CRIMINAL LAW (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.24 p.m.

The Minister of State of Defence (Mr Wee Toon Boon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This Bill seeks to repeal and re-enact with certain amendments section 23 of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance, 1955. As stated in the Explanatory Statement, the main object of the Bill is to make it unlawful for any workmen engaged in the very important essential services, namely, water, gas and electricity services, to go on strike at all, and similarly for the employer to lock-out any workmen engaged in these services. The prohibition by itself would appear to hon. Members to be a drastic step in curtailing the rights of trade unions to go on strike, but recent experience has made it necessary for the Government to take positive measures to ensure that the public are not held to ransom by a few irresponsible elements.

Hon. Members will recall that in 1961, when the workers in the public utility services went on strike, British and Singapore Army technicians had to be brought in to man the essential services, as any failure in the water, electricity and gas supplies would not only mean a serious breakdown in the essentials of life, but also result in dangerous and serious damage to public property. The inexpert handling of electrical machinery and water pumping equipment and explosions by air getting into the gas main can cause extensive damage and havoc to the community. Further, a strike in these essential services would mean that the overall economic situation of Singapore and its economic future would be jeopardised. No government can allow any section of the population to cause such serious and irreparable damage to the country. As these services are part of the vital services of the country, no strikes will be permitted in these areas which are already designated as protected places under the security laws of Singapore. For a strike must mean that the Government has to use troops to carry out the duties of these workers, which would, in fact, mean the assumption of powers to break a strike through the use of uniformed personnel. Members will agree that this is highly undesirable. Government is not unsympathetic to the genuine grievances of the workers and, therefore, any future disputes in the public utility services will be resolved by the established machinery of negotiation, conciliation and arbitration under our industrial relations laws.

Another special feature of the Bill is that no strike or lock-out shall take place in respect of the other essential services, unless a notice is given at least 14 days before such strike or lock-out, and such notice will expire at the end of 30 days from the date of the notice. The existing provisions in the law are not clear in regard to the notice period and the proposed amendments clarify the position.

As stated in the Explanatory Statement, the proposed amendments provide that no strike or lock-out shall take place before the date of the strike or lock-out specified in the notice or during the pendency of certain proceedings under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1960. Further, the penalties for offences under sections 26, 27 and 28 of the Ordinance have been increased and made uniform in line with the other Ordinances.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

3.28 p.m.

Inche Mohd. Ariff Bin Suradi (Kampong Kembangan): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, by this Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Bill which has been submitted to Parliament today, I observe that the rights of the trade unionists have been eroded by the pro-labour government. Before the present ruling Party came to power, we, together with the trade union movement, struggled to put up a pro-labour government. As a result of our common struggle, we were successful. During the 1959 administration, with the support of the trade union movement, including that of the nationalist trade union movement, we managed to isolate the pro-Communist trade union movement. The members of the nationalist pro-labour movement are those who work in the Public Utilities Board and who have struggled hard to isolate the front-line trade union movement. But now, Mr Speaker, the workers of the P.U.B, are not permitted to go on strike when this Bill becomes law. I know the difficulties faced by the Government in their responsibility towards the people when essential workers go on strike, because they are responsible for the well-being and livelihood of the people. On the other hand, I do not think that the P.U.B, workers will go on strike on a matter which is not serious. If it is on a minor matter, I feel sure they will be prepared to come to a compromise rather than go on strike. But if it is a serious matter, the Government has power to refer it to the industrial Arbitration Court which will give its findings, in this honourable way, strikes can be avoided and this amendment to deter P.U.B. workers from going on strike is not necessary.

Mr Speaker, Sir, some time ago the Singapore Telephone Board was confronted with a strike by the Union because the employers refused to negotiate with the Union on its claims for better wages and conditions of service. But before the 14 days' notice of strike expired, the Minister for Labour referred the matter to the Industrial Arbitration Court in order to prevent a strike from taking place. If he could avert a strike by the employees of the Singapore Telephone Board, which is discharging an essential service, I do not see why the Minister of Defence requires these amendments to prevent the essential workers of the P.U.B. from going on strike.

Mr Ho See Beng (Bras Basah): Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill proposes to amend, among other things, section 23 of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance, 1955, by stipulating that no workman employed in the water services, gas services and electricity services shall go on strike or be locked out. The Government also, by Gazette Notification, require workers who are employed in banking services, broadcasting and television services, public bus transport and air services, to give 14 days' notice before they can go on strike. Up to now, there has been no such Ordinance.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I contend that such an amendment is uncalled for in view of the adequacy of the existing law which provides the Government with the right to refer trade disputes to arbitration if strike action in these services harms the interest of the community. It is appreciated that the employer of all the workers engaged in the water services, gas services and electricity services is the Public Utilities Board, which is a statutory Board, and which is subject to public control. It may be the argument of the Government, in advocating the abolition of strikes in these three essential services, that the employer of the workmen engaged therein is not likely to exploit the workers who are so rendered defenceless. While I do agree that this House possesses the means of ensuring that the employer of the workmen, from whom the right to strike is taken away, does not take unfair advantage of the situation, the fact remains that the right to strike has in the past served as a psychological deterrent to the Board and its senior employees from being too complacent in their dealings with their employees. While the Government may justify its proposal by claiming that the right to strike has been abused and exercised irresponsibly by workers in the three said services, this by itself is no justification for the total ban on strike by the workers in such services, if the Government is really concerned with the possibility that in the future, if it were not for such proposed ban on strike, the right to strike would be abused or be irresponsibly exercised by the workers in the three services, such a fear on the part of the Government is adequately safeguarded by the relevant provisions of the Trade Disputes Ordinance of 1960; section 3 (1) thereof reads as follows:

`A strike shall be illegal if -

(a) it has any other object than the furtherance of a trade dispute within the trade or industry in which the strikers are engaged; or

(b) it is in furtherance of a trade dispute of which the Industrial Arbitration Court has cognizance; or

(c) it is designed or calculated to coerce the Government either directly or by inflicting hardship on the community.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would have thought that the provision of paragraph (c) of section 3 (1) of the Trade Disputes Ordinance would have taken care of the Government's fear that the workers in these three essential services would utilise the right to strike by coercing the Government either directly or by inflicting hardship on the community. If the Government does really intend to ban strikes from these three services, then it should, as a matter of necessity, provide some more effective system of arbitration than has been provided under the Industrial Relations Ordinance to resolve disputes which would otherwise have found expression in the form of a strike.

I regret to say that the present industrial arbitration machinery is not effective for the purpose of solving industrial disputes effectively or expeditiously. Even in the private sector, with free recourse to the right of strike, the workers' experience is that the machinery of the Industrial Arbitration Courts does not confer on them adequate protection against an unscrupulous employer. Of course, I am not saying that the Government is an unscrupulous employer, but I must emphasise that workers and management personnel are human beings and that industrial disputes are bound to arise at any time in the course of their mutual relationship. It must also be remembered that the strike weapon, while it serves to lend force to the workers' demands on the employer, also serves as a means of focusing attention on the workers' grievances, whatever they may be. By taking away such a means of bringing the workers' grievances to the notice of the relevant authorities, it becomes more imperative that the Government, which is proposing this ban on strikes, should provide an adequate and effective machinery to take the place of strikes as a means of bringing the workers' grievances to the attention of such authorities.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I suggest that the Government provide a more effective system of arbitration to resolve industrial disputes arising in a situation where the workers have no recourse to the strike weapon. It is by no means to be assumed by this House that I am in favour of the ban on strikes even though the ban is limited to the workers of the three essential services. As the Secretary-General of the N.T.U.C., my stand is clear, and that is I oppose in principle any ban on strikes except in a situation of national emergency when, in the interest of the State and of the citizens as a whole, it is necessary to ban any strike. But such a situation of national emergency is not present here today and I cannot see any other justification for the Government's proposal to ban strikes in these three essential services.

Mr Teong Eng Siong (Sembawang): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully support the amendment Bill which mainly seeks to prevent any employees from going on strike in the essential services or any employer from locking out the workers. If the workers of essential services have any disputes, they must give 14 days' notice of any industrial action to be taken. No lightning strike or lock-out will be allowed. The essential departments, such as the Water Department, the Gas Department and the Electricity Department of the P.U.B., are very important to the people. So it is necessary to have these provisions set out in the amendment Bill, as these essential services must be manned and maintained continuously because they are essential to the lively-hood of the people and the maintenance of the activities of the industrial and commercial sectors. They are important to the two million people of Singapore. So both the management and employees must not take any reckless action against the interests of the nation.

I am also in support of the punishment to be meted out to those who have contravened the provisions of this amendment Bill. It is only in this way that we can ensure the enforcement of this Bill which is beneficial to the interests of the nation as a whole. I do not think there is any provision in the Bill that is against the policy of the Government, which is industrial peace with justice, and it does not cast any doubt on the sincerity of the Government as a fair and just employer and that it is a pro-labour government.

If a worker wants to go on strike, he should give 14 days' notice. This does not negative his right to go on strike. One must be very clear about this. Therefore, whatever chaos that may arise out of a lightning strike will affect the whole nation. It is something like pulling one hair and your whole body will quiver.

So I feel that the introduction of this Bill is not a measure aimed at suppressing the workers. Of course, those anti-national unions will, by all means, try to distort the intention of this Bill. This is not surprising, of course. But in the case of the democratic labour movement, in the form of the National Trades Union Congress, we must make them realise the true intention of the Government that is embodied in this Bill. They must understand that it is introduced to safeguard the interests of the nation without any prejudice to the basic rights of the trade union movement.

Finally, I hope that this Bill will not be abused and that the Minister will assure this House that the Government will be very cautious in implementing its provisions.

3.47 p.m.

Inche Mahmud Awang: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, the object of this Bill is certainly to give an assurance that if employers want to have it out with the workers, the workers will not suffer. If it is really the intention of the Bill to protect public safety, the Government has already provided a building wherein the N.T.U.C. is housed.

Firstly. I regret to say that I am obliged to mention my friends who are in the N.T.U.C. and whose responsibility is to educate the workers, to make them understand the Bill thoroughly, and to advise the Government. If the N.T.U.C. cannot give its co-operation to the management, who are the employers, and the workers, a dispute will certainly arise between them. The role of the N.T.U.C. is to educate the workers so that the strike weapon is used only against unscrupulous employers, and not to use it to cause hardship among the community or to make unfair demands on employers or the Government. This is the weapon in the hands of the workers. An example is the police officer. He is given a weapon but not to shoot at wrong-doers if his own life is not in danger. This weapon is for self-defence, and, as the hon. Member has said, the strike weapon should be similarly used.

It is true that the Government is pro-labour. We have always implemented this policy. When we say "pro-labour", we must ponder awhile and look back to 1959. Since then how many labour disputes have been resolved by establishing two Industrial Arbitration Courts, in addition to the discretionary powers exercised by the Minister for Labour and also the advice of the N.T.U.C.?

I do not wish to labour this point, Mr Speaker, but what I wish to say is that the leaders of the Public Daily-Rated Employees' Union, who are my own colleagues, are sincere in their struggle. But I feel that the leadership of the N.T.U.C. is not positive enough to say whether this can or cannot be done. When the N.T.U.C. receive a complaint, they must convene a general meeting or refer it to the Industrial Arbitration Court. If we allow an affiliated union to accuse us, then it follows that the other affiliated unions will take similar action. I think that is not the proper course of action to take. Before an issue is settled, we must be certain that that issue will help the workers themselves.

There have been allegations that the Government is anti-Indian and that the N.T.U.C. is also anti-Indian. These are very serious allegations. The fact could be that the N.T.U.C. could not give a proper picture to its affiliates of what its struggle is. If the responsibility of the N.T.U.C. is really to guide the workers in order to uplift their living standard, I am quite sure that its struggle will be a success.

I know that the problem of raising the living standard of the members of the Public Daily-Rated Employees' Union arose two years ago. Unfortunately, I am not a member of the Executive Committee of the N.T.U.C. The N.T.U.C. has not resolved this problem. It has not used its powers effectively so that the living standard of the workers in the Public Daily-Rated Employees' Union can be improved. The leaders of the N.T.U.C. and the affiliated union leaders have failed to discharge their duties to see that this issue could become a bigger issue so that whatever increase the Government has to pay would be commensurate with the work the workers perform. If I am allowed to speak on this matter, I can go on speaking for two days and two nights, Mr Speaker.

Finally, in the trade union movement there are three problems as explained by the Secretary-General of the N.T.U.C.:

(1) To use the strike weapon in good faith;

(2) To use it as a threat;

(3) To use it to topple the Government.

We must be able to distinguish between these three factors. If we choose to use the strike weapon to raise the living standard of the workers, we can use it by all means, no matter what happens. There is nothing to fear because the action we take is in line with our own principles. That is all, Mr Speaker.

3.57 p.m.

Mr P. Govindaswamy (Anson): (In Tamil): Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill has been brought up for consideration. I am doubtful whether it is appropriate to bring it up at this time. This Government won the elections in 1959 mainly with the support of the workers. But it is slowly curtailing their interests. If we want to make this country prosperous, we will have to look after the interests of the workers. If we go on making laws and ignoring the workers who are the backbone of the country, we cannot bring them to the forefront.

We are not blaming the Government for making laws, but we have to take the responsibility of implementing them. We have to bring in laws, or otherwise undesirable things will happen. But we have to think of ways of how to bring the laws into play. This amendment Bill will make slaves and also prisoners of the workers, as the Government is taking away their rights. If we go on doing this, we will regret it in future. The workers are citizens and they are also serving the country, and we have to give them some privileges. If we do not give them privileges, can we imagine what they will think of us? Why do strikes take place? If the workers are not getting the privileges they want, there will be strikes. If they get them, there is no need of any strike and there is no need for such laws. They will be more angry if we bring in laws like this. They will not be happy at all. There, is a law which says that there should be 14 days' notice of a strike. What will happen if they strike after the 14 days' notice? What will happen if they go on strike after serving such notice? The Government has to prepare for such an, eventuality. So I think this is not a suitable time and I am not supporting this Bill at this time.

4.02 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour (Mr Sia Kah Hui): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to say a few words in support of the Bill. The Public Daily-Rated Employees' Federation Union, to which the gas, water and electricity workers' unions are affiliated, has recently shown by its action that it is a highly irresponsible union. The leaders of the union recently called out workers employed in the Cleansing Department in an illegal strike in furtherance of certain disputes of which the Industrial Arbitration Court had already taken cognizance, and in spite of the advice given by the N.T.U.C. We cannot allow such irresponsible unions to call wild-cat strikes in the vital services of the country. Water, gas and electricity services are vital to the day-to-day life of our people. These services must be provided, and continue to be provided to the public at all times; I repeat, at all times. Without these services, the whole community will suffer and the survival of our country will be seriously affected. We cannot allow such things to happen at this very vital stage of our development.

Hon. Members know that I was in the Ministry of Health for about three and a half years and, therefore, am familiar with the work of the Daily-Rated Workers Union, especially the Cleansing Workers' Union. Rather than keep the city clean, some of the members were more engrossed in collecting old tin cans for sale. As a matter of fact, this is well known to all members of the public, including the union leaders. The workers were more interested in treble pay by working on Sundays and holidays, and for this purpose they absented themselves from work on normal working days.

[Mr Tang See Chim in the Chair]

4.05 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour (Mr Sia Kah Hui): There have also been instances of workers belonging to this union who went out to intimidate those members of the public who had lodged complaints against them for malingering. Although the union was fully aware of such happenings, it did not take any positive action to rectify matters. If the union were, on the other hand, responsible, it would have co-operated to ensure that the workers did a fair day's work for a fair day's wage.

The hon. Member for Kampong Kembangan has said that the Government, in introducing an amendment to the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Bill, has become anti-union. This cannot be true in the face of the Government's contributions to the building up of a solid and strong trade union movement in this country.

To the Member for Anson, I would say that Government is definitely not unsympathetic to the needs of the workers. But it must be recognised that a strike is a weapon which should only be used as a last resort, when all means of settlement of a trade dispute has failed. Strikes do not resolve trade disputes. We have a system of industrial relations in Singapore which ensures a fair deal to the workers. Our system of voluntary negotiations, conciliation and arbitration is provided for in the laws of our land to ensure that no worker is exploited. There should be no reason for workers to go on strike and this is even more so in the essential and vital services. The prohibition of strikes in the public utility services should not, therefore, adversely affect the rights of workers. In fact, the workers in these services will be protected so that they will not be misled or exploited by irresponsible elements who control the destiny of their unions. It is the duty of every loyal citizen to see that our survival is not threatened by irresponsible elements. We have to see that not only is our economy kept going, but also ensure that it expands. Water, electricity and gas are vital necessities of life, and Government has to ensure that these basic necessities are not denied to the people. The prohibition of strikes in these services is to ensure that these vital services are available at all times and that the people are not held to ransom by the irresponsible acts of a few union leaders who abuse freedom of action in a democratic society.

The hon. Member for Bras Basah has said that the Minister can refer disputes to arbitration under the present legislation. I would like to ask him, does he not know, as I have mentioned earlier, of the recent case of the wild-cat strike called by one union even though the Minister had already referred the dispute to arbitration?

We have included the banking services as an essential service because banking is a very important financial institution in the economy of the country. Of late the Singapore Bank Employees Union has shown signs of irresponsibility by suddenly calling on its members to work to rule, to refuse overtime work and even to go on strike over minor issues. These have caused disruptions not only in the bank services but also jammed up the clearing of cheques, and this gives Singapore a bad image. This union has on more than one occasion taken industrial action to pressurise the banks into giving in to their demands at a time when banking is doing its best business, such as before certain festivals like the Chinese New Year. These actions are highly deplorable because they not only affect the banks themselves but also members of the public and the economy of the country. The inclusion of the banking services as an essential service does not prevent the union from taking strike action. But before doing so, they have to give 14 days' strike notice so that the banks could make alternative arrangements to serve the public and ensure that the economic activities of the country do' not come to a standstill.

With regard to the broadcasting and television services, these are vital media of transmission of news, entertainment and information of public interest.

There should also be no qualms about the inclusion of public bus transport and air services in the list of essential services. In fact, the Singapore Traction Company Employees Union gave 14 days' strike notice although they were not required to do so when they threatened to go on strike last year. Public bus transport is very essential especially to the thousands of school children and office workers who depend on it.

As regards air services, Singapore is at the cross-roads of international air traffic. Malaysia/Singapore Airlines is providing ground and catering facilities for many airlines and it is essential that these services are not disrupted by sudden strike action by the workers.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

4.10 p.m.

Mr Wee Toon Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, the few Members who have participated in the debate have raised the point, firstly, that by amending this Bill we have gone contrary to our pro-labour policy, and, secondly, that this amendment Bill denies the workers the right to strike. Firstly, Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Government had not devised a pro-labour policy, I am sure there would have been much squabbling between employers and employees during the period while we are in the Government. Secondly, we know that in the country the workers constitute a majority of the population and that they have played their part in the national interests and they should therefore be duly rewarded. In order to do that, the Government has, together with the trade unions and the employers, discussed and agreed to formulate the Industrial Arbitration Ordinance. Through this Ordinance we hope to maintain industrial peace with justice. But, unfortunately, as far as the Public Daily-Rated Employees Federation Union is concerned, they have not maintained the spirit of maintaining industrial peace with justice. They have always tried to hold the whole community to ransom in order to get something for their own selfish interest. We agree that if they have genuine grievances there is machinery for them to seek redress. But, unfortunately, Mr Speaker, Sir, as you have heard what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour has said, when the Government try to improve certain services so that the whole community can benefit from them, they are frustrated by the threat of a strike. A recent example of the irresponsibility of the Union is the strike carried out by the Cleansing Workers Union. As the Member for Anson has said just now, even with the amendment to the principal Ordinance, which requires the unions to serve 14 days' notice before a strike can take place, the matter has still to be resolved. That is exactly why the conciliation and arbitration machinery is there. Therefore, if the Union is responsible and has genuine grievances, I do not see why it should take the trouble to call a strike as a result of which not only the workers have to suffer but the whole country has to suffer. So if it is responsible, I would say we do not have to make this amendment.

Mr Speaker. Sir, the trade unions under the present circumstances should not confine themselves to their narrow sectional interests.

It has been mentioned that the Government and our Party have associated with the workers and have become what it is today. But at that time, the situation was different. We were not an independent country. We were still striving for political power so that we could run our own country for the benefit of our people. In the new situation now, the workers have their role to play and they must above all see that they contribute to the whole community. Of course, the Government can simply meet the demands of the unions. But we are the trustees of the public and, therefore, we have to look after the interests of the whole community and not a section of it. If we are to appease the unions, we can, of course, simply resolve the matter by conceding to their demands. But there is a limit to this. We are a Republic and have no natural resources. All of us know that we depend on our human resources to survive. Therefore, if industries do not expand and the economic situation does not improve, not only will the workers not get any improvement in their terms and conditions of service, but they themselves will probably have no work, or their dependants and friends will not be able to find jobs too. Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe we are not dictatorial in our labour policy, but I have just mentioned that in order to refute the allegation that ours is an anti-labour policy and that we are denying the workers their right to strike. I believe no one will swallow the false allegations made by my few colleagues just now.

Question put.

An hon. Member: Division.

The House divided: Ayes, 39; Noes, 7; Abstention, Nil; Absent, 5. Ayes. Noes. A. Rahim Ishak. Govindaswamy, P. Ang Nam Piau. Ho See Beng. Barker, E. W. Lim Guan Hoo. Buang bin Omar Mohd. Ariff bin Junid. Suradi. Chan Chee Seng. Devan Nair, Mrs Chan Choy Siong, Bernard Rodrigues. Madam. Sim Boon Woo. Chor Yeok Eng. Chow Chiok Hock. Fong Sip Chee. Goh Keng Swee. Gonzales, R. A. Abstention. Ho Cheng Choon. Nil. Ho Kah Leong. Jek Yuen Thong. Absent. Lee Khoon Choy. Lee Teck Him. Chan Sun Wing. Lim Cheng Lock. Chew Chin Han. Lim Kim San. Lee Kuan Yew. Lim Soo Peng. Wong Soon Fong. Lingsam, S. V. Yaacob bin Mahmud Awang. Mohamed. Ng Kah Ting. Ng Yeow Chong. Ong Pang Boon. Othman bin Wok. Rahamat bin Kenap. Ayes - contd. Rajaratnam, S. Rajoo, S. Ramaswamy, S. Selvadurai, P. Sia Kah Hui. Tang See Chim. Tay Boon Too. Tea Hup Teck. Teong Eng Siong. Toh Chin Chye. Wee Toon Boon. Yeoh Ghim Seng. Yang Nyuk Lin.

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 Wee Toon Boon].

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

4.26 p.m.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 -

Question proposed, "That clause 2 stand part of the Bill."

Inche Mohd. Ariff: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 2 is about essential services such as water, gas and electricity services. But sub-clause (2) makes no mention of the other essential services. In Government's view, how many categories of essential services are there? Perhaps, first, there are the three which are mentioned in sub-clause (1), i.e., water, gas and electricity services; in sub-clause (2) are the second category of essential services. Is there a third category of essential services? Earlier, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour has stated that, because of the wild-cat strike carried out by the Public Daily-Rated Cleansing Workers' Union, the Government has brought in amendments to the Bill that we have before us today. Why is it that workers in the Public Utilities Board are victimised on account of the strike carried out by the Public Daily-Rated Cleansing Workers' Union? I am of the opinion that the amendment to this clause 2 is contrary to the general interests of labour.

Mr Wee Toon Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance, essential services have been classified into many branches of services. However, in this instance, due to the irresponsibility of the Federation, the Government has to be more specific and bring in amendments to say specifically that employees of the water, gas and electricity services cannot go on strike. But the rest, as the Member has said, are not mentioned here. They have been mentioned either in the Gazette or in previous announcements.

Question put, "That clause 2 stand part of the Bill."

An hon. Member: Division.

The House divided: Ayes, 39; Noes, 7; Abstention, Nil; Absent, 5. Ayes. Noes. A. Rahim Ishak. Govindaswamy, P. Ang Nam Piau. Ho See Beng. Barker, E. W. Lim Guan Hoo Buang bin Omar Junid. Mohd Ariff bin Suradi Chan Chee Seng. Devan Nair, Mrs Chan Choy Siong, Bernard Rodrigues Madam. Sim Boon Woo Chor Yeok Eng. Chow Chiok Hock. Fong Sip Chee. Abstention Goh Keng Swee. Gonzales, R. A. Nil Ho Cheng Choon. Ho Kah Leong. Jek Yeun Thong. Absent. Lee Khoon Choy. Lee Teck Him. Chan Sun Wing. Lim Cheng Lock. Chew Chin Han Lim Kim San. Lee Kuan Yew Lim Soo Peng. Wong Soon Fong. Lingam, S. V. Yaacob bin Mohamed. Mahmud Awang. Ng Kah Ting. Ng Yeow Chong. Ong Pang Boon. Othman bin Wok. Rahamat bin Kenap. Rajaratnam, S. Rajoo, S. Ramaswamy, S. Selvadurai, P. Sia Kah Hui. Tang See Chim. Tay Boon Too. Teo Hup Teck. Teong Eng Siong. Toh Chin Chye. Wee Toon Boon. Yeoh Ghim Seng. Yong Nyuk Lin.

Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 to 6 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.