YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1972, TO 31ST MARCH, 1973

5.47 p.m.

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Head 0601 -

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0601 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1001*. (* The same amendment also stood in the names of Messrs N. Govindasamy, Cheong Yuen Chee, P. Govindaswamy and Seah Mui Kok.)

Sir, in moving this amendment, I would like to speak on industrial accidents. Since the present Minister for Labour took office, he is implementing two measures: (1) taking effective steps to reduce and prevent the occurrence of industrial accidents; (2) making certain wage adjustments and raising the standard of living of lower income workers. I very much appreciate the two measures which the Minister is implementing vigorously.

About the prevention of industrial accidents, I am glad to see that the Ministry of Labour is carrying out an island-wide industrial safety campaign - as can be seen from the publicity in the newspapers, over radio and T.V, in order to ensure that workers can work in safety. Unfortunately, while the national industrial safety and health campaign is being carried out, the number of industrial accidents occurring continues to increase. This is really an irony. These industrial accidents include one which took place in Jurong Shipyard recently, resulting in the death of a few workers. Of course, an occurrence of this kind of industrial accident is regrettable.

There are many causes of industrial accidents, e.g., the machinery is faulty, or the employers and workers have been negligent. All these factors contribute to industrial accidents. Therefore, in order to reduce the number of industrial accidents, the parties concerned should work in close co-operation. I hope the Ministry of Labour can take up a leading role in encouraging management and labour to take industrial safety precautions. As regards employers who disregard implementing safety measures, steps should be taken to deal with them. The workers should make use of safety devices in order to safeguard their own lives.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister a few questions and I hope he can give me detailed answers. On the prevention of industrial accidents, we have been paying much attention to it in the past few years. I would like to know why there were more industrial accidents in 1971 than in 1970. Is the department paying heed only to theory and publicity about the prevention of industrial accidents, without actually taking effective measures to prevent them from happening? Are Factory Inspectors being recruited in order to send them out to inspect factories regularly and to find out whether factories are abiding by the safety regulations and, if not, to take enforcement measures against them? As regards the Jurong Shipyard accident, has the Minister set up a committee of inquiry to look into the causes of the accident, so that preventive measures may be taken to prevent similar occurrences?

Mr N. Govindasamy: Mr Speaker, Sir, my colleague, the Member for Bukit Ho Swee, during the debate on the financial policy of the Government, spoke very frankly and forcefully on the need for amendments to the Employment Act and the Industrial Relations Act. He covered a number of sections in the Acts that need to be reviewed, namely, sections on the limitation of bonuses (this has clearly proved to be not workable), employer's prerogatives on transfers, promotions, dismissals, etc. I shall not repeat except to associate myself with the sentiments expressed. I hope the Minister has taken note of the views expressed by the Member for Bukit Ho Swee, and that in his reply today he will cover the grounds raised by the Member.

I only want to speak on two other sections of the Employment Act - sections 37 (4) and 41(4) - that need to be amended as a matter of urgency. These sections limit financial compensation for workers in the essential services for overtime work performed, when time off cannot be granted within a reasonable period because of the shortage of staff - many of these departments are of an essential nature. Implementation of these two sections of the Act has encountered difficulties by some Ministries and statutory boards and I will give details when I speak about these Ministries later on. The Ministries and statutory boards concerned cannot give time off for overtime work performed, because of serious shortages of staff. At the same time, the employees of essential services are required to work and the Act restricts them from being paid wages although they are required to perform duties over and beyond the 48-hour limitation on overtime work. Both these sections of the Employment Act have proved to be unworkable. Will the Minister consider amending this section of the Employment Act? Meanwhile, can the Permanent Secretaries, departmental heads and Chairmen of statutory boards, be given authority to grant overtime, and to pay for overtime if no time off can be given within a reasonable period?

Mr Cheong Yuen Chee (Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak on a subject to which the Minister for Finance has not made any direct reference but which is very close to the hearts of workers. In his Budget Statement, the Minister has given credit to the workers for the role they played in the economic success of Singapore during the past few years. The Minister has also gone on to say that it has been necessary for the Government to relax its stringent immigration policies in respect of workers who possess the skill or expertise required in the economic development of Singapore. The general impression conveyed by the painless Budget presented to this House is that Singapore is enjoying booming conditions and that we are experiencing a situation of full employment. Thus, by inference, workers should not have difficulty in obtaining ample opportunities for suitable employment. While it is true to say that the level of unemployment has gone down to a point that would have been unimaginable two or three years ago, there remains certain categories of labour which cannot find employment in the present situation of full employment. Such categories of labour are of a non-industrial variety or are not in possession of the skill or expertise which is much in demand now, or are unsuitable by reason of education, age or health. Even apart from the consideration that a worker presently in gainful employment may have great difficulty in obtaining alternative employment in the event of being deprived of his present job, a worker will normally object to his employment being terminated by an employer on grounds which are not due to any act or conduct of the worker.

6.00 p.m.

The purpose of my speech today is to bring the attention of the House to the grievances of workers that the right to dismiss or retrench a worker has been somewhat abused by a considerable number of employers in obvious disregard to the welfare or interest of the worker. In some cases, it may be even said that dismissal or retrenchment has been effected in circumstances tantamount to victimisation. Members of the House may think that we have adequate legislation to protect workers in the event of victimisation, but the fact that there is such legislation does not necessarily mean that it is effective for the purposes for which it is intended. Moreover, even if' there is effective legislation for the protection of workers against victimisation there is at present, as the law stands, no remedy for workers who find themselves thrown out of employment through no fault of their own, but who cannot allege victimisation by the employers.

In order that those Members of the House who are not employers, or who have no occasion to deal with employer! employee relationship, may have a clear picture of the problem of insecurity of employment, which is a haunting fear assuming nightmarish proportions to workers with family obligations and hire purchase commitments, it is necessary for me to give a brief outline of the situation in which a contract of employment may be terminated.

Under section 10 of the Employment Act, it is provided that an employer or an employee may terminate a contract of employment by giving to the other party the right of notice of not less than one day or not more than one month, depending on the length of service of a worker affected. Such length of notice, of course, may be greater than that provided under the Employment Act, if an individual contract of employment contains any provision to that effect. In the absence of any such contractual provision, the length of notice may be governed by the Employment Act. The provisions of section 10 are as fair as can be desired. Both the employer and the worker have an equal right and correspondingly equal duty to give the same notice of termination of contract of employment.

The snag, however, lies in the provision of subsection (2) of section 17 of the Industrial Relations Act, which provides for the right of an employer to terminate the services of workers on the grounds of redundancy or reorganisation without having to prove such redundancy or reorganisation. Thus, under the existing laws an employer can call upon a worker, who may have been employed for more than 10 years, and say to him, "I hereby give you a month's notice, in accordance with the Industrial Relations Act, for the termination of the contract of service on the grounds of redundancy or reorganisation as I may wish to choose." And the worker has no remedy to the court even though he knows very well and can prove that there is no such redundancy or reorganisation.

From my own personal experience, I have come across many cases where an employer, after terminating the services of a worker on the grounds of redundancy, proceeds within a short time thereafter to recruit new workers under new designations to perform the same work that has been done by the ex-worker who has been retrenched on the grounds of redundancy. What makes it worse is that the employer, who may be a director of a well-established company, will have no qualms to echo the refrain of the Government that workers must make sacrifices for the general good of the Republic.

Some Members of the House may still wonder why it is still so unfair of an employer to exercise his powers under section 17 (2) of the Industrial Relations Act, i.e., to terminate the services of workers on grounds of redundancy or reorganisation. We may also say that there is nothing to stop a worker from terminating his contract of employment, if he so desires. There are, however, two considerations which may put the matter in a different light. One is that, with the generally accepted practice of employment in Singapore to grant a worker an incremental salary scale, a worker who has been employed for several years expects to draw a salary considerably higher than that which he obtains at the commencement of his employment. However, some employers feel that they are entitled to effect savings by terminating the services of workers who have been employed for several years and replacing them with little or inexperienced workers at far lower salaries. The damage done to a worker whose services have been terminated may be irreparable, particularly if he belongs to a category of labour which is not much in demand. If he is lucky he may obtain alternative employment with a far lower salary, or he may join the ranks of the unemployed even though he may have many years of active service before him.

The other situation is that if the workers are in possession of a skill, which is very much in demand, and if they are to take joint action against an employer in support of their colleague, who has been given a raw deal by the employer, then by jointly terminating their services and seek alternative employment, the employer will be the first to cry "blue murder" and would urge the Ministry of Labour to intervene in what he constitutes an industrial action. Such a hypothetical situation envisaged by me is not likely to occur, not because it involves industrial action which is prohibited in respect of termination of service, but because workers are generally more responsible than that. But the anticipated reaction of employers to such a hypothetical situation is not at all far-fetched.

If you may recall the agitation of employers over the high turnover of labour in the industrial establishment in Singapore during the past few years, you will readily agree with me that employers were not prepared to concede to a worker the right of termination of contract of employment. That is exactly what some employers have suggested as a solution to the problem of high turnover of industrial labour by depriving the worker of the right to terminate employment. Then it may be argued that while trade unions are debarred from negotiating with employers or are prohibited from having recourse to any industrial action over any termination of service, there are statutory provisions to afford adequate remedy to any aggrieved trade union or its members. Under section 35 of the Industrial Relations Act, it is provided that if a dismissal has been effected in circumstances amounting to victimisation of the dismissed worker, proceedings can be commenced in the Industrial Arbitration Court for the reinstatement of the dismissed worker. Similarly, if a worker has been dismissed by an employer without just cause or excuse, a representation can be made to the Ministry of Labour for the reinstatement of the dismissed worker. There are, however, three main aspects -

The Chairman: Your ten minutes are up, Mr Cheong.

Mr Cheong Yuen Chee resumed his seat.

Mr P. Govindaswamy: Mr Speaker, Sir, my colleague, the Member for Toa Payoh, has elaborated on certain sections of the Employment Act and the Industrial Relations Act, but I have only two points to raise to the Minister. Owing to the pullout of British Forces, the Government has introduced very strict labour laws in 1968, which more or less muzzled our workers. After they have proved their worth and after having sacrificed so much for the State, it is time to change our labour laws which are disadvantageous to the workers who are open to exploitation by employers. I quote one example. An employee, who has a malicious intent on a fellow worker, can easily complain to the employer in confidence. The employer can suspend the worker for any length of time under the pretext of conducting investigations. If a worker has been suspended for a period of seven days, then by law he can be dismissed. Unfortunately, some unscrupulous employers have exploited this law to their advantage. It is my wish that amendments be made in regard to this aspect of the law. Furthermore, if a worker is interdicted and charged in a court of law, he may be found not guilty and thereby acquitted and discharged. By right he should be reinstated in his former employment, but unfortunately this is not the case. The employer has again exploited the poor worker.

Mr Seah Mui Kok (Bukit Ho Swee): Mr Speaker, Sir, I must thank the Members for Telok Blangah and Toa Payoh for supporting my request to amend the Employment Act and the Industrial Relations Act on the negotiability of bonus and to remove the managerial prerogative. Sir, yesterday I spoke on the Budget Statement and gave reasons why I requested amendments to the Employment Act and to section 17 (2) of the Industrial Relations Act, so that the union can negotiate with the management on the annual bonus up to three months instead of one month only, and to remove the managerial prerogative so as to stop the employer from abusing them. It is a well known fact that employers can easily victimise the employees by using this prerogative.

Sir, I would like the Minister for Labour to tell us whether he will agree to amend provisions in the Employment Act and Industrial Relations Act so as to enable the unions to negotiate annual bonus up to three months and to remove the managerial prerogative immediately.

The Minister for Labour (Mr Ong Pang Boon): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Sembawang has touched on the question of industrial accidents and he asked why the rate of industrial accidents has gone up in 1971 as against 1970, despite the campaign introduced by the Ministry with a view to reducing industrial accidents. The main reasons for the increase in the number of industrial accidents in 1971 can be attributed as follows. Firstly, the rapid expansion of our industries and the construction boom have compelled employers to recruit workers indiscriminately. Most of these workers have very little or no formal training prior to their being put on the job. As such, they were more accident-prone, being ignorant of the working technique, safety and health measures. Secondly, the shortage of experienced and qualified supervisors at the factory floor and worksites, and the new and inexperienced worker who is often left alone to acquaint himself with the job on a trial and error basis, can be regarded as contributory factors. In many cases accidents occur because employers have wilfully neglected to provide or install prescribed safety devices. Finally, in the larger number of cases reported, the accidents were due to the irresponsible attitude of workers who failed to use and wear safety equipment provided by the employer.

6.15 p.m.

As pointed out by the Member for Sembawang, the Ministry has recently organised a two-week campaign on industrial safety. At the opening ceremony of the campaign on 1st March, 1972. 1 outlined a three-prong strategy which would be put into operation to reduce the number of industrial accidents occurring in Singapore. Briefly, an intensive period of social education would be mounted to bring home to the public the high social and economic cost of industrial accidents. Workers would he helped to form new and correct work attitudes and made to appreciate the need for personal safety in their everyday working life. Employers would be reminded of their duties and responsibilities to provide a safe, clean and healthy working environment. Appropriate legislation to provide for higher standards of safety, health and welfare, would he drawn up. In fact, the Building Operations and Works of Engineering Construction Regulations, 1971, have already been enacted. These regulations were drawn up specifically to overcome the problem of high accident rates in the building and construction trade.

The new Factories Bill, to replace the Factories Ordinance enacted in 1958, has just been introduced earlier this afternoon. The Workmen's Compensation Act, which was amended last year. would be trebling the quantum of workmen's compensation payable, and force employers to be more conscious in providing adequate safety measures. Consideration is also being given to the drawing up of separate regulations for Specific industries, such as sand blasting and quarrying operations, to ensure that workers in these industries .are fully protected. Whilst the Factories Bill will set higher standards of safety, health and welfare, and ensure a more stringent observance of these provisions, it is necessary for the Factory Inspectorate and Health Unit to carry Out more vigorous and frequent checks on factories and worksites.

For the information of the Member for Sembawang, more posts of Factory Inspectors and other subordinate staff have been created. There will be no letup in bringing to book both employers and workers found contravening the provisions of the Factories Act. The proposed Factories Bill stipulates the employment of safety officers and the formation of industrial safety committees. the Ministry of Labour, in conjunction with the National Productivity Centre, will conduct appropriate training courses for these safety personnel to supplement the work of the Factory Inspectorate, by emphasising on the preventive aspects of accidents.

However. I must reiterate that the Government on its Owl: cannot fight the battle to reduce the rate of industrial accidents. Management and trade unions must also share and play their role in keeping Singapore industrial safe, clean and health.

In so far as the accident in Jurong Shipyard is concerned, I think the Member for Sembawang is aware that the Government has already appointed a committee of inquiry to investigate into the nature and causes of the accident. When their findings are known, appropriate measures will be taken, and I hope sonic preventive steps could be taken to prevent such occurrences in the future.

The Member for Telok Blangah has touched on sections 37 (4) and 41 (4) of the Employment Act. Mr Speaker, Sir, employees of Government or statutory bodies who are engaged in essential services are presently prohibited from payment for work done on rest days or public holidays under these two sections of the Employment Act. Instead, they are given an equivalent time off in substitution. I think the Member is aware that the AUPE, which represents employees the public sector, has taken up this matter with the Ministry of Finance, and certain compromised solutions were offered although not to the satisfaction of the AUPE.

Mr Speaker, Sir, sections 37 (4) and 41 (4) of the Employment Act, restricting payment for work done on rest days and public holidays to employees of Government or statutory bodies, were introduced in 1968, primarily to prevent malingering which was then widespread among employees engaged in the essential services.

Mr N. Govindasamy: Mr Speaker. Sir,I think the Minister has not quit answered my question. We know that sections 37 (4) and 4! (4) are not operable. We cannot operate under those sections. We have tried to do so since 1968. The Minister should he aware of it as the NTUC had sent him a memorandum on it. We have also made representations to the Minister for Finance.

Although the Act provides for time off in lieu the major Departments involved. Ministries of Finance. National Development, Communications. Telecommunications and statutory boards like the P.U.B, and P.S.A, cannot follow the law. Is the Minister suggesting that because we do not amend the Act, then these Ministries and statutory boards should break our own law? This is what will happen. We should either not request them to work on public holidays, in which case essential services will be interrupted, or allow them to work and pay them for it. But the law prevents them from being paid. We have come to an impasse.

Therefore. I suggest one or two ways to solve this problem. One is a ministerial directive to allow the Permanent Secretaries and Chairmen of statutory boards to use their initiative to pay for overtime worked by employees whom they cannot give time off in lieu. And if they cannot pay, then amend the Act. There is no other way.

The Chairman: Mr Cheong, would you like to continue?

Mr Cheong Yuen Chee: Yes, Mr Speaker. Sir, if I may have your permission to continue with just one more paragraph. May I ask the Minister whether he is aware that any employer with average competence can easily circumvent the provisions of section 35 of the Industrial Relations Act, which provide for the termination of services of a worker, by giving due notice, rather than summarily dismissing that worker without any notice?

Mr Seah Mui Kok: Mr Speaker. Sir,I am anxiously waiting for a reply from the Minister.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, coming to lie Member for Telok f3langah's question before time was up. I was giving reasons as to why these two Sections of the Employment Act were in t roil u ::ed. Before the introduction of these provisions, there was considerable malingering in those days and there was high absenteeism on normal working days, so that work could he accumulated to be performed on rest days a nil public holidays, which attracted higher rates of pay: I think the rate was treble.

Since then, time and circumstances have changed. We are approaching full employment. Consequently, I think these essential services have found difficulty in recruiting sufficient workers to perform the job, and as a result employees were called upon to work overtime on rest days. In fact, this matter is now under consideration, and we have made our views known to the relevant authorities.

As I have said, the reasons for introducing these two sections have been considered thoroughly at that time. Any amendment now would require due consideration and consultation with the relevant authorities. I can assure the Member for Telok Blangah that the question he has raised will be thoroughly gone into. In fact, before coming here, I was informed by one statutory authority that they had taken active steps to recruit workers to fill up the establishment so that the workers will not be called upon to perform work on rest days and public holidays.

6.30 p.m.

The question of wages and bonus has been occupying the minds of Government for some time. The Member for Bukit Ho Swee is aware that Government has made its views known to the National Wages Council. We are awaiting its recommendations as to whether the present one-month limit on the negotiability of bonus should he raised and, if so, what should be the ceiling. Until the views of the Council are known, it is premature now to consider any amendment to the Employment Act.

Some Members have touched on the employers' prerogative to hire and hre staff. Mr Speaker, Sir, when the Industrial Relations Act was amended in 1968 to render certain management functions not negotiable, it was generally accepted that the amendments were necessary `to allow management functions to be properly performed and unhindered as otherwise there would be little or no economic expansion or fresh investments coming in. Besides, in restoring to employers the right to hire or fire, to promote and transfer employees, no rights were taken away from the workers. They were merely amendments to the common rights of management to administrate and now made into statute law. As a safeguard against abuse on firing at will, provisions were made, now contained in section 35 of the Industrial Relations Act, for a speedy redress for employees who consider that they have been dismissed by their employers without just cause or reason. By virtue of this provision, all cases of dismissal or termination of service may be made, if a trade union so desires, the subject of a representation in writing to the Minister for the reinstatement of the dismissed employees.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the three full years of the operation of this provision, a total of 74 representations have been made by trade unions, under section 35 (2) of the Industrial Relations Act, for the reinstatement of 141 employees who considered that they had been dismissed by their employers without just cause or excuse. Thirty-four representations resulted in an amicable settlement, while another 17 were withdrawn by the trade unions themselves. Four of the representations were disposed of by Ministerial order for their reinstatement or compensations paid. In another 15 representations, the Minister found no sufficient reason to intervene. The remaining four representations are presently receiving attention.

Mr Speaker, Sir, these figures show that the situation is not so serious as to justify further amendments to the Industrial Relations Act at this juncture. However, the Ministry will continue its vigilance on the industrial scene and, if the need arises, will take prompt action, including legislative measures, to ensure that these management rights are not abused.

Mr Cheong Yuen Chee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am afraid! the Minister has not answered the point with regard to the retrenchment exercise conducted by employers. For the information of the Minister, most of the retrenchment exercises did not come before the Ministry of Labour for conciliation. Therefore, the Ministry does not have the exact records on how many retrenchments have taken place. Most of them negotiated between the unions and the employers, on the understanding that the unions had no choice but to negotiate on the quantum of retrenchment benefits rather than on the pros and cons of retrenchment.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member for Toa Payoh was present in this House when the Employment Act was introduced in 1968. He should be aware of the reasons for its introduction. It is already three years since and during this period the whole employment situation has changed from a surplus to a tight labour market.

However, before we consider any proposed amendment to the Employment Act or to the Industrial Relations Act, we should bear in mind the economic situation of the country. We will still have to depend considerably on foreign investments in the next few years. We have to maintain the right climate in order to attract the kind of investment we want. For this reason, we do not wish to take any action that will affect the investment climate of Singapore. However, the Government is not unaware of the abuses by employers by taking advantage of these provisions to carry out certain measures which are detrimental to the workers.

I would suggest that if the Member for Toa Payoh does come across any definite case of retrenchment on unjustified grounds, he should bring them to the attention of my Ministry. We will then try to take appropriate action to alleviate the sufferings of the workers.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Minister concerned for his very clear and detailed explanation. I believe that the Ministry concerned is now seriously taking appropriate and effective measures to prevent industrial accidents. It is also my hope that in the new financial year we will see a marked reduction in industrial accidents. With these remarks, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Low Yong Nguan-

(2)That the sum to be allocated for Head 0601 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1101.

Mr Low Yong Nguan (Crawford): I am not moving, Sir.

Mr Hwang Soo Jin: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 0601 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1104.

Sir, this is an item in respect of Inspectors of Factories, On the subject of industrial safety, the Minister has just assured the House that there will be no letting up in efforts to minimise the rate of industrial accidents and to this end, additional posts of Inspectors of Factories will be created. But I am rather surprised to see that under this subhead the number of posts will be increased slightly, that is, from six to eight. I doubt whether these two additional Inspectors are going to do much good in view of the fact that, as the Minister has just mentioned, there will be a series of new rules and regulations coming out in the ensuing year.

Sir, apart from the number of Inspectors to enforce the rules and regulations, there is, to my mind, the more important problem of whether these Inspectors are adequately trained. What sort of training do we give them? There is no provision to send them abroad for training. As I see it, if our Inspectors of Factories are to be effective, they should assume not only the functions of law enforcers but they should also be able to go further and advise the factories on the types of safety measures to be taken. The big factories will have their own officials to look into the problem of safety measures. But in the case of the small factories, however, the Ministry should provide every assistance in this respect whenever such advice is required. In view of the increasing complexity in our manufacturing processes, I strongly urge the Minister to look into this question of training for our Inspectors.

There is another aspect of industrial safety. I have heard that some of the industrial safety equipment available in the market do not really come up to the required standard, for example, safety belts and safety helmets. Some of them are just put on for ornamental reasons to satisfy the requirements of the Inspectors. When you put these belts or helmets to the real test, you will find that they are really not suitable or ineffective. Here again, I urge the Minister to direct his Ministry to look into the suitability of the safety equipment. There must be quality control, so to speak, and I am sure the Member for Katong will be most interested.

The Minister of State for Labour (Mr Sia Kah Hui): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to point out that the Factories Act is jointly administered by the Factory Inspectorate and the Industrial Health Unit of the Ministry of Labour. While it is true that the number of Inspectors of Factories has only increased from six to eight, an additional post of Inspector of Factories has been created for the Industrial Health Unit. In addition to these posts, a Civil engineer from the P.W.D, will be seconded to the Factory Inspectorate, through special arrangements; making the total increase to four Inspectors of Factories. Besides, the staff establishment of the Industrial Health Unit is to be increased by one Health Officer, one Senior Public Health Inspector, one Sister and one Executive Officer. With the abovementioned increases in the staff establishment, the Factory Inspectorate and the Industrial Health Unit will be able to take on the additional workload that will result from the introduction of the Factories Bill. Notwithstanding this, the Ministry will also review from time to time the staffing position of these two departments and to rectify any inadequacies.

May I stress that however stringently we may enforce the proposed Factories Act, by increasing the staff of the Factory Inspectorate and the Industrial Health Unit, the problem of industrial safety and health can never be solved by law enforcement alone, as the Minister has mentioned a few minutes ago. In the final analysis, industrial safety requires the concerted effort of everybody concerned - workers, trade unions, employers, and the Government.

As regards the training of new Inspectors, at the moment we do not have plans to send them abroad. They are being trained by the Senior Inspectors within the Ministry. With regard to advisers, we are looking around to see whether there are suitably qualified and competent people to assist us in the training of these officers.

Regarding safety equipment, which the Member has alleged that they are just used for show, may I say that we have the Singapore Institute of Standards and Industrial Research and that perhaps some of the safety equipment should bear the stamp of that Institute. Anyway, I thank the Member for bringing this matter to my attention. We will certainly look into it to see that the safety equipment do conform to the necessary standards set by the Institute.

Mr Hwang Soo Jin: Sir, in view of the not unsatisfactory answer, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.45 p.m.

The following amendment stood in the name of Mr N. Govindasamy -

(4) That the sum to be allocated for Head 0601 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1181.

The Chairman: Mr N. Govindasamy, amendment (4).

Mr N. Govindasamy: I am not moving, Sir.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0601 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1351*.(* The same amendment also stood in the names of Tuan Haji Mohd. Ariff Bin Suradi,Messrs Hwang Soo Jin, Ng Kah Ting and P. Govindaswamy.)

Sir, it is undeniable that over the past two years the policy of the Government on work permits has been very liberal. This is to enable more foreign workers to enter Singapore to seek employment in order to meet the labour needs of a highly industrialised society. But in certain circumstances there is room for improvement. For example, there are foreign workers who have worked in Singapore for many, many years, and have even married Singapore citizens and living with their families in Singapore. But these foreign workers have not been able to get work permits when they apply. This is a great blow to their livelihood. It is my hope that the Minister will consider their applications for work permits, in view of the fact that they are living in Singapore with children and wives who are Singapore citizens.

Sir, we should understand that the present labour shortage in Singapore is not only felt in the industrial sector but also in the commercial sector, e.g, in the retail shops. We are still short of shop assistants, and even barbers and domestic servants. There is a shortage of similar categories of workers as well. Therefore, the civil servants in charge of the Work Permits Office should, when considering applications, understand the actual position and appreciate the needs of the various commercial houses so as to enable them to get the necessary workers.

There are other questions which I wish to raise with the Minister. Firstly, how many work permits have been issued to-date? Can the Minister tell this House how many work permits have been issued for the different categories of workers, for example, skilled and unskilled workers?

Mr Sia Kah Hui: Sir, I think it is the policy to sympathetically consider applications for work permits by non-citizens who are married to citizens and having children born in Singapore. This policy also applies to foreign workers who have families in Singapore, as long as the application does not jeopardise the interest of our own citizens.

Regarding the figures, I can only give the Member the figure as at 29th February, 1972. There were 69,790 work permit holders in Singapore. I am afraid I cannot give him the breakdown of that figure.

Tuan Haji Mohd. Ariff Bin Suradi: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, just now during Question Time the Minister for Home Affairs has stated in this House that the Government will not alter its decision made in 1968 with regard to the granting of citizenship to those people who were born in Singapore but without birth certificates. These people are holders of blue identity cards and it is clearly stated in their identity cards that their place of birth is Singapore. The only difficulty is that they cannot produce evidence of birth or citizenship certificate, but their country of The same amendment also stood in the Kah Ting, birth is clearly stated as Singapore. With this, Sir, it means that the Commissioner of National Registration accepts the fact that these people were born in Singapore. The only difficulty is that they cannot produce evidence of birth.

These people were raised in Singapore, they went to school in Singapore and they have the required residential qualifications. They have undergone the way of life in Singapore and their situation is similar to those who hold pink identity cards. But I regret that when these people apply for jobs, whether in Government departments or in private firms, their applications are rejected on the basis that they are not Singapore citizens. The departments and firms which are prepared to employ them often ask for work permits, and there are times when their applications for work permits are rejected by the authorities on the ground that the work can be done by holders of Singapore pink identity cards.

Sir, I think the time has come for the Ministry of Labour to consider exempting these people from work permit requirements, so that they can be given equal treatment with holders of pink identity cards with regard to securing employment so that the economy of the Republic can be further boosted and, at the same time alleviate the burden of some of our citizens. The Minister for Labour just now stated that some of the Statutory Boards are faced with the problem of trying to recruit additional labour, and therefore their workers are asked to work overtime, it blue identity card holders, who claim to be born in Singapore, are exempted from work permit requirements, then employers and statutory boards will not have any difficulty in encountering the shortage of workers.

Mr Sia Kah Hui: Sir, as admitted by the Member, these blue identity card holders, who claim their place of birth as Singapore, are not citizens. As far as we are concerned, they are not citizens, and that is a fact. So they come under the category of non-citizens, and they must apply for work permits if they are looking for jobs. But it is also a fact that permanent residents with blue identity cards have no difficulty whatsoever in obtaining work permits, as it has been the policy all along to issue them with work permits. If there is any company which says that they cannot employ this category of residents because they cannot get work permits, then I will be glad to receive details of the particular incident from the Member.

Mr Cheong Yuen Chee: Sir, may I ask the Minister of State one question with regard to the issue of work permits? Lately, there have been one or two instances in which a minor, who has been issued with a Singapore citizenship certificate, had his certificate withdrawn for the reason that he had not taken the oath of allegiance. He has been employed for a number of years but was instantly dismissed because he had to exchange his pink identity card for a blue one. In cases of this nature, will the Minister of State consider allowing an employer to retain the services of such an employee until the application for a work permit is formalised?

Mr Sia Kah Hui: Sir, in this particular case, the employee has to speak to the employer that he should have no difficulty in getting a work permit. I do not think we can tell the employer to keep him.

Mr Cheong Yuen Chee: Sir, in this particular instance, the employer is prepared to retain the services of his employee because he is a useful worker. But then, under the present regulations, he cannot continue employing him until he gets a work permit. If the work permit takes, say, a month to be approved, then he stays out of employment ,for, a month, and this affects his continuity of service with the employer.

Mr Sia Kah Hui: Sir, a temporary work permit can always be given.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Sir, as the Minister of State has given me a satisfactory answer, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Ng Kah Ting -

(6) That the sum to be allocated for Head 060! be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2004.

The Chairman: Mr Ng is not here. Amendment (7), Mr Teong.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0601 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2008.

Sir, I would like to seek information on how this provision is to be used. Although this is a small sum of $170, it is part of the money from the taxpayer. I would also like to ask the Minister to tell this House what kind of equipment is to he purchased, and whether it is necessary.

Mr Sia Kah Hui: Sir, this sum of $170 is required to purchase boiler suits to be worn by Inspectors of Factories in the course of their inspection of pressure vessels, and also to purchase and process 35 mm films taken of scenes of industrial accidents, and occurrences of dangerous machine installations. The pictures are required as exhibits for court cases and investigation reports.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Sir, I thank the Minister of State for his explanation, and I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.00 p.m.

Mr Hwang Soo Jin: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0601 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2016.

Sir, this item relates to rehabilitation and retraining of disabled persons. I believe that at present there is a scheme administered by the Ministry of Labour for the rehabilitation of disabled persons. The scheme was first introduced in 1953 and apparently it is the same scheme which we still have today, though so much has changed over the years. Judging by the latest report from the Ministry of Labour, very few disabled persons seem to have taken advantage of the facilities available. This does seem to suggest that the facilities or services available might not be really suitable for present day needs, or that they are not really good enough. I would like to take the opportunity of urging the Minister to give particular attention to this area, which very much relates to the rate of industrial accidents. Reading the Ministry's report for the year 1970, if I remember correctly, only about 31 persons took advantage of the training. If you compare this number of 31 disabled persons with the number of disabled persons in another part of the report, it does seem that a very small percentage of persons sustaining permanent disablement has taken advantage of the training programme.

Mr Sia Kah Hui: Sir, first of all, let me give a picture of what is happening and what has been done in this particular section.

The Scheme for the Rehabilitation and Retraining of Disabled Persons renders assistance to disabled persons suffering from any form of disability caused by accidents or disease. Such assistance is aimed at helping them to regain economic independence by undergoing courses of training in trade which will enable them to be gainfully employed on completion of their training. Training is normally fixed for a period of six months in the first instance, with possible extension of one to three months, and in exceptional cases for longer periods.

During the year 1971, 30 disabled persons were placed for training under the scheme in seven different trades. Of these, eight completed their training and found employment. Eight others discontinued their training due to loss of interest. The remaining 14 will continue with their training in 1972. Under the scheme, a trainee obtains a subsistence allowance and a transport allowance. The cost of training for the year amounted to $7,222.13.

May I assure the Member for Jalan Kayu that the Ministry of Labour will be prepared to expand the scheme for the rehabilitation and retraining of disabled persons if there is a demand for such training. While training is one aspect of the problem, the more important aspect is the employment opportunities available for such trained persons. It is hoped that employers will overcome certain prejudices and readily offer jobs to disabled persons who have been retrained.

Mr Cheong Yuen Chee: Sir, may I put forward a suggestion to the Minister of State for Labour with regard to the employment of disabled persons? As you are aware, in Singapore there are a lot of multi-storey buildings coming up, particularly the shopping complexes, where lifts are installed. I wonder whether the Ministry can discourage employers from employing able-bodied men as lift attendants, and so give the opportunity to these disabled people. In fact, we notice that even in Government buildings the lift attendants are able-bodied men.

Mr Sia Kah Hui: Yes, Sir, wherever possible, these disabled persons, who are capable of working as lift attendants, are given priority of employment. But there are certain cases where employers do not want to use them for various reasons and we cannot force them to accept these people. However, we will certainly give them priority if we have the power to do so.

Mr Hwang Soo Jin: Sir, I am just wondering why such a small number of persons make use of the facilities there. Could it be that there is not enough publicity? A lot of people are not aware that there is such a scheme in existence. Has the Ministry made an effort to try and find out the reasons? Reading through the report, I cannot help feeling that even the Ministry itself is doubtful as to why only eight out of 30 finished the training course. Is there any follow-up survey to find out why only eight stayed on to complete their training?

Mr Sia Kah Hui: As I said earlier, Sir, some of them lose interest very quickly. The Member must not be taken in by the figures as such, because not every disabled person can be retrained. It may appear on paper that there is a big proportion of disabled people not making use of this scheme, but I am sure that quite a number of them are not in a position to accept this kind of retraining. However, we will see that our officials do make this training scheme known to those who are suitable for training, and to give them every encouragement wherever possible.

Mr Hwang Soo Jin: I thank the Minister of State for his reply, and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

In the absence of Mr Ng Kah Ting, the following amendments, standing in his name, were not proceeded with -

(9) That the sum to be allocated for Head 0601 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 3101.

(10) That the total sum to be allocated for Head 0601 be reduced by $100.

The sum of $1,904,800 for Head 0601 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 0602 -

The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Ng Kah Ting -

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0602 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1007.

The Chairman: The amendment has been withdrawn.

The sum of $219,330 for Head 0602 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Pursuant to a resolution of the House, Mr Speaker thereupon left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir. 1 beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made progress on the Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 1972, to 31st March, 1973, and ask leave to sit again on Monday, 20th March, 1972.

Mr Speaker: So be it.