TRADE UNIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker: Shall we proceed with the debate on the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill? The Member for Tampines had the Floor.

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Bras Basah has said just now that the introduction of this Bill is meant to protect law-abiding workers. I do not know why the Government should have prevented the Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union from withdrawing its money from the bank after it was banned. The Minister for Labour has said that it is his intention to get the Bill through all its three stages and have it passed. I do not know why if this Bill is very important, it should be taken through all its stages so hastily. Why is this being introduced at a time when certain trade unions have already withdrawn their funds from the bank, and also at a time when the Government have already admitted that they have taken action in the past to freeze the unions' funds in the banks? Their action has not the full backing of the law. It is not easy to understand why, in introducing this urgent Bill in this House today, the P.A.P. should have given specious reasons to cover up their real intention. I think one of their intentions is to legalise their past actions which were illegal.

I will now touch on the opinions of the Malayan Trades Union Congress which were reported in the Sin Chew Jit Poh. From what the Government Benchers have said about this matter and also from what is reported in the Sin Chew Jit Poh and other newspapers, we can see that whatever the P.A.P. have done has caused dissatisfaction not only to the people and workers of Singapore but also to the people and workers across the Causeway. This is a fact which cannot be denied by anybody. The Member for Bras Basah may deny the important role of the M.T.U.C. But I would say that the M.T.U.C. has a large membership in the Federation. It occupies an important place in the field of trade unionism in Malaya. We should not overlook the opinions which they have expressed on the situation of trade unionism in Singapore today. I would like to refer to what the Member for Bras Basah has said regarding the banning of trade unions and other actions taken against them and his justification for them. All this goes to show that the P.A.P. have taken suppressive action against the workers. They are trying to ride over the heads of the workers. That is their intention.

Mr Ng Yeow Chong (Mountbatten): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Members across the Floor are really not taking any interest in the grievances of the workers. Nor have they taken a keen interest in how to bring better working conditions to their fellow workers in the country. On the contrary, they are interested in the funds of the union. Can any Member over there answer me one question? Are not workers in our country adequately provided with good working conditions under the Labour Ordinance? Our fellow workers in this country are more highly paid than their counterparts in Japan or Hongkong. I must point out to the Barisan Sosialis that the good trade unionists will always show how best they can conclude the number of agreements with the employers and not in the number of strikes they can call. I think this House will agree with me that we should proceed to discuss the amending Bill and not waste any more time in this House.

Mr Kow Kee Seng (Paya Lebar): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, just now the Member for River Valley has said that in the whole of South-East Asia there is no country in which the workers have a better lot than Singapore. Perhaps it is so. But it does not mean that when the Singapore workers are well off their funds should be controlled by the Government. The union funds of the workers are built up by the $1 per month subscription contributed by each worker. So you just cannot say that when the workers are quite well off the Government should have control over their trade union funds --- [Interruption]

Mr Speaker, I want you to stop the Minister for Labour from interrupting me.

Mr Speaker: Order. I request the Members from the Government side to afford the Opposition an opportunity to say what they like in silence. We are all anxious to finish this debate as soon as possible. The fewer the interruptions, the faster we go on. Mr Kow.

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): So when you talk about Legislation, Mr Speaker, we should not use this argument against the workers. It does not mean that when the workers are well off, their funds should be controlled and put into the Consolidated Fund. This is purely illogical and irrelevant.

Then the Member for Bras Basah says that all the Bills tabled by the Government will always meet with our uncalled for criticism. But he fails to remember and appreciate that we are Opposition Members elected by the people to express our views on the Bills of the Government. It is our right to express our views and criticise the Bills of the Government. If the Government do not want this right to be with us, then they can introduce another Bill to deprive us of such right. If you want to, you can do so. It is a matter of whether you want it or not. If you want to, you can just have a law to say that the Opposition Members will have no right to speak here ---

An hon. Member: Rubbish!

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the Member for Bras Basah says that if we have nothing to hide, we should have nothing to fear. But the P.A.P. Government in the past did a lot of things by using the State machinery against innocent people. Public funds were used in the interests of the P.A.P. These are facts, and the people are afraid. So these people have a guilty conscience that every move of theirs will arouse suspicion on the part of the people in general because of their past acts. We in the Opposition and the people outside the House have the right to express our views on this Bill under discussion now. We have the right to criticise it. If there is no ulterior motive in the introduction of this Bill, why is there such a hurry? Why should there be a Certificate of Urgency to enable this Bill to go through all the three stages? This is full of ulterior motives. From this urgency one can rightly suspect that there is some ulterior motive behind this Bill.

Mr Speaker, since the P.A.P. came to power, what are its labour policies? We have to look at this question first. One must appreciate that there is no smoke without fire, and nobody can deny this fact. Facts are facts and they cannot be explained away. When the P.A.P. came to power, it started its lunatic and barbaric actions against trade union leaders and trade unions. Patriotic nationals have been arrested by the P.A.P. --- [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order. I had occasion before to ask Members to allow the Member for Paya Lebar to be heard in silence, and I do not want any more further interruptions. Mr Kow, please proceed.

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): If their amending Bill has nothing to hide, then I think they should be silent and listen to me. Because their Bill has some ulterior motive, that is why they are interrupting to cover up this ulterior motive. They have taken action against seven Left-wing trade unions which are very influential in Singapore; thinking that by this action against trade unions and their leaders, the members of such unions will go over to the N.T.U.C. and be controlled by them. This is what the Government hope will happen. But in spite of these repressive actions and arrests, the members of these unions are still on their own side. They are not allowing themselves to be exploited by the P.A.P. So the P.A.P. are unable to achieve their ulterior motive. Failing this, the P.A.P. are now introducing this Bill which will give them another means by which they can take further action against non-P.A.P. unions.

Mr Speaker, following the deregistration of some trade unions, the Government have even gone a step further to establish the so-called Commission of Inquiry to look into the trade union funds of these banned trade unions.

Mr Speaker, why should the P.A.P. Government at this particular moment, not earlier or later, establish a Commission of Inquiry? In the meantime, they introduce this Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, they are doing so because they realise now that they have acted against the law. Because in the past the Registrar of Trade Unions had no right to freeze the funds of trade unions in the bank. This is usually the behaviour of the Registrar of Trade Unions. So in so far as Singapore laws are concerned, the Registrar of Trade Unions has acted against the law, legally speaking. Everybody knows now, as admitted by the P.A.P., that the Registrar of Trade Unions has no right under existing laws to freeze trade union funds in the bank. So the P.A.P. are now introducing this Bill to legalise their illegal acts in having frozen the trade union funds in certain banks. But I want to tell them that although the powers are in their hands they must try to justify the use of their powers. They cannot abuse them.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is one other point to which I wish to draw your attention. That is, in introducing this Bill, the Government will be able to have the means to control trade unions in Singapore for a very long time to come. The P.A.P. will lay down certain lines and ask trade unions in Singapore to follow them. If they do not, then action will be taken against them. If trade unions in Singapore refuse to go along the way laid down by the P.A.P. then the P.A.P. will take action against them. In the N.T.U.C. a lot of leaders are trained according to the ways of the PAP. They are all going along the path of the P.A.P. But there are unions which are not allowing themselves to be controlled by the P.A.P. There are non-P.A.P. unions in Singapore ---

Mr Ho See Beng: On a point of order. Mr Speaker, Sir, we are here to debate the merits or demerits of the amending Bill. I do not see there is any relevance at all - the N.T.U.C. leaders are trained in the P.A.P. way or are trained in the S.A.T.U. way.

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

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): Yes. Mr Speaker, there is much relationship between what I have said and this Bill. This is to expose the motive behind this Bill ---

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member for Paya Lebar is getting emotional. Do not shout into that microphone because I have to listen through my earphone and your Mandarin comes through here and I cannot hear a word.

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): I am sorry, Mr Speaker. So the P.A.P. are now thinking of how best they can control the non-P.A.P. trade unions. The P.A.P. wish to have all the unions fall into their control and follow their line. They want the workers to become servile to the P.A.P. ---

Inche Rahamat Bin Kenap (Geylang Semi): (In Malay): On a point of order. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member has given a speech without looking at the Speaker. He has been looking at this side. When the Minister gave his speech, he was looking at the Speaker.

Mr Speaker: When a Member speaks in the Assembly, especially when someone from that side raises a point of objection and he is replying, it is for that reason he is looking that side. Please proceed.

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): So the P.A.P. hope that one of these days the workers in Singapore will be as obedient as some domestic animals. But workers are human beings and they will not easily become as obedient as domestic animals. So appreciating this human nature, the P.A.P. are now introducing this Bill ---

Mr Speaker: Order. It is nearly five o'clock. I think it is a convenient time to adjourn till half-past five.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 5 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, before the tea-break I was giving my views on why the P.A.P. wanted to introduce this Bill today. Their main intention is to control all non-P.A.P. trade unions in order to win support for the P.A.P.'s future power thrust and power struggle.

In this Bill, extensive powers are being given to the Minister who can make use of them to deal with any trade union which is not under the control of the P.A.P. in order to ban it or freeze its funds. Therefore, we say that this Bill has very serious and undesirable intentions against the workers, because by virtue of the powers of the Ordinance he can say that he is taking action in accordance with the law. His every action can then be justified by law. And the whole P.A.P. set-up can claim that out country is under the rule of law, so they are doing things according to law. Under such pretext they can take action against all those trade unions which are not in agreement with the P.A.P. That is why I oppose this Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill.

Further, this Bill will not meet with the support of the workers, because no workers or trade unions had been consulted before it was drafted. I would point out that before the Bill was drafted, the Government should have consulted the workers and trade unions concerned and invited their views. Since this Bill will provide powers to freeze the funds of the trade unions, it is the duty of the Government to consult the trade unions to enable them to discuss among themselves and to help the Government in drafting a proper Bill by which the Minister will not be given the opportunity of misusing the powers of the Bill.

Sir, I will now read out what the Minister for Labour has said about the Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union ---

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Surely the Member should not take out other unions' statements and read them out in this Assembly. If he wants to read such statements, he can read them in the newspaper.

Mr Speaker: I do not know what the Member for Paya Lebar was proposing to do ---

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: The Member was proposing to read out the whole statement issued by a trade union.

Mr Speaker: We have had this before. I remember when one of the Members of the Opposition quoted a statement, he was asked to quote the source of his statement. That point was raised by the Minister for Culture. If the Member proposes to read the statement which he has with him and if it is relevant to the matter under discussion, I will allow him to read the report. If he says, "The union said this and the union said that," the Minister would be right in getting up on a point of order and asking him for the source of his information. This is exactly what he is doing now. I will allow him to proceed.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Sir, I think it is in order for him to quote from the statement, but he is proposing to read the whole statement in this House. That was what he said in Mandarin.

Mr Speaker: Well, let us see what he has to say.

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): Just now I was saying that before the Bill was introduced, the Government should have consulted the trade unions concerned, so that nothing improper would be provided in this Bill and the members of the trade unions would be given the opportunity to discuss and to know and be assured that nothing in it would be detrimental to their interests. We have not been properly consulted and the Bill has been circulated to us Only today. In such a hurry, how can we have sufficient time to read the Bill and debate upon it in this House? This is most unreasonable action on the part of the Minister. The Government has even asked us to pass the Bill today.

Here I shoud like to read out a statement issued by the Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union:

`This Union is of the opinion that the Registrar's action in giving notice to freeze the funds of the Union in the Bank is illegal, and the action to be taken in this regard is also illegal. In our letter of the 9th December, 1963, we already clearly pointed out that only the ex-members of this Union can have a share in the funds, in accordance with section 18 (c) of the Trade Unions Ordinance and our Trade Union Rules. Thus, this fund should be divided among our members. The Government knows very well that our reasoning has a concrete basis. All along our actions have been legal. Now the Government is making use of specious pretexts to take action against us, to introduce the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill in the Assembly oil a Certificate of Urgency in order to enable the Minister or the Registrar concerned to have the powers to deal with this matter, also to legalise their past illegal actions with regard to the freezing of funds and to give a legal facade to their actions. In actual fact, there is no need for the introduction of this amending Bill, because the present Trade Unions ordinance can achieve the same purposes. That Ordinance already provides the Minister with power to freeze the funds of a trade union in a bank. This implies that if the Minister wishes, he can force the dissolution of a union and seize the money of the Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union. Judging from the past actions of the P.A.P., nobody is in doubt that the Singapore Consolidated Fund is no more than the P.A.P.'s fund. This act of robbery is despicable. ----'

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Point of order.

Mr Speaker: What is the point of order?

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: The point of order is that the Member for Paya Lebar is not making a speech: he is reading the whole statement of the Union.

Mr Speaker: The matter is relevant, Mr Minister. Surely he can read it. We are discussing the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill. He is free to give the views of any trade union.

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin):

`The Government might as well introduce a Bill to enable the Ministers of the PAP, to rob others of their money. We, the Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union, have the right to appeal to the P.A.P. leader, ship and the Members of this House and the members of the public to rise up against this unreasonable Bill.'

Now, this is the statement issued by the members in the Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union. Because all of us agree that this Bill is actually meant to deal a great blow to the workers and is detrimental to the interests and welfare of the workers. First of all, the Minister for Labour has not been acting properly in introducing this Bill, because he has not given us ample time to read and to discuss before we debate on this Bill and no support from the workers ---

Mr Speaker: The Member is repeating himself. I think only five minutes ago he mentioned the Minister for Labour hardly giving him enough time to read this Bill. Do not repeat. If he has new arguments, I am quite prepared to hear them.

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I only wanted to say that the Minister for Labour had not consulted the trade unions concerned and no trade union had given its opinion of this Bill, because no chance was given to them to air their views.

I say that the purposes of the P.A.P.'s introduction of the Bill are twofold: firstly, to legalise the Party's illegal acts and, secondly, to have some legal means to perpetrate and carry out its future repressive actions against the workers. The Bill is also for the purpose of blinding the sight of the workers - to give the people a misconception. The P.A.P. also tried to mislead the public into believing that, because of a fraudulent act on the part of the leaders of the trade unions concerned, the funds of the trade unions have been frozen by the Government. The P.A.P. should not think that, by using this pretext, they can get the support of the workers from non-P.A.P. unions. It can never achieve this. I can tell them that.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we should understand, first of all, how the trade unions and the funds of the trade unions came into being. These banned trade unions had a membership of more than 60,000 members. Had these unions' funds been misappropriated, how is it that there was $400,000 in the kitty? Had these unions' funds been misappropriated, they would not have had the support of the workers, and they would not have had so much money by now. That they have such a large sum of money only goes to show that the management had been carried out properly and without any defect. Had they been misusing the $400,000, then today we would not have been able to see the money any more. This shows that they have not been squandering away the money. The Minister for Labour says that the union officials, when asked by the Registrar to turn up to see him, did not turn up. But what is the actual fact? Is it a fact that, as claimed by the Minister for Labour, these union officials dared not turn up to see the Registrar? No. Because we know that the Registrar of Trade Unions had an appointment to see the officials of the Singapore General Employees' Union at 10.00 a.m. on the 3rd December, 1963, but the letter was received by the union only at 1.00 p.m. the same day because they had been to visit the strike at some other place. Thus the letter was not received in time. But the union on the 5th of December went to see the Registrar. They intended to see the Registrar, but before that the police went to search the residence of the leaders and their union premises on the 4th December, 1963. These facts go to show that the Minister for Labour has not been giving the full facts to this House. Talking about the $13,500 union funds being withdrawn, I would say that the Executive Committee of the union concerned had the full right under its union rules to decide on the use of the money and to withdraw it, because the Central Executive Committee had passed a resolution to that effect. The money belonged to the workers belonging to the unions, and was accumulated by the workers through their toil and sweat. This fund does not belong to the P.A.P. It is not from the P.A.P. kitty or from Government coffers. Since it did not belong to anybody else, what was wrong with their withdrawing the money and with their use of the money on the workers themselves as decided by the Executive Committee?

We say that the introduction of this Bill has been too hasty. If the Bill is passed too hastily today through all the three Readings, I should say that it is most unreasonable, because we all know that the Bill has very much to do with the future of the whole working population, touching on their interests and welfare from now hence. The Bill should not be dealt with in a haphazard way. It is most unreasonable and abnormal. We the Opposition Members had not been given sufficient time to read the Bill. And there was no time for us ---

Mr Speaker: I am sorry, but this is the third time I have had to remind the Member on this point of insufficient time for the Opposition. Please do not repeat.

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): How did the P.A.P. treat non-P.A.P. trade unions? The P.A.P. resorted to suppression, deception and even resorted to getting the help of the Central Government to suppress the workers and, through the Registrar, freeze the funds of the trade unions and prevent them from using their own money, the so-called "$15,000 incident". They also resorted to smearing the character and integrity of the trade union leaders concerned.

Mr Speaker, we have already talked a lot about this. There is one thing we must ensure. We must ensure that we' consult all the trade unions and the workers concerned about this Bill. That is most important. And we should not pass the Bill hastily without giving it proper time, or giving enough time or opportunity to the people concerned to express their opinion. On behalf of the people concerned, we oppose this kind of action of the P.A.P. If the P.A.P. would not like to look after the interests of the people, the general masses, the workers, and would only look after its own interests, and want to force through this Bill today, then here we would lodge the strongest protest against the passing of the Bill. I say that if it is passed without regard to the opinion and the will of the trade unions, of the workers concerned, we would lodge our strongest protest against the Bill here in this House. Those are our views on this Bill.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, there is one Chinese proverb, that if you are not guilty of anything, then you will have no fear of anybody when your door is knocked in the middle of the night. So if you are not guilty of anything, if you have no guilty conscience, why should you be afraid of people freezing your funds? The Members opposite have stood up one after another to attack this Bill. But they are repeating themselves one after another. They have called us "Fascists", "dictatorial" - these are all tunes being played over and over again, right from two years ago. There have been no changes in their argument. They are only capable of repeating themselves and their past leaders in this House. One Hitler propaganda expert says that if you repeat a lie one thousand times, then you may be able to convince others that it is the truth. So this is the purpose behind their talk. They are calling us "Fascists", "dictatorial" repeatedly. So they are actually resorting to the Fascist method of propaganda. They say that the people are on their side, they have the support of the broad masses, the workers and everybody, and that they have the support of all concerned all over the world and all over Singapore. Now, is this really true? If they have the support of the people in Singapore, how is it that they were not able to win power in the elections? So how can they explain away their defeat in the elections? How can they deceive the people by saying that they have the support of the people?

Mr Speaker: We have heard all about the elections for the last nine days. The Minister should try to confine his remarks to this Bill.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have said all this because since Members opposite have said many nonsensical things and made allegations against us and further claim that they have the support of the people, then I have to stand up and refute their arguments. But in any case, we can let that pass.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the main idea of this Bill is to protect the interests and properties of the workers, and to protect the trade union funds so that such funds will not be made use of by the irresponsible trade union leaders by way of gifts to their so-called "union advisers", their "union leaders". This is an objective that we are trying to achieve through this Bill. Now the behaviour of these irresponsible trade union leaders, as I have already said, amounts to the act of workers' traitors. If they really have nothing to hide, then where is the General Secretary of the Singapore General Employees' Union? Why is he not here to explain that he has withdrawn their money in a legitimate manner? Why has he not explained how the funds that he has withdrawn have been used? It is because they have done something wrong that they are now in hiding. They are now trying to explain away the fact that they have done something wrong by saying that we in the Government desire to arrest them. Now why should they disappear so conveniently soon after the funds were withdrawn? Why should they accuse us of having introduced this Bill when they themselves are guilty of an illegal act? Of course, we agree that the funds of the workers should be decided by the workers themselves, but we must not, on the other hand, allow the so-called "leaders of the workers" to decide on the use of the funds of the workers. These so-called "leaders" tried to justify the use of the trade union funds withdrawn by way of paying a "bonus" to their so-called "advisers". But I want to ask them, "Did they consult the workers before they paid this so-called "bonus" to the union advisers? Did they have the approval of the workers before the payment was made for the benefit of the so-called "union advisers"? No. They did not do so. They never consulted the workers. This decision of paying "bonus" to the "leaders" and "advisers" was made in a hurry by just a handful of them. That was during the election time when a lot of money was required for election propaganda. So we have established a Commission of Inquiry to look into these funds having been misused. I am sure the Report of the Commission of Inquiry will give a full picture of how these funds were misused. A few moments ago the Member for Jurong said that, according to the provisions of the Bill, there are opportunities for the Minister to abuse his powers against the interests of the workers and to break up strikes conducted in a legitimate manner, that he can even go a step further and abuse his powers to restrict certain unions that he dislikes from expanding their activities, and that the Government can misuse their power to freeze the unions funds. But he should realise that these powers will not be misused by the Government. The Minister will have no power to freeze trade union funds according to his whims and fancies. According to clause 2 of this Bill, section 15A reads:

`Where a notice has been given by the Registrar to a trade union under the provisions of subsection (2) of section 15 of this Ordinance, the Minister may, where he is satisfied that it is likely that the funds of the union may be misused, by order direct any bank in Singapore not to pay any money out of nor to pay cheques drawn on the account of such union for a specified period not exceeding three months.'

So the conditions are, first, when a notice has been given and, secondly, when the Minister is satisfied. So it is not so easy for the Minister to abuse his powers. There is one prerequisite, and that is the notice must be served first on the union.

This new section 15A is very clear, Mr Speaker, Sir. Before the Minister can exercise his powers to freeze the union's funds, a notice must be served on the union by the Registrar in accordance with section 15 subsection (2) of the Trade Unions Ordinance to show cause why its registration should not be cancelled. This is the prerequisite under which the Minister may only exercise his powers. It is not so easy for the Minister to exercise his powers, as alleged by the Members opposite.

Then another allegation is that we are trying to rush through this Bill. But the fact is that before we introduced this Bill in my Ministerial statement on 11th December, 1963, we indicated that a Bill of this nature would be tabled and, in fact, we distributed copies of it to Members opposite for their examination and study. So from 11th December up to the present moment, the Members have had at least one week to enable them to go through the provisions of this Bill. How can they say that no time has been given to them?

The Member for Jurong says that even the Malayan Trades Union Congress have accused us of having made use of the State machinery against non-P.A.P. trade unions. I will say that this allegation is untrue. It is not necessarily true that trade unions which do not endorse P.A.P. views are not allowed to exist. We deny facilities to those unions which are controlled by the Communists. As long as a union is not controlled by the Communists, then it will be given all sorts of facilities to carry out its activities, whether it is a P.A.P. union or a non-P.A.P. union. We only deny the Communist-controlled trade unions similar facilities.

They also say that in the Federation of Malaya and other countries there are no laws giving such powers to the Minister for Labour except in Singapore. But I would like to refer to the statement by my Parliamentary Secretary with regard to the power to freeze trade union funds. The power to freeze and to put trade union funds into the Consolidated Fund also exists in the Trade Unions Ordinance of the Federation of Malaya. If the Members opposite do not know this, then they should go and read the law books before they criticise us.

They say that the introduction of this Bill is to legalise our illegal acts. But I wish to point out that there are loopholes in the Ordinance which enable irresponsible trade union leaders to act against the interest of the workers. That is why we had to introduce this amending Bill to plug the loopholes in our laws.

It is not our desire to destroy non. P.A.P. trade unions. All that we desire to destroy are the unions controlled by the Communists and anti-national elements.

They say that by introducing this Bill we will ultimately land ourselves into the position of traitors. But they are the thieves, and now they turn round to call other people thieves. They are the traitors, and they have got the cheek to call us traitors now!

They maintain that the question of whether union funds are misused or not should be decided by the workers. But the point is, were the workers given the opportunity to express their views against Messrs. Fong Swee Suan, Woodhull and Bani? No, they were not given the chance to do so. In fact, the workers themselves do not know how the union funds have been used. In addition to their salaries, the trade union leaders and so-called advisers are given $200 special allowance. Do the union members know about this? I think there are other facts which have not come to light and I hope the Commission of Inquiry will be able to bring them out into the open. So a good show is coming this way!

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Hong Lim has also mentioned a few points, expressing his dissatisfaction with this Bill. He says that this Bill has a retrospective effect. But I say that this retrospective effect is necessary because the funds of some unions which have already been deregistered in the past have not been disposed of. For example, in the case of the Singapore Shop and Factory Workers' Union which was declared illegal, and deregistered quite some time ago, the problem of the disposal of their assets has not been settled. Their union premises in Bukit Timah Road have not been disposed of. Now, how are these properties and assets of the unions to be disposed of? One of the objects of this Bill is to provide a solution for the disposal of these unions' assets.

Then the Opposition Members have also said that the Consolidated Fund is actually a P.A.P. fund. Now this is a big lie. The Consolidated Fund belongs to our country, it belongs to our people. In fact, they spent a lot of time in the Budget debate to say that the Consolidated Fund is a public fund and that we should not abuse it.

It must be appreciated that we have to withdraw funds from the Consolidated Fund to provide services for the people. So there is nothing wrong, in the event that trade union funds cannot be disposed of otherwise, to put them into the Consolidated Fund.

The Member for Hong Lim has also referred to the fact that the Minister in charge has been given too much power. As I have said, this power can only be exercised under certain circumstances, that is, after a notice has been served by the Registrar of Trade Unions on a certain union. Before that notice is served, the Minister can never exercise the powers under this Ordinance. So the arguments put forward cannot hold water. They say that the workers and the people are on their side. But why is it that they failed in the elections?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

An hon. Member: Division.

The House divided: Ayes, 28; Noes, 8; Abstention, 1; Absent, 13. Ayes Noes A. Rahim Ishak Chia Thye Poh Buang Bin Omar Junid Chio Cheng Thun Chan Chee Seng Koo Young Chan Choy Siong,Madam Kow Kee Seng Chow Chiok Hock Ong Eng Guan Fong Sip Chee Ong Lian Teng Goh Keng Swee Poh Ber Liak Gonzales, R. A. Tan Cheng Tong Govindasamy, P. Ho Cheng Choon Abstention Jek Yeun Thong Barker, E. W. Lee Teck Him Lim Cheng Lock Absent Lim Kim San Bani, S. T. Mahmud Awang Chan Sun Wing Nair, Mrs. Devan Fong Kim Heng Ng Kah Ting Ho See Beng Ng Yeow Chong Lee Kuan Yew Ong Pang Boon Lim Huan Boon Othman Bin Wok Lingam, S. V. Rajoo, S. Loh Miaw Gong, Miss Rodrigues, Bernard Mohd. Ariff Bin Suradi Sia Kah Hui Rahamat Bin Kenap Sim Boon Woo Rajaratnam, S. Teong Eng Siong Wong Soon Fong Toh Chin Chye Yaacob Mohamed Al-Haj Wee Toon Boon Yong Nyuk Lin

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

At this stage, all seven Members of the Barisan Sosialis walked out of the Chamber.

Some hon. Members: Cowards!

Mr Speaker: Order.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly.

Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. -[Mr Jek Yeun Thong].

Bill considered in Committee.

6.20 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 -

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Chairman, Sir, I wish to move an amendment to clause 2 of the Bill,

In line 11, to leave out "notice" and insert "petition"; in the same line to leave out "given" and insert "made".

In line 14, to leave out "Minister" and insert "High Court judge".

In page 2, line 2, to leave out "Minister" and insert "Court".

In line 7, to leave out "Minister" and insert "Court".

Mr Chairman, Sir, the main accusation hurled against this Bill is that it gives the Government power to suppress the Opposition. This accusation actually throws any government in a very unenviable position and no government worth its salt and having the confidence to govern would like to give room for the people to have doubts that the Government is using such clauses to suppress the Opposition. It is important, Sir, that the Government must not give any grounds for doubt, that the Government is using its power to suppress the Opposition. Therefore, Sir, if the powers were to be transferred from the Minister to a High Court Judge, I think that would remove much of the odium of this undemocratic Bill. It is, therefore, with this intention that I move this amendment.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: (In Mandarin): The amendments put forward by the Member for Hong Lim cannot be accepted by us.

6.30 p.m.

The reason for his amendments is that the Minister may abuse the powers given by this Bill.

On the Second Reading of this Bill, I have said that the Minister cannot freeze the funds of any trade union until the Registrar of Trade Unions has served notice under section 15 subsection (2) of this Ordinance. Before he does so, he cannot freeze the funds of any trade union.

The second point is that the Member for Hong Lim suggests that the Minister should be replaced by a High Court Judge. This is not proper.

Now, if there is any question in doubt, it can be decided by a High Court Judge. He can order the freezing of trade union funds. But will the same Judge preside over the original trial of a trade union as well as over the appeal case? There is a similar provision in the Federation trade union laws and our provision is based on that.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Chairman, Sir, the dispute is whether this Assembly should observe the rule of law or accept that this country should be run by arbitrary powers of the Government? Where funds of unions are concerned and the future of union members is at stake, I feel that the Minister or the Government must not be given arbitrary powers to decide whether union funds should be frozen or not, but that the Minister or his representative, the Registrar of Trade Unions, should present a case and whether union funds should be frozen or not should be decided by an impartial High Court Judge. Mr Chairman, Sir, that is the essence of my amendments.

Mr Wee Toon Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the point mentioned by the Member for Hong Lim is, in fact, in the present Ordinance, but the difficulties we are facing are this. There is a group of unscrupulous people and if we resort to the democratic procedure laid out in the present section of the Ordinance, by the time we get an order from the Court the union has already withdrawn the funds and the money will have disappeared into the air. That is why, in order to plug the loophole, the inadequacy of the provision, we have therefore to amend it by this section here. But I think the Member for Hong Lim has just moved the amendment for the sake of moving it without looking into the whole aspect of the Ordinance. In section 15A there are so many provisions for the Registrar to satisfy himself before he can issue a notice to a trade union. First of all, there is a checkmate. The Registrar can only serve a notice on a union under certain conditions which are laid down in section l5A. Therefore, there is no justification for the statement that this Bill is trying to suppress the Opposition. What we want from this amending Bill is that, in the interim period where a notice has been served on a union, if it is found that the union intends to withdraw money for purposes inconsistent with its rules and objects, the Minister will have to exercise his discretion to withhold - he does not stop the money - the money for three months only. After that, if the union is allowed to continue, then the frozen money will be released; or if registration of the union is cancelled, the money will be transferred to the Public Official Assignee. There is no question of the Minister holding the funds. It is just a checkmate during the interim period.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Chairman, Sir, I do understand it is to freeze the union's account for three months, although this is a moratorium on union funds for three months. But, Sir, with three months funds frozen, the union will cease to operate for those three months. If the Government think that it is very difficult to get a hearing before a High Court Judge - and I know of instances where the Government can get a High Court Judge to hear a case within one or two days, I mean, I do not mind amending it to a District Court Judge - either a High Court Judge or a District Court Judge but the essence of the amendment is this. Let the rule of law prevail. Let us have less arbitrary powers of the Government exercising more and more control over our daily lives. That is all. If the Government think it is very difficult to get a High Court Judge to hear such a case, I do not mind having a District Court Judge.

Mr Wee Toon Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, just to cut the matter short, just one point.

The Chairman: All right.

Mr Wee Toon Boon: The Member for Hong Lim says yes, we are going to play according to the rule of law. We are not denying any party to seek redress from a High Court Judge in case there is a miscarriage of justice, either by the Registrar or by the Minister. I am a layman but I am sure there is provision in the law in this State where, if there is a miscarriage of justice, the person concerned has every facility to seek his redress through the Court.

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

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Division.

The Committee divided: Aye, 1; Noes, 28; Abstention, 1; Absent, 20. Aye Noes Ong Eng Guan A. Rahim Ishak Buang Bin Omar Junid Abstention Chan Chee Seng Barker, E. W. Chan Choy Siong, Madam Chow Chiok Hock Fong Sip Chee Goh Keng Swee Gonzales, R. A. Govindasamy, P. Ho Cheng Choon Jek Yeun Thong Lee Teck Him Lim Cheng Lock Lim Kim San Mahmud Awang Nair, Mrs. Devan Ng Kah Ting Ng Yeow Chong Ong Pang Boon Othman Bin Wok Rajoo, S. Rodrigues, Bernard Sia Kah Hui Sim Boon Woo Teong Eng Siong Toh Chin Chye Wee Toon Boon Yong Nyuk Lin Absent Bani, S. T. Chan Sun Wing Chia Thye Poh Chio Cheng Thun Fong Kim Heng Ho See Beng Koo Young Kow Kee Seng Lee Kuan Yew Lim Huan Boon Lingam, S. V. Loh Miaw Gong, Miss Mohd. Ariff Bin Suradi Ong Lian Teng Poh Ber Liak Rahamat Bin Kenap Rajaratnam, S. Tan Cheng Tong Wong Soon Fong Yaacob Bin Mohamed Al-Haj

Amendments accordingly negatived.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

6.45 p.m.

Clause 4 -

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

In page 2, to leave out from line 33 up to "Minister" in line 37; and

In page 2, to leave out from line 40 to the end of the clause.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the funds of the unions belong to the members of the unions, and it is not right for the Government to misappropriate union funds. If the Government consider it necessary to close down the unions, all the funds should rightly be distributed among the members, because the funds are subscriptions or donations from the members and should be returned to them, as is usually determined by the Official Assignee in bankruptcy cases That, Mr Speaker, Sir, is the first reason for the amendment.

The second reason, as I have said earlier during the Second Reading, is that it is very bad to make a law retrospective, and section 18B makes this law retrospective and applicable to unions against which the Government have taken action even before the law is passed.

Mr Speaker, it is because of these two reasons that I move these two amendments.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Mr Speaker, the proposal made by the Member for Hong Lim negates the very principle of this Bill. Therefore, the Government cannot accept it. There is no question of misappropriating union funds, because The Minister shall so direct only in extreme cases where the union membership cannot be established or where the members cannot be traced. It is only in those extreme cases that the Government have no choice but to direct these monies be put into the Consolidated Fund. The Consolidated Fund belongs to the people of Singapore, and I cannot see any possibility of misappropriation.

Section 18A paragraph (b) (ii) provides that the Government can dispose of the funds in accordance with the rules of the union. If the union membership can be established and its members can be traced, there is no reason why this provision should not be carried out.

As regards the retrospective effect of the Bill, I think it is necessary because there are some unions which have been deregistered as early as 1956 or 1957, and the funds and properties of those unions have still to be disposed of. They are now in the hands of some legal firms. I think it is right that the Government be given the power to refer all these properties to the Official Assignee in Bankruptcy, so that they can be dealt with in accordance with the law.

Amendments negatived.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.