TRADE UNIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

6.50 p.m.

The Minister for Labour (Mr Ong Pang Boon): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This Bill seeks in the main to take into account recent developments in the labour field as well as to consolidate the existing provisions governing industrial actions so as to further strengthen industrial harmony and trade union democracy.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, clause 2 of the Bill seeks to abolish the fee of $1 presently prescribed by subsection (2) of section 9 of the principal Act for processing an application to register a trade union and to provide that any such application shall be accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed by the Minister. The $1 fee was fixed in 1941. It has become unrealistic in the context of present circumstances. The new fee will be spelt out in the Trade Unions Regulations.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the industrial relations scene in the Republic over the past few years has been stable and harmonious despite retrenchment and wage restraints consequent upon world-wide recession and inflation, This happy situation could be attributed to the close tripartite cooperation of the workers, the managements and the Government.

A strong, patriotic, responsible and democratic trade union movement was an important asset. Union leaders as a whole were able to maintain a rational approach to the adverse effect of economic recession. Notwithstanding the overall satisfactory situation, a weakness in the industrial relations practice deserves our attention. I refer to the frequency of illegal industrial actions. In 1975, six out of the total 26 work stoppages were illegal. Last year, two strikes, six minor work stoppages and a go-slow action were staged without conducting a secret ballot to obtain the majority consent of the union members affected as required by law. In many cases, the union headquarters or branch officials claimed ignorance of any prior knowledge and invariably attributed these to spontaneous actions on the part of the rank and file members. Ironically, these protestations are tantamount to an admission that the industrial actions taken were not only contrary to the law, but also in contravention of union rules.

An illustration is the recent illegal industrial action in Metal Box Singapore Limited. The Company's employees are organised in a house union known as the Singapore Metal Box Workers' Union. On 1 5th February, 19 union members in the factory applied for a day's leave on 16th February, the day before Chinese New Year eve. The applications were turned down by the Personnel Office. On 16th February, these workers reported for work as usual at 2.30 p.m. for their shift duties which were supposed to end at 11 p.m, that night. But at around 6.30 p.m, all of them decided to walk out of the factory, although their request for early release were earlier turned down by their supervisor. The walk-out rendered two production lines idle. Union officers could have stopped the illegal walk-out. They failed to do so and disclaimed responsibility.

In another incident, some 60 workers stopped work for 1 1/2 hours on 23rd February over an issue created by the Union. The circumstances leading to this illegal work stoppage are briefly as follows. On 14th February at around 4 p.m. the Union's secretary requested the management to advance the normal Wednesday pay day, which fell on 16th February, to 15th February. The request was turned down by the management of Metal Box because the notice was too short. The Union then demanded that the workers should be paid full wages, inclusive of all allowances, due to them in respect of the week ending 20th February, on the following pay day which fell on 23rd February. The Union made this unreasonable demand knowing full well that it would not be possible for management to work out the full salaries of the 600-strong workforce in time, as the factory would be closed for the Chinese New Year holidays from 17th to 21st February. The management suggested two alternatives. The first was to pay the workers their basic wages on 23rd February, and the other allowances on the following Wednesday. The second was to pay full wages to the workers on 24th February and not on 23rd February as demanded by the Union. Both alternatives were not acceptable to the Union. The management then tried but failed to persuade all the three wage clerks who are also members of the Union. to return for work on 21st February over the holiday, so that full wages of their comrades could be worked out in time for payment on 23rd February. The Company finally decided to pay only basic wages on 23rd February and the other allowances on the following Wednesday. On 23rd February, the workers were accordingly paid their basic wages in respect of the preceding week, Some 60 workers then downed tools. The Union again claimed ignorance of any prior knowledge of the illegal industrial action.

A third incident occurred on 4th March when the union members in two production lines staged a go-slow which cut the production of the affected lines for the day by about 30%.

Sir, it is Government's policy to promote the development of a healthy non-communist democratic trade union movement, as an essential element in our economic life. But industrial action in contravention of the constitution and rules of the trade unions will not in any way foster trade union democracy. Wild-cat industrial action would defeat the national purpose of more exports and more investments to generate more wealth. Non-observation of union rules in the conduct of any form of industrial action would erode trade union discipline. Without effective exercise of union discipline it would be idle to talk of increasing productivity and of creating employment through capital investment. It is desirable. therefore, to ensure that any form of industrial action initiated by a branch committee is conducted according to the constitutional provisions of the trade union concerned and with prior sanction of the Union headquarters.

Under the existing subsection (1) of section 28 of the Act any strike or industrial action is illegal if it is taken without obtaining the consent by secret ballot of the majority of the members so affected. Subsection (2) of the same section makes it an offence for a trade union or the members of its executive committee to commence, promote, organise or finance such illegal strike or industrial action.

These provisions are inadequate. The Registrar of Trade Unions has no power to deal with persons who, though fully acquainted with the illegal strike or industrial action, refuse to cooperate in his investigation. The Registrar is powerless to deal with ordinary members or paid employees of the trade union who not only commence, promote or organise but also participate in illegal strikes or industrial actions. He is also unable to take action when union branch committees take illegal strike or industrial action in contravention of their union rules or by-laws. Clause 4 of the Bill therefore seeks to remedy these defects. The Registrar is empowered to require any person who is acquainted with the illegal strike or industrial action to fully assist him in his investigations. Members of unions who are involved in such illegal action are also brought within the ambit of section 28 of the Act. In addition, it makes it an offence for any person, including paid officials and non-union members, to instigate or incite others to take part in illegal strikes or industrial actions.

Under the existing provisions of the Trade Unions Act, a person who is under the age of 21, but above the age of 18, may be a member of a trade union, but he is not allowed to hold office. Representations have been made by the NTUC. SILO and PIEU, that this stipulation has handicapped the efficient running of trade unions in establishments which employ a large percentage of young persons such as the electronics and garment factories. An analysis of union membership reveals that there are at present about 1 5,000 unionised employees who are between the age of 18 and 21. If the present law is rigidly adhered to. the unions may not be able to find sufficient eligible members to stand for elections as office-bearers in certain branches where there is a high concentration of young workers. This would create difficulties in unionisation of establishments which employ a large percentage of young persons. The Government has therefore decided to lower the age qualification from 21 to 18 years for a union member to be eligible for holding office. Clause 5 of the Bill adds a provision to section 29 of the Act vesting the Minister with the authority to allow a union member who is below 21 but above 1 8 years of age to hold office in or to be a trustee of a trade union.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, since the amendments made to the Trade Unions Act in 1967, the democractic trade union movement has gone through a dynamic modernisation process. The number of employees who carry union membership cards has now reached an all-time record high figure of 221,936 as at the end of 1976. Ninety-three per cent of these unionised employees belong to 51 unions affiliated to the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC). Another significant development is that there has been an appreciable improvement in trade union finance following the introduction of the check-off system in May 1970. As 31st December, 1976 implemented by 39 NTUC affiliates whose assets totalled nearly $17 million. A total of seven of these unions have assets of $1 million or more. The assets of the richest of them exceed $4 million.

We are fortunate in the Republic that there has been, by and large, no abuse of union funds in recent years. It is an eloquent testimony to the responsibility of our present trade union leadership. However, we should provide for proper safeguards regarding the use of union funds. At present subsection (1) of section 16 of the Act only empowers the Minister to freeze the bank account of a trade union after it has been served with a notice of deregistration. In practice, notice of deregistration is normally served on unions involved in activities prejudicial to national security and public order. No provision was made to freeze a union's bank account when only the funds of a trade union are under investigation. When millions of dollars are passing through the accounts of trade unions, there is a need for additional preventive measures to protect union funds. The Government would be failing in its duty if adequate measures are not taken to safeguard the interest of the rank and file members in such funds,

Clause 3 of the Bill therefore empowers the Minister to freeze a trade union's bank account, for a period not exceeding three months, if an investigation is made by the Registrar of Trade Unions, the Commissioner of Police, the Commissioner of Inland Revenue or the Director of the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau regarding the improper use or misapplication of the funds of the trade union. In order to ensure that union officials under investigation do not tamper with union funds during the period when the union's bank account is frozen, appropriate amendments will also be made to Regulations 25 of the Trade Unions Regulations to deprive the union officials concerned of the power of using union funds until the investigation is completed.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, since the introduction of the Bill, the Member for Toa Payoh has expressed his concern to me that the freezing of the union banking account may result in hardship for the union concerned by making it impossible for the union to meet its legitimate expenditure of a recurrent nature such as staff salaries, rent. PUB and telephone charges. I am indeed grateful to the Member for drawing my attention to this possible difficulty and accordingly, I shall be moving an amendment to clause 3 to enable such legitimate recurrent expenditure to be expended subject to the approval of the Registrar of Trade Unions.

The Trade Unions Act at present has no provisions to control the investment of union funds. Every registered trade union makes provisions in its rules empowering its executive committee to invest union funds in any manner as it deems fit. Many of the unions invest their surplus funds in the NTUC cooperatives. A few unions have bought substantial amounts of shares through the Stock Exchange. The value of these shares has since declined. With most unions becoming affluent, an increasing number of them may yet invest their surplus funds in stocks and shares. As stocks and shares are not the safest securities for investment, some form of control is necessary to safeguard the use of union funds in this respect. Clause 6 of the Bill therefore seeks to prohibit trade union funds from being invested in securities except those approved by the Minister.

Sir, I beg to move,

Question proposed.

7.07 p.m.

Mr Phey Yew Kok: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill. In doing so. I am confident that I have the support of the trade union movement in Singapore as well as my colleagues in this House. There are, of course, some provisions in the Bill on which trade unionists may want to have clarifications or assurances from the Minister for Labour. Apart from that, the Bill is generally acceptable and does in no way seek to hamper the operation of a responsible trade union movement, as I intend to explain later on.

One particular provision, which I am most pleased to note, is that contained in clause 5 of the Bill pertaining to the amendment of section 29 of the principal Act. This House may recall that in 1974 and 1975 I drew the attention of the Minister for Labour to the desirability of amending the Trade Unions Act to lower the statutory minimum age for union membership and for holding office in trade unions. As I stated at that time, there was a compelling reason for lowering the age requirement for union members and union officers. The compelling reason is that persons are entering into the labour market under the age of 18 years in increasing numbers, It was not unusual in the last few years, and more so today, to find new establishments staffed with a majority of workers under 18 years. Under the prevailing provision, young workers under the age of 18 years are not supposed to be members of a union and young workers between the age of 21 and 18 years are not permitted to hold any office in a union. Such statutory restriction is out of keeping with the prevailing social situation in Singapore and, in that sense, has become outdated. The proposed amendment rectifies the matter by, in a manner of speaking, putting the clock forward.

While there are those who may quibble about the need for young workers between the age of 21 years and 18 years to obtain the approval of the Minister for Labour to hold office in a trade union, I, on behalf of the National Trades Union Congress, welcome the proposed provisions as they stand in clause 5 of the Bill. The lowering of the minimum age for union membership and for holding office in the union is most timely. Otherwise, there would be the paradoxical situation of selected young persons between the age of 21 years and 18 years being considered matured and fit enough to be commissioned officers in the Singapore Armed Forces, while no young persons between the age of 21 years and 18 years can be considered matured and fit enough to be officers of trade unions. The proposed provisions put right the matter by permitting young persons between the age of 21 years and 1 8 years, who have shown themselves to be responsible, to hold office in their respective trade unions. I do not think there should be any confusion between the eligibility of all young persons between the age of 21 years and 18 years to be officers of a trade union, and the actual selection of a smaller number of young persons to be the officers of the respective trade union. With the lowering of the statutory minimum age for holding office in a union, it is now possible for the NTUC and its affiliated trade unions to groom and train at an earlier stage such young persons to become the future leaders of the trade union movement.

As I see it, the leadership of the trade union movement must be judged by its ability to secure and promote the welfare and interest of the rank and file membership, without unduly prejudicing the general welfare and interest of the larger community, in which the members live and work. I am confident that the National Trades Union Congress and my colleagues in this House share my view on the responsible leadership of a constructive trade union movement and welcome the provisions of clause 4 of the Bill pertaining to section 28 of the principal Act. There are, of course, those who, again, will quibble about the supposedly restrictive effect of the proposed provision which, among other things, seek to penalise members of a trade union participating in an illegal strike or industrial action.

As Members of this House may recall, the prevailing provisions of the principal Act, regarding illegal strike or industrial action in contravention of the secret ballot requirement or in contravention of the rules of the respective trade union, have been in force for the past 11 years or so. But the prevailing provisions, while penalising an offending trade union or the officers of such trade union, are silent on the part played by the rank and file members in an illegal strike or industrial action. The result is that it can be a rather intolerable situation for officers being confronted by the members, who are pressing for an illegal strike or industrial action and who are too aware of their being not subject to any sanction of the law in participating in an illegal strike or industrial action under the prevailing legislation. I should think it is a logical matter, if not for anything else, that if a strike or industrial action is deemed to be illegal for any failure to comply with the secret ballot requirements or the rules of the respective trade union, then all persons who participate in any manner or to any extent in such illegal strike or industrial action should be subject to the same sanction, irrespective of whatever office they hold or their status in the trade union concerned.

Sir, in welcoming the proposed provisions under clause 4 of the Bill, I must, however, express my strong misgiving in that the proposed provisions are not as comprehensive as they should be. I am parti cularly concerned that the proposed provisions are directed against members of a trade union participating in an illegal strike or industrial action, but are strangely silent about the application of a sanction of the law on persons, who are not members of any trade union and who participate in an illegal strike or industrial action. It is true in the principal Act, the trade union is defined to include a temporary combination of workers with the object of promoting, organising or financing strikes. But knowing how the officials of the Labour Ministry react to something out of the ordinary, I do not expect there would be any prosecution of un-organised workers participating in an illegal strike or industrial action. An excuse that might be advanced by the Ministry of Labour officials would probably be that, since such groups of workers are not formally organised, it would be difficult for them to comply with the secret ballot requirement. I personally do hope that the scenario I have just sketched would never take place. But the probability of such a situation arising is not all that insignificant. I have in mind two particular situations. One is the minority of non-members in an establishment, the majority of whose employees are represented by a registered trade union, The other is the entire group of workers employed by a contractor or a sub-contractor, as contract workers are notoriously impossible to be organised into a registered trade union. If such workers can commence, promote, organise, participate or otherwise act in furtherance of any illegal strike or industrial action and get away with it, it would be extremely demoralising for other workers who are members of registered trade unions. I hope the Minister for Labour will make the necessary amendments to the proposed provisions to prevent such a situation arising.

Finally, I must express my puzzlement over clause 6 of the Bill relating to section 50 of the principal Act. In addition to the prevailing prohibition on the use of trade union funds for political purposes, the proposed provisions seek to restrict the investment of union funds in securities, The principal Act has been in force for some thirty years and all that time, it has not been considered necessary to introduce any restriction on the investment of union funds in securities. Though the principal Act has been silent on this point, the Registrar of Trade Unions, in the course of exercising his wide administrative function, has more or less guided trade unions in their investment of trade union funds. I am sure the NTUC and all its affiliated trade unions have not, in their investment of their respective funds in securities, given any cause to the Minister to prompt him to introduce the proposed restriction. Apart from that, I also hope that the Minister would not be unduly restrictive in giving his approval to securities in which unions may invest their funds. I have in mind the cooperative enterprises and projects, with which the NTUC and its affiliated trade unions are associated. Such enterprises may not be satisfactory from the point of view of yield from or return on investment but they greatly benefit the members of the trade unions and their families in a way which cannot be evaluated in the statement of accounts or the balance sheet of the trade union concerned.

Mr Cheong Yuen Chee (Toa Payoh): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I wish to comment on the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill. As a trade unionist I must say that the Bill seems at first sight to be more restrictive than beneficial to the trade unions. But if it is accepted that trade unions and their members have their obligations to society, then the proposed amendments have to be viewed in the light of whether they are compatible with the social responsibilities of trade unions.

My comment, however, is directed to the proposed section 1 6(2) of the principal Act, as set out in clause 3 of the Bill. A superficial impression is that section 16(2) is mainly an extension of the existing section 16(1), whereby the Minister for Labour may, if he is satisfied that there is a likelihood of a misuse of union funds, order the banking account of the union concerned to be frozen. But on further scrutiny, the proposed section 1 6(2) is radically different from section 16(1) both in its effect on and in its implication to trade unions.

For one thing, the existing section 16(1) deals with the situation of a union under notice, in accordance with section 1 5(2), of deregistration by the Registrar of Trade Unions. In such a context there is every likelihood for the funds of the trade union concerned to be misused and every justification for the Minister to intervene to prevent the misuse of trade union funds. But in relation to the proposed section 16(2), the situation likely to be encountered is entirely different from that encountered under section 16(1). It is not necessary that a trade union under investigation is likely to be deregistered on completion of the investigation. Moreover, it is by no means certain that the investigation will not vindicate the reputation of the trade union concerned. I am aware that the power to conduct such investigation is confined to the Registrar of Trade Unions, the Commissioner of Police, the Commissioner of Inland Revenue and the Director of the CPIB, and the period for the freezing of the banking account of the union concerned is restricted to a maximum of three months. What I am concerned about is that there is no safeguard in the proposed provision to ensure that an investigation is not commenced unless the relevant public authority has good reasons to believe the investigation is necessary. As it is, any of the stated public authority has the absolute discretion to launch an investigation into the improper use or misapplication of union funds. Thus on the basis of a frivolous. vexatious or malicious complaint, an investigation can be launched under the proposed section 16(2). much to the demoralisation and inconvenience of the trade union concerned.

I will, therefore, be grateful if the Minister can give an assurance that an investigation, as envisaged in the proposed section 16(2), will not be commenced except in accordance with an administrative procedure to be devised by the Ministry, to prevent investigation for frivolous, vexatious or malicious reasons.

Similarly. I have a slight misgiving about the proposed section 9(2) as contained in clause 2 of the Bill. Ostensibly, the proposed provision seeks to abolish the practice of requiring applicants for registration of trade unions to affix a dollar's worth of stamp to their applications and to empower the Minister to fix the fee for registration. In that way, the Ministry of Labour will be credited with the registration fee which, at present, go into the coffers of the Ministry of Finance by way of revenue stamps. But I am more concerned with the fact that, under the proposed amendment, the Minister is given the absolute discretion to fix the amount of registration fee for application for registration of trade unions. I hope the Minister will give an assurance that whatever fees are to be fixed in future will be reasonable in relation to the prevailing rate of one dollar per application and will not be so unreasonably increased in future as to defeat the provision of section 17 of the Employment Act entrenching the right of workers to be members and officers of trade unions.

7.25 p.m.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the hon. Member for Boon Teck has suggested that the proposed amendments to, section 28 should also make it mandatory for non-unionised workers to take a secret ballot before embarking on any industrial action. The primary objective of enacting the present section 28 in 1966 was to prevent union officers from abusing their powers by calling industrial action without the prior consent of the rank and file members. Hence the requirement for a secret ballot to be conducted among the affected members. This will help avoid the bitter experience of other countries where strike actions are often imposed from the top. In this instance the secret ballot serves as a significant aid in fostering trade union democracy. It is not intended to curtail the right of a trade union to take industrial action. The proposed amendments to this section are aimed at furthering the democratic process in the conduct of trade union affairs by making it mandatory for the union members and branch officials to observe the rules and bylaws of their own union when they decide to take industrial action.

In an important social organisation such as a trade union, it is only right that the member's right to vote for industrial action should go with the obligation to be bound by the union's rule. Since these provisions are aimed at fostering at trade union democracy and trade union discipline, they could not be made applicable to non-unionised workers. Until they are in possession of a trade union membership card, the unorganised workers who, by and large, are less well off than the unionised workers will remain, whether as a individual or as a group, outside the industrial relation system as regulated by the Industrial Relations Act. Lacking in organisational strength, they will not be protected by the bargaining power of a trade union. At the same time, they could not be expected to be subject to the exercise of trade union discipline. In this context, it will go against the spirit and intention of the law to extend the secret ballot requirement to the unorganised workers. The concern of the hon. Member over wild-cat industrial action by non-unionised workers is well taken. As I have mentioned earlier, a total of four strikes and 10 minor work stoppages occurred in 1976. Of this number, only two minor work stoppages were staged by non-unionised workers, despite the fact that 69% of the total of 713,200 employees in Singapore were still unorganised last year. This compared with two strikes and six minor work stoppages staged by union members without a secret ballot in contravention of the law as well as their own union rules.

As regards the unorganised contract workers who were singled out for mention by the hon. Member, they seem to have little inclination for industrial action. This is borne out by the fact that during the past five years, out of a total of 36 strikes and 78 minor work stoppages recorded by my Ministry, none involve unorganised contract workers. There is therefore no compelling reason for any legislative action to be taken to deal with wild-cat industrial action by non-unionised workers. However, the hon. Member for Boon Teck can be assured that the Government will watch the situation closely and if the need arises, consideration will be given to amend the Trade Disputes Act whose provisions apply to both unionised and non-unionised workers to ensure that industrial harmony continues to prevail.

The Member also expressed concern that the proposed provisions of section 50 might impede the growth of the NTUC cooperative enterprises. It is not the intention of the proposed amendment to impose any restrictions on sound investments. To do so would run counter to the Government's policy of assisting the democratic trade union movement to attain financial self-sufficiency. The proposed provisions in clause 6 will not affect the cooperative enterprises established by the NTUC because approval has already been given under the present paragraph (g) of section 48 of the principal Act for trade union funds to be expended on the promotion, organisation. operation and financing of such cooperative enterprises.

Sir, the hon. Member for Toa Payoh expressed concern that the proposed section 16(2) might lead to frivolous, vexatious or malicious investigation of expenditure of trade union funds. There is no disagreement over the object of the new provision which is to safeguard the union funds in the interest of the rank and file members.

The points raised by the Member concern administrative procedures in connection with implementation. Under the existing relevant laws, the Registrar of Trade Unions, the Police, the Commissioner of Inland Revenue and the CPIB have powers to investigate into the use of trade union funds. The purpose of the proposed section 16(2) is to confer the additional power to freeze the bank account of the trade union while such investigations are in progress. Even if there is such an investigation, the freezing of the union's bank account will not follow automatically. Each case will be considered on its own merit. No action will be taken to freeze the bank account unless it is found absolutely necessary. This guideline has been adopted in implementing the existing section 16(1) of the Act. This is borne out by the fact that hitherto not all the unions which were served with notices of deregistration by the Registrar had their bank accounts frozen. The hon. Member can therefore be assured that the new provision in section 16(2) will not give rise to frivolous and vexatious investigation.

The hon. Member has also expressed concern that the freezing of the union funds may be extended beyond the initial period of three months. I wish to point Out that three months will be a long enough period to establish whether prima facie there is a case against the union for improper use or misapplication of union funds. Hence, legally clause 3 provides for a freeze of three months only.

As regards the question on new registration fee, the hon. Member knows that the fixing of fees will be a joint decision by the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Finance. Where the Ministry is concerned. I would like to assure the Member for Toa Payoh that we are proposing to impose a reasonable fee,

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 Ong Pang Boon].

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

7.38 p.m.

Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 -

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Sir, I beg to move.

In page 2, line 8, to leave Out "in Singapore".

These words are redundant as the Trade Unions Act applies only to the Republic.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Sir, I beg to move.

In page 2, line 9, to leave out "not to honour" and insert "honour any".

This amendment is of a drafting nature.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Sir, I beg to move.

In page 2, line 10, to leave Out "such" and insert "the".

This amendment is again of a drafting nature,

Amendment agreed to.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Sir,I beg to move.

In page 2, line 11, after "months", to Insert ", except with the written authorisation of the Registrar".

This amendment is to allow the Registrar to authorise legitimate recurrent expenditure of the union during the three-month period when its bank account is frozen. It has never been the intention of the Ministry to prevent the trade union concerned from meeting its legitimate expenditure such as staff salaries, rent, PUB and telephone charges.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Sir, I beg to move,

In page 2, line 16, to leave Out "in Singapore".

The reason for this amendment is the same as for the first amendment I moved earlier.

Amendment agreed to,

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Sir,I beg to move.

In page 2, line 17, to leave out "not to honour" and insert "honour any".

Like the second amendment I moved earlier, this amendment is also of a drafting nature.

Amendment agreed to,

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Sir,I beg to move,

In page 2, line 18, to leave Out "such" and insert "the"

Like the third amendment I moved earlier, this amendment is also of a drafting nature.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Sir, I beg to move.

In page 2, line 19, after "months", to insert ". except with the written authorisation of the Registrar".

The need for this amendment is the same as that for the fourth amendment I moved earlier.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 4 to 6 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported with amendments; read a Third time and passed.