DISMISSAL OF CLEANSING WORKERS AFFER STRIKE (Particulars)

Mr P. Govindaswamy asked the Minister for Health the number of workers dismissed during or immediately after the strike by cleansing workers early this year, giving figures by races and whether citizens or non-citizens; and whether the Government has re-instated any of the dismissed workers and the number re-instated.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Sir, when the former Public Daily-Rated Cleansing Workers' Union decided to call an illegal strike on the 1st of February of this year as a protest against the Ministry of Health's decision to proceed with the long overdue reorganisation of the Public Cleansing Department, Government decided that all those, who went on strike had sacked themselves. However, as a large number of cleansing workers may have been prevented from presenting themselves for work as a result of the activities of instigators and pickets, and as the Ministry did not wish to penalise the honest hard-working workers, whether Singapore citizens or non-citizens, it was decided that those workers who desired reappointment could call personally and complete application forms at six centres.

Out of a total of 2,281 such applications for re-employment, 2,047 were accepted for temporary re-employment subject to review after six months or 12 months. Of this, 234 were rejected. So far, only one rejected case has been subsequently re-employed by the Government but not in the Ministry of Health.

As desired by the Member for Anson, the racial composition and citizenship status of those whose applications for re-employment have been rejected are given hereafter. But it is of interest to compare them with the total number who applied for registration. On the basis of racial composition, the numbers who applied for re-employment are: Indians 1,177 or 52 per cent Malays 787 or 34 per cent Chinese and others 317 or 14 per cent ----- Total 2,281 ===== Of the rejected applicants, there were: Indians 104 which represents 44 per cent Malays 84 which represents 36 per cent Chinese and others 46 which represents 20 per cent --- Total 234 ===

If we group them according to their citizenship status, the total number who applied for re-employment is: Singapore citizens 1,626 or 71 per cent Non-citizens 655 or 29 per cent ----- Total 2,281 =====

Of the rejected applicants: Singapore citizens 184 or 79 per cent Non-citizens 50 or 21 per cent --- Total 234 ===

Mr P. Govindaswamy (Anson): Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not understand what is the meaning of "rejected applicants" in the Minister's reply. Is it because of dismissal, or does it mean that the worker cannot work any more anywhere else?

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: I wish the Member for Anson had followed my answer. I have stated that because of the illegal strike, Government had decided that all those who did not turn up for work were considered to have sacked themselves. And then they were allowed, only if they wanted to work, to re-apply for employment. They put in their applications and they were not considered suitable; so they were rejected. Therefore, they do not get employment in the Ministry of Health, but they could apply for work anywhere else in Singapore if they wish.

Mr Govindaswamy: Mr Speaker, Sir, what was the reason for rejecting those 184?

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: It is 234, and not 184.

Mr Govindaswamy: No. I mean the Singapore citizens.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: The 234 citizens and non-citizens were rejected because their records are bad. They were bad workers, either lazy, malingerers, or absentees - people who did no work but were getting paid by the Government!

Inche Mahmud Awang: (In Malay): Sir, will the Minister consider reemploying or taking back all the 234 applicants who have been rejected?

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: In my reply to the Member for Anson, I have said that only one of the rejected cases has been subsequently re-employed by Government, but not in the Ministry of Health, which means that the other 233 have not been accepted at all.

Mr Speaker: Mr Yong, I think the Member's question was: will further consideration be given to the reemployment of these persons?

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: I think not, Sir.