EMPLOYMENT (AMENDMENT) BILL

7.06 pm

Debate resumed.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Chin Harn Tong): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Employment (Amendment) Bill. This Bill is of much interest to workers because the possibility of the amendment of the Employment Act has long been discussed by the public before the Bill was finally presented in Parliament. As a Member in this House very much associated with the trade union movement, I have scrutinized the provisions of this Bill very carefully. Though I have heard comments by some persons to the effect that the provisions of the Bill are mainly favourable to employers rather than to workers, I can say from my own study of the Bill that this is not correct. For example, security guards and watchmen who constitute a sizable proportion of the workforce in Singapore are now brought within the scope of the Employment Act. The provisions of annual leave for workers are made clear and more favourable to workers. Under the existing Employment Act, a worker has to work more than 10 years before he can enjoy an annual leave entitlement of more than seven days. Under this Bill, with every additional year he works, the worker enjoys a greater annual leave entitlement immediately. Similarly, the provisions of maternity and protection benefits are made more favourable to workers in that the workers may take their two months paid maternity leave after confinement, as is the usual practice amongst workers in Singapore.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Chin Harn Tong): Last, but not the least, the Bill provides for different basis of computation of ordinary rate of pay in accordance with the actual number of working days in a week. Such a provision is useful when calculating the salary payable to a worker on termination of service. On the other hand, ft may be said that provisions of the Bill, such as those concerning overtime, may be intended to favour the employers. But to take an objective stand on this matter, any Bill to amend the Employment Act to make it more reflective of the existing circumstances must necessarily contain provisions that are equally favourable to employers as well as to workers. Sir, if the Bill has been drafted to favour the workers rather than the employers, it would not be in the long term interest of the workers themselves as ultimately the employers are also investors and may not be induced to set up businesses in Singapore to give employment opportunities to workers here if the employment climate and conditions are made to be unfavourable to them. On that consideration, I view the Bill to be a well-balanced piece of legislation as it seeks to make the statutory provisions governing employment to be objectively fair and balanced between the employers and the workers, as it is not in the interests of either the employers or workers to have provisions which are disproportionately adverse to them.

Sir, the significant merit of this Bill is that it makes the provisions of the principal Employment Act more flexible in keeping with the needs of industry and commerce as practised in Singapore. Sir, the only caution I may express is that the greater the flexibility of a piece of legislation, the greater is the scope for exploitation by employers. I accordingly support the Bill but with the request that the Ministry of Labour is to exercise more vigilance in its enforcement of the pm- visions of the principal Employment Act in order to ensure that the provisions of the Employment Act are not abused by employers against workers.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Deputy Speaker, we are debating amendments to legislation for a section of our population who have served us well. Sir, I do not have to remind Members of the House that they have served us well and they have contributed in no small measure to the prosperity that we now enjoy. This has been acknowledged year after year by even this Government in its Budget Statements. But all we have had is lip-service from this Government on the contribution made by the workers.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Employment Act was not the first piece of legislation that governed the conditions of work for our workers in Singapore, There was, before this Government took over the governing of this country, legislation and that legislation contained terms which were moria favourable to the workers than are to be found in the Employment Act. I remember, Sir, before the 1959 elections, at rallies addressed by the Prime Minister he was complaining about how the workers under the then legislation were being discriminated against in favour of the employers and how his Government or his Party when it came to power would remedy all that. As I have said before, this Government came to power on the backs of the workers, and the moment it took power it forgot its promise to the workers. And it began dismantling the provisions in the employment legislation and introducing legislation which militated against the welfare of the workers and their interests.

There was this Employment Act which was introduced. Then there was the amendment to the Industrial Relations Act which cut down very severely the right of bargaining which was given to trade unions, the right of the trade unions to secure for their members better working conditions and better benefits from their employers. This was all introduced on the ground that it was necessary for the economy of Singapore because it was passing through a difficult period. There was the British withdrawal. We did not know what the future would look like and so the workers were persuaded to accept all these limitations on their rights and to put up with less favourable conditions of terms and service. They have put up with them and they have responded and played their part, as I said, in contributing to the economy of Singapore.

As has been said by the last speaker, Mr Deputy Speaker, this proposed amendment to the Employment Act has been mooted for some time now. It was said that it was going to bring in a better deal for the workers or that is what they hoped. May I say, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that this Bill is a bitter disappointment. There are of course some provisions, crumbs thrown to the workers, in this Bill, which would appear to give the impression that they are getting some benefits but they are very marginal.

A number of these provisions are designed to help the employer and that has been touched upon by previous speakers and I do not propose to go through them. The hope has been expressed that employers may not exploit the rights given to them under this Bill and under the Act and take advantage over their workers. But this Bill, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is no great deal for our workers. May I touch upon three areas where, I think, it is sadly lacking.

Mention has been made about giving workers security of tenure. In the legislation before the Employment Act came into force there was, as is provided in this Act, a period of notice that an employer had to give an employee before he terminated his service. But then under that legislation, the employee was entitled to a month's notice and if he had worked for more than seven years he was entitled to two months' notice. Under the Act, irrespective of how long a worker has worked, an employer can give him notice of only four weeks and terminate his employment. That is all that he has to give.

There is, under the Act, section 14 which provides that an employer shall hold a due inquiry before he dismisses an employee. I had spoken on this before. Under this section, the employer may dismiss an employee for .misconduct after due inquiry. One would have thought that that provided some form of security. for the worker. But the Court of Appeal has held that despite the provision in the Act requiring an employer to conduct an inquiry before he dismisses him, an employer may nevertheless dismiss the worker without any inquiry and only pay him the four weeks' wages which is required under section 10 of the Act where an employer terminates an employee's services. So although the intention of section 14 may have been to give the workers some security, some protection against dismissals, it did not achieve that effect because the Court of Appeal held that it was not mandatory and did not render a dismissal in violation of that provision nugatory. The dismissal was still valid and the employer was only liable to pay damages for the breach of contract.

I had asked the then Minister for Labour whether he would consider amending section 14 of the Act to provide that where an employer does not hold a proper inquiry before he dismisses a worker, the dismissal shall be null and void and the worker should be reinstated in his employment.

The Minister without Portfolio (Mr Ong Teng Cheong): Go to court.

Mr Jeyaretnam: It is not a question of going to court. It is a question of providing it. The court has held that section 14 of the Act does not require the employer to hold any inquiry. He can still nevertheless dismiss an employee but the Ministry's intention was that the employer should hold an inquiry. With the court's decision, I should have thought that any Government concerned with the welfare of the -workers would have taken steps to put right the defect in the section which the Court of Appeal said there was.

The Minister spoke about consulting legislation in other countries; I take it, enlightened labour legislation in other countries. Does he not know that there are in some countries statutes which legislate against unfair dismissals by an employer of his employee? The legislation provides that where an employer terminates the services of an employee for no good reason, the employee may appeal to a tribunal and the tribunal can order the employer to take the employee back into his service except where the termination is necessitated on the grounds of reorganization and it is not found possible to retain the employee in the employment. But in that case the tribunal can order the employer to pay compensation based on the years of service of the employee. Here we have no such provision for our workers. There is no security of tenure for our workers. They may work 15 years or 20 years with an employer and give devoted faithful service but before they can retire the employer may dismiss them. And all he has to do is to give them four weeks' notice regardless of the length of service that they have put in with the employer, or he can just throw at the employee four weeks' wages and say, "Leave immediately."

So in what way is this Bill a big deal for our workers? what are the provisions here that go any way to guarantee them security of employment, security of tenure in their employment, that protect them against unfair dismissals? Nothing at all. All that we are left with are these marginal benefits given to the employees, perhaps to compensate for the benefits that are given to the employers by this Bill to arrange work schedules to suit them.

Mention has been made about the 12-hour shift. What is the provision in this Bill that will stop employers forcing 12-hour shifts on workers? We must accept that employees and workers are entitled to be consulted. I have mentioned in my Budget speech here of the legislation in other countries and of the practice in other countries where workers sit on the boards of companies to regulate terms and conditions of service of the workers. There is nothing whatsoever of that in this Bill. I say, Sir, with regret that this Bill continues in the betrayal of the workers.

One would have thought that this Government, having recognized the contributions that the workers have made, would have found it possible to compensate them and to thank them for their contributions; but nothing at all. All that we are left with are crumbs and pious appeals to the employers. I sos that even the tax collector is allowed now under this Bill to grab the whole of the employee's wages first if the employee owes the tax collector any tax.

Sir, the Prime Minister, a number of times, has referred to my betraying the workers at Blair Plain and this, of course, is faithfully reproduced by the lackey press.

Mr Dhanabalan: You misled the residents of Blair Plain.

Mr Jeyaretnam: But, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me say here that those workers in Blair Plain, before I became a Member of Parliament, were served with notices to vacate their quarters. They were told - no doubt they were given two years' notice - but they were told that they had to vacate them. And they were told that there was no obligation on the part of the employer.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Jeyeretnam, we are not debating on Blair Plain.

Mr Jeyaretnam: . But we are talking about the workers.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Would you please come back to the Bill?

Mr Jeyaretnam: I am talking about the care and welfare of the workers, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, and they are workers with the Port of Singapore Authority.

Mr Deputy Speaker: But what has that got to do with the Employment Act?

Mr Jeyaretnam: The Employment Act regulates the welfare of the workers, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Would you please come back to the Employment (Amendment) Bill?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Well, I am talking about how this Government looks after the welfare of the workers -

Mr Deputy Speaker: But what has that got to do with Blair Plain?

Mr Jeyaretnam: We are debating that at the moment.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr S. Dhanabalan): No, we are debating on the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Come back to the Bill, please, otherwise I will have to ask you to sit down.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Deputy Speaker, I know you can, but what I would like to say is that -

Mr Deputy Speaker: It is not relevant. I am just telling you that it is not relevant to the Bill.

Mr Jeyaretnam: What are we debating on? The welfare of the workers, are we not, under the Employment (Amendment) Bill?

Mr Deputy Speaker: What has it got to do with Blair Plain? You tell me that.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Because I have been accused of letting them down. I want to show -

Mr Deputy Speaker: That is a different matter altogether.

Mr Jeyaretnam: It is not a different matter.

Mr Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member with whom you should be debating is not here.

Mr Jeyaretnam: He may not be here, but it is not a different matter.

Mr Deputy Speaker: I am afraid you are taking up too much of the time of the House now. Please, would you come back to the Bill? Or woUld you rather sit down?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am afraid you are restricting my right to speak in this House.

Mr Deputy Speaker: I am not restricting your right. I just want to make sure that the business of this House is conducted in an orderly manner.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes, I am not contravening -

Mr Deputy Speaker: We are honourable gentlemen, and I would like to see that we conduct our business in an honourable manner, please.

Mr Jeyaretnam: We are dealing with legislation for the workers, are we not?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes, we are.

Mr Jeyaretnam: And I am talking about a section of the workers, how they were dealt with.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes, you may talk about the workers, but what has it got to do with the resettlement problem in Blair Plain?

Mr Jeyaretnam: I am sorry, if you do not see that, then I am afraid I cannot do anything about it.

Mr Deputy Speaker: I do not see the relevance. So do you want to sit down or do you want to carry on in a more specific term in line with what we are debating here, and that is, the Employment (Amendment) Bill?

Mr Jeyaretnam: That was said in support of my argument - that the whole Bill is a let-down and a betrayal of the workers. Not only this, but the Employment Act -

Mr Deputy Speaker: I am not restricting you from saying that. You can say that. Yes, go ahead, please.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Deputy Speaker, as I have said, this Bill sadly lacks any provisions for the security of tenure and against unfair dismissals and it is a poor Bill after so much promise to the workers. Thank you. 6.35 pm

Encik Abbas Abu Amin (Pasir Panjang): ( In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, listening to the speech by the Member for Anson, I felt very upset. The impression I got is that our Singapore workers are proscribed, suffering, miserable, impoverished, oppressed and only puppets of employers. And he also alleges that the services promised to the workers are only lip service. Where is his sincerity when he refuses to listen to the true explanations, which I am going to tell him, by leaving the Chamber? Most deplorable. Several of my colleagues and I daily are involved in the activities of the workers and trade unionists discussing from time to time, outside of office hours, ways and means to enhance their working conditions, not just as workers only but, more than that, as citizens and as one community heading towards the same direction. However, the Member for Anson persistently refuses to accept the truth and, as I am no orator, I do not wish to pursue the matter further.

What I wish to stress to him is that he should open his eyes wide and see for himself the living conditions of the workers in Singapore, be it at the workplace, their home or wherever they may be. Look at the food they eat, their comfortable life at home, how their children are attired and also their level of wages which they have been getting today. There is no need for me to elaborate the true living conditions enjoyed by our workers today. If we peruse the local dailies, we will be able to know in depth the determination of our workers in preparing themselves to achieve further progress in the years ahead, and I am convinced that the purpose of introducing this amendment is no other than for the upliftment of the conditions of our workers and also for our Singapore society as a whole.

As the issues that I intend to raise have already been touched upon by my colleagues from Boon Lay and Aljunied, I do not wish to cover the same points again. I only hope that great care must be exercised in the initial implementation of these amendments in order to gain the confidence of the workers; that the workers are convinced of our sincerity to further uplift their working conditions, because our workers comprise those who are not so skilled, with inadequate education, but who are already advanced in age and who may find it difficult to adapt themselves to new situations and who may require a longer time to absorb these amendments. These amendments have to be explained to them to enable them to grasp the full implications and thus encourage them to strive even harder in order to progress. Although the NTUC has organized and conducted courses, classes, such as BEST and others, I feel that this can be dons more successfully if the full support of the employers is forthcoming. I support this amendment. Hopefully, we can achieve even more rapid progress. Thank you. 7.42 pm

Mr Chai Chong Yii (Bukit Batok): ( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, first of. all, let me say that I support this Amendment Bill. Just now several Members have spoken in full agreement with the objectives of the Bill. They spoke on behalf of the workers, expressing the concern that employers might make use of certain provisions of the Bill as an excuse for taking certain measures disadvantageous to the workers. But I would stress that our society is a free enterprise society. The employer and employee are in the same boat. We can describe the employer as rather the helmsman and the employee as a member of the crew of the boat. They should cooperate with one another and forge towards the same direction so as to achieve greater success.

I myself can be described both as an employee and an employer. Living in this society, each one of us often has different roles. Therefore, our perspective should be an all-rounded ons. It should be comprehensive. We should view the perspective from the point of the general interest of the whole society, the whole nation. We should not be like the Member for Anson who wastes so much of our time, particularly at this time when normally people take their dinner. The air-condition ing here is rather cold and so, having spoken, he has gone out; perhaps he has gone for his dinner. He has been harping on the same tune, trite repetitions, in his verbose utterances.

We should know that Parliament represents the general interest of the people of the whole nation. When we speak here we must speak with a broad vision on the premise that the interest of the nation must be uppermost. We should not be partisan in our attitude in this respect. We should not presume that every employer is bent on exploiting the worker. In fact, in a free enterprise society, the employer of course wants to make money. If the employees do not find their working conditions comfortable, of course, their effectiveness and productivity will also decrease, so that the employer will also be adversely affected. Therefore, the employer would not be looking for trouble for himself, by finding fault or cavil with the employee just to discomfort the employee. The employer and the employee are just like a pair of hands, left and right hands, of our body. So, with cooperation if the employer has good business, he can make more money. I believe every employer will then be willing to give more reward to the employee. So the crux of the matter is usually due to the different views on the same matter. Perhaps the employer thinks that this is enough. But the employee says it is not enough. So it is a matter of degree. Therefore, we should pay attention to this point.

As regards wages, whether it is sufficient or not or whether it is right or wrong, it is all in our conscience. If an employer is so stingy and puts all his profit into his own pocket and does not care for the welfare of his employee, then his company will not succeed. Singapore is an open society, and many of our employers come from different countries. If they cannot have a foothold and make money in Singapore, they might as well wind up their business and go elsewhere. Therefore, what we are discussing today namely, the Employment (Amendment) Bill, is to meet the requirements of the day. Therefore, we must base our discussion on the interests of our nation and the interests of our people.

Sir, I fully support this motion. 7.47 pm

Mr Lim Boon Heng (Kebun Baru): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member for Pasir Panjang is normally a calm and patient man. I have never seen him lose his temper. But he was rather angry with some of the comments made by the Member for Anson, and I think he rightly stood up to state his views in this House. The unfortunate thing was, of course, that the Member for Anson decided that he did not want to listen to a barrage from the Member for Pasir Panjang.

The Member for Anson has, as usual, not done his homework and he was not talking about the Employment (Amendment) Bill before us but rather repeating what he has mentioned many times in the past in this House. The only relevant point which we may term "relevant" was his view of the Employment Act. He made out that the Employment Act is a betrayal of the workers of Singapore. Again, he has got all his facts wrong.

When the Employment Act was passed by this House in 1968, we should consider it as a milestone in labour legislation. It was a historic definition of the ground rules for a healthy relationship between employer and employee. The Employment Act sets out the rights and responsibilities of each party in the employment contract. That such rights and responsibilities could be enforceable by law was a necessary condition for investors to have confidence in placing their capital in Singapore, thereby creating jobs, giving to Singaporeans the right to work, to earn a living and to build a better life for workers and their families.

With high unemployment, a harsh reality in 1968, union leaders accepted the Employment Act although, to many of them, it was more favourable to the employer. But they soon found out that as more investments came in, the unemployment quickly disappeared. Our unionists learnt that, by sacrificing some short-term goals, the aspiration of "bread for all" that we hear so often in international trade union gatherings has been achieved by Singaporeans.

Employers, particularly foreign investors, quickly found that the Singapore worker is diligent, flexible, eager to learn and highly productive. With stable, social, economic and political conditions, Singapore is an attractive place for investment. So high unemployment transformed into a tight labour market and real wages have increased.

We can write beautiful Employment Acts giving workers all kinds of benefits. But what would be the use of such legislation if there are no jobs. The Member for Anson keeps referring in this House to legislation of other countries. And very often he has referred to British legislation. I wonder what is the use of British Employment Acts or Trade Union Acts would be to Singaporeans. Does he not know that today they have a very high unemployment problem?

An hon. Member: Strikes!

Mr Lim Boon Heng: Strikes, lock-outs and chaos in their ports, on their roads, and what I think is worse still for the workers in Britain is the fact that fresh school leavers/graduates have very limited opportunities to find work. 50% on a national average of British school leavers have no hope whatsoever of getting a job. Sir, if you look at the more depressed areas, the figure goes up to 100%. So what is the use of talking of tenure of jobs if there are no jobs at all?

Turning to our own Employment Act, particularly the amendments proposed to this House, I think the Employment Act has served us well in the last 16 years. But some of the clauses are out of date and should be revised. One of the provisions concerns maternity leave. It is already widespread practice for employers to allow expectant mothers to work up to confinement and grant two months' post-confinement leave. Most mothers have found it much more beneficial to have two months' leave after birth to recuperate and to nurse their new-born, than to rest one month before birth and have only one month to recuperate after confinement. So the amendment here is not something new but merely bringing up to date what is generally practised in Singapore.

Another example of an outmoded provision is in statutory minimum annual leave. Seven days annual leave may have been adequate in 1968 when workers were thankful to be at work and perhaps fearful that to take leave may mean that their places could be taken by someone else. Today, it is time for us to provide for a more decent period of annual leave entitlement. But the proposal in the amendment is not as good as what is enjoyed by workers. So I consider this as enshrining a principle which the Minister for Labour has stated, ie to give recognition to long-serving employees. The actual minimum number of days specified in the amendment lags far behind what our workers enjoy. Our union leaders have successfully negotiated for better leave conditions than what the new amendments provide. And with jobs for all, continued economic growth, high productivity, our workers need not be concerned with the minimal provisions in the legislation. They will enjoy much better terms.

What I consider to be more significant in the proposed amendments is in the laying of a new set of work rules for our future growth. One of the amendments will open the way for employers to pay wages into a bank account of their employees. As the Member for Boon Lay has stated, even without this amendment some employees are already doing so with the consent of their employees. We are moving into a new era which some have called "the information society". A cashless society will be part of this new age. The Government is forward looking and in this respect the amendment serves to signal that we must move forward. Our workers and union leaders are not against the cashless society. What they are concerned with is the process of the change. In March, I dealt at length on the problems that workers may face in the change from cash payment to cashless payment. And this afternoon, my colleagues have again stated some of the problems. I do not wish to cover the same points again. However, like my colleagues, I wish to reiterate that employers should not take the amendment as giving them a free hand to decide the method of payment. If they are caring employers, they should first discuss the change with their employees, find out their problems and difficulties, and in the implementation, make sure that these problems are solved. There must be consultation.

The second major change in the Bill of much greater significance in the long term is found in the cumulative effect of the amendments to clauses 13, 14 and 15 of the Employment Act. Considerable flexibility is now given to employers to schedule working days in a week, working hours in a day and intervals between rest days.

Given the need to maximize the use of high cost capital equipment of high level technology, such a flexibility can result in our factories becoming more efficient and more competitive. Properly planned, the flexibility can also be beneficial to workers. But improperly used, solely from short-term profit motives, it could lead to a degradation of the quality of life of workers and their families, the social aspect.

Here again, union leaders and workers are not against this amendment because of the danger of abuse by a small number of unenlightened employers. We will support this amendment because this flexibility is advantageous to all workers in the information age where flexitime will be a feature. But we need to remind employers that they should observe both the spirit and the letter of the law, and not merely interpret the letter of the law for selfish short-term goals. Again, we call for consultation so that all may benefit from the flexibility in working days and working hours.

To those unenlightened and narrow-minded employers who form the minority and who have inclinations to exploit workers, we serve notice now that our unions will be vigilant and will not fail to take errant employers to task. At the same time, we would urge the Ministry of Labour to be equally vigilant to ensure that both the spirit and the letter of the proposed amendments are observed.

Finally, I would like to commend the Minister for Labour for his consultation with the union leaders in the process of formulating these amendments. I think the process has proved both beneficial to the Ministry of Labour as well as to the trade union movement. I thank him for that and urge him to continue this good practice. 8.00 pm

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the hour is late and I am sure all Members as well as non-Members in the Chamber must be tired, and so I do not propose to dwell at length in my reply.

I wish to thank the Members for Pasir Panjang, Bukit Batok and Kebun Baru for their comments. I have taken note of the various points they have raised. I am glad to note their positive support for the principles and provisions in the Bill. If I could generalize, they have qualified their support with a note of caution and some apprehension as to the ways in which the new provisions for cashless pay, for flexible working hours, for flexible working weeks, will be implemented, their scope for abuse and so on. I have taken note of their valid concerns. In fact, I would say that employers would do well to heed the points which have been expressed by the hon. Members this evening. As for the Ministry of Labour, I can assure hon. Members that the Ministry of Labour will not fail to keep these points in view when we monitor the implementation of these provisions.

But above everything else, the so-called unenlightened employers referred to by the Member for Kebun Baru should take note that if they seek to implement these provisions in a short-sighted manner or in an exploitative manner, the greatest sanction really is, that they would lose these workers. In a tight labour market, unenlightened employers would be doing themselves in if they tried to exploit these provisions. I am sure that the workers and their representatives in the unions will be vigilant and will bring to the attention of the Ministry each and every instance of such malpractice for the Ministry to investigate.

Sir, as far as the specific provisions commented on, I have taken note of them. They are not objections to the principles but the comments have been made on questions of implementation. While my Ministry will look into these detailed comments, I may now just touch on a few.

The requirement as to flexible hours, 12-hour working day: I would like to point out that we have taken into account the previous concerns expressed in various informal discussions as well as in union dialogues. If one examines the provisions of clause 14 of the Bill, certain safeguards have, in fact, been incorporated there. The consent of the workers must be obtained.

Sir, as far as the provision for deletion of the $50 in the provision for deductions for damages to goods or for money entrusted to an employee, I would like to point out that this section has a very restricted meaning. It deals not with goods generally but with goods expressly or specially entrusted to the custody of the worker. Of course, that section also deals with money. But in this connection, it may be worthwhile noting that, as we move into a cashless pay society, this problem should become a thing of the past.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in a sense it may not be necessary for me to reply to the Member for Anson because effective rebuttals have been given eloquently by the Member for Pasir Panjang as well as the Member for Kebun Baru. I would say that his professed concern for workers' rights is today matched by his total lack of interest in what transpires in the proceedings on this Bill after he spoke. The fact that he left is typical of the depth of his concern for the rights of workers.

The points he has raised are nothing new. They have been raised before. He makes constant references to the rights of workers enshrined in laws in other countries. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we can have the most grandiose Bill of Workers Rights drafted but, as the Member for Kebun Baru has said, what is the use of having a nicely drafted Bill of Rights when there is nothing really to bargain about? There are no jobs to bargain about in these countries. Bargaining is irrelevant because people are unemployed. We have enshrined in our Employment Act, and supplemented by the Industrial Relations Act, a scheme where workers have scope for bargaining, not for invisible jobs but for real jobs.

In this connection, I think all those foreign critics or the Member for Anson might do well to read what Dr Winsemius has written in his published interviews in our press as to what is the real right when we talk about rights of workers. I remember, in this interview which was published in the local press, he said that in his view all the socialists in the International should read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and if I may quote him:

'And then the fools will find that one of the human rights is that of employment. Every one of them (in other countries in Europe) has managed to create with their stupid practices unemployment directly contrary to human rights.'

In Singapore, Sir, for many years we have managed to have economic progress and stability and have achieved a situation of full employment, a record which very few other countries, developed or developing, can boast about. What is our task now? Our task is to go forward. The question. is not whether this Bill is pro-employer or pro-employee, as the Member for Anson tried to project it. This is not the approach. This Bill is pro-Singapore, is pro-progress and advancement; it is anti-unemployment, anti-deterioration of our economy.

The Member for Anson raised several other topics. I do not intend to go into them, except one. On his resurrecting his point about the right to inquiry under section 14, this was a subject of debate between him and the previous Minister for Labour. The record is in the Hansard at the sitting on 19th March 1982. He complained then, as he complains now, that a court had decided or interpreted the provision in a particular way and he wants us in Parliament to change it. He blows hot and cold. Only this morning, in the discussion of the Criminal Law legislation, he made ardent pleas that the judicial discretion of the courts should not be tampered with. And he bemoaned the fact that Parliament was, in his interpretation, trying to fetter the discretion of the courts. Yet, barely hours later, he comes here and he asks us to overturn the judicial interpretation of the court. This speaks for itself!

He says that in other countries there are provisions for complaints to be made on unfair dismissal. He talks about tribunals. We too have provisions for complaints of unfair dismissals, and victimization. The record speaks for itself. There have been cases where appeals are made to the Ministry of Labour, and where the com- plaints are justified, employees have been reinstated. In other cases where they are not reinstated, compensation has been ordered where a case has been made out.

He has not read the provisions of the Bill, Mr Deputy Speaker. The best example of his complete lack of understanding of the Bill, which proves that he has not even taken the trouble to read the Bill in relationship to the Act, is when he asked about the 12-hour working day in clause 14. This was his question, "Where are the safeguards to prevent employers to force the employee into a 12-hour working day?" If one looks at clause 14 carefully, this is what it says:

'(2) No consent given by an employee under this section shall be valid unless the provisions of this section and section 38 have been explained to the employee and the employee has been informed of the times at which the hours of work begin and end, the number of working days in each week and the weekly rest day.'

And the earlier part of the paragraph says that this applies to employees who have consented in writing to this new flexible 12-hour working day. On that note, Mr Deputy Speaker, I think I need not spend any more time dealing with the points resurrected by the Member for Anson.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Prof. S. Jayakumar].

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