Josephine Teo
Singapore
“The Government's risk-calibrated approach to data security in artificial intelligence (AI) systems was explained in a written reply, given on 9 January 2024, to related questions asked by Dr Tan Wu Meng and Mr Gerald Giam.”
“Access to frontier models is helpful for specific use cases, such as advanced research and cybersecurity. However, these form a small proportion of artificial intelligence (AI) demand. For most industry, Government and research uses, capable models are already available.”
“The Government tracks the development of technical standards for identifying artificial intelligence (AI)-generated content, including watermarking and digital provenance approaches, as part of broader efforts to manage AI-related risks.”
“Upon receiving a valid report of intimate image abuse, the Commissioner of Online Safety is empowered by law to direct Online Service Providers (OSPs) to disable access by Singapore users to the specified harmful online material. This direction may be extended to cover identical copies found on the platform.”
“The Government is committed to keeping children safe online. We have announced plans to extend age assurance requirements to designated social media services, including requiring platforms to keep users under 13 off their services.”
“Under the Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Act 2025, the Commissioner of Online Safety is empowered to issue directions to platforms to remove specified harmful content, including intimate image abuse.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,900 lines we hold for Josephine Teo, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 25 of 58.
“The document will include guidelines on how career conversion should be consistently assessed, as well as the critical information that programme partners should report to ensure better and consistent monitoring of PCP outcomes. AGO also checked 16 PCPs managed by eight programme partners and found inadequate monitoring of programme outcomes for 10 PCPs. The programme partners did not collect the complete set of performance indicators required by WSG and also had varying practices in collecting the information. WSG has since reviewed and streamlined its approach. Henceforth, programme partners will focus on the most important outcome indicators, namely, the number of placements and number of participants who completed training, both of which are straightforward to monitor and report. Beyond the cases studied by AGO, WSG, on its own, initiated a comprehensive check of over 15,000 placements for similar lapses. This is the entire universe of PCP placements since 2016. Although the review will only be fully completed this year, WSG has not uncovered further lapses or systemic anomalies thus far. Mr Speaker, ensuring good governance and outcomes for our programmes is a key priority for MOM and WSG. WSG has reiterated to all programme partners the need to adhere to the PCP administration process, including assessment of career conversion for participants, as well as the importance of close tracking and timely reporting of key programme outcome indicators. To ensure compliance with these requirements, WSG will conduct sampling checks of up to 20% of PCP placements by its programme partners on a regular basis. WSG remains committed to working closely with its programme partners to ensure sound governance and effectiveness of PCPs.”
“Mr Speaker, Professional Conversion Programmes (PCPs) provide training and salary support to employers who hire and reskill mid-career jobseekers for new PMET jobs with good prospects. WSG currently works with 30 programme partners, including Trade Associations and Chambers and Institutes of Higher Learning, to run close to 100 PCPs in about 30 sectors. A significant majority of our PCP participants have enjoyed good employment outcomes. About nine in 10 participants remained in employment 24 months after being placed and about seven in 10 earned higher wages after starting their new jobs. The Auditor-General's Office (AGO)’s audit findings do not call into question the impact of these programmes on the participants, but have highlighted issues with the practices of WSG’s programme partners and its supervision of them. In the AGO's Report for the Financial Year 2019/2020, it was highlighted that three of WSG’s programme partners did not carry out adequate verification of career conversion for 11 disbursement cases involving 15 PCP participants. There was no doubt that the training had been properly carried out but AGO noted that programme partners had not documented how the participants’ previous and current job scopes were different, which is the requirement for the training to be supported under the PCP. WSG has reviewed each of these cases and verified that all 15 participants changed their job scopes and successfully converted into new job roles through their respective PCPs. In addition, to address the AGO's concern about the adequacy of its guidelines, WSG will be developing a new PCP guide for all its programme partners by the end of the year.”
“Employment rate is measured at the population level, and not at the firm level. JSS support has been tiered by the estimated impact of COVID-19 on different sectors. To date, over 150,000 employers have received JSS payouts. Of these, nearly 600 employers have declined or returned their JSS payouts. It stands to reason that these 600 employers have been less severely impacted by the COVID-19 situation, with less need to trim their workforce. The data on their employment reflects this. Between March 2020 and June 2020, resident employment fell by an estimated 2.7% in firms that received Jobs Support Scheme (JSS) payouts, compared with 0.6% increase in firms that declined JSS payouts. Data on retrenchment is based on private sector establishments with at least 25 employees. In 2Q 2020, the retrenchment rate among resident employees in firms that received JSS payouts is estimated to be 3.1 per 1,000, compared to 1.8 per 1,000 in firms that declined JSS payouts.”
“For cases where the traineeship does not result in a permanent job, the experience will equip the trainee with industry-relevant knowledge and skills, and help to burnish their credentials and value proposition to other employers. The Government will also continue to support them in their job search journey, through career matching services offered by WSG and NTUC's Employability and Employment Institute.”
“Over 1,000 fresh graduate trainees have taken up traineeships under the SGUnited Traineeships programme. The majority of traineeship positions filled are in growth sectors such as Information Communications Technology and Media, Professional Services, and Financial Services. As the process of shortlisting and selecting suitable trainees by host organisations takes time, we can expect to see more placements into traineeships subsequently. We have expanded outreach to increase awareness of these opportunities. To reach out to fresh graduates on opportunities under the SGUnited Traineeships programme, WSG works closely with the Ministry of Education, the Institutes of Higher Learning, the National Trades Union Congress and People's Association. We also reach out to graduates through various digital media. The traineeships do not automatically convert into a permanent job. However, we are hopeful that companies will find a good number of trainees a good fit and make them part of their permanent staff. This will depend largely on the fit of each trainee to the job, and the business situation and hiring needs of the host organisation when the traineeships are completed. Workforce Singapore's experience with Attach-and-Train programmes so far has been that host organisations that are impressed with trainees will place them in full-time positions in the companies to make the most of the time and money they have invested in the attachment. The newly-launched Jobs Growth Incentive scheme will give greater support to businesses to expand and grow their local headcounts over the next six months. This will also help spur hiring of trainees.”
“A breakdown of Professionals, Managers, Executives & Technicians (PMETs) by industries and residential status, from 2010 to 2019, is provided in Table 1. The unemployment rates of PMETs by residential status, age and sex, from 2010 to 2019, are provided in Table 2. The unemployment rates of Permanent Residents have generally been lower than that of Singapore Citizens. This is to be expected because employability and ability to contribute to our economy are often key considerations of granting Permanent Residency. 2020 data for resident PMETs will be released in the annual report on the Labour Force in Singapore in January 2021.”
“There are currently about 400 firms placed on the Fair Consideration Framework (FCF) Watchlist for having a higher share of foreign PMETs compared to their industry peers, or high concentration of a single foreign nationality source. Employment Pass (EP) applications from these firms are held back, while the Tripartite Alliance for Fair & Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) engages these firms to help them improve their human resource practices. Firms on the FCF Watchlist have not flouted any rules but have been identified through proactive surveillance. Measures must therefore be proportional and also consider the impact on their existing local workforce. In most instances, employers on the FCF Watchlist have been responsive to TAFEP’s engagement efforts and expanded their employment of local PMETs. Naming these firms and withdrawing their access to Government grants and tax incentive schemes would likely have frustrated their local hiring efforts and is ultimately counter-productive. Instead, following TAFEP’s intervention, many firms exit the FCF Watchlist within a year. For the minority who are uncooperative, their work pass privileges remain suspended. We plan to proactively engage even more companies under the FCF, such as those whose Singaporean core has been weakening, or whose EP and S Pass workforce are concentrated with a single foreign nationality source. We will work with economic agencies like EDB and MAS to engage these firms to improve their workforce profile. We will also engage the HR community to do more.”
“We have started trials to allow residents of selected cleared dorms to go to Recreation Centres on their rest days at staggered timings. We have also worked with NGOs to conduct activities that help improve the mental well-being of our migrant workers. For instance, the Alliance of Guest Workers' Outreach (AGWO) recently piloted an organised activity to the parks; and the COVID-19 Migrant Support Coalition (CMSC) has been providing free hair cuts and mental wellness engagement activities at temporary Government-provided accommodation. Supporting these measures are the Forward Assurance & Support Teams (FAST). We have started to train and equip our FAST teams to identify and manage mental health issues. MWC’s network of 5,000 Foreign Worker Ambassadors will also proactively look out for distressed migrant workers and try to understand their key concerns so that the right help can be given quickly. To address residents’ common concerns, we have assured the workers through our daily bulletins sent through the dormitory operators, MWC Ambassadors and the foreign worker mobile applications. As one prevalent worry is becoming infected, we have circulated videos of doctors advising workers on how to protect themselves, and of recovered workers sharing their experience, to ease the workers’ anxiety. We also facilitated the departure of workers who wanted to return home. There are signs that these measures have helped. After calls to the MWC Helpline spiked to 700 calls per week during circuit breaker, call volume has reduced to around 500 a week now. This is not too far from the pre-Covid call volume of around 400 a week. We will continue to monitor and support the workers closely.”
“Since the dormitories were isolated in early April, the Inter-Agency Task Force has recognised that both the physical and mental health of the residents need to be well looked after. These efforts continue even after the dormitories were cleared under the new Assurance, Care & Engagement Group (ACE). There are a few channels for workers to seek and get help if they are facing mental distress. The Migrant Workers' Centre (MWC) runs a 24 hour Helpline with staff experienced in supporting migrant workers. When necessary, they will escalate cases to professional counsellors. For serious cases, workers could be referred to mental health specialists in the hospitals for in-person consultations. During circuit breaker, the MWC Helpline received about 700 calls per week. In April, HealthServe also launched a dedicated hotline for migrant workers to access medical information and submit requests for tele-counselling sessions. Since then, the service has received more than 15,000 enquiries. Their volunteer counsellors and psychiatrists have helped more than 1,100 workers. To help prevent isolation-induced stress in the first place, being able to return to work is important. It will also address anxiety over job stability. On this, we have systematically tested every worker in the dormitories and segregated them so that those who are infected can be treated promptly, while those who are not infected or have recovered can be moved into COVID-cleared rooms or blocks. This is necessary to stop further transmission and to help workers return to their work faster. This process started in June and was completed in mid-August. As of 31 Aug, close to 90% of workers in the dormitories are able to resume work.”
“This include (i) self-monitoring by migrant workers and updating on their health status through the FWMOMCare App; (ii) close monitoring of workers who report sick at medical posts with acute respiratory illnesses; (iii) checking the wastewater from certain dormitories for traces of the COVID-19 virus; and (iv) rostered routine testing for dormitory residents every 14 days. Finally, if a new case is detected, we have put in place measures to contain its spread. Close contacts will be quarantined and aggressive testing operations will be conducted to arrest a further spread of the virus. Workers must be tested negative at the end of their quarantine period before they are able to return to work. These measures continue to be adjusted in consultation with health experts, as new insights are gained about how the virus spreads. COVID-19 remains a threat, as shown by the new infection cases in cleared dormitories. We look forward to the continued understanding, support and cooperation of all parties as we move together on the road to recovery.”
“The Inter-Agency Taskforce (ITF) systematically tested all dormitory residents to clear the dormitories of COVID-19. This means that all dormitory residents have either recovered, have been tested to be free from the virus, or have moved to other government facilities to complete their isolation or quarantine depending on their health status. As many of the dormitory residents have never been infected, they remain susceptible to COVID-19. This is why clearing a dormitory does not mean that there will never be any new infections in future. What is key is for the workers, employers, and dormitory operators to remain vigilant and continue to comply with safe distancing measures to minimise the risk of another outbreak. To detect new COVID-19 cases and contain the infections quickly and decisively, we have also put in place a multi-layered strategy. First, to prevent potential infections, we have put in place Safe Living, Safe Working and Safe Rest Day measures. Before residents are allowed to return to work, dormitory operators have to implement a slew of physical distancing measures in the dormitory, such as: (i) limiting the inter-mixing of workers across rooms, levels and blocks; (ii) scheduling access to common facilities; (iii) putting in place staggered pick-up and drop-off times for workers; and (iv) ensuring safe distancing between workers. They must also monitor their workers’ health and take necessary precautions, so that workers who are unwell are quickly isolated and provided with medical treatment. Second, to swiftly detect new cases of infection, a number of strategies are deployed.”
“Sir, the profile of the SIRS recipients mirror the profile of our self-employed persons in Singapore. Large number of them were in the taxi driving profession, some in private hire car driving, a good number of them are hawkers – people whom we are very familiar with in our work as Members of Parliament. So, the performance of these sectors, of course, vary. We will have to take these factors into consideration when we look at what to do next.”
“Sir, the short answer is yes, we will study this together with MOF.”
“The Self-employed Person Income Relief Scheme (SIRS) is a means-tested scheme to help Singaporean self-employed persons or SEPs with less means and family support to tide over this period of economic uncertainty. Eligible SEPs receive three tranches of $3,000 each in May, July and October 2020. The income eligibility criteria for SIRS covered over 80% of Singaporeans with taxable income. The annual value (AV) of the housing criteria covered about nine in 10 owner-occupied residential public and private properties. As a proxy for family support, the spouse's income is also considered. Over $1.1 billion has been disbursed in the first two tranches. With the third and final tranche, SIRS is expected to cost $2 billion in total, almost double the original $1.2 billion set aside. This is a significant expansion of an already sizeable programme. Altogether, about 190,000 individuals have received SIRS, with about 100,000 qualifying automatically, and 90,000 through application. We have been exercising flexibility in the qualifying criteria to support more SEPs. About two in three applications have been approved. In the remaining one-third, applicants may have been earning much higher incomes, residing in high value properties or own two or more property with their spouses. As SIRS was intended to support SEPs, persons who were previously unemployed or had regular employment, were redirected to the COVID-19 Support Grant. Where there were other areas of need, we have referred unsuccessful applicants to the appropriate agencies for follow-up assistance. As announced by Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat in his Ministerial Statement on 17 August 2020, the Government is studying appropriate ways to support employees and SEPs who are most vulnerable, beyond the existing schemes.”
“Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 7 and 8 together?”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for her question. I can appreciate that in some instances if the persons, for example, are still employed by the company, they are very careful and want to make sure that they do not get identified as the whistle blower. We are very mindful of that and we will make all effort to protect their identity. We have to approach the companies in a smart way, so as not to reveal their identity. To expanding the outreach to encourage, individuals to step forward, I agree with her, entirely, especially for workers who are likely to be more vulnerable and less able to appreciate how best they can advance their interests. We have a programme called WorkRight. Our officers proactively reach out to these workers who we believe are in slightly more vulnerable positions – less likely to know their rights, less likely to know what the employers are supposed to do for them and meet statutory obligations. We educate them, not just on the ground, but also through the use of the vernacular media. We will have to continue to step up these efforts and ensure that people feel the sense that they can raise these issues safely.”
“The Member asked for citizens; we have provided the Member with the citizen data. In fact, I also contrasted it to what was happening for the non-citizens, if the Member can go back and take a look at that. Can we report employment statistics on a more regular basis? That has been the plan. That has also been the reason why Minister Chan Chun Sing and I, almost on a weekly basis now, have been visiting companies, different sectors to showcase the job, the opportunities available. During those occasions, we always publish a job situation report, different dimensions of it. We are looking at one of the statistics that we can provide at a more regular interval – today, it is available on a quarterly basis. We are looking at whether unemployment data can be reliably provided on, perhaps, a monthly basis. So, it is not a question of whether we can provide the statistics more regularly. It has to do with whether it is reliable and you can count on it for decision-making. And if it is not reliable because the data-set is not going to be large enough, then by providing even more granular data at even closer intervals does not necessarily help in decision-making.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank Ms He for her questions. The host companies for the traineeships have to submit monthly updates to SBF as to what is happening to the traineeship. This submission has to be signed off by the trainee himself or herself. SBF has also made available their staff to handle incidents where the trainee feels that the programme is not well structured or they are not learning as much as they would like. SBF commits its resources to intervening in these cases. So, this aspect of the work that Ms He thinks is important, we agree. And it is being done. As to whether they convert into placements subsequently, we are also interested to know and we will keep track of it as best as we can. Because even if a person does not stay in employment with the host company, it does not necessarily mean that the traineeship was not useful. Quite often, individuals, having completed the training, move on to other better options for employment. So, I think we will keep track of it, but we must know that we have to interpret that data quite carefully. As to whether the public sector has retrenched, the public sector has actually leaned forward to bring hiring in advance of our needs. Quite a large number of the positions that are made available to jobseekers are because the public sector, having looked at their developmental plans and deciding that instead of hiring six months or nine months later, bring these forward so that the jobseekers can have a wider range of options and they can also have meaningful employment during this much more difficult time. To the question on the data, the data I described was exactly what you wanted – citizens. So, I am not sure whether that got carried across clearly enough. It was not a combination of citizens and PRs.”
“Host organisations are required to declare in their applications if they had undertaken retrenchment exercises or adopted various cost-cutting measures. If there are grounds to believe that companies are replacing existing employees with trainees in similar roles, such applications will be rejected. Some host organisations have asked if they can pay more than the stipulated allowances for very attractive candidates. Instead of traineeships or attachments, they are advised to offer paid employment to these very attractive candidates, which will also enjoy significant support under the Jobs Growth Incentive. In addition to the rigorous screening process that I have described above, SBF also assists companies to review and improve their proposals, especially for applications that are incomplete or lacking in detail. These measures are necessary so that the traineeship or attachment experience is a positive and meaningful one. This is why it has taken four to six weeks, on average, to approve the applications, to ensure that the trainees’ interests are safeguarded. SBF has stepped up resources in response to the strong interest in these programmes to process these applications as quickly as possible.”
“This will depend largely on the fit of each trainee to the job, and the business situation and hiring needs of the host organisation when the traineeships or attachments are completed. Workforce Singapore’s experience with the Attach-and-Train programmes so far has been that host organisations that are impressed with trainees will place them in full-time positions in the companies to make the most of the time and money that they have invested in the attachment. The new Jobs Growth Incentive scheme will give greater support to businesses to expand and grow their local headcounts over the next six months. This will also help spur the hiring of trainees. I should add that in designing the Jobs Growth Incentive, we made sure to double the support for more mature jobseekers. New local hires aged 40 and above attract twice as much wage subsidies. For cases where the traineeship does not result in a permanent job, the experience will equip the trainee with industry-relevant knowledge and skills, and help to burnish their credentials and value proposition to other employers. The Government will also continue to support them in their job search journey, through career matching services offered by WSG and NTUC’s Employability and Employment Institute, and other partner organisations. Ms He Ting Ru asked about the safeguards against misuse. The Singapore Business Federation or SBF, our programme partner for these programmes, scrutinises each application to ensure that host companies structure their traineeships and attachments appropriately with clear development plans, so that participants can have a meaningful experience. SBF also scrutinises the applications to make sure that the companies are not using these programmes to hire workers for permanent jobs at low cost.”
“The salary range of jobs can vary, depending on the sector and the specific job roles that an individual takes up. Over 1,000 fresh graduate trainees have taken up traineeships under the SGUnited Traineeships programme. The majority of the traineeship positions filled are in growth sectors, such as Information Communications Technology and Media, Professional Services, and Financial Services. As the process of shortlisting and selecting suitable trainees by host organisations takes time, we can expect to see more placements into traineeships and company attachments subsequently. Lastly, close to 700 trainees have enrolled in 40 courses under the SGUnited Skills Programme. We have expanded outreach to increase awareness of these opportunities. To reach out to fresh graduates on opportunities under the SGUnited Traineeships programme, WSG works closely with MOE, the Institutes of Higher Learning, NTUC and the People’s Association. To reach out to mid-career individuals on attachments under the SGUnited Mid-Career Pathways Programme, WSG organises SGUnited Jobs and Skills Fairs to allow them to apply for opportunities onsite. Twenty-four SGUnited Jobs & Skills Centres have also been set up across all HDB towns. We also reach out to both groups through digital media channels. From January to July 2020, 36,400 jobseekers received basic career advisory or job search assistance through WSG and NTUC-e2i’s career matching services. This is 30% more than the same period in 2019, despite Circuit Breaker measures. The traineeships and attachments do not automatically convert into a permanent job. However, we are hopeful that companies will find a good number of trainees to be a good fit and make them part of their permanent staff.”
“Since the start of the circuit breaker on 6 April 2020, employers with more than 10 employees are required to notify MOM within one week of implementing cost-saving measures, such as shorter work hours or no-pay leave, that result in more than 25% reduction in gross monthly salary for local employees or 25% reduction in basic monthly salary for foreign employees. Based on the notifications received between the start of the circuit breaker period and 20 August 2020, salary reductions of more than 50% are a small minority. We are not able to provide the breakdown between Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents as the distinction was not made in the notification by employers. The Government continues to monitor the job market closely and adjust its measures to support workers and help businesses maintain or expand their local employment. The National Jobs Council is coordinating efforts to provide 100,000 jobs and skills opportunities for jobseekers under the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package. Miss Cheng Li Hui asked about the take-up of these programmes. MOM has started providing weekly updates on the jobs and skills situation to highlight the opportunities available for jobseekers and how they can access them. By now, more than 95,000 opportunities have been made available. These include: (a) 65,000 job opportunities, (b) close to 20,000 company-hosted traineeships, attachments or training places, and (c) over 10,000 opportunities under the SGUnited Skills Programme. We have helped to place over 25,000 individuals into jobs, traineeships and training places. Of these, 24,000 across various age groups were placed into new jobs. About half are in the public sector, with another quarter in the Modern Services and Lifestyle sectors.”
“Thank you, Sir. As for the first set of questions for this next set, I will also address questions that are for the next Sitting or for Written Answers that are related. The reason is that, this approach allows us to deal with them more holistically. So, I seek Members' understanding. To Ms Ng's question, MOM publishes the Labour Market Report on a quarterly basis and the Report on Labour Force in Singapore on an annual basis. The Advance Release for the second quarter of 2020 estimated that there were 90,500 unemployed residents in June 2020, compared to 73,900 in December 2019. So, it is 90,500 in June 2020, as compared to 73,900 in December 2019. That is a difference of 16,600 over six months. Of those unemployed, one in three were aged 50 and over, and this proportion has been and continues to be stable. In comparison, about one in four persons in our resident workforce is aged 50 and over. This is consistent with the longer time they have taken to return to the workforce if they exit. Based on latest available data on the duration of unemployment, the median period for residents aged 50 and over was 12 weeks. This duration has been broadly stable for a number of years. But we should expect it to rise in times of economic downturn, as it is likely to for all age groups, although the extent really remains to be seen. To Ms He Ting Ru’s question, preliminary figures from the survey data indicate that 5,280 Singapore Citizens were retrenched in the first half of 2020. In our labour statistics compilation, being placed on unpaid leave is captured as “temporary layoffs”. In the first half of 2020, an estimated 11,050 Singapore Citizens were affected by temporary layoffs, compared to 33,000 non-citizens.”
“Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 4 to 6?”
“Mr Speaker, to Mr Wee's question, would it make a difference if we set it at $25,000 or $30,000? I think the answer is that, if the company was so inclined they can package the salary in any number of ways. That is not the spirit of what we are trying to pursue. I should also just add this as an important caveat – we are not depending only on the FCF's advertising requirement. This question of the $20,000 is only relevant for whether the job is being advertised. But, as I explained earlier, even if the job is not advertised, just using the "Mystery Shopper" approach that Dr Tan had advocated, we can still identify companies whose workforce profiles give us cause for concern. And there are people who write to the MOM, they write in to me personally too. We take their feedback seriously, we follow up, we engage the company, we let them know that this has come to our attention, can you help us to understand what went on. If, in that process of engagement, we have reason to suspect that the companies are trying to do all kinds of things to avoid their obligations, to try to avoid good practices, then we will know what to do. It will have a bearing on their future applications. But we must wield this in a very smart way and not in a way that is detrimental to our own interests.”
“The employers, being cognisant of the slack in the job market, in the availability of jobseekers, possibly redesigning their jobs so that more locals will be attracted to them and also making a real effort to participate in programmes that can help them to strengthen their local workforce. You need a combination of factors. You cannot overly rely on just one and also create an environment where there is so much distrust and no one believes that it is actually important each one does their part, to strengthen the workforce profiles within businesses and striking the right balance is what we must strive to do.”
“Sir, I would have to come back to Mr Singh on the exact size of the TAFEP team. We have been beefing up, so the latest number I do not have it offhand. Would we want to strengthen the resources? The answer is yes, but I would also say that at the same time, it is important for us to reach out to employers and to ensure that they do their part to upkeep fair hiring practices. Why do I say so? If all of our efforts are directed purely towards enforcement, I think what you do create as an environment is one where you are always pitted against each other. You are always assuming that the employers are not trying to do their part, you are always assuming that the employers have something to hide and you are always assuming that the employers have no real difficulties that they are facing of their own. If you interact with enough employers, they will tell you that, "We have very serious challenges also in reaching out to potential jobseekers". So, we have to take a balanced approach and ask ourselves, what is the combination of actions that will be most helpful to the employers and to the businesses, which in turn will be more helpful to expanding opportunities for our own people. That balance is one that we are always constantly trying to strike. I was very cheered when Ms He Ting Ru asked the question of what are the tripartite discussions, the tripartite discussions are precisely this – how can each one of us do our part? The unions are reaching out to the jobseekers, encouraging them to understand where the opportunities are and to be willing to be trained for those opportunities.”
“So, these are the things that we must keep in mind when we decide on what measures to take it. I am not saying that these measures will always be static. We will continue to look at better ways of identifying companies, more that can be picked up accurately, swiftly and at the same time, what further measures will get the companies to reshape their workforce profiles more quickly. I mentioned on Tuesday that we are evaluating EP and S Pass applications, going to look back at whether the company has kept up its support for local PMETs in their employment. That would include their retrenchment behaviour; it will have a bearing. That will also include whether they have been responsive to efforts by Government agencies to help them recruit and train local PMETs; that will also have a bearing on their EP and S Pass applications. So, we have a number of tools that we can use but all designed for one objective in mind, which is to reshape the workforce profiles of the companies and to ensure that they treat local candidates fairly, give them a chance to make progress in the companies. And if these individuals have not been known to them, have not been on their radar for possible recruitment and training, then we would want them to make a special effort.”
“Sir, I thank the Member for his questions. The proactive surveillance under FCF watchlist, is in fact, the "Mystery Shopper" programme that he has talked about. These companies did not surface to our attention because their employees said that something was wrong. And how did we identify them? Very similar to how Dr Tan has described it – a mixture of looking at their workforce profiles, a mixture of looking at how they have responded to advertisements that were put on MyCareersFuture.gov.sg. You put the two together, we see that these companies in terms of their hiring patterns, something does not look quite right. So, then, we put them on the watchlist and we engage them. We asked what is going on, why is it that your pattern of recruitment has been like that? It is in substance, nearly identical, I think, to what Dr Tan has asked. His first two questions. I think it goes back to what our objective really is. What do you want as an outcome to for these companies that we have put on the watchlist? Is our objective that they improve their hiring so that more local PMETs can be added to their workforce? Or is our objective to frustrate them and to somehow get them to exit Singapore or to exit the business, whatever it is that they are carrying on in Singapore? Keep in mind that although we have identified these companies for proactive surveillance, for engagement, they also do have a sizable local PMET workforce. They are already hirers, employers of Singaporeans holding PMET positions. The actions that we take must be proportional and it must also not create so much difficulties for the existing PMETs in their workforce who are local and who would very much like to keep their jobs.”
“Mr Speaker, I do not have the breakdown here, neither do I have the breakdown that Mr Tay asked for on what is the profile of the companies on the FCF watchlist. They are a good spread, across different industries, some large, some small.”
“But the fact that you have curtailed their work pass privileges, that is what has really made the difference.”
“Sir, on Mr Tay's question on mandatory reporting, there are, as far as I know, more than 100,000 SMEs. To ask every single one of them to make a report, even if most of them have not done anything bad prima facie, we are saying that we are not very sure, and it does not matter whether we can really pick it up much from it or not. So, I think we have to balance between whether we assume that every single one of them have retrenched in a very unfair manner and that is why the reporting will allow us to go after every single one of them, or do we ask whether there are complementary avenues. It does not prevent the worker himself from raising the issue with MOM. I mentioned that apart from those that we have investigated after they submitted the mandatory retrenchment notification, on top of that, we also investigated an even larger number of those where individuals complained to us. So, the two are complementary to each other. It is not that we only need to depend on one tool. On his other question about the FCF watchlist, whether the recalcitrant ones can be named, ultimately, it goes back to what our objective is. If our objective is still to try and get them to improve their HR practices, what is a more effective way of doing so? Naming them or continuing to suspend their work pass privileges? I can share with Mr Tay that in some instances, the companies have decided that it is not possible for them to meet up to these requirements and they have decided to exit Singapore altogether. And you do not even need to name them. They find that this set of conditions is not what they would like to deal with; we accept that. Whether you name them or not would not have made much of a difference.”
“And I also said in my reply that we intend to engage an even wider group of companies to reshape their workforce profiles.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for her question. The third question first. I think the Member wanted to know whether we have put any Temasek-linked companies on the watchlist. The answer is no, not because they were given any special concession or treatment, but the proactive surveillance that we carried out did not pick them up. The second question, is the balance between complaints and proactive surveillance. Actually, the proactive surveillance has brought us into more direct engagements with the companies. None of these companies would have been surfaced to our attention if not for proactive surveillance. Their employees actually did not raise the concerns with us. If you look at the complaints that were raised to MOM and the number of companies that we have scrutinised, I do not have the exact figure with me, but based on my impression also getting emails and reading all the complaints that were filed with our Labour Relations Department, I stand corrected, but actually I think our proactive surveillance has reached out to more companies. The last question is on how many companies that have not yet exited. They are in the minority; I will put it at less than 10%. The reason why I do not give you a very specific number is because even if the company has exited from the watchlist, it does not mean we stop watching them. We continue to watch them. If they revert to the old patterns of hiring and we are concerned about their workforce profile again, then they can get put back into the watchlist. And, Sir, if I may, I should also answer Mr Ang's earlier question. He said why not take an even more proactive approach. The FCF watchlist is the proactive approach.”
“I thank the Member. Mr Speaker, to address the Member's of questions, I should clarify that in the instance that I described, the foreign headquarters, the overseas headquarters of the firm in concern did not direct the local office in Singapore to hire unfairly. I think no company does that. What they did, however, not recognise or did not understand our employment landscape, was that actually many of the positions that they were seeking do not necessarily require degree qualifications. For example, if they are seeking an IT role, actually our Polytechnic graduates are just as qualified, and with the right training can also do the job. So, what the local office previously did was blindly implement the directive from the headquarters that every single one of their recruits must meet degree qualifications. When we pointed out to them that for the positions that they are hiring, Polytechnic diploma holders are equally qualified, what they then did was to take it up with headquarters and persuaded the headquarters to change the recruitment criteria. So, I hope that clarification will help. To the Member Mr Ang's suggestion on the National Human Resource Committee, it already exists. It is called the Institute of Human Resource Professionals. They have certification programmes. They have communities of practice. We engage them regularly and we intend to do more. Then there are other similar organisations, the Singapore Human Resource Institute. They are also very active in trying to level up HR practices in Singapore. We applaud them for the efforts. MOM works very closely with them. I think they do really want to help and raise the bar, and we very much encourage their proactive efforts.”
“I think the other one that we have always been very mindful of, and women Members of Parliament have spoken on this extensively, it has to do with how you can improve the support that they have from the family, so that does not prevent them from making progress in their careers.”
“I understand where the Member is coming from, that in terms of legislating against discrimination for gender, should we perhaps take the next step forward. I have also responded to – I am sorry, I should have done this another way – I texted Mr Vikram Nair after he gave his speech yesterday. So, I will share with Members what I texted him. He gave the suggestion that perhaps you can provide legislative levers to allow individuals who had been aggrieved by nationality bias to seek redress from the employer. And I had texted him to say that this is not unthinkable, it is something that we can discuss, whether we want to move forward. So, my answer to Mr Louis Ng is, yes, we always keep the options open, but we must ask ourselves what is the crux here. The crux here really is that if you speak to all the women, yes, on occasions, we have identified cases where the employers, either the questions that they asked were very biased, in terms of suggesting that their family circumstances were not welcome at the workplace, or that the very fact that they were women prevented them from doing certain roles. We know of some employers like that, but they are very much in the minority. You will also see that there are many women who have gotten into good positions because their employers are quite enlightened. So, legislation is quite a blunt tool. It basically can be quite prescriptive in nature. What else it is that we have done to promote women in employment and make sure that they get a fair deal? We have, for example, through many years of investment in their education, helped them to acquire the skills no different from men, and they can advance.”
“Sir, in terms of thinking and alignment of values, I feel very close to Mr Louis Ng. First, a point of clarification that the Member sought, which are the 1,200 companies that we had scrutinised over the years under FCF, what kinds of concerns did we have. As I explained, they had not made any infringements. We were doing proactive surveillance. We looked at their workforce profiles. In general, we found that there was a heavier proportion of foreigners in their PMET workforce, compared to their industry peers. So, we picked them up and tried to undersand why their workforce profiles were the way they were, and helped them to improve. The Member has asked whether for other forms of discrimination – not nationality discrimination but for other forms of discrimination – whether legislation is the right tool and we could consider that. Perhaps, two things to point out. First, the Government is not so averse to using legislation, provided it can achieve a good effect. If I can cite the example of concerns about age discrimination. We do have the Retirement and Re-employment Act which stipulates the minimum age below which employers cannot say, "You're too old and you must retire." We also have the re-employment age legislation which compels the employers, even after his employee has reached the minimum statutory retirement age, to offer re-employment. So that we safeguard the opportunities for them to continue working – not necessarily in the same job and not necessarily holding the same pay. Using legislative tools in order to protect the interest of workers is not so unthinkable and have been used on many different occasions.”
“To Mr Patrick Tay’s suggestion to expand the notification to more employers, we are mindful not to impose excessive reporting requirements on SMEs and micro-SMEs where the effort may not be commensurate with impact. Nonetheless, we encourage these firms to still notify MOM, so that Workforce Singapore, the tripartite partners and other relevant agencies can step in promptly to provide job assistance to affected employees. We have also expanded outreach efforts to jobseekers, so that retrenched workers may get help even if their employers did not notify MOM. Sir, in conclusion, in the current economic climate, MOM understands Singaporeans need greater assurance that they have a fair chance for job opportunities and are treated fairly at their workplaces. MOM and our tripartite partners will continue to guard against unfair hiring or retrenchment practices and take appropriate action against errant employers.”
“On Ms He Ting Ru’s question, tripartite consultations in recent months have focused on ensuring fairness when companies implement cost-saving measures or have to retrench workers. First, on cost-saving measures, the National Wages Council or NWC was convened in March this year and was re-convened in August. It is expected to update guidelines on managing excess manpower within this month. Since March this year, MOM has introduced a new requirement for employers to notify MOM of their cost-saving measures. To Ms Foo Mee Har’s question, we identify companies whose notifications are concerning and TAFEP engages them to assess whether their measures are fair and reasonable. Of the 850 employers engaged, close to 40% reviewed their cost-saving measures to give more wage support to their employees. Similarly, we mediated another 1,000 or so complaints by employees. Second, on retrenchments, MOM, NTUC and the Singapore National Employers Federation jointly updated the Tripartite Advisory on Managing Excess Manpower and Responsible Retrenchment or TAMEM in March. In addition, MOM requires employers with 10 or more employees that have retrenched at least five employees within any six-month period to submit a retrenchment notification. This covers close to 90% of the workforce in Singapore. In other words, this retrenchment requirement would already have covered about 90% of the workforce. Through the notification regime, we actively monitor retrenchment practices. Vast majority of the retrenchments have been conducted fairly and responsibly. Firms that have not done so fairly will be investigated and MOM may take strong enforcement actions such as suspending their work pass privileges.”
“For the minority who are uncooperative, refusing to make adjustments even after options have been suggested to them, their work pass privileges remain suspended. This approach has served us well. Since 2016, more than 1,200 employers have been scrutinised under the FCF. In all, 3,200 EP applications by these employers have been rejected or withheld by MOM, or withdrawn subsequently by the firms themselves. On the other hand, firms on the FCF Watchlist have hired more than 4,800 Singaporean PMETs in total. So, we withheld 3,200 or rejected them, or they got withdrawn. And then, these firms collectively hired more than 4,800 Singaporean PMETs in total. That is a net gain. This comes on top of all the local employees that these firms originally employed and continued to retain. We plan to proactively engage even more companies under the FCF, such as those whose Singaporean Core has been weakening, or whose EP and S Pass workforce are concentrated with a single foreign nationality source. We will work with economic agencies like EDB and MAS to engage these firms to improve their workforce profiles. We will also engage the HR community to do more. Whether or not the firms are on the FCF Watchlist, where MOM has found evidence of discriminatory hiring practices, we have taken the companies to task and publicised the names of these firms. In January 2020, MOM released the names of four employers penalised for pre-selection of foreigners or not adhering to the spirit of the FCF job advertising requirement, and one employer for gender-related discriminatory hiring. In March 2020, MOM released the names of five employers penalised for age-related discriminatory hiring. This is no different than if the company had been charged in Court for employment offences.”
“To questions by Mr Louis Chua and Mr Seah Kian Peng, there are currently about 400 firms placed on the FCF Watchlist for having a higher share of foreign PMETs compared to their industry peers, or high concentrations of a single foreign nationality source. Employment Pass or EP applications from these firms are held back, while TAFEP engages these firms to help them improve their human resource practices. Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Ang Wei Neng and Mr Louis Chua suggested publicly naming firms placed on the FCF Watchlist. Mr Chua further asked for these firms’ access to Government grants and tax incentives schemes to be withdrawn. As I explained in Parliament on 1 September 2020, unlike firms whom we have taken to task for infringements, firms on the FCF Watchlist have not flouted any rules. Instead, we identified them through proactive surveillance. We are watching them. Members may recall that on Tuesday, I shared a few examples. Upon investigation, we found some employers to be genuinely unfamiliar with local recruitment channels or whose recruitment had been limited by directives imposed by overseas headquarters. Measures we take for these firms must therefore be proportional and also consider the impact on their existing local workforce. In most instances, employers on the FCF Watchlist have been responsive to TAFEP’s engagement efforts and expanded their employment of local PMETs with help from Workforce Singapore. Naming these firms would likely have frustrated their local hiring efforts and is ultimately counter-productive. Instead, following TAFEP’s intervention, many firms exit the FCF Watchlist within a year.”
“Thank you. Members have filed a number of Parliamentary Questions on the topic of fair employment practices – some are for the next Sitting and others are for Written Answers. I appreciate that these questions are of concern to Singaporeans and seek Members' understanding to take these related questions together, so that we can deal with them more holistically. Ms Foo Mee Har asked how employers’ employment practices are monitored and employers held accountable. Ms He Ting Ru asked about tripartite discussions on discriminatory practices. Sir, the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices spell out the principles and practices that all employers are expected to abide by. In practice, MOM works closely with the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices or TAFEP to follow up on all complaints of potential malpractices at workplaces. All forms of discrimination are covered, including for age, gender, ethnicity and family circumstances. We also monitor the workforce profiles of firms for potential unfair hiring practices against Singaporeans. For example, MOM has regularly taken employers to task for pre-selecting a foreign candidate and disregarding qualified local candidates. This year alone, 90 employers have had their work pass privileges suspended because of infringements under the Fair Consideration Framework or FCF, including for age and gender discrimination. This means that the company cannot renew existing work passes or have new applications approved – some for as long as two years. These penalties are serious and the employers know it. To stay in business, it will be necessary for them to boost local employment.”
“Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 1 to 3 together?”
“Mr Speaker, it is not unusual for the Government to have partners. In the case of the SGUnited Traineeships Programme, the Singapore Business Federation put its hand up and say that, "We would like to be a part of it." And we saw that they had some capabilities that they could deliver this programme and so we partner with them. On different occasions, we have different partners. This is really not such a mystery. We have partnered the NTUC for other schemes before. We had partnered the Singapore National Employers Federation for other schemes before. And so, when the opportunity presented itself, other organisations besides the Government wanting to deliver help to Singaporeans, we do not stop them. In fact, we welcome it.”
“[Applause.] Had we not had a symbiotic partner like the NTUC that was prepared to stick its neck out, even though it knew that its capabilities in this area had been untested, even though it knew that as a result of that, they could get a lot of flak. But thinking on behalf of the self-employed persons who might need it, they did it anyway. I think that has got to be the spirit and I think acknowledging all the areas of improvements, that is well and good. We would want to do in the next time. But let us not forget what the NTUC stood up to do. [Applause.]”
“Mr Speaker, I accept Mr Perera's point about improvements in the application process but I also want to speak in defence of the NTUC. When COVID-19 hit us in the most unexpected ways, we had to think of a way to help self-employed persons. They are, by their very nature, not captured easily by our systems. So, how to reach them, how to deliver the help to them in a very timely manner, that is not an easy question to answer. Nonetheless, we designed a system that eventually delivered help automatically to 100,000 people. To do that, over the course of a couple of weeks is actually a very challenging thing to do. We started with a certain budget. In the end, NTUC put up their hands and said, "Look, this criteria is very useful. However, we believe that there is still another group that will not be captured. Therefore, we stick our necks out. We will put ourselves in a position of taking in applications or appeals." I do not know of any other organisation that stepped up to try and do this. Having done so, we accept. The system did take a while to try and ramp up. I should say that NTUC was doing this under very, very difficult constraints. We were just about to enter into the circuit breaker period, it was very difficult to get people to come on board and set up the system, get it properly tested and ensure that it was able to respond to the volume of appeals. But NTUC, to its credit, accepted that if there were appeals, it must mean that there is a need. Therefore, they soldiered on and put a lot more manpower, which they did not really have the budget for. Having done all this, I think, as a result, an additional 80,000 people eventually got their SIRS payouts. So, from MOM's perspective, on behalf of the Government, all I can say to NTUC is a huge "Thank You".”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would just like to ask Mr Leon Perera, in all humility, whether he is aware of any other country that has introduced a scheme, not like SIRS, but perhaps something else that has delivered as quick support to self-employed persons that we could learn from, that we can do better. Just to remind the Members of the House, all in all, SIRS has helped about 180,000 self-employed persons in the last couple of months. Perhaps he could share with us so that we can learn.”
“It is not as high as we would like it to be but it is far higher than in some jurisdictions that claim to have gender discrimination law. So, look at the substance of it, I think the results are encouraging. We are not giving up trying to push the agenda more. We are concerned about it during this time whether the women, whether the seniors, they will be well taken care of. But the answer to this cannot be, "let us come to Parliament, let us debate a law, pass another law" and expect that it will be done. I think that is not a very realistic approach.”
“Thank you very much. Sir, for age discrimination, gender discrimination, ethnicity discrimination or discrimination against an employee or prospective employee on account of their family circumstances, all are just as bad. And if we find evidence of it, we can also curtail their work pass privileges. I think the Member may have underestimated how serious it is for businesses in Singapore to have their work pass privileges curtailed. It means that whoever it is that they have in their workforce, they are not going to be able to supplement with a work permit holder or S Pass or EP holder as they had previously. Not so many businesses are able to operate with a 100% local employment workforce. So, this kind of a penalty is actually much more painful than if we were to say, introduce a fine. I should also take this opportunity to address the Member's question about how we secure better employment outcomes for vulnerable groups. It has been mentioned several times in this House that other countries have anti-discrimination law, but the proof of the pudding is whether as a result of those anti-discrimination laws, they have better employment outcomes than us. Are we more interested in the form or are we more interested in the substance? And I think Members of this House have consistently been more interested in the substance. And the substance is this. You compare ourselves to a country like the UK. They have age discrimination law. But if you look at their senior employment rate and compare it to Singapore, we are above. Actually, we are above quite a few countries in terms of our senior employment rate. And these countries may well have anti-discrimination law. Gender discrimination – look at women's participation in the labour force in Singapore.”