NATIONAL MARITIME BOARD BILL

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for Communications (Mr Yong Nyuk Lin): Mr Speaker. Sir,I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

First of all, may I give a brief background to this Bill? There are at present five statutory authorities dealing with matters relating to seafarers and seamen: -

(1) Seamen's Registry Board

(2) Seafarers' Welfare Board

(3) Singapore Mariners' Club

(4) Singapore Sailors' Institute

(5) Seamen's Lodging-Houses Licensing Authority.

The Seamen's Registry Board is responsible for the registration, supply and discipline of seamen, while the Seafarers' Welfare Board looks after the welfare of retired, sick and disabled seamen and their dependents and is also responsible for the training of seamen. The Singapore Mariners' Club operates toe seamen's hostel at South Quay, while the Singapore Sailors' Institute until recently operated Connell House. Connell House reverted to Government in August last year, and its clientele are now using the faculties provided by the renovated Singapore Mariners' Club, inc Seamen's Lodging-Houses Licensing Authority is responsible for issuing licences to seamen's lodging houses, but has been practically a moribund body for some time.

The above five authorities have historical origins. Circumstances have changed considerably over the last decade and it would be more logical to amalgamate the five bodies into one authority to be known as the National Maritime Board. This move will eliminate over-lapping functions and will result in more efficient organisation and administration of seafarers matters, as well as better co-ordination of the various functions presently performed the five different bodies.

Sir, I will now summarise briefly the main provisions of this Bill. The Board will consist of nine members with representatives from Government. ship-owners and seamen. Such a compact Board will be able to perform its functions more effectively than a large unwieldy board.

The objects of the Board are to develop and regulate maritime employment and to administer welfare and training schemes. The Board will also advise the Minister on matters relating to seafaring and such other related matters which the Minister may refer to the Board for advice.

For the proper administration of funds, there is established a National Maritime Fund into which all moneys of the Board shall be paid. The moneys in the existing Singapore Mercantile Marine Fund shall be transferred to The National Maritime Fund. The Board may, with the approval of the Minister, Invest any surplus funds in such stocks and securities and other investments as may be approved by him.

Clause 19 is a re-enactment of the substance of the Seamen's Registry Board Act which requires shipowners to engage seamen through the Seamen's Registry Board system. Clause 20 provides for penalties both for the employer and seamen in the event of breach of the law.

The Board is empowered, with the approval of the Minister, to make regulations. These powers include the power to prescribe the procedures by which the seamen may be selected for employment. At present, these procedures are spelt out in the Seamen's Registry Board Act itself, but when the National Maritime Board Bill comes into force it is proposed that such procedures will be re-enacted by way of regulations.

When the National Maritime Board Act comes into operation, the Seamen's Registry Board, Seafarers' Welfare Board, Singapore Mariners' Club, Connell House Committee and the Seamen's Lodging-Houses Licensing Authority shall cease to exist. However, seamen who are already registered under the Seamen's Registry Board Act shall be deemed to be registered under the National Maritime Board Act. The existing staff of all these authorities shall be deemed to be transferred to the service of the National Maritime Board on terms not less favourable than those they enjoyed immediately prior to their transfer.

I would like to inform Members that organisations representing shipowners, namely, the Singapore Shipping Association and the Singapore Shipowners Association, maritime employers like the Singapore Maritime Employers Federation as well as the National Trades Union Congress, have been consulted in tile drafting of this Bill and many of their comments have been incorporated in this Bill. I take the opportunity to thank these organisations concerned for their valuable comments and advice in this regard.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the shipping scene in Singapore today is vastly different from what it was ten years ago. Not only is our port the fourth busiest in the world, but today we have our own national shipping line, the Neptune Orient Line. There are at present some 635 ships totalling 893,779 gross tons registered under our Singapore flag. We not only repair ships but we can also build and sail them as well. We have over 8,000 seamen on the register and close to 1,000 Singapore citizens serving as ship officers and engineers. All this progress in the shipping field has been achieved over the last ten years, and we are confident of yet greater progress in the years ahead.

With this progress there has arisen a need for the formation of a single body to meet the requirements of the members of the mercantile marine in a more efficient manner. Although this Bill seeks essentially to amalgamate the five marine statutory authorities into one National Maritime Board, it is nevertheless a step forward. One of the benefits following centralisation would he that the new Board would be more capable of assessing the changing needs of seafarers in the rapidly changing technology of the shipping industry in Singapore and, where necessary, the Board could recommend to Government areas for improvement and reform, once it has settled down to its duties. I am confident that the National Maritime Board, when formed, would pursue vigorously its aims and objectives and thereby contribute to the further development of Singapore as a great shipping centre of the world.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

5.52 p.m.

Mr N. Govindasamy (Telok Blangah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the National Maritime Board Bill, but subject to such qualifications as I shall later on detail in my speech. The topic of maritime employment is a matter of great interest to the NTUC which have sponsored the formation of the Singapore Organisation of Seamen, a registered trade union to organise and represent seamen in relation to their respective employers.

The NTUC, therefore, have reasons t' be grateful for the opportunity to give their comments while the Ministry of Communications were in the process of drafting the Bill. Some of the recommendations contained in NTUC's memorandum to the Ministry, I am glad to say, have been incorporated into the Bill before the House. The accepted recommendations include those dealing with the definitions of "seafarer" and "employer", and with the imposition of a penalty against employers engaging seamen in contravention of the proposed Act. Other accepted recommendations of NTUC dealt with minor matters.

Despite the acceptance of some of their recommendations, the NTUC have reservations about the Bill as it now stands. While it is natural that NTUC should feel disappointed that not all their recommendations have been accepted, the reservations of NTUC are not founded on chagrin but concern for the future of maritime employment in our Republic.

In the second sentence of the Explanatory Statement to this Bill, it is averred that "the general intention of the Bill is the welfare of members of the mercantile marine and the development of the mercantile marine." In so far as the Bill seeks to promote the welfare of seafarers, it does seem that the Bill is an answer to the concern of the NTUC. But therein lies the snag.

The Bill in seeking to repeal the Seamen's Registry Board Act, the Seafarers' Welfare Board Act, the Singapore Mariners' Club Act and the Singapore Sailors' Institute Incorporation Ordinance and to re-enact the provisions of these four statutes is, in effect, a consolidating Bill without any new provision of any great significance. Other than the Seamen's Registry Board Act, the other three statutes are not concerned with the matter of maritime employment. And under the Seamen's Registry Board Act, read together with the Seamen's Registry Board Rules, the seamen find themselves in a position of "Heads, you win: tails, I lose" vis-a-vis their employers, for that accurately describes the actual working of the Act.

Under the law at present, and it will continue to be so under the Bill, a seaman who commits any misconduct would, in the absence of mitigating circumstance, be invariably meted out with some form of disciplinary action by the existing Seamen's Registry Board or the proposed Maritime Board. The disciplinary action would usually be in the form of suspension from registration, or the loss of priority in registration. As registration is a condition precedent for the employment of any seamen of the registrable categories, it can be easily imagined that such disciplinary action has a sobering effect on, besides the financial shock to, the erring sailors. Such disciplinary action would have been bearable to the seamen if they can be sure that the employers who literally short-change their seamen would be brought to account in a similar fashion by the Board. Unfortunately, a seaman who has been granted less favourable terms than those originally promised to him cannot expect any remedy from the Board, even though the representatives of his employer may be sitting on the Board itself, for the simple reason that the Board has no power to discipline the employer. What utterly demoralises the seamen is that the same employers' representatives, when disciplinary action against seamen is called for, would have no scruples about demanding the imposition of the heaviest penalty on the seamen.

Sir, for that reason, the NTUC happily places on record the acceptance of their recommendations by the Ministry to assure seamen the fruits of their labour by including a definition of "employer", which is wide enough to cover the local agent of a foreign employer, and enabling the Board to regulate the manner of payment of salaries and the discharge of contracts of service. The Ministry is indeed to be congratulated for their inclusion of such provisions which go towards increasing the protection of seamen.

But to that extent the aim of the Ministry and the aim of the NTUC seem to coincide. Beyond that, their aims seem to be irreconcilably divergent. The cause for such divergence seems to lie in the fact that the Ministry approved the Bill as a consolidation of existing provisions with the incorporation of new provisions limited to the barest minimum possible. The NTUC views the Bill as an opportunity to eliminate malpractices by the efficient and effective regulating of maritime employment in Singapore. Thus, from the viewpoint, the Bill must necessarily incorporate new provisions as the existing provisions of the four statutes to be repealed by and re-enacted in the Bill have not been adequate to deal with such malpractices.

In order that Members of this House can have a proper perspective of such malpractices in relation to maritime employment, it is necessary for me to dwell at length on such malpractices. More important than the other major question of assuring seamen the fruits of their labour, for which the Bill now contains provisions, is the question of assuring seamen a fair and equal opportunity of employment. Thus, in theory, the system of registration of certain categories of seamen for the purpose of maritime employment ensures that seamen of the registrable categories have equal opportunities for employment by requiring them to take their turn in the queue for employment. In practice, however, Sir, the provision as reproduced in clause 6 (h) of the Bill allowing the Board to supervise the selection of seamen and to provide both employers and seamen reasonable freedom of choice in relation to employment, is very ineffective. A seaman who refuses three consecutive offers of employment goes down to the bottom of the queue. On the other hand, an employer who refuses to select any seamen from these batches of seamen offered by the Board is not similarly penalised.

Sir, I am given to understand by the officials of the Singapore Organisation of Seamen that the greatest number of malpractices arises out of such selection of seamen. It must be clearly emphasised that the rates of pay and other terms of service vary greatly from shipping to shipping companies. Naturally, there is a clamour among seamen to work on, for instance, a Norwegian vessel where they can earn double or treble the sum they may obtain on, for instance, a Greek vessel for the same given period of time. A Greek vessel, it may be also added, is the last recourse of desperate seamen, for invariably a Greek vessel is literally a floating jungle.

To return to the point, seamen are prepared to offer up to one month's wages, which can be substantial on a Norwegian vessel, to the recruiting agents to ensure that they are taken on by such a well-paying shipping company. That is where the abuse of the selection machinery of the Registry Board comes in. If the seamen who have offered bribes are not in the first or second batch to be called up by the Board for selection, the recruiting agents who, I regret to say, are also Singapore citizens, would reject all the seamen in the first two batches on one pretext or another. Even if the seamen who have offered inducement are not sufficiently well up the queue to be included in the third and final batch of seamen to be called up by the Board for any particular ship, the recruiting agents will make a passionate plea for the employment of those particular seamen, or else they will wait until almost departure time outside the office hours of the Board to take on such seamen.

Now, Sir, the question of selection is a matter of life and death for the seamen because every additional day of waiting for selection means another day without pay for themselves and their families. The point is how does the Government intend to resolve the problem of ensuring that the selection machinery offers every seamen an equal opportunity for employment? The Police and the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau have their hands full with their existing responsibilities as it is without having to look into the malpractices in maritime employment. A policy of "a rate for the port" - that is, same pay and other conditions of service for all seamen who sign on at Singapore irrespective of whichever ship they are attached to - is not acceptable to the Ministry as not being feasible at present. I must add that the NTUC agrees with the view of the Ministry on this matter.

That leaves us with the question of a manning scale as a means of eradicating the abuse of the selection machinery. By manning scale, I mean some form of predetermined percentage of ratings, or registered seamen, that must make up any ship's complement. I am given to understand by the Singapore Organisation of Seamen that representation has been made on this matter to the Ministry. In their representation, the Singapore Organisation of Seamen have also drawn the attention of the Ministry to the fact that some ship's crew complements have been made up of more than 50 per cent non-ratings or non-registered seamen. Such a situation has come about through the recruiting agents' rejection of all the seamen offered by the Board under the normal selection process and hiring by the back-door, as it is, of persons who are not trained as seamen or who are deregistered or suspended ratings but who are prepared to offer some inducement to the recruiting agents. This constitutes the other principal abuse of the selection machinery of the Board, and it has more sinister implications.

For one thing, untrained or inexperienced persons who are taken on ships normally as laundrymen, hatch-men, or any other of the non-registrable categories, are not able to cope with the natural hazards or exigencies that can be expected to occur to a ship at sea. The risk to the fare-paying passengers can well be imagined since the non-registered seamen may not be able to take care of themselves in a crisis at sea, not to say spare a thought for the passengers. It is a matter of great importance that there should be some form of machinery for manning scale to ensure that every ship carries a minimum number of trained seamen.

For another thing, as long as ship-owners and ship-captains can engage non-registered seamen with impunity, the selection machinery of the Board will never achieve the purpose for which it is intended, and that is, besides being a machinery, to ensure equal opportunity of employment with a disciplinary device to ensure that seamen taken on at Singapore are of the highest standards and so enhance the reputation of Singapore by their work and conduct. It is obvious that seamen who are unruly and anti-social, to begin with, so as to merit the disciplinary sanction of the Board, are unlikely to submit themselves meekly to any suspension imposed by the Board on them. It is such registered seamen who offer themselves for employment by the back-door, by-passing entirely the selection machinery of the Board. The significance of the absence of any statutory provision governing manning scale in relation to the Board's objective of seeking to regulate maritime employment is that it makes for unnecessary difficulty in the attainment of the Board's objective.

Having given Members of the House a picture of the background of this Bill, I now put forward the following proposals for the consideration of the Minister and the House.

The Bill is clearly intended as an enabling instrument in that specific powers are exercisable by the Board by way of the various regulations to be made under the proposed Act with the approval of the Minister. I see no harm in enhancing the enabling provision of the Bill so as to allow the Board to have more scope for action and more teeth for effectiveness when the need arises. There is hardly any danger of the Board running amok with its powers, as the final say always lies with the Minister. Sir, thus I suggest the inclusion of:-

(a) a provision for manning scale, on which I have already spoken, and

(b) a provision under clause 21 of the Bill conferring on the Board "to prescribe for the registration of all persons or employees who desire to select or engage seamen registered under the provisions of this Act".

Existing regulations provide for the cancellation of registration or suspension of seamen against whom complaints have been lodged by their respective employers. But there is no reciprocal provision for black-listing or penalising of employers who violate the terms of contract of employment of, or ill-treat, the seamen. Under the proposed provisions of clause 21 as it is, the amendment of the various regulations as indicated by this Bill would serve no useful purpose, as far as seamen are concerned. It should be also noted that under clause 20 of the Bill, no distinction is made between an employer or a seaman in respect of the penalty to be incurred for violation of the proposed Act.

The various provisions in the Merchant Shipping Act (Cap. 172) dealing with employment of seamen should be deleted from the Act and incorporated into the proposed National Maritime Board Act or a separate enactment by themselves. The Director of Marine seems most unhappy and reluctant to exercise the various powers conferred on him under the Merchant Shipping Act regarding employment of seamen. For instance, the provision of section 39 of the Merchant Shipping Act stipulates that the engagement of seamen for work in any ship, whose flag is not represented by a consular official in the Republic, shall be conducted in the Mercantile Marine Employment office set up for that purpose. The Director of Marine has indicated to the Singapore Organisation of Seamen that he intends to propose amendments to the Merchant Shipping Act to relieve himself of such onerous responsibility as that entailed by the supervision of the Mercantile Marine Employment office.

It is only fair to inform the House that the NTUC has never raised this point with the Ministry when representations were being made on the Bill. The fact is that, with discussions being confined to the Bill, it seems rather awkward to make references to another Act, which at that time the NTUC had the impression that it might come up for drastic amendment as well. Now it is clear that the Merchant Shipping Act would not be amended in relation to maritime employment. I am also given to understand that the Singapore Organisation of Seamen have made representation to the Ministry on the inadvisability of the Director of Marine being continued to be saddled with the responsibility of supervising maritime employment. Now that the National Maritime Board is to be set up, the opportunity should he taken to streamline the administration of maritime employment.

6.19 p.m.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Mr Speaker, Sir, earlier on in my speech, I did mention that some organisations, including the National Trades Union Congress, were consulted in the drafting of this Bill and, I stress the word, many of their comments have been incorporated in this Bill. I was not in the happy position to say that all their recommendations have been incorporated. Probably the long speech by the Member for Telok Blangah is in respect of those suggestions which have not been accepted. He has now narrated them to this House. If it is any consolation to the Member for a very fluent speech on behalf of the NTUC, may I say that quite a number of the recommendations from ship-owners in the Singapore Employers' Federation were also not accepted. Of course, in the case of the workers, there is a spokesman in this House, but in the case of the shipowners there does not seem to be any spokesman to plead their case. I want to say that we do not claim that the National Maritime Board Bill is perfect. I have stated that its main purpose is really to consolidate the five different statutory bodies which have been looking after the affairs of mercantile marine, it is now felt that there should be one central body.

May I say that it has taken as long as three years for this central body to take place. I have mentioned the desirability of having a central National Maritime Board as far back as 1968 when I assumed office. I visited the various bodies and it appeared to me that they were very disorganised and why should there be five different bodies to look after marine affairs. I, therefore, suggested that we should create just one central body. It has taken three long years to do this. This is only, as I have said, a step in the right direction. It is hoped that the reservations of the NTUC will be resolved in due course of time. If we refer to the Bill with regard to the constitution of the proposed National Maritime Board, we will see that there will be opportunities for the NTUC to give full weight to their reservations and fears, if any. There will be a membership of nine members in the Board. The Chairman, who will be appointed by the Minister will, I hope, be a man of impartial standing who will be able to give us the benefit of his experience and advice. Then there will be the Director of Marine and the Director of Social Welfare. There will be two persons representing shipowners and two persons representing seamen. Although there is no indication here that the NTUC will be consulted, I can give my assurance here in this House that it will be consulted before the two representatives from the seamen are appointed to the Board. There is no question at all that the NTUC will not have a say in the conduct of the affairs of the Board. There will also be two public servants on the Board. Therefore,. we have on the Board two representatives from the shipowners, two representatives from the workers and the four officials who when appointed will act as impartial arbitrators to the conflicting requirements of the employers and the workers. Above all, there will be an impartial chairman. As I have said, there is no question at all that the workers' views will not be given due consideration, and when the Board does come to any conclusion, fairness will not only be apparent to the workers but also to the employers. We cannot have everything to the advantage of the workers, otherwise the employers will just fold up and then there will be no ships to employ the workers.

The Member has mentioned the situation in which the seamen are placed, "Heads, you win; tails, I lose." I wish to assure him that this will not happen as long as it is a fair proposition and if the Board makes suitable recommendations. As the Minister for Communications, I will be only too happy to accept the Board's recommendations. As for the various malpractices, I would appreciate it if the representatives of workers on the Board could give the Board sufficient evidence and specific information for it to act on. There may be backdoor selections which would be contrary to the law, in which case I am sure that with adequate evidence to follow up our very efficient Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau - I do know that they have a lot of work to do, but I still think it is necessary for sufficient evidence to be made available to the C.P.I.B, for them to follow up - will take the necessary action to reduce, if not eliminate, all these malpractices.

The Member for Telok Blangah has conceded that his proposed legislation is new and which would require an amendment to the Merchant Shipping Act. It is the manning scales proposed by the Singapore Organisation of Seamen. May I suggest that this matter be referred to the National Maritime Board when it is set up, and probably this matter can be the very first item on its agenda. It can all be thrashed out by the Board then. And if it is the majority view of the Board -. I would not use the word "unanimous" -that these suggestions should be accepted, I shall be very happy to come back to this House to make various amendments to this Act so that it can be a much better piece of legislation to improve the working conditions of our seamen and for the general prosperity of the shipping community. I hope the Member is satisfied with my answer to his long and able speech which, I am sure, will be given serious consideration by the new National Maritime Board when it is formed.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Mr Yong Nyuk Lin]

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.