INDUSTRIAL UNREST

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

2.31 p.m.

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment [19th 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 from "unrest" to the end and 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 Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour-Mr Wee Toon Boon).

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

Mr Tan Cheng Tong (Jalan Kayu): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, as I said yesterday, the Party in power moved the amendment with two objectives in mind: first, to shirk its responsibility for the industrial unrest and to put the blame on other people because it came about as a result of the dictatorial attitude of the Government; and second, to threaten unions and organisations so that the leaders of the workers will not be able to protect the interests of the workers. In this way, the Government will be able, by taking advantage of intimidation and other excuses, to achieve their aim of suppressing the working class and their organisations.

I want to point that the arguments in favour of the amendment cannot stand because the amendment reads:

`That this House views with grave concern the mounting of industrial unrest by pro-Communist political agitators for political ends...'.

I feel that the insertion of these words is not reasonable and cannot stand up to any argument. In this connection, I would like to quote the Minister for Health and Law when he said yesterday that industrial unrest was not unique to Singapore. I am now quoting from yesterday's Sin Chew Jit Poh in which the Minister is reported to have said that industrial unrest was not unique to Singapore. He went on to say:

`There is industrial unrest even in all industrialised countries in the world. In England, civil servants, traditional moderates and trade Unionists are now in the frontline o the industrial battle because the Government had rejected the wage claims to offset inflationary pressures and adverse balance of payments. The industrial strife in England came about as a result of the industrial struggle.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, this paragraph of his is enough to explain that the arguments put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour cannot stand. From this, we can see that liars cannot always explain things away.

Mr Speaker: Order. Has the hon. Member alleged that the Parliamentary Secretary or any Member of this House is a liar? If he has, he must withdraw the expression.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I must thank you for your directive and I withdraw the term "liar". But I say that the people who put forward such arguments are really unreasonable people. For example, the Minister said that industrial unrest is not unique to Singapore but the Parliamentary Secretary said that industrial unrest has come about as a result of the trouble created by the Communists. From this we can see that the arguments put forward by both the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary on the same day were contradictory. I would like to remind Members of the Government that industrial unrest has come about as a result of the irresponsible and dictatorial attitude of the Government. We can therefore draw the inference that the Government are trying to make use of the amendment to deal a blow at their political opponents.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to acquaint you with certain facts to prove why their arguments cannot stand. For example, they talk about Mr Fong Swee Suan as a man who rose in life with a good reputation because of his connection with the Bus Workers Union. In the eyes of the Government, Mr Fong Swee Suan is now a Communist and the Bus Workers Union is now a Communist organisation. But we can see that for a long time now the Bus Workers Union have not started any trouble to inconvenience the people of Singapore. All these facts go to show that it is false and untrue to say that industrial unrest is generally as a result of agitation by the Communists. They also show how irresponsible the Government are in respect of strikes and industrial unrest. Their argument is that anything that goes wrong in the industrial field should be attributed to the Communists.

I would like to say that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour was not speaking the truth when he said - I am quoting from a newspaper - that there were about 116 strikes between 1961 and 1962 of which 96 strikes were started by the Singapore Business Houses Employees Union and the other strikes by the non-P.A.P, unions. He also said that most of the strikes were started by the Singapore General Employees Union. His statement is not correct because he tried to describe these organisations and unions as pro-Communist and open front organisations of the Communists.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this reasoning is really illogical because the S.G.E.U. and the S.B.H.E.U. are interested in a very wide range of workers. These organisations take into consideration the interests of thousands of workers. There are many, many workers who are members of these two unions. Now if the people are dissatisfied with their employers, they will certainly organise themselves to fight against injustice. I will take the City Council strike as an example. The Daily-Rated Employees. Union was confronted with an unreasonable employer and so there was a strike. I feel that the leaders of the S.G.E.U. and the S.B.H.E.U. are sensible and, reasonable people and that is why they are able to deal with industrial disputes in a peaceful manner with the minimum number of strikes involving so many people.

Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour also said - this is also reported in the newspapers - that the Communist-controlled unions and the non-Communist unions were different in their attitude towards the workers and that non-Communist unions were more reasonable in their attitude when dealing with industrial disputes but that the Communist-controlled unions, which include the S.B.H.E.U. and the S.G.E.U., were unreasonable. I say that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour was quite malicious when he made this allegation.

We can see from political history that whenever there are any new developments in a country, they are always described as bad. For example, when the P.A.P. was not yet in power, the Lim Yew Hock Government used to describe it as Communist-controlled. And now the P.A.P. is resorting to the same tactics used by the previous Government, that is to say, anything that is started as new should be oppressed and suppressed, and a smear campaign should be started against it. So I say that this argument is illogical and unreasonable.

Again, the Parliamentary Secretary said yesterday that pro-Communist unions very often made Press statements accusing the Government of using the police against strikes. He also said that non-Communist unions were quite different from pro-Communist unions. Is there any reasoning in his argument? I say there is none because if the workers go on strike and if the Government is aware of its responsibility, then it should not use the police against the workers. If that had been the actual case, then there would have been no need whatsoever for the unions to issue Press statements against the Government for using the police on the workers. Now, if the Government had not resorted to police action, such statements would not have been made against the Government.

Mr Speaker, Sir, actually I have a lot to say about this motion and the amendment, but I feel that other colleagues of mine will further explain this point, and I am not going to speak any more.

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

Tun Lim Yew Hock (Cairnhill): On the amendment, Sir?

Mr Speaker: Yes.

2.49 p.m.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, it appears strange to me that a motion introduced by me on an important issue couched in plain and simple language, free from high-sounding and ambiguous words, has brought forth two amendments, both as wide apart as two opposing forces.

I ask this House to view with grave concern the mounting of industrial unrest. The Member for Anson, by his proposed amendment which was speedily knocked out yesterday, attempted to distort a truly disgraceful situation into something highly praiseworthy. And now the P.A.P. Government, by the amendment proposed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour, is saying that the same truly disgraceful situation is something for which they should not be held responsible, although it is fond of claiming that it is a strong, responsible Government, dedicated to serve the best interests of the people of Singapore. I say there has been a mounting of industrial unrest. The Government says, "Yes, yes, quite true. There has been a mounting of industrial unrest. But all this industrial unrest is caused by pro-Communist political agitators for political ends."

Sir, as a responsible Opposition which has the sacred duty of looking after the well-being of the people of Singapore, it behoves us not to play party politics in a matter that means life and death to the economic well-being of the people of Singapore. The Government has made a very serious charge. Let us examine that charge, not as an opposing political Party out to down the P.A.P., but as a responsible Opposition discharging its sacred duty in the best interests of the people. Personally, as Chief Minister in the previous Government, and as its Minister for Labour and Welfare who had occasion to face these forces now described by the P.A.P. as pro-Communist political ends at a time when these forces were glorified by the P.A.P. as their comrades in arms, I am therefore in a better position than many in this House to pass judgment.

Sir, the Lim Yew Hock Government fought these forces openly and squarely facing up to its responsibilities as a Government and guided by only one principle - that the security and well-being of the people is greater than the survival of a political Party. We fought, because we wanted security for the people of Singapore. We preserved the well-being of the people of Singapore, but we lost in the general elections in 1959. And how and why did we lose, Sir? It is because these leaders who form the Government today, unashamedly, as disclosed in ,the 12 Confessions of the Prime Minister over Radio Singapore recently, joined forces with these mischief makers and bluffed their way to power in 1959. I could quote instances upon instances of the treachery of the P.A.P. in selling out the interests of the people of Singapore to achieve their own political ends, but I do not propose to do so because the people now know the P.A.P. for what they are.

Take the case of Mr Lim Ching Siong. He was a Member of this Assembly and yet the Lim Yew Hock Government had the courage, in the best interests of the people of Singapore, to arrest and detain him under the P.P.S.O. because he was found to be closely involved in the 1956 riots. And the abuse and harsh words heaped upon me by the Prime Minister when he was on this side of the House can be found in Hansard, and I need not quote them.

Sir, the P.A.P. won the 1959 elections, but it refused to take office until it had secured the release of Mr Lim Ching Siong and his group of top-notchers. Not content with their release, the P.A.P. Government appointed Mr Lim Ching Siong and his group of top-notchers to be Political Secretaries - handsomely paid at $1,100 a month each out of public funds. Moreover, it appointed this group - Mr Lim Ching Siong and his top-notchers - as Assistant Secretaries in the T.U.C. - Ten Tall Men (tall indeed) - because they hoped that in this way through the T.U.C. they could capture the trade unions in Singapore.

What do we see today, Sir? Comrades have at long last fallen out, anti Mr Lim Ching Siong is now described, in the words of the Prime Minister, as the most important open front Communist leader in Singapore. The amendment proposed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour would make it that all the industrial unrest is due to Mr Lim Ching Siong and his group, and that this group is responsible for the mounting of industrial unrest. In other words. Sir, it is now openly admitted in this House that the group that caused the industrial unrest at the time of the previous Government is the same group that is causing the industrial unrest today. The previous Government fought them and contained them. The present Government released them; worked with them; accused them; but did nothing about it.

From these facts, Sir, the public can form their own estimation of the standard of political morality, of political integrity, and of public conduct of the previous and the present Governments.

Sir, by the amendment proposed by the Government, it would seem that they are putting the blame for this industrial unrest on pro-Communist political agitators for political ends, instead of trying to search their conscience and find out who are the real culprits. I say, and I speak from experience, that the pro-Communistic political agitators are involved in this industrial unrest. And I say too that the Government is not free from blame. Having tried to get them to work for them, having done all they could to get them to be on their side, and having used them to achieve their own political ends during the last general elections, they are no doubt in a better position than I ant to see and to know that these forces are out to destroy them, now that they are no longer with them. But what did the Government do? Just for the Prime Minister to stand up here and say, "Oh, we know all that. All these strikes are political strikes for political purposes - ha, ha!" And that is that.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye): What would you do?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: I did the right thing that a responsible Government did. If they can he found and can be proved to damage the security and the well-being of the people of Singapore, and that is the first sacred task of any Government, the Government should not shirk its responsibility. Do not just say, Ha, ha, yes, politics, Communist, Communist, Communist' and do nothing about it in this way the Government are doing more damage to the security and the economic well-being of Singapore. Is it expected of foreign industrialists to want to come to Singapore when the Government itself says, There are Communist political agitators.'

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Nature will take its course!

Tun Lim Yew Hock: They know, of course, that the reason why they are playing this game is that to them the survival of the P.A.P. is greater than the interest of the people of Singapore. But I say this to them here, as I have said before, and I repeat it, the P.A.P. is dead, and no kind of political maneuvering will make it live again. Its funeral day will be the general election day.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Whose?

An hon. Member: S.P.A.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Let us see whether the P.A.P. is free from any blame. It was said in this House of Communist front trade unions, and how they described the other group as the non-Communist front trade unions. Why cannot the Government come out openly and say, there is one group, the Barisan group, and there is the other group, the P.A.P. group, and there is keen rivalry in the trade union field today; and because of this keen rivalry and their attempt to try to prove to the workers of Singapore that each is better than the other, there is this industrial unrest. When it was found that the Business Houses Employees Union had to go on strike because of their failure to achieve their object through negotiations, the Bank Employees Union would stage something too. What is this? This competition that is doing damage to the economy of Singapore is nothing but open competition. What is the use of saying that the Barisan unions had called 69 out of the 96 strikes? What about the balance? There were 27 strikes organised by the P.A.P. group of unions.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: You are not competing, are you?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: As a man who has been in the trade union field for years and as a man who believes in, works and strives for and is prepared to die for the interest of the people of Singapore, I say that a political Party must not make use of workers' organisations to achieve its own political ends. I have not done it. That is why I have not come out into the trade union field.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: What about the old T.U.C.?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: The old T.U.C. Laughable, Sir! It was the old T.U.C. that made the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture the Secretary-General in order to show to the world and to the workers of Singapore that there should be no politics in the T.U.C. And quite rightly. A strong P.A.P. supporter was made the Secretary-General of an organisation that has been labelled a Lim Yew Hock organisation. But look at the P.A.P. T.U.C. There are P.A.P. men everywhere. Every kind of man - tall men, short men - is in the P.A.P, and because there has been a break-up between the Barisan and the P.A.P., the Secretary-General of the T.U.C. says, "Oh, Mr Minister, dissolve the T.U.C.". And the Minister says, "Yes, dissolve it." And yet we are told today that the T.U.C. is still a registered trade union. What is all this?

Mr Speaker: Order. I know the Member for Cairnhill was jockeyed into the last part of the speech, but we are now on the amendment. Let us try and dispose of the amendment because it seems to me that if we go on this strain we will have overlapping. Let us dispose of the amendment and then, if it is carried, the debate can go on to the motion as amended.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, that little bit that I have said about the T.U.C. is a very clear illustration of the attempt of the P.A.P. to try and capture the trade unions for their own political ends. They have failed miserably and now they are accusing the Barisan Sosialis and suggesting that these pro-Communist political agitators are creating industrial unrest for political ends. In other words, what they have done, what they are prepared to do, what they are still prepared to do is all right, so long as it is done by them. But if it is done by somebody else, they say "pro-communist political agitators". That is not the way to run a government. The Government is there to look after the best interest of the people of Singapore; not one group against the other group! That would be wrong. That would bring unhappiness to the people of Singapore.

Before I go to the other side, the previous speaker and other speakers of the Barisan Sosialis said, "Now the P.A.P. is behaving like the Lim Yew Hock Government." All I can say is, "God forbid!" We will have nothing to do with the P.A.P. We hope the P.A.P. is learning the error of its ways and is prepared to admit the error of its ways. As a responsible Opposition, we are only guided by one principle. That is the well-being of the people of Singapore. If the Government is out to discharge its duties responsibly and courageously, a responsible Opposition must support and must not try and play politics. All the Barisan Sosialis Members who have spoken said, "Repressive measures. Look at the Lim Yew Hock Government. What did it do? They arrested the trade union leaders and put them in gaol!" They were speaking out of ignorance. The people who were arrested were people who were found to be indulging in subversive activities and because there was proof, these people were detained. The Barisan Sosialis were on that side before they left and came to this side. And the P.A.P. Government, as a government, of course had to consider the security of the country. The fact that there are today still some detainees - those detained by me - is sufficient evidence that what I did was right and could not be wrong. I do not say that the P.A.P. is wrong in still detaining them. I say that it is the responsibility of an elected Government, even if it were to be a Barisan form of government, to look after the security of the country, and in the discharge of that duty, unpleasant and unpopular things have to be done. They have to be done if the Government wants to claim that it is a responsible and strong Government meant to look after the interest of the workers. Some Members of the Barisan Sosialis behind me said, "Look at the Lim Yew Hock Government. They arrested trade union leaders." They were arrested not because they were trade union leaders working in the trade unions. They were arrested because of their other activities which were of a subversive character and damaging to the security and well-being of the people of Singapore. They said the Lim Yew Hock Government closed down the unions. As far as I can remember, Sir - in fact, I had hoped I would have the time to go through Hansard - the only union that I dissolved was the Shop and Factory Workers' Union led by Mr Lim Ching Siong. That union was dissolved because $120,000 of its funds simply disappeared. As a Government, we had to take action against the people who were using legitimate trade union funds for their own political ends. $120,000 disappeared! I do not know where. I do not think even the Prime Minister, although he was very closely connected with that union, knows where it has gone to. That was the only union we closed down.

Let us come to the P.A.P. at the time when the Barisan was on that side of the House. As soon as they came to power, there were so many unions closed by them. Registration was withdrawn on the ground that they were yellow, splinter - I do not know what -

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not know whether the allegation is that they were closed down on the grounds that they were Communist-inspired. We are now on the amendment. Will the Member please keep to the amendment? I have already suggested that he will have an opportunity later on of expanding on this theme. We are now on the amendment.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: I have said just now, with respect, Sir, that it is in reply to the speeches made on the amendment.

Mr Speaker: Order. That makes no difference at all. An irrelevancy does not excuse another irrelevancy, especially if there is an opportunity of answering the allegations made.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: I bow to your ruling, Sir. There is a next and better time. Sir, now coming to this amendment. First, it says industrial unrest is "by pro-Communist political agitators for political ends". Sir, I cannot accept that amendment because it would mean that all the industrial unrest is because of pro-Communist political agitators for political ends. That would not be true of the present situation in Singapore. It is true, and I am prepared to admit it and accept the Government's contention, that there have been pro-Communist political agitators in the trade union field. But I accuse the Government of indulging in similar tactics of trying to win the workers to their side by mounting industrial agitation. If one were to go through the newspapers. one would find this. Take the case of one known P.A.P. union, the Singapore Manual and Mercantile Workers Union, a well-known P.A.P. union, a union that was knocked out in a secret ballot conducted by the Labour Department; and yet because it is a P.A.P. union, it was allowed to call a strike. Take the Amalgamated Union of Public Employees too. In the Health Ministry, a secret ballot was undertaken by the Labour Department. The result showed that the A.U.P.E. was not accepted by the majority of workers in the Health Ministry, in so far as manual workers there were concerned. Yet the Minister for Health says the A.U.P.E. can collect subscriptions. Is it not instigating pro-Communist political agitators? They say. "Look at this." The Government is making the ground fertile ion political agitation. We are happy that we have not made use of this given Opportunity to get the workers out against the Government. As I have said earlier, a political Party should not, if it has any conscience at all, try to lead or mislead the workers to achieve their political ends. Sir, we then conic to the last part:

`and to prevent genuine industrial grievances from being exploited for Communist ends.'

Sweet-sounding words, Sir, but what do they mean? We do not understand what they mean. If the Government will only tell us what is meant by that. If it is meant that as a result of the present chaotic situation in Singapore today, the Government, in the discharge of its responsibilities to the people of Singapore, is going to put an end to political strife, then say it. We will support it. But do not just put in sweet-sounding words and do nothing about it.

I remember the Prime Minister in his radio broadcasts - his 12 confessions - described Lim Ching Siong as the most important open front communist leader in Singapore. He kept on repeating it. In fact, Mr Lim Ching Siong receives honourable mention here in this booklet. What does all this mean? Does it not mean that the Government is condoning Communism? Does it not mean that as far as the P.A.P. Government is concerned, it is all right to be a Communist, you can receive honourable mention by the Prime Minister over the radio and in publications and newspapers? It is all wrong. If the Government believes that Communism should be allowed in Singapore to compete with democratic forces in a parliamentary democracy, then say so. But do not try to describe anyone as an open front Communist leader with ridicule and contempt and yet do nothing about it. We want to know from the Government and we want to know it because it has been proved in this House many and many a time that the P.A.P. sometimes say what they do not mean and mean what they do not say. We will ask them to say in this House what is to be achieved by the amendment proposed by the Parliamentary Secretary. If what is meant by it is that the Government have now accepted the challenge and will fight it out to preserve the security and economic well-being of the people of Singapore, we will be with them. But if it is just another way of trying to shirk their responsibility and say, "Oh, it is not my fault, not my fault. Communist. Communist," then we are not going to be a party to this kind of mishandling of public interest.

Mr Speaker: I do not know whether the Government are confident that they are going to win that amendment. If they are, then I would suggest that we dispose of the amendment and then when the motion, as amended, is put to the House, the Government can still speak on the same theme. I am only suggesting a method of saving time.

3.20 p.m.

The Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee): Mr Speaker, Sir, Victorian melodrama consists of a standard plot enacted by stereotyped characters. The central figure is a villain usually with a sinister moustache who goes around with diabolical cunning to ensnare the innocent heroine into a fate worse than death. His machinations, however, are inevitably frustrated by the timely intervention of the hero. Stories of the Wild West also run according to a standard pattern. The scene of activity is usually a small town in the middle of nowhere. Large tracts of scrubland and desert surround this town which is inhabited by cowboys, wicked gunmen and, of course, the inevitable hero. The populace is terrorised by villainous gunmen, banks are robbed, innocent women are insulted, and the whole little town is reduced to a state of impotent terror until it is liberated by the hero who, after vanquishing the villains, rides off into the sunset as the film fades off in the last scene. And so Hopalong Cassidy rides again. Sir, literature and films of this kind cannot be considered great literature by any standard. But that does not detract from their merits as popular entertainment. But no one will regard cowboy films or Victorian melodrama to be serious attempts to portray the great truth of human life. It is just not intended to be that.

Sir, when I hear the speeches of the Barisan Sosialis on industrial strife, I am immediately reminded of the intellectual standards of cowboy stories and Victorian melodrama. There is exactly the same utter simplicity in stereotyped roles. For villain, read "the wicked employer"; for arch-villain, read "the P.A.P. Government"; for innocent heroine read "the helpless worker"; and for Hopalong Cassidy, read "Barisan Sosialis". It is all so utterly simple. The worker is oppressed by wicked and avaricious employers supported by a villainous Government, i.e. the P.A.P. Government. Unhappily the Barisan Sosialis have not been as dextrous as Hopalong Cassidy in disposing of his adversaries. So from each and every one of the speeches of the Barisan Members emerges this grotesque caricature of what is happening in Singapore. I venture to suggest that no one except the most stupid and idiotic of the Barisan Members would believe in this absolute trash, and yet we have this caricature being repeated time after time in this Assembly, and in the midst of it all, a comedian flits across the stage to declaim -

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Harold Lloyd.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: - strikes "What is wrong with strikes'? Strikes are good. Strikes are normal for society. Every sound democratic nation has strikes. The more strikes, the merrier. When I was the Chief Minister we beat the world record for strikes." And yet the same hon. Member, on exactly the same day, had previously asked the Government why employment in industry had been declining over the last five or six years. In the face of this assault on our sanity, it requires an effort of will to retain one's sense of proportion and to preserve balance of objectivity in approaching this question of industrial disputes.

Let me try to put the events during the last 2½ years in proper perspective. Once this perspective has been established, then the real significance of the mounting industrial strife will be plain to everyone. When we formed the Government in 1959, we had the Communists with us. But we never integrated into one unified movement. We stood for an independent, democratic, non-Communist Socialist Malaya. They? The Communist People's Republic of Malaya. On their part, the Communists attempted to infiltrate our Party organisation while maintaining an increasing stranglehold over certain trade unions, farmers' associations and sections of the student movement. During the first year of our office, it was clear that with the freedom they enjoyed under the P.A.P. Government, they were able to expand their influence and consolidate their position. They always maintained separate identity as a group from which they attempted to manipulate the Government for their own advantage. By the end of 1960, we had arrived at the conclusion that this state of affairs could not continue indefinitely. The activities of the Communists were motivated entirely by their own political ambitions. While paying lip service to Government policies in labour matters, they always reserved the right of complete independence of movement and action for themselves. The basic problem confronting the Government, the people and the country was economic and industrial expansion. This is necessary to give jobs to our growing population. But economic expansion cannot take place without stability in labour-management relations, and because of the influence of the Communists in important trade unions, the Government's policy of economic expansion could be frustrated at any time the Communist wished. We therefore wanted to pin down the Communists and the union leaders to a firm commitment to ensure just and stable relations between labour and management. That was the purpose of the series of meetings which we held with them and to which I referred when the question of unemployment insurance was discussed in the Assembly. We had agreed with Messrs. Lim Ching Siong and company on the list of industries in which industrial stability was to be maintained. This is a very comprehensive list and includes all industries of any significance in Singapore. Direct industrial action was to be avoided in this sector of the economy. The welfare of the workers was to be safeguarded by properly negotiated long-term agreements where the full apparatus of negotiation and arbitration was to be applied should there be differences of opinion between unions and employers. Agreement was reached in principle between the Communists and us in January 1961. Further discussions were scheduled to take place on the exact and detailed manner in which the proposals in this agreement were to be implemented. In this way we hoped to bring about a relaxation of tension in relations between employers and trade unions. This would give a decided impetus to industrialisation. Whether the Communists intended to honour the agreement and work in good faith to carry out their obligations we shall never know. But we had decided then that if they did not do so then we must part company with them on this issue. However, as events turned out, we never reached this stage. The Hong Lim by-election intervened and after that the Anson by-election. In the course of this latter by-election, as everybody knows, the Communists and the P.A.P. parted company. We wanted to pursue merger with Malaya as vigorously as possible. The Communists, on the other hand, wanted to pursue the anti-colonial struggle, but pursue it in a very odd way which I, for one, cannot understand. They wanted to fight the colonialists not by getting rid of them by independence for Singapore through merger, but by demanding that they remain in Singapore. In other words, they wanted British sovereignty to remain in Singapore which should be satisfied with internal self-government with, of course, internal security in the hands of the Government. Their stand, of course, has led them to an impossible contradiction which they cannot resolve.

After their break with the P.A.P., the Communists decided to attack the Government with all the means at their disposal. I have already described these attacks in detail and I only wish to refer to them in passing. First, there was a direct assault on the Party organisation and on Assemblymen and Parliamentary Secretaries of the Party. Here they achieved notable success as evidenced by the 13 Members across the Floor. They then proceeded to attack the Government through other channels, such as the People's Association, the Work Brigade, the middle school students and the City Council daily-rated workers. They even attempted to manipulate the Chinese Chamber of Commerce. But in all these attempts, they failed disastrously. The result of their effort was merely to bring misfortune upon those people who were foolish enough to believe them. Some 160 former employees of the People's Association have lost a useful career and are now unemployed. 500 young men and women in the Work Brigade for whom we tried to find useful work are now without any hope. Another 800 misguided middle school students have wasted a year's effort in their futile and unsuccessful boycott of the examinations last year. So in all, 1,400 young men and women have been sacrificed. In the meantime, of course, the Communists were stepping up agitation on the industrial front. Strikes were called before the full process of negotiation and conciliation had been exhausted. What was the net result of all this? Eventually the workers had to settle on terms hardly better than those offered by the employers at the beginning. So here again, tens of thousands of workers have been sacrificed. They have lost many weeks or many months of wages through unnecessary strikes which brought them little or no benefit over what they could have obtained without these strikes. My colleagues, who are better acquainted with the details of these strikes, will inform the Assembly of just how the workers have been cheated in these strikes.

Sir, no one, least of all the P.A.P., will condemn all strikes out of hand. A strike is a necessary weapon of the working class so long as there are stubborn and unreasonable employers. But the ultimate justification for a strike are the benefits that the workers get from such a strike. The Communists will disagree with this criterion. They believe - though they may not say so openly - that a strike is justified even if the workers lose by it provided the fighting spirit of the workers is heightened thereby, that is to say, that more hatred is generated which they can exploit to strengthen their stranglehold upon the unions. I suggest that this is a purely selfish political objective intended to advance not the livelihood and the interest of the workers but the political power of the Communist open front organisations. By the test which I have described, that is, whether the workers have obtained improved conditions sufficiently to justify the loss of income during the strikes, the strikes which the Communists have mounted in the last 7 or 8 months have not been in the interest of the workers. All the evidence points to the fact that the workers could have got as much, if not more, by negotiation, conciliation and arbitration.

There is another way in which workers suffer in strikes. And in this respect, the loss is more serious than the direct loss of an unsuccessful or unnecessary strike. This loss results from the serious check which industrial strife applies to the growth of new industries. I have already stated on my recent return from Japan that the industrialists in Japan and Hongkong who are contemplating the investment of capital in new industries in Singapore are seriously disturbed by the labour situation here. I have yet to receive intelligent comment on this from the Communists and their stooges in the Barisan Sosialis. Everybody knows that the Government is mounting the maximum effort to create new industries. The range of inducements which we are offering to new enterprises is without parallel in this part of the world. Let us not forget that there is keen competition all over Asia to attract new industries. Unless we can offer better terms than others, we are not going to get new industries. The Government has done its utmost, and if the result has not been as gratifying as the people of Singapore would wish, then the blame rests on those trade union leaders who mount industrial strikes for political reasons. The blame rests fairly and squarely on them.

I wish to say this to the growing army of Singapore's unemployed. New industries can be established in Singapore which can give you good jobs with good pay. If they are not coming fast enough, you are entitled to know why. You should try to get the answer from Mr Lim Ching Siong and his accomplices who are stirring up trouble and tension between workers and employers. And you will continue to be unemployed so long as these men continue with their mischievous and anti-social activities.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the purpose of the Government's amendment to the motion is twofold. First, it seeks to expose the political basis of the Communist-inspired industrial unrest in Singapore. Second, it seeks to show the direct loss suffered by workers and the even greater loss to those deprived of a decent hope of early employment as a result of industrial unrest. Men who deliberately stir up unrest for political ends deserve the strongest condemnation, as also those who try to conceal their mischief by various pretexts and pretences.

3.40 p.m.

Mr Ong Chang Sam (Choa Chu Kang): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, today we have heard the Member for Cairnhill and the Minister for Finance and the conclusion we can arrive at is that they are playing the same tune on different instruments.

The Member for Cairnhill accused the Government of not facing up to its responsibilities in dealing with those leaders it terms as pro-Communist and in closing down the so-called pro-Communist trade unions. The Minister for Finance said that if Mr Lim Ching Siong, the leader of the Communist front organisations, were allowed to carry on, then Singapore could not have industrialisation and the unemployment situation could not he resolved.

Mr Speaker. Sir, we can clearly see from the speech of the Member for Cairnhill that he is trying to ask the government to take drastic measures to deal with those trade union leaders who are really working for the interest of the workers. Actually the Government should have the courage to shoulder this trade union work. But according to the Minister for Finance, the Government is willing to shoulder this responsibility but not alone by itself. According the him, the responsibility for taking such drastic measures against the so-called pro-Communist elements should be shouldered by the whole Assembly and not by the PAP. Government alone. It was because of this that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour put forward this amendment to the motion before us.

In the past and also at present, the P.A.P. have been saying and are still saying that they are for the workers. But now the question of the true struggle for the workers has been termed by them as a, kind of pro-Communist struggle.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the workers of Singapore and their organisations have been termed pro-Communist and their activities have been termed pro-Communist activities: We are not hearing such accusations for the first time today.

The Minister for Culture (Mr S. Rajaratnam): It is true.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Why should a pro-workers' Government like the P.A.P. Government describe such genuine trade unions and organisations as pro-Communist?

Mr Speaker, Sir, one logic of the P.A.P. Government is this: if there is no P.A.P., then there will be no Government; if there is no Government, then there will be no trade unions. In other words, if these trade unions want to continue existing, then they must kow-tow to the leadership of the P.A.P. If they do not toe the line of the P.A.P., then the P.A.P. will think of various methods to inflict a deadly blow on these trade unions. In order to implement this kind of policy of disrupting and damaging the true trade unions, the P.A.P. must find some convincing pretexts so that the Press and the people will think that the policy of the P.A.P. is correct and justifiable.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in carrying out this kind of subversive activities, the P.A.P. has a very good pretext of accusing these genuine trade unions as pro-Communist trade unions, because it knows that it cannot call them yellow unions, because the organisation of such trade unions and their leaders cannot be made use of by the capitalists, and because they cannot be controlled by the P.A.P. These trade unions are, therefore, sincerely working hard in the interests of the workers. Therefore, if the P.A.P. wants to brand them as yellow unions, then the minds of the people can never be convinced and they will never believe such accusations. I can give a very simple example. The Prime Minister mentioned the strike at Ford Company. The Ford workers had been on strike for 110 days. In the end this industrial dispute was resolved. The demand of the workers was met by getting an increase of 6 cents per hour and not 6 cents per day as said by the Prime Minister. And their bonus was also increased by 4 days' pay more than in the past.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in order to correct certain wrong information given by the Government, I wish to say that labour wanted to sign longer contracts with capital but capital conceded to only a two-year contract. Therefore, we can clearly see that if such a trade union is to be accused by the Government as a yellow union, then, first and foremost, members of this trade union cannot believe it. The leaders of the trade unions are always on the labour side in their struggle for the benefit of the workers. And since the Government cannot use the label of "yellow union" to destroy genuine trade unionism, they therefore have resorted to a second method.

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has been using the expression "yellow union". By that, I take it, he means "alleged pro-Communist unions". If he does not, then he is irrelevant to the amendment, if he does mean "an alleged pro-Communist union", then he is in order.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, what I was saying was that I did not mean that a yellow union is a Communist or a pro-Communist union. I was referring to the P.A.P. because I wanted to point out to you that the P.A.P. has been using this kind of tactics to break up the unity of the workers of Singapore.

Mr Speaker: Order. I must remind the hon. Member then that we are now on the amendment which has brought in the Communist element. And if he wishes to pass remarks on other aspects of the motion, he will have the opportunity when we come to debate the motion in general.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I was only trying to prove to you that before the Government can break up the unity and organisation of the workers, the Government is trying to use this label of pro-Communist to break up the workers' organisations.

Mr Speaker, Sir, at present in Singapore in the field of trade unionism the workers are more rational and intelligent and the leaders of the workers are more sober and rational in all dealings with industrial disputes. We cannot term this industrial dispute as pro-Communist and say that these are pro-Communist activities. It is entirely wrong to make such accusations.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. now is hoping that there will be more industrial disputes and more strikes, so that in future when they want to resort to the action of selling out, they will have more pretexts to show to the people.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now quote the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour who said this yesterday when introducing his amendment to the motion - I am quoting from the Sin Chew Jit Poh of today, page 1 -

`The Parliamentary Secretary said that the Prime Minister, in his letter to the Deputy Prime Minister, had already pointed out that because three Political Secretaries, namely, Lim Ching Siong, Fong Swee Suan and Wood-hull, are openly opposing the Government's policy of achieving independence through merger, this is causing the Government serious difficulties. The Prime Minister continued to say. "Lim Ching Siong and his friends wilt resort to industrial action, and are trying to use tactics to prevent the Party and the Government from achieving their merger policy."'

Mr Speaker, Sir, talking about trade union leaders, they can see from this that trade unionism in Singapore in the future will meet with certain unpleasant situations, and certain unpleasant events will happen to these leaders. They have already expected long ago the beginning of this smear and the resultant political actions. Mr Speaker, Sir, I can therefore say the leaders of these trade unions and workers, since the parting of ways with the P.A.P., have now become more sober in dealing with all trade union disputes. The Government is trying to say that all trade disputes now have been organised by pro-Communist elements. Such an accusation is groundless. Mr Speaker. Sir, in order to point out to you this groundless smear, let me quote what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour said. I am quoting from today's Nanyang Siang Pau:

`The Parliamentary Secretary said that last year on the 17th November at the Seiclene Company the workers blocked a military truck for five hours from leaving the Company. The strikers under the direction of Tan Teck Wah, President of the Singapore General Employees Union, prevented the truck from leaving by using two vans to block it. Tan Teck Wah ordered the workers to do such things, and to sneer at the police. Later on, Fong Swee Suan arrived and persuaded the workers not to insult the police. In the end the police had to move the two vans away in order to let the military truck leave the Company's compound.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, from this we can really see, and this speech of his can clearly prove, that the recent picketing by the strikers has always been done in a peaceful way. If these trade union leaders had wanted to create confusion, then they could very easily have created unhappy incidents in such a case. We can also come to another conclusion like this. If Mr Fong Swee Suan, who has been alleged by the Government as having close connections with the Communists, wants to achieve the so-called pro-Communist purpose, then why should he persuade the workers on strike to picket peacefully? [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order. May I suggest to the Member for Delta that if she wants to intervene, she should stand up, and I am sure the Member for Choa Chu Kang will give way to a Lady.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, if at that time Mr Fong Swee Suan had wanted to achieve his political aims, then he could have asked Tan Teck Wah and the strikers to have an incident and come in conflict with the police. Why should Mr Fong Swee Suan persuade the leaders of the strikers to carry out peaceful picketing?

Mr Speaker, Sir, from this we can see that if we blame all the present Singapore industrial disputes as tactics by the Communists to achieve their political purpose and treat them in such a way, then the Government should bear the consequences for doing so. Mr Speaker, Sir, at the same time, the Government, through this amendment, have clearly told us what their future policy will be in relation to these so-called pro-Communist trade unions. The object of the Government is not to carry out their past promises to unite the workers, but to label those who shout these slogans as pro-Communists.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is very regrettable to hear that the P.A.P. today could have said such things. This goes to prove that they are not really working for the interest of the workers. They are really working for their political interest and to break up the workers' organisations and their unity. But I believe these workers' organisations will not he weakened by Government's smear of pro-Communist or pro-Communist activities, because all along they have been used to such smears being levelled at their leaders and their organisations. Therefore, this amendment of the P.A.P. is only presaging what they will do in the future to deal with genuine trade unions and to shirk their responsibility to this Assembly. Therefore, we are here to expose their true face.

4.03 p.m.

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ong Pang Boon): Mr Speaker, Sir, Communist tactics the world over are basically similar. In their struggle for power, the Communists invariably resort to exploiting the grievances and dissatisfaction of the workers by posing as their champions, and, having won their confidence, to deceive and lead them to violent collision with the State. The purpose is obvious to everybody. That is to stir up hatred against legally constituted authority if it stands in the way of Communist expansion. Bearing this in mind, Mr Speaker, Sir, we can understand why in any trade dispute involving the pro-Communist unions, the normal peaceful means of negotiation, conciliation and arbitration are ignored in favour of direct action, more often than not followed by violence. What is the result? Misery and suffering to the workers and their families for the meagre increase in wages, if any indeed, if normal peaceful methods were adopted, the workers could gain very much more than direct action without a great loss and sacrifice to the workers especially when there is a pro-labour Government in office. But why do the pro-Communists prefer the violent form of class struggle to peaceful means, especially if they are made available by a pro-labour Government, such as the P.A.P.? The answer is that violent industrial action by the pro-Communists is preferred because it serves two purposes. Firstly, it provides a recruiting and training ground for pro-Communist cadres. Only those cadres who have been thus steeled in the crucible of struggle are acceptable to the Communists. The second purpose is that the resulting suffering and misery of the workers as a result of violent direct action will leave them embittered and, by skilful manipulation, deceit and false propaganda, the bitterness and hatred and suffering of the workers could be exploited against the State. Of course, the pro-Communists would not tell the workers that these are their genuine purposes of an avoidable strike. Instead, they seek to divert the workers' attention by claiming that violent class struggle is inevitable and exhort the workers to sacrifice in the violent struggle so as to raise their political consciousness. Having understood the purpose of agitating workers to strike for political ends we should not be surprised if the pro-Communists in Singapore in the last few months have refused to make use of the normal channel of peaceful methods for settling trade disputes and preferred violent direct action which resulted, in many cases, in more losses than gains, as, for instance, the Ford Motor strike and the Shaw Brothers strike.

The conclusion is therefore obvious. The sudden mounting of industrial unrest in the last few months since the open break with the pro-Communists in July 1961 was more for political purposes to frustrate merger and Malaysia than for the economic betterment of the workers. That also explains why prior to the open break there were relatively few strikes, and in most cases peaceful. But after July 1961, there was a sudden increase of strikes by pro-Communist unions, and in most cases violent ones without first going through the normal channel of peaceful negotiation. conciliation and arbitration.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when peace is disturbed and violence and disorder take place, the police, as guardians of peace and order, must step in to ensure that the life and security of the people are not threatened and the people can go about in their daily pursuit of earning a living without danger. This duty of the police unfortunately conflicts with the aims of the pro-Communists in mounting strikes for political purposes, and that is the reason why the police, the disciplined arm of the State, must necessarily come under heavy fire of the pro-Communists, be they in Singapore or elsewhere. Similarly, the laws of the State are another important target of attack and hatred to the pro-Communists.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I table a copy of the Suara Kesatuan, a fortnightly publication of the Singapore General Employees Union, issue No. 13 dated 31st December, 1961. There is no need for me to explain that the Singapore General Employees Union is a pro-Communist union. The picture in this issue illustrates my point. The picture on the front page is a cartoon of the Government in the form of a human being whose right hand held a rifle and the left hand a police baton, and with his right foot armed with laws and his left foot disciplinary rules, crushing a worker on the ground. Is there anything which speaks more vividly the pro-Communist thinking than this cartoon that they depict the police and the law as instruments of oppression against the workers, and, therefore, as objects of resentment and hatred that must be swept aside so that the pro-Communists could have a free run in carrying out their intimidation and violence against those who oppose them? All other pictures published in the front page were specially taken to show the police in the act of maintaining peace and order in all the strike-bound areas where the pro-Communist unions were involved. The impression intended to he conveyed is quite clear to everybody. It is that the police is an instrument of oppression against the workers, and because the police is the disciplined arm of the State in the maintenance of law and order, therefore, the P.A.P. Government is anti-worker. Mr Speaker, Sir, from the speech made by the Member for Queenstown, it is obvious to everybody that the Barisan Sosialis is a Communist front organisation Out to discredit the legally constituted Government to further its anti-nationalist cause. In a colonial or semi-colonial State, the police is particularly vulnerable to attack for being the instrument of oppression. And the attack made by the Member for Queenstown on the police force and the law is therefore no surprise, because nothing could evoke public sympathy more than a physical clash between the police and the workers and the students. If therefore the pro-Communists in the Barisan Sosialis could deceive the innocent workers through their agents in the unions and manipulate them into a clash with the police, then a classic situation will develop with the Government being accused of using Fascist methods on the one hand and the poor workers as victims of brutal violence. In that kind of situation, the pro-Communists hope that they can whip up resentment and hatred amongst the workers and the public against the elected Government.

Mr Speaker, Sir, allegations have been made by the Member for Queenstown that the police force, previously trained to oppress the students and workers, have been increasingly used by the present Government against students and workers, especially English-speaking workers of the Business Houses Employees' Union. The Member for Queenstown also alleged that the police have been used to break strikes and to protect new workers and employers. If the Member for Queenstown is not speaking with his tongue in his cheek, then he is just repeating a set speech given to him by his masters like a parrot without consulting his own conscience. Whether the police was really trained to oppress the students and workers in the past, that is no responsibility of the P.A.P. Government. But no sensible person is going to take this fantastic allegation seriously. That I can assure. Although no worker in his right senses will believe that the P.A.P. Government is against workers, nevertheless, it is just as well to disillusion the infantile politicians in the Barisan Sosialis.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when we first came to power, we made it a point to re-orientate the outlook of the police. The police were told that they were the public servants of the people whose duty it was to safeguard the life and property of the people. They were however, to deal firmly with criminals and law-breakers. In their dealings with the people, they should be polite and tactful. Their duties as guardians of the people's economic and social institutions in a self-governing State become all the more heavy than before. The people were told of the role of the police and were asked to cooperate with them in the maintenance of law and order. Towards this end, political courses were arranged for police officers. Meetings were held where police meet the people and have their role in society clarified. I remember many Assemblymen of the Barisan Sosialis organised these meetings between the police and the people. Nobody can fail to see that there is a new spirit being instilled into the police. The Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen were the first to make full use of the new spirit of the police until a difference over the issue of merger and Malaysia developed in the Party, culminating in the open break between the pro-Communists and their stooges and the non-Communist P.A.P. There was not a squeak about Government using the police to oppress the workers. Indeed the efforts of the police to be friendly with the workers and on the side of the people were appreciated and on occasions compliments were made by the 13 Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen opposite. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Law cited yesterday, police protection was even sought by the Singapore General Employees Union to protect their members. However, when the open break came, what other better means to discredit the Government than the classic Communist target of mounting hatred against the police and anything connected with the machinery of the law and order which hampers the Communist objective of creating violence and disorder? The P.A.P. which has consistently adopted a pro-labour policy could not have been anti-labour overnight. The police has always adopted a neutral and impartial attitude in strikes. I wish to quote a statement issued by the Government on 15th January, 1960, showing the attitude of the Government towards strikes. A statement was issued after there was some indication that the police might be made use of by employers or employees in furtherance of their cause. I quote:

`Some unscrupulous employers are trying to get the police involved in industrial disputes with a view to creating illwill between workers and police. In a recent case an employer invited a union official for a discussion at his office and then surreptitiously rang up the police alleging intimidation by the union official.

The police are duty bound when complaints are received to make investigations on the spot. But where the complaints are frivolous or malicious, the police are brought into contempt and ridicule and not the ill-intentioned complainant.

The duty of the police is to protect and safeguard the interests of the people and maintain peace and good order. The police give orders or take measures to safeguard the interests of the people and so such orders must be obeyed. The authority of the State must be obeyed. The rights and wrongs of the decisions of the police are a matter to be argued subsequently in a calmer atmosphere before the proper authorities. For this reason, the Government is prepared to deal sternly with employers who through malice and mischief seek to turn the workers against the police and thereby to interfere with the Government's instrument of authority.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, this clearly showed how pro-labour the Government was. Far from the police being used to break strikes, the Government even went out of its way to dissuade new workers from being engaged by employers during a `strike although the employers had a right to do so. In fact, the police always make it a point to consult labour officers and to get a labour officer to explain to the strikers the laws governing picketing. But were all these pro-labour measures appreciated by the pro-Communists in the unions? No. The pro-Communist elements in the Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union exploited the pro-labour policy of Government to their own advantage. The impartial and friendly attitude of the police was interpreted to be a sign of weakness, to be exploited to the maximum advantage for the Communist cause.

Mr Speaker, Sir, much as I should like to cite examples of the tact and restraint exercised by the police in cases of strikes recently, however, I cannot do so as most of the cases are still sub judice. Nevertheless, the cases cited by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour yesterday showed that in every case the police had shown considerable restraint and tact in the face of intense provocation, ranging from jeers and boos to obscene abuse by the pro-Communist officials. The police intervened only when violence and disorder resulted or threatened to result and that only after repeated warnings had been given.

As for the allegations that the police had singled out the English-speaking white-collar workers in the Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union for attention, the answer is obvious. The time has not come yet for the pro-Communists to mount a final and concerted assault against merger and Malaysia. They are still hoping against hope that a miracle may happen to delay the inevitable reunification of Singapore and the Federation. Besides, they think that the white-collar English-speaking workers in the S.B.H.E.U. are not traditionally connected with pro-Communist activities and a little flexing of the muscles in this field is not likely to receive as much attention as they would in the traditionally Communist hot houses in the S.G.E.U. and its affiliates and the Rural Residents' Association and the Country People's Association.

Allegations have also been made of police using force on students, and the Member for Queenstown specially mentioned Chinese school students. Everybody knows that far from using the police against the students, the Government went out of its way to ensure that no police were used in the last student boycott of the Secondary IV Examination. This, however, does not prevent the pro-Communists from repeating blatant lies against the Government.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the speech of the Member for Queenstown revealed the classic tactic of the pro-Communists in using their agents and stooges in the trade unions to deceive and egg on the innocent workers to go on strike for political purposes and to use illegal methods in the strike, hoping thereby to provoke a clash between the police and the workers so that they could exploit the sufferings of the workers to whip up hatred against constituted authority. The Prime Minister warned against the mounting of industrial unrest by pro-Communists in August 1961 when the open break came, and we can look forward in the near future to more of these violent political strikes mounted by the pro-Communists on the back of the innocent workers in their losing battle against the inevitable historical process towards reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya.

4.32 p.m.

Mr S. T. Bani (Thomson): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Finance always makes me sick. Sir, he is a very foolish man. He has said in the past - once or twice as early as this year - that there is no capital investment because there are militant trade unions. He said today, "There is no industrialisation because there are militant unions who are Communists."

Sir, I do not want to waste too much of my time in replying to this man. I suggest that he read some of the speeches his master, the Prime Minister, made when he was in the Opposition. I refer to Volume 2 - this is the speech made by the Prime Minister on 5th September, 1956 - column 78. It is in the middle of the page:

`It is a fallacy to suggest that because there have been strikes, because unions are militant, therefore we have this lack of industrialisation.'

I repeat, Sir:

`It is a fallacy to suggest that because there have been strikes, because unions are militant, therefore we have this lack of industrialisation.'

I am quite certain that if the Minister for Finance will take the trouble to read all the speeches made by the Prime Minister when he was in the Opposition prior to May 1959, when he was the legal adviser to about 47 trade unions in Singapore, he will find a lot more quotations than this to show that if there is a lack of industrialisation, it is not because there are Communist agitators, it is not because there are militant trade unionists and it is not because there are militant trade unions.

Sir, I am sure many of us can remember that only recently in the Straits Times there was an extract of a report from a London newspaper giving us some statistics about the strikes in Western industrialised countries including Japan. If I am not mistaken, according to the extract, America has the highest number of strikes. Sir, I think the Minister for Finance will not be foolish enough to suggest that there is a lack of industrialisation in America. I am sure he would become the worst enemy of the Americans if he ever did venture to suggest that. Japan and the United Kingdom - countries that are supposed to be progressive in the field of industrialisation - have militant trade unionists. In Japan, the Communist Party is recognised and Communist Party officials are in key positions in trade unions, and yet there is no lack of industrialisation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, once again we have in Singapore people in responsible positions taking up the stand that industrial disputes are generated by a few disgruntled people. Of course, they term these people Communists.

Mr Rajaratnam: Are they not?

Mr Bani: For the information of the Minister for Culture and others, I am quite prepared to say quite categorically that they are not Communists. Sir, today the term "Communist" is being used to refer to every Tom, Dick and Harry who is not a stooge of the P.A.P. The P.A.P. thesis is that industrial disputes take place only because there are Communists. All others, with the exception of the P.A.P., go about creating industrial disputes.

Sir, one should have thought that this rather pigheaded attitude should have died long ago, but evidently that is not the case. These people seem to cling to the childish notion that industrial disputes are in themselves evil things and the result of the activities of evil men. Therefore, the solution they put forward is to put a stop to militant trade unionism; dig a big grave and bury all these so-called Communists and there will be no industrial disputes. Mr Speaker, Sir, at the outset, I wish to make it quite clear that trade disputes will continue to arise irrespective of what the Minister for Home Affairs, or the Minister for Internal Security of the Federation of Malaya who, incidentally, I gather, will be commissioned to solve industrial disputes in Singapore after the P.A.P. merger, may do in terms of eliminating militant trade unionism and trade unionists. Sir, this is so because industrial disputes are the results of the conflicts between workers and employers in the process of production. These conflicts arise because of the failure to reach mutual agreement on problems relating to conditions of employment. In other words, an industrial dispute is the expression of the economic struggle between workers and capitalists. Sir, workers came into being the very first day capitalist appeared and industrial disputes will continue so long as there are capitalists and workers, so long as employer/employee relations exist. If we are to have a constructive debate, then let us not forget this truth just for the purposes of temporary expediency.

Sir, I will be only too happy if any of the Government Ministers can stand up honestly, touch their hearts and perhaps put the other hand on the Bible and give an assurance that in operating the system of private enterprise there will be no strikes, assuming that there will be no Communists. Give them the opportunity of arresting everybody who they think is a Communist and putting them behind bars. Give them a situation without the presence of the so-called Communists. See if they can still stand up and honestly give an assurance that there will be no strikes. I say I will be much obliged and I am sure all trade unions and trade unionists and all the workers in Singapore will appreciate it.

Sir, these trade unions that are termed pro-Communist - mind you, Sir, pro-Communist trade unions in Singapore mean every union -

Mr Rajaratnam: S.A.T.U.

Mr Bani: - other than the Singapore Bank Employees Union, the Singapore Insurance Companies Employees Union, the Singapore Traction Company Employees Union, the Singapore Printing Employees Union [Interruption]. You have only a few. I still have one small finger in my hand. And the Manual and Mercantile Employees Union - five or six, other than -

Tun Lim Yew Hock: The A.U.P.E.

Mr Bani: - the A.U.P.E., a union that is definitely not Communist because the Secretary-General of the Union is the P.A.P. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture. Other than these unions, every other union is pro-Communist. These unions that are termed pro-Communist are all in favour of industrial peace. Sir, we are in favour of employing reasonable steps. We are in favour of doing everything that is possible and is non-Communist to maintain industrial peace with justice. But we must know and understand, first of all, the concept of industrial peace with justice as is propagated by the Government of today - the P.A.P. Government.

We have no illusions as to what the Member for Cairnhill means by industrial peace with justice. We saw a demonstration of his form of justice during the years 1955 to 1959, and his version of justice is no justice at all for the workers; and the rejection of his anti-worker policies was very categorical in the general elections in May 1959 and I do not have to elaborate that here. The people have not forgotten the type of law and order the previous Government maintained. Sir, nearly three years of P.A.P. labour policies in practice has shown, unfortunately and regrettably, very little difference. We doubt the integrity of this Government. Therefore, we are not going to give them a blank cheque and allow them the right to take reasonable steps against the so-called Communist agitators and the so-called Communist trade unions. Because, First of all, when they say reasonable steps, we know they do not mean reasonable steps. Secondly, when they say they are going to take action against the Communist, as I have said earlier, it means taking action against all unions other than five or six unions which happen to have P.A.P. personnel in their leadership.

Sir, both the previous Government and the present P.A.P. Government used the police on striking workers. Is `hat what they term "reasonable steps"? The P.A.P. Government authorised police action in disputes like Sassoon's. That was early in 1960 when we were all in the P.A.P.; all because they were unable to understand the aspirations of the workers. They used the police in disputes like the Singapore Glass Factory, the G.E.C., the City Council, Robinson's, Shaw's, Guthries, etc. - just to mention a few. And in recent cases they have used this Communist excuse. These police acts have all been defended by the Government Ministers as reasonable, because they say they were used against professional Communist agitators.

Sir, we in the Barisan Sosialis do not consider police action against pickets as reasonable. Unwarranted use of the police force on helpless workers cannot be termed reasonable by any stretch of the imagination.

Mr Rajaratnam: Were they beaten up or something?

Mr Bani: The P.A.P. Government, soon after losing the support of the workers, adopted a ferocious anti-worker attitude. We saw how this so-called pro-Labour Government was prepared to use the police and military forces against the workers. The scene of police action during the City Council strike is still vivid in our minds. We saw how the whole city was transformed into a military camp, all for the sake of fostering upon the Government daily-rated workers a Government-sponsored union. Unlike the previous Government, the P.A.P. was more vicious, and they used force against the English-educated clerks and salesgirls. Sir, history was created in the Robinson strike by clerks and salesgirls being carted away like cattle in Black Marias.

Sir, I want to spend some time touching in some detail on the strike at Robinson's. We have seen how the Minister for Health and Law (the former Minister for Labour and Law) and the Minister for Home Affairs spent some time saying how in the Robinson strike, the so-called Communist agitators were agitating the workers. I had this advantage over the Government Ministers - when they were perhaps safely confined to some cool rooms and perhaps were just reading from time to time reports of what was happening in Robinson's - that I was there. First of all, there was this charge that the so-called Communists obstructed the entrance to the Robinson premises. I was there from about 10 o'clock. There were my colleagues. Mr Dominic Puthucheary was there from about 8 o'clock in the morning. It is true that at 8 o'clock all the strikers went and sat on the steps: the Company's doors were closed and nobody could go in without walking over the strikers. But when Mr Dominic Puthucheary went there, he told the strikers to clear the passage, and the passage was cleared. At 9 o'clock when the Company's officials came in, there was no obstruction. They all walked into the Company's premises. At 10 o'clock or so when the police arrived, people like Mr A. T. Rajah and other' senior Police officers all walked into the Company's premises. When I went there, all these people were inside the .Company's premises. And I was told that then management of the Company agreed that there was no obstruction, and yet Mr A. T. Rajah -

An hon. Member: T. T. Rajah.

Mr Bani: A. T. Rajah, the police officer who was in charge of operations there, said he had to clear all the strikers, irrespective of whether they were obstructing or not, irrespective of the fact that they were all sitting aside with a wide open space given for anyone to enter the premises. Sir, the Company's officials in my presence persuaded this police officer and other police officers not to remove the strikers. They said, "As far as we are concerned, we have access to our premises. We don't care. They can sit there. We want to carry on talks with the union immediately so that we could solve the dispute." I spoke to this police officer, Mr A. T. Rajah, and he made a telephone call, obviously to his political boss. When he came back, he said, "Sorry, Mr Barn, I can't do anything. I have orders to clear the strikers." Sir, under our Trade Disputes Ordinance, a striker is arrested for obstruction if, in the first place, he forcibly prevents Company officials from going into the premises. There was no such incident. No company official up to date has made his report saying that he was stopped. If a worker prevents a non-striker from going into the premises, then it is also classified as obstruction. But there was no such incident. There was nobody who wanted to go to work who was stopped. No one up to date has made a report saying that he was forcibly stopped from going into the premises. If a customer wanted to go in and if the strikers had prevented him, then that would have constituted obstruction. There was no such case. If the Company's officials had wanted to remove their goods from the premises, and if the strikers had forcibly prevented them from removing them, then that could have been obstruction. There was no such case. Sir, there was no case of any complaint of any obstruction, and yet the police arrested everybody. The former Minister for Labour, i.e, the Minister for Health and Law, who obviously was not there - I am not sure whether he was Minister for Labour at that time - said yesterday:

`In the case of the Robinson strike, there was genuine provocation by the employer.'

That is true. The Minister said:

`But Mr Dominic Puthucheary and company never intended to take the dispute to the Labour Ministry. Many people saw Dominic Puthucheary urging the strikers to be arrested when the police were called on to the scene. Charges of obstruction against a number of strikers were eventually withdrawn.'

Sir, he said, "urging the strikers". This is the Straits Times of today - "urging the strikers to be arrested".

The Minister for Health and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne): Point of information, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Mr Bani resumed his seat.

Mr Byrne: When that strike occurred, Mr Speaker, Sir, I remember I was covering the duties of the Minister for Finance, who was then away. I was in his office at about half-past eleven in the morning when I got a telephone call from A.S.P. Rajah saying that this was the strike position - that the men were crowding round the main entrance and he could not get entry into the premises. He said he wanted a clearance from me as' to what his duties should be. I said to him that if they were physically blocking the entrance, then it would be his duty as a police officer to clear a passage so that people could get in and out of the premises.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was not in my cool room. I had left my office in my car and went round the premises of Robinson & Co, that morning on my way to the Minister for Finance's office.

Mr Bani: It is a pity the Minister could say it only now. The fact is that there was no case of a report for obstruction. That is the point. And the Company said, "Look, don't remove my strikers. Let them squat where they want to, so long as we as officials of the Company have access to the premises."

Mr Byrne: On a further point of information, Sir.

Mr Bani: I am sure the Minister will have - [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Bani: - his time to reply. In the Robinson incident, the Prime Minister committed contempt by talking over Radio Singapore. In fact, a very prompt statement was issued immediately after the Robinson incident, and to keep our mouths shut, all the workers were arrested, and 34 out of the 200 were charged in court. So we could not comment on the Robinson strike. If there had been no case pending, then there would have been a motion of censure on the Government for their acts at the Robinson strike.

Sir, I do not want to go into this any more than is necessary. All that I want to say is this: there was no case of obstruction because there was no case and there was no report of obstruction made. So the police arrested everyone present. Sir, this was supposed to have been a Communist strike. And the police came with their Black Marias and Riot Squad with about 500 men from the Riot Squad to handle about 200 workers, most of whom were young girls and Christian girls. They were singing "Onward, Christian Soldiers", when the police arrived. Sir, when they were being arrested, we saw that the police were using force. We thought it was not necessary because if the workers were to be arrested for an offence which they had not committed, we were quite prepared to tell the workers, "Get yourselves arrested. If the police were to arrest you for an offence which you have not committed, then do not resist arrest." And we knew very well that if there had been resistance on the part of the workers, we would have been playing right into the hands of the Government and given them the opportunity of picking up the strikers. Therefore, all that Mr Dominic Puthucheary told the workers was. "Do not resist arrest." First of all, they arrested 34 people; took them to the Central Police Station, took down particulars and released them. The 34 came back and squatted on the same place. The police then found that it would be embarrassing to arrest them in batches, take them to the police station, and then release them., because they would come back and squat on the same place. So they said, "Pack up the whole lot." They arrested over 200 workers and union officials, took them to the Central Police Station, and held them there until one o'clock, when we knew very well that all that was required was to take down their particulars and let them go. But they kept them until one o'clock. I remember the Commissioner of Police was in the Central Police Station and I did have a chat with him. I told him that, in my opinion - and I was advised by counsel - that all that was required was to take down their particulars and let them go. He said it would take a whole day to take down the particulars.

Sir, we knew that their purpose was to prevent the workers from going back to Robinson's. Somehow, perhaps because of the threat I made to the Commissioner of Police that if the workers were going to be detained longer than necessary, then we would make sure that we would take up the matter further, the workers were released. And this time it took them less than one hour to take down the particulars.

The next point I want to make briefly is that when these workers went back to Robinson's, they were prevented from picketing. We were supposed to be Communists, or supposed to be people who were creating trouble. The workers went hack. Why should Government deny them the right to picket? Sir, picketing is guaranteed to the workers under the laws of the country, laws made by so-called democratic governments. These are so-called democratic rights given to the workers. Yet these workers were prevented from picketing.

I have taken some time over this because this is an example of the truth in all these so-called Communist disputes that take place.

Mr Speaker: I suspend this sitting. 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.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Question again proposed.

Mr Bani: And so, Mr Speaker. Sir, that was the Robinson strike, a strike called by a legitimate trade union; a strike which involved legitimate workers: a strike which, in the words of the Minister for Health and Law, had a legitimate cause; and yet, Sir, the Government's criticism of the strike was completely unsympathetic. All that they could think of saying was that this was a strike called by Communist agitators to bring about disorder. Mr Speaker. Sir, we say that law and order on the industrial front brought about at the expense of the legitimate claims of the workers is deplorable. Industrial peace is not for the exclusive protection of vested interests. Law and order to advance the interests of the employers but to neglect the economic advance of the workers is unjust to the workers.

Sir, today the P.A.P. Government, through its stooges, is concentrating all its efforts on the English-educated section of the working class. This is because it has completely lost the support of the industrial workers who were the backbone of the Party, who were the mass base of the good old P.A.P. Now they are compelled to look for support in other directions. When the P.A.P. came to power through the backing of the industrial workers, its leadership became arrogant and began to insult and humiliate with vengeance the English-speaking section of our population. Sir, it went to such lengths that Mr Lim Ching Siong, who is today accused of being the most important Communist cadre, had to tell his colleague, Mr Woodhull, to write an open letter to the Prime Minister to cut out all this anti-English-educated talk. Sir, it took some time for them to realise their mistake. But when they lost the support of the industrial workers through their foolish anti-labour policies, they switched their line and began to woo the very same people they had insulted and humiliated. The P.A.P. was naive to believe that the English-educated would support them in spite of the past insults. Sir, this was the measure of respect the P.A.P. showed to this section of the population. But to the dismay of the P.A.P. leadership, they found the English-speaking workers organising themselves along militant lines in independent unions like the Singapore Business Houses Employees Union. Then the Government started a two-prong attack on the English-educated workers, singling out the Singapore Business Houses Employees Union as their main target. They had to cook up a reason for this attack. They could not say that the Singapore Business Houses Employees Union was a good union and a powerful union that stood to safeguard the interest of the English-educated commercial workers. They could not say that this was a union that did not want to be controlled by the P.A.P., and therefore, they must attack it. They had to cook up a reason that would give an apparent justification for the attack, and what better reason than the Communist bogey? So the Singapore Business Houses Employees Union today is supposed to be a Communist front organisation.

Sir, I may state here that the Singapore Business Houses Employees Union was formed in 1954. The first time anybody ever accused this union of being Communist was just about the time of the Robinson strike last year. Sir, those of us who are in the Barisan Sosialis and who are associated with the Business Houses Employees Union were associated with this Union long before the break with the P.A.P. We were associated with this Union as early as 1960. Yet neither the Prime Minister nor anyone of the Ministers ever said that this was a Communist front organisation. Even the Member for Cairnhill, a former Chief Minister, during 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957 and 1958 never ever said that this was a Communist front organisation. Today, the Government of the P.A.P. is directing its attack on the Singapore Business Houses Employees Union, by, on the one hand, persecuting the Union with the whole State machinery and by, on the other, enticing its membership into the Singapore Manual and Mercantile Workers Union, a union that is managed by P.A.P. stooges and backed to the hilt by the State machinery, a union whose sole purpose seems to be to split the trade union movement and thereby weaken the strength of the commercial workers. Sir, in strikes called by the Singapore Business Houses Employees Union, police actions have been very severe. The political wing of the Labour Ministry is hostile towards this union. The Press and the radio are used against this union. Even the English Petir, organ of the P.A.P. which recently made its reappearance after a long absence, has devoted an editoral against this union. Sir, it is interesting to examine why this is so. Yesterday the Minister for Health and Law said, as is reported in the Straits Times of today:

`Twenty-five of the SATU strikes involved expatriate firms, while only six strikes called by the non-aligned group involved such firms.

The Minister also revealed that the majority (24) of the SATU strikes were called by the Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union.'

Sir, either the Minister did not know the facts or he was deliberately making an inaccurate statement. I was saying that the Business Houses Employees' Union was a union organised in 1954. The Minister says that last year the majority of the strikes were in expatriate firms, 24 of the 25 were called by the Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union. Ever since this union was formed, it has called only 19 strikes. The first strike took place in August 1959. Sir, I do not see the purpose of going to this extent of fabricating the truth -

Mr Speaker: Order. I cannot allow that expression "fabricating the truth" said of a speech of a Member of this Assembly. It is equivalent to saying it is a lie. Will the Member please withdraw that expression?

Mr Bani: I withdraw that, Sir, but I do not understand, as I have said, why they want to go to this extent.

Sir, it is noticed that in the speeches of the Ministers, the Prime Minister, the Minister for Home Affairs, there has been a concentrated attack on the Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union. Sir, you will recall that one of that accusations was that this union was only asking for flat increases in salaries and was not asking for a salary structure. The reason they gave was that the Communists did not like salary structures because salary structures stabilised the position. Let me briefly say what this union has done and what it stands for, and also explain why salary scales are not embodied in all its claims. First of all, I must say that during the past one year, this union has entered into something like 50 collective agreements with 50 employers, providing for salary increases ranging from $40 to $120 per month over a period of two years. Everybody recognises that in the commercial field the achievements of this union have been tremendous. Never in this sector has there been in the past a union which has achieved so much in so short a time. Mr Speakers. Sir, just to give a clearer picture, I say that since 1954, up to about the middle of last year, definitely up to the end of 1960, there was not even one single agreement signed by this union. This was at a time when this union was not branded as a pro-Communist union, when the union was run perhaps by people who never understood the employers they were dealing with. It was only after the union realised the need to organise' along militant lines to call strikes, if necessary, that this achievement has been brought about. It is ridiculous to say that the leadership of this union, which is alleged to be pro-Communist, does not look after the interests of the workers. More than 5,000 workers have benefited by the collective agreements that I have just mentioned.

And salary scales, Sir? The Prime Minister was quite categorical when he said the Communists did not like salary scales. Sir,I have never before heard a sillier statement than this. I know the situation as it exists in the commercial world. I did say yesterday that the people who were against salary scales were the employers. The Prime Minister's logic must necessarily mean that the employers are Communists, and I am sure an employer who chooses to be honest will bear me out on this. I have had personal experience of being told by employers that they do not want salary scales. I do not want to go into details and quote every single example. I will just quote one example to start with. I am sure government Members can check the truth of it. Nestle's (Malaya) Products Ltd. The claims were negotiated for six months by the Business Houses. Employees' Union and I personally spent two months negotiating with the employer on a salary scale. At the end of the two months, he said "No". He said "no" after agreeing in principle to a salary structure, after agreeing to a salary structure as such, after agreeing to the ladders in the salary structure and before final confirmation. The reason he gave was that employers in the commercial world felt that a salary structure would take away the incentives that were necessary for the workers. The employers' arguments are that if we have a salary structure like the one in the bank where there is no bar, where one starts from the minimum and every year goes up the ladder right up to the maximum without any stoppage whatsoever, then incentives do not exist for the workers. The commercial firms have the practice of giving increments on the basis of merit. Sir, as a unionist we disagree with this. We disagree with the employer. We feel there must be a salary structure, but we realise, as practical people, that if we press on with the call for a salary structure, we will be having a lot more strikes than we have at the moment.

Sir, there was a time when employers whose workers were members of the Business Houses Employees' Union refused to negotiate on wage increases. They said wage increases were at their discretion. It took a few strikes to drum sense into the heads of these employers, and I am sure, I have no doubt whatsoever, that if we want to force the business houses employers to accept a salary structure, we will have to call a number of strikes in the first place. What are the Government trying to do? Do they want us to call more strikes so that they can come here and say Communist agitators are calling strikes? Sir, to the best of my knowledge, there is no trade union in Singapore that has anything against a salary structure. If what I say is doubted, I ask Government Members, as I asked them yesterday, to get in touch with the employers. Mr J. J. Rattray, Industrial Adviser to the Employers' Federation, has had several discussions with my colleagues and me, and I am quite sure if the man chooses to tell the truth, he will confirm what I say. Sir, this is just another example of the extent to which the Government are prepared to go just to make their Communist smear stick. In their haste to do this, they do not consider the validity of the argument.

The Prime Minister also touched on the Ford strike that has just ended. He again said this was a strike which was called by the Communists, not for the benefit of the Ford workers, but simply because the Communists wanted to agitate the trouble. He also said how the results did not favour the workers. He said yesterday that they only got six cents per day. This again is a P.A.P. bluff. It is an inaccurate statement. Surely, responsible men like the Prime Minister should assess the facts first, unless, of course, he thinks all the people in Singapore are fools and he can bluff them and get away with it. Sir, the agreement signed by the union for Ford workers provides for a rise of six cents per hour as from the 1st of March, 1962. As from the 1st of January, 1963, another five cents per hour. It works out for this year at 52.8 cents per day, and for 1963, 96.8 cents per day additional increase on the workers' pay.

Sir, in the past, the average has been 88 cents per hour. In 1962, the wages would be pushed up to 94 cents per hour, and in 1963 they would be pushed up to 99 cents per hour. Also, as a result of the agreement, the workers are expected to work only 42½ hours but they are paid for 49 hours and they work a five-day week.

Sir, the Prime Minister said that that was a Communist strike. I believe he also said that the Communist do not normally refer these disputes to the Labour Ministry for conciliation. I wonder if he is aware that the Ford negotiations were carried out in the Labour Ministry soon after the strike. Sir, I am going into some detail on this again because I want to expose this Communist bluff that is being put forward. Once and for all, let us see to what extent the Government will go in attempting to make this smear stick. Everybody knows - once the Minister for Finance told me - that Ford is internationally known to be a bad employer. I am sure we have all read of the Ford strikes in Canada and the United Kingdom. The Minister for Finance himself told us that Ford is a bad employer. There have been three strikes since 1957. In 1957, there were dismissals and union officials were victimised - there was a strike, in 1960, there was a strike because of retrenchments. In 1961, the last strike took place because the management wanted to negotiate on salary increases only subject to the employees agreeing to produce 14 cars per day. This was nonsense. No union worth its salt would accept such a situation in the context of an industry like Ford where hitherto the pay has been on the basis of a time rate. The union was quite right - as I am sure Members on the other side of the House will accept - if the employer wants to relate any further increases in the salary to production. That was the primary cause of the strike. The Prime Minister made it appear yesterday that the Ford workers were all dissatisfied and that they were on strike for three months - 110 days - all for the sake of helping the Communists to make propaganda.

Sir, I have told the Government Members before - and I say this again - in the first place, if they want to know how the Ford workers feel about the strike, I say they feel "jollified" because they have got a substantial increase in their salaries and a substantial improvement in their conditions of work. This could not have been brought about if not for the strike. If they do not believe this, they are at liberty - they have the whole State machinery - and they are in a position to go and interview every Ford worker.

Sir, we do not have to go through the process of calling a strike and having to combat with the police force to discredit the Government. I have said this before. We are satisfied that the Government are sufficiently discredited. We do not have to go through this motion. The truth of the statement can be checked - hold general elections.

Mr Rajaratnam: Why do you not resign?

Mr Bani: It is as simple as that. Sir, I do not want to throw challenges, but what I am saying quite simply is this. We do not have to go through the process of strikes to prove that the Government is a bad Government because this has been proved abundantly clear. If the Government doubt that statement, they are always welcome to check the truth or otherwise of it.

Sir, the Government now is creating the Communist bogey. This is like the old P.A.P. gramophone record - a record that has a tiny little hole in the groove and it goes on the same groove repeating the same tune - Communist, Communist, Communist... Sir, they attempt to attribute all industrial actions to a few individuals who are termed Communists or pro-Communists. The P.A.P. desperadoes are deliberately misleading the public.

Today strikes are being called not just by unions that the Government chooses to describe as Communist trade unions, but I am sure we are all aware of some of the recent strikes. I wish I can list down every single strike that took place and show which union called a strike and explain the cause of the strike, but I cannot do this because I may have to go on till midnight. I am quite sure that you, Mr Speaker, Sir, will not allow me to do that. Therefore, I will just try and quote a few examples. Let us take the City Council strike called by the Public Daily-Rated Employees Unions Federation. Their basic grouse was against the Government's intention to foster the A.U.P.E. against the wishes of the majority of the Government daily-rated workers. This was sufficiently proved by a secret ballot held by the Government after the strike was over where the A.U.P.E. suffered a humiliating defeat. No amount of cry Communism can deceive our workers as to the real cause of this strike.

Sir, we in the Barisan Sosialis had nothing whatsoever to do with the strike.

Mr Rajaratnam: You had a conversation with Rajendra.

Mr Bani: I used to tell the Minister for Culture that as far as we are concerned we have the guts to say that this is a strike called by us and defend the strike on the merits of it. We do not want to take credit for which we are not due. All that happened was that Mr Rajendra, who has been for quite some time associated with the City Council Federation of Labour Unions and the Public Daily-Rated Employees Unions Federation, was at the premises of this union in Race Course Road. [Interruption]. There is nothing to laugh about this. The Minister for Education knows next to nothing of what is going on on the industrial front. Mr Rajendra is the Secretary of the Staff Side Council. Sir, I am not holding a brief for Mr Rajendra.

Mr Rajaratnam: For S.A.T.U.

Mr Bani: I am not here to defend him. But let us examine the facts. I do not want to be as foolish as the Minister for Culture to throw accusations. It is simple. All you have to do is to say, "Mr Lim Ching Siong is a Communist. He is associated with so and so who is in S.A.T.U. That person is a Communist and therefore S.A.T.U. is Communist. Therefore, all those people who associate themselves with S.A.T.U. must necessarily be Communists." Sir, a five-year old child can repeat this. It does not take brains from the Government Bench to cook up a story like this. But let us see the facts. The day Mr Rajendra was in the City Council Unions Federation premises there was a meeting of Government unions scheduled, and he was there to get information about the strike and to report to his unions in the Government service - a very legitimate act. Sir, here was a dispute involving Government workers, and if the Government unions wanted to have a meeting to discuss the City Council strike I do not see anything wrong in that. Anyway, this is what I was told by Mr Rajendra after the Prime Minister made this accusation. While Mr Rajendra was there in the premises, the officials of the Public Daily-Rated Employees Union asked him whether he knew to which union certain workers who were manning the lorries and who were breaking the strike belonged to. Mr Rajendra, who did not know very much of the situation in the non-Government sector, phoned the Singapore General Employees Union in Middle Road, got Mr Dominic Puthucheary and asked him, "Do you know to which unions these workers belong to?" Mr Dominic Puthucheary said, "They belong to the Singapore Manual and Mercantile Employees Union, a union led by a Government man, a union that is used quite naturally to break a strike which is against the interest of another Government union, the A.U.P.E." That was all that happened. A mountain was made out of a molehill. Sir, the telephones were tapped. The Special Branch takes the liberty of tapping the telephones of trade unions. Even the telephones of the Presidents of some trade unions are tapped.

Mr Rajaratnam: Yes, and Assemblymen too.

Mr Bani: And Assemblymen, Sir. I wonder whether we can talk about it at a later date. That is exactly what happened. And because the telephones were tapped and because the Government received their reports saying that on such and such a day Mr Rajendra was seen in the premises and that at such and such a time he phoned Mr Dominic Puthucheary, a big story of a Communist plot was cooked up.

Sir, I tell the Government to at least try and be honest. They can disagree with us. They can say that they disagree with our policies, that they want to fight us in our policies. We are quite prepared to face them and fight them anywhere they choose. But let us conduct this fight at least with the decency of being honest. They know very well, Sir, that none of us has anything to do with this strike. But they want to make it big. They knew that this was a big strike, and they wanted to cover up their mistakes. They knew they were caught because of their attempt to foster a Government sponsored union - a strike of 10,000 workers took place affecting the essential services of the country - and they built up this smear.

Sir, a little later I shall deal with the figures that were juggled yesterday by the Prime Minister, the Minister for Labour - sorry, the Minister for Health and Law. I only know the Minister for Health and Law as the Minister for Labour, and every time I look at him I still think that he is the Minister for Labour.

Mr Rajaratnam: He knows a great deal about you.

Mr Bani: Sir, it is very disturbing for me, especially to notice that the Minister for Labour's seat is always vacant. I do not know whether -

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not think the hon. Member is fair in passing a remark of that nature, because he knows why the Minister for Labour is absent.

Mr Bani: Quite honestly, I do not know why the Minister is absent. If I had known, I would not have said a thing like that. Anyway, Sir, I shall privately ask the Government Ministers why the Minister for Labour is not here. But, Sir, -

Mr Speaker: Order. The Minister for Labour has been given permission of absence by the Speaker.

Mr Bani: I am much obliged. Sir, before I deal with the figures that were juggled yesterday, I just want to go through a list of a few of the unions that called for strikes. We remember that the A.U.P.E. sometime back served a strike ultimatum on the Government. Although there was no strike, nevertheless the A.U.P.E. served a strike ultimatum. I believe they served it twice: once in connection with some issue affecting the firemen, and the other one quite recently. We all know that the Secretary-General of the A.U.P.E. is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture, an eternal P.A.P. henchman. Sir, does the Government propose to say that this strike threat was also the machinations of the Communists? Or does the Government propose to say that the P.A.P. is creating industrial unrest?

I am sure we are also aware that a few months ago the workers of the Bank of America went on strike. Following that, the employees of the Chartered Bank went on strike. Then the employees of the Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation went on strike. All these workers are members of the Singapore Bank Employees' Union. Mr Devan Nair and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture are advisers to this Union. Does the Government propose to say that all these strikes were caused by Communist machinations? Some insurance company workers recently went on strike. They are members of the Singapore Insurance Companies Employees Union. This Union again is led by P.A.P. men. The Singapore Manual and Mercantile Workers Union have merrily been calling numerous strikes in recent months with Government blessing. Everybody knows that T. V. Gomez, Secretary General of this Union, is an obedient P.A.P. stooge. Mr Devan Nair is the adviser to this Union.

Sir, everyone of us knows that strikes have been called; strikes are being called today, not just by unions that are termed pro-Communist and Communist. But the speeches of the Ministers - and now with this amendment moved - give one the impression that all the strikes in Singapore are due to the Communists. There is this talk of mounting of industrial unrest. Yesterday we had figures being used to show justification for their allegation that there is mounting of industrial unrest. Sir,I do not deny there is industrial unrest; there is industrial dissatisfaction. I shall go into the reasons why this is so in a short while. But let us just examine the figures that have been played with, Sir.

Sir, this is a Monthly Digest of Statistics - Vol. 1, No. 1, January 1962 - and I am sure the Government will not doubt these figures. Unlike the Minister, I do not have the facilities of getting a whole list of up to date strikes. But let us just briefly examine these figures. First of all, let us take the man-days lost for one-whole year 1961. According to page 26, industrial stoppages by major industries: 1961, 410,891, as compared with 152,006 for 1960. Sir, so a big show was made yesterday. 1960, 150,000; 1961, 410,000 - mounting of industrial unrest. You will note, Sir, that out of these 410,891 man-days lost for that year, 274,849 man-days were as a result of the strike affecting electricity, gas and water. In other words, this relates to the strike called by the Public Daily-Rated Employees Unions Federation. I am sure some of us can remember that towards the end of last year there was a one-day strike called by the Army Civil Service Union which is a union with which we have no connections whatsoever, a union which has not been named by the Government Ministers as a Communist-front union. For all I know, maybe after this they may say that this union also is a Communist front union. So far they have said nothing. As a result of this one-day strike, Sir, there was a loss of about 17,000 man-days. This was in the month of November 1961. This union membership is about 17,000. So roughly speaking, Sir, 17,000 man-days were lost as a result of the Army Civil Service Union strike, plus 274,849 man-days lost as a result of the City Council strike. That makes 291,849 man-days lost for last year - no, I am sorry, Sir; if I may go over it step by step to make it clearer. [Interruption] I am quite certain, Sir, that I am better than the Prime Minister in numbers. In fact, when he was juggling with the figures yesterday, I thought I should tell him that I would at any time like to have him in my class if I ever should go back to teaching, and pull him by the ear and tell him to do his figures properly.

If I may just go through it stage by stage. 274,849 man-days were lost as a result of the strike of the Public Daily-Rated Employees. 17,000 man-days were lost in the Army strike. That gives a total of 291,849 man-days. You deduct 291 from 291,849, and that resulting figure from 410,089, and we get something like 119,000. Sir, 119,000 compares favourably with 152,000 in 1960.

Sir, just one more comparison. The Government has been naming the Singapore Business Houses Employees Union and the Singapore General Employees Union as the two important Communist front organisations. The members of these unions are mostly employed in manufacturing industries and commercial houses. If we look at the Government statistics for 1961, we find that in the manufacturing industry there were only 71,580 man-days lost as against 129,894 man-days lost in 1960 - a definite reduction. Let us take commerce. Commerce includes not just the S.G.E.U. and the S.B.H.E.U. but also unions like the Singapore Bank Employees Union and the Singapore Insurance Companies Employees Union. The statistics for commerce show 19,840. Even if we add the man-days lost for commerce and manufacturing, it is yet lower than the man-days lost in the manufacturing industry in 1960.

Sir, there was also one comparison given by the Prime Minister yesterday in respect of August to December or so, last year. I have calculated, in so far as man-days are concerned - that nearly 80 per cent or so of the man-days lost during this period were due to the City Council strike and the Army Civil Service Union strike. Therefore, to suggest that the so-called Communists and pro-Communists are mounting industrial unrest is, to say the least, malicious. The nakedness of this untruth is quite easily exposed. In their eagerness to brand their political opponents as Communists and thereby prepare for repression, the P.A.P. leaders are making inaccurate statements. They are not telling the people the truth.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): Sir, on a point of elucidation.

Mr Bani resumed his seat.

The Prime Minister: Sir, I have stated publicly without privilege that the Member for Thomson, Mr Dominic Puthucheary, Mr Kum Siew Yee, and Mr Woodhull are the four pro-Communists in the Business Houses Employees Union engineering all these things on behalf of -

Mr Speaker: Order. That is not elucidation. I think the Member for Thomson is on a different tack entirely. The Prime Minister will have an opportunity of speaking.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have to draw your attention to the allegation made by the Member for Thomson, that all these are reckless and inaccurate statements. I invite him to take legal remedies for those inaccurate and reckless statements.

Mr Bani: I just tell the Prime Minister this, Sir. I do not have -

An hon. Member: Scared!

Mr Bani: I do not have the facilities that the Prime Minister has to employ - I am speaking for myself, Sir - and that is high-powered lawyers. I tell him this quite bluntly and straight. Let him take me to court and prove that I am a pro-Communist cadre. I am quite prepared to go to court and face anybody who can try and prove that I am a pro-Communist cadre. It is not my business to go and waste my time taking legal action against the Prime Minister. My quarrel with the Prime Minister is essentially a political quarrel. I am quite prepared to take him to the people in Tanjong Pagar to pass judgment. Let him choose.

I was saying that the Prime Minister and other Government Ministers were not telling the people the truth in their eagerness to brand their political opponents as Communists. Sir, I tell them that the increasing industrial unrest is not the creation of political opponents of the P.A.P. Sir, if there is an increase in the number of strikes, it is clear evidence that there is increasing discontent among the workers, be they members of the unions which are P.A.P. led or otherwise.

The Prime Minister: Increasing discontent after Anson!

Mr Bani: As far as we are concerned, we stand with all workers irrespective of which trade union they belong to. Sir, unlike the P.A.P. leadership, we do not go and condemn their actions. I tell this to the Prime Minister. This discontent is not something that has just come about after Anson. The Prime Minister knows very well that ever since the P.A.P. assumed office, I have been telling him that there is increasing discontent among the workers.

Mr Rajaratnam: Political discontent among the workers.

Mr Bani: The Prime Minister, if he chooses to be honest, will at least confirm what I said. My disagreement with him on the sort of labour policy that the Government has pursued after the election is well known to many people in the P.A.P. I had criticised the Government's labour policy long before the Anson by-election or the Hong Lim by-election. And they know it well. I am sure the Prime Minister will very vividly recall one incident affecting the Hume Industries workers. The Singapore General Employees Union submitted a wage claim in respect of the industrial workers. Mr Dominic Puthucheary, my friend, was negotiating. The employer said, "I cannot give even a five-cent rise. If I have to give five cents, I have to close down the company." This was in 1960, long before Anson and long before Hong Lim. The union knew the financial position of the company. So they just pressed on with their claim. There was a go-slow. The employer went to a sympathetic man, the Minister for Finance, and produced I do not know what figures and papers. But somehow the Minister for Finance believed the employer's story and went to the Prime Minister. And the Prime Minister called Mr Dominic Puthucheary to his office. "Dom, you withdraw the claim."

The Prime Minister: Was the Member present?

Mr Speaker: Point of explanation?

Mr Bani resumed his seat.

The Prime Minister: Was the Member present?

Mr Bani: Sir, I was not present.

The Prime Minister: You were not present.

Mr Bani: I was not present, but I am sure the Prime Minister can take me to task if I am making a wrong statement.

The Prime Minister: I will.

Mr Bani: The Prime Minister knows full well that subsequently we had discussions on this together. He had discussions with me and Mr Dominic Puthucheary. We are quite prepared to go to court and swear on oath that this is true [Laughter]. This is not a laughing matter. Sir. Once upon a time, the Prime Minister was very fond of saying this. "You go to court and swear on oath." I am quite prepared to go to court and swear on oath.

The Prime Minister: Swear on oath that you are not a Communist or pro-Communist.

Mr Bani: Anyway, Mr Puthucheary was told to withdraw the claim. He refused. Then he was told to accept something like 30 cents. He refused. These were the days when we were in the P.A.P. Sir, I remember very clearly the day when we discussed with the Prime Minister. And we criticised the Prime Minister's action very severely. To cut the whole story short. At the end of it all, the workers had a wage increase ranging from 70 cents to $1.50. And Hume Industries has not closed down. It is still prospering, and only recently, sometime last month actually, a new agreement was signed giving a wage increase for the clerical workers.

Today, we have the ridiculous talk about the mounting industrial unrest and the need to curb it. But no effort is made to examine the causes of these disputes and the circumstances in which they arise. Instead, we have people in responsible positions in Government falling into the same temptation of their colonial and pro-colonial predecessors, and regarding these disputes with hostility. Let me state simply and clearly that disputes flare up for a number of reasons, the foremost of which is the sense of oppression and injustice felt by our working people in Singapore. Anyone who pretends to champion the cause of all these strikers must, first of all, get it into his head that there are definite grievances among the workers and that strikes take place not because workers are unreasonable. It is no use for any Member of this House to come here and cry "Communism". It is useless to suggest that there are strikes because there are professional agitators at work. Mr Speaker, Sir, crying "Communism" is not going to solve any problem, though it may be used by the Government as an excuse to carry out repression. Sir, the Government cannot remove the sense of grievance by crying "Communism". The people of Singapore have heard this cry of wolf once too often. It is a futile exercise to try the childish gimmick of crying "Communism". Sir, those who profess concern for the increase in the number of strikes must be objective in their analysis. Sir, strikes do not take place out of the blue. The strike is the ultimate weapon in the hands of the workers. And the workers do not use this to play marbles with. Strikes demand sacrifices on the part of the workers. If there are workers prepared to sit it out, to go on strike indefinitely, then there must necessarily be very legitimate grievances. I thought that the people in power would understand this rather simple fact. Sir, when we were in the P.A.P., in the days when it was fighting the previous Government, there seemed to be some appreciation of this fact. But once the P.A.P. leaders came to power, they seemed to overlook this fact very easily. The taste of power is a terrible thing. It makes one forget one's own past, forget even the hopes and aspirations of the very people who brought the Government to power. I need not repeat the old dictum about the corrupting influence of power. It is such a stark truth and we have it in evidence.

Sir, the Government is making every attempt to attribute industrial disputes to the machinations of a few individuals, and these individuals are conveniently labelled Communists. Sir, the Government is merely playing politics. It is trying to coerce the trade union movement and, in so doing, it is plugging the same line, resorting to the same measures in espousing the same philosophy of the previous Government.

Sir, the P.A.P. Government's hostility to the unions is evident. Its attempt to connect industrial disputes with its own bid for survival is equally evident. The old colonial cry of Communist wolf is being made time and again. Sir, industrial disputes that emerge as a result of dissatisfaction among the working people are now being viewed with a blatant hostility. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me tell these rather wild men in power that they cannot remove the sense of grievance unless they remove the causes of the grievance. Let me tell these men that they cannot use the trade union movement as the scapegoat for their various repressive actions. Let me also warn them that they will only be increasing the sense of dissatisfaction among the working people if they seek to throttle their expression of grievances. Sir, they cannot destroy the trade union movement by putting a few individuals behind bars. Sir, if it has not been made plain to them before, then let it be made plain now. Industrial dissatisfaction there certainly is. It is not because of the machinations of a few individuals. It is unless to sit in this House and pray for industrial peace. Industrial peace will not drop from heaven like manna. To achieve industrial peace and stability calls for the co-operation of workers and employers alike. The prerequisite for this, however, is political stability provided by a strong and stable government which will be unbiased in industrial relations. Sir, to imagine that by curtailing the freedom of expression and activity of trade unions, one would achieve anything would only be folly amounting to lunacy. Sir, one cannot cure anything by treating the symptoms. It is the disease that needs treatment. The first step, therefore, is to make the right diagnosis. Today the Government simply attempts to attribute the manifestations of industrial dissatisfaction to the Communist bogey.

But let us examine and see what has gone wrong, so that we understand in proper perspective the present situation on the industrial front. It was primarily on the strength of the trade union movement that the P.A.P. was brought into office. With the advent of the P.A.P. Government, there was political stability. Employers ceased to play politics; workers and their unions made determined efforts to negotiate peaceful settlements and used the conciliation machinery of the Government with confidence. There was, in fact, unprecedented peace on the industrial front. There was industrial peace. But this was short-lived. The beginning of 1960 showed a change in the situation. The power crazy Prime Minister, who had, prior to the 1959 general elections, identified himself with the trade union movement, with the emotions and sentiments of the workers, and who finally achieved power, became crazier and crazier with power. He wanted to curb everybody's influence. He wanted to make sure that he was in a position of power for life. He wanted everyone else to be responsible for his unpopular measures. In short, he wanted others to do the dirty job for him. He saw in the trade union movement the solidarity of the workers. It was a solidarity that he did not approve of, because he feared the strength of the working class movement, for he knew full well that this was a constant threat to his personal ambitions which were contrary to the interest of the working people. [Interruption] Therefore, he set about trying to undermine it. Sir, I can jeer "Running dogs barking." I do not want to take more time than necessary -

Mr Speaker: Order. Perhaps the Chair is getting a bit tired. Was that expression "running dogs barking" meant to refer to a Member of this House? If it was, then he must withdraw it.

Mr Bani: Sir, if I may make an explanation -

Mr Speaker: Order. I just wish to know whether that expression was meant to refer to a Member of this House. If it was, the Member must withdraw it without explanation.

Mr Bani: Sir, I am quite prepared to withdraw it. But what I was about to say was that the term "running dog" is not used for dogs with four legs -

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not want any explanation. The Chair has considered the expression offensive and it must be withdrawn.

Mr Bani: I withdraw, Sir,I remember the Prime Minister once put his dream picture to me. The S.P.A., as far as he was concerned, was finished. The British, to his mind, would remain in the background and would not do a thing except if the Left-wing got out of hand. If the trade unionists made too much noise, the British, according to him would not sit back and watch. So he saw himself in a rather favourable position. There was nothing to worry about from the Right. As far as the workers and the working class movement were concerned, they could not go very far for fear of British reprisals. To his mind, he was an indispensable figure. The Right had to accept him. The Left had to work with him. He thought he could do anything and get away with it. He saw the opportunity to curb the power of the trade unions, and to curb the influence of the workers in the affairs of State. Aside from reintroducing the P.P.S.O. and carrying out other severe measures, he compelled trade unionists to identify themselves with all his acts, hoping thereby that they would incur the wrath and the displeasure of the working people of Singapore. Privately, he talked tough with us, but publicly he allowed the impression of unity. He went further and openly ignored the election pledges. Union leaders working with the Government were not even consulted over legislation. We ourselves pressed for consultation in the hope and belief that we must make the Government a success. Instead, our desire and sincerity were being unashamedly abused by the Government.

Sir, when the Industrial Relations Ordinance was first introduced, there was some consternation among trade unionists. The whole purpose of this Ordinance in its original form was designed to silence the workers and their trade unions. There was hardly any prior consultation with trade unions and trade unionists who were working with the Government. We had to force the Government to listen to our representations. Again I am sure the Prime Minister will recall that I was quite prepared to come to this House, sit on the Government side and oppose the Industrial Relations Ordinance if it had been pushed through. This was in early 1960, long before Anson, Hong Lim and long before the time when there ever was this talk of merger. Sir, many of my colleagues in the trade union movement felt the same way, not because we were Communist cadres, but because we had all along believed that the trade union movement must be organised on an independent basis.

I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture will remember the May Day celebrations in 1960. People who are now in the Barisan Sosialis had to move a resolution for adoption at the May Day meeting, a resolution that stressed the independence of the trade union movement. People like the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture and Mr Devan Nair were hesitant. These are facts and I am sure anyone who chooses to be honest cannot deny them.

Now there is this talk of Communists mounting industrial unrest and controlling trade unions. Sir, we had to stomach quite a lot when we were with the Government, At times, our patience was tried. As for example, when the police forcibly evicted peaceful strikers at Sassoon & Co, in early 1960. That again was before the Anson and Hong Lim by-elections and before this merger. As trade unionists we, including the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture (there was only one man who was absent and that was Mr Devan Nair; he was at home on that day) went down to the police station and immediately protested forcefully in a statement issued to the Press. Sir, the next thing that happened to us was we were called up to the office of the Prime Minister and rebuked for criticising the Government. Sir, we were prepared to tell the Government then at the time when we were in the P.A.P. openly and publicly if we disagreed with their labour policies. The former Minister for Labour knows this to be a fact. In fact, -

Mr Byrne rose -

Mr Speaker: On a point of order?

Mr Byrne: On a point of information.

Mr Bani: The Minister can have his time to say, Sir. But I want to refresh the Minister's memory. I am sure he is able to recall discussions he has had with Mr Woodhull, with me, with Mr Devan Nair and with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture on this Sassoon incident. If I may just say this. Mr Woodhull phoned the Minister for Labour in his residence that night before we issued a statement

Mr Byrne rose -

Mr Speaker: Is it a point of information?

Mr Byrne: It is a point of information.

Mr Speaker: It is the parliamentary practice that if a Member thinks he is being misrepresented, the Member speaking generally gives way so long as the Member who asks for intervention does not abuse that courtesy.

Mr Bani: It is not that I do not want to give way to him, Sir, but the only problem is I do not want to take more time than is necessary to finish my speech. But if the Minister really has something important to say, let us hear him.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Thomson did not know that before the men decided to sit in the office in the Sassoon strike, they had come to see me. I had asked Dominic Puthucheary to see me and he had assured me that though the situation was tense, they would all go home that night. I waited in the office till 5.30 p.m., met him personally and he gave me that personal assurance. Mr Speaker, Sir, that very same night I was not in my residence but was working at Crawford, and I got a telephone call from Mr Kandasamy asking me to go to the Central Police Station immediately. I said, "For what?" He said there was an incident and the men in Sassoon & Co, were involved in a clash with the police and some of them were injured. I said to Mr Kandasamy that if the men were injured, they should be brought to the General Hospital. Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Woodhull then got on to the phone. He was not satisfied with what I had said to Mr Kandasamy. He spoke to me personally. He said, "Byrne, will you come to the Central Station? We need you because if you come here, you can lead a demonstration against the police." I said, "Woodhull, I have nothing to do with a thing like that." Now that is not known to the Member for Thomson.

Mr Bani: I am sure the Minister for Health and Law must now feel happier. Sir, all that I was saying was that we condemn the use of the police on the striking workers. We condemned it when we were in the P.A.P. just as we condemn it now. That is the point that I want to make, it is not Communist propaganda if we condemn a government for using the police in a trade dispute. Subsequent to the Sassoon strike, as a result of the discussions with the Government Minister - particularly the Prime Minister - we got them to tell the police to stop interfering in trade disputes. I believe the Minister for Home Affairs instructed the police to keep away from trade disputes. But today, all that is forgotten. Today we not only have police officers merrily intervening. There was a ruling that no police officer should be within 50 yards of a trade dispute. Now police officers mingle with the strikers. They carry tape-recorders.

Mr Byrne: On a point of information, Sir.

Mr Bani: Sir, I am sure the Minister for Health will have ample opportunity to say whatever he wants to say. If he wants to deny this, he is at liberty to do so.

Mr Byrne: On a point of order, Sir. Surely there should not be a misrepresentation of facts.

Mr Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. [Interruption] Order. There should be no frivolity when the Speaker is on his feet. The Minister for Health will no doubt make a note of that and correct any misrepresentation there is. Mr Bani.

Mr Bani: Sir, if the Minister feels that I am not telling the truth, he has always recourse, but unlike him I go around and I know full well what happens. At least, Sir, when I was in the P.A.P. I had the privilege of being somewhat respected by the police but -

Mr Speaker: Order. May I suggest to the Member for Thomson that if he goes on in this way, the Minister for Health will be provoked to intervene again? Perhaps he can carry on with his speech.

Mr Bani: The point I wanted to make was that today police intervention in trade disputes is an every-day occurrence.

Coming back to where we were, those of us in the trade union movement were deliberately being placed in an awkward position. We were not being consulted on Government actions and legislative measures; but by our association with the Government we were supposed to bear the brunt of responsibility. It was a situation where I would say the Prime Minister called the tune and we were supposed to play the piper. We worked with the Government because we believed that we would see through a rather difficult situation and it was in the interest of the workers to show moderation and restraint and pay full attention to the economic facts of our existence in Singapore. We were quite prepared to shoulder responsibility, though the political sense displayed by most of the Ministers was of grave concern to us. In fact, they had no political sense and no respect for the workers who brought them to power. The Minister for Culture and the Minister for Finance are two clear examples. The Minister for Finance, not long after he became Minister, once told me, in the presence of Mr Woodhull in the C.P.A. Room, that he would bust the unions if it was necessary. It was on the eve of his departure to London for financial talks. [Interruption]. The Minister for Culture knows I am quoting the Minister for Finance correctly because this is not the first time I have quoted him. I have quoted him as having said this before in the Prime Minister's Office at a meeting when the Minister for Culture himself was present. He made it quite clear to a number of us that if there was no P.A.P., then there was no T.U.C. He was trying to intimidate us into giving our unqualified support to some stupid and blind measures that the Government had in mind. [Interruption]. Sir, the T.U.C. functioned from early 1960 but the Communist talk is only now. I am going back briefly into the past purely to show the reasons why they have to talk about the Communists today. I have said earlier on - I was specific when I was talking about the Business Houses Employees Union - that they could not attack the Business Houses Employees Union because it is doing good work and it has drawn up 50 agreements providing for wage increases. They had to have an excuse. What excuse could they think of for attacking the trade union leaders? They could not possibly say, "Mr Lim Ching Siong is a young handsome man who is loved by the workers because he: stands for the workers." They had to cook up some reason or other. Today the one way they hope to fight their political opponents is to brand them as Communists - a ready-made excuse which has been used by the previous Government at least to the extent of carrying out repression. I have no doubt the P.A.P. Government is quite prepared to use it.

Sir, we had reasons to be gravely concerned at the attempts of the Government to muzzle the trade union movement when we were in the P.A.P. Nevertheless in the overall interest of co-operation, we were quite prepared to tolerate a number of things, hoping eventually to get the Government to rethink and change its ways. When the T.U.C. was constituted, we allowed some rather obedient servants of the Prime Minister not just to take charge but even to throw their weight about. We were aware of a growing working class discontent. We were aware of the need to take immediate steps to unify the trade unions in the interest of industrial peace and stability. We have told the Government Ministers this ever since. After a great deal of haggling, the Trade Union Bill was introduced. It was debated and passed by this Assembly. We all know what has happened to it. Overnight, there was a reversal of Government policy. The registration of four federations of trade unions was cancelled. The Trade Union Bill was not allowed to become law. The P.A.P., before they came to office, had pledged to unify the trade union movement. We repeatedly pressed for the unification of the trade union movement, for only with unification could there be order, discipline and fairness in industrial relations. Sir, I am not suggesting that tomorrow if they bring in the Trade Union Bill and have a stooge central organisation which is not representative of the trade unions, and attempt to unify by bulldozing the unions they will get industrial peace.

Dr Toh Chin Chye rose -

Mr Speaker: Dr Toh.