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 37 of 58.
“Based on the annual Graduate Employment Survey (GES) conducted by the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs), the reported median gross monthly starting salaries of Institute of Technical Education (ITE), polytechnic and autonomous university (AU) graduates in full-time permanent employment from 2008 to 2012 are given in Table 1 below. The GES does not track graduates' salaries by cohort five years after their graduation. However, the median gross monthly income of full-time employed residents is available from the Ministry of Manpower's (MOM's) Comprehensive Labour Force Survey (CLFS). The majority of fresh graduates from IHLs would be in their mid- to late-20s five years after leaving school. Table 2 below shows the median gross monthly income from 2013 to 2017 of full-time employed residents aged 25 to 29 – those with post-secondary non-tertiary qualifications, that is, ITE or equivalent; diploma and professional qualifications, that is, polytechnic or equivalent, and degree qualifications. To give us more insights into their employment and income, MOM and the Ministry of Education are exploring tracking graduates' salaries by cohort over a longer period of time.”
“The Work Holiday Programme (WHP) allows eligible students and young graduates of universities in nine countries or regions to work and holiday in Singapore for up to six months. The WHP is subject to a quota of 2,000 applicants at any one time, which is shared amongst the nine countries or regions that are part of the WHP, namely, Australia, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Japan, New Zealand, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States. In the past three years from 2015-2017, on average, 2,800 applicants have been issued a Work Holiday Pass each year. This Pass grants them the right to stay in Singapore for up to six months and gives them an option to work without applying for an additional work pass. The Ministry of Manpower does not collect information on the jobs and industries that the WHP holders work in. Some may not work at all. The WHP has not affected jobs and internship opportunities for Singaporean graduates and undergraduates. Based on the Graduate Employment Survey conducted by the Institutes of Higher Learning, in each of the last three years, about nine in 10 economically active graduates from the autonomous universities (AUs) and polytechnics were employed within six months of graduation. This is about the same level as before the WHP was introduced. The internship participation rates for polytechnics have also remained stable for the past three years and the rates for the AUs have been increasing gradually. Today, approximately 98% of polytechnic students and 70% of AU students would have done at least one internship by the time they graduate. Our polytechnics and AUs also provide overseas exposure opportunities for our students and completed over 1,600 overseas internship placements in Academic Year 2016/2017.”
“6% per annum over the last two years, and real income growth of 4% per annum and 5.4% per annum at the median and 20th percentile levels respectively. We will continue to work with industries, industry associations and enterprises to grow businesses in a manpower-lean manner, which would, in turn, help create better employment outcomes for Singaporeans.”
“The Lean Enterprise Development (LED) scheme, started in October 2015, is an umbrella scheme for enterprises to access Government support for productivity improvement or manpower-lean initiatives, through grants offered by Workforce Singapore (WSG), Enterprise Singapore (ESG) and other sectoral development agencies, as well as the National Trades Union Congress' (NTUC's) Employment and Employability Institute. The LED scheme aims to make transformation and innovation more pervasive among enterprises of different sizes and across different sectors. We have made good progress so far. As at September 2018, over 11,000 enterprises have tapped on the LED Scheme. Usage of the LED scheme is broad-based. The top three sectors – Construction, Food Services, and Wholesale Trade – account for about a third of the enterprises which have benefited from the scheme. The others come from a diverse range of industries and include many traditional businesses. We do not use a single metric to assess the impact of LED projects. This is because the LED scheme supports a range of objectives and outcomes, depending on the transformation needs of enterprises. For example, enterprises that are just starting their productivity journey may receive funding support to procure ready-to-go productivity solutions identified by economic agencies. Enterprises looking to build deeper capabilities may partner agencies to develop more customised technology solutions or business process improvements. Others may receive support to redesign jobs, for example, to ensure that older workers can continue to be productively employed. Together with other initiatives to promote industry and business transformation, the LED scheme has contributed to Singapore’s productivity growth of 2.”
“A member who has exhausted his EAP or face financial difficulties in the interim may also access a range of social support, including ComCare Short-to-Medium Term Assistance, which provides a combination of employment assistance, cash allowance, rental, utilities, as well as referrals to other agencies for further assistance, depending on the member's needs.”
“The Central Provident Fund (CPF) Payout Eligibility Age is currently at 65. This was raised gradually from age 62 in 2007 to ensure that Singaporeans, who are living longer, are able to set aside enough CPF savings to meet their retirement needs. There are no plans to lower the CPF Payout Eligibility Age. With our re-employment laws, more than 98% of private-sector local workers reaching age 62 who wish to continue working are offered re-employment. A similarly high proportion, or 97.5%, among those reaching the age of 65 were offered re-employment. Members who have stopped working because they are terminally ill or permanently incapacitated can approach CPF Board for early withdrawals of their CPF monies. CPF Board will carefully consider their appeals and approve those with valid medical grounds. In other cases where the member has stopped working, the reasons would vary widely and appeals for early CPF withdrawals are reviewed on a case-by-case basis. A key consideration is the member’s retirement adequacy. From the age of 55, members can withdraw their CPF savings above the Basic Retirement Sum if they have made a sufficient property pledge. It would not be in the member’s interest to further deplete his retirement savings through additional early withdrawals. Instead, we work closely with the tripartite partners to help the member get back to work, through heavily-subsidised job assistance programmes, such as Career Trial and Professional Conversion Programmes. If the member is among the small minority that was not offered re-employment due to lack of suitable vacancies, he would have been given an Employment Assistance Payment (EAP) by his employers to tide him over a period of time while he looks for another job.”
“(proc text)] [(proc text) (8) In page 11, line 16: after "rest", to insert "or further medical treatment". (proc text)] [(proc text) (9) In page 11, line 17: after "recover", to insert "after his discharge from a hospital". (proc text)] [(proc text) (10) In page 12, line 12: after "(7A)";", to insert "and". (proc text)] [(proc text) (11) In page 12, line 14: to leave out "; and", and insert ".". (proc text)] [(proc text) (12) In page 12: to leave out lines 15 to 20. (proc text)] [(proc text) Amendments agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Clause 15, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)] [(proc text) Clauses 16 to 29 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill reported with amendments; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move amendments* 1 to 12 standing in my name, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The amendments proposed to clause 15 improve the language in the law to make clear the intention for section 89(3) of the Act on Hospitalisation to cover the circumstances I had set out in my Second Reading speech, including quarantine orders, situations where the employee is not an inpatient of a hospital but is ill enough to require hospitalisation during that period, and further medical treatment for the condition that the employee was hospitalised for after discharge from hospital. [(proc text) *The amendments read as follows: (proc text)] [(proc text) (1) In page 11, line 3: to leave out "an approved", and insert "a". (proc text)] [(proc text) (2) In page 11, line 4: after "prescribed", to insert "or is under quarantine (whether or not in a hospital) under any written law". (proc text)] [(proc text) (3) In page 11, lines 5 and 6: to leave out ", who is discharged from an approved", and insert "is to be treated as hospitalised for any period the employee is not an in-patient of a hospital, or stops being an in‑patient of a". (proc text)] [(proc text) (4) In page 11, line 7: to leave out "approved". (proc text)] [(proc text) (5) In page 11, lines 8, 9 and 10: to leave out "is deemed to be hospitalised for a continuous period, beginning immediately after that discharge,". (proc text)] [(proc text) (6) In page 11, lines 12 and 13: to leave out "that approved hospital", and insert "a hospital approved by the Minister". (proc text)] [(proc text) (7) In page 11, lines 14 and 15: to leave out "need to remain hospitalised", and insert "require hospitalisation".”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, there are 12 amendments to clause 15, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. As the amendments are related, may I seek your permission to move them together?”
“According to our survey last year, around 90% of the establishments which retrenched workers actually paid retrenchment benefits even though there was no stipulated mandatory payout, of which 70% paid retrenchment benefits that met or exceeded the prevailing norms articulated in the tripartite advisory. So, I think that is a situation that is not too bad. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)] [(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mrs Josephine Teo.] (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee. (proc text)] [Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Biow Chuan) in the Chair] [(proc text) Clauses 1 to 14 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)] [(proc text) Clause 15 – (proc text)]”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank Ms Jessica Tan for the question. It is a very important area and the tripartite partners have had extensive deliberations on this issue. The Member, Mr Arasu Duraisamy, I think, articulated the thinking very well and, in fact, in a recent blog post, Mr Patrick Tay did likewise. But I think it is useful for me to state it for the record. MOM agrees with the tripartite partners on the need to strike a balance and that it would be counter-productive to try and legislate mandatory minimum payouts in the event of retrenchment. From the employee's standpoint, any mandated minimum may become a norm even when employers are in a position to pay more and this would not benefit the workers. From the employer's perspective, if the mandated minimum is too high, then the companies may not be able to afford and they may end up becoming over-burdened at the point in time when that sum of money could affect the remaining workers. So, countries like the US and Switzerland also do not mandate retrenchment benefits. So, given these considerations, the tripartite partners have issued instead an advisory stipulating the prevailing norms for retrenchment benefits quantum that employers should take into consideration when determining the retrenchment benefits. In addition, since 1 January 2017, employers have been required to notify MOM of retrenchments. This enables Workforce Singapore, the unions and other relevant agencies to help the affected workers find alternative employment.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, on section 18A, I can confirm with the Member that his request is being looked into and I think it can be done. His question on ECT and expeditious settlement, I agree with him. Our objectives are aligned.”
“Yet, this is also our greatest strength that has ensured improvements are sustainable, with no drastic U-turns every now and then, which you see in other countries – what one government promises, and then the next government comes and says they are not valid anymore. We have not seen that throughout the course of the EA. This strength is also mentioned by many Members of Parliament, notably, Mr Douglas Foo, Mr Melvin Yong, Mr Arasu Duraisamy, too. As a result, we have helped our businesses to continue providing good jobs and the vast majority of our workers to enjoy good employment outcomes. MOM is deeply grateful to the many stakeholders in the tripartite partnership that have made possible today's changes. They have worked tirelessly to make this a reality. Let us now focus on getting the changes implemented expeditiously and smoothly. With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.”
“We will continually review the EA to ensure it stays relevant in regulating employment practices in a balanced way, protecting the rights of workers while retaining flexibility in the labour market for businesses to thrive. I would add further that the right approach may need adjustments beyond the EA which is, indeed, the reason we aim to strengthen support for SEPs through the recommendations that I circulated. Once again, Sir, I thank Members of the House for their support of this Bill. I hope that I have addressed questions and suggestions related to today's amendments. The other points remain important and can be addressed at other platforms. In conclusion, let me just say that the EA is a living document and a permanent work-in-progress. For this amendment, the tripartite discussions started quite early in the tenure of former Manpower Minister Lim Swee Say – and he is seated right there – and was followed through when I took over from him. Members can be certain that as soon as we start to implement today's changes, we will again be looking forward as to what more is needed for the future, and whether the person standing here to pass those next sets of amendments will be me or someone else – who can tell? Building a tripartite consensus on what are the right changes to make, and when to make them, which employee groups to focus on in each amendment, all these deliberations take a great amount of time and effort that is often unseen. I might add that it takes a lot of mutual trust among the tripartite partners, too.”
“Ms Jessica Tan and Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked how the Ministry will be communicating the changes to the public. Actually, I think Ms Joan Pereira also mentioned this. MOM will be publishing an online guidebook shortly, summarising the key amendments to the EA, along with how employers should review their existing HR policies to ensure compliance with the Act. We are also working with SNEF, NTUC and other industry partners to hold briefings on the EA amendments over the next few months, prior to the implementation on 1 April 2019. Let me now address questions from Ms Denise Phua and I believe also Mr Arasu Duraisamy regarding the changing nature of employment. They have asked how the EA will cater to the changing workforce, where employees may be more mobile, and have multiple employers – the portfolio workers. As mentioned, we have other tools that complement the EA. The Member mentioned the need to better protect outsourced workers who, by the way, are still employed by the outsourced service provider which has employer obligations towards the employees. Besides the protection already afforded to them under the EA, the Tripartite Standard on Employment of Term Contract Employees will help bring about better employment conditions for such workers. The Tripartite Standard on Contracting with Self-Employed Persons also helps to shape norms and ensure the sustainability of the economy of self-employed work. MOM and our tripartite partners will continue to keep a close watch on workplace trends like the ones that were mentioned and also others, for example, automation and flexible work arrangements, which Mr Saktiandi Supaat spoke extensively about.”
“For cases of contractual termination, where the employer has met all his obligations, TADM will first ensure that there is a case for the employer to answer before contacting the employer to attend mediation. The employee will have to substantiate why he or she thinks that dismissal was wrongful, for example, by citing specific incidents which gave rise to the claim. For cases like the staff who took advantage of staff travel privileges which Mr Saktiandi Supaat mentioned, if the employer has established such abuse after due inquiry, the employer can dismiss the employee without notice on grounds of misconduct. Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Patrick Tay asked what support has been put in place to facilitate the transfer of the adjudication of wrongful dismissal claims from MOM to ECT. ECT and TADM, where compulsory pre-ECT mediation takes place, will be expanding their manpower to meet the new demands. These mediators and investigation officers involved undergo training programmes that have been designed to equip them with the relevant skills. Mr Louis Ng and Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked if adverse inferences may be drawn against employers if they fail to produce documents, such as Key Employment Terms and salary slips, and also employer's past behaviour. The answer is yes. ECT will be able to do so. The list of employment laws that ECT can draw adverse inferences from will be specified in a new Fourth Schedule in the Employment Claims Act. As to whether we will consider reversing the burden of proof for salary claims, we are mindful that reversing the burden of proof for such cases may result in opportunistic employees filing frivolous claims. So, we would not do so for now.”
“If unresolved through mediation, the case can be escalated to the ECT and the same applies to persons who believe they had been dismissed due to discrimination. Assoc Prof Daniel Goh and Mr Dennis Tan also asked if the ECT claim limit would be increased, given that we will be covering highly paid managers and executives. To clarify, for wrongful dismissal claims, there will be a separate claims limit of $20,000 and $30,000 for union-assisted cases, in addition to the claims limit for any salary or benefit owed. So, in other words, it can be up to $40,000 or $60,000, if the two are combined. The claim limits are established as such because the ECT is meant to be an expeditious and affordable channel for resolving disputes. Cases involving higher claim amounts are likely to be more complicated and, hence, take more time and workers with claims exceeding these limits can continue to pursue their claims in the higher Courts, where it is probably the more appropriate place to do so. There was a question on frivolous claims. Several Members asked how the adjudication of wrongful dismissals at the ECT will work. Mr Douglas Foo asked if there are any measures to prevent frivolous claims of wrongful dismissal. Mr Dennis Tan spoke about possible abuse of this recourse by disgruntled employees. These are reasonable concerns that employers generally have, now that more managers and executives are covered. Employees who feel that they have been wrongfully dismissed may first submit a request to for mediation. TADM will do its part to prevent frivolous and unmeritorious cases from proceeding. And every year, there will be some.”
“Compared to non-payment of salary, which is a criminal offence, requiring an employee to sign on a blank salary voucher is a less severe breach, which should attract correspondingly less severe penalties. Wrongful dismissals and the compensation framework. Mr Louis Ng and Mr Dennis Tan asked for clarification on what constitutes dismissal without just cause or excuse. Assoc Prof Daniel Goh asked how the Tripartite Guidelines on Wrongful Dismissal and factors for determining compensation amounts will interact with the adjudication work of the ECT. The dismissal is without just or sufficient cause if it was on grounds, such as discrimination, denial of statutory benefits, and with the intent to punish the employees for exercising his rights. Dismissal because of poor performance, misconduct and redundancy are not considered wrongful. As I mentioned earlier, wrongful dismissal is not a new provision in the EA and there are many cases we can draw reference from. MOM will publish a set of Tripartite Guidelines on Wrongful Dismissal which the ECT must take into account. It would not be possible to define all scenarios of what constitutes wrongful dismissal and what does not. Instead, a more feasible approach is to use illustrations and set out principles and parameters that the ECT must take into account when adjudicating cases. An example of what constitutes wrongful dismissal is if an employer dismisses an employee to punish him or her for exercising a right, such as submitting a mediation request to MOM or reporting the company to MOM for an EA offence, even though he or she has performed satisfactorily at work. In the case reported by Dr Intan Mokhtar where the employee felt that she had been forced to resign, a claim can still be lodged with TADM.”
“Instead, the consent must be given specifically for a particular deduction that the employee has agreed to. Written consent given by an employee under duress will not count as valid consent. The employer must also maintain proper records to substantiate the written consent. An employer who penalises an employee for withdrawing consent may also be liable to be prosecuted under the EA. Regulations to protect the well-being of the employee. Dr Intan Mokhtar raised the issue of over-inflating salaries declared or clawing back salaries from rank and file workers. Our law today already allows us to take action against errant employers in this regard. If the employer falsely declares the salary of a foreign worker to qualify for a higher work pass, the employer can be prosecuted for false declaration under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (EMFA). Such an employer may also be prosecuted under the EA for non-payment of salary if he pays the local or foreign worker a lower salary than what is declared, for example, in the key employment terms or payslips or in the In-Principle Approval that was given to the employee. As for “salary claw back” cases being on the rise among Fortune 100 companies, we have not received such complaints from employees, but we will continue to monitor the situation. Ms Anthea Ong asked why violations under the new section 139(2)(aa) are civil contraventions and not offences. To clarify, the Minister has the power to provide that violations of regulations are either criminal offences or civil contraventions. Civil contraventions allow us to treat less severe breaches as non-criminal infringements which attract a financial penalty.”
“An employee who has chickenpox or other infectious diseases, and who is hospitalised or certified by a hospital doctor to be ill enough to be hospitalised, will be granted paid hospitalisation leave, even if he is not physically warded. For MCs issued by non-hospital doctors, such as GPs, employers are required by law to recognise the MC for purpose of granting paid sick leave up to 14 days. The 14-day entitlement for outpatient medical treatment is sufficient to cover the vast majority of employees today, given that the average number of days of sick leave taken is 4.8 days. Employers are free, of course, to grant additional paid sick leave beyond the annual 14-day entitlement should an employee need it. And we have come across many cases where the employers, out of goodness of their hearts, extend this when the employees do need it. Turning to clarifications on authorised deductions, Mr Louis Ng and Mr Patrick Tay asked about the implementation and safeguards for authorised deductions. To clarify, section 27(1)(f) remains largely unchanged. As is the case today, employers must provide proper documentation to prove the legitimacy of deductions, if they are for the recovery of any advance and loan. To Mr Patrick Tay's comment on the deduction for payment to a cooperative society, this still remains as an authorised deduction under section 27(1)(j). To the question of whether section 27(1)(i) is limited by prohibited deductions in other statutes, the answer is yes. This was Mr Louis Ng's question, I think. Mr Louis Ng and Mr Patrick Tay asked about written consent. Such consent cannot be a general clause in a contract stating that an employer can make any deduction as and when necessary.”
“MOH will, therefore, continue to monitor these developments. Ms Irene Quay also asked that we encourage employers to allow for up to three non-consecutive days of sick leave without MC per year and she gave many good reasons why this would be a more productive approach. While we recognise the Member's call for this to be mandated, Ms Irene Quay herself also rightly pointed out that employers would need to create controls, surveillance and audit systems to ensure that their employees do not abuse the system. These will, inevitably, add to business costs. As the EA does not prohibit employers from doing so already, progressive companies are free to go ahead to offer this as part of their talent attraction and retention strategies. A number have done so. We will continue to give them flexibility to decide what works best for them. Mr Patrick Tay and Mr Melvin Yong asked for clarifications regarding hospitalisation leave. Today, employers are not required under the EA to recognise an MC from private doctors, other than their own panel doctors, for purposes of paid sick leave. The amendments to the EA in this Bill will require employers to recognise MCs from any doctor, whether private or public, for purposes of granting paid sick leave. To Mr Patrick Tay’s question, employers can recognise MCs for purposes of granting hospitalisation leave from any doctor in the private hospital. In fact, there is no evidence today that employers have refused to recognise MCs from approved hospitals. We expect that employers will continue to recognise MCs from all approved hospitals.”
“This is out of concern for the otherwise drastic impact on business liabilities. Members who are familiar with HR practices know that, actually, you have to set aside the liability and factor it as a cost in your books, so there is a real impact. Annual leave should be planned ahead of time to meet both employee and organisational needs, to avoid situations of unconsumed leave entitlements. If the employer is unable to approve leave due to work exigencies and the employee has shown reasonable efforts to adjust his leave plans to suit organisational needs, the employer should allow for leave encashment. This is so that the employee can benefit from his statutory leave entitlement. To Mr Saktiandi Supaat’s question, there is no need for the employer to force the employee to take leave if an employee does not want to utilise his leave entitlements. However, we do encourage workers to take their annual leave to rest and recharge from their work to maintain their mental well-being. That is what the provisions are for. Dr Intan Mokhtar asked about TCM practitioners. A small number of doctors have dual registration under the Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners Act (TCMPA) and the Medical Registration Act (MRA). For the purposes of granting paid sick leave, employers are required to recognise the MCs issued by such practitioners in their capacity as doctors under MRA. Ms Irene Quay asked that we also require employers to recognise the MCs issued by CPPs. Today, as CPPs are not registered under MRA, MOH does not allow them to issue MCs. We understand that MOH will need time to assess the programme as well as other new models of care before deciding whether other healthcare professionals can be certified to issue MCs.”
“On the other hand, the single rate if workers request to work on rest days, ensures that workers are not inadvertently encouraged to work excessively for the double pay, when actually they should be resting. Mr Zainal Sapari is, of course, concerned that the employees do not always know that they are due to be paid at the double rate if their employers ask them to work on their rest day. Mr Melvin Yong worries that these workers are forced or deceived into declaring these as self-requested. They are valid concerns. MOM is keen to partner NTUC to strengthen outreach for the WorkRight initiative to educate employers and employees about their responsibilities and rights. This would also address Ms Joan Pereira's concerns and raise awareness amongst the employees who have not been paid the right amounts to submit a mediation request to TADM. Let me state categorically that if an employer is found to have misrepresented the worker's request to work on a rest day, we will take the employer to task for non-payment of salary or providing false information. Let me now deal with leave entitlements. Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar asked if the carry-forward specific provision for unused annual leave can be extended to all employees. Ms Jessica Tan also asked if an employer is required to pay the employee for unutilised annual leave. To clarify, annual leave provisions in section 88A used to be in Part IV and now apply to all employees. However, the employers’ obligation to carry forward unutilised annual leave to the next year remains for Part IV employees only. The tripartite partners decided against extending the carry-forward provision to all employees which now include higher earning managers and executives – no more limit.”
“By their very nature, SEPs do not have the same kind of relationship with their service buyers as that between employees and employers. This is the main reason we do not attempt to regulate SEPs’ relationship with service providers under the EA. Earlier this year, a tripartite workgroup formed by MOM had put forward a set of recommendations to address SEPs’ common challenges, some of which were outlined in earlier speeches. And in the earlier circulation of materials, I believe not only a summary of the EA changes were distributed; there was another separate circular that outlined the recommendations of the tripartite workgroup. At MOM's Committee of Supply (COS) debate in March, I announced the Government’s acceptance of the recommendations and our implementation plan. I am pleased to share that we are making good progress and will update Members at a later date. To Assoc Prof Walter Theseira’s point, we recognise that workers can, indeed, be wrongly classified as SEPs to avoid EA obligations. Anyone unsure of his employment status should approach MOM so that an appropriate determination can be made. In the last three years, we have successfully intervened in around 100 cases where employees were wrongly classified as SEPs and helped them to recover their due statutory benefits or CPF contributions. Mischievous employers should take note and realise that they can be prosecuted for non-provision of salaries and benefits. Let me now deal with the specific provisions of the EA, starting with rest days. Mr Zainal Sapari and Mr Melvin Yong suggested double pay for work on a rest day, regardless of who requested for it. There are good reasons for the differentiation. The double rate discourages employers from asking employees to work excessively.”
“Our longer-term intent is, indeed, to close the gap between the salary thresholds for workmen and non-workmen. That said, in every EA amendment, the tripartite partners consider carefully the impact on both workers and employers. When benefits are upped, so, too, are the costs borne by employers. Indeed, former Nominated Member Assoc Prof Randolph Tan wrote an op-ed expressing some concern about the timing of this round of EA enhancements, whether businesses could absorb the impact in the current economic climate. Mr Douglas Foo also pointed this out in his op-ed published in The Straits Times yesterday and when he spoke earlier. Thankfully, in Singapore, our union leaders recognise the need to consider the package of improvements and not just individual items. They know it is equally important to give employers time to adjust to changes that come from many directions, not just the EA. In this amendment, the tripartite partners agreed to the major shift to extend EA core provisions to cover all managers and executives. This already benefits 430,000 managers and executives. The expanded coverage under Part IV benefits another 100,000 or so workers. So, in total, we are talking about half a million. The tripartite partners are mindful that changes should not inadvertently affect workers’ employability. They reached a consensus that these shifts are sufficiently well-calibrated and remain committed to review the thresholds in future amendments. Let me now turn to the gig economy – self-employed persons (SEPs). Mr Zainal Sapari, Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Assoc Prof Walter Theseira, Ms Joan Pereira and Ms Denise Phua raised concerns about protections for SEPs.”
“Mr Melvin Yong asked for the distinction between workmen, non-workmen and managers and executives to be removed. The tripartite partners discussed this extensively. At workplaces, the lines between workmen, non-workmen and managers and executives are, indeed, blurring. In the EA, the distinction remains largely in Part IV. Among other things, Part IV regulates working hours, rest days and overtime (OT) payments. Including the more than 700,000 managers and executives whose work is much more varied and tends to be more outcome-based, will make our laws much more rigid and prescriptive. To Mr Dennis Tan’s point on defining managers and executives, given that employment practices evolve constantly, the current approach of referring to managers and executives as those “employed in a managerial or executive position” while taking reference from case law works well for the tripartite partners. In a High Court ruling earlier this year, it was also made clear that the actual work requirements and individual circumstances matter more than the job title given. So, there are already some parameters we work within and they generally work well. Within Part IV, the coverage for workmen and non-workmen has been different since the EA was first enacted in 1968. Workmen, who are manual workers, generally need more protection where OT is concerned. This remains so today. The salary threshold of $4,500, therefore, covers nearly all workmen, whereas the salary threshold for non-workmen covers about half of them. Mr Zainal Sapari, Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Mr Arasu Duraisamy and Assoc Prof Daniel Goh asked if the salary threshold for non-workmen could be higher or even removed completely.”
“A few more points are worth remembering. First, the EA is our main but not the only employment-related legislation. It works in concert with other important pieces of legislation, such as the Workplace Safety and Health Act, the Work Injury Compensation Act, the Retirement and Re-employment Act, the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act. And all these to advance the interests of our workers. Second, besides laws, our unique brand of tripartism also relies on the Tripartite Guidelines, Standards and Advisories to promote fair and progressive practices, while ensuring good employment outcomes. Third, in everything we do, the tripartite partners strive to be pro-worker and pro-business. This has been a cornerstone guiding employment practices in Singapore that has served us well. Fourth, in recent years, employers have been asked to take on more obligations, such as longer paternity leave and re-employment of older workers, first to 65 then to 67. As we debate EA changes, bear in mind also that the tripartite partners are always in an ongoing conversation about other areas that may see further changes in the coming years. Fifth, the Government also plays its part for local workers. In the provision of healthcare, for example, employers' major contribution is through the CPF which builds up our MediSave. The Government’s efforts include the development of public healthcare facilities and schemes like MediShield Life, CareShield Life and Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS), which together, keep healthcare affordable without placing excessive burdens on individuals and employers. So, I hope Members can keep these points in mind as I address the specific concerns. Let me start with the coverage of the EA, and whether we can up the provisions, make them more generous.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank all 17 Members who have spoken in support of the Bill. It has been quite a marathon because I took the stand at about 4.00 pm; so, it was about three hours ago. Every one of you have raised important issues which I will address. But in the interest of time and also in support of Ms Anthea Ong's very timely reminder – the importance of mental well-being – I seek Members' kind understanding that I will focus on points relating to today’s amendments and there are about 40 pages of it. The other points, for which I have about 20 pages, are, of course, very important. But I think they can also be addressed on other occasions, or if we have some time later. As we debate the merits of the proposals, it is useful to remember the wise words of Mr S Rajaratnam when he presented the Employment Bill to Parliament in July 1968. It is a very uncanny coincidence, but that was also the month I was born. He said, "The Employment Bill should, therefore, be seen in the context of the new problems an independent Singapore faces. There must be a climate of industrial peace and stability to attract both local and foreign capital. It is essential to increase the productivity of our workers, the efficiency of entrepreneurs, so that our products can compete in the stiff competitive export markets of the world. That is the intent and purpose behind this Bill. How far this Bill will succeed in its purpose will depend on both workers and employers placing national interests before sectional interests." Sir, although five decades have since passed, the fundamentals have not changed. The EA exists to regulate employment practices in a balanced way, protecting workers while retaining labour market flexibility for businesses to thrive and create good jobs.”
“If passed, the EA's coverage will expand to include higher salaried M&Es and provide additional protection for employees. In total, more than 500,000 employees will benefit from these amendments. At the same time, the employers can also enjoy some flexibility in their human resource (HR) management, which is conducive to create a more enlightened workplace. (In English): In conclusion, this Bill will better protect our workers, enhance our dispute resolution framework and provide employers enhanced flexibility. It will bolster our efforts to institute good employment norms and develop progressive workplaces for our people. Sir, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“Sir, please also allow me to summarise the Bill in Mandarin. (In Mandarin) [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, the EA is Singapore’s main employment law. It provides for basic employment protections and fair treatment for employees while meeting employers’ needs at the same time, to ensure that our labour market will continue to thrive. The purpose of each amendment is to make sure that the EA remains relevant and forward-thinking. As always, the amendments today are the result of tripartite consultation. The key areas of review are providing protection for more managers and executives (M&Es), allowing more employees to enjoy additional protections, and strengthening our employment dispute resolution framework. Today, our PMETs make up about 56% of the local workforce. By 2030, that proportion is expected to increase to 65%. Currently, the EA covers M&Es whose salaries are up to $4,500, to allow them to enjoy legal protection, including when it comes to sick leave, working on public holidays, and wrongful dismissal. After discussions with the tripartite partners, we feel that M&Es whose salaries exceed $4,500 should also enjoy the basic protection. About 430,000 M&Es will benefit. We will also increase the salary threshold for non-workmen so that more employees can enjoy more comprehensive legal protection, including when it comes to working hours, overtime pay and rest day entitlement. About 100,000 employees will benefit. In addition, in order to ensure that employees and employers can better resolve their employment disputes, we will streamline the employment dispute resolution procedures. On the whole, this amendment Bill is proactive and comprehensive.”
“Sir, there is also a need to enhance MOM's regulatory framework to ensure that it remains responsive to the emergence of undesirable employment practices. For example, some employers have, out of convenience, or even with an intention to cover up for late or non-payment of salaries, asked their employees to sign salary vouchers before receiving their salaries, or to sign on blank salary vouchers. Such errant practices should be curbed. The worker may not realise that salary vouchers can be used as proof of receipt of payment in cases of dispute. We will, therefore, provide in the EA that the Minister for Manpower can make regulations to protect employees from any employment practice that may adversely affect their well-being, including where the enforcement of their entitlements might be at risk. For a start, we intend to make it a civil contravention for employers to ask an employee to indicate receipt of salary before he is paid, or sign a receipt that is blank or inaccurate. Sir, we have covered many changes in this Bill. With your permission, may I ask the Clerk to distribute a handout on the key changes to the EA, for ease of Members’ reference.”
“Given this widening in the recognition of MCs, it is timely to also clarify what hospitalisation entails under the EA. The clauses on hospitalisation have been in place since 1968 and the intent has been for hospitalisation leave to cover the period requiring hospital care. However, certain ground practices have deviated from the policy intent over the years. Today, some non-hospital doctors may issue MCs for hospitalisation leave for conditions that do not require any hospitalisation, such as sprains. To clarify the intent, we will specify in the EA that when it comes to hospitalisation leave, employers are required to recognise MCs only if they are issued by hospital doctors. Employers who wish to recognise MCs from their own panel-doctors for granting hospitalisation leave are free to continue to do so. Hospitalisation leave will continue to cover inpatient stays in hospitals and day surgeries. In addition, the post-discharge period of rest or further medical treatment for the condition that the employee was hospitalised for will also be covered. There are also certain circumstances where we will continue to require employers to recognise MCs for purposes of hospitalisation leave. Occasionally, the hospital doctor assesses that inpatient stay or day surgery is required, but, for some reason, that does not happen. For example, a hospital doctor may assess that a pregnant woman requires hospitalisation for bed rest due to complications in pregnancy, but she may prefer to rest at home. There may also be other specific circumstances, such as Quarantine Orders as required by law, which would qualify employees for hospitalisation leave. We will provide for these situations in the Act and regulations.”
“Sir, when the EA was first expanded in 2009 to cover managers and executives, the tripartite partners agreed that managers and executives would only be eligible to claim for wrongful dismissal if they have served at least 12 months. Following further tripartite discussions, employers have agreed to reduce this qualifying period to six months, on the basis that it would be sufficient for them to assess a manager's or executive's suitability for the job. This is in recognition that performance in a manager and executive role is not so immediately clear, compared to workmen or non-workmen, where there is no qualifying period. This is a win-win approach, as forcing employers to accept an even shorter period would make them more hesitant in offering employment to candidates they are not entirely sure of. Finally, we will also make other amendments to the EA to enhance its flexibility and ensure it remains responsive. Today, employers are required under the EA to accord paid sick leave only if the medical certificate (MC) is issued by the Government and company-appointed doctors. This provision has been in place since the EA was first enacted in 1968. As the Minister back then made clear, there were frequent absences using fictitious MCs; the Government stepped in then to specify which doctors’ MCs would be recognised by law. Today, doctors are registered under the Medical Registration Act and are subject to the Singapore Medical Council Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines. Therefore, there is no longer a need to distinguish between MCs issued by different groups of doctors where paid sick leave is concerned. Moving ahead, we will require employers to recognise MCs from all registered doctors for the purpose of granting paid sick leave.”
“In line with this "one-stop service" approach, we will also expand the coverage of the Tripartite Mediation Framework to include wrongful dismissal claims. Over the years, a considerable body of cases involving wrongful dismissal claims have been accumulated. They put into practice the broad principles used by MOM that also reflect the consensus reached between employers and unions. The type of dismissal cases that MOM hears include not only those when the employee was terminated by the employer, but also cases when the employee resigned involuntarily. Involuntary resignation can be considered wrongful dismissal if the employee was forced to do so for wrongful reasons. For example, an employer may make work conditions unreasonably difficult, to force the employee to resign so as to deprive him of his employment benefits, and to mask the employer's wrongful behaviour. The wrongful dismissal cases heard by MOM have not been published thus far as there was little need to do so. With the transfer of the adjudication function to the ECT, MOM will publish a set of Tripartite Guidelines on Wrongful Dismissal. These Tripartite Guidelines will contain illustrations of what constitutes wrongful dismissal and what does not. Under the Employment Claims Act (ECA), when the ECT adjudicates a case, it must take into account the principles and parameters contained in the Tripartite Guidelines. In cases where a dismissal is found to be wrongful, the ECT will order compensation or reinstatement. There is no change to the scope of remedies. Per the current practice, the ECT will take into account factors beyond just the wages or maternity benefits owed to the employee, in determining the amount of compensation.”
“Today, the EA limits the type of salary deductions that employers can make, such as absence from work or damaging or losing goods entrusted to the employee. Such controls protect the employee’s interests but can also inconvenience them. For example, some companies provide voluntary group hospital and surgical insurance for their employees if the employees agree to co-pay the premiums. The EA currently does not allow such deductions even when the employees agree. So, employees have to separately reimburse the employer. The EA will be amended to allow a deduction if it fulfils two conditions. Firstly, the employee must willingly consent to the deduction in writing. Secondly, the employee must be able to withdraw his consent at any time, without any penalty. This less prescriptive approach would allow employers and employees greater flexibility to arrange for mutually agreed deductions. At the same time, employees’ interests continue to be protected. In addition, deductions still cannot constitute more than 50% of the employee’s total salary for any one salary period. Deductions for amenities and services supplied by the employer will continue to require the Commissioner’s approval. The third set of amendments enhances our employment dispute resolution framework. Currently, salary-related disputes are adjudicated by the Employment Claims Tribunals (ECT), while wrongful dismissal claims are adjudicated by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM). In fact, both types of disputes are often related. To provide both employees and employers with a more convenient "one-stop service", we will shift the adjudication of wrongful dismissal claims from MOM to the ECT.”
“In addition to the core provisions, the EA provides a set of additional protections in Part IV, such as on hours of work, rest day and overtime pay. Today, Part IV covers workmen earning up to $4,500, and non-workmen earning up to $2,500. They are collectively known as Part IV employees. In consultation with the tripartite partners, we will increase the salary threshold for non-workmen from $2,500 to $2,600, bringing Part IV employees to half of our total workforce. In addition, we will align the salary cap of $2,250 for calculating overtime pay with the new salary threshold of $2,600. Taken together, an additional 100,000 employees will benefit from these enhancements. As we amend the EA to benefit more employees, we have also introduced changes to better meet business requirements. For example, currently, when workmen and non-workmen are required to work on public holidays, employers have only two options. They can compensate with an extra day's pay or provide a full-day off-in-lieu. We will introduce a third option for workmen and non-workmen who are not Part IV employees. Employers will be able to grant them time off for the hours worked on a public holiday, rather than a full-day off. With this change, the options for non-Part IV workmen and non-workmen would be the same as that for managers and executives. With these changes, all employees will continue to be compensated for working on public holidays. Employers will be able to grant time off to all non-Part IV employees. Part IV employees, who have lower bargaining power, will continue to receive either an extra day's pay or a full-day off if they are required to work on a public holiday. Another improvement for businesses has to do with authorised deductions.”
“Let me provide an overview of the amendments in this Bill, which is intended to take effect on 1 April 2019. It covers changes in three key areas. First, we will extend core provisions of the EA to cover all managers and executives. This will mean that other than domestic workers, public officers and seafarers who will continue to be covered by other Acts and regulations due to the nature of their work, all employees will enjoy the protection of the EA. Second, we will extend additional protection under Part IV of the Act to cover more employees. Third, we will enhance our employment dispute resolution framework. Let me elaborate on the key amendments. The first set of amendments extends the core provisions under the EA to all employees. These include the minimum days of annual leave, paid public holiday and sick leave entitlements, as well as other protections, such as timely payment of salary and protection against wrongful dismissal. Today, three groups of employees already enjoy core provisions. First, all workmen – these are our manual workers or blue-collar workers. Second, all non-workmen – these are our rank-and-file white-collar workers. Third, managers and executives with basic monthly salaries up to $4,500. With the proportion of Professionals, Managers, Executives and Technicians (PMETs) rising and expected to make up two-thirds of our local workforce by 2030, it is timely to make a more fundamental change to the coverage of the EA. In consultation with the tripartite partners, we will remove the $4,500 salary threshold for managers and executives. In doing so, all employees, whether managers and executives, workmen or non-workmen, will be covered by core provisions under the EA. This will benefit an additional 430,000 managers and executives.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the Employment Act (EA) is Singapore’s main employment law. It provides for the basic terms and working conditions for employees, while meeting employers' needs to stay competitive. Since it was last reviewed in 2012, the profile of our labour force and local employment practices have continued to evolve. A review is, therefore, timely to ensure that the EA remains relevant. My Ministry, together with our tripartite partners the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) and the Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF), carried out extensive consultations. The result is a set of substantive amendments that meet the interests of both employees and employers. Members may be aware that the EA was first enacted in 1968 by then-Minister for Foreign Affairs and Labour, Mr S Rajaratnam. It has come a long way. Back then, managers and executives were a very small part of our workforce. There was little need to cover them under the EA. It was more than 40 years later that we started covering some managers and executives in 2009. We have also enhanced employment protection and benefits over the years. For example, we introduced childcare leave and enhanced maternity leave in 2004. In 2009, we extended the provisions on compensation for work on public holidays and paid sick leave to all employees under the EA. Recently in 2016, we also introduced itemised pay slips and written key employment terms. Each amendment of the EA is a result of careful consideration by the tripartite partners to meet the interests of both employers and employees. As we mark the 50th Anniversary of the EA this year, we should acknowledge the tripartite collaboration that has kept our EA relevant and well-calibrated.”
“However, SCDF will monitor the situation and make adjustments if necessary. I will conclude by addressing a technical amendment that Mr Murali Pillai asked about. This is the amendment to section 115(2), which allows the Minister to make regulations on any matter that may be prescribed under the Act. Mr Deputy Speaker, this amendment makes it clear that the Minister’s power to make regulations under section 115(1) includes the power to make regulations for matters that the Act expressly allows or requires to be prescribed. Examples include the definition of "prescribed civil defence emergency device" in section 2 or "relevant premises" in the new section 103A. Mr Deputy Speaker, the amendments in the Civil Defence and Other Matters Bill will strengthen SCDF’s operational effectiveness and streamline its internal processes. They will enable SCDF to be more effective in saving lives and protecting property. Sir, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)] [(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mrs Josephine Teo.] (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”
“There are two key differences. First, volunteer ex-NSmen serve in NS units, mainly in specialised roles, such as Rescue Battalions and Civil Defence Shelter Battalions. CDAU volunteers, who may not necessarily have served NS with SCDF, perform a broader range of roles such as firefighting, EMS and public education. Second, there is a difference in the manner in which they are called to serve. In the case of a volunteer ex-NSman, he can be called up for up to 40 days per work year, mostly for in-camp training. In terms of scheduling their volunteer duties, CDAU volunteers are given the flexibility to work around their career and family commitments. They typically serve at least 16 hours of duty per month, so it is quite different. Similar to NSmen, volunteer ex-NSmen receive service and make-up pay when they are called up for duty. They may also receive additional allowances as key appointment holders. Mr Louis Ng asked whether MHA will consider mandating central fire alarm systems in HDB blocks. Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to clarify that there are no differences in the Fire Code requirements for fire alarm systems for private and public residential buildings. Both do not require a central fire alarm system. SCDF’s assessment is that the Fire Code requirements for residential buildings are sufficient vis-à-vis the fire risks. Typically, residents are familiar with the emergency escape routes for their buildings, which are moreover designed to enable effective smoke dissipation in the event of a fire. Residential units are also designed to be fire compartmentalised to reduce the risk of fire-spread. Consequently, SCDF assesses that there is no need to require the installation of central fire alarm systems in residential buildings.”
“For SCDF's vision of a "Nation of Life Savers" to be feasible and sustainable, we want members of the public to come forward willingly as community first-responders, and not because they are obliged to. The question then is whether enacting a Good Samaritan Law will assuage potential concerns that individuals may have about rendering assistance to others, unintentionally causing harm and being liable for criminal prosecution or civil claims, as Mr Murali Pillai has noted. Sir, I would like to clarify that protection from civil liability is already available under the common law to a Good Samaritan when he acts out of necessity and with the care that can reasonably be expected of a person having his skill and experience. As for criminal liability, this generally requires malign intent which will not apply to a Good Samaritan who acts in good faith. Nevertheless, we will study this issue further to see if specific legislation is warranted. Mr Melvin Yong asked whether SCDF has enough volunteers in CDAU, and whether first-generation PRs can be allowed to join CDAU. SCDF started CDAU in 2006. CDAU caters to individuals who are keen to serve as SCDF volunteers in functions, such as firefighting, EMS and public education. The number of CDAU volunteers has grown from 18 in 2006 to 300 currently. I would like to inform Members that CDAU is also open to PRs. At present, we have 10 volunteers who are first-generation PRs. We certainly welcome more people to sign up. Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill will also allow NSmen to volunteer to serve in SCDF beyond the statutory age in the Enlistment Act. Mr Louis Ng asked about the difference between the roles of volunteer ex-NSmen and of CDAU volunteers, and the circumstances under which volunteer ex-NSmen will be paid.”
“Hence, in 2015, SCDF launched the Save-A-Life initiative to encourage community first-response to cardiac arrests in the HDB heartlands. Under this initiative, SCDF is installing AEDs in HDB blocks island-wide. SCDF also launched the myResponder app, which alerts first-responders of cardiac arrests in the vicinity and where AEDs are located. Mr Deputy Speaker, we are on track to complete the installation of AEDs at HDB blocks by March 2019. All that will be done. SCDF is now exploring the extension of the Save-A-Life initiative to private condominiums. In April 2018, the myResponder app was also enhanced, to alert first-responders of minor fires in the neighbourhood. This has allowed the first-responders to help SCDF put out rubbish chute fires or provide photos and videos of the fires to SCDF for better sense-making. During a state of emergency or state of civil defence emergency, SCDF officers have the power to direct any member of the public to render assistance to save lives. Mr Murali Pillai asked whether SCDF officers should be allowed to exercise such a power for day-to-day civil defence operations. Mr Deputy Speaker, the power the Member cited is a significant one. The refusal to comply with an SCDF officer's direction is a criminal offence. An offender is liable for imprisonment of up to three months and a fine of up to $2,000. The power is necessary during a state of emergency. In such a situation, Government resources are likely to be stretched. Under such extraordinary circumstances, SCDF must have the levers to mobilise any civilian resources available, including members of the public. This is not the case for day-to-day civil defence operations.”
“For example, in 2014, SCDF received feedback concerning four scammers. Dressed in uniform and identifying themselves as SCDF officers, they had demanded to see the fire certificates of several shops at Jalan Bukit Merah and tried to sell fire extinguishers to the shop owners. In 2016, a man wore a uniform and posed as an ICA officer to steal contraband cigarettes. Mr Melvin Yong expressed concerns about the impact of the amendments on retailers who are currently selling SCDF, ICA and Prisons uniforms. He asked whether it is possible to allow the retailers to continue selling the items, albeit only to bona fide Home Team officers. Mr Deputy Speaker, the impact on retailers is not expected to be significant. When SCDF informed retailers of plans to prohibit the sale and distribution of the items some months ago, the retailers told SCDF that they did not have large inventories of SCDF, ICA and Prisons items, as the sales volumes for such items were low. This is because most SCDF regulars and NSmen prefer to purchase their items from SCDF's own e-mart. Mr Christopher de Souza cited SCDF's vision of building a "Nation of Life Savers" by 2025 and asked how SCDF intends to realise that vision. Mr Deputy Speaker, the "Nation of Life Savers" vision stems from a simple fact, that the key to dealing with many emergencies is timely action. Timely action will allow an incident to be managed before it becomes more serious. The SCDF has a high standard of emergency response. But it will still take around eight to 11 minutes for fire engines or ambulances to reach any location. In comparison, a family member or member of the public in the immediate vicinity can provide more immediate assistance.”
“The Government remains liable for wrongful torts committed by SCDF officers if the SCDF officer did not act in good faith or with reasonable care. In the English case that the Member has cited, it appears that the English ambulance service had been negligent. In the event of negligence, the protection from liability will not apply to both the officers concerned and to SCDF, as the condition of "acting in good faith and with reasonable care" would not be met. SCDF is funded by public monies and has a responsibility to safeguard them from frivolous claims, which the protection will help to prevent. Next, I will address questions on the proposal to make it a service offence for SCDF and Police Officers not to comply with orders to go for a medical examination or treatment. Mr Melvin Yong was puzzled as to why the relevant provisions cover dental treatments, and I would like to clarify that these dental treatments will only pertain to those required by SCDF and SPF. This will ensure that the provision is comprehensive. Currently, we do not have any required dental examination or treatment, but we cannot rule out the possibility of such requirements in the future. So, there is nothing untoward happening now regarding teeth, but we still have to take care, and these will be in support of operational readiness. A similar provision, Sir, just in case you are curious, requiring dental examinations and treatment can already be found in the existing SAF Act. So, SCDF is not doing something very unusual. I will move to the unauthorised production, distribution and use of uniforms and insignia. Mr Melvin Yong asked whether there were cases where ill-intentioned individuals had impersonated Home Team officers, and the answer is yes. There have been a few cases.”
“An officer will be judged to have acted in good faith, if his actions were coherent and consistent with the intent to save lives, prevent harm to health, or protect property. So, there is a very tight condition set around the idea of acting in good faith. He will be judged to have acted with reasonable care, if his actions were of a standard commensurate with his skill and experience for that particular situation. So, again, there is an expectation that the actions must relate to his skill and also his experience in those particular circumstances. I would like to assure Ms Joan Pereira that as long as SCDF officers and authorised individuals act with integrity and competence, they will have no difficulties meeting the bar of "acting in good faith and with reasonable care". The Fire Safety Act has a similar protection for SCDF officers when they perform firefighting operations. SCDF will equip its officers with the competence to make the necessary decisions during operations. SCDF will continue to put its officers through rigorous training and constantly refine its SOPs to guide their actions during operations. That said, we are also cognisant that no training or SOP can cover the full range of operational contingencies. Hence, any evaluation of whether an officer has acted in good faith or reasonable care will also take into account whether his decisions were reasonable under those circumstances, for instance, he may be working with incomplete information and dealing with severe time constraints. Mr Murali Pillai asked whether the proposed protection will apply to SCDF as an institution. Mr Deputy Speaker, the protection extends to SCDF as well by virtue of section 6 of the Government Proceedings Act.”
“Examples include measures against hacking, encryption of information, password protection, measures against multiple unsuccessful log-ins, such as the auto-lockdown of the account and the auto-wipe of data stored on the device, and regular purging of data from the devices. Third, a robust logging and audit regime will be put in place. Access to ICA and MOH's databases will be logged and regularly audited. Any person found to have abused his access to the information will be severely dealt with. Persons who commit offences under the relevant legislation, such as the Computer Misuse Act, will be charged in Court. I will now proceed to address questions on the powers and protection for SCDF officers and authorised individuals performing civil defence operations. Mr Louis Ng and Ms Joan Pereira sought clarification on the circumstances under which the powers and protection will apply. I would like to assure Mr Louis Ng that the proposed powers are scoped tightly, to cover only those necessary for SCDF's operations. Such operations include not only EMS but also rescues. On a day-to-day basis, SCDF conducts a broad range of rescue operations in response to industrial and traffic accidents, HazMat incidents and also suicide attempts. In all these operations, SCDF officers sometimes have to enter private premises without permission, remove objects that impede operations, evacuate endangered persons, close roads and shut off utilities supplies. Mr Deputy Speaker, the protection from legal liability is not unconditional. It will apply only when the officers concerned have acted in good faith and with reasonable care. Let me explain what these two terms mean.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members for speaking in support of the Bill. They have raised salient issues, which I will now address. Mr Christopher de Souza asked whether the PWS will be upgraded to incorporate detection capabilities. The answer is yes. SCDF is studying the feasibility of installing devices that can detect hazardous materials in the air, such as chemicals or radiological substances. SCDF will provide more information at a later stage. Next, I will address the questions on SCDF's access to the personal information of EMS patients which Mr Melvin Yong asked about, specifically, how the information will be accessed and how it will be protected – all very valid questions. SCDF will equip the ambulance crew with a mobile device that can scan the patient's fingerprint and check it remotely against ICA's database. If there is a match, the patient's national registration identity card or foreign identification number (FIN) number will be provided to obtain the relevant information from the National Electronic Health Record (NEHR) system. SCDF is keenly aware of the need to safeguard patients' information and has designed several steps to do so. First, access rights will be strictly controlled. There will be standard operating procedures (SOPs) to specify the officers who can access the information, as well as the circumstances under which they are authorised to do so. The information that the officers can access is restricted to what is necessary to provide timely and effective care to the patient. Second, robust measures will be implemented to reduce the risk of unauthorised access.”
“The Workers' Fund provides financial help to employees or their dependants who have not been compensated by their employers in the event of a work injury. Since 2005, when the earliest records were available, 51 applications have been received and about $1 million has been paid out in 34 cases where employees and their families were either in financial difficulty or victims of long-drawn occupational diseases. Prior to 2017, the Workers' Fund was targeted at helping those who were in financial hardship. The eligibility criteria were broadened in 2017 to provide assistance to employees and their families regardless of their financial situation. To ensure that those affected are aware of the Workers' Fund, the Ministry of Manpower would inform employees or their dependants who are eligible for work injury compensation but are not compensated to apply for assistance under the Fund.”
“The vast majority of them prefer self-employment over regular employment because of the increased range of work choices that it affords, greater flexibility and autonomy, as well as an alternative source of income. However, for SEPs who prefer to be an employee, the Ministry and our tripartite partners are working to improve their awareness of job matching schemes. Career centres run by Workforce Singapore and NTUC's Employment and Employability Institute can also offer job facilitation services.”
“In general, self-employed persons (SEPs) choose who to contract with and can negotiate the terms of their service contracts. To better support SEPs, we launched the Tripartite Standard on Contracting with Self-Employed Persons in March this year. Companies that adopt the Standard commit to discussing and agreeing on the terms of engagement with SEPs prior to the purchase of any services, and to set these terms out in writing. Over time, the Standard will help shape contracting norms and entrench best practices. SEPs may also seek help from the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC), their affiliates, such as the National Private Hire Vehicles Association or other SEP associations in their respective sectors. Such groups can help to advance the interests of SEPs with the major service buyers. The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) considers a range of factors when assessing whether an individual is an employee or self-employed. There is no single test to conclusively distinguish a contract of employment from a contract for services. The ability to decide on the hours of work is one of the factors considered. Other factors include whether the worker must use the equipment and tools provided, comply with prescribed procedures, follow a fixed schedule, and carry out the work without getting a replacement and so on. Each case has to be evaluated holistically. Any SEP, including hawkers and private-hire car drivers, who thinks that he or she has been wrongly classified should approach MOM so that an appropriate determination can be made. Our surveys show that the proportion of primary SEPs1 in the resident workforce has remained stable at between 8%-10%.”