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 29 of 49.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, when a person applies to buy a flat, he has to take into account that there is a potential for some price increases. He cannot say that because he wants to buy a home at this price and when the price has gone up, we must change the whole rules of the game. It is quite clear that when he applies to buy a flat, he knows that he can only use the savings in his Ordinary Account. He should size the flat that he intends to buy on that basis, taking into account there is a potential for price increase or adjustment in the future. Investing in a home is a long-term investment. All of us are obliged to make careful calculation and consideration on the size or type of flat that we want to buy to make sure that we can afford it and we can service the mortgage repayments. TRAFFIC JAM AT SINGAPORE END OF CAUSEWAY (Reasons) 4. Mr R. Sinnakaruppan asked the Minister for Home Affairs what are the reasons for the traffic jam during peak periods at the Singapore immigration end of the Singapore Johor Causeway and what will be done to have a smoother flow of traffic, especially during peak periods.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not suggesting that you move in without any renovation. I think it is a question of how extensive and how much money you want to spend on the renovation. If indeed you are short of a couple of payments on your mortgage loan, as the Member himself suggested earlier on, then maybe you could save on some of the other renovation items in order to make sure that you can meet these payments. Arising from this question, Mr Speaker, Sir, I asked my officers to check with HDB whether this is in fact a serious problem. The answer is that in 1995, the average sale price of a 4-room flat, for example, which was sold by HDB was around $125,000. These are flats in non-mature estate. We found that a person with a household income of about $1,753 could buy such a flat with a mortgage loan of 80% repayable over 25 years. At this rate of repayment, the person is not consuming more than 25% of the household income, in which case the ordinary saving component of the husband and wife's income will be more than sufficient to meet the mortgage repayment. And therefore, it is not a problem to the vast majority of the home buyers in Singapore. In fact, 93% of all HDB home buyers, who are servicing their mortgage loan with CPF or cash, are able to do so from their CPF savings. In other words, 93% meet all their mortgage repayments completely from their CPF savings. There is very little need for them to top up with cash.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, there may well be some home buyers who face the situation described by Mr Chiam. But as Mr Chiam himself pointed out, many of these people would have money for renovation but yet they say that they have inadequate CPF savings to meet the mortgage repayment. I would suggest that this is a matter of priority - which should come first? Purchase the home and then renovate it at some later stage when you have more money or to proceed immediately for renovation now and to draw on the Special Account savings which are meant for very long term old-age retirement needs? I think we have to ask ourselves what was the original objective of the Special Account. It was to enable CPF members to put aside some cash savings, so that when they reach the age of 55, there will always be some cash savings which can go towards forming their retirement account under the Minimum Sum Scheme. If we allow this money to be withdrawn to meet mortgage repayment while the member spends his cash savings on renovation, then we are really eroding this effort to meet the retirement needs of the member, and I think in the long run it is not at all prudent to do so. We have debated extensively on the merits of the Minimum Sum Scheme. We should try our best to help members to accumulate sufficient cash savings so that they can meet all the requirements of the Minimum Sum Scheme.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Special Account forms part of every CPF member's account. Out of the total employer's and employee's contribution of 40%, 4 percentage points are credited to the Special Account. Savings in the Special Account cannot be used for servicing housing loan or investment purposes. This is to ensure that a CPF member will be able to accumulate some cash savings to meet his or her old age requirement. The cash savings in the Special Account will help many CPF members to satisfy the cash component of the revised Minimum Sum Scheme. Since the savings in the Special Account cannot be withdrawn for other purposes, Government has since 1st July 1995 paid a higher rate of interest on the Special Account savings. The premium is 1.25% more than the interest rate for the rest of the CPF savings. Sir, if the savings in the Special Account are routinely transferred for mortgage repayment, then we will not be able to achieve the objective of meeting CPF members' retirement needs. Nevertheless, we have under special circumstances allowed CPF members to use the Special Account savings for mortgage repayment. Members may recall that when the CPF rate was cut back by 15 percentage points in 1986 during the last economic downturn, CPF members were indeed allowed to use their Special Account savings to supplement mortgage repayments from their Ordinary Account savings. However, this practice was stopped in 1991 with the restoration of the CPF contribution rate to 40%.”
“I have asked my Personal Assistant to also check her records of all incoming telephone calls. There was no record of a call from Mr Cheo to say that he wished to participate in this debate. Mr Cheo Chai Chen( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have indeed asked my secretary to inform Minister Lee. But that is not important. Now I have got the chance to speak. The third point is that Dr Chen said just now that the SDP did not take the problem of our transport system seriously. That is not a correct statement. Otherwise, I would not be sitting here all the time. Dr John Chen Seow Phun rose - Mr Cheo Chai Chen( In Mandarin): Can he just wait for a while? Now I would like to tell Dr Chen that the Singapore Democratic Party has already published a report on transport system, and that is the transport policy of the SDP. If Dr Chen is interested, I can send him a complimentary copy. Dr John Chen Seow Phun( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask Mr Cheo one question. He said that his Chairman was unable to take part in this debate because he had gone to attend an important conference in the Phillipines. I would like to ask him: which is more important? Is the debate here in Parliament more important, or attending a conference in the Philippines more important? Mr Cheo Chai Chen( In Mandarin): Sir, in my view, both are important. That is why our Chairman has gone there and I am here!”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like the Member, Mr Cheo Chai Chen, to explain to this House how did he inform my office. According to my record here, on 9th January, 0901 hours, we faxed a note to him to advise him to let us know if he wished to speak in this debate, and my office has no record of his reply to my fax to him. Mr Cheo Chai Chen( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my secretary used the telephone. We did not give a written notice. I think the Minister can go back and check.”
“The CPF Board keeps records on arrears by employers. The number of employers with CPF contribution arrears in 1993 and 1994 and the estimated amount owing are as shown below:- _________________________________________________________________ No. of employers Estimated amount 1 Period in arrears owing ($) _________________________________________________________________ 1993 2 1st Quarter 13,816 not available 2nd Quarter 12,129 - do - 3rd Quarter 13,127 - do - 4th Quarter 14,441 70.09m _________________________________________________________________ 1994 1st Quarter 16,154 78.57m 2nd Quarter 15,096 70.14m 3rd Quarter 14,785 62.22m 4th Quarter 15,222 72.88m _________________________________________________________________ 1 Employers in arrears refer to those who are late in paying the CPF due by 1 month or more. 2 The amount of arrears for the first three quarters of 1993 is not readily available because CPF Board has re-vamped its computer system for tracking the amount owing around the 3rd quarter of 1993. Annex 1 - SINGAPORE TOTALISATOR BOARD DONATIONS TO ORGANISATIONS SINCE 1991 (Cols. 403 - 406) Mr Chiam's letter (Cols. 407 - 408) Mr Ling's letter (Cols. 409 - 410) Mr Ling's complaint (Cols. 411 - 412)”
“(a)(i) Anonymous complaints of non-contribution to the Central Provident Fund (CPF), will be investigated if the complainant provides sufficient information. (a)(ii) Besides complaints, the CPF Board detects non-contribution of CPF through routine checks. Each month, the Board goes through the list of employers to see who had stopped making CPF contributions or contribute much lower amount of CPF in that particular month. The Board would then determine the cause for such variations and take appropriate actions where required. Furthermore, the Board conducts monthly spot checks on employers to see if they have paid their CPF correctly and promptly. The Board also closely monitors employers who are habitually late in their CPF payment. These measures enable the Board to protect CPF members' interest. (b) Should an employer succeed to avoid CPF contribution for a long period, he will be required to back-pay the CPF contributions due, with heavy penalty interest of 18% per annum imposed. In addition, the employer will not be allowed to claim from the employee the employee's share of the contributions, ie the employer has to bear the full 40% CPF contribution. If he fails to pay up, he will be brought to Court. If he fails to comply with the Court Order, his business assets may be seized or his business wound up. CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND (Arrears in payment) 3. Mr John De Payva asked the Minister for Labour how many companies were in arrears of paying Central Provident Fund contributions in 1993 and 1994 and if he will provide the information on a quarterly basis, stating the amounts owing.”
“I presume that the Member of Parliament for Nee Soon Central is referring to the explosion in Sembawang Bethlehem Pte Ltd on 9th August 1994. The Committee of Inquiry appointed by the Minister for Labour to inquire into the cause and circumstances of the explosion had completed the inquiry and submitted its report on 3rd December 1994. The findings of the Committee were released and published in the press on 17th December 1994. OVERHEAD SHELTER 13. Mr Cheo Chai Chen asked the Minister for National Development whether the Housing and Development Board will consider constructing a shelter for the overhead bridge linking Blocks 613 and 789 at Yishun Ave 2, including a shelter each for these two blocks.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we have indeed reached the end of the day. Sir, I beg to move, "That the debate be now adjourned." Question put, and agreed to.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, under the new section 6A(2) we said that where a foreigner without a valid work permit is found at any work place it shall be presumed that he has been employed by the occupier. But in the new subsection (7) we clarified what we meant by "occupier" and "principal contractor". That should put in focus the fact that we are only targeting at contractors at this stage and, if necessary, the Minister will have the power, by gazette notification, to include other work places under section 6A. The Minister for Home Affairs will explain to the Member why the differences.”
“I said that my Ministry would be introducing a new provision and regulation to deal with this problem. So in fact contractors have been adequately warned about the new measures that are going to be put in place to deal with the problem. Nevertheless, we are reasonable and we will be prepared to consider the request from the contractors. We will be prepared to discuss with the Contractors' Association on an appropriate grace period before the new provisions are brought into force. But this grace period cannot be a very lengthy grace period in view of the many occasions where we have already warned the industry of the new measures that will be put in place. Mr Charles Chong also asked whether it is necessary to provide immunity from suits to officers of my Ministry in the conduct of their investigations into illegal workers. I think this is a standard procedure that officers carrying out such enforcement duty should be protected from any civil suit.”
“The foreign worker levy is imposed to regulate the entry of foreign workers into Singapore and to ensure that these foreign workers do not unnecessarily depress the wages of Singaporeans. It is not meant to provide accommodation for foreign workers. Mr Chng asked whether the measure introduced by the new section 6A will cover all work places. The intention here, as I explained in my Second Reading speech, is to focus on contractors to begin with. Hence, under clause 4, it creates a new section 6A(7) which explains that in this instance, an occupier in relation to a work place means the principal contractor who undertakes any construction work at the work place. I explained earlier on that if there is a need to extend this provision to other work places, then the Minister will, by gazette notification, bring in the other work places and at such time we will give due publicity to warn all the other employers that they are also subject to the same provision. Let me reassure him that the intention of the new section 6A is focused at the contractors. We want to deal with this problem of illegal foreign workers at the construction site first. Mr Charles Chong voiced his support for the Bill and asked whether contractors who have a project that is under way could be given a grace period to comply with the new requirements under the Employment of Foreign Workers Act. Let me say that while we are introducing the requirement now, the warning had already been given much earlier on. As the Minister for Home Affairs pointed out, Police had since October last year served warnings to contractors about tightening their worksite access control measures. I have also warned employers about illegal foreign workers during the Committee of Supply debate earlier this year.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, concerning Mr Chiam's query, I fail to see the link between the shortage of accommodation and the rising problem of illegal workers. This Bill concerns illegal foreign workers and the measures that are needed to deal with this problem of increasing numbers of illegal foreign workers. While the shortage of accommodation for foreign workers is in fact a problem faced by many employers, it has nothing to do with the subject that we are discussing today. Anyway, for the Member's information, my Ministry is well aware of the shortage of accommodation for foreign workers and we have been working with the Ministry of National Development to look at ways to reduce or minimise this problem facing the employers. The Ministry of National Development has in fact identified certain sites which could be tendered out to employers to build short-term accommodation for foreign workers. In fact, such projects are under way. I believe one of the sites is somewhere in Bukit Batok and other sites have been identified. The Ministry of National Development has also agreed to allow developers of industrial buildings to build quarters within their land, subject to certain plot ratio considerations, for their foreign workers. The Ministry is also looking into reviewing the building regulations to ensure that contractors provide standard housing on worksites for their foreign workers. So the problem of accommodation can be solved by other ways. Today, we are not discussing this problem. I do not think it is reasonable to ask for the foreign worker levy to be used to provide accommodation for foreign workers.”
“These new measures should serve to discourage employers from flouting the law and deter foreigners from coming to Singapore to work illegally. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“Sir, the penalty for a principal contractor who contravenes this section is a fine of two to four years' levy, or imprisonment up to one year, or both for the first offence. The penalty is doubled for the second or subsequent conviction to a fine of four to eight years' levy, or imprisonment for up to two years, or both. The penalties are comparable to those for employers of illegal foreign workers, except that there is no mandatory custodial sentence for principal contractors who are convicted for the second or subsequent offence. I would also like to take this opportunity to point out that under clause 4, the new section 6A(7) empowers the Minister to specify other occupiers of a work place to be liable for the responsibilities which we are presently placing only on principal contractors. This is in anticipation of the problem of illegal workers spreading to other business sectors. And if it emerges as a serious problem in the other sectors, apart from the construction industry, then the Minister could, by notification in the Gazette, bring in other work places within this provision. Sir, clause 7 of the Bill amends section 16 of the Employment of Foreign Workers Act to enhance the power of employment inspectors. It empowers them to enter and search any premises where there could be evidence relating to the commission of an offence under the Employment of Foreign Workers Act. It also broadens the scope of their power to cater to investigation needs arising from the new section to hold principal contractors responsible for the illegal foreign workers found at their work place. Sir, with these amendments, I believe we will be in a better position to deal with the rising problem of illegal foreign workers.”
“Clause 4 of this Bill introduces a new section 6A which makes it an offence for a principal contractor who has control of access to his work place to permit any foreigner without a valid work permit to enter or remain at his work place. If such a foreigner is found at the work place, the principal contractor is presumed to: (a) have control of access to the work place; (b) have permitted the foreigner to enter or remain at the work place; and (c) have knowledge that the foreigner does not possess a valid work permit. This presumption will be applied to principal contractors who clearly would have the opportunity to exercise control of access to the work place. In addition, principal contractors can rebut the presumption by proving that they have exercised due diligence: (a) to prevent the foreigner from entering or remaining at the work place; or (b) to ascertain the nationality and work permit status of the person. To show that they have exercised due diligence, principal contractors must demonstrate effective security measures at the worksite which will prevent entry of illegal foreign workers. A Notification prescribing such security measures will be gazetted. The security measures required will be similar to that recommended by the Police to deal with the presence of immigration offenders at worksites and will include: (a) erecting perimeter fence around the worksite; (b) deploying security guards at all entrances and exits of the worksite; (c) issuing identification passes to all persons entering and leaving the worksite; and (d) maintaining proper records of all persons entering and leaving the worksite.”
“Under section 6 of the existing Employment of Foreign Workers Act, an illegal foreign worker must be "found" working or "found" in possession of any tool or implement before the prosecution can invoke the presumption that he is employed by the occupier of the premises. This poses difficulties as there are instances where the illegal foreign worker is not working at the time of the inspection, such as during a raid conducted at night at the worksite, as described by the Minister for Home Affairs. Under such circumstances, although it is obvious that the foreigner has been working at the premises, the presumption clause cannot be invoked because he was not found working at the time of the raid. To overcome this problem, clause 4 of the Bill seeks to repeal the existing section 6 and to replace it with a new section 6 which will enable the prosecution to invoke the presumption that the occupier employed the foreigner so long as the foreigner is found at the premises. Let me point out that this is a rebuttable presumption. If investigations show that the foreigner found at the premises was not working or had never worked in the premises, the occupier will not be prosecuted. Even if the foreigner was working, the occupier need not be held liable if investigations show that another person is the actual employer of that foreigner. I now come to the amendment to hold principal contractors responsible for illegal foreign workers found at their work place. The purpose is to compel principal contractors to set up worksite security measures to prevent easy access to illegal workers. This is not unlike the new measures required under the Immigration (Amendment) Bill approved by the House earlier.”
“Currently, employers of illegal foreign workers are able to evade prosecution by claiming that they did not know that the illegal workers were foreigners. Clause 3 of the Bill is intended to plug this loophole. It introduces new sections 5(3A) and 5(3B) which place the onus on employers to ascertain the nationality of their workers. If employers claim that they did not know that the illegal workers were foreigners, they will have to prove that they have exercised due diligence to check the passports, documents of identity or other travel documents of the workers. Again, under the existing Employment of Foreign Workers Act, the penalty for an employer who is convicted for illegal employment for the second or subsequent offence is a mandatory custodial sentence of one to 12 months, and a fine of two to four years' levy. However, the custodial sentence cannot be applied on a body corporate, such as a company. Hence, in clause 3, we have introduced a higher fine equivalent to four to eight years' levy for a body corporate which is convicted for the second or subsequent offence. Clause 3 of the Bill also introduces a definition for the word "employ". The new section 5(9) defines "employ" as "to engage or use the service of any person, whether under a contract of service or otherwise, with or without salary." This new definition is necessary and is adopted so that it will no longer be possible for errant employers to claim that they did not "employ" the illegal foreign workers because "they did not pay the workers any salary" or that "they were merely trying out the workers".”
“Sir, contractors will be granted work permits within the current dependency ratio and so long as they have construction projects at hand which justify the need for foreign workers. When we raised the dependency ratio for the construction sector from 1:3 to 1:5 in November 1992, the volume of construction activity was at its peak with the value of contracts awarded at $12.8 billion. Construction activity subsequently tapered off, with the value of contracts awarded at $10.6 billion in 1993 and $12.1 billion in 1994. Hence, there is little ground for contractors to complain that the 1:5 dependency ratio is currently insufficient to meet their needs as demand for construction workers should not be much higher than in 1992. Sir, to ensure that the problem of illegal employment in the construction sector does not get out of hand, it is necessary to amend the Employment of Foreign Workers Act to hold principal contractors responsible for illegal foreign workers found at their worksites. This will compel principal contractors to put in place proper worksite security measures and to exercise greater controls over their sub-contractors who very often are the culprits behind the illegal foreign workers. My Ministry's officers had also briefed representatives of the Singapore Contractors' Association Ltd in September 1995. SCAL had accepted the reasons for tightening the Employment of Foreign Workers Act and was supportive of the general approach. Besides the section on principal contractors, the Bill also contains other amendments which are introduced to facilitate investigation and prosecution work. I will now highlight the key provisions of the Bill.”
“Some contractors gave the excuse that they had to resort to illegal workers because they could not qualify for work permits as our Work Permit Allocation policy is too stringent. The Ministry of Labour's data, however, show that this is not true. At present, more than 90% of the construction companies are operating within the 1:5 dependency ratio. In fact, more than 70% are operating within the 1:3 ratio. This shows that most contractors could employ additional foreign workers legally, if they need to. Our investigations show that unscrupulous contractors had, in fact, deliberately chosen to employ illegal foreign workers because they wanted to evade the levy. Of the 89 contractors who were caught with illegal workers in the first nine months of this year, 84 could have employed additional work permit holders under the 1:5 dependency ratio. In fact, 66 of those contractors did not even apply for any work permit at all for any of their foreign workers. We can only conclude that these contractors resorted to illegal workers not because they were unsuccessful in applying for work permits but because they were out to cheat the Foreign Workers' Levy system. As a result, we were compelled to seek deterrent prison sentence on contractors who had blatantly abused the Employment of Foreign Workers Act. Two recent cases concern a contractor charged for employing 64 illegal foreign workers on 28th July 1995 and another contractor charged for employing 18 illegal foreign workers on 17th October 1995. In these cases, what is noteworthy is that both contractors had never applied for work permits for their foreign workers. Both contractors were handed prison sentences by the Court despite the fact that it was their first conviction.”
“Members may be interested to know that, on average, 37 illegal workers were detected at each construction site which the Ministry of Labour raided this year. The problem of illegal employment is most serious in the construction sector because the existing provisions in the Employment of Foreign Workers Act are unable to deal effectively with contractors who hire illegal foreign workers. The unique feature of the construction sector is the existence of a multi-layered sub-contracting system. Because of the presence of a large number of sub-contractors at a particular worksite, when an illegal worker is found, it is quite difficult to pinpoint who exactly is his real employer. In many instances, nobody can be held liable if the employer of the illegal worker is not positively identified. And the Minister for Home Affairs explained how, in some cases, despite the fact that we have raided, arrested and found evidence that the foreign workers have been working illegally, we could not prosecute the person concerned because the illegal worker did not cooperate and would not identify who were his employers. Such ambiguity hampers our investigation and provides a loophole for unscrupulous contractors to evade the law. Sir, the frequent deployment of construction workers from one site to another by their employers or by their contractors makes monitoring and detection of illegal employment even more difficult. And furthermore, the working environment at construction sites is conducive for employment of illegal foreign workers. Main contractors may not institute proper site management system, thus making it easy for illegal workers to enter the worksite and to remain there.”
“If we do not curb the practice of employing illegal workers, it will make a mockery of our attempts to regulate the entry of foreign workers. The presence of large numbers of illegal workers will hinder our efforts to encourage employers to upgrade their business operations and to reduce dependence on low cost foreign workers. Illegal workers also depress the wages of our Singaporean workers who have lower skills, or are lower-educated, and who have difficulties working at the wages which are welcomed by illegal workers. The Minister for Home Affairs has just pointed out that Police is concerned about the increasing incidence of crimes committed by foreigners and these crimes range from simple theft and robbery to more serious offences, such as hurt and even murders. Sir, the number of foreigners arrested for committing crime in Singapore has risen from 1,443 in 1993 to 1,879 in 1994. And in the first nine months of this year, 1,591 foreigners had already been arrested. Having an unknown number of unidentified illegal workers in our midst will certainly aggravate this dangerous trend. Sir, there is clearly a need to take more drastic action to deter the employment of illegal workers. So far, my Ministry has taken two specific measures. One, urging the court to impose deterrent sentences on employers of illegal foreign workers; and, two, pressing for custodial sentences for first-time offenders who blatantly abuse the Employment of Foreign Workers Act. Nonetheless, our enforcement action is still hampered by existing inadequacies in the Employment of Foreign Workers Act. The amendments to the Employment of Foreign Workers Act are targeted at removing these inadequacies. The key amendment is to deal with the rampant problem of illegal employment at construction sites.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Minister for Home Affairs has just explained to this House the problem caused by illegal immigrants and overstayers. These immigration offenders come to Singapore to work illegally. Hence, my Ministry has also encountered an increasing incidence of illegal workers. Sir, the number of foreign workers working illegally in Singapore has been on the rise. In 1994, an average of 31 employers per month had been prosecuted for employing illegal foreign workers. This rose to 41 per month in the first nine months of 1995. Because of the difficulty of catching employers of illegal workers, such prosecutions may well be the tip of the iceberg. Another indication of the extent of this problem is the large number of complaints to my Ministry about the presence of illegal workers. In 1993, there were 291 complaints per month. This rose to 372 complaints per month in 1994 and 370 per month for the first nine months of this year. Owing to various constraints, we could only investigate some of these feedback. Not every complaint could be investigated thoroughly. What is alarming is that in most cases that we investigated, the complaints were found to be valid and illegal workers were indeed apprehended in follow-up actions. The presence of a large number of illegal foreign workers is a cause of concern. The main implication of having a large number of illegal foreign workers is that they are bypassing our controls which are put in place to regulate the social and economic impact of a large foreign workforce. We already have more than 300,000 work permit holders in Singapore.”
“Sir, if in fact such a matter had been brought to the attention of my Ministry, we would have advised the employer and the employee on what would be the correct way to interpret payment for work on rest day. What I am saying is that we know that the practice does exist and unless it is brought to our attention which particular employer is adopting this approach, we would not be able to pursue it. But if, in fact, any employer had come to us for advice, we would have advised according to the law and if any employee had a dispute with the employer, we would have advised or adjudicated according to the law. But in the review of the Employment Act, this matter came up because it deserves some attention. The question is whether we want to have a new framework which will equitably pay employees who are required by the employer to work on their rest day. The Committee had discussed this at great length. I am prepared to accept the recommendation of the Committee to adopt this new framework and I think it is a fair recommendation which we should abide by it. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Dr Lee Boon Yang]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this refers to clause 12. As I explained earlier on, this matter of pay for work on rest day has been extensively discussed by the Tripartite Committee to review the Employment Act. The Committee concluded that the present arrangement is not entirely fair. The Member said that it is not advantageous for the workers. But as I pointed out earlier on, in some cases, workers who are asked to come to work on their rest day for a very short period are being paid by their employers on the basis of twice the daily rate of pay on an hourly basis. That is even more unfair. This practice exists and in the context of the Tripartite Committee, the members have discussed this and they felt that we should address this issue clearly and provide amendments that will prevent any dispute arising from employers asking their workers to work on their rest day. I think the proposed formula whereby an employee who is required to work for less than half a day will be paid a full day's pay and twice the rate for a normal full-day's work is an entirely fair arrangement both from the workers' and the employers' point of view. I think we should abide by this recommendation of the Committee.”
“In fact, the Tripartite Review Committee also studied this problem that the Member mentioned, ie, whether employees earning more than $1,600 can avail themselves of the low cost and expeditious dispute settlement procedures available at the Ministry of Labour. The current law does not allow it. But with this amendment, we will be able to help employees who are earning more than $1,600 and are covered by the Employment Act. There are certain categories of employees in Singapore who are not covered by the Employment Act. For instance, managerial and executive staff are not covered by the Employment Act, regardless of their salary. Managers carrying out managerial responsibilities will not be covered. But with this amendment, any other employees who are covered by the Act and who earn more than $1,600 will in effect be able to take their disputes to the Ministry of Labour and ask the Commissioner for Labour to help them to resolve their disputes. I believe that the Member's concern has been addressed here.”
“shall operate as a bar ...". The reason for this, as I have explained earlier on, is that if an employee wants to take his or her dispute to the Ministry of Labour for expeditious settlement, there are certain conditions. And the conditions are that he or she abides by the decisions of the Minister and that there is a finality to the dispute. This is not to prevent an employee, a worker or a citizen from exercising his legal right. But it is a choice. It is an option open to them. If an employee wants to take this route of settlement where we will assure him of an independent and fair assessment, then he must abide by the rules, which is that at the end of the day when the Ministry makes a decision, he has to consider the case as settled and closed and he does not proceed with further litigations or any other court cases or suits. If we do not have such a provision, then everybody will take their case to the Labour Ministry and those who are not satisfied will carry on in the civil court. I think it is undesirable for us to have such a stream of litigations being dragged over a long period. It will sour up the relationship between employers and employees. The whole objective of conciliation and adjudication in a Labour Court is to settle disputes expeditiously and with a minimal of confrontation and also to try to avoid serious damage to the industrial relations climate. Sir, I thought I made it quite clear in my Second Reading speech that clause 28 removes the restriction on the Commissioner to inquire into disputes brought to the Ministry of Labour by employees whose salaries exceed $1,600.”
“I am sorry, Mr Speaker, I forgot this point about work on rest day. This matter was extensively discussed at the Tripartite Review Committee. Both the employers and the trade union representatives agreed that in the case of an employee who has been asked to work on a rest day, the present formula of paying two days' pay for work regardless of how long the employee is expected to work is not quite consistent with the concept that payment of wages or salary should be commensurate with the work done. At the same time, both employers and trade union representatives also recognise that, as I explained in my Second Reading speech, there will be occasions where an employee is asked to come to work on a rest day, and all the employer needs him is for a very short period, maybe 2-3 hours or even less. In the meantime, the employee would have incurred travelling expenses and he may have to have a meal and will suffer the inconvenience of having to work on a rest day. Therefore, to pay on an hourly rate, which some employers in fact today pay on an hourly rate, is also not fair. So both employers and trade union representatives on the Tripartite Review Committee agreed to adopt a cut-off point. If an employee has been asked to come to work and he works for less than half a day, then he should be paid one day's pay. Because, as I said, a rest day is not a paid day. But if he works for more than half a day, then he should be paid the existing rate of two days' pay. This was agreed between the employers and employees. They have discussed this thoroughly. I think it is an entirely reasonable solution to balance the interest of both employees and employers. The Member also referred to clause 28, ie, the new section 84(5) which says, "Any direction of the Minister ...”
“Hence the question of retrenchment and retrenchment benefit should not arise. That is why we have provided for a legal framework to enable a business which is undergoing restructuring to do so expeditiously. I hope that settles the Member's concern in this matter. Sir, I believe I have responded to the queries.”
“In effect, we have already provided a system whereby employees who are covered by the Employment Act will be able to seek expeditious settlement of their disputes with their employers. And I do not think there is a need to set up an employment arbitration court. Of course, where disputes concern unionised employees, then apart from applying for conciliation at the Ministry of Labour and for adjudication in the Labour Court, they could also take their disputes to the Industrial Arbitration Court which will deal with them at a higher level. Mr Charles Chong asked whether under the new section 18A which provides the legal framework for the transfer of employees, it will cover a case where there is actually no sale of business and employees are just being sent over to a new company, or where the so-called restructuring only involves the sale of certain assets to a new company, or a company is intending to transfer part of its operations outside Singapore. Let me assure Mr Chong that in such cases where there is no sale of business but only a transfer of assets is involved and where the transfer of business concerns a company outside Singapore, then employees cannot just be transferred under the provisions of the new section 18A. What we have said here is that there must be a genuine business restructuring. There must be actual sale of the business or part of the business as a going concern and that the transferee, the new employer, will be taking over both the business and the employees. Under such circumstances, we can foresee that for the employees, there will not be any disruption in employment. They will just move over to work for the new employer. Therefore, there is no risk of them being jobless for a period of time.”
“In exchange, he forgoes the right to take up the same issue in the Civil Court. But of course, if he has no faith or confidence in the Ministry to safeguard his interest, there is nothing in law that will stop him from taking up his case directly to the court in the first instance to sue the employer if he so chooses to, or if he thinks that he can seek a better remedy or get a better compensation, he should proceed. But if he comes to the Ministry of Labour where he does not have to incur any cost and he can expect an expeditious settlement, then he must submit himself to the condition that he will allow the Ministry to make the final decision and not pursue the matter further. And in the process, this would help to build up a harmonious industrial relations climate by minimising all kinds of disputes. I think this is an entirely workable approach. We have had this in the legislation for many years, and we should continue to abide by it, because it will help us to strengthen the relationship between employers and employees. Mr Low also suggested the setting up of an employment arbitration court to handle disputes. In fact, as I explained a moment ago, we do have such a system for all employees who are covered by the Employment Act. And the effect of this amendment is that white collar workers who are earning salaries above $1,600 will also be able to seek conciliation and adjudication at the Ministry of Labour over disputes with their employers on the contractual provisions in their terms of employment. So we have now made it possible for them to seek conciliation. Whereas in the past, workers who were earning salaries below $1,600 were not able to seek such adjudication by the Commissioner for Labour.”
“He was concerned that, under clause 28, when the Minister had given a direction in a case where a person had been dismissed without sufficient cause, the Minister's decision under the new section 84 shall be final and shall not be challenged in Court. He asked why it shall not be challenged in Court. It has been a feature and a cornerstone of our industrial relations law that we try to achieve conciliation or adjudication to settle disputes between employers and employees with minimal confrontation. As a result, disputes that are being heard in a Labour Court are heard in the absence of lawyers to minimise the amount of confrontation and to make the procedure much simpler for the laymen, namely, the workers themselves, to understand what is going on and to ensure that their interests will be given a full airing and they will be protected. It is for this reason that we have a provision whereby the Minister's ruling on cases of dismissal shall not be subject to future challenge so that the matter can end once it has been referred to the Ministry for conciliation and adjudication. Otherwise, we would have a case where employees would go to the Ministry to seek assistance and if they were not satisfied, they would carry on the process of confronting their employers or trying to seek remedy in the Court and continue the dispute with their employers. And I think this is not desirable, in the interest of trying to preserve a harmonious industrial relations climate, to have such a dispute dragged over a long period in the courts. What we have provided is a mechanism whereby employees can go to an independent party, in this case the Ministry of Labour, and he will get a fair hearing. If he has any dispute, we will assist him to resolve it with his employer.”
“Whereas over the years, there has been a proliferation of allowances provided by employers in order to be able to recruit employees from a tight labour market and also to retain and motivate their employees. A survey conducted by my Ministry showed that there are about 72 types of allowances paid by employers either to compensate employees for hardship and inconveniences or to motivate them to continue to work at a high level of productivity. These allowances have been introduced to meet specific circumstances within the company, whether it is to recruit or retain the employees. The employers had pointed out that it was never intended that allowances should be included for payment for overtime work, work on rest day and public holiday. Hence, the Tripartite Committee recommended that we adopt a clearer definition and so we adopt two new terms, "basic rate of pay" and "gross rate of pay", which should be clear in themselves and would put a stop to future disputes between employees and employers over what allowances should be included for calculation of statutory payment. And I believe that the Tripartite Committee's recommendation is sensible. We have included it in this amendment because it will help to clarify the situation for both employees and employers. I think it would certainly prevent disputes in the future. Let me now turn to Mr Low Thia Khiang who said that he did not support the Bill. But all he could point out were two features which he was unable to support. He did say that there were other provisions in the Bill that he did not support but he did not touch on them. The two points that he brought up concern maternity benefits.”
“Mr Chin also commented on the new definitions of "basic rate of pay" and "gross rate of pay". He asked whether it is necessary to have these two new definitions. Let me clarify. There have always been two different definitions. One is the "rate of pay" and the other is "ordinary rate of pay". Under the existing Act, the "rate of pay" is defined as the total amount of money, including allowances, which an employee is entitled under a contract of service, but excluding overtime payment, travelling, food and housing allowances, bonus and annual wage supplement and any other reimbursement for expenses incurred in the course of work. And it has always been used to compute payment for overtime work. Whereas the existing "ordinary rate of pay" is defined as the total amount of money, including cash allowances, in respect of work done under a contract of service. It has the same list of exclusions. It is used for computing payment for public holidays, annual leave, sick leave, maternity leave, work on rest day and public holiday and payment in lieu of notice of termination and salary deduction for absence from work. So there have always been two rates of pay in the Employment Act. The Tripartite Committee recognised that the present definitions are sometimes confusing and they have given rise to disputes between employers and employees over which allowances ought to be included and which should be left out. We should also bear in mind that when the Employment Act was enacted in 1968, only a few types of allowances, such as meal allowances, housing and transport allowances, were common in those days.”
“I would imagine that it would be very difficult to get a trade union or a group of employees to agree to accept disadvantageous terms in view of a transfer when they know full well that if they have any disagreement, they can go to the Ministry of Labour and seek the assistance of the Commissioner for Labour to conciliate and adjudicate on their behalf to ensure that their interests in the transfer will not be overlooked and that they will not suffer as a result of the transfer. So, in fact, the new section 18A(12) only creates flexibility for both parties, the employees and the transferee, to come to an agreement when there is a reason for varying the terms and conditions of the employment contract which is being transferred, or of the collective agreement which will now take effect in the new company. I would imagine that such flexibility is necessary because we cannot predict entirely what would happen in the future in terms of the economic conditions under which transfers will take place. The law should, therefore, not be so rigid as to say that no variation is permitted. We should, in fact, allow employees and their representatives to negotiate with the transferee and, where appropriate, obtain a better set of conditions, failing which their existing terms of employment will continue to prevail. That is provided for in the new section 18A where workers will be transferred over to the new company on the same terms and conditions of employment as they were under their old employer. So I think the new subsection (12) is a positive and not negative feature, as Mr Chin has pointed out. I think it is a positive feature for employees, whether they are young or old, and it allows them flexibility to negotiate for better terms with the new employer.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first, I would like to thank the Members who spoke in support of this amendment. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Mr Othman Haron Eusofe who led the trade union delegation on the Tripartite Committee to review the Employment Act and also Mr Stephen Lee who led the employers' delegation. I think both Mr Othman and Mr Stephen Lee, together with their respective members on the Committee, demonstrated a strong commitment to strengthening the spirit of mutual understanding and cooperation between employers and employees in Singapore. Their ideas and contributions made it possible for these wide-ranging amendments to the Employment Act which will reinforce the fabric of our industrial relations climate in Singapore. And, here, I must add that this is an important aspect of our attractiveness as a global business centre to have this non-confrontational harmonious industrial relations climate. And anything that we can do to further strengthen it will be an added advantage to our overall economic competitiveness. May I now turn to some of the concerns raised by Members? Mr Chin Harn Tong commented on clause 6 which introduces a new section 18A to provide a legal framework for the transfer of employees. His concern is that the new section 18A(12) may result in some employees being disadvantaged, particularly the older employees who are in the age group of 40 to 50 years may not be able to drive a good bargain with the transferee, that is, the new company that is going to take over the employment. Let me reassure Mr Chin that the new section 18A(12) is, in fact, intended to allow negotiations between the transferee and the employees or the union to proceed whereby they may be able to arrive at a mutually agreeable new set of terms.”
“The amendments also seek to facilitate investigation procedures so as to enable the Ministry's officials to enforce the provisions of the Employment Act more effectively. The powers of the Commissioner and inspecting officers are to be expanded. For example, clause 34 provides that statements made to the Commissioner or investigating officers may be recorded in writing and signed by the person making the statements and clause 39 makes amendment to allow inspecting officers to exercise their powers of investigation. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, the amendments proposed in the Bill will ensure that the provisions of the Employment Act will continue to be relevant and meet the changing needs of employers, workers and the economy. The amendments will also remove the rigidities in the law and enable the growth of a more efficient labour market. As the amendments are mainly based on the recommendations of the Tripartite Review Committee and the results of in-depth consultations with employers and trade unions, I am confident that they can be implemented smoothly with support from both employers, employees and workers' unions. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“Commissioner's power to inquire into disputes Sir, clause 38 removes the restriction on the Commissioners's jurisdiction to inquire into disputes only in respect of employees earning a monthly salary not exceeding $1,600. The Tripartite Review Committee was of the view that there is an anomaly in the existing Act in that while an employee who is earning a monthly salary of more than $1,600 is covered by the Act, he could not have his dispute adjudicated by the Commissioner for Labour. Currently, the Ministry could only help these employees to conciliate their disputes with their employers. However, if conciliation fails, the only recourse open to the aggrieved party is to take the case up in the civil courts on their own. This is costly and may be beyond the means of many employees. The amendment, therefore, will allow employees who earn more than $1,600 per month and are covered by the Act to pursue claims on their contractual terms and conditions of employment through the Commissioner's adjudication. Finally, Sir, the Bill also proposes amendments in other areas. I will only briefly mention them. To rationalise the computation of salary payable to an employee for an incomplete month of work, clause 7 inserts a new formula for such calculations. Next, to extend maternity protection, clause 28 sets out the procedure for an employee, who considers herself unfairly dismissed within three months before her confinement, to appeal to the Minister. It also empowers the Minister to reinstate such an employee or to award compensation as he considers just and equitable to the wrongfully dismissed employee. A penalty clause for non-compliance of the Minister's direction under the section is also provided.”
“This would mean that apart from the industrial undertakings which have been explicitly prohibited from employing such children, other industrial undertakings can employ them. To safeguard the interests of children, the Employment of Children and Young Persons Regulations under the Employment Act disallow them from being employed in any industrial undertaking without the written permission of the Commissioner for Labour. A related provision in the law also allows exceptions to be made to children working under apprenticeship schemes approved and supervised by the Institute of Technical Education (ITE). Several Members of this House have pointed out on previous occasions that such provisions are no longer relevant as children below the age of 14 years are now either pursuing their studies in schools or undergoing vocational training in the Institute of Technical Education. The Commissioner has also never approved applications for children to work in any industrial undertaking. In fact, the number of such applications had dropped from 12 in 1990 to six in 1992 and only three in 1994. None of these applications had been approved. Currently, trainees under the Institute of Technical Education's apprenticeship programmes are also all above the age of 14. The Government has therefore decided to remove the power of the Commissioner for Labour to grant such exemptions. By doing so, the employment of children below the age of 14 years to work in industrial undertakings will be completely prohibited and will serve as a clear signal that Singapore does not tolerate or condone child labour.”
“And we need to encourage employers to create more part-time jobs. Since 1990, the Ministry has set out guidelines on part-time employment. These guidelines were drawn up after consultations with the National Trades Union Congress and the Singapore National Employers Federation. Statutory benefits such as annual leave, public holidays and maternity leave are prescribed in the guidelines based on the principle of pro-rating, taking into account a part-time employee's total contractual working hours compared to that of a full-time employee. The guidelines therefore take into consideration the need to safeguard the basic benefits of part-time workers while providing employers the flexibility to make greater use of part-time employment schemes. Employers are also allowed to encash certain benefits such as annual leave and public holiday entitlements. The tripartite guidelines have been implemented smoothly since 1990. Both employers and employees have no difficulties accepting the guidelines as they are based on equitable principles. Clause 21 thus empowers the Minister to make regulations pertaining to part-time employment. Upon enactment, the Ministry's intention is to have the 1990 guidelines legislated as regulations to govern part-time employment. Employment of children in industrial undertakings Next, I turn to employment of children in industrial undertakings. Clauses 24 to 26 amend the Employment Act pertaining to the employment of children. Presently, under section 69 of the Employment Act, no children below the age of 14 is allowed to be employed in any industrial undertaking which the Minister declares to be an industrial undertaking in which no child shall be employed.”
“Clause 17 of the Bill hence shortens the qualifying period for paid sick leave from 12 months to six months' service. In halving the qualifying period, the benefit to the employees is enhanced. Reducing the qualifying period for sick leave benefit to six months will also bring it in line with the six-month qualifying period for maternity benefit. Provisions to govern part-time employment Sir, I now come to the provisions dealing with part-time employment. Clause 21 deals with part-time employment. The law currently makes no distinction between full-time and part-time employees. This means that part-time employees are, in law, entitled to similar benefits enjoyed by full-time employees under the Employment Act. Employing part-timers will therefore be more costly and this could well have deterred employers from employing them, thus reducing the opportunities for the economically inactive to re-enter the job market as part-time workers. In the proposed amendment, a "part-time employee" is defined as one who works less than 30 hours a week or such other number of hours as the Minister may prescribe. Most countries do not have a clear statutory definition of "part-time workers", but for the purpose of their national labour force surveys, part-time workers are commonly defined as those who work less than 30 hours a week. My Ministry also uses this 30-hour criterion in its Labour Force Surveys to identify part-time workers. The aim of clause 21 is therefore to facilitate part-time employment so that more employment opportunities could be created for housewives and retirees who wish to rejoin the workforce. Currently, part-time workers in Singapore only constitute some 3% of the total workforce which shows that there is still much room for improvement in this area.”
“Under such circumstances, it is therefore not appropriate to apply this 12-hour limit strictly and rigidly to such employees. Clause 14 of the Bill thus empowers the Minister to exempt certain categories of employees from this provision. To safeguard the interests of workers, their health and safety will be considered before any such exemption is granted. Furthermore, appropriate rest breaks will be provided so that exempted workers need not work 12 hours at a stretch. Qualifying period for sick and annual leave entitlements Sir, clauses 16 and 17 make amendments to the qualifying period for annual and sick leave entitlements. Presently, the law provides that an employee is entitled to pro-rated annual leave after the completion of his first month of service. In other words, after one month of service with a new employer, the employee is eligible for pro-rated annual leave. The Tripartite Review Committee was of the view that a new employee needs to undergo a period of probation for the purpose of training and learning, and that annual leave should be granted only after the probationary period. Clause 16 of the Bill therefore proposes that an employee must serve an employer for a period of three months before he is eligible for paid annual leave. After the three months' service, the employee will be entitled to pro-rated annual leave calculated from the day he has commenced work with the employer. On the other hand, the Tripartite Review Committee had also recommended that the law should be updated to regularise an existing practice of employers to grant paid medical leave to employees upon their confirmation on the job which is usually between three and six months.”
“However, this could also be unfair to some employees if they are required to work for only a few short hours but have to incur costs such as travelling and food expenses, apart from the inconvenience of having to give up a rest day. As recommended by the Tripartite Review Committee, clause 12 provides that the payment for work on a rest day done at the request of the employer shall be: one day's salary for work up to half the normal daily working hours; or two days' salary for work exceeding half and up to the normal daily working hours. This amendment removes excessive payment for work done on a rest day and, at the same time, favours those employees who are presently paid only at double their actual hours worked. Restriction of 12 working hours a day Next, on clause 14. Clause 14 of the Bill seeks to empower the Minister to exempt an employee or any class of employees from the provision in the Act relating to the maximum number of hours that an employee may work in a day. Under the existing section 38(8), an employee is not permitted to work more than 12 hours in a day, including overtime work, except in circumstances like accidents, or work which is essential to the life of the community or for the purpose of national defence. While the law aims to safeguard the employees' welfare, it is too restrictive and does not take into account the different nature of work of employees and the technological advances that have taken place over the years. For example, in the airline industry, the introduction of long-haul international flights exceeding 12 hours means that the cabin crew may on occasions have to work beyond the 12-hour limit as a matter of operational requirement.”
“As in any industrial matter, a dispute relating to the transfer may be referred for conciliation by the Ministry of Labour and if conciliation fails, for arbitration in the Industrial Arbitration Court (IAC). The IAC may also stop, delay or impose certain terms for the transfer in order to safeguard the interest of the employees. Sir, on the issue of union recognition after a transfer, clause 6 of the Bill also provides that where a trade union involved has majority representation of the employees of the transferee after the transfer, the transferee would have to recognise the union for the purpose of representing all the employees. Work on rest day and public holiday Next, I come to work on rest day and public holiday. Under the present Employment Act, every employee is entitled to a rest day in each week. What is not explicit is whether a rest day is a paid day. However, a study of the interpretation of "ordinary rate of pay" in the existing section 51 will show that a rest day is in fact not a paid day. This has been confirmed by a High Court decision. Clause 11 of the Bill therefore makes it clear and unambiguous that a rest day is a day without pay. Clause 12 provides for the amount that is to be paid in respect of work done on a rest day. Presently, section 37 of the Employment Act requires an employer to pay two days' salary to an employee who is asked to work on a rest day. This means that the employer has to pay two days' salary regardless of whether the employee works less than his normal daily working hours on his rest day. This is not in line with the principle that remuneration should be commensurate with actual work done. An alternative would be to pay the employee based on the actual number of hours worked at twice the hourly rate of pay.”
“The transferor is also required to state the reasons and the implications of the transfer, as well as the measures which may be adopted in relation to the transfer of employees. To allow time for negotiation between an employer and employees or their union representing these workers to take place, adequate notice of an impending transfer should be given. Sir, while agreeing that the law should permit employees affected by company restructuring to be transferred to another company, we must also protect workers from being deprived of retrenchment benefits under the guise of restructuring. It would be unjust if workers give up their claims for retrenchment benefits only to be transferred to a company which lacks the means to meet its obligations as their new employer. We have therefore provided safeguards to protect workers' interests and to prevent abuse by employers. Firstly, continuity of employment of the affected employees must be preserved. Secondly, their existing terms and conditions of employment remain unchanged. Thirdly, the Commissioner for Labour is empowered under clause 6 to stop or delay the transfer of employees involved or to order the transfer to be on such terms as the Commissioner considers fair. This will effectively provide an avenue for workers or their unions to seek protection from an employer who tries to take advantage of the restructuring provision at workers' expense. As a transfer may involve unionised employees, the Industrial Relations Act will also have to be amended to allow an industrial dispute arising out of a transfer to be resolved through the existing dispute settlement machinery provided in the Industrial Relations Act. This is provided for under clause 44.”
“The union of the workers involved objected to the transfer on the ground that the company had no right to sell the business together with the employees without getting their consent. The employees were unhappy that they would be relocated to work at another place which was some distance away from their usual workplace. After much negotiations and considerable delay, the workers finally agreed to the transfer with payment of a relocation incentive. A third example involved the acquisition of a company by a larger company. Following the acquisition, the new owner embarked on an exercise to streamline its operations. However, it encountered difficulties in transferring the employees among its various subsidiaries in the group. The group went through much negotiations with the union before a settlement was reached where payments were made to the affected employees in exchange for the right to transfer them to different companies within the group. Sir, from these three examples, Members can see that there is a need to address the legal position on the transfer of employees so that companies which need to restructure to cope with changes in the business conditions and retain their competitiveness could do so expeditiously. Clause 6 hence introduces a new legal framework whereby the employment contracts of the employees of the transferor, ie, the original employer, are transferred together with the transferor's business so that the transferee, ie, the new employer, taking over the business is now legally recognised as the new employer. The transferee shall take on all the rights and liabilities in respect of the employment contracts of the affected employees. Clause 6 also creates a duty for the transferor to notify affected employees of the transfer as soon as possible.”
“Sir, I would like to cite three examples where due to the absence of a clear legal framework on the rights and obligations of employers and employees in a transfer of employees to a different legal entity, protracted negotiations had taken place and company restructuring had been unnecessarily delayed or hindered. The first involved a fairly sizable local group of companies. As part of its business strategy to be more competitive, it decided to restructure its operations and set up a subsidiary to operate part of its supporting services. The restructuring involved the hiving-off of a major supporting service division and resulted in about 3,000 employees having to be transferred to the new subsidiary. However, disputes arose between the employer and the employees and their union on the need to obtain individual employees' consent to be transferred to a separate legal entity within the group. Bear in mind that about 3,000 employees were involved in such a transfer. There were also differences on whether there was redundancy in such a situation and whether compensation should be paid. No agreement could be reached between the company and the union on the transfer despite many rounds of negotiations. Come the actual date of the commencement of the new subsidiary, instead of carrying out a transfer, the company had to second the affected employees to the new subsidiary en bloc. And it was almost two years later that a new collective agreement package could be worked out between the company and the union representing the 3,000-odd employees who were transferred. The seconded employees were finally absorbed as the direct employees of the subsidiary. A second example was that of an electronics firm which sold one of its operating divisions to another company.”
“The guidelines will be issued by my Ministry after the Bill has been passed. Recovery of compensation for unfair dismissal Sir, clause 4 introduces a new subsection 7A to section 14 to enable the Court to recover compensation due to an employee whose employer has been found guilty of failing to comply with a Ministerial Order. This means that a worker who had been wrongfully dismissed would still be able to recover his compensation even if the employer defaults on the Ministerial Order. Transfer of employees Sir, I now come to the matter of transfer of employees. Clause 6 of the Bill concerns the transfer of employees. In a fast changing business environment, companies may need to restructure their operations to remain competitive. Restructuring could involve the redeployment or transfer of employees to an associated company, a subsidiary or a new company. Currently, the Employment Act allows employers to redeploy their employees within the same company. However, it is silent on the rights and obligations of the employers and employees in the transfer of employees to another company, including an associated company or a subsidiary. The common law viewpoint is that the consent of the affected employees must be sought to effect the transfer as this involves a change of employer which is a different legal entity. This could lead to protracted negotiations between the employers and employees or their union, causing damaging delays to a company's genuine restructuring exercise which could in fact have enhanced the employees' long-term job prospects.”
“However, employers have expressed concern that granting shift allowance to workers who are on outpatient sick leave would defeat the purpose of this allowance which is to motivate them to come to work on unpopular shifts. This is particularly so in the case of process industries which pay a sizeable shift allowance to ensure that their employees do not absent themselves from work when they are scheduled to work on unpopular shifts. While going on sick leave is a valid reason for an employee to stay away from work, there is concern that if this becomes rampant and workers stay away at the slightest feeling of discomfort, it would cause severe disruption to the shift work schedule. It would also be unfair if such workers continue to receive their shift allowance while their more responsible colleagues have to cover their duties in their absence. Replacements may also be necessary and the employer may have difficulty in getting relief workers at the last minute, apart from having to incur additional cost. Sir, to address such concern, clause 17 will allow shift allowance to be excluded as a statutory payment for workers on outpatient sick leave. Notwithstanding this, employers and employees or their unions could work out mutually agreeable rules under which the workers could still be paid their shift allowance when they are on outpatient sick leave. My Ministry, together with NTUC and SNEF, has formulated a set of tripartite guidelines regarding the circumstances under which employees should be paid their shift allowance while on outpatient sick leave. For example, an employee who is diagnosed to have contracted an infectious disease would have to stay away from work and therefore should not be penalised for taking outpatient sick leave.”