John De Payva
Singapore
“This explains why our trade unions have an ongoing membership recruitment drive. More members mean more leverage. We can speak with a stronger voice. We can get more companies to offer discounts. It is the same with GRCs.”
“Sir, I have mentioned about democracy and human rights because I know that no matter how the House votes today, there will be critics who say that the Government has changed the rules for political expediency. I do not share such views. I fervently believe that larger GRCs will serve the interests of the workers better.”
“Here is the bone of contention. Employers actually question whether they should really pay retrenchment benefits vis-a-vis the way the Act is worded.”
“So there are several positions that have over a period of time changed, indicating the progress of the nation, and several rank-and-file positions have been given executive officer and managerial titles. This puts the rank-and-file labour movement in a dilemma.”
“This is alarming, considering that many companies in Singapore are small. In 1991, there were 108,467 companies that employed less than 50 workers in each company. In 1994, the number rose to 129,031. Again, in 1991, 569,000 workers were employed in small companies. This figure rose to 581,815 in 1994.”
“On its part, the Government can help employers by granting generous tax incentives for workers' training. Sir, let me end by quoting what Mr Gary S. Becker said in an article on human capital and this was reflected in Business Week on Economic Viewpoint. I quote: `No nation can thrive in a modern world without investing in its people.'”
The complete record
Every one of 52 lines we hold for John De Payva, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 2.
“But if they eat out, they must be prepared to pay more because our hawkers too need increases in income year after year. The CRC has done a good job. It has been thorough in assessing the situation. It has debunked the wild claims of the SDP. It has shown that we have an effective system of government backed by various social organisations. Lower-income workers need not despair. There are avenues for them to rise if they are prepared to go for training and retraining. There are bursaries. There are scholarship awards for children of lower-income workers. Of course, despite scholarships, expenditure of families with children in polytechnics and universities must go up. This is described in the CRC Report as the middle-age squeeze. But money spent on our children's education is an investment for a better future. The CRC Report notes that those in need of help get assistance not only from Government but also from other welfare organizations. We are a caring society. I am proud to be a member of such a society. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the motion. EXEMPTED BUSINESS (Motion) Resolved, That the proceedings on the item of business under discussion be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. COST REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT (Motion)”
“The SDP has misinterpreted the issue on at least two counts: by comparing what Ministers earned years ago with what they earn now, as if they would not have moved up in their careers; by giving the notional gross monthly pay of Ministers and implying that on top of all this, they also get 11 months of bonuses. This systematic misinformation is a sad reflection of opposition politics today. We want a strong democracy, but it should be based on objective assessment of issues using correct facts and figures. It should not be based on misinformation. Before I conclude, let me touch on one other matter of concern to workers. This is the medical benefits available to workers. As the CRC Report notes, Government has put in place the 3Ms - Medisave, MediShield and Medifund. In union gatherings, we have done our bit to keep workers informed of these three schemes. Of late, we have had tripartite tea sessions where such issues were discussed. While we in the unions can reach out to workers in the unionised sector, there are many workers who are not in the unions for one reason or another. I would appeal to the management of such non-unionised companies to do their part to inform workers of the 3Ms so that they are not led astray by glib-tongued politicians out to denigrate the Government. Overall, our workers have made progress. They are earning more even though they are also spending more. The question we need to ask ourselves is: are we spending on the right things? NTUC Fairprice sells many household brands at much cheaper prices than branded items. Our workers can, through prudent purchases, save more money. There is nothing wrong with going out for our food. These days when husbands and wives work, eating out has become more prevalent.”
“For example, older Singaporeans remember that in their old tenements, there used to be backlanes. What were these backlanes for? One purpose was to allow for the removal of buckets of nightsoil. If there were no backlanes, these buckets had to go through the front door. Thank goodness we now have modern sanitation and there is no more need for trafficking of nightsoil. So Government pays a token sum of $1 for such pieces of land as a backlane, and no one is put at a disadvantage. And this $1 land can hardly be used to build HDB flats. So why is the SDP thinking so low to claim that Government buys land for $1 but subsequently makes people pay thousands of dollars for HDB flats? This is another example of SDP's misinformation. Dr Chee Soon Juan has written two books to show the public at large that he is a thinking man with ideas on how to make ours a better society. But what do these books contain? Sad to say, by his own admission, they contain errors which, according to him, have come about through his careless reading of research materials. Sir, I thought of buying a copy of Dr Chee's book before coming here to show the House that the errors remain unrectified. But then I thought to myself, why waste good money on an erroneous publication. What I did was to check with my union members who work in bookshops that sell such books, and I was told that the errors are still there. On the one hand, Dr Chee says, "I am sorry. I am only human. I can also make mistakes." On the other hand, he allows the mistakes to remain in the books being sold. Where is his integrity? In the New Democrat, the SDP has repeatedly tried to agitate the people over the issue of Ministers' salaries.”
“When the SDP research team appeared before the Cost Review Committee, its members insisted, against the weight of evidence, that the household expenditure increases were largely due to price increases. NTUC Fairprice and Emporium Holdings had effectively demolished the SDP's argument. Both major retailers reported that it was the more expensive, branded items that were selling better. The SDP alleged that there had been a statistical massage. But through some weird logic, something that defies explanation, the SDP explained that statistical massage did not mean massaging statistics. To create confusion in the people's minds, the SDP inflated the increases in HDB selling prices in order to show that there has been an alarming increase in housing. Let me refer to paragraph 22 of the CRC Report in the Executive Summary on page 4. The SDP-PKMS had alleged that HDB flat prices had risen by more than 100% between 1990 and 1994. Data from HDB showed that prices did not rise as much. The prices for 4-room Model A, 5-room and Executive flats rose by 5.4%, 10% and 11% a year respectively between 1992 and 1995. In other words, SDP's research people have got their sums wrong, either because of incompetence or through sheer malice. The HDB says that public housing remains within the means of the workers. This assurance should help counter SDP's campaign of misinformation. To undermine public confidence in the Government, the SDP tells people that Government acquires land for as little as $1. To get to the bottom of this $1 land issue, I submitted a Question for Oral Answer. I am satisfied with the answer. Government acquires land only if such land is needed for public purposes, but there are bits and pieces of land that are of little value.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, cost of living is an issue close to the hearts of workers everywhere and not just here in Singapore. When prices go up, as they invariably must, workers are upset. But so long as wage increases are ahead of inflation, they should be all right. Far more important is for us in the labour movement to ensure that we maintain industrial harmony so that more investments can come in, and more and better paying jobs can be created. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] 3.20 pm What have we done to help workers? We have a trade union movement that cooperates with management and Government. But let me state here and now that this cooperation should not be taken for granted. Where we find evidence of employers trying to be funny, our unions will take whatever action deemed necessary. The job of trade unions is to speak up when there is injustice, not just in the narrow field of industrial relations but in the wider social context. For example, I find the stance taken by the SDP extremely dangerous. To gain popular support, the SDP is trying to work the ground on the cost of living and in doing so, by launching a systematic misinformation campaign. For example, the SDP had claimed that household expenditure had risen phenomenally between 1987/1988 and 1992/1993. It came to this conclusion not as a result of its own research but by merely citing official statistics. It is true that the average household expenditure has risen by 76%, but not all has been the result of price increases. The Department of Statistics had pointed out that only 14 percentage points could be attributed to price increases and the rest were due to our buying more and better things as our lifestyles change for the better.”
“Sir, I have mentioned about democracy and human rights because I know that no matter how the House votes today, there will be critics who say that the Government has changed the rules for political expediency. I do not share such views. I fervently believe that larger GRCs will serve the interests of the workers better.”
“At the same time, they worry over the erosion of Asian values among the young, values of thrift and filial piety. Of course, our workers do not just moan and groan. They are a pragmatic lot. They know the value of hard work, but they also know how to let their hair down and enjoy themselves. We in the labour movement have set up many social and recreational facilities for the benefit of workers. These facilities complement what has been provided by the Government. With mayors in charge of larger districts, workers can look forward to even better facilities. They can look forward to more bursaries and scholarships for their children. In other words, Sir, our workers are more interested in schemes that can improve their lives and the lives of their families rather than engage in debates on democracy and human rights. American journalists such as William Safire have their own narrow definition of democracy. To our workers, democracy means the right to choose their own leaders by secret ballot, whether it be to run their unions or manage their country. And we have elections regularly. So I cannot understand why the likes of William Safire chose to condemn countries like ours. Singapore has been criticised for not upholding human rights. What kind of rights have been denied to our workers? The right to employment, the right to free association, the right to strike - these rights are there for workers to exercise, but our workers have chosen to seek fulfilment through hard work and to settle industrial disputes through negotiation, conciliation or arbitration. So there is no basis for anyone to pass judgment on us where human rights are concerned.”
“The Prime Minister has disclosed plans for Singapore to be divided into something like 10 zones. Eventually, each of the zones will be run by a Mayor, who must be an elected MP. This is fair enough. Mayors and their team will have to pay attention to bread and butter issues, leaving Cabinet to focus on the wider national interest. Their job is to address local concerns. And to be effective, they have to interact more closely with the masses, most of whom are workers. In my years of serving workers, I know what are their basic needs, their fears, their hopes and aspirations. They get retrenched when their companies restructure or relocate. They may have bags of experience in a particular line of work, but if the company switches to different lines, they will be retrenched. Workers, especially older ones, worry whether they have the ability and the opportunity to be trained for newer jobs. Older workers have families to take care of. In some cases, they have to do overtime to bring home enough money. Faced with training and overtime, they have opted for overtime. Unions need to help these workers adjust to ever-changing situations. Workers worry about whether they will be able to afford medical care when they retire. Indeed, they worry whether they have enough money to last them through their years of retirement. Many workers have bought their HDB homes. They may have paid for them. The value of these flats may have risen astonishingly high, but they know that they can make capital gains only if they sell their flats. What happens after selling their flats? Where do they stay? Sir, these are the concerns of workers. Many hope their children will do better than them and so help them in old age.”
“This explains why our trade unions have an ongoing membership recruitment drive. More members mean more leverage. We can speak with a stronger voice. We can get more companies to offer discounts. It is the same with GRCs. The bigger the GRC, the more effective it can be, provided that MPs elected are men and women of calibre and proven integrity. This is where the Government is raising the stakes, as it were, in going for bigger GRCs. But as the Prime Minister has made it clear, the Government is making this move towards bigger GRCs, not with a view of fixing the opposition. Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): How do you know?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak on the Bill to amend the Constitution so that we can have bigger Group Representation Constituencies. Let me get down straight to the point. Whenever a matter is raised in Parliament, my concern is to study it from the viewpoint of workers. How will such an issue affect workers? If it advances the interest of workers, I will support it. If it will have an adverse effect on workers, I will speak against it. Before we go into the Bill, I would like to ask one simple question. Have the lives of our workers improved since the introduction of the Group Representation Constituencies? The answer, Mr Speaker, is quite obvious. GRCs have strengthened our political stability because they have ensured that minority communities will be represented in Parliament. It is because we have such a high degree of political stability that we have been able to attract more and more investments. As a result, more jobs have been created. In many cases, they are better paying jobs. So workers have benefited. But when the Government wanted to enlarge the scope of the GRCs, some critics were quick to point out that this might lead to lower representation in Parliament for minority communities. Going strictly by arithmetic, the critics are right. But our Prime Minister and two Deputy Prime Ministers have come out openly to reassure minority communities that their interests would be fully safeguarded in any constitutional amendment. Our key leaders have indicated in no uncertain terms that arrangements will be made so that the level of minority representation in Parliament is not eroded. In some bigger GRCs, this might mean having two minority candidates for each of them. As a unionist, I see merit in having bigger GRCs. In whatever we do, we need a critical mass.”
“Sir, in a normal situation, when one changes a telephone number to another number, one has to pay a fee. This is what one has to pay if one has an old number and wants to have Caller ID facility. Could this fee be waived?”
“Sir, does the special arrangement mean the waiver of the fees?”
“Sir, to change a telephone number, a subscriber has to pay a fee. Would the Ministry consider a waiver of this fee if a subscriber changes his telephone number?”
“Sir, before one can enjoy the double income tax relief it would require a substantial take home salary. If a housewife wants to go to work, then the income she earns would not entitle her to that kind of relief. Would the Minister want to consider this?”
“Sir, would the Minister consider partial or full waiver of the foreign maid levy to further encourage housewives to come into the workforce?”
“If family members are aware of the directive, they can better understand decisions taken by doctors on whether or not to switch off the extraordinary life-supporting processes. Should family doctors be informed of the advance medical directive? I would say, yes. But chances are that it is not family doctors who will make the life-and-death decision. Chances are it will be the doctors in hospitals. As such, it would help if the family doctor is involved, at some point in time, in the decision-making process. Perhaps, the Bill could be further amended to bring the family doctor into the picture, assuming that the doctor treating the patient in hospital is a specialist. Then he should refer his decision on the nature of terminal illness to another specialist and to the family doctor. If, on the other hand, the hospital doctor is not a specialist, then his decision should be referred to two specialists plus the family doctor. So at the point when a person signs his advance medical directive, he should also state who his family doctor is. There must also be provision for a person to change his family doctor. Sir, I support the Advance Medical Directive Bill.”
“But decisions on whether to let a person go cannot be based on cost. They must be based on medical and moral grounds. I have stated earlier that doctors have no right to hasten the death of a patient. Let me add that doctors have no right either to prolong the life of a patient needlessly. What do I mean when I say "needlessly"? This would involve the use of high-tech machines to keep a patient alive for a prolonged period when it would be much more humane to let him die naturally. The critical issue is whether there is a chance of recovery. If there is, then doctors must do everything possible to save the patient. But if there is no chance of recovery, the decent thing is to let nature take its course. Once the Bill is passed, it is up to each of us to make that critical decision whether to make an advance medical directive. All those 21 years and above are entitled to make such directives provided they are of sound mind. There is also provision for a person to revoke such directives. Once a person makes an advance medical directive, who else should be told of this decision? According to the Bill, the directive would be kept confidential and made known only to such person as he may authorise in writing. The directive will be made known to the doctor responsible for treatment only if such a certificate has been forwarded to the Registrar of the Advance Medical Directives. I do not know why it is necessary for the advance medical directive to remain confidential. Decisions of this sort are taken only after familial consultations. I would urge that such decisions be taken when people are in the pink of health, not when they are about to go for major surgeries.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am against mercy killing. Doctors have no right to hasten the death of any individual whatever the circumstances. But the Bill before us does not sanction mercy killing. It merely provides for a person to give advance notice to doctors not to prolong his life by artificial means. This I can support. Only last week, I heard over the BBC a sad episode. It concerned a woman in coma for four years. Finally, a court in Scotland allowed the doctors to take her life. Of course, the woman's husband was sad. But, at the same time, he was relieved that her agony was over. We have made tremendous progress in medical science but we cannot put off death. When the time comes, it is better to let a person to die naturally rather than keep him alive through artificial means. The question is at what point the doctor sees life-supporting operations. The Bill is quite explicit on this matter. The decision whether to let the patient die is taken off the hands of the doctor responsible for the treatment. Two other doctors must agree that the patient is terminally ill. If the doctor in charge is not a specialist, then the other two doctors must themselves be specialists. If the doctor in charge is a specialist, one of the other two doctors must be a specialist. If there is no unanimity, the issue has to be referred to a committee of three specialists and, here again, the principle of unanimity is preserved. I am satisfied that every precaution will be taken before the extraordinary life-supporting processes are switched off. Medical treatment is costly. Keeping a person alive through extraordinary means is even more costly. It is also agonising to close relatives of the patient as well as to doctors and nurses.”
“Here is the bone of contention. Employers actually question whether they should really pay retrenchment benefits vis-a-vis the way the Act is worded. But, as I have mentioned earlier on, in the unionised sector we face little problems here because we have provisions in collective agreements that spell out retrenchment procedures and, in some cases, retrenchment quantum. But 75% of the bargainable workforce are not unionised. They do not have unions to support, mediate and conciliate for them. Going by the Act, they are truly at the mercy of the employers. I wish the Minister would consider reviewing these wordings.”
“Sir, firstly, I request the Minister to note that the IAC does not recognise arrangements and agreements between employers and rank-and-file unions for executives and managers to join rank-and-file unions. Sir, such collective agreements will not be certified by the IAC. I am referring to the Minister's reply yesterday on amendments to section 16(3) of the Industrial Relations Act. It was raised by my colleagues and I. Sir, my amendment today is on retrenchment. Unions face retrenchment issues quite often, more so now when we look at the trend of companies to keep themselves trim and lean. Sir, even in Prof. Charles Henly's example of the Shamrock companies, it is typical of companies to start shedding their fat, so to speak. But unions have little problems because we have retrenchment provisions enshrined in collective agreements. Sir, I am more concerned for the man-in-the-street who is not a union member. More than 75% of our bargainable workforce are not unionised, not yet anyway. They are at the mercy of the employers when it comes to retrenchment. Sir, as we look into ways and means to raise retirement age, employers are saying that retrenchment payments should be reduced significantly for those above 60 years of age. Again, Sir, unions can still bargain and negotiate. But what about those that are not unionised? The Employment Act simply states that as long as workers have less than three years' service, then that worker is not entitled to retrenchment benefits. The Act is, in fact, silent on retrenchment benefits. It is worded in a negative form and I have raised this last year. The Act could be positively worded to say that where a worker has three or more years of service, then that worker shall be entitled to retrenchment benefits.”
“So there are several positions that have over a period of time changed, indicating the progress of the nation, and several rank-and-file positions have been given executive officer and managerial titles. This puts the rank-and-file labour movement in a dilemma. Sir, whilst the Ministry of Labour has guidelines to assist unions in their bid to unionise junior executives in rank-and-file unions, interpretation is a major issue. As an example, my union has a case in the MOL, that is about two years old or more, with no solution in sight. Section 16(3) of the Industrial Relations Act forbids an executive or above from joining a union whose majority membership is of rank-and-file workers. This section has served its purpose very well. The question is: is it relevant today? Should it not be re-examined against changing employment needs?”
“Sir, I would also like to further emphasise on what my union colleagues have been talking about just now on union representation. Sir, on Saturday, 16th March, a workshop on Changing Employment Structure and Its Impact on Union Membership was run by the NTUC and some 200 union leaders actively participated in this whole day workshop. This workshop examined the trends in employment structure in Singapore, studied the implications of changing employment structure on union membership and recommended appropriate organising strategies and incentives to address the issue. Sir, over the decade, there had been changes in the employment pattern in Singapore. Essentially, there was a shift of jobs away from manufacturing to services and the rapid expansion in the managerial, professional and technical jobs. Professional and related workers grew by 7% a year compared with 1% for rank-and-file workers. Their share of total employment has increased from 21% to 31% in the last 10 years. This trend will continue. Sir, the Singapore workforce is also better educated today than 10 years ago. As an example, tertiary educated workers form 25% of the total number of workers in the 25 to 29 years cohort. It is important for the labour movement to attract young educated members for future leadership positions. However, Sir, the pool is very limited as employers are giving these workers executive and managerial titles. It is not that employers deliberately do this to preclude them from unionisation in rank-and-file unions. Times have changed. A salesman then is today called a sales executive and, by virtue of the law, he is precluded from joining the rank-and-file union.”
“Sir, I would like to speak on the Industrial Relations Act in the area of section 17(2). The section on retrenchment empowers the employer the absolute right to retrench workers by virtue of reorganisation or restructuring. Under this guise, Sir, if a company does not like a worker, then the worker goes. Unions can only negotiate on the quantum of retrenchment. Even today, Sir, this quantum is being questioned by the employer's quarters as being very high and very costly. Retrenchment benefits cannot be made cheap where unions cannot challenge the exercise. I would suggest that unions be allowed to challenge this right. The quantum can still remain negotiable. Sir, on the Trade Unions Act, I have raised this at the last budget session. This concerns section 35 of the Trade Unions Act that says that any member of the public can secure a copy of the union constitution for anything up to a dollar. While there may be cogent reasons then, are the same reasons applicable today in today's context of industrial relations? This provision has been in the Act for 48 years. But the $1 remains. Should not this amount be raised correspondingly with time? The value of $1 then, Sir, could well be the value of $20 today.”
“Perhaps the Minister would want to review this.”
“Sir, I would like to speak on Taxation on Retirement Gratuity. Sir, sometime back, the Minister for Finance announced taxation on retirement gratuity. Under the scheme, retirement benefit accrued in existing approved pension fund, after 31st March 1992, is exempted from tax, provided that the fund must be approved and is paid out at the point of retirement. Many companies have this type of fund for their employees. Most of such funds have long been frozen as they were tied to the employer's CPF contribution. Their CPF contributions to their employees have since taken over. The accrued amounts to this fund are with the safekeeping of the companies. Interests on an annual basis are computed so that employees do not lose out, although not all companies do this. However, employees want their gratuities to be transferred to their individual CPF accounts as they feel that this would be better secured. Sir, as the scheme goes, this can be done but the amount would be taxed at the point of transfer. The reason given was to encourage loyalty and strengthen the nexus between employer and employee. If this fund is transferred to an employee's individual CPF accounts, the loyalty and the nexus would no longer exist. Prior to the scheme, such funds could have been transferred to the employee's individual CPF accounts without being taxed. Many companies have made this transfer for their employees before 31st December 1992 and their employees will not need to pay taxes on these amounts. Then the rationale of loyalty and the establishment of the nexus between employer and employee was not the moot point. Sir, there seems to be a catch 22 situation here. As I understand it, under the Income Tax Act, the Commissioner has no power to grant exemption.”
“This is alarming, considering that many companies in Singapore are small. In 1991, there were 108,467 companies that employed less than 50 workers in each company. In 1994, the number rose to 129,031. Again, in 1991, 569,000 workers were employed in small companies. This figure rose to 581,815 in 1994. Sir, 47% of our total workforce are employed in small firms in terms of workers. Companies of this size do not see the urgency to train their workers. Hence, the low percentage in investment in human capital in such companies. In terms of educational level, as at 1994, 43% of our workforce have lower secondary and below, and 30% have secondary education. With our constant healthy budget surpluses, surely some money could have been set aside for training, retraining, and skills upgrading of these left-behind workers. Whilst we are about to be pronounced a developed nation, we must do something for our less educated, less skilful working colleagues.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I had earlier spoken briefly on the importance of training. A huge percentage of the working population comprises workers with little education. Most of them are in their 40s and above. Whilst we have the Skills Development Fund, we have noticed over the years that this cohort of workers is not benefitting from it entirely. The BEST and the WISE programmes, heavily subsidised by SDF, have barely managed to change this scenario. Sir, there are many reasons why older workers are not availing themselves of this training. In some instances, employers are not too encouraging. In others, workers themselves need to earn additional incomes through overtime work and part-time work. These workers have families and family commitments. They have bills to pay. A typical family of four with an average income living in a 4-room HDB flat with schooling children cannot afford to go for skills upgrading courses for the reasons given earlier. While subsidies are offered by some recognised institutions, these workers need to help to defray family expenses. Sir, not all companies are farsighted and committed to investment in human capital. An article in the Straits Times of 22nd February 1996 mentioned that by March 1996, companies in Singapore would meet the national target of spending 4% of their payroll on training. The article went on to say that large companies with 500 or more employees are already spending well above the national target on staff training. It said that something like 7.2% of their payroll are used for training. This is very encouraging for workers employed by such large companies. But it also said that companies with fewer than 25 workers spend only 1.4% of their payroll on staff training.”
“On its part, the Government can help employers by granting generous tax incentives for workers' training. Sir, let me end by quoting what Mr Gary S. Becker said in an article on human capital and this was reflected in Business Week on Economic Viewpoint. I quote: `No nation can thrive in a modern world without investing in its people.'”
“It has invested a lot of money in education up to tertiary level. The question is: should the Government continue to invest in the training of workers as well? I am not saying the Government has done nothing. Employers can apply to the Skills Development Fund to subsidise training of workers. But surely the Government can do more. Perhaps in the course of the budget debate, we will have opportunities to hear from the Government whether it has other plans to help promote training, especially among the older workers. While we have made tremendous progress in the economic and social fields, we still have people who earn relatively low incomes. How can we help these people break out of the poverty trap? Basically, there are two ways. One way is through education. This is by continuously improving our education system and by offering help to the lower-income families through schemes like Edusave and scholarships offered by grassroots organisations including trade unions. The second way is through continuous training of workers. Recently, Mr Lim Boon Heng, the Minister without portfolio and Secretary-General of the NTUC, caused a stir when he suggested metaphorically that degrees, diplomas and certificates had expiry dates. In an interview with NTUC News, Mr Lim said that he was not surprised by the reaction. It merely confirmed his worst fears that some people start to rest on their laurels after they finished schooling or university, and are unaware of the implications of the fast-changing technology. What we need to do is to develop a training culture which is so pervasive that a worker would feel left out if he is not attending some skills upgrading course on a continuous basis. NTUC can do its part. But the greater push must come from employers.”
“Nithiah Nandan, as saying that he welcomed the utility bill rebate, but hoped that the Budget was not an election Budget, as this would mean no more rebates next year. I was shocked when I read it. Surely, as a responsible trade union leader, Mr Nithiah should have known better than to come to such a conclusion. Or could it be that he was misquoted, as I have been misquoted on a number of occasions? The truth is that he was indeed misquoted. But what did the Straits Times do to put things right? On its 5th March issue, under the heading "What it should have been", the Straits Times said that Mr Nithiah Nandan has clarified - yes, the word used was "clarified" - "that what he said was that it was unhealthy to brush the Budget aside as an election Budget, and that by doing so it would signal to the Government not to give any rebates next year." The way the Straits Times handled this issue leaves very much to be desired. There was no apology by the Straits Times for misquoting my fellow unionist. Instead, the Straits Times gave the impression that it was Mr Nithiah who did not present his thoughts clearly in the first place. Sir, there are several other instances of this nature, but perhaps I could go on to another issue. Sometime ago, I had to fight tooth and nail to get the Straits Times to make a correction, instead of a clarification for misquoting me. We have said much about the need to inject professionalism at all levels. We must also not forget ethics. In putting Mr Nithiah Nandan in bad light and refusing to admit its own error, the Straits Times is guilty of unethical professional conduct. Sir, let me now move to another area of concern to trade unions and this concerns training. The Government deserves a pat on the back for its sound education policy.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Budget presented by Dr Richard Hu. And I would like to join other MPs who have expressed appreciation to the Finance Minister for a very good Budget. As a unionist, I am particularly touched by concessions extended to the lower-income segment of our population. These people deserve whatever assistance they can get from the more fortunate among us, and not just from the Government. Dr Hu has lowered the minimum tax rate for business and introduced a series of measures to lessen the tax burden of individual taxpayers as well. In a word, every single taxpayer in Singapore needs to pay less this year than last year. But I regret to note that some people have chosen to dub this an election budget. What evidence have these critics to offer to justify such a claim? What they failed to see is that the pattern of concessions had been set some years ago. But they are so fixed in their mindset that they cannot appreciate the generosity of the Government. It is wrong of these critics to say that the Budget favours the well-to-do, leaving just crumbs for the lower-income. They come to this conclusion simply because savings from the high end of taxpayers are more substantial than those from the lower end. But this is to be expected. What is it that these critics would have our Government do? Introduce a tax system that will drive away those who could earn more because they are more enterprising? Would the lower-income workers benefit if the higher-income earners pack up and go? Surely not. Sir, let me now refer to a recent discussion by the Feedback Unit on the Budget. In particular, I would like to draw the attention of the House to a report published in the Straits Times on 2nd March 1996 quoting one of my fellow union leaders, Mr A.”
“Sir, the employees have transferred their gratuity to Singapore Power as a result of the restructuring. With the delay in listing, what will happen to their gratuity? And will there be retrenchment in Singapore Power's bid to want to be efficient? If there is retrenchment, will the retrenchment benefits be calculated to include the service of the employees since the PUB days?”
“Mr Cheo Chai Chen (Nee Soon Central)( In Mandarin): I would like to thank Mr Deputy Speaker for giving me this opportunity to speak. Before I speak on the motion, I would like to make some clarifications concerning Dr John Chen's criticism on the Singapore Democratic Party and its Members of Parliament. First, the Chairman of SDP, Mr Ling How Doong, is not trying to run away from this debate, that is, this debate on the White Paper. He has gone to the Philippines to attend an important conference. Secondly, on 15th January, my secretary informed Dr Lee Boon Yang's secretary of my intention to speak. I do not know why my name is not in the list of speakers.”
“Now that many of us use TransitLink card, there should be no qualms about fixing rates at, say, 67 cents, instead of rounding it up to 70 cents. On the question of efficiency and healthy competition, Sir, for some instances, one has to change buses three times to reach one's destination. Surely this is not efficient. To have a world class land transport system, this must be addressed. Perhaps with healthy competition, this problem can be resolved. What we have now is the SBS route and the TIBS route, hardly competition at all, more like monopoly. These two companies should be allowed to compete freely on each other's routes. There should not be territorial rights. Better still, allow a third or fourth company to compete and operate. Sir, the problems of the handicapped should also be addressed. I ask the Minister what provisions are made for these unfortunate citizens of Singapore. How do we help the wheelchair-bound citizens of Singapore, as an example? There is also the question of operating hours. Could additional hours be extended so that late shift workers can save on taxi fares? And how about our polytechnic students who have to pay adult farecards when prices go up, and they will go up? Can we look at discounted rates for these students? The White Paper states that in public transport, there is a triangular relationship between fares, service standards and viability of the operators. But it clearly states that we will not run our transport system on a cost-plus basis. The Government will not leave it entirely to market forces to determine the fare structure. So long as we are guided by these principles, we should not be unduly troubled by higher fares. I therefore support, in principle, the White Paper on A World Class Land Transport System.”
“I say that such a social contract can only work if there is mutual trust. There can be no trust if we the commuters feel that the operators are only interested in higher profits. I am not against bus companies or any organisation for making profits. Without profits, we trade unionists cannot secure better terms and conditions for our members employed in such organisations. Here, let me read what the Straits Times reported on 2nd January 1996. It quoted SBS as saying, "to keep bus fares affordable amidst an environment of rising manpower, fuel and capital cost, it would go a long way if Government can similarly explore some form of co-financing scheme for bus renewals as well". The question is: what if the Government says no? Does it mean that SBS will not carry out bus replacements? Or does it mean that bus fares will be raised to the extent that they become unaffordable? Neither proposition makes sense to me. Maybe it is unfair to SBS to just take one sentence from its statement and draw conclusions. Perhaps SBS has all along been seeking Government's subsidy for bus replacements. Whatever the situation is, I hope the Minister for Communications could clear the air. The White Paper states that fares have to be realistic and revised periodically to take into account cost increases. Hopefully, in fixing the fares, LTA will bear in mind lower income workers who need to use public transport. The White Paper states that while the public is willing to pay for the service, public transport must always be affordable to all Singaporeans. Another important point made by the White Paper is that future increases need not be effected across the board. To this, may I add that future increases need not be rounded up to the nearest five cents or the nearest 10 cents.”
“Sir, we intend to have a world class land transport system, and I do not see why not. After all, we already have a world class airport, a world class seaport and our workforce has long been regarded by BERI as the world's best. But a world class transport system comes with a price. How much more do we have to pay to travel in such a system? This is a question that is of crucial importance to me as a commuter and more so as a trade unionist responsible for workers' interest. Of course, the Land Transport Authority will have to do its sums before coming up with actual fees. In doing so, I am sure it will bear in mind that although we are as good as a developed nation, there are many workers who still earn third-world wages. In principle, I support the concept of partnership. Government provides the infrastructure, commuters pay for operating cost and operators operate efficiently under the scrutiny of the Public Transport Council. Government is to be congratulated for its farsighted vision on land transport. The MRT is our pride and joy and that was made possible because of Government's decision in 1980 to pay for the infrastructure. Now the White Paper on a world class land transport system has proposed that Government foots part of the cost for the replacement of trains when it is necessary to make such changes. I applaud Government's move, but I cannot say I am happy with the reaction of bus companies. The Singapore Bus Service sought to ride on Government's generosity. It too feels that Government should bear part of the cost of replacement of buses. Why, may I ask? Surely, SBS has made provision for bus replacements. Now let me turn to the White Paper's reference to a social contract among Government, the operators and commuters.”
“Over time, I am sure the economies of our neighbouring countries will improve. Then workers from these countries will find it less attractive to take up jobs in Singapore. So we have to brace ourselves for the day when it would be increasingly difficult to get foreign labour. Now that the elections are over in the Philippines, I feel that it is a matter of time before relations between our two countries will be back to normal. Meanwhile, we should give ourselves a pat on our back for the way we, as Singaporeans, with a few exceptions, of course, stood up as one united people in the face of a crisis not of our making.”
“In the case of Flor Contemplacion, she was convicted of double murder after the court heard evidence of how the police tracked her down, following the murder of Della Maga and Nicholas Huang. In a police statement, admitted by the court, Flor described how she killed Della and Nicholas. In her trial, she declined to give evidence. From whatever angle we look at this case, it is obvious that Flor had a fair trial. She was represented by counsel in both trials. So it was wrong of the Philippines to question the integrity of our courts. But, in their anxiety to "prove" Flor's "innocence", some elements in the Philippines had gone too far. They even sought to blame the Senior Minister for ordering the execution of the maid, and cast aspersion on the father of Nicholas Huang. Why have we kept quiet in the face of such provocations? It is not my intention to stir up feelings against Filipinos, especially those who have chosen to work in Singapore. But the Flor Contemplacion case should remind us not to depend too much on foreign labour. Let us not forget that soon after Flor's execution, President Ramos banned Filipinas from taking up jobs as maids in Singapore. The Philippines even sent military aircraft to pick up Filipina maids who wished to go home. In a subsequent statement, President Ramos noted that Filipinas have been flying to Singapore as tourists, but ending up doing work as maids here. He appeared to be philosophical about this turn of events. We do need foreign labour. But is it not better for employers to automate in a big way, so that they could do with fewer workers? This would mean a cutback on foreign workers. As far as home help is concerned, should we not be investing in more childcare centres and home-cleaning services?”
“We then proceeded to carry out the execution with clockwork precision, seemingly uncaring of the feelings of our close neighbours. Would it have hurt us if we had delayed the execution? The least we could have done was to have taken a bit of time to look at the "new evidence", and not dismiss it out of hand. Should we not have allowed the women to stay a bit longer, so that we could convene an inquiry, and determine the truth? Were we suitably informed of the impending elections in the Philippines? Were we appraised of the possibility that Flor Contemplacion's hanging could be made into a political issue, jeopardising the interests of Singapore and the safety of Singaporeans in the Philippines? I am not suggesting that we should in any way compromise our judicial process, but a delay could not have severely affected it. Was our Government taken aback by the developments that followed Flor's execution? But then, according to the Far Eastern Economic Review, 30th March issue, President Ramos himself was shocked when he returned from Europe to find demonstrators blaming his administration for failing to save Flor. If he was indeed shocked, could he have used the right tone in his messages to President Ong? Mr Speaker, Sir, let me turn to the second limb of my motion. It is crucial that the Parliament of Singapore reaffirm our confidence in our criminal justice system, which had come under unwarranted attack by the Philippines over the Flor Contemplacion affair. Our criminal justice system is patterned after that of Britain, although we had made changes to suit our conditions. For example, we have done away with the jury system. But our courts observe scrupulously the rules on admissibility of evidence.”
“If there had been a shred of evidence to cast doubt on the prosecution case, how come there had been silence for four years - until just before she was due to be executed? Calls for a stay of execution (even for clemency) are not uncommon. I am sure that, where there are compelling reasons, the Cabinet would accede to a request for a stay of execution. Perhaps, the Government could enlighten the House on the circumstances that led to the downgrading of diplomatic relations between two ASEAN members - not long after President Ong Teng Cheong paid a state visit to the Philippines. What had gone wrong? From media reports, it would appear that President Ramos sent two letters of appeal to President Ong. Perhaps, the Government should disclose in full the contents of these two letters, and our response. Again, going by media reports, President Ramos said there was a Filipina woman who had "evidence" that Flor Contemplacion was not the killer. This woman used to work in Singapore as a maid. Then there was another Filipina who also claimed to have "evidence" of Flor's "innocence". This Filipina had spent time in Changi Prison where she claimed she came to know Flor. If indeed these women believed they had "evidence" that could save Flor's life, why did they remain silent for four long years? Why did they raise the "evidence" only at this later stage? Who prompted them to come to Singapore? Who had paid their air-fares? But the moment the women suddenly turned up in Singapore, we should have sensed that something was afoot. What did we do? We promptly dispatched the two women back to Manila and issued a statement, couched in bureaucratic language, dismissing their claims.”
“What if we had chosen to march up to the Philippine Embassy to protest against the sentence? What if we had demanded to know whether the Singaporean was being given life sentence as a tit-for-tat for executing Flor Contemplacion? What if we had burnt the Philippine flag? Would the Philippines have shrugged it off and say, "Well, since we have exercised our democratic right to burn the Singapore flag, we should not object to Singaporeans exercising the same democratic right to do what they wish with our flag." I leave it to Members of this House to reflect on how the Philippine government, the Manila media and the Filipino people would react, if we had mounted demonstrations against the Philippine judiciary system. Now, let me return to the motion. Amidst the anti-Singapore hysteria, fanned by the Manila media, an effort was made to reconcile the different findings of the autopsy - one conducted soon after Della Maga was killed, and the other four years later. It proved inconclusive. Whilst this was to be expected, I nevertheless abhor the offensive remarks made against the integrity of our pathologists and the American forensic experts who accompanied our team to Manila. Now, another autopsy would be conducted - this time in the United States, and by a team mutually chosen by the Philippines and Singapore. We should not prejudge the outcome. President Ramos has said that if an independent body were to support Singapore's autopsy findings, then the Philippines should accept that its sense of outrage had been misplaced. And Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong has pledged to reopen the case if the findings were against us. So be it. As far as I am concerned, Flor Contemplacion had been given a fair hearing - not once, but twice.”
“Did the Philippines make use of the open channels, or was Singapore used as a convenient punching bag for domestic considerations? I regret that the Commission turned out to be more interested in theatre than truth. Here are some bizarre claims accepted by the Commission. Flor Contemplacion was forced by prison personnel to lie inside a coffin lined with dry ice; she was tortured by prison staff by electricity conducted to her body through a basin of water; she was drugged each time she was due to appear before a court; she was raped and shouted at; and it was the father of Nicholas Huang who killed Della Maga, and not Flor. It is not just the people in Singapore who find it hard to believe the way the Commission had conducted itself. The former Philippine Foreign Secretary, Mr Roberto Romulo, had this to say of the Gancayco Commission and I quote: `... it is a body that represents the workings of a government at its most bizarre, a government gone berserk ... The Gancayco Commission arrived at its conclusions and recommendations not with facts but with opinions fuelled by public and personal emotion.' I am sure I speak for workers when I say that we feel deeply outraged when our flag was burnt in the cities of the Philippines and used as a doormat at a police post. But what made matters worse was when the Philippine government castigated our Embassy in Manila for protesting over the flag burning! What would have happened if we had reacted in the same frenzied manner as the Filipinos? Sir, now if I may draw the attention of the House to a report in the Straits Times dated 23rd May 1995. It is about a Philippine court sentencing a Singaporean to life imprisonment for posing as a job recruiter and duping six Filipinos into giving him money for jobs in Taiwan.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, let met state, from the outset, that I am seconding the motion not because I believe in the garbage churned out by the Manila press over the Flor Contemplacion case. I am doing so in the hope that we, Members in this House - whatever our political persuasion - can have an opportunity to express our views on a matter of national concern. Relations between Singapore and the Philippines have been soured up because we executed a convicted double murderer despite an appeal by President Ramos for a stay of execution. In the days before the execution, various groups in the Philippines expressed their deep concern over the fact that Singapore was about to hang a Filipina maid for the murder of another Filipina maid, Della Maga, and a four-year old boy under her charge, Nicholas Huang. Trade unions in the Philippines urged NTUC to intervene as well. Our labour movement stayed clear of the case, not because we were not humane but because we believed that it was a matter that should be dealt with between two governments, as it involved the judicial process. However, more importantly, it was also not a labour dispute. The Philippines and Singapore are both members of ASEAN. As such, I would imagine that the channels of communications should always be open. President Ramos was (and I hope still is) on good terms with our President of Singapore, our Prime Minister and our Senior Minister. Given such open lines of communications, how could relations between the two sides have deteriorated so rapidly - to the extent that President Ramos even threatened to cut off diplomatic ties with Singapore if a commission he set up found that there had been a miscarriage of justice?”
“Sir, would the Minister reconsider, in view of the national direction of training and retraining to upgrade oneself and the constraints that family workers have to go through to look after their family commitments, that they be allowed to use CPF money to finance their courses?”
“Today, 47 years down the road, the sum of $1 still appears in the Act. Sir, I would suggest that a review on this sum be done by the Ministry. Also, is it still relevant for any member of the public to have access to a copy of the constitution on demand? These are some of the provisions that need to be reviewed and amended in line with the present state of the economy and labour-management relationship. Sir, I would like to suggest, since we have a tripartite committee to review specific areas of the Employment Act, that the Ministry now seriously look into forming another tripartite committee and this time to look at the other labour legislation - the Trade Unions Act, the Industrial Relations Act, the Factories Act and whatever other regulations - which may today be outmoded and which may have exhausted its usefulness. If this can be done, we can pride ourselves that after so many years that we have built up good labour-management relationship, that some of these provisions no longer need to be in the book to constantly remind us of our past.”
“Sir, I am raising three areas of concern for consideration. One is the Employment Act on retrenchment benefits, the Industrial Relations Act on section 17(2), and the Trade Unions Act on the right for any person to acquire union rules and regulations. Sir, on the Employment Act on retrenchment benefits, it simply states that as long as a worker has less than three years' service, that worker is not entitled to retrenchment benefits. The Act, in fact, is silent on the payment of retrenchment benefits. It is worded in a negative form. This has led to employers questioning their obligation to pay if a worker has three or more years of service. It only implies so. Can this part of the Act be worded along the line to say that a worker who has three or more years of service shall be entitled to retrenchment benefits, in other words, a more positive way. On the Industrial Relations Act, section 17(2), in the name of reorganisation or restructuring, or as what we commonly call today "re-engineering", an employer has the right to retrench workers. The only recourse unions have is to negotiate on retrenchment quantum if at all that can be called a recourse. This section was introduced in 1968, 27 years ago. One of the reasons advanced by the then Minister for Labour when he introduced this piece of amendment was that Singapore was having an excessive number of strikes and industrial actions. The situation has tremendously changed today. Perhaps a review on this wording is now timely so as not to give employers the absolute right to retrench workers under the guise of reorganisation. On the Trade Unions Act, section 38(2) says that any member of the public can have access to a copy of any union's constitution for a sum not exceeding $1. This provision was introduced in 1948.”
“The question that begs an answer is whether the Ministry can find a way to assist these financially hard-pressed workers - the majority of the working population if I might add - so that they can avail themselves for training or re-training and improve their economic worth and, more importantly, stay relevant to the changing economy. Sir, if nothing much is done to correct this situation, these workers will forever be left behind whilst the rest move forward. The gap will further widen and the Swiss standard of living for these workers will be a dream that will never come true.”
“Sir, my colleagues from the labour movement have touched very thoroughly on this issue, but I think it bears repeating. Sir, I have briefly touched on this issue a few days ago. There are basically two kinds of problems that workers face in so far as training and retraining are concerned. Employers by and large are not willing to support courses that are not related to the employees' job and workers have financial family commitments too important for them to give it a miss in order to go for training. Sir, $1 billion has been set aside for Edusave. Whilst this is a commendable amount, what has the Government done in so far as financial aid for workers training in Singapore is concerned. What kind of amount are we talking about in the name of the SDF for that matter? Employers are encouraged to set aside a sum of money for training and re-training. But how many are actually doing it? We have identified that the bigger companies do so; small companies do not. But the majority of workers come from small and medium-sized companies. So it is very rare to find an employer who will support an employee financially or otherwise, if that employee wants to take up a course not related to his job. Yet we are talking about multi-skilling our workforce. And we are talking about meeting the challenges of globalisation. On the problem of family or financial commitments, in my dealings with workers, a key reason for them not going for training is that they need that time to take on additional jobs or put in more hours of work to earn the extra money to meet family commitments. Some of them even need to rush home immediately after work to tutor their schooling kids. Tuition fees are no longer cheap.”
“Sir, would the Minister say if there is any means or measure that the Ministry can do to check or control prices from escalating?”
“In this respect, I would like to suggest that contractors and sub-contractors be compelled to show that they have a good safety system in their place before they are allowed to tender for contracts in heavy industries such as shipyards and construction sites, aprons, or even parking bays of airports. Sir, the labour movement has also hailed the recent directives of the Ministry of Labour requiring shipyards not only to have a safety management system but also to have it audited. I am confident this will go a long way towards reducing industrial accident rates. However, this requirement is only confined to the shipyard and construction industries. In my view, such a requirement should be extended to cover other industries in keeping with the overall objective of keeping our worksites safer and healthier. What I would like to know is whether the Ministry of Labour intends to move towards this direction. In other words, make it mandatory, in particular the heavy industry, to have a safety management system and auditing system. Sir, talking about safety, it is worthwhile reminding ourselves that safety is everybody's business. Commitment to safety must start from the CEO and top management of a company who must demonstrate it very clearly in words and deeds so that they could set examples for their workers to follow. In other words, a company should and must have a comprehensive written safety policy that incorporates the CEO's statement of commitment. On this note, Sir, I once again support the Bill.”