PORT OF SINGAPORE AUTHORITY BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

6.38 p.m.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

I have the recommendation of His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to proceed with this Bill.

In 1957, the Commission of Inquiry into the Port of Singapore, whose report was presented in Sessional Paper No. S 10 of 1957, made a number of recommendations among which were that a single authority should be set up to be responsible for the whole port area. Members are aware that at the moment the administration of Singapore harbour is divided between the Singapore Harbour Board and the Master Attendant. It is recommended in this Report, now better known as the Millbourn Report, that the Port Authority should take over the functions, staff and premises of the present Singapore Harbour Board together with certain functions performed by the Marine Department and the P.W.D. Marine Section. The Commission also recommended hat the docks and ship repair organisation of the present Singapore Harbour Board should be separated from the new Authority and become a wholly owned subsidiary of the Port Authority.

These recommendations have been considered carefully and it is now proposed that some of the recommendations be adopted for the establishment of the Port Authority.

The duties of the Authority will be to provide and maintain adequate and efficient services in Singapore and to promote the use, improvement and development of the port. The officers of the Authority will be responsible for the regulation and control of navigation within the limits of the port and the provision of pilotage services.

As soon as is practicable, the Authority will be required to form a private limited company to be known as the "Singapore Drydocks and Engineering Company, Limited", the shares of which will be held by the Authority and the company will take over as a going concern all the dockyard undertakings which I have earlier referred to. It will be the responsibility of this Drydock and Engineering Company to develop and extend the business of the dockyard.

Adequate safeguards have been incorporated in the Bill to protect the terms and conditions of service of all the present employees in the Harbour Board and in the Government who will be transferred to the service of the Authority.

The Authority will collect and retain port dues and pilotage dues and will expand these on the maintenance and improvement of the services and facilities of the port. No change has been made to either port dues or pilotage dues.

The Explanatory Statement to the Bill gives full details of the operation and machinery of the Authority's workings. The circumstances under which the Authority will accept full responsibility as bailee for cargo, and also that the Authority shall not be liable for loss or damage to any sea or river wall, dock or wharf or other property as a result of any dredging which may be carried out by the Authority so Icing as such dredging is confined to limits and levels prescribed by the Authority with the approval of the Minister, are all provided for in the Bill.

Apart from the points I have just mentioned, the Bill is mainly a re-enactment of the provisions of the present Ports Ordinance and certain sections of the Merchant Shipping Ordinance.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

6.43 p.m.

Mr John Mammen (Telok Blangah): The Port of Singapore Authority Ordinance, as the Deputy Prime Minister has indicated, was initiated in 1957 when the Commission was appointed by the previous Government under the chairmanship of Sir Eric Millbourn. The majority of the recommendations in that Report, particularly those pertaining to the labour situation in the Harbour Board, were not acceptable by the trade unions in the whole of Singapore, and subsequently, in 1960, a Commission of Inquiry into the system of contract labour was appointed under the chairmanship of Dr Charles Gamba. That Report also made specific remarks regarding the Singapore Harbour Board and also the formation of the Port of Singapore Authority.

This formation of the Port of Singapore Authority will be a great advantage in improving the port facilities and also in making improvements of the port's workings. It also includes the roads which are not under the present Singapore Harbour Board. The Singapore rivers are also included. That is a very good start. We will support it. But certain points - I believe this Bill will be going to Select Committee - will have to he looked into. In this Bill, Government employees can be seconded to the Harbour Board or the Port Authority. In that particular clause, it does not define clearly what type of employees are going to be transferred or seconded to the service of the Port of Singapore Authority. If they are technical staff or staff which cannot get in the present Singapore Harbour Board, it is worthwhile. But if the Port Authority considers that certain employees from the Government service are to be seconded to the Port of Singapore Authority, then what may happen is this. These employees so seconded may be placed above the existing employees of the Harbour Board and they may be deprived of their chances of promotion or going up. If the Port of Singapore Authority is going to be a statutory body, and if Government employees can be seconded into the Port of Singapore Authority, what we may want is this. We should try to bring the Harbour Board employees' conditions of service and pay in line with Government employees, and then it will be in the departmental way of transfer and secondment. The Select Committee can look into this matter.

The second part I want to mention here is in so far as the present Harbour Board is only responsible for the areas controlled by the Harbour Board, and the "Port of Singapore Authority" extends its function into the Roads. On that particular aspect, we have made recommendations.

May I quote, Mr Speaker, Sir, from Paper Cmd. 6 of 1960 - Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the System of Contract Labour in Singapore.

`As we all know, there are malpractices, victimisation, abuse and also irregularities in the employment of labour in the Roads. Everybody knows it. With a view to clearing that, this Commission was appointed and submissions were made with specific references to that effect. In page 68, paragraph 7 (b) Drafting Committee: "if the Government accepts the recommendations of this Commission, it should immediately appoint a Drafting Committee of its own representatives, interested parties and experts to draw up appropriate legislation on the lines of the Commission's recommendations."'

The recommendations are these, Sir.

This is the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the System of Contract Labour in Singapore, Paper Cmd. 6 of 1960. The recommendations are these, Sir. They are on page vii - Summary of Recommendations. This is specifically regarding the Harbour Board.

`(1) Establishment of a Port of Singapore Authority.

(a) We recommend that there should be established a single Port of Singapore Authority.

(b) It should have two Labour Departments:

(i) the Dock Labour Department; and

(ii) the Stevedoring Labour Department (Roads).'

When the Port of Singapore Authority is established, the persons working in the Roads will come under the Port of Singapore Authority. If the Port of Singapore Authority is going to be a mere clearing agent for steamers, what may happen is that the same system will prevail there - the contract labour system - and there will be exploitation of workers, avoiding payment under the various Ordinances, irregularity of work and so on. With that intention, this recommendation has been specifically made, and, as the Deputy Prime Minister has said, certain parts of the Millbourn Report have been included in it. But from the workers' point of view, the important aspect of it has not been included. That is one point, Sir.

Under the First Schedule on page 57 - "The Emergency Powers of the General Manager of the new Port of Singapore Authority." It seems to me that the powers given to this new General Manager are too high and they need to be looked into.

May I go on to page 49, paragraph 119? This is powers of arrest. Any Police Officer or any employee of the Authority authorised in writing by the General Manager generally, or in any particular place may arrest any person committing within his view, or who, he has reason to believe, has committed an offence punishable under this Ordinance, and so on, if the Port Authority or the General Manager were to give in writing a warrant of arrest. Actually you cannot expect them to give that power to an ordinary daily-rated employee or a monthly-rated employee. Naturally, the power of arrest will be vested in officers. We have an efficient Police Force in the Singapore Harbour Board which has looked after the Port very well and they are doing their duty very well. According to this, we have the Police Force who have the powers to arrest anybody. Also the Port Authority is giving Authorisation Letters to its employees that may include Police personnel of officer grade and also civilian employees who have the power to arrest anybody. In other words, an employee - when I say an employee, I mean a daily-rated employee or a monthly-rated employee - will have to be very careful because, on one side, the Police have the powers to arrest, then also there are officers who are authorised by the Port of Singapore Authority, the Chairman or the General Manager, in writing. I think that is very unfair to the workers in the Singapore Harbour Board.

In 1957, Sir Eric Millbourn recommended the setting up of a Port of Singapore Authority, and subsequently Dr Gamba recommended also on the same lines, particularly on the part of labour. The intention, at that time and now is, by setting up this Port Authority, one thing we must do is to improve the Port facilities so that more ships will come to Singapore, and by improving that, there will be more employment in the Port of Singapore Authority.

Now, Sir, if you want more efficient work, then by merely - if you will go through the provisions of Schedule No. 2, on page 58, paragraph 3 - "Powers of the Authority" ---

`To provide services within the limits of the port and the approaches to the port ---

(a) in berthing, towing, mooring, moving, slipping or docking any vessel;

(b) in loading or discharging any vessel;

(c) in sorting, weighing, measuring, ...'

and so on.

If you will read the whole of this thing, there is not a single clause which has been inserted here to provide some sort of machinery for the employees of the Port cI Singapore Authority to be dealt with for matters which the Port of Singapore Authority may think, for hi order to improve the facilities of the Port, they have to do this, but it may not be accepted by the workers as a whole. In that case, what the worst probably can happen is, under the pretext of improvement to the Port of Singapore Authority, and according to the new constitution or new Ordinance, they can do many things which may be detrimental to the interests of the workers.

These are the few points I want to bring to the notice of this House, which, o course the Select Committee will look into when the Bill is referred to it.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: The purpose of this Bill is to bring into existence the Singapore Port Authority. It is not so much the purpose of this Bill to go into details of the terms of employment of employees of the Singapore Port Authority. The terms of employment of any statutory body must necessarily come under the Labour Ordinance. I do not believe they should come under the Ordinance which governs the existence of the Authority.

Those employees in Government service who probably may be transferred to the Port Authority perform functions quite distinct from those employees in the Harbour Board. There is no danger that there will be an overlapping or repetition of services on their transfer. The final terms of transfer, of course, must be discussed with the unions, but I do not think it will be correct to include them in the Bill, which only seeks to define the limits within which the Port Authority will have jurisdiction, and will formally bring into existence this Port Authority. I am quite sure that in Select Committee we will be able to consider all petitions or memoranda which will be submitted for consideration, and I am quite sure that interested parties will have no hesitation in studying this Bill and giving us their recommendations, and the Select Committee will act accordingly.

However, all I would like to say here is that this Bill seeks to bring this Port Authority into being and does not seek to interfere or spell out the conditions of service of employees in the Port Authority. As I have stated previously, conditions of service between employers and employees are best governed by the Labour Ordinance. It would be invidious indeed if we have different statutory bodies having in their respective enactments terms and conditions of their employees. In fact, it is not possible to do so because terms and conditions vary from time to time according to the economic conditions of the country. I have only this to say, Mr Speaker.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and seven other Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection. -[Dr Toh Chin Chye]

Mr Speaker: I understand the Deputy Prime Minister wishes to move a Business motion.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Yes.