BAN ON STRIKES

Mr Ho See Beng (Bras Basah): Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the shortage of time I ---

Mr Speaker: Mr Ho, for your information, the Assembly can carry on till 8.30 p.m.

Mr Ho See Beng: It is my intention to focus the attention of this House on two important aspects of the Central Government to ban strikes which perhaps might have been missed by some Members. They may not be fully aware of the repercussions of the total ban on strikes on the trade union movement in Singapore. It is my contention, Sir, that the unprecedented action of the Central Government, apart from paralysing the infant trade union movement in the Federation, might also cause grave damage to the interest of the working class in Singapore. Hence it is my intention, Sir, to analyse in detail the seriousness of the situation and also to bring to the limelight the extent to which the Emergency Power possessed by the Central Government can be misused to choke healthy trade unionism in Singapore. It is my desire to seek a solemn assurance from the State Government in general, and the Minister for Labour in particular, that they will take all necessary steps to see that our trade union movement, which was built as a result of a series of struggle commencing from the year 1946 and which of late clearly indicated maturity, solidarity and all other essential qualities of healthy trade unionism, should not be subjected to the relentless and systematic persecution by a misguided Central Government and an equally uninformed Malaysian Labour Minister. Further ---

Mr Speaker: Order. I shall not permit any debate which touches on the Central Government. The Member will only debate the question of how far the ban affects Singapore, what relationship the ban has on Singapore and nothing more can be debated in this House which touches upon the powers of the Central Government.

Mr Ho See Beng: I shall confine myself to that, Sir. Further, can the State Government, which has responsibilities towards its citizens, permit the Central Government to scrap the solemn Malaysia Agreement which assures autonomy in labour? Since the problem of the day involves both the Centre and the State, I wish to make some general observations in regard to the strike ban as this has direct relevance to trade unionism in Singapore.

The Government in Kuala Lumpur, Sir, after initiating a series of anti-labour measures which included the outright rejection of Ungku Aziz's award, the refusal to register the M.T.U.C. under the Trade Union Ordinance and the reluctance ---

Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Ho, I have already mentioned that this motion on the adjournment must confine itself to the labour ban in so far as it affects Singapore. What the Federation Government does in the Federation is the business of the Federation, and I will not permit any discussion on that aspect of it in this Assembly. The proper place to raise that is elsewhere, not here.

Mr Ho See Beng: Yes, Mr Speaker. I will just mention it in passing to make my point clear. In any way, I shall avoid touching on Federal matters as much as possible. Here I would like to say that the Malaysian Labour Minister did mention that even though for the present they do not extend the prohibition on strikes to Singapore, nevertheless they could and might do it if the situation warranted such an action. His statement was a complete negation of the autonomy in labour which Singapore is supposed to enjoy in the new Malaysian setup. But the Labour Minister claimed that the Emergency Powers can provide the Central Government with a legal cloak to interfere with Singapore's trade union affairs. We cannot for a moment understand how the Centre can deny autonomy in labour by invoking the Emergency powers. Once it is explicitly expressed in an agreement that there will be no interference in labour matters of the State, no government which substantially subscribed to the letter and spirit of this agreement and whose Prime Minister attested his signature to the solemn agreement can afford to ignore completely, make a roundabout turn, and attempt to choke the trade union movement in this country under some pretext or other.

We do sympathise with our brothers across the Causeway for their shabby treatment from the Central Government. We are also determined to resist any attempt by the Central Government to interfere in the trade union affairs of the State. In the past the colonial masters made unsuccessful attempts to throttle the trade union movement in Singapore. The imperialists did, of course, reap good dividends which finally resulted in the elimination of colonialism in this country. And if the Central Government wants to follow in the footstep of the colonialists, I can assure it, on behalf of the workers of Singapore, that they will not stand idly by.

Now, we were under the impression that Malaysia is a member of the I.L.O. and subscribes to the sacred principles of that world body. But the contradictory policy followed by the Central Government, which definitely was not in line with the I.L.O. Convention, makes one wonder whether Malaysia, like some countries we know, is out to breach its international obligation. It is indeed a sad state of affairs that the leaders of this nation, who have expressed the desire to see that the country does not fall prey to Communism, are now creating conditions which will provide opportunities for exploitation by anti-democratic elements. We hope, Sir, that even at this late hour the Central Government will reassess their policy in labour matters and permit the trade union movement to function efficiently and effectively, and also state in categorical terms that they have no intention whatsoever of interfering in trade union affairs in Singapore and that they will always uphold the Malaysia Agreement which guarantees full labour autonomy for Singapore.

Now, turning to the State Government, we are quite eager to know what they have done so far to clarify the situation with the Central Government, and also to seek an assurance from the Centre that labour autonomy will not be discarded by extending the Emergency Powers to Singapore. The State, I am sure, is fully aware that today in Singapore there exists a mature and responsible trade union movement which definitely has the interest of Malaysians at heart. Further, strike for strike's sake has never been our motto, and every industrial action we take is essentially governed by the necessity to safeguard the interests of the workers. The establishment of the Arbitration Court has smoothed relations between the employer and the unions, and today industrial relations in Singapore can be favourably compared to those of some of the more mature democracies elsewhere. Any extension of the Emergency Powers of the Central Government to Singapore wiil only turn the clock back, frustrate labour and finally strike at the very root of healthy unionism in Singapore. Thus it is the responsibility of the State Government to see that the present trend continues in this State and that the Central Government is not allowed to extend its strong-arm tactics to create inroads into the many basic benefits enjoyed by the trade union movement in Singapore. We request the State Government not to remain indolent but to take this matter up immediately witl1 the Centre and acquire the necessary assurance, so that the workers here can continue to build constructive and responsible trade unionism in peace. Otherwise we may have to dissipate our energies and resources to the defence of the basic rights of trade unionism which, until now, have not been challenged or endangered. We hope and earnestly pray that such a situation will not arise. Nevertheless, let me give a strong warning to those who are out to destroy trade unionism in Malaysia, for ultimately it is not trade unionism but they who will get the worse of the struggle.

8.00 p.m.

Mr Speaker: Order. Moment of interruption. The motion for adjournment has lapsed. Mr Rajaratnam, will you move another motion for adjournment? Thereupon, we can then proceed up to 8.30.

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, I move,

That the House do now adjourn.

Question again proposed.

Mr Ho See Beng: Everyone throughout the world knows that all those who wage war against organised labour have to retreat, mauled and beaten, simply because in all societies the workers constitute the majority of people, and in a democratic society the will and interest of the majority invariably prevails.

Mr Speaker: Mr Jek Yeun Thong, in reply?

The Minister for Labour (Mr Jek Yeun Thong): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am grateful to the Member for Bras Basah for enabling me to have this opportunity to state categorically once again that we do not allow the Central Government to infringe on our autonomous rights in Labour and Education. We have no use for emergency powers to deal with our labour problems. The Member for Bras Basah, who is also the Chairman of the National Trades Union Congress, has expressed the concern of workers over the ban on strikes most forcefully and sincerely. This ban is totally unwarranted even though the country is facing aggression from Indonesia. That we have to defend our country no one denies. But is the situation such that the fundamental democratic rights of workers to strike should be one of the first to be axed? Even in the darkest days of the Emergency, when the Communists were wrecking havoc throughout the country. the colonial government of the time did not see any reason for taking such drastic action. Any action which denies the right of workers to strike uproots the very foundation of a trade union, for without this fundamental right, a trade union might as well cease to exist. The Singapore Government wants it to be known that it will seriously uphold what the Constitution says in the field of autonomy in Labour and Education. We will therefore not permit the Central Government or anyone else to violate our constitutional rights, emergency or no emergency. The two regulations promulgated by the Central Government apply throughout Malaysia, which means that the Singapore workers will be equally affected as their counterparts elsewhere in Malaysia. If, however, these regulations are used by the Central Government to nullify what the Constitution guarantees us, then we will have no alternative but to seek the unanimous support of this House to condemn the Central Government for violation of the very Constitution to which it is a party.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I regret to say that we were not consulted before the essential regulations were promulgated. On the afternoon of the 13th of May, 1965, a telephone call came through from the Secretary for Labour, Kuala Lumpur, to my Permanent Secretary. He was informed that the Central Government Minister for Labour was about to announce in the next few minutes at a meeting of employers and trade unionists the promulgation of these regulations which were to be brought into force the following day. I immediately contacted the Federal Minister for Labour by telephone and asked him whether the regulations applied to Singapore. He assured me that the Central Government had no intention to interfere with labour matters in Singapore. To clarify this, I issued a Press statement the next day to the effect that the Singapore Government did not intend to resort to Emergency Powers to resolve our labour disputes. because our present laws were adequate to deal with that situation. These two regulations were received by us only on the 17th of May, 1965. We then asked our legal officers to study the implications of these regulations and their conclusions were that the regulations were applicable to Singapore. On the 21st of May, 1965, however, my counterpart in the Central Government stated publicly that though the Central Government had no intention to interfere with our labour matters, we were legally bound by the essential regulations. Here we have an apparent contradiction between the utterances of a Central Government Minister and the expressed regulations. We do not know how the intentions of a Minister and legality can be reconciled. If we are legally bound, then it is the law which must prevail and not the intention. If the intention is to prevail, then I say it must be legally spelt out. So to back up their public statement, the most sensible thing for them to do would be to amend the regulations to exclude Singapore from the operation of these regulations.

In answer to the query by the Member for Brash Basah as to what we have done to clarify the situation, we can say that immediately after we obtained legal opinion on the regulations, we wrote to the Central Government requesting them to amend the regulations to exclude Singapore from the operation of these regulations. We are still awaiting a reply from them. We sincerely hope that they are wise enough to accept our request. They have already made a mess of their industrial relations and we do not want them to pull us into the mess. It serves them no benefit at all to try to interfere with labour matters in Singapore. If they persist in doing it, then they will only gain the bitterness and hatred of the workers of Singapore, as they have already done so in the Federation. I must assure the Member for Bras Basah that the Singapore Government will not shirk its responsibilities to the workers and will ensure that democratic trade unions can always function freely within the State. The Malaysia Constitution clearly states that Labour and Education are autonomous. It was on that condition that we joined Malaysia. It was on that condition that we conceded to 15 seats in the Parliament. If they violate that condition, then they cannot blame us for seeking new arrangements or for asking for more seats in Parliament. There is no need for these essential regulations to apply in Singapore and, for that matter, in the whole of the Federation, because our Industrial Relations Ordinance, a child of labour, employers and governments, has worked successfully in reducing strikes and effecting settlement of disputes without banning the right of unions to strike. This machinery exists in Singapore, and it is this type of machinery that will answer the industrial programmes of our times.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this Assembly do now adjourn.

Adjourned accordingly at Ten minutes past Eight o'clock p.m. sine die.