INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order read for resumption of debate on Question [30th December, 1965], "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Question again proposed.

2.43 p.m.

The Minister for Labour (Mr Jek Yeun Thong): Mr Speaker, Sir, the trade unions would like to be given extensive power under Section 77 of the Ordinance to prosecute the employers whenever they are found to be victimising their workers. But I am not sure whether this will do any good to the trade union movement in the long run. For one thing, there is no guarantee that the powers so given will not be abused. If the trade union movement only consists of persons like the Member for Bras Basah and the Member for Telok Blangah who are reasonable and intelligent people, then there need be no worry. But ---

Mr Ho See Beng (Bras Basah) rose ---

Mr Speaker: On a point of order or on a point of clarification?

Mr Ho See Beng: On a point of clarification, Sir.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong resumed his seat.

Mr Ho See Beng: In my speech yesterday, I did not ask the Minister for Labour to give the trade unions the power to prosecute employers when employers dismiss the workers. What we are asking under section 77 is that the Ordinance be simplified as we have come across many cases of victimisation and we have found it very difficult to bring the employers to book. What makes the procedure cumbersome is this, Sir. Undue emphasis has been placed on the reference to the Public Prosecutor for his opinion on whether the prosecution is to be instituted or not. The whole point is that we want the Ordinance to be simplified. We do not want to be so very unreasonable as to prosecute employers as soon as they dismiss the workers.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: I have not come to that story yet. I will give it later. I am inclined to believe that most of the unions affiliated to the N.T.U.C. are reasonable. They are led by responsible leaders and they will not abuse the power. But I am not so sure about the unions which are not affiliated to the N.T.U.C., especially when they are assisted by Lenin-styled lawyers. Once this power is given, I am quite sure they will abuse it to the full and bring our economic system to a grinding halt. In fact, they are already doing this now even without the help of this power. What will happen if this power is given to them will be unimaginable.

Then there is another point. A man who has invested his money in a shop or a firm or a factory and has become an employer would like to be given some freedom of what is called "Hire and fire". If every time he dismisses a worker, whether on genuine grounds or not, he is to be hauled up in court to answer charges of victimisation, life would be indeed quite miserable for him. In fact, the N.T.U.C. at one time earlier had wanted to lay down in the Ordinance that the employer has to go to gaol once he is convicted under section 77. What would the employer think of this if every time he sacks a man he has to go to gaol for it? How would he maintain discipline in his factory? If, in these circumstances, a man still wants to invest his money here and open up factories to benefit our workers, then I think he must have his head examined at the Woodbridge Hospital. So it is no wonder that when this proposal of the N.T.U.C. was put up to the Employers' Federation, there was an uproar from the employers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we are in a very delicate position. We are a pro-labour Government and we want to make everything easy for the workers. But, on the other hand, we must also protect the interests of the employers so that they are not unduly persecuted and do not start running away. On the one side, there is this demand from the N.T.U.C., and on the other, there is this resistance from the employers. We must strike a balance somewhere, and I say the compromise is in clause 22 of the Bill. There were extensive discussions among Mr Devan Nair, the Attorney-General, officials in my Ministry and myself before we finally put in this amendment. Hitherto, a complaint of victimisation is reported to the police and they will investigate it from the police point of view. They seldom secure enough evidence to initiate proceedings. But after this amendment, it is provided that a complaint of this nature should be referred to the Commissioner for Labour. He will then investigate the case from the industrial angle. If he is satisfied that there is evidence of victimisation, he will inform the Public Prosecutor and proceedings can be initiated. In this way, we are able to sieve through all the cases before they go to the court. Otherwise, our courts will be jammed up with all kinds of complaints of victimisation.

An exact copy of this Bill was forwarded to the N.T.U.C. on 14th September, 1965. For nearly four months it was lying in the office of the N.T.U.C. and we have not heard from them that there is something wrong in the Bill. Based on this copy which we had forwarded to the N.T.U.C., the then Secretary-General of the N.T.U.C., Mr Devan Nair, has this to say in his report to the N.T.U.C. Second Annual Conference in October this year, and I quote, in page 18 ---

Mr Speaker: From the same paper?

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Yes, in the same report. In page 18, he said:

`A close study of the Bill will show that the N.T.U.C. can feel justifiable pride at having secured progressive amendments to the Industrial Relations Ordinance in the interest of industrial justice and fair play.'

This is not the personal opinion of Mr Devan Nair, for this report was unanimously adopted by the N.T U.C. Conference in front of trade union leaders from the Afro-Asian countries.

I now come to the remarks made by the Member for Bras Basah when he raised a query on whether the proposed section 15A would restrict the Minister's right to intervene in any dispute between an employer and a trade union which has lost out on a secret ballot. The hon. Member need not have any fear on this score. The proposed amendments do not in any way restrict the Minister's power, and I can assure the Member that I still have the power to direct any trade dispute to arbitration by the Industrial Arbitration Court under section 28 (b) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance.

In regard to the Member for Telok Blangah's complaint that the 14 days' limit for making an appeal against a referee's decision, as provided for in sub-clause (6) of clause 18, it is apparent that he is not conversant with the procedure of the Industrial Arbitration Court in this matter. I would like to enlighten him that the current practice of the Court is to insist that all referee's decisions should be handed down in writing either by the referee himself or to the Registrar at the direction of the Court. A copy of the written decision of the referee is immediately made available to the parties concerned. The regulations that will be prescribed for appeal will lay down the procedure for appeal step by step beginning with the notice of appeal. Once the notice of appeal has been filed within 14 days under sub-clause (6) of clause 18, the court will proceed to make available the full transcript of the referee's proceedings together with a copy of the referee's decision and all relevant exhibits to enable the appellant to prepare his petition of appeal.

So far the Court has not laid down any time limit for the appellant to submit his petition of appeal, but eventually this will be regulated. I, therefore, fail to see the necessity for the amendment proposed by the Member. In view of this, I see no necessity for either an employer or a union to employ stenographers at its own expense to take down court proceedings for its own use.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Jek Yeun Thong]

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

3.55 p.m.

The Chairman: Unless any hon. Member wishes to speak on any particular clause in the Bill, I propose to take clauses 1 to 23 en bloc.

Mr Ho See Beng rose ---

The Chairman: Yes, Mr Ho. Do you wish to speak on any particular clause?

Mr Ho See Beng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to seek the general assent of this House to introduce an amendment without notice to clause 16 of the ---

The Chairman: We will deal with that when we come to that. Up to clause 15, the Member does not wish to say anything then. Is that correct?

Mr Ho See Beng: Clause 16.

The Chairman: Up to clause 15, you are all right. You have no amendments to move?

Mr Ho See Beng: Yes.

Clauses 1 to 15 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 -

Mr Ho See Beng: Mr Speaker, Sir, Clause 16 of the Bill provides for a trade union to submit claims on the employer, but we often come across employers who, on receiving claims from the unions, embark on an action of dismissal or retrenchment, and we have submitted proposed amendments to the Labour Ministry ---

The Chairman: Does the Member just want to speak on the clause, or does he want to move an amendment to it?

Mr Ho See Beng: I want to move an amendment.

The Chairman: Will the Member move the amendment? Let us see what is the amendment.

Mr Ho See Beng: My amendment is that in clause 16 an amendment be introduced that any employer on receiving claims served by the union shall not embark on any action to retrench or dismiss the workers.

The Chairman: Does the Member have it in writing? Could he give it to me in writing?

Mr Ho See Beng: I have not got it in writing, but I can write it down.

The Chairman: Please do.

The Minister of Defence (Dr Goh Keng Swee): Mr Speaker, on a point of order. Should not the hon. Member seek the general assent of the House to introduce this amendment if he wants to move an amendment without giving notice?

The Chairman: Procedurally, the Minister is perfectly correct. I have received no notice of amendment, and the Member for Bras Basah will not be allowed to move an amendment unless he has the general assent of the House. I just want the Member to produce his amendment so that I can put it to the House and find out whether they want to give general assent. But if the feeling of the House is that no general assent is going to be forthcoming, that might very well be the end of that amendment.

3.00 p.m.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not that I would not like to accept the amendment from the N.T.U.C., but I have already said that a copy of this very Bill was given to the N.T.U.C. on the 14th September. It has been lying in their office for almost three months, and if the Member thinks that there is any reason for any amendment, he should have given it to us in the Labour Ministry so that we could have studied it properly and accepted it if agreed.

I think that we cannot just accept any amendments to this Bill, because this Bill will become law for our industries. If we start accepting amendments without any notice, it would make our laws very loose and difficult to administer.

The Chairman: Do I gather then that the House is not ready to give its assent to the Member to move his amendment without notice?

Mr Ho See Beng: Mr Speaker, I consider this amendment is very vital to the workers. So when I submit it to you, Mr Speaker, you can put it to the House. And if the House rejects this amendment of mine, then I will withdraw it.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I think we have not reached the stage where we are to discuss the merits or demerits of the proposed amendment. We are considering whether the Member should, after having been given a very long notice, specifically as Chairman of the N.T.U.C., spring an amendment at the last minute in this House. If the Member says that it is a very vital matter, then it should have been attended to long ago. In principle, I think it is bad to introduce amendments without notice, where Members of the House would not have been given every opportunity to consider them, and I will oppose the introduction of any amendment to this clause.

The Chairman: That finishes that. Mr Ho, you do not have the general assent of the House, and in view of that, your amendment cannot be moved.

Mr Bernard Rodrigues (Telok Blangah): Mr Speaker, I, as a Member of this House, would like to give my assent to the amendment.

The Chairman: No. It must have general assent.

An hon. Member: One vote!

The Chairman: Mr Ho, all that I can do for you is that I will propose the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill, and you can have your full say on it.

Mr Ho See Beng: Thank you, Mr Speaker, I am obliged. But since I cannot get general assent of this House, I do not want either to speak on it or introduce any amendment.

The Chairman: Very well.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 17 to 23 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24 -

The Chairman: The Minister has given notice of two amendments which appear in the Order Paper Supplement. Now, before I call upon the Minister to move his first amendment, I would like to draw his attention to what appears to be a clerical error in lines 2 and 3 of the clause. Sub-clause (1) of clause 24 reads:

`The following sections of the Ordinance are hereby amended by deleting the expression "State Advocate-General" wherever they appear...'.

There appears to be a grammatical error in `the expression "State Advocate-General" wherever they appear ...'. We had a similar mistake previously. I wonder if the Minister will agree to that.

Now, in view of the drafting of sub-clause (2) and the proposed new sub-clause (3) in the Minister's second amendment where the word "words" is used rather than "expression", perhaps the Minister may wish to consider proposing an amendment,

In page 9, line 2, to leave out "expression" and there insert "words".

If that is done, then the whole section will tie up properly with the same word being used all the time.

If the Minister agrees, the amendment requires my consent and the general assent of Members present. I give my consent. Is it the pleasure of hon. Members that the amendment be moved?

Hon. Members indicated assent.

Amendment made: In page 9, line 2, to leave out "expression" and there insert "words". - [Mr Jek Yeun Thong].

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health (Mr Sia Kah Hui): Mr Speaker, I wonder whether in the fourth line the word "expression" should also be changed to "words". After the amendment just now, I think that if the whole clause were to read properly, then the word "expression" should be changed to "words", so that the clause will read:

`...by deleting the words "State Advocate-General" wherever they appear therein and substituting therefor the words "Attorney-General":-'.

Would that not be more consistent?

The Chairman: Will the Minister agree to that?

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: I seek your consent and the general assent of the House.

The Chairman: It is all right. There is nothing wrong with it, neither is the "expression".

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Sir, I move,

In page 9, line 4, to leave out "expression" and there insert "words".

The Chairman: I think "Attorney-General" is a compound word, and therefore it should be "word".

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: I am sorry.

The Chairman: The Minister has my consent to move his amendment. Has it the general assent of the House?

Hon. Members indicated assent.

Amendment made: In page 9, line 4, to leave out "expression" and there insert "word" -[Mr Jek Yeun Thong].

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Mr Speaker, I move,

In page 9, line 5, after "60 (1),", to insert "61 (1),".

This is an oversight in drafting.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Mr Speaker, I move,

In page 9, after line 11, to add -

`(3) The following sections of the Ordinance are hereby amended by deleting the words "Yang di-Pertuan

Negara" wherever they appear therein and substituting therefor the words "President of Singapore" -

Sections 2, 3 (1), 5 (1), 15 (1), 28 (c) and 30.'.

This is an amendment in nomenclature subsequent to the changes recently introduced to our Constitution.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 24, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported with amendments; read a Third time and passed.