INDUSTRIAL UNREST

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Question again proposed.

Mr Wong Soon Fong (Toa Payoh): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, it is the opinion of my Party that we should not only express grave concern over the question of industrial unrest but that we should also consider the question in all seriousness. That is why it is essential to find the cause of the deterioration in labour and capital relationship. No matter what the motive of the mover of this motion is, and no matter how he criticises and ridicules the Government in dealing with strikes, I would say that during his term of office in the Labour Front Government, he sided with the capitalists and the employers, sent trade unionists to gaol and used the police to intervene in strikes. I would also say that the previous Government did not only fail in alleviating industrial unrest but it also exploited the workers and sided with the employers, thus giving rise to general discontent among the workers. So I would say that if the Member for Cairnhill is urging the present Government to resort to similar tactics in dealing with the industrial workers, then it would bring about a worse situation than it is now. This is because if this line is taken, all the workers in Singapore will do their best to counter-attack the oppression imposed on them.

The present industrial unrest started during the second half of last year when the Government took action to close down the T.U.C. at a time when there was a political crisis within the Party in power. It is undoubtedly true that the present instability in politics is one of the important factors of industrial unrest. Before the Labour Department Report was given in 1961, we were unable to find out the number of strikes in Singapore. But from information published in newspapers, we find that in November last year there were about 20 strikes affecting some 33,000 workers with a loss of a few hundred working days. An important strike at that period was the strike of the Daily Rated Employees Union of the City Council. The worst industrial unrest in Singapore took place last year. From records of the past we can see why there were so many strikes. As we know, the P.A.P. came to power with the support of the left-wing people, especially the workers. When the P.A.P. took office, they promised to bring about unity among the labourers, amend the labour laws and carry out all the election pledges they made to the workers of Singapore. That was why they were so welcomed by the people of Singapore, especially the workers who had full confidence in them and who hoped that their lot would be improved. So in the first two years of the P.A.P. Government, it was a most difficult time for the Government to deal with all the problems of the workers. At that time, the number of labour disputes was not as great as it is now. This was because of the fair attitude adopted by the Labour Department, as a result of which the employers did not take advantage of the situation and they had to cooperate with the unions. It was because of this that there were more cases of labour disputes being settled. In the meantime, the workers also understood that they should not ask too much of the employers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if the leaders of the P.A.P. are sincere and are prepared to keep the promises they made during the election to carry out the reunification of the trade union movement and bring about industrial peace, then in all sincerity the Government should cooperate with the workers and the unions and improve the relationship between the employers and the workers. This is very possible. In fact, the reorganisation of the Government had, to a certain extent, brought about industrial peace. This came about as a result of the cooperation between the Government and the T.U.C. at that time. This attitude of cooperation was very promising. All this was done in the interest of the workers. But from what we see now, it is very difficult to ensure industrial peace. The Government has lost the confidence of the workers at present and it is only the irresponsible P.A.P. leaders who should be blamed for this.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is the contention of the P.A.P. to use the Industrial Arbitration Court as a means to bring about industrial peace. On 1st March, 1959 the Prime Minister said at a rally in Geylang Serai that the setting up of the Industrial Arbitration Court was only a means to try and settle industrial disputes legally. If the workers and the unions did not want this to be legalised by law, then they could decide for themselves whether industrial disputes should be submitted for arbitration in the Court. But after the Party came to power, the Prime Minister and his colleagues wanted to force compulsory arbitration on the workers, that is to say, if the workers and unions wanted to resort to a strike, they could not do so. Then there would be consultation and conciliation between the Government and the workers' leaders, such as Lim Ching Siong .In this respect, the Government has not been able to contribute anything to industrial peace. And the present situation is the responsibility of the present Government.

In fact, before the Arbitration Court was set up, the union leaders were very disappointed. Now there is an indication that the Government has the intention to enforce the Industrial Relations Ordinance. We must point out that the present Ordinance has already given enough powers to the Government, powers which can be abused by it to restrict the freedom to strike by workers; especially so in respect of the non-P.A.P. unions. As a matter of fact, Government already has got an occasion to make use of this Ordinance to negate the right of non-P.A.P. unions to strike. The Industrial Arbitration Court gives union leaders, especially leaders of non-P.A.P. unions no chance for any defence or argument. So we have doubts whether the Government has true intentions to amend the Ordinance in the interests of the people. And we are doubtful whether there is not an ulterior motive in the amendments to be made.

The closing down of the T.U.C. by the Government has given rise to a situation in which there is a split in the trade union movement. This act of closing down the T.U.C. has encouraged anti-union employers to take advantage of the present situation and to be stubborn against union leaders. This clearly shows that there is a 180-degree change in the labour policy of the Government.

In September last year the Minister for Labour openly said, in regard to the Shaw Brothers' trade dispute, that he urged the Shaw Brothers management to disregard the appeal of the workers for negotiations. The Government instead urged the management of Shaw Organisation to have individual talks with officials of the unions. In another case the Singapore General Employees Union won a victory in a secret ballot conducted by the Labour Ministry, but the Singapore Manual and Mercantile Workers Union, which is pro-P.A.P., was very unhappy about the situation, and its members resorted to stone-throwing. But the Minister for Labour turned a deaf ear to this complaint. And so there is a conflict between the P.A.P. unions and the non-P.A.P. unions. This is another factor which can be attributed to the present split in the trade union movement.

During the City Council strike the Government made use of new workers to break down the strike of the union. The Government at that time pointed out to the union that the trade dispute was politically involved, and so such steps were necessary. On the contrary, the Amalgamated Union of Public Employees is given special privileges by the Government whenever there is any strike, and A.U.P.E. is headed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture. From all this, we can clearly see that the Party in power is now adopting retrogressive methods and is siding with the pro-P.A.P. unions at the expense of the non-P.A.P. unions. These acts really are some of the causes of the present industrial unrest.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as we all know, the trade dispute is a social problem. Trade disputes and labour troubles cannot be solved easily in a capitalist society. It is only when there is a policy which is in the interests of Labour and which is carried out by the Government supported by the workers that industrial relationship between workers and employers can be improved. It is only in these circumstances that industrial peace can be brought about to improve the lot of the workers, especially the relationship between labour and capital. This policy must have the cooperation of three parties concerned, namely, the Government, labour and capital. As a matter of fact, it is because there was cooperation among the three parties at the beginning of P.A.P. rule that there was some form of industrial peace. In 1955-57 there were some very great strikes in the bus companies. In the last two or three years there was cooperation between workers and management. We would not say that the Hock Lee Bus Company and the Tay Koh Yat Bus Company have changed their attitude towards the workers. Neither do we say that there has been a change of attitude of the leaders of the bus workers. All we say is that these two parties, i.e., labour and capital, have come to some agreement concerning working conditions and wage increases. Therefore, strikes have been avoided in the bus companies. But unfortunately, the Party in power, in order to deal their political opponents a blow, have assisted and helped out their colleagues. So there has been no balance in labour and management relationship, and this move is not good to the bringing about of industrial peace.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we are of the opinion that the main way to bring about industrial peace lies in the cooperation of all parties concerned, especially in the mutual interest of the parties, so that the questions concerning industrial peace and industrial relationship can be solved. We are of the opinion that the workers in Singapore are responsible people. They have a great sense of responsibility and as long as employers do not take advantage of the present situation and try to prevent and restrict their activities in union matters, then there is no reason whatsoever for any deterioration in relationship between labour and capital.

6.57 p.m.

Mr Ong Eng Guan (Hong Lim): Mr Speaker, Sir, there has been quiet and silence in the industrial field for nearly two years, since June 1959 when the P.A.P. formed the Government, until not long after the defeat of the P.A.P. Government in the Hong Lim by-election. During this period, for some reason or other, we seldom hear of industrial disputes, industrial strike, not to say strikes. It was a comparatively long period of silence and certain trade union leaders were then under the impression that the P.A.P. was a Left-wing Government and was cooperating with the workers. It was not so much a fact that for two years there were no deep-seated grievances of the workers, not that the workers were satisfied with their wages and conditions of service; but it was said that when certain workers wished to press on with their industrial demands, they were asked to give this so-called Left-wing Government a chance to prove its worth.

Then, Sir, came the Hong Lim by-election and we have seen -

Mr Rajaratnam: Historical.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Historical Hong Lim by-election. And we have seen more strikes in the past few months than in the first two years of the P.A.P. Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, why are there so many strikes and so many industrial disputes? It is because the workers' deep-seated grievances have been pegged down for two years. We were faced with a similar situation in 1955 when, with a new Government coming in, there was a wave of industrial disputes which restored wages to their normal position. So this period of industrial activity during the last few months, in our opinion, is to catch up with what has been lost by workers in the first two years of the Government. There is no need for experienced political agitators to tell a worker that he should strike to get more.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when workers do not get subsistence wages, there is a necessity to resort to industrial action in order to get better conditions of living. One characteristic during the past few months is the spate of industrial disputes of white-collar workers, i.e., clerks of British and foreign commercial houses. This is because of the fact that since the return of the British in 1945 these white-collar workers have not generally resorted to collective bargaining. They have not obtained any general wage increase, and after so many years of silence, they have woken up to the fact that they would be able to get better wages and better conditions of service if they resorted to industrial action. Mr Speaker, Sir, if a worker is contented, and if a white-collar clerk is contented, however much agitation is being brought about, it is very difficult for us or for political agitators or industrial agitators to make them strike. We are thus faced with a situation where in this semi-colonial society we are trying to bring about equilibrium between the workers and the employers. During the past two years, the Government have not done much to bring the workers into their confidence. They have never shown in any concrete way that they are sympathetic towards the workers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when I was in the City Council we voluntarily raised the wages of the workers, the peons, the messengers and the poorly paid workers of the City Council. Not that we could do much for them - 40 cents increase a day for the workers, and $10 a month increase for the peon would not go along way. But it was a gesture of goodwill and sympathy for the working class. But what has this P.A.P. Government done? [Interruption] That is right, Mr Speaker. And why not the P.A.P. Government now also do the same thing? They should have done the same thing also. They still have the same Central Committee -

Mr Speaker: Order. To get the record right, perhaps the Member for Hong Lim will translate what the hon. Member for Delta said. I do not think it has got into our official record. He chose to answer the interjection. I think he should also translate the interjection if he can.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Delta said that the increase of the wages of the workers in the City Council was also the work of the P.A.P. That is why it is necessary for me to clarify the position, that is, if the P.A.P. Government are really sincere, they could have done it when they are in the Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, there was no wage increase. There was instead a deflationary situation where many workers lost their job. Some received less pay. There was also a situation where more taxes were taken from the poor workers. Therefore, the workers are faced with a Government in whom they have no confidence and they feel that it is only through industrial action that they could get what they want.

Mr Speaker, it was very long after the Government was formed that they set up the Industrial Arbitration Court to try to conciliate the contradictions in this capitalist society between the employer and the employee. Now we have one Industrial Arbitration Court. But from what I gather, that one Industrial Arbitration Court is not sufficient for the purpose, and many unions and employees have to queue up for a long time before they can send their cases to arbitration. The Prime Minister has said just now perhaps that is the reason why many employees do not want to send their case to arbitration. It takes months before the cases could be heard. So I would suggest that the Government should set up more Industrial Arbitration Courts. Now the snag in industrial arbitration is that you need qualified men who have much experience, and there are not many in Singapore who are prepared to do it without a price - not necessarily in terms of dollars and cents - to put up the cases of the workers before the Court. Therefore, we must have certain substitutes, for instance, like wage councils, or whatever name we call it, where the employees can bring up their case in an informal atmosphere before these wage councils and the employer will be asked to meet and settle their dispute.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we support the principle of industrial peace with justice not only in name but also in practice, and we hope that the Government could set up more Industrial Arbitration Courts, put up more wage councils so that we would be able to bring more employment and more stability to the present industrial position.

6.07 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Law (Inche Buang Bin Omar Junid) (In Malay): Mr Speaker, many Opposition Members from the Barisan Sosialis have accused the Government of using the State machinery to suppress trade unions. The Member for Toa Payoh, my former colleague, after having undergone such an experience, has no further interest in labour problems. But, Mr Speaker, I myself have been in the Singapore General Employees Union right from the beginning. I was a Committee member. Subsequently, I became its Chairman, then Vice-Chairman, and finally I became its Secretary-General. I am fully conversant with how the front-line Communist leaders have manipulated the labour movement in order to oppose the P.A.P. Government now. When the Government wanted to establish an Arbitration Court, Mr Fong Swee Suan exchanged views with me. He expressed his objection because he considered that this was not in the interest of the trade unions. At first I was unable to grasp the motive behind the reasons of Mr Fong Swee Suan. Later on when I made inquiries, I discovered that the setting up of the Industrial Arbitration Court would be a disadvantage to the Communists because they would then have no opportunity to use the labour movement in its struggle to oppose the Government. In addition, Mr Speaker -

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is addressing the Chair as Mr Chairman, that is Tuan Pengerusi, I think the correct address is Mr Speaker - Tuan Speaker or Tuan Yang di-Pertua.

Inche Buang Bin Omar Junid (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I apologise for the mix-up in the usage of the terms "Mr Chairman" and "Mr Speaker". Mr Speaker, when the Government intended to bring about the unification of the trade union movement in Singapore, similarly Mr Fong Swee Suan expressed his views against the step taken by the Government. I fail to understand this in the beginning. But later I was fully convinced that the reason was this. Mr Fong Swee Suan himself was the adviser to the S.G.E.U. when I was the Secretary-General, and the reason for his objection was that the S.G.E.U. itself comprised various classes of workers, so that when the unification took place, the S.G.E.U. would lose its strength.

Another point, Mr Speaker. Just now many of the Barisan Sosialis Members have charged the Government for using the State machinery, that is, using the police force, to suppress the trade unions. I ask the Barisan Sosialis to go back and ask their S.G.E.U. leaders like Mr Lim Ching Siong, Mr Fong Swee Suan, Mr Dominic Puthucheary and others, whether or not there were occasions when the unions sought help from the police, as in the case of the Malayan Tin Printing dispute. During the dispute, the S.G.E.U. sought police help from the workers of the Lighterage Company. I am telling nothing but the truth. As its Secretary-General then, I know the position very well. I think the Barisan Sosialis in this Chamber are merely receiving directives from irresponsible trade union leaders to utter unfounded charges which they themselves do not know. It is because of the unreasonable tactics adopted by them that I, of my own free will, resigned as the Secretary-General of the S.G.E.U.

Concerning the accusation by the Member for Hong Lim, he said that during the past two years, deep-seated industrial unrest has been prevailing. Mr Speaker, during the last Government, labour legislation was introduced concerning public holidays and so on. But the previous Government took no action to enforce these provisions according to the law. When the P.A.P. assumed office, all workers came forward to claim for overtime pay, such as the employees of the Raffles Hotel and the Adelphi Hotel. They were successful in their claims. The reason can easily be seen. The P.A.P. Government took all steps to bring both parties to negotiation in the Arbitration Court and then settlement was reached. Such accusations hurled by the Barisan Sosialis are merely designed to confuse the workers so that they will be anti the P.A.P. Government. There are many problems in trade disputes and certain leaders, particularly from the S.G.E.U., do not like such disputes to be referred to the Arbitration Court. The reason can easily be given, Mr Speaker, Sir, because if the Arbitration Court is successful in affecting a settlement, the workers can claim that it is not the Communist front that has made the settlement. It is the Government who does it. Therefore, the Barisan Sosialis leaders have found ways and means to prevent such trade disputes from being brought before the Arbitration Court. I say so. Mr Speaker, because earlier I have already said what transpired in the discussions I had with Mr Fong Swee Suan. I know very well what is going on in the S.G.E.U. Unlike the Barisan Sosialis Members who merely receive directions to read speeches in this Assembly, the leader of the Barisan Sosialis, the Member for Queenstown, wants publicity that he is championing the cause of labour. But he himself is in the dark as to what is going on in the S.G.E.U.

6.17 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour (Mr Wee Toon Boon): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government do view with grave concern the mounting of industrial unrest, but what was the cause of it? Surely the Member for Cairnhill is not too naive to suggest, as he did, that it was entirely due to the defect of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. Just now the Minister for Health and Law and the Prime Minister have dwelt on the figures on the strike position. But let me go through the following table once again:- Year Strikes No, of workmen Man-days Disputes involved lost 1959 (January-May) 2 256 614} 2 1959 (June-day the P.A.P. } took office-December) 38 1,683 18,212} 502 1960 45 5,939 152, 005 804 1961 (January-July) 39 2,431 41, 126 690 1961 (August-December) 77 39,153 369, 763 535

From the table it will be observed that there was a marked increase in the number of strikes from August 1961 immediately after the Anson by-election and the split that took place in the Trades Union Congress. The total number of strikes during this period was 77 as against 116 for the whole year.

Why this sudden perceptible increase in industrial unrest after the Anson by election?

Mr Speaker, Sir, you will recall that during the Anson by election the call for merger and Malaysia was in the air, and the Government took a firm stand in response to that call; but Mr Lim Ching Siong and the pro-Communist elements in the unions came out with a statement to ask for complete internal self-government only, with the Internal Security Council abolished instead of merger and Malaysia. Therefore, it was over a political issue between the Government and the pro-Communist Party elements in the unions that they have waged a political battle against the Government over the issue of merger and Malaysia. The historical and inevitable event of the reunification of the people of the two territories of Singapore and the Federation was taking shape day by day and the pro-Communist elements in the union became agitated and decided to use every means to fight the Government with the view to frustrating the materialisation of merger and Malaysia. They therefore mounted the industrial unrest with the view to forcing the Government to shift its stand on the issue of merger and, failing which, to topple the Government in order to frustrate the reunification of the people of Singapore and the Federation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I therefore move an amendment to the motion as follows:

(i) to add after the words "industrial unrest" in line 2 - "by pro-Communist political agitators for political ends";

(ii) to add after the words "in the interests of" in line 3 - "industrial expansion so vital to"

(iii)to add at the end of the motion after the word "Singapore" - "and to prevent genuine industrial grievances from being exploited for Communist ends".

The amended motion will thus read:

"That this House views with grave concern the mounting of industrial unrest by pro-Communist political agitators for political ends and calls on the Government to take all reasonable steps to ensure industrial peace with justice in the interests of industrial expansion so vital to the economic well-being of the people of Singapore and to prevent genuine industrial grievances from being exploited for Communist ends."

Amendment handed in.

Mr Speaker, Sir -

Mr Speaker: Order. I might mention that it is usual for the proposer of an amendment to be moved to clear that amendment either with the Clerk or with the Speaker, because there is a format which is generally adhered to in these matters. I would suggest that the amendment, which in substance is in order, should be:

To leave out all words from "unrest" to the end and substitute the words suggested, "by pro-Communist political agitators for political ends and calls on the Government to take all reasonable steps to ensure industrial peace with justice in the interests of industrial expansion so vital to the economic well-being of the people of Singapore and to prevent genuine industrial grievances from being exploited for Communist ends."

Is that accepted?

Mr Wee Toon Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg your pardon. I did not catch you just now. If all the amendments that are being moved by me in what you have said, then, of course -

Mr Speaker: In substance, the amendment is in order. It is a question of format. The amendment should be: To leave out all the words in the motion from "unrest" to the end and there to insert the words as they appear in the cyclostyled amended motion handed up.

Mr Wee Toon Boon: Yes.

Mr Speaker: Copies of the cyclostyled amended motion will be handed round.

Copies of amended motion distributed to hon. Members.

Mr Wee Toon Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, it was over the political issue of merger and Malaysia that caused the split in the non-Communist Left and the Communist Left in the Party and in the trade union movement. It therefore led to the test of strength between the non-Communist Left and the Communist Left. The Government had anticipated that pro-Communists would mount industrial unrest for political objectives. Let me quote from the letter of the Prime Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister who is the Chairman of the P.A.P. The Prime Minister in his letter pointed out the grave difficulties that faced the Government then because of the three Political Secretaries (Messrs. Lim Ching Siong, Fong Swee Suan and S. Woodhull) who had openly opposed the Government's policy for independence through merger. The Prime Minister then said:

`It is most likely that mounting industrial action will be taken by Mr Lim Ching Siong and his confederates to coerce the Party and the Government to abandon its plan for merger.

Up to now, because they were openly committed to our stand of industrial peace with justice, strikes and industrial unrest have nearly all been of an industrial character and without political objectives.

Now that an open break has come, it is most likely that there will be a mounting offensive on the trade union front with political and not industrial objectives.'

Now, let us go through the statistics and see how the pro-Communist elements mounted the industrial unrest. The number of strikes and lockouts during 1961 was 116, involving 43,584 workers and resulting in a loss of 410,889 man-days as against 45 strikes and lockouts in 1960 involving 5,539 workers and resulting in 152,005 man-days lost. There was a marked increase in the number of strikes from August to December 1961, i.e. the period immediately after the Anson by-election. The total number of strikes during this period was 77 as against 116 for the whole year.

For the period from 1st July, 1961 to 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 by Communist-controlled or Communist-penetrated unions, 24 by non-Communist unions and three by employees not represented by any union.

The Singapore General Employees' Union called 31 strikes; the Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union 25; and the Singapore Textile and General Merchants Employees' Union seven, making a total of 63 strikes or about 54 per cent of the total number of strikes during the year. For the period under review, the Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union, on the one hand, called a total of 25 strikes but, on the other, referred only 13 minor disputes to the Labour Department. Again, in the case of the dispute between the four Shaw Companies and the Singapore General Employees' Union in September 1961, no attempt was made by either party to avail itself of the machinery provided before taking industrial action.

There was also a difference in behaviour of strikers between the non-Communist unions and the Communist-controlled unions. The pickets of non-Communist unions were comparatively well-behaved, while the behaviour of strikers of the Communist-controlled unions, particularly those of the Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union, was aggressive and offensive. Executives of the firms were often assaulted and subjected to various forms of humiliation. The following diary of events gives the picture of the extent of misconduct by pickets:

On 18-8-61 - Robinson and Co., Ltd.

Following breakdown of negotiations over the recognition of S.B.H.E.U. as the representative of the firm's employees, members of the union staged a "go-slow" on 18th August, 1961, and prevented non-strikers from entering the premises before 9 a.m. When Mr Warren and Mr Hazel, employees of the firm, attempted to enter the store at 8.45 a.m., they were assaulted by four or five persons. An optician, Mr Meyer, who went to, the aid of the two Europeans, was also assaulted. Mrs Khoo, a non-striking Chinese woman worker, was knocked down when she insisted on entering the store.

On 11-9-61-Robinson and Co., Ltd.

Thirty-two pickets were arrested and charged in court for causing obstruction. At the time the arrests were effected, other obstreperous strikers present insisted that they should also be arrested and taken to Central Police Station. Altogether 216 were brought to the Central Police Station where it was found that of these persons only 150 were actual employees of the firm, the other 66 being members of the S.B.H.E.U. employed at other firms.

On l7-l1-61 - Seiclene Laundry and Dry-Cleaning.

On that day during the strike, the workers held up a British Army truck which had gone to the laundry to reclaim unwashed linen sent there for washing under contract. The strikers under the instructions of Mr Tan Teck Wah, President of the Singapore General Employees' Union (which represents the strikers), used two of the company's vans to block the entrance to the firm and so prevented the Army vehicle from leaving. It is known that the strikers were instructed by Mr Tan Teck Wah to make the police feel ridiculous once it was decided to disperse them. However, Mr Fong Swee Suan who arrived later advised the strikers not to defy the police. In the event, the police had to push the company's vans out of the way in order to clear a passage for the military truck. Finally, when the police formed up to leave, they were jeered at and had exploding crackers flung at them.

On 25-11-61 - Gammon (Singapore) Ltd.

The workers went on a one-day strike on 25-11-61. At about 8.15 a.m. when an engineer of the firm was being driven into the firm's premises at Bukit Timah Road his car was stopped by about 70 pickets including members of the S.B.H.E.U. who were not employees of the firm. The Malay driver was ordered to leave the car and when the engineer tried to drive on, he was assaulted by two of the pickets who were not employees of the firm. Timely intervention by two uniformed constables on duty saved the engineer from serious injuries. The strikers were defiant and the two police constables had to draw their revolvers to deter the crowd from further assaulting the engineer.

On 2-12-6l - Guthrie and Co. Ltd.

At 9.30 a.m., a mercantile assistant of this firm, Mr Walker, was escorting two women employees - non-union members of the firm - to office. The ladies were prevented from going in to work at the staircase leading to the office. Mr Walker was fisted by a male picket.

On the same day at 12.30 p.m., the director of the firm and the manager of the Pan-Malayan Imports were leaving the Chartered Bank Chambers.

Mr Bani: On a point of order. I think the Parliamentary Secretary is referring to a matter which is sub judice.

Mr Speaker: I was on the point of enquiring from the Parliamentary Secretary whether all these cases he is now quoting are not sub judice. If they are sub judice, then he cannot mention them.

Mr Wee Toon Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sorry. Only this one that I am mentioning is sub judice.

Mr Speaker: If that is so, the Parliamentary Secretary cannot even mention it.

Mr Wee Toon Boon: I will therefore take your advice, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Then on 4th December, 1961, at 3.50 p.m., a group of 14 European employees of the firm were leaving the premises under police escort. As they passed the pickets, they were jeered at, and one of the picketers threw two paper bags full of rotten eggs at them. The police constable who caught the assailant, Mr Teo Kim Eng, the Guthrie Branch Assistant Secretary of the union, in the act, was assaulted by Mr Teo who was then rescued by others. Mr Teo, however, was rearrested by the police constable with the assistance of Inspector Seah Wai Toh. Mr Teo was most violent and he punched and kicked Inspector Seah. The two police officers who took Mr Teo to a police pick-up were surrounded by the picketers who prevented the vehicle -

Mr Bani: On a point of order. I believe that is also a matter that is sub judice. You have just ruled on such matters.

Mr Speaker: The Parliamentary Secretary must be very careful about his speech because Standing Order 46 (2) says:

`Reference shall not be made to any matter which is sub judice, except by means of or in the course of consideration of a Bill...'.

Mr Wee Toon Boon: My memory may fail me, but I believe that this case was heard in court and disposed of by the court. However, I will take your advice, not to mention it.

Now after the Anson by-election, why this sudden upsurge of industrial unrest? It was not because the Government had changed its attitude towards the working class and frustrated the moves made by the workers for better terms and conditions of service. It was entirely due to the pro-C.P. elements who were opposed to merger and Malaysia. They picked a quarrel with the Government over this political issue and they wanted to create the impression in the minds of the workers that the Government was unsympathetic to the workers so that the workers would be discontented with the Government and so fight against the Government. They, therefore, had purposely mounted an industrial unrest and deliberately led the workers to clash with the police. But they have failed in the attempt to cause discontentment and ill-feeling of the workers towards the Government.

They have failed because the Government did not allow the employers in the present political confusion which was created by the pro-C.P. elements to take advantage of it and to oppress the workers as the previous Government did. No opportunity was given to the employer to weaken the workers' bargaining position or the employers being allowed to repudiate agreements which they had concluded with the workers. Further, the Government, unlike the previous Government, did not allow itself to be manipulated by obstinate and reactionary employers nor allow itself to be made use of as a tool against the workers. As a result of the consistent labour policy of the Government, the workers had confidence in the Government that they could have their grievances redressed with the assistance of the machinery provided under the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The House will notice from the Press from time to time the improved benefits that the workers had achieved from the day the P.A.P. took office up to now.

Just now I have illustrated a few cases in which the pro-Communist unions agitated its workers to use violence in the course of industrial disputes. Their main object was to lead the innocent workers into a clash with the police so that they could convince the workers that the Government was wicked and anti-worker. Therefore, through these means, they could exploit genuine trade disputes for their own selfish aims by implicating the workers in a political struggle against the Government. The pro-C.P. unions always issued statements blaming the Government for using the police against strikers. It is quite clear now from the incidents enumerated just now that the police had no alternative but to step in when violence was resorted to.

The pro-C.P. elements in the unions raised a hue and cry over the question of reunification of the trade union movement. Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have pointed out earlier, the split in the trade union movement was caused by the pro-C.P. elements over a political issue. They wanted the consolidation of the working class not for the workers' interests but for them to manipulate the trade union movement for their own selfish political ends. They made every attempt to capture control of the trade union movement so that they can bring pressure on and manipulate an elected Government to advance their own factional political ends. They have made use of the trade union movement for political manoeuvres calculated to create conditions of political unrest and instability in the State of Singapore. This was the cause of the spilt in the trade union movement, and the blame should go to the pro-C.P. elements and no one else.

Though there was a split in the trade union movement because they opposed the Government's realisation of merger, the Government has done everything possible to preserve the collective organisation of the workers in order that their own interests can be protected. You will therefore observe, Mr Speaker, Sir, that though there was a split in the trade union movement, nevertheless the Government has preserved an impartial and fair attitude in the face of provocation. Though there was a split in the trade unions, the P.A.P. Government sees to it that no employer is allowed to create yellow unions to weaken the bargaining position of the workers, as the Lim Yew Hock Government had done.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: What about the A.U.P.E.?

Mr Wee Toon Boon: For that matter, there are records and it can be dismissed as a distortion.

From the above, you will now see that no matter how hard the pro-C.P. elements have attempted to create discontent and to instil in the workers' minds the fact that the Government has abandoned its labour policy and is unsympathetic towards them, they have failed because we in the P.A.P. are genuinely working for the interests of the workers by not allowing the employers to exploit the political situation or allow itself to be manipulated by the capitalists. I would therefore take this opportunity to warn the pro-C.P. elements in the Barisan and in the unions that they have to be responsible and answerable to those workers whom they have misled by creating industrial unrest, as a result of which the workers themselves have lost their jobs or suffered, as a consequence of which their families have also suffered, and they have to be responsible for these workers and their families.

Mr Speaker, Sir, just now the Member for Queenstown has accused the Government of being pro-employer. Let us see who really has the interests of the workers at heart and who really is interested in maintaining industrial peace so that economic development could be proceeded with. There are many cases which I could cite to, prove that the pro-C.P. unions are making use of these genuine trade disputes for their own ends. For instance, the Malayan Theatres, i.e, the Shaw Organisation, the Prime Minister has cited it just now but I would like to give more details of this case to show how they have put the workers to unnecessary suffering and loss of income.

The dispute in this case was over claims for arrears of public holiday pay and allowances for morning and midnight shows. Mr Speaker, Sir, they are quite aware that there is an Ordinance which provides for all these amenities and employers have to abide by them, and in case of a breach of this section of the Ordinance the workers do not have to fight for it but they could just simply either raise the matter with the management or report it to the Labour Department, and the Inspectorate of the Labour Department will no doubt look into the complaint of a breach of this section of the Ordinance. But the pro-C.P. union, as is usual, claimed that what they had done was for the benefit of the workers without political motives. In this case, if that was their intention, in their failure to resolve this matter with the management directly, why did they not just lodge a complaint with the Labour Department? Instead, Mr Speaker, Sir, they decided to mislead the workers and ask them to take industrial action. In this particular case, they had a previous discussion at the Labour Ministry and it was adjourned to the following day. But the union, knowing full well the situation and that there was no breakdown in the negotiation, called off the workers on the eve when negotiations should be resumed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a clear example of what they claimed to be acting in the interests of the workers. As a result of their unscrupulous exploitation of a genuine trade dispute for their own political ends, the workers had to lose wages when they went on strike from the 21st December, 1961 to 31st January, 1962. Both parties have now agreed to refer the matter to the Arbitration Court, but as the Prime Minister has pointed out just now, the management had, in fact, offered to refer the matter to the Labour Court or to the Arbitration Court, because in this case the dispute was purely over a matter of facts and figures. So I do not know to what extent they can substantiate their claim. Anyway, 419 workers had been asked to go on strike unnecessarily for 2½ months, and they had to suffer during this period as they would derive no income. I wonder if they would or could ultimately get back a substantial sum to offset this period when the workers went on strike which resulted in a loss of income.

Let us examine the non-Communist trade unions and the Communist-controlled trade unions. Do they make every attempt and effort to bring about long-term industrial stability in industry? Surely, Mr Speaker, Sir, if you were to examine the agreements that were concluded between the Communist-controlled unions and the employers, you will notice that in most cases they just asked for a nominal sum of increments to which, I believe, in any case they would have been entitled. They had made no attempt to study their claims or to put up claims where the workers did not have to go through the same procedure and the trouble to ask for revision of terms and conditions of service.

In the non-Communist trade union group, they always study the case, consult their members, and put up claims which lead to ultimate long-term stability in employment. The House probably will have seen from the newspapers that in every agreement concluded, for instance, by the Bank Employees Union, the Insurance Employees Union, the Singapore Manual and Mercantile Workers Union, and other unions, i.e, under the non-C.P.-controlled group, they always asked for salary scales. So we see that once these unions take the trouble to fight for better terms and conditions of service, they achieve real benefits and they do not have to negotiate again every year or every two years.

Why is there such a difference in their tactics? It is very simple, Mr Speaker, Sir. The Communist-controlled unions accuse the Government of being pro-employer, but how was it that the non-Communist-controlled unions concluded agreements with employers on time scales which the Member for Thomson said the employer always refused to accept? Apart from this nominal increment, they always conclude an agreement for only a period of 18 months or two years, and they are very, very reluctant to conclude an agreement for two years or more. This shows the intention behind their move. On the whole, Mr Speaker, Sir, they always say the workers are dissatisfied with the Government. Let us look at this statement and see what is the real dissatisfaction, as they allege, the workers have with the Government. This is a Press cutting of the Sunday Tunes of 10th July, 1961. This is what is exactly reported in the Press of the speeches made by Mr Dominic Puthucheary and Mr S. T. Bani. members of the 10-man T.U.C. Secretariat. They were addressing the 5th Annual Delegates Conference of Industrial Workers Union at its premises in Kallang Road.

Mr Bani: At that time we were in the P.A.P.

Mr Wee Toon Boon: Yes, that is the period when you had already decided to betray the Party.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary is addressing the Chair. I do not think the Speaker has betrayed any Party so far.

Mr Wee Toon Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am referring to the Member for Thomson.

"They said: `A chief cause of dissatisfaction was the Government's failure to implement the Trade Union Bill which would provide for the reunification of the trade union movement. Another reason was the Government's loss of its anti-colonial fervour and the fact that it would not take a courageous stand against the Internal Security Council.'

They said: `The Government had deprived active trade unionists and anti-colonialists o citizenship rights and had not implemented the unionists' demand for release of all political detainees and the granting of freedom of speech and Assembly for anti-colonial purposes.'"

Mr Speaker, Sir, what has this got to do with the general workers? Again, at a meeting of the Singapore Business Houses Employees Union, which was reported on 16th February, 1962, in the Straits Times, Mr Foo Yong Fong, the Union's President, said this.

Mr Bani: Wrong statement, it seems!

Mr Wee Toon Boon: These are Communist virtues which they are trying to impress on the white-collar workers. He started off with saying:

`All the time we are told that the Communists are supposed to be had people.'

And he continued.

`Countries such as Russia, China and Cuba which can supply us with cheaper things are bad countries. Many people are not aware that they can get cheaper goods, such as clothes, shirts and canned food from countries like Russia and China than from America, Britain, Holland and South Africa.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not have to waste this House's time to go through the resolutions and the statements the Communist-controlled unions issued during the Anson by-election and even up till now when merger is taking shape. The main theme of their resolution was nothing else but to try and deceive the workers. They want to incite them to fight against the Government on the ground that the P.A.P. Government has sold out the people of Singapore because it wants a merger with the Federation, and the P.A.P. Government was reluctant to fight for internal self-government with the abolition of the Internal Security Council. Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, from all this, we can see that it is not the Government, due to this political situation, that has lost interest in the workers. On the contrary, it is the pro-C.P. in the unions which do not want to see the realisation of the unification of the people of Singapore and Malaya.

Just now many Opposition Members criticised the Government for not providing enough facilities for the trade unions in order that they can settle their disputes without resort to industrial action. Let me reveal to this House what the Government has done in order to help the workers to achieve better terms and conditions of service without undue hardship by going on strike. There is the Industrial Relations Ordinance under which an Industrial Arbitration Court was established to maintain industrial peace with justice. The Government has taken steps to strengthen the conciliation team in the Ministry of Labour. The number of conciliation officers in the Labour Department was increased from 4 to 9 officers as from 8th January, 1962. The organisation was also changed. In this new set-up there are five officers with considerable experience in conciliation work. But, Mr Speaker, do they really ask for this conciliation machinery in order that they will make use of it to maintain industrial peace? No, Mr Speaker, Sir. Conciliation and arbitration machinery is not what the pro-C.P. elements in the unions want to make use of.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, they have brought trouble on their own shoulders and they have to face their own medicine when, in spite of all their evil deeds, they still fail to prevent the historical, inevitable reunion of our territories on whose political and economic stability we can build a more prosperous society for our workers.

Mr Speaker: 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 all the words from "unrest" to the end, and there to insert "by pro-Communist political agitators for political ends and calls on the Government to take all reasonable steps to ensure industrial peace with justice in the interests of industrial expansion so vital to the economic well-being of the people of Singapore and to prevent genuine industrial grievances from being exploited for Communist ends".

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

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is surprising that the amendment should have come from someone who sits behind the Government Front Benches. One would have thought that the Prime Minister, with all his knowledge about Communism and his twelve talks, would have been the first one to bring this amendment before the House. If he should fail, then, of course, there is his next best, the one who knows all about Communism, who depends on the Special Branch for his information, the Minister for Home Affairs. What is the real meaning of this amendment? It says here, in the second part, "in the interests of industrial expansion so vital to the economic well-being of the people of Singapore". Who disagrees with a statement like that? But the Government, having failed in its responsibility, having failed in its industrialisation programme, now tries to find a scapegoat. And where else better than to pin it on the Communists and the pro-Communist elements? Crying "Communism", as I have said already a little while ago, is not going to benefit anybody, except in this particular case the P.A.P. and all those forces allied with the P.A.P. for the suppression of the legitimate aspirations of the workers. Crying "Communism" is not new. It has been done before, Sir, and on many occasions, we had also touched on this. We have also told the House that long ago the cry "radical" was directed against anti-anyone who happened to be against the Government. Later on the smear word was "socialists". A thing which a lot of people may have forgotten is that 1900 years ago the smear word was "Christian". Of course, today, they use other smear words. They are "red", "pink", "fellow-travellers" and "Communist". Do they not have anything new? Is the P.A.P. Government today so utterly bankrupt that their leaders cannot think of anything to salvage their sinking prestige?

Sir, the motives behind this amendment are very clear. First, in moving the motion here they want to adopt the same tactics which they adopted at the last Assembly sitting; namely, they want the Assembly to cover the action which they want to but dare not take. It is clear to everybody that the whole intention of the Government is to take repressive action against the workers. But they have not got the guts to do it. They want cover from the Assembly. Then they would say, if anybody should complain, that the action was endorsed by the Assembly. In the Assembly the Opposition too is there, and, therefore, the whole responsibility of such repressive action would not fall on the P.A.P. alone. That is their line of argument. But that will not deceive anybody. They are always trying to get the Assembly as cover. It is a very foolish thing because it is becoming too common. Everybody knows it already. By crying "Communism" at this stage, Sir, of course, they also want to create an atmosphere of fear, doubt and uncertainty; and when they have created this atmosphere of tension, they hope that a lot of people will get frightened so that when ultimately they take repressive action very few people will dare raise their voices in protest. These are tricks which have been adopted in the colonial mother countries on many occasions, and the P.A.P. are trying the same tactics today. But let me tell them this. In their trying to create doubt and uncertainty, fear and suspense in the minds of the people, they are actually trying to shove responsibility away from the Government in their inability to carry out their industrial programme. Everybody knows that the fear of industrialists in coming forward today is because of the political instability. They would not want to invest in a country when they know that the government of the day may be pushed out at any minute and when they very well know that the Government has no earthly chance whatsoever of ever being returned to power. Such being the case, the P.A.P. think it might be a good idea to pass the buck over to the unions instead. They have been stigmatizing the unions for a long time. It is always an easy way out crying "Communism", Sir, because it is very safe. When you cry "Communism", the Communists who are underground will not come forward to defend themselves, and we in the constitutional arena will also not come forward to defend Communism. So is it not nice, is it not easy? Always blame the Communists. Nobody can answer anything. When it comes to talking of Communism, I would like to tell them a few home truths, namely, that it is only people who are utterly bankrupt of ideas and who are hopelessly irresponsible who will go on this particular line. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour has listed so many instances of so-called Communist and pro-Communist activities. Why not be brave enough to identify those people concerned? Name them. Then carry out what you have long intended to do; send them to the country, put them behind bars, so that the people who are now against the P.A.P., the people who are supporting the Barisan Sosialis, the people who are completely disgusted with the present Government, can be put away, so that they may not be able to come forward to oppose the P.A.P. Then maybe the P.A.P. hope to isolate the Barisan Sosialis, reduce our strength and perhaps when there is a general election, they hope that they might still have a fighting chance. And if they could take away the core, the real ground work from our Barisan Sosialis, then our organisation, our strength, will be reduced and then, so they think, they will be able to take us on at an advantage. All these actions and intentions of the P.A.P. are very reminiscent of the days of the Lim Yew Hock Government.

I have already said that the Prime Minister of today does not differ very much from the Chief Minister of the previous Government. Now that the amendment has come forward, it makes me wonder what is the real intention and motive behind that original motion. Is it to allow a chance for the P.A.P. to move their amendment about the pro-Communist elements? Is it or is it not? I wonder, Sir, what really was in the mind of the Member for Cairnhill. Because we know during the days of the previous Government repressive action was taken on the slightest excuse against workers. They called them subversives. They called them so many things -

Tun Lim Yew Hock rose -

Mr Speaker: On a point of order?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: On a point of elucidation.

Mr Speaker: If the Member will give way.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I think the Member for Cairnhill can speak his mind afterwards. Sir, it is very clear to us today that the P.A.P. and the S.P.A. are in cahoots. They are going along the same road. You can see, Sir, everything that the P.A.P. does, the S.P.A. supports. Arguments put forward by the P.A.P. and the Prime Minister, the S.P.A. and the Members for Cairnhill, Tanglin and Farrer Park all echo. They are all from the same bunch.

Sir, I wish also at this particular stage to remind the Back-benches of the P.A.P. (since so many of them are not here, I hope they will pass the word round). Do not let yourselves be used by the selfish Front benches just to keep their own positions. Do not lend your names to such repressive action. Never allow your names to be linked with people who want to suppress people just for their own selfish ends. Never do a thing like that. We all know the Prime Minister is trying to prove himself not only an anti-Communist in Singapore. He is anxious to gain repute as an international anti-Communist. By so doing, he hopes to gain a lot of support from the Americans and from other sources. Then all the power of capital and capitalists from outside Singapore will also help to influence the power that be to keep him in power. The only snag is, in spite of all this, the P.A.P. will still not be able to make it. The people will see through all their stratagems and tricks and will tear them to pieces one by one. Crying "Communism" will not be able to keep the P.A.P. in power, and it will not be able to frighten the people into supporting the P.A.P. if ever they should go to the country at any time, they will find that even their deposits may be lost. If any one of them on the Front benches should ever dare come forward for a by-election at any time -

An hon. Member: Resign first.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: We will do it. Yes, I can tell you the same thing - resign. I will resign if the Minister for Home Affairs will follow me and resign straightaway. Give an assurance right here -

Mr Speaker: Order. These challenges being thrown across the Chamber surely are completely irrelevant to the issue. Let us come back now to this amendment and try and save some time of this Assembly.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I will not take the House very much longer, Sir. I feel that this amendment to the motion is all meant to pass the responsibility for the failure of the P.A.P. Government on to other people and to blame those who cannot reply. Crying "Communism", instead of helping the industrial expansion of the country will, in effect, drive away whatever investment that may be forthcoming. That is a thing which the P.A.P. does not realise and I hope someone will tell the Minister for Finance so that he may stop all this tomfoolery and smear tactics of the P.A.P. Only then will there be a possibility of foreign investment coming into the country to develop industries so that people may have a chance to get employment and so that the living standard of the people may rise as a result.

7.27 p.m.

Mr Chan Sun Wing (Upper Serangoon) (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, looking at the amendment put forward by the Government, I feel that it is rather ridiculous and preposterous. Speaking on the amendment, I feel that the present leadership of the P.A.P. see Communists with their eyes open and also with their eyes closed. Even when they sleep and dream, they dream of Communists. I would like to suggest to them that this kind of behaviour is something like a disease. They have been enchanted according to the Chinese, and the best thing for them to do is to go to Sago Lane to have a Chinese Taoist to drive away the evil spirits, so that their bewilderment can be driven away. In this manner, they will not be so confused when they look at things. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is said that when Radio Singapore was moving on to the present site, there was some sort of evil spirit there. At that time the Government invited all the leaders of the various religious groups to drive away the ghost. Since there has been a precedent in this matter, I would like to suggest to the P.A.P. that they should have some religious man to drive away the spirit of the Communists. The best course for them to take is to go before the Government building in the City Council, put up there a very huge paper figure representing the Communists and then set this paper figure on fire.

Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Serjeant-at-Arms, will you see that order is kept in the Gallery? There is unnecessary laughter in the Gallery and even as I look up there, I see some strangers indulging in laughter. I would like you to keep order in the Gallery.

Mr Chan Sun Wing (In Mandarin): I believe that if the Government accept my suggestion of burning the effigy of a Communist they will then calm down and come to their senses.

Mr Speaker, Sir, now I am going back to the motion itself. I do not claim to be a trade unionist. Because of this, I am not very sure about trade union matters. But according to my common sense, I feel that this amendment of the Government is very preposterous and illogical. In the first place, I would like to ask: if this House does accept this motion, then the Government will take steps to suppress and gaol all the pro-Communist people - does it mean that there will be industrial peace in Singapore after this action? I would like to ask a Minister of the P.A.P, to answer that question.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe that everybody who reads newspapers knows that in industrially advanced countries like the United Kingdom and the United States of America the Communists are not supported and welcomed by the people. Although the people in those countries do not welcome the Communists, are there no strikes? There are widespread strikes and there is industrial strife. What explanation can be given for such a situation? We will leave the U.K. and the U.S.A. and take India for example. Not long ago, there were widespread strikes in India. The leaders of the Indian Government servants were not manipulated by the Communists, and therefore the union was not manipulated by the Communists. Yet there were unprecedented strikes. Therefore, it is a distortion of fact and a deceiving statement to attribute our local industrial unrest to the Communists. I personally do not know the details of every case of industrial unrest or strike. But from reports in the newspapers, I understand that the strikes by non-P.A.P. unions were blamed for the industrial strife. But we do remember very well that the Daily-Rated Employees Union of the City Council held a three-week strike. Can it be said that the leaders of this union were manipulated by the Communists? From the newspapers it can be seen that the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture is the head of the A.U.P.E. which has given notice of strike action. Another sponsored trade unionist of the P.A.P. is Mr Devan Nair who is the leader of the Singapore Bank Employees Union which has taken industrial action. There is also another union - the Singapore Manual and Mercantile Workers Union - led by Mr Gomez. This union has often given notice of strike action. In all the instances I have mentioned, the cause of industrial strife and industrial unrest cannot be purely attributed to the Communists. You cannot say that all strikes are Communist inspired. If you say that that is so, then all unions including the A.U.P.E. and those led by Mr Devan Nair can be so classified. If the Government intends really to take action against these people, then they must treat other people alike. They must put in gaol all those responsible for industrial unrest. If the Government were to take action against unions which are their political opponents, then they would not bring about industrial peace in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am rather reluctant to disclose this, but since the P.A.P. Government now pretend to be a Government in the interest of the workers, I feel compelled to disclose the facts I know. When I first began to work in the P.A.P., I was engaged in the Trade Union Research and Advisory Bureau of the P.A.P. I was the only paid worker of this organisation and there was also a person who was paid but did no work. If you want to look up this matter, you can find out that the man who held this post was a sinecurist. You can also find out the amount of provident fund in respect of my post. This so-called Trade Union Research and Advisory Bureau was one in which I worked as an investigator. At the beginning, I was very enthusiastic in my work. But what was there to investigate? There was no plan. I did not know the kind of work I was to do. I had to draw on my experience as a journalist to carry out the work in my capacity as an investigator when talking to the leaders of the unions in order to get their views. Who asked me to do this kind of work? It was none other than the Prime Minister who was then the Secretary-General of the P.A.P. The Trade Union Advisory Bureau had a signboard next to the P.A.P. signboard. They were using the same office and the same table. So from this experience I know all about the labour policy of the P.A.P. Now if they were just to keep quiet about it instead of boasting about their labour policy, then I will not have to disclose the facts.

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not know whether what the hon. Member is saying is relevant to the amendment. We are now debating the amendment. It seems to me that he is debating the whole motion. But if he can satisfy me that what he is saying has some connection with the amendment as shown in the cyclostyled paper he has, then he can continue.

Mr Chan Sun Wing (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I was just giving an example to show the people the whole truth in regard -

Mr Speaker: Order. I am only interested in finding out whether the hon. Member is speaking to the amendment. He is entitled to tell the people the whole truth. But as far as the Chair is concerned, is what he is saying relevant to the amendment, which introduces the element of pro-Communist political agitators for political ends creating industrial unrest, and calls on the Government to take all reasonable steps to ensure industrial peace with justice in the interests - and this is the addition - "of industrial expansion so vital to the economic well-being of the people...", and with a further addition in order "to prevent genuine industrial grievances from being exploited for Communist ends"? The Communist element has been introduced as well as the element of industrial expansion vital to the economic well-being of the people. The hon. Member has not spoken to the original motion. He can later on speak again to the original motion. We are now dealing with the amendment. Mr Chan.

Mr Chan Sun Wing (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, what I was saying was actually aimed at the amendment because I have already said that I was rising to speak on the preposterous amendment moved by the Government.

What I was trying to show was that the P.A.P. originally did not have any labour policy. Now that they cannot get the support of the workers, they are therefore very worried that the leaders of the workers and the broad masses of the workers themselves will discard the P.A.P. policy. And so the Government have moved this amendment. I feel that this amendment aims at the political achievements of the P.A.P. instead of aiming at bringing about industrial peace.

Mr Speaker: Is there any other Member who wishes to speak only on the amendment?

7.45 p.m.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong (Jalan Kayu) (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, originally I did not intend to speak, but having listened to the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour on this amendment, I have a feeling that the P.A.P. Government at present is trying to shirk its responsibility, instead of facing the people. Take, for example, the question of industrial peace. All the people of Singapore can see clearly that it is because of the failure of the P.A.P. to keep their promises that there is industrial unrest in Singapore. And so just for the sake of their own interests, the P.A.P. have set up many unions. The City Council strike actually came about as a result of their manoeuvres.

Mr Speaker: Order. I thought I made it clear that the debate now is on the amendment only, and that is, the introduction of the Communist element in the motion as well as the effect of that on industrial expansion vital to the economic well-being of the people. That is all we are debating about at the moment. Later on, the hon. Member for Jalan Kayu will have every opportunity of saying what he wishes to say on the general aspects of the motion.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am only trying to say that it is not the Communists who are trying to bring about strikes. It is the Government itself that is causing strike. It cannot shirk its responsibility and blame the Communists who just cannot stand up to defend themselves. So, as a representative of the people, say that there is a lot of work not yet done by the Government. Instead of carrying out their responsibilities, they are trying to use the name of Communists to cover up their failure.

This term "Communists" was frequently used by the colonial Government and the Lim Yew Hock Government because at that time they were trying to suppress the people instead of trying to serve the people. So whenever anyone criticised the Government for not doing work for the people, he would be called a Communist. The P.A.P. Government now is resorting to the same tactics employed by the previous Government and the colonial Government. So I am just saying that there is an ulterior motive in the amendment - to put the responsibility partly on the Barisan Sosialis and partly on the Communists. They are trying to create this Communist phobia in order to use it as an excuse to suppress the people in future. In the past two years of its office, the Government has failed in many respects, especially in dealing with strikes. It is now trying to put the blame on the Communists in order to confuse the people.

Mr Speaker, Sir, about seven or eight months ago, the People's Association was set up by the Government to take charge of community centres. We all know that the setting up of the People's Association, as stated in its constitution, was to give proper recreation facilities to the people. But in actual practice this was not done, because the P.A.P. Government gave directives to the workers in the People's Association that they should serve the P.A.P.

Mr Speaker: Order. Can the Member satisfy the Chair that this has something to do with the Communist element which has been introduced into the motion? If he can, he can carry on; otherwise I suggest that he reserve his remarks until later on when he has an opportunity of speaking. We are now dealing with the amendment. Let us come to a decision in so far as the amendment is concerned.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the People's Association went on strike for seven to eight months, and because the Union or the organisation of workers was involved, the Government did not recognise this strike. Instead it disregarded their grievances and put the whole blame on the Communists. So I say that -

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has not as yet satisfied the Chair that this trouble in the People's Association has anything to do with this Communist element which has been introduced into the motion. Is he alleging that there was a Communist element there? Or is he saying that the Government have alleged that there was a Communist element there? I do not know. But will he come to the point, and the Chair will be satisfied?

Mr Tan Cheng Tong (In Mandarin): r Speaker, Sir, the strike in the People's Association was described as one agitated by the Communists, and since the Communist element has been introduced into the amendment, I am trying to link them up to show that instead of trying to settle the strike, the Government put the whole blame on the Communists, unless the workers' organisation can be exploited by them. Now, if the unions in the industrial organisation cannot be exploited and manoeuvred by the P.A.P., then action would be taken against them. That is why I say that this incident in the People's Association is related to the amendment. I am just giving an example to show that all the blame regarding strikes is put on the Communists.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel it is necessary to criticise the Government for trying to shirk its duties. The Government is not doing anything for the workers. Let us take the incident at the Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation as an example. The strike at the O.C.B.C. was a cause of great inconvenience to businessmen in Singapore.

Mr Speaker: Order. Is this another of the strikes which the Member alleges that the Government say was Communist-inspired? If so, then he is in order. If not, then he is out of order. I would suggest to the hon. Member that he has the opportunity, and he will have the opportunity, of speaking about these strikes individually when we come to the main motion. We are now dealing with the amendment.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, because this union concerned is inclined towards the P.A.P., and since this amendment says that industrial unrest is the result of agitation by the Communists, I dare say that not all the blame of industrial unrest should fall on the Communists. Even without Communist agitation there is industrial unrest or industrial strife. This is the position as I know it, and it is because they want to oppress the workers and fail to keep their promises made to the workers that they have to find a way out.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we all know that the P.A.P. is afraid of the freedom for people to organise. This amendment aims at threatening people in regard to freedom of speech. Because of the tone contained in the amendment, if future union leaders who want to fight for the interests of the workers should carry out a struggle, then they have to think twice, in view of this amendment, as it claims that the so-called industrial unrest is the result of agitation by the Communists. So if they should take any industrial action, they would be described as Communist agitators and be dealt with accordingly.

Therefore, I feel it necessary to express my views to the Government Benches. It is my opinion that the struggle of the workers sometimes, if not always, is reasonable. In this respect, the Government should try its best to help solve the problems of the workers. Here, I would like to quote the incident of the Shaw Organisation. According to my understanding of this case, the strike at the Shaw Organisation -

Mr Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Member now alleging that the Government alleges that the Shaw strike was Communist-inspired? If he alleges that, then he is in order. If he does not allege that, then I suggest once again that he wait for his opportunity when we deal with the main motion.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir -

8.00 p.m.

Mr Speaker: Order. Moment of interruption.