Lee Boon Yang
Singapore
“6 The other guidelines are that there must be a post office sited within 5 km of every private residential estate and within 1 km of any commercial or industrial estate. MAID LEVY CONCESSION (Applications by the disabled) 32.”
“Madam, can I quickly respond to the point on assistive technology? Certainly this is an area of interest. We cannot say that we have the capability at this juncture but we will certainly look into what is possible and work with our ICT sector.”
“Nevertheless, if the spouse of the homemaker is working, he will be eligible for WIS if he satisfies the criteria. Husbands of homemakers are further eligible for tax relief.”
“Sir, I do not think it is quite correct to say that we always expect our own artists to perform for free or do public service. There are, of course, occasions where we do seek Singapore artists and arts companies to contribute to the national causes. For instance, when we went international for Singapore Season in China.”
“Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for National Development (a) what checks does the Ministry or the National Environment Agency have in place to prevent mistaken payments to hawkers who cease operations due to upgrading works at hawker centers; (b) how did the mistaken payment of $18,000 to Mdm Lee Ah Muey come about; and (c) what will the…”
“While it was also true that initially the reaction or the response of the licensing authority was that foreigners should not participate in such an event at the Speakers' Corner - because there is already an existing prohibition against any foreigners taking part in any activities at the Speakers' Corner - subsequent assessment resulted i…”
The complete record
Every one of 2,412 lines we hold for Lee Boon Yang, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 19 of 49.
“Let me repeat. The court accepted their argument that the Ministry's inquiry failed to comply with the rule of natural justice as the school was not given an opportunity to be heard. On this basis, the court gave judgment in favour of the school. The Ministry did give evidence that the school was given every opportunity to be heard. The school presented evidence to the opposite effect. Sir, the court also criticised the Ministry for lack of procedures in dealing with complaints under the Employment Act. Sir, I would like to assure the House, employers, unions and workers that under the existing procedures to inquire into a dismissal, adequate steps are taken to ensure that all parties involved are given sufficient opportunities to present their case and to respond to arguments put forward by one party against the other. This process is evident in the case in question. The school was invited repeatedly to provide its side of the story. The school was given a copy of the lecturer's complaint letter to the Ministry and was invited to attend the investigation on four occasions. It was the school which chose not to attend the inquiry proceedings, except on one occasion, and even so, reluctantly. My Ministry will not be appealing the court's ruling. We were advised by the Attorney-General not to appeal as the judge's decision was based on his findings of fact. Appeals must be on points of law and not findings of fact unless the factual findings are manifestly against the weight of evidence. The court had focused on the inquiry procedure adopted in dealing with the dismissal appeal. My Ministry has, in fact, commenced such a review to refine and tighten the inquiry procedure in view of the court's ruling and observations. We will spare no effort to rectify any shortcomings.”
“Initially, it argued that the Ministry had no jurisdiction to conduct the inquiry. Later, it shifted its stand and kept changing its grounds for challenging the order. They failed on almost all the new grounds they raised. But the Court accepted their arguments that the Ministry's inquiry failed to comply with the rules of natural justice.”
“The investigating officer extended four invitations to the school to present its case to the Ministry. The school only responded once by sending its executive director on one occasion. The executive director gave a statement to the investigating officer and left the Ministry hurriedly, claiming that she had to attend another appointment elsewhere. The school was given more than sufficient opportunities to state its case but, for reasons known only to the school, it chose to avoid participating in the inquiry. Sir, in one of the letters to the school, it was stated very clearly that the Ministry would proceed to evaluate the case based on whatever facts gathered so far, notwithstanding that the school's interests might prejudicially be affected by the Minister's decision. Based on the facts and evidence he was able to gather, the investigating officer reported that the dismissal was wrongful and recommended that the lecturer should be compensated. The officer's report noted that the school did not conduct any investigation or inquiry to establish that the lecturer performed poorly as a lecturer. In short, he had no opportunity to defend himself. The complaints of the school against the lecturer had, in fact, occurred early in his employment. The lecturer had explained, and the school appeared to have accepted his explanation and did not pursue the matter. It was, therefore, surprising that just before his term of employment was to end, he was suddenly sacked. After considering the report, I concluded that the school had sacked the lecturer without just cause or excuse. The school was accordingly ordered by me to pay a sum of $6,800 to the lecturer. The school challenged the order in the High Court.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe the Nominated Member was referring to the case of a lecturer who was employed by a commercial school. Permit me to address his supplementary question, although it does seem to be a little far from the main Question that was answered. I will have to take a bit of time, with your indulgence, Sir. The lecturer, who was the subject of this court case, was dismissed on 6th May 1997, less than four weeks before his contract was due to expire on 31st May 1997. The contract provided for a gross monthly salary of $3,700 and a bonus or gratuity equivalent to at least one month's last drawn salary at the end of the contract. The school said that the lecturer was dismissed because of his poor performance. The lecturer appealed to me alleging that his dismissal was unjust and without valid ground, and here is the answer to Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam too. In fact, the avenue for such an appeal is provided for under the Employment Act. Pursuant to the Employment Act, I therefore asked the Commissioner for Labour to conduct an inquiry into the circumstances leading to his dismissal. This was done by an officer of the Ministry on behalf of the Commissioner. Throughout the inquiry, the employer had refused to cooperate. They maintained that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to deal with the case as the lecturer's employment contract with the school contained a clause for arbitration over any dispute relating to his employment, and that since the lecturer earned more than $1,600, the Employment Act did not apply. Sir, this is incorrect. The lecturer was clearly covered by the Employment Act. The school participated in the inquiry only after much persuasion, even then, very reluctantly.”
“Sir, I missed the question. Can he repeat, please?”
“Yes, I did say that, Mr Speaker, Sir. In my main answer, I said that executives who need help to resolve employment disputes with their employers can seek assistance. We can provide conciliation. And in the vast majority of cases that we have to deal with, such conciliation had been effective and we have been able to help both employers and their executives reach a compromise and solve their problems.”
“Let me hasten to add that I do not entirely agree with all the feedback and their responses. I think the trade union movement in Singapore is very different from the trade union movement in many other countries. The trade unions in Singapore take a non-adversarial and non-confrontational approach. In fact, they have played a key role in helping employers to survive the recent economic downturn that we have just experienced. So we need to persuade such employers to change their mindset and attitude. But we must also bear in mind that where they have genuine concerns, we should be prepared to address these concerns and not force our way upon them. Lest they see Singapore as an unattractive place for them to do business.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, employers have many concerns over unionisation of their executives. We have to bear in mind that employers, especially the MNCs, operate throughout the world, and they may have very different experience with trade unions elsewhere. In some countries, they have very unpleasant and unhappy experience with trade unions, and this has in some way affected their mindset. So, some MNCs operating in Singapore see efforts to represent their executives as a failure on the part of management to look after the needs of the executives in their employ. Very often, when the union seeks to represent even their rank-and-file employees, the head office will question the local management by saying, "Have you done something wrong to cause the workers to be unhappy?" These are some of the examples that have been given to us in our discussions with employers. Employers are also concerned that unionisation of their executives would give rise to rigidities, because it is natural for unions, once they start to organise the executives, to want to seek standardisation of rewards and benefits. And many MNCs operating in Singapore, like MNCs elsewhere, take a totally different approach in the remuneration package for their executives. There are a lot more individual components and there are different reward schemes for executives. Other employers have given us feedback that they are concerned with union representation of their executives because they fear that it would give rise to more workplace disputes and could also affect labour-management relations at management level. As I said, a number of such feedback arose from the employers or the MNCs' prior experience or contacts with unions, sometimes in their home countries and sometimes from operating in other countries.”
“Sir, as I have said, we already have procedures where executives who feel that they have been unfairly dismissed can appeal to my Ministry, and we will try our best to resolve the problems. In most cases, we have been able to do so. As to whether an Unfair Dismissal Act is required or is there another approach to tackle this problem, I believe that the tripartite committee that we have convened is in the best position to discuss this and look at the problem from all angles. And we can come up with a workable model in our context.”
“Sir, again, as I have said, we should let the tripartite committee explore this issue and find which is the best way to deal with some of the problems that have cropped up as a result of the changes in the profile of our workforce.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we will try to resolve this matter as soon as possible. As I have said in my main answer, my Ministry has already called for a meeting with both the Singapore National Employers' Federation and the NTUC. I hope to achieve a consensus as soon as possible to resolve this issue. With regard to the other point about grievance procedures, I think this is an issue that the committee will have to discuss. I understand the trade unions' perspective on this issue and their desire to be involved in some way, but I also have to be aware of the employers' concerns. The purpose of the tripartite committee is for all three parties to sit down and work out a consensus which can allow us to move forward from the position today.”
“We may, as the Member has suggested, allow rank-and-file unions to represent junior and middle level executives in some employment matters, such as retrenchment, dismissal and grievances, although not in collective bargaining. Employers' organisations have expressed to my Ministry their concerns over the possible difficulties that such a change may cause. They are concerned with the potential for a "conflict of interest" when executives become members of rank-and-file unions. Employers are also concerned with the impact on management's control, disciplinary and grievance procedures and lawful termination of contracts of employment of executives. In reviewing the Industrial Relations Act, we will take into account not only the desirability of widening the membership base for trade unions, but also employers' legitimate concerns. Sir, my Ministry has called for a tripartite meeting with the NTUC and SNEF to discuss this issue. We will table a preliminary proposal to the meeting, for full discussion with the unions and employers. I look forward to forging a tripartite consensus on how we can bring our laws on union membership up to date, strengthen harmonious labour relations, and create a more competitive workforce.”
“However, they may not be represented by trade unions whose membership consists of rank-and-file employees. Over the years, NTUC has argued for both executives and rank-and-file employees to be allowed to join the same union as it is better for team-work. Thus, frontline supervisors who were promoted from the ranks have been allowed to join rank-and-file unions under the Tripartite Guidelines on Eligibility to Join Rank-and-File Unions, introduced in 1992. In addition, some employers have, on their own accord, allowed their executives to join rank-and-file unions, but this is a voluntary arrangement. Junior and middle level executives can join rank-and-file unions as general branch members, but only to enjoy the social benefits the unions provide. Our trade unions have played a crucial role in maintaining industrial harmony, and cooperating with employers and the Government to promote economic development and workers' welfare. The growing proportion of new entrants to the labour market joining executive ranks, rather than the rank-and-file posts traditionally represented by trade unions, means a potential shrinkage of the unions' support base. This would have major implications for the NTUC and for the strength of our tripartite relationship. We should review the Industrial Relations Act, especially section 16(3), to see how it can be amended to suit the very different circumstances that prevail today. We should consider allowing the same union to represent both rank-and-file workers and junior and middle level executives, instead of having the two groups in separate unions.”
“Mr Speaker Sir, let me first explain the rationale behind existing labour legislation. Executives, regardless of seniority, are not covered by the Employment Act. It is assumed and our law takes the position that executives should be able to look after their own interests, as they are usually better educated, and professionals who can negotiate their terms and conditions of employment. They can negotiate and enter into employment contracts by themselves, and do not need to rely on collective bargaining by unions on their behalf. To include them under the Employment Act will create unnecessary rigidity and hinder the free operation of the labour market. Sir, nevertheless, executives who need help to resolve employment disputes with their employers can seek the assistance from the Ministry of Manpower, which provides conciliation service. If their disputes cannot be resolved amicably through conciliation, they need to file a suit under the common law to seek remedy, because employers are not legally obliged to accept the Ministry's advice. With more employees becoming executives, and more jobs being classified as executive jobs, the assumption that all executives are sufficiently well-informed and experienced not to need any protection from the Employment Act may be questionable. Indeed, during the past two years, for example, several executives have sought the help of my Ministry, the unions and MPs at their meet-the-people sessions. We may need to extend part of the provisions in the Employment Act to executives. However, we should do so only to the extent necessary. The Government will study this carefully. Sir, current labour laws do not prevent executives from forming or being represented by their unions.”
“I would first like to clarify that Singapore Immigration and Registration (SIR) issues dependant's passes to two categories of foreigners: (a) spouses and unmarried children (under 21 years of age) of Employment Pass holders; and (b) children of intended adoptive parents who are Singapore Citizens or Permanent Residents. In the case of eligible foreign spouses of citizens and permanent residents, SIR either grants them Singapore permanent resident status or issues them with long term social visit passes. Foreign spouses who are issued with long term social visit passes are allowed to work in Singapore. They can apply for the appropriate category of work pass. As for Dependant's Pass holders, they are also allowed to work in Singapore. DP holders who wish to work must apply to the Ministry of Manpower for a letter of consent to work. MILITARY DEFERMENT 24. Mdm Claire Chiang See Ngoh asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence what are the reasons for granting and not granting military deferment to 18-year-old male Singaporeans and if he can give an update on (i) the number of such persons who were granted this deferment to complete their tertiary education before joining the army, from 1994-1998; (ii) which field of study they were in; and (iii) whether they were in local or overseas tertiary institutions.”
“Encik Ibrahim Bin Othman asked the Minister for Community Development and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs what plans the Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura has to implement IT programmes in our full-time madrasahs to prepare madrasah students for the Knowledge Based Economy.”
“The current Factories Act in Singapore provides for the safety, health and welfare of persons working in premises defined as "factories". These "factories" are traditionally premises in the manufacturing, construction, shipbuilding and ship-repairing industries where hazardous work processes are carried out. Since its enactment in 1958, the Act was amended several times. The last amendment in 1995 extended the coverage of the Act to premises such as laboratories, warehouses and aircraft parking bays. My Ministry is reviewing the Act with the intention of covering workers engaged in maintenance work on the MRT and LRT, ie, repair or maintenance work carried out on any rail, track, including viaducts and tunnels. However, there is a limit to which the Factories Act can be extended, beyond which the term "factories" would become meaningless. The workforce covered by the existing Factories Act is about 700,000, which is about one-third of the total workforce. In the next millennium, Singapore's economy will see a shift towards the knowledge-based economy (KBE). In order to support a vibrant KBE, we must create a safe and healthy workplace with world class occupational safety and health standards. This will allow our workforce to work safely and productively. My Ministry is currently reviewing the safety and health legislation to ensure that workers, including knowledge workers of the future will be adequately protected at work. New legislation on occupational safety and health may be required to cover the workplace of the future and to promote greater self-regulation by employers and manufacturers of machinery and work tools. IT PROGRAMMES IN THE MADRASAHS 7.”
“The Committee has set up six working groups, one of which is on Employment and Employability. This working group will look at increasing the productive lifespan of older persons, including promoting flexible and part-time work as well as elderly-friendly employment policies and practices. My Ministry will consider the outcome of their study in due course. NEW LEGISLATION ON OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY HEALTH 6. Mr Yeo Guat Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower if his Ministry will consider introducing legislation to have a new Occupational Health and Safety Act or to amend the Factories Act to extend its coverage beyond factory building to other workplaces.”
“My Ministry considers job redesign as one of the adjustments needed to cope with an ageing workforce. In job redesign, we aim to get employers to make work and the workplace more accommodating for older workers. It may be necessary, for instance, to modify the actual duties to reduce physical stress which may exact a greater toll on older persons. Working hours and even the location of the workplace may need to be reviewed in order to accommodate the needs of older persons. New work arrangements such as job sharing and telecommuting should also be considered. We are working with the Productivity and Standards Board (PSB) to promote job redesign at the company level. A pilot programme with several companies to redesign jobs to suit older workers has been initiated. These companies will serve as models to demonstrate how work arrangements could be adjusted to suit the needs of older workers. PSB will help more companies to embark on job redesign programmes, and develop blue-prints to be shared with other companies so as to achieve optimal labour utilisation and productivity. I would also like to point out that the success of initiatives such as job redesign would depend on changing mindsets regarding the employment of older workers. On the part of the employer, older workers should be considered as valuable human resources to be properly managed and retained for as long as possible. Employers will have to accept the reality of a labour force with a growing proportion of older workers in the workforce. On the part of the older worker, he may need to be more realistic about the nature of his job and the expected remuneration. The issues of an ageing population and workforce are also being studied comprehensively by the Inter-Ministerial Committee on the Ageing Population.”
“In fact, during the Arts Festival there are as many fringe events as there are in the main events where you have to pay to enter. So the fringe events that are held in Suntec City, Westin, Takashimaya, are all free. Anybody can come along and watch an interesting performance, whether it is by a local group or by an international group. So I do not see why he should give us a lecture on the communist approach to promoting culture for the proletariat. I think he is out of touch with what is happening in Singapore. I am very disappointed.”
“We are in the process of finalising the Manpower 21 plan. A key outcome will be the development of a lifelong learning system, under the concept of the School of Lifelong Learning. The proposal for a Manpower Development Assistance Scheme will be considered together with the need to fund the implementation of the other Manpower 21 recommendations. Mr Chiam asked about meeting the cultural needs of workers. I agree with him that culture is not just for the highly skilled or the well educated. Culture is for everybody. We should all take an active interest in culture. But he seems to present the idea that our ordinary workers are bereft of culture. I think it is wrong. It is fallacious. I think Mr Chiam does not mix with the right group of people. He only has to come to my community centre - I will extend an invitation to Mr Chiam to visit my community centre, and I am sure many Backbenchers will also extend an invitation to him - to see the amount of cultural activities that go on in the community centre, and to see and meet the people who come and participate in these activities, whether it is arts and crafts, Chinese painting, social dancing, music. I have children from 1-room flats coming to my CC to learn music, whether it is a Chinese instrument or even the piano. So, what is he talking about that workers in Singapore are deprived of participating in cultural pursuits? Hundreds of thousands of ordinary Singaporeans participate in cultural activities at the community centre. 3.45 pm He seems to have conveniently forgotten that each year we mount the Arts Festival. The Arts Festival is available to everybody. Every Singaporean can come and enjoy the events and activities during the Arts Festival.”
“You do not even have to have a degree to be a knowledge worker. Singapore needs every Singaporean to make that effort. We need many more workers like Mr Leong who is prepared to make an effort, who comes up with innovative ideas, experiment on his own, and comes out with a new concoction that works better. And in this case, an interesting and unusual dish. As long as each and every one of us makes an effort, comes up with innovative ideas that can boost the quality of our work, the productivity of whatever we do, then, in fact, that worker is a knowledge worker. Mr Lim asked whether we would establish a substantial programme to support training and skills development for our workers to prepare them for this work in the knowledge-based economy. I agree with him that this will be done. Because, presently, we have quite a number of programmes targeted at skills upgrading. The Skills Redevelopment Programme (SRP) is, of course, very well known. There is also the Initiatives in New Technology (INTECH) which is administered by the EDB. It is a $800 million programme to provide grants for manpower development in leading-edge technology. The EDB also has a programme to post young engineers for overseas assignment, so that they can pick up skills and experience that will benefit the economy when it turns around. For this financial year, my Ministry has set aside $50 million as provision for new manpower capability projects. This includes establishing a national skills certification system, developing and upgrading Continuous Education and Training (CET) providers, and also the Strategic Manpower Conversion Programme, which I described earlier on to train people from other disciplines, to prepare them for jobs in the IT industry.”
“Some have asked what does all this mean. What is the need to develop knowledge workers? I want to emphasise at this juncture that when we talk about a knowledge-based economy, when we talk about knowledge workers, we are talking about all levels of the workforce. We are talking about workers, supervisors, executives, managers and professionals. We are not only talking about the managers, executives, engineers and the high-tech people, we are talking about every single worker in Singapore. We are talking about any worker who tries to learn new skills or pick up new ideas to enable him or her to do the job better, and more productively. When we talk about knowledge workers, we are referring to people who approach whatever they do with curiosity and creativity, always trying to do a better job. Let me give Members an example which I happen to come across some months ago in the Straits Times. I read this report about a Chinese chef, Sam Leong, at the Four Seasons Hotel. Mr Leong was the man who created a new dish - pork ribs in coffee sauce. It was unusual to offer pork ribs in coffee sauce, and who would have thought that pork ribs go well with coffee? Well, Mr Leong did it. He thought that it would make an interesting combination. He took great pains. Through trial and error, he arrived at a recipe that was properly balanced, tasty and attractive. He went on to create this dish at an international culinary competition and won a prize for it, I believe, in Los Angeles. Chef Leong is a knowledge worker. He came up with a new idea. He experimented on his own. He failed. He tried again and finally he succeeded in striking a balance and created an award winning dish. So, what I am saying is that you do not have to have a PhD. You do not have to have an MBA.”
“What happens in the case where a bad employer fails to provide a new employee with the necessary training or career development? Is it wrong for the employee to look for greener pastures? I believe that every employer also has some responsibility to forge a bond with his workers and to establish company loyalty. Instead of changing the CPF system to penalise early resignations, employers must also devise their own remuneration system to discourage job hopping. For instance, employers can pay their workers lower starting salary in the first two years, and then reward them with a more attractive remuneration package subsequently if they stay beyond, say, the 2-year period. Such loyalty pay rises are well within every employer's means to do so now and do not require a change in our CPF system. I hope the Member could advise employers to exercise their initiative, manage their workers with long-term perspective and not just shift the blame to the workers or resort to schemes such as a CPF cut. Let me now address the point raised by Mr Lim Swee Say. He said that we should focus on the training and development of knowledge workers, and he suggested establishing a Manpower Development Assistance Scheme or Fund to promote this training of our workers. I agree with the Member for Tanjong Pagar that we should have as many workers as possible trained and competent to support the knowledge-based economy. As Singapore moves into the knowledge age, the rapid change of technology today and the structural shifts from labour and capital intensive industries to knowledge intensive industries mean that our workforce must be engaged in continuous learning and upgrading. Since last Monday, in fact, many Members have spoken on the move into a knowledge-based economy.”
“Being the main beneficiary, they should also put in their fair share of supporting such training and upgrading efforts. Likewise, managers and executives, being already highly educated, should also bear part of the share in the responsibility for upgrading. There is an individual responsibility for upgrading which they should also accept. Nevertheless, I would consider the Nominated Member's suggestion for Government to work with business and industry groups, apart from NTUC, to form partnerships to promote and support skills upgrading for their members. Mr Inderjit Singh spoke on job hopping. He felt that it is still a problem that we must address. I have, in fact, previously replied on another occasion that forfeiting a worker's CPF contribution to deter job hopping would detract from the basic CPF objectives of building up savings for old age as soon as a person starts working. Let me add that it would not be effective in curbing job hopping. Job hopping is a complex and multi-faceted problem. Workers may leave a company for various reasons, some frivolous, but others may be perfectly valid and beyond the control of the workers themselves. While excessive job hopping is undesirable, a certain amount of mobility in the labour market is normal, and it will help to ensure an optimal distribution of labour through the economy. Hence, reducing the employer's share of contribution in the first year or two of service to deter job hopping is unlikely to be effective in curbing job hopping. It is also tantamount to a wage cut for these workers who have to leave their jobs for good reason after a year or less. That could be quite unfair to the workers. Employers should not just pass the blame of job hopping to the workers.”
“If we do it now, we will be adding to the cost for the employer, because the Skills Development levy is in fact a tax on the payroll. While we agree, in principle, to do so, we will do it at a time when it will have least effect on the competitiveness of the economy. He also said that the SDF should widen its scope to include training for mid and high level skilled workers within a company. The answer is yes. SDF does support training courses for managerial and executive staff. While the focus up to now has been on upgrading the skills of workers, as they form the majority of the workforce and are most susceptible to retrenchment and structural unemployment, SDF is also willing to support training initiatives for executives and management. Under the total company training programme, companies are encouraged to take a total approach to training and development that covers workers, executives and management, and all these will be supported by SDF. Currently, approximately 20% of the total training places supported by SDF in a year are actually taken up by managers and executives. I think this is a reasonable proportion for managers and executives who, in fact, form the minority in the workforce. I agree with his point that managers and even professionals should also constantly upgrade and be kept abreast of new knowledge in order to stay relevant. While the Government can support to some extent, particularly for small companies and businesses, employers should also be prepared to bear a greater share of the responsibility for training and upgrading their managers and professionals. Ultimately, the business will benefit when the skills of their executives and managers are upgraded.”
“Then he is forever limiting the capabilities of his employees. He is forever living with a lower level of potential. So employers have to open up, and they have to be more willing to support skills training at all levels of the company's establishment. That is the only way to maximise their human resource potential. That is the only way that he can really compete, by giving all his employees the best training necessary for them to do a good job. 3.30 pm Mr Chuang spoke on the same point about whether we should not review the foreign worker policy, so as not to disadvantage the local workers and we need to build up a corps of local skilled workers. Particularly, he mentioned the point that many of the foreign workers come from countries with lower wages. The answer to that is that we adopted a policy of imposing the foreign worker levy in order to bridge the wage gap, and to make it very fair for Singaporeans who cannot compete just on wage alone. That is why the foreign workers attract the foreign worker levy, depending on the skills level. He asked how will Singaporeans get the training to compete and to upgrade against the inflow of foreign workers. The answer is what we have been doing all along. We will provide more opportunities for skills training. SRP is just the beginning. When we implement the recommendations that are being put forward by the Manpower 21 studies, we will have a national framework for a school of lifelong learning. We should provide all workers with opportunities to upgrade themselves. Mr Tay Beng Chuan made several points. He asked whether we could revise the $1,000 wage limit on the Skills Development Fund. The answer is yes. In fact, in principle, this is agreed to. But the question is, when do we do it?”
“I think that is also not correct, because BEST and WISE are programmes to improve the basic literacy of workers, ie, language command and basic numeracy, so that they can later on undergo further skills upgrading. Because without the basic language and numeracy command, you cannot further upgrade your skills. BEST and WISE are just preparatory courses which the lower educated workers have to go through to prepare them for the skills upgrading that would come later. Mr Hawazi also asked whether we must consider the needs of the non-unionised workers and whether other employers may be more willing to provide higher skills training, because he observes that some of the employers may be reluctant to provide skills training for their higher skilled employees for fear of job hopping, and what is the role of NTUC in workers' upgrading. As I explained earlier on, non-unionised sector workers can also benefit from SRP. NTUC will also serve the needs of this group and I think initially, the non-unionised companies were quite reluctant to come forward to participate in the SRP, as they thought it was for the unionised workers only or by participating in SRP, they would be encouraging their employees to become unionised. But I think this perception has largely been corrected because more and more non-unionised companies are willing to come forward to work together with NTUC, and to send their workers for training under the SRP. In fact, this shows the benefit of having NTUC as a major promoter and supporter of the SRP programme. As to employers who are reluctant to train their higher skilled workers or executives, I think it is a very shortsighted employer who does not train his executives or higher skilled workers just because of fear of job hopping.”
“He also mentioned that the training opportunities provided by SDF seem to be skewed, favouring too much those with secondary education, and those with lower education are not getting their fair share of training. I think it is not quite correct because what we have done is that we have embarked on programmes which now deliberately focus on the needs of the less educated or lower-skilled workers. The SRP is an example. It is a $120 million programme to specifically look at the mid-career workers who have lower than secondary education and who have very low skills, and to equip them with new skills or to upgrade their skills so that they could take on the new jobs. We are talking about extending their employability through skills upgrading. He also pointed out that the weakness of the current programmes for skills upgrading for the workers is that too much emphasis is placed on the employers and he quoted examples like the SRP. Perhaps, he may not be aware of what I have just said in response to Mr Ahmad Magad that, in fact, even unemployed workers can participate in the SRP, provided they go to the self-help groups or to NTUC. And NTUC would even help workers from the non-unionised sector. All workers are covered under SRP. It is not just for those who are presently employed or just unionised workers but every worker who wants to upgrade himself and benefit from the opportunities available under the SRP would be able to do so. They can go to NTUC or the self-help groups to seek assistance. He mentioned that some of our educational upgrading projects seem to lead to nowhere. He cited the examples of BEST and WISE.”
“At present, the unemployed or the retrenched workers can seek sponsorship for participation in the Skills Redevelopment Programme by approaching the NTUC or self-help groups such as CDAC, Mendaki, AMP and Sinda. These self-help groups have volunteered themselves as SRP facilitators. They act as surrogate employers for unemployed workers. Unemployed workers who register with the community self-help groups will also receive the same level of funding support as any workers who have been sponsored by an employer. A retrenched worker who is willing to go for skills upgrading under the SRP will not be worse off than one who is presently employed. In fact, the self-help groups offer a training allowance of up to $500 per month when training on a full-time basis, and the full cost of the training will be borne by the self-help group and the SRP. So, as I said, the retrenched workers receive the same incentive as one who is still at work. Mr Low Thia Khiang was concerned with Singaporean skilled workers who may have to face competition with similar foreign skilled workers. He mentioned welders, plasterers, etc, and if I understand him correctly, he asked whether they are facing competition from foreign workers, particularly from Malaysia. The answer is yes. There is some competition. But are our Singaporeans completely vulnerable? The answer is no, because we have a foreign worker policy which requires the employer to pay a certain levy for the work permit holders and the purpose of the levy is, to a certain extent, to bridge the gap between those who come from lower-wage countries and Singaporeans who expect a higher level of wages. So, there is some protection of Singaporean workers at that level from unfettered competition from foreign workers.”
“We are only just at the start and we should not rush into such drastic measures immediately. Otherwise it will reduce our options for reaction if the situation does get worse. Mr Chay Wai Chuen spoke on the transferability and portability of skills certification. I agree with him. I think this is a very important aspect of our school of life-long learning. The present skills training and certification system for the workforce is based on the National Technical Certification (NTC) system. It is a good, broad-based, well-established system that provides the school-going cohorts with all rounded technical and vocational education. However, the skills training of our workforce is more specific and job based. Hence, I agree with Mr Chay that we also need the modular system of skills training when workers and employers can pick the skills that are relevant to their operation. The modular system will help our workers to continuously acquire new skills and keep pace with the changing requirement to enhance their employability. My Ministry is working together with PSB to develop a National Skills Recognition system which has been recommended by the Committee on Singapore's Competitiveness. The system will define skills standards for job-based competencies that are directly relevant to industries and nationally recognised. The National Skills Recognition system will complement the NTC system. Mr Ahmad Magad has raised the question of whether retrenched workers are covered by the Skills Redevelopment Programme (SRP). He noted that the Skills Redevelopment Programme has addressed the needs of workers who need skills upgrading, but what about those who have lost their jobs, the retrenched workers.”
“Faced with a crunch, retrenched workers should be prepared to take on any job. Having a job is better than no job at all. As I have explained earlier, we will do everything possible at the Employment Service Department to help retrenched workers seek alternative employment. For those whose savings are running out and who lack family support, they can turn to the many community assistance programmes administered by the Ministry of Community Development, the Community Development Councils, the National Council for Social Services, self-help groups and the various voluntary welfare organisations. The community-operated safety nets are there to help those who are in serious difficulties. To ensure families with school going children do not suffer from this downturn, the Ministry of Education also offers such families assistance for their educational expenses. These include partial or full waiver of school fees, miscellaneous fees, as well as textbook grants for needy students. For students studying in the institutes of higher learning, they could apply for the CCC university or CCC polytechnic bursaries, tuition fee loans and study loans as well as bursary and loan schemes administered by the universities and the polytechnics. The Ministry of Health also has a Medifund which is available to help those who have difficulties paying their medical bills incurred at the public hospitals. The Minister for Finance has also announced generous and wide-ranging rebates on HDB rentals, service and conservancy charges and utilities charges. Hence, releasing the Special Account savings of a retrenched worker is an option that should be reserved for a worse case scenario of a very deep and prolonged recession.”
“I would like to assure Members that we are committed to assisting all unemployed Singaporeans to look for alternative employment. We will step up our efforts to find the jobs for them. We will also be looking into improving further our job-matching service as well as introducing new initiatives to help out-of-job Singaporeans to look for work. Mr Inderjit Singh suggested that we allow a retrenched worker and out-of-work Singaporean to borrow from his CPF Special Account to meet the daily expenses. I understand the difficulties faced by some retrenched workers, but we must not just be over engrossed with the immediate problem and to overlook the long-term impact if we introduce any new measures. We should avoid solving one problem only to create a new one. The CPF savings are primarily meant for old age requirement, as well as to meet basic housing needs and also medical needs. Many CPF members have, in fact, used their CPF savings to purchase properties, including HDB flats and private residential properties. The 10 percentage point reduction in employers' CPF contribution rate to help employers to cut costs and to regain competitiveness has already caused quite a number of CPF members to face shortfalls in their monthly mortgage repayment. In order to help this group, we have in fact allowed them to draw on their Special Account savings to make up for the shortfall in CPF contribution. If we now also allow retrenched workers to borrow from their Special Account to meet their living expenses, it would further affect the ability of many Singaporeans to service their housing mortgage. So, the best way to help retrenched workers is, in fact, to help them seek re-employment expeditiously so that they can earn a regular income to support themselves and their families.”
“Eventually, about 1,000, or 5% of the total registrants, were successfully placed. We have also tried to persuade low skilled retrenched workers to undergo training through the SRP so that they can take the new jobs that are being created. So if you were to ask me whether we are satisfied with the outcome of 5% placement, my answer is no. We want to do better. What are we doing? What we are doing is that we have incorporated various new mechanisms. We have introduced a broadcast mechanism to provide information to potential employers of the availability of whole groups of workers who are about to be retrenched, or have been retrenched, so that an employer who is still looking for more workers can consider all these whole groups of retrenched workers. 3.15 pm We have also set up an employment facilitation team to actually go out to establish contacts with companies to find out what are their labour requirements, what are their recruitment plans and to persuade them to pass their job vacancies to us to be incorporated into our job bank, so that we are in a better position to offer more referrals to those who come to us for job placement assistance. Earlier on, I mentioned organising a clean room fair. We have worked with Community Development Councils to organise job fairs where employers or companies that are still recruiting workers are persuaded to come along, and we advertise this function held at various community facilities and bring the job-seekers and employers together to help them to meet their needs. The placement rate at some of these fairs was much better because they were far more focused. We achieve much better placement rate of 18-20% at the job fairs.”
“Mr Ong has also asked how many of the graduates in the tertiary institutions have decided to extend their studies and go on to higher studies in view of the poor job market situation. According to a recent employment survey by the National University of Singapore and the Nanyang Technological University, 83.4% of the students who graduated last year had found jobs within the year, ie, by end of December, compared to 95% in 1997. So we saw a 12% drop. The same survey also showed that the number of post-graduate students at NUS went up 27% last year and 20% at NTU. The sharp increase in the intake of post-graduate students could be attributed to this group of students who have decided to continue with their studies instead of coming out into a very poor job market. Mr Ong asked whether this would just defer the unemployment problem. My answer is no. When the economy recovers and when these students have completed their post-graduate studies, they would in fact be in a better position to make more valuable contribution to the economy. He has also asked what is our success rate in trying to find work for the unemployed Singaporeans. Mr Hawazi Daipi has also raised the same point on our effort to find work for the unemployed Singaporeans. Sir, we have expanded the Employment Service Department in my Ministry to cope with the increasing demand for job assistance. The number of registrants more than quadrupled from 5,000 in 1997 to about 20,000 in 1998. Despite the higher demand and also due to the shrinkage in job opportunities, the Employment Service Department was able to provide job referrals to about 78% of all job seekers. A total of 4,200 job offers resulted from these referrals. However, not all job seekers took up the offer.”
“The quarterly release supplements the annual Labour Market Survey and also occasional papers on labour market to help job seekers, workers and employers make informed decisions. Currently, we have already conducted a total of 15 regular surveys a year to gather information from the private sector establishments and households. In addition, ad hoc surveys are also conducted by the Ministry on various employment issues. We have received feedback from the employers that this frequency of surveys is already posing a burden on some of them. It is perhaps not practical at this juncture to conduct a monthly survey, as suggested by Mr Ong, because too frequent a survey would just increase the burden on the employers. Mr Ong also asked what is the number of new entrants into the labour market who are gainfully employed and what is the scale of under employment in Singapore. Sir, the June 1998 Labour Force Survey indicated that there were about 53,000 local new entrants to the workforce. Of this, 86% of the local new entrants were gainfully employed. Among the employed new entrants, 93% were working full time and only 7% were working part-time. Under employment commonly refers to persons who are in the employment but have to work part-time because they cannot find a full-time job. The findings of the same Labour Force Survey revealed that only a small percentage of our workers are involuntary part-timers. In 1998, only 0.4% of the new entrants who were employed were working part-time involuntarily, in other words, they cannot find a full-time job. Among all employed persons, the proportion of part-timers is only 0.3%.”
“However, retraining and re-engineering jobs alone will not solve all the problems. Workers must also have more realistic expectations and change their mindsets with regard to wages and the nature of their jobs, especially during this recession. Recently, we organised a two-day job fair to enhance workers' understanding of clean room jobs. Nine firms with a total of 500 vacancies came along to participate in the fair. At the end of the two-day fair, we succeeded to fill 100-plus vacancies. This is already an improvement. The other recruitment exercise that we had mounted for the clean room sector had an even poorer response. The 100-plus workers recruited are already an improvement. But we have to ask ourselves why the employers have such difficulty filling vacancies for these well paying jobs. Why is it so during this period of high unemployment and recession? If it is a lack of skills, then our workers must be more willing to undergo training and skills upgrading. If workers have unrealistic expectations about what they ought to be paid for such jobs, then they must be moderated because it is a question of how we can remain competitive. We are not the only country with wafer fabrication plant or other electronic industries operating clean rooms. Others are doing so at much lower wages. We have to be competitive. Mr Ong Ah Heng raised quite a number of questions. I will try to deal with them in the order that he has raised them. He asked whether we can provide monthly updates on job creation and job opportunities in the various economic sectors. My Ministry releases a quarterly Labour Market publication to provide workers and employers with a comprehensive and up-to-date labour market information.”
“So my Ministry is in fact working on specific programmes to see how some of the lower skilled jobs can be re-engineered to be upgraded in terms of skill content and professionalism so that Singaporeans who cannot do work in the high-tech industries in the manufacturing sector can now take on these jobs, particularly in the service sector. One industry that we are interested in looking at is the cleaning industry. Traditionally, this cleaning industry had been very dependent on foreign workers. We are in fact working with the cleaning industry to see how we can enhance the productivity of the cleaning workers. If we can enhance the productivity of the cleaning workers, then they can be paid more. If they can be paid more, the jobs will become more attractive to Singaporeans who do not have the skills to do the other manufacturing sector jobs. We are working with the cleaning association, ie, the Environmental Management Association of Singapore, and also the PSB's Standards Division to design a set of cleaning industry quality standards. We are also developing training programmes and certification for cleaning skills. This is not unusual as one would have thought. In countries like Denmark, they have an established cleaning industry, in fact, a multinational in the cleaning industry. They have very clear-cut and objectively developed cleaning industry standards which help the industry to reach a very high level of professionalism and service quality. Their workers are very well-paid and well-rewarded and they are not dependent on foreign workers to do those jobs. So we should aspire and strive towards that direction where an industry like the cleaning industry can be made more attractive for some of our lower skilled Singaporeans.”
“For instance, as described by Mr Inderjit Singh a moment ago, he has experienced a high turnover rate because Singaporeans are not prepared to do some of this work. Singaporeans are still reluctant to do some of the difficult jobs in the manufacturing sector or those jobs which require rotating shift work. And this is where foreign workers are still needed to help these companies to remain viable and to compete successfully. So we should not be too quick, at this juncture, to deny companies access to even the work permit holders, unless we are sure that the locals, including the unemployed locals, are ready to take on these jobs. If we prematurely make adjustments or turn off the flow of work permit holders to the employers, we may actually hasten their loss of competitiveness, their inability to regain market share and expedite their exit from Singapore. If that happens, we are going to lose 50% more jobs because, as I said, under the present rules, the manufacturing sector has a maximum dependency ratio of 50%. In fact, by having foreign workers here, we are also preserving jobs for other Singaporeans. He has also asked what we are doing about re-engineering and revamping some of the jobs at the lower end of the skills level which, perhaps, some Singaporeans may have to consider taking up because they may not have the ability or the basic education for further skills upgrading. I agree with him that there is a group of Singaporeans who lack the basic education for them to benefit from any skills upgrading effort. For this group, we have to help them to be redeployed to a different sector. They still have to be trained. But they can be trained to work in a different sector.”
“Sir, I will first address the points raised by Mr Charles Chong who is concerned with rising unemployment and asked what is our policy on balancing the need to attract foreign talent and local workers. In fact, I have explained that earlier on. The point I want to make here is that we are well aware of the need to balance the flow of foreign workers with the drop in job creation. That is why in the November 1998 cost reduction package, we have reduced the foreign worker levy for the skilled workers, but we have not changed the dependency ratio. There is still a dependency ratio which will govern how many foreign workers an employer can employ. We have also not reduced the levy on the unskilled workers, particularly those in the construction sector, because that is where the bulk of the foreign workers come from. What I want to add here is that the mere tightening of the inflow of foreign workers, particularly those in the work permit category, may not result in more jobs for the local workers. Because if we deny access to these work permit holders, we may in fact hamper the efforts of many employers who are trying to regain competitiveness and their market share. At the lower skills level, many foreign workers are still needed by employers, particularly in industries such as the construction sector, where many locals are just simply not prepared to take up these jobs although there are many jobs in the construction sector which are in fact well within the means and capabilities of Singaporeans. Even in the manufacturing industry, foreign workers are employed because they fill a need which Singaporeans in many instances are not willing to take up.”
“I entirely agree with Mr Rai that employers cannot just neglect their responsibility for their workers. If the contractor provides accommodation for 70% to 80% of his workers on site, then he should also provide some recreational facilities there. I think I have covered the areas that have been raised so far.”
“The levy is collected in order to bridge the wage gap and to moderate the demand for such foreign workers and not to provide social amenities for them. The money that is collected from the foreign worker levy in fact goes into the consolidated fund and it is used to develop public infrastructure and amenities which eventually will benefit not just Singaporeans but foreigners who are also working here. Mr Chiam, in particular, has pointed out that every weekend, foreign workers loiter at places such as Botanic Gardens, Little India, Orchard Mall, Crawford Park and Rochor Centre. But I think "loiter" is not the right word. This is their day off. They gather at these public areas with all the amenities that are available there, to gossip, exchange news with each other about what is happening at home and to catch up with friends who are also working in Singapore. Where there is over congestion, I agree that we have to find alternatives for them, and that is what we have done. For instance, we have recently opened up a Sunday bazaar at Weld Road. This was jointly organised by the Police, the Singapore Contractors' Association and the Hindu Endowments Board. The weekend bazaar has been held since November last year. Activities that are held there include screening of free movies by the Singapore Contractors' Association and also setting up stalls by volunteers from the Hindu Endowments Board. The scheme had in fact attracted quite a large number of foreign workers who used to congregate in Little India to come over to Weld Road and to reduce the congestion in places like Little India. Sir, apart from public amenities, where feasible, employers should also provide recreational and welfare facilities for their local and foreign workers.”
“Companies that are required to furnish the levy bond are usually those that have been habitually late in making the levy payment or the other new and small companies without a proper track record. We will exercise flexibility to help genuine contractors to tide over this difficult period. We have made adjustments and refinements to the implementation of the levy bond so that a contractor can be allowed to defer posting the bond, if he can show proof that he has ongoing projects and that there are payments that are due to him which should overcome his cash-flow problem. We have also been fairly flexible in collecting the arrears of foreign worker levy from contractors who are in arrears for some time, up to a couple of months. As long as they can show proof to us that they in fact have incoming payment, we can help them to resolve the problem. Next, I turn to Mr Chiam who asked for more recreational facilities to be provided to foreign workers. Mr Rai also joined in that call. Sir, the provision of leisure and recreational facilities to foreign workers is partly a responsibility of the employers and partly of course a responsibility for us to ensure that there are sufficient amenities for the foreign workers to enjoy. I would like to point out that in fact all social amenities in Singapore are open and available to foreign workers as well as Singaporeans. It must be so. We do not prevent any foreign worker from using any of the public facilities. So to ask that some of the money collected from the foreign worker levy be set aside to develop amenities or recreational facilities specifically for the foreign workers is simply not justified because the collection of the levy is for a totally different purpose.”
“But the new man-year entitlement system had a large part to do with it because we notice that only about 1/3 of the man-year entitlement handed out to the main contractors were subsequently allocated to their sub-contractors. In other words, the main contractors have exercised a great deal of prudence and care in awarding their allocations to their sub-contractors. This has resulted in a lower demand or fewer applications for work permit. Mr Yeo also queried on the housing of foreign construction workers. This is a problem only for the construction sector, while in the other sectors like manufacturing and services, housing is not a problem. In the construction sector, about 70% to 80% of the construction workers can be accommodated on site, but that still leaves another 20% to 30% for whom the contractors have to find off-site accommodation. We are encouraging contractors to develop proper dormitory housing for their foreign workers. Some companies have taken up this proposal. My Ministry will continue to work with other Government agencies to set aside more land which can be used for developing dormitory housing to meet the needs of the foreign workers. Mr Yeo also asked whether contractors are facing difficulties as a result of our implementing a levy bond and also our collection in the arrears of foreign worker levy. I understand the problems faced by contractors now, especially when the economy is slowing down. They may have problems in payment or delays so they may not be able to meet all these requirements, particularly the foreign worker levy. We will implement all these measures with flexibility and understanding.”
“This has in fact given incentives to the contractors to bring in more skilled construction workers and the proportion of skilled construction workers has increased from 12% in April 1998 to 23% in December 1998. We have also introduced basic skills certification requirement for contractors who want to bring in their non-traditional source construction workers. As of August 1998, we have required contractors to bring in at least 20% of their NTS workers with basic skills certificate, and we intend to raise this requirement. By April 1999, it will go up to 50% and eventually 100%. In other words, every NTS worker coming into Singapore should have a basic skill certificate. They should have some basic construction skills. We are also looking into enhancing the level of this basic skill certificate or skill level so that they are better construction workers. Mr Yeo asked whether our new work permit allocation system for the construction sector has worked or achieved this objective. Yes, the answer is that the new man-year allocation system has introduced more discipline in the demand for foreign construction workers, particularly, the NTS workers. The new system helps to ensure that the main contractors exercise prudence and discipline in assigning their man-year allocation or entitlement for NTS workers to their sub-contractors. Since its introduction early last year, there has been a 40% drop in the applications for work permit for non-traditional source workers. We cannot say it is all entirely due to the new man-year entitlement system because the industry has also slowed down during this period.”
“I think Mr Yeo, in particular, was concerned with the construction industry where we have nearly 200,000 foreign construction workers here. And he asked whether we will take steps to regulate their entry and to encourage the industry to improve its productivity. I think he has touched on a real problem, because the construction industry is, in fact, one of the least productive industry. Over the years, from 1995 to 1998, the industry saw steady decline in productivity. Between 1995 and 1998, the productivity declined by 20%. So there is really an urgent need to get the industry to turn around its approach in the way it works and operates, in order to raise its productivity. That is why we established a Construction 21 Committee to study how we can help the industry to raise its productivity. Some of the ideas that are being discussed by the Committee include the promotion of design-and-build concept, standardisation, modularisation of components as well as the use of off-site prefabricated components. Also the Ministry of National Development will introduce minimum buildability requirement for construction projects in order to enhance their buildability and productivity. 1.45 pm Based on the Construction 21 studies, we have also taken other measures to address over reliance and over dependence on foreign construction workers. We have in fact lowered the levy for the skilled construction workers while we maintain the levy for the unskilled construction workers. That means there is now a wider differential, in fact, almost $440 for each foreign construction worker.”
“We will invest in manpower development to upgrade our workers' capability to compete. For example, information technology is an area where there are still many jobs available. It is likely to be one of the few sectors that will have a positive job creation this year. MOM will implement a Strategic Manpower Conversion Programme to train professionals from other disciplines in IT skills and to prepare them for jobs in the IT sector. The EDB also has a programme called Training and Attachment Programme to train young local engineers overseas, so that they can acquire new capabilities in order to meet the needs of the economy when it recovers. But we must be prepared to subject ourselves to the discipline of the market where employers are free to choose the best man for the job, be it a Singaporean or a foreign talent. Only then can the Singapore workforce be truly competitive on a global basis. Ultimately, foreign talent attraction and the development of our own people are not competing alternatives. It is not a zero sum game. Both are complementary strategies in our drive to survive and prosper in a very competitive global market. This will become more apparent when through the hard work and efforts of Singaporeans and foreign talent, the economy turns around and there is a larger pie to share. I should also thank Mr Rai for his strong support on our effort to attract foreign talent. Let me assure him, as I have just explained, that the development of our own local talent will certainly not be sacrificed. We will continue to put more efforts into developing our own talent so that they can compete with the foreign talent. I now turn to Mr Yeo Guat Kwang who spoke of the need to control our dependency on foreign workers.”
“I give you an example of our Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology (IMCB) which would not be what it is today without Prof. Chris Tan, then an ex-Singaporean whom we attracted back from the US. And not only did he establish IMCB as a world-class institution, he created exciting R&D jobs for many other Singaporeans and foreign talent also. Another example is Dr Chua Nam Hai of the Institute of Molecular Agrobiology (IMA). Through the efforts and leadership of these two people and many others like them, we have been able to attract more talent. In fact, the IMCB and IMA had succeeded to make breakthrough findings in cancer research and also in agrobiology. IMA, for instance, had filed patents on at least 13 areas which are of commercial value. So these people not only contributed in their own work areas but they also created more opportunities for other Singaporeans. The challenge facing Singapore in the next millennium is to reinvent ourselves into a country where there are many opportunities for Singaporeans to develop to their fullest potential. We can become a globally competitive knowledge economy with a world-class workforce. But to do so, we must develop our people to their fullest potential and add that little extra boost which can come from bringing in a flow of foreign talent, who bring with them new ideas, new experience and new network connections. If we fail in this undertaking, not only will foreign talent not come to Singapore, our own talented Singaporeans may well look elsewhere for greener pastures, and I think that would be a greater loss for Singapore. Sir, the Government will ensure that our own citizens are provided with every means to compete with foreign talent on a level playing field.”
“The fact remains that even in the midst of economic crisis, there are still areas which are critically short of talent and need to supplement our inadequate local supply with a flow of foreign talent. One area is the IT industry, which today's newspaper happens to highlight by coincidence. We are well ahead of others in this region in the IT industry because we have always welcomed foreign talent. Out of the current stock of about 30,000 practising IT professionals, more than 30% are non-Singaporeans. Without these foreign talents, we will not be an IT leader in the region. Every year, out of the demand for about 3,000 new IT professionals, our local universities and polytechnics can only supply about 2,000, leaving a shortfall of 1,000. That is why they are being paid so much. Competition for IT talent is global and intense. Every country in the world today faces a shortage of IT professionals, as Mr Rai correctly pointed out. Even the United States is short of IT talent. Another area is the telecommunications and media where it is inconceivable that global broadcasters and media companies, such as CNBC and ABN, would want to base their operations in Singapore if they are not allowed to bring in talented broadcasters and media specialists from around the world. In the advertising and the PR industry, Singapore has again benefited tremendously from the infusion of foreign talent. R&D is yet another example. A good example which shows that opening our doors to talent from abroad also means making it more attractive for our own Singaporeans and ex-Singaporeans overseas who have distinguished themselves in other countries to return and to lend their considerable experience and expertise to our cause.”
“While overall employment may be shrinking, limiting the entry of foreign talent or asking those who are here to leave will not protect Singaporeans nor solve our employment problems. Indeed, if you prevent company from hiring foreign talent, it may result in its relocation elsewhere. Many MNCs operating in Singapore also run other operations in the region in our neighbouring countries, for instance. If we restrict the access to foreign workers, they can easily relocate to other countries where labour is more readily available and at a much lower cost. This will result in more Singaporeans being retrenched. For one local job protected in the short term, many more local jobs will be at risk in the future. Recently, Caltex announced the shift of their global headquarters to Singapore. Suppose Caltex had been told they could only recruit Singaporeans, which must be the logical extension of the "Think Singaporeans First" policy, do you think Caltex would have made the decision to relocate to Singapore? Is it better for Singapore to have Caltex operating from Singapore with foreign talent or to have Caltex located in some other cities, perhaps in the region, competing against our effort to build up global oil trading business from Singapore? Sir, we are in a race for talent, and losing the race will not help our citizens. It will hamper economic recovery and future growth prospects. If we do not accumulate the best talent we can find from around the world, they will simply be drawn elsewhere to compete against us. Instead of stopping the flow of foreign talent, therefore, we need, in fact, to try to position Singapore as an attractive place for them to work and live in.”