TRADE UNIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.35 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."

This is a very short Bill the purpose of which is to rationalise the organisational pattern of trade unions catering for workers in the essential services in the public sector. Under the existing Trade Unions Ordinance, workers employed by statutory boards or statutory bodies such as the Port of Singapore Authority, unlike Government servants are free to join any trade union they like. For instance, there is nothing to prevent gas workers of the Public Utilities Board from enrolling as members in any of the existing general unions which cater for all categories of workers in the private sector if they choose to do so. This laxity in the trade union law has created a ludicrous situation in which we find that workers engaged in essential services in the public sector are tied up with a predominant number of other categories of workers in the same organisation, and that the former is bound by the constitution of the organisation to act according to whatever is the majority decision, including that on industrial action taken by the latter. As an illustration, I cite the case of the Public Daily-Rated Transport Workers' Union. This union has a membership of 839 daily-rated workers, 402 of whom are from the Public Works Department, 212 from the Public Health Department, and 225 from the Public Utilities Board. Its 25-man executive committee consist of 17 Government daily-rated workers and 8 workers from the Public Utilities Board. The control of the union and the management of its affairs are, therefore, in the hands of the Government daily-rated workers because of their overwhelming majority. Under this peculiar set-up, the 225 members from the Public Utilities Board can never act independently. Within the union they have to abide by the majority decision of the Government daily-rated workers even though such decision may conflict with their own interests.

Until its deregistration recently, the Public Daily-Rated Employees Unions Federation was also in the same unhealthy position. There were 13 unions of daily-rated workers affiliated to the Federation. Three of them catered for workers employed by the Public Utilities Board in the Water, Gas and Electricity services. One catered for the Public Utilities Board and the Government transport workers. Another catered for the Housing and Development Board workers. The remaining eight catered for workers employed by Government. The Central Executive Committee of the Federation was composed of 21 members. But the 4,500 workers employed by the Public Utilities Board, who constituted more than one-third of the aggregate membership of the affiliates of the Federation, had only 5 representatives sitting in that Central Executive Committee. Under this set-up, this group of 4,500 workers in the essential services also had to follow whatever decision was made by those workers not engaged in the essential services who constituted the majority. Surely this is not the way trade union democracy should be practised in our democratic society. This pattern of union organisation is not only undesirable, but it also provides a danger point for the enemies of the Republic to disrupt civil order. The recent illegal cleansing strike and the threatened general strike of daily-rated workers in the public sector was a classic example of how easily this situation could be exploited to deprive the people of Singapore of their daily essential supplies of water, gas and electricity. The overall economic situation of the country and Singapore's economic future demands that positive measures should be taken to regularise the position. The services provided by the Public Utilities Board are part of the vital services of the country. I am sure that all of us who have our economic future at heart will agree that it is absolutely necessary that the workers in this area should he given full freedom to act independently in their own organisation. They should also be given adequate protection against outside control and exploitation to ensure that our vital public utilities will not be jeopardised by irresponsible elements using deplorable tactics to coerce conformity under the pretext of trade union democracy. Briefly, Sir, these are the main considerations which have compelled the Government to introduce the Bill.

The Bill confers on the Minister discretionary powers to specify any statutory board or body whose employees shall have to form their own union. If there is more than one union organised in the specific statutory hoard or body, they may freely enter into amalgamation or form a federation among themselves, but the consent of the Minister is required for the purpose of affiliation to a federation of trade unions if one or more of its affiliates cater for workers other than employees of that particular statutory board or body.

The new provisions in the Bill will affect the employees of only a few statutory boards which are providing the vital services of the country. It is certainly not the intention of the Government to alter the present position with regard to the trade union activities of employees of statutory boards or bodies which are not connected with the essential services, or are less important as far as the running of the economy of the country is concerned, such as the Adult Education Board, the Seamen's Registry Board, the Central Provident Fund Board and so on. Ironically, it is just because these provisions will affect only a few existing unions that vicious accusations are being made, both locally and at international level, that the Trade Unions Ordinance is being amended to crush an institutional group and to suppress freedom of association. This is very untrue. Only persons with an irrational mind stimulated by sinister motives can make such an irresponsible and irrational allegation. I regret to say that the Amalgamated Unions of Public Employees confused the issue further by rushing to print in its journal, the Mimbar, its letter to the Prime Minister which contained a number of misleading points. I hope that the inaccuracies are just honest mistakes made by the writers who had misread the Bill, and not a wilful distortion of facts intended to confuse the issue. The A.U.P.E. states, among other things, that the Bill will affect the Teachers' Union because the Minister may declare the aided-school teachers as a body, in which event the aided-school teachers will have to form separate unions. The A.U.P.E. also claims that the Minister may declare a group of Government employees as a body, thereby forcing such group of employees to form a separate union. It also jumps to the conclusion that the registration of the Singapore School Clerical Staff Union a month after the First Reading of the Bill, is an attempt to splinter the A.U.P.E. I would never have imagined that such shocking misrepresentations could come from the A.U.P.E. whose efficient organisation and capable leadership I have long admired.

Sir, the wording of subsection (1) of the new section 29A of the Bill is plain and simple. The operative phrase is, "No workman employed by such statutory board or body.. .". Aided-school teachers are not employed by any statutory board or body. It is absolute nonsense to suggest that the Minister has the power or intends to specify aided-school teachers or a group of Government employees as a body. I will repeat here that the Bill will not in any way affect the teachers.

As regards the Singapore School Clerical Staff Union, the fact that its registration came after the First Reading of the Bill is just a coincidence. This union was formed by a group of Chinese school clerks in November 1966 after they had failed to get themselves admitted to the Chinese School Teachers' Union, because its constitution does not cater for membership of clerks. The union applied for registration on 10th November, 1966, and was registered on 8th April, 1967.

As I have just said, this union was formed by Chinese school clerks and its object is to organise the clerks in Chinese schools. Although the union's rules do not debar the clerical staff in Government schools from joining its membership, the union will not be able to recruit the Government school clerical staff, the reason being that this is a non-Government servant union and the clerical staff in Government schools are debarred by law from joining non-Government servant unions. On the other hand, the A.U.P.E. is not permitted by law and its own constitution to recruit as members clerks in aided schools. I therefore see no reason why the A.U.P.E. should take objection to the Chinese school clerks, who have hitherto no union to look after their interests, coming together and forming their own union. Perhaps it was confused thinking that prompted the leaders of the A.U.P.E. to believe that the registration of the Singapore School Clerical Staff Union has anything to do with the Bill and that the proposed amendments are intended to splinter the A.U.P.E.

Sir, it remains now for me to repeat that the Bill is not designed to crush any individual or union. Its sole purpose is to rationalise the organisational pattern of trade unions in the public sector connected with essential services. But some people foolishly believe that they are so important and indestructible that the Government has to take the trouble to pass this law just to cause their downfall and nothing else. This is childish thinking. If it is only a few individuals that are worrying us, there are many other methods and laws which we can use to deal with them. We need not have to go through all these First, Second and Third Readings to get a new Bill passed. These few individuals can be dealt with effectively and conclusively. But what we are more concerned with is the future of our economy on which the livelihood of all of us depends. We are determined that no one - not even the strongest personality in the trade union field - can do anything to cause the loss of confidence in our economy. However, there may be some people - forces from outside, for instance - who like to see our economy go down. One way they can do this is by manipulating some of our trade unions and leaders and causing labour unrest. The way things are with many categories of workers in the essential services grouped together in one giant union, it is comparatively easy for anyone to create a minor industrial dispute in any section, then spreading it to affect the workers in the whole union, and in next to no time we will find strikes all over the place - telephone, post office, water, electricity, gas, telegraph services all stopped.

An hon. Member: All under A.U.P.E.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: In fact, the whole city will be paralysed. This will definitely shake the economy of Singapore, causing a flight of capital. This Bill is only one of the measures to safeguard against such a situation.

There is a lot of talk about this Bill being in contravention of the principle of freedom of association of the I.L.O. But we are not denying any worker his right to join any trade union. We do not even want to deregister the A.U.P.E or any other omnibus union or hamper its work. In fact, this Bill was read the First time on the 27th of February this year and it should have gone through its Second Reading in the last Parliament sitting in March. But we deliberately postponed it to give fair notice to all concerned, including the A.U.P.E. We have given them ample time to readjust their internal affairs. With the time given, they can, I am sure, form new unions for workers in the different statutory boards if they want to and we will have no objection to such a move. But I regret to say that the A.U.P.E. have not made use of the time available to make readjustments within the union. Instead they have taken this postponement to mean weakness on the part of the Government. They even cherish the faint hope that the Government may yield to pressure applied from within and without the country and withdraw the Bill. I must say that they have taken the wrong advice. We know we are doing the right thing for Singapore and we will not yield to any lobbying or pressure. We can justify publicly in Singapore the course we are taking and we are prepared to justify it on an international level.

The Bill will not affect the affiliation of local trade unions to international trade union organisations. In recent years, more and more local trade unions have extended their activities into the international field.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Inche Mohd. Ariff Bin Suradi: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sorry that the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill has been moved by the Minister for Labour. Its object is nothing else but to break up and control the unions by a policy of divide and rule. Perhaps he is worried about workers who are uniting in a militant trade union to struggle for their own rights. Amendments one after another to the Trade Unions Ordinance have been moved in this Parliament to stifle the achievements of unions who have made progress. Not long ago, an amendment Bill was approved in this Parliament to prohibit P.U.B. employees from taking industrial action. There were also other amendments, and bank employees were also affected. All this goes to show that the trade unions will face a very difficult situation. The Minister for Labour believes that the militant trade unions can be controlled only in this way. But he is unaware that the workers are fully conscious of the tactics of employers to weaken them and that they are ever willing to struggle for their legitimate rights.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on one occasion, the Minister for Labour, when refuting a statement made by the Member for Bras Basah, said that the Member for Bras Basah took part in trade union activities only very recently. He also said that he had more experience and that although he had been to prison at one time, it would not dampen his spirit to struggle for the cause of labour. Today he is the Minister for Labour. Likewise the workers are prepared to sacrifice their time and energy to struggle for their legitimate rights and interests. I believe that the spirit of the workers of Singapore is strong today, unlike in the past, and that they are prepared to face any consequences. So with this amendment Bill, I think the workers will not he weakened in their struggle for their rights. On the contrary, they will consolidate their position and they will be even more determined to fight for their interests in future.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the policy of the present Government to unite trade unions and to abolish splinter or yellow unions has been welcomed by workers throughout Singapore. It was through this policy that the ruling party, which is pro-labour, came to power. Many unions have adhered to this policy with the result that unions catering for insurance company workers, bank employees, the Singapore Manual and Mercantile Workers' Union and many other unions have been established. But what is strange is that this amendment Bill mainly concerns workers in the P.U.B., whilst workers in commercial firms are not affected by it. Although the Minister for Labour has stated that the object of this amendment is not to suppress the unions in general, nevertheless, there is no doubt that it is directed against a particular union or unions. It is unjustified, Mr Speaker, because this amendment is designed to restrict a particular union while not affecting other trade unions.

Mr Speaker: Order. Inche Ariff, will you be very much longer?

Inche Mohd. Ariff: Not very much longer.

Mr Speaker: Please proceed.

Inche Mohd. Ariff: (In Malay): This is admitted by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance when he answered a question from the Member for Anson. He admitted that the prices of staple foods have risen but that the salaries of workers have not been given a fair rise. In preventing the workers from asking or agitating for more pay, the Minister for Labour is moving this amendment to establish more unions so that the spirit of the workers can be dampened.

Mr Speaker: It is convenient to suspend now. I will suspend the sitting and take the Chair again at 5.35 p.m.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.03 p.m. until 5.35 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.35 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Question again proposed.

Mr Govindaswamy: (In Tamil): Mr Speaker, Sir, in bringing this amendment Bill forward, the Minister for Labour has said that this amendment would benefit both workers and employers. Even so, it is the object of the Government that the trade union movement should be strengthened. In these circumstances, trade unions which are now united in big organisations are to be broken up into splinter unions. This, I feel, is the real motive of this amendment. If we try to break the match sticks in a box all at once, it is impossible. But to break them one by one is, of course, an easy task. If the Government helps to unite the unions, it will be of great benefit to the country. The statutory boards are now to be separated, and it is also intended that the unions should be splintered and their backbones broken. I feel that this is the motive of the Government.

At each sitting of Parliament the Minister for Labour brings forward an amendment, and perhaps at the next sitting too he will bring forward certain amendments. My feeling is that he really wants to break up the labour movement. He says that he has in mind the interests of the workers. He ought to know exactly how to bring about a better labour movement. But it is totally wrong of him to think of ways and means to break up the unity of labour. Members of unions have certain rights and if they are divided and broken up, then this amendment does not serve any useful purpose. Take the case of a union of about 100 members. What can they really do? How can they improve their living standard? Can they fight for their rights? They cannot. But if they are united with other unions, they can certainly find ways and means to fight for their rights. Let us take another example, the public daily-rated workers. One union may ask for $6 a day wage, and another may ask for $7, while yet another may ask for $4. If each union asks for a different rate, how are we going to rationalise these demands? But if they all belong to one union and speak with one voice, it will be easier for statutory boards, Government, and private companies to deal with this one union. But now, step by step, the unions are being broken up. What will be the final result for the labour movement? There is the basic doubt whether the labour movement will survive in Singapore.

The Minister spoke about the A.U.P.E. He praised it, and quite rightly so. A.U.P.E. has approximately 40,000 members and it is growing from strength to strength. One day it may be able to pose a threat to the Government. But up to now it has not behaved in such a manner as to threaten the Government. So far it has followed the labour laws. It has taken into consideration the interests of the workers. It has a responsible leadership. I do not think there have been any harmful moves by the A.U.P.E.

But if the Government goes on legislating in this manner, it will finally affect the workers to a very great extent. This is my opinion. Then what will become of them in the end? This is something we ought to consider.

If we look at the labour movement in other countries, we find that some unions have 80,000 members; others have 100,000 members, 200,000 members, and so on. In such countries we do not come across any dangerous elements. Our country is small, and our unions are also small. So if our unions are united, they will be able to fight for their rights. But if they are broken up little by little, it will not do the Government or our people any good. That is my opinion.

Therefore, in considering this amendment Bill, we must remember the several other Trade Union (Amendment) Bills that have been passed in this House before. I think that this particular amendment Bill should be sent to Select Committee to seek the views of the unions and of the people. Therefore, I urge the Minister to send this amendment Bill to Select Committee.

5.43 p.m.

Mr Ho See Beng (Bras Basah): Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill before the House is significant, not for any vigorous controversy it has aroused in trade union circles in Singapore, but for the misconception entertained in certain international labour circles regarding the intentions of the Bill. It has come to my knowledge, as Secretary of the International Relations Department of the N.T.U.C., that certain international trade secretariats have been seriously and grossly misled about the purpose and intention of this Bill.

These quarters have been led to believe that the Bill has the most despicable motivations, and that the Prime Minister of Singapore is behaving just like an African despot, and that he is out to cut the A.U.P.E. down to size, and particularly Mr Kandasamy down to size. I do not for a moment believe that this is the intention of the Government. Besides I also understand that the A.U.P.E. at the moment does not pose any threat or danger at all. The people of Singapore would laugh at such stories because we know that they are simply not true. The A.U.P.E. also knows that this is not true. Indeed, the A.U.P.E. has issued a statement to the effect that the Prime Minister "took great pains" to explain to them the reasons for the introduction of this Bill.

Nevertheless, certain international trade union bodies, hitherto friendly to Singapore, have been led to believe, by certain persons in this region, that the Bill is motivated by the basest of considerations. My information is that some damage has been done, at least in some international labour circles, to Singapore's image. As a loyal Singaporean and as a patriotic trade unionist, I call upon the Government to give the lie to the mischievous interpretations which have been given to the Bill internationally.

I am glad to report to this House that the Central Executive Committee of the N.T.U.C. met on Saturday, 20th May, 1967, in order to consider certain representations on the Bill which had been submitted to the N.T.U.C. only a few days earlier by the A.U.P.E., and after due consideration agreed as follows:

(1) That the Central Executive Committee of the N.T.U.C., after having listened to the explanations offered by the Prime Minister at a recent meeting, was satisfied beyond all doubt that the Government's bona fides in introducing this Bill were completely above-board, and that the Bill was not aimed at any particular trade union or at any particular trade unionist.

(2) That the N.T.U.C, was, nevertheless, concerned about the application of the provisions of the Bill, and to this end, certain representations would have to be made to this House by trade union representatives in Parliament with regard to the removal of certain anomalies which might arise from the application of the Bill.

I am also happy to announce, both for national and international information, that almost the entire Central Committee of the N.T.U.C., including Mr Kandasamy, accepted the bona fides of the Government as being above board, and appreciated the fact that the Bill was not directed at any particular trade union, but was motivated by considerations of the national interest.

All members of the Central Committee of the N.T.U.C. met the Prime Minister last week and he explained to us exhaustively what he meant by the "national interest", and I do not recall that anybody, or any particular trade unionists representing employees of the public sector (who would be primarily affected by this Bill) disagreed with or in any way countered the considerations which the Prime Minister advanced.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I myself have laboured this point to some extent, simply because the N.T.U.C. is concerned to squash, once and for all, rumours generated in certain international labour circles which tend to have a damaging effect on the international image of Singapore, which we in the patriotic trade union movement deem it our duty to cherish and uphold.

Now I shall deal with some of the critical observations that the N.T.U.C. has to offer. Normally, the Minister for Labour discusses the provisions of any proposed labour legislation with the N.T.U.C. This has happened on all past occasions, but this time the N.T.U.C. was by-passed. I would like an explanation from the Minister for Labour as to why this was allowed to happen. It must be appreciated that relations of understanding and co-operation between the Government and the democratic labour movement can only be maintained and strengthened through closer consultation on all matters affecting the interests of labour; not to say, "Well, we are not afraid of the trade union movement. At this moment we are very strong," and so on. I believe that closer consultation on all matters is very necessary.

Coming to the applications of the provisions of this Bill, it will have one unfortunate result, and that is the creation of a number of peanut unions. For example, the Minister for Labour has said earlier on that in the transport section, there are members from the P.U.B., members from the Housing Board, and members from other sections. If this Bill is passed into law, instead of solidifying or getting the employees together to form a union, it will create a wide division of workers and various small unions will be formed. This, I think, is not in the interest of the workers. You will remember that our Government has done a great deal in the past to do away with smaller unions or peanut unions. We all remember the days when our port workers were divided into at least eleven peanut unions. Today, as a result of Government policy, the port workers of Singapore come under a single union. A number of similar examples may be cited, but if this Bill is passed into law, the Government will have taken a backward step.

Let us examine some of the implications. Employees of the larger statutory boards, like the S.T.B., the P.U.B. and the Housing and Development Board, can form fairly sizable unions. Where the P.U.B. is concerned, the Bill might indeed have a progressive effect. At the moment, employees in the Water, Gas and Electricity Departments belong to separate unions, while monthly-rated employees in the P.U.B. belong to yet another separate union. So where the P.U.B. is concerned, this Bill would make it possible for all P.U.B. employees to be united into one single union, rather than being distributed among four separate unions, as is the case at present. This is only confined to a sizable union. But in the case of the transport workers, it is not in their interests. Therefore, as I said, where the P.U.B. is concerned, this Bill would have a progressive and beneficial effect.

Employees of the Housing and Development Board are also distributed at the moment between two different unions, a daily-rated union, and the A.U.P.E. They too will now be able to amalgamate into a single union.

But let us take a look at the other side of the coin. Statutory bodies like the Currency Board, the Economic Development Board, the Central Provident Fund Board, the Adult Education Board, the Polytechnic, the University of Singapore, the Asian Seamen's Club, the Seamen's Registry Board and the National Theatre are small-time employers. Some of the Boards employ as few as 15 to 20 persons. Employees of most of these Boards are at present represented by the A.U.P.E. But according to the provisions of this Bill, they will now have to form unions of their own, with the result that we will now have to deal with at least nine new peanut unions. This is surely a retrogressive effect. It is true that the Bill provides for a federation of unions representing statutory board employees, subject to the prior approval of the Minister. But why should it be necessary to specify that trade unions representing employees of statutory boards may not form a federation without the prior approval of the Minister?

I am prepared to accept that employees of statutory boards may not be affiliated to any other trade union or federation of trade unions whose membership includes direct employees of the Government, without the prior approval of the Minister. But why should such prior approval be necessary for unions representing employees of the various statutory boards to federate among themselves? This, in my view, is an unnecessary stipulation, and should be specifically deleted from the Bill.

One wonders too whether it is really necessary to stipulate that it is in "the national interest" that trade unions representing employees of statutory boards may only affiliate with the N.T.U.C., for instance, subject to the approval of the Minister. It surely cannot be held that the N.T.U.C. is a subversive organisation.

It is possible that employees of statutory boards, who at present belong to various unions, may have their own views as to how best they ought to organise themselves. I am therefore to suggest to the Government that it should consider sending this Bill to a Select Committee, with a view to studying some of the undesirable results that may ensue from the application of the Bill, particularly the creation of a few peanut unions. The Select Committee would also be able to consider representations from the trade unions involved, so that necessary changes may be made to the Bill with a view to securing a more intelligent and more effective organisation of employees in statutory boards. If the Government's intention is good and sincere, and they wish to make us believe that, I appeal to the Minister for Labour to consider referring this Bill to Select Committee. I hope he will not just simply steamroller it through, knowing full well that he is capable of doing it, as he has so many Back-benchers to support him. If this Bill is referred to a Select Committee, I feel it will do justice to the unions and they will be given a chance to make their representations on the Bill.

6.00 p.m.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am grateful to the Member for Bras Basah who has disclosed that the Central Executive Committee of the N.T.U.C. has expressed its support for this Bill. It leaves very little for me to add to what I have already said just now. But I do not understand why there is so much fuss from the two Members about asking workers in one giant union to form their own exclusive unions to cater for their own interest. In one giant union, as I see it, the voice of a section of the workers may be submerged, but in their own exclusive union they can look after their own interests more closely and discuss matters more related to their conditions of work. The workers in the Port of Singapore Authority, for instance, which is one of our biggest statutory boards employing a great number of workers, have got their own exclusive union for years. And nobody has said that this is violating the principle of freedom of association.

The Member for Kampong Kembangan has said that the Bill will lead to splinter unions, or what he calls "yellow unions". But let me put forward one case. The workers in the Telephone Board, for instance, who are members of the A.U.P.E., had their own exclusive union in 1959. Nobody said then that they were being denied the right of freedom of association. Now we are only asking them to go back to their old position. Was it a yellow union then?

As I see it, the workers will not lose anything. They can have their own unions to look after their interests. They can elect their own officials. They can even have their own industrial disputes, but so long as the industrial dispute or action is confined to their field of work, it can be dealt with without much harm to the economy of the country. This Bill makes it less possible for a small group of irresponsible trade union leaders, who have ulterior motives or who are being manipulated by outside forces, to manoeuvre our workers in their bid to bring the economy of the country to a grinding halt. As far as the workers are concerned, their rights remain the same and they can still be represented by unions of their own choosing. I think, on the whole, this Bill will benefit many of us in Singapore.

It has been suggested that there are so many labour laws which can be used to deal with the situation in the event of a general strike in the public service. For instance, the Industrial Relations Ordinance can be used to refer the dispute to the Industrial Arbitration Court, thereby stopping a threatening strike. But this is only true when we have trade unionists who are prepared to play according to the rules of the game and who have the paramount interest of the country at heart. But when we come to trade unionists who have ulterior motives or who refuse to abide by the law, we really have to think of something to deal with them. We saw such things happen in February when the leaders of the public cleansing union decided to call an illegal strike. It is in this situation that we have to review our position and tighten up our laws, leaving no loopholes for them to exploit.

The Member for Bras Basah is worried about the peanut unions which may spring up after this Bill is passed. I have already said earlier that for those sections of workers who belong to very small statutory bodies and whose work is of a less essential nature, they may be allowed to remain in the same old union. It has been suggested that the discretionary powers given to the Minister in clause 2 of the Bill should be given to the N.T.U.C. Sir, I have great confidence in the present leadership of the N.T.U.C., but I am not sure what will develop in a few years to come. We may have a new set of leaders, or we may have the same old people. But it is very improper that power of this sort should be given to an organisation whose quality of leadership cannot be consistent.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

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

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