Lim Swee Say
Singapore
“The number of reports received via the Snap@MOM app, number of valid reports and number of companies issued with enforcement actions between 2015 and 2017 are shown in the table below: All valid reports have resulted in warnings or enforcement actions.”
“In the case of students from ITE, polytechnics or autonomous universities, employers do not need to contribute CPF if the student is employed by them for training that is approved by their institutions.”
“Together with our tripartite partners at the national and sector levels, we have to do our best to transform across all sectors, for our economy to transform and grow, pervasively, as One Singapore Unlimited.”
“Between April and December 2017, the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) and the Employment Claims Tribunal (ECT) concluded 3,750 employee salary claims where the employer was ordered to make payment to the worker. Salaries were fully recovered in about 92% of these orders. The remaining claims involved 139 employers.”
“The number of employed residents aged 62 and over, and 67 and over has increased over the last five years (see Table 1 below). Of all employed residents aged 67 and over in 2017, 64% were males; 80% held secondary and below qualifications, 9% had post-secondary qualifications, while 11% were tertiary-educated; 52% of this group of older w…”
“The proportion of full-time resident employees earning below $2,000 who received bonuses, including the Annual Wage Supplement, has remained stable at about 50% over the last decade. Employers and unions share the flexibility in structuring staff remuneration together under our Flexible and Performance Based wage systems.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,231 lines we hold for Lim Swee Say, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 14 of 25.
“The decrease in labour force and population means that the ratio between young people and the elderly will continue to decrease, and the pace of ageing in our population will intensify. Even though all countries will face the crisis brought about by the three "peaks", the pace of each country will differ. For example, a senior leader of China once said, "China will also experience the three 'peaks': the labour force peak in 2020; the population peak in 2030; the ageing population peak in 2040." The situation is similar in Singapore. According to the Population White Paper, by 2020, the total labour force would have reached a peak; by 2025, the population would have peaked; by 2030, the ageing population would have peaked. The difference between China and Singapore is that, in China, they will reach a different peak every 10 years. While for Singapore, it is every five years. In other words, the speed whereby we arrive at the three peaks will be faster than other countries. The question is, are we able to handle it? The problems brought about by the three "peaks" will not wait for us. Under such circumstances, what is the main problem that Parliament should be concerned about? Mdm Speaker, in my view, the main problem that Parliament should be concerned about is what Singaporeans are concerned about. This is because the objective of the Population White Paper is to ensure that Singaporeans can continue to live better lives. Therefore, during our discussion as parliamentarians, we should not just think of our own views but, more importantly, we should listen and feel with our hearts what are Singaporeans' concerns about the Population White Paper. What are their concerns about Singapore in 2020, 2030?”
“Mdm Speaker, thank you very much for allowing me to participate in this debate. In Mandarin, Madam. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] After the Population White Paper was released, Singaporeans were very concerned, and they reacted strongly to the White Paper. There was a lot of discussion and the debate in Parliament has also been intense, just like how Mr Low Thia Khiang has spoken on the topic. However, to the public, the debate in Parliament is like a tree adorned with colourful lights, dazzling but confusing. In other words, many Singaporeans still find it difficult to understand the Parliament's stand on the issue. In the past fortnight, I met a lot of union leaders and grassroots leaders to discuss and exchange views, and gather their feedback. In general, they have three concerns. Firstly, they would like to know what is the main problem that Page: 41 the Population White Paper is trying to address. Secondly, what are the main concerns of Members of Parliament? Thirdly, after the debate, what is the consensus that Parliament is trying to achieve? Firstly, what is the Population White Paper trying to address? Mdm Speaker, so long as the fertility rate falls below 2.1, we will definitely face the crisis caused by the three "peaks". The first peak is the peak in employment. When the number of graduates falls behind the number of retirees, the overall number in the labour force will decrease. Therefore, after the employment number has peaked, the country will start to go downhill. The second peak is the population peak. When the number of newborn babies falls behind the number of deaths, when the fertility rate is lower than the mortality rate, the nation's population will start to shrink. The other peak is the ageing population.”
“Mdm Speaker, just to share with the House that, of the 1.2 million foreign workers, right now about 100,000 are already union members. They make up about 15% of the union membership. I would like to share that in the case of SBS Transit, they have about 600 PRC drivers and more than 90% are already union members. In the case of SMRT, prior to this incident, they have about 400 PRC drivers and less than 5% were union members. But subsequent to this incident, both the management and the unions worked together to reach out to the workers. As of today, about 75% of the 400 PRC drivers have already signed up to be union members.”
“Our approach is different from the rest of the world but being different does not mean we are wrong. In fact, being different means we are better, we have a better solution. So other countries play to their weakness, we should capitalise on our strength. On that note, Madam, I urge this House to support this motion moved by Member Josephine Teo. Let us work together. Commit ourselves to inclusive economic growth and, more importantly, commit ourselves to continue to do more, do together, to enable more Singaporeans to have better jobs, better pay and live a better life. 5.39 pm”
“" But I told him, "Yes, Workfare Income Supplement is capitalising on our financial strength because the Government, as a country, has the financial resources to support the low-wage workers." But, more importantly, over the years, we have put in place Continuing Education and Training (CET) system – to enable the widespread upgrading of low-wage workers in Singapore. Over the years, starting with Skills Redevelopment Programme (SRP) to pursue skills certification, we went into NSRS, ESS and WSQ, and so on. Today the CET system in Singapore is one of the most comprehensive in the world and we have very strong support programmes targeted at the low-wage workers, like for example, the Workfare Training Scheme (WTS). So in other words, we are able to do what other countries are not able to do because we have been working on this for many years. We have been building up our financial capital, we have also been strengthening our knowledge infrastructure and, as a result, we are able to pursue WIS, we are able to pursue WTS which other countries are not able to do. And on top of that, we have something that many countries do not have and this is the constructive tripartite partnership. Because in other countries the labour movement, the government, the employer are not able to sit down together to find a solution that will work for all three parties. But in Singapore, with tripartism, we are able to do so. Madam, in conclusion, I want to emphasise again. Even though 90% of the countries in this world have decided to pursue minimum wage as a solution towards helping the low-wage workers, we in Singapore, the labour movement included, is determined not to take that path because that is not a better path.”
“In fact, some of them have already exceeded the 20 percentile towards the 30 percentile. The security sector is a clear illustration of how we helped the security officers through Workfare Income Supplement and, yet, at the same time, re-created the job and re-developed the skills of the workers. I am happy to share with Member Denise Phua that the security sector is not the only one. In fact, the landscaping sector under the leadership of NParks has also made tremendous progress under their Best-Sourcing Initiatives. Conservancy cleaning too. All PAP Town Councils practise best-sourcing. The average starting pay has now exceeded $1,000 and those who are more skilful, those who operate more productive equipment are able to earn more. Obviously, we would like to do more. Member Josephine Teo shared with Members that under the Inclusive Growth Programme (IGP) we are now extending our reach to more and more sectors. Madam, some Members may wonder if the Singapore approach does so well – better than the minimum wage solution – then why is it that 90% of the countries in this world have decided to adopt minimum wage? Why is it that Singapore think that we can have this same-same but different solution? Same-same problem with low-wage workers but different solution in not adopting minimum wage? Madam, recently a new ambassador to Singapore made a call on me and asked me about this issue of low-wage workers. I explained to him how the Workfare Income Supplement scheme work in Singapore. And his immediate reaction was, "Only you can do it because in many countries, governments are running budget deficits, there is no way they can find the money to fund such a programme." So he said, "Yes, this is the strength of Singapore.”
“And when the labour market is tight, as we support our low-wage workers with Workfare Income Supplement, and yet at the same time, employers would have no choice but to re-design the job, to enhance productivity so that they can produce more with the same number of workers. At the same time, we put in place a programme to help the workers to upgrade their skills. In this way we upgrade the skills, upgrade the productivity, re-design the job and, as a result, we avoided the three problems. We avoided the first problem of no wage because the minimum wage in Singapore in the form of Workfare Income Supplement comes from the Government, not from the employer. As a result, we do not have a no-wage problem. Secondly, we do not have maximum-wage problem. A worker who is on Workfare Income Supplement, as far as his employer is concerned, he is still receiving his market salary. At the end of the year, he still gets his annual increment. So the workers on Workfare Income Supplement, still have their wages continue to go up year by year. They do not end up being stuck to the minimum wage as the maximum wage. And, thirdly, the low wage in Singapore is not necessarily sticky for those who are able to upgrade their skill and enhance their productivity. Some Members may wonder while this sounds very good in theory, does it really work? Has it worked on the ground? Madam, Member Denise Phua pointed out that so far the security sector is most visible in the progress of re-creating the job. As a result, security officers five years ago were within the bottom 10 percentile of our workforce, earning about $850 per month when our 10 percentile income was about $1,000 or so. Today, those in the security sector, on the whole, have now reached 20 percentile.”
“So, in our situation, in helping low-wage workers, besides providing Workfare Income Supplement, we spend a lot of time, a lot of energy on other programmes to help to enhance the jobs of the low-wage workers, the skills of the low-wage workers. Again, many labour Members, in their speeches, have shared with this House the kind of programmes, the kind of efforts being put in by the tripartite partners to help the back-to-work women, the low-wage workers, the casual contract workers, the older workers. And the list goes on and on. In the process of doing so, of course, there are some concerns. Member Assoc. Prof. Paulin Straughan's concern is that the employers may take advantage of Workfare Income Supplement from the Government by exploiting the workers, by hiring more foreign workers who are cheaper and so on. Madam, the truth of the matter is that the labour movement and the tripartite partners all subscribe to what the former Secretary-General of the NTUC, Minister Lim Boon Heng, reminded us year after year that a job is the best welfare for the workers. In fact, the labour movement has always believed that a job is the best welfare and full employment is the best protection for the workers of Singapore. That is the reason why while the tripartite partners do allow foreign workers, foreign manpower to come to Singapore, we have never done so at the expense of having high unemployment in Singapore. Why? Because the inflow of foreign manpower, foreign workers, is to help us sustain economic growth. They are not here to raise our unemployment rate. In fact, if you look at today's situation, the economy is growing strongly, the labour market is tight.”
“That is the reason why the labour movement of Singapore is against this idea of minimum wage. It is a solution that looks easy, a stroke of the pen, but actually we do not believe it will serve the interest of the low-wage workers of Singapore. Singapore has adopted a different approach, and Members have described it using different terms. I heard Member Heng Chee How using the term "best wage". Basically, this Singapore approach is different in that the three parties come together: the workers, the employers and the Government. The Government basically said, "yes, I hear the workers facing this problem of 'money no enough'. At the same time, we hear the employers that global competition is very keen." So, what do we do as a Government? What do we do as tripartite partners? We introduced Workfare Income Supplement. As the Prime Minister mentioned at our PAP Party Convention, Workfare Income Supplement is our version of minimum wage. A worker who is earning $1,000 per month can receive as much as $2,800 per year which is equal to 2.8 months of his salary. It is not a small sum – $400 million for the low-wage workers in the workforce. Workfare Income Supplement is our version of minimum wage but the beauty is this: this money does not come from the employer. It is not a burden imposed on the employers, it is a funding directly from the Government. We also recognise that the main purpose of the Workfare Income Supplement is to buy time so that workers who may need some time to move upward – from lower wage to higher wage – can receive the kind of financial support in the mean time. But as Member Calvin Cheng mentioned, upward mobility is important, and I fully agree with that.”
“The one who is earning $800, the lowest-skilled workers, the lowest-wage workers, are the ones who are most likely to lose their jobs and they are the ones, in fact, who need their wages – even though it is $800, even though it is $1,100 – more than anybody else. I do not think we, as a labour movement, want to see them ending up as no-wage workers. Secondly, some of my colleagues have also mentioned, again, and I think it is important to repeat. Minimum wage in practice would turn into maximum wage for the low-wage workers. Once the minimum wage is imposed, these low-wage workers that are paid the minimum wage, they do not have any increment. Why? The employers will adopt the position: actually you are worth only $1,000 but under the law, I am forced to pay you $1,200. Since I have already met the requirement of the law, there is no way I am going to give any increment. So, minimum wage would always end up being a maximum wage for the low-wage workers. But, most of all, minimum wage will end up to be sticky wage for the low-wage workers. Just study the countries that have implemented minimum wage and I think it is easy to see. The workers there are not happy because the minimum wage has turned into maximum wage and that maximum wage can only go up when the governments having consulted the employers, the workers, come to a decision to revise the minimum wage. As Member Halimah Yacob mentioned, in many countries it took them two years, three years, many years to agree on the increase. By that time they had agreed on the increase, the cost of living has already gone past them. So, minimum wage will impose these three potential problems: no wage, maximum wage and sticky wage.”
“The worker says, "cost of living is too high; I need $1,400 of salary every month to survive". The management says, "competition is too strong; cost of business is too high; I can only afford to pay this worker $1,000 per month in order for the business to survive". The Government looks at the worker and says, "yes, I hear you; $1,000 is too low, but I also hear the employers – $1,400 is too high". So what does Government do? It says since $1,000 is too low, $1,400 is too high, why not with some negotiation let us settle for $1,200. When we settle on $1,200, frankly speaking, nobody is happy. To the worker, $1,200 is too low. To the employer, $1,200 is too high. So, both sides are unhappy. 上有政策，下有对策. When the Government, notwithstanding, the unhappiness on both parties, decides to implement the minimum wage, what are the problems? The first problem is the rise of the no-wage workers. A few of my fellow labour Members have touched on this. When we impose minimum wage and to think that no employer would retrench their workers and just accept the minimum wage, is not realistic. As Member Josephine Teo pointed out – and I think it is a very important point – just imagine if the Government imposes a minimum wage of $1,200, who are the workers who are most at risk of losing their jobs? Take two workers: one is earning $1,100 today – just $100 below the minimum wage, one is earning $800 – $400 below minimum wage. If the Government were to impose $1,200, between these two workers: $1,100 versus $800, who do you think is at greater risk of losing his job? To me, the answer is very obvious.”
“Thank you, Madam. Madam, I thank Member Josephine Teo for moving this motion. To me, this motion contains two core issues. First, is the commitment to inclusive-economic growth. To me, "economic growth" means growing the economic pie of Singapore. "Inclusive" means allowing as many, if not all, Singaporeans to participate in this enlargement of the Singapore's pie. Secondly, this motion calls on the Government to do more to support low-skilled, low-wage workers so that all Singaporeans may share the fruits of our prosperity through better skills, better jobs and better incomes. In other words, in the process of enabling more Singaporeans to participate in the enlargement of Singapore's economic pie, how can we, along the way, help the low-wage workers, the low-skilled workers enhance their earning capacity, their earning capabilities? Madam, many Members have shared their views regarding how this can be achieved. Several Members touched on the issue of minimum wage. I noticed that not many Members here stood up to strongly support minimum wage and, yet, at the same time, not many Members are prepared to rule out the possibility of introducing minimum wage in Singapore. I thought it will be useful for me to speak from the standpoint of the Labour Movement why the NTUC has no intention of adopting minimum wage as part of the solution, as suggested by Member Viswa Sadasivan. We have no intention to pursue minimum wage at the sectoral level, as suggested by Member Low Thia Khiang. We do not intend to wait for all our tools to fail and to go back to minimum wage, as suggested by Member Irene Ng. Madam, what is minimum wage? Imagine: a worker, an employer and the Government – three parties – come together.”
“I want to assure the House that the views of the backbenchers are important to us, and that is the reason why we invited the Members to come forward with their proposals, if there is any. Even though there was no proposal from Members of the House, we actually went out to invite some of the Members for a dialogue, for an exchange of views. Indeed, their views were taken into consideration and, to some extent, were reflected in the changes that we are presenting today. Sir, with that, I believe I have answered the key points brought up by Mdm Ho, and I look forward to the support of the House. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Parliament resolves that the amendments set out in Appendix I to the Report of the Standing Orders Committee as contained in Paper Parl 2 of 2010 be and are hereby made to the Standing Orders of Parliament. Column No : 1956 ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed" – [Mr Lim Swee Say]. Adjourned accordingly at Five Minutes to Six o'clock pm to a date to be fixed. Column No : 1957 WRITTEN ANSWER TO QUESTION Column No : 1957 JUVENILE DELINQUENCY (Effectiveness of programmes) 1. Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (a) if he will provide an update on the state of juvenile delinquency in Singapore and the effectiveness of the prevention and reformative training programmes; and (b) whether more support should be given to youth centres in HDB neighbourhoods to reach out to youths-at-risk.”
“At any point in time, if they feel strongly about any issue, please move a motion and with that, they will have up to 40 minutes to present their views and 40 minutes to give their replies. Of course, in extreme situations, there is provision for an exemption of Standing Orders. But in my 14 years in this House, I have not yet come across a situation where the Leader of the House actually proposed an exemption regarding the speech time limit. Therefore, my advice to the Members of this House is, do not count on that. I think it is better that every one of us do our very best to tighten our speeches, and sharpen our focus, so that we say whatever we want to say in that 20 minutes and then, as I said, if they have something more than that to talk about, present it in the form of a motion. Sir, Mdm Ho's last point is regarding the composition of future Select Committee on Standing Order. She would like to see a larger representation of backbenchers. Sir, as provided for under our Standing Orders, the Select Committee on Standing Orders have 10 Members. Of the 10 Members, of course, the Speaker is the Chair and the two Deputy Speakers are Members of this Committee. So that leaves us with seven Members to be appointed to this Committee. Of the seven Members, some Members of this House are more involved with the procedural affairs of the House, eg, the Leader of the House and the Whip. As a result, five places are taken up by the Speaker, the two Deputy Speakers, the Leader of the House and the Whip. So, that leaves us with five other positions. In this particular review, out of that five positions, two went to the frontbench and three went to the backbench. Sir, we take the point by Mdm Ho that we do want to take in the views of as many backbenchers as we can.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, first, I would like to thank Mdm Ho for her support for the proposed amendments to the Standing Orders. Sir, Mdm Ho made a few points. First, she observed that the revised time limits are still generous as compared to the other Commonwealth countries. I think this point is worth emphasising. Over the last three years, backbencher-Members of this House made a total of about 119 speeches on Budget Statements. Of the 119 speeches, only 17 took more than 20 minutes. In other words, 85% of the speeches made by the backbenchers in this House in the debate of the Budget Statements were actually within the revised time limit of 20 minutes. Secondly, over the last two years, again, backbencher-Members of this House made a total of about 200 speeches on Bills and Motions. And of the 200 speeches, only two of them went beyond 20 minutes, and for these particular two, the time taken was 21 minutes. In other words, almost 100% of the speeches made by backbencher-Members in this House for the last two years on Bills and Motions were within the proposed new time limit of 20 minutes. So, on that count, I agree with Mdm Ho that the revised time limit, by any standard, is still quite generous as compared to many other countries. Thirdly, Mdm Ho asked for leeway to be given for discussions on serious issues. Sir, as I mentioned earlier in my speech, if any Member of this House feels strongly about any particular issue and would like to conduct a more in-depth discussion, he is encouraged to move a motion, very much like what NMP Viswa has done today. Whether we all share the same view on these motions is not the key issue. The key issue is that in this House, Members are here to perform a duty.”
“Sir, I urge Members to support these recommendations and adopt the Report of the Standing Orders Committee. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 5.43 pm”
“Paragraphs 22 to 26 of the Proposed Amendments deal with the powers of the Select Committee to exclude non-Committee Members and strangers from its meetings, and to exclude from its Report minutes of evidence taken in private; the non-disclosure of minutes of evidence which are not included in the Committee’s report to persons other than Committee Members; and the election of a temporary Committee Chairman in the absence of the Chairman where the Chairman is not the Speaker. Other Commonwealth Parliaments such as Australia and India also have these provisions in place. Sir, there are other minor amendments included in the Report of the Committee. The slight changes to Petitions procedures are set out in paragraphs 4 to 6 of the Proposed Amendments; and the restatement of Standing Order 52(d) in paragraph 11 to reflect the desired decorum and behaviour to be observed by Members at all times. The amendment in Standing Order 52 seeks to emphasise the necessity for Members to give their full attention to the proceedings in Parliament at all times and the avoidance of behaviour that distracts others from these proceedings. This is to ensure that proceedings of the House are always conducted with order and decorum. Finally, there are housekeeping amendments stated in paragraphs 27 to 29 of the Proposed Amendments. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, these amendments to the Standing Orders, as recommended by the Committee, have been made as a result of much deliberation and consideration. Their purpose is to put in place the necessary rules that will enable the House to keep pace with changing circumstances, improve use of time and meet the procedural needs of Members in discharging their duties in this House.”
“Should the business require more than 30 minutes beyond adjournment time or the moment of interruption, an Exempted Business motion can be moved to obtain the House’s approval for a longer sitting. Other procedural areas Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I will now touch on recommendations pertaining to other procedural areas. Exempted Business motion Paragraph 3 of the Proposed Amendments sets out the proposal to widen the time window for which an Exempted Business motion can be moved to enable the House to sit beyond the moment of interruption. With the proposed amendment, such a motion can be moved any time after Question Time, instead of the current period of 6.00 pm to 6.30 pm. In this way, Members will benefit from the earlier notification of an extended sitting. Ministerial clarifications The Committee recommends to liberalise the procedures for Ministerial clarifications. Currently, Ministerial clarifications are taken at the appointed time for Ministerial Statements or Personal Explanations and not thereafter. In paragraph 8 of the Proposed Amendments, it is proposed that, with the leave of the Speaker, brief Ministerial statements and clarifications on concluded proceedings can be made at any time between subsequent items of business. This will facilitate corrections or clarifications to be made to the House at the earliest opportunity at any part of the sitting as long as they are not taken in the midst of an ongoing debate. Select Committees The Committee proposes to formalise the current practices and procedures followed by Select Committees.”
“The scheduling of more than one Supply business on an allotted day is also practised in other Commonwealth Parliaments, such as Malaysia and Australia. 10-minute limit on a COS speech The Committee proposes to lift the current 10-minute time limit for a speech made by a backbencher in the Committee of Supply. This is set out in paragraph 20 of the Proposed Amendments. Members are then free to allocate their speech times in COS in whatever manner they choose, subject only to their individual block-time cap and the guillotine times. Question Time on allotted days The Committee proposes to allow the Speaker to specify a shorter Question Time on days that are allotted to any business. Generally, these will be days allotted to Supply business, Debate on the Budget Statement and Debate on the President’s Address. The House has, by practice, given its approval for Question Time to be shorter on days when the Budget Statement and Supply business are considered, in view of the priority for the completion of these businesses. This amendment to the Standing Orders is recommended in paragraph 7 of the Proposed Amendments. Extension of sitting times by the Speaker Another recommendation of the Committee is that of empowering the Speaker or the Chair in Committee to extend the sitting time by up to 30 minutes at the end of the day. This recommendation is found in paragraph 1 of the Proposed Amendments. The short time extension, which is also exercisable by the Chairman in the Committee of Supply, is to facilitate the completion of speeches or matters that are about to end at the adjournment time, instead of being cut-off at that moment.”
“Also, the reduction in speech time in the Committee of the whole House to 10 minutes per speech does not affect the current procedure where a Member can speak more than once in Committee. The revised time limit of 10 minutes is also not applicable during the Committee of Supply which allocates time on a block basis. Later, I will touch on this point again under the Supply business amendments. Sir, the proposed time limits for speeches in Parliament and Committee compare well with those practised in other Commonwealth Parliaments such as Australia and Canada, which are detailed in the Report. In New Zealand, for example, the time limit for most businesses in Parliament is 10 minutes whilst in the UK, the Speaker sets a time limit of seven to 15 minutes depending on the number of speakers. Supply business Multiple items of Supply business on one day Sir, the next recommendation is to formalise a long-standing practice of the House to take more than one item of Supply business on an allotted day. For example, the Supplementary Estimates and Estimates of Expenditure are usually taken on one day of the Committee of Supply. The Supply and Supplementary Supply Bills have also been conventionally taken on the same day at the conclusion of the Committee of Supply (COS). This recommendation is stated in paragraph 16 of the Proposed Amendments. The proposed change to the Standing Orders will accord more flexibility to the House to deal with Budget debates in a timely manner. I wish also to assure Members that ample notice of the allotted days for discussion on the Main and Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure, Second Readings of the Supply Bill and Supplementary Supply Bill will be given to Members, as in the existing procedure.”
“I will now take Members through these amendments. Speech times Sir, one of the principal recommendations of the Committee concerns the speech times in this House. This is found in paragraph 10 of the Proposed Amendments. The Committee has proposed a reduction in speech times of both the frontbench and backbench, from the current one hour and half an hour respectively, to that of 40 minutes and 20 minutes. In Committee of the whole Parliament, speech time is proposed to be reduced from 15 minutes to 10 minutes for any one speech. Speech time for movers of original motions in Parliament and Committee is also proposed to be reduced, from currently one hour each to 40 minutes for moving the motion and another 40 minutes for the reply. The Committee feels that 20 minutes for a backbench Member and 40 minutes for an officeholder to express his or her views to any question in Parliament are adequate. The amendment not only allows for more efficient use of time, it will also instil greater discipline on Members in addressing the House. From experience, not many Members take up more than 20 minutes in delivering their speeches. The average time per speech of backbench Members on Bills and Motions for the past two years was less than 10 minutes; in fact, 7.4 minutes to be exact, whilst the average speech time on the Debate on Budget Statement from 2008 to 2010 was 15.1 minutes. For the frontbench and movers of motions, the average speech times were 12.4 minutes (for Bills and Motions) and 19.4 minutes (for Debate on Budget Statement). Sir, if a Member wishes to have more time to raise issues of substantial importance, he can move a motion for which he will have 40 minutes to state his position and another 40 minutes to reply.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this Parliament resolves that the amendments set out in Appendix 1 to the Report of the Standing Orders Committee as contained in Paper Parl 2 of 2010 be and are hereby made to the Standing Orders of Parliament. Sir, at the sitting of Parliament on 16th September this year, a resolution was approved by the House empowering the Standing Orders Committee to consider and report on necessary amendments to the Standing Orders of Parliament. Members were invited to submit their proposals for the Committee's consideration. No proposal was received from the Members by the deadline of 27th September 2010. As part of the Committee's consultative process, a discussion was held with representatives of the House drawn from the ranks of the Government Parliamentary Committees, Opposition and Nominated Members' bench. This was to seek their views on the key changes proposed to be made to the Standing Orders. Under the chairmanship of the Speaker, the Committee deliberated the views and feedback given. It has recommended that the proposed amendments set out in Appendix 1 be made to the present Standing Orders of Parliament. Sir, the Committee has made 29 recommendations. Some of the amendments are new procedures, some are formalisations of existing practices by the House, some are liberalising the current procedures to achieve greater flexibility, and the rest are housekeeping amendments. There are three key areas of procedure or business which the Report covers. They pertain to: (a) speech times; (b) Supply business; and (c) extension of sitting times by the Speaker. The Committee also made recommendations in other areas such as Exempted Business Motions, Ministerial Clarifications, Select Committees, Petitions, and House decorum.”
“To change the plight of the low-wage workers, first, there must be short-term solutions – the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS). Do not underestimate how much support we are giving to the low-wage workers. Their annual salaries go up by about 20%-25% under the WIS. This is not a small sum. On top of that, we have all kinds of training. Just two days ago, there was another announcement of the Workfare Training Scheme (WTS). In other words, we are sparing no effort. Instead of telling us that low-wage workers are having problems, why not be part of the solution? Yes, I am happy to hear that Hougang Town Council is paying attention to low-wage workers. I hope we can engage in healthy competition – PAP Town Council running as fast as we can to upgrade skills, jobs and welfare for the cleaners. Likewise, the Opposition ward to do the same. So that at the end of the day, the low-wage workers in Singapore will gain. I hope that it is not just the cleaning sector. Every sector of the economy can go through the same process.”
“After the launch, two security guards came to me at the reception – one young man and one lady. They like this JRP, and shared that the pay of security guards was too low. They hope we would help to up their salary at about $850 to $900 per month. This was four years ago. So we invited the SIRD, MHA, the union, the association and MOM for a dialogue. We embarked on a job re-creation exercise together. Today, four years later, the starting pay of security guards is $1,500-$1,700. Why? Because every security guard under the JRP must go through NSRS. If you do not pass the NSRS, you cannot be a security guard. And the entire industry went through the test and at the end of the day, more than 90% passed the test. Today, they are enjoying a better pay and a better job. For landscaping, it is the same. Seventy percent of landscaping workers were foreign workers because Singaporeans found the job to be tough and pay was too low. So we worked with NParks. Under the leadership of NParks, we went on JRP. We sent the workers for skill qualification under WSQ. Who launched the WSQ? The Prime Minister did. That is the kind of commitment all the way from the top to do whatever we can to upgrade the skills of the workers, to redesign the job of the workers so that they can earn a higher salary. Today, they are earning $1,100-$1,300. They are multi-tasked and multi-skilled. As for cleaners, as I have just mentioned, we work on BSI. Sir, it is not easy to crack these problems faced by our low-wage workers. But as a labour movement and as tripartite partners, we never give up. We are like the little frog, we are deaf to all these criticisms. You cannot hope for big changes.”
“There is a story about this little frog. In the kingdom of frogs, every year, there is a carnival/competition. They will build the tallest tower in the world and they challenge the frogs to climb up to the top of the tower. It is very difficult, challenging and very dangerous. Every year, hundreds of frogs, would try their skills to be the champion. One year, it happened again. These frogs kept climbing, but the other frogs down there kept shouting, "It is too dangerous. Come down. Stop climbing. Come down! Come down!" And one by one, the frogs went up half way, looked up, still a long way to go; looked down, "Wow! I am quite far from the ground." So one by one, they started to retreat, except for one little frog. It just went on and on and no amount of discouragement could get him to turn his way. He went to the top and the whole town cheered, "Wow! Well done! Little frog!" When he came down, a reporter interviewed the frog. Before the interview, the frog signalled to the interviewer to face him while interviewing him. The interviewer asked, "Everybody asked you to stop and come down. Why did you go all the way up?" The frog looked at the reporter and said, "Look. I am deaf. I cannot hear them." As a labour movement and tripartite partners working on the issue of low-wage workers, we face many difficulties. We get many discouragements including from hon. Member Low Thia Khiang. But we do not look at the cup and say that it is empty or half-empty. We look at the cup as half-full. Mr Low said that low-wage workers today are still suffering the fate of low wages. But let me share with him about the progress of the security industry. Four years ago, Prime Minister launched the Job Re-creation Programme (JRP) at the NTUC.”
“And if we can ensure that every one of this 3.6 million workers by 2020 will be one-third more productive than today, the 3.6 million workforce in 2020 can produce an equivalent of 4.8 million workers of output of today. This is the power of productivity gain and teamwork. If we can do that, our GDP in 2020 will be 50% bigger than today, even though workforce will only be 20% bigger. With a bigger GDP, there will be more jobs and, at the same time, workers will be upgraded and have higher salary. Sir, in conclusion, the labour movement has embarked on the "Cheaper, Better, Faster" journey since August last year. We welcome the ESC's recommendation to pursue Skill, Innovation, and Productivity (SIP). As Mr Yeo Guat Kwang said earlier, it may be the use of different terminologies but same-same outcome that we are going for. Basically what we are working together is to achieve a healthy economic growth, a situation whereby there will be low unemployment and high employment rates across all age groups of Singaporeans. We hope to arrive at the future where there will be good jobs, better skills, higher productivity and high wages for all workers of Singapore. The labour movement will give 100% commitment to support the ESC's direction. We hope that the tripartite partners will work very closely with us because at the end of the day, let us keep reminding ourselves that job is the best welfare and full employment is the best protection for workers, and productivity gain is the best driver for wage increases in the future. With that, thank you, Sir. [Applause.]”
“Yet, at the same time, we are also saying that we must not keep maintaining the mindset that there are many jobs that Singaporeans are not prepared to do and, therefore, as a first solution, as an easy solution, let us go for more foreign workers. Between the two, we have to find a way forward. As a labour movement, we are very concerned that if we are not able to achieve our productivity target, what will be the implication for our workers? If we grow our local workforce at 1%-2%, and in tandem, foreign workers at 1%-2%, the entire workforce will grow at 1%-2%. If we are not able to up the productivity of the entire workforce, both local workers and foreign workers in Singapore, the Singapore's economic growth will be slow. One day, we may wake up and see Singapore having a slow GDP growth and, at the same time, low productivity gain. When that happens, we think that will be a deadly combination for a small and export-oriented economy like Singapore. We must not allow that to happen. For the labour movement, zero foreign workers is not an option and continued rapid expansion of foreign workers is also not an option. Also, low productivity and slow growth, likewise is not an option. The only option available to Singapore workers is one of going for high productivity. Just think about this. If we can rally all our workers – the Singapore workers as well as foreign workers in Singapore – rally the entire three million workers together, for every 1% improvement in productivity, we will be able to produce an equivalent of 30,000 workers. So that is the power of productivity gain. That is the power of teamwork. This is very important because by 2020, it is possible and likely that our workforce of three million today may grow to about 3.6 million.”
“And if they can achieve the $50 million saving for a year, the staff is expected to receive a quarterly bonus – productivity bonus – of $1,000 per quarter. This is a win-win outcome and I think it is the best way to sustain the effort. Next, I want to share with you the views of the labour movement regarding foreign workers. Again, it is an issue discussed a lot yesterday and today. Basically, on the part of the labour movement, when we look ahead, there are three options in terms of foreign workers. First option is to send back all the foreign workers so that Singapore will be a nation with no foreign workers. If we pursue this option, the workforce of today will drop by one-third. So we will have to downsize our national workforce to about 65%. Assuming that we grow our workforce by about 2% every year, by 2020, our workforce will still be only about 80% of today. In other words, if we send back all the foreign workers and by growing local workers, 10 years from now, we still have a workforce which is 20% smaller than the workforce of today. As a labour movement, we do not think this is a good idea. The second option is to continue to grow as before, like what happened in the past few years. Again, this is something we are not comfortable with. As ESC mentioned, if we keep growing our economy based on workforce expansion, it will not be sustainable. Therefore, the third option, which is what the ESC has recommended, is to maintain the share of foreign workers in Singapore, at about one-third of the workforce. In other words, we are not saying that we are anti-foreign workers and that we want to reduce the number of foreign workers to zero. That is not what we are saying.”
“Sir, last but not least, the fourth area of commitment is the concept of gain sharing. Gain sharing is very important. We must not repeat the mistake seen in the USA where the productivity dividends went to the capital owners and not to the workers. A few days ago, we had a learning journey to SIA Engineering Company (SIAEC). SIA Engineering Company is a billion-dollar company, doing very well. Member Charles Chong works there, so he knows very well. As a billion-dollar company, even though the company is doing very well today, the management and the union are not complacent. They looked ahead to the future and asked where would the competition come from? It may come from the Middle East, it may come from China. They are not taking the future competition lightly. As a result, SIA Engineering has decided to embark on a cheaper, better, faster journey. The management and the union work together to look for ways to cut costs, to upgrade capabilities and, at the same time, to be more responsive to changes in the marketplace. They came up with this idea whereby the union and management worked together to identify the areas for cost-saving and for productivity gain. In Phase One of the effort, they work on six projects – three in the areas of line maintenance, three in the areas of base maintenance. Altogether they saved $10 million a year. The management and the union then agreed that 24% to 33% of that saving would be shared with the workers in the form of quarterly productivity bonus. Today, the staff, having contributed to the productivity gain, are enjoying the quarterly payment. The company is now embarking on Phase Two. They aim to save another $15 million and for the whole year their aim is to save $50 million.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it is very important that we pursue a 3% improvement in everything we do. But, at the same time, we need to go for 100% breakthrough in some of the things we do too. One company we can learn a lot from is 3M. We went on a learning journey to 3M and we found out the twin-efforts at 3M. On the one hand, they have a "LSS" strategy. "LSS" stands for Lean Six Sigma – a strategy to get every worker to improve productivity. Yet, at the same time, they have an innovation management system known as "15% time". Every worker is encouraged to use 15% of the time to think of breakthrough ideas. By bringing the two together in 3M, they are able to ensure that innovation is not an accident. Innovation is a conscious outcome of putting in place a system, a culture, a process, so that all staff are encouraged, at all levels, to come up with new ideas. So, with Lean Six Sigma, they are able to be innovative in productivity. At the same time, through its innovation management culture, they are able to be productive in innovation as well. And I think this is what made 3M so successful. The third area is inclusive workforce. The labour movement is committed to pursuing this vision of total productivity and pervasive innovation, and to do so through an inclusive workforce. In other words – "all can". "All can" means all collars of workers, all ages of workers and all nationalities of workers. 3M is a very good example because they believe that innovation is a team effort. Every person in 3M, regardless of your collar, your age, your nationality, can be creative and innovative in his own way. In 3M, there is a culture to bring people together to perform. Likewise in Energizer, their slogan is that no one should be left behind as they pursue lean transformation.”
“"D" timely Delivery – if you need to produce certain amount by certain date, make sure you meet the time-frame, and "C" – cost cutting. In the management terminology, "SQDC" is equivalent to cheaper, better, faster and, on top of that, safer as well. And they achieved this because they went through a process known as "lean transformation". Every worker has to come up with two small improvements every month. It is a requirement. They call it "xiao gai shan " meaning a small improvement. It is a total effort. Mr Speaker, Sir, there are many ways to improve productivity. The labour movement combs our unionised sector and discovers many examples. In the 14th February issue of the NTUC This Week, there must be about 10 to 15 examples of productivity gains. We can send a copy to Members who are interested. The bottomline is this – when we talk about total productivity, our first commitment is to the workers of Singapore. We are committed to work at the company, the industry and the cluster levels to find ways to make workers' job easier, more effective, so that they can produce more, hopefully, without having to be like the case of USA – where workers have to work very long hours. We hope that all sectors of the economy, all enterprises and all workers, will come together to contribute to the 3% improvement in 100% of the things we do. What we call the "triple As" approach of "all" sectors, "all" enterprises and "all" workers. By speeding up this productivity train in Singapore, we hope to be recognised worldwide as one of the most innovative nations in the way we improve productivity through total productivity one day. The second area of focus is pervasive innovation.”
“The women inside the changing room can try the items under the different mood of lighting. And true enough, Triumph found that the customer actually made faster decision. Secondly, Triumph realised that sometimes if the husband and wife come together, they make an even faster decision. So, Triumph converted the changing room to a couple changing room. The husband and the wife can go in together so that they can decide. Later on, Triumph discovered that, yes, when the wife is accompanied by the husband, they make a faster purchase, but if the husband comes alone, he makes the purchase even faster. So, what Triumph did was – if I am not wrong – once a month, Triumph sets aside a day just for the men. The men will come once a month to buy these items to surprise their loved ones. As a result, sales went up. This is a very good illustration. When we talk about improving productivity, we are not trying to get the workers to work longer hours and make life difficult for the person but, rather, make it easier for the sales persons to perform their job. Triumph is a very good example. Likewise in a factory, the workers' job is to produce items. For example, at battery manufacturer Energizer, over 10 years ago, every worker in the factory was able to produce one million batteries a year. Over the last 10 years, they have increased the productivity of these workers by 100%. So, today, each worker is able to produce two million batteries per year. How did they do it? They did not ask the workers to work twice the duration but, instead, they asked the workers to work on the concept called "SQDC". "S" – do your job Safer. "Q" – higher Quality, make fewer mistakes.”
“Our first-action agenda is to pursue total productivity – not just labour productivity but total productivity. In other words, not by loading more stress on the workers, because if we keep doing that, one day, the workers themselves will become the bottleneck. Instead we want to help the workers break the bottleneck at the workplace. I will give you one example. In the services sector, how do you improve the productivity of the sales person? The job of the sales person is to generate sales. In other words, if I am a sales person, standing on the shop floor for eight hours, I may serve many customers but if none of them buy anything from me, my productivity for that day is zero. If my employer wants to help me to improve my productivity, then my employer – the organisation – must find a way to help me sell easier and help the customer buy faster. That is the concept. Members may say this sounds very theoretical. How can it be done? One company in Singapore has done it. Triumph is a company that sells undergarments for women. We had a Learning Journey to Triumph because Triumph is an active participant of Customer Centric Initiative (CCI). We asked Triumph, "What are you trying do?" They said, "Under CCI, our main purpose is to keep the customer happy so that we can sell more, so that we can improve the productivity of our service staff." And they observe that women like to look good and feel good but they take a long time to make up their mind. They look at the items that come in many colours. They are not so sure which will look better, when the lights are bright and when the lights are not so bright. Triumph decided that one way to help the women make up their minds faster is to have six different moods of lighting in the changing room.”
“As a result, the productivity revival did not last, it could not last. Sir, Singapore today, in a way we are also emabarking on a productivity revival. But it is important to recognise that our same-same productivity revival will have a different action agenda. In the context of Singapore, the tripartite partners, including the labour movement, fully recognise that productivity gain cannot be driven by getting workers to work harder and work longer. If we want production workers to double their output, it cannot mean that we ask the workers to double their working hours. Likewise, a sales person in a retail store, if you think that his productivity is low because he is not making enough sales, you cannot simply force the sales staff to stay longer in order to generate more sales. It does not work that way. To the tripartite partners, productivity is about upping the useful outcome – whatever the workers are supposed to produce, we must find ways to help him or her up the outcome and at the same time down the wasteful input. Whatever input needed to produce the outcome, if the input does not add directly to the customers' needs, we should reduce them. Cut wasteful input, at the same time, up the useful outcome. And the best way to achieve that – to up the productivity by increasing the useful outcome and reducing the wasteful input – is to put in place a system, a culture, a process to help and support the workers. In other words, we should try to make the life of the workers easier rather than more difficult. The labour movement, working with the tripartite partners, is committed to delivering a four-action agenda for the workers of Singapore. It will be different from the USA approach.”
“What it means is that they will not be able to grow. Basically, they are concerned that this strategy may lead to a lose-lose-lose outcome – lose for the workers, lose for the company and lose for the Singapore economy. Sir, the question is, "Can this lose-lose-lose scenario happen in Singapore?" To some extent, such a situation actually happened in USA in the 1990s. In 1996, there was an article in the Harvard Business Review, the title of the article was "The Hollow Ring of the Productivity Revival". The writer, Stephen Roach, Chief Economist of investment bank Morgan Stanley based in New York, noted that during the productivity revival in the USA from the 1980s to the 1990s, three things went wrong. Firstly, he said "a stretched workforce is delivering more because it is working more". In other words, workers are working longer hours to prop up productivity. Secondly, he said productivity was achieved as a result of downsizing. In other words, increasingly hollow companies are now unable to maintain market share in the rapidly growing global economy. According to his observation, many companies in USA actually downsized their manpower in order to achieve the productivity gain, using fewer workers to produce the same outcome. Thirdly, and even more alarmingly, is the growing gap between measured productivity and workers' compensations. And let me quote him, "productivity dividends of the 1990s have flown mainly to owners of capital rather than to workers". According to him, yes, there was productivity gain through downsizing but whatever gain actually went to the shareholders and not to the workers. These three things that went wrong – working harder and longer, producing the same with fewer workers and pain-sharing without gain-sharing.”
“Sir, under the ESC recommendations, we are aiming to improve our productivity by 2%-3% every year. As the Finance Minister Tharman mentioned, 10 years from now, we have the potential of improving our productivity by about one-third and thereby create the space for our wages to go up by the same one-third. The question on the ground is, "Is this good or bad for me?" Some workers are concerned, "Today, I am working up to 10 hours a day. Does it mean that by the year 2010, I have to work for 13.5 hours everyday in order to produce that 35% more in terms of productivity? Even if I work 13.5 hours a day, will my wages go up by one-third because who is going to promise that? How do I be sure that my employer will not exploit me?" The worst thing is that if every worker can be one-third more productive, then three workers in 2020 can perform the job of four workers today. Does this mean that one out of every four workers today will be retrenched by the year 2020? In other words, will unemployment go up? On the part of the employers, some of them are also very concerned. They said, "Look, for the last 10 years or so, our productivity gain was only 1%. Now we set it at 2%-3%. But this 3% will be very hard to achieve." On top of that, they lamented that there are many jobs which are not able to attract Singaporeans to do. So with the tightening of foreign workers inflow, what it means is that employers are going to be faced with shortage of manpower. For some organisations, in particular those in the services sector, some hold the belief that better service means more workers. If you tighten on the foreign workers, and at the same time, they are unable to attract Singaporeans to do the jobs, they are going to have a labour shortage.”
“We are the champion for CBF (Cheaper, Better, Faster) economy, but he does not understand why we are doing that. I have mentioned in this House before that in terms of capability, we are not the best in the world. In terms of cost, we are not the cheapest in the world. And yet, for the last 40 years, we were able to grow our economy. Why? Because if you are cheaper than us, we will try to be better than you. If you are better than us, we will try to be cheaper than you. So by being cheaper than better, better than cheaper; we have succeeded in growing our Singapore economy to where we are today. I have also said in this House that post-global recession, the world has changed. The cheaper is becoming better. If you go to China or India, you will see very clearly how fast the cheaper are getting better. Likewise, the better are also getting cheaper. If you go to USA today, you will see for yourself how cheap things are becoming. Why? USA is trying to grow faster than their potential growth rate so as to lower the unemployment rate. We are therefore squeezed from both sides. The cheaper are getting better, the better are getting cheaper. What options do we have? As a union leader, as a labour movement, we are prepared to bite the bullets. And we say, yes, it is not easy to survive the future, but die, die, must try. And the way to go ahead is to be cheaper, better and faster. There is no other option. That is the reason why when the ESC came up with the recommendations, the labour movement gave our full support because we believe that the recommendations of the ESC, together with Budget 2010, will enable all of us as tripartite partners to build a better economy, nurture a better workforce and at the same time create a better and brighter future for all.”
“Take my Town Council, for example, Holland-Bukit Panjang Town Council, chaired by Dr Teo Ho Pin. We have been on the BSI since day one and today, at Buona Vista, as a Member of Parliament, when I walk around, I feel very good. Everyone of our cleaners in Buona Vista is given a piece of equipment – it is a labour saving device. Everyone has proper uniform and proper training because all the cleaners must be trained in NSRS to operate the piece of equipment to improve productivity. Their wages have gone up. To the best of my knowledge, not a single full-time cleaner in Buona Vista is paid less than $1,000 because having pushed up his productivity, we are prepared to pay him the wages. Yes, Mr Low Thia Khiang said yesterday that he does not have a Ministry of Manpower under his care. Therefore, he said it is the job of the Government to solve the many problems faced by the low-wage workers. But I do know that Mr Low Thia Khiang is also the Chairman of a Town Council. Why not ask his Town Council to embark on BSI as well, to show his sincerity in taking care of the low-wage workers. Sir, let me move on to talk about what is right for the future. I think that is more important. Yesterday, Mr Low Thia Khiang referred to the initiatives of NTUC on up-skill, re-skill, multi-skill, cheaper, better, faster. If I remember correctly what he said yesterday, "Why is NTUC squeezing every drop of effort out of every worker?" He seems to imply that NTUC has nothing better to do but to make the life of the workers difficult. There is a Chinese saying that "zhi qi ran, bu zhi qi suo yi ran ". In other words, Mr Low Thia Khiang understands that the labour movement champions up-skilling, re-skilling and multi-skilling.”
“Member Low Thia Khiang challenged her that "Just because it is a global challenge, it does not mean that Singapore can afford to do nothing." I disagree with Member Low Thia Khiang that we as a country and tripartite partners had done nothing for the low-wage workers. It is completely untrue. Let me give Members an example. When I attended the International Labour Congress (ILC) about three years ago, the slogan at that time was decent work, decent pay. Because as Mrs Josephine Teo said yesterday, it is a global issue. All over the world, there are just too many low-wage workers suffering from lousy jobs and lousy pay. So, ILO made it a global agenda. As we listened through the presentation, among the union leaders, we were commenting that in Singapore, we are many steps ahead of the rest of the world. We have many programmes. In 2006, there was a Ministerial Committee on Low-Wage Workers. Some Members may have forgotten. There are many initiatives targeted at the low-wage workers. Of course, the most well-known is the Workfare Income Supplement. Let me also highlight that we recognise that the best way to help the low-wage workers is to upgrade their skills and enhance their jobs. That is the reason why the tripartite partners implemented Job Re-creation Programme and Best Sourcing Initiative. We as Members of Parliament do not just talk about Best Sourcing Initiative (BSI). We do not just talk about taking care of the low-wage workers. We act if we are serious and we are sincere about this. All the 14 PAP Town Councils today are on Best Sourcing Initiative. We employed altogether 2,500 Singapore cleaners in the 14 PAP Town Councils. Since 18 months ago, we progressively put these cleaners through BSI.”
“So we launched the Job Re-creation Programme (JRP) to transform the low productivity, low paying jobs through Best Sourcing Initiative (BSI) because we were against the idea of cheap sourcing. The labour movement, with the support of the Government, went on the aggressive campaign on BSI. To improve service quality, the labour movement spearheaded the Customer-Centric Initiative (CCI), again, with the full support of the Government. Today, more than 150,000 service sector workers are participating in the CCI. In order to minimise structural mismatch, we also embarked on the concept of harmonising employment and employability. We established the Employment and Employability Institute (e2i) to match workers to jobs. The e2i was supported fully, firstly, by the Singapore Labour Foundation (SLF), chaired by Minister Mah Bow Tan. At the time when we needed the money to get e2i going, under the chairmanship of Mr Mah Bow Tan, SLF funded $5 million for us to renovate the place to get e2i going and, subsequently, the Government came in very strongly to support the expansion. As a result, last year during the downturn, the e2i played a very important role in helping workers go for training, and then matching with the jobs in the job bank. All these are clear illustrations that on the one hand, we make sure that unemployment in Singapore will remain low and yet, at the same time, we continue to upgrade the employability and skills of the workers. Yesterday and today, many Members have expressed their concerns for low-wage workers. Sir, I share everyone's concern. Low-wage workers in fact have received special attention in Singapore. Yesterday, Mrs Josephine Teo mentioned that the issue of low-wage workers is a global challenge.”
“Because of the strategy, we succeeded in preventing many low-wage workers and rank-and-file workers from becoming no-wage workers, like what you saw in other parts of the world. For example, today, in US and Europe, the unemployment rate is 9%-10%. So there are many no-wage workers in US and Europe. In OECD, the average unemployment rate is now 8%. Again, there are many no-wage workers in OECD. Today, 6.4% unemployment rate globally but, in Singapore, 2.1%. Therefore, if you tell me that the strategy is wrong, I disagree. Another point I want to highlight is that in the last few years, as we continued to build the buffer in our economy and our workforce, at the same time as we captured growth, we did not neglect the upgrading, development and preparation of our workforce because we knew that that strategy would not last forever. We knew that the day will come when it is no longer relevant. Therefore, the tripartite partners worked very closely together to prepare our workforce for the next stage of growth. What did we do? For example, some Members will remember that we started laying the foundation for employability enhancement since 1996 with the launch of the Skills Redevelopment Programme (SRP) targeted at the lower skilled, less employable workers. We have come a long way. For the upgrading of workers, we now have the National Skills Recognition System (NSRS), Employability Skills System (ESS), Workforce Skills Qualification (WSQ), Professional Conversion Programme (PCP) and Professional Skills Programme (PSP). For the upgrading of jobs, we recognised that in order to minimise structural unemployment, besides making the workers more skilful and attractive, we have to make as many of our jobs in Singapore as possible to be more attractive as well.”
“So given that backdrop, we see nothing really wrong with the strategy of the last few years. Essentially, what the Government had done and with the full support of the labour movement was trying to build up as much buffer as we can in our economy and our job market. We grew as fast as we could when the condition was right and at the same time, we created the buffer in the workforce by allowing more foreign workers to come in. Members should not forget what had happened to our economy last year during the global recession. Fortunately, because we built the buffer in our employment market through such projects as Integrated Resorts, even during the global recession, there was still job supply in Singapore. The Employment and Employability Institute (e2i) could still maintain a job bank of about 20,000 jobs. If we had not grown as fast as we could during the good time, do you think we could have that 20,000 jobs at e2i during the global recession? At the same time, let us not forget that the number of foreign workers in Singapore actually dropped in the year 2009 and the number of Singaporeans in employment actually went up. In other words, our strategy of growing the foreign worker pool in Singapore as a buffer, in case of a downturn, has actually worked. As a result, Singapore today continues to enjoy one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world. Yes, even though some Members may criticise or take a different view but, as a labour movement, I want to make it very clear that the labour movement supports our past strategies during the last few years because it makes sense, it serves the interest of our workers.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, when I was young, I used to chase after fast ball: basketball, tennis ball, squash ball. But not anymore. Now, that I am not so young, I walk on the golf course with a ball that is not only slow but stationary most of the time. Sir, when I switched to a slow ball, it is not that there was something wrong with the fast ball. But because, at different stages of our life, we just have to adapt to our physical condition and play with the right ball. Sir, the same applies to the economy. The economy goes through different stages of growth as well and at each stage of the growth, you must make sure that the economy grow with the right strategy. From time to time, we need to shift our strategies in response to changes in the external environment and internal conditions. For example, the Singapore economy. Over the years, we have shifted many times – from labour intensive to computerisation, automation and mechanisation (CAM), to capital intensive, to technology intensive and now knowledge, skill and innovation intensive. Each time, as we make the shift, instead of asking what is wrong with the past, we should focus on what is right for the future. Some Members criticise that our economic strategies in the last few years were wrong. There were complaints and criticisms. From the labour movement perspective, I would like to share with Members our take on this. Sir, we recognise fully that as we move up the economic ladder, it would get tougher and tougher for the economy to grow. We used to grow at about 8%-8.5% a year in the 1980s and early 1990s, but not anymore. For the last 10 years, our average growth rate was about 5%. More importantly, the fluctuation is a lot more as well. Some years were good; some years were bad and some years were really bad.”
“Over the next 50 years, we must try to do even better. We must find ways to keep strengthening these "three capital". The Economic Strategies Committee and the changes to the political system will enable us to keep growing our economy to grow our economic capital, keep bonding and bridging our people to grow the social capital and, at the same time, keep evolving our political system to grow the political capital in Singapore. The labour movement will do our part, together with our tripartite partners, to make sure that this "Unlimited Singapore" will be even more united, and this "United Singapore" will be even more unlimited. With that, I thank you, Sir.”
“A few of them highlighted that as we go through this downturn, it is not easy to be union leaders. On one hand, some employers may want to cut jobs to save cost; on the other hand, some of the workers may not be prepared to cut cost in order to save jobs. The union leaders are caught in between. So they said it is tough to be union leaders. Then I asked them, "If given a choice today, would you like to continue to be a union leader or would you like to give up?" They said, "No, no matter how tough it is, we are still committed and want to continue to be union leaders." I said, "This is very good. Now that you have decided to be union leaders, if you have a choice of being union leaders anywhere in this world, tell me which country would you choose to be in?" They looked at me, laughed and said, "Secretary-General, of course, Singapore." Why? Why do union leaders choose to continue to be union leaders and choose to continue to be union leaders in Singapore even though it is not easy to be union leaders? The answer is very simple. In the labour movement, our union leaders value the "three capital" of Singapore – economic capital, social capital and political capital. Because these "three capital" ensure that our economy is competitive and that our society is a caring and cohesive one. But, more importantly, it ensures that tripartism in Singapore is an effective one. We can make a real difference to businesses and the life of the workers. Why? Because as union leaders, yes, our job is tough but, at least in Singapore here, we can work with employers who are socially responsible and a Government that is clean and competent. Sir, in the last 50 years, it had taken us a lot of effort to create the economic, social and political capital that we have today.”
“Sir, the question is: how do we get better, because the future will be very different from today. I have been a Member of Parliament for 12 years, so this is my 13th year. Over the years, comes every general election, my impression is that voters basically want to have the "best of three worlds": firstly, they want to have the best MP to look after their constituency; secondly, they want to have the best government to take care of the country; and thirdly, they want to have more debate, more avenues, and more alternative voices in the Parliament so that policy formulation can be more robust. So, basically, voters like to have the best of three worlds. Sir, I believe that the changes announced by the Prime Minister two days ago, in fact, will put us on the path towards the best of three worlds. Because under these proposed changes, if every political party were to put forward its best candidates – people who do not just have the competency but also the commitment and passion to serve Singapore and Singaporeans – and if the voters vote wisely, and vote for the best candidates possible, then the outcome that we can see in Singapore in future elections will be MPs, in each of the constituencies, who can serve the residents to the best of their abilities; at the same time, a government that will lead the country to the best outcome; and a Parliament that is not only with a multi-racial representation but, more importantly, with more alternative voices as well. So these are the possible outcomes which we look forward to because they will go a long way in further strengthening the political capital in Singapore. Sir, during one of my dialogues with the union leaders, I asked the union leaders how do they feel and what kind of problems they face.”
“" I said, "Yes, I did make a call." She said, "No, you did not make any call." Finally, she told me, "Look, if I tell you that you did not make any call, because your room number was not indicated in my book, that means you did not make any call, so please go away." Those were the days in China in 1985. Today, it is a very different China. China today has gone through complete transformation. The hotels are modern, if not even more modern than some of the hotels in Singapore and the rest of the world. I went to India in 1990 to do manpower recruitment. At that time, I was the General Manager of National Computer Board. We needed to bring in IT professionals. A friend in India was very helpful. He helped us to arrange the interviews and to do recruitment. I asked him, "Why are you so helpful? I am coming here to take your manpower away." He said, "Look, Mr Lim, I tell you very frankly, it is better to have brain drain, then to have our brain in the drain." And that was the situation in India in 1990. Today, 2009, China and India have progressed by leaps and bounds. Both countries – China and India – they have progressed at different pace under different political system. In China, there is political stability but there is no general election. In India, there are general elections but they have less political stability. But, here in Singapore, we have elections and yet, at the same time, we have political stability. Through fair elections, one person one vote, we were able to elect, one election after another, a clean, strong and responsible government. In fact, we have the best of both worlds – general election plus a stable government. So this is a big political asset for Singapore, something that we should treasure and value.”
“Everybody seems to be still cool and calm, and still going around doing their shopping. But we look at this, really, as the strength of tripartism. It is the outcome of the strength of tripartism in cutting costs, saving jobs, helping workers to gain re-employment rather than a weakness of the Singapore system. So we will continue to support and help each other. We will continue to bond the community. We will continue to bridge the people across various income and age groups. Because, at the end of the day, we must stand in unity and pride together as we go through this downturn so that we can continue to strengthen the social capital of Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, thirdly, political capital. With political stability, we, as a country, have been able to adopt tough but right policies all these years. We are one of the countries that can think and do. We think of what needs to be done and can deliver on what needs to be done. This is a big plus for Singapore. Look at some other countries. My first visit to China was in 1985, and my first visit to India was 1990. In my first visit to China, I observed that it was a country trying very hard to catch up with the modern world. This was in 1985. I stayed in a hotel run by a Chinese enterprise. To make an international call, you had to call the operator and the operator would connect you to the phone number in Singapore. The operator would monitor how long your call took. On the day of checking out, all the hotel guests would queue up, waiting for the cashier to tell them, "Last night, you made a call, three minutes, it costs you $X". It came to my turn, so I told the cashier, "Last night, at eight o'clock, I made a call to Singapore. I spoke for about five minutes". The lady checked and said, "No, you did not make any call.”
“So when the worker loses his job, what happens to his entire family? As the Chinese say, 水深火热 (shui shen huo re ). Hence, our belief is that when the worker becomes a jobless person, to him, unemployment rate is 100%, and it is something that we should not take lightly. Let me assure the workers of Singapore that the tripartite partners will not spare any effort to cut costs, save jobs and contain retrenchment. At the same time, we will continue to do our very best, as Mr Gan Kim Yong has said earlier, to continue to reskill and up-skill our workers to contain unemployment. The tripartite partners will continue to work very hard to help the matured workers to gain re-employment, as mentioned by Mr Heng Chee How two days ago. We will continue to do job-matching. Earlier, there was a question asked by Mr Low Thia Khiang. If you come to e2i today, everyday, hundreds of jobseekers come to e2i, and there are about 100 persons working full-time, helping to match them to available jobs. The other day, some Members expressed concern that the older jobseekers are having difficulty finding jobs. I would say that the situation actually is changing. If you come to e2i, every three persons that we manage to match them to jobs, one of them is more than 50 years old, and one of them is between 40-50 years old. In other words, two-thirds of the jobseekers who successfully secured jobs through e2i with tripartite support are more than 40 years old. How many workers are being matched successfully? At e2i alone, at least 1,000 workers a month, and we are still not satisfied. We are still finding ways to enhance the effectiveness. Mr Speaker, Sir, as we go through this downturn, as Mr Sam Tan observed, there appears to be no sense of recession in Singapore.”
“Two days ago, my colleague, Mr Sam Tan, expressed his concern that maybe we have been overly protective of our people. I take Mr Sam Tan's point, in terms of its broader context, positively. *Cols. 787-790. But as far as employment and employability are concerned, I want to make it very clear that it is never enough, no matter how much we do. I want to say this seriously, because at the NTUC, e2i, WDA, MOM, and many economic agencies, we are working very hard to take care of our Singaporean workers. And we do not believe that we are being overly protective of our workers. We look at employment and employability slightly differently because we do not look at a worker as a child learning how to ride a bicycle. Because for a child riding a bicycle, like what Mr Sam Tan said, when he falls, he may have a minor injury. But we do not look at the employment and employability of workers in that way. We look at a worker very much like a person riding on a motorbike going down the highway, and this motorbike has to go faster and faster. Because of global competition, he must become more productive and efficient. As the worker goes faster and faster on this motorbike on the highway, two things can happen to him: one, what if the motorbike is taken away from him, he lost his bike; secondly, maybe as he goes faster, and if he is not skilful enough to control the bike, he may lose control of the motorbike. When the worker either loses his bike or loses control of the bike, what will happen to him? I think he is going to suffer quite serious injury when he is going at high speed down the highway. But, more importantly, do not forget, this worker is not on his own riding on the motorbike. Sitting behind him is his wife and children, his entire family.”