Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - REPORT_NO70, 1963

1. 104. The Committee has already submitted a number of interim reports on the case to the Governing Body. At its meeting in October 1962 it submitted to the Governing Body the recommendations contained in paragraph 399 of its 66th Report, which reads as follows:
2. 399. In all the circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
   • (a) to draw attention once again to the importance which the Governing Body attaches to the principle that appeals against the refusal or cancellation of the registration of organisations by trade union registrars should lie to the courts;
   • (b) to note the statement by the Government of the United Kingdom that the Government of Singapore realises the importance of ensuring the observance of Article 2 of the Right of Association (Non-Metropolitan Territories) Convention, 1947 (No. 84), and will take appropriate measures as soon as the position in Singapore has improved;
   • (c) to express its keen regret that this statement simply repeats the statements made on three previous occasions and, therefore, gives no indication of any progress having been made towards giving effect to the principles already expressed in this connection by the I.L.O. Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations and the Governing Body;
   • (d) to express the hope once again that measures will be taken without delay to ensure full application of the Convention in Singapore in accordance with the principle enunciated in subparagraph (a) above;
   • (e) to request the Government of the United Kingdom once again to keep the Governing Body informed as to further developments in this connection;
   • (f) to draw attention yet again to the importance which the Governing Body attaches to the principle of prompt and fair trial by an independent and impartial judiciary in all cases, including cases in which trade unionists are charged with political or criminal offences which a government considers have no relation to their trade union functions;
   • (g) to take note of the Government's statement that one more of the detained trade unionists was released on 12 June 1962;
   • (h) to draw attention once again to its view that a situation in which one of the 19 trade unionists arrested in Singapore as long ago as 1958 has still not yet been brought to trial is incompatible with the generally accepted principle enunciated in subparagraph (f) above;
   • (i) to request the Government once again to state as a matter of urgency, having regard to the above principle, what steps it intends to take to afford a fair trial at an early date to the trade unionist still in detention or, alternatively, whether his early release is contemplated;
   • (j) to take note of the Committee's present interim report with regard to the allegations relating to the second deregistration of the Malayan National Seamen's Union and to ensuing legal proceedings, it being understood that the Committee will report further to the Governing Body when the Government's observations thereon have been received.
3. 105. The 66th Report was approved by the Governing Body at its 153rd Session (November 1962). The recommendations and requests for further information contained in paragraph 399 thereof were brought to the notice of the Government of the United Kingdom by a letter dated 16 November 1962. A copy of a further communication, dated 20 November 1962, from the Malayan National Seamen's Union was transmitted to the Government on 6 December 1962. The Government of the United Kingdom furnished further observations by two letters dated 4 and 6 March 1963.
4. 106. The United Kingdom has ratified the Right of Association (Non-Metropolitan Territories) Convention, 1947 (No. 84), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), and has declared the provisions of these two Conventions to be applicable without modification in Singapore. The United Kingdom has also ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), but has reserved its decision regarding the application of its provisions in Singapore.

A. A. The complainants' allegations

• Allegations relating to the Deregistration of Trade Unions
  107. 107 The original allegations were fully analysed in paragraphs 125 to 141 of the Committee's 52nd Report. Subsequently, the Committee gave further consideration to certain legal aspects of the legislation of Singapore especially in connection with the question of the cancellation of the registration of trade unions. These matters were examined at length in paragraphs 460 to 469 of its 58th Report, in paragraphs 165 to 176 of its 60th Report and in paragraphs 29 to 31 of its 64th Report. The last recommendations made by the Committee with regard to this aspect of the case, at its meeting in October 1962, were those which are contained in paragraph 399 (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of its 66th Report cited in paragraph 104 above.
  108. 108 In its letter dated 4 March 1963 the Government of the United Kingdom declares that the situation in Singapore has improved and that, if the improvement continues, it is hoped to introduce legislation to give effect to Article 2 of the Right of Association (Non-Metropolitan Territories) Convention, 1947 (No. 84), in the near future.
  109. 109 In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
       • (a) to draw attention once again to the importance which the Governing Body attaches to the principle that appeals against the refusal or cancellation of the registration of organisations by trade union registrars should lie to the courts;
       • (b) to note the statement by the Government of the United Kingdom that the situation in Singapore has improved and that, if the improvement continues, it is hoped to introduce legislation to give effect to Article 2 of the Right of Association (Non-Metropolitan Territories) Convention, 1947 (No. 84), in the near future;
       • (c) to express the hope once again that measures will be taken without delay to ensure full application of the Convention in Singapore in accordance with the principle enunciated in subparagraph (a) above;
       • (d) to request the Government of the United Kingdom to keep the Governing Body informed as to further developments in this connection.
  110. 110 In addition to these legal aspects of the deregistration procedure, the Committee, at its meeting in October 1962, had before it new factual allegations arising out of the deregistration of the Malayan National Seamen's Union. This Union was first deregistered in 1958, but appealed successfully against that decision, as noted in paragraph 131 of the 52nd Report. In communications which he addressed to the I.L.O on 7 and 13 June and 7 August 1962, the President of the said Union declared that his Union's certificate of registration was again cancelled on 20 January 1960, that an appeal by way of certiorari was instituted and failed and that he was adjudicated bankrupt in respect of the costs of the proceedings. These communications were accompanied by considerable documentation, consisting largely of copies of documents drawn up in the course of the legal proceedings. The Committee observed that the procedure of certiorari in Singapore had already been the subject of examination by the Committee and that, in paragraph 182 (b) of its 60th Report, it had recommended the Governing Body " to note the admission of the Government of Singapore, conveyed by the Government of the United Kingdom, that the procedure of certiorari in Singapore does not constitute a full right of appeal to the courts ". In these circumstances, the Committee requested the Government to furnish its observations on the communications from the President of the Malayan National Seamen's Union dated 7 and 13 June and 7 August 1962. A further communication from the same source, dated 20 November 1962, was transmitted to the Government, which furnished its observations on the allegations by a communication dated 6 March 1963.
  111. 111 The essence of the allegations is that the registration of the Union was fraudulently cancelled, that the appeal against deregistration by way of certiorari was wrongfully dismissed by the courts, that the bankruptcy order against the President of the Union in respect of costs was wrongfully made and that his appeal against the order was wrongfully dismissed. Much of the complaint consists of an attempt to show that the Registrar, Ministers of State, the Legislative Assembly, courts and lawyers are all combining to bring about a denial of justice.
  112. 112 The Government states that the President of the Union was given ample opportunity to show cause why the registration of the Union should not be cancelled and that after the cancellation he availed himself of various remedies, including an application for an order of certiorari to the High Court to have the decision quashed. His application was rejected and he appealed to the Court of Appeal, which found against him. On both occasions costs were awarded to the Crown. Then, according to the Government, he began frivolous and vexatious actions against the former Minister of Labour and the Registrar; he also sued his own solicitor for negligence. As he did not pay the costs, he was declared bankrupt.
  113. 113 The Government contends that, because his Union ceased to exist when its registration was cancelled, the complaint by its former President should be regarded as a personal complaint, of which the I.L.O should take no notice.
  114. 114 The Government furnishes a copy of the judgment of the High Court dismissing the appeal against the deregistration of the Union, after an appeal against the Registrar had been rejected by the Minister. It would appear from the judgment that action was taken by the Registrar because the Union had been incurring expenditure far in excess of its receipts for a number of years and had, from 1955 to 1959, paid out large sums in respect of accommodation of seamen to a lodging house believed to be owned by an officer of the Union, who thus became a creditor and obtained a stranglehold over the Union's funds. The Registrar took action under section 15 (1) (c) of the Trade Unions (Amendment) Ordinance, 1959, which empowers him to deregister a union if he is satisfied that it is being used or is likely to be used against the interest of workmen in the particular trade, occupation or industry represented. The basic argument put forward by the appellant was that the Minister himself did not consider, or insufficiently considered, the appeal and that the Minister's decision was unreasonable. The judgment states:
• In a case such as the present where the Legislature has entrusted the decision of the appeal to a particular person it would, in my opinion, be wrong for this Court to substitute its view of what is reasonable for that of the Minister, who is the person appointed by the Ordinance. Individual opinions of what is reasonable do not always accord, but before an order of a tribunal or person appointed by statute to determine a particular matter can be set aside it must be so manifestly unreasonable as to lead irresistibly to the conclusion that the tribunal was either biased, or perverse, or did not trouble to consider the matter judicially at all. To adopt a wider view of the functions of a Court in proceedings of the present kind would... amount in effect to a substitution of the opinion of the Court for that of the tribunal or person duly appointed by law... With regard to the facts of the present matter, even assuming that there is room for a genuine difference of opinion as to whether the fact that a trade union is "a one man show", with the consequent preponderant individual influence of the person in charge of the affairs, financial and otherwise, of the union, is a good ground for cancellation of the registration of the union, I find myself quite unable to say that the Minister's view of the matter is manifestly unreasonable. The decision of the question must depend not only upon principle, but also upon the particular facts; and those, it seems to me, are eminently matters that the Legislature has entrusted to the decision of the Minister. The Minister having come to his conclusion, there is, in my opinion, no room for intervention by this Court.
  115. 115 With regard to the Government's contention that, the Malayan National Seamen's Union having ceased to exist as a result of its registration having been cancelled, the complaint presented by its former President should be regarded as a personal complaint and, therefore, irreceivable, the Committee has already pointed out that it would be altogether inconsistent with the purpose for which the procedure for the examination of allegations concerning the infringement of trade union rights has been established for it to admit that the dissolution or purported dissolution of an organisation by governmental action extinguishes the right of the organisation to invoke the procedure, In these circumstances the Committee considers that the present complaint should be examined on its merits.
  116. 116 It would appear from the Government's reply that, availing himself of such remedies of appeal against the decision to cancel the registration of the Union as are afforded by the law as it now stands, Mr. Majid, former President of the Malayan National Seamen's Union, was able to have recourse, by way of certiorari procedure, to courts whose proceedings appear to be attended by all the guarantees of due process of law. There is no occasion for the Committee to entertain further the allegation that the legal proceedings in themselves amount to a denial of justice to Mr. Majid, and no useful purpose would be served by pursuing further the question as to whether the cancellation of registration of the Union was justified or not under the circumstances. At the same time, the Committee points out that these proceedings are an illustration of the fact that, as previously admitted by the Government, the procedure of certiorari in Singapore does not constitute a full right of appeal to the courts against decisions to refuse registration to or to cancel the registration of a trade union.
  117. 117 But the provisions of section 15 (1) (c) of the Trade Unions (Amendment) Ordinance, 1959 (see paragraph 114 above), and their application as revealed by the judgment of the High Court of Singapore call for the following observations.
  118. 118 In Case No. 251 relating to Southern Rhodesia the Committee was called upon to examine a provision according to which the Registrar should not register a trade union unless he was satisfied that certain requirements laid down in the law were fulfilled. The question as to whether those particular requirements were fulfilled was one upon which the Registrar had to form his own judgment, although an appeal lay to the courts. In such cases, declared, the Committee on Freedom of Association, as the I.L.O. Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations has pointed out:
• the existence of a procedure of appeal to the courts does not appear to be a sufficient guarantee; in effect this does not alter the nature of the powers conferred on the authorities responsible for effecting registration, and the judges hearing such an appeal... would only be able to ensure that the legislation had been correctly applied.
• In these circumstances the Committee recommended the Governing Body to draw the attention of the Government of the United Kingdom, having regard to the observations of the I.L.O. Committee of Experts referred to above, to the desirability of defining clearly in the legislation the precise conditions which trade unions must fulfil in order to be entitled to registration and of prescribing specific statutory criteria for the purpose of deciding whether such conditions are fulfilled or not, and to express the hope that account would be taken of these considerations when proposed legislative amendments were effected to make all appeals against refusal or cancellation of registration, without exception, lie to the courts.
  119. 119 The present case bears certain analogies to that relating to Southern Rhodesia. The law requires the Registrar-and, eventually, the Minister-merely to be satisfied that a certain situation exists or is likely to exist in order to be empowered to deregister a trade union and, thereafter, as revealed by the judgment of the High Court, the court cannot substitute its own view for that of the Registrar or of the Minister.
  120. 120 In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
       • (a) to decide, for the reasons indicated in paragraph 116 above, that no useful purpose would be served by pursuing further the particular allegations relating to the deregistration of the Malayan National Seamen's Union and to the bankruptcy proceedings against its President;
       • (b) to draw the attention of the Government, however, having regard to the observations of the I.L.O. Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations referred to in paragraph 118 above, to the desirability of defining clearly in the legislation the precise conditions which must be fulfilled for a trade union to be entitled to registration or to entitle the Registrar to refuse or cancel registration and of prescribing specific statutory criteria for the purpose of deciding whether such conditions are fulfilled or not;
       • (c) to express the hope that, when legislation to give full effect to Article 2 of the Right of Association (Non-Metropolitan Territories) Convention, 1947 (No. 84), is introduced, account will be taken of the considerations set forth in subparagraph (b) above.
  121. Allegations relating to Detentions and Arrests of Trade Unionists
  121. 121 These allegations have been examined by the Committee in its earlier reports on this case, the last recommendations made by the Committee to the Governing Body thereon being those contained in paragraph 399 (f), (g), (h) and (i) of its 66th Report cited in paragraph 104 above.
  122. 122 In its letter dated 4 March 1963 the Government of the United Kingdom states that the detention order in respect of the remaining detainee is due for review in or before April 1963.
  123. 123 The Committee, therefore, makes once again to the Governing Body, so far as the trade unionist still in detention is concerned, the recommendations which it made in subparagraphs (f) and (h) of paragraph 399 of its 66th Report, and also recommends the Governing Body to take note of the Government's statement that the detention order in respect of the remaining detainee was due for review in or before April 1963 and to request the Government to inform the Governing Body as to the present position with regard to the said detainee.