Lim Boon Heng
Singapore
“On the first question on foreign domestic worker levy relief for single women who are looking after their aged parents, I think that question should be addressed to the Minister for Manpower and the Ministry of Finance.”
“I shall address the second point first. When it is clearly an item for a Ministry, a Member should address that question to that Ministry because that Ministry is also responsible for that even if it is related to ageing.”
“For those who wonder what the Fourth Age is, it is basically the last couple of years of your life when you are afflicted by, perhaps, chronic illnesses and therefore need to be cared for.”
“The Wellness Programme applies to all estates. In the pilot project, we deliberately chose 12 pilot sites to reflect different mixes. For example, we chose Ulu Pandan, which has a lot of private estates.”
“Maybe MCYS and the PMO could really look into these RC centres to see whether they could incorporate some of the needs of the elderly in these centres as well, like an extra area for karaoke or even mahjong. This area should be quiet and enclosed because the elderly sing loudly as they cannot hear very well.”
“The process has already started. We are already debating this issue in Parliament. The unions have taken up the issue with the management. I know and I am aware of that. So, let the process take its course.”
The complete record
Every one of 715 lines we hold for Lim Boon Heng, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 12 of 15.
“The Member for Anson has tried to pull the wool over workers' eyes by dangling the prospect of higher take-home pay if the workers' contributions to CPF is correspondingly reduced to match a reduction in employers' contribution. "e tries to hide the fact that such a measure is a reduction of workers' wages. He has since realized that a great number of workers depend on their CPF to pay for housing, especially HDB home-ownership flats. He has realized that a reduction in CPF contributions will cause hardship to many workers who will have to make up for the CPF cash shortfall from their take-home pay. So he has called for a reduction in HDB financing interest rates. What this means is that he is calling for a reduction in the CPF interest rate. Public housing is financed by loans from CPF. You cannot lower the interest rate on housing loans for HDB flats without affecting the interest payable to CPF account holders. So let all Singaporeans be aware that the Member for Anson is now calling for a cut in the CPF interest rate. Let us also remember that the CPF is the workers' only social security instrument. It is meant for old age and for the worker to provide for his health care needs and his housing needs. It is also our fall-back position in the case of a catastrophic collapse of the world economy. In such a situation, the CPF will be the workers' last resort, to weather the disaster. It is the emergency reserve oxygen tank. We cannot use up the reserve tank now. If we do, what do we fall back on should disaster strike? Our present difficulties do not call on us to draw on the reserve tank, It calls on us to use our main tank carefully. The way to do it is to protect jobs by exercising wage restraint.”
“If there are excess workers, let it be said that there are excess workers. We cannot condone a situation where the company undertakes to reduce its labour force through a system of so-called voluntary retirement. If it is voluntary retirement, it must be truly voluntary. There should be no force involved. Forgoing the NWC for the unions was essentially a gesture of goodwill. It was a message to employers that unions and workers are prepared to cooperate with them to overcome current difficulties. It was a signal to all that temporary sacrifices have to be made and can be made. It was not a signal for an across-the-board wage freeze, or even more drastic, a wage cut. For individual companies, yes, if such measures are necessary, there can be negotiations. But the present situation does not warrant a nation-wide pay cut. Some companies are doing extremely well despite the recession. That is why trade unions view with concern the calls by employers and some Members of this House, for an across-the-board cut in CPF contributions. CPF contributions, as the Member for Leng Kee said yesterday, whether they are from the employee or the employer, are part and parcel of the worker's wages. Any reduction in the employer's contribution to CPF is a wage cut. Those who champion a reduction in the employer's contribution to CPF are doing so against the interest of workers. The trade unions cannot allow such irresponsible elements to mislead the public that such a measure will solve our economic problems. It is a devious trick that must be exposed. Anyone who calls for a reduction of CPF contributions is anti-worker.”
“Wage cut then is obvious. It means accepting less than what you are currently earning. How unions will respond depends on the circumstances of each industry and each company. The unions also take into account a number of factors, and this has been concisely stated by the UWEEI. (1) the financial position of the company; (2) existing wage level in the company in comparison with the industry; (3) plans to increase productivity through mechanization, automation, rationalization and training; (4) commitment to continue operation and to retain workers. Management must realize that the success of wage restraint policies, be it wage moderation, wage freeze or wage cut, depends on the workers' perception of management's sincerity. Needless to say, when there is trust, negotiations will be smooth. Where there is a lack of it, discussions will be protracted. It would help in all cases if management gives a firm commitment on how they intend to reward employees for the sacrifices they now make, when the situation later improves. The unions realize that adjustments are necessary. But it is necessary for us to be sure that when we have discussions between unions and managements, the right conditions apply. Any agreement that is made now in terms of wage moderation, wage freeze or wage cut, is going to set a precedent for the rest of Singapore. So it is all the more important that we select the right industry, the right companies, for such discussions. Otherwise if the conditions are not right, the wrong signals could be given to the rest of the workers. I am particularly disturbed by press reports in the last couple of days of adjustments that are being made at the Jurong Shipyard. I think that we should call the exercise its proper name.”
“Faced with the latest figures on retrenchments and the performance of the economy, other union leaders agreed it was time to act, to send a strong signal to managements that they too were concerned about the downturn of the economy. Hence the decision to forgo the NWC. That historic decision reflects the maturity of leadership. It shows that union leadership here in Singapore is realistic and practical. They know when is the time to ask for more and when is the time to give. Our unions are not of a one-track mind, fighting only for added wages and benefits. They fight to protect their members' jobs in the long term. Hence their decision to exercise wage restraint. This decision was overwhelmingly supported by the rank and file who were looking for a direction out of the recession. Their leaders showed them the way. There will always be some employers who will exploit the situation. They must be made to realize that they do harm to the industrial relations climate if they misconstrue the unions' gesture as a licence to cut back on employment benefits arbitrarily and indiscriminately without due consideration of the situation of each company. The onus of proof for the need to forgo the NWC rests with the management. The key lies in the willingness to share information. In this respect, management must remember that sharing of information must also apply when the company is doing well. What is wage restraint, wage freeze or wage cut? And how do the unions view these measures? Put simply, forgoing the NWC is a form of wage restraint. Accepting a lower annual increment is also a form of wage restraint. It is exercising moderation in wage increases. Wage freeze is accepting the present wage, for-going all annual increments or additions to fringe benefits.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore workers are a thinking lot. They are not rated No. 1 for nothing. They are quick to note changes in the job market and they respond quickly to it. For example, when electronic firms were doing well and pinching workers from one another, the mobile worker moves to an employer who pays him more for his existing skills. He is also quick to note a slow-down in demand. He can gauge whether a firm is doing well or not and he acts accordingly. How does the worker sense the change in the company's fortunes? He knows it when fewer ships come in for repairs. He sees it when production is slowing down, or when fewer customers come in to shop or to eat. He feels it when he gets less overtime or when he is put on shorter work week. He knows that it is serious, especially when retrenchment takes place. The Singapore worker knew that business was slowing down last year. Towards the end of last year, it took a significant turn when mass retrenchments were carried out. This year, the mood was perceptively different as one retrenchment followed another. For once, there is a genuine worry about job security, notwithstanding the availability of jobs because there is the risk of difficult financial adjustments to make if a new job carries with it lower wages. This year the low NWC recommendation was not totally unexpected. It was, of course, lower than what many workers had hoped. However, in some sectors, workers knew it was unrealistic to expect wage increases over and above annual increments. Union leaders in the shipbuilding and shiprepairing industry, as early as March this year, with retrenchments weighing heavily on their minds, were prepared to forgo NWC adjustments to stem the flood of retrenchments. They made public their decision in July.”
“The management issued a letter of termination. The union discussed this with the management on his behalf to see whether the management could retain his services in view of the contributions that he might have made to the company in the past number of years. The union made several attempts to find a solution with the management, failing which the union wrote to the Minister for Labour on behalf of this member, and the matter is with the Ministry of Labour.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the circumstances under which the letter of termination was issued by the company were different. The company was engaged in activities of a serious nature, and there were certain areas within this company that were restricted, and only authorized personnel could be allowed to enter those premises. Unfortunately, Mr Chua Chwee Kay was caught in these areas, without authority.”
“And therefore it was decided that, instead of giving him verbal warning, the management felt it was important to let him know, in writing, that his continued behaviour in this manner would not be conducive to the working environment of the company. We had discussions also with various officials and we decided that we would not continue to pursue the matter. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask again a point of clarification from the Member for Anson, what were the circumstances under which a letter of termination was issued to Mr Chua Chwee Kay? Mr Jeyaretnam: Well, I should have thought the Member would know that. He works with the management. An hon. Member: He was a shirker.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the union took the matter up with the management and, after a series of discussions with the management, decided not to pursue the matter because, apart from this incident, the management pointed out to the union that there were many instances of his not performing his duties.”
“In this particular instance, the management quoted the fact that he was reading the Reader's Digest instead of working.”
“Sir, I am making a speech because I have two more amendments and I thought I will take up the time to clarify a few matters, because I am familiar with this case. Sir, the unfortunate worker was issued a warning letter by the management because he was found not to be working but doing something else other than work when he should be working.”
“Sir, the Member for Anson is predictable. We have heard his usual diatribe in this House about the -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, before I speak, may I ask a point of clarification from the Member for Anson, whether the worker that he was referring to was a gentleman called Mr Chua Chwee Kay? Mr Jeyaretnam: You've guessed that right.”
“We can limit this only to our own local institutions for a start and, perhaps, we should also make it compulsory that once the child starts working, the amount can be paid back into the parents' CPF account with the appropriate interest. I think this proposal should also be extended to the CPF account holder himself if he wishes to upgrade his skills. If he can gain entry into our institutions, I do not see why we should not allow him to use his CPF funds, We may even consider assisting him with SDF support. Another use of CPF funds that we may allow is the purchase of insurance policies. In this respect, I do not think it is necessary for CPF to run its own insurance scheme. Account holders ought to be allowed to decide from which insurance company he wishes to purchase a policy. I am sure there are many other suggestions and these should be seriously considered and implemented. Above all, in spite of all these proposals for liberalizing the use of CPF funds, we must not forget the original basic objective of the CPF, which is to provide financial security at old age. I think we can allow CPF funds to be used if a certain quantum is left behind. He can either use a per- centage of contributions or a sum, or a combination of a sum and a percentage. I hope my suggestions do contribute to the discussion which the First Deputy Prime Minister has called for. 12.15 pm”
“They have also found the prices of private residential property beyond their reach. With the current adjustment of the private residential property prices, they see a glimmer of hope that at long last they may be able to afford a private property. The last thing we should do now is to create an artificial boom and drive private property prices once again out of their reach. It is not my intention to throw cold water on the Government's efforts to find ways of liberalizing the use of CPF funds. On the contrary, I support it. But CPF savings are hard-earned and we should try to ensure that they are wisely spent and not eroded by inflation due to an artificial boom. If we allow CPF funds to be used to purchase a second or third property, it must be allowed together with a range of other options. We should look into other areas. One investment is in education. The Minister for Education has reiterated that education and training is a cornerstone of our economic upgrading strategy and the key to a better life for our people. Investment in education would, therefore, boost the productive capacity of our people. The call for the use of CPF funds to finance the education of the account holder's children has been made before. It has been rejected on the grounds that CPF is for old age security and there is no guarantee that the children will pass nor any guarantee that they will look after their parents. I think we can have safeguards. If a child can gain entry into our institutions, for example, the NUS, NTI, Singapore and Ngee Ann Polytechnics and perhaps even the VITB, he has a certain probability of passing. The risk of failure is worth taking.”
“Sir, the Ministry of Labour has announced its intention to allow a wider choice to CPF account holders to invest part of their savings. I welcome this policy, but I must urge caution. It is in the nature of investments that risks are associated with it. When the use of CPF funds is freed selectively, consumption is also selectively directed and controlled. Such selective action interferes with the free-play of market forces. It is one thing to allow CPF funds to be used for the purchase of HDB flats, but another thing to allow it for the purchase of private property. Government does not decide the prices of private property. So by making CPF funds available only to purchase private property, we create a higher demand for private property. This inflates property prices. We have seen this happen. Property prices firmed and rose when CPF funds were allowed to be used to purchase a first private residential property. In my opinion, it delayed a necessary correction of private residential property prices. Many who made use of their CPF savings to purchase a first private residential property two or three years ago now find the value of their properties sharply reduced. Recently, the First Deputy Prime Minister has suggested for discussion that CPF funds be made available for the purchase of a second or third residential property. A local newspaper reported that many people supported the idea. I am afraid I cannot support this suggestion whole-heartedly, at least not at this time. If we allow it now, another artificial boom will be created and the price correction that is happening now will once again be delayed. Presently, a segment of our working population who fall above the HDB income ceiling of $3,500 are unable to buy HDB flats.”
“But I wish to question whether this 10-minute difference is from the bus stop to his workplace or from his home, because a person has to walk from his flat to the bus stop, which takes time, then take a feeder bus to the town centre to the interchange, wait again for another bus, and finally gets to his destination with or without further changes. The overall transit time is a consideration which the Ministry must consider from the viewpoint of the commuter. We must also take into account the plight of mothers who have to commute during the day with young children. I know it is difficult for a mother with her baby in her arms to get on board our buses, because many of them are designed as buses, not specifically with the convenience of the travelling public in mind, but more with cost in mind. We should try to get the cheapest possible buses because cost is a very important factor. Maybe it is time for the SBS to look into the question of getting custom-built buses which would more meet the demands of the travelling public, making it more convenient for people, like mothers with babies. So if the Minister would reconsider the question of conducting a TV forum again, explain all the 101 suggestions that have been put forward for a solution to this problem, I think it will go a long way to getting acceptance from the people.”
“This would lead to a better understanding of the subject by the people, and make the bitter pill that much easier to swallow. And it will help if the doctor who is administering this medicine has a good bedside manner. Now, let me turn to some of the specific proposals that have been suggested by members of the public which, I think, merit consideration of the Minister. It has been raised before and that is the question of one-for-one replacement of a car in other words, the adoption of the PARF system. This would afford effective control over the increase of the car population. It may also be possible for us to say that we could allow one, two, three per cent increase in the car population each year. And the means of deciding how this increase could be allocated to the public could be worked out by the officials of the Ministry. What is important, I think, is that in whatever discussions on this subject that the officials from the Ministry may have, they should look at the problem, not only from the overall national viewpoint, as they must do, but also to look at it from the specific point of the commuter. What sort of difficulties will the commuter face? What alternative measures are there for the Government to help make it more convenient for the commuter to get to the places that he needs to get to in his daily life? How can we make it more convenient for the commuter, for example, to get from his home to his place of work? I mentioned the question of transit times. The Ministry has, in fact, made public that the transit time, taking a bus and taking a private car, is not that much different; generally speaking, only a 10-minute difference.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, much has been said and more will be said over the next few weeks about the increase in road taxes, taxi fares and diesel tax. There is general unhappiness on this subject because the measures bite on the pockets of everyone. But behind the heat and fury of this argument over the fiscal measures which the Ministry has decided to impose to control the car population, there is understanding on the part of the people over the objectives of these measures. We must not forget the point that the people are aware as to why it is necessary to control the growth of the car population. The anguish that is being expressed is over the manner of controlling the growth of cars. It is like a bitter pill which is difficult to swallow. And, like any form of medicine, it has its side-effects and costs spiral in the form of increased hawker prices. There has been a fair debate on this question. Replies have been given by the Ministers and I do not wish to prolong the argument. But what the people are saying is: is this the only way of controlling the car population without due consideration being given to other measures? I am aware that there is a team of capable officials in the Ministry of Communications and they have studied, I am sure they have studied, the various options that are open to Government for controlling the growth of cars. When I spoke on the President's Address, I suggested to the Minister for Communications that he conduct a TV forum on this subject, because I think it is important that the people of Singapore look at the whole problem in its totality, to give the Minister the opportunity to explain the whole policy of the Government on land transport and to answer all the various points and views that have been expressed by the people.”
“But I think it misses one very important point, ie, how long does it take a person to get from point A to point B. That is the essence of transportation. What the commuting public complains about at the present moment is not whether there are buses but how long a person takes to get from his home to the place of work. My observation is that in the past few years the SBS has concentrated on keeping the cost of conveying the public as low as possible, and they have done this marvellously. Perhaps it is time the SBS looked into solving the problem of transit times for the travelling public. I hope that these points of view which were raised by my constituents be taken note of by the various Ministers in charge. I hope that the communication is definitely going to be a two-way process, and I hope that the various Ministries will improve on the art of communicating with the public. I would like to suggest, in this particular instance, that the Ministry of Communications, instead of continuing with this series of either a jigsaw puzzle or mental striptease, conduct a television forum inviting members of the public to debate on this issue. I think that an hour's programme on SBC is going to better explain the situation than leaving it to our journalists to report in the various newspapers. On that note, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion. 12.38 pm”
“They caution that the use of monetary incentives and disincentives should be considered very carefully. Because once a tax is imposed, while the car owners and others would grumble about it, eventually the cost comes back to the ordinary man in the street because the increased cost is always passed on to the poor consumer. So in the end, it is the lower income group who will bear the brunt of whatever taxes that are imposed. And these are the people who can ill afford another round of price increases in hawker centres or in the shops because it has always been a convenient excuse for hawkers and shopkeepers to increase prices as a result of taxes imposed by Government on various matters. They feel that if we are going to solve the traffic problem, traffic jams, car park problems, then there must be a satisfactory alternative in the form of public transportation. If there is no satisfactory alternative in the form of public transportation, then the ownership of a car is going to be considered as a basic necessity rather than a luxury. I am not saying that they are complaining that SBS has not improved over the years. I think they agree that the standard of service of SBS has improved. The Ministry of Communications, I think, went out of their way to show how much improvement has been achieved because in the Straits Times report of 2nd March, a few points were stressed, ie, now buses are more comfortable, are more reliable and are more convenient. Let me just touch on the point of convenience. The report says that 87% of the people in Singapore live within 400 metres of a bus stop. There are more buses and all HDB new towns are linked up with the major work areas, shopping centres and so on.”
“So somewhere in between the Howe Yoon Chong Report and the current example of the Ministry of Communications' approach, a balance must be struck in order to communicate effectively on the subject with the public. Because of the various announcements by the Ministry of Communications, in my own constituency I was faced with questions by the electorate, by my constituents, about what is the objective of the Government in wanting to impose further taxes on the people. With regard to this particular subject they asked: is it because of traffic jams that Government wants to restrict the growth of cars? Or is it because parking is a problem and there is a need to control the growth of cars? Or is it because we are running out of parking places and the roads in the housing estates are getting clogged up because of illegal parking? Or is it because Government needs the money and wishes to impose more taxes? They object very strongly to the use of monetary incentives or disincentives to effect a particular Government policy. The question is whether it is not possible for the Government to come up with other solutions to control the rate of growth of the car population. Various ideas have been tossed about. Should not Government seriously consider each of those proposals? One of the proposals which my constituents feel would be an acceptable proposal is to restrict the ownership of a second car for a family. While we cannot grudge a family for owning the first car, if the family is in a position to own a second car, then let them pay the price for it. This kind of monetary disincentive, they feel, would protect the majority and penalize the minority who contribute to the clogging up of our roads and our car parks.”
“I recall Mr Howe, in this House, complained about the response of Back-benchers and the members of the public on the Howe Report. He said that instead of looking at the overall picture, we tended to focus on the individual brush strokes. Now, in the last three weeks, we have had a different approach in the art of communication, and this time by the Ministry of Communications. First of all, on February 14th, a press conference was called wherein the PWD indicated how much they have done to build the road infrastructure in Singapore and that there is a limit to how many more kilometres of roads that we can build in Singapore. Because of the need to allocate resources for different purposes that beyond the current phase. of planning, expansion of roads, Singaporeans cannot expect further increase in the mileage of roads. Subsequently, there were other press conferences touching on different aspects of Government policy in the field of communications, the recent one being the impending taxi-fare increases, the impending road taxes that are expected to increase, the impending increase in diesel tax on taxis, and so on. When the Ministry of Communications decides on this approach of not giving the overall picture but instead to give us parts of the picture, which the Straits Times called a jig-saw puzzle, well, it fuels speculation. So the net effect of it is not really a jig-saw puzzle, because in a jig-saw puzzle you can only imagine so much but you have got to put all the pieces together. This is more like a case of mental striptease. You present a little bit and, depending upon on your own psychological make-up, your own experiences, you imagine all kinds of taxes and the like that are to be imposed by the Government.”
“We have raised this quite substantially in the past two to three years. I think it is time for Government to review the situation on the CPF, and I hope that, in the current period of temporary difficulty, there will be no CPF increase recommended this year. At the heart of the problem of companies in this period of difficulty, is the higher costs of operation. The complaints about the 4% SDF, the complaints about the 2% payroll tax have been mentioned several times in the past. We tend to dismiss such complaints about the SDF or the payroll tax when the other signs of the economy do not indicate to us that the employers are facing such hard time that we need to review the imposition of these two taxes. With the increase in retrenchment figures, with the increase in the number of bankruptcies, I would urge that Government review the contributions to SDF, review the payroll tax, at least on a temporary basis, for the next one year. Much has been said about communication between Government and the people, between Government and different segments of our society. I hope that communication in this instance will be a two-way flow and we should take note of the cries that are apparent from the employers. We have heard this ourselves when we meet managements in the course of our work as union officials. Once we have overcome this period of temporary difficulty, then we can embark on our ambitious programme of what we want the Singapore society to be in the next five, 10, or 15 years. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to turn now to another subject, and that is, very much again connected with communication. An example of how not to communicate was presented to us last year in the overall presentation of the Howe Yoon Chong Report.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I cannot help but reflect as I listened to the Member for Jalan Besar, in his comments on the economy, to recall what our Prime Minister has said in his various messages to the people so far this year, and that is, that we are going to have a slower growth this year of 5-7%. At the same time we have reports of retrenchments in various companies and our survey in the NTUC for the first month of January indicated that retrenchments would continue to follow the trend set at the end of last year, and were increasing. And knowing the behaviour of most companies, with the Chinese New Year impending, retrenchments would be withheld as far as possible until after the Chinese New Year, and this indeed was the case in a couple of companies, as we have seen in the papers recently. So while we talk about the vision for 1999, what we intend to achieve by the year 1989, what the Government has set out to achieve in the next four to five years, as spelt out in the Address by the President and the accompanying Addenda, I think it is equally important for us to reflect how we shall get through this particular year. It is meaningless to talk about the good things to come if the worker is going to be faced with the prospect of unemployment and no income. I am not saying that our economy is in deep trouble; on the contrary, I think we have a fairly robust economy. But in such a situation, do we need to allow a segment of our population to suffer hardship because the companies they work for are unable to get through a temporary setback? We have different taxes; some not in the form of tax, like the Central Provident Fund, which is the basis of our social security. At the present moment, the CPF contribution rate is already 50%.”
“Sir, I think the Minister has not answered one of my questions, which is the question of recognition of certificates by nationality. If you are a Panamanian holding a Panamanian cenificate, it is recognized by the Marine Department as suitable for operating on board a ship; but a Singaporean holding a Panamanian certificate is not recognized.”
“Is it the intention of the Minister to make it known from time to time which certificates are acceptable? This is important because quite a number of our own seafarers have gone overseas to take their examinations. It would be a great waste of time and money if a person who has gone overseas to take an examination finds that his certificate is not recognized. This is particularly important because, from our information, about 40% of Singaporean deck officers currently hold foreign certificates. There is also an anomaly in the present practice of recognizing certificates of competency. For example, a Panamanian citizen holding a Panamanian certificate of competency is normally accepted as qualified to serve on board a Singapore registered ship. On the other hand, a Singapore citizen holding the same Panamanian certificate of competency is not considered as qualified to serve on a Singapore registered ship. So with the amendments proposed, is it the intention of the Ministry to correct this anomaly? After all, if the certificate is recognized, then the holder, irrespective of nationality, must be considered as qualified. The nationality of the holder and the standards required for the granting of a certificate are entirely different things.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in rising to speak, like the Member for Chong Boon, I wish to seek clarification from the Minister on some of the provisions of clause 3 of the Bill. Section 10(1) of the Merchant Shipping Act is to be amended to empower the Minister to make regulations requiring ships to carry a certain number of qualified persons and seamen. As the Minister has explained, it is a step towards observing the recommendations of the STCW Convention. Like the Member for Chong Boon, I think that what is mote important would be the set of regulations which his Ministry intends to issue. So what would be the criteria to be observed in the setting of minimum standards of crewing? The setting of minimum standards of crewing is always a contentious issue, with shipowners and unions usually holding divergent views. I hope that the Minister would also heed the Member for Chong Boon's view that his Ministry should consult people in the private sector, the shipowners and unions, on this matter. Safety should be one of the main features to decide what standards of crewing we should adopt. While the Member for Chong Boon has also argued that we should take into account the prevailing state of the industry, I think that while that may be a factor to be taken into account, what is more important is that we should have the necessary number of crew on board to man the ship safely, to take the ship safely from port to port. Section 10(2) elaborates on the manner in which certificates of competency would be recognized. As explained, the Minister may recognize certificates of competency granted by foreign authorities. We may expect that standards of training and procedures of testing will vary from one country to another.”
“Finally, I would like to commend the Minister for Labour for his consultation with the union leaders in the process of formulating these amendments. I think the process has proved both beneficial to the Ministry of Labour as well as to the trade union movement. I thank him for that and urge him to continue this good practice. 8.00 pm”
“The second major change in the Bill of much greater significance in the long term is found in the cumulative effect of the amendments to clauses 13, 14 and 15 of the Employment Act. Considerable flexibility is now given to employers to schedule working days in a week, working hours in a day and intervals between rest days. Given the need to maximize the use of high cost capital equipment of high level technology, such a flexibility can result in our factories becoming more efficient and more competitive. Properly planned, the flexibility can also be beneficial to workers. But improperly used, solely from short-term profit motives, it could lead to a degradation of the quality of life of workers and their families, the social aspect. Here again, union leaders and workers are not against this amendment because of the danger of abuse by a small number of unenlightened employers. We will support this amendment because this flexibility is advantageous to all workers in the information age where flexitime will be a feature. But we need to remind employers that they should observe both the spirit and the letter of the law, and not merely interpret the letter of the law for selfish short-term goals. Again, we call for consultation so that all may benefit from the flexibility in working days and working hours. To those unenlightened and narrow-minded employers who form the minority and who have inclinations to exploit workers, we serve notice now that our unions will be vigilant and will not fail to take errant employers to task. At the same time, we would urge the Ministry of Labour to be equally vigilant to ensure that both the spirit and the letter of the proposed amendments are observed.”
“The actual minimum number of days specified in the amendment lags far behind what our workers enjoy. Our union leaders have successfully negotiated for better leave conditions than what the new amendments provide. And with jobs for all, continued economic growth, high productivity, our workers need not be concerned with the minimal provisions in the legislation. They will enjoy much better terms. What I consider to be more significant in the proposed amendments is in the laying of a new set of work rules for our future growth. One of the amendments will open the way for employers to pay wages into a bank account of their employees. As the Member for Boon Lay has stated, even without this amendment some employees are already doing so with the consent of their employees. We are moving into a new era which some have called "the information society". A cashless society will be part of this new age. The Government is forward looking and in this respect the amendment serves to signal that we must move forward. Our workers and union leaders are not against the cashless society. What they are concerned with is the process of the change. In March, I dealt at length on the problems that workers may face in the change from cash payment to cashless payment. And this afternoon, my colleagues have again stated some of the problems. I do not wish to cover the same points again. However, like my colleagues, I wish to reiterate that employers should not take the amendment as giving them a free hand to decide the method of payment. If they are caring employers, they should first discuss the change with their employees, find out their problems and difficulties, and in the implementation, make sure that these problems are solved. There must be consultation.”
“Strikes, lock-outs and chaos in their ports, on their roads, and what I think is worse still for the workers in Britain is the fact that fresh school leavers/graduates have very limited opportunities to find work. 50% on a national average of British school leavers have no hope whatsoever of getting a job. Sir, if you look at the more depressed areas, the figure goes up to 100%. So what is the use of talking of tenure of jobs if there are no jobs at all? Turning to our own Employment Act, particularly the amendments proposed to this House, I think the Employment Act has served us well in the last 16 years. But some of the clauses are out of date and should be revised. One of the provisions concerns maternity leave. It is already widespread practice for employers to allow expectant mothers to work up to confinement and grant two months' post-confinement leave. Most mothers have found it much more beneficial to have two months' leave after birth to recuperate and to nurse their new-born, than to rest one month before birth and have only one month to recuperate after confinement. So the amendment here is not something new but merely bringing up to date what is generally practised in Singapore. Another example of an outmoded provision is in statutory minimum annual leave. Seven days annual leave may have been adequate in 1968 when workers were thankful to be at work and perhaps fearful that to take leave may mean that their places could be taken by someone else. Today, it is time for us to provide for a more decent period of annual leave entitlement. But the proposal in the amendment is not as good as what is enjoyed by workers. So I consider this as enshrining a principle which the Minister for Labour has stated, ie to give recognition to long-serving employees.”
“Our unionists learnt that, by sacrificing some short-term goals, the aspiration of "bread for all" that we hear so often in international trade union gatherings has been achieved by Singaporeans. Employers, particularly foreign investors, quickly found that the Singapore worker is diligent, flexible, eager to learn and highly productive. With stable, social, economic and political conditions, Singapore is an attractive place for investment. So high unemployment transformed into a tight labour market and real wages have increased. We can write beautiful Employment Acts giving workers all kinds of benefits. But what would be the use of such legislation if there are no jobs. The Member for Anson keeps referring in this House to legislation of other countries. And very often he has referred to British legislation. I wonder what is the use of British Employment Acts or Trade Union Acts would be to Singaporeans. Does he not know that today they have a very high unemployment problem? An hon. Member: Strikes!”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member for Pasir Panjang is normally a calm and patient man. I have never seen him lose his temper. But he was rather angry with some of the comments made by the Member for Anson, and I think he rightly stood up to state his views in this House. The unfortunate thing was, of course, that the Member for Anson decided that he did not want to listen to a barrage from the Member for Pasir Panjang. The Member for Anson has, as usual, not done his homework and he was not talking about the Employment (Amendment) Bill before us but rather repeating what he has mentioned many times in the past in this House. The only relevant point which we may term "relevant" was his view of the Employment Act. He made out that the Employment Act is a betrayal of the workers of Singapore. Again, he has got all his facts wrong. When the Employment Act was passed by this House in 1968, we should consider it as a milestone in labour legislation. It was a historic definition of the ground rules for a healthy relationship between employer and employee. The Employment Act sets out the rights and responsibilities of each party in the employment contract. That such rights and responsibilities could be enforceable by law was a necessary condition for investors to have confidence in placing their capital in Singapore, thereby creating jobs, giving to Singaporeans the right to work, to earn a living and to build a better life for workers and their families. With high unemployment, a harsh reality in 1968, union leaders accepted the Employment Act although, to many of them, it was more favourable to the employer. But they soon found out that as more investments came in, the unemployment quickly disappeared.”
“My colleagues and I have discussed the Report, and we all feel that the Motion in the name of the Minister requesting this House to approve the recommendations of the Committee cannot stand without amendment. I think the Motion should be amended so that Government can take into account the views expressed in this House. When framing the amendment, I could have phrased a specific amendment touching on the controversial proposal to defer the withdrawal age of CPF. But I know that my colleagues in this House have other points to express and really it should be the consensus view of this House that should be considered by the Government. On this, the Minister himself has conceded. So I have phrased a general statement that would allow all the views of Members of this House to be taken into account. Therefore, I would urge my colleagues to support the Motion which I propose to make. Sir, I now beg to move that the Motion standing in the name of the Minister be amended, to leave out, 'approves the recommendations of the Committee on the Problems of the Aged' appearing in lines 3 and 4 and insert - 'recommends to the Government to adopt the Report, after making appropriate amendments to the recommendations taking into consideration the views expressed by this House'. Sir, I beg to move.”
“I am not sure we can say that Singaporeans are more filial than their counterparts in other countries, but at least the right attitude prevails. But we cannot be sure that this attitude will remain strong. A number of factors suggest a likely weakening of this attitude. We are, as the Minister said, subject to Western influences. Rapid urbanization, resettlement and easy availability of HDB flats have broken down the extended family system into nuclear families. That is the consequence of one of our policies. All these factors will slowly erode our traditional concept of family relationships and responsibilities. I agree fully with the Committee that we must strengthen family ties and inculcate filial piety through education. At the same time, our traditional concept of family ties should be enshrined in legislation. I agree that we should make the children's responsibility of providing for the elderly enforceable by law. This measure is repulsive to some. They think it is an indictment on the people, that it implies an unfilial nation. I do not think so. We have legislation making crime punishable. Such legislation does not imply that we are a nation of criminals. In fact, the legislation is a statement of our principles and sense of justice. So likewise, legislation to make clear the children's responsibility towards parents actually indicates that respect and care for elders is considered a value worthy of enshrining by law. As such, I agree with the Committee's proposal on legislation. Sir, the Committee's Report touched on other social issues. I am sure my colleagues have a lot to say, and I will leave it to them. I do not agree with all the recommendations of the Committee and I have made some of my own proposals.”
“They should not starve. Perhaps the sum would be enough to pay for rice and pickles or bread and water. And whatever he has above this sum, let him withdraw all of it and invest it. If he is able to manage it well, he can live a more comfortable life. In this way, it is likely that only a small number of CPF contributors will have balances below this fixed sum at 60 and will be unable to withdraw their CPF savings. I think this proposal is fairer to the worker and we do not burden the State with more responsibility than is necessary with the affairs of the individual citizen. Even if we succeed to raise the retirement age to 60 or beyond, and Singaporeans are conscious of the need to conserve their savings to see them through retirement, can we be sure that the elderly will be financially independent? There will still be those who do not have enough savings at 60. Who will take care of them? For centuries, Asian societies have regarded the caring of the aged as the responsibility of the children. If there is one virtue that traditional parents took care to instil in their children, it was a sense of gratitude and respect towards their elders. Today, family ties are still strong. This is borne out by a survey on values carried out in 1979 by the Leisure Development Centre of Japan. There were 13 countries in this survey, including Singapore. Respondents were asked to state "yes" or "no" to the statement that "parents have no right to make their children look after them in old age". Only 8.3% of Singaporeans replied affirmatively. This was the lowest among the 13 countries. Affirmative answers for the rest were about 20% or above. It was 49% for the United Kingdom and 66% for France. So Singaporeans came out favourably in this survey.”
“The vast majority of Singaporeans are hard-headed and realistic. They also happen individually to think that they themselves know best how to invest their money for maximum returns. It is this wish to maximize returns on their CPF savings that makes it so difficult for them to accept the possibility of later withdrawal. If they think that keeping their CPF balances with CPF is better than depositing with a bank or invest in stocks and shares, they would willingly leave their money with CPF. For example, raise the interest rate to 20% and see how many would withdraw their savings from CPF? I think the CPF Board would have a hard time asking them to withdraw. But what is it that the Committee was trying to achieve in suggesting deferring the withdrawal of CPF funds? It is not to keep the worker's CPF savings but to help him manage his savings. This is as far as I understood from the Minister's explanation. The question then is, to what extent should the Government protect the citizens against their own mismanagement? Should not the Government intervene as little as possible and allow the individual the satisfaction of managing his own money? The contributor to CPF has worked and planned on the basis of receiving a lump sum at 55. He does not need the entire sum at 55. Perhaps we can allow him to withdraw part of the CPF savings at 55 years, say, 25%. This would meet the requirements of most workers - to meet their living expenses, even to go overseas on pilgrimage or on holiday. At the same time, let us take measures to encourage employment till the age of 60 years. At 60 years, let us allow a worker to withdraw the balance, except for a certain sum. This sum has to be calculated. It should be enough to allow him and his spouse to live on bare necessities.”
“This scheme need not penalize the workers who are even more productive beyond 55 years. While the employer's contribution to CPF may be reduced, his wages could be adjusted to ensure that he is paid his market value, depending on his productivity and on market forces. The Committee is against the reduction or exemption of statutory levies. I think this stand has to be reconsidered. Now, let me turn to the controversial proposal to raise the withdrawal age of CPF. First, I think it is unreasonable to raise the withdrawal age of CPF before there is general acceptance of raising the retirement age. How is the worker expected to live from 55 to 60 if he is without a job? The Minister has earlier said that he has got other savings. But to which group of workers in Singapore is he referring to? To the lower income group or the upper income group? I am not sure that the lower income group will have that much savings, We can only consider the step of raising the withdrawal age of CPF, even if it is desirable, when we are sure that the worker will continue in his job till the age of 60. Secondly, Singaporeans expect to withdraw their CPF balances at 55 years, and have made their plans accordingly. Some wish to invest in business or place it in banks where they may get better returns, or utilize part of it to fulfil religious obligations, such as a pilgrimage to Mecca, or even reward themselves for the long years of labour by a holiday trip once in his life-time. The Committee contends that "the lump sum of CPF money gives them an illusion of financial security". It makes the assumption that the people as a whole are unwise, more likely to squander the money and, therefore, ought to be protected against their own weaknesses. I hold the opposite view.”
“Any company-sponsored re-training is eligible for the Skills Development Fund grants. Perhaps it is appropriate that the SDF categorises the retraining of older workers under a new scheme and give it special attention. The Committee recommended that wages be determined by productivity, and calls again on the NTUC to counsel workers to help them overcome the psychological barriers that prevent them from taking up jobs at a lower pay. As the Minister has quite rightly pointed out,for as long as we have known it, we have followed a seniority-wage system. It is based on the principle that with experience, the worker is more productive and there is a ceiling on how much wage he can get. But to get the worker to admit that past 55 he is over the hill and should suffer a pay-cut raises all kinds of ego problems, His self-respect is involved. How does he face his own family when up to the age of 55, he is considered a good productive worker, but past his 55th birthday he is not as good as before when to the human eye there is no change in his physical appearance? Perhaps for a small category of workers who will become less productive in their jobs, there may be a more humane way. Maintain his take-home pay, but reduce the contribution to CPF. From 55 years to 59 years, the employer's contribution to CPF can be reduced by, say, 5% a year each year. The worker retains his self-respect. He gives to his family the same take-home pay, maintains his disposable income, while the wage cost to the employer is progressively reduced by up to 25%. If need be, additionally, there is the 2% payroll tax and the 4% SDF contribution. This could be exempted for workers aged 60. Beyond 60, adjustments could be made to the employee's contribution to CPF to achieve a reduction in wage cost.”
“The worker himself may not want to continue and the employer may not want to employ him. There are also other jobs where good eyesight or dexterity of hands is important. With age, the level of productivity may actually decline. For such specific category of workers, re-employment in another job may be the only way to keep them employed. It is a well-known fact that the decrease in labour force participation of men has been relatively greater for the lesser edu- cated than for those who have higher qualifications. Since unemployed older men tend to have less education than younger workers, they are at a disadvantage when they have to seek other jobs. The Report of the Committee makes no mention of the fact that the older workers in Singapore have much lower qualifications compared to current fresh job entrants. Our older workers are poorly qualified not because of lack of talent or intelligence, but because of lack of opportunity when they were young. So retraining is likely to be required before redeployment or re-employment. Who will pay for such retraining? What schemes, apart from the BEST programme, will be pertinent to these workers? I foresee a continuing need for retraining, even for our younger workers who are better qualified. The pace of change of technology is such that knowledge becomes obsolete in a matter of years. The retraining needs of the present elderly workers will differ from those of the younger and better educated workers. Unless there is a practical and accepted solution as to how the cost is to be financed, employers will remain unwilling to employ older workers, except for the minority whom they consider value for money because their productivity has not declined but improved with experience.”
“And now, from July 1984 the Japanese Government will introduce a subsidy plan for promoting re-employment of workers. Under this plan, an enterprise will be provided with 300,000 yen to 400,000 yen, depending on the size of the company, for each worker employed aged 60 to 64, who has retired from another company as he reached the latter company's mandatory retirement age, and provided that the reemployment is accomplished within three months of retirement. Re-employment must be made through contact between the two firms. This is to promote intercompany contact to facilitate re-employment. This example shows that if it is not desirable to use the stick, then the carrot will get results, slowly. Elsewhere, in the United States, they are not talking of retiring at 60 or 65 years. The mandatory retirement age was 65 until the Retirement Act of 1978 raised it to 70. As soon as this was mooted, discussions began by employers on how to circumvent it. One option was to stiffen productivity requirements, leading to more firings. The company might find the option of terminating the employee more attractive. Another option, more likely to be used, would be to improve the economic incentives of early retirement - the so-called "golden handshake", with which Singaporeans are familiar, to induce voluntary labour force withdrawal. We may expect similar responses here in Singapore if the retirement age is legislated. So legislation to raise the retirement age may not work. What incentives can the Government offer to make it attractive for employers to employ the elderly workers? Now, we also know that there are those who are working in physically demanding jobs where working beyond 55 years may not be practical.”
“If we want to see whether there has been any improvement in the labour force participation rate for this age group, then we should look at the statistics of recent years. They are more likely to be comparable. If we are going to detect any trends, then I think we should look at them from the statistics available from 1979 to 1982. The Labour Force Surveys from 1979 to 1982 show that, for the 50-54 age group, the participation rate has remained steady at just above 57%. There is no increase. The participation rate for the 55-59 age group has varied from 47% down to 44%, and up again to 48%, indicating that most likely it is a steady rate with no improvement because of errors of compilation. The participation rate for those above 60 actually declined from 18% down to 16%. So I cannot agree with the observation by the Committee that the labour force participation rate of the elderly workers has increased. I know from experience that the majority of employers will not listen to requests to raise the retirement rate, let alone negotiate. This reluctance seems to be a universal affliction. The Committee has looked at other countries. So let us look at Japan. They are facing a rapidly ageing population, and they have studied the problems for many years. They have also thought that raising the retirement age is a solution to enable older people to be financially independent. So from 1976, the Japanese Minister for Labour was empowered to require enterprises to employ a certain proportion, 6%, of workers aged 55 or over. Progress was slow. So to make it more attractive, in 1979 the Japanese Government made half the salary paid to elderly workers in the 55-59 age group tax deductible for the enterprise. It was only then that the retirement age rose slowly.”
“The Committee draws attention to the fact that CPF balances are not enough to last the account holder the rest of his life, and seeks to remedy the situation to augment his income. The Committee quite rightly points out that it is a waste of talent to retire workers at the age of 55 years. I wholeheartedly support its statement that "the elderly must be recognised as possessing experience, skill, knowledge, talent and wisdom". They could not have chosen better words. I also agree with its observation that they are now more likely to be medically fit because of better medical care. The Committee made a direct call to the National Trades Union Congress to encourage its constituent trade unions to raise the retirement age first to 60 and then to 65 when they re-negotiate their collective agreements. I do not think the NTUC or its affiliates require any prompting. They have for years been pushing this issue with, regrettably, limited success. It is the employers who need prompting. I regret to note that there was no recommendation in the Report calling on the employers' organizations to urge their members to agree to raise the retirement age. At the same time, the Committee was against legislation to raise the retirement age. The Report states that "past labour force surveys have shown that the partici- pation rates those in the 55-59 age group have been steadily rising even in the absence of legislation." I do not know how accurate earlier surveys are because I know that 25 years ago, most people work until they were medically unable to continue. Such were the conditions then that they had to work until they literally dropped dead. The labour force participation, to my mind, would have been rated high if they had lived to 55-59 years of age or above.”
“As an example, in the United Kingdom, in 1980, while the proportion of the elderly, defined as those above 65 years, was 14.1%, the proportion of Government spending devoted to the elderly was just above 20%. The highest actually is in Sweden where the proportion of the elderly aged 65 and above amounted to just over 15% but the proportion of Government expenditure on the elderly is in the region of 30%. In terms of the family, assuming that family ties remain strong, smaller families mean that the responsibility of caring for aged parents falls on fewer children who will then have to fork out proportionately more. The generation of Singaporeans now in their 5Os and 60s on average had five to six. children. If each child supports the parents by giving $100 per month, the parents can live decently on $500-$600 a month. For the generation now in their thirties, the norm is two children. When they retire 20 years from now, if they receive the equivalent of today's $100 from each child, they will have to live on plain rice and pickles. As the Minister has said, the problem is indeed a major one. If we wish to grow old gracefully and live decently, then measures should be taken now to prevent a deterioration of our standard of living. I am in agreement with the Committee on its analysis and projection of the demographic profile 20-30 years' hence and the consequent impact on our society. The problem is that the Committee was not able to put its message across well to the public. Nevertheless, it should be commended for outlining the problem concisely and clearly. Twenty-five years ago, the challenge to Government was the capability to build schools to serve the young. Now the population change will test the ability of Government to be equally mindful of the old.”
“Unfortunately, the proposal managed to focus the people's attention to the proposal itself, rather than the underlying problem. What is it that the Committee is trying to draw attention to? The Minister has said that it is the implications of the ageing of the population. Two factors are causing a rapid transformation of the composition of our population by age groups. The first is the increase in life expectancy resulting from better medical care universally available to our citizens. Whereas in 1947, Singaporeans expected to live tiii 50, in 1980 they may expect to live till 70 for males and 73 for females. The second factor is the decline in the birth rate caused by the family planning policy and the tendency to have less children among the better educated, In economic terms, what these changes mean is that there will be a small proportion of the population working, to earn the income on which to support the needs of the whole population, From the viewpoint of the State, the tax burden will fall on a smaller proportion of the people. If the level of social services that is provided by the State is to be maintained, then surely the tax rate will have to increase. I am not sure what the response of the taxpayers in the years ahead would be to such a tax increase. But social services will increase also as the proportion of older people increases. For example, as the Minister has amply stated, the cost of looking after the elderly will increase. It has been estimated that the cost of looking after the elderly is three times that for the young. The higher cost of providing services to meet the needs of the elderly is borne out by statistics on Government spending.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Health is predictable. In typical fashion, he has decided that the best defence is offence and I must say that he has presented himself well and made a credible defence of this situation even though he knows that the vast majority of the people are against the recommendations of his Committee to raise the withdrawal age for ctsPF. Sir, to my mind, there has been no other repod in recent years that has managed to provoke a seemingly apolitical people, aroused the entire nation, and evoked such an outpouring of dissent against its recommendations. The Committee headed by the Minister for Health has the signal distinction of laying to rest the myth that Singaporeans are disinterested in issues facing the State. I think the Minister himself has very graphically described the response to the recommendations of his Committee. Yet the subject of the Committee's Report, the Problems of the Aged, is not a new one. Several persons have $poken up before, including the Minister for Social Affairs who devoted an entire lecture on the greying of Singapore when he addressed undergraduates at the National University of Singapore. Such public discourses on the subject were noted with interest, but did not touch any raw nerve. Perhaps the Committee, after its careful study of the problems we will face in the years ahead, decided that the magnitude of the problem required some shock treatment to drive the message home. It has therefore searched for a good focusing agent, to get Singaporeans to look at the situation 20,30 or even 50 years from now. It could not have chosen a more nerve-jarring focusing agent than its proposal to raise the withdrawal age of CPF from 55 years to 60 years and later to 65 years.”
“But I take his point that we must not rush these changes and ensure that they are prepared. His final point that there should be adequate publicity and education, I am in agreement with that. I wish to assure him that the Ministry will do everything possible to launch adequate information and publicity about this. In this regard, it is not just Government, all the employers, banks, unions, union leaders and Members of Parliament will have to join hands in bringing about this process of explaining, encouraging our population on the uses and advantages and to allay their fears. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That Parliament do now adjourn. Adjourned accordingly at Fourteen minutes to Seven o'clock pm to a date to be fixed. WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS CONSTRUCTION OF MOSQUES 1. Mr M.K.A. Jabbar asked the Acting Minister for Social Affairs if he will list (i) the names of old mosques which have been pulled down to give way to development since 1960; (ii) the number of new mosques which have been completed and their locations; and (iii) the number of mosques which will be built in the next two or three years and their locations.”
“I discovered from the POSB that more than half a million GIRO standing orders exist. Secondly, of the daily rated employees in the Civil Service, more than 58% have POSB accounts. The figures cited by the Member for Kebun Baru arising from an NTUC survey, are themselves very revealing. He has said that 81% have bank accounts. That is very encouraging. He has said that 67% of those surveyed said that they felt that it is very easy to operate an ATM; 65% responded positively to deposit of money through the bank accounts and ATMs. I understand from his last sentence that 62% preferred to use ATMs. All these are statistics which, in fact, support the argument for moving faster towards payment through banking accounts and cheques. I do not understand his point that about 289,000 persons who are lesser educated would have a problem, because as far as I know the ATMs do not require signatures. What you need is numbers and codes. And although they may not be sufficiently well educated, it does not mean that they cannot be trained or cannot be taught to use the ATMs. I think they can, particularly when today we have the same people who can operate complicated stereo and hi-fi sets and videos, programming days in advance, which requires a lot of dexterity with numbers. I think he has underestimated the intelligence of our workforce. Just because of the level of education, it does not mean that they cannot benefit from wages being credited to their savings account. Singaporeans are agile, willing to adapt to changes that will benefit them, whether changes to the metric system, whether new bus interchanges and the big changes that they will have to adjust to when the MRT comes about. The earlier we prepare our population for these changes the better.”
“It reduces inconvenience for workers for queueing up on paydays to collect money in cash. Above all, payment through cheques and bank accounts would also encourage greater savings on the part of workers. So it is in this context that the Government is thinking of amending the Employment Act. But I must add that, in addition to the amendment to the Employment Act, the Government has also instituted a Committee headed by the Head of the Civil Service to minimize cash transactions for manpower savings, to look into payments avoiding cash transaction and payment of wages in both public and private sectors. In other words, our long term objective, as part of the productivity movement and savings, in manpower, must be to ensure that each worker in Singapore does have a bank account, That is our ultimate objective. The Member for Kebun Baru has raised several points. I do not think that he has disagreed with the principle. But I take his points to be related to the implementation. He has raised several questions as to the need to be cautious, not to rush into it until more facilities are available. I would like to assure him that indeed the Ministry is not rushing into this. We are having discussions with the POSB and other banks to ensure that the problems that he mentioned - inadequacy of ATMs, longer banking hours, availability of ATMs in different parts of Singapore - these are overcome before the amendment is implemented. We will implement the law when we are satisfied that these problems have been resolved. On specific points, his perception that people consider the use of bank accounts for other services to be associated with the middle class syndrome, I am not sure whether I agree with that.”