Halimah Yacob
Singapore
“Thank you. I think that is certainly a very good idea and that is what we want to do and wish to do, to have the integration of the facilities. As the Member said, it is to encourage inter-generational bonding and support. In fact, we have already started one in Mr Seah Kian Peng's constituency.”
“I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the clarification, and for his information, I have written twice to LTA. The answers have been negative. My question is, what is the alternative because the purpose of the overhead pedestrian bridge is for people to cross over but the elderly has difficulty crossing over?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am really happy to hear about the immense investment in helping households cope with the rising cost of energy. There will continue to be households that, despite these assistance measures, will face difficulty in paying for their electricity bills.”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister: if the problem in Japan is not resolved within the next few months, what measures will be in place to assist sectors that are affected, notably, sectors like electronics?”
“Madam, I have two concise clarifications. My first concise clarification is to ask the Minister about the very low unemployment rate. Given this very low unemployment rate, does MOM have strategies in place to help people who want to find jobs, not just those who are already displaced but those who are currently employed?”
“Madam, on behalf of the House, I would like to thank the Minister, the Minister of State and the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the very comprehensive and detailed responses given. This year, the Ministry of Manpower did not have the highest number of cuts. That honour went to the Ministry of National Development.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,190 lines we hold for Halimah Yacob, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 23 of 24.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister of State mentioned about the presence of guidelines in response to a question raised by Mr Sin Boon Ann when he was asking whether, short of legislating those standards, there are guidelines. The Minister of State responded by saying yes, there are guidelines. My question is: are those guidelines effective? And if those guidelines are not complied with, what are the powers available to the Ministry to enforce them?”
“A point of clarification, Sir. The Minister of State said that there are guidelines. I would like to find out from the Minister of State whether these guidelines are effective and if there is any employer that flouts the guidelines, what are the powers available to the Ministry to enforce these guidelines.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I understand, from what the Minister of State says, that it is not possible to describe all the terms and conditions, one example being working hours. But I still think it is possible to consider prescribing some minimum terms, eg, number of rest hours a day, rest days a week, annual leave, sick leave, etc. Will the Minister consider that? Secondly, on the question of inspectors, is it possible for the Ministry to consider appointing inspectors to do random checks? I understand it is not possible. If there are 140,000 maids, there are probably 140,000 households but, at least, the random checks done on such households will act as a deterrent to employers who employ maids to behave in a humane and fair manner towards their maids.”
“Sir, I would just like to ask the Minister to confirm whether there was actually a tripartite agreement which provides for this minimum-maximum ratio of 1.5 to be reached over two collective agreements, and that if unions and management could agree, they could of course take a shorter period, and if they cannot, they could take a longer period. Could the Minister confirm whether there is such an agreement?”
“Sir, the name "ElderShield" is actually very misleading because, as I see, it is actually a disability scheme. Will the Ministry consider changing the name, so as to be more reflective of the objective and purpose of the scheme?”
“I hope that, once again, in the spirit of this amendment, the Ministry of Manpower, together with the Ministry of Education, can seriously look into this matter and allay the fears of our principals. Mdm Deputy Speaker, in conclusion, I support this Bill, as it will further strengthen tripartite cooperation and partnership in Singapore, and ensure continued industrial harmony.”
“On the concerns expressed by some employers over union representation of executives under this Bill, I wish to state that employers, who treat their employees fairly and with respect, have nothing to worry about. On the other hand, I think it is not in the interest of employers to protect the errant ones among them. Finally, Mdm Deputy Speaker, now that the Government is amending this law and, therefore, clearly sending its signal that it supports the principle of fairness at work, can I ask the Ministry of Education to review its policy of asking school principals to indemnify the Ministry of Education for losses of school assets or properties. One of NTUC's affiliated unions, the Singapore Teachers' Union, has raised this issue with us, and we think that it is unfair to impose such an onerous obligation on them. We know that principals cannot be represented by the Singapore Teachers' Union. But in line with this new amendment and the spirit of this amendment, I wonder whether we should now ask for principals to be represented, so that we can take up their grievances officially. We all know that principals who fail to discharge their duties will be subject to disciplinary action, which is, by itself, a very huge deterrent to irresponsible behaviour. There is, therefore, no need to go one step further and ask them to indemnify for the losses. Imagine the principal who, in addition to losing her job, has also to pay the Ministry of Education $1 million, for instance, if that is the total cost of the losses incurred. I am not aware of any other employees in Singapore, not even other civil servants, who have to undertake such an indemnity.”
“The alternative for them is to pursue their claims through common law. Legal actions, however, are costly, time-consuming, and attract unnecessary publicity, which may be adverse to the executive as it could jeopardise his future employment prospects. There is also a fundamental issue that we need to address. Do we prefer employment matters to be settled through the courts, or do we want them to be settled through union and management negotiations and, failing which, through conciliation by the Ministry of Manpower? The experience of other countries, such as the US, has shown that more litigation over employment disputes is disadvantageous to employers as well, as long protracted disputes affect productivity and increase the level of hostility in the workplace. Mdm Deputy Speaker, the last recession was a turning point for many executives. Many were retrenched but find that they have little recourse, except through the courts. The Ministry of Manpower had rendered a great deal of assistance to such executives, but where employers are reluctant or unwilling to cooperate, not much can be done as there are no laws to compel employers to attend conciliation meetings. We, in NTUC, had received many requests for assistance, and we too had rendered as much help as we possibly could, considering the constraints. There is no reason why executives should be treated so differently from other rank-and-file employees, as they too have families to think of and loans to service. They, too, need protection and a voice to represent their interests. Hence, Mdm Deputy Speaker, the NTUC strongly supports this amendment, as it is reasonable and fair, and would make it easier for us to assist executives who are in need of help in companies where there is a rank-and-file union.”
“So, for this reason, I would disagree with the point raised by my parliamentary colleague, Mdm Ho Geok Choo, because I think the amendment is appropriate, relevant and necessary, as it has very limited application and is really no longer relevant in the present context. We are also very happy that the Government has acceded to our request to remove this anachronism from our law. I am also glad to say that by repealing this provision, our Government is bringing our law more in line with ILO Convention 98, which is on freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining. Mdm Deputy Speaker, the second key amendment concerns section 16(3) of the Act. This provision was also inserted into our law in 1968 by way of an amendment. The original law did not restrict the right of executives to join and be represented by a rank-and-file union, so long as its constitution permits it. The law was amended in 1968 to prohibit unions representing non-managers and non-executives from representing managers and executives, to prevent conflict of interests. This restriction remains in our laws today. But what the present amendment seeks to do is to allow such rank-and-file unions to represent executives in their individual capacities on matters pertaining to retrenchments, dismissals and breach of contract. This amendment is a step forward and is beneficial to both executives and employers. Currently, executives already have the right to form their own unions to represent their interests in the workplace, and have full collective bargaining rights. But, because of their small number, this is not a very practical solution. At the same time, as executives are not covered under the Employment Act, they cannot legally seek recourse through the Ministry of Manpower.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, thank you for giving me the floor. I rise to speak in support of this Bill. The Bill proposes two key amendments. The first one concerns section 25 of the Industrial Relations Act, which the Bill proposes that it be repealed. Section 25 was inserted by way of an amendment to the Industrial Relations Act in 1968. Under this provision, pioneer status companies are prohibited from giving benefits which are more favourable than that provided under Part IV of the Employment Act. In practice, though, exemptions are allowed from this provision which, in practical terms, apply only to the annual and sick leave entitlements under the Act. Most employers treat such leave entitlements as minimum standards, and the pioneer status companies that want to attract good staff cannot provide benefits which are less favourable than that provided by the market. So, many pioneer status companies had to ask the Ministry of Manpower for exemptions. The NTUC had for many years asked the Government to remove these restrictions, as they are no longer relevant and hinder the implementation of good human resource practices at the workplace. It is also impractical as good employers can give other forms of paid leave without violating the law, so long as they provide paid leave to their employees in the form of child-care leave, marriage leave or compassionate leave, for instance, they will not be breaking the law. Hence, it is nonsensical that an employer can provide other forms of paid leave but cannot provide more annual leave without approval.”
“Cutting of the employer's CPF contribution is not the solution to their employability. From statistics, there are some 12,000 people in this age group who are currently unemployed. Does it mean that once their CPF contribution rate is reduced to 16%, they will automatically get employment? Before the full recovery of our economy, their employability will mean the unemployability of other people. One older worker employed will mean one younger worker unemployed. Using the same argument, do we want to cut the CPF contribution rate of these younger workers to 16% to help them get employment? What will happen if our economy is fully recovered? The workers enjoy full employment and, again, the foreign worker population rises above 500,000. All the workers aged between 50-60 are no longer faced with the employability pressure. My question is whether we will base on the same argument to reinstate their CPF contribution. The argument is when employability is low we cut their CPF. When there is no such employability pressure, should not the CPF be restored? From the above points raised, I have a lot of doubts about this measure. I feel that the argument of freezing the CPF of those aged 50-55 at 16% to ensure that they keep their jobs or help the retrenched workers to find jobs is weak. Despite the strong negative opinion on the cut in employer's CPF contribution, there are also many other ERC's recommendations on changes to our existing CPF system. In general, there are measures which would be beneficial to the people. I support the Ministerial Statement to accept these recommendations.”
“The reason given for this proposed change is to ensure that people in this age group who are unemployed will find it easier to get a job, and those currently employed will not be retrenched so readily. I have some doubts on this measure. First, from the way it is worded, I observe that this measure is to tackle a problem when there is retrenchment and high unemployment rate. This is the presumption for this measure to be taken. In other words, when the economy has recovered, and there is full employment, there will be no meaning to this measure, except that the wages of the workers are reduced. From 1988 until today, the economic performance of Singapore was good for about 70-80% of the time. There were only about 20-30% of the time when our economy was bad. The contribution rate of CPF should be based on the good times and make adjustment when the economy is bad. In other words, we should not use the standard made for the bad times as a general policy. This is because when the economy has recovered, all these cuts and reductions in the CPF contribution rates are unable to be restored because it is a general policy. The consequence is that the workers are unable to make good their losses. Secondly, are workers who are aged 50-55 really that old, that useless, or their salary is so high that they are not worth employing? If this assumption is correct, and it is also reflected generally, then we should take a look at our Members in this House today. More than 50% of our Members of Parliament are above the age of 50. From this angle, we can see clearly one point, ie, age is not a hindrance to employability. The point is whether they can get their money's worth or are they able to contribute their worth, to get their job and to make them worth being employed.”
“One of the explanations is that the people in the higher income brackets have their own means to flexibly manage their savings. They do not have to depend on this compulsory savings scheme to meet their retirement needs. They have enough means to look after themselves. What the Government said was only partially correct. The incorrect part is that why the 20% employer's contribution from $5,000 to $6,000 is taken away. Under this new measure, before the employee could flexibly manage the $200 per month of reduced employee's contribution, he already loses $200 due to the cut in the employers' CPF contribution. I think this new measure is unfair to the employees. Although the ERC has already mentioned in passing that the employers should try to pass on the savings to their employees, it has not given any indication of how this arrangement can materialise. I would expect that the employers will simply pocket the savings, and leave the employees to work out their own problems. There should be more concrete measures to ensure that the employees will stand to benefit from the savings of their employers, so that this saving from the employer's CPF contribution will become a component of the wages. So I hope that the Government will take the lead to pass on this benefit to the civil servants and make it part of the variable wage component, to set an example for the private sector employers to emulate. In the report, it was also recommended that employers' CPF contribution for workers aged 50-55 be frozen at 16%. In other words, for employees in this age group, when the employers' CPF contribution rate for the other workers is fully restored to 20%, theirs will be frozen at 16%.”
“I also agree with my other parliamentary colleagues from the labour movement to ask the Government to consider giving them extra shares or CPF top-ups, as and when the Government makes such payments. On this note, Sir, I support the changes to the CPF. Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the CPF scheme has been set up to ensure that the people have enough savings to satisfy their retirement needs. But over the past years, the conditions and rules governing our CPF system have gradually been relaxed. The people are lavishly making use of their CPF money for various purposes, such as purchase of property, shares, insurance, children's university education, medical expenses, and even for childbirth. Because of this, any change to the employer's CPF contribution rate would attract a lot of attention as it has formed a component part of the wages of the people. So, any reduction in this rate will be viewed as a pay cut. In a bad time, a reduction in employers' CPF contribution is advocated as a means to help the employers tide over the troubled waters to ensure that jobs are saved, and the workers are asked to make sacrifices in order that they can go through the difficult period together with the employers. This kind of sacrifice is worthwhile. At this time when the economy is beginning to pick up, we are proposing to cut their CPF contributions because of new factors and circumstances. I think such an arrangement at this time warrants our further deliberation. For whatever reasons, the effect of all these arrangements is that the workers' pay is reduced. The employers reduce their wage cost. The Government gave two reasons why they cut the CPF contributions.”
“This will send a strong message to private sector employers that the non-restoration of the CPF is not just a cost-cutting exercise, but is aimed at enhancing wage flexibility. Hence, I do hope that the private sector employers will exhibit the same spirit shown by the Government in its capacity as an employer, and we will not have too many disputes on our hands over this issue. The NTUC will do its part, when the restoration takes place, to ask that employers pay to deserving older workers. Sir, I also welcome the Government's move to extend the People-for-Jobs Training Scheme and increase the support period for those above 50 years to nine months, instead of the present six months. I would like to urge the Government to review other ways in which we can ensure non-discrimination against older workers by virtue of their age alone. There have been complaints from older workers who have undergone training and are prepared to take lower take-home pay that they still cannot find jobs. If employers persist in discriminating against older workers because of age, then MOM may have to consider a more effective enforcement mechanism, other than the tripartite guidelines on non-discrimination at work, to deal with this problem. MOM should also monitor the employment trends in companies and consider denying work permits to those who show a consistent pattern of not employing older workers in jobs where age is not a requirement. Mr Speaker, Sir, overall the recommendations are balanced, but there are older and lower income Singaporeans who will face difficulties, particularly during the adjustment period. I therefore call upon the Government to monitor the situation of this group of Singaporeans and extend all possible assistance to them.”
“Since 1986, we have been introducing changes to our wage system but progress has been slow. The monthly variable component, for instance, has been implemented by only 4.8% of companies in Singapore. The average minimum and maximum salary ratio is now at 1.5:2.0, lower than previous years, but still high compared to many countries. Hence, our wage system has remained very much seniority-based, and older workers are placed at great risk. Sir, I have received feedback that older workers are beginning to feel that they are now unwanted or useless. At one dialogue session with trade unionists, one of them said that we should not talk about the problem of older workers as it only makes the situation worse. But I think that not talking about the issue of employability of older workers will not make the problem disappear, as the facts tell their own story. By discussing these issues openly, we stand a better chance of raising awareness and of collectively finding solutions to it. Mr Speaker, Sir, our older workers have contributed significantly to Singapore's prosperity and growth. What has to be addressed is the seniority-based wage system, to inject greater flexibility and make wages more reflective of the job value. Hence, I strongly support DPM's call that employers pass on part of their cost savings to deserving workers in this age group. And I am most heartened that the civil service will take the lead by implementing a Transitional CPF non-restoration Top-up Scheme for civil servants aged 50-55. In this regard, the recent statement by Singapore Technologies, a GLC, that it will pay deserving older workers in line with the ERC's recommendations, is also most reassuring. I also call upon all the statutory boards and the other GLCs to follow suit.”
“More has to be done to educate Singaporeans to be prudent in using their CPF money for housing purchases. Housing is a critical component of our social safety net, and should remain a core element of our CPF system. No amount of assistance can give the same kind of assurance as having a roof over one's head. But the era of continuous and uninterrupted high growth is over. And so is lifetime employment. People now have to take a lot more risks arising from economic and business restructuring. So, in deciding what house to buy, Singaporeans will have to take into account these new realities. Sir, I would like to call upon the Government to do a lot more in educating Singaporeans on this new economic and employment landscape. I would even suggest that we educate people from the time they are in school about the realities of the job market and some amount of financial planning as well. Sir, the second issue is one of employment for older workers. As people live longer, they have to work longer too. The facts, however, are not promising. Statistics show that older workers are the ones that are the most affected by retrenchments and face the greatest difficulty in getting re-employed. This is a consistent pattern throughout all the recessions. In 1998, 51% of those retrenched were older workers. In 2001, 46% of those retrenched were older workers. In both recessions, the proportion of those re-employed who were in the older age group was lower than those in the younger age group. In other words, we do have a structural unemployment problem and the older workers are the worst hit. Sir, it is in this context that one has to view the non-restoration of the 4% for workers between the ages of 50 and 55 years.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate. Sir, in discussing changes to the CPF system, I think we will need to focus on the key issues and some of the underlying reasons that led to the Committee's recommendations. A key issue that the ERC has to address is a fast ageing population and how to adequately meet their retirement needs of which the CPF is a critical component. The average lifespan of Singaporeans has been increasing over the years. As a result, in 2030, there will be 796,000 Singaporeans aged 65 and above, more than three times the number in 1999. Arising from this, Sir, there are two issues that have to be addressed. First, people have to save much more for retirement. Second, people have to stay employed longer. The statistics on both counts are worrying. On the first point, it is clear that people are just not saving enough for retirement, despite Singapore having one of the highest savings rate in the world. In fact, only about half of the CPF members will be able to reach the Minimum Sum of $80,000 when they reach 55. For many, CPF has become the only source of retirement savings. As use of CPF funds to purchase homes became more liberal, more and more funds were channelled into housing. In 1990, $1.9 billion was withdrawn for public housing but, in 2000, the figure had increased to $8.2 billion, a four-fold increase. During the same period, private residential property purchases also went up three times from $1.5 billion in 1990 to $4.2 billion in 2000. Sir, the ERC's proposal to increase the Minimum Sum and the Special Account contribution rate will help to address the current imbalance, and ensure that more of the CPF savings will be used for retirement. However, this by itself is insufficient.”
“Sir, we have just ratified ILO Convention 100 on equal pay for work of equal value. Is this disparity in income not in compliance with the Convention? Secondly, the Convention also requires us to put in place some mechanism for monitoring wages for both males and females. What kind of mechanism will be put in place by MOM, in compliance with this Convention?”
“I fear, Sir, that as more and more public services are corporatised or privatised, everyone will decide on their own pricing policy, without taking into consideration what impact this would have collectively on people. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate my earlier point that public transport companies are not just commercial entities, but have a social responsibility and they must, and will be, subject to public scrutiny if they raise their fares. I would also like to call upon the Government to consider carefully before approving any further increases of public services or Government rates of charges. Please consider the anxieties and concerns of people. When I ask people nowadays how is your work. The answer is invariably, "Okay, but for now." During good times, when jobs are secure, people's ability to absorb shocks is better. But when times are bad, with every price change, no matter how small, instead of creating a ripple, will result in a whirlpool. On this note, I support the Motion, Sir. 4.15 pm”
“In the public's mind, such costs are borne by the commuters, although not everyone wants an air-conditioned bus interchange. Sir, I would like to make a special appeal for feeder bus users who are usually the HDB heartlanders. I think there is a strong argument to moderate the fare increase for feeder service as this is heavily used by housewives, retirees and students. The feeder service used to be 15 cents but now it is 80 cents. I recall a recent conversation with my daughter who is in Primary 6. She said that some of her friends hate me. And they hated me because they said that "your mother increased the bus fare from 70 cents to 80 cents", and I said, "Please, I am not the bus company. Please explain to your friends." She said, "Ya, it is very unfair" but that is what they said. "You have increased the feeder bus service to 80 cents, by 10 cents." Now that is the sentiment of the people, the young, their mothers who were using it, talking to them, and this is what is being reflected in the conversations. Now, if our argument is that support and assistance to the people must be focused and directed to those who really need them, then, in my view, it is appropriate that we look into feeder service differently as the bulk of the users are HDB heartlanders from the lower income group. Finallly, Sir, I would like to ask whether there is any coordination in the increase in fees amongst the various Ministries and public service providers. Is anyone monitoring and actually assessing the cumulative impact of all these increases on the public? Would the Government consider setting up an inter-Ministry Committee to monitor and assess the cumulative impact of cost increases?”
“Sir, the transport companies have just introduced cost saving methods, such as the ez-link card, which will reduce underpayments and other forms of fare abuses. The strategy of differentiating payments for those who use the ez-link card and the normal fare card, as against those who pay cash, would also mean that there will be further manpower savings as it will need less staff for cash handling. Hence, the transport companies, in my view, should have waited and assessed the impact of such measures before asking for fare increases. In fact, it would have been better if the ez-link card had been in place for a number of months or even one year, so that people could switch, and therefore have some additional savings by using the ez-link card, where the fare increase is much lesser. Unfortunately, the ez-link card has just been introduced, I think it is less than a few months, but immediately we now have the fare increase without enabling people to benefit more and assessing its impact. I also note that the ez-link card requires a $3 deposit, which is $1 more than the normal fare card. This by itself, in my view, will generate a fair amount of income for transport companies. And therefore it makes it quite unbelievable that they could cite revenue loss as a basis for the increase. Sir, in recent years, transport companies have been constantly upgrading in various areas. The question I would like to ask is: are these upgradings necessary, are they useful, are they needed by commuters, and are the costs of these upgradings passed on to the commuters? It does not really help when shortly after the bus companies announced about the setting up of the Toa Payoh airconditioned interchange, fares went up.”
“If companies are already making good profits, this formula seems to allow companies to increase fares so long as there is an increase in the operating costs. It gives the impression that transport companies do not have to contain costs and, secondly, it guarantees them good profits all the time. Sir, in 1996, the Cost Review Committee, in its conclusion, said the following: "An affordable and highly convenient public transport system would have to be provided to offer Singaporeans an attractive alternative to having their own cars, as cars are likely to be very costly given Singapore's shortage of land." Sir, we all agree that private ownership of cars will become more expensive. We also agree that too many private cars would clog up our roads. So, we agree that a better alternative will be to develop an efficient and affordable public transport system. Public buses are by far the most efficient means of road transportation for a large numbers of commuters, particularly during the rush hour. If this is the case, then should not the policies that are in place reflect this thinking? In particular, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister to explain what is the rationale for imposing the ERP on public buses, which the bus companies have cited as being one of the reasons for the increase in their costs. Lest I be misconstrued, I am not arguing for a subsidy or subsidisation of our public transport system. But I think a policy is developed on the ERP for a particular objective - to prevent clogging of the roads; people are discouraged from using private cars; they have to rely on public transport unless we expect them to walk. So I would like to know, and I am sure Singaporeans are asking this question as well, what is the rationale then for imposing the ERP?”
“I have the following suggestions to make and also some questions which I hope the Minister could address. In approving fare increases, I would like to ask whether the PTC had taken into account the economic situation, the unemployment rate, and the increased hardship that such a fare increase would cause to the people. There are strong sentiments against these increases because many Singaporeans have lost their jobs, do not enjoy pay increases in many cases, and those who are still employed live in constant fear of losing their jobs. We may argue that only 5% are unemployed, but this figure is actually much higher compared to previous years, and those who are unemployed now take a longer time to find a job. To me, a reasonable fare increase cannot refer to the amount of the increase or the need for companies to earn revenue alone, but must take these factors into consideration. I would also like to ask whether in approving the fare increase, the PTC had factored in the 2.5% reduction in corporate tax which the transport companies would enjoy on this year's income. Has that been factored in when the bus companies talked about loss of revenue as a reason for increasing fares? The Government's objective in reducing corporate tax by 2.5% is to help companies to reduce operational costs. Instead of passing on this benefit to commuters, it is unfortunate that the transport companies have decided to further increase cost for commuters. I would like to touch on the formula of CPI+X, which my Parliamentary colleague Mr Chay Wai Chuen had mentioned just now, and to ask whether there is a need to revisit this formula. I note that this formula was set many years ago, but the economic environment today has changed.”
“The issue here is whether making profits should be the over-riding consideration for public transport companies, as we have heard several speakers mentioning. In other words, the profit and shareholder value motivations of public transport companies must be balanced against the public need for an affordable and efficient public transport system. Obviously, Sir, the public is not convinced that there is a balance in this case. They know that last year, as we have already heard, SBS Transit made a healthy profit of almost $40 million, and a healthy return on equity of 17.9%. Hence, there is no danger of an imminent collapse if fares are not increased. Also, the recent announcements on corporate tax reductions will benefit transport companies in terms of higher profits. So the public finds it bewildering that bus companies should cite loss of revenue as a reason for its increase in fares. Sir, as mentioned by other colleagues as well, contrast this with the response of two other transport operators. When asked whether they would increase their fares, both the 1,000 strong Singapore School Transport Association and the CityCab and Tibs taxis, have said publicly that they will not increase their fares despite their higher operational costs because of the poor economic situation. In fact, the President of the Comfort Taxi Operators Association said in a public interview that increasing fares would mean that passengers will run away, particularly in this situation of economic hardship. Hence, Sir, there is an issue of public accountability here, and the clarifications and explanations to-date have not been able to convince people. I really hope that the Minister can give this House clearer and more incisive explanations and allay the fears of the public.”
“Sir, I rise in support of the Motion. Let me start by saying that I acknowledge that we have an efficient public transport system that is comparable to the best in the world. And I wish to pay tribute to our public transport workers for their dedication and hard work. I think we owe it to these men and women who are in the public transport service for the excellent work that they have done. From a rickety bus system, we now have one of the most efficient transport systems in the world. I also understand the plight of public transport workers who are by no means highly-paid income earners. Productivity of bus companies has increased, and in line with our wage guidelines, I think they should look forward to some reasonable wage increases. It is therefore unfortunate that wage increases have been cited as one of the key reasons for the increase in public transport fares. Let me now define what I see as the issue before the House today. At the heart of the current debate, in my view, is the question of what should be the role of our public transport companies. The companies see themselves as business entities, but Singaporeans obviously disagree. Singaporeans see public transport companies as serving public interest, and therefore having a strong social responsibility towards the public. This element of public interest and social responsibility is particularly important considering that public transport companies here operate in an environment, as my other colleagues have mentioned, where there are virtually no competitors. This does not mean that public transport companies cannot make money, or should be operated at a loss.”
“Sir, if the Ministry does not do enforcement, will the Ministry work with the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Police to ensure that a mechanism is put in place for this purpose?”
“Sir, what specific programmes are being put in place to make sure that the neighbourhood provision shops do not really sell cigarettes to persons under 18 years of age without even asking for identification papers, or whatever? What specific programmes does the Ministry have in place to check this?”
“Sir, in the same survey cited by the Minister of State, it is also mentioned that one out of every four students managed to sneak a puff at least once, and also the 11% who are considered as smokers because they light up at least once a month. To me, this is alarming. There are two aspects to it: one is deterrent and the other is preventive. We are concentrating on the preventive part. On the deterrent part, 121 convictions for a period of nine years, which is 12 convictions per year, to me, this number is very small. Because, in a report in the Straits Times in February, an 18-year old said that one could actually get cigarettes from any void deck shop, because they do not ask for the age, identification papers, and so on. Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether there is a mismatch, in terms of the actual incidence of smoking by persons below the age of 18 years and the rate of conviction, and whether there is a need for greater enforcement on the part of the Ministry.”
“Sir, I think the Minister has not answered my questions. I would appreciate it if he could answer my questions. Assoc. Prof. Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, I would like to thank Mdm Halimah for reminding me. Mdm Halimah has asked in Malay about the People's Association's survey on grassroots participation and efforts in strengthening racial harmony. Dr Maliki has also raised about the efforts of the CDCs and the People's Association in enhancing social cohesion and how this can be measured. I would just like to add that I chaired a committee in PA to look into how we can strengthen participation among the various communities in Singapore. We have launched a couple of programmes through the various groups that we have in the CCs. But, if I could seek Mdm Halimah's indulgence, Minister of State, Mr Chan Soo Sen, will address some of them, together with the other issues that both Mdm Halimah and Dr Maliki have raised in their cuts on PA and CDCs, and we will give a more complete reply to them.”
“Mr Chairman, it has been more than 40 years that the People's Association has been involved in the development of community work. However, the involvement of Malay activists in the PA activities is unsatisfactory. This does not mean that the involvement of Malays in community activities in general is reducing. It can be said very accurately that many Malays are involved in community activities but only with organisations that are related to the mosques and Malay/Muslim bodies. The Malay community does enjoy social interaction and is concerned with the problems of others. I believe that increasing the involvement of the Malay community in grassroots activities, such as the RCs, CCCs, is one way for us to strengthen inter-community relations at the constituency level. The Malay community's involvement in the activities of the People's Association is important and must be encouraged.”
“I also note that the Ministry has embarked on many efforts to promote and strengthen the family and help the workers balance work and family. Unfortunately, employers here have been sluggish and slow to respond. Flexible work arrangements for women who cannot work full time, or fixed work patterns, are uncommon. Despite the fact that we have one of the highest percentage of Internet users in Asia, telework has not caught on. Many working people continue to struggle between caring for the needs of children and aged parents and keeping their jobs. Often when they have to tend to family needs, it will be at the expense of their jobs as employers view them as unproductive. I recall the case of a worker, a man, who told me that, every morning, before he comes to work, he has to help his wife bathe his bedridden mother. As a result, he often ends up late for work and he receives warning letters. So people are caught in this kind of situation because of their family needs. Sir, I would therefore like to ask the Minister the following questions: How effective is the Ministry in its efforts to promote work-life programmes? What more can be done to educate and change employers' attitudes towards workers with family responsibilities? And finally, will the Minister consider recommending changes to our law to provide for big family care leave which can be used by the worker to take care of a sick or disabled family member?”
“Sir, like the previous speakers before me, I agree that the family is an important institution that must be cherished and protected. The fact of the matter though is that Singaporean families are undergoing tremendous stress. This is due to many factors, such as the pace of change, rising expectations, ageing population and the increasing number of dual income households. As jobs become more insecure, the role of men as the sole breadwinners will change and more women will have to work to support the family and ensure a continuous flow of income. Hence, pro-family policies are important to help people balance work and family. If we do not put more serious effort into this, then I am afraid that something will have to give, and it will be the family. The demarcation between home and work is artificial, as one affects the other. An unhappy worker is likely to be an unhappy family man. Likewise, an unhappy family man is likely to be an unhappy worker. Companies that have implemented work-life programmes have found that their employees perform better and produce higher quality work. Work-life programmes are common in many developed countries. Many of them have also adopted legislation to promote work-life balance. Our male parliamentarians may be heartened to note that many countries in Europe today mandate the provision of paternity leave. Paid paternity leave ranging from three days to four weeks are provided in Denmark, Finland, Belgium, France, Norway, Portugal and Sweden. I do not know whether our male parliamentarians and other male workers outside will be so fortunate, but at least these are some of the developments in other countries.”
“I would like to ask the Minister what measures have been put in place to identify and reach out to such children who are at risk, to render assistance to their families and to regularly monitor them so that once they are attracted to school, they will not drop out of it. On the second point, under this Act also, all students of madrasahs are required to sit for the PSLE examination in the year 2011. Madrasahs suffer from a constraint of manpower and other resources compared to the national schools and they will face difficulties in meeting the requirements of the Compulsory Education Act, if nothing is done to assist them. In this respect, may I ask the Ministry what assistance is being rendered to madrasahs to help them prepare their students to sit for the PSLE examinations in 2001?”
“Madam, the Compulsory Education Act has two specific objectives. The first is to provide our children with a common core of knowledge, and the second is to ensure that they share a common experience. Seen in this light, the Act is therefore an important piece of social legislation. Its key objective is to change behaviour and mindset towards education so that education is given the top priority which it deserves. The introduction of this Act is timely, as the number of children who fails to register for Primary 1 has been rising steadily. According to a newspaper report, 1,677 children did not register for Primary 1 in 1997. It went up to 1,708 in 1998 and, in 1999, it was 1,921, which is about 3% of the cohort. In 2000 and 2001, it was estimated that about 2,000 children a year did not make it to school. However, in my view, legislating a problem alone will not make the problem go away. I am quite sure that even when the MOE starts enforcing the Act next year, there will continue to be parents who will not register their children for Primary 1. In addition to legislation, we need to identify what are the underlying causes which prevent parents from sending their children to school and address them. I am aware the reasons could include children who are sent to madrasahs, or are overseas, or are being taught at home. Other than this group, other children could be kept away from school because of their parents' ignorance, poor priority accorded to education and, perhaps a major concern, financial difficulties.”
“Also, a recent report in the newspapers involving a school principal shows that there are risks if teachers are involved in counselling, as they are not professionals and thus are not trained on how to handle students in counselling sessions.”
“Sir, along the line of my colleague who spoke earlier, I would also like to ask for a review of the existing system of providing counselling service in schools, which is currently quite ad-hoc. I would like to suggest that a more formal arrangement be put in place where a trained counsellor is employed by schools or a cluster of schools for the following reasons. Firstly, MOE has said that its education system is capability-driven. This means that it is now more individualised, more suited to the capability of each student. If we are moving towards this kind of education system, there is, therefore, a greater need for individualised care. The task of a professional counsellor could be to help students manage the problems of stress, coping with school work, relations with peers and even career counselling. Secondly, students today need more emotional and psychological support, as they are faced with multiple pressures and the development process has become more challenging. A recent newspaper report mentioned that the number of children seeking the help of psychiatrists has increased three-fold in over eight years. The number had increased from 5,600 in 1990 to 20,000 in 1998, and this is based on the Institute of Health Child Psychiatric Clinic figures. Among the problems faced are anxiety disorders and behavourial problems which range from fear of schools, examinations and, worst of all, failure. In view of this increased pressure on our students, the present ad hoc approach where teachers end up as counsellors is inadequate. Teachers are faced with tremendous time pressures themselves to complete the syllabus and meet certain performance standards. It is, therefore, not practical to expect them to assume more and more non-teaching responsibilities.”
“Sir, there has been a downward trend in the number of students who drop out of school. At the primary level, the number fell from 1,022 or 2.5% of the Primary 1 cohort in 1998, to 183 or 0.4% in 1999. At the secondary level, it fell from 1,844 or 4.3% of the primary cohort to 1,400 or 3.5% over the same period. We should view student drop-out rates with a great deal of concern, as we know that those who drop out will face serious difficulties finding decent jobs or fitting into our society, and will be trapped in a vicious cycle of poverty. If, on average, 2,000 children drop out of school every year, there will be 20,000 in 10 years who will join the pool of the unskilled, and we will then have to put in a lot more resources to remedy the situation. Sir, from the statistics, I notice that most drop-out cases occur at Primary 6 and at Secondary 3. To me, this is significant as it indicates that part of the problem is because of the serious difficulties that they face in coping with major examinations, such as PSLE and GCE O-level. So I would like to ask the Minister what measures are currently in place to help such students and prevent them from dropping out, and how effective are these measures? We also know that in most cases, the problems are deep-rooted, such as dysfunctional families, poor foundation or negative peer influence. So the programmes that are put in place must be multi-pronged to reach out to the families as well. Better, in my view, to devote more resources before they drop out, rather than have the problems compounded later on. Sir, I would also like to ask the Minister what follow-up action has been taken to bring drop-outs back to school, and how successful has the MOE been in this effort?”
“Sir, I am finishing. Alternatively, Sir, if this is not possible, I would like to ask the Minister to consider allowing some schools or classes not to have streaming. I would also like to ask the Minister to do away with the first class, second class and third class labels of EM1, EM2 and EM3. It has very serious negative connotations and I am not convinced, just like many parents, that it is good for our society in the long run.”
“But, nevertheless, it is still streaming. In those days, if you were a "Mono", then you are in deep trouble. People look at you in a certain way as if you are a moron or doomed forever. Although the labels have changed, the implications of this labelling process remain. If you are in EM1, you are first class; EM2, second class; and EM3, sad to say, you are in third class. What is worse is that this labelling could by itself be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Instead of spurring children to greater heights, those labelled EM3 could very well say that they are useless and a failure, and nothing that they do can change the situation. Sir, is it fair, reasonable and justifiable to label children at such a young age, and thereby sowing the seeds of elitism and segmentation right from primary school? Have we ever considered the impact and damage that such a system will have on our children's self-esteem and self-confidence, when they are in their crucial years of self-discovery and are in the process of developing emotional and social anchors to guide them as they grow into adults? Sir, I would therefore like to join my other colleagues, who have spoken before me, to ask the Ministry to revisit the streaming policy. Please consider doing away with streaming at Primary 4. The children's examination results at PSLE are, in my view, sufficient for assessing our children's capabilities and to stream them according to their results. Alternatively, if this is not possible ---”
“Sir, I am sure that many of us remember our own childhood days with fond memories, the simple joys and abandonment of growing up. But what about our children? What do they remember about their childhood - examinations, assessment books, supplementary classes and tuition classes? Is it right, one may ask, to put so much pressure on our children at such a young age? This is precisely what happens with streaming. Within a period of six years that he is in primary school, a child will have to go through two major examinations - one when he is streamed at Primary 4 and the other when he sits for the PSLE - and the two examinations are very close to each other. After a child has finished mugging for the streaming examinations, he has to immediately start ramming up in Primary 5 in preparation for the PSLE. Small wonder then that in a survey of 1,742 children aged 10 and 12, commissioned by SPH last year, students said that they were more afraid of examinations than of their parents dying. Sir, we also have to ask the question whether it is realistic for us to assess a child's capabilities and later stream him based only on the examination results, which actually measure performance over a very short period of two hours for each subject. Based on this, we then decide that the child should go to the fast, the average or the slow-learning track. Many experts in education are in agreement that at the age of 10 years, a child's cognitive skills are not fully developed yet. So, is it reasonable to start streaming our children at this age? Sir, of very great concern to parents is the negative effect of labelling - EM1, EM2 and EM2, slightly better than the old system of classifying children as being in the Normal, Express or Monolingual streams.”
“Sir, this year, the Education Ministry has been allocated the second highest budget. In fact, a total of $6.79 billion has been allocated to the Education Ministry, which is higher than the amount allocated in FY2001. This is a strong indication of the Government's commitment to human capital development. There is no doubt that we have a good education system supported by a dedicated teaching staff and a population that places a high premium on education as a means to uplift itself. But then, Sir, no system is perfect, and a responsive and adaptable system must take into account the changing needs and concerns of those that it is designed to serve. It is in this light that one has to view this on-going debate on streaming. It is not an indictment of the whole system, as our overall educational framework is sound. But some policies clearly need some tweaking as we move along. What are the desired outcomes of the education system, one may ask? As many see it today, it is to feed the labour market and ensure that everyone has the skill to find a job. There is nothing wrong with this and, in fact, it is something which is very necessary if we do not want to have social problems. Take the example of Malaysia, for instance, where there are university graduates with irrelevant degrees and hence they cannot find jobs. But, then, at the same time, there is also nothing wrong to expect our education system to produce balanced individuals who love education and learning for the sake of itself and who are capable of independent thinking, not mere rote learners, and who are very strongly rooted in our values as a society. The education system must also provide a process of learning that is enjoyable and fun.”
“I would also like to ask the Minister what more can be done to facilitate the development of step-down care in Singapore, so that disabled elderly Singaporeans can have more proper home care and community-based services; in other words, providing this ElderShield scheme should be but one facet of a holistic scheme of caring for the needs of elderly Singaporeans. Finally, Sir, as the ElderShield is an opt-out scheme, I would like to know what measures the Ministry would take to educate the public not to opt out of the scheme, as they may not need it now but will do so as they grow older.”
“Sir, I agree that the ElderShield scheme is a good scheme, and it will help older Singaporeans who truly deserve something in return. But I have a couple of issues to raise with regard to the application of this scheme. Firstly, I find that the scheme has too many conditions and appear to have restricted application. To benefit from it, an elderly Singaporean will actually have to be almost bed-ridden. This is because it applies to those who cannot do at least three of the following: they cannot move, feed, transfer, dress, wash or go to the toilet unassisted. Secondly, the elderly person's claims can be disputed by a joint panel of assessors and, if there is a dispute, then the elderly person will have to engage his own doctor, at his own expense, to dispute the assessment made by the insurance company's panel of doctors. Most of the elderly disabled will not be able to afford paying for this extra cost. In order to ensure greater objectivity, I would like to suggest that MOH appoint the assessors instead of leaving this to the insurance companies. Thirdly, those with pre-existing disabilities and those above 69 years of age will not be covered. True, they will be covered under the IDAPE, but this scheme covers only those with household income not exceeding $700-1,000 per month, which is very low. Fourthly, Sir, the scheme provides payment for only up to five years. Beyond that, the disabled elderly will be unprotected. May I ask the Minister to be more flexible and to review all these restrictive qualifying conditions, so that the ElderShield scheme can be more effective and can cover more elderly Singaporeans.”
“As a labour MP, I appreciate his concern and I am confident that with his personal interest in the issue, we will be able to face changes without much disruption. Sir, for the information of the House, in our discussions with the Board, the NTUC has conveyed the following: First, the need for adequate notice to prepare workers; Second, effective communication to ensure that everyone understands the rationale and basis for the change, and how it affects them; and Third, appropriate assistance must be given to workers who are affected, particularly in relation to training programmes for the affected staff. In this regard, the NTUC Skills Development Department is currently working out a programme with the management to put staff on training programmes. So, I am very glad to say that we are working very closely. Sir, coming back to my first point, I would appreciate a response from the Minister.”
“Sir, I am indeed very glad to hear the Minister say that there are no policies which are cast in stone; therefore, implying that policies can be revisited. Most certainly, there is one policy which I hope that the Minister will revisit, and that is the current policy of the HDB of not installing lifts in 4-storey HDB flats. Sir, when the flat dwellers purchased these flats 15 or more years ago, they were much younger. There was a spring in their step. They were definitely much more nimble in running up and down four storeys of the HDB flats. But now, after many years, there is less of a spring in their step, the knees are getting a bit wobbly, and I think it is extremely difficult for them to climb up and down the staircase, particularly for the women who have to go marketing in the mornings. They have to carry heavy baskets and climb up the staircase; it can be quite a difficult problem. Sir, I really hope that the Minister will revisit this particular policy, taking into account the fact that the population has aged considerably. I also hope that in his reply, the Minister will not just cite economic arguments, but will also look into the social aspects of the issue that I have mentioned. Sir, on a related issue, which was raised by two of my colleagues, Mr Othman Haron Eusofe and Mr Iswaran, on Saturday, the Minister had kindly given a very good assurance in this House that the restructuring efforts in HDB will not affect the interest of the workers. I am very glad to hear that. I am also happy to inform the House that the HDB management is in close contact with HDB staff union and NTUC on this matter. And I am very glad to say that it is none other than the Minister himself who had instructed the management to work closely with the union on this issue.”
“There is clearly an anomaly here. Because what would happen is that we could have a worker who is covered under the Employment Act, but because the term "earnings" is defined differently under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the same worker who is covered under the Employment Act is not covered under the Workmen's Compensation Act. So if we have a clerk in a shipyard earning $1,600 and he does some inspection work, he is still covered under the Workmen's Compensation Act. But if he is injured, he is not covered under the Workmen's Compensation Act. So there is an anomaly there. And I really hope that the Minister can look into rectifying this anomaly and to bring the Act in line with the Employment Act's definition, that means, the gross ceiling of $1,600 should be based on basic salary and not on the gross salary. And secondly, I would also like to ask the Minister to consider reviewing the ceiling of $1,600 under both Acts. 2.30 pm”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether he will consider reviewing the income ceiling of $1,600 that is stipulated under the Workmen's Compensation Act and also under the Employment Act. As we know, the Workmen's Compensation Act provides for payment of compensation to workers who are injured in the course of work or who suffer from occupational diseases. The Employment Act provides for the basic terms and conditions of employment of workers. But both Acts only apply to non-manual workers if their salary ceiling does not exceed $1,600 per month. As we know, the ceiling was reviewed in 1996, and it was raised from $1,500 to $1,600. The ceiling of $1,600 is pegged to the median wage of workers in Singapore. Today, the median wage of workers in Singapore is $1,874. Therefore, there is a need for us to look at reviewing the ceiling; otherwise, the number of people covered will be significantly less. The second point which I wish to raise concerns the definition of "earnings" found under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The Workmen's Compensation Act defines earnings to include overtime payments or other special remuneration for work done, whether by way of bonus, allowance or otherwise. In other words, the $1,600 ceiling under the Workmen's Compensation Act is based on gross pay. This is disadvantageous to the workers and deprives quite a significant number of workers from the protection of the Workmen's Compensation Act. It is also a definition that is not in line with the Employment Act, which has a similar salary ceiling but which excludes overtime payments, bonus payments or allowances. In other words, the Employment Act salary ceiling of $1,600 is based on basic pay, but the Workmen's Compensation Act ceiling of $1,600 is based on gross pay.”
“I have sometimes heard criticisms that our labour standards and practices are pro-employer, and that they are more beneficial to employers rather than to workers. I have also heard criticisms that the laws make it difficult to organise and do not provide basic protection to workers, in terms of security of employment and in terms of their basic terms and conditions of employment. So, I have two points to make and two questions I would like to put to the Minister. One, I would like the Minister to inform the House as to whether our labour standards, labour laws and practices are up to par and in line with international labour standards and conventions, despite the fact that we may not have ratified all the key ILO conventions. Secondly, I would like to ask the Minister to share with us the Ministry's long-term plans on ratification, and whether the Ministry will consider reactivating the tripartite committee that was previously established to further study this matter.”
“Sir, first, I would like to commend the Government for ratifying Convention 182 on the Worst Forms of Child Labour last year. This year, based on what the Minister had announced at the International Labour Conference last year, the Singapore Government is considering ratifying Convention 100 on Equal Remuneration for Work of Equal Value. These are very important conventions and will send a very strong signal about our Government's stand on the eradication of child labour and gender inequality. International labour standards provide an important benchmark against which countries can measure their labour legislation and practices on key areas affecting rights at work, conditions of employment and health and safety. As a member state of the ILO, there are certain obligations which we are expected to fulfil. Since 1998, with the adoption of the Declaration on the Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, there has been mounting pressure for states to adopt the eight core conventions covered under the Declaration. This being the case, I certainly look forward to our Government ratifying more ILO conventions as a signal of our commitment to the ILO and to show that we take our obligations seriously. I am not suggesting that just because we are under pressure internationally, therefore we ought to ratify conventions, but rather that if we feel our standards and practices are up to par, then we ought to ratify those conventions. In Asia, Sir, Singapore is rated well, because of the tremendous improvements that we have made to workers' lives and also because of our huge investments in human capital, which is often cited - I am proud to say - in many ILO publications. In many ways, we are looked upon as a developed country that can act as a role model for others in the region.”