TRADE UNIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL

3.35 p.m.

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for Communications and Minister for Labour (Mr Ong Teng Cheong): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The main objects of the Bill are to amend the definition of a "trade union" in order to set a new and positive direction for labour management relations; to amend the definition of a workman for the purpose of excluding associations of self-employed persons from the scope of the Trade Unions Act; to confer certain powers on the Registrar of Trade Unions in relation to the registration of trade unions, the auditing of union accounts and investigations under the Act; and to make provisions concerning the investment of trade union funds and the use of moneys collected by a trade union from its members for a specific purpose.

The proposed amendments to the Trade Unions Act are explained in the Explanatory Statement to the Bill. I would like, however, to speak on the salient features of the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the trade union movement in Singapore can be traced back to the period prior to the Second World War. There was no trade union as we know of today in Singapore in the pre-war days. But there were in existence societies in the form of trade associations, employees' or craftsmen's guilds and mutual aid organizations. However, no association which was likely to function as a trade union was allowed registration then.

It was not until 1940 that the British colonial government, realizing the potential of organized labour in Singapore and in order to woo workers in support of its war efforts, introduced the Trade Unions Ordinance. This Ordinance was based on the British trade union legislation. Soon after the Ordinance came into force in 1941, war broke out and Malaya and Singapore were captured by the Japanese.

With the return of British rule after the war, the Trade Unions Ordinance became operative and the first trade union was registered in October, 1946.

Under the colonial rule, employers generally exploited workers to maximize their profits. In addition, there was hardly any system for resolving industrial disputes.

The Communists and the pro-communists exploited the unhealthy economic and social situation then. They succeeded in infiltrating the trade union movement under the guise of protecting the fundamental rights and privileges of workers and of promoting their economic and social interests. But they did not practise what they preached, especially where promoting economic and social interests of workers was concerned. Instead, trade unions were organized to adopt a militant and confrontational approach against employers. We lost a few million man-days of work due to work stoppages during that period. Their aim was obvious. It was to damage the country's economy and sow seeds of discontent to foment the Communist revolution.

The turning point came when a group of non-communist unions emerged to form the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) which opposed the Singapore Association of Trade Unions (SATU) formed by the pro-communist unions. Intense rivalry for workers' support developed between these two groups. The NTUC emerged as the eventual winner winning the majority support of organized labour.

The defeat of SATU in 1963 paved the way for the development of a healthy non-communist democratic trade union movement. The trade union movement began to reorientate its attitudes towards management. Cooperation replaced confrontation and hostility. Harmonious industrial relations was one of the reasons why we succeeded in attracting foreign investment in our industrialization programme,

The 1969 Seminar on Modernization of the Labour Movement organized by the NTUC brought the trade union movement to yet another plateau. The Seminar decided that trade unions should do more than just collective bargaining to improve terms and conditions of service of the workers. Trade unions should be social organizations as well, to look after the welfare and social needs of workers. Trade unions should also be committed to improving the quality of working life and national productivity in general.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the industrial relations scene in the Republic over the past decade has been stable and harmonious. There was not a single strike during the past five years. This healthy situation could be attributed to the close tripartite cooperation of the workers, the employers and the Government, and the positive and co-operative attitude of unions towards management.

By and large, unions no longer resort to industrial action as the means of resolving trade disputes. Unlike the trade unions of yester years, present day trade unions do not exist merely for the purpose of organizing or promoting industrial action or merely representing their members in trade disputes. In fact, their main role has been to regulate relations between workmen and employers for the purpose of promoting good industrial relations and improving the working conditions of our workmen. It is important that we continue to maintain and improve on these stabilizing and favourable factors to attract more and better investment so that the quality and life of our workers and our national economy can be further improved.

While the trade union movement has kept pace with the development of the social and economic situation, the definition of a trade union in the Trade Unions Act has remained unchanged for about 40 years. Under the Trade Unions Act, a trade union means any association of workmen or employers with one or more of the following objects:

'(a) the regulation of relations between workmen and employers, or between workmen and workmen or between employers and employers; or

(b) the imposing of restrictive conditions on the conduct of any trade or business; or

(c) the representation of either workmen or employers in trade disputes; or

(d) the promotion or organization or financing of strikes or lock-outs in any trade or industry or the provision of pay or other benefits for its members during a strike or lock-out.'

The assumptions on which the definition was based are British assumptions and are largely confrontational in approach. The definition is also negative. It allows workmen to form trade unions whose only objective is to promote, organize or finance strikes or other forms of industrial action. Members will no doubt know that in several western countries, this confrontational approach has stifled economic growth.

We studied countries which are models of success in economic development, and looked at their trade union laws. These countries include Japan and South Korea. The underlying spirit defining trade unions under their laws is cooperation, not confrontation. We decided to amend the definition of a trade union under our laws based on the laws of those countries.

Under the new definition in clause 2 of the Bill, a trade union means:

'any association or combination of workmen or employers, whether temporary or permanent, whose principal object is to regulate relations between workmen and employers for any or all of the following purposes:

(a) to promote good industrial relations between workmen and employers;

(b) to improve the working conditions of workmen or enhance their economic and social status; or

(c) to achieve the raising of productivity for the benefit of workmen, employers and the economy of Singapore, and includes any federation of two or more trade unions.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, the present definition of a trade union is no longer relevant and must be changed, given the new cooperative approach in labour-management relations today. The new definition of a trade union will enshrine in law the new directions for all trade unions to further improve labour-management relations.

The present definition of a trade union also has other disadvantages. Even associations of employers which are not established for the purpose of regulating relations between workmen and employers, must be registered under the Act. Their objects are mainly to regulate relations between employers and employers, or to impose restrictive conditions in the conduct of any trade or business. There are, at present, a total of 39 such trade unions registered under the Act. These include associations such as the Kheng Keow Coffee Merchants Restaurant and Bar Owners Associations, the Singapore Firewood Merchants' Association and the Singapore Importers and Exporters Association.

Sir, the registration of such associations under the Act does not serve any useful purpose. These associations can well perform their functions as societies under the Societies Act. When the new definition of a trade union comes into operation, they will cease to be trade unions.

Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 2 of the Bill also amends the definition of a workman to exclude self-employed persons from the definition. The present definition of a workman includes self-employed persons such as newspaper vendors and musicians. Associations of self-employed persons are therefore required to register as trade unions under the existing Trade Unions Act so long as their objects include any one or more of the objects which I read out earlier. There are at present 11 registered trade unions of self-employed persons whose members include stevedores, lightermen, porters, musicians, newspaper vendors, shoemakers, etc.

These associations are also not involved in the regulation of relations between workmen and employers because their members do not have any employers unlike those who are employed under a contract of service. Though they are registered as trade unions, they do not come within the scope of the Industrial Relations Act and therefore cannot avail themselves of the conciliation and arbitration procedures set up under that Act.

Sir, as the registration of associations of self-employed persons under the Trade Unions Act does not confer any advantage on the members, it will be more appropriate for such associations to be registered under the Societies Act instead of the Trade Unions Act. The purpose of the amendment to the definition of a workman is, therefore, to exclude associations of self-employed persons from the scope of the Act.

Some of these unions of self-employed persons, however, may have some members who are employees and who will continue to come under the amended definition of a workman. Officials of my Ministry have been meeting and will continue to meet the office-bearers of these unions to assist them in whatever way possible. Where the unions after reorganization do come under the ambit of the Trade Unions Act, they will be allowed to continue as trade unions.

Associations of employers and self-employed persons, which will cease to be trade unions by virtue of the amendments in clause 2 of the Bill, will be given a grace period of one year in order to wind up their affairs and to settle and dispose of their funds. This is provided for in clause 16 of the Bill which is a transitional provision.

Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill empower the Registrar of Trade Unions to refuse the registration of any trade union if any of the rules is oppressive or unreasonable.

Sir, a trade union need only have seven members to apply for registration under the Act. The application must be accompanied by the rules of the union. The rules of a union which are submitted at the time of the application for registration may include provisions which are unreasonable or oppressive in the sense that they impose undue burden on its members, for example, rules which are designed to protect the interests of the persons responsible for forming the union or which do not provide every member an equal right to be elected or appointed as an officer of the union. Unless the rules are subsequently amended by the general membership of the union, any person who joins the union after it has been registered will have no choice but to accept such rules. It is therefore desirable that the Registrar of Trade Unions be given powers to refuse the registration of a trade union if any of its rules are unreasonable or oppressive. The amendments in clauses 5, 6, 7 and 10 are consequential upon the amendments in clauses 3 and 4.

Clause 12 of the Bill requires a trade union to obtain the consent, by secret ballot, of the majority of its members, if the union intends to use moneys collected from its members for any purpose other than the purpose for which it was collected.

Sir, the rules of most, if not all, trade unions require persons who are admitted as members of the union, to pay an entrance fee and subscriptions at a monthly or other periodic intervals. However, a union may decide to raise funds for a specific purpose, for example, to purchase a building and request its members to make donations or contributions towards the fund. In such a situation, it is only fair that the union should obtain the consent of its members, who have been making contributions or donations to the fund, if the union decides to use the moneys for some other purpose because the moneys collected are not sufficient to purchase a building or the moneys are in excess to its needs.

I would like to clarify that clause 12 of the Bill is not intended to apply to moneys which are collected by a union as entrance fees or subscriptions since they are not paid to the union for any specific purpose. The purpose for which such moneys are to be used or applied is a matter for the union to decide so long as the union complies with the provisions of the Trade Unions Act relating to the investment and expenditure of the trade union funds. It also does not apply to moneys which are allocated by a union for a specific purpose from the general fund of the union.

Sir, under section 50 of the Trade Unions Act, unions are allowed to invest their funds in stocks and shares in such private or public companies, or in such other securities as approved by the Minister. With increasing membership since the 1960s, more and more unions are becoming affluent. Since the Seminar on Modernization of the Labour Movement in 1969, many of the unions have invested their surplus funds in union cooperatives which serve to improve the quality of life for workers. The amendment in clause 13 will allow unions more avenues to invest their funds, which will be in any investments authorized under the Trustees Act, in interest-earning deposits in banks or finance companies or in shares of co-operative societies established by any registered trade union.

Sir, while the Trade Unions Act will provide more avenues for unions to invest funds, we should, on the other hand, tighten up the accountability of unions for such funds. This is to safeguard the interest of workers ultimately. The amendment in clause 14 will require a union to change its auditor after five years. This is to prevent complicity. However, in circumstances where it is advantageous to retain the same auditor and there is no danger of complicity, approval may be given by the Minister to the union to use the same auditor for more than five years.

Our trade unions have generally been well managed. However, we cannot assume that this will be so at all times. The law must provide safeguards to protect the interests of members. Clause 15 of the amendment Bill will give powers to the Registrar of Trade Unions to call up accounts so that he can check the accounts, or to take action to remedy any wrongdoings quickly.

The powers given to the Registrar of Trade Unions will enable him to call up an auditor for an explanation of his audit on the accounts of the trade union concerned, cause the accounts to be further audited, or where he finds it necessary, direct a trade union to change its auditor so that the accounts can be audited by other auditors to give an objective and better perspective of the financial position of a trade union.

The Registrar of Trade Unions will also have powers to call up documents of the trade unions, so that he can be kept informed of union activities and to get a better understanding of the trade unions. This will help him to establish better rapport with trade unionists and employees of trade unions.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed. 4.00 p.m.

Dr Wan Soon Bee (West Coast): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill which is to amend the Trade Unions Act. 1, as a trade unionist, consider the Bill as deserving of my support. To those who are not actively engaged in trade union affairs, the Bill may seem to be making significant changes to our system of industrial relations.

During the 36 years that the Trade Unions Act has been in operation, the trade union movement has undergone so many changes that the Act is, in fact, out-dated. It does not accurately reflect the prevailing trade union practices. For example, trade unions in Singapore for the last decade have been responsive and co-operated with employers and the Government so as to serve the interest of members better. This responsive and cooperative spirit of the trade unions has, in no small way, contributed to the economic development of Singapore.

Similarly, trade unions in Singapore have always accepted that the funds of trade unions belong to the members and must be used carefully and appropriately. For that reason, trade unions have long anticipated the provision of the Bill by prohibiting certain key officials of the unions from being trustees of the unions at the same time. In this way, the funds and assets of trade unions are protected. The Bill therefore merely makes the Act concur, though somewhat belatedly, with existing practices.

My trade union colleagues and I have decided to give our support to the Bill because the changes proposed by the Bill are reasonable, necessary, and in the interest of workers who are members of trade unions. My only misgiving is that certain provisions of the Bill may, in their implementation, give rise to problems.

I refer particularly to the new definition of "workman" in the Bill. In itself, the new definition is logical and reasonable. A trade union is an organization of either employers or employees. If a person is neither an employer nor an employee, he has no reason to be in a trade union. There are other forms of organizations, such as societies, which a person may join other than as an employer or as an employee.

Unfortunately, if the Bill is passed, there will be groups of people who are neither employers nor employees as a result of the new definition of "workman". The people I have in mind are workers in the charcoal trade, musicians, and other similar groups of workers. They are not considered employees because the persons for whom they work choose not to view their relationship as that between employer and employee. There are many reasons for such a situation arising. One may be because of tradition. Another may be that the employer-employee relationship entails onerous obligations such as payment of contributions under the Central Provident Fund Act, While technically, these groups of people are not considered as employees, in practice, they are and they will be treated as such.

Whatever may be the real reason for certain workers not to be considered as employees by those whom they work for, the new definition of "workman" in the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill will adversely affect these workers. Under the prevailing Trade Unions Act, such groups of workers may still be formed into trade unions but under the Bill such workers would not be able to form trade unions because they are not employees.

While I agree that the Trade Unions Act should draw a line between employees and other workers, I am also at the same time very much concerned that the effect of the Bill is to penalize those workers who are not employees, through circumstances beyond their control. My fear is that such workers are generally indistinguishable from employees working on a piece-rate basis. There is always a danger that unscrupulous persons may exploit the new definition of "workman" in the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill as a loophole for anti-union activities against their workers simply by converting their employer-employee relationship into that of principals and contractors.

Undoubtedly, the Minister for Labour is aware of such a danger. I trust that the Ministry of Labour will study the problem of these workers who cannot be trade union members because they are technically non-employees under the new definition of "workman" and devise effective solutions to the problem. A good number of these workers require the kind of help and protection that a trade union can give them. Other than this consideration, I am in support of the Bill before the House.

Encik Abbas Abu Amin (Pasir Panjang): ( In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to discuss the objects of the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill. The proposed amendments are consonant with the principles and objectives of a new and modern trade union. These amendments should, therefore, receive the necessary attention and support. These amendments will enhance the already existing cooperation and mutual understanding between the workers and employers.

The emphasis of this Amendment Bill is shifted from one of confrontation to one of cooperation and overall well-being. Union members will certainly agree with this change of principles for the promotion of good industrial relations, betterment of their well-being and status and the raising of productivity.

These amendments also signify a positive approach for workers to improve themselves through training and for the acquisition of better skills. This would, in time, result in the upgrading of their own performance and provide the atmosphere for better wages and will benefit all parties concerned.

As I said just now, these amendments open new vistas for mutual benefit and cooperation. Workers will possess this new attitude and spirit because the working environments are conducive to the acquisition of such characteristics. Under the new working climate goodwill, trust and loyalty of the workers are thus strengthened. They possess that feeling of having the same role to play in the progress achieved by their companies.

Changes in the thinking of the workers would certainly bring about tangible changes in industrial relations. Such a situation will pave the way for a good industrial climate. The spirit of cooperation at the highest level will permeate through the entire infrastructure of the company. Examples of the prosperity of successful companies can be seen in Singapore now where all the employees, supervisors and management have good and cordial relations and who, in turn, furnish good feedback.

In the light of my remarks, it is obvious that the introduction of the amendments is a genuine attempt to harmonize the Trade Unions Act with the real situation prevailing in our country.

Nevertheless, I seek elucidation from the Minister for Labour concerning the new sections of the Amendment Bill. The amendments proposed under the new definition of a trade union in clause 2 reflect a change in the objectives of a trade union, I wish to seek clarification from the Minister for Labour as to why paragraph (d) of the definition contained in the Trade Unions Act has been deleted entirely from the Amendment Bill. Although the prevailing industrial climate is good, and the question of strike and the like has never surfaced or occurred for many years now - and hopefully strikes will not occur forever - yet I feel that paragraph (d), as contained in the Trade Unions Act, should be retained.

In my opinion, paragraph (d) will act as a "shield" or "weapon" that can be used by trade unions if a need really arises. This can also provide as a bulwark to employers or individuals who deliberately obstruct trade unions from attaining their lofty ideals.

I wish also to seek the assurance of the Minister for Labour that, with these amendments, managements will adopt a positive attitude and truly comprehend the objectives of trade unions and give due encouragement so that the lofty objectives under clause 2 of the Amendment Bill can be achieved, as this will benefit not only workers, trade unions but also employers, companies and the country as well. 4.12 p.m.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to oppose this Bill. But before I say any further, in view of your ruling in the last two sittings of this House, may I say that I do not have a direct personal pecuniary interest in this Bill, although my firm has acted and is still acting for workmen as defined in the Trade Unions Act or the Employment Act. May I proceed, Mr Speaker?

Mr Speaker: Yes.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill is entitled the "Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill". Mr Speaker, Sir, I would be happier if the Bill had been called the "Trade Unions Abolition Bill."

An hon. Member: Very funny!

Mr Jeyaretnam: The Prime Minister is reported to have said not very long ago, Mr Speaker, in Suva when he was there after attending the Commonwealth Conference, that it was healthy to have the truth acknowledged. I say "amen" to that, and I think it is very healthy to have the truth acknowledged. And what is the truth as regards the trade union movement in Singapore today?

Mr Speaker, Sir, only two days ago. I was talking to an old trade unionist and he said, "Mr Jeyaretnam, are there any trade unions in Singapore today?" "You tell me." This Bill, what it does, is to administer the last rites to the trade union movement, such as we have had in Singapore for the last 40 years or so. This Bill, once it becomes law, will put a stop to all genuine trade union movement in Singapore. What will continue is a mockery of the trade union movement: impostors, unions that are masquerading as trade unions in Singapore. I am aware, Mr Speaker, Sir, that I am not a trade unionist but I know enough to know that this Bill takes away all the objects and the purposes for which trade unions have fought all over the world to win for themselves.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Hon. Minister, in moving the Bill, referred to the definition in the Act and to the definition in the Bill. With your permission, Sir, I propose to go through this definition to show that what is proposed now is to take away the last bargaining rights that trade unions have in Singapore. Under the Act as it stands at the moment, the objects of a trade union are set out as:

'(a) the regulation of relations between workmen and employers, or between workmen and workmen or between employers and employers; or

(b) the imposing of restrictive conditions on the conduct of any trade or business; or

(c) the representation of either workmen or employers in trade disputes; or

(d) the promotion or organization or financing of strikes or lock-outs in any trade or industry or the provision of pay or other benefits for its members during a strike or lockout,

and includes any federation of two or more trade unions.'

Now all that is swept aside in one fell blow, Mr Speaker, Sir. And now, we have high-sounding objectives for the trade union movement in Singapore, and that is, to promote good industrial relations. Yes, we say "Aye" to that. The purpose of a trade union as defined in the Bill is:

'(a) to promote good industrial relations between workmen and employers;

(b) to improve the working conditions of workmen or enhance their economic and social status; or

(c) to achieve the raising of productivity for the benefit of workmen, employers and the economy of Singapore,

and includes any federation of two or more trade unions;'.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the point in all this is, after this Bill comes into force, how are the trade unions in Singapore, to enforce their rights for their own members? If you look at the Act, Mr Speaker, Sir, the trade unions have a right to insist on "the imposing of restrictive conditions on the conduct of any trade or business". This is a necessary right for workmen. This is a right, perhaps they might find it necessary, to impose on the employer in the interest of health hazards or safety. If the employer is carrying on or asking them to undertake work which is hazardous or in conditions which are hazardous to their health or injurious to their safety, then trade unions as a body have a right to require that those conditions be removed, that there be restrictive conditions providing for proper safeguards, proper amenities for the workmen. That is taken out.

The other thing that is taken out is "the representation of either workmen or employers in trade disputes." Well, that, Mr Speaker, Sir, is the primary object of trade unions. They are not there to hold tea parties for their workmen. They are not there to hold picnics for their workmen. Neither are they there to go into finance, into business or supermarkets, or the running of taxis. Their primary object is to represent workmen in trade disputes. Now, this new Bill takes that away. What are trade unions going to do? Hold parties, have their employers there, bow to their employers and say, "Yes, yes, yes"?

Then the other object in the Act is "the promotion or organization or financing of strikes or lock-outs in any trade or industry". This, Mr Speaker, Sir, is another essential right of the trade union movement. It is the right of the workers to withhold their services from the employers, and that is the only way in which the workers can enforce their demands and their rights on the employers. Take that away from them, and they are no longer able to promote, to organize or to finance stoppage of work. What are they supposed to do? What do they do when the employer rides roughshod over them?

Today, Mr Speaker, Sir, the workman is at the mercy of the employer. We have emulated, it would appear, the situation in Japan and other countries. I was reading in the papers a few days ago the account from a housewife who is an executive. She was talking about the conditions in Japan, and she said, "In Japan the employees are at the mercy of the employers." That is not me saying, Mr Speaker, Sir. It is someone who has lived in Japan. Why are we doing this to our workers in Singapore, our workers who have contributed to the economy of this country? Be it remembered, Mr Speaker, Sir, as was reported in the Economist sometime ago, that "our trade unions were the cradle of the independence movement in Singapore". Why are we doing this to our workmen? Why should we reduce them to the position of serfs and slaves?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Hon. Minister referred to the infiltration in the early days of the trade union movement - I take it, the 1940s, 1950s - by the Communists and pro-Communists who used the trade union movement, he said, for their ends. Mr Speaker, Sir, reference has been made, not once but several times, by leaders of the Government to those tumultuous days of the 1940s, 1950s and even the 1960s, and the suggestion has been made that we in the Workers' Party want to return to those old days of the 1950s and 1960s when there were wild men running about. Well, Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know whether there were wild men running about, but I do know that there were a lot of men running about in Singapore in those days in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. There was a new political party that had just come into existence, Mr Speaker, Sir. There was a lawyer who had just come back from England and he was leading the new party. He was the darling of the trade union movement in those days. He was the idol of the workers. And not only the workers, Mr Speaker, Sir, but the students in the University then, and all for a right cause. May I say here, Mr Speaker, Sir, that I for once cheered what was being done for the workers in Singapore. But it must be galling to the workers today. It must be adding insult to injury that the Government, which came to power on the backs of the workers in 1959, should now do this to the workers in Singapore. They who took the sword on behalf of our workers in Singapore in those days should now turn the sword on the workers themselves. I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a betrayal of our working class and our workers in Singapore to whom, as I said, we owe a great debt. We owe a debt to them not only for being in the forefront of the independence movement for Singapore and which was eventually won for us by them. We also owe them a debt for our present prosperity that we now enjoy. May I say, Sir, that we in the Workers' Party are not ashamed of the role played by the workers in those days. We are not ashamed of what they did for Singapore and what they have done over the years. If anyone is ashamed, it would appear that the Government is ashamed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I said, we owe the workers, our working class in Singapore, a debt. And let me say from this House that this debt will be repaid. We, in the Workers' Party, are committed to repaying this debt that we in Singapore owe to our workers and it shall be repaid, let me assure the workers in Singapore, whatever may happen today.

It has been said, and as was reported by the Ministry of Propaganda at Times House which carried articles on the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill, that confrontation is out, co-operation is in, and that has been the keynote of the address by the Hon. Minister and the speeches from the hon. Members who have spoken before me. But let us be realistic, Mr Speaker, Sir. You can only have co-operation between two equals. You then speak of genuine co-operation. Otherwise you speak of coercion. Where there is a stronger man and a weaker man, and the weaker man gives in to the stronger man, then there is no co-operation. There is no partnership. If you want co-operation from the workers, give them their rights and stretch out your hand to them in partnership. You do not denude them of all their rights. You do not render them impotent, powerless, and then talk of co-operation as between employers and workmen.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill, as I said, takes away at one fell swoop the trade union movement as it has tried to exist over these years and is making a mockery. At least in Poland, Mr Speaker, Sir, the military rulers there have been honest. They have abolished and made it illegal for the independent trade union movement to function. But we go on with the sham of a trade union movement still in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I referred to the days in 1950s, 1960s, when the new party was then actively supporting, wooing the workers and came to power on the backs of the workers. Having got into power, having been put into the seat of government by the working class, not very long after, they began in the 1960s, after Singapore came out of Malaysia, a series of measures to denude the trade unions of their rights. Notable among these were the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill which came into force in 1968. Let it be said, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the Industrial Relations Act was passed by the Government after it had come to power on the backs of the workers. But in 1968, it decided things had to change. They had made enough use of the workers. They were no longer needed. So in 1968, the trade unions were excluded from including in their areas of negotiation with the employers several matters which were of vital importance to the trade union movement, matters like the employer's right of termination of the worker. The employer was given a free hand to terminate any employee regardless of whether he had worked five years or 15 years. So that we have in Singapore today the position of a worker who has worked, say, even for 20 years and all that the employer has to do is to, I have said this before, serve on him a notice saying, "We don't need your services any more. Here is four weeks' wages. Our magnanimity will only allow for four weeks' wages because the Government says so, and goodbye." That is one of the -

Mr Ong Teng Cheong: Point of order, Sir. I think we are referring to the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill and not the Employment (Amendment) Bill. The hon. Member for Anson should confine himself to this Bill and not other Bills.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I am indebted to the Minister. But I am trying to confine myself to this Bill. I am talking about the Industrial Relations Act because that vitally concerns the trade union movement. It removed, from the sphere of negotiations between trade unions and the employers, these questions - questions of transfer, questions of employment, termination. These are matters on which trade unions are vitally interested.

I shall not refer to the Employment Act which also came into force that year which, as in the article in the Sunday Times, provided less fringe benefits. They were being stripped of their fringe benefits. So began this systematic erosion of the trade union movement. And then was it last year, Mr Speaker, Sir, that there was an amendment again to the Trade Disputes Act which made it an offence, as I see it, for any leader of a trade union to sit down with his colleagues and talk about whether there should be a strike or not, under a definition in the Act. So they have been rendered, as I said, completely powerless now and they exist only as social bodies. And I think this was what the Hon. Minister was saying - that this was the new modernization policy for the trade unions, grand words, forgetting that in all this the workers were being systematically driven to the position of serfs in all these grand words that are being bandied about - co-operation.

Mr Speaker, Sir,.there has been talk about the co-operation, as I said, between the Government and the trade unions. Someone talked about the symbiotic relationship. May I draw the attention of the Minister and the Government to the dangers of this close symbiotic relationship between the trade unions and the Government. If one looks up the definition of "symbiosis", one finds that it is specially applicable to an association where one lives within the other. And it would appear that the intention of the Government is that the trade unions should live within the Government. If that is what the Government wants, where is the independence of the trade union movement? Where is the independence? Where is the right of the workers to enter into trade disputes with the Government, which is perhaps the biggest employer of labour in Singapore? We have, as I have said before, something which is a first for Singapore (not a first of which we can be very proud, but a dubious first) where the chief executive officer of the trade union movement is also a member of the Cabinet of the Government.

And we have in Singapore a number of advisers, officials in the NTUC in one form or another, all of whom come from the ruling Party and from the Government. Why is it necessary, I ask, for this Government to manacle the trade union movement in this manner? There is the danger, and it is this. This close relationship, this close identification, this swamping of the trade union movement by the Government and its officers, by its Ministers and other officials in the Government, may lead to trade union movement officers being taken to be speaking on behalf of the Government outside. And that is not desirable.

Not very long ago, there was the Secretary-General of the NTUC calling for a boycott. It is a pity that he did not make it very clear that he was only speaking on behalf of the trade union movement and that he was not speaking on behalf of the Government.

I do not know whether the Foreign Ministry is aware of newspaper reports that have appeared outside Singapore of a trade union official. I understand that he is an Assistant Director or Deputy Director in the NTUC in charge of industrial relations. There is a report that has appeared outside Singapore, Mr Speaker, Sir, that this gentleman with 10 others from the trade union movement in Singapore visited Israel last month to attend a dialogue/conference between Israel and Singapore. And according to the report, this officer is alleged to have told Israel that Singapore's sympathies were with Israel in the Lebanon war. This would appear to be contrary to the Foreign Ministry's statement that was issued, I think, in September of this year where the spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs deplored the massacre in Beirut. But this officer was quoted in this report to have said that Singapore's sympathies were with Israel in the war in Lebanon. And what is more damaging, Mr Speaker, Sir, is this report that he is alleged to have said - that Singapore was not really interested in the Arab countries except for their crude oil.

Mr Speaker: Mr Jeyaretnam, has this anything to do with this particular Bill?

Mr Seah Mui Kok (Bukit Ho Swee): He is out of order. It has nothing to do with trade unions. It is politics, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I am talking about the trade union movement and how it is at the moment, Mr Speaker, Sir, because of the way the trade union movement has been swamped, manacled. They are taken outside to be speaking on behalf of the Government.

Mr Speaker: We are dealing with the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill.

Mr Jeyaretnam: The purpose is to ask that the trade union movement be freed from all this Government embrace, and that it should exist in Singapore as an independent trade union movement and be You don't speak for the Government." That is the whole point of my bringing this in, Mr Speaker, Sir. Otherwise the world outside, knowing what the situation in Singapore is, will take statements from leaders in the trade union movement as statements representing the views of the Government. Is the Government aware of this danger? This is the whole point of my bringing this in. He is reported to have said that we are not interested in Arab countries except in the oil. This could have a very damaging effect on Singapore's economy.

An hon. Member: How?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I ask the Government: if it cannot see its way to allowing the trade union movement to continue to function as an independent trade union movement within Singapore, then it should state so publicly and change the Bill to call it "The Trade Unions Abolition Bill". That perhaps would reflect more accurately the explanatory statement which says:

'This Bill seeks to amend the Trade Unions Act in order to bring the Act up to date with the present conditions prevailing in Singapore'. Let us tell the workers that we do not want any more trade unions in Singapore. Let us be honest with them. Then at least they know where they stand, and at least the world will applaud us for being honest. But to continue with this sham trade union movement, all we are doing is to kill the trade union movement in Singapore. It does not do us justice, Mr Speaker, Sir. For that reason, I oppose this Bill. 4.47 p.m.

Mr Seah Mui Kok: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill. From my more than 20 years of experience and service as a trade unionist, I think the trend has changed. The days of wild-cat strikes, confrontation, fighting employers, banging tables, are out. Trade unionists in negotiating with the employers have to use their intelligence and also have to have facts and figures in the negotiation for a better collective agreement. The beauty of all this is that it is being moulded and guided by the NTUC, and the philosophy of the Government and the NTUC on the importance of tripartite cooperation, i.e. cooperation between workers, employers and the Government is the right thing. Because of tripartite cooperation, we have industrial peace, progress and prosperity in Singapore. The workers, the employers and the people of Singapore are enjoying the fruits of their labour.

We have heard a lengthy talk by the Member for Anson. It is all utter rubbish. They are out of date. They are out of time, the changes that have occurred in Singapore. If we expect the Member for Anson to lead Singapore, I think the state of Singapore's economy will be less than $18-plus. The Workers' Party of Singapore - how many workers does he have in his Party? It is high time he changed the name of the Party. How many unions are in support of the Workers' Party?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. I have been asked twice on a point of order. Is the Member speaking on the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill or is he speaking on political parties at the moment?

Mr Seah Mui Kok: I say "thank you" to the hon. Member for Anson. This is exactly what I am trying to show him -that he did not confine his talk to the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill. But now he knows how to jump up. I will confine to trade unions. He has learnt a lesson.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, I have to ask you to tell the hon. Member not to be so excited about the whole thing.

Mr Seah Mui Kok: It is very interesting.

Mr Jeyaretnam: One does not have to be excited.

Mr Seah Mui Kok: The Member for Anson was saying that the workers of Singapore have lost their rights, and become serfs and slaves. Do not talk nonsense. Be more intelligent. I was the General Secretary of the United Workers of Petroleum Industry for 17 years. There were no strikes at all in the oil company but negotiations, improvement of wages, improvement of conditions of service, improvement of fringe benefits, annual wage supplements from 2 1/2 months to 3 months. Do you mean to say my petroleum workers are serfs? Utter rubbish.

Sir, I do not want to be lengthy and talk nonsense in this Chamber. I would urge the workers of Singapore to fully support this Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill. Then more investors will come, more jobs will be available and more money to go round. Everybody will be happy and we can enjoy life. 4.53 p.m.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong (Moulmein): Sir, I rise in support of the Bill, but before I comment directly on the Bill itself I cannot resist answering some of the serious and malicious charges made by the Member for Anson against the trade union movement in Singapore.

As expected, he came up with his usual litany of criticisms against the Government and the trade unions in Singapore. He termed the trade unions in Singapore as sham trade unions. He talked about trade unions in other countries winning their rights and so forth. If he were to make comparisons between us and some of the more militant, more self-centred, more sectionally interested trade unions in the more developed countries of the world, I think we do not measure up to them. We have never said that we are that sort of a trade union movement; neither do we make apologies for the fact that we are not that type of a trade union movement. We are not a militant trade union movement for the sake of militancy. We are not trade unionists who look at issues from purely sectional trade union interest. We have often stated publicly since 1968 that we are trade unionists with a national perspective, looking at the interest of the trade union members, both from the trade union interests as well as the interest of the nation as a whole. It must be in this context that we view and we work, and we act and react on matters. What is so wrong about that?

The Member for Anson is not the first, nor will he be the last, person to make such accusations against the trade union movement in Singapore. Not only today but as far back as 1968 when the trade unions supported the Employment Act, which he mentioned - with certain reservations which were subsequently removed when certain assurances were given by the Government - there were also accusations from people like him that the trade unions in Singapore were sham trade unions and that the trade union leaders sold out the trade union movement.

We do not have to go into the arguments as to whether we sold out the trade union movement or the trade union members' interest. I think what has happened in the last 14 years since 1968 till now is an improvement in the standard of living of the workers of Singapore; how the trade union leaders, with courage, stood up and supported policies that are finally in the interest of the workers, in terms of getting them a secure job, good wages, good housing. Today in Singapore, not only do we say so, but people all over the world - I do not know but I am sure the Member for Anson travels a great deal - but I think all over the world people who have visited Singapore and who have read about Singapore have not only great admiration for Singapore in terms of its garden city image but also in terms of its standard of living and housing. For a small developing country, I think we have fared well. Nobody in Singapore is a serf or a slave. We in the trade unions have held our heads high, and in anything that we stand up in support of the Government we do so not because we are a stooge of the Government but because we believe in certain common goals and share in a certain common vision.

Trade unions in the developed countries have all the rights. Do you know what happened in America? I think it is one of the freest countries, perhaps it is the freest country, in the world. Some two years back - I cannot quite remember the exact date - when President Reagan took office, the air traffic controllers in America went on strike. I think their union was closed down. The point I want to make is not that America has not got the freedom. I think nobody in his right mind can say that America has not got the freedom, but I think every right is in relation to the overall national interest. I think even a country like America, with its reputation of freedom, has got such rights related to the national interest.

In this Bill that is proposed before this House today, there is nothing to say that trade unions cannot go on strike. In fact, the Secretary-General, after the announcement, in one of the functions publicly stated that the right to strike in Singapore for the trade unions is sacrosanct. The Ministry of Labour has assured us that the right to strike is not in any way taken away as a result of this amendment. The procedure to strike is incorporated in section 28 of the Trade Unions Act, which is not part of the provisions that are being amended. You can still go on strike. This has been said so.

The Member for Anson has made some scurrilous remarks against the Straits Times for its three very good articles that it put up on these amendments. In those three articles I think it was also pointed out very clearly that, as far as the right to strike is concerned, everybody after reading the Straits Times reports will have no doubt in his mind that the right to strike for the trade unions still remains sacrosanct. There is no tampering of his right. But what is being encouraged, what is being pursued, what is being asked is that henceforth, especially after the past ten years or so when we have managed to work in cooperation and have found the fruits of this cooperation in terms of better wages, better job opportunities and so forth, we should make sure that this cooperation which is the key to our success, the key to our security not only for ourselves but for our children, is ensured for all times. I think we have a responsibility not only to the present generation of workers but to our children. And if the stability of the industrial relations in Singapore has helped to create this prosperity for Singapore - and there were certain conditions for this success - I think it is important that we, as responsible leaders whether from the Government or from the trade unions, must do whatever we can to ensure that these conditions are forever present so that we and our children can continue to live in prosperity with no sense of insecurity insofar as jobs are concerned.

It is for this very ultimate, noble, national and important objective that we give our hands to the Government, and it is in that context that we support the Government. And what is so wrong about that? What is so immoral about that? How does that make us serfs and slaves? Of course, we are not equals with the Government in terms of power and strength.

Mr Jeyaretnam: It should be.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: Singapore is not equal to America in terms of power and wealth resources. Singapore is never equal to America or to any big country in the world. But does it mean that cooperation cannot exist between Singapore and America and other big countries in the world? No, it is not necessary that we must be equal in all respects. Although we are not equal in terms of power and resources, we are treated with respect and dignity. I think our views, if they are cogent and valid views, will always be taken into account. It is on that basis that the Government continues to enjoy the support and the respect of the workers.

On this question of sham unions, there are certain very fundamental things which indicate whether a union is a sham union or not a sham union. I have said this before: union leaders are elected by secret ballot. Workers are not compelled to join unions. They join of their own free will. So nobody is coerced into joining a union. The leaders are elected by secret ballot. It is their fundamental right to elect their leaders. Who do they want to elect, whether they are from the PAP and if some of them want to elect from the Workers Party, this is their right. And if they have exercised their right to elect Members of Parliament from the PAP and so forth, does it mean that they cannot exercise their right? The workers in Singapore have enough good sense to know that the people they elect, the people they appoint as advisors, are people who can help them to advance their interest. And what is so wrong about it? I think this is commonsense. This is perfectly legitimate. Is it not?

The Member said something like the passing of this Bill is the last rite that will completely finish off all the trade unions in Singapore. I think he is being dramatic. He is not only dramatic but he is also not factual because the passing of this Bill will not change how the trade unions have behaved in the last 10 years and how they will behave in the next 10 or 20 years. But there will be this conscious effort to want to cooperate even further. We want to emulate the Japanese, not in everything but there are certain good points about the Japanese. Incidentally, the Member for Anson said that a friend of his mentioned that the Japanese worker is a slave to the employer.

Mr Jeyaretnam: There was a report in the papers.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: I think my trade union friends in Japan will be most offended by that remark. I think the Japanese trade unions are amongst the strongest in the world where championing the rights of their workers are concerned. The rights and interests of the workers are well protected by the trade unions despite their very cooperative posture with their employers and the government. They are very proud of that fact. Perhaps the Mem- ber should visit some of the unions to see whether this is true, perhaps through the auspices of the National Productivity Board.

He mentioned that the trade unions must exist principally for industrial matters, and he scorned at what the Minister said about the trade unions having expanded their role. In fact, he twisted what the Minister said. The Minister said that the trade unions today, after modernization, have expanded their role from being purely an industrial organization, a bargaining institution, to one that includes social objectives. And I said this at the last exchange with him over trade union matters. I said that as far as the trade unions under the NTUC are concerned, the paramount and fundamental task of the trade unions is still to advance and to protect the interests of the workers. But in addition to this fundamental right and task, there is an expanded role to create social and economic projects so that the workers not only will have the political but also the economic and social strength. In this way, the workers' influence is felt throughout Singapore, not just only in the industrial scene but also in the social and economic scene so that the trade unions will generally have carved for themselves through these activities a sphere of influence in the wider circle of Singapore's development. What is so wrong about that? Is that not progress? Nothing is static. It must change. We have made the best of the last 14 years through this cooperative effort. We want to make sure that perhaps the next 14 years will be even better than the last 14 years.

Mr Speaker, Sir, can I now direct my comments on clause 12 of the Bill? Clause 12 of the Bill seeks to amend the principal Act to protect the special funds of a trade union. The proposed provision is not only necessary but also desirable to make a clear distinction between the general funds and the special funds of a trade union so as to prevent any confusion over the use of the funds to the detriment of the interest of the general membership of the trade union.

However, it is necessary to distinguish between a special fund established by a trade union for a specific purpose through compulsory contributions levied on its members and a special fund set by a trade union through voluntary contributions solicited from members as well as well-wishers.

Clause 12, as it is now worded, implies that the proposed procedure for sanctioning any change in the use of a special fund is applicable in all instances irrespective of whether a special fund is raised through compulsory contributions from members or through voluntary contributions from members as well as well-wishers.

In the case of any fund raised through compulsory contributions from members for a specific purpose, it is not only right but also reasonable that any change in the use of such fund should not be effected except with the consent of existing members who have contributed or are contributing to it.

Where a special fund is raised by a trade union through voluntary contributions from both members and well-wishers, different considerations should apply regarding the change of use of such fund. Often, such a fund is raised for an ad hoc purpose, such as to enable the union to sponsor special activities relating to the cultural, educational and recreational interests of its members. The general funds of a union may not be sufficient to finance these additional activities because of commitment to regularly recurrent items of expenditure such as administrative costs, the payment of staff salaries and the maintenance of union premises, etc. To finance the additional activities, a union may hold a flag-day, a walkathon, or any other fund-raising project. The fund so raised on a voluntary basis from among members and other persons would then enable a union to hold a special anniversary celebration, to host an international conference in Singapore, or any other worthwhile activity. More often than not, the fund so raised would be more than sufficient for the specific purpose for which it has been raised. The surplus may be a few hundred dollars or a few thousand dollars. To try to apportion such fund between contributions from union members and from non-union members would be a futile and pointless task. This fact is enough to suggest the consent of members is irrelevant to the disposal of the surplus fund.

Another pertinent consideration is that in the case of a union with a membership of 10,000 or 20,000, the process of obtaining the consent of the general membership by secret ballot is likely to be irksome and time-consuming and also disruptive of work and production. The executive committee of a union, who are empowered under the constitution of the union to conduct the business and affairs of the union and whose actions and decisions are subject to a general meeting of members or a delegates' conference of the union, as the case may be, should be in the best position to decide how to dispose of any surplus of any special fund raised through voluntary contributions.

The clause, as it stands, will require the change of use of any fund of a union to have the consent of general members by secret ballot irrespective of how the monies of the fund are raised. This is not practical and reasonable especially in respect of funds raised through voluntary contributions. I wonder if the Minister will consider favourably a suitable amendment to clause 12 of the Bill so as to make it more practical. 5.13 p.m.

Mr Tan Soo Khoon (Alexandra): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not a trade unionist and it was not my intention to speak on this Bill. But after listening to the speech by the Member for Anson which is all a lot about nothing, I feel compelled to make a few comments in order to dispel the false notions that the hon. Member has tried to propagate by his speech.

Speeches like the one he has just made and which insult the intelligence of workers in Singapore are not new to all of us. We heard them before - that there are no real trade unions in Singapore, that our workers have no right, etc. People like him belong to a different age, an archaic age of the past that preaches the course of collision to get matters done. But we know how different things are in Singapore.

Sir, he displays a complete ignorance of the way industrial relations are conducted in Singapore. He ignores the fact that the basis of good industrial relations in Singapore has been the tripartite partnership between Government, management and workers. We said it time and again before, Sir, that this partnership, more than anything else, has ensured the success of our economy and assured for our workers the fruits of their labour. We had trouble-free industrial relations for many long years, and I say, let us keep it that way.

Sir, the Member for Anson advocates the rights of workers. When you speak of rights, you must also talk of responsibilities, and I say our workers have their rights and they know their responsibilities, responsibilities to themselves, their families and their country. Perhaps he confuses these rights of workers with the free-for-all situation in other countries. Well, our workers are a disciplined lot and we are all proud of them for being so, and they know they have jobs while the rest of the world is wrapped in unemployment. In case he still does not know, there are three million unemployed in Britain, two million in West Germany, 2.2 million in France, half a million in Australia, and we have full employment in Singapore today.

Sir, the Member for Anson claims to speak for the destiny of workers in Singapore. One thing I learnt after listening to his speech is that his destiny will not be to lead our workers. 5.15 p.m.

Mr Lim Boon Heng (Kebun Baru): Mr Speaker, Sir, my colleague, the Member for Moulmein, has appropriately defined the role of the trade unions in Singapore, and that role is to preserve, to protect and to enhance the welfare of Singapore workers. Throughout its history, organized labour in Singapore, in the form of the NTUC, has always been in tune with the aspirations of the workers; it has always been in the forefront when it came to preserving, protecting and enhancing the welfare of Singaporeans. The Member for Anson claims, in one breath, to be a champion of the workers in Singapore, but in another breath he condemns the NTUC for calling for a boycott. When a Communist union in Australia took protectionist steps against the interests of Singapore workers, the Member for Anson would have us sit idly by and allow ourselves to be trampled over. And he calls this protecting and championing the rights of Singapore workers.

Let me briefly trace the record of the trade union movement in Singapore to put its role in perspective. When we became an independent nation, the role of the trade unions as a social economic force was transformed from the chaos preceding independence to that of building our own future, forging our own destiny, as co-owner of a new society and a new nation. At that time when we set about doing this task, it had first to battle the Communists and then the communalists. Our workers were not prepared to be placed under the repressive yoke of Communism or to allow chauvinists to tear our community apart and thus in the process prevent our people from achieving a better quality of life.

In these struggles, the labour movement emerged triumphant together with the political leadership. That was when the NTUC was formed. When the NTUC was born, it represented a minority of organized workers in Singapore. Its leaders, however, were men of vision, who saw the interests of the workers in the context of the wider interests of the nation. Our workers quickly saw that it was the NTUC that was more successful in delivering the economic goods.

Against a back-drop of poverty and mass unemployment, our workers opted for responsible trade unionism. There was an overriding need to create new jobs for the jobless and for the thousands that were added each year to the pool. Trade union members and their leaders were conscious of the need to create an attractive investment climate, for local as well as foreign investors.

Had our trade union leaders uncritically echoed the slogans of their Western counterparts, as the Member for Anson would have us do, like "the right to work" and "fundamental trade union rights", and resisted the enactment of the Employment Act and the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act of 1968, the economy of Singapore would have been dealt a crippling blow and we would not have the kind of life that we lead today. No investor, either foreign or local, would have been convinced or persuaded to put his stake on Singapore soil. Fortunately for us, our workers demonstrated exemplary discipline. Parliament passed the two Bills, thus ushering in a new era of orderly and peaceful industrial relations.

Investments came, new jobs were created, and soon the spectre of unemployment was laid to rest. Because our workers put long-term national interests before short-term sectional interests, we have all prospered and gained.

The history of the trade union movement, as embodied in the NTUC, has been a record of responsibility. It is a movement in empathy with the aspirations of the workers of Singapore. Now in the current tight labour market, the task of trade unions lies in improving the capacity of workers for more productive work. The immediate goal is to give them higher skills suited for higher value-added industries and services, with a higher propensity for higher wages. To this end, we must consolidate the existing healthy industrial relations climate that has been brought about by the willingness of trade unions to make sacrifices during the past two decades for the wider interests of the nation.

We have ascended the mountain of achievement. We have made commendable progress. We aspire to climb yet higher. The higher we climb, the more difficult is the terrain, the more hazardous are the dangers, and the harsher are the elements. To scale the next plateau of achievement, there is no place for fractious stand-offs among fellow travellers. On the contrary, we must forge a closer understanding among the climbers. Each one must support the other. A false step by any one member of the team could prove disastrous.

To pursue the path that we have taken, we need new ground rules. It is in this context that we should view the proposed amendments to the Trade Unions Act. Our trade union movement has consistently acted responsibly and objectively. It has already pre-empted the amendments to section 2 of the Trade Unions Act, in seeking to promote good industrial relations, to improve the working conditions of workmen, to enhance their economic and social status, and to promote higher productivity. The proposed amendments, therefore, seek to formalize in legislation what is being practised by our trade unions.

There has been a reference to the deletion from the objects of the trade unions of the right to strike and, in particular, the promotion, organization and financing of strikes. This deletion is sensible. Trade unions exist not for promoting or organizing strikes. Their central objective, as I have mentioned earlier, is to preserve, protect and enhance the welfare of workers. A strike is a course of last resort, to seek redress for injustice and inequity. It is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Trade unions will always have this recourse. We have made no amendment to section 28 of the Trade Unions Act. Trade unions will always have this course of last resort against errant employers who may need to be reminded from time to time to abide by the ground rules.

The deletion of this reference to strikes does not imply that our unions will lose the right to strike. It must not be so, and it is not so. In case there is still doubt, I am sure that the Hon. Minister will be only too glad to reaffirm in this House that the right to strike for trade unions remains sacrosanct. Given the record of the trade union movement in Singapore since independence, we can be confident that any resort to strike action will be taken responsibly.

Finally, I would like to seek a clarification from the Minister with respect to the proposed additional paragraph, section 14 (c), in clause 4 (a) of the Bill, which refers to the rules of unions that may be oppressive or unreasonable. I agree that the interests of workers must be protected, and it is the duty of Government to ensure that their interests are indeed protected. However, what oppressive" or "unreasonable"? What recourse would a trade union have if its members agree to accept those rules in its constitution, but these rules are deemed to be oppressive or unreasonable by the Registrar of Trade Unions?

Mr Speaker, Sir, pending a clarification from the Minister, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take the suspension now and will take the Chair again at 6.00 p.m.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.25 p.m. until 6.00 p.m. Sitting resumed at 6.00 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Jeyaretnam rose -

Mr Speaker: Under Standing Order 44, you are only entitled to speak once.

Mr Jeyaretnam: A clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir. May I clarify something? That is what I want to do.

Mr Speaker: All right. You may clarify but do not dwell on the same subject again.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I would not. It is in clarification of what I said about the right to strike, Mr Speaker, that I want to say something now.

It has been claimed by the hon. Member for Moulmein, and I think by another Member, that this Bill does not take away the right to strike. But I said it did and I want to, if I may, with your permission, clarify why in my opinion it does take away the right to strike. If you look at the definition of "trade union" under the Amendment Bill, it can have one or other of these objects, and you do not find among these objects any provision for the promotion or organizing of a strike so that now, if you want to register a new trade union, the Registrar will require that the constitution or the rules of the trade union contain no provision for the organization or promotion or financing of a strike. He will say that is not one of the objects of the trade union under the Trade Unions Act.

I know there is section 28. Under the existing Act section 28 talks of the right of trade unions to organize a strike. But you will come into this difficulty, Mr Speaker, Sir, because the Registrar may, after the passing of this Bill, require trade unions to remove from their objects, from their constitution, any clause which says that the trade union may promote a strike or organize or finance a strike. So you will find this object removed from the objects of the trade union set out in its constitution or in its rules. And once that is removed, then section 28 is completely of no help at all because you must look at the objects and if the objects say you cannot strike, well then, you cannot have recourse to section 28. This is why I said that this Bill removes the right to strike.

Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe (Geylang Serai): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to support this Bill. I would like to make two comments. First, the new definition of "trade union" which will now have, as its principal objective, the regulation of the relations between workmen and employers to bring about, inter alia, good industrial relations between workmen and employers. In so far as this principal objective is concerned, this is nothing new. Our union leaders realize that they have the responsibility to develop a peaceful industrial relations climate so that our industries and businesses can prosper to the benefit of everyone.

The type of unions which the Member for Anson is thinking of is not relevant to us. In any case, what have they achieved for their workers? They have created more unemployment, more suffering. Whereas in Singapore, in our experience, there is full employment. The quality of life of our workers has improved over the years. So over the past 20 years, we have been following this objective and we will continue to do so.

Our union leaders have endeavoured to work closely with employers and managements to ensure industrial peace, which is so necessary for our economic progress and prosperity. They realize the crucial need to develop effective teamwork between employers and their workmen and between workmen themselves, as this will help to raise productivity and bring about a better quality of life for our people.

Coming to the question of the right to strike, I think the amendments have not taken this away. Being a lawyer, I should think that the Member for Anson should have carefully read the Trade Unions Act. Part IV of the Act provides for this. He is deliberately trying to confuse the workers on what they have a right to do. He is trying to mislead them. The right to strike still remains and can be one of the objectives of a union. The Bill does not take this away.

I would also like to touch on one other point which he made about a statement made by an NTUC official in Israel. This is a case of misreporting by the Jerusalem Post and later taken up by the international press. This officer has written a letter to the Jerusalem Post to put the position right. The Member for Anson should have checked the facts before mentioning them.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Minister for Culture (Encik Wan Hussin Zoohri) (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to put forward my views concerning the amendments in this Bill which is being debated now. In my view, there are three reasons why it is necessary that the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill should be introduced. Firstly, this amendment is appropriate and timely because it can be harmonized with the industrial climate which we are now experiencing.

Secondly, in my opinion, this amendment if approved can ensure higher productivity which by itself will bring prosperity to our workers in particular and our country in general.

Thirdly, I wish to add that with this amendment it goes without saying that trade unions will be protected from the activities of undesirable elements in the trade unions whose intention is to ride on the backs of the trade unions for their own ends.

From the viewpoint of the spirit and content of this Bill, let not only a handful of trade unionists be conscious of this Bill, but it must be understood and practised by every member of a trade union. We are confident that the trade unions which have thus far achieved a high level of education and attained sophistication over the years will accept this amendment naturally and rationally.

Earlier, the Hon. Minister who proposed the amendment said that we have offered our impression in regard to the changes that are taking place in South Korea and Japan. I feel that this view is not a 'yes-man' view, but because what has happened in those countries have brought benefits to the countries concerned as well as to their people. We are also informed that the Prime Minister of our neighbouring country has himself propounded the view that they are looking to the East, or Look East Policy. This is not because the Malaysian Government loves eastern countries but because it has been found that what have been implemented by those countries are correct, rational, and in keeping with changing times.

I will not add to what has already been said by my colleagues in this Chamber, but I would like to give my views on a number of points raised by the Member for Anson. He has stated that in fact in Singapore there is no trade union in the real sense of the word. I admire his dexterity in twisting facts or in diverting attention from the real objectives and the noble aspirations of the people as embodied in the amendment. The real fact which he himself chooses not to see is that in Singapore there exists trade unions a la Singapore. The truth is that in Singapore there exist trade unions which have the characteristics of a Singapore identity. The fact is that in Singapore the workers and employers have realized that the old-type of unions are no longer relevant to the new era in Singapore. That is the real fact which the Member for Anson refuses to see and ignores.

His views remind us that he is still clouded by the colonial mentality because the pattern of our trade unions was the result of what we inherited from British trade unions. And if we continue along that model, we will end up like the trade unions in Great Britain which have brought misery upon the workers there. Is the Member for Anson prepared to go back in time? Is not the Member for Anson aware of the proverbial Malay saying, "At every flood the sand is altered"? (The laws and regulations change with every new setup). A changing situation enables us to analyse the new situation. It is only in the concept of change and continuity that we will be able to vouch for our progress and stability.

He also stated that Singapore workers are in a state of serfdom or considered as slaves. He forgets that the serfs that he referred to are enjoying a high standard of living, as evidenced by the fact that many of them own flats. Figures from the HDB show that year after year more and more workers from the lower income group own flats, and the percentage will rise from 70% to 80% in the years to come. Do not these workers, whom the Member considers as slaves, own properties, since they own flats? Does the Member for Anson not realize this fact? We say here and now that he deliberately does not want to see the facts staring in his face. Let me remind him that during a previous debate the Minister for Trade and Industry tabled concrete data to show that the level of prosperity of the people of Singapore has risen over the years. And the Member for Anson concluded his speech by charging that the amendment is the last rites for trade unionism in Singapore.--

However, unfortunately he does not want to accept the fact that as a result of this amendment a new lease of life, a new movement, will be given to the trade unions and that the workers will be able to face the challenges of the future. I see that he is a person who is certainly wise in matters of this nature, but I cannot reconcile myself that his wisdom falls far short of the arguments that he put forward in this debate. 6.16 p.m.

Mr Ong Teng Cheong: Sir, I would like to thank the various Members of Parliament, except the Member for Anson, for their support of this Bill. I do not intend to dwell at length on the subject as I have already explained in detail earlier and various Members have also touched on the various points mentioned in the Bill. I only want to answer a few points raised by Members, points where clarifications are being sought.

The Member for West Coast is concerned about certain types of workers who are neither employees nor employers. As I have explained in my earlier speech, a trade union of self-employed persons has no recourse to conciliation and arbitration procedures laid down in the Industrial Relations Act because their negotiations with their principals concern mainly business issues. There is no employee-employer relationship. If self-employed persons are allowed to continue their association as trade unions, it will only give them a false sense of protection under the Trade Unions Act.

There are altogether 11 existing trade unions of workmen which are likely to be affected by the change of the definition of workman. The members of these 11 trade unions, such as newspaper distributors, shoemakers, rattan workers, will not fall within the meaning of the revised definition of workman as they do not work under a contract of service. These trade unions, therefore, should not continue to be registered as trade unions.

However, as the Member for West Coast has pointed out earlier, there are certain categories of such workers who, in practice, are workers. They are employees but they work under a certain arrangement that they do not come under this definition. My Ministry, as I mentioned earlier, is aware of this problem and has conducted a number of discussions with the office-bearers of these unions with a view to help them sort out this problem. If the members of these unions intend to continue their association as a society under the Societies Act, if they do not come under the new definition, the Ministry of Labour will give every assistance, where necessary, to help them in their application for registration as a society and in the transfer of assets to the new organization.

For example, the musicians. Some musicians are actually employees, as in the case of the Singapore Symphony Orchestra. By the new definition, these musicians will be eligible to form unions and continue their association as a trade union. But there are other musicians who are self-employed. They would not come under the new definition. There is also another class of musicians who are on contract with night club managers or other operators. They are neither employees nor employers. We are in the process of sorting this out with these musicians to help them define whether or not they come under this new definition. In fact, since the introduction of this Bill the officials from my Ministry have met the officials of these 11 trade unions to find out ways and means to assist them.

Besides these 11 trade unions of workmen, there are also 39 trade unions of employers who are affected by the change of definition of trade union. My officials have also met the officials of these unions, and they have been assured of the assistance of my Ministry. All those trade unions whose status will be affected by the change of definition of trade union and the definition of workman will be given a grace period of one year to wind up their affairs.

Perhaps I should now turn to the points raised by a number of Members on the right of trade unions to strike. The hon. Member for Anson is full of surprises. He surprised me when he opposed the Bill totally while at the same time he submitted an amendment to this Amendment Bill. I thought he was going to support this Bill wholeheartedly with only an amendment to that particular clause 6. But now that he is opposing the Bill, I wonder whether he still wants to proceed with the amendment. Does it mean that if he proceeds with the amendment, he will support the Bill?

I would like to explain, especially to the hon. Member for Anson, that removing the objective regarding strike and so on, from the definition of trade unions, does not mean that the rights are removed. It is only the objective that we are referring to. The right to strike, as he has explained himself, is contained in section 28 of the Trade Unions Act. It also appears in the Industrial Relations Act and in the Trade Disputes Act. The right to strike is the fundamental right of the unions. But that is not the objective - to strike. To strike is only a means to achieve the objective.

He himself agrees that the new definition is all right with him. He has no qualms. He would buy them. The new definition of trade union means any association of workmen or employers whose principal object is to promote good industrial relations; to improve the working conditions of workmen or enhance their economic and social status; to achieve the raising of productivity for the benefit of workers. And yet he tells us that he objects to this Bill. To strike is the right of the unions, but to strike is not an end in itself. It is a means to achieve the end. I would like to assure Members for Kebun Baru, Geylang Serai and Pasir Panjang that the new definition of trade union, although emphasising the promotion of good industrial relations, does not in any way curtail trade unions the right to strike.

The Member for Anson quoted an incident last year, before he was in this House, when I introduced an amendment to the Trade Disputes Act. He must have just simply read what was reported in the press. Obviously he did not read the Bill or the Act himself. My advice to him is that it is dangerous just to rely on the press report alone. The only amendment that I introduced last year was to replace the word "strike" in the Trade Disputes Act with the word "industrial action". That was what the amendment was all about. If he is again serious in proposing the amendment to clause 6 of this Bill, to leave out "Minister" and "High Court by Originating Motion", then, if approved, i.e. if we accept his amendment, it would make this Act totally incomprehensible. I will explain to him later on.

As I have mentioned, the right to strike is there. It is the fundamental right of the trade unions. However, we have here the proper machinery in resolving disputes through collective bargaining, conciliation and arbitration. No effort must be spared to use this machinery. Should a trade union of workmen find it necessary to resort to strike or any industrial action to resolve a dispute, it must go through proper procedures to get the majority consent of the members concerned, by a secret ballot as provided in the Trade Unions Act and other necessary measures under any written law.

I come to the point raised by the Member for Moulmein. I have heard him carefully. His arguments have merits. He is concerned about the practicability of going back to all members to get their consent for a certain type of fund collected through voluntary donations not only from members of a union but also from members of the public, in which case members of the union could also be regarded as members of the public. He has clarified a point that if funds were to be raised from members of a union through its rules and regulations in the form of a levy for a specific use, then if the union wants to change this use it must go back to the union members. I think he agrees that this is necessary and reasonable. We have no quarrel with that point. But he also raised the point about raising funds through a walkathon or other functions for a specific purpose, like organizing a conference or holding a productivity campaign, where the surplus fund or the balance, a marginal amount, could be channelled back to the general fund for other uses, then it may not be practical to refer back to all those members who have made contributions. I think he has a point there. If the Member for Moulmein could come up with suitable amendments to clause 12 at the Committee stage, I am prepared to consider them favourably.

Question put: Ayes, 33; Noes, 1 ; Abstentions, 1.

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 Teng Cheong].

Bill considered in Committee. 6.34 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Clauses 1 to 5 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, I beg to move,

In page 3, line 19, to leave out "Minister" and insert "High Court by Originating Motion".

The object of this amendment, Sir, is to give the trade union the right to appeal, from either the refusal of the Registrar of Trade Unions or from an order made by him under section 15 or his refusal to register a new rule, to the High Court rather than the Minister. This decision of the Registrar may involve fundamental rights of the workers to form themselves into a trade union or a combination of workmen. It is a right which they possess and, if that right is to be refused, then it is only proper that the refusal should be tested in a court of law to see whether the decision of the Registrar is in accordance with the law as enacted by Parliament.

What the Bill does is to give this power to the Minister. I do not know what the machinery will be when an appeal is made to the Minister. But when there is an appeal made to the High Court, then the machinery is that both parties are before the court and the arguments are presented by either party in the presence of the other, and the right of reply is given. This is such a fundamental right in my opinion, Mr Speaker, Sir, that it should be vested in the courts. As I have said previously, speaking at other times, there is a tendency of this Government to invest Ministers, who are after all the executives, with all the powers and to take away the rights of the courts to pronounce on the legality or illegality of decisions made by the executive. This, in my respectful view, Mr Speaker, Sir, is all wrong.

One of the important functions of the courts in a democratic society, as we proclaim to be - we hear this from the Government leaders that we are a democratic society - is to see that the executive functions within and under the law, and they can only do this if the citizen who is aggrieved by any decision of the executive is allowed to take it to the court and to challenge that. But what happens here is that you go from one member of the executive to another member of the executive. You go from the Registrar, who works under the Minister, to the Minister. So the citizen does not have this right of taking his grievance to the court.

The Minister in reply said that he would attempt to show that my amendment would make the Bill incomprehensible. I realize what he was referring to because, if this amendment is allowed, then there will have to be a consequential amendment to section 18. That is purely a consequential amendment. It means changing the word "Minister" there to the "High Court".

Mr P. Selvadurai (Kuo Chuan): Sir, any decision made by the Registrar under clause 6 must be an administrative decision, and any appeal to the Minister from the Registrar's decision and the consequent decision made by the Minister himself must also be an administrative decision. If the hon. Member for Anson says that some fundamental legal rights are involved in these decisions, there is nothing in this Act or in the amendment to prevent anybody from going to the law courts. They can still go to the law courts because there is nothing here which says that the Minister's decision shall be final. Even if the provision says that the Minister's decision shall be final, if any fundamental rights are infringed, any member of the public can still go to the law court for the purpose of asserting those rights. So nothing is really taken away.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: Sir, looking objectively at the proposed amendment by the Member for Anson, from the trade union's point of view, I have my doubts whether the proposed amendment would really serve to help a trade union in a dispute with the Registrar of Trade Unions over his decisions.

I am fully aware that it is always possible for a Registrar of Trade Unions to be unreasonable and to place obstacles in the way of trade unions in their normal functions. It is necessary, therefore, for the Trade Unions Act to provide for a competent authority for appeals against whatever unreasonable decisions made by the Registrar to be overruled. This higher authority can be the Minister in charge, or the High Court as the Member for Anson now proposes.

Let us take the case of the High Court. Such course of redress will sometimes entail great expense in legal costs, and may put some unions in great pecuniary distress as a result of legal costs, where the legal disputes are long and protracted.

The Registrar of Trade Unions will always be at an advantage because he has the vast financial resources of the Government at his beck and call, legal personnel in the employ of the Government will, on behalf of the Registrar, do battle with the legal counsel of any union in any court of law. Win or lose, the union will always be the poorer for it. To some people it may give great personal satisfaction to be able to haul the Registrar or, for that matter, other public officials, before a court of law. But such satisfaction is no consolation to a union unable to make the Registrar reconsider a disputed decision. At the same time, great legal costs are incurred. It would appear that the reference of any dispute to the High Court is not necessarily the best or most desirable course of action for any union to take.

On the other hand, referring an appeal to the Minister may and can be most productive and useful in terms of result where a union has cogent and valid grounds for making an appeal. The Minister, in exercising his judgement and decision over any appeal, has not only to do justice to an appeal but also to ensure that justice is seen by the public to have been done to the appeal. If a decision of the Minister is patently biased and unfair, then not only he but the Government also will suffer the wrath of the people, and such wrath will be reflected in the voting at every General Election. This is the best check against any possible unfair decision of the Registrar of Trade Unions against trade unions who pursue valid and legitimate objectives. In considering an appeal against any decision of the Registrar, the Minister will consider not so much the technical aspect of the appeal but the substantial merit of the appeal.

For this reason, I do not think I can support the amendment moved by the Member for Anson. It is implicit in such amendment that the Minister, who is elected by the people of Singapore and is responsible to this House, is not competent and conscientious enough to deal with appeals from the decisions of the Registrar of Trade Unions.

It is also important to note, and as pointed out by the Member for Kuo Chuan, that even though the Minister's decision is final after the appeal has been considered by him, there is nothing to prevent any aggrieved person to take up proceedings in court against his decision by way of certiorari, or other remedies under the law.

The amendment as proposed by the Member for Anson, if adopted, is likely only to benefit some legal practitioners in terms of case or publicity as their expertise and services will be required by any person, persons or trade unions that are aggrieved by the decision of the Registrar of Trade Unions. 6.45 p.m.

Mr Ong Teng Cheong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not intend to repeat what has been said. The decision of the Registrar may be to refuse registration of a trade union, to withdraw or cancel the registration of a trade union, or to refuse to register a new rule, or to alter any of the rules of a trade union. I would only like to say that matters of registration, withdrawal or cancellation of a trade union or the rules of a trade union essentially hinge on the question of policy and executive action. Hence, they can only be exercised by an executive body and not by the court. Accordingly, such decisions can only be made by a Minister responsible to Parliament and the electorate. As the Member for Kuo Chuan has explained, although an appeal on such matters is made to the Minister and his decision is final, it does not debar proceedings in court.

I am afraid the Member for Anson is not serious when he proposed his amendment to the Amendment Bill. As I have mentioned just now, even if we were to approve this amendment, a lot of amendments to other provisions of the principal Act would have to be made. But he did not suggest them and, as it stands, I do not see how we can approve or even consider this proposed amendment.

Question put: Ayes, 1 ; Noes, 36; Abstentions, 1.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 7 to 9 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10 -

The Chairman: There is a printing error in page 5, line 19. The word "respectivey" should read "respectively". This will be done.

Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 -

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the Minister's favourable response to my point, I would like to get your consent and the general assent of hon. Members present to move an amendment to this clause without the requisite notice.

The Chairman: I give my consent. Is it the pleasure of hon. Members that the amendment be moved?

Hon. Members indicated assent.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

In page 6, lines 4 and 5, to leave out "by a trade union from its members for a specific purpose", and insert "for a specific purpose by a trade union from its members, which the members were liable to pay in accordance with its rules,".

I do not need to advance the reasons for making this amendment, as I have already stated the reasons during my speech at the Second Reading of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12 as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 13 to 16 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported with an amendment; read a Third time and passed.