EMPLOYMENT OF CONTRACT LABOUR BY GOVERNMENT

6.57 p.m.

Mr Ho See Beng (Bras Basah): Mr Speaker, Sir, about two years ago my colleague, the Member for Telok Blangah, drew the attention of this House to the increasing tendency in the public service to resort to contract labour in places where work was previously done by directly recruited labour. He dealt at length with the views of the trade union movement on these practices and also touched on the distinction between work of a recurring nature normally done by direct employees and those which were thought to be more efficiently done by contract schemes, for example, building projects and so forth. He also drew the attention of the Government to the concern among workers over the number of vacancies in the daily-rated establishment which remained unfilled due to the growth of this practice of using contract labour. My colleague, the Member for Telok Blangah, then made it clear to the House that workers led by the N.T.U.C. could not condone this practice and urged Government to take positive steps to remedy the situation.

[Mr Lim Cheng Lock in the Chair]

6.59 p.m.

Mr Ho See Beng (Bras Basah): Today, Sir, far from there being any improvement in this situation, what do we find? I am told that this tendency is increasing day by day in all directions. I hear that more and more work in Government departments, which was previously undertaken by directly recruited daily-rated workers, is being farmed out to contractors. At one time, we found such work as grass-cutting only in the hands of contractors but today we notice the tendency is spreading to use contract labour so that even minor road repairs and similar work of a recurring nature is being farmed out to contractors.

I can almost anticipate, if the Minister for Finance is here, he will come and say that the Government use contract labour for the purpose of efficiency and also for economic reasons. And I also will expect him to say that most daily-rated workers, if not all, are malingerers. He will add that there is a definite attempt to reduce daily output and to accumulate work over the week, in order that work may be obtained on a Sunday, when double pay is paid. I am sure the question of triple pay will be highlighted as the evil of the daily-rated system, even though very few people realise that there are only 11 public holidays in a year in which daily-rated workmen can enjoy such benefits, and then only when the employer calls them up for work.

Sir, as a representative of a responsible trade union movement, I do not for a moment wish to deny that, in a work force of ten thousand men, many of whom are probably earning a subsistence wage, there are some malingerers. This is the inevitable result the world over if labour is underpaid. I will not deny either that there may be instances of output being below expected standards. However, I ask Members of this House to recognise that only part of the blame can be laid at the door of labour. I suggest that the problem is bound up with the question of supervision; and to the extent that these malpractices occur, I say that this is a measure of the failure of management. Given the right supervision and the right management, I can see no reason why malingerers cannot be brought to book and restrictive practices removed with the co-operation of the workers and their trade unions.

A further point I wish to ask Members of this House to appreciate is that the large majority of daily-rated workers in the public services in Singapore are not engaged in work which is easily measurable in terms of output. For example: how does one decide on the appropriate output of a cleansing labourer working in Tanglin area? On the other hand, how can one compare this with the work required in one of the new housing estates, where one has to take into account not only the space to be cleaned at ground level, but also the number of floors above, and the number of people who reside there, all of whom constantly contribute towards the quantity of litter and refuse that has to be removed? What in fact is the measure to be accepted in cases where large numbers of stationary hawkers are involved, or where well-to-do second-hand dealers choose to dump their scrap metal and other refuse on the roadside? I ask the experts who advise our Ministers to define and make public the norms of cleansing workers in the public utility services. Sir, I ask Members of this House to bear these points in mind before making general or sweeping statements concerning malingering and restrictive practices in the public services. My colleagues from the trade union movement are convinced that the simple solution suggested from time to time by Treasury and Health Ministry officials that contract labour should be used is no real answer. We are convinced that this is an enormously complex problem for management and labour to solve together and one which calls immediately for an objective study of the supervisory system of daily-rated workers and a search for fair and equitable remedies.

Sir, I have already voiced my fear that some Members of this House will suggest that contract labour is the only answer and I would not be the least surprised if someone even went so far as to spell out some of the glowing virtues of contract labour. Of late it has become so fashionable to say such things that hardly any day passes without someone extolling the virtue of contract labour without considering its real implications.

I would not for a moment deny the fact that contract labour is cheap in a short-sighted sort of way. I admit that all over the world contract labour is cheaper to the employer only than direct labour. The final cost to the community, however, is vastly different and vastly greater. What we in the trade union movement, who believe in the dignity of human labour, consider profoundly objectionable in contract labour is the price which workers pay in such employment. The man who bears the evil of the system and is called upon to subsidise the real costs is not the contractor but the labourer, who by force of circumstances is obliged to accept such an employment. To those who choose to observe the scene around them, I will ask them to recall for a moment those workmen and even young girls who can be seen sweating from seven in the morning to seven at night every day, in spite of the existence of the Labour Ordinance. Whatever others may say, it is well known that any complaint over long hours by such contract workers will mean the end of even the casual work they now possess. Notwithstanding the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance, we see many such men and women taking undue risks without even the barest of safeguards. When they suffer illness, which they often do, on whom do they depend? Of course, the Government outdoor clinic is available to them, not at the employer's expense but at the Government's. I mention this simply to demonstrate that much of the burden that Government shoulders in the case of its own direct workers, is also borne as a concealed added cost by society, when contract labour is employed. When I think of the conditions under which contract labour toils - and look at the many modern buildings, including our own multi-storeyed houses, in which we regularly take pride, I say they stand out really as monuments to the sweat and toil of contract labour.

What I stress is not merely a figment of my imagination. It is a fact. The evils of contract labour are recognised throughout the world and no less a body than the International Labour Organisation, of which Singapore is a member, has cried aloud against its evil practices. My colleague, the Minister for Labour, who recently attended the I.L.O. General Assembly, must be aware of the importance that is placed on the decasualisation of labour by the civilised countries of the world. Lest what is decided in Geneva be considered remote and inappropriate for our developing society, let us cite an endeavour in our very midst, to show that we are equally concerned in such matters.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

7.10 p.m.

Mr Ho See Beng (Bras Basah): I ask Members of this House to recall the Commission of Inquiry into contract labour which this Government set up soon after it came to power in 1959. The Commission vigorously decried the evils of contract labour in Singapore and specifically drew attention to the following features emphasising:

(i) the irregularity of employment;

(ii) the insecurity of payment of wages and often underpayment in relation to established industrial wage pattern;

(iii) the evasion of benefits under the Labour Ordinance;

(iv) the absence of hospital benefits;

(v) the evasion of Provident Fund contributions; and

(vi) the inadequate provision of safeguards against accidents and hazards.

Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding this indictment, there appears to be a growing tendency in our Government departments to utilise contract labour. I would cite as examples the Ministry of Law and National Development. Very unfortunately the present Minister is not the person who is responsible for that, but nevertheless it is now his portfolio. So he has got to carry the baby.

The P.W.D. Workshop Section - repairs of rubbish pails, cleansing carts, welding of nightsoil pails, buckets, refuse bins and repairs of tools used by daily-rated workmen - all this work which has been normally done by the daily-rated workers is now being farmed out to the contractors.

Another instance is the Marine Workshop, such as the building of seawalls, buoys and signal light posts in the sea. In the rural sector, the cutting of grass. All this has been given to the contractors. Sir, there are so many examples of Government using contract labour to replace the regular work force, but I do not like to go on and on. But I would ask the Minister for Law and National Development to study the present situation, which is a grave injustice not only to the existing organised workers but also to those who are being exploited by the contractors.

I have felt myself compelled today, Sir, to make these comments because my colleagues and I in the N.T.U.C. have observed a disquieting and increasing tendency on the part of some Members of this Government to suggest that the solution to our problems today here in Singapore is to discard those ideals in which we have believed for so long because of the compulsions of our new situation. We find ourselves the more puzzled because these utterances in support of contract labour are so completely at variance with the precepts and ideals as we know them of the Prime Minister. I refer to his recommendations in the case of the 9,000 daily-rated workers in the Port of Singapore Authority, where for many years the workers struggled to remove the contract labour system and its attendant malpractices. Members of this House will recall that following the decasualisation of labour in the Port of Singapore Authority, there continued to be serious allegations of malingering, accumulation of work, and improper overtime practices. There were also allegations of other types of restrictive practices. One would have expected that the Government would be tempted to return to contract labour.

Sir, I am not saying that the trade union is jealous of the Port of Singapore Authority workers. They have removed the malpractices of contract labour and they still have malpractices of overtime and all that. I am not asking the Government to introduce, but I am only quoting as an example, because I am afraid that the newspapers might misquote me tomorrow and say that the Secretary-General of the N.T.U.C. also prefers to introduce contract labour into the Port of Singapore Authority. The hours of work of the workmen were streamlined. They introduced a shift system with an element of shift allowances. They also introduced improved incentive bonuses in order to ensure faster working of cargoes. These are improved measures to replace malingering and so on, which the Government are not doing in their various departments. To crown it all, bonuses were paid on the instructions of the Prime Minister on an instalment basis. Today users of the Port praise its efficiency. Surely, Sir, it is difficult for us who belong to the trade union movement to believe after this glowing example in the Port of Singapore Authority that the Minister for Finance and my other colleagues sincerely mean what they say when they speak of contract labour. What happened in the Port Authority was, in fact, an objective appraisal of the problem and an objective solution, worked out in conjunction with the National Trades Union Congress representing the workers. From this example, Sir, the workers of Singapore cannot, for a moment, believe that the suggestions now put forward and being implemented in the case of the public daily-rated employees are anything but an intellectual aberration.

As a Member of a Government dedicated to the realisation of a more just and equal society, I call upon my colleagues to discontinue advocating this practice of contract labour - unfortunately, the Minister for Finance is not here - and recognise clearly the problem affecting the daily-rated workers in Singapore which is simply to secure a living wage for a proper day's work. I ask them that, just as in the case of the Port Authority, they demonstrate their sincerity by entering into discussions with the N.T.U.C. immediately to find equitable and lasting solutions to our current problems.

We are prepared to consider with open minds an entirely new system if this is finally shown to us to be necessary for the long-term viability and survival of Singapore as a nation. Organised labour has no fear of incentives; it only fears exploitation. We ask that the ambiguities of the present situation be removed by a clear statement of purpose and policy by the Government on its part. We, on our part, state categorically that our purpose and policy is simply to secure for all workers in Singapore conditions of labour which a man can accept with dignity, and a sufficient wage in exchange for a fair week's work, to support him and his family in modest but reasonable circumstances.

7.20 p.m.

Mr Barker: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Bras Basah has referred to a speech made by the Member for Telok Blangah in this House two years ago about the evils of contract labour. I thought then that my predecessor in the Ministry of National Development, who is now the Minister for Finance, had satisfactorily replied to the Member for Telok Blangah. However, though the Member for Bras Basah puts most of the blame on my predecessor, at the same time, he says that I am not completely blameless. But he has spoken well of the Port Authority and perhaps he has forgotten that I have been in charge of the Port Authority from the 1st of November, 1964. I remember that from the moment I was in charge, we had to introduce a temporary system of contract labour in the Port, and it was for good reason too. The reason was this. In the Port we had, and we still have, peak periods. We have a normal labour force which can look after a certain number of ships coming in every month, but the number of ships coming into Singapore is not the same every month. There are peak periods when more ships come in and the normal number of workmen cannot satisfactorily unload all the goods from the ships. That was the reason why contract labour was taken on as a temporary measure. But the immediate result of bringing in contract labour was that we met with protests from the union. At the same time, the efficiency of the workers of the new union went up. However, we settled that matter satisfactorily when we agreed to stop using contract labour within three months. We looked for a device and it was this. We formed a temporary labour pool consisting of about 600 or 700 labourers who reported every day. If they had no work, they would be paid a dollar a day, and if there was work for them, they would be paid the regular wage. At the moment, we have a casual labour pool of about 700 workmen. They are temporary, but whenever there are vacancies in the permanent establishment, these temporary labourers become permanent. But this temporary labour pool meets the situation during peak periods. There, we had a good excuse to use contract labour and, at the same time, we found a method or device whereby we got rid of contract labour.

The Member for Bras Basah says that there has been no improvement for over two years. Now perhaps I should tell him why contract labour has to be used sometimes, though, as a general policy, the Government is against it. At the same time, I should point out to him the advantages sometimes of contract labour. Sometimes existing departmental labour and resources are unable to tackle some maintenance work efficiently and speedily due either to the size of the work or to the need for specialised skills ---- for instance, the maintenance of intricate and expensive equipment like pumps in sewerage pumping stations and sewage disposal plants, renovation of Government buildings, major face-lifting, etc. One outstanding example is the case of repairs to Anderson Bridge where welding work had to be done by skilled contract labour as the departmental labour lacked such skill. Experience has shown that it is sometimes more economical, efficient and speedy to employ contract labour. Departmental work costs more because of fixed hours of work and often over-time allowances must be paid for work done after normal hours or on public holidays, and departmental transport must be provided. Again, the rate of absenteeism among departmental employees is quite high and, in some cases, has adversely affected work at the site. For example, where a plant operator or a driver is absent, then that particular plant will be left idle, unless there is a standby operator easily available.

Perhaps I should cite to the House just one example, comparing the costs for work carried out by departmental labour with contract labour. Members of the House must know very well the bungalows "Brighton" and "Hove" at Changi. The repairs of the seawall carried out by departmental labour consisted of plastering the seawall 150 feet long by 6 feet high and the breakdown of the costs was as follows: wages, $685.80; cement, $81; sand, $15; and transport, $50 - total cost $831.80. This worked Out at an average cost of $5.56 per foot run. This was carried out by departmental labour. The repairs of the seawall at Tanjong Kling Police Station were carried out by contract labour. The repair work was similar and the wall was of the same height. The cost of plastering 520 feet long of seawall was $2,340, which worked out at an average of $4.50 per foot run, which is about $1 less per foot run and about 20 per cent less than the foot run done by departmental labour.

The Member for Bras Basah has referred to grass cutting by the Public Works Department. The position here is that prior to 1960 the P.W.D. was responsible for grass cutting in the rural areas and employed departmental labour, whereas the City Council was responsible for grass cutting within the City and the City Council farmed out the work to contractors. This means that for most of the time P.W.D. labourers will be riding on P.W.D. lorries going from one place to another cutting grass in various parts of the rural areas in Singapore. It is not difficult to imagine that most of the time departmental labour will be spent in assembling, mustering, and transporting labourers from the mustering points to where the grass is, working for a short period, and then collecting them again to transport them back to their quarters. Is it little wonder, Sir, that the cost of grass cutting by departmental labour on the average works out at $25 per acre, whereas by contract the cost is less than $16 per acre?

The Member for Bras Basah has also referred to seawalls and signal light posts in the area. In this connection, minor works connected with repairs, maintenance and repainting of these items are done by departmental labour. Only major works of construction or major repairs are given out to contractors. In 1964, however, buoys, signal posts and beacons were taken over by the Director of Marine, and departmental labour in the P.W.D., which should have gone over to the Marine Department, would have been employed to continue maintenance and minor repairs work. The P.W.D. daily-rated labour, however, refused to be transferred to the Marine Department, and all of them are being retained in the Marine Branch of the P.W.D. It is true that in most of these marine repair works, the time when such work has to be done will be dictated by the tide. Now, our daily-rated labourers work fixed hours and none of them will wait for the time or the tide. The Union, in fact, has refused to accept the P.W.D.'s suggestion that working hours will be amended or revised to suit the conditions of the tide. Hence, contract labour.

The Member for Bras Basah has also referred to carts for rubbish and nightsoil bins as coming under the P.W.D. I am afraid this does not come under my jurisdiction. It comes under that of the Minister for Health who, I believe, is waiting to say something.

The Member for Bras Basah has quoted from the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the System of Contract Labour in Singapore. This was a report which came out in 1960. It did point out the evils of contract labour as has been recited by the hon. Member, but it also spoke of the advantages of contract labour, and I quote paragraph 50 at page 13:

'The system of contractor labour appears to have certain advantages:

(i) division of labour;

(ii) decentralisation of functions;

(iii) control of cost.'.

It goes on to say:

'These advantages may be more general with technical labour, technical contractors and specialised principals, than in the case where unskilled and semi-skilled manual labour is in use. It is true, in fact, that elsewhere, overseas for instance, there are segments of labour employed under a contractor system. They are always technical segments highly organised associations and/or trade unions, highly paid, and covered by thoroughly policed and very wide labour legislation. This is the case for instance in the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia. In none of these countries, however, is unskilled labour employed under a contractor system in any way similar to that in operation in Singapore.'.

In fact, this Report did not say that all contract labour should be got rid of. It made recommendations for the removal of contract labour in certain trades, but not in all. For instance, at page 73:

'The Commission arrived at the conclusion that in neither the building and construction industry, nor in the electrical and plumbing trades, was it possible to suggest changes from contractor labour system to direct labour employment. We were all agreed, however, that a number of safeguards could be introduced to bring the terms of employment of this segment of labour in line with those of directly employed personnel.'.

May I remind this House, Sir, that some of the Members of this Commission were people like Fong Swee Suan and Woodhull - purported champions of the labour class. But even they did not say, "Get rid of all contract labour," but only in some trades.

May I end up, Sir, by saying that we as a Government would like, if it is possible, to get rid of all contract labour. We realise the evils of the system as pointed out by the Member for Bras Basah, but sometimes it is not possible to do away with contract labour. In the Port Authority, an example which I have mentioned, we discussed the matter and managed to find a solution which was acceptable to the Union. As a result, I am glad to say that even the Member for Bras Basah has agreed that the Port is working efficiently, and that the workers are happy with the bonus system and the shift system. If the National Trades Union Congress has any suggestions whereby contract labour can be replaced by permanent labour in any of the Departments that come under my jurisdiction, I can assure him that I will give his suggestions every consideration. But we may come up against obstacles like the tide, for instance. It is no use saying, "Get departmental labour." We will get departmental labour provided the particular labourer is willing to work at 12 midnight. So on that basis, Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I should end now and give my colleague, the Minister for Health, a little time to say what he wants.

7.41 p.m.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Sir, the hon. Member for Bras Basah made passing mention of the fact that in the Health Ministry refuse handcarts and night-soil pails are being farmed out to contractors. I hope I have got him right there.

Mr Ho See Beng: Yes.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: This unfortunately is a very general statement and is a little out of date if it is a statement of fact, unless he is able to give specific examples. I understand there was a contract not within the last two years but as long ago as 1959 - seven years ago, and rather out of date I should say -and the contract was let out for 3,000 nightsoil pails at the rate of $3.57 each; and that ever since 1960 such work has been dealt with through departmental labour. I would like, first of all, to say that I regret that the hon. Member for Bras Basah has made a general statement which is not true. And if it is true, that it is seven years behind time. [Interruption] I look forward to that, Sir, when I am in a position to answer specific complaints. But if it is a general statement, I am afraid I am just being drawn into a discussion on other topics. Sir, I welcome the hon. Member putting forward specific complaints to which I will then give him my answer.

Then, unfortunately, in his long speech, he brought in topics like, "How is it possible to assess the output of a cleansing worker, say, in Tanglin, as compared with a cleansing worker in a new housing estate or at hawker congregations?" Sir, I have indicated earlier on that part of the plan for reorganisation of the public cleansing service will be to start a new system whereby a refuse vehicle will have a work force of, say, four workers including the driver, who will be given what is called a norm. Naturally the norm will be a little different in a congested area from a norm for a residential area, and a norm for a rural area. That will have to be determined. It will not be infallible. And there will, therefore, be an allotted beat, shall we say, allocated to a team of workers plus the vehicle with a daily quota of dustbins to be collected. It may be 1,000, it may be 1,500, or it may just be 500. And I have already indicated that we will not insist that this particular task force work from 7 a.m. to 1 p.m. If they are efficient enough and be able to complete their duties by 12 o'clock - one hour ahead of knocking-off time - we are going to start a new precedent and say that they can check out and not try to linger and dilly-dally, park their refuse vehicles under a shade and spend a long time over coffee, or park their refuse vehicles in front of junk shops and bargain over how much they could get for old bottles and old tins. What we want our cleansing workers to do is to be reasonably efficient and productive and to do their allotted share of work, clear and dump the rubbish, and clean up and go home. What they do after that is their business. That is why we want to introduce not just one shift duty but two shift duties. They know exactly what they are supposed to do. If they have done their job, off they go. They get their pay and off they go. And it will be possible then to pin responsibility.

I agree with the hon. Member for Bras Basah that lack of supervision has been responsible for what has gone wrong. That is why, in winding up my rather long reply to the hon. Member for Anson today over the public cleansing service, I shall be inviting officials not only of the Public Daily-Rated Cleansing Workers' Union but also that section of A.U.P.E., the monthly-rated supervisory staff, for a discussion on this matter. I think they are both jointly responsible for an efficient service. So I shall be cracking the whip not only at the daily-rated workers but also at the monthly-rated to do their share of work and try to produce something that is more like a public cleansing service for a city of ours.

I am very happy to hear, too in the very early part of the speech by the hon. Member for Bras Basah, who is the Secretary-General of our National Trades Union Congress, on the subject of Sunday work and public holiday work at the rate of twice normal day pay and three times normal day pay respectively that this is at the request of employers. Hear, hear! That is what I like to hear: that work on Sundays and public holidays would be at the request of employers, and that is exactly what we have decided in this re-organisation that this should be so. If the Public Cleansing Department requires the cleansing workers to turn up for work on Sundays and on public holidays - and may I repeat that there are 52 Sundays and 11 public holidays in a year, making a total of 63 days - because it wishes certain work to be done on Sundays and public holidays, and it says, "Yes, we want 300 workers or 500 workers," then it will pay this overtime. But not where the whole force turn up on the 52 Sundays and the 11 public holidays and clear less refuse than they do under normal working conditions and absent themselves on Mondays and on days following public holidays. This is ridiculous. So I am very pleased -

Mr Bernard Rodrigues: Mr Speaker, on a point of clarification.

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

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin resumed his seat.

Mr Bernard Rodrigues: Overtime is not compulsory. He need not have to elaborate on overtime.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: I am very pleased to have given way, Sir, because that is exactly what I want to hear from trade unionists, that overtime is not compulsory. [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: I am happy to hear that confirmation, Sir. So let us not therefore get ourselves all worked up over the fact that there will be no Sunday work nor public holiday work as from 1st October, 1966, unless we want them to turn up. Therefore, we do hope that the National Trades Union Congress will exert their influence in this respect, and that in the discussions which I shall have with the officials of the Public Daily-Rated Cleansing Workers' Union and A.U.P.E., they will be able to give them responsible advice, that the scheme of re-organisation which the Ministry of Health has in mind can have their full support and co-operation, and that we can look forward to a reasonably more efficient public cleansing service in Singapore than has been possible in the past.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That Parliament do now adjourn.

Adjourned accordingly at Eight minutes to Eight o'clock p.m. to a date to be fixed.