STRIKE AT HUP SENG BEE-HOON FACTORY (Request for Statement)

The following Question stood in the name of Mr Poh Ber Liak :-

Mr Poh Ber Liak: To ask the Minister for Labour if he will make a statement on the strike of workers at Hup Seng Bee-Hoon Factory at Changi Road, 10 m.s., in July, 1965.

Inche Mohd. Ariff Bin Suradi (Kampong Kembangan) rose ---

Mr Ho See Beng (Bras Basah): A supplementary question, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Ho, you are somewhat late. I have called the Question. Inche Mohd. Ariff.

Inche Mohd. Ariff Bin Suradi: (In Malay): As Mr Poh Ber Liak is absent, I would like to put the question to the Minister for Labour.

The Minister for Labour (Mr Jek Yeun Thong): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am grateful to the Member for Kampong Kembangan for giving me this opportunity to expose one of the wrong doings of the Communist unions in the labour field. It is rather surprising that the Member for Tampines should have originally tabled this question regarding the so-called strike at the Hup Seng Bee-Hoon Factory, for in this particular case it is he and his Communist friends, or rather the union which is under their control, that should make a statement to the public as to why they should not be condemned for causing the unemployment of 18 workers and the closing down of the factory. These workers worked in the factory premises of Hup Seng and Company in the manufacture of bee-hoon. Amongst them they had their own head, a man named Low Ah Seng. They worked on a tonnage basis of $6 per picul. The system appeared to be that all the workmen collectively participated in manufacturing the bee-hoon and then shared the earnings equally among themselves. The factory premises and the equipment belonged to Hup Seng and Company, and the rice for the manufacture of bee-boon was supplied by the Company. The workmen made the bee-hoon in their own time. They were not under the direct supervision of the Company. In fact, they were what is normally termed "independent contractors". There was no written agreement between the Company and the workers. The Company had never paid Central Provident Fund contributions in respect of any of them. The C.P.F. Board had investigated into this matter in August 1964 and was satisfied that the Company was not an employer. These arrangements had been going on for some ten years until September 1964, when a Communist-dominated union, the Singapore Commercial Houses and Factory Employees' Union, came into the picture. It created a dispute out of a case where the Company was reported to have told one worker to stop work. There were two unfruitful meetings in my Ministry. The Company refused to negotiate with the Union on the ground that the Company was not the employer. This led to a strike in October 1964. The Union, on the advice of their learned lawyer, Mr T. T. Rajah, tried to force the case in the Labour Court. But the Labour Court decided that no employer-employee relationship existed between the Company and the workers. This decision was later upheld by the High Court.

Meanwhile the Company was strike-bound for months. It finally had to close down in February 1965.

The case was simple. Since there was no employer-employee relationship between the Company and the workers, there could not be any industrial dispute. The system of production prevailing in this Company has been existing in Singapore for years, especially among the smaller factories. Because of the unnecessary militancy and the stupidity of the Communist-dominated Singapore Commercial Houses and Factory Employees' Union, 18 workers lost the opportunity to earn their living.