RESTORATION OF WORKERS' RIGHTS

Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Government has any intention to restore to workers the rights which were taken from them in 1968.

Dr Lee Boon Yang: The Industrial Relations Act was amended in 1968 to provide a sound basis for enhancing industrial relations. The amendments drew a distinction between the functions of management and trade unions while balancing the interest of both parties. Thus, under the new provision, matters like promotion, transfer, hiring, retrenchment, dismissal and assignment of duties were classified as matters not for collective bargaining between trade unions and employers. To prevent abuses by employers, the amendment provided for workers and trade unions to seek redress through conciliation and adjudication, including appeals against unfair dismissal.

The legislative amendments in 1968 also involved the rationalisation of the basic terms and conditions of employment and the rights and obligations of employees under the Employment Act. For example, an employee would be entitled to two days' pay for work on a holiday instead of three days' pay provided the employee does not absent himself without valid grounds immediately before and after the holiday.

While employers were given the discretion to carry out their managerial functions without being subjected to collective bargaining, the right of trade unions to take industrial action was not removed. Such rights continue to be enshrined in the law. The main difference is that a union, which intends to take strike action, must first obtain the consent and mandate of its members through a secret ballot. This requirement of a secret ballot is in line with the democratic principle that such an extreme action should reflect the collective wishes of the members. The need to seek the mandate of members through secret ballot before an industrial action has also been introduced in other countries such as Malaysia, Australia and the United Kingdom.

With regard to executives joining the rank-and-file unions, Members will recall that I had already, in reply to the hon. Member, Mr Yeo Guat Kwang on 3rd August, informed the House that my Ministry is studying the issue. We have convened a Tripartite Committee to consider how to bring our laws on union membership up to date especially with regard to executives joining unions and the areas for which union representation should be allowed.

The 1968 amendments of the Employment Act and Industrial Relations Act succeeded to strike a fair and equitable balance between the interest of workers and employers. As a result, we have enjoyed more than 30 years of harmonious industrial relations, steady economic growth and higher incomes for workers. Our legal framework has been a key factor for BERI to rank the Singapore workforce as No. 1 in the world for almost 20 years. Hence, we should only make changes which will better equip us to deal with the evolving workforce and business environment.

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I ask the Minister: did the trade unions not have all these rights before 1968: the right to negotiate for better wages, the right to be consulted on dismissals and transfers, before the law was amended in 1968? Did they not have these rights? And were they not taken away from them? Is the Minister aware that the Senior Minister, some years ago, said in a BBC interview that he had to tell the workers then that they should give up these rights because the British were withdrawing their bases and it was necessary for Singapore to do something about its economic programme which would be affected as a result of the withdrawal? The implication, he said, was that they would be restored once the economy improved and the situation made it possible for the rights to be restored. How long have the workers got to wait?

Dr Lee Boon Yang: Mr Speaker, Sir, the right of workers to negotiate for better wages is enshrined in the law. That is our system of collective bargaining and it is being exercised regularly by workers as represented by their unions when they negotiate for their collective agreement. None of that right has been taken away or eroded. With regard to dismissal and transfer, I have already said in my main reply that this was in fact removed for good reason because it was considered to be rightfully the functions of management. The way they promote, transfer, hire, retrench or dismiss employees should be a managerial decision or management function. But at the same time, we have provided a mechanism for employees who feel that they are wrongfully dismissed or their services unfairly terminated to make an appeal to the Ministry for their cases to be studied and investigated and the Ministry would then take action to ensure that if they were in fact wrongfully dismissed or their services unfairly terminated, they would be fairly compensated or reinstated as the case warrants.

As to the point he mentioned about what the Senior Minister stated, I did not have the exact context of what was said on that particular occasion. But what I want to say here is that whatever changes that we make to our labour law must be changes that can help us to better compete in a globalising environment. You know that the world is undergoing rapid changes. There are no longer barriers to movement of capital and technology. If we were to change our labour laws and as a result of the change, introduce a lot more confrontation, adversarial relations between the unions representing the workers and the employers, we may, in effect, be putting ourselves at a disadvantage.

Prior to 1968, our labour law had severe inherent weaknesses. These weaknesses resulted in constant bickerings, confrontations and disputes between the unions and employers. Unions were exploiting loopholes in the law. Workers themselves were also exploiting loopholes in the law.

Let me give the Member an example. Prior to 1968, workers could claim triple pay for working on a holiday. The outcome of it was that there were many reported instances of workers absenting themselves on the day before and the day after the holiday, but turning up to work on the holiday itself to collect triple pay. So, in effect, he got two off-days for working one day. I do not think this kind of practice should be encouraged and we proceeded to amend our law to plug such loopholes in the law. I think what we have today is a better framework for managing our industrial relations.

In the past, before 1968, the trade unions were not required to have a secret ballot before they took extreme industrial action in launching a strike. In fact, many trade unions took action without securing a mandate first from their members. They called their union members out on strike without any due regard to the interest and welfare of the workers, and the consequences to the company. Trade unions in those days, before the 1968 amendments, also intervened on issues which, as I have said earlier on, should rightly be within management domain, such as hiring, promotion, transfer, dismissal and even the assignment of duties. Those were the days where trade unions would confront and challenge employers over issues, such as redeployment of their members within the company. I do not think we should try to reinstate such provisions in the law because that would result in unending disputes between workers and the employers. And this was what happened in the 60s. The legal framework in existence then resulted in endless disputes leading to confrontation and strikes at the workplace.

Let me give the Member an example. In 1955 alone, there were 275 strikes, resulting in a loss of almost one million man-days. In one year alone, there was a loss of one million man-days. In 1961, the industrial disputes also resulted in 116 strikes, and the loss of more than 400,000 man-days. So, that kind of legal framework resulted in an adversarial and confrontational industrial relations climate. I do not think that will equip Singapore to deal with today's competitive economic conditions. If anything, perhaps the hon. Member may be trying to hamper our economic prospects by advocating a return to the bad old days of industrial relations. We can surmise what would be his reasons.

What is quite clear, obviously, is that in an adversarial and confrontational industrial relations climate, very often political parties are able to exploit unhappy trade union members and even the leadership, and this is precisely what happened in the 60s where political parties were able to influence various trade unions and to use them for their own political objective. I am not saying that the hon. Member is in fact having such a strategy in mind. But I am saying that if we take his advice and proceed to do what he is urging us to do, then we are likely to end up in a situation where the trade union movement, instead of serving the welfare of the workers, could well end up being an instrument to be used to advance other people's interest and agenda, and not necessarily that of the workers.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, before I ask the Hon. Minister supplementary questions, may I thank him for not casting aspersions on my sincerity.

The Minister mentions 1955. Does he realise that in 1955, I was around in those days, the present Senior Minister was the legal advisor to a great many trade unions. The PAP then was championing the rights of workers, wanting greater rights for them.

My second question is this. The Minister says anyone unfairly dismissed can appeal to his Ministry. I have asked, time and time again, why can we not have an Unfair Dismissal Act. Why is it that our workers cannot be given their rights, but be allowed to depend upon the patronage of the Ministry concerned?

Dr Lee Boon Yang: Mr Speaker, Sir, I was also around in 1955. Certainly, I was much younger than the hon. Member. The point that the first generation leaders of the PAP, including the then Secretary-General and Prime Minister, were very involved in the trade union movement does not invalidate my point. They were there to serve the interests and the rights of the workers who had engaged their service, unlike others who were there to use the trade unions and their organisations to advance their own political agenda at the expense of the interests and the rights of the workers. So there is a difference. And if the hon. Member is not aware of it, I would urge him to read Senior Minister's memoirs, because it is set out quite clearly what the Senior Minister tried to do in his younger days in championing the rights of the workers.

Sir, on unfair dismissal, this has been a question that he has trotted out at every opportunity, and since it is the same question, I am bound to give him the same answer, because the answer cannot vary just because he trots out the same question on a different occasion. The answer is that workers who feel that they have been unfairly dismissed have a very efficient and low cost mechanism to which they can appeal to seek redress. Our experience at the Ministry is that the mechanism has worked very well, in fact, over the last 30 years. We deal with thousands of cases a year, and our decisions have always worked in the interest of both parties. We have been able to secure a mutually satisfying resolution to many of these disputes. Whether it is unfair termination or dismissal, we have always been able, after conciliation, to reach an agreement between the employer and the employee in the vast majority of cases. So we see no reason now to proceed on a different tack, the one that is advocated by the hon. Member, to enact a new law for dealing with such cases. We already have a mechanism that works, a mechanism that is efficient, low-cost and expeditious. So, why do we need to create a new framework?