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 20 of 32.
“Two out of every three Singaporean applicants who sat for 'A' levels in 1985 and 1986 were accepted into NUS or NTI the following year. For the remaining one-third, they could have benefited more by enrolling in the polytechnics or commercial courses with more practical orientation. We want more graduates but they must be of the right calibre, qualified by reputable international standards and able to obtain jobs when they graduate. Otherwise our degrees will be devalued and there could be problems of graduate unemployment. However, a student who can obtain admission into good established overseas universities should have no problem in getting a place in NUS in the first instance. Those who are not able to get into these universities should consider seriously if university education is appropriate for them. The GPC proposal suggests that overseas universities and courses be publicly listed as approved or accredited for use of CPF. Much unhappiness and controversy will be generated if certain universities and courses are not approved, especially if they happen to be in neighbouring countries. Once CPF is allowed for overseas education, it will be extremely difficult to limit it to students who cannot qualify for NUS or NTI. More students will want to go overseas even though they can qualify locally. There will be tremendous pressure on parents to sacrifice their old-age security so that their children too can study overseas. With more students going overseas, the risk of brain drain will increase. There is evidence that students trained overseas have a higher tendency to emigrate. This will be compounded if there is graduate unemployment in Singapore.”
“Excluding Medisave and housing commitments, 85% of active CPF members have less than $40,000 in their CPF accounts. Many are still servicing their housing loans. Clearly, the vast majority of Singaporeans cannot afford to send their children for overseas education even with supplementary funds from their CPF accounts. Overseas education only concerns a very small number of CPF members who are relatively well off. Each year, probably no more than 2,000-3,000 Singaporeans enrol in foreign universities. So we are really talking of an issue which concerns 2,000-3,000 Singaporeans, although the emotional appeal is obviously very strong for the rest of the members. Some parents send their children overseas for either of two reasons. Firstly, they prefer overseas universities and can afford it; or secondly, their children could not qualify for NUS or NTI or their preferred courses, eg, Medicine. The first group does not really need help from CPF. They would most likely have invested their CPF in properties and have spare cash. For the second group: is using up the CPF the answer? Or is it not better to expand tertiary institutions in Singapore? This concerns education policy. Last week, the Minister for Education explained to Parliament that the real problem is that there are insufficient students with appropriate 'A' level results who can make it successfully through NUS or NTI. The admission into NUS has already been expanded by 50% over the past six years. As the number of students who can qualify for admission increases yearly, his Ministry will increase the number of university places so that all qualified students who apply will be admitted. There you have the assurance from the Minister for Education.”
“No student who can qualify has been denied admission on financial grounds because of all these facilities which are available and because of the importance the Government places on education. Some parents would still prefer to use their CPF for local tertiary education. It is not difficult to understand their reasons. Firstly, it will help to lighten their household expenditure and some parents may be feeling the strain of supporting their children through university. Then there are others who cannot wait to make use of their CPF savings even though it may be at the expense of their old-age financial security. Other than those who may be in financial hardship, I think parents should ask themselves whether the present arrangement is not the one most advantageous for them and their children. Under the proposal of the GPC for Education, firstly the CPF money carries interest at the CPF rate whereas the Government loan is interest-free until graduation. Secondly, if the children fail in their studies or are not filial, the parents' CPF savings may be lost whereas at present they are preserved intact. Most parents have low CPF savings because past salaries and CPF rates were low. I can well understand the Asian mentality of parents who are prepared to sacrifice for their children's education. My question is: why should they have to make the sacrifices when present funding arrangements make it unnecessary? I come next to overseas education. Tertiary education in Singapore is affordable because it is highly subsidized. The same cannot be said of overseas education. The cost is prohibitive. It ranges from about $60,000 for a 3-year Arts course in Australia to as much as $300,000 for a 5-year Medicine course in the USA.”
“It concerns not only CPF but also education policy. The Education Minister is here. First, we should be clear that we are talking about CPF for tertiary education. Parents can generally afford primary and secondary education for their children. This is not to say that there will be no pressure for its use for primary and secondary education once we allow it for tertiary education. But I think for the purpose of discussion on this report, we should clearly specify and understand that it is for tertiary education. Next, we should distinguish between local and overseas tertiary education. Local education. Tertiary education in Singapore is 85% to 90% subsidized by the Government. The tuition fees are affordable. Half the tuition fees at NUS or NTI can be borrowed by any student from the Government and is interest-free before graduation. The students may pay back after graduation and there is no need to touch their parents' CPF accounts. For those who are in financial hardship, bursaries and other study loans are readily available. It would appear that most parents can afford to send their children to NUS or NTI or the polytechnics. Last year, only 16% of the students applied for the soft loan. This is the point mentioned by the Member for Kebun Baru. Only half of the NTI and NUS students who were offered PSC scholarships and bursaries accepted them. In other words, the PSC was willing to give them scholarships but half of them said, "No, thank you. I will just do it on my own parent's account." The important point is that no student who can qualify has been denied admission on financial grounds. This is a very basic point.”
“How do we ensure repayment? If too many refuse to repay, the whole loan scheme breaks down. This is what is happening in the US with its education loan schemes. Each year, thousands of students refuse or are unable to repay their education loans. This year, about US$1.6 billion or 16% of the annual loan volume is expected to be in default. As Minister for Labour, my main concern with the CPF scheme must be to ensure the old-age financial security of the CPF members. However, as some MPs have been lobbying hard for CPF to be allowed for education, I am prepared to restudy the issue thoroughly. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!”
“Properties, shares and gold - these are all bankable assets in the sense that they can be pledged as security for bank loans and are easily tradeable. Risks can be spread by having a diversified portfolio of investments. To preserve the entire CPF savings for the member's old-age needs, it must be possible to sell the investments and return the money to his CPF account. It should be noted that properties, shares and gold are not objectives of the CPF scheme. They are avenues of investment open to those CPF members who feel that they can make a better return by investing in these assets. They must be prepared to accept the risks involved. Most CPF members are cautious and choose to leave their savings with the CPF Board to earn a guaranteed return. In contrast, education does not have some of these characteristics I mentioned. For example, I think it must be difficult to borrow money from a bank for overseas education if a student has no other collateral but merely promises to pay the money back after graduation. Therefore, in that sense, education is not bankable. The proposal from the GPC for Education is basically a loan scheme, that parents lend their CPF to their children to pay for tertiary education fees. This introduces a whole new principle into the CPF scheme - that CPF savings can be taken out as loans. The loan concept needs to be carefully studied as it could lead to many other ramifications. One main concern is, of course, how to ensure repayment to the member's CPF account. Is an undertaking to repay good enough? What happens if the borrower is unable or refuses to repay? Do we take him to court? Hon. Members should realize that by the time the child graduates from university his father will be close to or past the CPF withdrawal age of 55.”
“A member is more likely to fall sick when he is old and the bulk of Medisave funds are meant for old-age use. The CPF scheme is designed for the vast majority of members who do not draw high incomes. It is to enable them to achieve three sub-goals of CPF. Firstly, to own a home according to his income level. For most people, this means an HDB flat. Secondly, for Medisave, and thirdly, to have a cash balance at retirement which will enable him to spend at the rate of about one-third of his last-drawn pay. These - I want to emphasize - are all meant for old-age financial security. Members are well aware that the CPF rate was previously 50%. It was reduced to 35% about two years ago. The Government is now targetting for a long-term rate of 40%. At the 40% rate, an average CPF member will find that he has only enough to pay for the HDB flat, for Medisave, and for old-age needs. There is no excess fat. Any CPF scheme that we consider must therefore not deplete his CPF savings. This is a very fundamental point. In 1986, the Minimum Sum Scheme was introduced. So long as the minimum sum of $30,000 is secured, a member can withdraw his entire CPF savings, excluding Medisave, at age 55. Unfortunately, the Minimum Sum Scheme has given rise to some misconceptions. Please do not misunderstand the Minimum Sum of $30,000. It is only a minimum safety net. A member will find it very difficult to survive with only $30,000. He needs much more, in fact the entire 40% CPF savings, to maintain his living standard after retirement. With the minimum sum secured, the Government has decided to allow CPF members to progressively invest their CPF savings on other bankable assets.”
“Sir, this issue on education has generated so much heat that it makes my mouth dry just to listen to the debate. I think there will be some time left if Members do not speak too long on subsequent issues after item (l) to debate after lunch. I must start with CPF for education since it is obviously the most important topic this morning, although various other issues were raised. One point is clear: there is no unanimous view in Parliament on this issue, and I think all of us have to consider it very carefully. If Members will bear with me, I would like to take you through the rationale for the CPF scheme and the thinking on this issue. In discussing the CPF, we must never lose sight of its original and basic objective, that is, to provide for each member's old-age financial security. I think this point is not in dispute. Even the Member for Potong Pasir agrees with this point. Apart from some civil servants, Singaporeans generally do not have pensions. They have to save up in CPF and manage their savings carefully, both before and after retirement, to ensure that they have sufficient money to live on after retirement. The older Singaporeans now can depend on many children to support them. In future, our generation will have to depend mainly on our own savings because there will be very few children to support us. Over the years, several improvements have been made to the CPF scheme. A very important change was to allow CPF for the purchase of homes. It enables Singaporeans to own their homes which also serve as a valuable investment for old age. If necessary, a member can sell his house and buy or rent a smaller one. Then came the Home Protection Insurance Scheme to protect the home. After that, Medisave was introduced to provide for hospitalization expenses.”
“I think my Ministry is equally anxious to make sure that there are no abuses and that the use of contract workers is not a means to circumvent the Government's policies, for example, on controlling foreign workers or to avoid paying the levy, and so forth. We also want to make sure that the workers are adequately protected, that their interests are protected. As for the case of the Government department involved, I think the Member should bring up the particulars to the relevant Ministry, and maybe the Minister for Finance, for his attention.”
“Sir, I would like to thank the Member for Yuhua for bringing up this problem. The use of contract workers has been a common practice for some time now, especially in the construction and shipyard industries. The reason is that it is a convenient means of meeting the cyclical demand pattern of these particular industries. What is new is that they are used recently by some electronics firm and, as the Member has just told us, maybe also by some Government departments. Following complaints, my Ministry has been studying the practice more closely and we are still looking into the matter. Our studies show that it is not entirely true that all contract workers do not have protection. Many are paid CPF contributions and other statutory benefits as stipulated in the Employment Act. However, they are unlikely to be given any retrenchment benefits when their services are no longer needed. In many instances, contract workers are direct employees of labour suppliers. The labour suppliers act as the employers. The workers could be either local workers or foreign workers. They are deployed to work at the premises of the labour suppliers' clientele which are usually shipyards, construction firms and, lately, also some electronics firms, and maybe even garment firms. These workers are normally daily-rated employees and, like regular workers, enjoy annual leave, sick leave, public holiday pay and so on as well as transport and accommodation provided by the labour suppliers. Many labour suppliers also make CPF contributions for local contract workers and pay the levy for foreign workers to the Government. However, I understand the Member's concern.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when we adjourned yesterday, the Member for Leng Kee was clarifying what he meant by "factor intensity". I was not quite clear about the meaning. What he explained was whether we tend to allow more foreign workers to work in capital-intensive industries and less in labour-intensive industries. My answer is no. We allow foreign workers in each approved company in the manufacturing sector up to 50% of its workforce. If a company employs 400 workers, it can employ up to 200 foreign workers. So there is a corresponding relationship to the workforce. The more labour-intensive industries would tend to have more foreign workers.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Main and Development Estimates for the financial year 1988/89, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow. Mr Deputy Speaker: So be it. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn." - [Mr Lee Yock Suan]. Adjourned accordingly at Four o'clock pm.”
“I think it is very difficult. In fact, in my own Meet-the-People sessions, I also have a lot of such cases and there is not very much I can do to help them. I think the policy is right, and we should continue. We can sympathize with them, but they on their own must make the adjustments. They can look for, maybe, relatives or friends or people they know, say in Malaysia, who have five '0' levels wanting to come here. We will approve it. They can look for others who are already here and want to change jobs - maybe they are unhappy with the previous employer - we will again allow it under change of employment, or they can allow the locals to be partners. There are different ways. Sir, I think I have answered all the points.”
“So many of these girls, especially our own local girls, and rightly so, learn a bit about beauty culture from our community centres and they do it at home. It is a good service for Singaporeans and it is good for the market. One solution for these small business people could be to take in these local workers as partners and give them a share in the business; give them some sense of belonging to the business and share it with them. Do not try and under-pay them and expect to extract the maximum from them. In any case, this is a domestic business. If company A is unable to get foreign workers, company B is also in the same position. All are on the same terms. They could, if need be, pay a bit more and charge our Singaporean customers more. In fact, I think they are already paying a lot for their hairstyling.”
“We try certain ways and if we find it does not work, then we relax it. So there is no hard and rigid system. Even the levy is on a trial-and-error basis. We started off with $140, not quite knowing what was the right level. As it turned out, I think it is on the low side. So it has been brought up to $170. Maybe $170 is still too low! The Member for Potong Pasir has, I think, shown from what he said that he has understood the foreign workers' policy, except for one point. He said that we do not allow the service sector to recruit foreign workers. That is not true as a general statement, because the hotel sector is allowed and it is a service industry. Shipyards are allowed. It is also a service industry. And there could be other types of service industries, like aircraft servicing and so on. But for the other sectors, like banking and retail trade, we have our doubts because they have been able to get foreign workers, especially the banks, and the retail sector, is domestic-oriented. As for the small businesses, husband-and-wife teams, I sympathize with them. I wish I could say yes. But the problem is there are so many of these types of business teams. Once you relax for this group, then you practically have to relax for the whole domestic sector. It is very difficult to draw the line and say, "Look, if you are husband and wife, okay. If you are husband and wife, with two employees, not okay." Where do we draw the line? And the problem with these people is that, especially with beauty salons, they do not pay their workers enough. They recruit a girl, and they expect her to be on her feet for, maybe, 12 hours a day and pay her a very low salary.”
“The answer is that we started with the levy on a percentage basis for various sectors, including foreign maids, and found that employers were paying less and less levy. So we had to simplify the procedures, tighten the controls and fix the levy at a fixed quantum. A fixed quantum of levy also tends to favour the recruitment of skilled workers because the levy forms a smaller part of the total cost. The tender system has been suggested by the Member for Jalan Kayu. I am not sure whether it is a practical solution because we are getting applications for hundreds of foreign workers every day. So it is a constantly changing daily problem. I am not sure how we can implement a tender system involving hundreds of employers and thousands of foreign workers. I think it is too complicated. It is much simpler, and I think it is better, for the employers also to know how much exactly they have to pay if they want to recruit foreign workers. Whether the levy should be paid into the SDF fund, that I will reserve for my colleague, the Minister for Finance, to answer. I think his philosophy so far is that we should treat everything as consolidated revenue, and there are good reasons for this. Because then you have the flexibility to put in more into one sector that needs it and less into another sector. Why do you want to tie your hands and allocate? As far as SDF is concerned, I feel there should be more money. But whether or not it should come from the levy, that is up to the Minister for Finance. I do not quite understand the point about the factor intensity. It is an economics term. It is true tht my staff are not experts. In fact, we depend on the EDB to assess which companies should get support and which should not. In a sense, it is a trial and error process.”
“We will admit them to any sector of the economy, including the hairdressing salons mentioned by the Member for Potong Pasir. We also allow those who are already here to stay. We do not chase them away. They can change jobs either within the sector or from the non-approved sectors to the approved sectors. But they must make sure that they apply for a work permit within one month of giving up the old one. Otherwise, they will be treated as new applications. The Member for Leng Kee asked the question - what control mechanisms should be used? He said that while we have the levy, we still have the allocations; so there seems to be a problem here. But I think the problem actually affects different sectors. The sectors which are able to employ foreign workers are in a sense privileged. They do have to pay a levy and it has been increased because the numbers have been going up too fast. The sectors which do not pay the levy do not get foreign workers. So it is actually quite irrelevant to them. But we do have to allocate for the reasons I have explained. The other group that is caught in a bind - they are willing to pay the levy, they are allowed to recruit foreign workers but they are not allowed to get any more - fall in the categories I have already mentioned. A lot of the garment factories, for example, have already reached the full limit of 50%. I do not see why we should allow them to have any more foreign workers. They have their full share. Then there could be other businesses which are within the approved sectors but they have contravened the rules for some reason or other, for example, they were caught with illegal workers or had failed to pay the levy. So we have blacklisted them. The Member also asked whether the levy should be in percentage terms.”
“I can't tell the difference. Actually when he said that robots do not fall in love, I was thinking - foreign workers do. The thought came to my mind that robots cannot produce babies, but foreign workers can. And we do allow some of them to get married. It helps to supplement our population. But we do have to be selective. He made the point that perhaps we should look both at the long-term and the short-term labour shortage problems and how to reconcile the two. I can assure him that we are fully conscious of both needs. That is why we are constantly monitoring the market and we are prepared to fine-tune, if necessary, towards the long-term objective of reducing dependence on foreign workers. As to the mechanisms to be used, my belief is that we should retain full control and make full use of all the mechanisms at our disposal. I think every one of them has its pluses and minuses. If we depend on the levy alone, for example, we allow all sectors to employ foreign workers, then the end-result would be a very sharp increase in the numbers. And then to dampen the numbers down, we have to raise the levy up to a very high level. So we have done it on a very rough basis by giving preference to certain sectors which are export-oriented and which are able to contribute to the upgrading of our economy. I know there are some local firms which have difficulty and I think the EDB is not unsympathetic. They should approach EDB and persuade it that they are upgrading and they are supporting industries, for example, and persuade EDB to support them. Then it would be much easier for my Ministry. We will approve it. There are, of course, other ways for them as well. I have mentioned that they can try and recruit better qualified workers, those with five '0' levels.”
“Sir, I will first respond to the points made by the Member for Leng Kee. I think there is not much disagreement between what he has said and the position of my Ministry. He favours the import of robots, so do I.”
“On the other hand, we need to make sure that there is adequate protection for the part-time workers in all aspects. This will cover areas like safety and health in the workplace. I think they are already covered under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Then there are other issues like whether they should be allowed to join unions. The unions obviously have one point of view and the employers have another point of view. We have to try and reconcile their differences and come out with a tripartite agreement on part-time employment. At the moment, my Ministry is still open on this matter and we invite suggestions and ideas on how we can best promote part-time work. However, as I mentioned before, the lack of legislation itself should not be a reason for not having part-time work. In fact, part-time work has been growing in Singapore. According to the labour force survey, 4% of the workforce are in part-time employment in 1987 as compared with 2% in 1981. So there has been a doubling of part-time work. Incidentally, this answers the point from the Member for Cairnhill whether we include part-time employment in our labour force survey. The answer is yes, and we do have some figures. There is not much disagreement here on part-time employment and I do not want to take up more time. We will discuss this in more detail, of course, with the unionists and employers and study the matter carefully and thoroughly before we come to a decision. I would like of course to settle this within a year, if possible. But if it is not possible, I hope the Member for Cairnhill will be a bit more lenient with his time-frame and not insist that by next budget I should have everything wrapped up. I will do my best.”
“Sir, I am glad that the GPC on Labour, trade unions and employers are all looking into this problem of part-time work seriously. My Ministry is doing the same. I raised this question of amending the Employment Act in the last Budget statement. Subsequently, we have done more studies and the issues are, in fact, more complex than I thought. It is true that quite a few countries - Italy, Germany, Japan, Spain, Ireland, New Zealand - have legislation for part-time work. But we find that one legislation is very different from another. Very often it depends on the local circumstances. Sometimes they are concerned about protecting jobs for the full-time workers. For example, there are a lot of regulations on what can be done part-time and what cannot be done, priorities, and so on, whether you need to have a cut-off point in terms of hours. So it is a complex issue. In fact, we have been waiting for some time for the employers to respond and in December they have given us a quite detailed submission, some ideas on what they think should be done. In their opinion, they feel that we need a separate legislation. I am not sure whether we need to go the full way for a separate legislation or whether we can achieve the same purpose through some simpler amendment to the Employment Act. But I think the objective is quite clear. We all want to encourage part-time work. One way to do this may be to give greater flexibility to both employers and the job seekers to come to terms themselves. It does not make sense, for example, to insist that a person who works only two days a week should also have off-days and holidays, and so on. It may be better in those cases if they are allowed to convert the benefits into pay.”
“We want to encourage the people to work longer to age 60, but we have already agreed to allow the withdrawal age to remain at 55 years with the implementation of the Minimum Sum Scheme where we make sure that everybody has at least $30,000 to live on after he retires. They first have to keep the money with the CPF Board or banks or whatever and they can only use that money from age 60 onwards. So that part is already assured, either as money left with the CPF Board, or the banks or insurance companies or as a pledge of assets. So the Government only concerns itself with the minimum safety level to make sure nobody becomes a liability to the State and to others. Apart from that, they can withdraw the money at 55, but please manage it carefully.”
“Sir, first of all, the point that employers are reluctant to talk about the retirement age. If that is so, then I think they have themselves to blame. They really should be pushed to get on with this job. I do not know whether it is a case of some of them wanting the easy way out themselves and waiting for the Government to just legislate so that they do not have to do any further work. "Well, if Government says so, we raise it." But if they do that, then they would be missing this opportunity to try and make the necessary adjustments at this point in time. Legislation is a very easy process. The Government can easily do it. The question is whether it is the right approach or should we allow some time for the market to adjust. So I hope the employers will take this matter seriously. The second question is about this fear by the public that if the retirement age is raised to 60, therefore the CPF withdrawal age will be also raised to 60. Last year when I talked on this point and announced the Minimum Sum Scheme, I already made clear that the Government has de-linked the CPF withdrawal age from the retirement age. Ours is not a pension scheme. It is not like in some developed countries where once you retire, you are entitled to pension. Ours is a compulsory savings scheme where you have to save up to a certain age, 55 years, and then you can withdraw the money and do what you like with it. Of course, you should manage it carefully. But you should continue working as long as you can because that way you will improve on your own financial standing and probably keep in better health as well. So it is quite clear that there should be no fear on this count - that Government has de-linked the two issues.”
“But when I asked our unions what was the reaction of their members with respect to raising the retirement age, they came back, to my surprise, with one concern, and that concern is that they are afraid that if the retirement age is raised to 60, then the withdrawal age of CPF would be raised to 60. Although we have made strenuous efforts to explain this to the public, some of them still have this misconception. I have assured those who worry about it that the withdrawal age of CPF would remain at 55, but perhaps it will be stronger if the Minister makes that statement.”
“Many of those who come to us for jobs are looking for jobs which are less available, eg Government jobs. There are other unemployed persons who prefer hawker or taxi licences, as I think Members are well. My Ministry will continue to try and do what we can to help the older workers. The points made about adapting the training for older workers and advertisements with no age limit, I have already covered. Concerning the question of greater public awareness on ageing, I think there is already a programme by the Ministry of Community Development to get the public more aware of the problem and to come to terms with it. So, in general, I would say that we must all contribute our part and do what we can to understand the problems of the older workers and also to help them to adjust. But they, on their part, must also make the adjustment. Mr Lim Boon Heng: Sir, if I may, I would just like to go back to the question of retirement age. When I spoke earlier I informed the House that employers adopt the position of not wanting to negotiate employment age at all. That is why I suggested that we should exert more pressure on the employers and, if necessary, legislate to raise the retirement age. Because if they do not talk, nothing that the unions can do would bring them to talk, unless of course there is the heavy hand of the Ministry of Labour or its associated agencies. The Minister also raised the question of whether employees themselves are genuinely interested in wanting to raise the retirement age. I think the answer is yes.”
“Sir, I have noted most of the comments made by the Member for Yuhua concerning the problems of the older workers. I think it is a matter of concern to all of us. I have already answered many of the points raised, eg on retirement age. So I do not wish to go over the same points again. Perhaps I can just briefly tell Members about the unemployment situation of the older workers. As you know, the employment situation has generally improved. The unemployment rate has fallen from 6.5% in June 1986 to 2.8% in December 1987. The employment situation for older workers has also improved. The number of Singaporeans aged 40 and above who were unemployed and actively looking for work fell from 12,600 in June 1987 to 8,700 in December 1987, a net decrease of 4,000 persons over a period of six months. So we can conclude that many of the older Singaporeans have managed to find jobs. There could, of course, be others who have left the job market and are no longer classified as economically active. The unemployment rate only records those who are actively looking for jobs. So if they are not looking for jobs they are not classified as unemployed. The number of job seekers listed with the Employment Service Department has also fallen to 5,700, as already mentioned. This is the lowest number for several years. There are, in fact, many jobs available if both employers and job seekers will adjust their expectations. In trying to help the older workers who are looking for jobs, the Employment Service Department of my Ministry has tried to counsel the job seekers. Unfortunately, the results have been disappointing. The workers have rejected job offers for various reasons. The success rate is rather low, about 15%.”
“As regards wage reform, we agree that it should be more flexible as when workers get older, they are more subject to mental and physical conditions. In this respect, the Ministry of Labour should have a more direct and clear-cut policy on this, otherwise, it will be more difficult to negotiate with employers. Earlier, leaders of trade unions who are Members of Parliament have spoken on the retirement age and rather impatiently suggested it to be fixed at 60 years old by legislation. Here, I would like to suggest that since the Howe Yoon Chong Report made in 1983 on the Problems of the Aged it has been 5 years. Let the employers implement the scheme of retirement suggested therein by 1990, that is to say let the employers have 2-3 years grace. If they fail to do it by then, we should then legislate the retirement age at 60.”
“When the older people are over 55 and still healthy, they should be able to keep on working on their own. Whenever we open the pages of the newspaper, we see in the vacancy advertisements the employers usually want workers around 35 years old. Even those above 40 years old would have little chance. I hope the employers would be encouraged to change their attitude and should think in terms of individual ability not age as a factor. The other question I would like to touch upon is about training. Earlier, when dealing with MIT items, we had also mentioned about the importance of training old people. At the moment, with our basic and skill training courses there is no special programme of training suitable for the older people to adapt to job requirements. Therefore, I suggest that the Committee on the Aged proposed by the 1DPM and led by Prof. Jayakumar, Minister for Home Affairs, should set up a special old-people's job placement sub-committee to study what type of jobs in Singapore would be suitable for the older people. And also courses of skill training for them should be in the medium of language in which the older people are conversant so as to help them adapt themselves more easily and quickly to the requirements of the jobs more suitable for them, without having to waste 2 or 4 years under the present basic skill training scheme. Earlier, when talking about CPF the Minister for Labour mentioned about considering announcing new CPF contribution rates, ie, for workers older than 55, I hope the Minister will do it by July the latest, and the contribution rate would vary reversely according to the stages of their age groups. I fully support this change to CPF contribution rates, as it will encourage employers to employ such workers.”
“Personally, I do not think we should, at this point of time, come down so hard and wallop the employers. We should give them some time. And the unionists should push very hard. I think the right time to get this settled will be at the point of negotiating the collective agreements. So push very hard. I am fully behind you. Make the adjustments and we will raise the retirement age to 60. Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon (Yuhua)( In Mandarin):Mr Chairman, Sir, the question relating to the older workers that I would like to deal with have been touched upon by some other Members who spoke earlier. So, I'll just add one or two points. When we talk about the old, we used to talk about the usual topics like retirement age, CPF and skill training. I feel that the most important point is the overall social attitude. How the society as a whole look at the old people, and how the old look at themselves. What is the general attitude. Just now the Minister for Labour said that very few aged workers have registered for training. According to labour statistics, there are only 47% of our old people over 55 to 60 taking part in labour activities. In Japan, it is 69%. In America, it is 64%. So, in this respect, social education by the relevant Ministry is necessary to change the attitude of our people to help promote older people to join the labour force. We can see that there are MPs in this House over 50 who are still without white hair but full of energy. Therefore, we can see that following the ageing of the population, we need to change our attitude and keep on learning as long as we live and are still healthy so that even in our old age we can work and look after ourselves and serve the society.”
“I have already announced last year the lower long-term CPF rates for older workers. With progressive adjustments, the final rates should be in effect within a few years. I note the point made by the Member for Kebun Baru that it may be advantageous for the Government to announce the programme in advance for the workers who are above 55 years old. I will seriously consider that point and when we next adjust the CPF rates, see whether we should announce them in advance for the older workers, to give a more definite time schedule for the employers. But I do not think this is a good reason for delaying the raising of the retirement age because the Government's intention is already known. And it is only a matter of years, maybe 3 years, maybe slightly longer or slightly less, when the CPF rates for older workers will have been reduced progressively to the final long-term rates. The common feature of all the Members who have spoken so far is that they are all pressing for the Government to legislate the change. I think we should go slow on this point and give the employers and the workers a chance to discuss first. It requires give and take on both sides. I can see that the unions are very keen. I hope the workers also realize that it is to their advantage and are equally keen. There could be a problem of costs. So it is better, in my opinion, to leave it to the market forces to adjust first and consider legislation only as a last resort. The Member for Boon Lay has proposed various other measures like tying the employment of foreign workers with the move to raise the retirement age These are some measures we have to study carefully because I am not sure whether they are really practicable.”
“Unless the person has substantial savings to last for so long and sufficient activities to fill his leisure hours, he will find it much better to continue working as long as he can, to age 60 and beyond. Our employers should understand the situation and not retire their workers at age 55 if they are still healthy and willing to work. Otherwise, it will be a waste of our manpower resources and will further compound our labour shortage problem. Most of our foreign investors come from the US, Europe and Japan. In Europe, the retirement age is now generally 65 for males and 60 for females. In the United States, the retirement age used to be 70 but they have removed that requirement. In fact, as a speaker has mentioned, age is no longer a reason for retiring somebody. As long as the person is willing and able to work, the employer cannot give age as a reason for retiring him. In the case of Japan, the retirement age used to be 55 but they have progressively raised it to 60. After a lot of persuasion and with guidance from the invisible hand of MITI, eventually they decided that it was time to legislate the change. So the retirement age in Japan has also moved up to 60. In Singapore, our health standards and life expectancy are comparable to the developed countries. All our employers, as responsible corporate citizens, should appreciate our social situation and not retire their workers prematurely. The Government has made clear its position on this matter. It has decided to allow some time for employers and workers to come to terms for extending the retirement age to 60 years. With our seniority pay scales, some employees at age 55 may be paid more than the worth of their jobs. They should be prepared to accept a pay adjustment to facilitate raising the retirement age to 60.”
“Sir, in Singapore, out of 933 collective agreements, only 15% specified retirement age of 60 years, 77% specified 55 years, whilst the remainder are mostly silent on this issue. Obviously, we still have a long way to go to reach our target of 100% of collective agreements specifying retirement age of 60 years in the private sector. As the other speakers have already mentioned, the Government has been pushing for this for some time. In fact, the Government took the lead as far back as 1956, which is 32 years ago, to raise the retirement age for civil servants to 60. All civil servants in the Ministries who joined after 1st July 1956 retire at 60 years old. Those who joined before that date retire at 55. But some have been allowed to extend beyond 55. There are still a few statutory boards, eg Telecoms, which have not implemented this policy of raising the retirement age to 60. Recently, the Minister for Finance said that he would be encouraging the different Ministries and statutory boards concerned to follow suit. So we are left mainly with the private sector where so far the progress to raise the retirement age has been rather slow. It could be that they are tied up with other matters, wage reform for example. But it is already several months since this policy was announced. I think the employers and the unions should get on and negotiate to raise the retirement age without further delay. As the previous speakers have mentioned, Singaporeans are now healthier and living longer. On the average, a Singaporean aged 55 can expect to live for another 20 years, to about age 75. So it is certainly too early to retire at age 55, a retirement age which was set decades ago when Singapore was still a British colony.”
“Sir, I thank the Member for Pasir Panjang for his comments. I am generally in agreement with what he has said, especially about the need for employers to re-train their older workers and to do more for their welfare in terms of helping them to adjust to other jobs, for example. I think earlier today this issue was debated quite thoroughly when Parliament was discussing the budget for the Ministry of Trade and Industry and my colleague, the Minister for Trade and Industry, has already explained very eloquently the philosophy of the Government with regard to training and how it should be funded. His Ministry which looks after the National Productivity Board has also been looking into this question in general, of how to re-skill our workforce. Of course, we are in the process of restructuring our economy. So it is necessary for our workers to accept that they must change and adjust and re-train themselves in order to be able to cope with the many kinds of jobs. They should go for BEST classes, enrol with VITB and so forth. Unfortunately, the experience that we have in the Employment Service Department when we did a study of the job seekers, the older ones, recently was not encouraging. Out of about 100 interviewees who were looking for jobs, only 2 said that they were willing to go for re-training. I think the majority were anxious to get a job and earn a living. But they have to consider what are the jobs available are and how they can equip themselves for the jobs which are available. I hope all employers will pay close attention to the suggestions made by the Member for Pasir Panjang. I fully support his views on re-training.”
“If this is not done and workers are allowed to go at 55, then in the end the workers themselves suffer. This process of adjustment can either be made as a separate negotiation during collective bargaining sessions or it can be part of the wage reform process. I hope the employers and the workers will take this matter seriously and come to some settlement.”
“There is the problem at the moment that with seniority pay scales, especially if the scales are very long, that the employees who are very senior and near retirement may be paid as much as three times the pay of a worker who is beginning and joining the company for the first time. There is a problem there with older workers that if they are paid more than what they are worth to the company, then in the event of a recession they may be the ones who will suffer by being retrenched. In order to ensure job security, I think our older workers have to understand that their salaries may not continue increasing forever. There has to be a limit at some point. One solution to this may be for certain types of work, the salary should really be capped at some point and we then allow the starting wages to rise gradually so that over a period of time the ratio of the ending wages and the starting wages may be something like two. This is a problem that has to be looked into and, in fact, it is one of the recommendations of the NWC Sub-Committee on Wage Reform. In order to facilitate the raising of the retirement age, the Government is going to reduce the CPF rates for older workers, ie those who are above 55 years old. This will make it more attractive for the employers to employ the older workers who will be able to enjoy perhaps the same take-home pay or even higher take home-pay because their own CPF rate will be reduced. But this in itself may or may not be sufficient depending on the kind of job. So where necessary, the workers and the unions should be prepared to negotiate with the employers a new and lower pay scale after age 55 to facilitate the raising of the retirement age.”
“But employers must understand that the intention is to allow this variable component to accumulate over a period of time, over several years, so that it may amount to something like two months' wages. This cumulative element will then serve as a buffer in case there is a recession and can be cut. I think this point is quite clear from the report of the NWC's Sub-Committee on Wage Reform where it makes clear that in the productivity model, where productivity improves from year to year, the variable payment will be cumulative. It will build up over several years to, say, about two months' wages and this then can be adjusted in the event of a recession. The whole idea of wage reform is to introduce flexibility into our wage system. It is not to pay our workers less. Workers should be paid according to what the economy can afford, according to productivity increases. So when you adopt the productivity model and productivity increases year by year, then it is fair that the variable bonus should build up over the years. The Member for Cairnhill has asked about the progress of wage reform in the public sector, in other words, in the Government sector. The Sub-Committee on wage reform in the public sector has already completed its work. The report is now being considered by the Government and we can expect an announcement very soon. He also mentioned this point about long pay scales and older workers being paid more than their job's worth. This point has been noted by the Sub-Committee on Wage Reform.”
“So we can see from the data I have given that progress has been made although there are some practical problems. I would like to repeat my urging to employers that they should not delay any longer. The NTUC and the SNEF have supported the wage reform process. Now is the time to get on with it. Employers and workers will have to learn to work together to arrive at fair and mutually acceptable wage systems which have adequate flexibility to cushion them from future recessions. The systems may have to be modified and refined in the light of experience. The Member for Kebun Baru also touched on this question of employers not fully appreciating the need to allow the variable component to be built up over a period of years. This applies mainly in the case of the productivity model. The problem arises because in some of these agreements, regardless of whether they are profit-sharing or productivity-based, there are a statement that the variable of bonus is "one-off". It is one-off in the sense that it can be varied from year to year. For example, when there is a recession, then the bonus can be cut. In the case of the profit-sharing model, this is quite straightforward. The payment depends on the profits for that year. So this year's bonus is good only for this year. Next year's bonus depends on next year's performance. So it is one-off in that sense. But in the case of the productivity model, what employers and unions have agreed upon is that part of the increment for the year should be paid as a service increment and the balance is accumulated and paid as a lump-sum component. This variable payment is also one-off in the sense that it is flexible, it can be adjusted.”
“Sir, the Member for Kebun Baru has asked for a progress report on the wage reform process in the private sector. As at January 1988, out of 891 establishments monitored by my Ministry, 29% have adopted flexible wage systems in one form or another. This includes 10% who are either satisfied with or refining their existing flexible wage systems. Another 531 or 60% are either negotiating with their unions or studying various options. The rest, 103 or 11%, have indicated that they have no plans for wage reform. Of the 257 companies with flexible wage systems, 54% are foreign-owned. I can give many examples of these companies. They include, for example, NMB Singapore, Mobil Oil, Beecham, Hewlett Packard, GE, Motorola, GM, Toshiba and so forth. Quite a few of the multi-nationals, in fact, have also implemented wage reform. The majority of the companies that have implemented wage reform so far have adopted the profit-sharing formula. This is probably the simpler of the two models. What happens is that they have a low increment each year, maybe 2%, maybe 3%, to reward workers for their loyalty and also to allow for inflation. The rest will be mainly a variable component to be paid yearly or semi-annually and this depends on the performance of the company, ie the profits made in the year, as well as the performance of the individual. The remaining wage reform agreements, especially among the multi-national companies, pro- vide for yearly negotiations of wage increases which are then split into a small service increment and a year-end lump-sum payment. Some companies have also settled with their unions for formulas which attempt to link wage increases to the company's performance or productivity gains.”
“Sir, I will ask my officers to look into this question.”
“Some of the other points raised by the Member, I have taken note of and I will give them serious consideration to see how we can, for example, learn from other countries. In fact, we are already doing that. And also how to promote part-time work - whether we should amend the Employment Act, or whether there are other areas we can do. So my Ministry is trying its best to cope with the problem.”
“One of these is, of course, the increase in the foreign workers levy, which will have the effect of protecting in a way our lower income groups and also giving an incentive to the employers to make use of our older workers. To conclude, we need to optimize on our own manpower resources, to increase the labour force participation rate, to raise the retirement age, to put in more effort into training, to raise productivity, to have more part-time work, and so forth. There are some employers which are able to manage very well. For example, a lot of the US MNCs, multi-national companies, are able to come in and still do well. But there are others that are overly dependent on foreign workers. So it is also an internal question of the companies themselves, the style of management, the work environment, whether they are paying enough. The Member for Cairnhill has asked what we are planning to do to try and encourage more married women and retirees to enter the labour market. I think I have answered this question quite comprehensively when I responded to a question for oral answer by the Member for Ang Mo Kio. I do not intend to repeat the answer. But I want to point out that the Government has subsidized the setting up of child care centres. The People's Association, of which I am in charge, also has many child care centres. We have increased the level of subsidy in the sense that the fees are now fixed at $150 per month whereas previously they were graded. I believe the Ministry of Community Development also has plans to set up other child care centres. Employers too should set up more child care centres at their workplaces.”
“Another problem is too many employers in the same field, for example, the retail business. If you go into some shopping complexes, you will find so many small retailers, all selling the same goods. How can they compete? They are wanting more and more labour. The Member for Kebun Baru and GPC Chairman for Labour has said that the labour shortage is in a sense a good sign for us. It is something that we should be happy about because it means that we have full employment. Not so long ago, we were worried about the unemployment problem which was at its peak of 6.5% in June 1986. We need only look around and compare ourselves with other countries to see how fortunate we are. But it does mean that we all have to work harder - employers, workers, the Government - to try and move upwards despite our resource constraints. Here, maybe I could give a simple example. Our situation is not unlike that of a man who has eaten as much as he can. He wishes his stomach is bigger and more expandable so that he can consume some more. But over-consumption leads to indigestion and some aches and pains. The solution is to be more selective in what he eats, better quality food, more nourishing food, for example. Obviously, companies want to maximize their profits. They see their business opportunities, they want to have more foreign labour, they want to make profits. But from a national point of view, we have to maximize the GNP and the welfare of our nation as a whole. We are aiming for the greatest good, for the greatest number of people. This process is good for the majority but may be painful for others. As we assess the situation and fine-tune, we will make various policy changes as time goes by.”
“The other factor, as noted by the NTUC, is that there has, in fact, been little progress so far in raising the retirement age. If anything, the movement seems to have been backwards. More collective agreements are now specifying 55 years old instead of 60. The current situation is not entirely the fault of the employers. I think the older employees themselves also need to adjust their own pay and job expectations. We have referred many older employees for jobs and the results have have been disappointing. They gave many reasons - too far, pay too low, shift work, and so on. So it is a problem on both sides. Unless our employers and workers are willing to adjust, there will always be this problem of a mismatch. Our situation could be that we have, in fact, attracted too many-low-value-added labour-intensive operations. It could be that. In our case, being a small country, we cannot grow simply by adding more and more foreign workers of a low skill level. Our objective must be to upgrade our activities to move upwards and not just to expand horizontally. For example, if we want to achieve 1% growth in the GDP simply by adding more workers, we will need 10,000 foreign workers. So if we want to achieve 10% economic growth over a number of years, that means 100,000 foreign workers. So obviously foreign workers alone are not the solution. The solution will be to upgrade, to restructure our economy towards higher level activities. This process unfortunately may be painful for some employers. Some of them, maybe, will eventually have to relocate. Within our resource constraints, we may increasingly have to look overseas for growth. We may have to invest more in our neighbouring countries.”
“But they told my officers that they were interested in looking for work, many of them within the next six months, but mostly within two years' time. This represents a potential pool of workers from within our own domestic sources. Many of these workers, especially the women, want part-time work. So my Ministry is now studying ways to encourage part-time employment. One way, as I have explained, is to make the Employment Act more flexible so that the employer and the employee can agree on their own terms of employment whilst safeguarding the basic interests of the employee. But I must point out here that neither the Government nor the unions are insisting that the employers should pay the part-timers the same benefits as the full-time workers. So even though the amendment of the legislation would take some time, this should not stop the employers from implementing schemes for part-time employment and negotiating with their own employees. We have also been encouraging the employers to employ more older workers. Some of them may have done so. But until very recently many advertisements were still specifying that the age limit for job seekers should be 35 years old. My Ministry has called up these advertisers and told them, "Why not drop it and give the older workers a chance? Consider them first, not on the basis of age alone." They have complied. But I do not know actually how many are, in fact, employing older workers. At the moment also there seems to be not much interest in part-time work. Now, this has to be stepped up. This is one way. It means more effort. It may mean slightly higher costs, but this is one source of workers that we must tap.”
“I should point out at this juncture that although the Ministry of Labour sets the overall policy on work permits, the actual implementation and controls are implemented by different bodies responsible for different sectors of the economy. For example, as far as manufacturing is concerned, EDB is the one that decides which companies should get the work permits. For the hotel sector, it is the STPB, and so on. We often hear of companies complaining that they cannot get work permits. We need to understand the reasons in some of these cases. It could be that they are from the non-approved sector, which means they are mainly domestic-oriented. It could be that they are not supported by the respective agencies. For example, barber shops and so on. It could be that they have already reached the 50% limit. So they already have their fair share of foreign workers. Or it could be that they have not paid the foreign workers levy, or they had employed foreign workers illegally and therefore they have been blacklisted. So there could be a lot of reasons why companies are complaining. Of course, in the current situation, there are bound to be employers who are feeling the squeeze. These could be the ones who could not compete for some reason or other. It is important that our employers make better use of their workforce and attract new sources of workers from our own domestic market. For example, some time in June last year, my Ministry did a study and found that there were something like 36,000 Singaporeans, mostly women and older men, who were classified as economically inactive. In other words, they were not actively looking for jobs.”
“Some time ago, the Government actually wanted to phase out all unskilled foreign workers by 1992. Then the decision was made to relax this and to allow a revolving pool even beyond 1992. But this pool of workers has to be controlled. As far as the labour market is concerned, please be assured that the Ministry of Labour is closely monitoring the situation. My assessment is that at the moment, although the labour market is tight, it is not too tight. The reason is that during the beginning of the year, there are a lot of new school leavers who are just joining the labour market. The problem may become more difficult later on in the year. But this will depend on the economic situation, whether there is in fact an economic slowdown. My position is that we will continue to monitor the situation and if need be, we will fine tune our work permit policy. As at the moment I see no immediate need to change our current work permit policy. In my opinion, the current policy is already very liberal, as far as the approved sectors are concerned. For example, the approved manufacturing companies can recruit up to 50% foreign workers. Out of every 100 workers they have in the factory, 50% can be Malaysians. As of now, only about 7% of the companies in the approved categories are at this 50% limit. In fact, the vast majority of the approved employers can still carry on importing foreign workers very liberally. For the non-approved sectors, I have explained that they are domestic-oriented and I have explained why I think we should not open up our doors to this sector. At the moment, they seem to be able to manage with very few foreign workers. But, as I said before, if there are deserving cases, please write to me and I will look into the cases and consider them on a case-by-case basis.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this question of labour supply and the tight labour market has been raised several times in this Parliament in oral questions and so forth, and I have tried my best to explain the Government's position. Late last year, the Member for Bo Wen asked a similar question. He asked: what actions were being taken to ensure an adequate supply of labour to the economic sectors which were crying out for more workers? At that time, I replied that the Member's question implied that the Government had to make available sufficient workers to meet whatever demand. With our limited working population, this means an increasing access to foreign workers. Such a liberal policy will not be to our national interest. The current economic situation is such that a ready supply of foreign workers tends to create its own demand. There will be no incentive to optimize the use of local manpower, to employ older Singaporean workers and housewives and to increase productivity through automation and improved work methods. The Government has to carry out a difficult balancing act. It has to allow a regulated inflow of foreign workers to facilitate healthy economic growth and upgrading whilst avoiding over-dependence on foreign workers. Economic growth should not be achieved simply by importing an ever-increasing number of foreign workers. Our goal should be to upgrade the level of our economy so that Singaporeans can be trained and employed in better paid jobs. I think that in a nutshell sums up the position - that the Government is trying to carry out this difficult balancing task. On the one hand, we want to achieve high growth rates, move on to higher levels of activity. On the other hand, we are short of workers and we have to import foreign workers in increasing numbers.”
“Encik Abbas Abu Amin asked the Minister for Community Development (a) whether figures are available on the number of the unemployed disabed in our society; (b) how the Government and non-governmental organizations can assist the disabled to find employment; and (c) whether there are schemes to provide skills training for them.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the standard of occupational safety and health in Singapore is satisfactory as indicated by the statistics on industrial accidents and diseases. In 1987, the total number of accidents reported to the Department of Industrial Safety was 4,155, a 7.7% increase over the 1986 figure of 3,856. The increase was partly attributable to the pick-up in economic activities last year. On the whole, however, the trend remained a healthy one, with the number of accidents dropping by more than 30% over the last five years, from 6,045 accidents in 1983 to 4,155 last year. The construction and the shipbuilding and repairing industries remained the two industries with the largest number of accidents. In 1987, these two industries combined accounted for 1,479 cases or about 35% of the total number of accidents. Hence, my Ministry will continue to focus its attention on the reduction of accidents in these two industries. In 1987, 1,073 cases of industrial diseases were confirmed. This represents a drop of 48% as compared to 2,068 cases for 1986. Since the introduction in 1985 of the compulsory medical examinations requirement, the bulk of the old cases has already been detected. Noise-induced deafness constitutes 70% of the cases. The noise problem is particularly prevalent in the metal-working factories and shipyards. The Department of Industrial Health will therefore continue to implement measures to control the problem, with particular attention on these two industries. UNEMPLOYED DISABLED (Assistance for) 6.”
“Sir, I do not have specific information on that. BLOOD BANK (Blood Contamination and causes) The following question stood in the name of Dr Ho Tat Kin - 11. To ask the Acting Minister for Health what percentage of blood collected by the Blood Bank in 1986 and 1987 could not be used because of contamination; what were the main causes of the contamination; whether the percentage has been on the increase; and what does his Ministry do with the contaminated blood.”