EMPLOYMENT BILL

Debate resumed.

Question again proposed.

4.43 p.m.

Mr Eric Cheong Yuen Chee (Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, they are not wanting in Singapore, people who give no thought for the future and who seem to think that the purpose of trade unionism is generally not to think at all but to rave and rant, to strike up heroic postures and beat the war drums of industrial strife. This is the kind of trade unionism that has led to all the broken-back States which today litter the developing world. Judging by some of the anonymous correspondents who get regular publicity in the Eastern Sun, it is apparent that the formidable and daunting economic challenges which await the people of Singapore just around the corner do not concern these gentlemen at all. They are more interested in painting the leaders of this Republic as a lot of anti-labour ghouls and accusing the responsible trade union leadership of being stooges. If we go by the standards which these anonymous cowards set, then the one qualification which no trade unionist should possess on any account is the capacity for careful thought and analysis in depth. Rather should trade unionists say, in effect, to blazes with the unemployment problem, and to blazes with the need to create 100,000 new jobs by the early 1970s, or to blazes with everything except the satisfaction of the organised creed of the labour movement.

It is to the lasting credit of the labour movement in Singapore that today we can boast to a much larger extent than previously of the trade union leadership which thinks in terms of social priorities and of the collective effort and discipline necessary if the people of Singapore are to survive in the gruelling years ahead. Not for us any more the empty-headed sloganising of the past, nor the striking of idiotic and thoughtless postures. It is to the lasting credit of the people of Singapore that they have thrown up a political leadership which refuses to play up to any sectional gallery but, instead, has the courage to take the people into their confidence and tell them, even brutally, the harsh facts of economic life. The Government has placed a premium on intelligent trade unionism. It must, therefore, be prepared to subject the measures it proposes in this Bill to intelligent and searching criticisms.

Other trade union colleagues in this House have touched on various aspects of this Bill and have pointed out some of its serious defects and shortcomings. For my part, I would like to ask the Government to re-examine very carefully the provision in clause 47 which proposes to remove bonus payments altogether from the sphere of collective bargaining. Let me grant straightaway that bonus payments have sometimes been abused and that there have been occasions when profit sharing bonuses were claimed even when no profits existed. Let me also grant that potential investors may not be forthcoming if such abuses are not checked and if unions are expected to demand bonus payments even before any industries have established themselves on a stable and profitable basis. Throw the bath water out by all means. But must the baby also be thrown out with the bath water? This, in effect, is what this particular provision proposes to do. The more intelligent thing to do would be to provide the necessary checks to prevent obvious abuses.

I would ask the Government to give serious consideration to the observations which I propose to offer. Long established banks, insurance companies, petroleum companies and various other commercial undertakings, which have long enjoyed comfortable or more than comfortable profit margins, have been in the habit of paying annual bonuses to their employees without any qualms and. indeed, quite cheerfully. Such payments have very often been sanctioned or awarded by the Industrial Arbitration Court. Every year millions of dollars are being distributed to commercial employees by way of bonus payments. It is now proposed to remove these annual payments altogether from the sphere of collective bargaining. Indeed, assuming that all bonus payments are stopped, can the Government tell us what employers will do with these millions of dollars which they have been in the habit of distributing annually as bonus payments? Does the Government have any guarantee that all these large sums of money will go into reinvestment in Singapore? The chances are that they will go into nothing of this kind. Rather they are likely to go into private pockets. I can give up the benefit gladly if I am convinced that the surrender of this benefit will lead to greater social benefit. But in this case I have no such assurance. All I know is that the bonus payments will, in all likelihood, be taken away without leading to any corresponding social benefit. Indeed, the only outcome of my renunciation is that the bulging purses of a few will bulge even more.

The Government has not given sufficient thought to the fact that bonus payments can be made to serve as an incentive to increased productivity. We all know that it is desirable to give an increase in the profitability of an undertaking. 1 would submit that the best way to cultivate such a desirable interest is for management to declare categorically that the workers shall be entitled to a fair share of any distributable profit. In this event, the workers will see that it is in their direct self-interest to increase productivity and thereby to enhance the profitability of the undertaking which employs them. For they know that the higher the profitability, the larger the bonuses that will accrue to them.

There are some other considerations which I would urge the Minister for Labour and his colleagues to consider more carefully when the leader of the N.T.U.C. moves his amendments to this clause. Not to do so would be to turn a deaf ear to sane and rational arguments, which is what the Government professes to encourage in the trade union movement.

4.50 p.m.

Mr Low Yong Nguan (Crawford): Mr Speaker, Sir, when we first sat here as a new Parliament of the people's choice, we were promised that the Employment Bill would standardise and regulate the terms and conditions of service for all grades of employees. It was to be a package deal designed to lessen abuses of fringe benefits and malpractices amongst our work-force and, more important still, to aim at increasing productivity and promoting and hastening industrial growth.

Sir, I consider it a task and responsibility we owe to the people of the Republic to provide the leadership in seeing this Bill through.

In considering any piece of legislation, the basic consideration, as I see it, must be whether or not such a piece of legislation and its provisions are relevant to the prevailing circumstances. It is not my intention here to reiterate all the difficult problems we are going to face in the next few years. The Hon. Minister for Labour has, for the benefit of - the more absent-minded, listed facts and figures and has dwelt on them in great detail. It is essential to have these problems in mind when examining whether the present Bill is relevant to our circumstances. It calls for more than ordinary courage to face the situation and make the necessary adjustments and sacrifices to overcome these problems. Our workers must be made to understand the problems ahead so that they know why and for whom they are making the adjustments and sacrifices.

We have all agreed that the years ahead are difficult and cruel. To survive these years, Singapore must launch a programme of rapid economic growth and promote speedy industrial expansion. This will then provide employment opportunities and, in so doing, ensure continuance and consolidation of stable political and social conditions. For all these things a price must be paid, because history has shown that neither economic growth nor industrialisation has ever been achieved on the cheap!

We know that many of the more advanced countries of today have paid a very high price in toil, discipline and sacrifice to achieve this. In some totalitarian countries, human lives were deliberately sacrificed so that the country could achieve rapid industrialisation. In our case, thanks to the democratic principles we uphold in Singapore and the practices we carry out, the cost demanded for such development cannot be made and are not being made so high as to make life intolerable.

We have here in front of us a Bill that merely sets out to curtail malpractices and lessen opportunities of abuse of fringe benefits. A very small section of our work-force is asked to work five hours more a week only when requested. And 1 say this particular section of the work-force has for many years in the past been living on the fat of the land. As the Hon. Minister for Labour has put it, the medicine we are now administering is not really that bitter. And I say that it is well worth it if at the end of it all we see progress and stability emerge all the more flourishing.

Let us see what will happen if we in this Parliament are weak and try to seek an easy way out. We can sit back and admire the Government's achievements for the last nine years (of which we in the P.A.P, are extremely proud). We will let the problems of the l970s take care of themselves. Maybe some of us will kneel down and pray that by some good fortune, conditions in Britain would improve so much that the Pound would overnight become so strong that the British Government would be prepared to maintain the bases here longer. Then the sum total of all this is that our people will make merry, drink and dine. Our Prime Minister will turn round and say he is the happiest man because his people know how to enjoy life.

But, Sir, the truth is that this is not going to be the case. If we just sit back and relax, we will be on the sure way to economic stagnation and eventually we will collapse. The result of such a collapse is too horrible even to imagine, when we consider that here in Singapore we have a population density of something like 8,500 or so to a square mile. The Hon. Minister for Labour has predicted here in this Chamber, when expounding his philosophy of development and consumption, that we can only live by eating one another and the Prime Minister sums it up by saying that we must then all perish! This must be the case because we just have not the agricultural base to allow us to plant anything to feed ourselves.

I am confident, however, that this is not going to be the end of a people and a country that has over the past one and a half centuries built out of a fishing village a prosperous and flourishing island State! We have that spirit of self-reliance that even with all the problems coming on us as a result of the British pull-out, we will emerge all the more stable, secure and flourishing.

That is what I see the Bill sets out to prove. The attitude of the workers shall be and will be remoulded. Because our people understand the problems, we have decided to make certain adjustments and sacrifices at this stage of our country's history. Our workers cannot depend on abuses of fringe benefits to deprive their unemployed fellow citizens of jobs. Each and every worker will get a day's pay for a day's honest work. These adjustments and sacrifices are made not for some tribal chieftains, not for a group of capitalists, not for a set of self-seeking politicians, not for some fortunate sons of the soil, but for a more prosperous, secure and flourishing Singapore wherein every citizen shares equal rights and obligations, enjoys equal privileges and opportunities!

The fruits and the end result of all these adjustments and sacrifices shall feed not only the generation that will see through the 1970s, but also for the many others who will come after them! So I say - I again quote the Hon. Minister for Labour - that we should "postpone immediate rewards for greater gains in the future".

Sir, if our workers are not prepared to work just five hours more a week, forego a few public holidays, restrict scoring on overtime now, let me say to them, in the very near future they will have to strive very much harder under sterner rule of a chaotic and disorderly state which must come about when our unemployment could not be checked and has reached such unmanageable proportions that many workers will want to work even for a dog's reward!

Sir, let me now confine myself to one or two specific clauses in the proposed Bill.

The provision on the payment of bonus has aroused great interest. To me this must necessarily be non-negotiable. But I understand from my N.T.U.C. friends in this Chamber that they would want to make it negotiable up to one month's wages. I do not see the logic of all this. I foresee what the employer will do is to evaluate the annual worth of his workers and divide it by 13 rather than usually by 12, thereby leaving himself a quantum of one month's wages for negotiation. Sir, this is what we set out to eliminate. Bonus should be an incentive. It should not be part and parcel of the take-home pay of the worker at all. What I would rather see is a law to request every employer to declare his profits and some kind of profit-sharing schedule drawn up. In this way, both the employer and his employees will make it a point to increase productivity so that the net profits will go up and everybody in the company gets more. However, let the N.T.U.C.'s scheme be tried out first. I envisage that at the end of the trial period, my N.T.U.C. friends will want to see the system changed. In this respect. I really do not understand why the traditional ang pows given at the end of the year by the Chinese towkay to his coolies in Chinese business circles cannot really work. In this system, the question of how much to give is entirely up to the employer who, I believe, after he has done his calculations - Chinese businessmen are very calculating - will give the most to his most productive employees. And I do not see how this cannot be extended to the unionised sections of the work-force.

Sir, clause 42 (2) of the Bill is of particular interest to me. When I was in the public service, I noticed that every so often a worker would conveniently absent himself either on the Tuesday after or the Thursday before the Easter holidays so that he could enjoy watching the Grand Prix in grand style without worrying whether at the end of it, he would be fit to work or not.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture (Mr Fong Sip Chee): He should join the Army!

Mr Low Yong Nguan: The introduction of this provision will put a stop to such nonsense.

Sir, on a more general coverage, the Bill seeks to bring the white-collar workers' conditions of service in line with those of the blue-collar workers. This, as I see it, will definitely enhance the status of the latter. As I pointed out in the debate on the President's Speech, this must be done if we want to lure more of our youngsters into taking up blue-collar jobs. Maybe at the end of the trial period of this Bill, we will be in a better position to provide better conditions of service for blue-collar workers.

In conclusion, may I say that basically, this Bill, far from being designed to deprive the workers of their rights, actually sets out to outline the minimum and basic conditions of service for our workers. These basic conditions are in no way inferior to those existing in the countries surrounding us.

I am confident that our work-force is mature enough to understand the problems of the day and accept the position that what is asked of them is really relevant and necessary under the present circumstances. And I am sure that they will work harder and make the neccessary adjustments and sacrifices so that we may emerge in the 1970s more stable, better organised and more flourishing.

With the passage of the Bill, I am sure many more foreign investors and industrialists - I must echo what the former Minister for Labour has said, that they do not owe us a living - will bring their money here and stake it with us. Because they can then safely say that here in Singapore, we have a brave and sane government and an intelligent work-force that understand problems and care, not only for the future of their children, but that of the country as a whole.

Sir, I am sure the Bill will prove a success.

5.05 pm.

Mr L. P. Rodrigo (Serangoon Gardens): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the. Bill.

I do not intend to make another analysis of the Bill. I have been preceded in this respect by competent hon. Members. The controversial provisions of the Bill have been extensively illustrated and, when set against the magnitude of our economic problems, I think they become reduced to sacrifices which our workers can afford to make.

For myself, the merits of the Bill are simply that it seeks to achieve a situation which is the logic of the present limitations of our economy. And that it is a facet of a vast definite programme for national consolidation, if not national construction, made necessary by our assumption of sovereignty on the 9th of August, 1965, and rendered imperative by the impending British withdrawal.

A trading and servicing centre and on the way towards being a manufacturing nation, Singapore depends on the saleability of its goods and services for a living. Productivity, therefore, is a basic concern of our economy. Labour must be adjusted accordingly. Labour's role of merely producing the goods for wages must, in my opinion, at this-phase of our economic development, be refashioned in order to produce more goods at a lower cost per unit of output and, at the same time, maintaining quality. The structure of our economy is such that if our country is to continue to bustle and thrive and our living standards to remain as high as they are today or 50 years later or 100 years later, our chief productive resource, i.e. labour, must be consistent with capital and their co-ordination must result in-high industrial productivity.

Sir, this Bill has been dictated by sheer necessity. For years, our labour force has operated under conditions of strife. In the public sector, it had to-contend with an arrogant, unyielding colonial government, in the private sector, it was engaged in a relentless struggle against forces of exploitation. Responses assumed a pattern and became set. Labour's response to capital was largely governed by the principle of work for fair wages and as soon as the employer showed profits, labour said, "Share." Labour conducted its role of protecting the workers' welfare without a national context. In the pre-Malaysia and Malaysia periods, this may have been a valid role because, if the chips had been down then, at least one could still have opted for a new life elsewhere. Today we are sovereign and, simply put, it means that we together are on our own for better or for worse. And if the worst happens, we will have to take it. Mass option for a new life elsewhere is out of the question.

In such a situation, labour's agitations, however legitimate, must be tempered by the exigencies of the nation. These exigencies result from the impending British withdrawal by 1971. As detailed by the Minister for Finance, we need to spend the sum of $900 million in the course of the coming four years to counter the recession that will be caused by the progressive reduction. In British military expenditure over this period. This expenditure of $900 million will have to be above the normal public expenditure for the same period. $200 million of this $900 million represents the total of private investment we would have to induce in the course of the coming four years. This figure is in addition to the prevailing scale of $250 million per annum. Sir, we can expect to succeed in inducing at least half this amount if, in addition to the political stability of our country and the industrial peace which we have achieved, we can offer investors an enthusiastic labour force conditioned to secure high industrial productivity and an assurance of a reasonable freedom to manage, and generally an industrial climate which is favourable to industrial expansion and confidence in the future. Both these offers are spelt out in the Employment Bill and the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill.

But high industrial productivity is the cumulative result of a number of basic industrial needs and processes like buildings, factories, equipment, power and transport, skilled labour, managerial and technical know-how and efficient services. These are all immediate objectives in our overall reorganisation for survival and development through our urban renewal, industrialisation, technical orientation in education, markets discovery, quality control and so on.

As I have indicated earlier, we are reorganising now to remain a nation in the future. Though the problems before us are vast, they are not beyond solution. But woe betide us if we fail, for we shall fall into an economic stagnation from which we can hope to recover only after many years and much grief. What is urgently required is a national mood for productive work at all levels motivated by a realisation of the full consequences of failure. If this Bill and the debate on it inside and outside this Chamber can stir in our workers the beginnings of this mood, it will already have begun to achieve results before its operation.

Sir, there will be criticisms on this Employment Bill. But whatever may be said against the Government for introducing this Bill, I think even the devil would blush at the allegation that this leadership is helping the capitalists to get rich at the expense of the workers. This leadership has gone down in our political history of the last decade as a government that has sought the survival of the country and the realisation of the common good. I do not think any serious minded quarter would question the truth of this. This Bill has been introduced at this stage for no other reason than that it would help the survival of the country and the realisation of the common good.

Amendments to some of the controversial clauses will be moved by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Labour himself. Amendments to five clauses will be moved by the Member for Bukit Ho Swee. The alleged severity of the Bill would be reduced as a result. In addition, the Central Provident Fund (Amendment) Bill offers a worthy compensatory privilege.

However, it has been disturbing to hear of the cases of two employers already attempting to abuse the provisions of the Bill. I am heartened to have been told that the Minister would wield his stick if the need arose. Let the Minister not find that the stick has been misplaced when the time comes, for I am sure that our workers will respond favourably and management is not all that angelic. Enthusiastic and earnest labour alone will not suffice. There must be progressive innovations at the managerial and technological levels by capital if the hopes and intentions of this Bill are to be realised. Productivity promotion itself needs, in my view, an infrastructure for care, control and research. The Government is urged to consider this aspect of our reorganisation for survival and development.

In conclusion, Sir, there is a period in the history of a nation when the people begin to be a nation. For ourselves, this is it.

5.15 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture (Inche Sha'ari bin Tadin): Mr Speaker, Sir, since this Bill was first introduced in Parliament, it has generated, understandably, a great deal of public interest and comment, some favourable, some controversial, some adverse. All this has helped us reflect further on the requirement in the best interest of our country and people in time to come. It is, however, heartening to see that there has been a general appreciation, if not acceptance, of the motivation and need for this legislation from all sectors, including labour, management and the press. Criticisms, most of them constructive, have been on aspects of detail, on provisions for hospitalisation, payments of bonus, overtime and fringe benefits and the like. It is further reassuring to see that the Minister for Labour has an open mind for argument and persuasion and will consider seriously necessary amendments arising out of a rational review within and outside this Parliament.

May I make my observations now on the necessity for and urgency of this legislation?

There were interconnected factors behind this Bill - higher Gross National Product and the creation of more jobs. It is not the intention of the Government to inflict pain on the workers by introducing this Bill. With its introduction, a more favourable climate for established enterprises to expand and to attract more foreign investments into the Republic will be created. This is an inevitable measure to prevent our country from going down as the result of the impending British withdrawal. We can just imagine the plight of thousands of our workers thrown out of work when the British leave Singapore by the end of 1971. Not only will the employees of the bases be affected, but also those who provide ancillary services like domestic servants, etc. Already, true unemployment is reckoned to total anywhere between 52,000 and 100,000. To this will be added another estimated 100,000 people who, it is calculated, will lose their jobs as a result of the withdrawal. This round figure of 100,000 is made up of 47,000 workers in the British bases, including enlisted personnel and domestic servants, who will forfeit their jobs directly, plus another 53,000 people who will be directly affected by the withdrawal of service expenditure here. The service presence directly or indirectly generates one-fifth of Singapore's Gross National Product of around S$3,200 million a year. The Forces' direct spending alone accounts more than S$400 million a year. In addition, 25,000 school-leavers enter the employment market every year. The process may be likened to pulling off the main root of a plant for transplanting which will undoubtedly damage some of the roothairs. The Government's task is to ensure as little damage as possible when this main root is removed. That is why these radical changes are necessary, however painful they may be.

The present leadership has never faced a greater and more crucial test in its fight for economic survival after the announcements by the British Government last year that it intended to withdraw all its military commitments east of Suez. During this short period discussions between top Singapore Government officers led by the Prime Minister and British personnel have taken place and these talks have not only been fruitful but have also helped to pave the way for Singapore's accelerated role as an industrial nation. This kind of situation calls for prompt and effective action. There is no time for us to brood, but to get down to work since our future is at stake.

This sudden flood of responsibilities thrust upon us includes that of looking for sources of revenue in order to pay for the high defence expenditure. By the end of 1971 Singapore will have its squadron of subsonic Hunter Mark Nines, flown by our own pilots, now beginning their initial training. Singapore cannot afford to carry passengers and we want our people to carry and share this burden equally together through these difficult years. Singapore, being important not only as a sea and air route because of its geographic position but also as the nerve centre of Southeast Asia, must and will exploit all the resources that she has in the form of human expertise and skills.

By introducing this Bill, we hope to be able to produce two or three times the goods and services we have been producing now, and in return for the meaningful sacrifice made by the workers, the Government expects to provide better facilities for all. We cannot afford to allow our workers to go on strike to ask for increased wages especially at this juncture, as has happened in some countries overseas. The United Kingdom Government has lost millions of dollars as a result of industrial action during the last four months.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the people of Singapore trust in the leadership of our Government. We must now make realistic approaches to ensure the economic survival of Singapore. The introduction of this Bill is one way of fearlessly facing up to the problems ahead. Let us hope for the best but prepare for the worst.

5.20 p.m.

Mr Ho See Beng (Bras Basah): Mr Speaker, Sir, much has been said in this Chamber on some provisions of the Employment Bill. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Labour has stated that only six per cent of the clauses in the Bill are new and some of these new provisions have been designed to cut out bonus abuses practised by workers. The old labour laws were brought into force about 14 years ago to stop malpractices by employers and to prevent the exploitation of workers. But the Employment Bill does give one an impression that what the Minister is trying to convey is that one of the reasons for the introduction of certain restrictive clauses is to prevent workers and trade unions from exploiting the employer.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Labour (Mr S. Rajaratnam): - to prevent anybody exploiting the country.

Mr Ho See Beng: If Government manifestly indicates that it is soft pedalling when it comes to the employer, it may well be that we will have to return to the 1950s. If the employers blatantly exploit the workers, are we then to come back to this Chamber again to repeal the present measure to prevent the exploitation of workers, or are we going to amend the labour laws every few years to prevent employers or employees from exploiting each other?

Everyone knows that this P.A.P. Government has got the interests of the workers at heart. It assists them to have a fair share of their labour and we also know that this Government, too, has the reputation of allowing employers to have their just due. One can therefore understand that the introduction of these new clauses is aimed at giving a boost to capital investment with a resultant reduction in our unemployment. Of course, there is no doubt that this is a good intention.

This new Bill will give most citizens employment and in the long run the workers will be better off and the country as a whole will have prosperity. We all fully agree that this is what the Bill sets out to do. But intentions alone are not good enough. They must be translated into realities. Does the Government seriously believe that some of the restrictive clauses in this Bill will create a good industrial climate? Is the Government sincerely of the opinion that this Bill as it stands now will achieve its objectives? I ask, can frustrated and disgruntled workers give of their best and thus increase productivity? If the answer is "No" to the above three questions, then I suggest to the Hon. Minister for Labour that he must be prepared to concede to the amendments proposed by some of us here. But, on the other hand, if the Minister is of the opinion that the answers to my three questions are "Yes", then I am prepared to accept this Bill in toto. This Government, I know, however, is too honest to give a dishonest reply. [Laughter]

I do not stand here because some fringe benefits have been taken away from the workers, but if, as a result of the sacrifices made by them, there is overall benefit to Singapore, then I am all for it. Unfortunately, some of the sacrifices made by the workers would only go towards enriching some of the unenlightened employers who would invest their savings not in industries, but in their big houses and property, thereby increasing their own wealth without any direct benefit either to Singapore or to the workers. On the other hand, if the Government can assure us that savings will accrue as a result of this Bill by lowering production costs and that the profits made will be ploughed back into industry thereby increasing the work force, I am fully in support of the workers making sacrifices.

It is also obvious that one of the objectives of this Bill is to increase the wealth of the country by attracting foreign investors because of lower production costs. The Government also hopes that these foreign investors will plough back their profits into industry, thereby increasing work opportunities for our school-leavers. Highly developed countries like Russia, America, England, West Germany and Japan have reached their present standards because of the utter exploitation of workers during the nineteenth century. The capitalists in those countries, while getting rich at the expense of the workers, did not forget to plough back their profits into industry. But the same cannot be said here in Singapore. Are the foreign capitalists also prepared to plough back some of their profits into expanding the industry and helping us to reduce our unemployment? This is very doubtful. I have mentioned that capitalists in the nineteenth century exploited the workers and ploughed back their profits into industry not because they had sympathy for labour but because of their selfish motive to make still more money. But this evil motive did, in fact, bring good to the country. More workers were employed and industry expanded. The workers in these countries today are-really reaping the harvest made possible by the sacrifices made by their fore-fathers. Can the Singapore Government assure us that the employers who are now given advantages by the introduction of this Bill will do what the capitalists did in the countries I have mentioned, that is, plough back their profits into industry? I am not asking the investors to sacrifice their profits, but I am only asking the employers to reinvest their money so that they can make more money and at the same time reduce our unemployment figure which stands at nine per cent today in the active labour market.

Every year there are 20,000 school-leavers and in five years there will be 100,000 young adults who should have been absorbed in industry. Our workers are not beyond understanding of these problems. The sacrifices asked of them must be worth while and they will be prepared to make more sacrifices, if necessary, if they are assured that their children will reap the harvest as a result of their sacrifices today. If after having made sacrifices there is within the next five years no reduction in our unemployment figure, then the workers, are going to ask us, "What have we sacrificed our fringe benefits for?" Only the investors have become rich.

The Government must induce confidence in the working class if it wants them to give up some fringe benefits. It can only do this by seeing to it that the employers also play their part by expanding their industry and providing more employment. If this is not done, then disillusionment must set in and the propaganda of the Communists will provide an alternative for industrial unrest.

Sir, let us not forget this point. Workers alone cannot be held responsible for the economic well-being of the country. Employers, and others, too, must be called upon to play their role and, if necessary, the Government should enact laws to compel investors to plough back some of their profits into industry annually. If this is not done, then what will happen is that while the workers have sacrificed fringe benefits, investors make more money and unemployment increases. The Communists will be able to exploit the situation and we will all be in trouble.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to touch on some of the clauses here. What I cannot understand are the precise reasons for the introduction of some of the new provisions in the Bill. Let us consider at this stage the exact nature of the new clauses introduced, such as clause 15, which seeks to fix the age of retirement for all and sundry at 55. The Hon. Minister in his policy speech did not adduce one single reason why this should be so. What is it that the Government hopes to achieve for the country through the introduction of clause 15? What medical evidence, if any, has the Minister to be so categorical that a person should retire at the age of 55 as opposed to any other age? As for the ill effects of the clause on all concerned, I think enough has been said by my colleagues. I need not elaborate.

Now I wish to draw the Minister's attention to clause 42 - for all this, of course, the present Minister for Labour is not responsible; the former Minister for Labour is responsible.

Mr Rajaratnam: It is collective responsibility.

Mr Ho See Beng: Yes. We too were responsible to some extent! Now I wish to touch on clause 43 (annual leave) and clause 44 (sick leave). The Bill purports to standardise annual heave at a flat seven days and 14 days irrespective of the type of job a man does. I am all for standardisation of benefits as between industrial and non-industrial workers. But why has the Minister not taken into account the prevailing practice in the public and private sectors whereby the employers, of their own volition, grant leave up to a maximum of 21 days - and even 21 days for the industrial workers? In the first place, have the civil servants in the Ministry of Labour compiled statistics on this matter? I am certain that they have not done so. On what research has the Minister based seven days' and 14 days' leave provision other than on the demand of a few local employers? Can he prove to this House that irrespective of the nature of the work a man is engaged in, 14 days' annual leave is absolutely sufficient for a worker at the age of 50 or 50 plus?

Similarly, Sir, on the sick leave provision, where are the Minister's facts and figures to show abuse amongst employees in the private sector? For instance, I myself work for a big private enterprise and my employers have never had occasion to complain to me or against me as a trade union president that my colleagues who work with me take excessive medical leave or that they are malingerers. How many complaints has his Ministry received from private sector employers to this effect? If so, who are the employers? What is so magical about the 14 days' intermittent medical leave? Presumably the Minister has taken advice from medical experts on averages. If so, would he care to reveal the details of any such study? As for the arbitrary figure of 28 days' leave for hospitalisation, I need only say this. Even the doctors in the hospitals are clearly shocked. They say. "What rubbish is this 28 days!" This provision lacks not only research on the matter but shows a complete absence of common sense.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my other trade union colleagues have said, "We are prepared to make the necessary sacrifices, but not without assessing the precise nature of the sacrifices we are called upon to make." If I am asked to make sacrifices, like returning to work half-way through sickness or from treatment in the hospital, at least I am entitled to question the wisdom of such a demand.

Clause 47 is the controversial bonus clause removing bonus payments to workers. I need not have to elaborate much on this. The other day I asked the Ministry of Labour if it could give me any good reason for the Government's interfering with free negotiation on bonuses between trade unions and the management. There seemed to be no satisfactory answer.

We in this Chamber have to take full responsibility for any repercussions that may arise as a result of this Employment Bill. Let us not be hasty about passing it; otherwise it will be a case of acting in haste and repenting at leisure. I ask the Minister to consider seriously the amendments that will be moved by the Member for Bukit Ho Swee. These amendments have been tabled not so much to increase benefits for the workers as in the sincere belief that they will remove any discontent from the minds and hearts of the workers and they will rise to the occasion and give of their utmost in the interest not only of themselves and their children but of the nation as a whole.

5.40 p.m.

Mr P. Selvadurai (Bukit Panjang): Mr Speaker, Sir, what is really striking in the discussion that has taken place on this Bill up till now is the remarkable degree of sobriety with which we have discussed it. Perhaps this is due to the increasing awareness that politics in Singapore now is not a venture in recklessness but that it is the science of the possible.

In the present historical context, I believe there are two main factors which have conspired with each other to make the introduction of this Bill inevitable. The first is the increasing need to build up a completely rationalised economic system that would in toto, not merely in its parts, be able to compete with the economies of countries such as. Hong Kong and Japan who are our main competitors for international markets. This first factor is merely the function of the second one which is the need to convert our society into art industrial society as swiftly as possible.

There are a few specifics when one talks about the industrial society which needs to be created. All over the developing world, the under-developed world or the backward world, the ambition of governments is to create as quickly as possible an industrial society with a manufacturing base. Although it is difficult to define clearly what is meant by an industrial society, there are a number of attributes that can be pinpointed. Primarily, it is the application of a scientific mentality to the production process. Secondly, to change the psychology of the human beings, especially the workers, who participate in the industrial process. In other words, to convert the individual digit that works in the factory itself, to change its attitude towards work and play, and to change its attitude towards tools, which means that we have got to create the scientific capability. We will have to create a manufacturing capacity which will build the tools which will set up the factories and produce the machinery.

There are two ways in which industrialisation in a country can be induced. One is indigenously from the inside which is the method that has obtained in the Western countries and possibly Japan, and the other one is to induce industrialisation from the outside, from impulses from developed countries into the developing country, which is what is happening all over the world today. We, unfortunately, because of our serious physical limitations and our lack of scientific capabilities for the purpose of inducing internal industrialisation, belong to the second category. And a price has got to be paid for this. Unfortunately, the price that we have got to pay today is this Bill. It may not be completely humanistic in terms of the minimum standards that obtain in advanced countries, but at least, as has been pointed out by a number of speakers, it is humanistic in relation to what obtains in surrounding countries.

The factors that really stand in the way of the conversion into an industrial society are manifold, especially in developing countries. The first one, of course, is a backward leadership that does not understand modernism. Secondly, the allowance in the political process of the emergence of ghosts from the past. In other words, linguistic chauvinism in a multi-racial society, communal clashes and the lack of ability on the part of the political leadership to organise scientifically their policies in such a way as to mute whatever conflicts and contradictions there might be between communities and languages. And worse still is corruption in high places, especially among the political leadership and among the Ministers and others who go into politics because they feel it is a very attractive business.

Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Selvadurai, it is now 5.45 p.m. Will it be convenient for you to stop now?

Mr Selvadurai resumed his seat.

Mr Speaker: In accordance with the resolution made earlier, the House will now adjourn.

Adjourned accordingly at Fifteen minutes to Six o'clock p.m.