DISRUPTION OF TRADE UNIONS; REGISTRATION OF S.A.T.U.; AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF WORKERS

7.45 p.m.

Mr S. T. Bani (Thomson): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the motion standing in my name,

That this Assembly condemns the People's Action Party Government for its use of State machinery against workers and their organisations in an attempt to disrupt non-P.A.P. trade unions and thereby further P.A.P. interests; and demands that this abuse of State power he forthwith stopped, that the Singapore Association of Trade Unions be given immediate registration and that the fundamental rights of association, assembly and publication of all workers be recognised and respected by the Government.*

*The same motion also stood in the name of Mr Chan Sun Wing.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr John Mammen) in the Chair]

Mr S. T. Bani (Thomson): Sir, this motion was filed in April and though it is only being moved for debate now, the conditions prevailing in Singapore do not alter the fact that today the Government still uses State machinery against trade unions which reject the Government's political control. The situation still is such that the Government continues to deny the workers their legitimate rights of association, assembly and publication. As is known, even today, the Singapore Association of Trade Unions is not as yet registered.

Sir, the P.A.P. Government was elected on a labour ticket. They came into office in 1959 on working-class votes. We have no doubt that it will go down also on working-class votes.

Sir, prior to 1959, because the P.A.P. was looked upon by the workers and trade unions as a Party that represented the will and desire of the workers, it was put into office. But one of the first acts of the Government was, in fact, against organised labour. Sir, it will be remembered how in 1960 (as early as 1960), long before there was the Barisan Sosialis, the Government had used police in the case of workers of the Sassoon Company. It will also be remembered how soon after the elections, the allowances of civil servants were cut without reference to trade unions. Today, I refer to these two items, not because we are on this side of the House, but because we regarded then, as even now, the issues to be fundamental.

On the pay cuts, those of us in the trade unions made our strongest protest against effecting any pay cut without negotiations with the unions concerned. The Minister for Finance is not here tonight. If he remembers and chooses to be honest, he will admit that personal objections were made to the manner in which the pay cuts were introduced.

On the Sassoon strike, the day the police were used to assault the strikers, the Secretariat of the Singapore Trades Union Congress issued a public statement denouncing the use of the police. Therefore, Sir, do not let it be misconstrued that it is only now that we criticise these acts which were by any standard anti-union and anti-labour.

Since 1961, the Government's use of State machinery against trade unions which were not P.A.P. controlled increased and we found that the police were being used against strikers of unions which were not P.A.P. unions. The police were used to break strikes. We found pressure was being applied on employers to prevent them from coming into agreements with unions which were non-P.A.P. We found the Labour Ministry, particularly the office of the Commissioner for Labour, was being used to discriminate against unions which were not P.A.P. controlled. The office of the Registrar of Trade Unions was also being used to disturb trade unions which were not P.A.P. controlled.

Sir, on numerous occasions, we have quoted in this House examples of the blatant abuse of State power. I would like to just recall one or two examples and I do not wish to go into many of the statements that we have repeated here and outside the House. I would like to take one case first. It is the case of the Singapore Plywood, where the Government clearly attempted to apply pressure on the employer to refuse implementation of the terms of agreement. A collective agreement was signed between the Singapore General Employees' Union and the Plywood management. It was agreed that the bonus, an item contained in the agreement, he implemented the next day, the day after the signing. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour and the Minister for Finance intervened and told the employer not to pay the bonus, to enable the Manual and Mercantile Workers' Union to make propaganda that the Singapore General Employees' Union was a useless union, that having signed an agreement, it could not get the employer to implement the terms.

Sir, this is one example I quoted. There have been many other examples where Government pressure had been put on employers to refuse dealings with unions that were non-P.A.P., to refuse the rights and privileges of unions which were non-P.A.P., and to refuse implementation of the terms of agreements. I mentioned the Plywood case in particular because in this case, we had conclusive evidence that the Minister himself had called up certain officials of the company and told them that if they did not follow Government instructions, their permits for staying in Singapore would be withdrawn and they would be sent back to where they came from. In the course of the Arbitration Court hearing on the case of Plywood, I did say that the Minister had used his powers to prevent the implementation of terms of a collective agreement that had been agreed between the union and the employer. The Minister did not deny this. The Government had no statement issued and they did not deny it. Because if they had denied it then, that would have given us an opportunity to produce evidence in the Arbitration Court to show how and when and who had intervened to prevent the implementation of the terms. Sir, that is one example of pressure on an employer.

An example of the abuse of the powers of the Commissioner for Labour. Sir, in the case of the Tiger Breweries and the Anchor Breweries, the Commissioner for Labour ordered a secret ballot which, in our view, was contrary to the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. He ordered a secret ballot to include a certain category of workers who were not involved in the claims made by the `Singapore General Employees' Union. I would like to say here that this was a case similar to the one that the Amalgamated Union of Public Employees had recently with the Government in relation to trade union representation. I do not know for what reason they did not proceed with the balloting as they had planned. But in the case of the General Employees' Union involving the Brewery workers, a ballot was proceeded with. Perhaps, Sir, officials of the Singapore General Employees' Union were not P.A.P. members, unlike officials of the Amalgamated Union of Public Employees -

Mr G. Kandasamy (Kampong Kapor): On a point of clarification, Sir, if the Member will give way.

Mr Bani resumed his seat.

Mr Kandasamy: In the case of the Amalgamated Union of Public Employees, it was not stopped by the Government on the plea of P.A.P. Members, but it was ordered by Dr Charles Gamba, the President of the Court, not to have the ballot opened, counted or declared. Because any such act would have been prejudicial to the case before the Court.

Mr Bani: However, Sir, in the case as I have said of the brewery workers, the balloting was proceeded with. There have been cases where the Commissioner for Labour had refused to conduct secret ballots -

Mr Wee Toon Boon: On the contrary, you refused to accept a secret ballot.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Mammen): Order.

Mr Bani: - as has been the case of C. K. Tang which I have had occasion to mention earlier, where the Commissioner for Labour had refused to hold a secret ballot since December 1961. And, Sir -

8.00 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Moment of interruption.