ECONOMIC DEFENCE (DIRECTION OF EMPLOYMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This Bill, which is complementary to the Economic Defence Bill which has been passed by this Assembly, lays down, as it were, the second and more positive line of defence against Indonesia's economic confrontation. Members will accept that monetary assistance and loans to workers laid off will not solve for all time the difficulties that will he caused in the employment field; nor can the engagement or reengagement of the workers affected be left to the play of free market forces. It is therefore necessary to provide for the direction of employment in order effectively and expeditiously to reabsorb such workers in other industries. The purpose of this Bill is therefore to provide for the direction of employment for persons adversely affected by the trade boycott.

Direction of employment is not a normal instrument of policy, but then these are not normal times and, without some form of direction, the chances are, if confrontation is prolonged, many of the 8,000 workers who will eventually be laid off, will remain unemployed for a very long time after they have drawn all the payments under the Economic Defence Scheme. I must stress, Sir, that the Bill seeks only selective direction, that the dangers of misuse of authority have been recognised, and that accordingly certain safeguards have been provided.

Clause 4 gives powers to the Minister to make an order to be published in the Gazette requiring an employer who is subject to such an order not to engage or re-engage any employee outside those registered with the Economic Defence Department, without the written consent of the Director. However, the Minister may, before making such an order, refer a draft thereof to a Committee appointed by him for its advice. In this manner, the opinions of representatives of employers and employees will be taken into consideration before an order is made. I intend to avail myself of the advice and guidance which trade union leaders and business leaders are in a position to offer. As I said in my Budget Speech, this operation can succeed only on the basis of sensible co-operation between the Government, the workers and management.

Clause 5, however, does not compel any employer to accept an employee nominated by the Director. He has the right to refuse to employ such person if he finds him unacceptable, and he may, with the consent of the Director, employ any other person of his choice. Another safeguard is that the employers can have recourse to an Appeals Board appointed by the Minister if the Director refuses to give his consent.

It is also provided that any award made under the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1960, in relation to the engagement or re-engagement of employees by employers, both of whom are subject to an order made under clause 4, will have no effect.

One final word on Government's policy with regard to the recommendation of workers on the laid-off list to prospective employers. There are two aspects to this policy. The first is to ensure, by suitable grading of workers, that those who are recommended for employment will have the requisite skills to perform the work. The second is to ensure that the employment of these workers will not prejudice industrial peace in the establishment or a prospective employer. To ensure this then, laid-off workers who are known to have close connections or to have held offices in pro-Communist unions will not be recommended for employment.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Speaker: Order.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: A black list has been compiled of these persons, both in industries affected by confrontation as well as in other industries; and this list will be used whenever direction of employment is carried out, in this exercise as well as on future occasions when Government wants to assist unemployed persons in getting jobs in private industries.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

5.40 p.m.

Mr Chio Cheng Thun: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, after the Government has introduced the Economic Defence Bill, it is now introducing another Bill of the same nature - the Economic Defence (Direction of Employment) Bill.

Looking at the Bills superficially the Government seems to have the intention of helping the laid-off workers and to try and resolve their problems. From the speech given by the Minister for Finance, however, we can see very clearly that he has brought political bias into the field of economic assistance for laid-off workers. The Minister for Finance in his Budget Statement made in this House told this House that he would give careful and deliberate consideration before he exercises his powers under the law. These soothing talks and beautiful promises made by him not very long ago have now been completely negatived by what the Minister has said just now. From this we can see that the passing of this Bill will provide the Minister for Finance and the Director with extensive and absolute powers. They can make use of their authority to monopolise the direction of employment for their political ends. Workers who have not been supporting the P.A.P. will he prejudiced against. These words came out of the horse's own mouth!

At present the P.A.P. Government are launching full-out on their mean, low and suppressive policy which is despicable. From the Minister's Budget Statement, we thought that he would be behaving well, but in actual fact, he has now made us understand that the P.A.P. are trying to make use of their political power to further their political ends of suppression and monopoly; otherwise how can they explain that the Bill provides for them to concentrate all the powers and management in relation to direction of employment into the hands of one person, the Minister for Finance? Is it not very dangerous to put all the powers into the hands of one person!

I would like to point out to you, Mr Speaker, the various improper stipulations in the Bill, because under this Bill the employer has lost his power and discretion in the engagement of workers. In this respect the Minister has entirely deprived the employer of his power. Perhaps they will turn round and accuse us of speaking on behalf of the employers. But I will say that in spite of the P.A.P.'s smear, our stand on labour and capital relationship is very clear. We only oppose all those suppressive actions and injustices meted out to the workers. As to the fundamental and legitimate rights of the employers, we will respect these rights. But according to the provisions of the Bill, the discretion of the employer in regard to his power of engaging workers, is entirely in the hands of the Minister. In this respect, the Bill has enabled the Minister concerned to monopolise the power.

The Bill also stipulates that an Appeals Board will be established in case the employers concerned are met with a refusal from the Director. They can appeal against his direction. But I would like to point out that this Appeals Board will be appointed by the Minister for Finance himself. Moreover, the decision given by the Appeals Board may not necessarily be binding and the Minister need not he governed by it. So what is the use of this Board? The power given by the Bill to the Minister may very likely be used by him to further his political suppression and persecution, because he may direct any employer not to employ any worker. But I should say that the Bill should not enable the Minister to interfere with the legitimate relationship between the employer and labour. So from this we can see that the P.A.P. Government are resorting to legislation to further carry out their suppression and persecution of the workers and to exploit them.

I would also say that the Bill also provides that the employer should get the consent of the Director in engaging any laid-off worker, and when he is not satisfied with the Director's refusal he can appeal to the Appeals Board which, after all, is appointed by the Minister himself. So, how can you say that this will give the people the impression of fairness or justice that can be expected from the Appeals Board? The Minister has said that only workers in the N.T.U.C. will be given the advantage, whereas other workers who are not in the N.T.U.C. will be excluded from all the benefits. Now, in this way, the P.A.P. will be able to recruit more workers into their camp and, at the same time, intimidate and coerce non-P.A.P. workers.

At present we are facing a political crisis initiated by the P.A.P.; they are trying to resort to legislation to ride over the heads of the workers to further their own political ends. If ours is a democracy, I hope the P.A.P. Government in drafting this Bill will pay full attention to the provision of safeguards in the interests and welfare of the workers, and not try to resort to suppression of non-P.A.P. workers who do not support the P.A.P.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully agree with the Minister for Finance that the powers provided in this Bill should not be used to direct those S.A.T.U. activists to any employment. They are the persons who cause hardship and misery to the workers by bringing about confrontation through their constant agitation. In fact, they should be punished and I propose to punish them by not offering them any facilities of the State. Why should we offer them these facilities? They are the culprits. They should be punished and the Labour Ministry is in full co-operation with the Ministry of Finance in preparing a black list of these activists. Once the names of these activists are entered into this list, I can assure you that they will have no chance of finding employment elsewhere, especially in the Jurong pioneering industries. However, not all the workers in these unions will be affected. Only the trouble-makers will be affected, and in order to give them a chance to make their living, I recommend them to become hawkers or taxi-drivers. But not all will be given hawkers' licences or taxi-drivers' licences. They will be given the posts of assistant hawkers or assistant taxi-drivers whereby they can wash the bowls and plates of the hawkers or wash the cars of the taxi-drivers. They may even be made to be assistant gaol birds where only second-class treatment will be provided for them in Changi Gaol. I do not see why the State's facilities should be offered to these culprits and trouble-makers whose main purpose in life is to cause misery and hardship to the innocent workers.

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker. Sir, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Labour seem to be very happy when they talk about their intention to fix those who, they say, have harmed the interests of the workers. To those who are power crazy, one can be sure that these people will make use of the privileges of this House and abuse them. It is not surprising that people of this nature should make such utterances. In fact, it is not necessary for them to make such utterances to annoy the Members opposite, because we in the Opposition know what they are up to. We are, in fact, very glad to have listened to what they have said, because when they are going further and further into the position in which they want to abuse their powers and privileges, they are, in fact, one step nearer to death. So we must give them our blessings, for they are one step nearer to death. But we want to bless them with the hope that they should not end in the way that Ngo Dinh Diem has ended. We hope that the fate of Ngo Dinh Diem will not befall them.

They can talk about their powers and privileges, but I wish to point out one matter in relation to this Bill which gives wide powers to the Minister for Finance. As he has already said in his speech, he is quite prepared to abuse his powers to deal blows to those so-called Communists. That is his own admission. So he is quite prepared to try to draw a distinction between non-P.A.P. workers and P.A.P. workers. As a result of this distinction, some innocent workers will, under these powers, suffer some suppression and misery. In fact, they will suffer discrimination. Of course, the Ministers can do whatever they like according to their whims and fancies, but I want to give them a friendly piece of advice. If they want to persist in what they do, they are just digging their own grave. There will come a time when the water will come up to their necks and they will still fail to realise that death is near.

Mr Bernard Rodrigues: Mr Speaker, Sir, we are quite clear about the intentions of the Communist stooges and their friends in the S.A.T.U. unions towards their Communist leaders. This, Mr Speaker, to me is the best way to achieve industrial peace. Everybody knows that S.A.T.U. controlled unions are pro-Communist and these people are anti-State as well as pro-confrontationists. These Communist leaders and their stalwarts in the S.A.T.U. unions can consider themselves very lucky to be able to enjoy this two-thirds salary benefit, as listed by the Finance Minister. Mr Speaker, if I had my way, I would not let them have the two-thirds salary. They should not only be not given the two-thirds salary, but they should not be allowed to stay in this State. They should be driven out of this State and sent to the Indonesian Communist Party in Indonesia. After all, Mr Speaker ---

An hon. Member: Rubbish!

Mr Bernard Rodrigues: I am saying that those who love the Communists must experience starvation.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am very glad to notice that what my colleague, the Minister for Labour, and I have said on this subject has made an impact on the Members of the Opposition. This is only the first step. Now let us not forget that this is not the final step. Perhaps, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am tempted, just now, to give a review of the history of the fight between the traitors in the pro-Communist camp and the P.A.P., but I think you will probably rule me out of order. All I want to say is that we had two decisive engagements with them - September 1962, and again September 1963. They have lost the battle and now they are going to pay the penalty.

Having said that, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I once again make it clear that we are not going to inflict any punishment on the workers, as a group? That would be quite wrong. We know there are large numbers of industrial workers - Chinese industrial workers especially - who are members of the S.A.T.U. unions. The general body of workers will be given every protection and will be able to enjoy all the privileges under this Bill as well as under other Bills. But in the course of our long struggle with the treacherous anti-national elements of the pro-Communist camp in the trade union field, the cultural field, the educational field and the political field, we have identified a number of activists who knowingly - not unconsciously - support their cause in the full knowledge that it is a pro-Communist anti-national line. Well, they must suffer. And I make no apologies at all that steps will be taken to deal with them. The Member for Thomson says that by so doing we bring ourselves nearer to death. I hope, Mr Speaker, Sir, that he means "nearer to political death" and not "nearer to physical death" like Mr Ngo Dinh Diem. Because if it was the latter interpretation, then, or course, he is threatening an honourable Member of this Assembly, and, quite apart from being out of order under the Standing Orders of this Assembly, he would merit more severe penalties than just being ruled out of order. Well, Mr Speaker, Sir, we are not Ngo Dinh Diems, we are not dictators. Why are they here? Being paid $500 to criticise the Government and propagate their pernicious and treacherous anti-national views? Neo Dinh Diem, Mr Speaker, Sir? Under Ngo Dinh Diem they would be whisked off when they come out of the Assembly into a car, brought to Changi Gaol, at six o'clock tomorrow morning lined up against the wall, and executed. Instead of which, Mr Speaker, Sir, in a few days' time just before Christmas they will certainly be getting $500 from Government funds so that they can have a Merry Christmas. Now, he says that what we are going to do, our policy, is to punish the workers who are non-P.A.P. and to reward the workers who are pro-P.A.P. Now that is not the distinction, Sir. The distinction is between a small group - a small group, Sir - of pro-Communist cadres and activists, and the general run of workers. The general run of workers would be unaffected. We give them full support, full protection. But this small group - and we know them now, having come into collision with them through all these years, we know who they are ---

Mr Koo Young: And you are afraid?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Not afraid. This is only the first step, Mr Speaker, Sir. Worse is yet to follow, and at the end of five years, we shall review the progress made in all fields. Confrontation, not between Indonesia and Malaysia, but between the P.A.P. and the treacherous anti-national elements. At the end of five years, Mr Speaker, Sir, I assure you, Singapore will be a far happier State.

Question 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.