ECONOMIC DEFENCE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

2.58 p.m.

The Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." I have His Excellency's recommendation that the Bill be proceeded with.

Sir, the suspension of trade by Indonesia following her confrontation against Malaysia saw the severance of over a century-old trade ties with that country. Since Singapore is in the front line of this economic confrontation, she has been hit hardest and certain trades and industries which have been traditionally dependent on supplies from Indonesia have naturally been the first casualties. Both employers and employees have been adversely affected, but whereas employers are used to the ups and downs of business activity and are generally able to withstand the hardships imposed by decreased activity, the employees, on the other hand, become the helpless victims of circumstances beyond their control.

The Government have, therefore, set up the Department of Economic Defence with a view to formulating a scheme to protect workers of Singapore against the unpleasant consequences of unemployment arising from the trade suspension. The broad principle is that during a period of six months from the date a worker is laid off, he will receive an amount equal to two-thirds of his normal wages, of which one-third will be paid by the Government and one-third by the employer. I must emphasise here that this is not a relief scheme or a dole; the intention is that workers laid off because of trade suspension should continue to be on the pay-roll of the individual firms during the currency of the scheme unless and until they obtain employment elsewhere. Should confrontation be called off in the meantime, then normal activities will resume.

It was recognised, however, that in the implementation of this principle, the special problems and peculiarities of the trades or industries concerned should be examined. Accordingly, consultations were held with representatives of the trade associations in the Shipping Industry, the Rubber Industry, the Copra and Coconut Oil Mill Industry, the Sago Industry, the Rattan Industry and the Coffee and Pepper Industries and with the National Trades Union Congress in order to overcome any practical difficulties that might arise in the implementation of the scheme. I am happy to state that these consultations have revealed that both workers and employers' representatives are, in general, agreeable to the scheme in principle but would prefer legislation so that the administration of the scheme could be put on a fair, impartial, comprehensive and effective basis. This is a sensible approach, for even though a scheme with the voluntary co-operation of all concerned is laudable, the detailed administration of the scheme is bound to generate difficulties that can only be effectively dealt with on the firm foundation of legislation. At the present moment, 1,300 workers are receiving benefits under the scheme. It is anticipated that, in due course, when the full impact of the trade suspension is felt, and more factories and establishments are likely to lay off workers, the total number of workers laid off may rise to somewhere around 8,000.

The purpose of the Bill is, in the light of what I have already said, to provide financial assistance to the employees in certain businesses affected by the severance of trade between Malaysia and Indonesia. The businesses that are immediately affected are shipping between Singapore and Indonesia, rubber processing, sago, rattan, coffee, coconut oil and pepper.

The Bill provides for the appointment of a Director of Economic Defence and such Assistant Directors as may be required. A salient feature of the Bill is that no employer or contractor, as defined in the Bill, may terminate the service of an employee for a period of six months from a date to be determined by the Director. This is important if the very purpose of this Bill is not to be defeated. The Bill also seeks to ensure that those whose earnings are affected by partial employment as against full employment will also receive benefits. An Economic Defence Fund is to be administered and controlled by the Director. Into this fund employers are required to pay in their contributions based on one-third of their monthly total wage bill. Whilst workers affected can enjoy the benefits prescribed for them, certain restrictions on the application of the scheme are imposed. It is provided that if any employee in receipt of payments under the Bill refuses, without reasonable excuse, an offer of employment or an offer of suitable training for alternative employment made by the Director or an offer of full employment made by the employer, further payments to him may be stopped. However, with regard to an offer of employment or of training for alternative employment made by the Director, he would have a right of appeal to an Appeals Board appointed under the provisions of clause 15 of the Bill when the decision of the Director may be reviewed. The decision of the Appeals Board on every appeal would be final and binding.

You will appreciate, Sir, that while the rights of employees to enjoy benefits have been laid down, certain legal obligations of employers to their employees cannot continue during the period that employees enjoy benefits under this Bill. The Bill, therefore, provides that the employer, contractor or employee shall not be liable to pay contributions under the Central Provident Fund Ordinance during the period that the employee is in receipt of payments under the Bill. In addition, during such period, the employee will not be entitled to benefits in respect of holidays and annual leave as provided in the labour laws nor to any award made under the Industrial Relations Ordinance: he will, however, continue to enjoy any accommodation provided by his employer. Again, provision is made under clause 16 that an employer may terminate the service of an employee after 6 months from the relevant date but in such an event, the employer may set off the total amount paid by him in respect of an employee against wages payable in lieu of notice for terminating the service of the employee and against any other payments or award which may be payable or ordered to be paid for the termination of the employee's service.

May I emphasise that this Bill, in concept and design, seeks to cushion the immediate adverse effect on the hardship of the workers for which positive concrete measures have to be taken.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

3.07 p.m.

Mr Poh Ber Liak (Tampines): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to put forward my views on the Bill before I touch on the detailed clauses. I wish to speak on the background and the spirit of this Bill.

We have said that because of the economic confrontation brought about by Malaysia, business in Singapore has suffered a lot and the extent of the loss is very great. Not only shipping workers, rubber, rattan, coffee and other trades have suffered, there are also many other trades and industries which have suffered indirectly. Workers are faced with unemployment. At the same time, it will push up the cost of living indirectly, so as to bring more suffering and hardship to the people. We had urged the Singapore Government to persuade the Central Government to settle our differences with Indonesia peacefully, but the Government did not do so. On the contrary, the Government put the blame on the Barisan Sosialis for the confrontation. If the Party in power did not want to accept our views and did not have the courage to face reality, we cannot do anything. How much can the Party in power, in introducing this Economic Defence Bill, make up for the loss brought about by the confrontation? It is only a palliative; it will not solve the problem fundamentally. It is amounting to cutting the flesh of a person to patch a sore. At present those hardest hit are the broad masses of the people, especially the workers. Normally they cannot make ends meet. They have to work very hard in order to feed themselves and their families. But now that they have become unemployed or under-employed, they have to tighten their belts and their burden of livelihood will be heavier. Therefore, if the Government want to look after those who are affected, these people should deserve the best care.

Now I want to give some suggestions on the provisions. Because of the severance of trade between Singapore and Indonesia, the stevedores - several hundreds of them - have become jobless. These people are not within the orbit of this Bill. Why do the Government not include the stevedores within the orbit of this Bill? We urge the Government to implement this Bill so as to benefit even the waterfront workers and the stevedores. The so-called prosperity and development of Singapore are closely connected with the efforts of the waterfront workers and the stevedores. We can see ships all lying idle in our harbours. Many stevedores have become unemployed. But the Economic Defence Board do not help them. This is very unfair. These people should be looked after by the Economic Defence Board which should provide a safeguard for their livelihood. Because of the stoppage of the raw rubber from Indonesia, our rubber factories have closed down. According to our investigations there are at least 40 rubber factories which have closed down or partially closed down. Workers who are unemployed or under-employed are numerous. The workers in the rubber factories are not included in the Bill. But in our view, these workers should also be included. Because these workers have all along found it very difficult to make a living and the effects of the confrontation have worsened their means of livelihood. The temporary workers are not only not protected under the law but they have also been barred from the orbit of the operation of the Economic Defence Board. On the one hand, they are not protected by the law of the Government and, on the other hand, they are employed or under-employed.

The present stipulation to exclude these workers from the orbit of the operation of the Economic Defence Board is deplorable. So my suggestion is that this Board should take this into consideration and bring these workers into its orbit. According to the Board's investigations, there are about 8,000 people affected by the confrontation. But in our view, more than 10,000 people are out of job. The figures given by the Minister are not very correct. He has minimised them. Up to now, we have not seen any achievement of the Economic Defence Board. We only read in the newspapers that the Board has been looking after this and that factory, and yet thousands of people are unemployed, facing difficulties in their livelihood. I hope the Government will not exaggerate the achievements of the Economic Defence Board. We are of the opinion that the workers who should be looked after should include all those affected directly or indirectly by the severance of trade between Singapore and Indonesia such as stevedores, waterfront workers, workers employed in rubber, pepper, copra industries and local produce. All these workers should be protected and looked after.

The Bill provides that the employer is not allowed to sack the workers affected by confrontation within six months. This is not a long period. What will happen after this six-month period?

The Bill also provides that the unemployed workers should be given priority in recruitment of jobs. It looks all right superficially but, in actual fact, it will not be effective because so far we can see many unemployed workers who are still not working today and many hawkers in the streets of Singapore. Why are there so many hawkers? It does not mean that they do not want to work. If we think carefully we will know the various reasons. Some of the workers have been retrenched or sacked, and some of them are unemployed for other reasons. If these workers are kept unemployed for too long a time, then their families will suffer. What will happen to their families after the period of six months? I urge the Government to take positive steps to persuade the Central Government to consider the sufferings of the people and the losses resulting from the confrontation. The Government should take effective measures to resolve their difficulties.

The Bill provides that the six-month period will have to be decided by the Director of the Economic Defence Board. Now when will this period start? If it is to be decided by the Director, he must give earlier assistance to those workers who are affected. We know that trade suspension took place three months ago and the families of such workers have no savings. If the Government do not take steps to give them earlier assistance, then they will suffer.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: On a point of clarification.

Mr Poh Ber Liak resumed his seat.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Apparently the Member is under the impression that the scheme has not been running. Actually the scheme has been in operation for more than one month. And I have said, 1300 workers or so are receiving money under this scheme.

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): What I was saying is that the ambit within which the workers are protected is still very limited. The Director of the Economic Defence Board should take positive steps to expedite assistance to the workers who are affected. There should not be any delay in this payment.

The Bill also provides that if the workers do not get food and employment in certain trades and industries, then the employers must contribute one-third of the workers' salaries to the fund. Such a provision means that the employers will have to share the burden with the Government, each paying one-third to the workers. If an employer is not in a position to pay one-third of the wages of a worker, then what right do the Economic Defence Board have to enforce this contribution by the employer?

Another provision is that the quantum of the wages should be decided by the Director. We do not agree with this. Why should he decide the quantum of the wages since the workers have their own salary scale? What will that mean? Will it mean an increase or a decrease in the wages? Will the Government or the employers increase their wages? I do not think that is possible. Or will they decrease the wages of the workers? If so, I do not think this is good. The wages of the workers should be maintained and this question should not be decided by the Director.

Another provision in the Bill is that during this period, the employees will not be entitled to holidays and annual leave benefits under other laws. We think this is not proper. The workers have been and are living from hand to mouth, and yet the Bill wants to deprive them of the benefits provided for in other labour laws. This will increase their hardship. I hope the Government will consider this provision.

Another provision is that the employees can continue to enjoy accommodation and other facilities provided by the employers and contractors. This is well and good. We admit that. But I want to ask Members of this House: what will happen to those who do not enjoy accommodation and other facilities? Will the Government consider giving those living in Housing Board flats a housing allowance or granting them a reduction in the rentals or even exempting them from payment of rentals? We hope they will consider these points.

Generally this Bill confers a few benefits on a certain section of the workers. The great majority of workers who are affected will not receive any benefit from this Bill. Therefore, we would like to advise the Government - apart from the payment of temporary relief - that they should take more positive steps to renew trade relations by peaceful negotiations with the country concerned. The Prime Minister has said that when diplomatic relations are resumed between Malaysia and Indonesia, the trade relations will not be the same as before. I hope he will put into practice what he has said.

Mr Ong Eng Guan (Hong Lim): Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to argue with the Government on the general principles of the Bill. However, there are two matters which I wish to bring to the notice of the Government.

In the first place, it seems to me that the Bill does not cover most categories of people who are affected by the Indonesian economic confrontation. As the Minister for Finance has said, only over 1,000 people have so far been given relief, but in my own estimation, I believe that no less than 30,000 people have been unemployed.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: On a point of elucidation.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: The Minister will have a right to reply later.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: You said 30,000. You are wrong.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Even in the rattan industry, there are about 2,000 workers - I believe the Ministry of Labour has taken statistics - and there are about 1,800 people unemployed. The relief measures given by the Government are only for 1,300. It is not even enough to cover those affected in one particular trade. The main defect of the Bill is that it might only be an eyewash to show to the people that the Government are doing something. But, as a matter of fact, in my opinion, taking some pictures of seamen getting a few dollars from the Economic Defence Board does not help matters very much. Mr Speaker, these three months are not so bad because many of the workers still have jewellery to go to the pawnshop, a bit of savings, some friends to go to. But after the New Year, when all these sources have dried up, when there is no more jewellery to pawn, no more friends to turn to, they will face a very serious crisis. And if the Government can prove to us that it is only 1,300 who have been affected, then I will agree with them that they have done much for the people. That is why, Mr Speaker, the first matter which I wish to bring up is that the Bill does not cover many categories of people. I think if we check with the coffee importers, there are 3,000 or 4,000 people alone who are engaged in the selection of coffee beans scattered throughout the whole island. They are not covered by the Bill.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: They are.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: They are? That is good. [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: But if they are covered, I do not understand how it comes about that 1,300 people could cover those unemployed in coffee bean selection, rubber industries, twakows, lorry transport, fishermen, boats' seamen.

Mr Ho See Beng (Bras Basah): They are not yet out of job.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: There is still a lot of coffee!

Mr Ong Eng Guan: So the Bill should be extended to cover everybody who is unemployed as a result of Indonesian confrontation.

The second part of the Bill which is undesirable is this. The Government are going to compel all employers to pay one-third of the wage bill. Mr Speaker, in my opinion, it is very difficult to compel, for instance, rattan manufacturers, who are only doing a cottage industry, to pay one-third of the wage bill; or sago factories, which live from hand to mouth, to pay one-third of the wage bill. [Interruption] I am not an expert like the Minister for National Development who was more associated with the sago industry. But as far as I know, many of them do not have much capital and cannot cover one-third of the wage bill. In the processing of sago, the wage cost is a very important part of the cost. Most sago factories engage a lot of workmen. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, in my opinion, every employer should have the right to discuss with the Government, and if they can prove that they cannot afford to pay their part of the contribution under the Bill, the Government should pay their share and when times are better, they can recover back from them as some sort of loan. The Government have $420 million. In the case of such employers, the Government should not compel them to pay one-third of the wage bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in my opinion, this Bill is only going to be an eye-wash. So far as I know, not many persons who are affected by the Indonesian boycott have benefited from the economic defence measures set up by Government. I suggest the Government learn from what President Roosevelt did in his New Deal measures which he introduced to counter the American depression. If some of the measures in the New Deal were to be re-introduced here, and if the Government are more keen and sincere in helping the unemployed, I think we could expect more from them than just this Economic Defence Bill.

Mr Bernard Rodrigues (Telok Blangah): We know the Barisan Sosialis will come forward to defend their friends in Indonesia. That is why they have kept quiet all the time in order to get on to this Bill. Sir, first of all, I must say that when the Barisan say there were 10,000 or more unemployed because of this confrontation policy, it is rubbish. I will challenge the Member of the Barisan Sosialis who said it to give me details if he can prove that it is correct. I think what he is trying to do is to spread further rumours so that their foster fathers in Indonesia will hear about it. Mr Speaker, rubber workers are included in this scheme. But stevedores are out because they are casual workers and they have no employers at all. How can they be included in the scheme? Our friends opposite say they feel sorry for those who have lost their jobs and so on. But whose fault is it, when the confrontation policy was introduced? Was it not because of the Barisan Sosialis? Why do they not today denounce the confrontation? Who was the cause of the l.800 workers from the S.A.T.U. unions losing their jobs? Was it not from the Barisan people?

Mr Speaker: The Member seems to be going away. I do not want this debate to develop into a debate on confrontation and the causes thereof. Could the Member come back?

Mr Bernard Rodrigues: The Barisan Sosialis will, of course, criticise this Bill. It is in the interest of their Indonesian friends that they should try and blunt the efforts of the Government to defend the workers against Indonesia's economic confrontation. Sir, in all civilised countries, when enemies of the State try to sabotage the defence arrangements of the nation against foreign aggression, they are put before a firing squad and shot. But in Singapore, the Barisan Sosialis, enemies of Malaysia, who try to sabotage our national defence effort, are free to speak on behalf of the nation's enemies.

An hon. Member: And being paid $500!

Mr Speaker: Order. I must ask the Member to come back again to the Economic Defence Bill. Otherwise we will be going on and on to confrontation and Malaysia and the Barisan. I do not want this debate to develop into that. If I allow the Member to go on, I will have to allow others to go on, and we will be here again till 3.00 o'clock in the morning.

Mr Bernard Rodrigues: Mr Speaker [Interruption] ---

Mr Poh Ber Liak: Talking bull!

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Bernard Rodrigues: Pai kar!

Mr Speaker: Will the Member please proceed?

Mr Bernard Rodrigues: The workers of Singapore welcome the bold approach made by the Government to protect the interest of the Singapore workers affected by the severence of trade relations by Indonesia. I say bold because, by introducing legislation i.e. the Economic Defence Bill at this stage, it has given sufficient indication of the stand that it is prepared to take in the interest of workers, however unpalatable such steps may be to the world of employers.

I am glad to see that workers affected by this trade severence are not required to stand in queues awaiting charity and subjected to means test and such like methods. I, therefore, feel proud to be associated with a Government that has stood by its word of protecting the interest of workers at all times.

With regard to the Economic Defence Bill, there are a few points with which workers in Singapore are directly concerned. It is on these aspects of the Bill that I wish to touch upon.

It has become common knowledge that while certain employers have agreed to subscribe to the intentions behind the Economic Defence Scheme, they have subsequently had second thoughts and made attempts to wriggle out of their obligations under the Economic Defence Scheme. I refer specially to the aspect of their contributions of one-third wages to a Fund from which payments are made to workers. In some cases I am aware, particularly in the shipping field, there have been instances of companies that either pleaded exemption from payment on grounds of heavy financial losses and others who after making the first payment under the Scheme have now protracted subsequent payments under various pretexts. I am glad to see that this particular aspect is adequately provided for in the Bill in that sums due to the Fund may be used and recovered as if it were a debt to the Government. At least by this process adequate safeguards exist for the recovery of such monies. However, a point for the Government to consider is that legal processes in making such recoveries can take a considerable time. I feel I should at this stage say that while the process of justice takes time, the human belly cannot take this into account and await Court judgment. I hope that Government will in such cases provide for the payment of advances on the employer's contribution so that workers affected thereby are not seriously hampered.

Mr Speaker, I hope that the Barisan Members will not take this constructive criticism as an anti-national criticism. At the same time, Mr Speaker, I wish to go back to the point I made at the beginning, when you pulled me up. What I was trying to say was that if the confrontation policy were to change into a military confrontation, then I would be the first one to register with the firing squad to shoot the friends of our enemies of this country who sit opposite these benches.

Mr Chio Cheng Thun (Choa Chu Kang): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, from the Minister for Finance's speech, we can see how serious the position is. This Bill has now been suggested by the Government, but they have not pointed it out to the workers affected. But will this Bill be a fundamental solution of this problem? What is the real solution? The real solution is the taking of steps to restore trade relations. Only in this way will the hardship of the workers be lessened.

The second point is this. This Bill only provides for six months' wages. What will happen after the end of the six months? The Government have said nothing on it. The third point is ---

Mr Speaker: Order. The points raised have already been gone into in detail by the Member for Tampines. If the Member has anything to add to what he has said, I am prepared to hear him. If the Member's speech is going to be a repetition of what he has said - and repetition is not being allowed - I will have to stop him. His second point is that this Bill makes provision for only six months. That has been dealt with in detail by the Member for Tampines. Please proceed.

Mr Chio Cheng Thun: (In Mandarin): What I want is a reply from the Government. Are the Government confident that those affected will have other work? Can this Bill really bring great benefits to those workers affected? We can see many loopholes in the Bill. For example, the Bill provides that the Government pay into the Economic Defence Fund an amount equal to that paid by the employer. That is equivalent to one-third of the wages of the worker, that is to say, the worker is only partially employed. Take, for instance, a worker whose monthly income is $150 -and, we do not know for how long he is employed. He works only four days in a month. What about the remaining days that he does not work? If that is the case, the Government and the employer will each have to contribute $40 per month towards the Fund. The result is that the worker will only get $40 for the whole month, and not $120. That is why I say there are loopholes in this Bill. And in order to plug the loopholes, the Bill should be improved, and can be improved by changing "one-third" to "two-thirds", so that the workers will really benefit.

At the same time, there should be provisions to the effect that if an employer resumes his business or has invested his capital in some other small industries, the workers should have priority of employment, and not by nomination by the Director, which means that only those approved by the Minister will be nominated for employment.

Talking about assistance for the workers, the Government make a provision of one-third of the wages and the employer also pay one-third. But normally when a worker is retrenched, the employer pays him three months' wages. Here, the assistance to be doled out to the workers is only operative for six months. So if the employer pays out severance pay for retrenching his workers, the workers can be sacked within six months. The employer will then have to pay one month's wages in lieu of notice. So this provision in the Bill is no real help at all.

Mr Koo Young (Thomson): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill is meant to look after those workers affected by confrontation, as declared by the Minister. Actually there are many defects in this Bill. Since the Minister for Finance is an economist, he should he more realistic and practical, and should realise that there are loopholes in the Bill.

3.52 p.m.

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

Mr Koo Young (Thomson): The unemployment figures given by us are described as an exaggeration on our part. To prove our figures, I would like to give an instance of a factory which closed down as a result of confrontation. It is at the 10th m.s. Sembawang Road. On the closing down of the factory, the workers were the first batch to receive assistance from the Board. Over 100 of these workers were not recognised as normal workers because some of them had asked for medical leave. In the end, these workers did not receive any assistance from the Board. On what basis was the amount of assistance calculated? It was based on their August wages. Their August wages were the lowest for the whole of that year. This was based on business calculations. There was the case of a female worker who was injured, and did not work for two days. The monthly assistance amounted to only $3.86. The employer reported the case to the Ministry of Labour. For that month, she got $5.80 for the two days she worked. So two-thirds of $5.80 amounted to $3.86. What is the use of such meagre assistance doled out to her? Other workers were given from $7 or $10, to $20. This matter was addressed to the Ministry of Labour that the calculation of the assistance given was not correct. But the employer said that the figure was calculated by the Ministry of Labour. So I hope the Minister will look into this matter and normalise the situation. This is not just a triviality.

Furthermore, out of the 500 workers, there were about 100 of them who did not receive any assistance at all because they were either temporary workers or because they did not work in August for medical reasons. So they did not get a single cent for that month for assistance. The calculations should not be based on their August wages.

We say that the workers affected by confrontation number about 30,000 to 50,000, because the numbers of temporary workers, piece-rate workers, and hourly rate workers were not included in the figures. These workers should, in fact, be included in the aid scheme. The Minister accused us of exaggerating the figures. Actually he himself has underestimated the figures. And there are other workers who are also affected. For instance, in one week some workers can work for only one or two days. In the rubber industry, those who work in the smokehouse can only work for one or two days or, at the most, three days per week, when the smokehouse is in operation. Are they not also affected? How can they say that these workers are not affected and be excluded from the aid scheme? According to normal calculations, their wages are low. So the Economic Defence Board should provide some help for them. Instead the assistance for them is based on their low wages.

The Minister has said that the unemployment figure stands at 8,200, and that next year it will probably be 18,000. But I say that it should be more. The unemployment figure for the present is higher than that given by the Minister. Can he send someone to investigate into this matter? If he can do that in this particular rubber factory, he can find out the actual facts. The Yen Chou Rubber Factory workers are the first batch of workers who received this economic assistance. This factory is situated at 101 m.s. Sembawang Road. This factory closed down sometime ago. Rubber factory workers fully out of job as a result of confrontation number 4,000. In the Yen Chou Rubber Factory, only 300 out of 500 workers received economic assistance. The other workers, especially working in the smokehouses and other processing departments, numbering about 1,000, are not included in the Bill. The Minister should pay attention to this.

4.02 p.m.

Mr Ho See Beng: Mr Deputy Speaker, as the N.T.U.C. is a party to this Economic Defence Bill, we can assure the Members opposite that most of the categories of workers who are affected by this Indonesian anti-economic confrontation are covered. We the N.T.U.C. are a national body of the representatives of workers and we know our jobs. The Government have consulted us before introducing this Bill. There are difficulties in implementing this relief. Take, for instance, the workers who are working in the rubber mill factories. As long as the workers are working on a monthly basis, they will receive two-thirds of their salary, one-third from the Government and one-third from the employer. But the difficulty is this. Most of the workers are not working on a monthly pay basis. They are casual workers. In one day they can be employed by five contractors. The workers themselves form a pool and whenever the contractors get a job, they come to this pool and engage them. So for this category of workers we are devising a means to give them relief. They cannot be categorised as monthly-paid workers. But we have to find the root basis of the cause of this Indonesian anti-economic confrontation. The workers, we agree, are unexpectedly hit by this economic confrontation. But this is no fault of anybody, except that it is the fault of the Barisan Sosialis and their Indonesian friends ---

An hon. Member: Nonsense!

Mr Ho See Beng: Nonsense? You have been repeatedly asking this Government to persuade the Central Government to negotiate with the Indonesian Government. If you really have the interests of the workers at heart, have you also appealed to the Indonesian Government to negotiate ---

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I think we have very thoroughly gone through this confrontation business, Indonesia, anti-national, in the last few days. It would be better if the Member proceeds with what he wants to say on this Bill.

Mr Ho See Beng: Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Barisan have really the interests of the workers at heart, they should have gone down to meet the workers themselves and find out whether they have really received the aid or not. They simply come here to publicise themselves and just pick up one or two cases which, as I have described, are casual workers. These people cannot fall under the Economic Defence Scheme. We are going to devise a scheme for them. The Barisan are very smart in making propaganda. They will come here and shout at the top of their voices and say they are the champions of the workers. But, as a matter of fact, they are not. I challenge them. We know the workers are very badly hit. Why do they not appeal to the Indonesian Government to stop the anti-economic confrontation?

4.05 p.m.

The Minister for Labour (Mr Jek Yeun Thong): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill clearly shows that the Government in every respect are considering to look after the interests of the people. If the Government do not concern themselves with the interests of the workers, then they will not put forward this Bill. This goes without saying, and we will not be here to debate it today.

Just now the Member for Tampines has said that the hardship was brought about by Malaysia and that the loss was very great. Who caused this loss? Who brought about the loss to our people? Who brought about the sufferings to our people? This was brought about by Indonesia's confrontation. Why do they not condemn the Indonesian Government? Confrontation was first announced by the Indonesians on the pretext that Malaysia was a threat to the security of Indonesia. We have touched on this before. We have only a few troops and a few cannons and guns. How can we menace them? How can we be a threat to them? Why do they not go and condemn the Indonesian Government? Instead they condemn our own Government. They condemn Malaysia. They must know that they have sworn allegiance to Malaysia and yet now they turn round to condemn Malaysia to which they have pledged their allegiance in this House as well as in the Central Parliament. Malaysia is the object of their loyalty, but now they turn round to condemn Malaysia. What is their motive for doing that? When they are here in front of us, they say they are loyal to Malaysia. But outside the House, their Chairman talks about Malaysia not being the object of their allegiance and loyalty ---

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. As I have said, enough of this confrontation, anti-Indonesia, anti-national. Would the Minister please get on to his comments on the Bill under discussion?

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: (In Mandarin): Their attitude shows that those who have beards are their fathers but the same persons who have their beards shaved are not their fathers and yet they claim themselves as the representatives of the people. How can they explain away all this? The speech that I make is written by me. But their speeches are not written by them. They are written by somebody else --- [Interruption]

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I will not allow all the interruptions that are going on from both sides of the House. I will ask the Minister please to discontinue this trend of his speech and to continue with the discussion of this Bill on the Table. Please proceed.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Opposition Members talk about solving our differences by peaceful settlement. We know this Bill is only a palliative. It will not go to the root of the problem. We have refused their request for a peaceful conference. It is not motivated by their real desire to solve our differences. Their friend Azahari is in Indonesia. Why do they not persuade Azahari to persuade the Indonesian Government to stop their confrontation? The Member for Nee Soon and the other Member who has disappeared are reported to be in Indonesia. They are not here. If they are here, they will be able to answer my allegation. It is their fault for not being present in this House. They have so many friends in Indonesia; they are in close contact with their friends in the Moshi Conference. They have also been able to contact their Indonesian friends ---

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we are debating the Economic Defence Bill. I do not know what the Minister has been talking up till now.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Jek, I have ruled that we should not go into the discussion as to confrontation and Indonesian matters. Please come back to the Bill, otherwise I may have to stop you.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: (In Mandarin): The Opposition Members talk about peaceful settlement and negotiations. I want to tear away their masks and expose their insincerity. They have so many friends in Indonesia. Why do they not urge their friends there to persuade the Indonesian Government to come to the conference table? They have no sincerity at all in putting forward the proposal for a peaceful settlement. The Member for Tampines and the Member for Thomson also talk about a peaceful settlement. They have all along been condemning the Malaysian Government and Malaysia. But they have not chosen to condemn the Indonesian Government for confrontation. The Government's industrialisation policy is the only solution to our present crisis. We know that Singapore has been an entrepot port. The Minister for Finance has pointed out in his Budget speech that we cannot rely any more on our entrepot trade. If we wish to stabilise our economy, then we must carry out a self-reliant economic policy. We can do so by implementing our industrialisation policy. If the Barisan Sosialis are not interested in our industrialisation programme, if they are not interested in creating jobs for the workers ---

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, he has been talking about industrialisation. I do not think this is the time to talk about industrialisation.

Mr Deputy Speaker: I think the Minister's reference to industrialisation has some connection with the Economic Defence Bill. I will allow him to proceed.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: (In Mandarin): We have said that the Economic Defence Bill is not a radical solution to our problem. The solution lies in industrialisation. If they do not like industrialisation, that proves that they are not interested in providing jobs for the workers. When we are talking about the practical steps to be taken to solve our problem, they want to interrupt us.

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): We are debating the Economic Defence Bill. But his ferocious and savage attitude shows that he is not debating it but abusing us.

Mr Deputy Speaker: I am in the Chair. If there is any lowering of the decorum of this House, I will be the one to make a ruling. Will the Minister please proceed?

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: (In Mandarin): We are talking about industrialisation. We are not talking about opening gambling dens or Chap Ji Kee or other forms of gambling.

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): I cannot understand what he is talking about. If the Minister does not understand the Bill, then I would advise him to read it once more.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Will the Minister please remember not to pass personal remarks or attack hon. Members of this House? I do not wish to have further bickerings across the House. Please proceed with the speech as quickly as possible.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Mr Deputy Speaker, if the other side is not referring to me personally, I will not attack them personally. (In Mandarin) It is because they talk about my personal attitude that I have to say what I said just now.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already ruled. I will see to it that the House observes a proper sense of decorum. There should be no personal attacks from either side.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: (In Mandarin): The fundamental solution to our problem at this crisis is industrialisation which will provide enough jobs for our workers. The Member for Choa Chu Kang has said that the period of six months during which aid is given to the workers is not sufficient. If an employee is retrenched by the employer, he will be given three months' pay. The employer provides only one-third of the wages. The Bill provides that one-third of the wages is paid by the employers. This comes from their own wages. The Government also provide one-third of the wages. This is a sort of relief to help them in this transitional period. After the end of the six months, the employer can, of course, retrench the employee. When that time comes, it can be a matter of negotiations. It does not mean that the employers will not have to pay anything for retrenching the workers concerned. If the problem is not resolved when the factories are closed down, the workers will be affected. The Government have introduced this Bill to tide over the hardships of the workers for a period of six months. In the meantime, the workers will be able to look for other employment elsewhere. The fact that the workers have been unemployed due to the closing down of the factories should not induce us to blame the workers. The blame should not be put on them. If anybody is to be blamed, it is the Barisan Sosialis. If they are really sincere, they should put forward a plan to help the workers. Of course, the operative period can only be six months. How can you go on giving dole perpetually? If Members of the Opposition are really interested in the welfare of the workers, they should support the Government in their measures to solve the problem. They should also support the Government's industrialisation plan in order to provide more jobs to the workers. They should not attack Government's labour policy and the measures they have taken without rhyme or reason. The introduction of this Bill shows that at a time of crisis, and even before confrontation, Government have been able to foresee what is going to happen. The Government conducted a series of investigations and assessment in July before the Bill was drafted. Only two months after confrontation we have been able to produce this Bill to deal with the situation. Hence this Bill before the House today. I would like to tell the people of Singapore that the situation was brought about by the Barisan. They have inconvenienced the people of Singapore. If there is anybody to be blamed, it is the Barisan Sosialis who should be blamed.

Mr Kow Kee Seng (Paya Lebar): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will not follow the P.A.P. Benches in wanting to attack them. The introduction of the Economic Defence Bill by the Government may be a good idea because it may, to a certain extent, alleviate the problems of the unemployed workers as a result of confrontation. It is no use to put the blame on anybody. Both sides have seen the result of confrontation. We also agree to certain measures recommended in this Bill. Stevedores and water-front workers are the sinews of Singapore's entrepot trade. Yet many of them are not included in this scheme of assistance. Once trade between Singapore and Indonesia stops, the livelihood of these workers is affected. The burden of maintaining their families has not increased. If these workers are not included in the Bill, their hardship will be greater. I would also suggest to the Minister that these workers should also be included within the ambit of the provisions of this Bill.

Another point is this. What happens after confrontation? The Minister has said that the workers who are directly affected by confrontation are those in industries like rubber, copra, and rattan. The stevedores are also affected. Other workers who are indirectly affected are those in the industries of shoe-making, fishery, etc. As a result of confrontation, there is a severance of trade. The markets for our local products are now closed. Many workers are now unemployed as a result of this. I hope the Minister for Finance will look into the plight of these workers who are indirectly affected by confrontation.

Another point is the one-third of the wages to be contributed by the employer and the period of six months in which contributions will be made. Although there is such a provision here, there may be certain employers who may see some loopholes in this provision. In spite of the amount of their stock available in their storehouses at the moment - the stock may last for one month for all the workers - many employers extend the work to six months. They give, say, one or two days' work each week in order to spread the work over a period of six months, so that they could take advantage of the provision in the Bill relating to this matter.

So on this point I feel that since the Minister for Finance is in charge of this Economic Defence Department, it is more convenient for him to look into this matter, and not let certain employers take advantage of the loopholes in the Bill. I advance this suggestion out of sincerity and I hope the Minister can carry it out.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture (Mr Fong Sip Chee): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am elated to hear the Member for Paya Lebar expressing his support for this Bill. This Bill is introduced in order to resolve the difficulties resulting from Indonesia's economic confrontation. Are the Barisan Sosialis Members really interested in the interests and welfare of the workers or the people of Singapore? No, they are not interested at all. They have tried to amend the motion of thanks of the Prime Minister to the Negara's speech by asking that negotiations with Indonesia be carried out. They oppose Malaysia, and the least they can do is to try to help bring about peace and prosperity to Singapore even if they do not wish to bring about peace and prosperity to Malaysia. Instead they talk about prosperity in South-East Asia. [Interruption] You are not concerned with Singapore. You have no right to talk about South-East Asia.

This Bill, as I have said, is meant for the benefit of the unemployed workers, yet the Barisan Members persist in trivialities by mentioning two minor cases to show us that the Bill is not really perfect. But are they able to help us resolve the problem? When Singapore boats were detained by the Indonesian authorities, did the Barisan Members try to persuade the Indonesian authorities to release them, and to persuade them to release the property seized by them? And when they hear of Indonesian sabotage here in Singapore, none of them has dared to touch on it.

Mr Deputy Speaker: I wish the Parliamentary Secretary will come back to the discussion of the Economic Defence Bill and not stray away.

Mr Fong Sip Chee: (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is because they in their speeches asked us to begin negotiations with Indonesia. That is why I have to touch on it in passing.

I am of the opinion that the only way the Barisan Sosialis can help the people of Singapore to resolve their sufferings and difficulties resulting from confrontation is to support Malaysia. Instead all along they have been supporting Indonesia. I advise them to turn back and become decent citizens once again by supporting Malaysia and show their interest in working for the people of Singapore. But they are contented to be led by the nose by the Indonesians.

On the matter of one-third contribution by the Government and one-third by the employer, the Barisan Assemblymen have not been able to advance concrete suggestions to help improve or to contribute something to better the life of the workers who are affected.

The Member for Paya Lebar has been talking nonsense. Why do the Barisan Members not dare to attack Indonesia for all they have done? And they even support the rebellion in Brunei. Dare they say that they do not support the Brunei rebellion? They are traitors, treacherous people, abetting the enemies. [Interruption] When the Prime Minister made the statement in this House on Indonesian subversive activities, none of the Barisan Sosialis Members dared lift up their heads.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already ruled that no remarks should be made across the House, because it delays the debate. Will the Parliamentary Secretary please continue without any further interruption from both sides of the House?

Mr Fong Sip Chee: (In Mandarin): Under the circumstances, this Bill is a positive and practical measure to deal with the situation obtaining at present. If the Barisan Sosialis want to be practical, they can contribute towards this Economic Defence Fund, and the Government I am sure will be very glad to accept.

Mr Teong Eng Siong (Sembawang): (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would also like to say something on this Bill. First of all, the Barisan Members should admit that whatever distortion or specious arguments or tactics they adopt, they can never succeed in smearing a responsible Government like the P.A.P. Even before the introduction of this Economic Defence Bill, when Indonesia began its confrontation against Malaysia, we had immediately initiated a plan to tide over the difficulties of workers affected. To help them in their living, we have urged upon employers concerned to take up their share of the responsibility to tide over the present crisis which has been caused by the Barisan Assemblymen across the Floor.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

4.39 p.m.

Mr Teong Eng Siong (Sembawang): The Member for Choa Chu Kang has made a speech taken from statements of his own union. He says that waterfront workers are the backbone of Singapore's economy, and that the prosperity of these waterfront workers means the prosperity of Singapore. Can he deny that he has compiled his speech from statements and publications issued by his own union? He dare not deny it. All the speeches uttered by him have the same content. Who is thinking for him?

Mr Speaker: Order. Whether the Member for Choa Chu Kang writes his speeches or not is irrelevant to the Bill. Can the Member for Sembawang come back to this Bill?

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, it is because Members across the Floor have levelled attacks against me, that is why I have to make such a reply to them.

Talking about the Bill, it provides measures to help tide over the situation. Of course, the assistance given under this Bill is not a permanent measure, because it only helps to tide over difficulties for a period of six months. But during the six months the workers affected can seek employment elsewhere. So we do not claim that this Bill is able to solve the problems of the livelihood of the workers in one sweep.

Our only hope of what the Barisan Assemblymen can do is not to oppose this Bill without any rhyme or reason. Their attack that the Bill is useless, has loopholes and is detrimental to the interests of the workers, will not help to resolve the difficulties of the workers affected. Instead they should try with all sincerity to think out measures to resolve the difficulties resulting from confrontation. If they are really sincere in the welfare and interests of the workers I hope they will give their support to this Bill.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, Sir, Members of the Opposition are worried on one point, i.e. the possibilities of employers by-passing the provisions of the Bill and not paying their proper contributions to the workers. There was reference from the Members for Choa Chu Kang, Paya Lebar and Thomson, about the loopholes of the Bill. They said that employers can give, let us say, two or three days' employment a month and then keep the workers without work for the rest of the month. And this can go on for the whole of six months, and therefore they avoid having to go into the scheme. Well, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I refer them to clause 5 (2) . Let me read it:

`if the Director is satisfied, from information received from an employer, contractor or any other source, that for the reason set out in subsection (1) of this section [i.e. confrontation], any employer or contractor is unable to provide full employment or is able to provide only partial employment to any of his employees, the director may, after making such inquiries as he may deem necessary, determine the date from which the employer or contractor is unable to provide full employment or is able to provide only partial employment ..... and shall advise the employer or contractor in writing of the relevant date and of his obligations under this Ordinance.'

Clause 2 of the Bill defines "full employment" and "partial employment". The definition of "partial employment" is, I think, of significance. The operative words are:

`..... the employee's total wages per month are less than the wages received by him from his employer or contractor immediately prior to the adverse effect on the business of the employer or contractor.....'.

So it is not possible for employers to escape their obligations by giving two or three days' work per month, if that happens, then the workers will get two or three days' full pay for the days he has worked, and for the days he does no work he goes under this scheme, that is to say, one-third pay to he paid by the employer and one-third pay to be paid by the Government. I hope this is made clear and is understood all round. If the employers try to evade their responsibility and avoid their legal obligation in this way, then, of course, they have committed an offence under this Bill and are liable to substantial penalties. So I think that will answer the doubts raised by the Opposition on this coverage of the Bill and the possibilities of evasion.

The Member for Thomson has referred to a particular company in Sembawang Road. He says that there is some injustice there. This particular company is called Kota Trading Company, and the Chinese name is Yen Chou, 91 Sembawang Road. They now have 381 workers on the scheme. As far as we are informed, all the permanent labour force of this factory are under the scheme. They have been under the scheme for some time actually. He said that some workers arc offered only two days' pay as the basis of this two-thirds contribution. There are few workers attached to this factory who regard work at this factory as casual work. Normally they do not work there. They prefer hawking or fishing or farming or whatever they can do --- [Laughter]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: These are facts. These are the people who have in the past been offered work by the employer, and the normal practice is that they do not want to work when it is offered to them. It is not that it is only in August that they got two or three days' work. That was the case in July, June and previously. These are the facts as established by investigation ---

An hon. Member: Bluff!

Mr Speaker: Order.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: If the Member for Thomson is still unconvinced, I shall be very pleased to get further details from him. This is as I am advised by the Director of Economic Defence.

The Member for Thomson says, "Why August? August is a very poor month." This is all nonsense, Mr Speaker, Sir. August is a very good month. I have given figures to show how our business with Indonesia has been increasing from 1960 to 1962 and during 1963, until confrontation, it has been increasing all the time. I have further details about this Kota Trading Company. There are only six persons involved, belonging to the class of people who work one or two days a month. They cannot be considered regular workers because it is their habit to refuse work when such work has been offered to them.

Other Members of the Opposition have referred to certain categories of workers who do not fall within the scope of this Bill. The Member for Paya Lebar particularly has pointed out that stevedores do not come into this scheme nor do fishermen. It is not possible to include stevedores in this scheme for two reasons. One is, there are no stevedores specifically engaged in loading and unloading Indonesian cargo. They unload all types of cargo. The loss of Indonesian cargo means that there is a partial loss of income to them, not a total loss. That is one reason.

The second reason is that in the case of such people like stevedores, fishermen, and even crews on these twakows, there is no employer-employee relationship. Who are the employers of a crew of a fishing boat? They all work together on a collective basis and a profit sharing basis, and obviously it is not possible to get a chief fisherman or the head of the crew and ask him to pay one-third the normal incomes of the other members of the crew, because he is equally poor. So for these people, we are trying to solve their difficulties in some other way. A typical problem is for these people in wooden boats. You see quite a number of them laid off along Shenton Way. There may be about 40 boats and there may be about 300 or 400 people involved in this. They used to carry timber from the Rhio Archipelago - firewood, timber, raw sago, attap roofing, that sort of thing. We are trying to arrange to get alternative sources of timber and firewood for them. These alternative supplies are from the West Coast and the East Coast of Malaya. We are in consultation with the persons engaged in the firewood trade and if it is technically possible, the Government will be quite prepared to advance loans to them to start industries on the west coast of Malaya to produce firewood from the bakau timber which abounds there.

The Member for Tampines says that if the employer cannot pay, then what happens? The Member for Hong Lim also says if the employer cannot pay, then the Government should pay. Under this law, if the employer cannot pay, then his assets will be liquidated and the worker will have a prior claim on whatever is left of his assets on liquidation.

But both the Member for Tampines and the Member for Choa Chu Kang are worried about the authority of the Director to determine the normal wages of persons included in this scheme. They think that he may try to reduce it or to increase it. They are not happy. I am not quite sure on what grounds they are not happy about it. The reason is a simple one. In most instances, the pay for August can be accepted as a reasonable standard. It was a fairly active month for persons engaged in these industries. But you may have the odd case where a person is sick for a part of the month or he may have gone on leave. So under those conditions then, the Director will probably take the previous month. Anyway he has the right under this law to vary the basis of calculation in order to ensure that a just assessment of the average wages is arrived at. Obviously, without this kind of provision, then either you stick to a very rigid formula and get unfair results because of a few people being sick or being off work during that month, or you may get results which will in other ways be equally unsatisfactory.

Now, the number of unemployed, Mr Speaker, Sir. 10,000, says the Member for Tampines; 20,000, says the Member for Choa Chu Kang; 30,000, says the Member for Hong Lim. May I say, obviously this is absolute rubbish? If they want me to believe it is 10,000 or 20,000 or 30,000, let me have a list - name of firm and number of workers. Then we can add. If it comes to 10,000, 20,000, or 30,000, then it is acceptable. But these wild statements made either to denigrate the Government or to demoralise the population or to encourage the Indonesians, are of no use at all. When I say, 1,300, Mr Speaker, Sir, I give figures. Firms Workers Rubber milling and smoking 1 374 Rubber packing and grading 2 216 Sago 5 184 Coconut oil mill 2 51 Seamen 14 495 ____ _____ Total 24 1,320 ____ _____ This is the position up to the 14th of December, 1963.

The Member for Tampines says that he has made investigations and he has found that 40 rubber factories have closed down. I have a list of rubber factories closed down. They are being listed regularly to ensure that if they are closed down, the workers come under this scheme. They are still operating. So that is that, Mr Speaker, Sir, on these fantastic claims that 10,000 or 20,000 or 30,000 people are now unemployed.

I think I have dealt with the main points raised by the Opposition. There are a number of minor points, nagging little points, but I do not think I need waste the time of the House in replying to them.

Mr Speaker: It is nearly five o'clock. I propose to suspend this sitting till half-past five.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.00 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly.

Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. -[Dr Goh Keng Swee]

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

5.33 p.m.