INDUSTRIAL UNREST

Debate resumed.

Mr Bani: What I am saying is that if the Government are genuine in wanting industrial peace and stability, let them be fair and reasonable; let them stop playing politics; register and recognise a central organisation of trade unions that is representative of the trade union movement, that would have the respect of the trade unions and the workers, that would be able to influence individual unions in industrial relations that would supervise the unification of the trade union movement and try to bring about order in the industrial front. Sir, only with unification could collective bargaining processes be put on the level of stability and good sense. This seems to have been obvious to the P.A.P. during the elections, but once in the saddle after the elections, other considerations came to operate. For the sake of being in power, the P.A.P. leaders were prepared to promise quite a bit for the workers, but once they came to power, their opportunism was amply demonstrated. Today they go about their business with the noise and vulgarity of turncoats.

Sir, in spite of all the things that happened in the days when we were in the P.A.P., we supported the Government in the hope of getting them to rectify themselves. But in spite of all this, there was no unification of the trade union movement in sight. We had been taken for a jolly good ride. When the time came to test the Government's honesty, we saw very clearly that unification was out of the question as far as the P.A.P. was concerned. As we all know, the T.U.C. was dissolved and I do not know why today contradictory statements are being made. I am sure we are all in a position to remember the news item we read on 26th July, 1961 - "BYRNE TO DISSOLVE THE T.U.C.: KANDASAMY TO ORGANISE NEW SET UP: FUNDS WILL GO TO AFFILIATED UNIONS". Sir, this is supposed to be a democratic Government. You will remember that we are supposed to be Communists, the people who do not believe in democratic institutions and who are working to wreck the democratic system. Here is a Government which self-profess to be democratic, and what do they do, Sir? The Minister for Labour and Law, Mr K. M. Byrne, acting on a request from the T.U.C. Secretary-General, Mr G. Kandasamy, also arranged for the registration of trade unions, to distribute the T.U.C. funds to all affiliated unions, and noted that Mr Kandasamy and a number of his colleagues are to organise a National Trade Union Centre on a non-Communist, national, democratic, socialist basis, and also dissolve the T.U.C. Sir, in this democratic Government, we see a P.A.P. man going to another P.A.P. man and saying, "Please dissolve the T.U.C." The T.U.C. had a Secretariat. There was no meeting of the Secretariat. The T.U.C. had an Executive Council. There was no meeting of the Executive Council. It had delegates. Under the constitution of the T.U.C., the dissolution of the T.U.C. must be authorised by the delegates concerned. There was no delegates conference, no Executive Council meeting, no Secretariat meeting. All that they had to do was for Mr Kandasamy, the Secretary-General of the T.U.C., to tell the Minister for Labour and Law, "Dissolve the T.U.C.," and the T.U.C. was dissolved. I suggest that the decision to dissolve was taken by the P.A.P. Central Executive Committee. Who wants to play politics in the trade union movement?

Mr Speaker, Sir, why did they dissolve the T.U.C.? Was it because there were Communist agitators? Was it because there were people who were termed evil men, or was it because they did not have a majority? They did not have a majority of men who would be prepared to make the T.U.C. a subsidiary organisation of the P.A.P. Mr Speaker, Sir, we stood for an independent trade union movement then. We stand for an independent trade union movement now. I am told some of the unions are concerned as to what has happened to the funds of the T.U.C. The Minister then said that he would redistribute the funds to the affiliated unions. But I understand that to date nothing has been done. We know the reason why the P.A.P. Government does not want to see a central body of trade unions, for it knows that such a workers' organisation could not be controlled by the P.A.P.

Sir, the train of events has made clear the loss of confidence in the Government within the P.A.P. and outside it, and the Government's hostility to the unions has become complete. As I have said, it is no use coming here and trying to make suggestions that there will be industrial peace. The first thing that the Government ought to have is the respect of the workers. For only then can it be in a position of prestige to maintain industrial peace. But this is certainly not the case. The Government knows full well what I say to be true. In 1959, immediately after the general elections, there was industrial peace; as I have said earlier, unprecedented industrial peace. I am sure, as the Prime Minister has said, we have 300 Communists in Singapore. These 300 Communists were also in Singapore in 1959, May, June, July, August, September, October, November and December. Early 1960 strikes increased, as the Government statistics quite clearly show. I believe that in 1960 there were very many more strikes than in 1959 because the workers were getting disillusioned.

Sir, the Government having completely lost the support of the workers is now using the Ministry of Labour and other Government machinery to break and discredit trade unions and trade union leadership which are not prepared to toe the P.A.P. line. Today, arbitrary Government intervention in legitimate disputes of the workers is an everyday occurrence. The Government show bias against the majority of the unions which are unions not under the control of the P.A.P. The best thing the Government can do in the circumstances is to resign. But since they do not wish to do that, the only sane thing for them to do is to let the unions and the employers work things out among themselves. There is a far better prospect of peace if employers and unionists could iron things out between themselves; if the Labour Ministry ceases to be a P.A.P. instrument - it strikes me sometimes that the Labour Ministry is the only branch of the P.A.P. left ticking. I think it is necessary to warn employers that the Government of today may well have a vested interest in industrial unrest. The sensible thing for them to do is to be realistic and come to a lasting settlement with the employees. We do not trust the Government to act in a responsible manner. We know that all this talk of Communist agitators and Communist unions is merely to carry out a repression of political forces that are against the P.A.P.

Sir, the P.A.P. came into office with a special recommendation, lt had the support of the workers and their trade unions, and was therefore in a position to make the slogan "industrial peace with justice" a meaningful one. But the power crazy Prime Minister was too smug once he became Prime Minister. He saw himself in an indispensable role and wanted to ensure his position in that role. Today, the P.A.P. Government, by their own actions, have lost the support of the workers who brought it to power. In fact, they have incurred the anger and hostility of the workers. The Labour Front came into office on a militant Left-wing platform and ended up a totally reactionary force. The P.A.P. has travelled the same trodden route, and has common ground with its old opponents now in the S.P.A., and so they both talk in the same terms. They both talk of the Communist threat. Sir, the same policies that were rejected by the people are now being put into force. Mr Speaker, Sir, I need hardly state the outcome of the anti-worker policies of the Government. I have no doubt that at the end of it all, all this cry of Communism can only mean the graveyard for the P.A.P.

7.25 p.m.

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, one thing I must say about the Member for Thomson -

Dr Toh Chin Chye: He is like an old gramophone.

Mr Rajaratnam: - is that his speeches are written by him, unlike the Member for Queenstown, who is his boss -

Mr Bani: Thank you.

Mr Rajaratnam: - who really talks like a gramophone.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin (Nee Soon): What about the Minister for Finance?

Mr Rajaratnam: For the best part of the day the Member for Thomson spent a great deal of time -

Mr Bani: G. G. Thomson, is it?

Mr Rajaratnam: - saying what a terrible Government this is - police brutality. He used the phrase "using the police". He never told you what was the police used for. The impression left behind is that we used the police to beat up workers and arrest them. If we were really against the workers and trade unionists, there would be empty Benches here.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: You have not got the guts.

Mr Rajaratnam: The Member for Cairnhill can tell you that there are ways and means of doing these things.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: At least the Member for Cairnhill had the guts.

Mr Rajaratnam: A little bit more, and many of them would have had more nervous twitches than they have at the moment. So, Sir, all this long rigmarole, implying police brutality, using the police, the P.A.P. is doing this and that - let me first say that if the Barisan Sosialis and the Communists who run them can get one single picture of actual police brutality, of police beating up workers, I think the General Employees Union would be prepared to pay $50,000 to publish just one such picture. I have looked through their publications and those of the S.G.E.U., Suara Kesatuan. They have been publishing pictures intended to convey to the workers the extent of police brutality, Government brutality. I refer to the issue of 3lst December, 1961.

An hon. Member: In Chinese?

Mr Rajaratnam: In Chinese, Sir. Unlike the gentleman there, I can even read Chinese without being able to understand a word of it. To that extent I emulate the Member for Queenstown. In this publication there are six pictures intended to convey how brutal and how wicked this P.A.P. Government is. The first picture shows two gentlemen looking through a window - police brutality. The second picture shows two policemen talking to another gentleman - police brutality. The third shows three policemen, with hands folded, watching six other gentlemen, obviously conversing - police brutality. The fourth picture shows four policemen just facing the camera - police brutality, using police action. The fifth is a very bad photograph but it shows the back of a policeman - police brutality. The only picture where it shows police brutality is the sixth picture, which is a cartoon that they had to draw. That is the only picture they can produce of police brutality. It shows a policeman with a club and a rifle stamping on what looks like a worker. That is the only instance of police brutality that the Barisan Sosialis could produce and the Communists, who run them, can produce. That is police brutality out of their imagination.

Mr Speaker: Order. I have noticed the Minister for Culture pointing at the opposite Benches, and I have not stopped him until now. I think he is probably overdoing it.

Mr Rajaratnam: Probably the pointing finger could be used on some occasion outside the Assembly. So that is all they could produce of police brutality. You have a lot of words, pen portraits, fairy tales, but not a single iota of evidence.

Then the Member for Thomson, in order to build up his myth of an oppressive Government beating down workers and to produce evidence of that, spent a great deal of time talking about what he called the historic Robinson strike. This is his evidence of police brutality, Sir. So I looked up some of the photographs, both in the Chinese Press and in the English Press, to check up on any evidence of a bloodstained worker, of a worker being dragged about with his arm twisted and so on. All I could find which could come something near to the use of violence was on the front page of the Straits Times of 12th September. It shows a picture of a gentleman called Foo Yong Fong who, I understand, can also write because the Member for Queenstown read a very polished piece of prose by Mr Foo Yong Fong, obviously with a view to impressing upon the workers of Singapore that, apart from rather strange habits like pressing cigarette buts into people -

Mr Speaker: Order. I understand that particular case is sub judice.

Mr Rajaratnam: Apart from other accomplishments, he could also write in excellent language. Sir, the only evidence I could find was a picture here [Indicating] of two policemen trying to hold back Mr Foo Yong Fong who was trying to get into a Black Maria. Evidence of police brutality! Here is a gentleman who is so afraid of the police that he is struggling to get into a Black Maria. That is the nearest one I could come across of the use of any kind of violence on the part of the leader of the workers. The first picture shows the police holding arms to allow the workers, the terrified workers, the workers who were going to be beaten up by the police, oppressed by the Government, to give them a chance to get into the Black Maria in an orderly fashion. There is another picture here [Indicating] showing salesgirls and women clerks of Robinson walking out of the store, laughing and smiling, into a waiting police van. Evidence of police brutality and oppression! Sir, in a country where there are no strikes - the strike problem has been solved by the People's Democracy which they admired so much - if there is any suggestion that a police van is anywhere around the vicinity, it is an occasion for considerable alarm, and perhaps there would be a hasty exit by the back door. But here, under the oppressive rule of the P.A.P., salesgirls and striking workers were smiling as they walked into the van. Not only did they walk into the van with great enthusiasm but the police had to keep control, saying, "You can get in there, but, please two at a time." These are the evidence of police brutality!

As you know, Sir, the Member for Thomson spent a great deal of time quoting instances of what had happened: "The police were used. The police were used." In other words, what were the police used for? Obviously in this case to help strikers to get into a police van in an orderly way. In the same issue of the Straits Times of 13th September, 1961, after the strike was over, we heard a great deal about the terrible things the Government did and the police did. This is one portion of the report. Dr Lee Siew Choh said:

`All reports clearly indicate that the strike at Robinson was peaceful from the outset. In fact, there was a great deal of friendliness between the strikers and the police officers who were placed on duty.'

And yet the Member for Thomson spent, I think, the best part of an hour on this historic Robinson strike where the brutal police, the terrible Government, was oppressing the workers. And there was the Member for Queenstown, the Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis - at that time I do not think the Barisan Sosialis had yet been formed - saying that there was a great deal of friendliness between the strikers and police officers. How is it that the police who were going to beat up and oppress the workers could be friendly with them?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Would you allow me to explain, Sir?

Mr Rajaratnam resumed his seat.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I wanted to say that there was a lot of friendliness between the police and the workers until the police were ordered by the Government to take action against the workers.

Mr Rajaratnam: Sir, I have already indicated what happened after that. The police were helping smiling girls to get into the police van where they insisted on going. If we had stopped them from going, there would have been another statement to say how brutal this Government was because it prevented salesgirls who were on strike from getting into the police van. Either way it would have been wrong. But whatever you might say, Sir - and I think the Member for Queenstown was quite right - either way the police officers were friendly. They were helping the salesgirls who wanted to go to the police station and to get a free ride at the tax-payers' expense; though it is quite improper, Sir, to ride in a Black Maria without lawful reason. But the P.A.P. Government is always obliging.

An hon. Member: Committing trespass!

Mr Rajaratnam: Lest it should be thought that we were oppressing the workers by refusing to allow them to get a free ride in the Black Maria, we suggested that perhaps the police should indulge their fancy. All this business of the Robinson strike is an attempt to suggest that when they used the words "using the police", any implication that we were using the police to heat up the workers is obviously not true. If it had been true, there would have been a few more illegal posters of the photograph all over the city. All they could do, as I have said, was to draw a cartoon suggesting that the police had used violence and intimidation. That is a measure of the accuracy of many of the statements by the Barisan Sosialis. I can understand what happened, because, just to be fair to the Barisan Sosialis, obviously when the Member for Queenstown has nobody prompting him, he is a cornered man. He was with the P.A.P., so he spoke honestly. On the same day there was another meeting of the Preparatory Committee of the S.A.T.U. Nobody had phoned him up and told him what the line was, because at that meeting there were denunciations of the police. Obviously if the reporter had gone there a couple of hours later, the Member for Queenstown would have given a different version. As we know, Sir, in this Assembly very often he takes the wrong line, much to the consternation of many of his colleagues outside this Assembly. I do not think any of the workers are very much taken in by the Barisan Sosialis' attempt during the last nine months to build up hatred and indignation against the Government. So today they are put in a position of saying, "We are really not interested in strikes."

In fact, the Member for Thomson did not know how to end up his peroration. So he decided that we, the Government, have a vested interest in promoting industrial unrest. This is the first time we have heard it. Obviously the whole thing has misfired. I shall show later the whole purpose of this industrial unrest which the Barisan Sosialis have generated. There are two different types of industrial unrest. There is industrial unrest based on genuine discontent. There have been many strikes by non-Communist-controlled unions, and the P.A.P. Government has in no way suggested for one moment that those strikes are Communist strikes or Communist-controlled strikes. There was the City Council strike. Nobody ever said that those strikes were Communist-controlled or Communist-inspired. There was the Army Civil Service Union strike. A lot of individual firms had strikes. But we must make a distinction between strikes by leaders who are interested in promoting the economic welfare of the workers and the Communists who are using them for political ends. As I shall show later on, the Barisan Sosialis are not interested in promoting the welfare of the workers, but in promoting the cause of Communism. It is very interesting that throughout yesterday and today, Members of the Barisan Sosialis kept on saying, "Communist bogey"; "so-called Communists"; "Communist smear". But they never said one word which would dispose of our allegation - deny that they are Communists; deny that the men who run the Barisan Sosialis or some of them are not Communists. They never denied that. That fits in with the Communist strategy, Sir. According to the textbook manual, Lenin says, a good Communist must be prepared to lie to cover up the fact that he is a Communist. That is part of the Communist technique.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: You never read the statement of the Barisan Sosialis.

Mr Rajaratnam: In fact, Sir, a few days ago, the Member for Nee Soon, in the course of an argument, said, "I am not a Communist." I say very good. It is the first time I have heard a Barisan Sosialis Member saying categorically that he is not a Communist. Then I asked, "Would you therefore be prepared to tell the people of Singapore - the Government is prepared to give you radio time to go on the air - 'Why I oppose Communism. Why I reject Communism.'?" First he said, "Yes." Then he said, "No. I will consider it." Then he said, "Please write to me." I have written to him two or three days ago, and not a peep out of him. Whatever they might say - they might say smear and so on, which they do say - they have not said, "We are not Communists. If you say we are Communists, we are prepared to come and repudiate it." Better still, come out and say why you are not a Communist. That is the most convincing way to say I am not a Communist, and say, "These are the reasons why I am not a Communist." If any Member of the Barisan Sosialis can say that publicly - come out anywhere, write in any newspaper, talk over the radio, "Why I reject Communism," then we will believe him. But I can give an assurance, Sir, that not a single Member of the Barisan Sosialis or the men who run the Party will be prepared to accept this open invitation to come and talk over the radio, saying. "Why we reject Communism. Why we think Communism is unsuitable for Singapore." It is quite clear that they are getting more and more uncomfortable over this motion, because the essence of Communist strategy, as I shall read out from extracts, from the big Lenin - these are the small Lenins -telling how it is necessary for Communists to conceal their identity when working in unions and political Parties. And these are men who are learning the task. A good Communist would not use these tactics, saying, "It is a smear". He would say, "I am not a Communist. I am prepared even to swear that I am not a Communist." He is prepared to argue. A good Communist should be able to do that. But these are only tenderfoots. So, therefore, they have been reduced for the time being to saying, "Oh, it is all a smear. It is a bogey."

Let me therefore start off with the whole thesis of our argument about the industrial strife. Some of the 13 Assemblymen will get an opportunity to reply to this. There are two categories of industrial unrest. One of them springs from the genuine discontent of the workers motivated by the desire to improve their lot. To that extent, the Government has never in any way made any attempt to hamper them in so far as they go about their business of carrying out the industrial dispute against employers in a lawful and constitutional manner. In fact, the Government has often gone out of its way to assist them. But where we know that the Communist industrial dispute has not the slightest intention of increasing the living standard of the workers but has other objectives, to that extent we single it out. The Member for Thomson kept on saying, "Oh, the Government is smearing trade unionists," and so on. We are not smearing trade unionists, Sir. We are smearing certain trade unionists whom we have named. One of them is the Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis, a prominent trade unionist who, we have said repeatedly in statements outside and inside the Assembly, is an open front Communist leader. The Member for Queenstown kept on saying, "Oh, this is a bogey," and that we were imagining things. All right, Sir. Is this imagination? This is from the Battle For Merger, about which hook a lot of questions were asked. So I can understand why this hook becomes more and more embarrassing because there is a document here by Mr Lim Ching Siong, part of which reads as follows [Page 120]:

`We must forever remember: We have already sworn before the Red flag and old Stalin. We must resolutely uphold the interests of the Organisation at all times and under all circumstances.'

Bogey, Sir? Old Stalin and Red flag. Is it a bogey, imagination, a forgery? He is placed behind the Barisan Sosialis and the trade union movement associated with the Barisan Sosialis. Communist bogey? Denial? We would have laughed, if they said it was a forgery. There is no denial. All we had was "a smear"; not that it is false; not that it is a forgery; it is a smear; it is a bogey. Then, remember, Sir, not so many years ago, when the Member for Cairnhill was in the saddle, certain gentlemen -

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Why call them gentleman?

Mr Rajaratnam: - comrades were suddenly accused in those days of being pro-Communists and Communists. They used to say it was a smear and they still say it is a smear. Sir, may I quote also from the Battle For Merger documents, which certainly show that far from Communism being a bogey and a smear and a figment of our imagination, these gentlemen are conscious of the fact that the Communists are here. This is a statement signed by Woodhull, Fong Swee Suan, Lim Ching Siong, Devan Nair and Chan Chiaw Thor:

`"It was not the might of British arms which defeated the armed revolt led by the M.C.P....".'

Sir, I cannot imagine British arms fighting a bogey; eight years, nine years, they obviously fought an organisation which exists. In fact, the truth must be told. The M.C.P. is the oldest political Party in Malaya. Has it vanished overnight? Are we imagining things? Here are Messrs. Woodhull, Fong Swee Suan, Lim Ching Siong, Devan Nair and Chan Chiaw Thor talking of real things that exist. Again in another statement called "The Road to Socialism in an Independent Malaya":

`No sane person can claim today that the M.C.P. revolt is directed against British Imperialist domination of Malaya.'

Were they talking of a bogey directed against British imperialism? A figment of the imagination being directed against the British imperialists? Or was it something real? Another statement by James Puthucheary who now says all this is a smear. In fact, he says he is not quite sure there are Communists, and yet he has written a letter. Sir, this is the hard cover edition, page 196, in which (just the relevant part of the sentence) he says: `...I broke with my political friends in 1951,...'.

Lest we should be in doubt as to who these political friends are, he goes on to say:

`Though I had rejected some of what were considered basic tenets, and was critical of Communist regimentation...'.

Sir, I cannot imagine Mr James Puthucheary being regimented. A figment of the imagination. Then he goes on to say:

`My return from Communism ...'.

And yet he used to say it was a smear. He says it does not exist and the Members opposite today say the same thing - "It is a smear. Communism does not exist." A figment of their imagination. Maybe one day they will be writing documents for us saying "My return from Communism".

Therefore, before we start discussing the problem of industrial unrest, it is necessary to start with the basic reality that Communism is a movement which exists with specific aims and purposes, and that in this industrial unrest, it is a big factor and the Barisan Sosialis are one of the factors in the Communist conspiracy in Singapore and Malaya and in Malaysia. If you start off with the assumption that it is all a smear, a figment of the imagination, the whole thing becomes meaningless. The hard facts are there. The gentlemen who know this admit and concede that these are the realities of the political situation. So once we work on that basis, then all this business about the Government being brutal and oppressing the workers becomes clear. Why they are saying this and why they are fomenting industrial unrest is because, as a Communist Party and a Communist group, they are doing the things which are expected of them as Communists. Their brutalising techniques are things which are expected of them as Communists.

It is my purpose to start from the realities, the facts, that the Barisan Sosialis is a Communist front organisation being manipulated for Communist ends, and that all the stories we have heard are explainable if this basic reality is accepted. Sir, nobody who is of sound mind - and that includes the Barisan Sosialis - will deny that there is mounting industrial unrest and that it is on a scale to warrant concern by this Assembly. Even the Member for Anson, who argued that there was no cause for alarm because he loved strikes, was nevertheless constrained to move an amendment asking the Government to take all possible steps to ensure industrial peace with justice. Even he accepts the fact, whatever the reason, that there is industrial unrest. Sir, insofar as the Member for Cairnhill confined himself to facts to show that there has been an abnormal increase of strikes in recent months, he was being objective. However, when dealing with a politician of the calibre and experience of the Member for Cairnhill, one must be a little bit wary of some of the not so helpful suggestions he occasionally offers to the Government. He professed to offer us buckets of water yesterday and today to help put out the fires of industrial unrest, but occasionally I noticed he was slipping in buckets of kerosene. In fact, one of the great sources of disappointment for the pro-Communists in the Barisan Sosialis and in their unions is that the Government has not tried to dampen industrial unrest by pouring buckets of kerosene -

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Pouring oil on troubled waters.

Mr Rajaratnam: What has been and is annoying the pro-Communists is that the Government has not sided with the employers as they say we do; that it has, in fact, not sided with employers to bust up strikes, including political strikes fomented by the pro-Communists, or persecute labour leaders or use the police to beat up strikers. We have denied the Communists opportunities for sparking off violent clashes between workers and police. We have not behaved in the way that Communist manuals say that an anti-worker government should behave.

Sir, we know that the ordinary worker even when on strike does not resort to violence unless he is provoked into it either by a blundering government or unless he has a violent and abiding hatred for the government. None of these factors are present at the moment. That is why though the pro-Communists have tried their level best to convert legitimate workers' grievances into a violent political assault against the Government, they have not been able to make much headway. The ordinary worker is ready to go on strike to get better conditions and where he has done this purely to get better working conditions, the Government has either offered to help him settle the dispute; or even where he has been manoeuvred by Communist politicians into carrying on with the strike, the Government has not interfered with his right to strike peacefully -

Mr Speaker: Order. I think it is a convenient time to suspend. I propose to suspend until 9 p.m. I will take this Chair again at 9 p.m.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 8.00 p.m. until 9.00 p.m. Sitting resumed at 9.00 p.m.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Rajaratnam: Sir, the Member of the Barisan Sosialis kept on repeating that the Government is trying to criticise workers for going on strike. As I have said, there is a distinction between workers who go on strike wholly and primarily to improve their conditions of work, and strikes organised by certain leaders for the purpose of furthering Communist ends and Communist objectives. We concede to workers who are willing to go on strike to get better conditions of pay, and where they have done this the Government has either offered to help settle the dispute or, even where they have been manoeuvred by Communist politicians into carrying on with a strike, has not interfered with the workers' right to strike peacefully. Therefore, the Communist myth of a wicked, oppressive, brutal and anti-worker Government is difficult to sustain. This being the case, the Barisan Sosialis leaders and the trade union leaders are reduced to merely creating imaginary pictures of violence and brutality on the part of the Government. Sir, the mere presence of the police near the pickets to ensure that peace and order are maintained is, in the Barisan Sosialis propaganda, transformed into Fascist oppression by the police. Any and every wordy altercation between the police and the workers, which often happens during a strike, is distorted by the Barisan Sosialis propagandists into a bloody oppression and persecution of the working class.

Sir, this sort of fabrication can only serve to puzzle the workers who may have seen with their own eyes that these instances of brutality were no more than the usual incidents where the police are called upon to ensure the preservation of peace and order during a strike. Because the police have not resorted to acts of violence and brutality against workers on strike, it has become necessary for the pro-Communists in S.A.T.U. to resort to acts of violence and intimidation against the workers. The motive is obvious. By carrying out acts of violence and intimidation themselves, the Communists know that they will be inviting intervention by the police who have a duty to see that law and order are preserved. But since the police have refused to be provoked into acts of violence, the Communists themselves indulge in displays of violence against the workers in order to attract their attention and genially to create an impression that industrial violence is taking place and that the Government and the police are somehow responsible for such incidents. So such an intervention could then be presented as evidence of police violence and intimidation. However, it is quite clear from the agitation of the Member for Thomson that these fairy tales about intimidation and oppression by the State have so far failed to cut any ice with the workers. So the Barisan Sosialis are reduced to merely uttering the refrain that the P.A.P. Government is anti-worker, Pro-capitalist and is working hand in glove with Japanese capitalists, as the Member for Queenstown alleged, that the workers are groaning under the reactionary heel of the P.A.P., and that they live in fear of P.A.P. brutality and oppression. Sir, it is quite clear that not even the Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen really believe all this. If we are what they say we are, then not a single Barisan Sosialis Assemblyman will be in this Chamber to make tongue-in-cheek allegations of this sort. If we are really anti-worker and pro-employer, if we are really determined to use violence and oppression against the workers, then I can assure you, Sir, that there will not be a single strike in Singapore today. May I suggest to the Barisan Sosialis that even falsehoods, to be effective, must at least be plausible. They cannot convince the people that the P.A.P. is an enemy of the workers and is using violence against them when, in fact, it is the Barisan Sosialis strong-arm men who have to intimidate fellow workers and do violence to other workers. That is the situation. There is not a single instance, and they cannot produce a single instance, where the Government has used unlawful violence or unjust force against the workers. But the Barisan Sosialis leaders have had to use violence to intimidate the workers into supporting them. In fact, the Member for Thomson, who always plays about with half-truths, said that an editorial of the Petir attacked the workers of the Singapore Business Houses Employees Union. If he had read the editorial, he would have discovered that it was not an attack against the workers of the Singapore Business Houses Employees Union but against the pro-Communists who are manipulating the white-collar workers for Communist ends. In fact, the editorial gave an account of the rally that the Singapore Business Houses Employees Union organised under the cloak that they were calling a mass meeting to explain the problems of the commercial workers in Singapore. That was the pretext given to entice workers to come to this mass rally. But, in fact, what happened was that on the day of the meeting numerous buses were parked outside the various business houses, and as the workers came out they were shepherded by the stewards who told them to go into the buses because they had to go to this meeting. So they were dragooned into going to this mass rally where it became clear to the workers, who had gone there expecting to hear something about the problems of the white-collar workers - the meeting did not start until well past the schedule time; then at seven, there was a long harangue all about merger, Malaysia and so on - that there was nothing about the problems of the white-collar workers. At about seven o'clock, the Chairman of the meeting said, "Well, our Muslim brothers are here and it is the Puasa month. So those who want to go and break their fast may leave." So the hail became spectacularly empty because the Muslims and the non-Muslims made a bolt for the door. There were little altercations. A number of ladies said, "Well, I have come to this meeting to hear about the problems of the white-collar workers. I have a child who has not been fed and I have been sitting here at this meeting listening to merger. Malaysia, and so on."

This editorial was intended to show the typical Communist strategy: first you urged people into buses and made quite sure that nobody escaped at five o'clock. The buses were waiting there; gentlemen were looking around and everyone was given a card so that they knew who came and who did not come to the meeting. Then at seven o'clock, the people became hungry. Everybody wanted to break the fast - Muslims and non-Muslims. The hail was half-empty. Mr Bani, who was supposed to be the last speaker, appealed to the members, "Please, it will not be a long speech," and the meeting closed earlier than expected. This is a typical strategy of the pro-Communists.

So when the Member for Thomson said that the editorial was attacking the workers in the Singapore Business House Employees Union, he was obviously stating a falsehood. But the attack was on the way the Communists are trying to dragoon the white-collar workers to their revolutionary machine. I do not think they are getting very far with it. That is why you notice that the Member for Thomson today spent a great deal of his time making a speech intended for the white-collar workers. He said. "We are reasonable chaps. It is the Government which has a vested interest in starting strikes and industrial strife." By and large, the white-collar workers are beginning to realise that they might welcome assistance from the Barisan Sosialis insofar as they manage to get better conditions of work. We are not denying that the Barisan Sosialis have not done that. But they are doing that only as an inducement and a bribe to see that the white-collar workers are hitched on to a revolutionary chariot which everybody knows is set on a course where the end of the line is a cliff. Everybody knows that, even the Barisan Sosialis.

So when they talk of the P.A.P. Government being anti-worker and being repressive, nobody believes it. How genuine are the Barisan Sosialis leaders when they say all these things about the P.A.P, being an anti-worker Government? Again in the Petir of 17th June, 1961, Mr S. Woodhull wrote an article. This was about nine months ago. Sir, Mr Woodhull is something of a pundit in the Barisan Sosialis, and echoes of his literary style from time to time emanate from the mouth of the Member for Queenstown. The article is entitled "Two Years of Concrete Progress". It was published in June last year, just before the split, and the progress, I can assure you, Sir, did not relate to the progress of Mr Woodhull but to the progress which he claimed the P.A.P. Government had made.

Let us see what Mr Woodhull, now the script writer for the Barisan Sosialis, had to say about the labour policies of the P.A.P. Government which his mouthpiece, the Member for Queenstown, now denounces as anti-worker, as having done nothing for the workers. Let me quote from a rather lengthy article - obviously we had made -a lot of progress during the two years, so it took him four pages, 12 columns, to set down our achievements. But I shall not weary the House with all of it but take some extracts in so far as they relate to our labour policies. This is what he said:

'As a reflection of the new spirit that now obtains in the trade union front, considerable changes and improvements of working conditions have been brought about since the P.A.P, came into office.'

Yet the same script writer gets the Member for Queenstown to say that nothing has been achieved. Workers have suffered under the P.A.P. Government. Here is Mr Woodhull saying on the contrary that "considerable changes and improvements of working conditions have been brought about since the P.A.P. came into office." He says that one union has drawn up over 300 agreements concerning improved wages and other working conditions in the last 18 months. That was something like one agreement every three days during the past two succeeding years.

Mr A. P. Rajah (Farrer Park): They must have been working overtime.

Mr Rajaratnam: They were not only working overtime, but obviously working all the time.

`This historic change [not just a change, Sir, but a historic change] in the industrial situation has been made possible because government has made it clear to employers that they will have to respect the rights of trade unions.'

This was written nine months ago-two months before the break occurred between the non-Communists and the pro-Communists in the P.A.P.

Again Sir, we have heard a lot about the P.A.P. victimising the workers, pushing them around, no sympathy for the workers, lost contact with the workers - you have heard all that, Sir. Mr Woodhull had this to say:

`The days of victimisation of trade unionists and workers are over. The law is now being effectively implemented and workers are having the full benefit of it all. As a result of the effective application of the law, workers have received $l,628,670.47 due to them.'

Now, Sir, you will note that Mr Woodhull was such a stickler for accuracy that he worked it out to the last 47 cents. I cannot say of the script which he now writes for the Member for Queenstown as regards accuracy of facts. But in this case there was $1,628,670.47 cents. These were the things that the workers got in addition as a result of the effective application of the law during the past two years. Yet again, Sir, Mr Woodhull wrote:

`The Minister for Labour and Law had informed the Chinese bus companies that they could no longer exploit the workers and, as a result of this, $700,000 was paid to the members of the Singapore Bus Workers Union. These are only a few examples of how Government has actively helped improve the bargaining position of hundreds of unions.'

Sir, as he said, these are only a few examples. We gave him four pages due to lack of space, and due regard for the modesty of the Government no doubt prevented Mr Woodhull from specifying further examples of the concrete progress that had been made by the P.A.P. during its two years of office. Then, Sir, like a good non-Communist democrat, he sums up the whole thing in two very punchy slogans - it is all in black type, Sir:

`Gone are the days of repression of trade union activity.'

Yet we hear the Barisan Sosialis Members saying how we are oppressing the workers. As far back as June, which is less than a year ago, there was nothing of that kind. "Gone are the days of repression of trade union activity." And still further, a second slogan:

`Trade unions have achieved a new dignity under a new Government.'

Sir, I do not know what Members of the Barisan Sosialis think of Mr Woodhull. Obviously there must be two Mr Woodhull. The problem that the Barisan Sosialis have is to decide which is the genuine Mr Woodhull that they have to live with; the one who wrote this or the one who writes some of the speeches that Members of the Barisan Sosialis utter from time to time. Mr Woodhull was either lying here or he was lying in the speeches that are often read out in this Chamber. I do not know, but would they say that Mr Woodhull, the real revolutionary, a man of the people, wrote this for $1,100 as Political Secretary, or is he writing other speeches for far less pay for the cause? That is the problem that the Barisan Sosialis must decide for themselves: which is the real Mr Woodhull who is speaking the truth? Or has he got two tongues in his cheek?

Sir, on the one hand, we are told that we are oppressors of the workers; we are terrible people; we have no contact with the workers. And here is Mr Woodhull, who is not only a prominent member of the Barisan Sosialis but I understand he now conducts political classes for Barisan Sosialis cadres in the trade unions, especially in the English-speaking trade unions. Sir, is he a searcher for truth? Is he conducting the same type of classes, of writing or speaking with his tongue in his cheek as he did here, or is he, since he left the P.A.P. no longer a non-Communist socialist? Or has he, therefore, taken to the ethics of the Communist techniques, which say that it is necessary for a good revolutionary sometimes to conceal his ideas and, if necessary, sacrifice truth, i.e., it may be necessary for him to speak falsehoods? So this is one of the problems that the Barisan Sosialis will have to decide.

In this connection, Sir, I notice that the Member for Thomson and a few others took great care to fasten their attack on one of their former colleagues. Mr Devan Nair. In fact, some rather scathing remarks were made suggesting that Mr Devan Nair is a phoney trade unionist, that he also was one of the chaps who joined in to oppress the workers. Let me contrast him with Mr Woodhull, who wrote this when he was Political Secretary drawing $1,100. As for Mr Devan Nair, let us tell them that he was offered the same job as Political Secretary, carrying a salary of $1,100. And very early on i.e, a few months later, having worked with the gentleman who now says that he is a phoney, he said, "I am afraid lots of things are going to happen. So it is better for me not to accept this job because when I signed the statement saying that I really believed in non-Communist socialism for Malaya, I was sincere about it. And there will come a time when those who signed that statement with their tongues in their cheeks would smear me." So he decided to quit the job to take on a job as a teacher for $530. That is his salary today. He is now in the Council for Adult Education, and he is getting far less than many of the Junior Officers connected with the Adult Education Board. He was a far-sighted man. He knew that if he had stayed on, they would have smeared him. Today they cannot smear him, but Mr Woodhull, Mr Lim Ching Siong, Mr Fong Swee Suan, and Mr James Puthucheary, cannot say either that they were working as paid hacks for the Government for $1,100 each and were sincerely carrying out their duties, or they were working for the Government because they believed in the things that they said they believed. Therefore, Sir, let them not query the sincerity of people who have nothing to be ashamed of. Mr Devan Nair draws $530 a month and has been drawing that for the last two years, and yet he wrote things which he believed in. Whether Mr Woodhull and his friends can say the same thing is a different matter. I do not want to weary the House, Sir. Even Mr Lint Ching Siong and Mr Fong Swee Suan have made similar speeches praising and giving credentials to the Government for the way in which they have stood on the side of the workers.

Apart from these testimonials from Mr Woodhull, Mr Fong and Mr Lim, there is yet another reason why no worker believes the Barisan Sosialis charge that we are now oppressing the workers and have joined up with the capitalists. The simple reason is that none of us on this side of the House are capitalists. We own no shares or enterprises or factories. So what capitalist interests are we out to protect? So on every count there is not a shred of evidence to sustain the Communist myth that we are anti-worker. We are not capitalists ourselves or in the pay of any capitalists. We have not beaten up workers, or broken up strikes or persecuted workers. And until the political break less than a year ago, Sir, Mr Lim, Mr Woodhull and the rest who are now bearing the Barisan Sosialis chop, were openly proclaiming that this was a pro-workers' Government. Therefore, when - that is the problem - did we cease to be a pro-workers' Government? As far as the evidence goes, obviously in June last year we were all right. We were on the side of the workers. So when did we cease to be on the side of the workers? If you look at the facts, Sir, the time is roughly after the Anson by-election. So what happened? As far as we know, we have not changed our policy. There have been no drastic changes. So what happened between June and September to convert us from a pro-Workers' Government, a Government which is on the side of the workers, into one which has now become Fascist, pro-capitalist and anti-worker? I suggest that the reasons are political. The reasons have to do with our decision to get the Communists to declare their stand on merger. It was since then that the Communists in the Barisan Sosialis - in fact, Sir, I think the term "Barisan Sosialis" is a deception. Nobody believes the Barisan Sosialis. It is a better thing for them to change the name and call themselves Barisan Communists. Everytime they keep talking of socialism, socialism, socialism, everybody knows that they mean Communism. Probably all the troubles that they have landed themselves in were because they started with a false name, a false chop, and false credentials. Because of that, they are in extreme difficulties today. The reason why they are no longer pro-worker socialists, progressives, arises out of political differences, more immediately over the question of merger and Malaysia. It is because of that that they have hit back at the Government through the use of the industrial weapon. The Barisan Sosialis are committed to fomenting strikes in order to further the political aim of the pro-Communists who direct the Party and in accordance with the Communist technique. The immediate political aim is to halt merger and Malaysia. Merger and Malaysia may be good for the people, but it does not suit the immediate interest of the Communists, and it must therefore be sabotaged and destroyed.

Now, if we accept the proposition that the Barisan Sosialis and the unionists who work for them are open front Communist stooges, then the recent tactics in the field of labour becomes clear and necessary. We can see why they are fomenting strikes and we can discern the techniques they use to trap workers into unwittingly supporting Communist objectives. What is most interesting is that the pro-Communists in the Barisan Sosialis are not even able to apply Communist techniques or manipulate with imagination and originality. That is their tragedy. These Communist manipulators have applied these techniques mechanically and blindly, and that is why today they are up to their necks in difficulty. These are the bar-room Lenins and they have the mental agility of trained parrots.

Let us examine some of the recent antics of these pocket Lenins. One thing that has been made clear by the speeches of my colleagues is that all the strikes led by the Barisan Sosialis and the little Lenins in S.A.T.U. have political motivations: that is to bring about the downfall of the Government and stop merger. You will notice, Sir, that this political objective was exemplified by the Member for Thomson who, up to the end of a long speech, came to the inevitable conclusion that the Government should resign and let us have a national election. It is quite clear, Sir, because the other tactics have failed. The use of the industrial weapon to bring down the Government has failed and, therefore, now they repeat, "Please resign; please resign."

It is no accident that this outburst of industrial unrest started in July or August when the Communists discovered to their horror that merger was now a practical proposition. The little Lenins, with and without beards, have since August been talking boldly and confidently of the October Revolution which they had to postpone to November and then postpone to December, and which they have now postponed indefinitely. I am not denying that many of the workers whom they persuaded to go on strike may have done so because they had genuine economic grievances which they believed that the pro-Communist Barisan Sosialis 1eaders were out to resolve. The truth is that the Barisan Communists were interested first in the political objective, that is, to bring down the Government, and only incidentally, or not at all, in the economic grievances of the workers. This fits in with the Leninist dogma that a good Communist must look upon unions primarily as the tool of the Communist Party. That is the basic tenet and belief of all good Communists: that a good Communist must look upon unions as primarily a tool of the Party. Let me quote from Lenin himself. He says:

`The task of bourgeois policy [that is, the policy of non-Communist trade union leaders and so on] is to assist the economic struggle of the proletariat.'

That is what Lenin says. Non-Communist leaders are interested in assisting the economic struggle of the proletariat.

`The task of the Communist is to make the economic struggle assist the Communist movement'. So, Sir, Lenin condemned bourgeois policy. "Bourgeois" is a term of abuse as far as the Communist is concerned. Bourgeois policy, he said - the non-Communist unions - is to assist the worker to get economic gain. The task of the Communists - the Barisan Sosialis - I am translating for their clarification, Sir - is to make the economic struggle assist the Communist movement. If we examine many of the things which seem inexplicable in recent industrial activity here, we can understand why the Barisan Sosialis are doing things which, from the point of view of the unionists who are interested primarily in getting benefits for the workers, seem inexplicable, because the Leninist technique says that the economic benefit of the workers is unimportant. It is secondary. The primary objective is a political one, to assist the Communist movement. Yet again, Sir, there is another quotation. This was something which was said by Lenin in one of his less sober moments. He says:

`For a Communist, the economic struggles serve as a base for the organisation of the workers in a revolutionary party, the consolidation and development of their class in the struggle against the whole capitalist order.'

So what it means is that the economic struggle should be used not to advance the interests of the workers but to help in the organisation of the revolutionary worker and in the consolidation and development of the class struggle against the capitalist order. Again Lenin speaking:

`If you regard the economic struggle as something self-sufficient then in it there is nothing socialist.'

So if you are only interested in the interest of the worker, then you are not a good socialist and you are not a good Communist. You are not a good Barisan Sosialis!

Mr Speaker: Will the Minister name the source of the quotation?

Mr Rajaratnam: This is from a book called, "Lenin on trade unions", which is an anthology of Lenin's writings by Thomas Taylor Hemon.

Mr Lin You Eng (Moulmein) rose -

Mr Speaker: Is it on a point of order?

Mr Lin You Eng: (In Mandarin): Yes.

Mr Rajaratnam resumed his seat.

Mr Lin You Eng: (In Mandarin): I would like to know whether you can buy this book on the market.

Mr Speaker: The Member took the words out of my mouth. That is exactly what I was going to ask. It is whether the book is easily available in the Assembly Library, or the National Library or any other library.

Mr Rajaratnam: Sir, not only is it available here, but I think it came to me through the courtesy of the United States Information Service. Moreover, it is published by the Columbia University Press. My only regret is that it has not been translated into Chinese so that the gentleman (the Member for Moulmein), whose constituency I go to every fortnight, could share with me some of the delightful things that Lenin said of how the Barisan Sosialis should be conducted and, even more important, how the Communist Party should use stooges without their knowing that they have been made stooges of. So if the Member for Moulmein is interested, I could give him the address and he could have a look at the copy without any fear that the Minister for Home Affairs would ask inquisitioning questions.

So it is quite clear from this book that a good Communist should not be interested as far as the workers' interests and improvements are concerned. They are secondary. The most important thing is whether it promotes the Communist cause. If it is necessary to sacrifice the interests of workers to promote the Communist cause, then the interests of workers must be sacrificed. If workers must suffer to promote the Communist cause, then workers must suffer. That is a good Communist technique. The Barisan Sosialis have not denied that they are Communists. All they have said is that it is a smear. That is a different thing. They are therefore following the Communist strategy, but with this difference, i.e., not as intelligently and as imaginatively as Lenin did for different circumstances. So, increasing the living standard of workers and solving their economic problems is only incidental at best to the major task, which is the major political objective of the Communists. When he meets a trade dispute, a good Communist does not suffer by asking, "Is there a genuine economic grievance to be resolved?" That is not the first question he asks. A good Communist asks, "How can I exploit the economic grievance to further the Communist revolution?" That is the first question. If it is not in the interest of the Communist revolution to resolve the economic grievances of workers and to win them more money and better conditions, then it is the duty of the Communist to see that the conditions of workers grow worse in order to increase their revolutionary ardour. That is again part of the essential dogma of a good Communist. If it is in the interest of Communism for workers to be both discontented and suffer more than necessary, then it is for the good Communist to create those conditions.

Sir, I again quote from Lenin on trade unions. This is a quotation from him at page 108:

`We cannot and will not "in every way" promote the improvement of the situation of workers under existing conditions.We struggle only for such an improvement of the situation of the workers as will increase their ability to lead the class struggle,' -

that is not to increase their standard of living. "We only fight for these things if they will increase the ability to lead the class struggle.":

`that is, under which an improvement of the situation is not connected with a corruption of political consciousness...'.

If a Communist finds that by giving them a higher standard of living their political consciousness will be corrupted, then a good Communist will say, "Better keep this. Do not improve their living standard."

I will again quote Lenin:

`We also struggle for reform but only in a Communist manner, only in a revolutionary manner do we struggle for reform.'

Sir, reducing all this Marxist jargon to simple language, what Lenin is saying -

Mr Bani: You are a Leninist, are you?

Mr Rajaratnam: He is your God. You worship him. Do not utter blasphemy. I am just warning the Member for Thomson that this is a gentleman who is revered but who, unfortunately, the little Lenins or the pocket Lenins cannot emulate him, and that is why they are -

Mr Bani rose -

Mr Speaker: On a point of order?

Mr Bani: On a point of explanation.

Mr Speaker: If the Minister will give way.

Mr Rajaratnam resumed his seat.

Mr Bani: Sir, I have never in this House or elsewhere quoted extracts from Marxist/Leninist writings. In fact, I have never, for a moment, ever suggested that I am a Marxist/Leninist. I am sure we can all remember the Minister for Culture quoting Marx and Lenin time and again. Sir, from a simple and logical point of view, he must be a bigger Communist than anyone of us in Barisan Sosialis.

Mr Rajaratnam: Sir, there is a saying that Satan must know how to quote the scripture and to that extent - [Interruption] Yes, Sir. Just like the Jesuits. I have known Jesuits who do not believe in evolution for obvious reasons. But one thing I have seen is that many gentlemen who claim to be evolutionists are completely floored because the Jesuits read books which they think they should not read. Similarly, Sir - I am sorry the Member for Thomson has missed what I have said earlier. One of the essentials of a good Communist -

Mr Bani: It is for you.

Mr Rajaratnam: - is to conceal his identity. The best way to conceal his identity is to disclaim any knowledge of Lenin. So to that extent, Sir, I can assure the Member for Thomson that Lenin would be very pleased to hear him say that he knows nothing about Lenin. We who are not Leninists can quote Lenin freely without fear or favour of being accused of being Leninists. I notice that the Member for Thomson did not accuse me of being a Leninist. He only thought it strange that I should be quoting the scriptures to him.

Sir, there are a few more quotations coming which I think you will find very interesting and the Member for Thomson will find very enlightening. Lenin himself enjoins a good Communist not to be interested in the welfare of workers. That is secondary. The first thing is: Is it useful for the revolution? If it is necessary to keep the worker happy and contented to further the revolution, please do so. But if it is necessary to keep the workers depressed and miserable, please do so. That is the simple approach of the Leninist. So what Lenin is saying is that the Communist must riot fight to so improve the conditions of workers that they are no longer dissatisfied with things. That is the meaning of the earlier quotation. In fact, it goes on to say that prolonged prosperity, prolonged satisfaction, to quote Lenin, "only demoralises the workers". The Barisan Sosialis know the technique and many of the things, starting with Ford factory and so on. You begin to see daylight. Do not get the workers completely satisfied. Do not give him everything he wants. If he is satisfied, he is not interested in revolution. In ther words, Sir, a decrease in the misery of the workers hinders progress towards the revolution. The Communist theory is that workers can never be happy and can never get justice in any but a Communist society.

You will have noticed, Sir, that in many of their speeches, they say you can never solve the strike problem in a capitalist society. You must go to basic causes. Again, what are the basic causes? How do you solve it? I know, Sir, in the fatherland -

Au hon. Member: Where is that?

Mr Rajaratnam: - of the revolution there are no strikes. The strike situation has been solved. You cannot strike. And the theory is that in a Communist country, a worker who strikes is striking against himself because the State belongs to him. He is the State. Very good theology and good metaphysics. But, unfortunately, a couple of years ago, the workers of Poland, a Communist country, decided to go on strike. That threw all the Communist theoreticians into confusion because they could not explain how these terrible Polish workers could strike against themselves. The truth is that we agree that there is no final solution to the strike problem. There will always be a conflict of interests between the worker and the employer, whether that employer is a State or a private individual. We have a Government service. Technically we are a nationalised Government and all its enterprises are owned by the people collectively and yet the workers go on strike. They can go on strike in a non-Communist democratic society. But in the kind of society that some of the Barisan Sosialis leaders have in mind, you cannot go on strike. Therefore, there are no strikes and, therefore, they solve the problem of strikes. So you see, Sir, they must work on that basis. They must drive home the fact that in any except a Communist society there can be no solution to the problem of conflict between labour and capital.

Mr Bani: You make a good Communist preacher.

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I know the Member for Thomson gets extremely agitated when he sees another non-Communist talking intelligent Communism. The trouble with the Barisan Sosialis, as I have said, is that they are tenderfoot Communists, tenderfoot Leninists - [Interruption].

When I was a young schoolboy, one of my uncles (just to stress a point) gave me a chemical set and said, "If you take this little chemical and mix with that chemical and light a fire, there will be a red glow." But somehow something went wrong. There was not a red glow. There was a red explosion. That is precisely the situation in which the second-class Leninists find themselves today because they are applying a technique which is all right in Czarist Russia, where you had a brutal government, where you had to work underground, where Lenin said because of the situation in Russia, it was necessary for every Communist Party to have a legal organisation and an illegal organisation. You must have an organisation which was legal and another one which was illegal. There is no Czarist Russia here, but still Members of the Barisan Sosialis are a legal organisation and somebody else carries on an illegal organisation which operates the Barisan Sosialis. Therefore, they get into difficulties. Therefore, they all say, "No. Communism is a smear." We say, "Well what about all these documents?" "Oh, that is a smear too." So, Mr Speaker, Sir, let us therefore go on to explain why they are behaving in this way - the usual things that they do. First they say they are fighting for the workers - many of their workers wallop the workers. They say they are fighting to improve the lot of the workers - lots of chaps get unemployed. In fact, I understand one of them was an unemployed member of the Singapore General Employees' Union who absconded with $4,500. So these are the little difficulties that come about when you operate a Leninist chemical set without exactly knowing the right formula.

Sir, one of the stresses laid is that a Leninist is a good Communist. A good Barisan Sosialis must deliberately create strikes, violence and distress among the workers. The point has been repeatedly stressed by Lenin. Here again I' quote from "Lenin on Unions", page 31, and this is what he said:

`The spontaneous development of the labour movement [that is, in their jargon, "spontaneous development" means unions that are not controlled by the Communists; anything that is not controlled by the Communists becomes spontaneous development] leads to it becoming subordinated to bourgeois ideology.'.

Mr Bani: What does it mean?

Mr Rajaratnam: I will explain it later. Obviously the Member for Thomson is a really good Leninist. He not only pretends that he does not know this gentleman called Lenin hut he even pretends that he does not understand what it is all about. The Member for Thomson is a labour leader, a trade unionist who has been carrying out these operations, and yet he says, "I do not know what it is all about." Anyway, Sir, as we go along, I am quite sure that not only will this become clear but I will also send him a copy of my speech at the expense of the Ministry of Culture. This is what Lenin said:

`The spontaneous development of the labour movement leads to it becoming subordinated to bourgeois ideology .for the spontaneous labour movement [that is, a labour movement which is not controlled by the Barisan Sosialis or by the Communists] is trade unionism and trade unionism means the ideological enslavement of the workers to the bourgeoisie.'

So trade unions which are not controlled by the Communists is an enslavement of the workers to the bourgeois ideology. Sir, we begin to understand why any unionist who is not associated with the Barisan Sosialis and pro-Communists becomes the oppressor of the workers, a capitalist stooge, a running dog - sorry, Sir, I am not applying this term to anybody in this House - because according to the Leninist technique any trade union which is not under the control of the Communists becomes mere trade unionism and must eventually lead to the ideological enslavement of the workers to the bourgeoisie.

`Hence our task [that is, the task of the Communists and the Barisan Sosialis] is to combat spontaneity, to divert the labour movement from its spontaneous unionist strivings [that is, striving for pure economic gain] to go under the wing of the bourgeoisie and to bring it under the wing of revolutionary Communism.'.

Therefore, it is the duty of any good Communist when he sees workers developing trade unions and fighting for better wages and so on to condemn it as wrong. That means that we could improve our lot under a non-Communist society. Therefore we must divert it among other ends to create revolutionary Communism. In other words, it is the task of the Communists to organise and use trade unions not to improve the lot of the worker but to punish him through strikes and other forms of labour agitation that bear no hope for him in any but a Communist society, and that in a non-Communist society the lot of the worker must be an increase in misery, repression and continual strife.

Sir, I now turn to another aspect of the Communist technique - the role of strike in labour agitation. The non-Communist unionist's strike is a weapon to bring pressure on employers to get concessions for the worker. That is how a non-Communist trade unionist sees the strike weapon. The strike weapon is something which he uses against employers to get concessions for the workers. But it is not so with the Communist. The winning of concession is only incidental as I have shown, Sir, from my earlier quotation. By winning concessions the Communists hope - this is their real objective - to enlist the support of workers for the Communists in their major political objective, because to the Communists a strike is the training ground for revolutionary violence, for building up hatred among the workers against the Government, the police and all instruments associated with the authority of the State. That is the real political objective of a strike. Now we can see why speaker after speaker in the Barisan Sosialis spent a great deal of time elaborating on the violent brutality of the police. It is necessary for them, through a strike, to create in the workers who are not politically conscious a dislike and hatred for the police and for all the authority of the State. Therefore, this becomes revolutionary training. Now, Sir, we begin to understand.

The Barisan Sosialis say, "We are not Communists. We do not know what Communists are. That is a bogey." But whether they are or they are not, they are doing the things that a Communist should do, though they are doing it badly.

Sir, let me again quote Lenin:

`Every strike concentrates all the attention and all the efforts of the workers first on one then on another evil from which the working class is suffering.'

Therefore, they have to tell about the terrible Government, the terrible police and the sufferings of the workers. Lenin goes on to say:

`Every strike gives rise to a discussion of these evils and helps the workers to appraise them, to understand when the oppression of the capitalist comes in.' That is the objective of a strike. Therefore, when a Communist unionist starts a strike, he is not interested in using the strike to settle a dispute but to instil revolutionary fervour and revolutionary hatred for the State, the Government and the police among the workers. That is the objective. You can see why strikes are prolonged when they could be settled. Why is it necessary to create scuffles and why is it necessary to put up banners charging the State and the Government as being brutal and oppressive? Because that is the real objective of a strike weapon - to build up revolutionary fervour and hatred among the workers. In fact, Lenin further enjoined the Communists, and I quote:

`...to use every strike, every manifestation of economic oppression for the widest socialist and revolutionary propaganda.'.

That is the objective again. He did not say, to use every strike to cow the capitalist into making concessions. He said

`...to use every strike, every manifestation of economic oppression .for the widest socialist and revolutionary propaganda.'.

He further declared:

'All sundry manifestations of police tyranny [I think that strikes a chord in the .Member for Thomson] and autocratic outrage, besides the evils connected with the economic struggle are equally widely applicable as a means of drawing in the masses.'.

You must use strikes to instil in the workers a hatred for the police, the Government and so on, but not to settle disputes with the employers. That is incidental. If you decide on anything, then it is suitable. These are roughly the agitating techniques recommended in the Communist manuals and which the Barisan Sosialis - being only second-class Leninists - carry out with ineptitude. This accounts for the general air of depression that occasionally descends upon them.

Mr Bani: You are a first-class Leninist, are you?

Mr Rajaratnam: Sir, if we analyse some of the techniques used by the pro-Communist Barisan Sosialis in the strikes they organised in Singapore, you will discover - I am sorry that I said "second-class Leninists"; I withdraw the term-that it was the third-class Leninists who tried to apply these techniques.

Mr Bani: Why do you not pass me some of those books?

Mr Rajaratnam: Yes, I think the Member for Thomson was not here because his colleague, the Member for Moulmein, was most interested and most agitated as to whether he can get a copy of this "Lenin on Unions" and whether it is all right, and I have given him an assurance that it is all right because I got it myself from the U.S.I.S.

Mr Bani: You should have borrowed it from Mao Tse-tung.

Mr Rajaratnam: And it is published by one of the respectable Universities the Columbia University Press.

Mr Bani: Where is it sold?

Mr Rajaratnam: It is not sold. You can borrow it.

Mr Speaker: Order. There seems to be an exchange of pleasantries across the Floor. Shall we carry on? I think the Member for Thomson was a bit worried with interjections from the Opposition Benches but now he himself is guilty of interjecting too often.

Mr Rajaratnam: Sir, if the techniques that the third-class Leninists used have not been successful, it is not because Lenin had been wrong but it is because the people on the Government side have also read Lenin perhaps a little more intelligently than the half-baked revolutionaries in the Barisan Sosialis. They have a propensity to follow the Communist manuals mechanically, hut we in the Government are fortunate in that we can anticipate what they will do in a given situation. This is how, I am told, big game-hunters trap animals. Knowing their propensities and weaknesses under given conditions, they are then trapped accordingly. This has an obvious moral which I think Members of the Barisan Sosialis will no doubt appreciate.

Sir, a thought has struck me. The Member for Thomson is becoming increasingly agitated as to why I am quoting Lenin, my reading Lenin and what particular book of Lenin I am reading. It is quite clear that he has an inkling that we are always anticipating his or his Party's moves many, many weeks before they actually begin to move and, to that extent, they have been getting into greater and greater difficulties.

Mr Bani: I am not agitated. I am just trying to follow you.

Mr Rajaratnam: Therefore, Sir, I do not want to go further and anticipate things to come for the Barisan Sosialis, because we can see not only weeks ahead but months ahead. But if they look a little bit less buoyant and a little more bewildered it is because things have not quite worked out as the good Leninist book said it would.

We know why the Barisan Sosialis started these strikes. They were political strikes intended to thwart merger. Well, they have not thwarted merger and there were a lot of strikes on their hands - strikes, as it were, all dressed up and no place to go. But if the little Lenins, with or without whiskers, had read Lenin properly, they would have learnt that they cannot start a revolution unless the conditions as laid down by Lenin for a revolution are right. Anyway, it is not my purpose to teach little Lenins how to suck eggs because I am quite sure they too can read Lenin in their own way.

We know why the Barisan Sosialis leaders have refused to have things like social security schemes and proper wage scales; to settle strikes peacefully, to use the conciliation machinery, arbitration procedure, and so on. My quotation earlier has made it quite clear. Lenin said that the first thing you ask is not how to solve the economic problems of the workers but how to use their economic grievances to further the revolution. These are two different approaches to the labour problems, and that is why in the case of Singapore there are what they call the conditions for a revolution but these are not yet ripe. They would not start a revolution or attempt to start a revolution, and the whole thing has gone haywire.

We also know now why the Barisan Sosialis have been trying to precipitate clashes between strikers and the police: why they have been trying to build a myth of police violence and intimidation of workers.

We also know why, as in the case of the Ford and Shaw strikes, they have refused to use the conciliation machinery [Interruption]. You will get all the facts - I am sorry, Sir. The Member for Thomson has given a version - we call it the Barisan Sosialis' authorised version - of the Ford strike; but we will be giving a revised version of the same incident -

Mr Bani: Authorised version.

Mr Rajaratnam: He counts up to only the fingers of his hands, but our trade union leaders count not only up to the fingers of both hands but also both feet, and therefore are more accurate in figures than the Member for Thomson.

Mr Bani: The Ford negotiations were held in the Labour Ministry.

Mr Rajaratnam: All the facts will come out in due course, and the Member for Thomson will have the privilege of having a quick consultation with his colleagues outside this Chamber before the Member for Queenstown is allowed to give his reply.

Sir, a strike, from the point of view of the Communist, is a training ground for Communist cadres and for the sparking off of violence. If workers can be maimed and suffer loss of lives, then they can be mobilised for a revolutionary overthrow of non-Communist leaders. And that has been the purpose during the last nine months - to provoke the Government into staging clashes with the police so that they could get martyrs. If you will remember, Sir, during the Hock Lee riots when I was with a newspaper, there were clashes between students and the police where a youth was badly injured, in fact, almost dying. Instead of taking him to the hospital, a group of them, who obviously were trying to make Capital out of the incident, carried the body of the dying student all the way to one of the Chinese newspapers here and the boy died. They had a martyr. The next day at the big funeral, I think the then Chief Minister, who is now the Member for Anson, sent a big wreath, and as an act of demonstration they pulled the wreath aside. But they had a martyr, a dead boy, and throughout the last nine months the Communists who run the Barisan Sosialis have been trying to get the Government to provide them with martyrs. The latest disappointment and the greatest anger that we are causing them, so far as we are concerned, is that we have not provided them with martyrs and, therefore, some of the leaders or the strong-arm men of the Barisan Sosialis have been trying to create martyrs among other workers who have been annoying and intimidating.

So we also know why the Barisan Sosialis leaders deliberately led Ford workers into a strike where they got the worst of the bargain. It was a political strike which they bungled. The workers lost more than they were likely to gain. Maybe the Barisan Sosialis can divert the resentment of the workers by suggesting, "Well, even if you had a bad bargain, it is not the fault of the Barisan Sosialis. Here we have the oppressors of the poor, the capitalists, and a bad Government." Just to leave some resentment. In fact, by the time this debate is over, the whole thing will be twisted as, "There you are. This proves that in a non-Communist society, there can be no justice for the workers." Therefore, it is necessary in every trade dispute to leave behind some measure of dissatisfaction to convince the workers that there can be no workers' paradise except as laid down in the good book and, as you are likely to find in Communist countries, where there are no strikes because there cannot be any strikes.

Mr Bani: Is something wrong with you?

Mr Rajaratnam: However, let me tell the Leninist tenderfoots in the Barisan Sosialis that the workers of Singapore are not all that dumb, nor is the Government all that dumb. It is not the business of this Government to save the little Lenins who, of their own accord, are getting into deeper and deeper waters. But to the best of its ability, the Government will ensure that these political adventurers do not lead the innocent workers of Singapore into deep waters.

The workers of Singapore are already becoming aware of what the Barisan Sosialis and their Communist cohorts are really up to. They are becoming increasingly resentful of the violence and intimidation that the desperate men of the Barisan Sosialis' S.A.T.U. have been forced to use against workers, of the loss of employment to hundreds of people by ineptly handled labour disputes, by forced collections to finance strikes which have got them nowhere. People are also becoming aware that the real objective of the desperate Communists is not to better the life of the workers but to make life worse for them so as to mount a revolution on the misery they have created. The Communists hope to frustrate industrial development and expansion because these would enable the non-Communist Government to provide a better life for the workers in a non-Communist society. The increasing resistance the Communists in the Barisan Sosialis are meeting from the workers is proof that the Barisan's one star - there is only one star - is on the wane. The day is not far off when it is more likely that the Barisan Sosialis Members would be seeing stars than to be holding their star aloft and leading it towards victory.

10.25 p.m.

Mr Lin You Eng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, originally I did not intend to speak on this question, but as one who has worked in a union as a responsible official, and as one who has worked with the workers, and since the Government intend to amend this motion - the amendment proposed by the Government is very malicious - I am therefore compelled to say something on this amendment.

The Government attribute all the industrial unrest to those unions which are not going to toe the P.A.P. line and which are branded as pro-Communist unions. The Government say all this industrial unrest is the result of pro-Communist union activities in order to destroy those unions which do not kowtow to the P.A.P. Government. Through this amendment the Government intend to deal with those unions which are really working for the benefit of the workers. There are many reasons for industrial unrest. For example, political instability is one. So to put the blame of industrial unrest on the Communists is not fair. The Government intend to make use of this tactic to create the impression that all these troubles are agitated by the Communists and they should be responsible for it. But in Singapore the Communist Party is an illegal Party. Therefore, the Communists are not able to defend themselves. So the Government intend to shirk their responsibility by saying that all these troubles are created by the Communists in order to divert the people's attention from the Government's failure, and to cover up many bad things which they have done. The Government hope to convince the people that all these troubles have been created by the Communists. The Communist Party, being an illegal Party, could not come out into the open to defend itself. In the past the Lim Yew Hock Government also accused certain people of being Communists. So now you do not have to laugh at it. This is proof that what I say is true. The day before yesterday, the Member for Anson in this Assembly also touched on this point.

Certain speakers said that strikes had also taken place in non-Communist countries. But here we can quote something from the P.A.P. speeches made by P.A.P. Ministers. The Minister for Health and Law perhaps was somewhat honest in saying those words. I am now quoting from the Sin Chew Jit Poh of today (local page 5). The Minister said:

`Industrial unrest was not peculiar to Singapore. It was a feature of industrialised countries throughout the world. In England, civil servants, the traditional moderates in trade unionism, were now in the front line of an industrial battle because the Government had rejected wage claims to offset inflationary pressures and adverse balance of payments.'

This was said by the Minister for Health and Law. He also knows something about labour problems. I have been working with him, so I know he is somewhat like a great man, and I know that it was uttered in honesty and sincerity. So it is unfair for the P.A.P. to say that industrial unrest is all the result of Communist agitation. We cannot say that as long as there is industrial unrest whipped up by non-P.A.P. unions, these people must all be Communists.

The present issue is very clear. It is that the Government are indifferent to the establishment of industrial peace. What they are actually interested in is how they can deal with such people as their political opponents.

For example, a few days back, the Government brought up the National Referendum Bill and talked about the blank votes which were in support of the Government, saying that those votes, even with the drawing of a tortoise On them were also votes for the Government. That is to say, they want all things that are good. For example, the claims of A.U.P.E., the union of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture, are good. They are all right. So A.U.P.E. can go ahead and carry on, because he himself is the leader of the union. You just cannot say that this is also Communist. You will make yourself a laughing-stock. For example, regarding the vote with the drawing of a tortoise on it, you say, "If you do not want it, I want it myself." If you want a turtle drawn on a blank vote, then the vote will go to the Government as well. But all the bad things, such as strikes not conducted by the P.A.P. members or P.A.P. union leaders, must have been done by the Communists. All the strikes of the P.A.P.-led unions will always result in success and wage increases. That is to say, on certain conditions; if you get some benefit out of the wage increase, you must make some contribution to the unions. That is the condition imposed by the P.A.P. unions. All those which do not belong to this group must be Communists. That is their argument.

It is said that the present P.A.P. Government are very clever at playing tricks. They are trying all sorts of means to prolong their political life. So they will use all means to smear all the others who are against the P.A.P. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government know full well that there are many unions which are not supporting the P.A.P. Government. In order to deal with such unions, the Government hope to create confusion and to give them trouble. It is the aim of the Government to be successful in this manner, but they just cannot succeed. For example, the one-time Labour Front Government had various experiences in dealing with unions which were opposed to them. That is, they tried to put all the blame of industrial unrest on the unions.

Mr Speaker, Sir, what I am trying to say is that union leaders do not resort to industrial action unnecessarily, because if they do, then they will only be giving the Government an opportunity to smear them. The Government are supporting all the P.A.P.-dominated unions at the expense of the non-P.A.P. unions. In this manner, the P.A.P. hope that they can hand over the true unionists into the hands of the Federal Government after their phoney merger. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to tell my friends in the P.A.P. that smears, compulsion and oppression will be met with greater resistance. We can see clearly that since 1958 there have been many people who have been trying to work for the interest of the workers hut these people have either been branded communists or pro-Communist cadres. Because of this smear and allegation, many people have been put into gaol. Even those who are truly fighting for the interest of the workers are still remaining in gaol. These people number about 20. Many unions have been closed down because of the Communist label. In spite of all this, the people and the workers are not afraid. The trade union movement is going on all the same. We can see from this that to go through the process of oppression and smear is useless. It is futile to do this thing.

Mr Speaker, everybody knows that to get industrialisation in Singapore, we must not only have the co-operation of the workers themselves but we must also get co-operation from other parties concerned. Only with this co-operation can there be industrial peace and industrial development in Singapore. If there are fewer strikes in Singapore, the capitalists will, of course, be happier. But the question of whether foreign capitalists will come to invest in Singapore does not solely depend on the number of strikes in Singapore. The main thing will be whether there is political stability in Singapore. If the political situation is not certain, then foreign capitalists will hesitate before they come to invest in Singapore. But the present P.A.P. Government are not trying to do anything about the creation of political stability. Instead they talk of Communists everywhere. As a result of this cry of Communism, everybody in Singapore seems to be suffering from the Communist phobia.

Just now we have seen how the Minister for Culture talked a great deal about Leninism and Communism: this is Communist and that is Communist, and everything is Communist. According to the arguments put forward by the P.A.P., you have Communists everywhere in Singapore. They seem to say that Singapore has become a Communist State. Now this behaviour of theirs will certainly not induce foreign investors to come to Singapore. In fact, it will frighten them away.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let us say you are a foreign capitalist, with the intention to invest in Singapore by setting up factories. But when you hear the Government shouting Communists here, Communists there, and that all the unions are Communist-dominated, and you think of the necessity of getting workers to work in your factories, you will think twice before you come to invest in Singapore. There are so many workers in Singapore under so many unions, but they say that only those unions under the leadership of Mr Devan Nair and Mr Kandasamy are non-Communist. How can you believe that so many unions in Singapore are all Communist and only those under these persons are non-Communist? So because of this cry of Communism, foreign capitalists will not dare to come and invest in Singapore, and because of the absence of investment in Singapore, the Government will put the blame on the Communists and say it is all because of the Communists that foreign investors have been frightened away. In fact, they themselves are guilty of frightening away foreign investment. The Government themselves have to admit that they are guilty of frightening away foreign investment, and not the Communists. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government are now branding all the non-P.A.P. unions as Communist unions. But this tactic of theirs will not frighten the workers of Singapore.

There has been the question of a Common Market between Singapore and the Federation. In the course of two years, the Government of Singapore have been negotiating with the Federation Government on the question of a Common Market, but so far there has been no result. So we will say that before the Common Market can come into existence, this Common Market is also one of the factors that have to be considered by foreign investors because they are not sure whether there is going to be any Common Market between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. From this we can see that the question of a Common Market has been talked about for over two years without any success. In spite of all this, the P.A.P. Government keep on bragging about merger and the benefits they can derive therefrom. How can you say that merger will bring great benefits to the people of Singapore when the simple question of a Common Market cannot be solved? From my personal point of view, the people are quite right in saying that the P.A.P. are selling out their interests by merger.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been a worker myself and, as a worker, I am not in a position to talk a great deal like the Prime Minister who can argue, by all sorts of reasoning, that Federal citizens and Singapore citizens are the same and that Federal nationality -

Mr Speaker: Order. I hope the hon. Member is not embarking now on a debate on merger. We are still on the motion before us. We are not discussing merger.

Mr Lin You Eng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I must thank you for your advice. I was just drawing a sort of analogy from the question of merger but I am leaving it at that now. What I was trying to say is that, as a worker, I am not able to speak with eloquence like the Minister for Culture who brings .a great deal of arguments into h-is speech so that he can turn black into white. I very much appreciate his intelligence in being able to do such a thing. But what I will say here is that, from my personal experience, the present P.A.P. are only putting the whole blame of industrial unrest on the so-called Communist and pro-Communist unions. I will say that this attitude of the P.A.P. is really ridiculous. Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe that not everybody in the P.A.P. is as clever and intelligent as the Minister for Culture and the Minister for Finance. Many people in the P.A.P. still have a sense of righteousness, and I believe there will come a day when they will discover this kind of people in the P.A.P. itself. That is to say, at the present moment, some people in the P.A.P. are being misled by a few leaders into believing that all the strikes have been agitated by the Communist and the pro-Communist elements. But one day they will come to discover that they have been misled by their leaders into believing so. For example, the former Labour Minister said, with all sincerity, that there were strikes everywhere in the world and they were not peculiar to Singapore alone. In this respect, I will say he is really a man of good conscience -

Mr Byrne rose -

Mr Speaker: On a point of order?

Mr Byrne: On a point of elucidation.

Mr Lin You Eng resumed his seat.

Mr Byrne: It is true I have said that, but I have said very much more than that also.

Mr Lin You Eng: (In Mandarin): Yes. I agree that the Minister has said something about other things too, and I am quite appreciative of his arguments. I believe the workers will discover in due course that the minority leadership of the P.A.P. will gradually resort to the tactics employed by the Lim Yew Hock Government, and the people will discover the P.A.P. leadership for what they are. If there are some workers with a sense of righteousness, they will awaken to the fact that the present Government will fall, as the Lim Yew Hock Government did fall, in a very dishonourable manner. It is not a question of our remaining in office as Members of the Assembly. The main thing is that after our term of office in the Assembly, we can go about everywhere with a clear conscience and get the applause and the support of the people, instead of getting criticism from them. But if these leaders were to go and meet the people, the people would say, "Oh, these are the people who at one time sent my husband and my children to gaol." Under these circumstances, some of the P.A.P. leaders will not discover the wrong they are doing.

I would like to tell Members of this House that the Government should not take advantage of this amendment and this motion against the interests of the people in Singapore. If they do, then the days of the P.A.P. are numbered. In fact, if the P.A.P. should take advantage of this motion to deal with the people of Singapore, then they will be doomed. The P.A.P. must not say, "Oh, since there are people jumping into the sea to commit suicide, we must follow them as well." If they persist in this way, they will perish in the end.

10.56 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture (Mr G. Kandasamy): Mr Speaker, Sir, every time the Member for Cairnhill speaks on labour matters, he constantly prefaces his remarks that he is a trade unionist. He also expresses profound sympathy for the workers. Sir, perhaps the House is not aware that the Member for Cairnhill was the President of the Clerical and Administrative Workers Union, the trustees of which were Mr G. H. Kiat, the proprietor of G. H. Kiat and Company, a capitalist and an adviser to the Chung Khiaw Bank, and Mr Lim Chuan Geok, the proprietor of a firm of auctioneers, another capitalist. The activities that went on in the Clerical and Administrative Workers Union were confined to mahjong, jackpot, skittles and card games. Indeed. Sir, the Member for Cairnhill should preface his remarks by saying that he was the president of a gambling den and not a trade unionist. But his remarks do not bear sufficient importance. The workers now have no faith in him, and they do not have any regard for what he says on these matters.

But the Barisan Sosialis is another matter. The Member for Upper Serangoon yesterday stated that there were strikes in the U.S.A., the U.K. and India. We do not deny that at all. Indeed that was what the Minister for Health and Law stated. But we also say that the only countries where there are no strikes are the Communist and Fascist countries like China, the U.S.S.R. and Portugal. The Member for Upper Serangoon further said that Government Members claimed that all strikes were Communist inspired. He argued that since Government Members had said that, and those were his words, therefore, the strikes called by the A.U.P.E., the Bank Employees' Union, the Singapore Manual and Mercantile Workers' Union, were also Communist inspired. Either the Member for Upper Serangoon was not listening attentively to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour, or he was deliberately misrepresenting the facts. The Parliamentary Secretary reported that there were 69 strikes which were called by the Communist-controlled trade unions, and 24 strikes were called by the non-Communist unions. It is true that the A.U.P.E., the Bank Employees' Union and the Manual and Mercantile Workers' Union have called strikes. But these unions were also willing to accept arbitration in the Industrial Arbitration Court. That is the difference, Sir. The Communist-controlled unions, however, always avoid arbitration unless they are compelled to go to arbitration.

Let me explain in detail two strikes called by the S.A.T.U. unions in order to illustrate how the pro-Communist trade unionists ruthlessly exploit the workers to mount up discontent and tension.

The Singapore General Employees Union called out the workers in Shaw's cinemas on strike in support of a claim for arrears of overtime. The strike lasted from 21st December, 1961, to 1st February, 1962 - a total of 33 days. 419 workers were involved and 14,036 man-days were lost as a result of the strike.

The Commissioner for Labour recommended that the dispute be referred to the Labour Court. The Labour Court is the machinery provided in the Labour Ordinance to adjudicate upon matters involving rights provided by the labour legislation. Many other unions have appeared in the Labour Court and they have had arrears of overtime amounting to thousands of dollars. But the Singapore General Employees Union refused to refer the matter to the Labour Court. At the end of 33 days of strike, when the workers had lost 33 days' wages, the dispute has now been referred to the Industrial Arbitration Court.

The Member for Thomson and the Member for Choa Chu Kang spoke on the Ford strike, but they always kept on saying how successful the union was in the negotiations and that it had obtained - according to the Member for Thomson - 52 cents per day increase, 42½ hours per week and a five-day week. Anyone who did not know the background would have been impressed by this. Let me explain to the House what really happened.

The Singapore Motor Workshops Employees Union, one of the unions of the S.A.T.U. group, called out the industrial workers of the Ford Motor Company on strike on 21st November, 1961. Though the strike may have had legitimate economic grievances, the Barisan Sosialis commissars had intended this strike as a prelude to the November revolution which they had been proclaiming in order to bring down the Government. The strike lasted 110 days and the workers resumed work on 10th March, 1962. Before the strike took place, the union did not make any specific claims regarding wages.

Before the strike, the company offered to increase the hourly wages from 88 cents per hour to 93 cents per hour for 1962, an increase of 5 cents per hour per man in 1962 and it also offered to increase to 98 cents per hour, an increase of 5 cents per hour per man in 1963.

Now this, to one who is not familiar with trade union negotiations, may sound a bit confusing. Perhaps I had better explain this in greater detail. The industrial workers, on an average, were receiving 88 cents per hour. The Ford Company is an American company which employs all hourly-rated people. The Company before the strike offered an increase of five cents per man per hour for 1962 and another increase of five cents per hour per man for 1963. The union refused and the workers were out on strike for 110 days. During the 110-day strike, each worker lost an average of $7.90 per day and a total of $576 for the whole period of the strike, that is, 73 working days. Though the strike lasted 110 days, the working days were 73 days and the total wages lost amounted to $576 per man. By this time the Barisan Sosialis commissars had come to the conclusion that their November revolution had turned out to be a flop and there was no point in continuing the Ford strike; so they spent some anxious moments begging the employers to come to any settlement because many workers had come to realise by then that they had been made dupes of by the Barisan Sosialis political agitators. After 110 days of strike, the union agreed on an increase of six cents per hour. This is the increase of six cents the Member for Choa Chu Kang and the Member for Thomson tried to explain as a victory! Sir, let me repeat: before the strike, the company had already offered an increase of five cents. At the end of the strike, the union agreed on six cents. They have been telling the workers that they got this increase of six cents after 110 days of strike. What this really means in terms of hard cash is that after 110 days of strike the union has obtained one cent increase per worker per hour. With this one cent increase over what was offered before the strike, each worker will have to work five days a week for 28 years before he can recoup the $576 that he has lost in wages during the strike. He will have to work for 28 years before he can make up the lost wages. This is the great victory of the Ford Motor Workshop Union - General Secretary, Mr Low Pen; negotiator, Mr Fong Swee Suan! By that time, the General Secretary of the union, Mr Low Pen, and the gentleman who negotiated this agreement, Mr Fong Swee Suan, a leading member of the Barisan Sosialis, will be comfortably earning old age pension from the Government - no doubt a democratic Government - while the workers will still be struggling to make up the losses.

Before the strike, the workers were receiving an annual bonus of 20 working days' wages subject to a deduction of about ten per cent of a day's wage for every day of unauthorised absence. I notice that the Member for Thomson did not touch on the subject of bonus. The company offered to increase it to 30 working days' wages subject to a deduction of two days' wages for every (lay of unauthorised absence. In other words, if a worker was not guilty of absenteeism - he could be on sick leave or on vacation but not unauthorised absence - during the year, he would have received under the company's offer 30 working days' wages as bonus. This was offered before the strike. The union - one of the principal unions of the S.A.T.U. group - led by Messrs. Fong Swee Suan and Low Peng refused this. After 110 days of strike, the union agreed to an annual bonus of 24 working days' wages subject to a deduction of ten per cent of a day's wage for every day of unauthorised absence. What this really amounted to was that after 110 days of strike, they lost six days of what the company had already offered, which was a ten-day increase, and they obtained four days. In other words, before the strike, the workers were getting 20 working days' wages as bonus. After 110 days of strike, the union reached an agreement - we are told a very successful agreement - of a four days' bonus. As I have said earlier, Sir, each worker lost about $576 in wages. He has now gained four days' wages as additional bonus. Putting it in another form, each worker will have to work 18 years before his additional bonus of four days' wages makes up for the loss he has suffered. This is the great victory, Sir! The victory is that the worker will have to work 18 years before he can make up the loss he has suffered!

To obtain the increase of one cent and four days' wages as bonus, the union has accepted the company's "Personal Conduct Rules" as part of the agreement. This was not mentioned by the Member for Thomson. This is very interesting. There are 27 rules and any employee committing any of these offences will be subject to disciplinary action even amounting to dismissal. No other union in Singapore has been subject to such conditions and this is the great victory it has obtained after 110 days of strike! I shall refer only to five of these rules to indicate the types of rules which have been accepted by the union.

Rule 3 - using abusive language. A worker can be subject to dismissal for using abusive language. Sir, even the Member for Cairnhill will say that the language in a factory is not the language of Parliament. If a worker in the Ford factory uses abusive language, he will be subject to dismissal.

Rule 5 - running in any building. If there is a fire in the factory, a worker should not run because he will be dismissed.

Rule 9 - smoking in restricted areas or lavatories. You should not smoke in lavatories in the Ford Company. This is the agreement the union agreed.

Rule 26 - Sitting in Company cars and trucks during rest period. During rest periods you should not sit, and this is a company that assembles cars. There are a lot of old trucks but he must not be seated there.

Rule 27 - Obscenity. I imagine, Sir, the Managing Director of Ford Co, must belong to that strange sex who does not smoke, drink, and use abusive language, and all that sinful, and he has imposed these conditions on factory workers in Singapore.

And Mr Fong Swee Suan, after 110 days of strike and after the Union obtained a one-cent increase, an increase of four days' wages as bonus, agreed not to use abusive language in the factory. The Member for Queenstown said that their unions fought to improve the standard of living of the workers. If the results obtained in the Ford Co, strike by Mr Fong Swee Suan is the way that the Barisan Sosialis improves the standard of living of the workers, then, Sir, God help the workers, because they will have to work over 25 years to enjoy the benefits.

When the industrial workers were out on strike, the clerical workers who are members of the Singapore Business Houses Employees Union stayed out from 21st November, 1961, to 29th September, 1961. I wonder who is going to pay for the loss of salaries that they have suffered during that period.

When the clerks stayed out, I am told that the S.B.H.E.U, sent a letter to the Ford Co, claiming that their members - these are their words - "their members have expressed their fears and will not be able to work." This is a letter written by the General Secretary of the Singapore Business Houses Employees Union writing to explain to the Factory Manager why the clerical workers who were members of the S.B.H.E.U. would not be able to attend work, while there was a strike organised by one of the unions in the S.A.T.U. group itself. The S.A.T.U. leaders frightened their own members by their actions. Then they could no longer control them and turned the clerical workers into strike breakers. On 29th December, 1961, while the strike was still on, the clerical workers were instructed by the union to return to work. After the strike was over, belatedly they came crawling into the Industrial Arbitration Court for a decision on their claims for the clerical workers, which they could have done long before the strike.

Sir, there are good strikes and bad strikes. There are good strikes that are won, and there are good strikes that are lost. The Ford strike was lost, and no amount of speeches by the Members for Choa Chu Kang and Thomson is going to deceive the workers that that strike was lost, and they went crawling back to the Factory under the conditions laid down by the Factory. The strike was lost because the leaders asked the workers to sacrifice themselves and they themselves were not prepared to make the same sacrifice - a loss of 110 days of wages, a loss which will take years to make up. This could have been avoided except for the political policy of the union's pro-Communist leaders to avoid the Arbitration Court so that the Government would not get credit for its policy of justice for the workers.

The economy of Singapore was denied the production for which Singapore workers would have been paid wages which foreign workers enjoyed. If those cars that were sold during the 110 days had been assembled in Singapore, the workers would have been paid wages which these foreign and alien Workers who had assembled them had gained during that time. The effect on the economy which the S.A.T.U. leaders pretend to consider is a mockery. They want to depress the economy for their political ends.

Let us explode the myth that these are trade union leaders genuinely interested in the welfare of the workers. They are, as the history of this strike shows, dragging on a strike for political purposes. I contend, Sir, that if the S.A.T.U. leaders had followed the practices in our own laws, the workers would have been spared this sacrifice. They had to accept the restrictive measures imposed on them by the Company, which are unprecedented in Singapore - 27 of them. The S.A.T.U. leaders accepted the restrictions because they wanted to increase the misery of the workers for political ends. What are the benefits obtained after all their strikes? The Labour Report shows that the lowest wages earned by workers in Singapore are by workers led by S.A.T.U. unions where daily-rated workers are maintained as casual workers year after year. Not only do these workers get less than $3 per day but they never know how many days of work they will have in a month. The workers in the rubber industry are represented by the Singapore General Employees Union and the Singapore Rubber Employees Union. The wages in this industry have persisted with little change throughout the period of prosperity of this industry.

The S.A.T.U. unions do not want to go to arbitration because they have to hide the low level of wages which they have agreed with some local employers. The court proceedings will show the actual wage levels of the workers led by the S.A.T.U. group. The S.A.T.U. group of unions are not fighting to improve the standard of living of the workers. They want the workers to be dissatisfied, bring them out on prolonged strikes, and at the end, no benefits. All that S.A.T.U. strives for is dissatisfaction, misery and tension in order to use the workers for the political ends of the Communists.

Sir, it is a matter of pride that Singapore has the best labour legislation in South-East Asia, and I challenge Members of the Barisan Sosialis to refute this and show proof of any country in Southeast Asia which has better labour legislation than Singapore. There is no other country in Asia which has legislation similar to our Industrial Relations Ordinance which gives the force of law to certified agreements and an arbitration system that provides justice and fair play. Our legislation could be used to the maximum benefit for the workers if only the pro-Communist trade union leaders in the Barisan Sosialis wanted genuinely to better the lives of the workers.

11.25 p.m.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, tonight, when the Member for Thomson was speaking, he told the House that the P.A.P. Government had changed its attitude to the worker. He instanced four strikes in which he claimed that the P.A.P. Government deliberately brought out the police to mishandle the workers.

The first strike that he mentioned was the Sassoon strike. In that strike there was trouble between the Secretary of the Branch of the Business Houses Union and the employer. There was very bad feeling between the manager of that firm and the Secretary, and tension was mounting. The matter was brought to the Ministry and after a lot of discussion, the Parliamentary Secretary persuaded the men that they should not under any circumstances resort to any violence, or do anything that would put them in the wrong. When tension was mounting, Mr Speaker, Sir, I remember remaining in the office right up to about half-past five or six in the evening, and Dominic Puthucheary came to see me at my request and assured me that though there was a lot of tension in the office there would be no trouble but that the men would quietly go home. Later that night I went to the Crawford Branch and was working there when I received a telephone call from Mr Kandasamy saying that there was trouble between the workers of Sassoon & Company and the Police and that the men had been injured. And he asked me to go to the Central Police Station and see things for myself. I told Mr Kandasamy that before I left office -

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Minister ought to refer to Mr Kandasamy as the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr Byrne: I beg your pardon, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture. I told him that I had received an assurance from Mr Dominic Puthucheary that there would be no trouble that evening; he had assured me that the men were going home peacefully; that they would leave the office. And I expressed great surprise that they could have been hurt, in view of that assurance, and even if it was true that they had been hurt, I said I was the last man who could be of any assistance. All that they could do was to make a police report and bring them to the General Hospital for treatment. Immediately after that, Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Woodhull rang me up at the Crawford Branch. He asked me to come and see for myself. He said that the men were rolling in pain. He said, "You come. We could lead a demonstration against the police. You come with us to the Central Police Station. You come with us to the General Hospital and we can make a song and a dance about it." He said we should have a go at the police. That was the situation as far as the Sassoon strike was concerned.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the next morning I made inquiries. I found that, in fact, after the assurance Dominic Puthucheary had given me, the men remained in their office and took possession of it. The police had to be sent for and they were evicted as trespassers because they had no business to be in the office of their employer after regular office hours. Now, is it fair for the Member for Thomson to say that the police were brought in by the Government to injure the strikers in that particular wage dispute?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member also mentioned the Glass Factory strike. There was trouble there. A strike position developed. I had reports that the main entrance to the factory was barred. The men had put benches at the main entrance. The management could not have free access to their own factory. On that report, I took action. I asked Mr Lim Ching Siong to come with me to see for himself. He refused positively to come, saying that he had another engagement. But I was able to get Mr Fong Swee Suan, Mr Bani, Mr Woodhull, Mr Dominic Puthucheary and Mr Kandasamy, to go with me to the factory gate. When we arrived there, we found benches right across the entrance. Nobody could get in or out of that factory. I called the attention of the party with whom I was to this obstruction at this main gate. Mr Woodhull said nothing. He would say nothing, Mr Speaker. But I was able to persuade Mr Fong to speak to the men and to tell them that that was wrong. So we spoke to the men and the position was explained to them, and those benches were later removed. That was a strike which lasted for a very long time. The upshot was this, Mr Speaker. Many of the Malay workers insisted on going back to work. They were being kept out by the Chinese picketers. They came to see me in the Ministry, and they asked me to open a special register for them. I opened a special register. They gave me their names, their identity card numbers and put their own signatures on to a long list, saying that they wanted to go back to work, but that they were being kept out. Eventually I had a meeting with them. I explained to them that if they did that, then they would be strike-breaking. They said never mind, the responsibility was theirs. They wanted to go back to work but they were prevented from doing so by the other strikers. Now police assistance had to be rendered to them. Then there was a fight naturally. There was resistance by the strikers who did not want to allow the Malay workers to go to the factory, and something had to be done about it. Eventually with the help of the police, these Malays were able to get back to the factory to work. When they were in, Mr Speaker, other strikers laid siege to that factory, so that those men were not able to get out. They had to be supplied. Their food had to be brought in to them. Both Mr Woodhull and Mr Fong Swee Suan realised that the men were acting unfairly in this strike, and it was through the help of Mr Fong Swee Suan that the Secretary of the Branch union was removed from his office.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Thomson patted himself on the back and patted members of his group on the back for the good work that they have been doing for the Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union. Mr Woodhull had for a long time been interesting himself in the affairs of the clerical employees in the commerical world. He first got an entry into the Mansfield Employees Union. I remember his coming in to tell me that things were being very badly managed in the Business Houses Union. There were people who were pretending to be advisers of the Business Houses Union who were, in fact, agents of the employers in that union, and they were betraying the cause of the workers. He told me that it was about time that he moved in. So I suspected then that he was trying to penetrate that union.

In December 1960, I was invited by the Business Houses Union to their annual Christmas gathering at the Victoria Memorial Hall. I got there rather late that night. I saw at the main table Dominic Puthucheary, the Member for Thomson, and Kum Siew Yee. There was a dance on, and in the course of it the music was stopped. Then Mr Dominic Puthucheary and the Member for Thomson got on to the stage and harangued the crowd. They were dressed in shirts and trousers. But I noticed that Mr Kum Siew Yee was fully clothed. He had his coat on, a nice tie and fully dressed for the occasion. I have known Mr Kum Siew Yee for a very long time. In fact, when we were engaged in the non-pensionable expatriation pay fight, he helped to organise the teachers for us in that fight. I have known that he had been indoctrinated by Mr Devan Nair, who had fed him with Marxist literature and he was his tutor and mentor. I have also known that a great change has come about Mr Devan Nair. He once was a Communist, but he had broken with the Communists. But at the time that I spoke to Mr Kum Siew Yee, I knew that he was a Communist, and that he had not broken off his connections with the Communists. So I said to him, "Kum, what are you doing here?" He said, "You know, Kenny, I really do not like all this. You know we are dealing with this English-educated lot. I have got to put up with it." There was a girl who was scantily clad. She was doing the hula-hula. He said, "Look at all this. I have got to put up with this. I wanted a demonstration. I wanted a rally. I want to organise them. But here we have got to make allowance for all this. I have got to sit around and see all this go on." Woodhull was not at that Christmas gathering. It was then that I knew that, for the first time, Woodhull had planted his agent in that union.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before all this, and shortly after we became the Government, I remember the leaders of the Business Houses Union coming to see me and asking me to help them to get a wage agreement with the Federation of Employers. They brought to me a draft agreement and asked me if I would assist them to chair meetings between them and the Federation of Employers. I did so on two or three occasions. Those men were asking for four things. The first thing that they wanted was a gratuity scheme for the people who were serving the commercial houses for many years and were retiring from the service. Some of these business firms did give retirement benefits to their employees. There were many others which gave no retirement benefits to their employees. And the delegation wanted a uniform system of retirement benefits. That was their first claim.

Their next claim was that there should be proper redundancy agreements drawn up in cases where the staff were laid off.

Their third claim was for bonus payments. The employers had always contended that a bonus was an ex-gratia payment, in the sense that when profits were good, a bonus was paid. If there was no profit, no bonus was paid. Whereas the union contended, and I think with justice, that it had been a traditional way of employment here where employers treated a bonus as some sort of a deferred payment in the sense that if a man works for, say, a lower rate of wage, the employer would agree to pay him 13 months' pay for 12 months' work or 14 months' pay for 12 months' work. That was their contention.

Their fourth claim was for wage scales. They were very tired of leaving all this to the good sense of the employer to award his employees a wage increase on merit.

These were their four claims which they regarded as fundamental. I chaired meetings between them and the Federation of Employers but we could not make any headway. The employers would not give in. It is true what the Member for Thomson said. They would have nothing to do with a wage scale.

Mr Speaker, Sir, because we knew all this, we had meanwhile done something to bring in new legislation so that we could provide machinery whereby an independent tribunal could order that an employer introduces a salary scale where he has refused to do so and that provision is written into the Industrial Relations Ordinance. Later, Mr Speaker, Sir, in the early months of 1960, the Business Houses Union attempted to get agreements with three firms. They were Nestle's Products, United Engineers and the East Asiatic Company. At the time that they were negotiating with the union, the employers, it was I think just after the New Year, started paying merit increments. That meant some employees got increases in pay, others got no increases in pay. Mr Woodhull, who was in control of this union, came to see me and said that this was very unfair. "We want a wage scale, we have been asking them to give us a wage scale. They refuse it and they pay merit increments in this way. Some get an increase in the New Year; others get nothing." So I said to Mr Woodhull, "Would you promise me one thing? I am prepared to help you." I know that he was negotiating these agreements at the time. "Would you provide for them? Would you insist on writing into those agreements that the employer would be restricted to paying only a wage scale and nothing beyond it? Demand wage scales and say that there can be no payments other than those provided for in the wage scale. Go ahead. Put that in; demand that it goes in. If the employer refuses to put it in, I am telling you here that I am prepared to refer that dispute to the Arbitration Court. You make the demand, please. If it is refused, then the dispute will go to the Arbitration Court." Mr Speaker, Sir, for two or three months I kept calling him regularly on the phone. "What about it, Woodhull? Have you made the demand?" He put me off with one pretext after another.

He did nothing. Mr Speaker, Sir, I heard that he had quietly signed an agreement with the employer which provided for no salary scale; just increases. "This year we get $10, next year we get $15," that was the sort of game he was playing. He signed agreements making no provision for a salary scale, and quietly. Everybody got his $10 increase or $15 increase for the year, $15 increase for the next year, and those who got the merit increments pocketed those merit increments as well. Is that not selling out the white-collar worker? What is the use of their coming to this Legislative Assembly now and saying that they have tried very hard with the employers to get salary scales for the clerical workers, but conditions are entirely different and it is a different industry. They spoke of Mr Rattray and said that Mr Rattray also confirmed that it is a different industry. The employers cannot give anybody any salary scales. We were offering them every assistance so that the clerical worker could get a salary scale. Now they say that they have championed the cause of the white-collar worker. Where is the truth in all that? What protection have the men got? They do not have a salary scale; they have no retirement benefits. Some agreements provide for bonus, not all, and very few provide for redundancy agreements. Where is the service they have rendered to the clerical workers?

Mr Speaker, Sir, at the very same time that all this was going on, the Singapore General Employees Union was able to negotiate long-term agreements for messengers of a bank. I know of an agreement entered into between the Chung Khiaw Bank and the Singapore General Employees' Union which provides for a 21-year scale with increments at the minimum beginning from about $160 up to a maximum of $319 a month, a 21-year scale for messengers. And yet the Business Houses Employees' Union said they could not negotiate a salary scale for the clerical workers. Mr Speaker, Sir, all this was done, I would say, with deliberate intent. Here we were honestly and sincerely offering them every help so that they could get the workers salary scales and here was Woodhull evading responsibility on one pretext after another. Mr Speaker, Sir, the intent is this, that they want these workers to be ever beholden to them. They do not want to see anybody who is satisfied and contented. They want the workers as soon as the agreement expires, to come hack to them so that they can negotiate again and again and be in control of these men for all time. That is their purpose for refusing to negotiate for a salary scale for clerical workers. So that it is no use of time Member for Thomson now coming to this Legislative Assembly and making all sorts of accusations against the Government which he knows to be completely untrue. It is no use his trying to pretend that the Government has been anti-worker, that the Government has been bullying the workers. He knows all that is not true.

As to industrial relations, it is true that we introduced the Industrial Relations Bill without any consultation with the unions. We also did not consult the employers. We thought that it would be necessary for us to introduce that legislation and then receive representations. As a result of the representations received from Messrs. Woodhull, Lim Ching Siong, Fong Swee Suan and the group which was known as the 10 Tall Men, we put in the 50 amendments that were referred to by the Member for Cairnhill. Mr Speaker, Sir, the original Bill provided for automatic reference to arbitration where an issue was deadlocked. They talked vehemently about it, particularly Mr Woodhull. Surely that was a denial of the worker's right to strike. In a democracy all workers must, in the last resort, have that right. At the most, they were prepared to leave it to the discretion of the Minister. But if the Minister considered that the dispute should go to arbitration, well, he could put it to arbitration. We were prepared to be reasonable with them. We knew that situations can arise where it will be necessary for a union to strike. Take the case of the Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation dispute. In that case, there was no dispute over wages and conditions of service. It was just that the management were being cussed. They were trying to deal with individual employees behind the back of the union. The union protested and said, "Do not do that. It is unfair that you should do that. Treat with us. You have treated with us. Since you have made a mistake - we know that you have made a mistake - if you will just formally apologise to us and give us an undertaking that you will not treat us like this in future, we will call it a day. We will take no action." They just ignored them, with the result that the men went on strike. We recognised that such situations could occur and it was for that reason that we were prepared, us the Government, to take out that provision from the Bill which provided for an automatic reference of every dispute that was deadlocked to the Industrial Arbitration Court. Mr Speaker, Sir, that Bill was passed. It was enacted in this House with the complete approval of these gentlemen. I had many meetings with them. Every amendment that they put to us was considered on its merits and properly discussed, and when it was eventually brought to this House, it was with the absolute consent of all these gentlemen. As soon as we introduced that Bill, they started sidetracking it. They had no intention of ever using its provisions. I was offering it to them in the case of the clerical employees. I told Woodhull, "Do not be afraid of the employers. I am prepared to put it to the Arbitration Court. If you have the guts to write into the agreement that you want it to be provided that the employers shall pay their employees the salaries that are provided for in a scale, and if they refuse to do it, then the dispute will go to arbitration and you could get an award on that." He was not willing to play. Why was he not willing to play? Because he had the intention of being completely dishonourable and dishonest about this matter.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have dealt fairly with them right through. They will never bring any dispute to the Labour Ministry. They go off on their own. The House heard what the Member for Thomson said, that he preferred to bring these disputes to Mr Booker. He was happy to bring them to Mr Booker. He challenged me. He said, "There is nothing to prevent us from doing it. Show us where it is provided in the Bill that we cannot see Mr Booker." They were the ones who asked us to keep the lawyers out when we passed the Bill. They wanted us to keep the lawyers out. They said it was unfair. If lawyers were allowed to come into all this, the employers would be able to engage the best talent available. They would then be at a disadvantage. It was they who made those representations to us. It was because of them that we had to get the lawyers out. Yet the Member for Thomson - what did he say? - said he preferred to go and deal with Mr Booker.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have watched them for over a long period and we are quite satisfied that they have not the slightest intention of ever wanting to use the provisions of that Bill. They have also referred to the Trade Unions Ordinance. They said that we enacted a piece of legislation and that we subsequently backed down; that we let the unions down; that we let the workers down. Mr Speaker, Sir, that Ordinance provided for what is known as the unification of the trade union movement. In that Ordinance it is provided that a union can only be registered if it comes within one of the 19 categories that are provided for in the Schedule. It does not mean to say that there must be only 19 unions, but that the union must be in one of those categories -

Mr Speaker: Order. It is 12 midnight. Dr Toh.