Interim Report - REPORT_NO44, 1960

1. 105. The complaint of the World Federation of Trade Unions is contained in a communication addressed directly to the I.L.O on 17 February 1959. The Government of the United Kingdom forwarded its observations by a letter dated 13 May 1959. At its meeting in Geneva, on 25 and 26 May 1959, the Committee decided to request the Government to furnish further information on certain points, The Government did so by a communication dated 28 October 1959. At its meeting on 9 and 10 November 1959, the Committee decided again to request further information from the Government. The Government forwarded further information by a letter dated 12 February 1960.
2. 106. The Government of the United Kingdom has ratified the Right of Association (Non-Metropolitan Territories) Convention, 1947 (No. 84) and has declared its provisions to be applicable without modification to Singapore.

A. A. The complainants' allegations

• Allegations relating to Deregistration of Trade Unions
  107. 107 The complainants allege that 17 trade union organisations, including the Seamen's Federation of Malaya and the Dockers' Federation, were deregistered during 1958.
  108. 108 In its letter dated 13 May 1959, the Government declared that two of these organisations were deregistered because of their voluntary dissolution, nine because they had ceased to exist and six because they had wilfully contravened certain provisions of the Trade Unions Ordinance after repeated warnings had been given to them.
  109. 109 According to section 15 (1) (b) (v) of the Trade Unions Ordinance, 1940, as amended, the Registrar of Trade Unions may withdraw or cancel the certificate of registration of a trade union if, inter alia, he is satisfied that the trade union has wilfully and after notice from the Registrar contravened any provision of the Ordinance. Appeals against such decisions by the Registrar lie to the competent Minister but not to the courts. Under section 18 (c) of the Ordinance, a trade union whose registration is withdrawn or cancelled shall be dissolved.
  110. 110 At its meeting in May 1959, the Committee observed that, in a number of previous cases', it has emphasised the importance which it attaches to the generally accepted principle that workers' and employers' organisations should not be liable to be suspended or dissolved by administrative authority. Deregistration of a trade union in Singapore automatically entails its dissolution, and the only appeal against a decision of the Registrar of Trade Unions to deregister a trade union is to the competent Minister and not to the courts. In this connection, the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations has suggested that appeals against decisions of registrars should lie to the Supreme Court. In its last annual report on the application of the Right of Association (Non-Metropolitan Territories) Convention in Singapore, the Government stated that steps were being taken to amend the legislation accordingly in the near future.
  111. 111 The Committee observed, therefore, that it would seem clear from the Government's reply and from the provisions of the Trade Unions Ordinance that six of the 17 unions alleged to have been dissolved in 1958 were in effect dissolved, against their will, by an administrative authority. At the same time, it noted that, although the legislative amendment referred to in paragraph 110 above has not yet been made, deregistration is not a discretionary power but can be ordered only for one of the reasons specified in section 15 of the Ordinance, including the reason given by the Government in the case of the six unions in question-"that the trade union has wilfully and after notice from the Registrar contravened any provision of the Ordinance ".
  112. 112 In these circumstances, with regard to the six unions which were deregistered -in effect, dissolved-for contravention of the Trade Unions Ordinance, the Committee decided, before formulating its conclusions on these allegations, to request the Government to state the precise nature of the contraventions in respect of which these unions, including the two mentioned by name in the complaint, were deregistered.
  113. 113 In its letter dated 28 October 1959, the Government gave information in respect of two only of the six unions referred to above, namely the two mentioned by name by the complainant. It declared that the Malayan National Seamen's Union (referred to in the complaint as the " Seamen's Federation of Malaya ") appealed successfully to the Minister of Labour and Welfare against cancellation of its certificate of registration, which it had since regained, and that the Singapore Harbour Board Stevedores' and Wharf Workers' Union (referred to in the complaint as the " Dockers' Federation ") had since the cancellation of its registration reorganised itself and obtained registration under the title of the " Singapore Harbour Board Wharf and Stevedore Workers' Trade Union ".
  114. 114 At its meeting in November 1959, the Committee decided, before formulating its conclusions on this aspect of the case, to request the Government to furnish, with respect to the remaining four of the six unions concerned, information similar to that forwarded in the cases of the Malayan National Seamen's Union and the Singapore Harbour Board Stevedores' and Wharf Workers' Union. This request was conveyed to the Government by the Director-General in a letter dated 23 November 1959. The further observations forwarded by the Government on 12 February 1960 do not contain information on this point. In these circumstances, the Committee has decided to request the Government once again to state the precise nature of the contraventions in respect of which the remaining four of the six unions referred to in paragraph 111 above were deregistered.
• Allegations relating to Arrests and Detentions of Trade Unionists
  115. 115 It is alleged that many trade unionists were arrested during 1958 under the Public Security Ordinance, these including Mr. Ang Gim Chew, Secretary of the Maritime Workers' Association, and that at the same time trade union premises were searched and documents taken away by the police. It is further alleged that 19 trade union militants who were arrested two years ago are still held in custody without having been brought to trial, these persons including Mr. Lim Chin Siong, former General Secretary of the Factory Workers' Union, Mr. Fong Swe Suan, of the Autobus Employees' Union, Messrs. Davan Nair, James Putcheary and Chan Chian Tor, Miss Peggy Ng Hong and Miss Chan Poh. Finally, the complainants contend, 13 trade union leaders were among the 1,120 persons who were deprived of their civic rights on 16 December 1958.
  116. 116 In its reply dated 13 May 1959 the Government stated that no person has been detained without trial or deprived of his civic rights " on account of any legitimate trade union activity ", and that when any individual has been detained under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance this has been because he or she " has participated in subversive activities threatening the life of the nation ". The Government made no reference to the alleged searches of trade union premises and removal of documents therefrom by the police.
  117. 117 At its meeting in May 1959, the Committee observed that, in a number of earlier cases, it has emphasised the importance which it has always attached 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 the Government considers have no relation to their trade union functions. In the past a moreover, where allegations that trade union leaders or workers have been arrested for trade union activities have been met by governments with statements that the arrests were made for subversive activities, for reasons of internal security or for common law crimes, the Committee has followed the rule that the governments concerned should be requested to submit further and as precise information as possible concerning the arrests, particularly in connection with the legal or judicial proceedings instituted as a result thereof and the result of such proceedings. The Committee, therefore, decided to request the Government to be good enough to inform it whether any of the trade unionists referred to by the complainants, including the eight whose names are given, were still in custody, and to furnish information as to the legal or judicial proceedings taken in respect of such persons and as to the results of these proceedings, and, at the same time, to furnish its observations on the alleged searches of and removal of documents from trade union premises by the police.
  118. 118 In its letter dated 28 October 1959, the Government stated that information on the matters referred to above had not yet been received from the governmental authorities in Singapore.
  119. 119 At its meeting on 9 and 10 November 1959, the Committee recalled that the Governing Body decided, at its 140th Session (Geneva, 18-21 November 1958), thenceforth to draw a distinction between urgent and less urgent cases. One criterion adopted in this connection was that matters involving personal freedom should be regarded as urgent. The Governing Body decided that in such cases the special attention of the government should be called, when the complaint was communicated to it, to the fact that the case falls within the category of cases regarded by the Governing Body as urgent, and that the government should be specially requested on behalf of the Governing Body to furnish for this reason a particularly speedy reply in regard to the urgent aspects of the case.
  120. 120 In these circumstances, the Committee decided to request the Government to furnish, as a matter of urgency, the information previously requested as indicated in paragraph 117 above with respect to the allegations relating to arrests and detentions of trade unionists, and to furnish also, as soon as possible, its observations on the alleged searches of and removal of documents from trade union premises by the police.
  121. 121 This request for further information was conveyed to the Government by the Director-General in a letter dated 23 November 1959. It is these matters which form the subject of the observations contained in the Government's letter of 12 February 1960.
  122. 122 In that letter the Government states that, of the 19 trade unionists referred to in paragraph 115 above, 13 have been released, including the eight whose names are given in paragraphs 115. Six are still in detention. No legal or judicial proceedings have been taken against them, except in so far as their cases were considered by the Appeal Tribunal appointed under the provisions of the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance and in so far as they have subsequently been reviewed at regular intervals by a Reviewing Officer appointed under the same Ordinance. The Government declares that in 1958 no trade union premises were searched by the police and no trade union documents were seized therefrom.
  123. 123 While the complainants state that trade union premises were searched and documents taken away by the police-both of which contentions are formally denied by the Government-they give no further details of the alleged incidents beyond this one general statement. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that the evidence furnished on this particular point is too vague to permit of the allegation being examined on its merits and, therefore, recommends the Governing Body to decide that this allegation does not call for further examination.
  124. 124 With regard to the alleged detention of trade unionists, the Committee observes that, while the Government states that 13 of the trade unionists referred to in the complaint have been released, six of them are still in custody without having been brought to trial.