Rapport intérimaire - Rapport No. 90, 1966

1. 125. When the original complaint was presented in 1959 the Government of the United Kingdom was responsible in respect of Singapore. During the period when that responsibility still subsisted, the Committee submitted a number of interim reports on the case to the Governing Body. Singapore acceded to the Federation of Malaya on 16 September 1963 and the Government of Malaya then became the responsible Government. Singapore became independent on 9 August 1965 and became a Member of the I.L.O with effect from 25 October 1965.
2. 126. The Government of the United Kingdom, having ratified the Right of Association (Non-Metropolitan Territories) Convention, 1947 (No. 84), declared its provisions to be applicable without modification to Singapore. When Singapore joined the I.L.O, however, it recognised that it would continue to be bound, as the Government of Malaya had done earlier, by 21 International Labour Conventions. These no longer include the said Convention No. 84, which relates to non-metropolitan territories, but do include the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98). Singapore has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87). The Government has drawn attention to these facts in a letter addressed to the Director-General on 3 February 1966.
3. 127. When the Committee last examined the case in substance at its meeting in May 1963, it submitted an interim report to the Governing Body in paragraphs 104 to 124 of its 70th Report, approved by the Governing Body on 1 June 1963 in the course of its 155th Session.
4. 128. It will be recalled that, at that time, two main issues remained outstanding, concerning which the Government of the United Kingdom, which was still responsible, was requested to furnish further information. The position with regard to these two questions is briefly summarised below.

Allegations relating to the Registration and Deregistration of Trade Unions

1. 129. The first point related to the fact that, under the law of Singapore, appeals against the refusal or cancellation of the registration of trade unions lie to the competent minister and not to the courts. The Committee recommended the Governing Body, in paragraph 124 of its 70th Report:
2. (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;
3. (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;
4. (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;
5. (d) to request the Government of the United Kingdom to keep the Governing Body informed as to further developments in this connection.
6. ......................................................................................................................................................
7. 130. At the same time the Committee had before it factual allegations relating to the deregistration of the Malayan National Seamen's Union. While the Committee, for the reasons indicated in paragraph 116 of its 70th Report, decided to recommend the Governing Body to decide that the particular case of the union in question did not call for further examination, it drew attention to certain other points in the legislation which it had noted in the course of its examination of the allegations. The particular provision noted by the Committee was that contained in section 15 (1) (c) of the Trade Unions (Amendment) Ordinance, 1959, which empowers the Registrar 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. In this connection the Committee recalled, in paragraph 118 of its 70th Report, that even where an appeal against deregistration lies to the courts in such circumstances, the I.L.O. Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations had pointed out that " 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 ". The Committee, therefore, in paragraph 124 of its 70th Report recommended the Governing Body:
8. ......................................................................................................................................................
9. (f)to draw the attention of the Government [of the United. Kingdom)......having regard to the observations of the I.L.O. Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations referred to ... 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;
10. (g) 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 (f) above.
11. ......................................................................................................................................................
12. 131. Observations on this aspect of the case have now been furnished by the Government of Singapore, in a communication dated 16 March 1966.
13. 132. After inviting attention to the statement made by its representative at the 47th Session of the International Labour Conference in June 1963, the Government points out that, immediately after Singapore's accession to the Federation of Malaya on 16 September 1963, it faced, externally, military confrontation from a neighbouring country and, internally, intensified political subversion by foreign-inspired anti-national elements. The Government contends that this grave threat still subsists, even though Singapore became independent on 9 August 1965, and that it has been decided not to take any measure to modify the legislation in order to give effect to Article 2 of the Right of Association (Non-Metropolitan Territories) Convention, 1947 (No. 84), until such time as the threat to the national security is completely removed. It is claimed that the National Trades Union Congress, which represents 75 per cent of the organised workers in Singapore, agrees fully with the Government on this point.
14. 133. The representative of the Government of Singapore, in his statement before the Conference Committee on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations in June 1963 referred to by the Government, declared that the Government intended to provide for appeals to lie to the High Court against the refusal or cancellation of the registration of a trade union but that the chief concern of any government must be to preserve the security of the State against foreign-inspired subversive elements. Unfortunately, he said, a minority group of trade union leaders had become tools in the hands of these elements. He said that the Government had assured the independent and democratic trade union movement of Singapore that the legislation would be amended as soon as the menace of subversion had disappeared. The Workers' observer from Singapore confirmed to the Conference Committee that this assurance had been given. The Conference Committee urged the Government to re-examine the question without undue delay.
15. 134. The Committee appreciates that, when its 70th Report was submitted to the Governing Body in May 1963 and when the representative of the Government of Singapore made the above statement to the Conference Committee in June 1963, the Government of Singapore was still bound by the obligation to apply the Right of Association (Non-Metropolitan Territories) Convention, 1947 (No. 84), which is no longer the case. Nevertheless, the Committee, while appreciating also the fears of the Government of Singapore for the internal security of the country, feels bound to point out that the principles set forth in subparagraphs (a) and (f) of paragraph 124 of its 70th Report, cited in paragraphs 129 and 130 above, are fundamental principles of freedom of association generally accepted and applied in the vast majority of countries, whether they have ratified the Conventions guaranteeing freedom of association or not.
16. 135. In certain cases which have come before it in the past, in which the governments concerned were not specifically bound by the provisions of a ratified Convention directly relevant to the allegations made, the Committee considered it appropriate to point out that the Declaration of Philadelphia, which now constitutes an integral part of the I.L.O. Constitution and whose aims and purposes are among those for the promotion of which the Organisation exists, as mentioned in article 1 of the Constitution as amended in Montreal in 1946, recognises:
17. the solemn obligation of the International Labour Organisation to further among the nations of the world programmes which will achieve ... the effective recognition of the right of collective bargaining, the co-operation of management and labour in the continuous improvement of productive efficiency, and the collaboration of workers and employers in the preparation and application of social and economic measures.
18. In these circumstances the Committee considers it appropriate, as it did in the earlier cases cited above, that it should, in discharging the responsibility to promote those principles which has been entrusted to it, be guided in its task, among other things, by the provisions relating thereto approved by the International Labour Conference and embodied in the Right of Association (Non-Metropolitan Territories) Convention, 1947 (No. 84), the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), which afford a standard of comparison when examining particular allegations.
19. 136. The Committee, therefore, while recognising that Singapore has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and is no longer bound formally-as it was when the Committee submitted its 70th Report to the Governing Body in May 1963-by the provisions of the Right of Association (Non-Metropolitan Territories) Convention, 1947 (No. 84), recommends the Governing Body:
20. (a) to draw the attention of the Government of Singapore to the importance which the Governing Body attaches to the generally accepted principle that appeals against the refusal or cancellation of the registration of organisations by trade union registrars should lie to the courts;
21. (b) to note the statements contained in the Government's communication dated 16 March 1966 as to the reasons why, in its view, it is inappropriate to amend the national legislation relating to trade unions at the present time;
22. (c) to express the hope, nevertheless, that the Government will find it possible in the near future to amend its legislation so as to give full effect to the generally accepted principle enunciated in subparagraph (a) above;
23. (d) to express the hope also that, when it does so, the Government will have full regard 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;
24. (e) to request the Government to be good enough to keep the Governing Body informed of any further developments in the matter.
25. Allegations relating to Detentions and Arrests of Trade Unionists
26. 137. Some 19 trade unionists were alleged originally to have been arrested and held in preventive detention in 1958. At different stages in its examination of the case the Committee noted that certain of the detainees had been released on various dates. When the Committee examined the case at its meeting in May 1963, it had before it evidence to the effect that only one of the original 19 persons concerned was still in detention. According to a communication dated 4 March 1963 from the Government of the United Kingdom, the detention order in respect of this remaining detainee was due for review in or before April 1963.
27. 138. In these circumstances, reaffirming the principles which it had already enunciated repeatedly in the course of its examination of this case, the Committee recommended the Governing Body, in paragraph 124 of its 70th Report-.
28. ......................................................................................................................................................
29. (h) 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;
30. (i) 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 is still detained and has not yet been brought to trial is incompatible with the generally accepted principle enunciated in subparagraph (h) above;
31. (j) to take note of the Government's statement that the detention order in respect of the remaining detainee was due to be reviewed, and to request the Government to inform the Governing Body as to the present position with regard to the said detainee.
32. 139. In its communication dated 16 March 1966 the Government of Singapore states that the detention order in respect of the remaining detainee is being reviewed regularly with a view to his release when he is no longer considered a security risk.
33. 140. Almost three further years have elapsed since the Governing Body, in June 1963, drew the attention of the Government of the United Kingdom to the incompatibility of the continued detention of the trade unionist in question with the principle of prompt and fair trial enunciated in paragraph 124 (h) of the 70th Report of the Committee cited in paragraph 138 above. But he is still in preventive detention and has never been brought to trial.
34. 141. In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
35. (a) to draw the attention of the Government of Singapore to the importance which the Governing Body 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 a government considers have no relation to their trade union functions;
36. (b) having regard to the fact that one of the 19 trade unionists arrested in Singapore as long ago as 1958 is still detained and has not yet been brought to trial, to draw the attention of the Government of Singapore to the fact that three years have now elapsed since the Governing Body drew attention to the incompatibility of the continued detention of the trade unionist in question with the principle of fair trial enunciated in subparagraph (a) above, which is generally regarded as constituting one of the most fundamental human rights;
37. (c) to request the Government to inform the Governing Body, as a matter of urgency, whether it is intended that the person concerned shall now be given a fair trial without further delay, or, alternatively, whether his release is now envisaged at an early date.