TRADE UNIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.57 p.m.

The Minister for Labour (Mr Jek Yeun Thong): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The Bill seeks to amend the Trade Unions Ordinance with the following objects:-

1. To debar non-Singapore citizens and persons with criminal records from holding any office in or from being employed by a registered trade union.

2. To provide for the compulsory registration of branch offices, members of other committees and paid officials of a trade union in the same manner as is being done now in respect of the registration of headquarters' offices and central committee members.

3. To make it compulsory for a trade union to obtain the consent of the majority of the members concerned by secret ballot before calling a strike or taking any form of industrial action.

Under the existing Trade Unions Ordinance, any person who has attained the age of 21 years may become an officer of a trade union. Other than this, the only restriction imposed by the Ordinance on the qualification of trade union officers is that at least two-thirds of the total number of the officers of a trade union shall be persons actually engaged or employed in an industry or occupation with which the trade union is connected. This laxity has enabled persons who are not Singapore citizens and undesirable elements with criminal records to hold important positions in and manage the affairs of trade unions.

As comprehensive measures have already been adopted by Government to protect the employment opportunities of Singapore citizens, it would be illogical to allow non-Singapore citizens to remain entrenched in the executive positions of trade unions. The democratic trade union movement has a vital role to play in our national development. It is, therefore, only right that measures are taken to ensure that individual unions and the trade union movement as a whole should be led by citizens of our country.

The N.T.U.C. has already made it clear that under no circumstances will it tolerate corrupt practices in the labour movement. The elimination of undesirable elements with criminal records from key positions in trade unions will ensure the emergence of a clean and honest labour movement.

The provisions of the existing Trade Unions Ordinance do not adequately safeguard the interest of the members of trade unions in connection with strikes and other forms of industrial action. The Ordinance merely requires trade unions to make provisions in their rules for the taking of decisions in respect of strikes by secret ballot. But nowhere in the Ordinance does it lay down that failure to comply with the necessity to carry out a secret ballot prior to strike action is an offence under the Ordinance, although the Registrar of Trade Unions may, on proper complaints laid before him by the members affected, call upon the union concerned to show cause as to why its registration should not be cancelled.

Apart from deregistration, no other action can be taken against the defaulting union or the responsible officers, as a strike, which is commenced without taking a secret ballot of the members of the trade union concerned, is not an illegal strike within the meaning of the Trade Disputes Ordinance. It is intended to rectify this deficiency by making specific provisions in the law to require a trade union to obtain the consent of the majority of its members concerned by secret ballot before calling a strike or taking any form of industrial action. This would ensure that the views of the rank and file members in respect of industrial action are respected by the union leadership, and eliminate any undemocratic manipulation of imposing a strike from the top.

As anticipated, the anti-national elements in the pro-Communist unions have come out with their usual distorted statements alleging that the object of the Bill is to deprive the right of the so-called left-wing trade unionists to serve the workers. They have been singing this old tune for years. Members will recall that in the past, when the Government introduced legislative measures to safeguard trade union funds, it was accused by them of adopting Fascist and dictatorial methods to suppress the trade unions. It is easy to see what is at the back of their tortuous minds. They are not really interested in the right to serve the workers simply because they have no concern for the interest of the workers. What actually gives them cause for concern is that the Bill might in some way curb their evil design to subvert the trade union movement to serve their selfish interest.

I shall now explain the amendments proposed in this Bill. The provisions in clause 2 of the Bill seek to enlarge the existing definition of "executive" and "officer" to include reference to the branch committees, branch officers and members of other committees of a trade union. This is necessary in view of the provision to be introduced in clause 4 which deals with the qualifications of trade union officers.

Clause 3 makes it compulsory for a trade union to obtain the consent of the majority of the members concerned by secret ballot before calling a strike or taking any form of industrial action. Failure to comply with this democratic process would render the defaulting union and its officers liable to prosecution and, if convicted, a fine of up to $2,000 can be imposed. There is nothing whatsoever in this clause which may in any way hamper the workers' fundamental right to strike. In fact, its sole aim is to ensure that every member of a trade union has the opportunity to exercise his democratic right and express his views freely by secret ballot on the vital question of strike and other forms of industrial action which directly affect their livelihood. It was not uncommon in the past that in some disputes the workers knew nothing about their cases at all. The first thing they knew about the strike was that when they turned up at the factory gate they found banners hanging all over the place and they were not allowed to enter the factory. Now, we are not going to allow this to happen any more. We are not going to allow the trade union leaders to have the only say in the unions. But we are not saying that they cannot go on strike or take any form of industrial action. All we say is that if they want to go on strike or take any form of industrial action, they must first consult their members, and the general members must have the final say as to whether or not they should carry out a strike.

Following the First Reading of the Bill, my Ministry has received representations from the National Trades Union Congress. The N.T.U.C. has pointed out that subsection (1) of the new section 24A in clause 3, as it stands, would give the impression that before a trade union commences a strike or any form of industrial action which affects only a section of its members, it has to obtain by secret ballot the consent of the majority of the entire membership. This is not the intention of this subsection which, in such cases, requires only the' majority consent of the particular section of members concerned.

I propose, Mr Speaker, Sir, at the Committee stage to move an amendment which will make the intention clear. The N.T.U.C. has also expressed very strong objection to the definition of "industrial action" in subsection (4) of the new section 24A. For this reason, the Second Reading of the Bill was postponed twice to enable my Ministry to discuss the matter fully with the N.T.U.C. Sir, at the Committee stage I will move an amendment to the definition of "industrial action". Although the new definition does not meet the views of the N.T.U.C. in full, I would say that it is the most realistic provision we could make under the circumstances.

Under the proposed amendments in clause 4, a person is disqualified from holding any office in the central executive committee, branch committees and other committees, such as industrial relation committees, education and cultural committees of a trade union, if he is not a citizen of Singapore or has been convicted of criminal breach of trust, extortion or criminal intimidation, or any other offence, which, in the opinion of the Minister, renders him unfit to be an officer of a trade union.

The Bill also provides in clause 5 that a person shall not be employed as an employee of a trade union if he is not a citizen of Singapore or has been convicted of a criminal offence. In other words, the amended section 26 and the new section 26A in clauses 4 and 5 endeavour to ensure that not only the running of this country in every respect shall be in the hands of citizens of Singapore, but also that the trade union leadership shall not be exposed to corrupt influence. A clean and honest trade union movement will inspire the confidence not only of the workers but also of the general public and the employers.

It has been appreciated that there would be practical difficulties in certain cases in applying the new provisions of section 26 in clause 4 and section 26A in clause 5. A proviso has also been incorporated in both these sections which gives power to the Minister to rule that the disqualification arising from conviction shall not apply where he is satisfied that the person convicted has reformed. Powers are also given to the Minister in the new section 26B in clause 5 to exempt any trade union or person from the provisions relating to disqualification.

To ensure the effective implementation of the provisions in clause 3 and to improve on the existing provisions of the Ordinance concerning secret ballots, the Bill provides in clause 6 that the rules of a registered trade union shall ensure that every member has an equal right to record his vote freely, that the results of the voting are accurately ascertained and declared, and that the secrecy of the ballot is properly secured. Besides, power is given to the Registrar of Trade Unions to inspect ballot papers and other documents used in connection with the ballot, and it is provided that all such papers and documents shall be preserved for six months and the results of the ballot shall be sent to the Registrar. Under the existing Ordinance, registered trade unions are required to notify the Registrar of every change of headquarters or offices, including members of the central executive committee, within seven days after the change. In view of the provisions relating to disqualification of officers and employees of trade unions in clauses 4 and 5, consequential changes are made in clauses 7 and 8 whereby, in addition to reporting changes of headquarters or offices and central executive members, trade unions are also required to notify the Registrar of all changes of branch offices, members of other committees as well as employees.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I propose to add a new clause to the Bill at the Committee stage relating to a minor amendment to section l8B of the Ordinance. The purpose of the amendment is to enable the Official Assignee to deal with immovable property belonging to trade unions which are dissolved.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

4.13 p.m.

Inche Mohd. Ariff Bin Suradi (Kampong Kembangan): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I find that the contents of the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill are good and the Bill should be supported if the intention of the Minister for Labour is sincere, as he has explained in respect of clause 3 in this amendment Bill. But there are two other clauses which are not very happy ones. I believe not only I myself but every other trade unionist will support me in this respect. For example, Mr Speaker, clause 2. At present executive members only should be registered with a trade union. But with this amendment when it comes into force - every branch committee of the union will have to be registered with the Registrar. In this matter, large unions - for example, the Bank Employees Union, the Insurance Employees Union, the A.U.P.E., the Singapore Manual and Mercantile Workers Union, etc., which have tens or hundreds of branches -have many sectional committees, e.g., picnic, social and other committees. Although these committees are temporary, their members will also have to register their names, addresses, ages, etc., with the Registrar of Trade Unions. Mr Speaker, this would involve the union in administrative work.

I cannot see any other constructive aim regarding clause 4 of this amendment Bill. I find that it prevents a non-citizen, or a person who has been convicted of a criminal offence, criminal breach of trust, extortion or criminal intimidation which, in the opinion of the Minister, renders him unfit to be an officer of a trade union or a branch of a trade union, from holding office. The Government has issued work permits to non-citizens and these workers can continue to work in Singapore. It is fair that if a person is allowed to work in Singapore, he should be allowed to be a member of a trade union to safeguard the security of his job and his family. If he is allowed to be a member of a trade union according to our democratic trade union regulations, then he will have the right to contest or to hold office either in a branch or central committee. I agree that people not given work permits be not allowed to hold office in any trade union. But if a person, who has been issued with a work permit, is a member of a trade union, then he should have the same rights as other Singapore citizens. Otherwise these people will not have the right to vote concerning an industrial action in respect of section 24A (1) . Employers will make use of this provision to oppress workers who are non-citizens but who are allowed to work in Singapore, and these workers will find hardship. Then this will bring about the downfall of the free democratic trade union movement.

Finally, workers with Singapore citizenship will also suffer similar consequences. As the Malay proverb says, "If the needle can pass through, the string can also pass through."

Mr Speaker, Sir, although I support the sentiments in section 26 (1) (b) of the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill, I would nevertheless suggest that the provisions in the Industrial Relations Ordinance be included in this Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill. I refer to section 7 (4) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance wherein a person who is an undischarged bankrupt and is of unsound mind should not work as an officer of a trade union, because such a person will not be able to manage his own financial affairs. Maybe he is a spendthrift and his bad habits, such as gambling, drinking, etc., will cause him to get into debt, and if he cannot clear his debts, then he is made a bankrupt.

I would like to suggest to the Minister for Labour to take action in respect of clauses 4 and 5 of this Bill - that this provision be added - persons who are non-citizens but who have work permits be allowed to hold office in the trade union movement. And also include in this provision, that persons who have not been discharged from bankruptcy and are of unsound mind should not be allowed to hold office in the trade union movement.

Mr Ho See Beng: Mr Speaker, Sir, we have no quarrel at all with the Minister for Labour in respect of his introducing the amendment of the new section 24A, subsections (1) , (2) and (3) . But, Mr Speaker, Sir, if you look at subsection (4) , the wording contained therein, I will say that if this Bill is passed today, then I am afraid that the whole trade union movement in Singapore will have to close shop. The Minister for Labour has introduced this piece of legislation, or rather an amendment to the Trade Unions Ordinance. Sir, I refer to the proposed amendments to section 24A of the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill. As I said, if it is passed today by this Legislature, I have no doubt that the status of the Minister for Labour will be very much enhanced and, instead of being referred to as Minister for Labour, he will be addressed as the Honourable Minister for Management or Employers. As a Member of Parliament and also as a trade unionist, it is my duty to point out the flaws in the amendments. We welcome the introduction of this amendment which, as the Minister for Labour has said earlier, is to curb irresponsible leadership in the trade union movement and the anti-national elements who call for strikes without resort to a secret ballot. All these are well-meant intentions. But does he realise that in the process of curbing the anti-national elements and also the irresponsible trade union leaders, the loyal and democratic trade union movement like the National Trades Union Congress will also be clobbered?

Mr Speaker, Sir, when I read the amendments to the Trade Unions Ordinance, the new section 24A, subsection (4) wherein -

Mr Speaker: When you refer to the new section 24A, subsection (4) , could you make it clear whether you are referring to it as published in the Bill or as in the proposed amendment to be taken in the Committee stage?

Mr Ho See Beng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I refer to the proposed amendment by the Minister for Labour.

Mr Speaker: Please proceed, Mr Ho.

Mr Ho See Beng: - wherein the Minister attempts to define "industrial action", this definitely will receive maximum applause from the employers but not from the unions. I was at the beginning disillusioned and later on disgusted by this attempt to curb healthy trade unionism in Singapore. And even at this moment of disillusionment, I cannot but be a little amused by this definition of "industrial action" -

Mr Speaker: Mr Ho, I am sorry to interrupt once again. Two points occur to me. I know it is very difficult when you are dealing with an amending Bill to confine your remarks to the general policy of the Bill. But if you are going into detailed criticism of clauses or sub-clauses, I think it would be better for you to reserve that for the Committee stage, and in so far as is possible at this moment, please address your remarks to the general policy of the Bill.

The other point is with regard to proposed subsection (4) of which the Minister has given notice. There is no 100 per cent certainty that he will move it. So you may, in fact, be anticipating him when you refer to that. Would not the better course be to wait till we sit as a Committee on that?

Mr Ho See Beng: I agree. May I proceed ?

Mr Speaker: Yes.

Mr Ho See Beng: Mr Speaker, Sir, the whole object of this new amendment will restrict an employee even to take only two or three minutes off for the purpose of answering the calls of nature. Legally, if you read the amendment, it will, ridiculously enough, mean that every act which limits productivity constitutes an industrial action. While I am not attaching any blame on the legal draftsman for this definition, I cannot appreciate its anti-labour concept. Even during the heyday of the colonial regime, when our Prime Minister and his colleagues were in the forefront of attack against the anti-labour laws of the foreign masters, there was not a single piece of legislation or amendment to the then existing Ordinance which could match this wonderful piece of legislation, for which the present Government attempts to seek the approval of this Parliament.

I wonder why at this juncture the Government should exert increased pressure and restrictions on the union movement, especially when the N.T.U.C. and its affiliates are acting in a very highly responsible and democratic manner. The N.T.U.C. today represents 75 per cent of organised labour, and our record during the past few years is one which deserves praise from all quarters. Even in the face of extreme provocation from management from time to time, we continue to explore peaceful ways and means with a view to arriving at a solution consistent with our declared objective - "industrial peace with justice". Thus, our approach has resulted in very few industrial actions in Singapore. During 1961, there were 116 strikes and lock-outs, while in 1962, the fact that the figure was reduced to only 88 apparently was no consolation either to the employers or to the unions. But at that time, the Government did not see fit to introduce measures to curb industrial action. As all the people of Singapore are aware, at that time, the Government and the N.T.U.C. co-operated very well. We fought the Communists. We fought the crooks. We fought the communalists. We came out with flying colours. But it is surprising that today the P.A.P. Government, which often claims to be labour-biased, is apparently determined to throttle us for no rhyme or reason. Compared with the figures of industrial stoppages in 1961 and 1962, there were only 31 strikes and lock-outs in 1965, and further, during the first six months of this year, from January to June, there were hardly half a dozen strikes on our industrial scene. Mr Speaker, Sir, does this not indicate the high sense of responsibility on the part of the trade union movement and also our success in finding a common ground for the economic survival of the Republic? And yet the Government has got the cheek to introduce such restrictive measures to curb a loyal democratic trade union movement like the N.T.U.C.! That being the case, can the Government furnish one good acceptable reason for the introduction of this particular subsection in the amendment which de facto binds and chains the limbs of the workers? The colonial masters did not do it. The turbulent years of 1961 and 1962 did not demand it, and yet today in a comparatively calm atmosphere and situation, the Government is going to introduce this amendment - as the Minister for Labour has said earlier - to curb irresponsible leadership and anti-national elements. I completely agree with him. But does he realise that in doing so, we will also get involved? The democratic trade union movement also will be clobbered in the process.

Of late, a series of statements issued by our Prime Minister on labour matters and the number of amendments to the labour legislation introduced by the Labour Minister have subsequently made many of us wonder what exactly the Government are up to. Do they believe in industrial peace at any costs? Do they believe in knocking down the N.T.U.C., which is a loyal and democratic trade union movement, so that the Communists and opportunists can take over? I would like to warn this House, Mr Speaker, Sir, that if the Government prefer to allow the Communists and opportunists to take over the government, they can go ahead with their amendment. But if they choose the N.T.U.C. - the present leadership in the trade union movement - then they are listening to the voice of reason. It says, "Vox populi, vox dei."

While analysing the figures for organised labour in this country for the years 1956 and 1966, I was surprised to note that for the year 1956, organised labour was 157,216 and for June, 1966, the figure for organised labour was reduced; it was only 152,023. Why is it so? If the Government claim to be labour-biased and labour-orientated, organised labour should have increased, but instead the figure was reduced. Something must be wrong somewhere. As I understand, in 1956, we had only semi-colonial status, but today we are told that we are citizens of a democratic socialist Republic. Further, the labour force has increased substantially during the last decade, and today one-third of the total population can be considered as economically active. Still, the total number of unionised workers has dwindled. Why? It is very apparent, Mr Speaker, Sir, that if the Government continues to introduce anti-labour legislation, nobody will wonder that the number of organised workers has dwindled. So in future, I will not be surprised if the number of our organised or unionised workers will be further reduced.

Mr Speaker, Sir, at this juncture, it will be pertinent to refer to section 79 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance which is intended to protect the interest of labour from victimisation.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: On a point of order, Sir, I think section 79 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance has nothing to do with the present Bill we are discussing now.

Mr Speaker: I think I will wait to see what connection the Member for Bras Basah seeks to bring between the two.

Mr Ho See Beng: The reason why I mention section 79 now, which was section 77 (10) then, is to make a comparison, that for a piece of anti-labour legislation, the Government is ever ready to bring it to this House for approval. But for a piece of progressive labour legislation which is intended to restrict employers - that is section 79 - from victimising workers, the Government is reluctant to do it, in spite of our repeated requests. So when we made repeated requests to put more teeth into this clause, there was reluctance on the Government side. They just do not care. But today, they are ever ready to bring this new amendment into this House to seek its approval. On the other hand, the Minister for Labour has no hesitation to introduce this particular amendment which incorporates the definition of "industrial action" which he himself should know amounts to selling the labour movement lock, stock and barrel to the employer.

Mr Speaker, Sir, our Government maintain or at least attempt to maintain a semblance of a socialist Government! But the working class cannot be duped. They can see through the "camouflage". We have battled right from 1945 against colonialists, against colonial stooges like Lim Yew Hock, and also against Communists during 1961 and 1962. But, today, if we have to face another "emergency" which warrants solidarity and determination of the workers to struggle for the survival of a free and democratic trade union movement in pursuit of its legitimate maintenance of dignity of labour, we will have no hesitation or reservation in doing battle as what we did in the past against the Lim Yew Hock regime and the Communists. Now, I have made it very clear before the House that it is left to the Government to decide whether they are to delete the amendments, particularly subsection (4) , or whether they are prepared to face the wrath of the working class.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I subscribe to the point of view that this amendment is designed to curb irresponsible trade leaders and anti-national elements who call for strikes without legitimate grounds and without the consent of the majority of their members. As I said earlier, I completely agree with that. But in the process of curbing the anti-national elements in their irresponsible acts, the loyal democratic trade union movement like the N.T.U.C. and its affiliates will also get clobbered. Hence, I submit that the amendment is totally unnecessary and unwarranted. The existing laws are sufficient and adequate to deal with any situation. For instance, section 28 (b) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance gives enough power to the Minister to refer any dispute to arbitration at any time. The President of the Arbitration Court is also fully armed to issue any injunction to meet the requirements. So why is the Government afraid that strikes will be called without secret ballot, and so on? If the President of the Court feels that a strike is illegal, he can issue an injunction to call it off. The Minister for Labour has full ministerial power to direct it to Court. So where is the necessity to have this amendment? Even the constitution of every individual trade union has also relevant clauses to prevent it from taking industrial action without a secret ballot. Further, there is the Registrar of Trade Unions - the watchdog of the Government.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I submit that this subsection should not be incorporated. It should be totally deleted from the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill. I hope that the Government will succumb to common sense and democratic ideals and, last but not least, give way to the legitimate rights of the working class.

Mr Bernard Rodrigues (Telok Blangah) rose -

Mr Speaker: I was wondering whether this would be a convenient time to suspend the sitting for half an hour.

I will take the Chair again at 5.20 p.m.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.46 p.m. until 5.20 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.20 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Bernard Rodrigues: Mr Speaker, Sir, I completely concur with what my trade union colleague and Member for Bras Basah has to say on the amendment to the Trade Unions Ordinance, namely, section 24A. The attempt to define "industrial action" is, if I may say so, quite unprecedented in our part of the world. I would be most interested if the Hon. Minister for Labour, who is not here at the moment, I think, could point out to this House one example of such definition being attempted in the Legislature of any socialist democratic country in Asia.

We are told that we have competent Industrial Arbitration Courts in Singapore. If this is indeed true, Mr Speaker, Sir, then why in the name of heaven do we find it utterly necessary to spell out what is or what is not an industrial action in our Ordinance? Cannot our competent Arbitration Courts be called upon to do what is legitimately their work? Cannot they from time to time evolve what is or what is not an industrial action in any given circumstance? Has the Hon. Minister for Labour examined all avenues to this problem before coming to this irretrievable position of having to define in our statute what is meant by "industrial action"?

Sir, let us look at the definition itself as it appears in the amendment Bill No. 69. It is couched in such a manner that it can only be described by any observer as a blanket definition in a deliberate attempt to tie the working class hand and foot. We are supposed to be men and women given to liberal, democratic, socialistic thinking. If all our thinking can only produce pathetic legislation of the sort that is being attempted here, then I for one am at a loss to understand what is meant by either socialism or democracy.

Unless and until the Hon. Minister supplies us with very cogent reasons for the introduction of this amendment, I am of the view that it ought not to be approved. As a trade unionist, I will not stand for anti-labour legislation in any shape or form. As my colleague the Member for Bras Basah has quite rightly pointed out, the need for such restrictive provisions in the Trade Unions Ordinance is completely unjustified, particularly in view of the fact that the figures quoted by him do not warrant undue restrictions to be imposed at this juncture of time.

The N.T.U.C. and its affiliates cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be termed anti-national or obstructive in their attitude. All that we, the workers of the N.T.U.C., ask for is not to seal our armoury in such a way that our existence will be rendered hopelessly impotent or completely ineffective. There is not one iota of doubt in the minds of the workers of Singapore that this proposed amendment is rightfully anti-labour. If it is the Government's intention slowly to do away with every single right of the workers of Singapore, then we have no doubt that legislation to this end is indeed possible. But, Mr Speaker, Sir, is this the avowed intention of our Government? Was this our manifesto? I hope not and I pray not. The workers of Singapore have been aware and have been more patient in recent times, but let this not be mistaken for cowardice on their part. For, as the saying goes, even a worm will turn if it is unduly provoked. And the workers that the N.T.U.C. represents are not worms either!

Accordingly, Sir, I will oppose the proposed amendment and appeal to all my colleagues in this House, whose sympathy lies with the workers, to reject this amendment.

Mr Lim Guan Hoo (Bukit Merah): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, what I want to speak on more or less differs from what the Member for Bras Basah has said. In order to clarify my opinion and thoughts on this, I think I have inevitably to mention the differences between his views and my views, and finally I will have to sum up my own opinion on this issue.

The Member for Bras Basah just now in making his speech created an impression on others that he was speaking not only as a Member of Parliament but also in his dual capacity as spokesman for the workers. This would cause people to think of his identity as the Secretary-General of -

Mr Ho See Beng: I am speaking -

Mr Speaker: Is the Member for Bukit Merah prepared to give way? The Member for Bras Basah is raising some point. Is he prepared to give way and let the Member for Bras Basah raise his point?

Mr Lim Guan Hoo indicated assent and resumed his seat.

Mr Ho See Beng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am speaking in a dual capacity - as a Member of Parliament as well as the Secretary-General of the N.T.U.C. I am not speaking only in the capacity of the Member for Bras Basah.

Mr Speaker: I think that was the point the Member was making.

Mr Lim Guan Hoo: (In Mandarin): About the question of his capacity and identity, I think I have already touched on it.

Just now the Member for Bras Basah - I am not directing my remarks at his capacity or the position from which he made his speech - talked about his reasons for opposing this amendment which makes people feel that if it were passed without opposition, then the people would think that it is meant as a piece of legislation to suppress the trade union movement in Singapore. What are the reasons? What he has said just now is not enough. He said that judging from the last few years, although there have been strikes, there has been a decrease in the number. But this could be ascribed to the fact that the workers under their leaders have realised their own position and have co-operated with the Government to meet the present situation. This I say is a good sign. To say that the decrease in the number of strikes has been due to the fact that we have not introduced such an amendment as this, and that if once we introduce this amendment then there will be a greater number of strikes and so on, I should say this argument of his could not hold water. From the point of view of legislation, it is not for us to discard our duties in legislation just because the number of strikes has decreased. This can also be due to industrial peace. It is a healthy sign. It does not go to show that once the number of strikes has decreased, that shows a healthy situation in the trade union movement, legislation must end. In a primitive age there was no strike whatsoever because in that society the existence of trade unions or strikes was not possible. That goes to show that it is not necessary to have any legislation on that aspect. It is an extreme case. But what I want to point out to him. If we can say that the reduction in the number of strikes is a concrete, collective sign of industrial peace, then it is another matter. If it is just because of the decrease in the number of strikes that we amend this law, then the anti-national elements will like very much to amend our law because of that reason. And if the anti-national elements are wise, they will adopt an attitude of opposition in silence. If in just a short period of one year, when they are able to control the trade unions or when they have great influence in the trade unions, they will suddenly ask the workers on their side to strike en bloc for one year or half a year. And by that time, can we still say that it is not necessary for us to make any advance preparations in our legislation to prevent such a situation, and not be able to argue again that there is a reduction in the number of strikes by 90 per cent in one year? What we can see of the present peaceful situation in the trade union movement is that the law should be such that it can endure all situations and not just be able to meet only the present calm situation.

Mr Ho See Beng: On a point of clarification.

Mr Speaker: I will find out if Mr Lim is prepared to give way. Mr Ho wants to raise a point of clarification, Mr Lim.

Mr Lim Guan Hoo: (In Mandarin): I hope the Member will allow me to continue my speech before he raises the question.

Mr Speaker: Mr Ho, you will have to restrain yourself for a moment, please.

Mr Lim Guan Hoo: (In Mandarin): I feel that the law itself has its merits and good characteristics. These good characteristics lie in the fact that the law can meet all situations and will be effective in all situations. We should not think of passing legislation to deal with a situation only when it arises. The law should be flexible enough to be able to deal with all situations. In other words, it should have a preventive and curative effect. I will sum up my conclusions which will give you my opinion on this matter. I feel that in the spirit of independence of Singapore, what should not be lacking is democracy which should also be applied to trade unionism. Our trade unionism should also have the manifestation of the spirit of the democratic Republic of Singapore. Legislation should not prevent the development of the spirit of democracy. If there is anything contrary to or bad in the spirit of democracy, then I will oppose it. But I do not find anything in this law which is against the spirit of democracy. Unless I know of any concrete point or fact which will enable me to know that this law is anti-democracy, I will not agree to its opposition or anybody's opposition to this law. Mr Speaker, I approve of the passing of this law.

5.37 p.m.

Mr Lim Cheng Lock (River Valley): I rise to support this Bill. I think it is a good Bill and one which not only protects the workers but also the public in general. The trade union leaders on this side of the House have bitterly criticised the Government on the proposed amendments. A lot of slogan-shouting has been made, but -

Mr Ho See Beng: We do not believe in slogan-shouting.

Mr Lim Cheng Lock: We have not heard one good, valid reason why the workers or the N.T.U.C. oppose section 24A (4) of the amendment. I think our national trade union leaders have failed to understand the present approach and thinking. I think they have failed to understand that they are no longer dealing with a colonial Government, but a free and independent Government who has got the interest of the people at heart. Why do they oppose the proposed amendment? I personally feel that there is nothing wrong in this legislation. If a union wishes to take industrial action and if it has legitimate reason to do so, by all means go on strike. By all means have a strike ballot. If their reasons are valid and if they have the support of the workers, why should they fear this amendment? It is this very amendment that is necessary to regulate irresponsible employers and also irresponsible trade union leaders who take advantage of the slightest reason to go on strike, with the result that the public suffers. We have seen many cases of this.

I am also pleased to note that this Bill gives adequate power to the Registrar to deal with irresponsible trade union leaders who do not abide by the rules of their union. I believe we have seen a recent case in the High Court of workers against workers to seek redress, at painful expense of legal fees to the legal profession. I am sure that if this Bill had been introduced then, such action would have been unnecessary and the workers would have been spared the expense of having to take High Court action.

Mr P. Govindaswamy (Anson): (In Tamil): My colleagues have spoken on this amendment Bill. I would also like to express my views. Generally, for those union leaders who can act in a lawful manner, there is no difficulty. In this country, for those who treat the workers well and who want to work for their welfare, there is scope. We cannot expect progress and prosperity by suppressing the workers and reducing their affluence. Production will go down. The country's affluence will also go down. For example, today the labour unions, through the labour movement, often resort to strikes. I do not know which law they follow. It is, therefore, necessary to restrict these activities. The unions are meant to lift up the workers. When they see such a severe law, they will think that they have to work for the trade unions and work for the labour movement. And they will then come to the stage to take further action.

Before a law is made, the situation should be carefully examined. We should know which are the countries where there is confusion, and when there is such confusion, the country or the people may suffer; and when there is such a situation, a law similar to this is necessary. My friend the Member for Bras Basah has stated that it is not easy to stage a strike. When there is a strike, we have a law and we can deal with that. We have to follow the proper way and exercise control, and if workers do not come under control, then we will have to take further action. When we think of all these things -

Mr Ho See Beng: Point of clarification, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Mr Govindaswamy, are you prepared to give way?

Mr Govindaswamy: Yes.

Mr Speaker: Yes, Mr Ho. Could you make it a point of order rather than a point of clarification?

Mr Ho See Beng: Point of clarification, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Well, I do not think I can take a point of clarification, but since the Member speaking is prepared to give way, please let me know what your point of clarification is.

Mr Ho See Beng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member for Anson has misunderstood my point when I made my speech earlier on. I said I support the requirement that any industrial action must be conducted by a secret ballot. I did not say that industrial action can be taken without a secret ballot. I fully support taking a secret ballot for a strike, I represent the National Trades Congress. We fully support the secret ballot. I did not say that without a secret ballot, the union can go on strike. Any strike must be supported by -

Mr Speaker: Mr Ho, you have made your point. I think what you did say was that the rules of the unions contain provision for a secret ballot and that is adequate to meet the problem.

Mr Ho See Beng: Yes.

Mr Speaker: Mr Govindaswamy.

Mr Govindaswamy: (In Tamil): Mr Speaker, Sir, my friend has stated his facts. I am saying that strikes are now conducted by a secret ballot. I am not saying that they are being staged without a secret ballot. I am asking why there is such a Bill when there is such a situation in Singapore. And whenever there is a law, there should be a reason for it. But this time I am asking whether there is any reason for it. There is no confusion in this country, and it is only when there is confusion that such a Bill should be brought in. If there is confusion, you can say that that is a good reason to bring in a Bill. But we should not bring in a situation which will demand such a Bill. This Bill is favourable to unions which abide by the law. I am saying that this Bi11 is favourable to unions which carry on legal activities. What I am asking is whether this Bill is important and necessary. We have to work hard for the trade unions and we have to treat employees properly. Therefore, by bringing in this Bill, we should not make it difficult for the workers, employees and the trade unions. We have to find some other way. We may not be able to do any good for the people. What I think is that this Bill is not a suitable one. Therefore, it should be re-examined and action should be taken in the proper way to give benefit to the employees. Therefore, the Labour Minister has to think carefully and come to a conclusion in the right way.

Inche Mahmud Awang (Kampong Kapor): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill has been heatedly debated in Parliament. Nevertheless, the Government has introduced it for the benefit of the public, including the working class, which is represented by the National Trades Union Congress.

An hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Inche Mahmud Awang: (In Malay): However, in the enforcement of this Bill, although in our heart of hearts we know that in introducing it we have good intentions, it is feared that the phraseology as contained therein may be misinterpreted or abused and will result in the Bill oppressing one section, maybe the working class or the public. When this Bill is introduced, and if a mistake is made, it is certain that the working class or the public may accuse the Government, which is actually a democratic and socialist Government and labour-orientated, and thus bad results will occur. So in introducing amendments we must bear in mind mutual benefits. We have heard hon. Members say anti-national elements. Anti-national elements are not confined to the Communists alone. They include opportunistic employers. They come under the definition of "anti-national elements".

The new section 24A (4) has been emphasised by the hon. Member for Bras Basah:

'"industrial action" means any action aimed at retarding, obstructing, limiting or reducing the normal progress of work in any occupation,...' and so on. I cite an example, Mr Speaker, Sir. Shift workers -

Mr Speaker: Inche Mahmud, you are going into the detailed provisions of sub-section (4) , but I think it might be more appropriate to raise it in the Committee stage than now.

Inche Mahmud Awang: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am merely making passing remarks.

Mr Speaker: Can you pass very quickly?

Inche Mahmud Awang: (In Malay): Suppose a trade union of bus workers convenes a meeting of its members for the purpose of taking a secret ballot, maybe for a strike or a go-slow or other matters in accordance with the union laws. Naturally those bus workers who are doing shift duties will have to attend the meeting, which means that the bus services will be affected. In such a case the employers will take the opportunity to say that this particular section can be taken as going against that particular section. Then the Government cannot do anything. That is the difficulty with which we will be faced. That is the fundamental issue which is brought out by the workers, and I hope such matters can be looked after carefully.

Likewise, as has been said by the hon. Member for Kampong Kembangan, perhaps unconsciously we make a mistake - those who have been issued with work permits, whether they have become union members or union leaders and so on. That also must be considered so that this Bill will be enforced smoothly for the benefit of both sides, including workers and the public.

Mr S. Rajoo (Farrer Park): Mr Speaker, Sir, we have heard some hon. Members in this House speaking against the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill which has been introduced by the Minister for Labour. What is there in this Bill to be afraid of if the trade unions themselves are aware of where they stand and what they do? Sir, there is a saying in the political field that state power put in proper hands will lead men to a good society. We can take it that trade union power put in the proper hands may lead to better industrial relations between workers and management. But my trade union colleagues in this House cannot say that there are no unscrupulous unionists in the disguise of genuine loyal unionists dedicated to the labour cause. Sir, I know of unionists who try to use union authority to go into the normal day-to-day problems of the workers. For instance, if there happen to be some members who do not toe the line, they will be threatened by the trade unionists that they will see to it that they are sacked from their employment. There are certain trade union officials in Government departments who even threaten their own colleagues by using their own position as trade union officials. Therefore, I hope my trade union colleagues in this House will agree with me -

Mr Ho See Beng: On a point of order. Mr Speaker, Sir, we are debating the amendment. We are not debating trade union officials being sacked by trade unions. The Member for Farrer Park is talking about trade union officials being sacked by trade unions. I think there is no relevance to it.

Mr Rajoo: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member for Bras Basah has mis-heard what I said. I did not say at any time that trade union officials are being sacked for trade union activities. I am just bringing up these matters to support the Bill and giving the reasons for it. Therefore, I hope my trade union colleagues in this House will agree with me that not all trade unionists are unscrupulous people.

An hon. Member: They can be.

Mr Rajoo: However, I feel that these amendments are intended to curb only irresponsible leaders. Therefore, there can be no grouse by Members about this piece of legislation. This amendment does not legislate against strikes or any industrial action. It only requires that a secret ballot be taken before a strike or any industrial action is taken. Why are the trade union officials afraid of secret ballots? If they are conscious of their duties to their members, they should welcome secret ballots to ascertain the wishes of the majority of the members.

The N.T.U.C. claim to be a responsible democratic institution. Then why should they be afraid of this legislation which actually does not curb any of its powers? It only tries to regularise things in a democratic way.

I therefore support this amendment.

6.02 p.m.

Mr Teong Eng Siong (Sembawang): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, many Members on the Government side have expressed their opinions on this amendment Bill.

The Member for Bras Basah was not actually expressing his opposition to this amendment Bill. He was directing himself against the new section 24A and he was expressing his opinion thereon. He thought this new section is beneficial to employers and not to employees. I feel that it is not so, because the important thing lies in the organisation and leadership of a trade union. If the leadership of a trade union can guide it well and can look after the interest of its members so that a secret ballot can be taken before any industrial action, then the Member for Bras Basah will have no cause to worry.

The next point is about the executive members of the trade union headquarters or branch having to register with the Registrar. I think this will help to consolidate the organisation and discipline of a trade union, and is good. It will also prevent anti-national elements designs on trade unions. The strength of trade unions cannot be ignored, and our Government has all along been looking after the welfare and interest of the workers by legislative action. Let me refer to an example concerning workmen's compensation. In the past one year, the compensation amounted to $400,000. At the same time, the Government has always been encouraging healthy trade unionism. For instance, the Government has a big sum of money to build Union House to show its keen for democratic trade unionism, and it is still continuing to give such support in order that trade unionism can develop and grow from strength to strength.

It is ridiculous to say that this Government has all of a sudden become an anti-labour Government because of the introduction of this amendment Bill. This will only give the impression to the public that there are even Members on this side of the House who think that the Government is anti-labour. I hope this is not the intention of the Member for Bras Basah.

I hope that all the amendments proposed here will be implemented correctly and properly.

6.08 p.m.

Mr Barker: Mr Speaker, Sir, it has been encouraging today to hear our trade union colleagues speak with so much gusto on this Bill.

The Member for Bras Basah, who reminds us that he is also the Secretary-General of the N.T.U.C., has accused the Government of clobbering, knocking down the N.T.U.C. by way of opposing this Bill. But it has been reassuring to hear the Member for Telok Blangah reminding the House that the N.T.U.C. are not worms and that even worms may turn. Some Members have described this Bill as a wonderful piece of legislation which did not even exist in the colonial days. Yet the Member for Bras Basah says that the number of strikes has gone down. I do not want to repeat his figures, but he admits that -

Mr Ho See Beng: Apparently you did not study it.

Mr Barker: I can quote his figures. He said that there were 116 strikes in 1961, which were reduced to 31 in 1965. But who claims the credit for this reduction in the incidence of strikes? Is it the N.T.U.C. alone?

An hon. Member: Yes.

Mr Barker: Or is it because there has been better legislation? Or perhaps the Government can claim some credit? And what about giving some credit to the employers? Perhaps they are giving better terms to their employees?

But to get down to bare facts, Mr Speaker, Sir, why is there so much opposition to this amendment Bill? Opposition has been concentrated on clause 3, in particular, new section 24A (1) and (4) . Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not want to be reminded that we are not in Committee but all that new section 24A (1) says is:

'A registered trade union shall not commence, promote, organise or finance any strike or lock-out or any form of industrial action without the consent of the majority of the members thereof, which consent shall be obtained by taking a secret ballot of the members of such registered trade union.'

Now the N.T.U.C. claims to be - again to use the words of the Member for Bras Basah - "a democratic socialist trade union". Why then is it afraid to seek the views of its members? This particular piece of legislation does not ban all strikes, lock-outs or any form of industrial action. All it does is to say, "Before you start a strike, seek the views of your members." And I would say that this Bill protects members of trade unions from irresponsible leaders. Before you go on a strike or a go-slow or, as the Member for Kampong Kapor has said, "Lain2 perkara", what is wrong with asking your members? They do not want to rise up one morning and find flags flying, members shouting slogans, pickets all round the place - a strike is on. This has happened before and this is what we want to prevent. If the N.T.U.C. claims to be a responsible democratic socialist trade union, I cannot see any good reason why it should oppose this Bill.

6.12 p.m.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am rather surprised that the Member for Bras Basah has made a sudden outburst over this Bill.

This Bill seeks to restore democratic rights to the workers. Is the Member for Bras Basah not a trade unionist? If he is, then why is he so worried that workers are given their right to decide whether or not they should carry out industrial action which directly affects their livelihood? I hope he is a man who believes in democratic principles and who does not want to impose his will on the workers. If so, then this Bill serves exactly that purpose. Unless he seeks to be a dictator of the workers, then there is some justification for so vehemently opposing this Bill. For my part, I have no intention to be a dictator or to bulldoze this Bill through. That is why we have postponed this Bill twice in order to accommodate the views of the N.T.U.C. leaders.

For eight months since this Bill was read the First time in this House in December last year, we have been contacting the leaders of the N.T.U.C., begging them to come to our office to discuss this Bill with us and to find ways and means of modifying it so that it would suit the present-day labour movement. That is because we respect the N.T.U.C. and because we believe their leaders to be responsible leaders and not just weaklings or stooges of the Government, as they are often accused by the Barisan Sosialis. So do you call this an anti-labour Government?

The Member was not sincere when he accused me of being a Minister for Employers and that I tried to oppress the workers. He made mention of the Lim Yew Hock Government and of the anti-colonial movement. I went to gaol under the Lim Yew Hock Government for trying to propagate the cause of the workers. And where was the Member for Bras Basah then?

An hon. Member: In the Straits Times!

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Only after the battle was fought and after a pro-labour P.A.P. Government is safely in power do we start seeing N.T.U.C. leaders appearing one by one. Nowhere in this Bill do we restrict the right of the workers to go on strike or to take industrial action to settle a dispute. All we ask is that, before taking such action, they must take a secret ballot to ascertain the views of the Members. Why are they so excited and so afraid of the secret ballot? Is it because they are afraid to face the Members; and that they have no confidence that their call for strike action would be carried in a secret ballot? In fact, in all the constitutions and rules of trade unions, there is provision that any strike action must be produced by a secret ballot.

Inche Mahmud Awang: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I seek clarification. The trade union leaders are not afraid to take a secret ballot. But what I want to clarify is: how can we conduct a full secret ballot when we have committed an offence under section 24A (4) ? If all the bus workers were to attend a general meeting to take a secret ballot - and this section 24A (4) may be used by the employer - this action may be construed as an offence under this particular section.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Any action under this Bill would be taken by the Registrar of Trade Unions, and I do not think he will be so foolish as to say that workers attending a general meeting are contradicting this Bill. So let me proceed, Sir.

I have said that there is provision in the trade unions' constitutions that any strike action must be preceded by a secret ballot. It is because this provision is so often by-passed and flouted by irresponsible trade union leaders that it is necessary today to put this provision in the statute book.

I do not think the Member for Bras Basah is speaking the truth when he says that the Government is anti-labour -[Interruption]. If we are anti-labour, then why should we want to take the trouble today to clear the trade union movement of criminals and undesirable elements so that there will be a clean and honest trade union movement in Singapore? It is because the N.T.U.C. in the past was saddled with several crooked and dishonest leaders that it was not possible for it to develop as fast as it should. I am not saying that the present leadership of the N.T.U.C. is full of dishonest and crooked leaders. They are quite a good lot. We have helped to clear a few crooks in the past, and if there are any more, then this law will help to clear them further,

The Member for Bras Basah also laments that the number of organised workers has gone down in recent years. Is the Government to be blamed when the N.T.U.C. is not working hard enough to win over the workers?

An hon. Member: Inefficiency!

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: The Member for Kampong Kembangan wants us to include undischarged bankrupts and lunatics as persons undesirable to be appointed as officials. I do not think we can -

Inche Mohd. Ariff: (In Malay): On a point of clarification, Sir, I was saying that undischarged bankrupts and those of unsound mind should not be allowed to hold office in trade unions. But the Minister says that -

Mr Speaker: I think it is the Member for Kampong Kembangan who has misunderstood the Minister. The Minister has just said that the Member wants the exclusion of these persons.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: That is exactly the point. The Member wants us to include undischarged bankrupts and lunatics as persons undesirable to hold office in trade unions. I do not think we should do all the work for the trade unions. They must also do some work themselves. The Government can only prevent criminals and undesirable elements in a wide sense from taking office. If there are other categories of undesirable elements, then the trade unions must remove them by the democratic process of election. That is all they can do.

The Member is also worried that non-citizens carrying work permits will not be allowed to work in trade unions, and he wants us to put in a provision to exempt them if they are of any good. I should say that he should not worry about it because the provision is already there, in clause 5, i.e. new section 26B (b) :

'The Minister may by order -

(b) grant, either absolutely or subject to such conditions as he may consider reasonably necessary, exemption from all or any of the provisions of section 26 or 26A in respect of officers or employees...'.

The power of exemption is already there, so he need not be worried about it.

In conclusion, I should say that responsible trade union leaders should not be afraid of this Bill. They should answer the challenge of the workers and lead them democratically and not be dictatorial as some leaders in the past were.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

6.25 p.m.

Mr Bernard Rodrigues: Division, Sir.

The House divided: Ayes, 28; Noes, 5; Absent, 18; Abstentions, Nil. Ayes Noes Barker, E.W. Ho See Beng Buang bin Omar Mahmud Awang Junid. Mohd. Ariff bin Chan Chee Seng. Suradi Chow Chiok Hock. Rahamat bin Kenap Fong Sip Chee. Rodrigues, Bernard Goh Keng Swee. Gonzales, R.A. Absent Govindaswamy, P. Ho Cheng Choon A Rahin Ishak Jek Yeun Thong. Chan Choy Sion, Lee Khoon Choy. Madam Lee Teck Him. Chan Sun Wing Lim Cheng Lock. Chia Thye Poh Lim Guan Hoo. Fong Kim Heng Lim Kim San. Koo Yong Lingam, S.V. Lee Kuan Yew Ng Kah Ting. Lee Tee Tong Ng Yeow Chong. Loh Miaw Gong, Miss Ong Pang Boon. Nair, Mrs Devan Othman bin Wok. Ong Lian Teng Rajaratnam, S. Poh Ber Liak Rajoo, S. Sia Kah Hui Ramaswamy, S. Tan Cheng Tong Sim Boon Woo. Tang See Chim Tay Boon Too. Toh Chin Chye Teong Eng Siong. Wong Soon Fong Wee Toon Boon. Yong Nyuk Lin Yaacob bin Mohamed.

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]

6.33 p.m.

Clause 1 -

The Chairman: There is a note in page 1, line 4, to leave out "l965" and insert "1966".

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 -

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

In page 2, to leave out lines 4 to 10 inclusive and marginal note and insert - "Strike or 24A.-(i) A registered trade union industrial shall not commence, promote, organise action. or finance any strike or any form of industrial action affecting the whole or any section of its members without obtaining the consent, by secret ballot,of the majority of the members so affected.".

This amendment is to make it clear that before a union could commence a strike or any form of industrial action, it has to obtain the consent of the majority of its members in the establishment. It is not the intention that the union concerned has to obtain the consent of the majority of the total members of the union working in other establishments before it can commence a strike or take any form of industrial action in a particular establishment.

The original subsection (1) of section 24A could be interpreted to mean that before a trade union could commence a strike or take any form of industrial action, it has to obtain the consent of the majority of its entire membership. For example, if a branch of a union has a dispute with an employer in a firm, the union could not commence any strike or industrial action until it has the consent of the majority of all its members. This is not our intention and hence the new amendment.

Inche Mohd. Ariff: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, after the Minister for Labour has clarified the position, I merely wish to know whether the consent, which requires two-thirds, includes workers who are non-citizens of Singapore but are in possession of work permits. For instance, in a branch which has voted to take industrial action by a secret ballot, 90 per cent of the workers agree to go on strike - only ten per cent do not agree. If, of the 90 per cent who so agree, 60 per cent of those members who have voted are non-citizens of Singapore but, nevertheless, are holders of Singapore work permits, can such an action be considered right?

The Chairman: Is there any other query? There does not appear to be any. Mr Jek.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no such restriction. Whether they are citizens or non-citizens holding work permits, so long as they are members of the union, they are entitled to vote and the result of the vote is valid. So I do not think the Member for Kampong Kembangan should worry on this point.

Amendment agreed to,

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Mr Speaker, I beg to move,

In page 2, to leave out lines 23 to 32 inclusive and insert -

'(4) For the purposes of this section "industrial action" means the adoption of any practice, procedure or method in the performance of work which would result in a limitation on output or production in any occupation, service, trade, industry or business.'.

This amendment is to narrow down the definition of "industrial action" in the light of the very strong objection from the N.T.U.C. to the original definition. The definition of "industrial action" here will cover such practices as go-slow and work to rule. I am sure Members will agree that such forms of industrial action are even more damaging than a complete work stoppage, and we should prevent a small group of trade union leaders from taking such industrial action without the consent of the majority of the members.

Inche Mahmud Awang: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I wish to obtain clarification from the Minister for Labour. As I have said originally in connection with this Bill, if members of a union attend a general meeting, and considering particularly the section which has been amended just now, can it be applied to accuse the union of contravening it within the meaning of the words "limitation on output or production" as worded in the amendment?

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: I have replied just now that where a trade union is holding a general meeting of the members in order to decide by a secret ballot whether or not there should be any strike action, of course, this should not be taken as "industrial action". I have already said that the Labour Ministry is administering this Bill and I do not think our officials are so foolish as to say that the holding of this genuine general meeting of the workers is an industrial action.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 -

Question proposed, "That clause 4 stand part of the Bill."

6.45 p.m.

Inche Mohd. Ariff: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, earlier on I have said that in the enforcement of clause 3 (section 24A (1) ), there is no difference between citizens and non-citizens of Singapore. But under this clause 4, a person who is not a citizen of Singapore - it does not say whether he is a holder or a non-holder of a work permit - cannot become an official of a trade union. The Minister for Labour has also said just now that every member of a union has democratic rights as a worker under clause 3, new section 24A of this Bill. But in this clause 4, however, members who are holders of work permits are denied the democratic rights. Therefore, I suggest that the following words be added to section 26 (1) (a) , "those who are not citizens of Singapore or who are not yet in possession of work permits." Just now the Minister for Labour has also said that trade union leaders need not worry because he has his prerogative under clause 5 of this amendment Bill, because he can decide whether non-citizens of Singapore who are holders of work permits can or cannot become officials of unions. Why cannot this be vice versa? That is to say, if the Minister finds that the person is not a citizen of Singapore but is the holder of a work permit, then he can use his prerogative to inform the union and ask the particular member to cease being an official of the union. So I hope the Minister can consider my amendment regarding those who are not citizens of Singapore or those who are not yet in possession of work permits.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think it is now possible to amend this Bill any further. I hope the Member for Kampong Kembangan should not confuse citizens of Singapore with non-citizens who are holding work permits. The principle of this Bill is to exclude any non-citizen from taking part in the running of a trade union. If we allow non-citizens holding work permits to be included, then the object of this Bill will be defeated. But only in very exceptional cases can the Minister by his power exempt such persons from this provision. So I do not think we can accept the proposals put forward by the Member for Kampong Kembangan.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 5 to 8 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause - `Amendment Section l8B of the Ordinance is of Section hereby amended by deleting the word 18B "funds" appearing in the fourth line 18B thereof and substituting therefor the word "property".' - (Mr Jek Yeun Thong)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the new clause (to be inserted immediately after clause 2) be read a Second time."

This new clause has been introduced to provide that where the registration of a trade union has been refused, withdrawn or cancelled before the 11th day of December, 1963, all the property of such trade union and not only its funds shall vest in the Official Assignee.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

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