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 9 of 49.
“In cases where the ex-spouse who is to retain the property has the required amount of CPF savings, the CPF Board does allow the transfer of his or her CPF to refund the CPF savings used by the ex-spouse. This is no different from using one's CPF savings to buy over the share of the property from the ex-spouse. Alternatively the spouse who gives up the flat can also choose to use cash to reimburse his or her CPF so that the property can be transferred over to the ex-spouse. There are other alternatives for cash-strapped divorcing couples who want the property to be transferred. For example, the spouse taking possession of the flat may approach HDB to seek an additional housing loan to refund the CPF account of the ex-spouse. HDB will consider these on a case-by-case basis and provided that the applicant meets HDB's loan conditions. If the spouse is unable to service the additional loan for the current flat, and transferring CPF monies between ex- spouses to meet the CPF obligation is not an option, the more prudent and effective alternative would be to downgrade to a smaller and affordable flat. PSYCHIATRIC EXAMINATION OF PERSONS 31. Dr Warren Lee asked the Minister for Health whether there are measures where a person with mental illness, who is known to neighbours and community leaders to be causing a disturbance to their neighbours, can be made to submit to psychiatric examination with a view to treatment and commitment to an institution.”
“Workers must be instructed on the dangers associated with these machines or processes, and be informed of the measures that they need to take to protect themselves from harm. CPF MONIES FOR RETENTION OF FLATS 30. Ms Braema Mathiaparanam asked the Minister for Manpower whether his Ministry will allow the transfer of CPF monies between cash-strapped divorcing couples to help them retain their current flats and reduce the need to downgrade.”
“Currently, it is already a requirement for all workers to undergo compulsory safety training before they start work in a construction site. Under the Factories (Safety Training) Order, any worker employed in manual labour to carry out construction work in a building operation or work of engineering construction site shall attend and successfully complete an approved safety training course for construction workers. This course, the Safety Orientation Course (or SOC), is a one-day programme, and is designed to introduce workers to common hazards associated with construction activity. The workers are instructed on what they should do to protect themselves against these hazards. Typical hazards such as falling from height, falling objects, electricity and hazards associated with use of machinery are highlighted to the workers. They are then taught of how they could protect themselves from these hazards. The Course also teaches them how to use Personal Protective Equipment properly. To help construction workers benefit more from the safety-training courses, the Ministry has prepared a booklet that gives in pictorial form, details of the lessons they would learn during the course. This booklet, available in 6 languages including English, Mandarin and Bangladeshi, is issued to all workers attending the course. The current safety training course will provide workers with basic safety knowledge for work. Other than the compulsory course, under the law, employers are also obligated to further train their workers, if these workers are engaged in operating machines, or working at processes which may cause harm to them.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, That Parliament do now adjourn. Question proposed. SOCIAL SERVICE PROFESSIONALS 8.00 pm”
“Yes, Sir, the civil service has been taking the lead in this matter, in terms of having a flexible wage system and also reducing the maximum to minimum salary ratio. The civil service, in fact, has been one of the earliest to implement a monthly variable component. And it has also introduced the annual variable component and mid-year bonuses. All these components of a variable and flexible wage system, a performance-based wage system, has been spearheaded by the civil service. I believe the civil service would continue with the approach to achieve a more flexible and realistic wage system. ABUSE OF FOREIGN MAIDS (Standards of employment and welfare) 8. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for Manpower whether he will consider (i) stipulating minimum standards of employment for employers who hire foreign maids and (ii) appointing inspectors to ensure the observance of these standards and monitor the welfare of foreign maids. 9. Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong asked the Minister for Manpower in light of the maid abuse cases in Singapore whether he will consider (i) holding the maid agencies responsible for the welfare of foreign maids; and (ii) making it mandatory for doctors and nurses who conduct regular medical check-ups on these maids to ask if they have been physically abused by their employers. 10. Mr Chiam See Tong asked the Minister for Manpower what measures will his Ministry take to prevent maid abuse, especially after the last reported case when a maid suffered about 200 personal injuries.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not have the civil service timescale figures with me. So I would not be able to comment on that directly.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, when the Tripartite Committee in 1986 made this recommendation to reduce the salary range, it did suggest that unions try to achieve this maximum to minimum ratio within a certain timeframe. I cannot remember exactly what was the timeframe. The hon. Member may be correct in saying that it was over two collective agreements which, in our context, would mean about six years maximum, because a collective agreement runs for up to a maximum of three years. I think many unions have pursued this recommendation. That is why we have seen a significant improvement in this salary ratio, and we have come down from 2.5 to 3.3, down to 1.5 to 2. So improvements will be continuing in this fashion as the collective agreements are renewed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope the hon. Member will take comfort from the fact that we have not rushed into this matter of making adjustment to salary scales, nor have we done in a reckless manner. We took careful consideration in the mid-80s with the Tripartite Committee and we have been promoting this concept of a flexible wage scheme and shrinking the difference between the maximum and minimum ratio in our seniority-based wage scale progressively and carefully. So it is not the intention of the Government to force changes upon the people unnecessarily. And if, in fact, as I said, the economic situation takes a turn for the worse and we are seeing a dramatic increase in unemployment among the older workers, then it would be foolish of us to say that we had adopted a certain target years ago, this target should remain in place and we should not make any further changes. It is not that we wish to impose changes on our workers unnecessarily. But changes are forced upon us. Many of these changes are beyond our control. We are competing in a global market. And if, in fact, we have to make adjustments to our salary structures, we have to do it, just as in 1999, we had to adjust our CPF. So these are drawn upon us by external factors and we must be prepared to respond and adapt to these changes. If we blindly stick to the target and refuse to change, we are going to put ourselves in a very difficult position.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as I said, 1.5 was set as a target by the NWC in the mid-80s. We have not quite reached this target. When we reach this target, we will have to assess whether, in fact, as expected by NWC in making the recommendation, 1.5 would be a reasonable figure. Of course, the competitive environment changes all the time, the nature of jobs and competition in the employment market changes all the time. So we cannot tie ourselves down to say that this shall be the ratio forever and ever. We have to realise that the labour market is in a state of dynamic equilibrium. It changes all the time, depending on who are our competitors, what is the business that we are doing in Singapore, what kind of value-added that we bring to the companies and to the economy as a whole. I think we should take this, as I said earlier on, with an open-minded progressive approach. If we reach 1.5, if we are able to sustain employment of all our older workers, then 1.5 is a good target. But even if at 1.5, we find that older workers are continually suffering a disadvantage, in the sense that they have greater difficulty retaining their jobs, they are retrenched, or they have even greater difficulty seeking re-employment, then we have to address this issue whether in fact 1.5 is reasonable, or in fact it should be even less than that.”
“With regard to the seniority-based wage system, as I said earlier on, we started out in the mid-80s with a maximum to minimum ratio of 2.5 to as high as 3.3. Over the years, this has been trimmed down. Today, we are around 2 to 1.5. I think maybe 1.5 is about reasonable, that means, between the starting point and the last point in the salary scale, it is a difference of 1.5. That is what the NWC Tripartite Committee recommended in the mid-80s to be a reasonable maximum to minimum ratio. We have not quite arrived at it. Some companies have, but there are still many other companies operating at a ratio of 2. So they will have to individually start to make adjustment to try to bring this seniority-based wage scale to the figure of about 1.5:1. And if we get to 1.5:1, we should have a more manageable system.”
“But whether 10% is enough will have to depend on the state of the economy and the kind of competitive pressure that we have to face. It may well be that the 10% is sufficient. But it may also be that, as the scenario unfolds, we may need to build up more of our wages into the monthly variable component. So let us take an open-minded approach to this. Let us continue to progress on our development of a flexible wage system and then assess our competitiveness and ability to resist all these sudden changes.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the situation is dynamic and it is constantly evolving. In the mid-80s, as I mentioned in my main reply, the Tripartite Committee considered that if the variable component comprised something like 18-20%, we would have more or less achieved significant progress and we would have succeeded to make our wage system flexible enough. We are almost there. As I said, 80% of our companies have adopted the variable wage system. The variable component is around 16-18%. But in recent years, the pace of change has been so fast. Competition has been heating up so rapidly. We may not be sufficiently flexible with what we have achieved so far. So we have to push the envelope up a little bit more. It is very difficult to determine, at this point in time, what percentage of the wages should be variable for us to be truly flexible, adaptable and responsive to the market changes. I think that can only be determined in the actual labour or employment market situation and also in the context of economic performance of the day. It is rather difficult to predict in advance. But what we want is to evolve a system, for instance, the monthly variable component, where you set aside 10%, or maybe 12% of your monthly wages as a variable component which companies may be able to adjust, if there is a sudden downturn in demand, or businesses drop sharply. The company can then use this MVC, comprising about 10% of the monthly wages, to make an adjustment which helps the company to weather the downturn and also reduce the burden on the company so that they do not have to instantly resort to redundancy or retrenching workers. These are just ballpark targets.”
“With regard to the seniority-based wage system, more efforts have to be made to further narrow the maximum to minimum salary ratio and to actively promote a system which rewards workers based on the value of the job and their contribution. This will enhance the cost-competitiveness and employability of older workers who face a higher risk of losing their job and greater difficulty of seeking re-employment due to our seniority wage system. This year, the Economic Review Committee Sub-committee on Taxation, CPF, Wages and Land has been tasked to review the wage system in Singapore. The Sub-committee's initial recommendation to reduce CPF contribution by employer for employees aged 50 to 55 has already been accepted by the Government. Apart from this, the NWC will continue to encourage companies and unions to accelerate the building up of the monthly variable component and to further evolve a wage system based on the value of the job as well as the productivity and performance of individual employee.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the 1986 Economic Committee identified the seniority-based wage system as one of the weaknesses in our labour market. This system rewards workers more on the basis of their seniority in service and less on the value of the job. Subsequently a tripartite committee under the National Wages Council studied ways to make our wage system more flexible and linked to the value of the job. The National Wages Council Tripartite Committee on Wage Reform recommended that a flexible wage system with a variable component be implemented. It also recommended that wages should reflect the value of the job and that salary ranges should not be too wide. A reasonable maximum to minimum salary ratio could be 1.5: 1. Since the implementation of the above recommendations, we have made progress. Today more than 80% of the companies have implemented the flexible wage system with a year-end variable component and the one month Annual Wage Supplement or otherwise known as the 13th month pay, amounting to about 15% to 16% of total wages. The variable component enables companies to reward workers based on company and individual performance. On the seniority-based wage system the ratio between the maximum and minimum salary points for many jobs has been brought down from more than 2.5 times to between 1.5 and 2 times. While progress has been made in building up the variable component, which is often paid at the end of each year, our wage system is still not flexible enough to respond to the rapidly changing business conditions. Hence, in 1999 the National Wages Council recommended that a monthly variable component be introduced to enhance the flexibility of our wage system.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, when I responded to Mr Low earlier, I said that I agreed with his idea. In fact, I was happy that he was supporting the Government's effort to try to put more money into the Special Account. But the question is one of balance. We have to balance home ownership with retirement savings. His proposition will make home ownership very much more difficult for the younger group of Singaporeans. Yes, there will be more savings for them in their old age. We want to have a situation where there is a little bit more balance in the sense that the younger workers will not face an uphill task in putting aside enough money in their Ordinary Account to finance their first home purchase. And if they want to upgrade, that is a different matter. They have to carefully work out their financial position, whether or not they will be able to afford it with the new CPF contribution rate in the future. For those who are already affected by the CPF cut and non-restoration, we are going to allow them to use the Special Account, as announced by DPM Lee, to bridge this transition period. But for many other CPF members, the sooner we send the signal that they have to think carefully for their future upgrading, the better off are we. Otherwise, more and more people will get into this cycle and they become over committed to property. They buy properties right up to the limits of their capability. I do not think we are going to be in a better position. Mr Low Thia Khiang rose ---”
“Mr Speaker, he was actually making a speech rather than seeking a clarification. As I explained in my response, we should work from all fronts. We do not just try to find one solution for the problem. We all know that the seniority-based wage scale is a rigidity in our employment market. That is something we have to address, in the light of all the changes that are happening. Freezing the employees' CPF contribution for the older workers is one of the parcels of measures that we have to do, along with skills upgrading, retraining for the workers, redeploying older workers to new jobs in different sectors. All these would have to be done. And also, the continuing effort to scale back this seniority-based wage system. The trade unions have done much work on this. In fact, in some sectors, if I am not mistaken, from the starting pay to the end point, it used to be a factor of 2.5. Today, it is probably back to maybe 1.5 or 1.8. Even then, there is still a valid element of seniority pay which, earlier on, we heard from Mr Lim Boon Heng how this has done damage to Japan in its competitiveness. We should learn from those lessons. We should try as many measures as we can in order to address this problem.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government's policy is indeed to help Singaporeans to own a home, at least to own a home over their lifetime of work and saving, not to just have a home given to them. You have to work, you have to save and you have to pay for the mortgage. So Mr Low's example of having 7-9-9-6, having a very high contribution to the Special Account, simply makes it more difficult for the younger CPF members to put aside sufficient CPF savings by the time they reach the typical marriage age of around 28-30 to meet the downpayment to buy a home that they want. What we are saying is that we should not handicap, further disadvantage or make it more difficult for this younger group of Singaporeans. We should allow them to put sufficient savings into their Ordinary Account at a young age to be able to afford their first home. Thereafter, they will have to plan carefully if they want to upgrade to a bigger home, or to even upgrade to a private property. The prices of HDB flats are not based on how much money that is left in the Ordinary Account.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the vast majority of younger Singaporeans' first home is a HDB flat. Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, further clarification. If that is the case, then does the Minister agree that ---”
“We will work out a very reasonable instalment payment plan for him to pay the contribution. But bear in mind that it is not really a payment - he is contributing for his own future medical and healthcare needs. Self-employed are well-advised to keep their Medisave updated so that they do not run into this difficulty. But if they do have the difficulty, let me assure Dr Warren Lee that the Board is very sympathetic and we will help the self-employed to work out an appropriate payment plan. Mr Speaker, Sir, in summary, the ERC Work Group's recommendation is wide-ranging. It touches on many people. It sets in train a series of changes and adjustments for the CPF system. But these are not sudden changes. These are changes that would be introduced gradually and progressively over time as we restore the CPF to the target contribution rate of 20% plus another 20% from the employee. If we do not make these changes, if we remain status quo, we will be allowing rigidities, employment problems and inadequacy of retirement savings to become more deep-rooted and intractable. If we tackle these problems head-on and early, we will have a reasonable chance of overcoming them. By acting early, quickly and decisively, we will be better placed to enhance our long-term competitiveness and economic progress. Mr Low Thia Khiang rose ---”
“The point he made was that older workers need to upgrade their skills. I agree with that. As I have said earlier on, we will continue to invest in efforts to upgrade the skills of the older workers to help them cope with the new skills demand in the job market. Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon has suggested setting aside 1% for personal training from the CPF account. Sir, our problem today is that allocating the limited CPF contribution to the three accounts for home, retirement and healthcare is already a difficult balancing act, as we have all debated over the last two days. We should not further complicate the matter by creating another sub-account within the overall CPF framework, even though it is for an admirable objective of encouraging the member to be more responsible for his continuing education and training. Let me say that this does not mean that people will have no opportunity to go for training. On the contrary, the Government already provides ample opportunities and financial support for training and skills upgrading for all workers. These programmes will continue to be reviewed, updated and when necessary and beneficial, it would be enhanced. Let us make use of these resources, instead of trying to draw on the already limited CPF savings. Dr Warren Lee mentioned a not quite related point but allow me to respond. That is the difficulty faced by self-employed who want to renew their trade licence but did not contribute to their Medisave. This is actually an unrelated issue but let me assure him that the CPF Board is very sympathetic. If a self-employed cannot renew his licence because he is not up-to-date with his Medisave payment, all we require is that he makes us a promise that he would make some payment.”
“This Committee would continue to examine ways of helping older workers to enhance their employability, to facilitate skills upgrading and retraining for them. We will certainly continue to work with the employers and the trade unions to invest in worker training because we believe that ultimately, it is the skills and competency of our workers that would ensure their employability in the future. It is more so for the older workers because there is an increasing challenge for them. Each younger cohort of workers that goes into the job market is more skilled, better educated, more capable than the older workers. It must be so because of our education system. The older workers are going to be increasingly challenged. We will have to invest efforts in continuing education and training so that they can also keep up-to-date and also face the increasing challenge from the younger workers. Mdm Halimah and Mr Heng Chee How spoke on the need to introduce greater flexibility in our wage structure. This is exactly what the ERC's recommendation about restructuring the CPF scheme is all about. We do want to introduce greater flexibility in our wage structure. So freezing the employer's CPF contribution for this group of workers, aged 50-55, should be seen as part of the overall package to enhance employability and also flexibility of our wage structure for this group of workers. In terms of flexibility of wage structure, we will continue to promote and push the idea of building up the monthly variable component so that companies can make quick adjustments to their wage costs when they face severe business downturn, instead of having to rely on the across-the-board CPF cut, as we had done twice already in recent history. Finally, let me respond to Mr Othman Haron Eusofe.”
“We have, indeed, implemented programmes to help older workers enhance their employability through skills upgrading and training. We have put in place programmes to address the skills mismatch between older workers and the new jobs that are being created in the economy. We have introduced a wide range of programmes, including the People-for-Jobs Traineeship Programme, to help particularly the older workers to acquire the necessary skills to meet the requirements of the new jobs. With immediate effect, workers above age 50 can qualify for an additional three months, after the initial six months of wage support under the People-for-Job Traineeship Programme. This means we are extending the People-for-Job Traineeship Programme to a full nine months, provided they were recruited after retrenchment or switched jobs with some retraining required for the new jobs. One Member asked whether we would extend it for two years. Let me say that we should proceed with this extension, try it out and then, based on the experience that we get from managing this more generous programme for another year, we can decide whether it needs to be extended for a longer period. We are open to the suggestion. Sir, in addition to programmes like the People-for-Job Traineeship Programme, we have also set up a job task force chaired by the Minister of State, Dr Ng Eng Hen, to look more holistically into ways of helping the older workers who are retrenched or who are unable to secure alternative jobs. This would, in a way, address the point raised by Ms Irene Ng that we need some central or national body to look at the plight of the older workers.”
“When we accept this recommendation to freeze the employer's CPF contribution, employers should also not just stay put and keep to the old mindset about older workers, and be too quick to want to release older workers in the event that they have to restructure or reorganise their companies. We hope employers will be more open-minded and more willing to employ older workers. Many of the older workers are equally productive and reliable in their jobs. In this regard, our employer organisations in Singapore have a very important role to play in changing the mindsets of employers. DPM Lee had already announced yesterday that the Government will set the example in the civil service by providing civil servants with a special payment, the Transitional CPF Non-restoration Top-up Component, to offset the non-restoration of the 4% CPF contribution. I certainly hope that this will send a strong signal to employers in the private sector to consider adopting the same approach to return all or part of this non-restored CPF portion to older workers who are making good contribution to the company. Employers can do so by way of giving mid-year and end-of-year bonus or some other variable payment. Sir, many other Members have also spoken about the need not just to freeze the employer's CPF contribution to enhance employability of the 50-55 age group, but also to enhance their skills. Skill is a very important factor. I agree with Mr Othman Haron Eusofe, Mr Heng Chee How, Mdm Halimah Yacob, Mr Yeo Guat Kwang and Dr Maliki that skills are a very important factor. This is another area that the Government is tackling with full commitment. In fact, freezing the older workers' CPF is not the only way that we are going about tackling structural unemployment.”
“So, I would ask Mr Chiam to follow up, rather than ask the trade unions to do it, because the representatives of the trade unions have in this House supported such a move. As Mr Nithiah Nandan has pointed out, he has to deal with his members' anxiety and difficulty in finding re-employment, and he sees this as one of the helpful measures. Even though it is not the single most important solution, it will help his members in addressing their structural unemployment concerns. So, I will leave it to Mr Chiam. If he sincerely believes that it is unconstitutional, he certainly knows what to do with it. Dr Ong Seh Hong made an interesting point that by freezing the employer's CPF contribution for the 50-55 age group, we are creating a situation where there is no longer equal pay for equal work. I do not quite understand the logic behind that. I would like to point out that under today's seniority-based wage system, there is already an element of distortion. In some jobs, where two persons are doing the same work, an older person can get paid one-and-a-half or even twice as much as the younger person. So, there is already this element. What we are doing with this freezing of the employer's CPF contribution is to take one small step to try to level the playing field, to try to bring it back, and make it more equal. So, I hope that Dr Ong, who believes in equal pay for equal work, will support the NTUC in their effort to promote revision of the seniority-based wage system to promote paying workers by job rate. If he does so, then he will be helping us to overcome the rigidity in our employment market.”
“Sir, while many Members have questioned whether the 4-percentage point reduction will be sufficient on its own, I would like to point out that, yes, a 4-percentage point reduction is not a very big difference. It is not a solution or alternative for the seniority-based wage system. But it is a move in the right direction. It sends a strong signal. Here, I am cheered when Mr Ahmad Magad expressed the view that, in fact, it is a pragmatic way to address the rigidity in our labour market. Likewise, Dr Amy Khor and also Dr Warren Lee have expressed support for this move and said that it will help us to address the seniority-based wage system. So, on balance, while this is an issue that many Members have reservations, we must also recognise that the seniority-based wage system is going to be here for quite some time, and we will have to begin to address it, and this is the first step that we are taking to address this issue. Mr Chiam said that the freezing of the employer's CPF for the 50-55 age group is unfair to the older workers, and that the 4% saving is not a sufficient incentive to employ workers. As I said, in itself, it may not solve the problem completely, but if it is seen as part of the rest of the measures - some of which I will touch on later on - it is a step in the right direction. Mr Chiam went on to say that it is unconstitutional. Surprise! Surprise! If it is unconstitutional, he himself has decided not to do anything, but he suggested to my colleague, the Secretary General of NTUC, that the unions should do something about it, because this is unconstitutional. If indeed this is unconstitutional, Mr Chiam knows what the remedy is. If he feels that this measure is unconstitutional, he knows how to take it up.”
“In some industries, it may be as wide as two or even more than two. However, despite many years of effort, the seniority-based wage system is still deeply entrenched in Singapore. Not many employers are able to change the system on their own. Any change will also result in much unhappiness. Many Members who expressed reservations over this recommendation had also at the same time considered that wage cost is not an insignificant factor. For example, Dr Jennifer Lee noted that wage cost is a factor, although she questioned whether this 4-percentage point reduction would make a big difference. Mr Speaker, Sir, we agree that we should make greater effort to replace the seniority-based wage system, or to progressively change it to a system where wages are paid based on value of jobs and performance. But this will take time. We just cannot wait for the seniority-based wage system to be completely phased out over many, many years, in order to address the immediate problem of rising structural unemployment. We have to move on every front. We have to tackle the problem in many ways, because this is a problem that cannot be solved with one magic bullet. It is a problem that requires a plethora of solutions or efforts in order to address it. Sir, neither can we leave it entirely to the workers to negotiate with their employers, as suggested by Mr Steve Chia. If, in fact, our CPF structure today reinforces or makes the seniority-based wage system even more inflexible and difficult in this competitive environment, then we should be prepared to restructure and change it to make it more relevant to the current employment market.”
“Effectively, the reduction for this age group is only 4-percentage point, because today they are already short of 4-percentage point which is not going to be restored. So, the effective reduction is the 4-percentage point which will be migrated to his Medisave and Special Account. We feel that the shortfall in mortgage repayment will not be as drastic as suggested by this presentation that the Ordinary Account has been reduced from 22% to 14%. The impact is less than that. I would also like to remind Members that DPM Lee announced yesterday that CPF members who are affected and are in this age group will be allowed to draw on their Special Account to meet their mortgage payment. This will help those in the 50-55 age group during the transition period to ease their financial burden. Mr Steve Chia yesterday supported the changes recommended by the ERC. But he asked that we should not micro-manage the CPF system, that we should let employers and employees to decide on their own contribution rate, based on company performance. Dr Jennifer Lee, Mr Sin Boon Ann and many other hon. Members asked whether a 4-percentage point reduction in employer's contribution will be effective. Will it only just hurt the worker by cutting his CPF, without actually enhancing his employability? We have to look at it in totality. Freezing the contribution rate at 16% is one of the many measures to help enhance the employability of older workers, and these are the older workers who are at greatest risk of retrenchment and who are most vulnerable. Sir, we have, over the years, tried to narrow the salary minimum-to-maximum ratio for workers doing the same job. Because of our seniority-based wage scale, this minimum-to-maximum ratio is quite wide.”
“The subject of older workers aged 50-55 has been the most controversial element of the recommendations of the ERC Work Group. Many Members have spoken on this. First, I would like to respond to Mr Leong Horn Kee, who suggested that the reduction in CPF contribution for the group of workers aged 50-55 should not be done now, but should be done for future cohorts of older workers. We are beginning to see the emergence of structural unemployment, as I explained earlier on. It would be unwise and irresponsible for this Government to pretend that there is no problem now and to leave the problem to be tackled for future cohorts of workers. The problem is emerging now. The sooner we tackle it, the better off we are. We should give notice that we are going to make this move. The change itself is going to be phased out gradually, so that it is not a sudden shock. Mdm Ho Geok Choo observed that the non-restoration of CPF contribution for the older workers in this age group will result in an 8% reduction in the Ordinary Account, from 22% currently, to 14%, and this could affect their ability to meet their mortgage payment. Workers in this age group will see an 8-percentage point reduction in the Ordinary Account as a result of the non-restoration of CPF contribution, together with a 4-percentage point reduction in the employee's contribution, and also the migration of 1-percentage point to Medisave and 3-percentage point to Special Account under the earlier recommendation. But the 4-percentage point cut in the employee's CPF contribution is not lost to the employee. It becomes higher take-home pay for him. So, he should be able to use that to supplement his mortgage payment through his CPF account.”
“Because in the past, with a wage floor of $200 attracting CPF contribution, many would-be part-time workers, or odd job workers, say that by the time the CPF contribution is deducted, the take-home pay becomes so small and miserable that they just did not feel sufficiently incentivised to take on the job. So, with this raise of the CPF floor to $500-$750, we hope that more homemakers and housewives will join the workforce to supplement their household income. Others who will benefit from this change include the odd-job workers. We hope that the higher take-home pay from odd jobs will encourage more of such people to enter the job market in this manner. I also like to point out that there is no reduction to the employer's CPF contribution for this group of workers. So although they are not making full contribution, as an employee, they still receive full employer's contribution and they are still saving some money for their old age. And with the higher take-home pay, they will be supplementing the family income and, I think, that is good for the family. Of course, there are those with very low income and they would have great difficulty saving for their future retirement needs, and this is the group that may eventually have to fall upon some social assistance measures. We also have schemes, such as Medifund, to look after the very poor to help them meet their medical expenses. We have rent and utilities assistance scheme and also many other community welfare schemes to help the very poor. When the economy does well and the Government is able to achieve a budget surplus, then we will try to give some CPF top-ups or New Singapore Shares. We can try to allocate more to those who are poor and those who are in greater need of such help.”
“All along we have used CPF for the past 47 years as one-size-fits-all kind of plan. Everybody contributes the same amount. But increasingly, we notice that, for the higher income earners, there is less need for them to have the same level of mandatory saving as the lower income. I think we should start to free up some of this, allow those in the higher income to have more control and discretion over how much more they should save. Hence, the idea of trying to limit the CPF to serve the 10th to 80th percentile group. Sir, the ERC Sub-Committee's recommendation to lower the salary cap from $6,000 to $5,000 should also be taken together with the previous recommendation to lower personal income tax. So CPF members in this income tax group facing a cut in the ceiling will also benefit, to some extent, from the new tax regime that was announced by DPM in the Budget Statement. Furthermore, for the higher income group, while income tax obligation may go up, we now have a mechanism called the Supplementary Retirement Scheme for them to make tax exempt investments to mitigate their tax burden. So there are offset mechanisms available for this group of people who will enjoy a higher take-home pay as a result of this change in the ceiling. On the point about the income floor, the recommendation here is to raise the income floor for employee's CPF contribution for low wage earners. Many MPs have spoken on this. Mr Gan Kim Yong, Mr Heng Chee How, Mdm Yu-Foo Yee Shoon, Mr Ravindran, Mr Sin Boon Ann, Mr Ang Mong Seng, and Miss Penny Low all supported this move. They understand that it will allow the low income group to have a higher take-home pay, and this is welcome. The idea behind this move to raise the CPF floor level is to encourage more part-timers to enter the job market.”
“Then we scaled it back to 50% and, I think, more recently, it was scaled back to 35%. On the other hand, we allow them to invest up to 100% of the investible funds in the professionally managed funds. We also allow them to use their Special Account savings for such investments. So we are moving in that direction, scaling back on the personal investments in shares, where there is a highly speculative element, and encouraging members to move towards professionally managed funds. Next, on the salary cap recommended by the ERC Work Group, that is, to lower the salary cap for CPF contribution from $6,000 to $5,000. Dr Teo Ho Pin asked whether the reduction in salary ceiling will affect the members' ability to upgrade their housing type in future. Sir, let me point out that the changes will be implemented gradually in tandem with CPF restoration. We still have this outstanding 4% CPF that has got to be restored for most of the workers over the next three, maybe four, years, depending on how the economy performs. So any negative impact on mortgage payment would thus be moderated because we are not implementing this measure in one go. The labour market itself will adjust to the reduction in the employer's CPF contribution, and part of this will work its way back into the member's salary which he can, of course, use to service his mortgage. Mdm Ho Geok Choo and Mr Andy Gan asked whether reducing the CPF salary ceiling may lead to higher take-home pay for those earning about $5,000 or above, but as a result of higher take-home pay, they would end up paying more taxes. Are they not worse off than before? Reducing the salary ceiling for CPF will enable them to have a higher take-home pay. We have to look at it this way.”
“On the part of the Central Provident Fund Board, we will disseminate information to enhance consumer awareness of pension plans. We will promote public investor education on pension funds through publicity activities as well as in collaboration with agencies, such as the Ministry of Community Development and Sports and the Financial Planner Association of Singapore. Industry bodies, such as the Investment Manager Association of Singapore could also help consumers learn more about pension funds. The relevant Government bodies will work with these industry players to promote better understanding of pension plans. Sir, CPF Board will also study existing restrictions, such as foreign currency denominated equity, and the difficulty faced by CPF members to have a flow through of CPF contributions to pension plans. We will facilitate members' access to these pension plans. Finally, the financial institutions and the fund management companies themselves should also promote their products professionally. Sir, with each party playing their part in providing information and educational material, CPF members should have ample opportunities to better understand the use of pension plans for their financial planning. What we hope to achieve is to provide all the information to CPF members so that he or she can make an educated decision on whether to join any pension plan. The CPF Board cannot make this decision for the members. Dr Ong Chit Chung suggested that we confine investments under the CPF Investment Scheme to investments in unit trusts and pension plans, and not to share purchases. We have been moving in that direction. We started out with a fairly liberal regime under the CPF Investment Scheme where members can invest about 80% of their investible funds in shares.”
“The ERC Work Group's recommendation of having 5-7-9 percentage point contribution to the Special Account strikes a better balance between old-age needs and housing needs of the younger CPF members. The proposed four-step rate by Mr Low Thia Khiang would have too adverse an impact on the existing younger members, ie, those in the 35-45 age group. The sharp increase in the Special Account contribution would seriously affect their ability to service their existing mortgages. For new members adopting the four-step proposal it will delay their ability to purchase a first property using their CPF savings. So, on balance, I would not be able to support Mr Low's proposal and I would prefer to go along with the ERC's recommendation of 5-7-9. Mr Othman Haron Eusofe, Mdm Yu-Foo Yee Shoon, Mr Andy Gan, Dr Chong Weng Chiew and Mr Zainudin have all spoken on the proposal to facilitate pooling of CPF funds for investment in private pension plans. They support the idea, but they urge the Government to enhance public education in the use of pension plans because they have serious doubts whether the average Singaporean knows exactly how to participate in a pension plan. Sir, public education on the use of CPF investment scheme or pool pension plans would be critical for its acceptance by Singaporeans. We agree that Singaporeans need to understand the concept and the mechanics of how a pension plan works in order to be able to take full advantage of the potential to enhance their savings through pension plans. So public investor education on pension plans should be driven along three tracks - the Government, the non-profit industry body as well as the financial institutions and fund management companies operating pension plans.”
“Those who have enough in their CPF account can convert to an annuity at the age of 55. An annuity which will pay more than what the Minimum Sum would allow them to draw on a monthly basis would also be allowed and, in fact, we encourage them to withdraw all their CPF to purchase their annuity, or to place it in a bank which will then allow them to withdraw a monthly amount. So, in fact, we already have this mechanism. Next, I turn to the Special Account where the recommendation is to increase the contribution rate from our present rate of 4-6-6 to 5-7-9 for the different age groups. Here, like Mr Seng Han Thong, I was also quite surprised that Mr Low Thia Khiang has taken a fairly strong position on this issue. He has agreed with the gradual adjustment, and he also pointed out that it will get people to be more self-reliant. I agree with him. I would like to say that his idea is not wrong, in principle. And I am also very glad that he supports the Government's principle of putting more into the Special Account and also cutting back on the contribution to the Ordinary Account for housing. However, his scheme of having four age groups contributing 7-9-9-6 to the Special Account is quite drastic. It is front loaded, very heavy for the younger workers, and will make it very difficult for young people to start buying their first house. So we have no reason to cause people to delay marrying, starting a family and buying a home. In fact, that is what our home ownership programme is all about. Our concern is that they over commit either by buying too big a house, or by upgrading beyond their financial limits. So the way to address this concern is to have a Special Account which increases with age. So there has to be a balance.”
“I will group them into key areas where the changes have been recommended, starting with the Minimum Sum. The recommendation is to retain the Minimum Sum, the present framework, to reach $80,000 by July next year. Mr Yeo Guat Kwang supported the concept of maintaining the Minimum Sum framework and he asked if Government were to revise the Minimum Sum, what will be the future Minimum Sum like. I believe Dr Amy Khor also supported the idea of raising the Minimum Sum and emphasised that it should be done gradually. Sir, we started to revise the Minimum Sum back in 1995. By next year, ie, after 8 years, we will reach the target of $80,000. That Singaporeans need a higher Minimum Sum in future is beyond doubt. The Government will study what would be an appropriate Minimum Sum and the schedule of implementation after we have achieved our current target. The amount will be increased, taking into consideration inflation, higher standards of living and the rising expectation of basic retirement needs. In response to Dr Khor who pointed out that we should move gradually, let me assure Members that we will give CPF members plenty of time to adjust to any revision in the Minimum Sum in future. We will certainly not rush this issue. We took eight years in the last revision. We can take equally long, or maybe a little longer. Mr Chew Heng Ching asked whether we will allow members to opt out from the Minimum Sum Scheme, if they have a pension plan. Let me point out that, in fact, this is already the existing position. Members who, upon reaching the age of 55, can enjoy a pension that will pay them an annuity, or a monthly pension, more than what the Minimum Sum can pay, will be allowed to withdraw their Minimum Sum.”
“It is the recognition of these new trends and growing threat of structural unemployment that has prompted Government to accept the ERC Work Group's recommendations to restructure the CPF system. Where the CPF is concerned, this institution has stood the test of time. As both Senior Minister of State, Mr Tharman, and DPM Lee had said, the CPF has served us well and is in no danger of a collapse. Going forward, we are confident that it will continue to serve us well, provided we refine and retune the system for a more competitive environment. Sir, I will not dwell on the core areas of retirement, housing and health care. These have been more than adequately addressed and explained by DPM Lee. In refining the CPF system, we must take care not to add to or reinforce existing rigidities in the labour market, which could eventually make the Singapore worker less competitive than his counterparts in other countries. It must be made more flexible and more resilient so as to better serve workers. The Government knows that these changes will cause some difficulties for some of our CPF members, for example, the 50-55 age group or those earning above $5,000. We are sympathetic that they have to make this adjustment. But the underlying driving forces causing job losses in many sectors, namely, global competition, corporate restructuring and the changes in the employment trends, will only get stronger with time. We did not cause these changes. But we cannot avoid them. So we must adjust to them. Sooner or later, we have to adjust. It is better to make these changes earlier, so that the younger members have more time to prepare and will be better placed to face the realities of competitive global environment. Sir, I would now like to turn to the issues raised by hon. Members.”
“Recently, the media and yesterday several Members in this House - as pointed out to me by my Minister of State, Dr Ng Eng Hen - had mentioned that the unemployment rate for the 50-55 stood at 11%. I think this was a mistake. Somehow, it has crept in. People have got this impression that it was 11%. Let me say that this was a mistake. It is wrong. It is not the right figure. We do not have double-digit unemployment rate in Singapore, not even for the older workers. But this is no cause for comfort. When an older worker is retrenched, he or she tends to remain jobless for a longer period. As Deputy Prime Minister Lee pointed out yesterday, last year, older job seekers aged 50 to 55 experienced a median duration of unemployment of 21 weeks, compared to 14 weeks and below for younger workers. The re-employment rate for workers above 50 was 37% compared to 56% for younger workers. Sir, there are jobs available in Singapore, and most of these older workers are able to do these jobs. But it may be a different job, in a different sector, which requires the older workers to make an effort to learn a new skill. Otherwise, older workers will have to accept lower wage. And, in fact, older workers above 50 who found re-employment were already likely to earn less than before their retrenchment, as mentioned by DPM Lee yesterday. Clearly, what is happening is that we are experiencing growing structural unemployment and older workers are facing the greatest risk of prolonged unemployment. Faced with growing global competition, changing corporate structures and the emergence of new employment trends, we have to examine our existing systems and structures to identify whether they will still serve us well in the new operating environment.”
“Last year, investment commitments were more than doubled at S$8.3 billion. But these investments will result in only 24,000 jobs. However, three-quarters of these jobs will be skilled jobs. So, for every investment dollar in future, fewer jobs are going to be created, but more of these jobs will be skilled ones requiring skilled workers. Likewise, we are also experiencing more job turnovers in Singapore. Singaporeans of all ages and educational qualifications have been affected in the process of economic restructuring. Even when the economy was growing strongly in the years between 1991 and 1996, the number of workers retrenched rose at an annualised rate of 17%. Whilst we were enjoying good economic growth, some years 6-8% growth, we were still seeing increased number of workers being laid off purely as a result of the retrenchment from structural changes taking place in the company. Whilst new jobs are being created, the demand will be for more skilled and knowledge workers. Under such circumstances, older workers will be hard hit by this changing environment. This is in part because a significant proportion of our older workers have only secondary and below qualifications. Hence, they do not have the skills necessary for the new jobs that are being created. But, even for some of the older workers with higher educational qualifications, on-going restructuring is creating difficulties for them, and they face greater job competition. In March this year, the unemployment rate of residents aged 50 to 55 years was 4.6%. This is significantly higher than the 4.1% for workers aged 40 to 49 and the 3.9% for workers in the 30 to 39 age group. However, it is still lower than the unemployment rate for young workers below 30, which stood at 5.5%.”
“The emergence of new players bigger and better endowed than Singapore is rapidly reshaping our business environment. Multi-nationals are on the prowl looking for locations which can offer more comparative advantages. That is why Singapore and many other ASEAN countries face strong competition from China for investments and job creation. In the manufacturing industry, China's vast resources of land, labour and the sheer enormity of its domestic market give it a comparative advantage way ahead of us. Furthermore, we are not only competing against countries like China. In the higher value-added industries, Singapore faces competition from the mature developed countries such as the Netherlands, Ireland, Denmark and Finland. These countries have highly trained, highly skilled, very creative and innovative workers much needed by the knowledge economy. Because of intense economic competition, and the rapid pace of corporate restructuring, our employment patterns will change. Instead of secure jobs in stable companies, the future will see frequent job creation and job destruction at the same time. This is already happening in countries such as the US, when many jobs are being replaced or lost, while new jobs are being created in different industries. So, how will these changes affect us here in Singapore? Sir, we cannot compete on low cost manufacturing in the years ahead of us. This is not where we have a comparative advantage. Instead, we must shift into higher value-added production and services over the years in the future. A decade ago, investments in Singapore amounted to S$3.3 billion (based on 1990 prices), creating 18,000 jobs. 33% of these jobs were jobs requiring people with at least NTC-2 qualifications.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate. Yesterday, Deputy Prime Minister Lee announced the Government's acceptance of the Economic Review Committee Work Group's recommendations on Central Provident Fund and related issues. Since then, 38 hon. Members have spoken mostly in support and also, at the same time, to raise valid and important points to reflect public concern on these changes. Sir, I would like to take this opportunity to respond to Members' queries and concerns. But before I go into the specific issues raised by individual hon. Members I would like to say something about the employment market to provide a backdrop for the Government's acceptance of these wide-ranging recommendations. First, I want to talk about the changes in the external environment and the employment market. From 1990 to 1997, Singapore's economy grew strongly. Employment creation rose by 413,200 jobs in total, and that did not include jobs that were created by the construction sector. Members will remember those were the boom years, and the construction sector was going great guns. So if we took those out, in effect, we are talking about creating about 52,000 jobs a year. That is more than the average cohort of young Singaporeans entering the workforce. The result is full employment for many years. However, much has changed in the last five years. The 1997 Asian financial crisis caused a downturn in 1998. Then, after a brief recovery, we were hit by the global economic slowdown in 2001. These are some of the shifts. Some of these are cyclical trends which come and go. More importantly, over and above these cyclical changes, we also have to face structural challenges ahead of us.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I take the point. There are women working part-time who are earning below $400. I gave some examples. There are also women, as I mentioned, doing conservancy type of jobs, like cleaning job, that earn less than $400. COMPULSORY EDUCATION ACT (Counselling teams) 5. Ms Braema Mathiaparanam asked the Minister for Education, in view of the implementation of the Compulsory Education Act in 2003 and the completion of Primary 1 Registration at the end of this month (a) how many volunteers and officers are on the team to counsel parents who are not eager to register their children into schools; (b) what is the composition of this team and their experience in counselling; (c) what is the nature of training that the team has received; (d) when will the team start its work in assessing reluctant parents; and (e) when will it make its final recommendation to the Ministry for further action.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, before we ratify any international convention, we will quite carefully study the obligations under the convention. We had studied our obligations under Convention 100, regardless of what the Nominated Member mentioned. I would like to assure this House that we will not be in violation of the requirements of Convention 100. We will be able to meet the statutory requirement after ratifying this Convention. As I have explained, the Government does not practise any discrimination in its wage policy. The employment market itself does not practise wage discrimination. Wages are different because they are not doing the same job. That is the basic point. I think ILO will understand why this is so. There is no regulation that explicitly says that women should be paid less than men. In fact, it is the contrary. The principle of the Government has all along been meritocracy. If you are doing the same job, you will be getting the same reward. Dr Lily Neo rose ---”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the salary gap, as I said in my main answer, is one of national statistics. You take all the women workers on one side, you average their salary, you take all the male workers on the other side, average their salary, and you get this gap of 72%. But, in fact, if you look at the women with their male counterparts, if they are of equal capability, equal seniority, doing the same jobs in the company, I do not think they are paid any less than their male counterpart. So the point that you mentioned in your question does not arise. You are confusing overall statistics with an individual situation. We have overall statistics which show a gap. But at the individual level, it is a totally level playing field. A woman who has the same years of seniority in the company, who does exactly the same job, will get the same pay as the male worker. I do not think there are companies that practise this kind of discrimination. I know that the NTUC, in their collective agreements, ensures that all their members, regardless of whether they are male or female workers, get exactly the same salary for doing the same work.”
“I think the re-employment rate, on the whole, is probably about 60%-odd, that means, about six out of 10 of those who were retrenched were re-employed. Many who were re-employed probably end up taking a lower paying job than what they had before because the employment market is not so favourable now. As to how many of them had undergone specific retraining, I do not have the figures with me. I know that, for a start, our Skills Redevelopment Programme has a lot of women participation in it. Many of the electronics factory workers who were retrenched, or whose jobs were vulnerable to retrenchment, in fact, had undergone skills redevelopment training. As to the 119,000 women, whom the Member quoted as earning less than $400 a month, she asked what type of jobs they are in. I think most of these are actually part-time workers supplementing the family income. Of course, some of them could be doing the lower-end jobs, in conservancy type of work. But I think you will find quite a number of women doing part-time work, for instance, NTUC FairPrice supermarkets employ a fairly large complement of cashiers who are women doing part-time work because these are the jobs that are conveniently located within the new towns, close to their homes, and many women like to take on these jobs.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, when I said that there are more women in the factories doing electronics assembly line type of work, I was referring to the occupational grouping of plant and machinery operators. Is your question on how many of the retrenched workers are women?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, yes, we in fact already do some of these works. We have a programme called "Back-to-Work". Back-to-Work is a programme that was designed to help women who have left the workforce to be retrained before re-entering the workforce. And the whole Back-to-Work programme is also geared towards giving moral support and encouragement to women who have left the workforce for some years and now want to re-enter it but because of the change in the working environment, they do not feel adequate or prepared. So the Back-to-Work programme addresses these issues. Of course, the Back-to-Work programme during this period of high unemployment is a bit difficult to implement because, first, you got to have the jobs. We started the programme in 1996 when the economy was booming, tight labour market and very limited supply of workers. So we introduced this Back-to-Work programme to try to draw the women who had left the workforce back into it. But since then, the economic situation has turned unfavourably. Jobs have been harder to come by. I remember I did inform this House during the Committee of Supply that we are in fact putting this at a lower priority instead. Maybe when the economy turns around, or when we encounter a similar situation where there are more jobs available, then we should refine this Back-to-Work programme to address precisely the issue that the Member has mentioned, ie, how to help women re-enter the workforce after a period of time spent with the family.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, before we ratified Convention 100 on Equal Remuneration, we have already studied our legislative framework. There is nothing in our legislative framework that will disallow us from complying with the requirements of Convention 100. We are already in full compliance. The fact that this wage gap exists does not mean that we are not in compliance. For your information, Mr Speaker, Sir, many other countries that have ratified the same convention also have a similar wage gap, for instance, the United Kingdom, Australia, Sweden, Finland, Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg. These are all developed countries. They are also countries with a wage gap. So, having a wage gap per se does not mean that one is not in compliance with Convention 100. They will have to look at the details of the statistics. As I said in the main answer, our practice and implementation of wage policy are fair. It does not discriminate against women. We pay the same wages for the same work that is being done. If ILO were to query why a wage gap arises in Singapore's context, we will be able to explain why this wage gap has arisen, as in the same way that I am trying to explain to this House.”
“As I said, for the younger cohort, they are already as well educated as their male counterparts. They will be competing for the same jobs. But in our system where there is seniority-based wage scale, those women who do not want to carry on with their career development, who drop out of the workforce well before they make it to the higher level of management structure, will result in the group as a whole again still having a lower pay. Because for everyone who drops out, you find a man has moved ahead of a woman. So, as a result, taking the women as a group, they will be at the lower end of the pyramid, and more men will be moving up to the higher level of the management pyramid. As a result, if you take the group as a whole, men will still be earning more than women. But that is a choice on the part of the women. Do they want to carry on to develop their career to the fullest, go to the highest level in management? This, in our system of meritocracy, is entirely up to the women to choose. It is a matter for them to choose, to decide how far they want to go, how do they balance their home and career. I do not think we should have a system where we guarantee that within our labour force, there should be equal representation, or a guarantee in our management structure that there should be equal representation. The fact is this is how the market operates. If women want to make the effort to excel in their career, the opportunities are there. There is a level playing field. They can compete for the job; they can compete for the position, and they will be paid for their performance. And I think this is a fair system, and it is a system that should be allowed to continue.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I have prepared myself to answer this question on wage gap. I do not see any reason or justification to say that I have not adequately given the hon. Member an answer on the wage gap. With regard to a previous study, if she has a specific interest in the outcome on whatever other studies that she requested for, we will be prepared to address those points. I would take her last point about females having the lowest gross monthly income. I think this is taken as a group, as a whole, and I have spent some time to explain why this is so - partly because of our seniority-based wage scale system. If you take any group, you will find within the group, as I mentioned earlier on, the occupational group of plant and machinery operators, a situation where women tend to congregate at a lower wage level, simply because they are actually doing those jobs - electronics factory production workers rather than men doing more higher value-added jobs operating more complicated and sophisticated machinery. I do not see what other explanation is there to give, apart from what I have already said that the women are having this lower income or earn lower wages for fairly sound reasons. Not that I agree with them, but the reasons are the results of history. 20-30 years ago, not all the women got the same education as their male counterparts in that cohort. It just was not so. Today, the women in their 40s and late 40s generally have a lower level of education and skills than their male counterparts. Therefore, they are not doing exactly the same job; so, they do not get the same pay. If you ask me why there are fewer women in management and executive positions, this will change.”
“As I said, the only way to bridge the gap is to equip the women with the skills to do the higher value-added jobs.”