LABOUR (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

2.40 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 short Bill. Its purpose is to seek discretionary powers for the Minister to grant exemptions from the prohibition of female workmen working at night. "night" in the context of the present provisions of the law means a period of not less than 11 consecutive hours including the interval between ten o'clock in the evening and five o'clock in the morning or such other interval of seven hours as the Minister may by notification in the Gazette prescribe for any particular industrial undertaking or branch thereof or kind of labour. The restriction on the employment at night of female workmen is in accordance with the requirements of the International Labour Convention and was introduced into the Labour Ordinance in 1955. The situation then existing did not warrant the employment in Singapore of female labour at night. However, with the increasing impetus of industrialisation in Singapore, certain export-orientated industries find it increasingly difficult to meet production targets without introducing a night shift in which female employees may have to be employed in certain kinds of labour. The law as it stands, however, will not permit the employment of female workers beyond twelve midnight in view of the very restrictive interval period of seven hours contained in the law. Apart from allowing for the variation of this prohibited interval, there is no provision for the lifting of the restriction entirely in certain cases. The structure of our economy has changed and will continue to change more speedily with the progress of industrialisation, and it will be necessary, in the interest of the economy, for some factories, especially those which are export-orientated, to work on a 24-hour shift system which will involve the employment of female workmen at night in certain kinds of labour. It is, therefore, necessary to take account of the situation to ensure that existing legislation does not stifle industrial progress and expansion and deprive the creation of employment opportunities to our people. The logic of the situation demands that the present legal restriction on the employment of female workers during a night shift should be relaxed so that certain industries or undertakings can introduce a night shift and increase their productive capacity to meet the demands of our export market. What is even more important to us is that by allowing female workers to work in the third shift, we are able not only to utilise the expensive equipment and factory space more profitably, but also to create more employment opportunities for our workers. A number of countries have provided for the relaxation of night work in respect of female employees. These countries include the United Kingdom and Japan. It is pertinent to point out that highly industrialised countries have thought it necessary to relax the restriction in the interest of their economy and, therefore, a relaxation of this nature would be of even greater benefit to a developing economy such as ours.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are certain categories of female employees who even now work in shifts round the clock, tor example, nurses and airline workers in consonance with the social and economic demands of these vocations. It must also be mentioned that our female population today is more progressive and sophisticated than they were before, and that the well-developed social services in the country serve their needs most satisfactorily, both from the health and security points of view.

The present amendment does not do away with the existing restrictions, but only gives powers to the Minister to grant exemptions where it is desirable in the public interest to do so for the purpose of maintaining or increasing the efficiency of industry. It will not in any way affect the protection that female employees now enjoy, because before an exemption is granted their interest will be very carefully considered and in most cases we will consult the union before we agree to exempt. But this is only applicable to those unions which are willing to work with the law. To the Communist-controlled unions which have every intention to break the law, I say it is a waste of time to consult them.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Yeoh Ghim Seng (Joo Chiat): Mr Speaker, Sir, I know it is rather difficult to use certain terms and words. But these two words "female workmen" really offend me. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why our workmen should become females. Why cannot we use better terms like "female labourers", "female employees" or "female workers", rather than "female workmen"?

Mr Speaker: I seem to remember that these are words used in the Ordinance which this Bill seeks to amend.

Mr Bernard Rodrigues (Telok Blangah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the proposed Labour (Amendment) Bill, 1967. My reason in supporting the proposed amendment Bill is that, from my experience as one of the secretaries of the Pioneer Industries Employees' Union, I have found that the absolute prohibition against the employment of female workers in night shifts is not conducive to [he industrial development of Singapore.

There are certain industries, such as the textile industry, where the jobs to be performed by workers are of a very delicate nature requiring infinite patience and a light touch. For such kind of work, women workers are riiore suitable than male workers. But because of the present absolute prohibition against employing women workers on night shifts, employers in such industries have no other choice but to employ male workers during the night shifts. As to why night shifts are necessary, the explanation is that because it is economical to utilise a set of equipment continuously rather than to utilise double the equipment half the time only. Also, the exigency of business may require factories to operate continuously for 24 hours a day in order to enable deadlines for deliveries to be met.

During the present session in this House, Members have heard the Minister for Finance analyse the economic situation in Singapore and emphasise the need for Singapore to develop more industries and to cultivate a bigger export market. One factor which may attract foreign investors to Singapore and determine the competitiveness of Singapore goods in foreign markets is productivity of labour. The use of male workers on night shifts in industries where women workers are more suitable is not a circumstance which is conducive to the promotion of higher productivity of labour. Members of this House may then ask why it is not satisfactory to employ male workers in such industries. One explanation may be that male workers who are employed on such night shifts find the work uninteresting and uninspiring. Another explanation may be that male workers do not have the necessary patience of the female workers to do such work. Then again, the wage level in such industries may be lower than the wage level in other industries in the Jurong Industrial Complex. I shall be talking more about this wage level later on. But for the present I shall confine myself to the explanation why employment of male workers instead of female workers on night shifts in certain industries is not satisfactory. Because of the many reasons which I have just enumerated, there is a high turnover among the male workers who are at present employed in night shifts as a result of the absolute prohibition against female workers.

I am sure that Members of the House will agree with me that any high turnover of labour force, whether involving male workers or female workers in any industries, is not a satisfactory situation. In such industries where women workers are more suitable, it must also be appreciated that workers employed in such industries must undergo long intensive periods of training. The wastage of labour, therefore, can be imagined when workers leave their employment immediately after the end of the period of training or even before the end of the period of training. Because of such workers leaving their employment, new workers have to be employed to take their place and this means that new employees must undergo similar long intensive periods of training. In such a situation it is not difficult to understand that the workers cannot attain a higher level of efficiency during their period of training. And this is the situation in those industries where female workers are more suitable but are prohibited from work on night shifts, because of the high turnover of male workers employed on such night shifts. The production of the factories involved suffers as a result.

It was in these circumstances that some of the employers who are most affected by the absolute prohibition against the employment of women work ers on night shifts approached me to make representations to the Minister for Labour in respect of section 50 of the Labour Ordinance, so that the absolute prohibition against the use of women workers on night shifts should be removed. I, accordingly, conveyed their views to the Minister who, I am happy to say, is also of the view that the absolute prohibition is impractical and not conducive to the industrial development of Singapore. It must be pointed out that the Labour Ordinance was enacted at a time when Singapore's economy was essentially orientated to the export-import trade. There were then not many manufacturing industries, and those that existed do not justify the use of women workers on night shifts. The present situation is different. At the risk of repeating myself, I must point out that there are now in Singapore many industries where women workers are more suitable than male workers. This situation will continue in future when more industries are attracted to Singapore, but such industries which require women workers may be discouraged from coming to Singapore if they find that they cannot employ women workers on night shifts.

The present amendment will remove the absolute prohibition against the employment of female workers on night shifts and substitute in its place a qualified prohibition with an enabling provision for the Minister to exempt any industry or branch thereof from such prohibition. I think the statutory safeguard against the exploitation of women workers by unscrupulous employers is adequate. And I am sure the Minister will make an exhaustive investigation before granting exemption from such prohibition to any employer making an application to him in that behalf. I, as an official of the Pioneer Industries Employees' Union, can assure Members of the House that the union will also see to it that, where women workers are employed on night shifts, all of them will receive the special allowance or night-shift premiums in line with those prevailing among the other industries in the Jurong Industrial Complex.

In this context, I wish to make some reference to the surprising remarks of the Member for Delta, who has said that the whole of the Jurong Industrial Complex is one big chaos, presumably including the Pioneer Industries Employees' Union. As to the specific allegation that workers, particularly women workers, are earning a wage of $2.50 per day, I wish to point out that these are allowances paid during th.e period when the workers are receiving training. Such periods of training are seldom more than six months, and once they have completed their training, workers receive an immediate increase in wages. I can assure the House that the use of women workers on night shifts does not necessarily mean exploitation of women workers. My union, the Pioneer Industries Employees' Union, in spite of the derogatory remarks made about it, has always protected and promoted the interests of the workers and will continue to do so in the Jurong Industrial Complex.

Finally, if there is any significant number of workers who are not members of the union, it is because they are still under training or on probation. Such workers may not be able to become members of the union. This is an accepted principle in industrial relations in Singapore. But if the Member for Delta knows of any specific instance of exploitation in Jurong, I should think it is her duty to furnish such particulars to the Ministry of Labour, if not to the union.

2.55 p.m.

Inche Mohd. Ariff: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I cannot understand the intention of the Minister for Labour in bringing forward this amendment Bill which precludes women from working at night. It is correct that female workers should not be asked to work at night. If there are female workers working in industries, they should work during the day. The place for female workers, especially married female workers, to work at night is the house, in the house they can look after their husbands and children whom they leave during the day. To the best of my knowledge, the wife of the Minister for Labour is working. I am quite sure he does not wish his wife to work at night, leaving him alone to tend to the children.

Mr Speaker, whilst not allowing female workers to work at night, according to section 50 subsection (1), the Minister may exempt any employer from asking his female workers to work at night, if he is satisfied with his application that it is in the public interest or to increase efficiency of the industry.

Mr Speaker, the Minister for Labour is of the opinion that female workers when working at night are more efficient than male workers, but I cannot see how female workers can show extra skill or increased efficiency in this respect. I have also heard from the Member for Telok Blangah just now that female workers are more patient than their male counterparts. I would like to cite an example in the Singapore Telephone Board. Previously the telephone operators who worked from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. were female operators, and from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. the switchboards were attended to by male operators. But now for 24 hours of the day the trunk call and inquiry services are looked after by female operators. According to the employers, this is to increase the efficiency of the S.T.B. But both the female and male operators have the same kind of work at the switchboard - connect the plug, enquire and pull it out. If this is a means to attract callers, then this may be the reason. I cannot, however, see the extra efficiency of female operators. I hope this amendment will increase the efficiency of the industries and I also hope it will not be a source of inconvenience to the household. Mr Speaker, I trust the Minister, when exercising his discretionary powers to exempt applications from employers, will consider whether they are for a good purpose or not.

Mr Teong Eng Siong (Sembawang): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully understand the intention of the Labour Minister in introducing this amendment Bill, which is to gear our legislation to the industrialisation of Singapore. We know that this is a very competitive age. In order to progress in our indus trialisation, it is necessary to increase the efficiency and productivity of our labour. This is a good intention from the outset. But it may give rise to two problems. Firstly, as the Member for Telok Blangah has said, the wages of female workers are lower than those paid to male workers. I do not know whether there is really some form of exploitation, because if low wages are paid to female workers, then employers will tend to employ more female workers. As a result, there will be more unemployment among the male workers. This is one point which I wish to bring to the attention of the Minister. Mr Speaker, in order to give facilities to and make it convenient for the em ployers, we must advise them not to exploit the situation.

The second problem arises in cases where employers may have female workers. If night shift is compulsory for female workers, then some inconvenience will be caused to the household of the female workers concerned. Before any compulsion is exercised on working night shifts, the employers should ask the female workers whether they agree to working night shifts or not. If some female workers are not prepared to work night shifts, I think they should not be asked to do so.

Madam Chan Choy Siong (Delta): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I only wish to touch on one aspect of this Labour (Amendment) Bill. It is the labour policy of the Government to help the workers. This is a progressive policy which is difficult to find in South-east Asian countries. We have every reason to be very proud of it. Comparatively speaking, our labour policy is better and more enlightened than that of other neighbouring countries in this region. However, in my humble view, if we have a new labour policy, then there should be no distinction between female workers and male workers in respect of labour. They are workers all the same. We should not distinguish between the sexes as far as labour is concerned. It is the policy of the P.A.P. Government not to make a distinction between the sexes. Of course, in anatomy there must be some differences. A male is a male. But in so far as the working class is concerned, there should be no distinction between female and male workers. In my view, there should be equality between workers of the two sexes, equal pay for equal work. This is in the manifesto of the P.A.P. According to this progressive labour policy, if we should come across any female workers receiving lower wages than men, then, as a progressive labour Government, we should not allow this to happen.

Mr Speaker, I spoke earlier in this House about the poor treatment given to workers in the Jurong Industrial Complex. I was not talking about female workers particularly. I was just passing a general remark that the wages paid in the Jurong Industrial Estate are generally poor. We should not sacrifice the interest of labour in order to cut down the cost of production. It is on this point that I spoke earlier. We must give some thought to the question of whether labour will benefit by this kind of productivity increase. We should not gauge the cost of production in terms of labour only. We must not forget that if we cut down the cost of production in terms of labour only, that will give more benefit to the employers and the capitalists. It is the business of employ ers and employees together to shoulder a lowering of the cost of production. I think the wages of female workers are not so attractive as those paid to the male workers. I do not know whether the Labour Minister is aware of this. In my constituency there are many female workers working in the Jurong Industrial Estate. When I saw them, they expressed the same sentiments. Mr Speaker, I do not want to bring this matter up myself because Singapore has many unions in existence and because I do not want to show off. The unions have enough strength to speak for the workers, it is my hope that the labour leaders will make clear their attitude on this point. But as a representative of the people and since such views have been expressed by the voters in my constituency, I have to bring them up in this House. A progressive labour policy should make no distinction between the sexes. All workers must be given equal treatment and eoual wages. Only then will there be no chance for the employers to exploit the situation by way of a disparity in the wages of female and male workers. In this way the female workers will not be exploited. Mr Speaker, if we allow this situation to go on, then the tendency among employers will be to employ more female workers and that will be against our progressive labour policy. I do not think the labour leaders will allow this to happen, although most of them are of the male sex. I do not believe the males will allow the females to be exploited in this way.

In regard to night shifts for female workers in this amendment Bill, several Members have spoken on it. So far as I am personally concerned, the main point will depend on whether there is any necessity or justification for female workers to work at night. There are many countries in Europe where female workers work at night without causing any inconvenience. In so far as security is concerned, if female workers are safeguarded at night, there will not be much trouble. That is my view. Therefore, Mr Speaker, I hope the Minister for Labour will take heed of the problems I have outlined earlier and make some clarification.

3.10 p.m.

Mr Lim Guan Hoo (Bukit Merah): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Singapore has already got the Women's Charter, and there have been some amendments introduced in this House to improve it. Now we are giving some thought to the labour laws in regard to female workers working at night. We are opening the door to female workers working night shifts. Although it is your ruling, Mr Speaker, Sir, that Members should not praise the Government too much, I feel I owe the Government a duty to praise it in this respect. At the same time ---

Mr Speaker: Mr Lim, I did not rule that Backbenchers should not praise the Government. Having heard of complaints that they did not have enough time on the Estimates, I said that if they did not spend time praising the Government, they could have that time to make their proper criticism of the Estimates.

Mr Lim Guan Hoo: (In Mandarin): I thank the Speaker for his clarification. This gives me encouragement to praise the Government all the more. In short, the Labour (Amendment) Bill and the Women's Charter are measures aimed at the emancipation of the female sex. The idea behind the amendment Bill is to give facilities to female workers in cases where the work is more suitable to them. The question that arises is whether this amendment Bill will have any repercussions. In some cases where the work is not so suitable for female workers, will it be the tendency for employers to employ more female workers, instead of male workers? Will there be any discrimination on their part between the sexes? Is it possible to engage either a male worker or a female worker? Will there be a stronger bias against the males? Supposing you want to engage a secretary, a male or a female can do the job all the same. If you pay equal wages for equal work, then, according to the Member for Sembawang, this will give rise to exploitation. There is bound to be a disparity in wages between the two sexes.

Mr Speaker, I will now go to the second point. Following the passage of the Labour (Amendment) Bill, we can expect more female workers to appear in our labour market, particularly in night shifts. So the question of security measures arises. I have some experience with regard to the Redhill Industrial Estate. Previously some factories in Redhill refused to engage female work ers because at that time street lights were not installed, so that some parts of Redhill Estate were rather dark. It was, therefore, not convenient for female workers to work at night. In spite of my repeated requests to install lamp posts, we have not seen any in the Redhill Industrial Estate. Because of the darkness there was a sense of insecurity then among the female workers who were called to do night shifts. I hope that following the passage of this Bill, appropriate steps will be taken to make working conditions more conducive to the security of the workers of both sexes.

3.15 p.m.

Mr Ho See Beng (Bras Basah): (In Mandarin): Sir, what has been said by the Minister for Labour to amend the Ordinance is to meet the seriousness of the unemployment situation in Singapore in the light of the economic situation. In this context, this Labour (Amendment) Bill is suitable, and I fully agree with it. But after hearing the different speeches by the Members for Delta and Telok Blangah about workers employed in the pioneer industries in Jurong and other industrial areas, it is not convenient for me here to express any more points of view. If our Government is a pro-labour government which adopts a very enlightened policy on labour, I think it is advisable to form an investigation committee and go to the Jurong industrial area to investigate whether it is true that the labourers there are exploited by the employers, or whether they get equal treatment for both sexes. This is my view.

3.17 p.m.

Mr P. Govindaswamy (Anson): (In Tamil): Sir, I wish to say a few words on this amendment Bill. It looks as though the employers will benefit by it, because the wages of female workers are less. They will be of the opinion that they may profit more if they employ female workers. The men may take advantage of the situation and send their wives to work at night while they go off to sleep. If this is the attitude of the men, then women will be working at night in all the establishments. Why should we allow them to work at night? We should provide security for them and if they go to work after 7 p.m., their parents or their husbands should escort them. So it is not proper to send women to work at night. Even if we have to do so, the employers should pay them the same wages as the men. If we insist on that, we have to see that the employers comply with this request. I do not think this is proper for the country or for the people.

The Labour Ministry says productivity will be increased by the passing of this Bill. But this aim may result in a decrease in production because the employers may be employing female workers at night and I do not think this will give any benefit.

3.20 p.m.

Mr S. V. Lingam (Aijunied): Sir, originally I did not intend to speak, but after hearing some of the Members who spoke, I just wish to say a few words. When the P.A.P. came to power in 1959, it introduced the Women's Charter Bill. Now we have the Labour (Amendment) Bill in front of us, enabling women workers to work round the clock. May I know when Government will introduce an Act for men to safeguard themselves?

3.21 p.m.

Inche Rahamat Bin Kenap (Geylang Serai): (In Malay): Sir, I support the amendment Bill because we will stand to benefit both from the security point of view and from the point of view of the family relationship as mentioned by the Member for Kampong Kembangan. But. I would like to ask the Minister for Labour whether this amendment Bill will be imposed on waitresses in bars and night clubs who work beyond 10 p.m. If this is imposed on them, it is good because it will be for the benefit of our society at large.

Mr Speaker: I take it there are no other Members who want to speak. Mr Jek.

3.22 p.m.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Sir, the Member for Joo Chiat is wondering why we call a woman a workman. I really cannot satisfy his curiosity why we should call a female labourer a workman instead of a workwoman. I think this is the word in the original Labour Ordinance where it is stated that a workman means a worker whether it is of the female or male sex. I think this is only for the sake of convenience. Maybe the Member for Delta has already answered the question when she said that we must never emphasise the sex when we speak of a workman. A worker is a worker whether it is a male worker or a male worker.

I think it is rather old-fashioned of the Member for Kampong Kembangan to insist that the female worker should be allowed to work only in the day-time and not at night. He is also worried that, with the passage of this Bill, telephone operators and workers in other establishments will be subject to this 24-hour work shift. I have said just now that this law does not necessarily apply to all the establishments. Once this law is passed, it will still be necessary for a factory or an establishment to apply for the right to work female workers on a 24-hour shift. It is not automatically the case that they will come in. Initially we will only allow factories which are export-orientated to put their female workers on a 24-hour shift. So the Member need not have any worry that operators in the Telephone Board will be put immediately on this 24-hour shift.

The Member for Telok Blangah and the Member for Delta touched upon the low pay of female workers especially in the factories at Jurong.

Mr Bernard Rodrigues: Point of clarification, Sir.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong resumed his seat.

Mr Bernard Rodrigues: Sir, I never said that the workers are very lowly paid. I made a general remark, that workers are paid according to the industry in which they work.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: I beg his pardon. But last Tuesday and also today the Member for Delta says that female workers especially in Jurong are very lowly paid. The Member for Bras Basah has suggested that we should set up a commission of inquiry to look into this matter. I do not think this is really necessary. It may be a one-sided affair because, according to a sample survey conducted in July 1966, the monthly average earnings of female workers of 18 years and above in all factories was $100.80, and the highest average monthly earnings of $120.90 was recorded in the tobacco, cigarette, cigar and other tobacco product industry, whilst the lowest average monthly earnings of $70.50 was recorded in the paper product, including stationery and hard boxes, industry. The main factor affecting the differences in the rates of pay of female workers in various occupations and industries is the skill required in the performance of the job. In other words, the greater the skill, the higher the rate of pay. This is clearly manifested by the figures already given for the paper product industry in which unskilled labour is involved, as against the relatively higher monthly earnings in the tobacco, cigarette and cigar industry. In the textile and garment industry, the predominant rates of pay for female workers, other than those who are under training or who are partially trained, vary from a minimum of $2.70 to $2.90 per day of eight hours in such occupations as weavers, spinners, knitters and twisters. Whilst in the shirt and garment manufacturing industry, the average wages per day range from $2.58 to $3.24, in occupations such as cutters, sewing-machine operators, iron workers, packing workers and seamstresses, the average wages are up to $5.49 per day. However, during the period of training which ranges from one month to six months, female workers are paid from $1.50 to $2.25 per day according to the trade in which they are being trained. After training, they are generally put on piece rates subject to a minimum earning of $2.50 per day, which is the amount an inefficient worker earns. A worker with greater productivity earns from $4 to $5 per day and even up to $8 in the case of some workers in one particular factory. In other words, the earnings are dependent on the skill of the worker, and the greater the skill and productivity of the worker, the higher the earnings. It is quite evident that no factory will pay a worker much more than he or she is worth in terms of production. If labour costs are artificially inflated merely to increase the earnings of the workers even though their productivity is low, no one is going to open a factory in Singapore. The intelligent way to deal with this problem is to help the workers to improve their skills so that they may earn more.

The National Productivity Centre at J urong is now considering the introduction of three industrial training classes for new workers before they get into the factories. The objective of these classes is to acclimatise the workers to a working environment with some rudimentary knowledge of the trade into which he or she will enter. This will enable them to imbibe more quickly the skills required for the jobs they will have to perform. These courses, in the initial stages, will be mainly directed at producing female workers for the textile industry so that, with the skills that they will acquire in a shorter period, they will start earning better wages earlier. Indeed, trained textile and garment factory workers can easily earn from $4 to $5 per day with improved skills and better productivity. Members of the House will agree that these rates compare favourably with the rates given even to male unskilled workers in many cases.

The Member for Sembawang is also afraid that by putting female workers to work at night, it may affect their family life. I do not think he need worry about this because most of the workers in these factories are between 18 years and 22 years of age, and I do not think that women in this age group have a lot of babies to look after at home.

The Member for Bukit Merah is concerned about the security of women who have to go home very late at night. I think the answer, as he has said, will be to ask for more street lights and to seek better and more efficient police protection in the area. But even at the present moment, without this law being enforced, female workers still have to go home very late, because they are allowed to work up to 11 or 12 o'clock at night. But, on the other hand, if this, law is passed whereby a woman is allowed to work the third shift, then, instead of going home at 11 or 12 o'clock midnight, she may have to go home very early in the morning, at 6 o'clock, in which case I do not think we have to worry much about the darkness.

Madam Chan Choy Siong rose -

Mr Speaker: Madam Chan, Standing Orders do not allow a Member to speak more than once except in Committee.

Madam Chan Choy Siong resumed her seat.

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.