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 26 of 58.
“But we have to ask ourselves, looking at the opportunities as well as the constraints we have as a tiny city-state, which Mr Leong Mun Wai reminds us – we are a tiny city-state; we are not a tiny city. And a tiny city-state has got its opportunities but it also has its constraints. Within those constraints, what is the best way to help Singaporeans move forward? That has to be the answer and not some predetermined ideas about what you bring it down to. Supposing we can bring it down to zero or even negative which is what has happened in the first seven months of this year. I reported to Members, that in the first seven months of this year, total number of EP and S Pass holders has gone down by 22,000. That is what it is. Suppose we can bring it down to a different number and so on, but at the same time, the job opportunities for Singaporeans have shrunk. Your children, my children one day coming to us and say, "Mom, Dad. Sorry, cannot find a decent job in Singapore anymore." And they really no longer have that opportunity of the six in 10 PMET jobs that we talked about – which many countries have found themselves in that sort of a situation. Is that going to be better for us? Well, we will have to think very hard about whether the answer is yes. [Applause.]”
“Thank you. Mr Speaker, I merely stated the facts. I did not say that one contributed to the other. But I thought that I should perhaps address Assoc Prof Jamus Lim's other question: are we satisfied with slowing down the rate of growth of EP and S Pass holders? The perspective that I would like to share is this. Ultimately, we have to ask ourselves what does it take to help Singaporeans stay in employment, stay out of unemployment and over time, to achieve income growth, to achieve retirement adequacy. Those are the four things that MOM is always looking at. Then, we ask ourselves what is the best way to achieve these outcomes. If we can do so without adding to the number of EP and S Pass holders for that matter, continue to deliver good outcomes, help Singaporeans enjoy higher employment, low unemployment, income growth and retirement adequacy without using more foreigners as complements to our workforce, if we can reduce the reliance on unproductive manpower-intensive methods of work in some of our business sectors today, if we can groom more Singaporeans to take up the good jobs that we are creating, then of course, the answer is yes. But the important thing really is what does it take to deliver and bring about these good outcomes for Singaporeans? And then, we ask ourselves: within the options that are available to us as a tiny red dot, how can we mitigate the difficulties, the shortcomings and the worries that people have, legitimate worries that people have, about a very sizeable foreign workforce. We are aligned in that regard. I do not think that the destination that we want to head towards is a different one.”
“Sir, I did not say that. Sir, I am afraid Mr Leong may not have heard me correctly. I did not say that. I only said that on an annual basis, we have said consistently that in the last couple of years, what the number of new PRs is, what the number of new citizens is. So, I am not sure I understand his question.”
“But dig a bit deeper and ask ourselves: what does this question belie? What sort of values are we trying to reflect in asking these questions?”
“I accept that view. I accept that there is pressure. And we have said right from the beginning that we understand the anxieties of Singaporeans. Having said that, I think it is also important for Mr Leong to recognise what I have just said – which is, if we look at the number of new citizens and we look at the PRs, significant numbers of them are not yet in the workforce; significant numbers of them are also married to citizens. They have a family nexus. Are we to say that, therefore, please do not work, please be out of the workforce? I do not believe Mr Leong is saying that at all. However, this constant obsession – if I may put it that way, with drawing lines – I am not sure it is good for us as a society. There have been occasions where Singaporeans have stepped up and asked us, "Your policies differentiate between citizens and PRs. I am a citizen. My husband is the PR. My wife is the PR. Why can they not get the same level of support from the Government too? Have they not contributed? Do they not pay taxes? Is their well-being not important to me, the citizen?" What answers do we give to this person? Do we then say, "If your husband or wife is a new citizen or new PR, okay, even if they are not working, that is fine." I do not think that is what we are heading for. So, I call on Members and ask that you consider this very carefully whenever you raise points of this nature. It is not that the question cannot be asked but I think we have to search our hearts and ask ourselves before asking these questions: what is our thinking? What is our attitude and what is the value that we are expressing by even putting these questions forward? It is well and good to say, "This is all about information, transparency" and so on.”
“And do we then say that within the Singapore citizen ranks, we start drawing a distinction between a new citizen of two years ago, 20 years ago, or how far back must you be a citizen to be a real citizen? These are questions that I hope that Mr Leong can help us understand the PSP's thinking.”
“Sir, I thank Mr Leong for his question. He mentioned the number of 50,000 of increase every year in EPs and PRs. I think we have regularly reported that, on average, in the last couple of years – not the entire few decades that Mr Leong may be referring to – every year, the number of Singapore citizens goes up by around 20,000 and then the number of new PRs is about 30,000. However, I think what Mr Leong is trying to suggest is that all of your gains are meaningless because they are all occupied by PRs and new citizens. First, I would like to point out that he is wrong in imagining that all the new citizens and all the new PRs are in the workforce. A significant number of them are still children, still in school. That is how we top up our population. A good number of those new citizens and PRs are married to our citizens. They are part of family expansion. In case Mr Leong has not noticed, if I remember correctly from my population portfolio, I believe, in today's context, one in three marriages involving a citizen also involves a non-citizen. Is Mr Leong suggesting that these new citizens are any less of a citizen? Is Mr Leong suggesting, therefore, that we should discount them, not include them? Or do we look at the broader picture and ask ourselves whether over the last few decades from the 1990s to what it is today, from three in 10 locals in PMET jobs, to six in 10 locals in PMET jobs, is an amazing accomplishment not so easily achieved elsewhere – a remarkable accomplishment. Maybe not amazing; at least remarkable. If not remarkable, commendable. If not commendable, notable. I would like Mr Leong to share his views with us.”
“We also appreciate the need to keep supporting workers who earn less to grow their incomes over time and address income inequality. Every single day, workers like Ramli, Raymond and Merly remind the MOM team what our work is about. We are always here listening to their struggles, thinking deeply about the support that they need, recognising the constraints, adjusting policies in their interests, finding better ways to protect them against unfair practices, ultimately, helping them to get onto the path of growth in their work lives that they so deserve. To all the other Ramlis, Raymonds and Merlys out there, we know that, in your hearts, you care most about the well-being of your families and loved ones. You want to do well not just for yourself, but for them. Please know that you, too, are always in our hearts. However long this storm lasts, MOM will walk this journey with you. However tough it may be, we will help you bounce back. Our mission is to help each and every one of you emerge stronger by never giving up hope and by working with employers in Singapore to treat you fairly to make your hard work bear fruit. Our work is not yet done. We have taken firm steps forward and we will press on, whatever the challenges, with you, for you, for Singapore. [Applause.]”
“Hard as it was, she accepted the need to upgrade her skills. Through the PCP for Salesforce Platform Professionals, she managed to start in a job that she did not have any prior experience for. Kudos to the employer for taking her on as well. A third way to tilt the balance for local PMETs is by plugging hiring gaps with attachments and skills training opportunities for mid-career individuals. While recognising the preference for a job, these company-hosted attachments and skills training programmes will nonetheless position jobseekers better with industry-relevant experience. When the economy recovers, their CVs will be more polished and they will stand a better chance of bouncing back into jobs they prefer. Beyond these efforts, agencies like MAS will continue to press on with their bold and significant plans to support and encourage financial institutions to build up Singaporeans for senior roles, like how Ms Tin Pei Ling has advocated. Minister Ong Ye Kung will speak later today and share some of these plans. In many ways, these specific programmes and initiatives will be more effective in growing the local talent pipeline for the top jobs, complementing broad-based tools like work pass policies. We must, therefore, not miss the woods for the trees, by focusing narrowly on keeping foreigners out, and missing the larger picture of growing the pie and giving Singaporeans the chance of the best slice. Mr Speaker, I would like to conclude by saying that COVID-19 is a major test of our resilience and unity as a people. Our workforce has been severely stressed. We understand the anxieties of PMETs in their 40s and 50s and their concerns about fair treatment and fair opportunities.”
“Thank you, Sir. Members in the House are agreed that while we keep Singapore open, we need to ensure fair treatment and we must also do everything possible to give our people a leg up. What then can we do to further tilt the balance in favour of local PMETs, including those in their 40s and 50s? How can we enable more of them to take up good jobs created and grow into roles that employers presently hire EP or S Pass holders for? First, businesses that retain and hire locals get an extra dose of support from the Government. This is exactly what Ms Mariam Jaafar called for. The Jobs Support Scheme or JSS is one. The Jobs Growth Incentive or JGI is another. It comes on top of the JSS. With $1 billion set aside, this is Singapore’s biggest push ever to help employers stretch their manpower budgets and expand the hiring of locals. Another way to tilt the balance is to support the cost of skills retraining for employers. Take, for example, our Professional Conversion Programmes or PCPs. PCPs provide employers with generous training and salary support to re-skill and hire mid-career local jobseekers, with higher support for mature workers aged 40 and above. This also benefits the PCP employees, with about nine in 10 remaining employed 24 months after being placed, and about seven in 10 earning higher wages after starting in their new jobs. PCPs have helped Singaporeans like Merly Savantraj. They have helped her bounce back from retrenchment. Merly was with her previous company for the past 13 years carrying out system support of IT certification systems. Unfortunately, she was let go in February. When searching for a new job, she realised that her IT skills had become obsolete, as she was performing traditional IT tasks all this while.”
“May I humbly request the Leader for another 10 minutes?”
“Therefore, the Government updates the EP salary requirements to ensure that the foreigners that businesses hire are indeed top-tier talent. If the expertise and experience of these foreigners are not commensurate with the salary requirements, then they will not be able to obtain an EP to work in Singapore, but will only be able to obtain an S Pass instead. In past rounds of adjustment to EP salary requirements, a good number of EP applications were not approved as they did not meet the salary requirements. And if the company's S Pass quota was already fully utilised, these foreigners would not be able to work here or get their contracts renewed. In fact, the number of EP and S Pass holders has already come down sharply. In the first seven months of this year, it dropped by 22,000. In fact, local PMETs outnumber EP holders 7:1. Nevertheless, I would still urge business owners in these extraordinary times that if they must hire foreigners because of business needs, they should continue to give fair consideration to local jobseekers. Businesses have a duty to grow and maintain a Singaporean Core in their workforce. This is especially critical in the current climate. In these difficult times, we will place additional emphasis on these considerations and pay close attention to the hiring practices of companies. The reason is simple. We want to remind businesses of the importance of nurturing their local workforce, and help Singaporean jobseekers find good jobs and return to the workforce. (In English): Sir, I still have a bit to go.”
“] Mr Speaker, Sir, the usual practice at MOM is to adjust the EP and S Pass salary requirements regularly, based on the situation in our local job market. There is only one reason behind these adjustments, and that is to safeguard the livelihoods of Singaporeans. Take the EP for example – we adjusted the salary requirements in 2017, and in May this year, there was another round of adjustment. However, because there were drastic and rapid changes in the job market over the past few months, MOM had to take further action. Therefore, MOM announced last week that we would further raise the EP and S Pass salary requirements. Some people may be concerned that the raising of salary requirements for foreigners may result in employers who insist on hiring foreign employees simply raising their salaries. Then we may end up going nowhere. Some Members mentioned this yesterday and suggested that we impose quotas on EP holders to restrict the number of higher-end EP holders working in Singapore. I can understand these concerns. To impose quotas on EP holders is not unthinkable, but it is probably unwise. Most of the foreign workers in Singapore are primarily Work Permit and S Pass holders. Therefore, MOM uses quotas and levies to regulate the number of such foreign workers that a company can hire. On the other hand, the number of foreign professionals that come to Singapore on an EP is relatively smaller. They make up less than 15% of PMETs in Singapore. What we are more concerned about is the quality of these EP holders. For example, they may possess specialised skills that can help businesses venture into cutting-edge fields, and may, in time to come, transfer these skills to Singaporeans.”
“The other effect of raising the hurdle is to push EP holders at the lower end, down to the S Pass-level where there are quota controls – something which levies will not do. So, you raise the hurdle; those who cannot cross it, what choice do you have? S Passes. And if the company does not have enough quota, well, then, that is it. In all past adjustments to EP salary requirements, a good number are downgraded to S Passes. What about employers who falsely declare salaries to meet the higher bar? The answer must be to strengthen enforcement which we have been doing, and not to withhold the raising of the bar. In fact, in the last five years, we have taken action in over 1,200 cases of false declarations or kickbacks and secured nearly 388 convictions through prosecution. Sir, raising EP salary requirements helps to improve quality over time and subject more foreign professionals at the lower end to quota controls. To similarly impose quotas at the higher end of EP holders is not unthinkable, but it is probably unwise. When competing for the most cutting-edge investments and sophisticated activities to be moved to Singapore, we need to give agencies like EDB and MAS flexibility. For this purpose, it is much better to use salary requirements to ensure companies get access to foreign professionals of the right quality and marry them with firm-level commitments to build up local capabilities over time. Without such flexibility, many of the top-quality investments would have been lost to our competitors and the job opportunities along with them. As several Members have alluded to, there is no shortage of takers ready to eat our lunch. Mr Speaker, I would now like to say a few words in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.”
“However, such actions do not always bring satisfaction to the victims. Something is inevitably damaged in the process – the sense of fairness and trust in the organisation's value system. As Members have pointed out, for every errant employer caught, there are other bad hats – at least one other bad hat – who still try to circumvent the rules. This is why MOM calls on employer groups to also step up. No amount of rules will be enough if employers do not have the shared sense of commitment to fair hiring and responsible retrenchment. No amount of enforcement resources will catch enough employers if they are determined to hide. What we lose then is not just a job opportunity for a local, but the trust that the system is fair, that the odds were not stacked against people who are trying. The Government cannot do this alone. We need employers to do your part: be fair to locals when you hire or have to retrench. Mr Speaker, in these uncertain times, there have also been suggestions to use levies and quotas to regulate the number of EP holders. I would like to share some considerations with Members. At the Work Permit level, we use levies on top of quotas to regulate demand because the numbers are big. At the EP level, where the numbers are not as big, our key objective is to regulate quality. By raising the salary requirements, over time, this sets a higher bar that EP holders must be able to cross to work in Singapore. Think of it like high jump. You raise the bar, and the hurdle is higher. You are going to need more skills, more talent to cross a higher bar. That is what the EP salary requirement is – a high hurdle.”
“This expanded group will include firms whose Singaporean Core has been weakening; or whose EP and S Pass workforce are overly concentrated from a single foreign nationality source. Through active intervention, we will help them reshape their workforce profiles. We will do this together with economic agencies like EDB and MAS. And as Mr Ang suggested, we will also engage the HR community to do more. Sir, like many Members, I receive direct feedback from Singaporeans. They write to tell me about specific job application attempts where they felt they had been sidelined, or retrenchment exercises where they felt that they had been treated unfairly. They may also share observations about FCF rules being ignored. MOM takes all such feedback seriously, as they complement our own proactive surveillance. We investigate thoroughly by interviewing the parties concerned and going through relevant records and exchanges – sometimes, mountains of records – to ensure that the retrenchment and hiring decisions have been conducted fairly. For example, a whistle blower told us his former employer, an IT consultancy firm, had hired an EP holder through the recommendation of another EP holder who was a friend. Sir, recommending friends for job openings is not by itself wrong. The problem here was that the employer had not considered other possible local candidates as well. This decision was cleared with the General Manager which made it worse. As a penalty, the company will not be able to hire or renew work passes for 18 months – one and a half years. I do not think they will forget such an experience. I hope these examples reassure Members that where there’s evidence of unfairness, we will not hesitate to hold employers to account and lean on them to do better in future.”
“For example, we found that one firm dealt, almost exclusively, with high net worth clients from a particular country with language and cultural preferences. So, this company need not have been in Singapore. They could have served these high net worth clients from somewhere else – Hong Kong, for example. Nonetheless, through TAFEP’s advice, this company agreed that non-client-facing roles could be filled by locals. In another instance, the company had been genuinely unfamiliar with local recruitment channels and welcomed WSG’s assistance. In yet another case, the local office sought special approval from their overseas headquarters to expand recruitment criteria to take into account local conditions. They were in fact grateful to TAFEP for having helped to bring about this change with their headquarters. In all, 3,200 EP applications have been rejected or withheld by MOM, or withdrawn by employers while they were being scrutinised. But these employers have hired more than 4,800 Singaporean PMETs as a result. In other words, this targeted approach has helped to keep and expand local PMET employment in these firms. If instead we had chosen to vilify them through a name-and-shame approach, we would have frustrated their efforts to expand local hiring. This is ultimately counter-productive, not advantageous to us. In the case of the company that served high networth clients, it very easily could have gone somewhere else. And all of those opportunities would have been lost to us. Our alternative approach of scrutinising and engaging employers is highly resource-intensive but in fact, a more effective way to get businesses to reshape their HR practices. This is why MOM plans to engage an expanded group of employers to review their hiring practices.”
“But when we look back at the job advertisement, it did not say six-sigma certification. This company was clearly not serious in considering local applicants. As a penalty, it will not be able to hire or renew EP holders for 12 months – one full year. Anyone in business knows that this is serious. To stay in business, they will have to recruit more locals, something they should have done all along. Mr Speaker, I have outlined these additional considerations for EP and S Pass applications, but they are not new. We are re-stating them to remind employers of the need to step up their hiring practices and HR management, and also the efforts they must make to help sustain a business-friendly work pass policy. At the same time, we will build on the Fair Consideration Framework or FCF to engage more employers. Since 2016, more than 1,200 employers have been scrutinised under the FCF. To put the number into context, in the last five years, about 40,000 employers have applied for EPs, at least once. So, we have the 1,200 in the last five years but we also have this 40,000. [Please refer to "Clarification by Minister for Manpower", Official Report, 5 October 2020, Vol 95, Issue No 7.] Some Members, including Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Leong Mun Wai, may not have realised this: firms that are scrutinised have not flouted any rules yet, unlike the example I cited above. Instead, we have identified them through proactive surveillance because of their unusually high reliance on foreigners in their PMET workforce, when compared to industry peers. Until they improve, we will reject or hold back their work pass applications. At the same time, TAFEP engages them to understand their problems and help them strengthen their hiring practices.”
“Therefore, in specific areas of skills shortages and where there is strong interest from locals, we will also assess if agencies like WSG, MAS and IMDA have been able to get an employer on board their many programmes to strengthen the development of local PMETs. This will also have a bearing on their EP and S Pass applications. Conversely, we take into consideration whether an employer has discriminated against qualified local PMETs. Of all possible infringements, this is what offends Singaporeans most, that they have the qualifications but lost out to a foreign candidate who did not appear to be better. To curb such unacceptable behaviour, MOM has regularly taken employers to task for practices like pre-selecting a foreign candidate and disregarding qualified local candidates. We agree with Ms Foo that if, in fact, there are equally or better qualified local candidates, it would be only logical that they be given priority consideration. And this is one of the reasons why the company is in Singapore in the first place. This year alone, 90 employers have had their work pass privileges suspended because of infringements under the Fair Consideration Framework or FCF. In one instance of a healthcare multinational, investigators found that 26 local candidates had responded to an advertisement on MyCareersFuture.gov.sg. Although seven out of these 26 applicants met the job requirements, none were shortlisted or interviewed. Two candidates were deemed "over-qualified". Other candidates were rejected for not meeting requirements that were not stated in the job advertisement in the first place, for example, six-sigma certification. The company rejected them, saying that they do not have six-sigma.”
“In last week's announcement of the tightening of EP and S Pass requirements, one aspect was not prominently reported. We had made clear that in evaluating EP and S Pass applications, MOM will place additional emphasis on whether the employer has kept up its support of local PMETs in its employment. In substance, this achieves what Ms Foo Mee Har would like to see, a tilt in support of local PMETs that goes beyond fair consideration. Among other things, an employer's record in how it handles retrenchment exercises will certainly have a bearing. For example, is an EP or S Pass applicant a replacement for a local who was only recently retrenched? If so, MOM will ask why and turn down the application unless there are very good reasons. We will also place additional emphasis on whether the employer has been responsive to efforts by the Government agencies to help it recruit and train local PMETs. Mr Ang Wei Neng supported a balanced work pass policy that is neither too restrictive nor facilitative for employers. He felt that continued access to EP and S Pass holders can help businesses to grow, which in turn expands opportunities for Singaporeans. Businesses, however, should not exploit this access but must instead make serious efforts to build local capabilities. Ms Mariam Jaafar goes further. She calls on employers to look past paper qualifications and consider local job applicants who do not necessarily tick all the boxes, but who can be nurtured with support from Government. MOM agrees with both of them. This should, in fact, become pervasive, a regular feature of our employment landscape, the norm and not the exception.”
“(g) In a unionised company, were the selection criteria and retrenchment benefit discussed and agreed to with the union? (h) Did the company put in place measures to support the workers' transition, for example, engaging WSG or e2i for job assistance? (i) Did the company communicate its business situation and plans clearly, sensitively and with adequate notice to affected employees? (j) Lastly, but certainly not the least of it, was the company's Singaporean Core weakened as a result of the retrenchment exercise? So, 10 questions that we ask. And last and not least of it was the company's Singaporean Core weakened as a result of the retrenchment exercise? In vast majority of the cases, retrenchments have been conducted fairly and responsibly. Where older Singaporeans have been let go, this has generally been the result of criteria like relevance of skillsets to core functions that the company must retain. This factor explains why in some retrenchment exercises, seniors comprise a higher share. By and large, there has also not been a weakening of the Singaporean Core. In the case of Resorts World, for example, a foreign employee must meet a higher performance bar than his local colleague to be retained. In fact, this is quite an often-seen criterion that companies introduce. Notwithstanding these reassuring observations, we will remain vigilant. We will also work with tripartite partners to advance sound practices, through updating the Tripartite Advisory on Managing Excess Manpower and Responsible Retrenchment, for example, or the Fair Retrenchment Framework proposed by NTUC. Besides actively monitoring retrenchment practices, we will intensify other efforts to ensure fair treatment of locals applying for jobs.”
“Mr Leong may not have realised this but it could almost be said at that time to have been the privileged minority. Fast forward to today, nearly six in 10 locals are in PMET jobs. In fact, local PMETs outnumber EP holders – 7:1. For every EP holder that you can find, there are seven locals in PMET jobs. With COVID-19, the number of EP and S Pass holders has come down sharply. Between January and July this year, it has dropped by 22,000. While the numbers are moving in the right direction, PMETs in their 40s and 50s are still concerned. I fully appreciate that. In this period of great uncertainty, two questions loom large. First, when retrenchments become inevitable, will they be targeted by employers because of age and wage-seniority, especially when compared to their younger foreign colleagues? When applying for jobs, will they be passed over, especially with employers having continued access to EP and S Pass holders? Let me deal with these questions in turn. MOM actively monitors retrenchment practices and looks into how retrenchment exercises are conducted. There are the 10 key questions we ask. (a) Did the employer implement any other alternatives, such as cost-saving measures before considering retrenchment? (b) Were efforts made to reskill and re-deploy staff, before embarking on a retrenchment exercise? (c) Does the business situation warrant a retrenchment? (d) Did the employers put in place clear criteria to identify workers to be retrenched? (e) Did these criteria discriminate against any employee on the basis of age, gender, ethnicity or family circumstances? (f) Did the company provide retrenchment benefits commensurate with its financial position?”
“At the same time, they, as well as Members like Ms Jessica Tan and Mr Henry Kwek acknowledge that foreigners are still needed to complement the Singaporean workforce. In fact, we have adjusted work pass policies regularly and slowed down the growth of EP and S Passes considerably. In the last five years, 2014 to 2019, the number of EP and S Pass holders has grown on average, less than 9,000 annually. This is less than one third of the average annual growth of 30,400 in the earlier five-year period, and that would be from 2009 to 2014. So, let me say that again. In the first five years, 2014 to 2019, the number of EP and S Pass holders has grown on average, less than 9,000 annually. This is less than one third of the average annual growth of 30,400 in the earlier five-year period. At the same time, in the last five years, 2014 to 2019, the number of locals in PMET jobs has grown on average, around 35,000 annually. So, we have the 9,000 in growth of EP and S Passes, average annual in the last five years and during that same period, what is the growth in locals in PMET jobs? On average, 35,000 annually. Contrast the 9,000 and 35,000. In other words, for every new EP or S Pass holder added in the last five years, about four more locals took up PMET jobs. Just think about that. It should also be noted that throughout this period, the population of PRs has remained stable, at about half a million. It would therefore be wrong to attribute the growth of locals in PMET jobs to an increase in PRs, as some have suggested. Mr Speaker, in his earlier speech, Mr Leong Mun Wai reminisced about the good old days. But I have a question. Was it really so good? In the 1990s, about three in 10 locals were in PMET jobs.”
“Similar trends are observed in the hospitality and F&B sectors. Businesses are still trying to find a firmer footing. Therefore, any moves to expand PWM into new sectors immediately, in the midst of great uncertainty in the labour market, carries higher risk. Given our overriding priority to preserve jobs, we should proceed with care. While it may be risky to mandate PWM in more sectors right away, we can still promote its voluntary adoption by progressive employers that are able to do so. To give this effort a bigger push, the Government will work with the tripartite partners to introduce a PWM Mark. Companies that voluntarily pay progressive wages and provide job progression pathways to their lower income workers will be recognised with this PWM Mark. Several sectors, including Food Services and Retail Trade, have the potential to come on board. For the PWM Mark to work, there must, however, be a broader movement involving society at large. As consumers, we must be prepared to pay slightly more and intentionally support such progressive companies by purchasing their products and services. This will spur more companies to be progressive and adopt the PWM Mark, which in turn will benefit our lower income workers. I hope Members will agree with me that we must have it in our hearts to consider this a small price to pay for better jobs and income security for those among us who need it most. Let me turn now to PMETs in their 40s and 50s. Mr Speaker, since this debate started, many Members have spoken passionately about the Singaporean Core and changes they hope to see in our work pass policies – Mr Patrick Tay, Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Ms Foo Mee Har and Mr Liang Eng Hwa, amongst others.”
“First, to regularly adjust Workfare to support employability while ensuring that we continue to mitigate income inequality. Members like Mr Gan Thiam Poh support this. Second, to raise wages in PWM sectors at an appropriate pace, taking care of the need to preserve low unemployment among the workers. Third, to expand PWM over time to more sectors, taking care to assess the capacity of businesses in those sectors to absorb the change, especially our SME employers. Fourth, to raise standards of living for lower income workers in other meaningful ways, such as acquiring skills to progress, achieving home ownership, providing access to quality healthcare, education for their children and adequate support in their retirement. This is a holistic and sustainable approach to uplift our lower income workers, and is an extension of social mobility beyond the schooling years into working life. We have been building on this approach, steadily and with focus. Earlier this year, we expanded Workfare coverage and raised payouts. A Workfare Special Payment of $3,000 has also helped to cushion the impact of COVID-19 on lower income workers. Dr Koh Poh Koon called for the universal implementation of PWM. In principle, we are aligned. The real question for expansion of PWM is one of timing. In the security sector, 38-year-old Raymond Chin has been similarly able to progress to his current position as Senior Operations Manager. However, during a recent conversation, Raymond told me his concerns about security officers earning less this year. When calling for new tenders, clients are asking for fewer workers. Full-time workers have fewer overtime hours or may lose their seniority when displaced. Part-time workers have fewer assignments.”
“Ramli Bin Mohd Hussin, my long-time brother from the Labour Movement, sees first-hand how these schemes have helped workers. As senior operations manager of an environmental services company, he supervises about 120 cleaners. In fact, for many years, Ramli himself worked as a cleaner. Workfare supplemented his wages, but it was PWM that gave him a chance to move up and build a career. At age 47, he has upgraded to a 4-room HDB flat in Yishun. Of his four children, the eldest was encouraged by him to join the cleaning profession. Number two has just completed NS after getting his Polytechnic diploma. Number three started a small business and the youngest is still in school. Ramli also feels a great sense of accomplishment that an ex-offender whom he had been nurturing was recently promoted to Team Leader. The result of our approach in Singapore is what two local economists, Kenneth Ler and Ivan Png, described as a unique kind of Minimum Wage policy that succeeded in raising wages without apparently reducing employment. Outside of sectors with PWM, Workfare and the Special Employment Credit or SEC, have also raised wages without risking unemployment. Take a 60-year-old worker whose employer had been prepared to pay $1,200 a month. When SEC and Workfare are added, the worker actually earns $1,593, 33% more than the employer’s willingness to pay. Had a national Minimum Wage or living wage been set at, say, $1,600 instead of boosting incomes through SEC and Workfare, would this worker still have a job? Perhaps, if the labour market is very tight but perhaps not when economic conditions take a dive. Therefore, to uplift workers who earn less, the Government’s preferred approach that is also supported by the Labour Movement, has four prongs.”
“NTUC pioneered Progressive Wage Model or PWM, in 2012, which now covers about 80,000 workers in the cleaning, security, and landscaping sectors. In 2016, the Government launched the Silver Support scheme to provide better retirement support for Singaporeans who did not earn as much throughout their working lives. Dr Koh Poh Koon has a slightly different take on the Government's holistic support. He calls it the "Triple Uplift" formula. Right now, concerns about job and income losses must weigh on us as Parliament debates our next moves in raising wages for workers who earn less. What is our preferred approach to moderating income inequality in Singapore? Specifically, do we continue with the expansion of PWM over time as the NTUC has advocated or do we shift towards a national minimum wage or a living wage, as some parties have called for? This debate, however, is not new. We have considered it before. Although in Singapore, we have not legislated a single minimum wage across the board, we have in fact implemented features of a "Minimum Wage" through the PWM in several sectors. Members of Parliament from the Workers' Party acknowledge this too. In March 2015, Mr Gerald Giam urged the Government, and I quote him, "to look into introducing sectoral minimum wages under PWM to more domestic-oriented sectors". On 15 July this year, Mr Yee Jenn Jong said and I quote him, "The Government is also not alien to the concept of Minimum Wage, except that they practise it for selected industries only via the PWM." At the same time, we have complemented the PWM with Workfare and skills training and the results have been good. In the last five years, workers in PWM sectors have seen cumulative wage growth of around 30%. This is compared to 21% for workers at the median.”
“Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion of Thanks to the President. In our recent memory, the most severe economic downturn in Singapore had been the Global Financial Crisis. I was then in the Labour Movement. We welcomed the Government’s Resilience Package. It was worth $20.5 billion. Barely 12 months after the collapse of Lehman Brothers that precipitated the Global Financial Crisis, there was talk about "green shoots". In 2009, Singapore’s GDP did not shrink; it actually managed to grow 0.1%. The following year, our economy powered ahead to double digit growth. Fast forward to 2020, having battled COVID-19 for about eight months, we see how much more severe the impact is going to be. The Government has already introduced four Budgets of support costing close to $100 billion. Salary support under the Jobs Support Scheme went up to 75% during the circuit breaker, far higher than the 12% under the Jobs Credit Scheme in 2009. Although unemployment has not reached the highs of past recessions, we know this is not a given. We are still in the middle of a raging storm, and it will be sometime before we see "green shoots". Against this backdrop, there is anxiety and a heightened sense of insecurity about jobs. I understand our workers’ worries. I appreciate it has not been an easy time for many of them. For today’s debate, I want to focus on two groups in particular – workers who perform essential services but do not earn much and PMETs in their 40s and 50s. For over a decade, we have made concerted efforts to raise wages at the lower end. As part of our social compact, we introduced Workfare in 2007 to mitigate income inequality.”
“To help our workers and business succeed, we will continue to uphold fair opportunities, fair hiring, fair competition, and fair support for everyone to progress at every stage of their working lives. In collaboration with the whole-of-society as part of the SG Together movement, we can and will emerge stronger from this crisis as a cohesive society.”
“We will also build on the experience of managing and safeguarding the wellbeing of migrant workers during the pandemic. We have set up a new operating unit – the Assurance, Care & Engagement (ACE) Group – to take over and continue the work of the Inter-Agency Task Force. Over the last five months, the Task Force has provided assurance to migrant workers at the dormitories and cleared the dormitories of COVID-19 infection. The new ACE Group will ensure dormitories and other migrant worker housing are safe and resilient against public health threats, by building a stronger system of medical support for migrant workers. It will also partner with the community and migrant worker groups to meet the social needs of workers. As important as it is to safeguard the health and wellness of our workers, we must also ensure the higher costs are sustainable. In particular, we will carefully consider the cost-sharing model for higher standards in migrant worker dormitories and develop an insurance programme to help employers manage unexpectedly large medical expenses of their migrant workers. The "new normal" brought about by COVID-19 provides a great opportunity to review workplace practices and entrench more flexible work arrangements (FWAs). This will serve public health objectives, and improve business continuity and work-life harmony (WLH). We will implement the Citizens' Panel’s recommendations to support employers to offer FWAs and WLH initiatives and promote greater awareness through diagnostic tools, ambassadors, and recognising progressive employers. Our tripartite partners are jointly committed to working closely with Singaporeans to overcome the economic and labour market challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic.”
“Over time, we will expand the PWM to more sectors, in a manner that is practical and ensures we preserve low levels of local unemployment. This effort to raise wages at the lower end will require long-term commitment and new mindsets among employers, service buyers, and society at large. We may have to pay slightly more for services, so that lower income workers are able to take on better jobs and earn higher wages. Together with the Government's support for lower income workers through Workfare and other schemes, it will help us mitigate inequalities and strengthen our social compact. We will undertake regular reviews of Workfare and Silver Support. Workfare payouts were raised from January 2020 to uplift more workers. The enhanced Silver Support will provide higher payouts and help 100,000 more seniors with lesser means, covering up to one in three of our elderly. To better support persons with disabilities (PwDs), we introduced the Enabling Employment Credit (EEC) which will cover about four in five of current PwD employees. There is also an additional wage offset when employers hire PwDs who have not been working for at least six months. We will continue to look out for gaps in our social safety nets, and enhance support in sustainable ways, and ensure every Singaporean who makes the effort gets a fair chance to bounce back from employment setbacks. COVID-19 has led to individuals facing considerable stress. We will need a renewed focus on the health and wellness of the entire workforce. We will forge partnerships with Trade Associations & Chambers, Non-Governmental Organisations and professional bodies, to broaden and strengthen the network of support for our workers.”
“We will closely examine retrenchment exercises to ensure they are carried out fairly. Businesses that bring in skills in short supply or new networks of opportunity for Singapore will always remain welcome. At the same time, we will require businesses to invest more effort to develop and strengthen their Singaporean core. COVID-19 has accentuated the fast-changing nature of employment, and the uncertainty for those who are self-employed to find consistent work. This affects their income stability and ability to save regularly for retirement and healthcare needs. We will continue to implement the recommendations of the Tripartite Workgroup on Self-Employed Persons (SEPs). We have piloted the contribute-as-you-earn model earlier this year to help SEPs make small and regular Medisave contributions. We aim to reduce payment-related disputes, mitigate the loss of income due to prolonged illness or injury, and support SEPs in their skills needs. We will further review the responsibilities of service-buyers and intermediaries to bring about a fairer and more balanced relationship with their self-employed workers. Uplifting wages at the lower end remains a key priority. In sectors like cleaning, security, and landscaping where the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) has been fully implemented, full-time workers have seen their gross monthly incomes increase by around 30% in the last five years, much higher than median wages. When enhancements to Workfare are included, the gains are even larger. In the context of the current downturn and very uncertain outlook for the economy, our overriding objective is to ensure continued employment opportunities for these workers.”
“We will expand our offerings and improve accessibility through: (i) SGUnited Jobs & Skills Centres across all HDB towns; (ii) Enhanced Digital Career Matching Services; (iii) Private sector employment agencies serving as SGUnited Jobs & Skills Placement Partners. Singaporeans, regardless of age, race, gender, must have a fair chance at job opportunities. While employment rates have risen for mature workers, women and ethnic minorities, we must remain vigilant and build on the gains. Our foreign workforce policies have been designed to support economic growth, so as to create good jobs for Singaporeans. There is regular calibration, to enable firms to access the manpower they need while ensuring a strong Singaporean core. In the last decade, we have also made policy adjustments to spur businesses to upgrade productivity. Through expanded opportunities, nearly six in 10 locals in the workforce today are employed in Professional, Managerial, Executive and Technician (PMET) jobs, among the highest in the world. For every Employment Pass (EP) holder, there are nearly seven locals employed in PMET roles. However, with COVID-19 and the economic disruption it has caused, there is now more slack in the labour market. We will therefore make further adjustments to our foreign workforce policies, including raising the salary criteria for EP and S Passes, to reflect the changed conditions. Even as we stay open to the world to accelerate our recovery, the crisis makes it all the more important that employers give fair treatment to Singaporeans. They should also seek to achieve greater diversity within their EP and S Pass workforce where practical. We will ensure that employers uphold both the letter and spirit of the Fair Consideration Framework.”
“The COVID-19 pandemic has presented unprecedented challenges in our employment landscape. Jobs and livelihoods have been affected. We will help workers and companies tackle the immediate challenges to emerge stronger. Before COVID-19, we had been preparing workers and employers for the future of work. These efforts must now shift to even higher gear. We will deepen and expand efforts to ensure fairness at work, with a focus on giving every worker a chance to be meaningfully employed, and fostering an inclusive workforce and progressive workplaces. The National Jobs Council will spearhead the Whole-of-Government effort to bring together 100,000 jobs and skills opportunities through the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package. Our economic agencies will press on with industry transformation to keep as many Singaporeans as possible in jobs, and create new jobs to make up for job losses. Workforce Singapore and its partners will strive to open up pathways for every newly displaced worker to return to meaningful employment: (a) We will work with employers to make jobs available to jobseekers willing to acquire new skills, through heavily subsidised training and the Jobs Growth Incentive. Where employers remain cautious about hiring, we will support them to host traineeships and attachments, by co-funding the training allowance with host organisation. This will allow jobseekers to gain industry-relevant skills and be better positioned for economic recovery. We will give stronger support to employers that favourably consider middle-aged and mature workers. (b) We will intensify efforts to help Singaporeans in their job search.”
“MOM releases gender-disaggregated labour market data such as unemployment and retrenchment indicators on a quarterly basis through the Labour Market Reports. The 1Q 2020 report will be released in mid-June. Gender-disaggregated gross monthly income data is released on an annual basis through the Ministry's Labour Force in Singapore report.”
“The vast majority of employers are now paying salaries electronically. In the initial month of implementation, a very small number of employers were unable to do so, due to technical or administrative issues. For example, their workers' bank account applications were still pending approval by the bank. In these cases, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) allowed the employers to continue to pay outstanding salaries in cash. Due to its urgent necessity, this new requirement was introduced at very short notice. Nevertheless, the vast majority of employers have complied. MOM will continue to follow up and remind the remaining employers to make the switch if they have not already done so, especially now that circuit breaker measures have been lifted. MOM will in due course take enforcement action against non-compliance, as it would for other conditions under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act.”
“Table 1 below provides a breakdown of claims related to wrongful dismissal, retrenchment benefit and salary-in-lieu of notice received by the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) between 1 April 2019 and 30 April 2020. In anticipation of the increase in claims since the start of the circuit breaker, MOM has strengthened the support to both employees and employers to resolve end-of-employment disputes. Where employees have filed wrongful dismissal claims, a good number have been due to the abrupt manner of termination rather than unfair terms – most employers have fulfilled their contractual obligations. With the complainants' agreement, we refer them to Workforce Singapore or e2i for employment facilitation. We recognise that this is a period of unusual stress for employers and employees alike. Regardless of their business circumstances, all employers should carry out termination of employment contracts fairly, responsibly and sensitively. They must continue to adhere to employment laws, contractual terms, and the relevant tripartite advisories.1 Employees are also encouraged to engage their employers to seek clarity on issues of concern. Where there are irresponsible practices by employers, MOM will investigate and take enforcement actions as necessary.”
“As is the case for all employees whether local or foreign, they must step forward to inform MOM if they have been paid an incorrect salary. It is in their own interest to do so in a timely manner. Since April 2020, MOM has been requiring employers of foreign workers, especially those with workers staying in the dormitories, to make declarations on the status and mode of salary payment to their workers. This is an additional precaution that MOM has introduced proactively, to track the payment of salaries to foreign workers to intervene early in cases where salaries are owed. We also required employers to pay salaries electronically to ensure that workers can receive their salaries even if they are unable to leave the dormitories. The vast majority of employers contacted declared to MOM that they would pay April 2020 salaries electronically. A very small number of employers declared that they were unable to do so, citing technical or administrative issues. Such employers were allowed to pay outstanding salaries in cash at dormitories where the risk of COVID-19 transmission was assessed to be low. MOM is following up on every case in which the employer declared that he owed salaries, or a dormitory worker reported that he was owed salaries. Should workers face any salary issues, they can raise them with the Forward Assurance & Support Team (FAST) officers on the ground, so that MOM can follow up with their employers.”
“Private property owners or landlords who have not complied with these measures will not be allowed to rent out their properties or flats to foreign workers. To ensure that workers comply with the safe living measures in the dormitories, dormitory operators are to set clear house rules and corresponding consequences for non-compliance. All cases of non-compliance have to be reported to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM). Workers who repeatedly breach house rules pose a risk to others and may have their work passes revoked.”
“Finally, workers also have an important role to play to ensure that rules for communal living are complied with. For example, they are responsible to monitor their health conditions daily, abide by the rules set up by the dormitory operators to minimise physical interactions with residents from other blocks, and promptly report to their dormitory operators and employers if they are feeling unwell. To help employers and dormitory operators to understand and implement these measures effectively, MOM has provided relevant advisories and checklists and conducted briefings for the dormitory operators. To help foreign workers better understand their responsibilities, we have produced simple communications materials, such as infographics, in the workers’ key native languages for employers and dormitory operators to educate their workers and residents with. We have also tapped on mobile applications for foreign workers and foreign worker ambassadors from the Migrant Workers' Centre to reach out to the workers. Besides engagement and outreach efforts, there will be penalties and consequences on each party if they do not do their part. Employers who fail to fulfil their responsibilities may be fined up to $10,000 or jailed up to 12 months, or both under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (EFMA). They may also be debarred from employing foreign workers. Dormitory operators who fail to put in place safe living measures at the dormitories can face a fine of up to $50,000 or imprisonment term of up to 12 months, or both, per contravention. Operators licensed under the Foreign Employee Dormitories Act (FEDA) may also have their operating licence revoked.”
“The Inter-Agency Taskforce is systematically testing to clear all dormitories of COVID-19 infections in the coming months. Before residents are allowed to resume work, all parties, including dormitory operators, employers and workers, are required to implement safe management and safe living measures to ensure migrant workers work and live in a safe environment. Besides implementing safe management measures to prepare for the re-opening of workplaces, employers are also required to cooperate with the dormitory operators to facilitate the testing and clearing of their workers in the dormitories. These include confirming and updating the addresses of their workers in the Online Foreign Worker Address Service (OFWAS) and working with the dormitory operators stagger pick-up and drop-off time and provide dedicated transport for their workers to and from the workplaces. Dormitory operators are required to implement safe living measures to minimise the risk of transmissions in the dormitories. These measures include tracking the entry and exit of residents and visitors in and out of the dormitories, limiting the inter-mixing of residents such as by staggering the use of common facilities, and strengthening the health surveillance of dormitory residents to identify residents who display symptoms of infection and isolate them quickly. In addition, we are working with the dormitory operators to progressively reduce the density of the existing dormitories by re-housing workers in the new temporary dormitories as they come online. This will allow the existing dormitories to provide more living space per resident to reduce the risk of transmission of infectious diseases in the dormitories.”
“To ensure dormitory residents are informed of the available support channels including the MWC and Healthserve hotlines, MOM sends out regular bulletins highlighting the help that organisations such as MWC and Healthserve can offer. Videos produced by Healthserve on upholding mental health have also been shared among the residents. At the dormitories, posters are put up to inform residents of when they should seek help and how. Additionally, all first-time non-Malaysian work permit holders are required to attend a mandatory one-day Settling-in Programme where they are taught the avenues and given the hotline numbers to seek help if they are stressed or depressed.”
“The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) partners with NGOs, such as Migrant Workers' Centre (MWC) and Healthserve, to meet the mental well-being needs of foreign workers living in dormitories and other forms of housing. The Migrant Workers' Centre has an existing 24 hours helpline manned by MWC staff where workers can call in for assistance on any issues, or if they just need a listening ear. In April, Healthserve launched a dedicated mental wellness hotline where workers can access important medical information and submit their requests for tele-counselling sessions. These tele-counselling sessions are conducted by more than 100 trained volunteer counsellors in the foreign workers' native languages. Since April, Healthserve's hotline has received more than 4,000 enquiries and more than 300 workers have signed up for their tele-counselling sessions. Workers who are in distress for any reason can call either the MWC or the Healthserve hotline. In addition, our FAST teams and MWC's network of 5,000 Foreign Worker Ambassadors proactively look out for residents, whom they assess may benefit from the service, and refer them to a mental health counsellor. Depending on the group size, Healthserve may tap on their pool of more than 30 volunteer Psychiatrists for a remote group counselling, or activate a counsellor for one-to-one tele-counselling session with the worker. More than 150 cases have been referred to Healthserve so far. Besides counselling services, Healthserve and MWC also provide financial assistance to help foreign workers in financial distress.”
“The Self-Employed Person (SEP) Income Relief Scheme (SIRS) helps Singaporean SEPs with less means and family support tide over this period of economic uncertainty. There is readily available information for auto-inclusion of SEPs aged 37 and above. The SEPs would have been previously assessed for eligibility under the Workfare Income Supplement scheme. This approach enabled over 100,000 SEPs to receive SIRS support without the need to apply for it. To ensure deserving SEPs aged below 37 receive SIRS support, we accept applications for SIRS through the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC). So far, NTUC has received 20,500 applications from SEPs under the age of 37 that met the eligibility criteria and processed payments. A further 9,100 applications were incomplete and will be assessed for eligibility when applicants revert.”
“Between 2009 and 2019, an average of 230 work permit holders died each year. This translates into a death rate of about 0.02%. The main causes of death were from natural causes, suicides, traffic accidents and workplace accidents. MOM does not have the corresponding data for special pass holders.”
“MOM started tracking work injuries at home since the start of the Circuit Breaker period from 7 April 2020. Since then, two work injuries were reported to have occurred at home while on remote working arrangements. The claims are currently being examined. As in all work injury claims, it is necessary to determine if the injuries arose out of and in the course of work. Employees with work injuries, including injury sustained while working from home, are eligible for compensation under the Work Injury Compensation Act (WICA).”
“We are providing our recent and new graduates, as well as mid-career jobseekers, with more opportunities to gain valuable industry-relevant experience through the SGUnited Traineeships and SGUnited Mid-Career Traineeships programmes. These will increase their employability and prepare them to seize new opportunities when the economy recovers. In the Unity Budget, we introduced a hiring incentive under the SkillsFuture Mid-Career Support Package. We are now enhancing the hiring incentive to cover all local workers, with higher support for mature workers. We are keeping our foreign workforce policy tight to ensure that our foreign workforce complements rather than substitutes our local workforce. We are maintaining the increases to the minimum qualifying salary at the Employment Pass and S Pass level which I announced this year, and are continuing with previously announced plans to cut the S Pass quota in various sectors. The quota system ensures companies retain a core of Singaporeans if they wish to continue hiring work permit and S Pass holders; a smaller base of locals will also mean a smaller quota. We also strengthened the Fair Consideration Framework earlier this year by requiring more jobs to be advertised and raising the penalties for all forms of discriminatory hiring practices. Strengthening the Singaporean core in the workforce remains our objective and we will continue to pursue this, even as we take into account current economic conditions.”
“In the Unity, Resilience and Solidarity Budgets, the Government introduced measures to provide greater assurance and support to workers and businesses. Budget support measures, including the Jobs Support Scheme, have helped businesses to retain and retrain local workers. These measures have provided some cushion for the labour market. While the number of retrenchments rose in 1Q 2020, it was significantly lower than the quarterly peak during the Global Financial Crisis (1Q 2020: 3,000 (preliminary) versus 1Q 2009: 12,760). However, I expect labour market conditions to weaken in the second quarter given the sharp fall in demand globally, as well as the implementation of circuit breaker measures in Singapore. We have therefore stepped up efforts to help displaced workers reskill and find new employment opportunities. The recently-announced SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package under the Fortitude Budget aims to create a total of 100,000 jobs, traineeships, and training opportunities. We will be expanding the SGUnited Jobs initiative to provide more than 40,000 jobs for locals in 2020. There is a wide range of job opportunities under the SGUnited Jobs initiative, which has been running since end-March. This includes short-term jobs to handle COVID-19 related operations, as well as longer-term jobs created in the Public Service and publicly-funded sectors, such as healthcare and early childhood education. We will also scale up career conversion programmes under the Adapt and Grow and TechSkills Accelerator initiatives to help locals join sectors with strong growth potential.”
“The tripartite partners urge both employers and employees to be open, transparent and understanding in their discussions on cost-saving measures and take a long-term view on saving jobs and emerging stronger together from the crisis.”
“Given the varied financial positions of employers, the tripartite partners agreed not to take a prescriptive approach on the type and degree of cost-saving measures (e.g. consumption of annual leave, no-pay leave) in issuing advisories1 to guide employers. With the Jobs Support Scheme (JSS) payout, employers should provide some wage support to employees even if their employees are not working. To manage cost pressures and conserve manpower for when they are most needed, employers may request employees to clear some of their paid annual leave when business activity has been sharply reduced. Employers should be allowed to do so, and encouraged to seek their employees’ support and understanding to help the business get ready for business resumption. Where employers have genuine cashflow issues, they may not even be able to afford placing employees on paid annual leave and may have to request employees to go on no-pay leave, in order to avoid the worse alternative of retrenchment. In such instances, tripartite partners have made it clear that employers should allow their employees to seek additional temporary employment to boost their incomes. The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) is closely monitoring such cost-saving measures to ensure that they are implemented responsibly and fairly with reasonable support to employees. We will investigate employees' concerns that are brought to our attention. Irresponsible employers may see a withdrawal of Government-paid employment support including future JSS payouts, and suspension of their work pass privileges.”