EMPLOYMENT BILL

Order read for resumption of debate on Question [10th July. 1968], "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Question again proposed.

3.47 p.m.

Mr Lim Soo Peng (Havelock): Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 47 as it stands in the Bill is a very good one. It gives discretion to the employer to pay a bonus to his employees, the amount varying from employee to employee, depending upon their performance and productivity. At present, the bonus provision in collective agreements applies equally to all employees. Whether a person is a good worker or a bad worker, he gets the same bonus. In other words, a good worker is penalised in that he gets the same reward in the form of bonus as another who is inefficient and unproductive. However, there are some genuine misgivings on this provision, as not all employers are enlightened employers. Some employers may take advantage of this provision and give no bonus or ex-gratia payment whatsoever. This should not be the case if they make a profit. To allay the fears of the workers that they might be deprived of a bonus, the amendment to be moved by the Member for Bukit Ho Swee is a reasonable one and should be supported. It makes the payment of bonus negotiable up to one month's wages, and any payment above one month's wages is at the discretion of the employer. In this manner, bonus can still be used as an incentive for higher productivity or as a reward for good performance.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the standardisation of working hours at 44 hours a week as contained in clause 39 is a very good provision. It does away with the distinction between a white-collar and a blue-collar worker. The limitation of overtime work will help to create more needed jobs for our people. However, in view of the shortage of skilled workers in special trades, this provision has to be applied intelligently. It may not be possible to limit overtime work to 48 hours a month in all cases. I am glad to note that this has been recognised and is provided for in sub-clause (4) of clause 39. As this law is new in more respects than one, we must tread cautiously. We must be magnanimous. We must always be willing to listen and always ready to change. With an open mind and flexibility, we must entertain and process all reactions to this legislation, from the workers and trade unions to the employers and the public. Our future will, in fact, be more dependent on the goodwill and understanding of all citizens in operating this Bill than on the clauses contained therein. I feel that if given a fair trial, this Bill will undoubtedly succeed.

3.52 p.m.

Mr Lim Cheng Lock (Kampong Kapor): Mr Speaker, Sir, if this Bill had been called our survival or salvation Bill, it would have been less controversial and would have been more receptive. A great deal of misapprehension, fears and doubts on the provisions of the Employment Bill were created in the minds of our working citizens even before this Bill was introduced in this House. True, it was openly admitted that there had been consultations and discussions between the Government, N.T.U.C, leaders and employers, and in discussions of this nature it is not possible to contain and confine the contents of the discussions. But the allegations and rumours concerning the provisions of the Bill, which had been circulated to the public prior to the introduction of the Bill in this House and even after its introduction in this House, have, I feel, caused much harm, particularly as to the real purpose and intent which this Bill is designed to do.

Mr Speaker, Sir, rumours, however unbelievable, have their source of origin. I feel it will be worth the while for the Government to inquire whether there had been any unauthorised leakage of information or intentions in regard to the Employment Bill. It is unwise to spread rumours, more so in this House. If you would allow me, Mr Speaker, Sir, to cite one point which was alleged to be a provision in this Bill just to illustrate how harmful these rumours were. The rumour was that married women, whose husbands are employed, would not be permitted to work in order to create more jobs for the unemployed. Such a rumour in the prevailing situation would be difficult to disbelieve. Nevertheless, as I say it, it had a very harmful effect on the people.

In order to appreciate the intent of this Bill, which is essential and vital to accelerate economic growth and expansion so that more jobs can be created, it is absolutely necessary, first, to remove those doubts and fears and restore the confidence of the workers in the pro-labour policy which the Government has always pursued and practised, so that the implementation of this Bill would have a fair chance of success.

I feel it is absurd to suggest that the leaders of the Government have all of a sudden turned anti-labour and taken sides with the employers. What could they benefit at this stage of their political career and what benefit could the country gain from a weak labour force and a beaten N.T.U.C.? There has been in the past a total lack of discipline in the labour force. Now is the time for all good trade union leaders in the Republic to be honest and courageous enough to enforce strict discipline among the members, particularly those who are malingerers, lazy, inefficient and unproductive workers. They should stop giving them protection. By and large, our citizen workers are a hard-working lot and if only our trade union leaders will stop giving protection and cover to this very small percentage of malingerers and unproductive workers, we will no doubt achieve a much healthier situation.

The existing Labour Ordinance, the Clerks Employment Ordinance and the Shop Assistants Employment Ordinance, which became law more than 10 years ago, were enacted against a different background and in different circumstances. They are all now outdated and no longer serve the needs of the people at present and for the future.

With the introduction of the Employment Bill as well as the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill and the Central Provident Fund (Amendment) Bill, a new era in the employer and employee relationship will emerge. The intent of the Employment Bill is to secure on a firm and sound basis a healthy, disciplined and competitive labour force in the Republic which will ensure our continued survival. It is designed to standardise and regulate the working conditions of all workers regardless of whether they are white-collar or blue-collar workers or shop assistants. It seeks to remove malpractices and restrictive practices which make enforcement and maintenance of discipline difficult and, therefore, hinder economic growth. If we are to increase productivity, there must be discipline in our labour force. Without discipline there can be no efficiency, and without efficiency it is not possible to increase productivity.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it has often been said that the island of Singapore has no natural resources of its own and that we owe our living to the ingenuity and skill of our people. If we are to meet the challenges of the l970s, if we are to continue living as a people with an identity, if we are to make progress, then we must be prepared to make sacrifices now to ensure our survival as a nation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not propose to go into the controversial provisions of the Bill in detail, as many other Members have already dealt with them. There will be ample opportunity to do so when we are in the Committee stage. But I would like to touch on Part XI, consisting of clauses 109 to 112 which incorporate changes to give Government a measure of control over the hiring of workers. In particular I refer to clause 112 which empowers the Minister to make regulations to control the engagement of employees by employers. On this I would sound a note of caution to the Minister and his Ministry. Present indications are that the machinery of the Employment Exchange is totally inadequate and it is not efficient enough to cope with additional work. This provision should not be implemented until the machinery of the Employment Exchange is adequately geared to its new task. There should be consultation with employers and the N.T.U.C, on the proposed regulations so as to ensure that their implementation does not impede efficiency and retard employers from recruiting the right type of persons they require in the shortest possible time.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill in its present form is unacceptable without amendments. Several amendments have already been tabled by the Minister for Labour and the Member for Bukit Ho Swee and I urge that these amendments should be seriously considered.

While the Employment Bill updates the working conditions of workers in the private commercial sector, Government should not overlook updating similar working conditions in the public sector. Both are complementary and must be implemented concurrently if we are to achieve results. Government should also expeditiously consider and release the Report of the Salaries Commission and to take steps to remedy and correct any anomalies so as to ensure also an efficient, productive and contented civil service in the Republic. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill with amendments.

3.04 p.m.

Madam Chan Choy Siong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to speak on some of the provisions in this Bill. I look forward to the amendment of some of the provisions therein, especially as some of my colleagues have already tabled amendments to certain clauses in the Bill. When it comes to the Committee stage, I would like to move to amend the amendments proposed by my colleagues.

First, I refer to the spirit of this Bill and the mood and reaction of the people to the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the masses have been gravely concerned since the Employment Bill was read the First time in this House. Many groups of people, either in the streets or in the coffee shops, have gathered and discussed the contents of the Bill. At the same time, another class of people living in luxury flats gather together in their offices and discuss the Bill. They rack their brains over it. Obviously, this class of people represent the employers. They appear quite satisfied with this Bill so far because we have not heard any opposition to it from them.

The only people who are not happy about this Bill are the working class. They have discussed its contents in coffee shops, in the streets and many other places. Many of the provisions in the Bill are the same as those contained in the original labour laws. However, there are some new provisions which will affect their future livelihood and their family. As a result, they are grumbling and have complained that the Government is trying to change its attitude towards them and that it has changed its consistent stand on labour. Some of them have even gone to the extent of saying that because there is only one party in Parliament, it can do things arbitrarily without regard to anybody's opinions. This is a very good opportunity to be made use of by the Barisan Sosialis and others like them.

If we examine carefully the arguments of these people and assess them against the spirit and content of this Bill, we will find that there is a certain degree of discontent among some of the people. We will also realise that some of the provisions should not have been included in the Bill at all, or at least they should be amended in the process of debate. Viewed this way, I regret to say that the contents of this Bill are entirely divorced from the realities of present-day society. Those who drafted this Bill have not gone among the people to assess the living conditions of the general masses.

If it is said that the Bill gives the correct definitions for reward, efficiency, effort, productivity, then we are neglecting the common interests between labour-cum-consumer on the one hand and the employer on the other. This neglect arises because the long-term interests of the employer depend on a large consumer market. This market in turn depends on the price of goods and on whether the people have the means to buy such goods. At the same time, in order to increase production, there must be a demand for them. The fact remains that labour-cum-consumers do not have the money to buy them.

I believe all loyal citizens will do their best to meet the challenge of the 1970s. The solution cannot be dependent on merely passing a Bill, or on any passive way of readjustment to the distribution of wealth, because that is not enough. We must take all measures to maintain our economic prosperity for the long-term stability of Singapore and to strengthen our economy.

It is important also to prevent any grave repercussions in our society. When people are desperate, they cannot contribute anything worth while to the country. Therefore, we must pursue our scientific studies actively in order to promote our economic progress. We must study the potential effects that science and technology can play in our economic development and stability so that we may step into a new era of industrialisation in which there will be innovations and more employment opportunities. It is necessary to have innovations and modern techniques of manufacturing in order to meet the increased needs of the consumers. There should also be improvement in the techniques of production. There should be modern equipment and co-operation between employers and employees in order to increase productivity.

Labour's demand for wage increases and fringe benefits is usually a stimulant to economic progress. In other words, this demand will also stimulate technical progress. In this present age, trade unionists realise that wage increases without increased productivity will result in a rise in the prices of goods and a reduction in the number of people employed. Therefore, they try to get fringe benefits for the workers. The present Employment Bill seeks to take some of these away. This is contrary to the concept of industrial psychology and is also against the mood of the workers. It is a retrogressive act.

I believe most people can understand the labour policy of our Government. The original policy of bias towards labour will not be changed. Undoubtedly, as an efficient Government with long-term political objectives, it will preserve its pro-labour policy. The enactment of the Employment Bill into law is only a change of technique. The basic pro-labour policy of our Government will never change. What can be changed is the technique in order to meet the requirements of the nation and the changing situation.

As democratic socialists, the first step for us is to seek independence and to raise productivity. Unless we can concurrently increase national productivity, we will not have a fair, just and equal society for the people. It is therefore necessary to get a larger market. We must industrialise in order to improve the livelihood of our people. Now that Singapore is an independent country, we can depend only on our human resources. We have to carry out the great tasks of our country. The people should meet the challenge of this age and march forward in unity. The source of economic strength cannot be separated from our resources.

Even with natural and human resources, we cannot ensure our country's prosperity and progress. There should be some catalyst to promote economic progress. One mode of bringing this about is by way of legislation. The introduction of the Employment Bill can be said to have come from the consideration of trying to ensure full-scale economic prosperity.

The Minister for Labour explained the true purpose of this Bill in Parliament the other day. After 1971, the economic welfare and survival of Singapore lies in the hands of our people. In a small island like Singapore, we cannot plant cotton or other crops or foodstuffs but we have to maintain the livelihood of many people. One square mile in Singapore will have to support 8,000 Singaporeans. So a stagnant economy will mean starvation. This Bill is introduced so as to meet our political and defence requirements and so that the people can adjust themselves to face the new situation when the British troops are withdrawn. I support the views of the Minister for Labour.

The introduction of the Employment Bill does not mean that the Government has already adopted a policy of suppression of the workers. Certain provisions in the Bill have, on the other hand, caused some anxiety among the workers. On the surface, the provisions can easily be construed to be anti-labour or contrary to the Government's policy of bias towards labour, because, to a certain degree, these provisions will adversely affect the future livelihood of the people. For this reason, I am of the view that if the Government can be enlightened enough to accept certain amendments tabled by my colleagues, it will still be possible to avert any wrong impression gained by some people about the Government.

The President in his speech in May mentioned certain Bills which reflected the general mood, thought and spirit of our people. He also exhorted the Government and Members of Parliament to give a lead in the thinking and feeling in the country. In view of these considerations, I hope Government will accept the amendment which will be moved by the Member for Bukit Ho Swee (who is also the Secretary-General of the National Trades Union Congress) to clause 15. If the Government does not accept the amendment, it will have to consider the consequences that will follow. If this clause is passed as it now stands, the Government will not achieve any good results. On the contrary, it will achieve the opposite of that which the clause intends, because there will be quite a number of people who will be retiring prematurely.

The purpose of this Bill is to provide more jobs for the unemployed, but its enactment into law will mean driving more people into unemployment. If these people are unemployed when they are forced to retire, what can they do thereafter? if they want to be non-criminal types, they may resort to becoming hawkers or pirate taxi drivers. Does the Government wish to see more hawkers appearing and more pirate taxis running on the roads? Clause 15 as it appears in the Bill must not therefore be passed into law. The Government must accept the amendment tabled by the Member for Bukit Ho Swee.

There is another point on which the workers are unhappy. This is the question of bonus. My colleagues have touched upon this issue. I would like to say that the amendment tabled by the Member for Bukit Ho Swee fails to meet the objections. If the discretion is given to the employer alone, the workers will be at his mercy, because it is not likely that he will be generous or charitable to them. I would like to suggest that the quantum of bonus should be a certain percentage of the workers' wages and should depend on the employers' profits. If the employer is satisfied with the productivity and performance of his workers, he may also give them certain rewards in the form of a bonus. Thus, there will be no animosity between labour and capital. Instead, there will be co-operation to increase productivity. These measures, if embodied in the Bill, will encourage the workers to raise their productivity, and good relationship between labour and capital will last longer. They will be able to co-operate even more and this will lead to a more stable situation in Singapore.

The maxim whether a country survives or perishes depends on its citizens is valid. To ensure its survival is the highest virtue that any patriotic citizen can aspire to attain. Everyone should be prepared to struggle and make sacrifices for our country's survival. United, we should be able to meet the coming challenge. This should be the task of each and every one of us.

The Government should however give the capitalists opportunity to show their patriotism and sense of loyalty by donating a certain percentage of their profits towards our Defence Fund. So far, it seems that the Government has been too generous to them.

The introduction of the Employment Bill has given a very bad impression to the broad masses of people who wish to support the P.A.P. Government.

I would like for the reasons outlined in my speech to support the amendments proposed by my colleagues.

3.40 p.m.

The Minister for Culture (Mr Jek Yeun Thong): Mr Speaker, Sir, I speak in full support of the Bill. It was only after prolonged and soul-searching discussions with industrialists, investors, employers and responsible trade unionists in the past years that we have arrived at the conclusion that we must do something for the good of our national economy.

One of the crucial things we have all agreed upon is to boost the economy of our country if we want to survive in this turbulent region. To achieve this, our workers must be more efficient and more understanding and, like soldiers on the battle front, they must be prepared to accept discipline. But with the present-day restrictive practices indulged in by some of our trade unions, it is rather difficult to persuade entrepreneurs to expand or even to keep existing factories here, let alone attract new capital.

Perhaps, it is significant that out of our total working population of about 500,000 persons, only a minority, roughly one-fifth of them, are unionised. It is not illogical to suggest that complete unionisation might have retarded rather than contributed to progress and development in Singapore in the past 10 years. Take the Housing and Development Board flats, for example. We show them to the world as one of the major achievements of the Government. The houses and buildings are printed in stamps, books and pamphlets. Architects the world over study them, sociologists discuss them, and foreign dignitaries visit them. But it is common knowledge that not a single housing board fiat was built by unionised workers. These are the fruits of the labour of contract workers. Only after the flat had taken shape and the feat accomplished did the unionised workers come into the picture. Through the agitation of a few misguided leaders they then began to demand work on Sundays and public holidays in order to qualify for double pay and they went to sleep on Mondays or Tuesdays.

Similarly, the foundation of the Jurong Industrial Estate was not laid by unionised workers. The results in Jurong are the fruits of the labour of non-unionised workers. Only after the factories were built, machinery installed and the factories on their way to full production did the unionised workers become active, bringing in their wake a whole series of restrictive practices and abuses, copied wholesale from the British trade unions. We are not condemning unionised labour nor are we suggesting that in order to achieve economic progress, we should abolish all trade unions. We are not against the unions at all. We want them to grow and play a useful role in the development of our country. We are however against the malpractices indulged in by some of the unions. If we want to have a healthy and responsible trade union movement in Singapore, we must legislate in such a way that no trade unionist can be tempted to indulge in such malpractices.

What we must make clear is that when we talk about uplifting the living standards of the workers, we must think of the 500,000 working population as a whole and not just focus exclusive attention on the 100,000 odd unionised workers. It is true that in the past we have tended to think in terms of only the unionised workers. The uplifting of living standards and social levelling has always been confined to the unionised workers to the exclusion of the non-unionised workers. In other words, the 500,000 hard-working people of Singapore together created the prosperity that we see today, but the fruits of their labour were enjoyed by only a fifth of the working population. Social organisation on this basis is unhealthy and is likely to create divisions among our people where, on the one side, we find the privileged few getting ever fatter and better pay and more fringe benefits through the intervention of their unions and, on the other side, we have the general working population who are over-worked and underpaid, not forgetting the many thousands of unemployed who will be willing and able to perform the same type of work as our unionised workers perform for a fraction of their pay. Such a situation will inevitably lead to an explosion in which all will be lost. We certainly do not wish to deny our workers better food, better clothing and more leisure, but this should not be at the expense of other people. All these, the better things in life, must be made available to all workers and not just a privileged few. The creation of equal opportunities in enjoying the fruits of labour cannot be attained unless we can persuade some of our unions to give up overtime malpractices, infringement of managerial rights and the wrong attitude of conniving at the laxity and indiscipline of some unionised workers. It is not that we want to be harsh with our workers. But adequate measures are necessary since we feel impelled to look after the working population at large, the unemployed and the many young persons who yearly enter the labour market.

It is against this background that we are introducing the Employment Bill and the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill. Essentially these are the two doses of medicine administered to stimulate our economy, to boost our productivity and to enhance the image of our labour force at international level. As the Chinese saying goes. "The mouth is bitter when taking good medicine; the ear is hurt by true words." So trade unionists and workers must not whimper to find the medicine a little bit too bitter and unpleasant to swallow. If we want to seek recovery from our economic ills, if we want economic robustness and health for a long, long time, then we have no alternative but to administer this medicine.

The effects of these two pieces of legislation can only be seen in the future and we must not judge them too hastily in the present-day context. The concept and objects of the Employment Bill have been very clearly enunciated by the Minister for Labour in his speech. Yet the Bill has met with mixed feelings. From the ranks of the democratic labour movement have come responsible and reasonable criticisms and, as expected, from the minority pro-Communist Barisan Sosialis group, violent and vehement outbursts. The clear sight and thinking of the democratic labour movement have generated light. On the other hand, there have been heat and fire, the twin elements of destruction, from the pro-Communists.

3.50 p.m.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

The Minister for Culture (Mr Jek Yeun Thong): It is certainly heartening to note that the majority of the people of the country have recognised and appreciated the problems facing us. But recognition of the problems is one thing, understanding them is another, and finding solutions to them is yet another. Everyone knows that we already have a massive unemployment problem on our hands. But inadequate thought has been devoted to the question of how we are going to deal with the situation. The question is not whether we can contain the existing unemployment problems but how, with the aggravation of these problems through increasing numbers entering the labour market every year and the sudden injection of those who are currently employed with the British Services into the labour market, we can generate job opportunities to absorb a significant number of unemployed people into the industry.

The records of the Unemployment Exchange of the Ministry of Labour reveal that at any given time in Singapore from 60,000 to 70,000 persons are seeking jobs. More than 25,000 young people enter the labour market each year and we will have in the near future another 21,000 or so of our citizens joining the ranks of the unemployed in the wake of the British withdrawal, all of them competing for jobs which are scarce.

It is true that we have made significant advances in industrialisation. But what has been achieved is insufficient to solve our problems. No parents like to see their grown-up children let loose in a society which offers them no hope of obtaining jobs. A society bereft of hope will be a frustrated one with automatic outlets for anti-social acts like crime and delinquency, riots and arson. What is more important to realise is that a situation like this can well undermine the foundation of society and threaten the security of those already in employment. A teeming labour market will not only depress wages but also generate demand for cheap labour by employers, with dire consequences to the ordinary workers. We cannot, therefore, allow matters to drift along and take their natural course. On the other hand, we must do something about it even though these actions and measures may be unpleasant and unpalatable for some time to come.

The logic of the circumstances, therefore, necessitates that we should plan now to meet the situation looming ahead. Metaphorically, it is too late to start planting crops after we have reached starvation level, because we will never live to enjoy the harvest. In the face of an impending food shortage, the logical step to take is to plant food crops well in advance to prepare to avert the calamity of starvation. Another way of saying it is that if we dig a well in search of water only when we feel thirsty, then that will be too late. We must start digging a well even at a time when thirst has not yet set in and while there is still more drinking water left. Our future is grim and, therefore, demands strong, stern and determined action. It is only on this basis that we can meet the challenges and hope for partial, if not complete, solutions.

There is, at the moment, a mild boom in Singapore. But we cannot afford to sit back and let everything drift. Time will creep up inexorably and 1971 will come sooner than we think. A Government worth its salt, therefore, must plan for the eventualities ahead. If it does not, then it does not merit the confidence of the people of Singapore who have elected it. We must not postpone the search for solutions and allow events to overtake us.

The basic prerequisite in order that our goal can be more attainable is the creation of a climate to inspire confidence and to attract investments, local and foreign. Confidence connotes political and industrial stability, and an efficient and productive labour force which will lower production costs. Hidden fringe benefits must be axed and other anomalies abolished. This is to promote social justice in which a person's reward should be commensurate with and not out of proportion to his contribution and, not least of all, bonuses should be determined in accordance with this principle. The days of unearned bonuses are over.

There has been much talk about bonuses in economic theory, that bonus is an incentive payment and, in the strict application of the term, it should be left to the discretion of the employer to decide whether or not his workmen merit bonuses. The rule should be that it the employer generally makes a profit he grants a bonus to his workers. If he makes more profit, he gives proportionately more bonuses, and ii he makes less profit, he gives less. The bonus is a device to encourage the workers to work hard so that they can help the employer not only to maintain the same level of profit but also to try to surpass that of previous years in order that together they may enjoy bigger slices from a bigger cake. Only foolish employers refuse to utilise this device, in which case there is no incentive for workers to give of their best, with the result that the profit of the employer is bound to slide down and perhaps eventually the profit is turned into a loss. It is obvious that by properly and intelligently applying this device, the employer can benefit as much from a bonus as the workers. But it must be given in such a way that it is related proportionately to the profit of the firm and not otherwise. But once the bonus is made bargain-able, its meaning is lost. It becomes no longer the incentive instrument that it should be.

In a runaway system of bonus payments, the workers, with the backing of their union, can demand to be paid so many months of extra salary a year as their bonus regardless of whether the firm makes a profit or not, and if the employer refuses or cannot afford to pay, then the workers can always back up their demands by industrial action. What is more, in order to forestall further losses, the employer may have to give in. It is not uncommon to find firms, which have incurred financial losses for the year, end up by paying one week's or one month's pay bonus to the workers. In such cases, the word "bonus" becomes a misnomer. It is actually an increase of salary or a pay rise except that the payment is deferred to the end of the year or to some festive occasion. Sometimes the bonus may even be written into the collective agreement. In this case, the employer is committed to pay bonus during the three-year period in which the collective agreement is in force. In the three-year period it may happen that the employer makes a profit in the first year for which he willingly and thankfully grants a high rate of bonus. In the event of his sustaining losses in the following two years, he still has to pay the same rate of bonus as he did the first year.

The negotiable bonus opens itself to another disadvantage. As things are now, the unions tend to demand the same rate of bonus for each and every worker, regardless of whether he belongs to the hard-working, lukewarm or indifferent category, or the intermediate shades. If a hard-working worker obtains the same reward as his easygoing counterpart, then clearly the so-called incentive is really no incentive at all.

It is against this background that we proposed to make bonus a non-bargainable item. However, since the introduction of the Bill, the N.T.U.C, has raised strong objections to this provision. The Member for Bukit Ho Swee has put in an amendment to make bonus bargainable up to one month of salary a year. The Minister for Labour has promised to consider it very carefully.

It should be repeated that the Employment Bill and other complementary pieces of legislation such as the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill seek to create better conditions more conducive to the attainment of our objectives.

The Employment Bill has evoked much discussion. Unfortunately, many views have been based on misconception and misunderstanding and twisted from the context of the Bill. There has been an unending drone over the provisions regarding hours of work, overtime, annual leave, sick leave, public holidays, bonus, retrenchment and retirement benefits; and the repeated charge has been that workers' rights are being sacrificed.

In actual fact, the Bill does not affect the benefits of the majority of the workers. Even to the white-collar workers, the sacrifice is not much. According to the Singapore Sample Household Survey, 1966, about 576,700 persons are classified as being economically active. Of this number, about 67,300 persons, including nearly 16,400 employed by Government and statutory boards, are clerical and related workers. On the assumption that a clerical worker starts working at the age of 20, the figures indicate that about 27,500 are in the age group of 20 to 29. The remainder, that is, about 39,800, are in the age group of 30 and over.

Let us take the question of annual leave first. It can be safely assumed from these figures, therefore, that the bulk, or roughly 60 per cent of the total number in the clerical and related trades, would have had more than 10 years' service, which means that in effect they would still be getting the 14 days' paid annual leave which they are getting now. On the other hand, workers in manufacturing and servicing industries who form the majority of the economically active population would get not 7 days' paid annual leave perpetually but an enhanced period of 14 days after they have completed 10 years' service. There is no ground for these grouses. In other words, with the standardisation of terms of service under this Bill, the same benefits will be extended to all workers.

In regard to sick leave, some restrictions are embodied in the Bill. No doubt, this will entail some inconvenience for the genuinely sick. At least those who used to feign sickness have now to be really sick whenever they claim to be sick and they can no longer malinger by means of a $2 medical certificate of dubious validity.

Many workers have not clearly understood the provisions on working hours. The Bill provides for a standard 44-hour working week for all workers, regardless of whether they are white-collar or blue-collar workers. The great majority of workers are, however, not affected by this provision. Only some 12 per cent of the working population comprising white-collar workers will be affected. Even in such cases, they can continue to work the same number of hours as they are working now if their existing collective agreements provide for a lesser number of hours of work per week. Overtime rates, however, will become operative only after they complete 44 hours work a week.

In regard to overtime work, the position is that the present economic situation is one whereby it is preposterous to permit people to enjoy unlimited overtime work. In the past, since overtime work was paid at double rate, the usual abuse was to "manufacture" overtime. Work that could and should be done during normal working hours was shelved in order to create overtime work. This has no doubt affected the productivity of the workers in that false values have been inculcated, so that the worker is more interested in stalling than in finishing his job in the way a responsible and conscientious worker should. We have, therefore, restricted overtime work to 48 hours per month but exemptions can be granted for employees in any particular industry or undertaking. The restriction imposed on overtime work will result in two important factors which are beneficial to our economy. Firstly, by this restriction, the need to fabricate overtime work is removed: the worker seeing no purpose in prolonging his job, will then want to finish the job quickly so that he can go home early. This means increased productivity per unit of labour. Secondly, it will create more jobs for new workers. For example, last month, the Port of Singapore Authority's restriction on overtime work and the introduction of a three-shift system resulted in the creation of over 400 new jobs. This is an example of what can be mobilised to increase employment if other establishments reorganise their work programme along the same lines. There is every reason to believe that by so doing, many more new jobs could be created.

4.08 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

The Minister for Culture (Mr Jek Yeun Thong): I would suggest that all those who have bitterly complained about the Employment Bill should compare it with the labour laws of other countries in this region. By comparison, our Bill remains a much better piece of legislation than any that exists in this part of the world. We have a 44-hour working week, adequate annual leave and 11 public holidays a year. No labour legislation in these countries can challenge comparison in terms of good conditions of employment.

Let me illustrate my statement by citing a few examples. Malaysia has a standard 48-hour working week and 11 public holidays a year as compared with our 44-hour working week and 11 public holidays a year. Even in comparison with more industrially advanced countries, our Employment Bill is still much more favourable. This can be seen from the following statistics: Name of Standard working Number of Public Country hours per week holidays per year Japan 48 12 United States 40 8 United Kingdom 40/42 6 France (now) 40 10 France 46.9 10 (prior to the strikes) Germany 43.9 11

It is therefore an utter misconception to believe that our workers will be groaning under the weight of this Bill.

From the patriotic point of view, it has been suggested that workers and employers should alike bear the same sacrifices for the good of the nation. This is only wishful thinking. There is no reason why a foreign investor should make one-way traffic type of sacrifices merely for our benefit. They have not come in with their finances to save us from starvation. They have come in with a profit motive. And if we make life difficult or unprofitable for them, they could just sell out or liquidate their firms and go elsewhere. The ultimate sufferers will be the people of Singapore. A cruel fact of life in the world today is that money can move, but not men.

On the other hand, the employers must not form the idea that, because of this Bill and the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill, they can have the whole world to themselves. We have heard of complaints that some small employers have actually threatened to reduce the pay of their workers. One shopkeeper I know of has in fact told his shop assistants that from now, they must work 7 days a week without rest. This kind of attitude is not only wrong but also dangerous.

To illustrate how some employers can exploit the situation for their own selfish ends, I will quote an example of an employer who is running a daily newspaper in Singapore. Immediately after the Employment Bill was tabled in this House in May, he instructed his editors to write editorials to condemn the Bill, stating that the provisions therein were harsh and that they should be deleted. In doing so, his foremost aim was to play along with the taste of the workers in order to boost the sales of his newspaper. However, after some time when his workers and journalists staked their claims for better working conditions, he turned around and told them that since the Employment Bill was going to be passed, he was not prepared to give them anything at all. In fact, he even suggested slashing their pay and withdrawing their yearly bonuses. What is this employer trying to do? He is using both edges of the blade to his own advantage.

Firstly, in public, he condemns the Bill to the point of misleading his readers in order to boost the sales of his newspaper. On the other hand, in private, he exploits the Bill to the full even to the extent of misinterpreting it in order to deny his workers their rightful share of the profits. This is the kind of unscrupulous and double-faced employers we have to watch out for and we have enough power to deal adequately with them. The employers should realise that without the co-operation of their workers, they cannot hope to reap profits from their factories or establishments, and that they cannot afford to have disgruntled and discontented employees. They must also realise that whatever labour laws we are introducing, we do so only to ensure the survival of the whole country and not in order to enrich a few employers. I am quite sure in the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill there are adequate provisions with which we can restrain the unscrupulous employers from abusing our labour laws.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the pages of this Bill are embodied balances and brakes which, on the one hand, ensure that managements perform their functions properly and responsibly and, on the other, promote and protect the interests of the workers both in the short run and in the long run. This Bill is the prescription for unimpeded economic health and uninterrupted progress. Only future generations can judge the decisions we take today, and if they find themselves living in a happier society from which hunger and want have been banished, and where they can hold their heads high, they will be proud of us; they will be grateful to us who have struggled and fought for their benefit in these difficult days.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to support the Employment Bill.

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take the suspension now. I will take the Chair again at 4.40 p.m.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.18 p.m. until 4.40 p.m. Sitting resumed at 4.40 p.m.