Goh Chee Wee
Singapore
“Sir, I would like to thank HDB and the Government for the upgrading programmes. We saw 4,900 units of flats in my constituency, Boon Lay, benefiting or about to benefit from the Interim and Main Upgrading Programmes. For older constituencies like Boon Lay, most if not all of the flats are eligible for main upgrading.”
“There will be no need to panic and rush to secure COEs at all costs and this will address the kiasu syndrome expressed by Mr Chew Heng Ching earlier on. 1.15 pm In short, the authority must lay out clear rules and regulations and devise a fair and workable system.”
“The actual cost savings to the taxi operators would, therefore, come only from the existing fleet of taxis which were subject to the old tax regime. Nevertheless, there are sizable savings which could be passed on to the taxi drivers.”
“We already have Mercedes and London cabs on our roads to cater for those who are prepared to pay more to travel in style and comfort. One day we might have Kancil and Daihatsu taxis to cater to the budget-conscious commuters, provided the vehicles meet LTA's conditions.”
“Until such time when the taxi industry is completely deregulated, I propose that the Government fix the price of COEs for taxis in the same way that the taxi fares are regulated. We do not expect the taxi fares to fluctuate monthly, neither should the COE price for taxis.”
“Sir, there is currently no plan to extend the MRT line to the cargo and engineering complexes. Any extension will have to be justified in terms of cost and ridership. We should also consider the fact that the cargo and engineering complexes in Changi are housed in a sprawling area and I believe they cover 70 hectares.”
The complete record
Every one of 409 lines we hold for Goh Chee Wee, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 9.
“As I said earlier on, at the national level, we do not think labour wastage or underemployment is much of a problem. But at the individual company level, there could be cases of under-utilisation or inefficient utilisation of labour.”
“A standard contract specifying minimum welfare is not only impractical, it is also not a guarantee against abuse. The few bad employers who have the intention to abuse their foreign domestic workers would do so regardless of the existence of a contract. Sir, while it is impractical to lay down a minimum welfare standard, my Ministry strongly encourages employers and their domestic workers to have written private employment contracts which spell out their agreed terms of employment. This will be for both parties' protection in the event of a dispute. In fact, some employment agencies do have employment contracts which their clients must sign with the domestic workers placed by them. My Ministry strongly encourages the adoption of such a practice. In any case, when disputes arise over the terms of employment, my Ministry offers a conciliation service which foreign domestic workers and their employers can turn to for help in settling such disputes. This service is available free of charge.”
“So, as the provision of the law has not prevented employers from granting more favourable terms in their collective agreements with the unions, we are of the view that there is no need to make changes at this juncture. Finally, let me come to the question raised by Dr Soin. Dr Soin asked if the Ministry can establish a minimum standard of welfare for foreign domestic workers. In my view, the establishment of a standard contract to specify minimum welfare for foreign domestic workers is impractical. I am not sure when the Member talks about minimum welfare, whether she means to include minimum salary. A worker's salary is dependent on the nature and the volume of the job. It will be impossible to specify a minimum salary across the board or even for specific industries. It is for this reason that Singapore does not have a minimum wage rule. The absence of a minimum wage rule has not held back the incomes of some 1.2 million Singaporean workers. So to try to specify a minimum salary for a foreign domestic worker would seem contrary to this principle of allowing the labour market flexibility in setting wages. 2.45 pm All employers are expected to treat their domestic workers fairly and humanely. It is not possible to lay down exhaustive rules regarding the minimum welfare that a worker is entitled to. Dr Soin mentioned rest days, hours of sleep and meals. Sir, apart from asking the employers to provide adequate meals, rest and sleep, I wonder how could the Government possibly regulate the number and quantity of meals, hours of sleep, or number of rest days. Some domestic workers may prefer to have a number of off-days in a month while others may prefer to have less of it, opting instead for more pay.”
“Since the implementation of the guidelines, a total of 90 cases of disputes involving some 2,500 front-line supervisors and junior management personnel were referred to the Ministry for conciliation. Of these 90 cases, 96% were amicably resolved through conciliation based on the guidelines. The remaining 4%, only 3 cases, are still under processing. So far, not a single case has been referred to the Industrial Arbitration Court for arbitration. This shows that with the adoption of the guidelines, unions and employers have been able to resolve their differences in a spirit of cooperation and consensus. As regards section 25, this section stipulates that certain industrial undertakings in their initial years of operation shall not provide better terms and conditions of service than those contained in Part IV of the Employment Act without the approval of the Minister for Labour. This provision essentially applies to annual leave and sick leave entitlements. The rationale for this provision is that such new industrial undertakings are important to our economy and being infant companies, it would not be advisable to subject them to excessive employment terms in their initial years of operation. Excessive employment terms could jeopardise their smooth start-up and end up detrimental to the job security and prospects of the workers working in these undertakings. Notwithstanding this restriction, the Ministry does not prevent any such industrial undertaking from granting more favourable terms than those provided in the Employment Act if they are prepared to do so. In fact, we have never rejected any application by employers and unions.”
“The amendments will include: (1) expanding the scope of the Act to cover more workplaces and other hazardous activities which are currently not covered under the Act; (2) increasing the maximum penalty for violations in order to enhance the Act's deterrent power; and (3) bringing the safety and health provisions of the Act up to date. The Ministry is finalising its review of the safety and health provisions for shipyards. A new set of safety regulations for the shipyards will be ready for gazetting soon under the Factories Act. Incorporated in the regulations will be the recommendations of the "Stolt Spur" and "Indiana" Committees of Inquiry. In addition, the regulations will cover other hazards such as those arising from the use of scaffolding, lifting equipment and electrical installations. So we hope to improve the industrial safety for all the workers by regularly reviewing and updating the legislation. Dr John Chen asked a number of questions about the Industrial Relations Act. First, section 16(3). Section 16(3) of the Industrial Relations Act prohibits representation of managers and executives by a rank-and-file union. Dr John Chen suggested that this prohibition should be removed. The Ministry has studied the matter and concluded that it would not be necessary to amend this particular provision of the Act. Our existing legislation does allow junior management personnel and front-line supervisors to join a rank-and-file union, although the more senior management staff and executives are excluded because of conflict of interest. To help determine the eligibility of front-line supervisors and other junior management staff to join a rank-and-file union, the Ministry of Labour has formulated a set of guidelines in consultation with SNEF and NTUC in 1992.”
“One of the key issues which the committee will be examining is the transfer of employees in the company restructuring exercise. With increasing global competition, our companies may need to restructure their operations. And as a result of restructuring, employers may need to transfer their employees to a subsidiary or associated company. Currently, the Employment Act is silent on whether the employers have the right to transfer their employees to another company which is registered as a separate legal entity. The committee is reviewing how companies could be given the flexibility to transfer their employees to a subsidiary or an associated company while at the same time ensure that workers' interests are safeguarded. Another key area which the committee is reviewing is the question of whether allowances, besides the basic pay, should be included in the payment for overtime work and approved leave. Presently, the law is ambiguous and this has given rise to different interpretations by the employers and the unions. Apart from the issues which I have elaborated, the review committee will also update some of the other provisions of the Employment Act. The committee is expected to complete its review in two months' time and release its findings and recommendations subsequently. Mr Othman expressed concern about industrial safety and asked about the updating of the Factories Act. I wish to inform the Member that, with a view to improving safety standards at the workplace, the Ministry will be introducing amendments to the Factories Act.”
“5 percentage point increase in the employer's contribution rate is to restore the CPF contribution rate to its long-term rate of 40% with equal contribution by employer and employee. It should not be withheld or diverted away for other purposes. Training of workers is a subject which merits consideration on its own, but it should not be tied to the CPF which is an old-age savings scheme. There are already a number of schemes in place to support workers' training such as the Skills Development Fund. But it is up to the employers to consider the merits of Mr Othman's proposal to make additional contribution over and above the 20% employer's contribution rate for the purpose of encouraging and supporting training. This subject can be discussed, as suggested by Mr Robert Chua, by the NWC. Mr Othman and Dr John Chen asked about the plan of the Ministry to review the various labour legislation. Review of labour legislation to ensure that they continue to be relevant and updated is an ongoing process. Over the last three years, the Ministry has updated and made amendments to a number of labour legislation, including the Employment Act, Workmen's Compensation Act and the Trade Unions Act. Currently, the Ministry is undertaking a further review of the Employment Act. We have set up a tripartite review committee comprising representatives from the Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF), NTUC, the Ministry of Labour and the Economic Development Board. The terms of reference of the committee are to review the provisions of the Employment Act which have become irrelevant and not kept pace with changing needs of employers, workers and the economy and to review provisions in the Employment Act which cause rigidities in the labour market and hinder company restructuring.”
“Mr Othman stressed the importance of employers' commitment in training and suggested the inclusion of a training clause in the collective agreement. Training and skills upgrading of workers are of critical importance in our efforts to improve the quality of the workforce and to maintain Singapore's competitiveness. In line with the objective of raising the skills level of our workforce, I am in full agreement with the Member that there should be greater commitment by employers to train and upgrade the skills of their workers. The Member's proposal to have a training clause in the collective agreement to register employer's and union's commitment to training is a good one and should be supported. In order to encourage employers to view the proposal positively, I am of the view that unions should adopt a long-term perspective on this matter. As a start, unions should perhaps get the companies to make qualitative commitment on the training of workers in their collective agreements. The training clause could commit the employers and unions to a joint effort to raise the skills level of the workforce through continuous training and upgrading. And when employers and unions have more experience working together on training and skills upgrading of workers, they could then consider working towards a numerical target for a certain percentage or certain amount of the company's budget to be set aside for training purposes if the two parties so decide. Mr Othman also touched on the proposal made by Mr Robert Chua. He suggested that instead of withholding the 1% CPF contribution in a special education account as proposed by Mr Chua, employers could consider making additional contribution to the employee's CPF account to support training. I must stress that this year's 1.”
“Sir, I will answer the questions raised on labour-management relations, labour legislation and foreign domestic workers. Mr Othman spoke about the importance of maintaining good labour-management relations. I agree with the Member that good labour-management relations laid the foundation for our economic success and that we cannot take our harmonious industrial relations for granted. The Ministry does monitor the state of industrial relations closely. Through the system of dispute settlement and the provision of preventive mediation and conciliation services and with the cooperation of employers and the unions, the Ministry has been able to help preserve and promote a peaceful and harmonious industrial relations climate in Singapore. Mr Othman expressed concern about the impact of regionalisation, company restructuring and relocation, as well as technological changes on the employees and labour-management relations. With increasing international competition, rapid technological and market changes, companies need to adopt appropriate strategies to remain competitive and seize new opportunities. This may result in companies restructuring and relocating their operations which would affect their employees. And in the process, some workers may have to be transferred to other jobs, reassigned new duties, be posted to work overseas or may even have to accept being retrenched. If employees and the trade unions are not given the necessary information so as to prepare themselves for the changes, labour-management relations in the company would inevitably be affected. So it is essential that employers share information with the employees and the unions on company restructuring and relocation plans which would have repercussions on the employees' future.”
“Sir, Mr Chay spoke about the quality of service and he suggested that certain basic principles of providing quality service be taught in our school system. In a highly competitive world today, competition is no longer confined to the arena of production cost and we are witnessing increasing emphasis on quality, not just high quality products but also quality services and systems. In such a business environment we would not maximise Singapore's growth potential if we do not develop a strong service sector to complement the manufacturing sector. Our continued progress and prosperity, therefore, depend on our ability to produce high quality products and offer high quality services. I agree with the Member that in order to develop a workforce truly attuned to quality - be it quality in products, service or systems - awareness of quality has to be inculcated from young. The Member may wish to note that the National Productivity and Quality Council is currently looking into how curricula on the basic principles of quality can be built into our national education system to systematically inculcate in our students an understanding of the importance of quality as a whole. This will provide a basic foundation for further training to be provided by the employers after the students enter the workforce.”
“The Member for Thomson GRC, Mr Leong Horn Kee, has expressed concern about whether we would have sufficient manpower from Singapore to manage the overseas operations set up as a result of the regionalisation drive. Sir, our resource constraint is a well-acknowledged problem. The limited land and human resources which we have will increasingly constrain our economic growth. It is to overcome these constraints that we have embarked on the regionalisation drive to develop an external wing to our economy. Sir, the underlying strategy of this regionalisation drive is for the domestic and external components of the economy to complement one another. Our plan is to meet our total manpower requirements for local and overseas operations with Singaporeans supplemented with foreign talents. We will continue to educate and train every Singaporean to achieve his or her highest potential to equip him with the relevant knowledge and skills. Companies should also reach out to spot and recruit appropriate foreign talents for their operations in Singapore and at the same time train nationals of their overseas investment location to manage the operations there. Various schemes have been put in place to facilitate the recruitment of foreign talents to Singapore as well as the training of foreign workers for overseas operations.”
“To ensure that the skills acquired through training and retraining are relevant and thus minimise wastage, the Skills Development Fund has always operated on the principle of employer-based training. This means that employers must identify the training required for their employees and undertake to fully sponsor them for their training programmes or courses. The Skills Development Fund will provide assistance through grants to offset part of the training cost. This partnership between the Skills Development Fund and employers in working towards more skills training and upgrading for our workers has been very successful so far. The efforts should be maintained and in fact intensified in the face of rapid economic restructuring. There is therefore no need for the Government to create another training fund such as the one proposed by Mr Koo Tsai Kee. Can I just respond to the question raised by Mr Leong Horn Kee.”
“There are still a number of questions. Mr Koo Tsai Kee asked whether the Government could consider creating an individual industrial training fund through the CPF mechanism to support what I would call post-employment training. When we speak of post-employment training and upgrading, we are broadly speaking of two groups of people, professionals or executives and workers in general. Those in the former group are likely to be better educated, earning higher salaries and occupationally more mobile. They have the resources and can be expected to invest in upgrading courses on their own to further enhance their knowledge, skills and earning capacity. And the Government already allows, as an incentive, tax deductions of up to $2,000, claimable by those who take up courses leading to academic or professional qualifications. There is, therefore, no need to set up a post-employment training fund for this group. 2.45 pm The Government is concerned with the second group, the workers with low education and skills. Statistics show that more than 250,000 workers never attended schools or have only lower primary education. Another 460,000 have completed only primary or lower secondary education. Cumulatively, they make up nearly 50% of our total workforce. These workers generally lack the time or money to upgrade themselves, and could be displaced with economic upgrading and restructuring unless we retrain them with skills to take on new jobs created by the new industries. The Skills Development Fund was established in 1979 to cater to such training and retraining needs of our workforce.”
“Only about 17% of the small local companies with less than 10 employees have applied for SDF funding. Grants committed for these SLCs, therefore, make up a small portion, about 5% in FY 92 of total SDF grant commitments. Table - SKILLS DEVELOPMENT FUND (Cols. 1073 - 1074) To help and encourage the small local companies to make more use of SDF funds to train their employees, the SDF has in the past 2-3 years, introduced several measures. For example, whereas the normal SDF support is 50% or 70% of the course fees, enhanced grants of up to 90% of course fees are available to SLCs applying for SDF funding for the first time. And managers of the SLCs can enjoy SDF grant of up to 70% of course fees if they take up management and development courses. These courses are not normally supported by the SDF. SLCs applying for selected courses can enjoy upfront SDF grant of 50% or 70% on the course fees. This means that instead of paying the full course fee and applying for SDF grant later, they need only pay the net unsupported portion of the course fees and this greatly eases the cash flow problems which SLCs may face. In addition to these specific measures relating to the provision of SDF grants, the SDF conducts regular public forums in English and Mandarin to promote awareness of SDF among the SLCs and to educate them on how to benefit from the various SDF schemes available. And for the future, SDF has plans to forge closer alliances with trade associations and industry bodies to jointly promote the use of SDF funding schemes by SLCs. In addition, industry bodies will be encouraged to identify the core skills that are required by these companies. Specific trade-based programmes for SLCs will be developed if and when needed. Sir, do I have time to answer the other questions?”
“This is to meet the increasing demand for training and upgrading. The $1,000 salary ceiling corresponds to a coverage of about 50% of our workforce and would double the annual levy collection to about $26 million. However, this would only be enough to meet half of the SDF's annual disbursements. As the Singapore economy moves towards higher value added activities, more of our workers displaced by restructuring would require retraining. The $1,000 salary ceiling for SDL collection will have to be reviewed further in subsequent years. Let me now turn to the Member's concern regarding SDF's support for workers and local companies, especially the small local companies (SLCs). First, workers. During the initial years, the SDF supported training for all levels of the workforce, including managers, in an effort to boost training in general. As a result, a sizable proportion of SDF grant went to the training of managers and professionals. To correct this imbalance, efforts were made in 1987 to shift emphasis to worker training by scaling down or withdrawing support for management and non-worker training programmes. As a result, workers have been the main beneficiaries of SDF funding since 1987. If Members could refer to the Table (Cols. 1073 - 1074) which I will ask the Clerk of Parliament to distribute, they would see that, on average, worker training takes up about 87% of SDF grant and 84% of training places supported by SDF. As for the beneficiaries of SDF support by company size, Members would see from Table 2 that the SDF has generally succeeded in reaching companies employing at least 10 employees. However, companies employing less than 10 employees have not been actively making use of SDF funding.”
“Sir, let me respond to the questions raised by hon. Members on the Skills Development Fund (SDF) and on training and productivity. First, on the question on the SDF Fund. Dr Ow Chin Hock asked several questions about the SDF, the collection of levy and the SDF support for workers and local enterprises. Let me first explain why there is a need to raise the salary ceiling for the Skills Development Fund. The SDF has played an active role in encouraging workers' training and providing training opportunities since its establishment in 1979. For FY93, about $70 million has thus far been committed in support of training programmes to upgrade the workers' skills and this translates to more than 400,000 training places supported by SDF. Collection from the skills development levy, however, has been dwindling and is expected to be only about $12 million in FY93. Compared to that in FY86, seven years ago, levy collection has shrunk by about $16 million. So if we keep the current levy rate and salary ceiling at 1% and $750 respectively, annual levy collection will fall even further as the Singapore economy continues to grow and fewer people earn monthly salaries of less than $750 over the years. Based on present level of grant commitments and given the available SDF balance of about $200 million at the end of FY93, SDF will run out of fund to commit in less than five years. When the current $750 salary ceiling for skills development levy collection was set in 1979, workers earning $750 and below formed 87% of the workforce. This proportion, however, has been declining and was only 32% in 1992. The Government has, therefore, decided to raise the monthly salary ceiling for levy collection from $750 to $1,000 with effect from FY95 to widen its coverage and raise levy collection.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has not answered my specific proposal on whether he will consider reducing the employers' and employees' CPF contribution rates by 2 1/2% each side instead of a 5% reduction. The long-term CPF contribution rate is 20% from the employer and 20% from the employee. Currently, for those people who are aged 55 years to 60 years, the contribution rate is 12 1/2% on each side. So with the proposal, this should be reduced to 7 1/2%. For workers who are below 55 years, the employers' contribution rate is 20% but the moment they reach 55 years, this would be reduced from 20% to 7 1/2%. To me, this is too drastic a cut. As my colleague, Mr Tong Kok Yeo has said, even right now, in the unionised companies, many employers are actually extending the retirement age to 60 years without the benefit of a further CPF reduction. I am not objecting to the reduction in CPF for the older workers because their saving needs are less but I question the need to make such a steep cut. In fact, I prefer a gradual approach and, hence, my proposal to reduce 2 1/2% on each side instead of a 5% reduction from employers. EXEMPTED BUSINESS (Motion)”
“I would like to ask that, as far as possible, the Minister should order reinstatement rather than compensation. Some companies may not mind paying compensation to get rid of their older workers, especially if they find it cheaper in the long run. Should compensation be ordered as a last resort, the amount should be large enough to serve as a deterrent. Sir, some companies pay employees a gratuity when they retire. Some also offer early retirement benefits which allow employees to collect a gratuity when they retire early for whatever reason. With the new legislation, it is feared that the workers may now be deprived of such gratuities if they retire before 60 years. I seek the Minister's assurance that existing gratuity schemes be allowed to continue so that no employees will lose out when the law comes into effect. Finally, Sir, the question of CPF. The Minister has announced that the employers' CPF contribution rate will be further reduced by 5% for those aged between 55 years and 60 years. I would like to ask the Minister whether he would consider reducing the employers' and employees' contribution rates by an equal amount instead of reducing only the employers' contribution rate. So instead of reducing 5% from the employers' contribution rate, why not reduce 2.5% each from the employers' and the employees' contribution rates. I would appreciate it if the Minister would consider this suggestion.”
“I believe we should not be bound by the conventional notion or prejudice. I suggest that the Ministry scrutinise every application for exemption stringently. I would also like to seek the Minister's assurance that the Labour Ministry would seek the union's views before granting any exemption. In other words, do not just listen to the employer's side of the story, but get the views of the union and employees as well. I believe the Ministry is considering the suggestion to exclude seamen from the proposed legislation. I would like to urge the Minister to consider the decision carefully. Although many of the seamen are employed on fixed-term contracts, there is a sizeable number of gradings and officers who are employed on a permanent basis similar to that of the shore-based workers. Some of the collective agreements signed between the employers and the unions have already provided for retirement age of up to 60 years. Exclusion of the seamen categorically from the proposed legislation will be a retrogressive step. There are adequate provisions in the proposed legislation to exclude those seamen who are employed on fixed-term contracts. There is, therefore, no necessity to single out the seamen for total exclusion from the Bill which will only jeopardise the jobs of those who are employed on a permanent basis. I would appreciate the Minister's clarification of his position on this matter. Clause 7(3)(b) allows the Minister to order compensation to employees who are unlawfully dismissed by their employers. If the intention of the Bill is to extend employment to 60 years and beyond, then ordering compensation will not achieve the objective. The worker will still be out of a job.”
“What about temporary workers and those regular part-time workers who work for less than eight hours a day? I know of employers who employ temporary workers more or less on a permanent basis. There are also workers who are employed to work for four or five hours a day instead of the normal eight hours. And these employees are actually permanent workers but the employers choose to call them either temporary workers or part-time workers so that they can exercise their discretion in hiring and firing easily. Should these workers not be covered under the Bill? My concern also applies to workers who are employed on fixed-term contracts. I would like the Minister to clarify the question of people who are employed on fixed-term contracts. In fact, I would like to caution against the possible abuse by employers who may resort to employing workers on a contract basis even though their need for employees is for the long term. In other words, the employers may just keep on renewing the fixed-term contracts instead of placing them on permanent employment. And we can end up with employees being employed permanently on fixed-term contracts and are not covered under the retirement age legislation. So there must be a way to check the employers from getting round the legislation. Sir, clause 10 of the Bill provides for exemption from the Bill. This means that a company can apply for some of their employees to be exempted from the Bill. I urge the Minister to be cautious in granting such exemptions. If the exemption is granted too liberally, it will defeat the purpose of this Bill. Whether we like it or not, there are still some deep-rooted beliefs of prejudice against the older workers that they are not capable of performing certain duties well.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to speak in support of the Bill. The labour movement has been pressing for the raising of retirement age for a number of years. The question of whether legislation should be introduced to regulate retirement age has also been debated in recent years with the employers' federation and the trade unions holding rather different views. In 1989, the Government gave employers a three-year grace period to voluntarily raise the retirement age of their employees. This deadline has come and passed but the progress made, particularly in the non-unionised sector, has been disappointing. While the majority of the unionised companies have raised their retirement age to above 55 years, only 4.5% of non-unionised companies have done so. Sir, when retirement at 55 years was the norm in the 1950s, life expectancy of Singaporeans then was below 65 years. Today, the life expectancy has gone up to over 75 years but, unfortunately, many Singaporeans are still forced to retire at an early age of 55 years. The Singapore workforce is aging while the economy is increasingly constrained by a shortage of labour. It is ironical that experienced and skilled Singaporeans are forced to retire at 55 years when most of them are still healthy and fit. Sir, I therefore welcome the Government's decision to introduce legislation to raise the retirement age to 60 years and eventually to 67 years. Why 67 years and not 68 years or 70 years is something which I suppose only the Minister can answer. But I would say that the plan to raise the retirement age progressively by legislation is a step in the right direction. Sir, I would like to make some comments on the specific provisions of the Bill. I believe the Bill covers all full-time employees.”
“As he knows, the employers are asking for the liberalisation of foreign workers. Not only do they want workers from Malaysia, they also want workers from China and the Philippines. I gave an example yesterday of the retailers and department stores asking the Government to liberalise the import of foreign workers. They said that Malaysian workers are too expensive. They want Filipino workers. They want Chinese workers. Imagine if we allow these workers to come in, they are prepared to accept a wage of $200-$300. Do you not think the wage of Singaporean workers will also go down to $300? It is as simple as that.”
“If I offer you a Filipino clerk for $200, would you take her or him?”
“Yes, Mr Ling How Doong has no feelings at all for the Singaporean workers. Let me ask him a very simple question. Does he employ clerks, for instance? Or any employee?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am really disappointed and very sad that Mr Ding does not seem to have any feelings at all. An hon. Member: Mr Ling.”
“I note that more than half of the applications were approved. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $37,395,470 for Head S ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $4,518,200 for Head S ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head I -”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head S of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code SK 1500. I shall be very brief. Sir, under our work permit regulations, the work permit holder is not allowed to marry a Singaporean without the permission of the Controller of Work Permit. As you know, when the Ministry of Labour rejects applications to contract marriage, the reasons for rejection are usually not stated. So I would like to know whether the Ministry has relaxed or tightened its criteria for approving applications to contract marriage in recent years. I would like to know, in particular, how many applications have been received and how many have been approved in the last two years. Mr Cheo Chai Chen (Nee Soon Central)( In Mandarin): Sir, many years ago, before I became a Member of Parliament, I read in the newspaper a report of a female Malaysian work permit holder who applied seven times to the Ministry of Labour for permission to marry her Singaporean boyfriend, and her application was turned down on each occasion.”
“Sir, the Minister has given a very comprehensive reply to all the questions raised. So I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“The pressure from employers to relax foreign worker controls will therefore increase. The question I would like to ask is: what is the expected growth in the number of foreign workers over the next few years? What is the Ministry's projection of our foreign worker population, say, by the year 2000? Can our social and security infrastructure take the strain of a large pool of foreign workers? Has our control mechanism like the foreign workers' levy been effective? Will the Government seriously consider taking other measures - COE for foreign workers, for instance? Sir, in anticipation of the greater demand for labour, I suggest the Labour Minister review and clarify the Government's policy on foreign workers.”
“The retailers have complained that even Malaysian workers are too expensive and wish that they can employ workers from non-traditional sources like China and the Philippines. The report said that the tight labour supply has led to stores reporting slow progress in their recruitment campaigns. 12.45 pm Let me quote The Straits Times report: `This has resulted in some companies voicing fears that the average starting wages for sales assistants may be pushed up to more than $700 by the end of this year, compared to an average of between $600 and $650 now, and about $500 just five years ago.' Sir, at the time when our wages and standard of living have gone up because of the good economic progress we have made, some employers are still hoping to engage full-time employees at $500 a month. Now, suppose we allow the workers from China and the Philippines to enter Singapore freely. And worse still, if we take heed of the criticism of Mr Ling How Doong and the Singapore Democratic Party and remove the foreign workers' levy, what will happen? The wages of the sales assistants and other employees in the retail sector will fall to a level determined by what the foreign workers are prepared to accept. Perhaps two to three hundred dollars a month, because this is what the Filipino workers are prepared to work for. Sir, the Singapore Democratic Party, while engaging in the politics of envy, and criticising the Government for looking after the rich but not the poor, is in fact suggesting measures which will make poorer Singaporeans even poorer. The Government tries to help the low-income earners to level up. The SDP is attempting to do just the opposite - to press their wages down. Sir, our economy is expected to grow steadily for the next few years.”
“Sir, before Parliament adjourned yesterday, I was speaking on the subject of foreign workers. I was commenting on the increasing number of foreign workers in Singapore which has swelled from 80,000 in 1980 to well over 200,000 today. Sir, one of the more worrying consequences of the liberal import of foreign labour is that it depresses the wages of the Singapore workforce at the lower end of the income bracket. The Government tries to control the influx of cheap labour by imposing a foreign workers' levy. It serves to equalise the cost of employing foreign workers and Singaporeans and it helps. But we often hear criticisms against the Government that it is only interested to collect money by imposing the foreign workers' levy. Members of the Opposition parties have been most critical of the Government for imposing such a levy. Mr Ling How Doong of the Singapore Democratic Party has just talked about this in this House last week. Sir, imagine if the Government removes the foreign workers' levy and allows workers from the Philippines, Thailand, Sri Lanka and other places to enter Singapore freely. These workers are prepared to work for a very low wage because they earn very little in their home country. What will then happen to Singaporeans working in the same industry or occupation? Two things can happen to them. Either to compete with the foreign workers and accept a very low wage or lose their jobs. Is that what we want? Is this the way to help our low income workers? Sir, what I need to do is just to quote a Straits Times report of 15th March 1993. The headline was: "Retailers can only employ Malaysians, not other foreigners". It was reported that retailers and department stores in Singapore have asked the Government to liberalise the employment of foreign workers.”
“For the manufacturing sector, the dependency level was increased from 35% to 45%. And for the service sector, long considered a sacred cow by the Labour Ministry, foreign workers are now permitted to form up to 20% of the workforce. One of the more worrying consequences of the liberal import of foreign labour is that it depresses the wages of the Singaporean workforce at the lower end of the income bracket.”
“Sir, at a time when many of the countries in the world, including the rich developed countries, are facing the severe problem of unemployment, we are in a very fortunate position to worry about an entirely different problem - the problem of labour shortage. Large numbers of foreign workers were allowed into Singapore but the employers are still clamouring for more. Sir, to be realistic, we need a certain number of foreign workers to augment our indigenous workforce, and to meet short term fluctuations in labour requirements. But I am deeply concerned about the liberal entry of foreign workers, and its consequential social costs and the depressing effect on wages of local workers. If cheap foreign workers are readily available, employers will neglect efforts to upgrade and to make greater and productive use of domestic labour resources, such as attracting those economically inactive persons to take up part-time or full-time employment and training of older workers to take on new jobs. It will also depress the wages of Singaporeans working in the same industry or occupation where foreign workers are employed. Years ago, the Government policy was to reduce and eventually phase out all foreign workers. As recently as 1982, the Government had declared that it would phase out all foreign workers by 1991. But it realised that this was not possible. The growing economy exerted enormous pressure to relax foreign worker controls. So instead of a reduction, our foreign workforce swelled from 80,000 in 1980 to well over 200,000, or 250,000 today. Controls were relaxed. Unskilled foreign workers were allowed into many sectors of the economy. The dependency ratio for the construction sector was raised from two foreign workers for every local worker to 5:1.”
“Some people have asked whether CPF will still proceed to print opt-out forms for distribution to the residents of Potong Pasir and other Opposition wards. I do not know the answer. Perhaps the Minister for Labour would like to answer this question. Many people have also asked how often is the Government likely to top-up their CPF accounts. So to give an idea of what Singaporeans can look forward to, perhaps the Minister would like to elaborate further on the long-term plan and implication of the CPF Top-up Scheme.”
“These include Medisave, MediShield and other investment schemes. Sir, the latest announcement by the Government to top-up the CPF by up to $200 to enable Singaporeans to purchase shares is a very generous gesture on the part of the Government to share the fruits of Singapore's success with all its citizens. The Prime Minister has further explained that the $200 and its matching contribution of $500 by the CPF account holders can also be withdrawn or used for other purposes, subject to the normal CPF rules. The scheme will benefit all Singaporeans, in particular, the lower income groups with low CPF balance and those who presently do not have a CPF account. And I am particularly happy with the promise made by the Prime Minister that as long as our economy continues to do well and the Government accumulates strong budgetary surpluses, Singaporeans can look forward to the Government topping-up their CPF accounts from time to time. Sir, this is the first time that the Government distributes its funds or redistribute wealth by topping-up the CPF accounts of Singaporeans. The decision has caught most Singaporeans by surprise, a very pleasant surprise indeed. But, in spite of the generosity and good intention of the Government, there are, unfortunately, people who are sceptical of the scheme. Mr Chiam See Tong has cast doubts on the ulterior motive behind the scheme, claiming that it is designed to lock-in more money in the CPF. The Prime Minister has offered to allow the residents of Potong Pasir to opt out of the scheme. Although Mr Chiam has finally said that he would support the scheme, I am not sure whether he still harbours any suspicion about the motive of the scheme when he commented that it is a "clever" scheme.”
“We must ensure that today's laws are relevant in today's context. Here, I would like to cite an example of a specific provision of our law which, I believe, is completely outdated and requires change. Our Employment Act currently allows children to start working at the age of 12. To work in industrial undertakings, the minimum age is 14. But the Commissioner for Labour can grant permission for children under the age of 14 to work in industrial undertakings. Imagine that children at the age of 12 or 13, working and sweating in a factory in Singapore as child labour. I thought this is only happening in some of the developing countries, or under-developed countries of Africa, certainly not in modern day Singapore. I understand that, in practice, the Commissioner has never granted approval for children under the age of 14 to work in factories. That being the case, why then should we continue to retain this particular provision? Furthermore, this provision goes diametrically against our current policy of giving our children at least 10 years of formal education. Sir, surely Singapore has progressed past the stage where child labour is still condoned, much less needed. It is time we discarded this archaic provision. Sir, my comments on the labour legislation would not be complete without mentioning the CPF Act which, I believe, is the single piece of social and labour legislation which has the greatest impact on the life and progress of Singaporeans. The CPF was first conceived as a scheme to provide for old age security for Singaporeans. Later, it was extended to enable Singaporeans to purchase HDB flats and private properties. Over the years, the use of CPF has been extended and many new schemes have been introduced.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head S of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Let me first of all commend the Ministry of Labour for taking steps to revise a number of labour legislation over the last one year which provide greater protection to our working population. Among the more significant changes introduced by the Ministry were, firstly, the revision of the salary ceiling in the Employment Act and the Workmen's Compensation Act. The new ceiling of $1,500 per month, up from $1,250, affords more workers benefits and protection under these Acts. Secondly, the amendment to the Companies Act to make payment of retrenchment benefits one of the priority items. This amendment, which is still with the Select Committee, will provide added protection to workers when their company winds up. Thirdly, lowering of the minimum age for union membership from 18 years to 16 years. The amendment to the legislation allows workers aged 16 and above to join the trade union and enjoy union benefits. Fourthly, the proposed legislation to raise retirement age to 60 and beyond. Sir, the labour movement has been pressing for the raising of retirement age for many years, and I am glad that the Government has decided to introduce a legislation to fix the retirement age at 60 and to raise it further in time to come. Sir, I support the legislation and we will have more to say about this when the Bill comes up for Second Reading. Sir, the economic and social conditions under which our workers live have changed over the last few decades and they will continue to change. The Ministry of Labour must continually review our existing legislation to make sure that they do keep pace with the changing circumstances.”
“Sir, I welcome the Minister's statement to liberalise the use of CPF savings. I have two questions to ask the Minister and would appreciate the Minister's clarification. My first question is: now that the Government has decided to allow the use of CPF to purchase non-trustee stocks, presumably the Government is prepared to allow CPF members to take greater risks in the investment of their CPF money. That being the case, would the Government consider allowing CPF savings to be used for investment in business or to start a new business? My second question is: The Ministry of National Development has recently announced that there is a plan to allow individuals to bid for land to build their own houses. Can CPF savings be used to purchase such land? Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay (Chua Chu Kang): With the extended use of CPF savings for residential property, it was announced that members can use more than 100% for payment towards housing loan, inclusive of interest, beyond 100%. Does it mean that it would apply to previous applicants because some of them have actually been granted up to 90% and, in the more recent case, 100%? For these people, do they need to submit a fresh application?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I just wish to state my support for the Bill in respect of the amendment to section 328 of the Companies Act. The new section 328 expressly provides that retrenchment benefits payable to an employee under any contract of service shall in a winding up rank third in priority and shall be paid in advance of other unsecured debts. We have in the past a number of cases in which workers were denied compensation in a winding up. This inflicts hardship on employees and it is extremely unfair to those who have put in years of service with the company. In the two previous cases involving Vosper Thornycroft and President Merlin Hotel, the company liquidators disputed the union's claims for retrenchment benefits. The cases were heard in the High Court, but the court ruled that the retrenchment benefits which were provided in the collective agreement did not apply in a winding up. As a result, the workers lost their jobs without receiving any compensation. The NTUC had made several representations to the Government to have the Act amended. I am glad that this amendment Bill has incorporated the changes sought by the unions. It has provided added protection to the workers and I therefore support this section of the Bill.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill. It is well-intentioned. It provides for the self-employed persons to open and to contribute to their Medisave accounts. It also allows the use of CPF for the upgrading of HDB flats. I have spoken to a number of self-employed persons - the hawkers, taxi drivers and shopkeepers. Their response to the Medisave scheme for the self-employed has been positive. Generally, they appreciate the need to put aside some money while they are still fit and healthy, and the need to save to pay for the medical bills and to meet the unforeseen emergencies is all the more pressing with rising medical cost. As regards the scheme to allow HDB owners to use their CPF for upgrading work, this is welcomed by the flat owners. But I have a question to ask the Minister. The HDB flats which are to be upgraded are generally the older ones. Invariably, the residents who live in those flats tend to be our older citizens. Some may still have their children staying with them but there are those whose children have already been married and moved out. So some of these older residents may have difficulty paying for the upgrading work. They may not have CPF accounts, or may not have sufficient balance in their accounts. I would like to know if the Government would allow such flat owners to use the CPF savings of their children to help pay for the upgrading work, if their children are willing to help. After all, there is already a CPF Topping-Up Scheme in place, which allows the children of the CPF account holders to top up their parents' CPF retirement accounts. Sir, I would appreciate the Minister's response to this suggestion.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to speak in support of the proposed amendments to the Trade Unions Act. The Amendment Bill seeks to amend the Trade Unions Act for the purpose of: (i) lowering the minimum age of union membership from 18 years to 16 years; and (ii) allowing trade unions to invest their surplus funds in the Singapore Labour Foundation's projects. NTUC has long voiced the concern that while a person is allowed to work in any establishment without any restriction at the age of 16 years, he is not permitted to join a trade union until he reaches the age of 18 years. During the Budget debate last year, I proposed that this anomaly be corrected. I am glad that the Ministry of Labour has accommodated the view of NTUC and had agreed to make the necessary amendment. With this amendment, more young workers will be able to join the trade unions and benefit from union membership. Sir, I also support the legislative amendment to allow the trade unions to invest their surplus funds in SLF projects. The Singapore Labour Foundation was set up with the expressed aim of improving the welfare of workers in Singapore. Projects that have been undertaken by the SLF and its subsidiaries, such as the workers' resort in Pasir Ris, have directly benefitted the workers and their families. More of such projects would be undertaken to provide our workers with an even wider range of good quality, but affordable, recreational facilities. These facilities help to complement the unions' efforts to raise the quality of life of their members. It is, therefore, only proper that trade unions be allowed to support and to invest in such projects. Sir, I support the Bill.”
“Dr Lee has said that the scheme is not unethical. I think his complaint is that the quantum of concessions and discounts given is too small. So can I invite Dr Lee to join the NTUC scheme and offer more than the 10% discount to our union members?”
“He has not stated his stand whether he is supportive of the scheme which helps the workers, the poor, and he tries to impress on others all the time that he likes to help the poor.”
“Sir, I disagree completely with the views expressed by Dr Lee Siew-Choh. We have this NTUC scheme which enables the union members to get discounts or concessions when they visit the participating clinics. The Singapore Medical Association says that the scheme is unethical. NTUC says that it is not. NTUC has made it clear that the scheme is open to all the private practitioners in Singapore. It is a voluntary scheme. Any doctor who is interested to join in the scheme is welcomed to do so. So there is therefore no question of unfair advantages enjoyed by a few selected doctors. It is open to everybody, to all the general practitioners. As we know, NTUC represents a considerable number of lower income workers, including the daily-rated workers, production operators, older workers, etc. The scheme will benefit in particular this group of people and their families. So I do not see what is so unethical about the scheme. We also know that doctors do offer concessionary rates to their corporate clients. They quote and charge their corporate clients rates which are lower than what they will normally charge a walk-in patient. So if such a practice is considered acceptable, I do not see why offering concessions to union members should be considered objectionable. There is now this controversy as to whether the scheme is ethical or unethical. Someone must make a ruling. The Singapore Medical Council, being a watchdog body for the profession, must make a ruling on this. It is not only right for the Singapore Medical Council to comment and make a ruling on this, but it is expected of them to do so. I disagree with the views expressed by Dr Lee. And in fact I want to ask Dr Lee whether he supports the NTUC scheme or not.”
“Sir, for quite some time, NTUC has been calling on the Government to amend the legislation to allow the rank and file unions to represent the supervisors and the executives, especially the junior executives. My colleague, Mr Lim Boon Heng, has adequately argued for the case a moment ago. So has Encik Abbas. Therefore, I do not intend to repeat the argument. I just hope the Minister would reply positively to the suggestion to amend the legislation to extend the scope of union representation. The other point I wish to raise is regarding the eligibility age for joining a trade union. Currently, a person can join a trade union only when he reaches the age of 18. But our law actually allows people to work in any establishment when he is 16 years of age. So we have a situation where a person can be employed to work, but not allowed to join a trade union. This, to me, is an anomaly. So I suggest that the legislation be amended to lower the minimum age for union membership to 16.”
“Sir, I think the Minister has tried to explain and justify why these people should earn low wages. In his remarks, he said that because they are young their wages are low. It gives that impression. But what I must clarify is this. When I quoted all these figures, I was trying to point out the general wage level and wage distribution of Singaporean workers and how it compares with the NIEs and others. So if we wish to discuss and find out why they earn low wages, I think we need some other forum. But, generally, I just want to stress that when I presented these data I was just trying to present the income distribution and the general wage level of the workers in Singapore.”
“All right. I will just say this. I agree with my colleague, Mr Lim Boon Heng, when he said that when the workers are retrenched and the company goes into liquidation, they are denied retrenchment benefits. What I am trying to say is that if we look at the profile of the workers, some of them earn low incomes and they are the ones who would need the retrenchment benefits when they lose their jobs.”
“Let me come back to this problem of low wage workers and whether Singaporeans really earn that much. The Finance Minister said that the average wage of Singaporean workers was $1,427 in 1989. This was correct. But this included the income of the executives, managers and bankers like Mr Wee Cho Yao. I must say that using averages can be misleading. If the distribution of income of our workers follows what we call a normal distribution, then we would expect about half the workforce to earn less than $1,427, and the others more than $1,427. So taking the average, it is $1,427. But in actual fact the distribution is not like that. We have a large number of people earning much less than $1,427. But because of the high income group ---”
“With your permission, I will continue to talk about retrenchment benefits and wages.”
“She wrote in the press accusing me for not doing my homework and misleading the House. She made disparaging remarks about me and NTUC. Who was misleading the House, I ask? And I say she was misleading the public by writing something which was not based on verified facts. I would like to ask Mr Speaker, Sir, whether we can allow someone to sit up there in the Gallery insinuating that a Member is misleading the House which is a very serious allegation. Some letters have appeared in the Forum page of the Straits Times. There is one today accusing Sumiko Tan for her commentary. Her only defence now seems to be why I did not question the Minister then and there when he made the statement. I think the answer is straightforward. When the Hon. Minister made a serious statement and you wish to argue with him, the first thing you must do is to go and check the facts. Even when the Minister answers questions from Backbenchers in this House, he may not have all the answers and figures in his head. Sometimes he needs to ask the MPs to file a separate Question for Oral Answer so that he can gather figures and give appropriate replies. So what is wrong with that?”