail what Part VII of the Industrial Relations Ordinance is meant to do.

Mr Speaker: Order, Is this part of the hon. Member's speech in relation to the amendment? If it is not, then he will have the opportunity of answering that argument at the end of the debate when he replies to the whole motion.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: I feel that it will be better if I reserve this. I brought it in just now because it was referred to in the speech of the Member for Anson. I think he brought that up in order to explain away his sense of a touch of hysteria in my very sober speech. I would prefer, Sir, if I may to leave this till the main motion.

Mr Speaker: Any Member who wishes to speak on the amendment? If not, I will put the Question on the amendment.

The original Question was.

"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."

Since which an amendment has been moved,

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

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out," put, and negatived.

Mr Speaker: The amendment falls. We are now back to the original motion.

Question again proposed.

3.01 p.m.

Dr Thio Chan Bee (Tanglin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am surprised that a subject of such importance should not evoke a greater response from the other Parties. Perhaps that shows that all the Parties represented in the House are agreed that the state of industrial unrest in Singapore is such that it causes grave concern to all who are interested in the welfare of the people of Singapore.

Sir, there was a time when the general public would read a report of some industrial trouble with a smile, with passing interest, and make it a subject of conversation at tea parties and so on. Today we are all conscious that when we view this problem, we view it against a sombre background of an ever increasing number of unemployed. The problem is not merely a question of getting fair wages and increasing wages, of which we are all in favour, hut it is a question of encouraging more industries and encouraging traders to expand and employ more people, so that this grave social problem of unemployment can be solved. It is quite frequent coming across a family of five or six depending just on one member. I was visiting some families in an attap house area and I came across a family with about five able-bodied young men, and a widowed mother. Of these five, only one was employed. This one had taken his Senior Cambridge examination and, after a year of unemployment, had at last got a job as a watchman at $4.75 a day. When he looked at me wondering what my opinion was, I said, "You are very lucky to be employed. Never mind false pride. Take it on for the sake of your family." I asked the young men around him. One said, "I too applied for the post of watchman, but there were so many applying that I could not get the job." What about the others, who were not highly educated? They would not be able to get jobs even as casual labourers.

There is a case of another man, who had a good job and then was retrenched. He has a large family. After a desperate search for a job, he gave up and his young son who had just left school managed to get a job as an apprentice at a salary of slightly over $100 a month. The whole family, about five or six of them, are dependent on this particular youngster. Naturally, he cannot make ends meet. Meanwhile, the schools are producing thousands of youngsters. Youngsters are leaving the schools by the thousands looking for jobs, and instead of finding more jobs in Singapore, they find a situation where jobs are decreasing in number.

Sir, we have read out statistics to prove that since 1957 there are probably something like 15,000 to 17,000 jobs less than before. It is against this background that you have to study this problem of industrial unrest. Yesterday in the Sunday Mail, Sir, we had almost a full-page article entitled "In Search of a Job". The article describes how the writer in 1945 found he could choose any of four jobs. Today there is just a scramble. There are the job-seekers, but there are no jobs.

Sir, the Minister for Finance was optimistic that his industrial plans could be effected and he went to Japan optimistically trying to attract Japanese capitalists. When he came back, he admitted that the Japanese investors were worried because of the possibility of more labour troubles when they had invested their capital in Singapore enterprises. The question now is this: who are responsible for these labour troubles? Some people say the Communists are responsible. When I spoke to some of these workers, they admitted that, viewed selfishly, they liked these labour troubles because at the end of every strike they gained higher wages. One cannot but view sympathetically when we look at the problems simply from that angle. But they have to see that if by getting an increase they thereby penalise their unemployed sons and daughters, that price may be too high. I suggest that, instead of viewing this problem from two sides - we usually talk about two sides to a question - we should view it this time from four sides. There is the viewpoint of the workers. We are all very much in favour of giving them higher and higher wages. The Government has a grouse against me in particular because I have kept on digging at them because of the pay-cuts. We are all in favour, if the Government earns more, it gets more revenue, and we want better treatment for the employees. In the same way, if the employers earn more and make more profits, we want higher wages for their workers.

We look at it from the point of view of the merchants, the investors, the capitalists. If they dump money into Singapore, they expect returns. Just two weeks ago, a man was telling me that he was building a factory. I asked him, "Where?" "Not in Singapore," he said. Where? Johore Bahru. That means more employment for the people across the causeway and not enough employment, for us here. Naturally, the investors look at it from the angle of profits themselves.

But look at it from the point of view of the unemployed. I sometimes wonder whether they should not be allowed to organise themselves into another trade union in this situation where in their own interests, if industrial unrest reaches a high proportion, they could demand that the Government should step in and compel every dispute to be submitted to arbitration. Perhaps when we look at it in that light from the point of view of the unemployed, we see reason, we can see that there is need for another approach to this problem, not merely for ourselves, but of service to the unemployed.

Now, what about the other people the general public? The general public suffer inconvenience. The general public are made up of not only people who are unemployed, but they are also made up of the wives and children of the strikers. I remember talking to one trade union leader who led a strike in the Singapore Traction Company for over five months and the Communists supplied him with money to enable him to go on with the strike. But he said a year after that when he had seen the sufferings of the wives of the strikers and their children, he decided that thereafter if he could find a way of solving a deadlock without a strike, he would do it. The strike would be the last weapon and the last resort, because innocent people would be made to suffer. I hope, Sir, that we look at this problem of industrial unrest therefore not merely from the view point of the workers and the businessmen, but also from the point of view of the unemployed in particular.

Some people say it is natural that in a strike there is a clash of interests. Any political Party must be on the side of the workers, it is agreed. But let us look at it from another angle, using another approach. Why should the interests of the workers and the employers clash? Are not these two like the wings of a bird? If we damage one wing, what happens to the bird? It cannot fly any more. if we can look at it in that way, that workers and employers both play important parts, that both are like the wings of a bird, and if both are equally strong and cooperating, the bird can fly to greater heights and Singapore can reap greater prosperity, and this prosperity can be shared among more people. The unemployed will have a chance in life and the young people coming out from schools will have a future they can look forward to. If we can look at it from that point of view, Sir, then we can have a hope of solving this problem of industrial unrest. But if we look at it from the point of view of a political struggle, if one Party must outbid the other Party, then, Sir, God help the unemployed.

3.12 p.m.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, industrial unrest is not peculiar to Singapore. It is a feature of industrialised or industrialising societies all over the world, in England today, the Government is faced with balance of payments difficulties, and to offset inflationary pressures for general wage increases, has refused civil service claims for improvements in pay and conditions, with the result that teachers, local government employees technical staff, postal clerks and civil service clerks, who are the traditional moderates of the trade union movement in England, have been forced into the front line of the industrial battle.

A strike can arise for a variety of reasons and not necessarily because of a dispute about wages and conditions of work. In the B.O.A.C. strike which took place last July, the engineering staff were up in arms against the reorganisational programme of the management with which the union disagreed, even though the management could prove that in the reorganisation, not a single worker would lose his job. The P.A.P. Government has consistently been pro-worker. The first thing we did as a Government was to amend the Trade Union Ordinance to give the Registrar of Trade Unions the power to cancel the registration of trade unions who were splinter or yellow unions and to refuse registration to dissident groups who sought to set up breakaway unions. This prevented the manipulation of the trade union movement by unscrupulous employers.

The next thing we did was to ensure that the labour laws were enforced. All employers were required to send in returns of their employees to the Ministry and whenever a report reached the Ministry that the labour laws were not being observed, an inspector was sent round to make an on-the-spot enquiry. If the enquiry disclosed that an employer was not observing the labour laws, immediate action was taken to compel compliance. The Labour Court was strengthened and employees who were wrongfully dismissed or who were denied the benefits of the labour legislation were given every facility to claim payments in lieu of arrears of overtime pay and annual leave which had been denied to them. A sum of more than $1½ million was recovered from employers for the benefit of their employees in this way.

To assist the unions, legislation was enacted to make it obligatory for all collective agreements to be registered with the Industrial Arbitration Court and every registered collective agreement is published in the Government Gazette. Where the parties fail to reach agreement, the Industrial Arbitration Court, which is constituted by an independent Chairman and two members, each of whom is drawn from a panel of employers and union nominees, is empowered to take evidence from the disputing parties and to make an award. Both the award and the registered agreement are legally enforceable by the Court. The Court has the power in trade disputes to fix wages, salaries, allowances and other remuneration by prescribing time rates, piece work rates, salary scales, bonus payments, severance pay, retirement benefits, or to make other prescriptions which it considers to be appropriate.

In addition, the same legislation provides ample machinery for conciliation when a trade dispute is threatened or arises and recourse to arbitration can be had by a joint request by the contending parties or by a reference of the dispute to the Court by the Minister and, in the case of the Government service or the essential services, by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara.

For the period 15th September, 1960 to 31st December, 1960, eight awards were made by the Industrial Arbitration Court in industrial disputes and a total of 121 collective agreements covering a total of 36,269 employees were certified and registered by the Court. Up to date, there are eight cases pending before the Court, two of which are considered to be major disputes.

This indicates that the machinery for conciliation and settlement of industrial disputes is being used by the bona fide union leaders in the non-Communist unions. But these facts by themselves do not give us a true picture of what is happening in the trade union field.

There were 45 strikes and lockouts in 1960 involving 5,939 workers and 152,005 man-days were lost.

The split in the trade union movement between unions affiliated to the S.A.T.U group of Communist-controlled trade unions and unions not so aligned took place in July last year. From the 1st July, 1961, to the 31st January, 1962, there were altogether 96 strikes as compared to 27 only for the first six months of 1961. Of the 96 strikes, 69 were called by the unions affiliated to the S.A.TU. group, 24 by unions not so aligned and three by employees not presented by any union. Of the 69 strikes called by the S.A.T.U. group of trade unions, 25 strikes involved expatriate firms whereas only six of the 24 strikes called by unions not aligned to the S.A.T.U. group involved expatriate employers.

Twenty of the 31 strikes against expatriate employers were called by the Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union, two by the Singapore Motor Workshop Employees' Union and one each by the Singapore General Employees' Union, the Singapore Spinning Workers' Union and the Singapore Shoe Employees' Union.

The larger number of strikes called against expatriate employers by the S.A.T.U. group of trade unions is clearly indicative of an intention on the part of the leaders of this group of unions to create dissatisfaction against foreign capital. It has been noticeable that whereas the pickets in the strikes called by the non-aligned group of trade unions were comparatively well behaved, the behaviour of strikers in strikes called by the S.A.T.U. group was aggressive and offensive. European executives of the firms were often assaulted and subjected to various forms of humiliation.

A comparison of the strike action taken by the S.A.T.U. group of trade unions in the same period that the new machinery for conciliation and settlement of trade disputes has been working for the benefit of bona fide trade unionists .shows clearly that there is ample machinery provided by law for the settlement of trade disputes where these disputes spring from genuine grievances; hut where the industrial unrest is simulated and created for political purposes, the Communists invariably resort to direct action by-passing the conciliation machinery available to them and forcing settlements by way of direct strike action.

This is done in defiance of Government policy for the promotion of industrial peace with justice and lends support to the forecast of the Prime Minister in this House on the 20th July, 1961, when he pointed out that after the open split of the P.A.P. there was a possibility that the pro-Communists would mount an offensive in the labour and industrial and other fields. I would refer hon. Members to Legislative Assembly Debates, Volume 14, No. 23.

In considering the question of industrial unrest, we must therefore be very careful to distinguish genuine industrial unrest from industrial unrest simulated or created for political purposes.

What the S.A.T.U. group of pro-Communist trade unions are always seeking to do is not to advance the interest of the workers per se as this is always to them a subsidiary consideration hut to convert genuine grievances into political campaigns against the Government. For instance, in the case of the Robinson's strike there was genuine provocation offered to the workers by the employer but Messrs. Dominic Puthucheary and company never intended to take the dispute to the Labour Ministry. Strike Acton was taken, the main business entrance of the company was obstructed and when the police had to remove the picketers who were illegally obstructing the entrance under the pretence that they were picketing, a demonstration was mounted against the police and the Government. There were many witnesses of this demonstration and when the police vans turned up for the purpose of removing those who were illegally obstructing the main entrance. Dominic Puthucheary was seen by mans to urge all the strikers to get into the police vans to go to the police station.

A prosecution was brought against those who were guilty of obstruction but this prosecution was later withdrawn by the State Advocate-General as, on a closer examination of the case, the State Advocate-General thought that the strikers had been misled into their foolish actions by Dominic Puthucheary and company.

Mr S. T. Bani (Thomson): To save the Prime Minister.

Mr Byrne: No, Sir, it was not to save the Prime Minister. There were a lot of witnesses to all this.

In view of the new situation created on the industrial front by the leaders of the S.A.T.U. group of Communist-controlled trade unions, the Ministry of Labour has strengthened the Industrial Relations Department by increasing the number of experienced conciliation officers from 4 to 9 officers as on 8th January this year, and, at the same time, new rules are being devised to regulate peaceful picketing so that workers will not be victimised if they wish to work and not participate in such strikes. Labour officials arc posted on duty at establishments affected by strikes and police assistance is sought whenever violence is resorted to either by the picketers or by the employers. As a result of the close watch kept on these establishments by labour officials, a number of prosecutions have been instituted against employees who have been involved in acts of violence whilst picketing, and an employer has also been charged for assault of an employee during a strike.

Some employers, too, have failed to learn that their disputes can be processed in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. We have seen recently a bad example which the members of the Exchange Banks Association have set by refusing clearing facilities to members of the public whenever there was an industrial dispute in one of their associated banks. This was done to bring pressure on the union to get a settlement on their terms without any regard to the merits of the union's claims. They would have been the first to complain that the union was acting irresponsibly and unreasonably if it decided to call out all its workers whenever there was an industrial dispute with any member of the Association.

The Member for Cairnhill has drawn the attention of the House to Table IV of the Report of the President of the Industrial Arbitration Court, in which eight pending cases are listed, and to section 29 of the Ordinance which requires cases to be heard expeditiously by the Court. The latest information I have received in a letter from the President of the Court dated 16th March is that the number of pending cases has been reduced as the least important of these cases are presently being dealt with. No new cases have been notified to the Court and he expects the Straits Times case to end within a fortnight and the only other big case is the Standard Vacuum Oil Company case which is expected to begin on the 19th May.

The Member for Cairnhill has also referred to the strike of the Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation and suggested that if a Board of Enquiry had been appointed under section 7 of the Ordinance the strike might have been avoided. This strike, as he very well knows, was not over wages and conditions of service but because the management had attempted to deal with some of their employees on an individual basis at a time when the bank was negotiating new terms with the Bank Employees Union. The union had come to know about this and had asked for an expression of regret from the management and an undertaking by the management that it would in future deal exclusively with the union. But this request of the union was refused, with the result that the strike was called.

There was no question which could have been put to a Board of Enquiry for determination. The bank eventually saw the error of its ways and it has been reported that a sum of $30,000 was paid to the union by a Director of the Bank to compensate the workers for the period when they remained away from work. I cannot see how a hard-headed businessman could have made such a settlement with the union if the bank had been without blame.

The Member for Cairnhill has said that all trade disputes which are dead-locked should be referred to the Court for arbitration, but the Member for Anson has mentioned in this House that when he was Chief Minister and the Member for Cairnhill was Minister for Labour and Welfare, the Member for Cairnhill had advised his Chief Minister that he was opposed to compulsory arbitration, because he was of the view that nothing should be put in the way to prevent the unions reaching negotiated agreements with their employers even if industrial action had to be resorted to for the purpose.

Sir, the Member for Cairnhill also referred to a case where a secret ballot was held but the party that lost in that secret ballot nevertheless continued to strike. Sir, the Labour Department concluded a total of 21 secret ballots since August 1959 to settle the question of union representation in all cases, the employers accepted the result of the ballots and gave recognition to the union which won a majority vote. Only in one case, the union with a minority of votes continued to strike after a secret ballot had been conducted. This was the Hwa Heng Rubber Company case and eventually the company duly recognised the union that won in the ballot. The strike was nevertheless continued by the union representatives of the minority of the workers.

Sir, the Member for Anson referred to the loss of earnings of the workers. He made the point that the workers got a better deal when he was the Chief Minister than they get now. Mr Speaker, Sir, the average daily earnings of manual workers in 1955 was 74 cents as against 65 cents in 1954 - an increase of nine cents. In the last six years, the hourly earnings have increased by another six cents, that is, up to 80 cents per hour. Sir, there is a reason given for the increase of 9 cents average hourly earnings of workers from 1954 to 1955, and our economist tells us that this is probably due to the economic effects on wage earnings felt as late as 1955 after the boom in trade as a result of the Korean war in 1951-52. Sir, reasons have been given for the gradual increase of the hourly rate from 1955 to 1961, and it is suggested that after 1955 there was a gradual decline in trading conditions in Singapore resulting from the world recession in trade which reached its height in 1958. This caused many establishments in Singapore to retrench workers, others to close down and workers were put on a rotation basis. There were also restrictions on trade imposed by neighbouring countries, particularly Indonesia, which affected the rubber milling industry and the copra industry.

Sir, we as a Government have implemented our policy of industrial peace with justice, and since we have been in Government, we have done everything to advance the cause of the workers without killing private enterprise, on which the entrepot economy of Singapore is based. We have not been able to put an end to the exploitation of the workers by unscrupulous employers, but we have reduced the opportunities for their exploitation and have ensured that all workers get the benefits of the labour laws which have been enacted for their protection.

We intend to take immediate action to plug the loop-holes in the present Industrial Relations Ordinance which enable the had employers as well as the pro-Communists in the S.A.T.U. group to by-pass the lawful channels of conciliation, settlement or arbitration which have been placed at the disposal of all bona, fide trade unions and good employers. The recommendations of the President of the industrial Arbitration Court are now being closely studied by Government and action will be taken to give effect to the improvements which he has suggested.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson said earlier on, in moving his amendment to the motion, that he wanted to restore some semblance of balance to the industrial picture. On this we heartily agree with him. But, unfortunately, the Member for Anson has now helped the Member for Cairnhill in exciting a hit of hysteria in this industrial unrest, as he calls it. By enumerating a whole list of strikes, lock-outs, man-days lost, and what-nots the Member for Cairnhill as well as the Member for Anson have been trying to give us a picture of grave industrial turmoil in Singapore. In a way, Sir, we cannot blame the Member for Anson for saying that the speech of the Member for Cairnhill had a touch of hysteria, because we do know the forces and in-wrests that he represents. The Member for Anson has called the Member for Cairnhill a capitalist.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: A born capitalist.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: A born capitalist. But in truth, Sir, he is more a capitalist agent than a real capitalist, although we also know that since he has acquired some wealth, he has also become a capitalist of sorts.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Point of elucidation, Sir.

Mr Speaker: If the Member will give way.

Dr Lee Siew Choh resumed his seat.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: If the hon. Member will show me where my wealth is, I shall be very grateful to him. I could then have three meals a day instead of two.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I did not know whether he wants me to tell him right now, Sir, but I understand he has acquired some shares in a housing estate. I do not know how true that is - he can deny or confirm it [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Does the Member for Cairnhill wish to rise further on a point of elucidation?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: No.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: In fact, the Member for Anson was quite surprised because he knows that in our present society, workers are defenceless, and, I quote him, Sir, "in the face of the power of capital can only seek protection in the unity of their trade union movement." Sir, how true that is. But apparently this self-evident truth has now been forgotten by the P.A.P. Government. That workers have to struggle at heavy odds against the capitalists is a painful fact known to all workers. The workers know from their own experience the difficulties they have to face and the class struggle they have to undergo in order that they may earn enough to keep themselves, their wives and their children from starvation, and in order that they may raise their standard of living. Getting a small increase in wages from the rapacious capitalist who is making a huge profit sometimes can be as difficult and as impossible as trying to squeeze blood out of a stone.

Nevertheless the struggle goes on unceasingly and unremittingly. As has been pointed out by the Member for Anson, it goes on in all modern countries - in the United States of America, the United Kingdom. Australia, New Zealand, Japan, France; all over the world. And it goes on also in Malaya and in Singapore. Thousands and thousands of man-days are lost, usually not because of the workers wanting it but because of the stupid, unreasonable and stubborn attitude of the capitalists and the employers in resisting the legitimate demands of the workers.

In Singapore, because of the struggle of the workers, we now have the Member for Cairnhill expressing grave concern, as he calls it, for the so-called industrial unrest, and which the Member for Anson has earlier on called "public manifestations of industrial dissatisfaction". Of course, Sir, "public manifestations of industrial dissatisfaction" is an ingenious phrase and certainly is a phrase more appropriate than "industrial unrest". Because when one talks of industrial unrest, one is automatically led to think of quelling the unrest, and this would suit the P.A.P. very much and lots of other people besides.

In Singapore today, there is undoubtedly a large section of workers bubbling over with their pent-up dissatisfaction. This is not a difficult thing to recognize. All we have to do is just to look around. Neither is this the thing which we all need express grave concern or alarm about. And a false alarm, Sir, is not only mischievous but also misleading to all concerned, and it will certainly do nobody any good. Except, of course, people who want to suppress the legitimate aspirations of the workers.

Sir, it is easy to paint a horrifying picture of the labour turmoil in Singapore today. All one has to do is to point an accusing finger at the workers and their trade unions, or their trade union leaders, and then start listing the crimes and the sins of the workers, the number of strikes that have taken place, the number of man-days lost, the damage done to the economy of the island, the fright and the flight of capital on which the workers depend for their employment and survival, and so on and so forth. The vicious forces will perhaps be quick to say - and on this the Member for Anson has joined in in quickly mouthing the same platitude - that this is all caused by subversive elements and the Communists. From this reasoning, Sir, it would appear that had there been no Communists and such people, there would have been no strikes and no industrial unrest. What a simple solution it would be if only it were true. All you have to do is to finish off the subversives and the Communists and you get rid of - according to the Minister for Finance - the labour plague. The trouble is this: this sort of simple formula simply does not exist, and it can never work. Whether the Communists and the subversives are finished off or not, labour will forever be in ferment, at least until we get a more equal and just society.

The Minister for Culture (Mr S. Rajaratnam): Such as?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: A Communist State.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The Member for Cairnhill and also the Member for Anson both called on the Government to take all reasonable steps to ensure industrial peace. What are these "reasonable steps"? According to the Member for Cairnhill, the rule of law must replace the rule of the jungle -

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Correct.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - and that is achieved by improvement in the conciliation machinery. Conciliation, he says, is the biggest factor in ensuring industrial peace, and towards that end he suggests giving additional stair to the Arbitration Court, introducing amending legislation as suggested by the President of the Industrial Arbitration Court, and getting more trained conciliators in the Labour Department. I do not doubt that all these measures would help to remove the present delay and dissatisfaction in the work of arbitration and conciliation in labour disputes. But will these measures really bring about industrial peace? If the Member for Cairnhill is so naive as that, what is the correct approach?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Register S.A.T.U.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: How do we bring about industrial peace? Conciliation only relieves the symptom. It will not cure the disease.

Sir, the correct approach to this problem is to try to find out the real root cause of what the Member for cairnhill in hysteria calls "industrial unrest", and what the Member for Anson terms "industrial dissatisfaction". Only then can we hope to arrive at a sound and .sane solution as to how industrial dissatisfaction may be diminished and ultimately done away with. Diagnosis before treatment has always been our guiding principle in medical practice. This axiom similarly applies to what we are discussing today. That the motion asking for industrial peace is moved by none other than the Chief Minister of the previous government. who was also its Minister for Labour and Social Welfare, cannot but make one doubt the real motives behind this motion. For we must ask, what is the ulterior motive behind this motion?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Prosperity for all.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Does the Member for Cairnhill imply that the workers of Singapore should go down on their bended knees and thank the gods that they now have the jobs that they are holding? Does he imply that they should not seek or fight for their rights through their own trade unions with all the legitimate means at their disposal? Does he imply that it is not the capitalists and the employers but the workers who should be blamed for the so-called troubles in the industrial field!

Sir, you will recall that when the Member for Cairnhill was in power, he had pursued a policy which was pro-capitalist and anti-worker with unprecedented vehemence. He was then perhaps greatly inspired by the Concept of the so-called affluent democracy of America and West Germany, not unlike our present Minister for Finance who is inspired by the militarist capitalists of Japan.

The Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee): On a point of elucidation.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: When this policy -

Mr Speaker: Order. There is a request for a point of elucidation. Will the Member give way!

Dr Lee Siew Choh resumed his seat.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: The Member has referred to the militarist capitalist system in Japan. We know who the capitalists are. Could the Member say who the Japanese militarists are, how strong they are, and to what extent they control policy in their country?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I am surprised that the Minister for Finance should ask a question like that. He just went to Japan only a little while ago. He should know all the answers. It is best that he should tell us rather than that we try to tell him.

Sir, when this policy of the previous Government was translated into practice, with the tacit agreement, at that time, of Lee Kuan Yew and company, it came to mean legalised violence against the mainstream of the trade union movement in Singapore. It meant arbitrary arrests of trade unionists under the pretext of fighting so-called subversion. It meant deportation of trade unionists and untold hardship for hundreds of families.

The Prime Minister: Created by you and your Communists!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: It meant the closing down of trade unions. As the saying goes, Sir, they created a wilderness and they called it the "industrial peace" of the Member for Cairnhill. In fact, Sir, it was an industrial peace imposed with power and force from above, that is, the rich and the foreign capitalists -

The Prime Minister: Sir, on a point of information.

Mr Speaker: If the Member will give way.

Dr Lee Siew Choh resumed his seat.

The Prime Minister: Sir, will the Member inform us who has led him to this revealing analysis of events which took place when he was not interested in politics?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Since when, Sir, I have learned, and learned, a great deal.

The Prime Minister: Who?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Definitely not from the Prime Minister of Singapore. Of course, the Prime Minister of Singapore is omniscient. He knows all the answers, except how to win the hearts of the people. That is his greatest fault, and that is the whole trouble with him. Now he is trying to sell away the rights of the people of Singapore.

I was saying, Sir, when I was interrupted, that the rich and the foreign capitalists were sitting pretty because the trade union movement was suppressed. In fact, the labour policy of the Member for Cairnhill and his record as Labour Minister are best remembered for his hatred for, and his reckless violence against, the legitimate trade union movement of Singapore. Now this man is crying for industrial peace. Does he mean the same type of industrial peace which he imposed on the workers when he was in power? Is he trying to encourage the type of industrial peace advocated by the Minister for Finance on his return from Japan when he said that Government should deal firmly with the workers?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Both - employers and workers. That is what I said.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Only Fascists deal firmly, and in the way that he thinks, with workers.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, on a point of elucidation.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I do not think I need any elucidation on this.

Mr Speaker: On a point of -

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The whole of Singapore knows that the Minister for Finance -

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member for Queenstown also gets completely out of order. When the Speaker is speaking, he must be quiet. He obviously does not wish to give way to the Minister for Finance. So the Minister for Finance cannot say a thing at the moment.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, on a point of order.

Mr Speaker: If it is a point of order, it must be a point of order. Otherwise the Minister will be out of order. Is it a point of order!

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Yes. Sir, the Member for Queenstown quoted from a statement I made after E returned from Japan. Is it in order for the Member to quote just a part of the statement, there by misleading the House on what I actually did say? Would that be in order?

Mr Speaker: I suppose it is a tactic which is used by many politicians. The Minister for Finance, of course, will have the opportunity of contradicting the Member's statement. Even after he has spoken, there is provision in the Standing Orders for him to speak again if he has been misunderstood.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: On a point of order.

Mr Speaker: Point of order.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, would it be in order for me to request the Member for Queenstown to read the full statement?

Mr Speaker: That is not a point of order. As I have indicated, the Minister for Finance will be able to correct any misimpression that has been given.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I think the Minister for Finance will have a lot to explain, Sir, and he will not be able to explain them away too. I do not know if this is the motive behind this motion, the motive of the Member for Cairnhill. Anyway, I would imagine that it needs considerable courage for a man to try and advise the Government on a matter in which he himself has proved to be a total failure. The Member for Anson has hinted on this in his speech. Therefore, let us ask: Does the Member for Cairnhill really know the key to the labour problem in Singapore today? Does the S.P.A. really believe that peace will prevail and tranquillity will reign only if there are a few more Arbitration Courts functioning? What does the Member for Cairnhill mean by the term "reasonable"? By "reasonable", does he mean that the rich and the foreign capitalists should be pleased and that the workers should be disappointed? Does he want to see trade unionists put behind bars and the trade unions dissolved? Does he want to see workers surviving at the mercy of rapacious employers and yellow trade unionists at large?

Sir, the P.A.P. has learned from the mistakes of the S.P.A., and though there is hardly any difference today between the Prime Minister and the Member for Cairnhill -

The Prime Minister: That is what you are hoping for!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - at least in one respect they differ. We had occasion to refer to this before, Sir,It is that the Prime Minister has a much better command of the English language, and when he formulated his labour policy, it came to be known as "industrial peace with justice". Industrial peace with justice! What a wonderful phrase! For neither the capitalists nor the workers can disagree with this perfect terminology. Peace and justice are what the capitalists want. Peace and justice are what the workers want. It may be said that, on the face of it, both the capitalists and the workers appear to have very significant common ground in this slogan of industrial peace with justice. But peace and justice are not merely things of absolute standard, things abstract and vague. When these concepts are translated into realities, they assume definite forms and have definite meanings. Thus it is that when the capitalists and the employers talk of industrial peace they mean that the workers should not make demands on them. They mean that the workers should be obedient, pliable and be subservient to the bosses. They mean that the workers should not talk of joining trade unions and ask for higher wages and better working conditions. By industrial peace they also mean, of course, that the Government should be on the side of the employers, that the Government should not hesitate to put the workers in their places by using the police and the law courts on the workers, arresting their leaders in the trade unions, and dissolving forcibly the working class organisations. Sir, to the capitalists, industrial peace means that, in fact, the workers and their trade unions should be so weakened and so disorganised as not to be able to assert themselves in any legitimate way. This sort of industrial peace confers on the capitalists and the employers the right to exploit, bully, oppress and suppress the workers, and this was the kind of industrial peace that prevailed in Singapore during the lime of the Lim Yew Hock Government. But it was industrial peace that was devoid of justice. This type of industrial peace is a dangerous peace, because the pent-up feelings of the workers will inevitably burst the lid wide open and disaster will inevitably follow. So let us not lose our sense of proportion, because industrial peace by itself is not necessarily a virtue, just as industrial dissatisfaction or unrest is not necessarily a vice. By this, I do not mean to suggest that I am in favour of industrial unrest. What I would like to say is that if the workers can no longer tolerate their oppressive working conditions, then it is perfectly legitimate and necessary that they organise themselves and try to do something to improve their lot within the framework of the law. This is the basic right of workers, a right now recognised the world over.

Sir, everybody talks of industrial peace these days, but it is easier to talk of industrial peace with justice than to carry it out. The important question is: justice for whom? Justice for the workers or justice for the employers? That is the rub. If it is going to be justice for both then the interests of both parties must be reconciled. It is no mean task trying to reconcile two different poles of interests. It means doing justice simultaneously to two antagonistic classes of people. This task is rendered more difficult for the simple reason that justice cannot be split into halves. You cannot have half justice for the employers and half justice for the workers. It just cannot be done.

Sir, in the present context of our society the employers, generally speaking, enjoy an overwhelming advantage over the workers and more often than not justice is denied to the workers. For example, what justice can there be for the workers when their employers acquire the help and support of the weighty police force in their dealings with the workers? It is a recognised fact, Sir, that the law is weighted heavily on the side of the employers. Who does not know that it is always an uphill battle to fight against social prejudices and economic oppression? The Member for Anson recognises this. But do the Member for Cairnhill and the Government benches know this?

The Prime Minister: We know more about this than you will ever learn in your life time.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: This is just like those arrogant people who think they know everything -

The Prime Minister: More than you do.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: When they are about to topple, they still want to show off their supercilious arrogance. I think it is time they learn how to be humble - [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Sir, when the workers manage to pressure the employers into making limited concessions through their trade union organisations, a struggle deemed legitimate and healthy by the Member for Anson, employers will work themselves up into fits and frenzies and accuse the workers of bringing chaos and disorder. Newspapers, particularly the Straits Times, owned by foreign capital - this was quoted by the Member for Anson; if you will remember, Sir, he said it was entirely due to the malice of newspapers and it can only be the malice of English newspapers, because the Member for Anson does not read any other newspaper but English newspapers, and there is only one English newspaper until recently, and that is the Straits Times - will play up the theme of the so-called organised irresponsibility of the workers of Singapore. The Member for Anson has said correctly about the malice of newspapers and, of course, the pro-colonial and pro-capitalist politicians like the Members from the S.P.A. - the Member for Cairnhill, and the Member for Tanglin - will jump in and join in the brow-beating of the poor workers.

An hon. Member: What about the unemployed?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Yet when the trade union movement is knuckled under and suppressed, not a murmur is heard. They then call it industrial peace. Is this not a mockery, an irony, the peace of the wilderness? It is important, therefore, that the P.A.P. Government makes its policy of industrial peace with justice a meaningful and living reality especially with reference to the workers who, in their unfortunate position in our society today, are yet to receive a just and fair share of the fruits of their labour. Of course, for this to take place, for a just and fair share of the fruits of their labour to be given to the workers, it will have to mean that the Government that implements the policy of industrial peace with justice must necessarily he a worker's government. It will mean that the aim of the Government must be to encourage and to build up a strong socialist movement both in the trade union field as well as in the political field so as to realise a socialist society within the shortest possible time. It will mean that the Government, with the cooperation of the trade union movement, should allow free enterprise to function before the coining into being of a socialist society, provided such free enterprise does not hamper the growth of the socialist movement in general and the trade union movement in particular.

Sir, these are the pre-requisites if the policy of industrial peace with justice is to become a meaningful and living reality as far as the people are concerned. Then the workers will not be unhappy even if it means that they have to exercise restraint in their organised efforts and even if it means that they have to put up with certain temporary hardships. Because the workers will then know that the Government is really On their side. They will know that the Government will work in the interests of the welfare of the people and will need their help in the struggle ahead, and they will then place their trust and confidence in the Government when they have no reason to doubt its sincerity.

Sir, such conditions existed at one time, or so the workers thought. Thus it was that there was a period of industrial stability and calm following the general elections in June 1959. Because the workers of Singapore in the trade union movement thought and also felt at that time that they had created a pro-labour government; a government which they then felt confident would do justice to labour a government that had also pledged to work hand-in-hand with the trade union movement towards bringing about the earliest establishment of a socialist society. Of course, there were sporadic cases of workers showing a tendency to over-exuberance as a result of the resurgence of their organised power. But then the union leadership had gone out of its way to exercise a restraining influence on the excesses of trade unions in industrial matters.

Sir, this post-election period was also the time when the employers did make efforts to readjust themselves to the new political situation. They had to readjust themselves to the realities of industrial democracy and to the growth of the socialist trade union movement in Singapore. In such a situation the Government had no difficulty at all in maintaining industrial stability. The Prime Minister conveniently attributed and arrogated all the industrial stability to the P.A.P.'s wonderful and sagacious Government. But unfortunately the confidence of the workers and of the trade unions cannot be gained by lip service and tricky manoeuvres. If the workers are convinced that the Government is only interested in its own selfish political gains, that it is no longer interested in working together with the trade union movement for the building up of a strong socialist movement, that it intends to depend entirely on foreign capital to solve the problems of unemployment difficulties, and that it intends to advance the interests of foreign capitalists at the expense of the interests of the workers and their trade unions, then the Government ceases to be a government on the workers' side. It then ceases to be a workers' government.

Today, Sir, industrial peace with justice has become a meaningless and an empty slogan. In spite of what the Minister for Health and Law has said and his efforts at trying to give a list of the good things the P.A.P. has done for the workers, the P.A.P. has lost the confidence of the workers. Everybody knows the P.A.P. Government is no longer interested in doing justice to the workers of Singapore. All its talk of wanting social security as revealed by the Minister for Finance shows how one-sided the Government has become. The Minister for Health and Law has said that the P.A.P. is a pro-labour Government and a pro-workers' Government. But he has very conveniently forgotten to mention that the Government has banned the Federation of Trade Unions, has not lived up to its promise of unification of the trade union movement, and has withdrawn the Trade Union Bill which was passed by this Assembly. All these things are very, very conveniently forgotten. All the requisites for the successful implementation of the policy of industrial peace with justice are no longer present in Singapore today. The P.A.P. Government has now ceased to struggle for the ultimate goal of establishing a socialist society. The P.A.P. has made all Left-wing political Parties and organisations its bitter enemies, whether they be in Singapore or in the Federation of Malaya or in the Borneo territories. The Socialist Conference recently held in Kula Lumpur and to which the P.A.P. was invited had to pass a resolution expelling the P.A.P. from the conference. As everybody knows, the P.A.P. is now seeking refuge under the banner of nationalism. The P.A.P. today does not call itself a socialist Party any more. It calls itself a nationalist Party. Even that umbrella will not save it from doom. Now following its change in policy, the P.A.P. Government today increasingly allows the service of the State machinery to be used by the employers for the Purposes of union-busting. We see nowadays the P.A.P. Government eagerly rushing the police force, Labour Ministry officials and even the law courts to the help of the employers whose sole purpose is to break the industrial action initiated by the workers through their own trade union organisations.

Sir, a very curious phenomenon has arisen in today's curious political situation in Singapore. The police force, hitherto trained for the oppression of labourers and of the Chinese-educated is being used more and more to deal with strikers who are predominantly English-speaking commercial workers and who happen also to be members of the Singapore Business House Employees Union. The police are supposed to enforce law and order as stipulated in the Trade Disputes Ordinance, a law which the P.A.P. had pledged to amend to the advantage of the working people. But now the police are more and more being used to break strikes and to protect non-union workers working in strike-bound establishments. As regards the Labour Ministry, it is known to have provided facilities so that expatriate personnel may be employed to overcome difficulties arising out of industrial action initiated by English-speaking commercial workers.

Sir, all this clearly indicates that the P.A.P. Government has indeed become anti-worker. I suppose it is only a matter of time before the Government will even go so far as to recruit blacklegs and provide them with the facilities of police protection in order that they may go to work in a strike-hound establishment and so break a strike, all because the organised workers do not see eye to eye with the Government - a discredited P.A.P. Government.

Sir, it is quite clear, as I have said, that the Government has gone over to the side of the employers. It finds more and more things in common with the capitalists and their Right-wing political representatives, and less and less things in common with the workers and their Left-wing political representatives. I have no hesitation in saying that the P.A.P. Government, contrary to its past protestations, is today pro-capitalist and anti-worker. It is only a matter of time before the P.A.P. Government goes all Out in resorting to repressive measures like those of the Lim Yew Hock Government to maintain their so-called industrial peace. The Minister for Finance hinted as much when he said that the Government should deal firmly with the workers.

We see at the present moment late efforts being made by the P.A.P. Government and its Finance Minister to induce Japanese capitalists to invest in this country. The Minister for Finance on his return from Tokyo on the 10th of this month made a statement of censure against the trade union movement. He said that the local labour in Singapore was the key to Japanese investment in Singapore. By that he meant that the conduct of the trade union movement constituted the greatest obstacle to foreign capital coming into Singapore for industrial investment. I would like to ask him, why must he blame the labour situation? Is not political instability the real cause of the lack of industrial investments? Surely he should know that the real plague on economy is -

An hon. Member: The Barisan Sosialis.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - political instability and the about-to-topple position of the P.A.P. Government. It is the distrust and the lack of confidence in a discredited Government in an unstable political situation that is the cause of non-investment in the industrial field. And crying Communism with the object of isolating the Barisan Sosialis will not help matters. That is why I have said that what the Member for Anson has touched on is not conducive to industrial peace. It can only help P.A.P. propaganda. In fact, crying Communism will actually help to frighten away whatever investment there is that may want to come to Singapore. This fact is very important and I wonder if the Government realises it. There is even an editorial comment in the Sin Chew Jit Poh a week or so ago on this matter. The Government should really look into this. It will not help the industrialisation of Singapore and it will not help to solve unemployment in Singapore.

Sir, there is one important fact that the P.A.P. Government seems unable to understand. It is that the capitalists are always on the look-out for opportunities to pressure the Government into taking anti-labour measures. Such measures, of course, will allow them to exploit the workers and blackmail the Government at the same time. When there was industrial stability immediately after the last general elections, the complaints of the capitalists then were that high wages and high taxes deterred large-scale industrial investment by private foreign capitalists. Now that the P.A.P. has lost the confidence of the workers and their trade unions, the complaints of the capitalists are that the conduct of the organised workers constitutes the greatest deterrent to such investment. Well, the P.A.P. says the same thing as the capitalists say. Is this not evidence that the P.A.P. is already succumbing to the pressure and blackmail of foreign capitalists? Let us ask, how can such a Government achieve genuine industrial peace with justice? Surely the Government knows that to achieve industrial peace with justice, it needs co-operation all round. As is well known and as repeated time and again by the P.A.P. in the past, it takes three parties to achieve industrial peace with justice - namely, capital, the trade unions and the Government. Now with the Government on the side of the employers, how can Singapore have genuine industrial peace with justice? Let the Government explain. As far as foreign employers are concerned, they need very little encouragement in their policy of exploitation and oppression of workers. Their conduct has been largely governed by two main factors - the political situation of the day and the attitude of the Government.

Sir, it is common knowledge that whenever there is political uncertainty, the employers are inclined to flex their muscles before the workers. We may still recall the speeches made by the Prime Minister immediately after the 1956 purge when he launched very scathing attacks on employers like the Naval Base authorities and the Tay Koh Yat Bus Company. That was the time when many employers thought fit to mount a capital offensive against labour, especially when the trade unions and their leaders had been severely curbed. A similar political uncertainty prevails today in Singapore.

There has been a lot of talk about Malaysia and this so-called merger between Singapore and the Federation. The encouragement employers have received from statements made by political leaders in the Federation is considerable, particularly when the Government Ministers say that there have been far more strikes than are desirable and that the Federation Government will not tolerate the existence and expansion of the trade union movement in Singapore. May I refer, Sir, to the statement made by the Tunku and printed by the Straits Times on 12th January, saying that after merger "we will try to reduce the number of strikes." These were the words of the Tunku, Sir. "I do not know how he will do it, but our Minister of internal Security will do it." Such words! And this statement, by the way, also clearly proves what we have said all along. The P.A.P. has been trying to tell the people that there is autonomy in this White Paper merger of theirs. This statement of the Tunku proves conclusively that there is no autonomy -

An hon. Member: Communist subversion.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - in labour in this P.A.P. merger, and therefore all this talk about autonomy is a bluff, and a deception on the people.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I do not follow that. The Barisan want it.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Sir, I understand many capitalists nowadays think that the time has come at last for them to be no longer placed under any restriction. They feel that they need no longer put up with the so-called nonsense of the employees and the trade unions, and they feel that they must uphold and defend their so-called management rights. Sir, I am told provocation from such type of employers constitutes a rich source of trade disputes. The point is that such employers are no longer afraid of creating disputes with the workers, when they know full well that they have the State machinery, the Labour Ministry and even the law courts all on their side.

Sir, the labour situation in Singapore today is further complicated by the Government deliberately pursuing a policy of union rivalry. We all know for a fact that it has always been the intention of the P.A.P. to dominate and monopolise the trade union movement in Singapore. The pity of it is that this aspiration of the P.A.P. has turned out to be merely a pipe-dream.

Sir, Government's patronage of certain trade unions in Singapore is well known. Through Mr C. V. Devan Nair (whose salary I believe is paid out of State funds) and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture, together with all the facilities of the State machinery, the P.A.P. is trying to control as many trade unions as possible. Thus you find certain pro-P.A.P. union boys running around trying their level best to outdo the main stream of the trade union movement, i.e., the socialist trade union movement. I understand they go round telling workers not to join unions that are non-P.A.P. And I stress "non-P.A.P." They go round promising workers heaven on earth if they would only join the P.A.P. unions. This is the cause of many a strike in Singapore today. You will remember the recent City Council workers' strike. It was actually sparked off because of A.U.P.E., of which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture is its leader, fighting against the trade unions of the daily-rated workers. Everybody knows that this is a clear case of union rivalry sponsored by the P.A.P. And because of the P.A.P.'s policy of union rivalry, the people of Singapore were greatly inconvenienced and the public health gravely endangered. When it was clear to the P.A.P. union boys that the City Council workers could not be broken, they quickly beat a retreat and covered up their complete fiasco with a lot of Communist bogey propaganda, and blaming the Barisan Sosialis for the P.A.P.'s own machinations and intrigues.

We have been in the P.A.P. for quite some time, Sir, and we have learnt -

Mr Rajaratnam: That we speak the truth.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - the maze of thinking that the triumvirate of the P.A.P. indulge in.

An hon. Member: Triumvirate?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Triumvirate, of course. The Prime Minister, the Minister for Finance, and the Minister for Culture - the triumvirate of the P.A.P. The others, well -

An hon. Member: What others?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - I do not want to talk too much about it.

The Prime Minister: No one will stop you. Carry on.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Sir, in the situation facing us today, we feel confident that the socialist trade union movement, with its virility and its resilience, will be able to adapt itself to the changing circumstances. I am in complete agreement with Mr Foo Yong Fong, President of the Singapore Business Houses Employees Union and Chairman of the Pro-tem Committee of S.A.T.U., when he says in his recent statement -

Mr Rajaratnam: You are not building him up, are you?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: That is the chap who burns people with cigarette butts, is it not?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: May I quote, Sir, from a speech made -

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Minister for Finance is guilty of disorder. He is referring to a case which is sub-judice. It is on appeal. I think. He should never mention anything concerning a case which is sub-judice. Dr Lee.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: This is a message by Mr Foo Yong Fong, President, S.B.H.E.U., to all members on the eve of the New Year. Here is a passage and it reads:-

The Prime Minister: Who wrote it? Woodhull?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - it is on page 5.

`The only sensible thing for us, therefore, is to begin the year with a demonstration of goodwill with an expression of our determination to achieve industrial stability. If employers are prepared for serious discussion, they shall find us quite serious. But if they want a trial of strength, they shall find us equally serious. It is with these thoughts that I ask you to consider the coming year. It shall be a year when we shall discharge our duties with far greater calculation, It shall be a year when we can afford more time for discussion' -

The Prime Minister: True, that may be so.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: -

`than for demonstration, more time for an examination of the implications of all we do than for a concentration on the mere act of doing.'

Mr Rajaratnam: Are you sure he wrote it?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Sir, I quote this just to inform those hotheads -

Mr Rajaratnam: In the Barisan.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - in the P.A.P., the Police Force, and in the Labour Ministry that today they are facing very reasonable people. But in spite of all this, the Government is placing all its resources en the side of employers with only one aim in view - to help employers break the strike so as to break the organised strength of the unions and to make sure that they also break the support of all legitimate -

The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye): Peace-loving.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Peace-loving organisations that are struggling very hard -

Dr Goh Keng Swee: To survive.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - not to survive; they will survive at any time - but to raise the standard of living of the poorer classes of people. That is the thing which I hope the Minister for Finance will bear in mind, although I know things like this will take quite some time to penetrate.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I want to give them social insurance, but they do not want it.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Sir, as for the employers, I believe they are practical people, and as such it would help matters all round if they understand and recognise the legitimate role of the trade unions. This means that the employers should do all they can to promote industrial democracy in their establishments, and it means that they should refrain from coercing the powers that be to restrict the fundamental rights of the working people.

Sir, we would also like to take this opportunity to inform the employers that, for the sake of industrial peace in Singapore, they should keep themselves away from the political ring. If they use their economic position in our economy to try to play havoc and try to subvert the trade union movement and thereby hope to influence the political situation, then they are making a great mistake. Similar warnings were given by the Prime Minister in the hey-day when he was fighting for the rights of the workers.

The Prime Minister: Under different circumstances.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: And I am merely repeating what the Prime Minister had himself championed with great gusto at that time. These employers would only be creating trouble for themselves as well as for others. There would then really be chaos because mounting a capital offensive on labour is sheer stupidity, sheer unadulterated stupidity.

Sir, in the Singapore situation of today, the trade union movement is fully conscious that it has to contend with three hostile forces. They are (1) the P.A.P. Government with its big stick of the State machinery, the Police Force, the Prisons, the Law Courts, Senior Crown Counsel, all the top-notchers, and so-called "witnesses"; (2) the P.A.P. union boys backed by the might of the Government and also by the Government's Police Force; and (3) the employers who look upon Malaysia as their opportunity for unleashing an attack on the main stream of the trade union movement. If these three forces flock together and join forces together against the main stream of the trade union movement in Singapore, then there will be trouble for everybody.

Under those circumstances, Sir, I have no doubt that the people of Singapore will know wherein lie the responsibility of industrial unrest. Let us hope that such a day will never arrive.

4.45 p.m.

The Prime Minister: Sir, it was not my intention to speak so early in the debate. But I feel that if I am given an hour to produce certain facts and figures, it may perhaps help the other speakers of the Barisan Sosialis to come more directly to the point. As the Leader of the House has indicated, we are prepared to sit every night up till 12 o'clock to listen to one harangue after another, and from time to time, if we may, peacefully make a few comments, albeit humorously, on the futility of the closed circuit mind. The speech that has just been read out by the Member for Queenstown, and I say accurately read out by the Member for Queenstown, illustrates the inability to think out of fixed classified situations. Governments that do not toe their line are always pro-employer, supporting the capitalists, and using the police to coerce and intimidate the workers. Governments which are not amenable to their pressures always consist of desperate men who are always on the verge of toppling. If the industrial situation is unquestionably worse, it cannot be because of any other reason connected with the unions or the wisdom of their leadership, but surely it must be because the employers have no confidence in the Government.

Sir, the tragedy with the closed circuit mind is simply this. It often produces contradictions. One of the first contradictions I want to point out to the Member for Queenstown is that he has to make up his mind. If as he or his ghost writers would like us to believe, and like the people of Singapore, particularly the workers, to believe, we are pro-employer and pro-capitalist, and are willing to employ the State machinery, that is, the police, the courts and everything to crush and oppress the workers, then surely this is an ideal situation for the employers. On the other hand, they say employers do not like it because there is no stability, created by the same instability which the forces behind them have launched.

Sir, the motion speaks of mounting of industrial unrest. Nobody has denied that. It is a fact. It also talks of the Government's policy of industrial peace with justice. There are certain facts and figures which have to be explained away by those responsible for the switch in the policy of the Communist sector of the trade unions.

In the whole of 1960, there were only 5,939 workers involved in strikes with a loss of 152,000 man-days, compare this to the five months from August. You will remember the fateful day when we sat here till the early hours of the morning of the 21st of July. From August till December last year, there were 39,000 workers involved in strike with a loss of 370,000 man-days. In other words, in five months, after the break following Anson, the increase in the number of man-days lost is 120 per cent extra, 220 per cent of the whole of 1960. This is a fact, a fact for which I claim not much credit in predicting in July. What is all this about? Is there a change in the industrial situation? Is there a change in policy of the Government? Has there been a sudden right about turn - employers sacking people all over the place and becoming unreasonable? A change took place in Anson when the P.A.P. refused to be brow-beaten or intimidated into taking the Communist-front line of the abolition of the Internal Security Council and full internal self-government. Once we said merger, the fight started and it went on to its logical conclusion. The fight is still going on, not an industrial fight, but a political fight using industrial means to coerce the Government and upset the economy. I suggest to the Member for Cairnhill that perhaps this Government, having the advantage not only of having seen what happened in the last seven years since 1955, but also knowing the minds and the workings of the Communist cadres in the unions, is wise enough to treat this basically as a political and not as an industrial problem. It is not the shortage or the inadequacy of the machinery for conciliation and arbitration. They are there. We can quadruplicate it and we can improve it a hundred thousand times. The men who mount this unrest have not the slightest intention of making use of conciliation or arbitration proceedings.

Let me explain that out of the 96 strikes called last year, 69 or 72 per cent of them were called by the unions connected with the Communist front S.A.T.U. As I have explained earlier, the majority of them took place after August. Let me just compare the figures January/July last year with August/December. In January/July, there were 2,400 workers involved in strikes with a loss of 40,000 man-days compared to, in seven months, 2,400 workers and 40,000 man-days. In five months August/December, 39,000 workers and 370,000 man-days.

Mr Bani: On a point of clarification, Sir.

Mr Speaker: If the Prime Minister will give way.

The Prime Minister resumed his seat.

Mr Bani: I wonder whether the Prime Minister will clarify how many man-days were lost as a result of the City Council strike.

The Prime Minister: That may be so. I will give the figures later on. I have not got the figures with me here.

Mr Bani: Find out.

The Prime Minister: Yes, and that was a strike which the S.A.T.U. group tried to exploit. We frustrated the attempts of the S.A.T.U. group to exploit it. Let us make no bones about it. The Member for Thomson's other friend, Mr Rajendra, the co-Secretary in S.A.T.U., was there, bringing up the S.G.E.U. strike, getting Mr Dominic Puthucheary to try and fix up a few things here and there just to warm things up. There is no denial. There can be no denial. These are facts. We are fully conversant with the methods and the technique, and the position cannot be resolved. In an industrial unrest created by political agitators for political reasons, it cannot be solved by the industrial conciliation machinery. Let me further exp1ain, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Of these 69 strikes - these were unions connected with the Communist front S.A.T.U. - none of them went to arbitration. They did not want arbitration. They wanted a fight, to slug it out, to have incidents with the police, to have incidents with the employers, to try and sour up the situation and show the workers, "Look at the Government - wicked, cruel, unjust." Two cases - Guthrie's and William Jacks' - had to be ordered by the Ministry to the Arbitration Court. Only 15 cases throughout the whole period were referred to the Labour Ministry by the Business Houses Employees group for conciliation. A minor puffing problem!

Let me explain how these disputes are fought out, "for the benefit of the workers," says the Member for Queenstown. I say, explain a few facts away. In the case of the Ford Motor Engineering and Workshop Employees Union, they went on strike for 110 days and lost pay for 110 days and ended up with a seven-cent per day increase.

Mr Rajaratnam: Six cents.

The Prime Minister: Six cents. Just tell me, Mr Speaker, Sir, and I hope Members on the other side will explain, how many months, and how many years have they to work to make up for the loss of pay during the strike?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: What about the People's Association?

The Prime Minister: What about them? They were stupid and ignorant enough to follow the Barisan Sosialis.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Because they refused to obey you!

The Prime Minister: They were never organised into a union! They thought they could capture the Government, coerce the Government and rattle the Government. The net result is they are going to lose. Many of them have found other jobs because they have lost faith in the Barisan Sosialis forming the next government and winning the next victory. They have folded up. They have gone to look for other employment. Only those who are not good enough to look for other employment are still hanging around, hoping somehow or other that something may fall down from heaven or the Barisan may give something to them.

Let me give them another example for the benefit of the workers. There were four Shaw disputes, Mr Speaker, Sir. None of them was referred to the Labour Ministry even for conciliation, or brought to the notice of the Labour Ministry. They did not want the Labour Ministry to intervene. They went on strike for 33 days for an overtime claim of arrears. A 33-day strike. They have not got the arrears. What they have definitely sustained is a loss of 33 days' wages. All they have succeeded is to get the matter referred to the Arbitration Court, which they could have done and achieved without a strike of 33 days. It is a defeat. It brought misery and suffering to the workers. They thought, of course, why not increase the hostility? Government moves in with the police in steel helmets and batons. It is not as simple as that. If Members on this side were innocent, stupid, guileless, willing tools of the employers, reactionary capitalists, then perhaps. But no amount of harangue can convince the workers of Singapore that they have never had a Government so good. It is a fact. They have never had the employers put in a position where they are always willing to talk, where reason and argument is the only thing that can prevail. Now, Sir -

Mr Speaker: Order. Is it convenient to suspend?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps I could speak another five minutes and wind it up.

Mr Speaker: Yes, certainly.

5.00 p.m.

The Prime Minister: I would suggest to the directors behind the S.A.T.U. group that perhaps a repetition of the technique against the Lim Yew Hock Government will not bring the dividends it did when it is against the P.A.P. Government. Police action? Law and order, Sir, is maintained always with a more than reasonable bias in favour of the workers. Police action, repression, broken bones, broken heads, fire hoses? Never. But, of course, let me be the first to admit that it is the business of the police to prevent people from having cigarette butts stuck into their necks when they refuse to be intimidated, it is the duty of the police to prevent people from being assaulted and molested when they refuse to join or are being intimidated by the unionists. But if the unionists want to go on strike, let them. There is a limit beyond which they cannot go, because beyond that limit the goose is killed, the workers are put out of jobs, and it rebounds back on the union.

There is no need for hysteria. Everybody knows the situation is a political one and has to be settled politically. I am glad the Member for Queenstown has referred to the statement made by the Prime Minister of the Federation about the number of strikes in Singapore. There are two kinds of strike, Mr Speaker, Sir. One is a genuine industrial issue, not complicated either in the issue or in the pushing of it by political factors. These cases can find settlement, sometimes with a little bit of difficulty, through strikes and other open methods of protest, but always inevitably they end up, with reason in arguments, in an agreement, either with or without conciliation with the Labour Ministry or arbitration in the Arbitration Court. This is the sector that is the autonomy of the State of Singapore after merger. And it is our business, with the experience that we have gained, to make it really work. The principle of industrial peace with justice will work. There will be more Arbitration Courts. There will be more reasonable people who will actually seek the welfare of the workers and of the people of Singapore. But chaps refuse to have agreements which have any finality even for a relative period of time, and of the hundred over agreements made by the groups connected with the S.G.E.U. and the Business Houses, there are only two cases that we have been able to discover, on going through the records, where there are salary scales. All the others are straight, flat increases. After six months, after eight months, after a year.

Mr Bani: The employers do not want it.

The Prime Minister: We have gone into that.

Mr Bani: On a point of explanation.

Mr Speaker: If the Prime Minister will give way.

The Prime Minister resumed his seat.

Mr Bani: If the Prime Minister will take the trouble to contact the Employers Federation and ask them to confirm from their member whose workers are in the Business Houses Employees Union, I am sure he will find that the commercial employers reject salary scales.

The Prime Minister: That is not my information. I know the non-Communist sector of unions are having - and I can produce and I think I will produce - any number of agreements which show salary scales. And we will show the whole lot. These are facts which can be established from the record. Their aim is not industrial peace. It is industrial aggressiveness; make aggression pay in order that they can keep the workers continually on the move. From time to time the workers have to be placated. Then their appetites are whetted again for the next onslaught. There is not the slightest intention of having industrial peace with justice. What these unions want is a constant state of industrial excitement upon which they could expand and mount their world revolution.

As I have said, these are facts and figures related to the activities of the pro-Communist cadres in the union. I claim no credit for it. I do not see any conceit in my having painfully exposed these machinations. The fact of the matter is that after merger, internal security will ensure that the Communist element of the political manipulation of unions will be checked and free play given to really collective bargaining for the purpose of arriving at an agreement which is fair to the employer and the employee, to the workers and the State, to ensure industrial stability for industrial expansion, without which Members on the other side know full well that there will be utter chaos and disaster, but chaos and disaster which the Communists are quite prepared unabashedly to bring about in order that they can bring their world revolution one step further.

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend this Assembly, I will take the Chair again at 5.35 p.m.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.05 p.m. until 5.35 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.35 p.m.