Lee Yock Suan
Singapore
“The position will be clear when the regulations have been drafted. Right now we are debating it in the absence of actual wording of the regulations. The regulations will be fair, they are meant to maintain a level playing field, and we should wait for the regulations before we pass judgement. The intention is not to go after everybody.”
“I think the Member will be aware that Internet is a very dangerous place. We can have all kinds of poison letters and they will just spread like wild fire. So we must have some means to try and minimise this and make sure that everything is orderly and fair.”
“The other Members have no problem supporting the Bill, including Mr Chiam. I think the position is about 95% clear. 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. - [Mr Lee Yock Suan].”
“Then we will have to see the actual situation. But, as I said, the intention is to go after the popular sites, the main sites of parties and non-party political sites. If it is an individual, eg, a young man posting up his own site and saying "These are my views", we are not going to go after those people.”
“The intention is to make the rules clear for the main parties involved in the contest, in other words, the party websites. These are the areas we are mainly after.”
“I thank Mr Chiam for reminding me about his question. On listening to his speech, I was under the impression that he was asking whether this ban on opinion polls applies to the mass media. The answer is yes, it applies to all media, not just the Internet but also newspapers, TV and so on. Thank you for pointing this out.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,595 lines we hold for Lee Yock Suan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 17 of 32.
“I just want to thank Mr Philip Tan for his clarification. But I thought I understood the drift of his message quite well - that he thinks we are being too tight with work permits. I myself as an MP also face the same problem. But it is the same question - if you liberalize, are you going to get a big flood of applications for work permits? Or should we, as we are doing now, selectively allow some if they have skills, if they have 5 'O' levels, for example, maybe from Hong Kong. They can also recruit other workers who are already here, as I have mentioned. Say, if one of them is working in a coffee shop and wants to change job to another coffee shop, we can allow that.”
“As I have said, we are constantly reviewing our policies on the labour market, and this is one problem area that we have been studying.”
“Of course, my Ministry is closely monitoring the situation and we are conscious of this problem. We are trying to balance the two objectives: how to achieve higher economic growth on the one hand, and control the pool of foreign workers on the other hand. So if Members have good ideas, we will be happy to listen to them. But we must always be conscious of the need to balance the interest of the vast majority of Singaporeans who are workers against the clamours of a few employers who want to make more profits. Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, can I ask the Minister a point of clarification. As the Minister recognizes that there are Malaysians on social visit passes working in Singapore, will he not review this unhealthy situation so that the employer does not become a law breaker, neither does the employee become a law breaker?”
“Whereas here, because we have this large pool of foreign workers wanting to come in and willing to work for low wages, therefore the incentive to apply better methods is not there. We must continue to maintain this pressure. As Singapore becomes more developed and salaries rise, the cost of personal services must increase. The way to provide such services must also change. This is what has happened in the developed countries. We cannot expect to enjoy high income on the one hand and low cost services which can only be provided by cheap foreign labour on the other hand. Before I conclude, I would just like to comment briefly on some of the remarks made by Mr Philip Tan, who is forever championing all and sundry who are clamouring for more foreign workers. Firstly, it is not true that we only issue permits to multi-nationals and foreigners. Most of the contractors in the construction industry, most of the shipyards, many of the manufacturing companies, most of the domestic employers, these are all locals. Many of the local industries have not found it necessary to employ foreign workers, like banks, stockbrokers and so on, even hotels, because they have been able to attract local workers. Even amongst multi-nationals, you have some companies which can operate with less than 10% foreign workers. There are others that cannot seem to have enough. Even if we give them 40%, 50%, they will still want more. So it is a question of management. It is a question of productivity and whether they are prepared to pay a bit more to retain the workers. This point about the construction workers and issue of permits, I have already touched on. I do not want to go into a long debate today on this work permit policy. It is a question that comes very often in our labour shortage situation.”
“They are faced with a situation where they have to compete harder for workers. However, we should also balance the interest of these groups with those of the vast majority of our constituents who are workers. No doubt, these people are very vociferous, they help us, they provide some financial support, they want us to loosen up on the work permit controls. To the extent that we can allow them, we have done so. For example, if they are willing to recruit 5 '0' levels or skilled workers, or if they recruit workers who are already in the unapproved sectors, we have allowed them. And we have also allowed employers who employ less than 10 workers to hire foreign workers, as I mentioned in my reply to the oral question earlier on. But the fact is many of these employers are catering to the domestic sector. Whilst we may sympathize with them, we must ask several questions. Have they tried hard enough to hire local workers, including older Singaporeans? Is their pay adequate for the type of job? Take hairdressers, for example. Are there too many of them? Should they not get together and open for shorter hours during peak periods? Should they not have an appointment system perhaps? All these changes must take place. Some changes have already taken place, as you can see from the better layout in the coffee shops, in the fast food joints, in the supermarkets and so on. But it is part of the upgrading process that must go on - the better use of our workers. One good example that was brought out by Mr Lim Boon Heng is this question of the construction industry. It is true. CIDB has done a study and found that, in fact, construction costs are lower in some countries with higher wage costs than ours .”
“Not all of them want to work, but quite a number of them would like to work if the conditions are right. So this is a source of labour that we have not tapped. Some of you may remember the article in the Straits Times recently reporting about the older workers in McDonald's. Personally, I found that to be a very encouraging report because it shows that when employers try hard enough and are prepared to accommodate the older workers, they in fact find that these are better workers. And even the employees and the managers call these older ladies "Aunties" (maybe there are some "Uncles" as well), and they are there to show the way to the younger workers. They are not affected by school examinations. They are more serious about their work and they are able to do the job as well, if not better than the younger workers. Such developments might not have taken place if we are too liberal with our work permits because to the employers it is a question of dollars and cents. Why hire an older worker who may perhaps be a bit slower, need a bit more training, maybe you have to pay him or her a bit more, as compared to a worker from Malaysia who is young and willing to work for lower wages? That is a basic dollar and cents issue. Unfortunately, from our records of employers who register with the Employment Service Division for jobs, many are still insisting on workers below 45 years old or even below 35 years old. So the whole basic attitude of our employers towards employment of the more senior workers has still not changed. True, in a tight labour market, employers have to compete harder for workers. Therefore, Members, I myself included, can expect more pressure from supporters who are running small businesses.”
“You have to give the small shirt to your younger brother and then go on to something else. So this is part of the process of economic growth and restructuring. We must not forget in our debate what is our basic objective. Our basic objective is to achieve a stronger economy and to provide better paying jobs for Singaporeans. This must be the basic objective. We cannot grow by simply importing more and more unskilled foreign workers. True, the labour market is tight and we have full employment. But a tight labour market is in fact good for Singaporean workers, provided we remain internationally competitive and continue to upgrade our economic activities. This appears to be the situation today. Workers have enjoyed good pay increases and bonuses and at the same time companies are also making good profits. Of course, if they can have more workers, they can make more profits. But there must be a limit to the number of foreign workers that we can allow in. The situation has also resulted in better use of our domestic manpower resources. For example, many housewives are now working part time or doing home-based jobs. You would have discovered as you go on round your house-to-house visits that more and more housewives are doing some work at home, eg, simple assembly jobs, and so on, or they are now working part time in factories. In the past when I went round they used to complain that they could not get jobs. So because of this labour shortage and because we have been careful to regulate the issue of work permits, they have now been able to find jobs. Similarly, many older Singaporeans and retirees are working or interested to return to work. These people number in the hundreds of thousands.”
“As several Members have conceded, even those who opposed this Bill in the past, it has been necessary to introduce caning for such offences because the jail term has proven ineffective, and the recent months have shown that caning, although unpleasant, has produced results. My Ministry administers the Regulation of Employment Act which applies to illegal workers who have valid immigration papers. The penalty under this Act is a maximum fine of $5,000 or imprisonment up to one year or both. This applies to both the illegal worker and his employer. This law has not been affected by the recent amendments although we may have to review it in due course. But I do not think we are thinking of caning in that situation. Coming next to the work permit policy and the labour shortage, the Government has to regulate carefully the entry of foreign workers into Singapore to minimize their long-term social and economic costs. I think most Members will accept this point. The question is how to tackle the labour shortage situation and still achieve our long-term objective. There are already more than 150,000 foreign workers in Singapore and the number is increasing. We must allocate the limited number of foreign workers to the more productive sectors, those which are export-oriented and high value-added. It is not possible for us to cater to all the demands for foreign workers. As Mr Heng Chiang Meng has mentioned, it is part of the normal process of economic growth and restructuring that, as you go for higher level activities, you must discard the lower value activities. It is just like the situation of a young boy growing up. As you grow older you must give up your small shirt. You cannot go on wearing the small shirt and refuse to give it up.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as many Members have mentioned the work permit policy and the labour shortage, I think I should respond. Firstly, just a point of clarification. There are two types of illegal workers in Singapore. I have mentioned this before but some Members may not have heard me saying it or may not have understood what I said. The first type is the immigration offenders. These are the workers who enter Singapore illegally or overstay their immigration passes. Most of these are male construction workers, mostly labourers, from Thailand and India. Mr Philip Tan mentioned just now that one reason why these employers hire illegal workers is because of the labour shortage and the fact that we do not issue work permits to them. But this is not true, and he himself admitted this, that work permits have been issued liberally to the construction sector. In fact, over the last few months we have issued more in-principle approvals than we have ever done in such a short period of time. And I am sure the shortage situation in the construction industry will soon disappear. The basic motive for the employers in the sector and the agents is just to escape levy. So I think in that situation the application of caning is necessary. The other foreign workers are those who are here on valid social visit passes (or SVPs). These are mostly Malaysians who are allowed to stay here and every two weeks they have to go back and renew their Immigration stamps. Today we are discussing the Bill to amend the Immigration Act which governs the immigration offenders. It concerns their employers and harbourers.”
“Sir, we have introduced Abortion Counselling and already it has shown some positive results. We will continue to closely monitor the abortion situation.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Government allows foreign workers to be recruited for the manufacturing, construction and hotel sectors and as domestic servants. Work permits are granted based on economic considerations, such as the contribution of the company to our exports, upgrading of our industries and economic growth. In the case of construction and domestic maids, these are jobs which attract very few Singaporean workers. Various authorities, namely the EDB, STPB, CIDB and HDB, assist the Work Permit Department to assess and decide on the applications for work permits. From our records, a large proportion of employers of foreign workers are small and medium-sized companies. I informed Members in March this year that about 3,100 out of 5,800 manufacturing employers were small employers with less than 10 workers. Also, out of 4,800 contractors given permission to recruit foreign workers, 3,300 had less than 10 workers. My Ministry will continue to assess work permit applications on the basis of current criteria. ABORTION (Measures to discourage) 12. Mr Chiam See Tong asked the Acting Minister for Health whether, in view of the falling birth rate, he will take steps to abolish abortion or consider introducing amending legislation to make it more difficult for abortion to be carried out. The Acting Minister for Health (Mr Yeo Cheow Tong): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the primary role of abortion is to prevent the birth of an unwanted child, whether it is for medical or social reason. Abolition of abortion will not change an unwanted conception into a wanted one. It will not increase the birth rate but only drive the woman to seek illegal and unsafe means of terminating her unwanted pregnancy.”
“Sir, I think my position is no different from his understanding. It is just that we have to be careful about this large pool of unskilled foreign workers here and that we do not give them the wrong signal. That is my basic point.”
“Sir, I thought my answer is quite clear. When we look at the applications from work permit holders to marry Singaporeans, we look mainly at the qualifications of the work permit holder. That is the primary consideration. We want to attract people of value to Singapore. At the same time, we have to be fair to our own Singaporeans. We also look at the qualifications of the Singaporean spouse to see whether he is able to maintain the work permit holder. So the principle will be that we will treat the Singaporean partner no less favourably than, for example, the Hong Kong people that we are going to recruit.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, foreign workers are given work permits to work in Singapore on condition that they seek approval from my Ministry if they wish to marry Singaporeans. My Ministry will revise its criteria for approving such applications to be consistent with the new criteria for permanent residence announced recently. Singaporeans wanting to marry foreign spouses will be treated no less favourably than non-Singaporeans seeking permanent residence for themselves and their families. Whether a work permit holder is allowed to marry a Singaporean will depend primarily on the merits of the work permit holder herself or (himself), although we will also consider the qualifications of the Singaporean partner and his or her ability to support the work permit holder. Approval will be granted if the foreign worker has skills or qualifications of value to Singapore, has adjusted to our social and work ethos, and is unlikely to become a burden to the State. There are more than 150,000 work permit holders in Singapore, mostly unskilled. I do not want them to misunderstand that it will be easy for them to sink roots here by marrying Singaporeans. It will not be easy. We cannot absorb all of them or hold out the false hope that they can all settle in Singapore. Very few of the work permit holders, whose applications for marriage have been turned down in the past, can satisfy the new criteria for permanent residence. We must continue to be selective in attracting those foreigners who can integrate into and contribute to our society and are unlikely to become a burden to the State. This is the way to protect the interests of the vast majority of Singaporeans.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 1 of the Bill reads, and I quote: ''This Act may be cited as the Central Provident Fund (Amendment No. 2) Act 1989 and shall come into operation on the 1st June 1989.'' As the Bill is being considered after this commencement date, a minor drafting amendment has to be made to the clause to reflect this. Sir, I beg to move, In page 1, line 4, after "shall", to insert "be deemed to have". Amendment agreed to. Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with an amendment; read a Third time and passed. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." - [Mr Lee Yock Suan]. Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-four minutes past Three o'clock pm to a date to be fixed. Appendix I ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS NOT REACHED BY 1.30 PM CAR PARKS FOR MRT STATIONS 1. Mr Heng Chiang Meng asked the Minister for National Development, in light of the land transport policy, whether he will consider building car parks near Mass Rapid Transit stations in rural areas where the presence of available nearby land permits such car parks.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to seek your consent and the general assent of Members to move an amendment.”
“So long as the brothers and sisters are dependent on the elder brother who is the main breadwinner, I think we can allow under the scheme. Those will be straightforward cases. In fact, this is an extension of the original idea that was meant only for the members themselves and their children but now also extended to deserving cases of dependent siblings. The Member for Changi has asked whether we can allow in the case where the parents are unemployed and have no CPF. I will ask the CPF Board to look into those cases. My own feeling is we should try and be as liberal as possible. Dr Tan Cheng Bock asked under what circumstances we would not require a guarantor. One situation will be when the CPF member has other forms of collateral. For example, he may pledge something else, although it is rather unusual. At the moment all those who have borrowed from the Scheme have provided a guarantor. The requirements are very minimal. We only need a guarantor who is above 21 years of age, who is employed and drawing more than $500 per month salary, who is not an undischarged bankrupt and who is below 60 years of age. The intention is really to have somebody else to apply moral pressure on the child repay the lone. So we make the conditions very simple. I think I have covered all the points. I thank the Members once again for their support. 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. [Mr Lee Yock Suan]. Bill considered in Committee. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Clause 1”
“These are perhaps the ones we could consider to have the financial muscle to send their children overseas. The number is really very small (12,500) compared to a total of about half a million who can qualify for the Scheme and who can probably afford only to send their children to local institutions, either NUS, NTI or the Polytechnics. The number who have amounts exceeding $80,000 available under the Approved Investments Scheme is even smaller, 6,400 only. And the number exceeding $100,000 is only 3,500 members. This is not all. In fact, only a fraction of these members may be planning to send their children overseas. Others may have children in the local universities or polytechnics or who have children who are already grown up or who may not qualify for university education. So, in fact, we are talking of a fraction of this number that I have just mentioned. Most of these people who have high CPF balances have high incomes. They have probably used their CPF for properties and have other savings. So it is not really a problem for them. I was persuaded to support this scheme to allow CPF for local education because I feel that now it is, in fact, more difficult for the lower income groups to support their children through university, to pay for transportation, food, fees and so on. If you look at the five-year medical cost at $7,200 per year, it is already $36,000. So the amount that can be made available under this Scheme, as it is, is substantial. I know of quite a lot of people who are very happy to have this Scheme and there have been appeals from families, from siblings, wanting to use their own CPF in cases where the parents are already dead.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank all the Members who have spoken for their whole-hearted support of the Bill, although there were a few reservations here and there, as expected, from Dr Tan Cheng Bock. He has very temptingly suggested that I delete the two words "in Singapore" from the definition of "approved tertiary institutions". This will obviously save me a lot of trouble and work eventually if the Government decides to allow the use of CPF for overseas education. We did debate this at length in my Ministry. Eventually, we decided that it is better to limit it to "in Singapore". Because to do otherwise would be to send the wrong signal. The Government as decided that it will only allow the use of CPF for approved local institutions, at least for the time being. If after a lot of debate and consideration and if Government were to agree to allow the use of CPF for overseas education, that will be a major decision. And I think it is proper that the decision should then come back to the House and be thoroughly debated. So despite the tempting offer, I must decline to accept the deletion of those two words. I have already given the reasons why the Government is reluctant to open this up to allow for overseas education and Dr Wong Kwei Cheong has also given a few reasons. Perhaps I can supplement that by giving Members some other data. As at 30th April 1989, that is about two months ago, the latest information, considering the amount that is available for withdrawal under the Approved Investments Scheme (that means the amount that members can take out from their accounts either for shares, gold or for the CPF Education Scheme) only 12,500 members have more than $40,000 available.”
“The borrower will have to give an undertaking to the CPF Board to repay in full the amount withdrawn plus interest to the lender's CPF account. A guarantor is required as in the case of the NUS and NTI loan schemes. If the loan is defaulted, the CPF Board may have to take legal action to ensure repayment. Other details of the Scheme will be set out in Regulations, such as the withdrawal limits and the repayment terms. The education loan will carry interest pegged at the CPF rate. Interest will be calculated from the date funds are withdrawn. There will be a charge by the CPF Board to cover the cost of administering the scheme. The borrower will be allowed up to 10 years to repay the loan plus interest. He will be required to start repaying within one year after graduation or leaving the course for whatever reason. Repayment will be in cash. Otherwise it could lead to his CPF savings being siphoned to his parent's CPF account and thereafter withdrawn prematurely. Repayment will continue even if the lender has reached the age of 55 years. This is to prevent the scheme from degenerating into an early withdrawal scheme. Under existing CPF rules, money repaid into the member's account after age 55 will be withdrawable when the lender reaches the age of 58 years and every third year thereafter. The CPF Education Scheme is available to about 500,000 CPF members who are eligible to participate in it. It is especially helpful to low-income Singaporeans who have difficulty supporting their children through our local tertiary institutes. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.00 pm”
“Furthermore, overseas institutions and courses vary enormously in type and quality. The Government is in no position to assess, much less pass judgment on, the quality of foreign tertiary institutions, whether individually or by categories. To approve some institutions while excluding others will lead to contention. Yet to allow Singaporeans to use their CPF for all of them, regardless of the character of the institutions, will be irresponsible. The Government has therefore chosen a cautious approach in implementing the CPF Education Scheme, and excluded overseas institutions altogether. As with the Approved Investments Scheme, a CPF member must have at least the minimum sum of $30,900 in his Ordinary Account (inclusive of amounts withdrawn for housing), before he can participate in the CPF Education Scheme. This is to ensure that the member will have at least the minimum sum to survive on at subsistence level if the loan is not fully repaid for whatever reason. The amount that members can withdraw will be limited to 40% of their CPF balances in excess of the minimum sum (same as for the Approved Investments Scheme) or the full tuition fees for the approved courses, whichever is the lower. The approved courses are full-time degree or diploma courses at our tertiary institutes. The CPF Education Scheme is basically a loan scheme. This is to comply with the basic objective of the CPF Scheme which is to safeguard members' CPF savings for their own old-age needs. It will ensure that the member's CPF will be reinstated to the position that it would have been had he not withdrawn his savings for education. Various provisions are contained in clause 3 for this purpose.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Bill seeks to provide the legal framework for the CPF Education Scheme. It will allow CPF members to invest part of their CPF savings in tertiary education in Singapore for themselves and their children. When I announced the Scheme in March this year, I informed hon. Members that the Bill might have to be back-dated to enable parents to make use of the scheme this year. Hence clause 1 of the Bill sets the commencement date at 1st June 1989 which is before the start of the academic terms of our tertiary institutes this year. Clause 2 enables withdrawals under the Scheme to be made from CPF members' ordinary accounts. Clause 3 contains the main provisions. It will enable a member to withdraw part of his CPF savings to pay the tuition fees at an approved tertiary institution in Singapore. The beneficiary could be the member himself, his child or such other dependent relatives as the Board may approve. The approved institutions are the National University of Singapore, Nanyang Technological Institute, Singapore Polytechnic and Ngee Ann Polytechnic. The Scheme will not cover overseas tertiary institutions for reasons I have previously stated. Overseas tertiary education is extremely expensive. A 3 or 4-year course will easily cost more than S$100,000. This is far more than the CPF balances of most Singaporeans. Parents who can contemplate sending their children on such courses are likely to have substantial income. If we allow those who do not have such resources to use CPF for overseas tertiary education, we will be placing many of them under great pressure to send their children when they really cannot afford to do so.”
“From mid-1990, the PUB will open Sungei Seletar Reservoir to the public for fishing.”
“Sir, the scheme is still very viable with a base of 745,000 members. Among those who have opted out are a high proportion of females. Maybe they feel there is no need for them to insure themselves. There is also a high proportion of Malays, and a higher proportion of those with low income or low CPF balances and the older ones. We have assessed the scheme and find that it is still viable and the insurance rates will be maintained. FISHING IN RESERVOIRS 13. Dr S. Vasoo asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether the Public Utilities Board will consider allowing people to fish in some specific sites at the reservoirs. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry: Mr Speaker, Sir, PUB's primary mission is to provide a secure, safe and adequate supply of water for the Singapore population. PUB's emphasis must therefore be to keep our reservoirs free from contamination and pollution. Nevertheless, PUB appreciates that its reservoirs and catchments are prime recreational sites for Singaporeans. As far as possible, the PUB will try to accommodate recreational activities in these areas which do not pollute the water, such as fishing and paddle boating. Over the years, PUB has developed reservoir parks to provide the public with scenic walks, jogging tracks, children's playgrounds and exercise stations. The PUB will progressively allow more activities at its reservoirs, especially the reservoirs in the unprotected catchment areas, as facilities like jetties and public toilets are constructed. The Kranji Reservoir has been open to the public for fishing since 1985. Pandan Reservoir is already heavily used for canoeing.”
“Sir, it is possible that some of those who have opted out may have done so out of ignorance. I hope they will reconsider their decision. There have been cases who had opted out but later came back to the Board to be re-insured and we have agreed to take them back. The scheme is basically a good scheme which was supported by all Members of Parliament, including the Non-Constituency Member, Dr Lee Siew-Choh. I take the point that there has to be better publicity and I hope that Members will also inform their own constituents that the scheme is really for their benefit. It is the cheapest form of insurance available in Singapore and the intention of the Board is to operate it at cost. And if there is any surplus it will be refunded to Members. In fact, even the Life Insurance Association has recommended to the public that they should think carefully before opting out of the scheme.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as at 26th June 1989, 175,000 CPF members have opted out of the CPF Dependants' Protection Insurance Scheme (DPIS), leaving 745,000 members insured under the scheme. The DPIS is intended to be a social security scheme to provide a minimum level of insurance cover for CPF members against the risk of permanent incapacity or premature death before the age of 55. Hence, the insured sum has been kept low at $30,000, equivalent to about three years' earnings of an average worker. The scheme is also kept simple to minimize the administrative cost to the insured members. Members who wish to have a higher level of insurance cover or other types of insurance should buy insurance on their own with private insurance companies.”
“For 60% of the members who are below 35 years old, they need only pay $30 per year or about $2.50 per month from their CPF. So it is really very small. For the older members the premium is higher because the risk of death increases with age. We have done it this way by different age groups to reduce the extent of cross - subsidy between the different groups. But the intention, as I have said, is to operate the scheme at cost. So if, say, after two years of operations we find that the premiums are too high, we will refund the money back to the members. They can be assured that this is the cheapest possible form of insurance that can be offered because the CPF has a machinery already in place and they can just check off all these amounts from the computer records. There is no cost involved in selling the insurance as in the case of private insurance. So it is only possible for the CPF Board to operate the scheme in this manner at cost. 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. - [Mr Lee Yock Suan]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. ECONOMIC EXPANSION INCENTIVES (RELIEF FROM INCOME TAX) (AMENDMENT) BILL 6.12 pm Order for Second Reading read.”
“The third question concerns the number who will benefit from this scheme. The number is about one million active members who will enjoy the protection against the risk of premature death or permanent incapacity. Of course, nobody wishes to come across or to meet with these calamities. But every year perhaps 1,000-2,000 members may suffer from these calamities and they will be able to draw upon the sums insured. The scheme will be most beneficial to the young widows who have relatively low savings. The fourth question: why does the scheme continue to cover for three years after the member has stopped contributing CPF? Members stop contributing after they drop out of the job market or it could be that they have become seriously ill and too ill to work. So the thinking is that it will be unfair to stop the insurance cover just when they most need the cover. That is the reason for this feature. But if there are members who feel they do not want to have the insurance, they can inform the Board and they can opt out. Coming to the questions from Dr Vasoo, he is mainly concerned with the self-employed workers. The intention of my Ministry is to try and bring as many of these people as possible under the CPF umbrella. So we are working on these measures. But we will allow those self-employed who want to join the scheme to come in and do so at probably the same premium rates. But we may have to require that they have a health declaration or go for a medical check up because obviously we do not want to end up with all the bad cases coming to us. The last question is from the Non-Constitutency Member. He supports the Bill but expressed some concern about the premiums. The premiums are very low. We have tried to keep them as low as possible.”
“I wish to thank all the Members who have spoken in support of the Bill. In particular I note that Dr Lee has also supported the Bill. I wish to answer the various questions raised briefly, starting with the questions raised by Mr Lim Boon Heng. He asked why the scheme stops at age 55. There are a number of reasons for this. Firstly, most CPF members will have sufficient savings and also homes fully paid for at age 55. So there is less need for them to have an insurance scheme of this kind at the late stage in their lives. The other reason is that premiums for older members, those above 55, will be more expensive. It will be higher than the $190 per year for those between 50 and 55. So since members can withdraw their CPF at 55, they may wish to decide for themselves whether they wish to use the money for insurance or for other purposes. As to whether we may consider raising this to age 60 in future, I suppose the door is not closed but we will have to review this periodically. The second question is whether we will notify CPF members when they are covered by the scheme. The answer is yes. When the scheme comes into operation within a month or so, CPF Board will be sending out letters to all those active members who are covered under the scheme. Together with the letter will be an option form in case some members wish to opt out of the scheme. As for permanent residents, the intention is to cover all the permanent residents. However, there are some permanent residents who do not have blue Singapore identity cards and we may not be able to trace them in the CPF record. So if these people do not receive the notification letters and wish to be covered, they should inform the Board and apply to come in.”
“Section 37I provides that if an insured member stops contributing to CPF, he will continue to be covered for three years after his last contribution provided he pays his premium. Upon the death of the insured member, the insured sum will be paid to his nominees. For those who die without any nomination, the laws of intestacy will apply. For permanent incapacity cases, the insured sum will be paid by monthly instalments over a period not exceeding three years. This is to ensure that the incapacity is genuine and permanent. The instalments will stop if the insured member recovers from the incapacity and is able to return to work. These provisions are contained in section 37J. Sir, as commonly found in other insurance cover, the DPIS will not cover claims arising from war or warlike operations and from persons who participate in a riot. This is provided in subsection (4)(d) of section 37J. There are, however, no such provisions under the Home Protection Insurance Scheme (HPIS). My Ministry has decided that similar provisions should also be made in the HPIS. Clause 3 of the Bill amends the Act for this purpose. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“Members who are not automatically covered may also apply to join the Scheme. Section 37D gives the Board the power to cancel the insurance cover of those who are already permanently incapacitated or suffering from terminal illness before joining the Scheme. Any premium paid will be refunded to their CPF accounts with interest if they have not made any false or misleading statements to the Board. This is to safeguard the interest of the vast majority of healthy CPF members. Otherwise, the DPIS will become a huge charity scheme at their expense. The DPIS is meant to insure CPF members against the risk of being afflicted with permanent incapacity or premature death in future. As a further safeguard, section 37E requires those members who join the DPIS after its inception to sign a health declaration, and if necessary, to undergo a medical examination. However, for practical reasons, existing active CPF members will not have to do so. Section 37F provides for the annual premium payable to be prescribed under regulations and to be deducted from the member's Ordinary and/or Special accounts. Those who have insufficient balances in their accounts to pay the full premium will be given pro-rated cover, unless they pay the balance in cash. Section 37G provides for the establishment of a Dependants' Protection Insurance Fund into which all premiums will be paid and out of which the insurance benefits will be met. It is intended that the DPIS will be run at cost. The premium rates and the operation of DPIS will be reviewed periodically and any surplus above a minimum level will be distributed to participants of the Scheme.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now a Second time." Sir, the Bill seeks to amend the Central Provident Fund Act to enable the Central Provident Fund Board to establish and run the Dependants' Protection Insurance Scheme (DPIS). The Scheme will insure active CPF members against the risk of permanent incapacity or premature death before the age of 55. They will be insured for a sum of $30,000 which is equivalent to about three years' wages for the average worker. The scheme is optional. Those CPF members who do not wish to be insured under the scheme are free to opt out. The premiums will be deducted yearly from the Ordinary and/or Special Accounts of the insured member. I will now ask the Clerk of Parliament to circulate an Annex (Cols. 111 - 112) showing the annual premium for different age groups. The annual premium will be $30 for a member below 35 years old. It will increase in four steps with age as mortality risk rises with age. For the oldest age group of 50-54, the premium will be $190. Annex (Cols. 111 - 112) I shall now highlight the key provisions of the Bill. Clause 4 of the Bill seeks to create a new Part IVA in the principal Act consisting of 12 sections, sections 37A to 37L, to provide for the main features of the Scheme. Section 37B authorizes the CPF Board to establish the DPIS. Section 37C provides for all new CPF members and all existing active CPF members (ie, those for whom a CPF contribution has been made in the six months prior to the commencement date of the scheme) to be automatically covered under the DPIS if they are citizens or permanent residents. Unless they opt out, they will be covered up to the age of 55 years. Those who opt out may subsequently apply to rejoin the scheme subject to conditions to be imposed.”
“Sir, I thought I made myself very clear. I explained in some depth why I have reservations about foreign maids and why we should control and why we need to keep at least the cost of employing a maid relative to income, about the same. I agree with him that it is important that we support the working mothers and we need to encourage women to have more babies. But the question is how to reconcile these opposing needs. We cannot just let the population of maids spiral upwards. We opened the door to foreign maids from non-traditional sources in 1978, about 10 years ago. At that time there were only about 5,000 maids from Malaysia. And if employers wanted to have local maids, they even had to provide, I think in some cases, television sets for the local maids. So very few families had maids because it was expensive; everybody did their own housework. But because we opened the door and maids are so cheap and they live in, as a result we have already more than 40,000 maids. Despite the levy increase, the rate of increase is still very high. At the present rate of increase, we will double the maids population in four, five years. Thereafter maybe another 40,000 in another four, five years. Where is the limit? The Chairman: Dr Wong, do you want to withdraw?”
“But it is important to point out that there is a difference in consideration between permanent residence and marriage approval. If we were to adopt the standards adopted by the Immigration Department for permanent residence, there will be much fewer approvals. I think Members and the foreigners and couples affected would much rather that we approve them under our marriage restriction policy and allow the foreigners to continue staying here to do work. Eventually they might qualify for permanent residence. Rather than setting the standards so high, in fact our standards for marriage restriction are lower. But it does not mean that once you are granted marriage approval therefore you will be granted permanent residence. The important thing is whether the foreign spouse is allowed to stay here and continue supporting the family. The answer is generally yes, we do allow these people to have work permits.”
“The point is, should they not reorganize their way of doing business - open during peak hours for example. They expect the girls to be standing on their feet for 14 hours a day for very low pay. Maybe they should only open during peak hours, have fewer shops, offer them shares, and so on. As Singapore becomes more and more developed, personal services will become more expensive and we must accept this. I hope Members will see the larger picture. In the course of their work they will get many appeals from supporters, small employers, who need work permits, but they must ask themselves whether in speaking out for these people, as they should, they are not missing out on the larger issue which is the large number of silent supporters who are workers. Do Members not need to speak out for workers as well? Because if we allow too many foreign workers into Singapore they are going to depress our wages. Foreign construction workers who are willing to work for $16 per day. I have had cases of locals coming to me and saying, "What are you doing about these illegal workers? They are depriving me of a job." We tend to assume that in Singapore nobody wants to do all these construction jobs, cleaning jobs and so on. But it is not true. There are a lot of people registered with the employment service who want to do cleaning jobs and other low level jobs. There are people who want to do construction. So we must not write off these industries and say, "Nobody wants them anymore." The last speaker was Mr Yeo Toon Chia and he asked whether we coordinate with the Immigration Department when we grant marriage approvals. The answer is yes, we have regular meetings to discuss and try to harmonize our policies where it concerns both Ministries.”
“I have previously given figures to show that we just cannot allow more and more foreign workers because if you depend on foreign workers to generate growth without upgrading, each 1% increase in GDP will require 13,000 workers and already we have more than 150,000 foreign workers in Singapore. So it is important that Members see this problem in its proper context. It is true that the labour market is tight. This is not a new or unfamiliar situation. In fact, it is an indication that our economy is doing well. The only time that our labour market is soft is when we are in a midst of a recession. Our situation is not different from that of the other NIEs. Hong Kong is very short. In fact the construction projects there are delayed. So far there have been no delays here. Taiwan does not officially admit foreign workers but now they are forced to because they are short and there are a lot of illegal foreign workers. In Korea there are hardly any foreign workers. I think very few Members would disagree that we must control foreign workers. The question is how? As I have explained, for the benefit of new Members, we have four approved sectors. There are the manufacturing sector, which includes shipbuilding, and the hotel sector. These two sectors are export-oriented. So we need to provide them with the means to compete internationally. The other two sectors are construction and domestic maids where very few locals want to work in those sectors. Apart from these sectors, the other sectors are classified as non-approved sectors. So the employers in the non-approved sectors are all faced with the same situation, which is that they must adjust and depend on the local workforce. For example, I get appeals from hair dressers.”
“On the other hand, we must maintain the levy and controls to ensure that we do not lose out altogether and end up with no local construction workers at all. Because construction is a strategic industry, necessary also for our civil defence. What about the other sectors? For the manufactuers who were granted work per- mits, there are about 5,800 on the records. Out of this, 3,100 are small employers, employing less than 10 workers. So I hope this will put to rest once and for all this impression that we only grant work permits to big firms, MNCs. We grant permits to companies in the manufacturing sector that can help us to upgrade our economy. So whether it is a local firm or foreign firm, we will treat them equally. On the other hand, there are certain industries which are very labour-intensive and low value-added. I think it is time that these industries upgrade themselves through automation or move into other growth areas. For example, there are ample opportunities or them to go into support services for computer parts, whatever. The multi-nationals, in fact, are willing to extend a helping hand to develop these supporting industries. So our local entrepreneurs should go in those directions and not come clamouring each time for work permits. The other possibility, of course, is for them to relocate overseas, maybe in Johore. For example in Hong Kong, which is facing the same situation as we are facing, I believe they have investments in nearby Quangchou and elsewhere which already employ more than 1 million workers. What are our Singaporean manufacturers doing in this area? There is scope for more overseas investment.”
“The First Deputy Prime Minister has passed me a note, which I forgot to mention. The Government has, in fact, provided for enhanced child relief for the third and fourth child amounting to $20,000. This is enough to employ a maid for 4-5 years. For those thinking of a third child or fourth child, I think the cost of a maid should not be a deterrent. In fact, if I may venture my own personal views, those people who are against the levy and the cost increase, should they not be arguing for more support for child care, for allowances for babies and so on? Would that not be a more direct way of helping the mothers, not only for the third or fourth child, but also for the first and second child? Sir, we have about half an hour left. So I have to deal quickly with the questions on work permits. First, the point raised by several Members, Mr Goh Choon Kang, Dr Lee and so on, that we are not giving work permits to small employers. My records show that this is not true. In fact, out of 4,800 contractors in the work permit records, 3,300 have a workforce of less than 10 workers. So we do give work permits to small contractors. Those that have been denied could be the ones that are already too dependent, maybe their entire workforce is composed foreigners. And the Ministry of National Development does insist on the ratio of one local to one foreign worker. So they might be caught by this rule. Or they might have been caught with illegal workers and blacklisted. So we have to look at the actual situation. I agree that for the construction sector, we should be liberal. And if it turns out to be too strict, then I think the CIDB should have a relook at its policy.”
“But on the negative side, what is the long-term social impact of possibly 100,000-200,000 maids in Singapore? I know that child care is a big problem. Even America has not solved the problem, if you follow the debates going on there. They are debating now whether America is lagging behind other countries in terms of support for working mothers. What is our own position here? Is it maids? Or is it more childcare centres? Sir, I think we are running out of time. So I would not say any more about maids. The Chairman: Mr Lee, there is plenty of time.”
“These people may not be quite able to afford maids but for Sri Lankans, at a stretch, they might just be able to afford it. I can tell you something. My records show that we do not have maids only in private estates, bungalows, private apartments, who form maybe 60% of the maids employed so far, but also the remaining 40% in HDB flats. We find maids even in 2-room flats, not just 3-room flats. Maybe these people have got their priorities wrong. They do not want to buy flats. They want to have a good life. I do not know. It is individual choice. It is difficult for us to allocate maids on the basis of needs. It is difficult to say whose need is greater, the aged parent or the young infant. So the tendency in Singapore has been to use the pricing mechanism. If you can afford it and your need is great enough, you can get a maid. I think we should continue to do it on that basis because it is in keeping with the idea that the more you contribute, the more you get back. If a person is able to afford a maid, I do not think we should say no. One result could be more professionals migrating if we say no to maids for them in Singapore. At the moment, we have a number of controls. Administratively, we try and dampen the demand. Those people who do not get approval get very upset. In their own calculations and their own assessment of needs, they feel they are as deserving of a maid as the other fellow. But we have said no to some of them. The other way is to use pricing. I think it is a more neutral mechanism, and there are some advantages. I agree that working mothers need help. On the plus side, if you allow more maids, maybe there will be more babies. There will be more people working. These are plus factors.”
“I am sure there are quite a few other Members who share the same views although they have kept silent. Many of them have not employed maids, for example, and they have strong reasons for doing so. For example, Europe and other countries have very few maids. They just live on the philosophy that you must do your own household duties, buy the labour-saving devices, washing machines and so on. And enjoy more privacy by not having a maid. In fact, there are other sources of domestic help in Singapore. There are these Malay women who are willing to go out and do housework part-time. My fear is that by having maids available so liberally, in fact, we are encouraging a very negative trend. All the other alternatives simply cannot compete. Child care centres cannot compete, part-time domestic help cannot compete. Grandparents will say, "Go and employ a maid." So the whole society is going to change. That is my main concern. What is going to be the long-term effect on our society? If we do nothing, I foresee that the numbers will grow very big. I would like to distribute some data. [Copies of data distributed to hon. Members]. The data show that there are 630,000 households in Singapore. Some Members have argued that we should favour families with young children. You will see from this data that, in fact, there are 176,000 families with children below the age of 6 years. That is already a very large pool, even if you limit it to people with 6-year old children and below. If you limit it to children below 10 years old, then the potential pool is 250,000 families. How about household income, affordability? There are 215,000 households which have incomes above $2,000 per month.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I was listening carefully to the First Deputy Prime Minister and I have taken due note of his views. My own feeling is that we are already liberal in the issue of work permits. At the moment the majority of applications do get approved. The complaint at the moment is not that they cannot get maids, but that we have increased the levy. They would rather have their maids and not have to pay the increase in levy. But from the relative cost point of view, we do have to increase the levy. Let me give you some figures. The levy of $120 per month was set in 1984. Since then, incomes have gone up by about 20%. In 1984, the average cost of employing a foreign maid was about $400 per month. It is lower for Sri Lankans and others, more expensive for Filipinos. This amount does not include food which is hard to quantify. With the increase in levy to $160 per month now and to $200 per month in July, it represents an $80 cost increase. So the average cost of employing a maid will have gone up to about $480 per month, which is also a 20% increase in the cost of employing a maid. So relative to income levels, in fact, we have not tightened. We have just kept pace with income. I agree with 1DPM that maids have homes and there is less of a social cost. I do not think transportation is a very strong reason although I did mention it in my reply once. The greater concern that I have in mind is really the personal experience of employers who employ maids. For example, very often they come across children who would not even pick up their own socks when they come back from school. They will not help at all in household duties. I think this is a very negative trend that is developing in our society. And I am glad at least Dr Wong agrees with me on this point.”
“Sir, I thank the Member for raising this important issue. I agree with him that there is nothing more important to the worker than his safety and health although we do not often discuss this matter in Parliament here. I think we have good reason to be reasonably satisfied with the improvement in the safety and health standards in our factories. Let me quote Members some statistics. Last year there were a total of about 4,300 industrial accidents. This is some 30% lower than the peak of 6,100 in 1980. By "industrial accidents" I mean any case which involves the worker being incapacitated for three days or more. So most of the accidents are, in fact, quite minor ones, with a few fatal cases. In terms of frequency rate, if we consider in terms of per million man-hours worked, the rate has dropped from 4.6 cases per million man-hours worked in 1984 to about 4 in 1987. This is also a significant improvement. The rate of improvement is larger than those in many of the more advanced countries, such as France, Germany, Sweden and the USA, and also better than the other NICs like Hong Kong and South Korea. I agree with the Member fully that we should continue to be vigilant where safety and health of workers are concerned and, as he said, we try and do this more through self-regulation, through safety committees. My Ministry is keeping a close watch on the various safety committees. We monitor them closely and we conduct workshops and training sessions for them and we check, as he suggested, why certain committees are inactive or ineffective. But on the whole this is an area where we can be proud of our achievements.”
“So the problem is how to strike a compromise to make it attractive both for the employers as well as for the workers. Dr Wong mentioned that he did not think it is because of shortage of part-time jobs that there are so few part-time workers. Here I must correct him. I think the basic problem is that manufacturers seem to be reluctant to establish part-time work in their factories. We have done some surveys and studies and most employers seem to be lukewarm. I think some of them cite operational problems but I wonder if they are really insurmountable. So long as young foreign workers are available at lower cost, the attitude could be, why bother with middle-aged housewives who can only work part-time? Now that the labour market is tight and the foreign workers' levy will be increased soon, perhaps manufacturers located in housing estates will take a closer look at housewives as a useful source of part-time workers.”
“Dr Wong asked for a progress report on our study of part-time employment and the possible amendments to the Employment Act. I am glad to inform him and the House that further progress has been made although as we go deeper into the issue we find that it is a very complex issue, as Mr Lim Boon Heng will agree with me. The problem is how to ensure sufficient flexibility for employers and job seekers to reach agreement on part-time employment whilst ensuring that the workers are adequately protected. Should we have a minimum stipulation in the Act, the barest changes to the Act, and leave it mainly to market forces? Or should we stipulate various guidelines in the Act? In the process of amending the Act, we may in fact make it more rigid and the last thing I want to do is to take a step backwards and make it more difficult for people to agree to part-time employment. So we have to study this very carefully and we will, of course, consult the unions and the employers before we come to a final decision. In theory, under the Act part-time workers are entitled to the same fringe benefits as full-time workers. In practice I think both the employers and workers know that this is unrealistic. What happens is that they tend to pro-rate the benefits. For example, the pay per hour worked will roughly correspond with the pay of the full-time worker. In some cases, the part-time workers may not get the full range of fringe benefits. Maybe it is because they do not require it. We have to recognize here that it is more costly for the employer in terms of recruitment cost, in terms of administration, in terms of training per part-time worker, because the hours worked are shorter.”
“In so doing we will, of course, also have to be mindful of the cost impact on employers. So we will look at all the facts before we come to a decision and we will try and do it as soon as possible. Sir, I did not answer Dr Wong Kwei Cheong's question on part-time employment. Do you mind if I answer now?”
“So the way we do it is, in fact, not dissimilar to that. The difference is that under Workmen's Compensation there is no need to prove negligence on the part of the employers. Whereas under civil action you have to prove negligence. So it may be long and costly. Regardless of who is responsible for the injury, the workmen can look forward to compensation if they are injured. Dr Lee also alluded some cases where the insurance companies might have deducted medical leave and medical fees. I am not sure whether this is correct because to my mind, as far as I know, the employers and behind them the insurance companies, have to pay not only the full medical costs but also provide medical leave plus compensation. If there is permanent injury, then doctors will assess the degree of permanent injury. For example, for loss of a finger or loss of a limb, what percentage of the maximum they should get, how old they are, and other factors come into play. So if the Member could give me details of such cases,I can look into them. He could be misleading the House when he said that some of these items have been deducted. Encik Othman Eusofe also commented about the slow processing of some cases which have come to his attention. There could be a number of reasons for this. One could be that medical reports are not ready yet because the doctors require time to assess and re-assess the injured person to determine the degree of disability. The other possible reason is that in some cases the injured persons are undecided whether they want to come under the Workmen's Compensation Act or to take up civil action in the hope of higher compensation. Once they have chosen one route, of course, they cannot go back and choose the other one. As I said, we will do a thorough review of this Act.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I share the same concern as the Members that workers who are injured should be properly and adequately compensated. That is why I informed the House some days ago that my Ministry is in the process of reviewing the compensation rates under the Workmen's Compensation Act. In doing this review, of course, we will look at the various factors, the maximum compensation for death, for permanent total incapacity and so forth. We will also be looking at the percentage compensation for various kinds of injuries. Contrary to what Dr Lee Siew-Choh has said, our compensation rates, in fact, even as they are, are comparable to many countries. To give an example, we suspect there were one or two Indian workers - maybe it is not true; it is unfair to them - but they were suspected of having cut their own fingers in order to claim the compensation for their injury. This shows how desperate some workers are and how attractive they find our rates of compensation. In fact, some of the rates for hand injuries, toe injuries and so on, we have done a comparison, they are on the high side compared even to the developed countries. So in looking at the review we are not only looking at the quantum of the ceilings but also the composition of the compensation. I think the formulas for such compensation are quite standard. They have evolved as a matter of practice over the years. Those workers who feel that they can get better rates, of course, can also try taking out civil suits and there have been cases of people who go through this route and they find that their compensation has been higher because the judges also consider other factors. But even then the judges I think will look at how old the worker is, how much potential earnings, what is the level of pay and so on.”
“If he provides me with particulars, I will ask my officials to look into it.”
“It is a matter of convenience whether you issue the letter of employment from NTUC or from PAP. It is a joint effort. As I said, the symbiosis between NTUC and PAP is so close. It is not an ordinary employer.”