ADMINISTRATION OF ECOMOMIC DEFENCE LAWS

7.59 p.m.

Mr Kow Kee Seng (Paya Lebar): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, Iet me talk about the Administration of Economic Defence Laws. Malaysia has caused hardship to the people asa result of confrontation. Many people have suffered because of this and the consequences are adverse all round. There is a general atmosphere of uncertainty and distress. That is why the Government formulated the Economic Defence Bill, which was passed on the 19th of December, 1963. At that sitting I urged the Minister for Finance not to allow employers to abuse the loopholes of the law by exploiting the workers. It should help all the workers affected, such as the lighterage workers and stevedores. The Minister had assured the House that there would not be such incidents as causing harm, or loss, or damage to those workers. The Ordinance has been in practice for about one year now. After the unemployed workers have received aid for six months, what about their future livelihood and their families' existence? I would now like to comment on these Economic Defence laws.

According to the law, all those workers unemployed as a result of confrontation can get one-third of their earnings from the Government and another one-third from the employer, based on their actual salaries. It appears to be quite a good scheme, but actually there are faults underlying it. Firstly, in implementing this law, the Economic Defence Board had not asked the employers to report on the number of working days in a year. Some employers might have made false reports. Let me quote some examples. One employer had made use of August 1963, when the price of rubber was at its lowest. In other words, it was a month during which the number of working days for employees was the least. He used it as a basis for calculating one-third of the workers' wages. As a result, the workers suffered great losses. Moreover, certain employers reduced the number of working days and reported that to the Government. Thus, the workers affected would get only $20 or $30 each. Mr Speaker, Sir, some people were receiving only 90 cents to $1 a month. In a situation such as this, how can the workers be expected to live and maintain a livelihood? This is one fault of the law.

Secondly, the law provides that all those factories which are working should not come within the purview of the Ordinance. Thus, certain employers thought out a wonderful plan. They reduced all their available stock according to the original calculation. Work that could be completed in a short time they prolonged to cover the six months allowed by the Ordinance. Thus the employees could not get the actual one-third of the wages which they would have been entitled to get. Thus the employees suffered again. They could only work one day, two days or three days a week. The Economic Defence Board has not carried out an investigation into this matter, or adjusted or rectified such unlawful manipulations. The Board has also not given aid to make up for the workers' losses.

Secondly, the Ordinance provides that the employer should pay for six months one-third of the worker's wages. The Board has full discretion in exercising the powers given by the law. The employer could use this amount as a bonus for dismissing the workers. Now this does not take into consideration the Government's assistance. Ordinarily, whenever a shop or a factory closes down, the workers should get a certain allowance before they are dismissed.

Furthermore, not only this, they should also be able to enjoy the provisions of the Labour Ordinance and the benefits as provided under it. Thus, the workers, in fact, are not getting the care of the Economic Defence Board, and the benefits amount to zero. But those factories which are able to resume normal production have been able to follow this line or tactic. They give the workers two months' dismissal notice. After that they re-employ them as new workers. There have also been instances of reorganisation of firms and factories without the workers being given the allowances which they usually get. This usually happens in the rubber mills. The employers adopt a "take it or leave it" attitude.

This Ordinance is not only unable to help the workers to solve their hardships, but it also causes the workers to be exploited all the more by the employers.

The fourth point is that the Economic Defence Board's main fault is that those workers who are unemployed are not entitled to the one-third benefits provided by law. After Malaysia, the workers who are hardest hit are the lighterage workers, fishermen, and workers in the rubber and rattan mills. These workers are not able to get any benefits. They are on the verge of despair and up to date most of these workers are still unable to get alternative jobs. I want to ask whether the Government wishes to push them over the brink into the abyss.

As regards the re-employment of workers, there are many irresponsible things done in the Labour Exchange. The Government put the workers in places which they do not like, where they do not receive their proper wages. Their wages are from two dollars to three dollars a day. Some of them are not even getting fifty cents or one dollar a day. After they have received employment, they will cease to get any benefit from the Economic Defence Board and most of the workers have to go to Jurong to work. They have to spend a lot of money on their transport expenses. How much have they left to spend on food and other necessities? Most of these workers are getting fifty cents or one dollar a day. If they refuse to accept the jobs offered by the Board, then they will cease to get any benefits from the Board. They will be regarded as voluntarily giving up their benefits and all their allowances will be terminated.

The Government has boasted about the pioneer industries, that these industries will give priority in employing those workers affected, but this will only facilitate the foreign employers, especially the British, American and Japanese employers, to exploit the workers, so as to earn more profit, that is, to get cheap labour from these workers.

The Economic Defence law is intended only as a smoke-screen to cover up the mistakes made by the Government. `The workers in Singapore have con tributed a lot to the prosperity of the State and the Government is duty bound to look after them. Now I urge the Government to review the implementation of the Economic Defence Ordinance. Let me put forward a few suggestions, so that the Government can study them seriously.

Firstly, continue to carry out the Economic Defence Scheme so as to give aid to those workers who have not received aid. Secondly, to give financial aid to solve the present difficulties of all classes of workers who have been hit by the Indonesian confrontation. Thirdly, these workers should not be deprived of their privileges and rights conferred by the Labour law. Fourthly, whenever a factory resumes production, it must re employ those workers who were laid off, and it should not change the salaries of those workers. Fifthly, the Government should provide them with financial aid or reduce their house rents. Sixthly, the Government should introduce a salary scale so as to prevent foreign capitalists from exploiting the workers affected.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a clear contradiction in what the hon. Member has said. On the one hand, he says that Economic Defence is a great fraud - it is cheating the worker and exploiting him. On the other hand, he asks me in his list of six suggestions to continue the scheme beyond six months and to include all workers who are not at present eligible. If it is a fraud, why does he want it to extend to all other workers? Why does he want it to continue beyond six months?

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are so many misrepresentations in what the hon. Member has said that I find it difficult within the time at my disposal to track each and every one of the falsehoods. First, he alleges that the employer makes a false report in order to pay less. If he knows of such cases, it is his duty to report it to the authorities concerned, and this employer will be charged under the law and will be penalised. In the absence of specific information, I would regard it as completely baseless. He also says that some employers fix August 1963 as the period in which the normal wage should be calculated. Why do they do so, Mr Speaker? Just because the Rubber Workers' Union insists that they use that month for calculation purposes! When they found they got cheated, they lost out, they blamed the Government. The Rubber Workers' Union is a Barisan Union which in several cases asked for August 1963. They made a mistake. That is their own lookout, but do not blame me.

Then he says that some workers are paid 90 cents a month by allowance, or $1 a month. True, there are seven of then1 getting from 90 cents to $9.66. These are persons working in a rubber mill in Thomson Road. In fact, these persons are not eligible for admission to the scheme because they are casual irregular workers. Nevertheless, they wanted to come in and the Economic Defence Department said, "All right." And quite rightly employers objected, but we said. "Well, if you want to come in, we will include you." Any gratitude, Mr Speaker? These are people who do not do regular work. They hang around coffee shops in case there are jobs to be done, and sometimes they never turn up. I have got the details of all these seven workers. Mr Speaker, Sir, and if the Member is not satisfied I will read out the names and details.

Now, the other matter is about severance pay. The employer pays one-third each month for six months. At the end of six months the employer will have paid off two months' pay. If the factory closes down and cannot continue, then these two months' pay, which the employer has already extended to the worker, goes into severance pay. This is made quite clear in the law. There is no fiddling about it. So how have the workers been cheated? The Member has forgotten to calculate that the Government also has given the workers another two months' pay for the period. So they get the severance pay or whatever they are entitled to plus two months' pay contribution from the Government. So how can he say that the workers have been cheated? I think I have made my point quite clear, Mr Speaker, Sir, on that. Simple arithmetic.

Now, he says that in the Direction of Employment when we try to get unemployed workers on the Economic Defence Register, we compel them to take jobs at 50 cents a day, at $1 a day, and in Jurong, mind you. Where `the worker lives in Thomson Road it will cost him more than $1 a day to go to Jurong. And if he refuses to take on the job, we strike him off the Economic Defence Scheme. I challenge the Member openly to give me one instance where that has happened - one instance, one name, where that has happened. This business of 50 cents, 10 cents - I can tell you the reason. It is this: there are a number of Govern ment factories not only in Jurong, but also in town, which receive women workers and train them. During their training period they are paid pin money, a nominal allowance, because they are not making any output. During that period they are paid 50 cents or $1. But we told the workers that if they accepted this during the training period, the Economic Defence Department would give them the balance to bring them to a total pay of the two-thirds allowances which they were getting before. There is no question of compelling the workers to work for 50 cents or $1, and if they refuse, we strike them off. Even if we imagined for one moment that this were true - and I do not believe it is true - the workers have the right of appeal. There is an Appeal Board against any decisions of the Director of Economic Defence which take away benefits from workers in this unjust manner.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to stress here that in directing workers who are unemployed to new jobs, we have been very fair and very lenient both on the worker and the employer. So far as is possible, we want to get the matter of transfer of a worker from his old job to a new one agreeable to both the employer and the worker, that is, the worker likes his new job and is prepared to accept the pay, and the employer thinks the man or the woman can do the work. A minimum amount of compulsion has been used in this instance. For instance, up to the 17th of October, no less than 6,000 vacancies have been notified to the Economic Defence Department and exemptions have been given to 4,545 because of the greater skill required but is not available among people who are in the list. And out of 1,531 vacancies, 990 unemployed persons have already got new jobs, and another 430 are in the process of being engaged. So if we were to take the attitude that the worker must take on a new job whatever the pay and wherever it is, then it would obviously be very easy for us to solve the whole matter because the number of vacancies notified to the Department is much greater than the number of unemployed on the Economic Defence Register. Contrariwise, if we were to insist that a worker should take whatever job he is offered, how would you explain that in more than 3,000 instances we had to make contact with the worker three times or more to make him an offer of new employment? It is not a case of the worker going to the Labour Exchange each day asking whether there are any vacancies. It is a question of the Economic Defence Department making repeated attempts to call on the workers to get them to be considered for new appointment.

On the whole, I think the scheme has run fairly successfully, considering the enormous difficulties in administering such a complex and substantial exercise. As I have said, if this scheme is not to the benefit of the worker, Mr Speaker, Sir, the hon. Member would not have asked me to extend it for a longer period than six months to get other categories of workers included under it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved, That this Assembly do now adjourn.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-seven minutes past Eight o'clock p.m.