TRADE UNIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Mr Speaker: Will the Minister please signify the recommendation of His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara before he introduces the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill?

The Minister for Labour (Mr Jek Yeun Thong): I so signify, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled, "An Ordinance to amend the Trade Unions Ordinance (Chapter 154 of the Revised Edition)".

Bill read the First time.

Second Reading

Mr Speaker: Second Reading, what day?

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Now, Sir, I lay on the Table a Certificate of Urgency signed by His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in respect of the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill.

Certificate of Urgency handed in.

Mr Speaker: The Certificate is in order. Are copies of the Bill available for the use of Members?

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Yes.

Copies of the Bill handed in to the Clerk and distributed to hon. Members.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." I have His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's recommendation that this Bill be proceeded with. I also have a Certificate of Urgency by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to proceed with the Bill through all its stages under Standing Order No. 81.

In my statement at the sitting of the Assembly on 11th December, 1963, I have already touched on the matter of the setting up of a one-man Commission of Inquiry to look into and examine the financial transactions of three deregistered trade unions. I have already recounted to hon. Members how unscrupulous and mercenary anti-national leaders of unions could usurp the funds of the workers towards purposes inconsistent with the objects and rules of the unions to the detriment of the unions and danger to the State. In order that the interests of the workers may be safeguarded, the Government now consider it necessary that the Bill before the House should be taken through all its stages and passed on a Certificate of Urgency. As I have stated previously, the reason for bringing in the Bill on a Certificate of Urgency is obvious. The Assembly will be adjourning shortly and it is necessary that the Bill be passed in order that there will be effective legislation to prevent trade union funds from being frittered away illegally and dishonestly. The Government at present have no power to deal with the funds of unions which are deregistered or are being given notices to show cause why they should not be deregistered.

The Trade Unions Ordinance which was passed in 1940 did not foresee that there are so-called trade union leaders here in Singapore capable of taking away large amounts of money of the workers for purposes known only to their secret masters. As a result of this, once a union is deregistered, the money of the union is left at the mercy of the union leaders. Amongst themselves they can do anything they like with the money. Although union rules require them to distribute the money to the general members, in most cases this is never done. In fact, in the case of the Singapore General Employees' Union, the Secretary-General, when called upon by the police to explain why certain amounts of money were expended, disappeared with some union minute books. So you can see how dangerous it is to leave large amounts of money in the hands of union officials who are capable of going underground at any moment. They do not have the workers' interests at heart. The workers' money is not used to further the interests of the workers. It is being used for some inexplicable purpose.

On 3rd September, 1963, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara issued a writ to dissolve the previous Assembly and ordered fresh elections. Everyone knew that elections were coming and elections cost money. And it was exactly on this day, the 3rd of September, that leaders of the three unions, viz, the Singapore General Employees' Union, the Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union, and the Singapore Bus Workers' Union decided to withdraw large amounts of money from their banks. I can leave it to you to draw your own conclusion as to what they intend to use this money for. The Government cannot afford to be complacent in this matter. If we are to protect the interests of the workers, I am sure hon. Members will agree that stringent and urgent action must be taken to deal with the situation.

At present the Trade Unions Ordinance does not empower the Minister or the Registrar of Trade Unions to freeze the bank accounts of any trade union if information is received that the union intends to utilise its funds for any purpose contrary to the provisions of the Ordinance or the rules of the union itself. While the Registrar has power to apply to the Court for an injunction to restrain any trade union from unlawful expenditure of its funds, this process in law, however, is not practicable especially when the matter has to be dealt with on an immediate basis. Because the present Ordinance does not provide the necessary powers, the Registrar of Trade Unions could only advise banks holding the accounts of unions to suspend payment of any cheques drawn on them. Although in the case of the three deregistered S.A.T.U. unions the banks co-operated with the Government, they were in a difficult position as the Government's request had no statutory backing. This being so, the banks would therefore be liable for damages if they were sued by their clients. As Government had perforce to freeze the funds of these unions, it was necessary, therefore, for the Government to give a categorical assurance that it would indemnify any legal costs arising from any proceedings as a result of their failing to honour the unions' cheques.

Despite action taken by the Registrar to request the banks to withhold withdrawals which might be initiated by these three S.A.T.U. unions, two of the unions, however, were able to withdraw about $30,000 from their accounts in a number of banks before the banks could receive Government's indemnification assurance. The new section 15A provided in clause 2 of the Bill will now enable the Minister, where he is satisfied that the funds of any unions may be misused, to order any bank in Singapore not to pay any money or to cash any cheques of the unions for a period not exceeding three months. Non-compliance with this order will make the manager of the bank liable to punishment as set out in subsection (3) of section 15A. Subsection (2) will, of course, absolve the bank of any liability arising from compliance with the order of the Minister. Clause 3 of the Bill amends section 18 of the Ordinance, and this amendment is necessary having regard to the new section 18A provided under clause 4. The new section 18A in clause 4 of the Bill will obviate any undue delay in the winding up and disposal of funds of unions which have been dissolved on the grounds that they have not applied for registration or where their registration has been refused, withdrawn or cancelled. There are many instances where unions that have been dissolved have still to wind up and dispose of their funds. A glaring instance is that of the Singapore Factory and Shop Workers' Union, which was deregistered in 1957, and to date it has still to wind up and dispose of its funds. Hon. Members will, therefore, see that the powers sought in the new section 18A are necessary. Once a trade union is dissolved, the assets of the union will vest immediately in the Official Assignee in Bankruptcy so that he can proceed to wind up the affairs of the union. Any surplus assets after providing for all debts and liabilities will, if the Minister directs, be paid into the Consolidated Fund; or where no such direction is made, will be disposed of as provided in the rules of the trade union in question. It is very necessary that the assets of the dissolved trade union should vest in the Official Assignee in Bankruptcy to prevent officials of the union from making any withdrawals on the accounts of the union held by any bank between the period when notice has been given by the Registrar of Trade Unions to the union of the intention to dissolve such union, and the actual date of dissolution if dissolution takes place.

I have already recounted instances of such irresponsible withdrawals in my statement of 11th December. This will make very interesting hearing when the Commission of Inquiry sits to look into the matter.

The new section 18B gives retrospective effect to the Bill so that the unions deregistered or cancelled prior to the date of 11th December, 1963, can be dealt with in the same way. I would like, therefore, to commend this Bill to the House so that it can be taken through all its stages and passed at today's sitting. I do not propose to overemphasise how essential it is for Government to be given the powers sought in the Bill. Any person having the interest of the workers and the protection of the funds which rightfully belong to the workers will undoubtedly support the enabling measures that will be vested in Government by the amendments proposed in the Bill.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Chia Thye Poh (Jurong): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the fact that the P.A.P. Government have now tabled this Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill shows that they are taking further action against the workers. This will thus deal a blow to the workers who do not allow themselves to be controlled by the P.A.P. The P.A.P. have always boasted in the past that it is their intention to have an open argument. But this so-called open argument and competition has not been used in the true sense. As a result of their insincerity in the so-called open argument and competition, the Government have taken action to ban some trade unions and have arrested their leaders. Some of the workers and their leaders who went on strike were assaulted. Apart from this, the P.A.P. Government have also made use of the State machinery to break up the non-P.A.P. union strikes. This can be seen from their repressive actions in the past. Seven unions were dissolved. The application for registration by S.A.T.U. was also turned down. The Naval Base Workers' Union strike, which lasted about thirty days, was a legitimate strike. But it was broken up by the P.A.P. by illegal means and despicable methods.

In spite of all these actions, the P.A.P. have discovered that they have not sufficient powers to deal with the workers whose only wish is to struggle for a better life and improve their working conditions, which are their legitimate rights. In spite of all these actions, the workers are as united as ever. They are as adamant as ever. This fact has worried the P.A.P. very much. That is why the P.A.P. are now taking a step further. They are abusing the legal and State machinery by tabling this Bill, which is an attempt to gain control over the unions' funds. In other words, unions which do not support the P.A.P. can be controlled by the P.A.P. There are provisions in this Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill which empower the Minister to freeze a union's funds deposited in a bank for a period of three months when the Minister is satisfied that the funds may be misused. We know that workers have contributed to the trade unions' funds by way of monthly subscriptions. Therefore, the disposal of the funds should be decided by the workers themselves and not by the Minister and the P.A.P. The funds should not be interfered with. The trade union officials have been elected by the workers themselves. They have been entrusted to administer the funds. They are held responsible to the workers and members of the unions. So long as the workers of the unions agree to the action taken by their elected officials, and so long as the administration of the unions' funds is not inconsistent with the rules and regulations of the unions, the Minister should not be given any right to interfere with such administration of the unions' funds. In fact, nobody should be allowed to interfere with them.

The phrase "satisfied that it is likely that the funds of the union may be misused", is actually typical of Fascist methods. It seems that only the Minister is able to decide whether a union's funds are being used in the right and proper manner. We know that if the Minister is given this power, then he may make use of this power as an excuse to take action against the union which refuses to be under the control of the P.A.P. Trade union funds come from the workers themselves. They subscribe to these funds in their own interest and for union activities. They can be considered as the capital of the workers for their union activities. If their funds can be frozen at the whims and fancies of the Minister, then the workers will face great difficulties in carrying out their activities. They will have no financial backing if they wish to increase their wages through legitimate methods. For example, if members of a union decide to stage a strike or take any other industrial action, which is their weapon, to fight for better working conditions, then the Minister may, if he so desires, break up this impending strike or even if a strike is on. He does this by exerting pressure on the bank to freeze the funds of the union in question. If a union is not able to withdraw its funds from the bank, how are the workers to have any means of livelihood during the period of the strike? How are they going to maintain themselves during the duration of the strike and their activities in connection with the strike?

In the case of the Naval Base Union, the Government took action to freeze the funds of the union when the strike broke out. All the banks were instructed not to meet any payment on their behalf. As a result of the Government's action, the strikers met with many difficulties. There are other cases. There is the example of the Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union. Strike action was taken by some branches of this union. Action was taken by the Government to control their funds. They therefore faced similar difficulties.

If the Minister is given these dictatorial powers, then the workers will face difficulties in the event of a strike. In fact, these powers will give the Minister many opportunities to break up the legitimate strikes of non-P.A.P. unions. This is my first point.

The second point I wish to draw your attention to is this. If the workers wish to support the strikes of other unions, that is, by giving material and financial aid, the Government can, by virtue of these provisions in the Bill, abuse their power and freeze the unions' funds. These provisions are meant to prevent certain unions from making use of their funds to assist other unions and other workers who are on strike. Apart from this point, if such dictatorial powers are given to the Minister, then, in the event of the unions desirous of expanding their activities, and if the Minister does not like certain unions to expand their activities, he will again resort to the powers contained in this Bill to freeze the union funds.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture (Mr Fong Sip Chee): On a point of order.

Mr Speaker: What is the point of order?

Mr Fong Sip Chee: This is the sixth time that he has mentioned about the Government freezing the funds of the trade unions. He need not have to talk for two hours on just one reason - the freezing of union funds.

Mr Speaker: There is one clause which deals with the point, and the debate is on that clause. Though he is using the same expression, he is using it in a different context and using different reasons. I rule that he is in order. Please proceed, Mr Chia.

Mr Chia Thye Poh: (In Mandarin): The Minister can even go to the extent of abusing his powers, contained in this Bill, to threaten certain unions. That is to say, if the Minister does not want certain unions to carry out certain activities in the trade union movement, then he will again take action to freeze the trade union funds. Even when certain unions want to carry out legitimate activities of a cultural nature or, in other respects, to raise the cultural standard of the workers and make use of the union funds for publication purposes, if the P.A.P. desire to stop the activities of these unions, the Minister again can freeze the union funds in order to prevent such activities from being carried out. If these undemocratic powers of a dictatorial nature are given to the Minister, then we can see that the P.A.P. will, by way of this Bill, take action against those non-P.A.P. unions and drive their members over to the other side, namely, the side of the P.A.P.-controlled trade unions. So since the P.A.P. have failed to control the non-P.A.P. unions, they are now resorting to legal means to further suppress them. The P.A.P. always claim that these unions are indulging in open front Communist activities, and so it is necessary to have this Bill to take action against such unions. But let us look at the facts. This is a document from the Malayan Trades Union Congress. After the Committee came to Singapore for a survey, they came to this conclusion as contained in this document:

`The Singapore Government always make use of the State machinery and other governmental facilities to help the National Trades Union Congress in Singapore, but neglect those other unions which do not endorse the Government policies.'

This point has been admitted by the Minister for Labour. In this memorandum the Malayan Trades Union Congress officials continue to say that those trade unions which do not endorse the P.A.P. Government's labour policies always have their leaders intimidated on all sorts of excuses and harassed unnecessarily. Such excuses like anti-national elements, open-front Communist workers and the rest are common expressions used by the Government against them. This is the conclusion arrived at by a third party from an objective point of view. So the so-called "pro-Communist" and "anti-national elements" are but expressions used by the P.A.P. against non-P.A.P.-controlled trade unions if the P.A.P. fail in other ways to deal with them. If the P.A.P. fail to gain their support by legitimate means, they will turn round to brand them as Communist controlled and take action against them. This again is another example to show how one can give a dog a bad name and hang him.

In this Bill there is also a provision stipulating that the Minister can, in the event of the dissolution of a trade union, direct that the funds be put into the Consolidated Fund of the Government. As we have already said, the funds of a trade union come from the workers by the accumulation of their subscriptions over years. The workers have to work very hard to build up their own funds to safeguard their rights and to enable them to have financial means to carry out their trade union activities.

3.08 p.m.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Fong Kim Heng) in the Chair]

Mr Chia Thye Poh: So how these funds should be used should be decided by the workers themselves. In the event of the dissolution of any union, the members of that union may desire that the funds be used for the welfare of the workers. Therefore, the disposal of such funds should be in accordance with the trade union rules or according to the desire of the members of the dissolved union. It is not proper for the Minister to direct that the funds of that union be put into the Consolidated Fund, thereby depriving the members of that union of their legitimate rights.

We know that even in the Federation of Malaya or even in England, trade union laws do not have the provision whereby trade union funds can be forcibly put into the Consolidated Fund, which amounts to confiscation in the event of the dissolution of the trade unions.

In this amending Bill, there is also another provision whereby the Minister's direction that the trade union funds can be put into the Consolidated Fund will have retrospective effect to the 11th of December, 1963. Now this provision is even more unreasonable. According to the present Trade Unions Ordinance, before the Government can freeze the funds of any trade union, an injunction should be applied for in the High Court of Singapore. That is according to the present Trade Unions Ordinance. But in the past, when the Government froze the funds of seven unions of the S.A.T.U. group, the Government used illegal means in freezing their funds. Now the Government are trying to pass a Bill to legalise their illegal acts in the past. For example, recently the Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union wished to make use of the union funds in the bank. According to their rules, the funds in the event of the dissolution of the unions should be distributed among the members. Now the Government are trying to race against time to pass this Bill in order to prevent the members of this union from having a share in the union's funds.

If any law is to be given retrospective effect, it is improper, and it is even more improper if the P.A.P. should try to make use of this Bill to legalise their illegal acts in the past. Now if legislation is to serve the interests of the P.A.P., then the P.A.P. can make laws and break laws. Then where is democracy? Where is the rule of law? We find, Mr Deputy Speaker, that this Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill is a Bill unprecedented in the history of the trade union movement in Singapore. It is a most undemocratic and dictatorial Bill. If the Government should force through this Bill, then we must condemn them strongly and they should be held responsible for any consequences.

Mr Ong Eng Guan (Hong Lim): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am looking at this Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill as a piece of legislation, and as a piece of legislation, I see three objectionable features of the Bill.

First of all, the Bill is made retrospective to be applicable to unions which were being closed down before this Bill has been discussed or passed.

Now, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, any democratic government recognises as a fact that retrospective legislation is a very bad thing. As far as I know, in other democratic countries no government has ever attempted to try to introduce retrospective legislation because, if once the door is opened, we will not know where we stand tomorrow. For instance, today we have freedom of speech in this Assembly, but tomorrow we may not have it here. The speeches we make before such a Bill is passed can also be made effective retrospectively.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the second objectionable feature of this Bill is that the Minister will have the power to seize the funds of a union which he does not approve. Now when a member joins an association, he is like a shareholder buying shares in a public company. May I state, for instance, a public company is mismanaged or some of its officials have misappropriated the funds or invested them in contravention of the objects of the company. There is nothing to prevent a government in future, based on this precedent, from seizing the funds of that company and putting the, likewise into the Consolidated Fund. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, very soon we might find many public companies in Singapore being mismanaged - funds being lost, the shareholders lodging complaints with the Minister. [Interruption] I beg your pardon.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye): Are you worried about your company?

Mr Ong Eng Guan: I have no company. I think the Ministers should investigate how many shares they have in companies they should look after their own shares in companies!

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is very unfair to expropriate the funds which rightly belong to the members. When a person becomes a member of a union, or an association or a company, he has complete trust that the articles and rules approved by the Government will be carried out to the letter. Now we have a Bill which will supersede all the previous rules and constitutions approved by the Government, and it will enable the Government to seize control of the funds of the members.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, clause 4 which gives power to the Minister to seize union funds is most objectionable. If the Government have any reason to close down a union - any reason that they can give - the funds should rightly go back to the union members.

The third objectionable feature, Sir, is that this Bill gives too much power to the Minister. My view is that trade union funds rightly belong to the members. The Registrar of Trade Unions has a legal duty to discharge to see that the funds are not misappropriated or misused by union officials and, for this reason, the best way is to strengthen the Registry of Trade Unions.

Clause 2 of this Bill enables the Minister to act on information given to the Registrar. The Registrar might have obtained false information. You may remember, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that at one time there was some false information about Tommy Koh, a university student who was supposed to be with student pickets, whereas he was actually in Cameron Highands, This sort of thing might happen again. An informer might lodge a complaint with the Registrar of Trade Unions that a meeting is to be held on a certain night and that the union funds will be appropriated. The Minister, acting on this information, will immediately freeze the union funds.

Now, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there is sufficient provision in the Penal Code to institute criminal breach of trust proceedings against any union official who misappropriates or misuses union funds.

Therefore, Sir, I feel that this Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill should not be passed.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour (Mr Wee Toon Boon): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, a little while ago, the Member for Jurong raised a hue and cry over this Bill. We know why he has made such a strong protest against it. Before the elections, the Barisan had been warned that once merger took place, every step would be taken to check the pro-Communists from manipulating the unions.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, our object is to prevent them from using the unions and other civic organisations for activities which are inconsistent with our national interest. Their allegation that precautionary or whatever steps we take to checkmate them are detrimental to the workers is far from the truth. This is the very Bill that we are introducing in order to protect the interest of the workers.

I will explain to this House how the pro-Communist elements in the unions manipulate the unions and union funds. I will dwell on this point later. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, at present the Trade Unions Ordinance has provision to deal with such matters. But this is an old Ordinance which does not make provision to cope with the situation that we are faced with at the moment - that is, the manipulation of the trade unions by the pro-Communists. If they had been honest and served the interest of the workers, we would not have had to move this Bill to amend the Ordinance this afternoon, in the present Ordinance, there is provision to say that in the event of a union being deregistered by the Registrar or dissolved on its own resolution, the assets and funds of the union should be distributed according to its rules and constitution. If there are people who are genuinely looking after the interest of the workers, the present Ordinance will have sufficed. But, unfortunately, we have an unscrupulous group of persons who are manipulating the unions and they find ways and means to overcome the provisions of the Ordinance, not only to exploit the workers but also their funds - as they say "the sweat and blood of the workers". This is exactly so, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir; we know that that is the workers' money - from the sweat and blood of the workers. And we want to preserve it. That is the present position with regard to the Ordinance. When the three trade unions were served with notice of cancellation - mind you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, only a notice was served to ask them to show cause why the registration of the unions should be cancelled; the Registrar had not taken action yet, and they had ample time - two months' time - to convince and satisfy the Registrar why the registration of the unions should not be cancelled - the general election was around the corner and we had information that the people behind these unions intended to withdraw large sums of money not for use in the interest of the workers but in the interest of the Barisan. Therefore, the Registrar had to take action to preserve the workers' money. After the election, that is, after one month of the notice served by the Registrar, the so-called officials of these unions with their legal adviser threatened the bank to allow them to withdraw a sum of money. We were not aware of this until the money had been withdrawn from the bank. Immediately the Registrar came to know about this withdrawal, he wrote a letter to the unions and their legal adviser. They replied to say that this sum of money was withdrawn to pay for the services of their comrades Mr Woodhull, Mr Fong Swee Suan and Mr Bani, immediately the Registrar wrote to them that this was an unlawful use of union funds. Their own legal adviser wrote back to admit that that was unlawful. Therefore we told them, "All right, now you have withdrawn this sum of money. Will you please put it back into the bank?" But no, they still clung to that sum of money. But when the Registrar threatened to take action against the legal adviser, the latter, probably from his professional point of view, quickly passed back the money to the union officials. Therefore, we had to chase after them for this sum of money. Ultimately they went underground, the minute books and other things disappeared. For this reason, the Registrar was compelled to report the matter to the police. Anyway there will be a Commission of Inquiry which will look into this matter. So I will not go into details.

The next point is this, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, If their argument is that while the notice was served they needed money to defray administrative expenses, there was no such hurry. They were asked to show cause within these two months why the registration of the unions should not be cancelled. If they had any bill to pay, what they could do was to tell the shops or any one who pressed for payment, "All right, the Registrar has seized our funds at the moment. So during these two months, we will have to await the decision as to whether the Registrar's notice will be withdrawn - that is, no cancellation will be effected - or whether the registration of the unions is cancelled." Even if the registration of the unions was cancelled ultimately, the bills could still be paid, because there was a rule to the effect that the unions had to pay for whatever liabilities they incurred. Therefore, the outstanding debts could be paid. Therefore, there was no hurry whatsoever for the unions - especially these three unions that were under notice - to threaten the bank to allow them to withdraw large sums of money.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, these are the main causes that have motivated us to move this amending Bill so that the Registrar will have power to seize the funds of a union when it is served with a notice, otherwise the money of the workers will not be safeguarded, or it will disappear for some motives other than in the interest of the workers.

The Member for Jurong has said that this is a repressive law to obstruct the trade union movement. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, can he cite an instance? Can he point out in what way the workers will be affected by this Bill? Of course, he has cited that in case a union calls a strike it cannot withdraw its funds. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the words used here are "Where a notice has been given by the Registrar to a trade union". Now if a union has done nothing wrong and has not been served with a notice, of course, it is not affected by this Bill. So in what way will this Bill affect or hinder the workers in the struggle for better terms and conditions of service?

Of course, he has mentioned that we have exercised our power to freeze the funds of the Naval Base Workers' Union. That is not true. We have never done that. He has also mentioned that this amendment will affect the unions in their expansion of union branches and in promoting cultural activities. That is untrue. Any union can expand its branches and promote activities, but this can only be done if its constitution provides for such activities.

They also mention just now that even the Federation have no such similar Ordinance. Again that is not true. At the moment, the Registrar of Trade Unions in the Federation has full power to make directions on the use of union funds when a union is under notice. Of course, they say that this is a dictatorial piece of legislation because the Minister can exercise his discretion. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in clause 4 of the Bill which proposes the new section 18A, it is provided that:

`Upon the dissolution of a trade union under the provisions of section 18 of this Ordinance -

(a) the property of the trade union shall forthwith vest in the Official Assignee in Bankruptcy;'.

When this Bill is passed, the position will be that as soon as a union is dissolved either by itself or by cancellation by the Registrar, whatever property that union possesses must vest in the Official Assignee. The reason why we want this is that we have unscrupulous persons in these seven cancelled trade unions, and only through this provision can we remove them from the possession of workers' property. Once the Official Assignee takes possession of the properly, what does he do? There are two provisions there:

`(b) the Official Assignee in Bankruptcy shall proceed to wind up the affairs of the trade union and after satisfying and providing for all debts and liabilities of the trade union and the costs of winding up shall pay the surplus assets, if any, of the trade union -

(i) where the Minister so directs, into the Consolidated Fund; or

(ii) in the absence of a direction from the Minister, in accordance with the rules of the trade union.'.

So, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there are two provisions here. The Member for Hong Lim mentions that this is dictatorial and that the Minister can abuse his power. Provision 18A (b) (i) is made because, in certain cases, the situation may be such that there is no record as to how the funds can be fairly and justly distributed to all the members who belong to that union. In those circumstances, then probably the Minister may have to exercise his discretion to pay that money back into the State. The money goes into the Consolidated Fund and into the State; it does not go to anyone else.

In the second provision there, 18A (b) (ii) , the money can be distributed in accordance with the rules of the trade union. Therefore, where is the dictatorial power that the Minister will assume with the so-called provision where the Minister will act according to his whims and fancies? All these allegations are untrue.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, just now the Member for Hong Lim has mentioned the retrospective effect of this Bill. Due to the inadequate provision of the present Ordinance, in the past few years there were many unions which were dissolved or cancelled for not properly distributing the funds to the workers. Therefore, in order that this matter can be settled, we take this opportunity to incorporate it in this amending Bill, so that provision can be made for all such matters to be disposed of according to the law. So whatever money is due to the workers will be accordingly returned to them.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, all this roughly rebuts the criticisms that have been made against this Bill. But I think the Member for Jurong has made his allegations not because this amending Bill is going to hurt the workers' movement but rather it is going to hurt the anti-national movement. Therefore, it is their business and not a matter for us to be concerned with. What we are concerned with is to see that whatever money is due to the workers should be fairly and justly returned to them. That is why we have introduced this amending Bill.

Mr Koo Young (Thomson): (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my colleague the Member for Jurong has said that this Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill is introduced by the P.A.P. for various purposes. One of the purposes is to legalise their illegal acts done in the past. They have not acted according to the law when they froze the funds of the three trade unions. Now they come to this House for the power to legalise their past actions. If they have done anything illegal, i.e. without abiding by any proper procedure, they come to this House to ask the House to condone their actions.

Mr Wee Toon Boon rose ---

Mr Deputy Speaker: Is it a point of order?

Mr Wee Toon Boon: Point of elucidation.

Mr Koo Young remained standing.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Is the Member willing to give way?

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): They will have their opportunity to speak later. I was saying just now that this is a request which they hope the Assembly will approve - approve what they have done in the past without abiding by legal procedures.

I find this kind of attitude which they are now taking most uncalled for and most serious. Even Lim Yew Hock, another dictator, did not dare to take this action which the P.A.P. are now taking. He did not resort to laws passed in this House. The Government claim that the power is given to them by the people. But do the people give them the dictatorial rights? The people will never approve or give them dictatorial powers. [Interruption] If the Member for Changi's physiognomy is primitive, that is his own business. But then ---

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Point of order, Sir. The Member for Thomson is out of order by using unparliamentary words to describe the Member for Changi. We are now discussing whether we should give power to the Minister to freeze the funds of unions. We are not discussing the description of any Member here.

Madam Chan Choy Siong (Delta): Point of order. I hope there will be no personal attacks in this Chamber.

Mr Deputy Speaker: It has been ruled by the Speaker that hon. Members when making their speeches should not be interrupted, even from the Government Benches, if there is no instigation or no personal attacks made, I think the Member for Thomson could be given a chance to proceed without any interruption, and we can get on quickly.

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you. The P.A.P. have resorted to interruptions in order to prevent me from making my speech. If they had not interrupted, I would not have commented on the physiognomy of the Member for Changi.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I have made my ruling. Please proceed.

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Party in power attempt to legalise what is illegal and to right what is wrong. This is a new kind of democracy of the P.A.P. It is a most serious blemish on democracy. This amending Bill smacks of Fascism and dictatorship. They say that the intention of the Bill is to prevent the activities of pro-Communist trade unions from being carried out. But what they actually have in mind is to turn all non-P.A.P. trade unions into pro-Communist unions. Can they legally prove that these trade unions are pro-Communist or Communist organisations? You can accuse anybody of being a Communist or a running dog, but where is the legal evidence? None at all; they cannot advance any evidence to prove their allegations. What they can do is to produce this Bill here so that they can have the power to control all trade unions which are non-P.A.P. and to eradicate or wipe out all those trade unions which do not support them. If they attempt to do so, then trade unionism will be in difficulty. This kind of action is very serious indeed, because the P.A.P. are abusing their majority position in this House to give themselves dictatorial powers. This action of theirs smacks of Fascism and dictatorship. They claim that the people elected them. But the people did not elect them to be dictators. The people will never condone their desire for dictatorial powers. The people did not give them the power to do whatever they like when they elected them. I would say that the introduction of this P.A.P. Bill will brand them in the end as anti-Communists. They call us traitors. But this Bill will finally land them in a position where they will be the traitors. It is full of Fascist ideologies. If it is approved and implemented, we will see more Fascist methods being employed by the P.A.P. in the future. They will be able to deal with all the people whom they do not like. Will this be good for the people in the end? It will only endanger the rights of the people. In the end the rights of the people will be undermined. I hope the P.A.P. will not make use of their majority position in this House to abuse their powers. If they abuse their powers, then in the end it will not only be detrimental to the people but also to the P.A.P. themselves. The Bill gives very wide powers to the Minister to control and take action against those unions which do not belong to the P.A.P. The Ministers and the P.A.P. have shown in the past that they can make use of the law to deal with people whom they do not like.

Furthermore, when this Bill is passed, it will provide them with further powers to take further repressive actions against the workers. The powers will enable them to do more things detrimental to the workers.

I hope the Member for Bras Basah will examine this Bill in a democratic spirit, dispassionately and objectively. I also hope that Members of this House who are not P.A.P. Ministers will look into this Bill objectively. They will find that it will hinder the growth of trade unionism and democracy. With the passing of this Bill, a non-P.A.P. Government will also follow suit. This will be a great blow to democracy. The P.A.P. have been smearing those trade unions which have been banned and closed by them. They have accused them of misusing the unions' funds. I would like to ask a question. To whom do these funds belong? The answer is that they belong to the workers who are members of trade unions. The question whether or not the funds of the unions have been misused should be left to the workers to decide. The decision should not be made by the P.A.P. oligarchy. What right have they to say that the funds have been misused when the workers themselves do not think so? Are they the office-bearers of the trade unions? Therefore, the P.A.P. is not the arbiter or the judge to decide whether trade union funds have been misused. The arbiter should be the members of the unions themselves. The workers and the office-bearers have all along been members of the unions from their inception up to the time when the unions are dissolved. They have never expressed their disapproval of the activities of the trade unions and the guidance of their leaders. This shows that whatever actions that have been taken in the past by the leaders have had the approval of the workers and members of the unions concerned. This also shows that the members of the unions concerned supported them. The Minister has alleged that the leaders of the unions have been misusing the funds of trade unions. How could he convince others of this?

Mr Ho See Beng (Bras Basah): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, you will agree that whenever a piece of legislation is introduced in this House, it is always intended to protect the good citizens and not the culprits. If the S.A.T.U.-controlled trade unions are straightforward and make use of their money not inconsistent with trade union activities, there is no need for them to be afraid of any legislation that will be passed here. Therefore, why should they raise strong objections to this Bill? They must have something at the back of their minds. They are afraid legislation can stop these people from making use of their money to further their anti-national activities. That is the reason.

I think the Member for Jurong is more a teacher than a trade unionist. He says that the Malayan Trades Union Congress in the Federation have made a report on their investigation of the trade union situation in Singapore. But, on the other hand, he is ignorant of the real facts concerning the M.T.U.C. team that has come to Singapore to investigate the trade union situation here. In fact, the M.T.U.C. in the Federation cannot even take part in any trade union activity for the simple reason that it is not registered under the Trade Unions Ordinance. It is registered under the Societies Ordinance. So the Member of the Opposition is ignorant when he tries to bring in the stature of the M.T.U.C. and compare it with the trade union situation in Singapore, which is quite irrelevant.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in a democratic country it is nothing unusual for the people to criticise the Government. But whenever the Barisan Sosialis make a criticism, they always do it out of point. The reason why I say they do it out of point is this. They have even mentioned that the funds of the Naval Base Union were frozen. I think the Member knows that the Naval Base Union's funds have never been frozen. He is making use of this House to publicise this statement so that the public will come to know that they are the champions of the workers.

Mr Poh Ber Liak (Tampines): (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am giving my personal views on this Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill. In the first place, let me deal with the intentions of the Government and the grounds on which this Bill are tabled. Their grounds can be classified in three categories. In the first place, they are tabling this Bill because they want to take action against those so-called Communist-controlled trade unions. Their claim that the unions are Communist-controlled is most unconvincing. Nobody will ever believe what they say about Communist activities in Singapore.

The second reason which they have put forward to justify this Bill is this. There are many unions which do not come under P.A.P. control. Their membership is strong. These unions will not take instructions from the P.A.P. The P.A.P. are, therefore, introducing this piece of legislation in order to control these disobedient unions.

The third reason they have given to justify the introduction of the Bill is this. They say some unions are responsible for the industrial unrest in Singapore. Therefore, the Government want to consolidate their control over the unions in order to safeguard the workers. The Government want power to direct trade union officials to make their workers obedient.

These are the reasons they have put forward to justify the introduction of this Bill. To put in a nutshell. The P.A.P. are contemplating action against all those trade unions which do not obey them and which refuse to allow themselves to be under P.A.P. control. Why should the P.A.P. do such a thing? My view is that the P.A.P. is a discredited Party in the eyes of the workers in Singapore. It is difficult for them to get the support and confidence of the workers in Singapore as a result of their bad reputation. They have already failed in gaining the confidence of the workers because they have never given any assistance to the workers in their struggle for their legitimate rights and their betterment. They have already failed in the open confrontation and open argument. That is why they are amending the trade union laws to their own advantage.

The second point I wish to draw your attention to is that the Government try to cover up the shortcomings of their anti-labour policies. They want to control all unions and all the workers and put them in servitude. But they have already failed in so doing. So to strengthen their position, they have to find some ways and means and they have found them in the introduction of this Bill. The failure of the P.A.P.'s labour policies is known to everybody. Therefore, where there is the existence of non-P.A.P. trade unions, the N.T.U.C. cannot survive. In places where there are workers belonging to non-P.A.P. unions, the N.T.U.C. can never find a way in. That is why the P.A.P. want to have this Bill to protect the life and the existence of the N.T.U.C. They cannot do so in open competition, so they resort to some legal means to gain control over the non-P.A.P. unions in order to promote and strengthen the N.T.U.C.

The third point is that the P.A.P. desire to further persecute the workers and the broad masses of the people. In the past, many trade union leaders were arrested, workers were assaulted and yet the P.A.P. would not stop at that. They now realise that these repressive actions of assault will never lead them anywhere. So they put on the mask of open argument and legal facade. That is why you have this Bill. But this Bill is a very clear indication that the Government are wearing a mask of trade union democracy in Singapore. The Minister for Finance is particularly interested in foreign capitalists. He has said on many occasions that the strikes of the Singapore workers threaten foreign investment in Singapore. They put the blame for the hesitation of foreign investors to come to Singapore on the shoulders of the non-P.A.P. unions ---

Mr Wee Toon Boon: On a point of order. Mr Deputy Speaker, we are debating now on the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill, and not on an industrial motion as such. Therefore, I think whatever the Member has uttered just now is utterly irrelevant.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Will the Member for Tampines remember that this is an amendment to the Trade Unions Ordinance and not stray away from the Bill? Try to come back and speak on the Bill itself. He may proceed.

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, I was just trying to sketch to you the background behind this Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill. Since you do not want me to go further into the background, I shall not go further into it.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill has been introduced because some unions in the S.A.T.U. group were given notice to show cause why their registration should not be cancelled. These unions were not able to give satisfactory reasons. Also some of them have withdrawn some money from their banks. In view of this situation, the Government have introduced this Bill in order to exercise some control over the non-P.A.P. unions. This is going to give some undemocratic powers to the Registrar of Trade Unions against non-P.A.P. unions. The position is this. Instead of the Registrar telling the world how wrong these unions are, they want them to show cause why they are right. In other words, "I want to kill you" instead of "I am telling you and showing the world that you are guilty. You have to tell me why you should not be killed." This is the position. This is not in any way different from the methods of dictatorship and Fascist countries. If any of the unions belonging to the S.A.T.U. group has acted against the trade union laws or any laws existing in Singapore, it can be prosecuted and charged in court. Evidence can be produced in court to show what offence the union in question has committed and then the punishment can be imposed on the offending union. But this is not done and this is not a practice unfortunately ---

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: On a point of order. The amendment before us is whether we should give power to the Minister to freeze the funds of the union if they are being given notice to show cause, and not to discuss the deregistration of the unions. I think the Member has now drifted away in that direction.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Affairs (Mr Chan Chee Seng): Wasting time.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I agree with the Minister for Labour. I think the Member for Tampines has strayed away again. Will he come back to the discussion on the Bill and not stray away? Make it as short as possible.

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, the deregistration of seven unions and the freezing of their union funds are inter-related. But in view of your ruling that I should not mention it further, I shall go straight to the discussion on this Bill.

The Minister for Labour has said just now that it was necessary to freeze the funds of some unions because the officials had ulterior motives. Unfortunately, I was unable to hear from the Minister for Labour what those ulterior motives were, and on what basis he has made his allegation. Some unions have had their funds frozen not because they have any ulterior motive, but because the Ministers themselves have some filthy ulterior motives ---

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: On a point of order. The Member is referring to the personal conduct of Ministers, saying that we have inexplicable intentions. But I have to inform Members that this Bill is only the collective wish of the Cabinet and not of myself alone.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Will the Member for Tampines not make any unparliamentary personal remarks of any Minister and proceed? He may proceed.

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, about the undesirable motives, the expression came from the Minister himself. He said that some unions had undesirable objectives in the administration of the union funds. But as a representative of the people, I have to speak in defence of these unions which have been wronged and against which wrongful accusations have been made. This is a decision made by the Minister. If you want to shift the responsibility to the Cabinet, then I will say the P.A.P. Cabinet have undesirable motives in freezing the trade union funds and in tabling this Bill. You want to deprive certain unions of their funds and then you turn round and say that these unions have ulterior motives. It is just like a thief telling a rich man, "You have plenty of money and you have undesirable motives in making use of your money. So that is the reason why I shall rob you of your money." This is precisely the analogy that one can draw from this Bill. Trade union funds come from the sweat and labour of the workers who are members of the trade unions. So the funds should rightly belong to the members themselves. The decision on the disposal of the funds should not be decided by the P.A.P. Cabinet. They should be decided by the workers themselves. We ask whether the P.A.P. Cabinet is, in substance, the same as the Central Executive Committee of any trade union, so as to be able to decide on the disposal of the trade union funds. So the position now is that a thief wishing to rob another person of his money says that this person has undesirable intentions to use his money and make use of this allegation as the reason to rob him.

As to the gratuity paid to some of the unionists, this was also a reason given by the Government to justify the introduction of the Bill. Regarding the gratuity payment by the union to some of its ex-officials, do you mean that the union has no right to decide on this and it should meet with condemnation from the P.A.P.? Is there anything wrong if the union decides to give some gratuity payment to some of their advisers and their leaders as an expression of respect for their leaders and advisers ---

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not see the relevancy of gratuity in the debate on this Bill. Will the Member for Tampines get on to the discussion of this Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill! He may proceed.

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, whether the question of gratuity payment has any connection with this Bill or not, I do not want to argue. But this question of gratuity payment was touched upon by the Minister for Labour in his accusation against some of the leaders of the S.G.E.U. If you rule that this is irrelevant to the Bill, then I will not proceed any further on this point.

I have read an open letter by the unions addressed to the Registrar of Trade Unions, the Press, and the Barisan Sosialis agent. When this amount of $13,50() was withdrawn from the bank, how was this money spent? The Registrar wrote to the union officials asking them to give reasons why they withdrew money from the bank and for what purposes was the money withdrawn. The official of the S.G.E.U. listed the reasons for the withdrawal. His reasons were (1) the executive committee of the unions had passed a resolution authorising the President, Vice-President, and Treasurer, to withdraw the money from the bank to be spent as follows: $4,500 to be used as a strike fund to assist the striking workers; (2) this would enable them to have some means of livelihood, and (3) would prolong their struggle against oppression and exploitation and to ensure victory. The workers went on strike because they are against the exploitation and suppression of the employers. Is there anything wrong with the manner in which the money was spent?

Mr Wee Toon Boon: On a point of order, Sir, I am afraid I have to interrupt again. We are discussing the principle of this amending Bill to the Ordinance. But here the Member has brought up details which, I would suggest, would be appropriate before a Commission of Inquiry which is to be set up. The Commission will be too glad to have the co-operation of the Member for Tampines if he will present his details before them. So probably we can save the Assembly's time by discussing the principle of the amending Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour has just now made reference to this question of the money of the unions, and he did inform the House that a Commission of Inquiry is going into the matter. So will the Member for Tampines bear this in mind and not go into too much detail? He could make passing reference to it in its relation to this Bill, but please do not go into the details.

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Minister has brought up this point. But I wish to continue with my speech in a calm atmosphere. I hope I can be heard in silence.

Talking about the second and third reasons for the use of the money, it is clear that this sum of money was used to assist those who were arrested and detained. The leaders of the trade unions have been arrested, workers have bean assaulted, and therefore the unions in safeguarding the interests of the workers have withdrawn this sum of money in order to assist the relatives of the arrested leaders of the unions.

4.22 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Mr Poh Ber Liak: I do not understand why the Government should say it is wrong for them to do such a thing. The purpose of the withdrawal of the funds does not constitute a threat to the interests of the people. The Central Government have arrested the union leaders with the support of the P.A.P. and relatives of those arrested are facing starvation and difficulties.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Point of order, Sir. The Member is going into the arrests by the Central Government. We are discussing an amending Bill to the Trade Unions Ordinance, and not on the question of detainees.

Mr Speaker: Can the Member for Tampines satisfy me that what he has said just now is relevant?

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the circumstances and facts I have mentioned just now are related to this Bill. The unions withdrew $13,500 to be used for rightful purposes, but the P.A.P. accuse the unions of having misused this money, and that they have introduced this Bill to deal with them. I say that the money was expended in a proper manner by the unions.

Mr Speaker: Yes, he may proceed.

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you. The leaders of the S.G.E.U. and the Singapore Bus Workers Union have been arrested. The unions voluntarily withdrew the money to help relatives of those arrested. What is wrong with that? The Government not only want to persecute the trade union leaders but also want to resort to all sorts of measures to starve the relatives of the trade union leaders.

We would like to ask the Government this: the Cabinet is not an executive committee of the trade unions. So what right have the Government to freeze and seize the funds of the trade unions? It the Cabinet is human, then this sum of money should be handed over to the trade union officials and to be used to look after the welfare of the relatives of the arrested trade union leaders, or to be distributed among the members of the trade unions concerned. This sum of money should be handed over to the executive committees of the trade unions concerned and let them make their own decision as to how this money should be used, or be distributed to the members fairly among them. I do not believe that since the registration of the unions has been cancelled, their members become illegal and are Communists. The P.A.P. Cabinet has no right whatsoever to introduce this amending Bill to enable the Government to put the money into the Consolidated Fund. The Government accuse the trade union leaders of the cancelled unions of not having given sound reasons for the withdrawal of the money from the banks. The Vice-President and Treasurer of the S.G.E.U. wrote a letter to the Registrar of Trade Unions. These leaders have been persecuted and arrested. Wong Pow Seng was persecuted and arrested. It is the P.A.P. that should be blamed. On the afternoon of 3rd December the trade union received a letter.

Mr Wee Toon Boon: Point of order, Sir, I have said earlier that there is a Commission of Inquiry to enquire into the nature of the expenditure of the funds. The Member for Tampines will be given an opportunity to present his details before the Commission of Inquiry. We are now discussing the principle of the amending Bill.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Deputy Speaker had occasion just now to rule the Member for Tampines out of order on exactly the same point. So will the Member proceed on to something else, please?

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, just now the Minister for Labour accused us. He said that these union leaders have disappeared. What are the actual facts? On the afternoon of 3rd December, the union officials received a letter in which ---

4.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Member for Tampines. But I did indicate at the commencement of this sitting that the Prime Minister wishes to make a Ministerial statement at about half-past four. The House has expressed its general consent. I will allow the Member for Tampines to carry on when the Prime Minister has finished.