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 15 of 25.
“", instead of looking at the foreign manpower as competitors. At the same time, I also urge our employers, "Do not keep looking at our local workers as people who are choosy, not prepared to work long hours and not prepared to work in far locations". Instead, as employers, ask ourselves: "As we urge workers to be the best that they can be, how we, as employers, make sure that jobs can be the best that it can be too? How can we improve the productivity of every job? How can we professionalise every job? How can we ensure that every job would offer better work life balance?" We cannot expect a Singaporean worker to work six days a week, 12 hours a day, because if he were to take on that kind of job, where and when is he going to lead his family life? Sir, if everyone of us applies our minds to be better than those who are better than us, work together in a "Singapore Unlimited" way, we can succeed in building a "Singapore Unlimited" that is powered by the Singapore rooted – all enterprises and all talents in an inclusive way. Second, social capital. We have done well too. Today, in Singapore, we enjoy peace and harmony. We acted in unity whenever there is a crisis, from SARS to global terrorism to recessions. Looking ahead, we must do even better. Besides the issue of local versus foreigner, we also have to find ways to bring closer together, the young Singaporeans and the older Singaporeans, the high income Singaporeans and the low income Singaporeans, the new citizens and the current citizens. We must recognise that, regardless of who they are, every Singaporean has his anxieties and his aspirations. We must help them as best as we can to overcome their anxieties to meet their aspirations.”
“I believe that the only hope of succeeding, for Singapore to become better than those who are better than us today, is to do it the "Singapore Unlimited" way. We have to count on the strengths of all enterprises – whether big or small, whether local, Asian or global enterprises. We have to count on all talents, whether they are Singaporeans, foreign manpower, Asian talents or global talents. Because this is the only way – by depending on all enterprises and by counting on all talents from all over the world – that we can hope to succeed in becoming better than those who are better. And if we can succeed in becoming better than those who are better than us today, I believe we can create good jobs for everyone in all areas in Singapore. In global manufacturing, we can create the best jobs in electronics, biomedical. In international services, we can create the best jobs in the world in finance, logistics and infocomm. Even in domestic businesses, we can create the best jobs in the world be it security, landscaping or cleaning. As Singaporeans, we should stop looking at foreign talents and foreign manpower as our competitors. Instead, we should ask ourselves: "If I am an engineer, how can I be the best engineer in the world? If I am a technician, how can I be the best technician in the world?" Our rank and file workers too – "If I am a cleaner, how can I be as best, if not better than the cleaner in Europe? If I am a gardener, how can I be as best, if not better than the gardener in Japan? If I am a security guard, how can I be better than the one in America? And the same applies to our sales staff, whether in a hotel or the retail outlets, everyone of us can ask ourselves: "How can I make myself the best in the world?”
“I asked myself, "what are we trying to achieve and what does this mean to the workers and the people of Singapore?" Three types of capital are critical to the long-term development of Singapore – economic capital, social capital and political capital. First, economic capital. We have done well as a country and an economy. Since , out of 17 years, our gross domestic product (GDP) grew faster than the global GDP in 14 years. Out of the past 17 years, we achieved full employment in 13 years. More importantly, out of the 17 years, there were 10 years we were able to achieve both – grew faster than the world GDP growth and, at the same time, sustained full employment. We are the only one nation in the world that has been able to achieve that in the past 17 years. This achievement is truly "uniquely Singapore". Can we do as well in the next 17 years? Frankly speaking, I do not know. But what I do know is that the journey will only get more and more difficult because the global economic network is going to be a very different one. It will be multi-nodal because there are more and more nodes coming up in this global network. This network will be tightly linked. More importantly, it will be fast vibrating and changing very fast. Nothing happened by chance. We have succeeded in the past because we were very clear with our market positioning. We did our very best to be cheaper than those who are better than us and better than those who are cheaper than us. However, our future success cannot depend on this past strategy. We cannot just be better than those who are cheaper than us. We must also try to be better than those who are better than us today. This will be very tough and I hope that we, in Singapore, do not underestimate the new challenge.”
“Mr Speaker, to strengthen our social assets, all our people, whether young or old, high or low income, locally born or from abroad, must interact and forge shared vision, work in unity and care for each other. Only then can we ensure that our Unlimited Singapore will also be a United Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, there are countries that have democratic elections, but do not have political stability. There are those with political stability but do not have elections. As for those that have elections and also enjoy political stability, such countries are very few in number and Singapore is one of them. We should treasure this political capital of ours. To keep strengthening our political capital, we have to evolve our political system and encourage all political parties to put forth the best candidates they have – candidates who are totally committed to serving the people. We also encourage Singaporeans to vote for the best candidates. Only by doing so can they have the best Members of Parliament to serve them in their constituencies; have the best political party to lead our nation and sustain the development of the economy, society and living environment. At the same time, in the Parliament, we can have more heated, sharper and constructive debates of public policies. These three capital – economic, social and political – are essential. I appeal to the people to work together to strengthen our economic competitiveness, social cohesion and political stability. Together, transform a successful Singapore of today into an even more successful Singapore of tomorrow. (In English ): Mr Speaker, I reflected on the President's speech and the debate over the past five days from the perspective of the labour movement.”
“[For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A *.] A nation that strives to achieve must have political, social and economic capital. In the past 50 years, Singapore has worked very hard, gone through many storms and has accumulated considerable capital. We are one of the most competitive nations in the world. We have one of the most united people in the world, and our Government is one of the cleanest and most effective in the world. In a nutshell, Singapore is one of the few countries that has achieved a lot. Looking forward, there is a saying that the wealth of a family seldom lasts for more than three generations. The three assets that we have accumulated in the past do not necessary last forever. Therefore, from the point of view of the workers and unions, the labour movement welcomes the policy directions outlined by the President for the tripartite partners and the people to pursue. Mr Speaker, to strengthen our economic capital, we have to enhance our competitiveness, train and re-train our people – both young and old, men and women, lowly educated and highly educated. We must continue to develop our local enterprises – small enterprises and big enterprises, export-oriented or domestic-oriented. And we have to tap others' strengths. All enterprises and all talents, whether they are local or foreign, as long as they are willing to take root here and work together with us, we should accept them. Only by doing so, can we continue to raise our economic performance of all the economic sectors, so that Singapore will have unlimited opportunities for development, and create good and more job opportunities for our people.”
“The labour movement, together with the Singapore National Employer's Federation are adopting a "whole of tripartism" approach, stand in unity to do the best that we can for businesses and for workers. I urge this House, by the time the debate is over, I hope we will all work together, mobilise the "whole of Singapore", let us go out there to save as many jobs as we can, to create as much growth as we can, so that together, we can walk out of this tunnel towards the daylight, as the most pro-business economy and the most pro-worker country in the world. With that, I thank you.”
“The mice all lived in fear. So they held a parliament meeting. They discussed what they should do to overcome this fear. One Member of Parliament proposed and said, "Mdm Deputy Speaker, a very simple solution is for us to hang a big bell on the neck of this cat so wherever the cat goes, before the cat can see us, we can hear the cat first – ting, ting, ting." Another MP said, "Very good idea. Why don't we make this bell as big as possible, as heavy as possible so that by the time the cat sees us, the bell is so heavy, so big that the cat cannot catch us." So they all supported it. The Speaker asked those in support said yes. They all agreed. It became a national policy. The next thing is implementation. They needed a mouse to carry this bell to hang on the cat. And guess what? There was no volunteer. But, this story has a happy ending. Since the idea did not work, the cat walked around freely and the mice continued to live in fear. One day, a mother mouse and her baby mouse went out hunting for food. Unfortunately, they came to a confrontation with this cat. And the cat cornered this mother mouse and baby mouse into a corner. There was no way out. At the most dangerous moment, the mother mouse did something unexpectedly. The mother stared into the eyes of the cat and started to bark like a dog. [Laughter] And guess what? The cat got frightened and ran away. The mother mouse turned her head and told the baby mouse, "See, now you know the importance of up-skilling and re-skilling." [Laughter] Mdm Deputy Speaker, this is the most severe recession of our lifetime. It is important that we do our best together. The Government is adopting a 'whole of Government' approach to save as many jobs as we can.”
“If you come to the e2i today, there are 11,695 jobs immediately available and these jobs are from industry services and the public sector. The good news is that the number is still growing. For example, Marina Bay Sands Resort has just decided to work with the e2i to offer 2,000 jobs which are suitable for the PMETs. At the same time, the Government agencies – EDB, the Singapore Tourism Board and IE Singapore – are also working with e2i to channel job opportunities that are suitable for PMETs through the e2i. Through this close collaboration between WDA and the NTUC, and with the support of companies and agencies, we believe that we are doing a lot for the unemployed. Madam, let me conclude. I started my address saying that I do not believe that the current downturn would be a short tunnel. But I agree with Mr Low Thia Khiang that there will be light at the end of the tunnel. The question is: what kind of light are we going to see? Would this be broad day light? Or would this be headlight of an on-coming train? We must keep reminding ourselves to do the right things during this downturn. Many countries have decided to cut jobs to save costs. They believe that it is better off for them to let some workers bear all the pain. In Singapore, we have decided to do it differently. We have decided to cut costs to save jobs. We believe that it is better for all of us to bear some of the pain together so that we can avoid massive retrenchment and a rapid rise in unemployment. We must never hope for "no pain" solution because there is no painless way out of a global recession. Just like the story of cat and mouse. There used to be a kingdom of mice. They lived their lives very peacefully until one day, a cat migrated to this kingdom of mice.”
“Just come to e2i and you see what we are doing for the many jobless. If you walk into e2i, firstly, you see many workers going through up-skilling and re-skilling. There are 54 companies supporting 7,192 workers to re-skill and upskill at e2i. Eighty-eight more companies are on their way. The number is growing. But more importantly, the jobless, workers who were retrenched, are also receiving tremendous support at e2i. My sister in the labour movement, Mrs Josephine Teo, was at e2i just two days ago because a garment company retrenched about 500 to 600 workers. Mrs Josephine Teo, together with union leaders, brought them, batches by batches, to e2i and sent them through employability camps. Why? Because many do not speak a single word of English. They need to go for retraining and it could be very difficult for them to change jobs. So Mrs Josephine Teo and her colleagues said, "Not to worry. If you do not speak English, we would run the training for you in Mandarin." Right now, they are going through a six-day employability camp in Mandarin followed by six weeks of skills upgrading and re-skilling. For these workers, they can receive up to $30 per day, up to $600 per month. So by the time they complete their training at e2i, not only will they receive the $600 per month of training allowances, they will have a new skill. But most importantly, we believe that many of them will be able to secure new jobs. In other words, this is much better than the Job Seekers Allowance Scheme as proposed by Ms Sylvia Lim. Earlier, Mdm Ho Geok Choo also expressed the concern that for many of the PMETs, helping them to re-train is necessary but it is only half the solution. The other half of the solution is to help them find jobs. We fully agree.”
“Madam, I want to emphasise time and time again as a union leader that jobs are available in Singapore. Therefore, instead of focusing our minds on strengthening and enhancing unemployment benefits for the jobless, I urge everyone to focus our minds more on how we can overcome the mismatch between the skilled and expectations between jobs and job-seekers because it is better for Singaporean workers to earn lower salaries during a downturn than to count on our unemployment benefits. Of course, we will help the hardship cases through the many-helping-hands approach but not through a formalised unemployment scheme. I would like to illustrate with a real life example. Recently, a major corporation retrenched some of their workers and quite a number of them were PMETs. The union reached out to these PMETs – whether they were members does not matter. We reached out to them. We brought them to e2i. Twenty-seven of them accepted the assistance offered by e2i. Of these 27, six of them, about one-quarter, with the help of e2i, managed to find the same type of jobs in different companies. Eight of them, another one-quarter, managed to find different types of jobs in different industries. Thirteen of them, half of them, have decided to go through professional conversion. They are now attending training offered under the Professional Conversion Programme (PCP). These 27 PMETs demonstrated to us that, yes, they have to take a pay cut of about 15% to 40% compared to their last drawn salary, but they believe that it is better for them to go through the training and retraining, and if need be, change profession in order to be self-reliant. Therefore, Madam, I would say that there is no truth at all to say that as a country, we offer no assistance to the jobless.”
“Some Members said that this Budget is one-sided, focusing a lot on job saving but there was no assistance for workers who lose their jobs. Mr Siew Kum Hong called for unemployment insurance. Madam, I have a lot of reservations to this idea of unemployment insurance. Once, over a dinner with a Manpower Minister from an Asian economy that offers unemployment insurance, I asked him, "What is the cost of this unemployment insurance?" He said, "6% of the payroll." It costs them 6% of their payroll to support this unemployment insurance. I did a very simple calculation. Under the Jobs Credit Scheme, 12% of the first $2,500 of wages would add up to $4.5 billion. This means every percentage point would work out to $375 million. In other words, if we, assuming that we are able to cut back on the unemployment benefits, instead of costing us 6% of payroll to implement the unemployment insurance as this particular Manpower Minister mentioned, assuming we do it at a cost of 3% of payroll, 3% at $375 million per percentage point would work out to $1 billion a year. My question is: who would pay for this $1 billion a year of premium for unemployment insurance? Do we expect the Government to tap into the past reserves and make this a permanent drawdown of our past reserves every year? I think the answer is no. Do we expect the employers to pay for this unemployment insurance? I do not think so. If employers can afford to pay for the $1 billion unemployment insurance during a downturn, they do not need our Jobs Credit. Can workers afford to pay for their own unemployment insurance? Many workers will find it illogical to do so. What this means is that workers who are more hardworking, workers who are more adaptable, will be subsidising those who are less adaptable.”
“It requires everyone of us to play our part so that, hopefully, Singapore will be one of the most pro-business countries in the world, if not the most. Having described the "same-same" aspects of Jobs Credit and CPF cut, I will now highlight the big difference between Jobs Credit and CPF cuts. Some Members said that $4.5 billion, even if we can save 50,000 jobs, it would still work out to $90,000 per job. Therefore, it is too expensive and not worth it. Madam, I feel they have missed a very important point because this is the wrong way to look at Jobs Credit. Jobs Credit is not just to save jobs, but also to protect workers' CPF which is one of the top three concerns of workers on the ground. Another way to look at Jobs Credit is to imagine that we announced a cut of 9% in the CPF's employer contribution rate in order to make Singaporeans more cost-competitive. Then, at the same time, the Government tops up the CPF account of all Singaporeans and PRs with the same 9%. Simply put, the aim of Jobs Credit is to create the same effect of a CPF cut, but without having to cut workers' CPF. If you look at it this way, Jobs Credit, to the workers of Singapore, is a much better scheme, much better than CPF cut in 1998. Jobs Credit is not only pro-business, as it creates the same effect of a CPF cut in supporting businesses. But more importantly, Jobs Credit is also pro-worker because it protects the CPF of the workers. That is the reason why all my brothers and sisters in the labour movement fully support drawing down past reserves for the first time to help Singaporeans, not only to keep their jobs, but also to keep their CPF. Madam, the third point is: what do we do to help the retrenched and the unemployed?”
“Even so, 30,000 workers were retrenched. Do we say that the 10-percentage point cut in CPF in 1998 was a failure? I do not think so. If not for that 10% CPF cut, the level of retrenchment could be much higher. Just like a CPF cut, Jobs Credit likewise is not a wonder drug. Jobs Credit is meant to help to save jobs but it cannot aim to save all jobs. It is like a group of people caught in a thunderstorm. Some would come down with a cold; some with a flu; some with bronchitis and some may end up having pneumonia. Therefore, it is not possible to have one drug that can cure all illnesses. Some companies are in better shape and some are in worse shape. What we are trying to do with Jobs Credit must be to help those who are healthy to stay healthy; those who are not so healthy, hopefully, to ease some of their pain and hope that they will recover. For those who are in very bad shape, they may have no choice but to downsize. But even in the process of downsizing, we hope they will minimise the number of retrenched workers, defer retrenchment as long as possible and finally, to make sure that, hopefully, Singaporeans will be more attractive for them to retain as compared to foreign workers as it goes through the downsizing. Madam, some Members of this House are concerned that since $4.5 billion is a lot of money, would we succeed and how many jobs would we save? All I can say is that the best way to save jobs, as we go through this downturn, is to make sure that Singapore is not only pro-business during good times, but even more pro-business during a downturn. In other words, the $4.5 billion Jobs Credit is pro-business, but we cannot rely on Jobs Credit alone to save all the jobs that we want to save.”
“Some say that, "Look, why not give Jobs Credit only if the company promises not to retrench?". This means any company that retrenches workers should not be given Jobs Credit. I do not understand the logic. If a company is doing so badly that it has to retrench workers, and we deprive them of Jobs Credit, are we not pushing them further towards the downturn, thereby speeding up more retrenchment and resulting in more workers losing their jobs? So I do not understand the logic. Some said that Jobs Credit should only be given to companies that are not profitable. So, if you are still making money – no Jobs Credit for you. Again, I do not understand the logic. Are we better off seeing more and more of these profitable companies turn unprofitable? What do we have to gain out of this? At the end of the day, let us recognise that there is no guarantee that profitable companies will not retrench workers. But more importantly, if we want to truly succeed in saving jobs, we need the support and the participation of all companies – big and small, local and multinational, profitable and non-profitable. Therefore, I am in full support of this approach of "no strings attached" because at the end of the day, if you want the Jobs Credit Scheme to be as effective and as pro-business as a CPF cut, we must accept and recognise that a dollar is a dollar to any company. It does not matter whether the dollar comes to the company through a CPF cut or through Jobs Credit. Next, can we save all jobs? With Jobs Credit, can we hope to have zero retrenchment? If there is any announcement of retrenchment, does it mean that the Jobs Credit Scheme is a failure? Madam, let us cast our minds back to 1998. In 1998, we cut CPF not by 9% but by 10-percentage points.”
“So if I were to make a comparison between Jobs Credit and CPF cut, are they the same? Are they different? And my conclusion is, it is "same-same" but different. On the one hand, Jobs Credit and CPF cut are the same, same in the sense that both schemes aimed to create the same pro-business effect. I was cheered by the illustrations highlighted by NMP Ms Cham Hui Fong earlier this afternoon. She illustrated that with Jobs Credit, many companies on the ground have managed to improve cashflow. As a result, some companies, as illustrated by her, have decided to pass the cost savings to their customers, so that they are more competitive and better able to keep their customers. Some decided to use Jobs Credit to upgrade their workers, so that they can be more competitive versus their competitors. Some decided to share the Jobs Credit with their workers. Instead of a wage cut or a wage freeze, they give a small increase to their workers. Some companies, after the announcement of Jobs Credit, decided to defer retrenchment; in some cases, decided to reduce the number of workers being retrenched; in some cases, they decided to let go the foreign workers upon the expiration of work permit because the Jobs Credit together with SPUR have made Singaporean workers more attractive. Companies that are profitable have decided to make full use of Jobs Credit to strengthen their bottom line. In some cases, they will expand and grow to create more jobs. In other cases, Jobs Credit has enhanced the bottom line, as a result, strengthened the job securities for workers in these companies. These are positive illustrations on how Jobs Credit can actually work on the ground to help us to save jobs. Some Members expressed their concerns that there are no strings attached to Jobs Credit.”
“Thirdly, workers are concerned, "If I cannot keep my job, if I am retrenched, will I be able to find another job?" And these workers I am talking about are not just the low-skilled workers, not just the casual and contract workers, but also the rank-and-file workers, the back-to-work women, the older workers, as well as the PMETs. So, if you ask me, how far should we go to try to save jobs as we go through this downturn, the realistic side of me say, "Let us go as far as we can". And this is the reason why the labour movement supports the decision by this Government to draw on the past reserves, because it is important that the Government sends a clear message that the Government is putting in its best effort. And in response, the labour movement, the business community, the workers, likewise, we must put in our best efforts as well. Madam, having decided that we should go as far as possible to save jobs, the next question is how best to save jobs. Over the last two days, there was much debate about Jobs Credit. Some Members expressed their concerns, they said Jobs Credit is untested, may not be effective, probably will not work. For example, some will say that, "If I keep a worker through Jobs Credit, I save $300 per month. But if I retrench a worker, I save $2,500 per month. Therefore, Jobs Credit will not work". Some will say that, "Even with the announcement of Jobs Credit, there are still announcements of retrenchment. Therefore, there is clear evidence that Jobs Credit does not work". Madam, the Members of this House, many of us here, we are not familiar with Jobs Credit. This is the first time that we introduce Jobs Credit. But all of us, I am sure, are familiar with CPF cuts because we have done that a few times before.”
“What workers are worried about? Their three top concerns are: Firstly, can I keep my job? The latest forecast by IMF said the global economy is projected to grow at only 0.5%. This will be the lowest in 60 years. The latest forecast by International Labour Organisation (ILO) is that unemployment all over the world will go up. The situation is so uncertain that this time round, the ILO came up with not one but three forecasts. ILO said that the best scenario, the most optimistic scenario, is that unemployment would rise from 6% last year to 6.1% this year. And with that, about 18 million people of the world will become the new unemployed. A realistic scenario will be for the unemployment of the world to go up to 6.5%, and with that, 30 million new unemployed. And the most pessimistic scenario is 7.1% global unemployment rate with 51 million new unemployed. Madam, many Singaporean workers are worried that as we go through this crisis, will retrenchment continue to rise rapidly? In Singapore, already we saw in the first three quarters of last year, 6,000 workers were retrenched. By the fourth-quarter, in one quarter alone, it went up to 7,000. Many workers are asking will retrenchment exceed 10,000 in the first quarter of this year. Many workers are also worried. Will they be one of these 10,000 to be retrenched? Will they be one of the 51 million globally to join the ranks of the unemployed? Secondly, many workers are concerned, "Even if I keep my job, will I be able to keep my CPF?" Employers' contribution to CPF has declined over the years from 25% to 20%, to now 14.5%. Many workers' take-home pay have already been affected. There is no overtime. They now work on shorter work-week. So any significant cut in CPF this time round will hurt the workers even more.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I would like to share my perspective on Budget 2009 as a union leader and as an active practitioner of tripartism. I would like to touch on three areas. Firstly, how far should we go to save jobs. Secondly, how to save jobs. And, thirdly, how to help those who lose their jobs. Madam, how far should we go to save jobs? Yesterday, Mr Low Thia Khiang said that he was against CPF cut. I agree with him, I am also against CPF cut. However, Mr Low said that he would not implement Jobs Credit either. He said there are other better ways of saving jobs. But yesterday he did not offer any specific suggestions. I was looking forward to the speech by Ms Sylvia Lim. I was hoping that she will offer some suggestions but all I got was the proposal to introduce the Job Seekers Allowance of up to $500 per month. I fail to see how the Job Seekers Allowance of $500 per month can help us to save jobs. Mr Low Thia Khiang ended his speech yesterday, and I quote, "There is light at the end of the tunnel. The optimistic side of me believe this will not be a long tunnel." His optimism took me by surprise. I would like to believe that he is right but I think he is more likely to be wrong. If he is wrong, and if we in this House act too slowly and indecisively, who will pay the price, who will bear the pain? Many workers will be retrenched, unemployment will go up rapidly; to act by then will be too late. In fact, this is the reason why the labour movement welcomes this fast and decisive Budget announced by the Minister for Finance. Madam, as a union leader, I walk the ground all the time. I talk to union leaders, workers, bankers, hoteliers, retailers, manufacturers, and many of them told me they have never seen such a situation in all their working lives.”
“If the choice is between implementing a $4.5 billion Jobs Credit versus a 9% cut in CPF – it is either you introduce a Jobs Credit or you take the CPF cut – if that is the situation, which option would the Workers' Party go for?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want to seek the final clarification from Mr Low Thia Khiang. Am I right to say that if the Workers' Party is in power today, if the Workers' Party is the Government, in this crisis, the Workers' Party, under the leadership of Mr Low Thia Khiang, would not implement the Jobs Credit Scheme. And that between implementing the Jobs Credit Scheme versus having Singaporean workers to take the 9% CPF cut, the Workers' Party would implement a 9% CPF cut rather than to introduce the $4.5 billion Jobs Credit Scheme, to save jobs. I would like to seek that clarification from Mr Low.”
“But if you look ahead, we would be like the sunset in US during summer time, because our life will be getting longer and longer. It takes a longer time for the sun to set, so how do we make this long sunset process more beautiful and more enjoyable? That is the main concern of many Singaporeans. People are living longer now, but will we have a good job as we live longer? We want to know whether we have enough CPF to last our post-retirement life. This is something that we need to look into. I am sure more and more countries will come up with new policies and new solutions to face the new challenges imposed by the ageing population. I am also sure that not many countries will be able to implement these new policies effectively and quickly because many governments can only think about it but could not do it, and we have seen many such examples. We must make sure that Singapore is different from other countries. When we think of something, we must take quick action. With our strong tripartite cooperation and the support of our people, we must focus our mind, align our efforts and take quick action, so that more and more Singaporeans will enjoy a long life, with good work, enough money to last their post-retirement life, and able to enjoy this beautiful and long sunset. *Cols. 1849-1852. 6.28 pm”
“We hope that in the next two years, we will be able to move so fast that more and more workers will be able to look forward to living longer, having good jobs and, at the same time, having sufficient savings for their retirement. (In Mandarin): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A *.]Mdm Deputy Speaker, when I was having a public discussion with the people, a lady from the audience said to me, "Minister Lim, the sunset is glorious, but the night is drawing near!" And she said, "We are already so old and we don't have much time left, why do you still want to torment us? You want us to rejoin the workforce, and you don't allow us to withdraw our CPF till later." I explained to her that, yes, there is sunset and I have seen three types of sunset. When I was in England as a student, during their winter time, I finished my lesson at about 4.30 to 5.00 pm, it was already dark. So in the winter time, the sunset is very short and it turns dark very soon. The second type of sunset is the one I grew up with - the equatorial sunset of Singapore, it starts to cool down at 6.30 pm and becomes dark by 7.15 pm. So our sun here sets slower than in England. A few years ago when I was working in New York, I experienced yet another type of sunset. In the summer time, the sun seems to refuse to set. Even at 10 pm, it was still bright and you lose patience with the sunset. Here in Singapore, our ageing population is just like these different types of sunset. In the 60s, we were like the sunset in England during winter time. You retired at 55 and said goodbye at 65. Very fast. Today, the ageing process is like the sunset in Singapore, near the equator. You retire at 62, and you pass away around 80 years old. So you have about 18 years of retirement life.”
“Notwithstanding this reservation that we are setting the pace, we are breaking new ground, we have every reason to believe that if there is one country in this world that is going to succeed in active and successful ageing, then I think Singapore stands a very good chance. There is a Chinese saying that, "you hao de kai duan, yi jing cheng gong le yi ban ". It means that with a good beginning, you are already halfway there. If you look at the way we implemented this new policy and concept, we are having a very good starting point. On the part of the Government, it has demonstrated its sincerity. For example, yesterday, Dr Ng Eng Hen announced the whole set of measures to support this concept of re-employment and active ageing - $400 million for WIS, $700 million additional CPF interest, and so on. More importantly, all the economic agencies are working together to ensure that the Singapore economy will continue to grow healthily. In other words, there will be enough job opportunities for everyone. On the part of the business community, I must say that they are doing their part as well. The labour movement, over the last 18 months, has worked with about 320 companies and these are big and medium-sized companies. They are serious and sincere in practising re-employment. On the part of the labour movement, I must say that we are very encouraged by the support given by the ground. Our union leaders understand fully well that re-employment is the way to go. On the whole, we believe that if there is any one country that is able to implement this whole concept of re-employment successfully, Singapore certainly will be one of them. Therefore, over the next two years, we are going to move very fast. Singapore has thought of the solution. We must now focus on implementation.”
“Therefore, as we pursue this holistic approach in addressing the issue of successful and active ageing, we are mindful that something can still go wrong because our big software can be attacked by viruses. What are these viruses? For example, on the part of the employers, there will be some employers who still believe that younger workers are better workers. They will discriminate against the older workers. There will also be workers who believe that they are not going to live that long. They want to retire early, enjoy their retirement early, and only later on to discover that actually they have missed the boat of re-employment. On the part of Government, what if on the ground not enough is being done to ensure that re-employment will work? The day may come when we decide that since the employers and unions are moving too slowly, the Government will come in with legislation. Every time I hear about bringing forward the re-employment legislation, my heartbeat jumps, because I am worried that if every one of us thinks that legislation can speed up re-employment on the ground, then maybe we are going to allow that virus to affect our big software. Because, at the end of the day, we do not believe there is a shortcut to realising this pro-worker and pro-business way of re-employment. You cannot have a law to require businesses to be pro-worker. You cannot have a law to require the worker to be pro-business. At the end of the day, the two parties must work together to understand that being pro-worker and pro-business is the only way for re-employment to be sustainable. I think more needs to be done.”
“Very few governments have the right ideas and quick action. They complimented us. They said Singapore is one such country where we have good ideas and quick action. Even so, in the labour movement, we are not complacent. We do not take it for granted that everything we discuss in this House today will be implemented on the ground tomorrow. We do not take it for granted. Why? Because we recognise that things can still go wrong on the ground. We must recognise that what we are doing here in Singapore is breaking new ground. No government of the world today has the whole package put together. For example, over the last few years, through the partnership of MOM, NTUC, the SNEF and the Government, we have implemented many ideas. We have job re-creation to re-create jobs for the elderly. With the ADVANTAGE! Scheme, companies can make use of this fund to make the workplace more elderly-friendly. With WIS (Workfare Income Supplement), older workers have additional incentives to work. With the Employability Skills System spearheaded by the WDA, we ensure that our mature workers, as they grow old, will still be employable. We also have the CPF scheme, the CPF top-up, enhanced interest rate, and now re-employment, and longevity insurance. All these are really the unique Singapore software. But what is even more significant is that all these small software add together to become our Singapore big software for active ageing, for successful ageing. The labour movement fully recognise that we are setting the pace. No one country that we know of today has got all these small software put together into a big software.”
“They feel that this is the way to go and they hope that more can be done so that more workers can join in the re-employment scheme as well. Having said that - recognising the need to change, believing that this change will benefit the workers - the question now is: what do we worry about in the labour movement? What can go wrong? Our union leaders interact with union leaders from all over the world. Yesterday, they were at Downtown East attending an international forum with union leaders from Europe and Asia. Today, at NTUC Building, another group is having a workshop with 10 countries from East Asia, from ASEAN. When they come together, they exchange information and notes. The union leaders of the world came to the conclusion that there are four types of government in this world. The first type of government - no idea, no action. They do not know what is happening, do not know what is the problem, they do not know anything - no idea, no action. The second type of government - good idea but very slow action. They know what needs to be done but somehow, politically, they do not have the courage and the will to carry the ground to move fast enough. As a result, they see light at the end of the tunnel, but somehow they can never get to the end of the tunnel fast enough. The third type of government - a lot of action but wrong ideas. For example, in some countries, just a few years ago, they actually encouraged their workers to go on early retirement so that more jobs could be made available to the younger people. But today, they are in a fix because they now realise that it is a big mistake to get older people to retire earlier. It should be the other way round, and now they do not know what to do. They moved very fast, they took action, but they worked on wrong idea.”
“At the same time, what is even more exciting for many of the workers now on re-employment is that they realise they are actually going to have a lot more money for retirement. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I feel that members of the public do not quite recognise the significance and impact of re-employment. Yesterday, Dr Ng Eng Hen highlighted and emphasised this point. But I still feel that many people have not caught it. Here, I would like to emphasise because, from the workers' point of view, this is really something beneficial for them. Our workers realise that when they go on re-employment, for every one year that they work, for every one year that they defer their CPF, they can add two more years to the CPF draw-down period. In other words, if they can work for three more years, ie, from 62 to 65, those three years will get them six more years of draw-down of CPF. So instead of drawing down the CPF from 62 to 82, they would add six more years to 82, ie, they can actually draw down from 65 to 88. This means when a worker works for three more years on re-employment, his CPF, based on the current payout rate, will be able to last him until the age of 88. On top of that, in this announcement, there is this Voluntary Bonus (V-Bonus) - not a small sum, something that workers would appreciate. But more important is the higher CPF interest rate as well as up to 20% Workfare Income Supplement. For many of our workers who are going to work from 62 to 65, they will not only draw their salary from the companies but, on top of that, they are going to have this up to 20% of additional income. So, on the whole, many of our workers on re-employment are very excited.”
“Many workers and union leaders, after much deliberation, came to the conclusion that, yes, indeed, we are changing for the better. First, it means that workers can now work longer. With the raising of the draw-down age and the implementation of re-employment, more and more workers will now stand the chance of getting re-employed. Some would, however, say that re-employment is not a blessing. It is so pitiful that Singaporeans have to work in old age. However, based on our experience in the labour movement, that need not necessarily be the case. Yesterday, my colleague, NMP Ms Cham Hui Fong, shared with the House that in the last 18 months, we had helped 3,200 workers to secure re-employment upon reaching the retirement age of 62. Twenty percent of them are performing same job, same pay, ie, there is no change in their responsibility. They are happy, companies are happy, so they continue working in the same job, drawing the same pay. Another 10% are re-employed for different jobs with different pay. Because of their personal preferences and the requirements of the companies, they move on to take on different jobs at different pay so that they feel more comfortable. Seventy percent, the vast majority, perform the same or similar jobs but at lower pay. Why? Many of them actually say that they do not want to live a stressful life. "I do not mind continuing to be a technician. But, please, I do not want to continue as a Senior Technician. I just want to be a technician so that my pace of work can be slower and, at the same time, I leave it to a younger person to have a better chance of gaining promotion." Our experience in re-employment so far in the labour movement, working together with the Government agencies and with management, has been a productive one.”
“According to his market reputation, out of every three predictions, one would come true. So, by market standard, this is actually quite good." I said, "Let me take a look at you." I pretended to look at his face and his palm. I said, "Look, I am also a good fortune teller. Let me tell you. You have a very good chance of living beyond 84." He looked at me and said, "84?" I said, "Yes, 84." Then he asked me, "Aik leng boh?" He asked me whether my prediction is accurate or not. *Cols. 1849-1850. I said, "My prediction is more accurate than your fortune teller. His success rate is one out of three. My success rate is one out of two." Why did I say one out of two? Because the median age is 84. In other words, of all workers reaching the retirement age of 62 today, half of them, by statistics, will live beyond 84. So, one out of two persons, randomly picked, will live beyond 84. My point to him was that we should not take this lightly, because one out of every two workers will indeed live beyond 84 and, therefore, as union leaders, we must do our best to explain to them the difference between average age and the median age. Mdm Deputy Speaker, indeed, this is the biggest concern of the labour movement. With one out of every two mature workers living beyond 84, our concern is that this CPF safety net, in terms of meeting our retirement needs, is not going to be able to perform the task. One out of every two workers will live beyond the retirement safety net provided by the CPF. Therefore, there is no doubt in our minds that changes are definitely necessary. The second point is, are we changing for the better? With all these concerns reflected by the Members of Parliament here, are we changing for the better? We asked the same question in the labour movement.”
“Workers, upon reaching the retirement age at 62, will be withdrawing their Minimum Sum for 20 years until the age of 82. With longer life expectancy, many of them will outlive these 20 years. By the time they reach 82, they will run out of the CPF draw-down period. By then, what do they do? So I told my union leaders that we must find ways to help our workers to work for at least three more years, if not longer. The question is: when and how? We have two options. One option is to help the workers to work from the age of 62 to 65, defer their retirement. Another option is for them to retire at 62, draw down their Minimum Sum over 20 years. At the age of 82, when they outlive their CPF Minimum Sum, they come back to the NTUC or the labour movement and we will help them to look for jobs for three more years during the age of 82 to 85. I asked my union leaders, "Between the two options, which one do you prefer?" My union leaders need not even think for a second. They said, "Secretary General, let's go for the option whereby we help them to keep working from 62 to 65." Because to help workers to gain re-employment from 62 to 65 is already not an easy task. To hope that we can help them gain re-employment at the age of 82 to 85 is an impossible task. Therefore, we decided that we must go all out to explain to the workers why it is to their own benefit to work from 62 to 65, as a first step. One union leader told me, "Mr Lim, I don't believe I will face this problem because I am not going to live that old." I said, "How do you know?" He said, "My fortune teller told me." I said, "Your fortune teller told you?" He said, "Yes. My fortune teller told me that I wouldn't live beyond 72." I said, "Your fortune teller aik leng boh?", which means accurate or not. He said, "Not bad.”
“" And he said, "Minister, the truth is that actually none of them wanted to retire. They want to continue working." I said, "If this is the case, why don't we allow them to work?" He said, "Oh, under our employment practices in the public sector [which was four or five years ago], 62 is the official retirement age." I said, no, something ought to be done. The following week, I met up with the union leaders and the management, and we came to the conclusion that if the workers wanted to work, if they were healthy enough to work, we should allow them to work. So way back, four or five years ago, NEA implemented this re-employment concept where all the staff in NEA, upon reaching the retirement age of 62, as long as they are healthy and as long as their performance is good, say, three years before reaching their retirement age, each and everyone of them was allowed to go on re-employment on an annual basis for three years. Yesterday, I was very happy to hear from Minister Teo Chee Hean who cited NEA as one of the statutory boards with the highest rate of re-employment. Mdm Deputy Speaker, the workers in NEA are not an exception. We believe that more and more workers in Singapore would want to continue working beyond the age of 62. Yesterday, Zaobao's reporters interviewed a group of mature workers, and these were the headlines in Zaobao: Nian zhang gong you: zui guan jian shi que bao neng ji xu shou pin. In other words, as far as mature workers are concerned, those that Zaobao interviewed randomly, they said the key priority is the ability to be able to continue working and to be employed. Today, our CPF system has a big problem. This is the viewpoint of the labour movement.”
“Many of the concerns raised by the Members in this House indeed were real concerns on the ground. Union leaders brought up these issues as well. At the end of the day, after much deliberation, we decided that as a labour movement, we ought to give constructive support to these policy changes. We concluded on three key points. First, if we do not make any change, what would be the problem? Second, if we proceed with the change, who would benefit? What are the benefits? And, third, as we implement this change, can things still go wrong? First, what if we do not change? What are the problems? A few years ago, when I was the Environment Minister, one day, my Permanent Secretary asked me, "Minister Lim, some of our staff at the NEA have reached the retirement age. So this Saturday, we are going to organise a "Happy Retirement" ceremony. Can you be the Guest of Honour, shake their hands and wish them "Happy Retirement"? I said, "Sure, I am very happy to do so." When Saturday came, I went up the stage, I gave my speech and I thanked them for their years of contributions. The retired workers, one by one, went up the stage, they shook my hand, I shook their hands and I wished them, "Happy Retirement!". But it was very obvious to me that none of them looked happy. I shook their hands and said, "Happy Retirement!". They looked at me, "Um." And one by one just took the envelope and left the stage. During the tea reception, I felt something was wrong. So I called my Permanent Secretary quietly. I said, "Something is wrong because earlier when I shook their hands, nobody seemed to be happy. Can you tell me why?" The Permanent Secretary said, "Why don't I get the CEO to talk to you?" I asked the CEO, "Why?”
“[For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A *.] Mdm Deputy Speaker, for the past two days, many Members have reflected the concerns of our ordinary citizens. Dr Amy Khor said that Singaporeans are worried that they have no money and no work. Mr Ong Ah Heng mentioned that the people are worried that they are those who have money but do not live long enough to enjoy it, and that there are others who live a long life but have no money to sustain their lives. All in all, people are worried whether their life is long enough or too long, whether they have a good job, whether they have savings and whether the retirement fund is enough to meet the needs for their old age. If our fate is decided by heaven, then I believe everyone will be praying to heaven for a divine lot, and I am sure that everyone will hope that they will draw a good divine lot, hoping to be blessed with long life, good work, plenty of retirement funds, because then they will be able to live in comfort till their old age. I do believe that our people are afraid of drawing a bad divine lot and they worry that they may lead a long life, but cannot find jobs to do, or enough CPF to cater for their old age. Fortunately, the fate of our people is not decided by heaven. Everyone wants to have a good life. The Government also hopes that everybody will have a good life. But we must understand that good lives do not fall from heaven. We must put in a concerted effort and work hard for it. As a union leader, I would like to give you my own reflections on this matter. (In English): Mdm Deputy Speaker, in the last few weeks, union leaders and workers deliberated at length the proposed changes to the CPF system and the concept of re-employment.”
“" Sir, my answer is, "no, not yet". What about you?”
“Even though I know that my 17-year-old son has a bright future, one thing I cannot be sure of is that when he gets married with kids, when his children turn 17 - 30 years from now if I am lucky - are we certain to say that Singapore can still have a prosperous economy? This I am not sure. I feel that if we want to safeguard our own future, we have to take the necessary actions to continuously attract the younger generations, the best talents, with an enthusiastic heart, who will put the country and people before oneself, as well as serve the country with one's heart and might. If we can do that, I would be confident that our future generation, our children or grandchildren, will have a safe and stable country, as well as a prosperous economy to live in and pursue their dreams. * Cols. 365-366. (In English): Sir, when I was based in New York City, every night at 10 o'clock, one station would broadcast the 10 o'clock news. At the beginning of the news, some voice would come on and say, "It is now 10 o'clock. Do you know where your children are?" This is because in the early 1990s, the New Yorkers were very concerned about the safety of their children. So, every night, at 10 o'clock, before the news came on, it said, "It is now 10 o'clock. Do you know where your children are?" Sir, here, in Singapore, we need not worry too much about the safety of our children. But still, there is one thing we ought to be concerned about, that is, who will take charge of our country, who will take care of our workers and our people, 20 or 30 years from now? As we discuss and debate this issue of salary revisions for Ministers, I hope everyone of us will ask ourselves this question: "It is now 2007. Do you know who our future Prime Minister and future Ministers are?”
“(In Mandarin): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A *.] My father and I were 17 years old when we went overseas for the first time. But there was one difference, ie, when my father went overseas when he was 17 years old, he left his native place and he came from China to Singapore to seek a livelihood. After which, he settled down in Singapore. For me, the situation was different. When I was 17 years old, the first time I went out of Singapore was to Johor for mountain climbing, because I was on a trip together with my National Junior college classmates. Back then, I was very confident of getting a scholarship. I was looking forward to going overseas for study and was full of confidence and hope for my future. During my father's time, he was living in a totally different environment. This year, coincidentally, my son is also turning 17 years old. Next month, he will be 17. But he is different from me and my father. He does not need to wait to be 17 years old before he could go overseas. In fact, when he was two years old, he already went overseas with me to New York. And now, today, my son goes to a good school for education, and he has a good computer for his good fun. If he studies hard, I do believe that he will have a good job and a good career. In other words, my father, my son and I have different fates because under Singapore's political leadership we have been able to progress from a Third-World country into a First-World country within a generation. Even so, I am still worried over the future of Singapore. Why so?”
“Here, we are talking about the lives of Singaporeans, we are talking about the jobs of the workers. It is something that is not to be taken lightly. Sir, I would say, let us be realistic, let us be serious about how we can really go out there to attract the best brains. I heard a lot of talk about whether we can adopt a more idealistic approach like going for people who are prepared to sacrifice everything to come in to serve. Yes, I think there are people with good brains, there are people with a good heart. But we do not have enough good people with both good brains and good hearts. Because if there are enough people with good brains and good hearts in this world, then how do we explain there are so many bad governments in this world? On this basis, I am very sure that having a good government with Ministers with good brains and good hearts cannot happen by chance. It must be through a conscious effort. Therefore, at the end of the day, when we talk about moral authority, my sense is very simple. If a Minister were to tell the people that he is drawing low salary but pockets big money, I think he has no moral authority to lead. If a Minister has promised to change the life of the people for the better, but at the end of the day, the only better life is his own life, he has no moral authority to lead. If a Minister is a "NATO" (no action, talk only), every time a problem happens, he blames everybody except himself, then he has got no moral authority. But if a Minister, through some transparent formula, is prepared to accept a clean wage and does his very best to create opportunities for the people and to change the life of the people for the better, then I think there is no reason why he cannot command our respect. Sir, let me continue in Mandarin please.”
“His reply was that this is the best team he could put together. And somebody interpreted what he said to mean that he did not say that this is the best team in absolute terms. He just said that this is the best team he could put together. In other words, let us recognise that, at the end of the day, attracting the best talents is not so simple - just because you want to attract them, they will come in. We can only attract those whom we are able to attract, and these are obviously those with the passion to serve. Sir, I feel that we have to do a lot more because the new Lim Swee Say of the future must be a lot better than the old Lim Swee Say of today. Otherwise, our vision of Singapore Unlimited and Singapore United would not be realised. There is one big difference between the way we nurture leaders in the corporate world versus the political arena. It is something I would like to share, having gone through it for the last few years. In the private sector, the union leaders used to say that when you have a good CEO, be happy but do not be too happy, because you will not be happy forever. When they come across a bad CEO, they said, be sad but do not be too sad, because you will not be sad forever. Because that is the nature of the private sector world - CEOs come and go. If you are good, the market will poach you. If you are bad, the market will fire you. So they keep moving. But in the case of the political leadership, it cannot be done that way. Some of us may have this impression that we can just go out and get people to come in and try them out for five years. If it works, it works. If it does not work, next term we drop them, find a new Minister and a new Cabinet. It does not work that way. Policy formulation has got tremendous implications.”
“That is the reason why I think some management theory talked about the "rain-maker". The "rain-makers" are the people whom people look up to because they make rain and when they make rain, there is water and the whole tribe benefits from the rain. In other words, we have to look for more of these "rain-makers" so that they will make rain and create water for Singapore Unlimited and Singapore United to survive and grow. One of my grassroots leaders then asked me, "Mr Lim, if the issue is really about attracting new blood, new Lim Swee Say to come into politics, into Cabinet, why not let the old Lim Swee Say stay on with $1.2 million and let the new Lim Swee Say have the $2.2 million?" I looked at him and said, "For the old Lim Swee Say to take $1.2 million is not the problem." But let me ask you this question, "If I old Lim Swee Say declare I stay on $1.2 million, when the new Lim Swee Say comes into politics, the media will ask him, "New Lim Swee Say, are you on $1.2 million or are you on $2.2 million?" The new Lim Swee Say said, "Oh, I am on $2.2 million." Then the next question will be, "Why are you less committed than the old Lim Swee Say? Old Lim Swee Say is happy with $1.2 million. Why do you need $2.2 million?" Sir, on a serious note, what we have to ask ourselves is: are we serious about doing whatever necessary to attract some of the right people, the best brains, to form the best team? If so, let us not try to dance around this tough decision. It is a difficult decision, but it has to be done. Let us do it. Sir, the whole process of attracting the right people to form the best team is difficult and challenging and I hope that we do not underestimate it. I read somewhere that once MM Lee was asked for his assessment of his Cabinet.”
“I look at my fellow Cabinet colleagues, quite a number of us came from the civil service - Chee Hean, George Yeo, Hng Kiang, Tharman, Boon Wan, and so on. It is important that we keep the wage system in the civil service competitive because not only do we need a good civil service but equally, if not more important, we must make sure that the civil service will continue to be a source of future national leaders. And yet, at the same time, some of these best brains of the future must come through the private sector because diversity is strength. If we want to compete as Singapore unlimited, that private sector background is critical and crucial. The challenge of course is that these globalised brains and pro-Singapore hearts in the private sector are also the ones who are very good in making money. And that is the reason why we have to find ways to attract them by reducing the wage gap. When I was in Siem Reap, the tour leader said something very interesting. I do not know how it came about but it just came up. He said, "You know, when there is water, there will be fishes. When there are fishes, there will be food. When there is food, there will be people. When there are people, there will be civilisation." It is a very profound statement. When I heard that, I told myself that I must share this with Members in this House. Because what we are talking about basically is this. How do we attract some of the best brains in Singapore, the best potential leaders in Singapore, to basically help us to produce "water"? Why? Because we must have water so that there will be fishes, so that there will be food, so that there will be people and there will be civilisation. So water is the basic building block. There is nothing glamorous about producing water.”
“By the next general election in 2016, if the old Lim Swee Say is still around, he will be 62 years old." I told them, "If you think through this carefully, Lim Swee Say, 52 years old, is not the oldest in the Cabinet and yet, according to my own assessment, I think for the good of the country, I should just stand for one more general election." By 2016, when I am 62 years and if I still have to stand for election to serve as the Secretary-General of NTUC and as a Minister in the Prime Minister's Office, I think it must tell something that our efforts in attracting the best people to form the best team must have run into some difficulties. It is therefore in our interests to focus our minds on this. Mr Speaker, Sir, in my view, the most important and urgent issue today facing us in this debate on the Minister's pay is really one of how do we attract young Singaporeans to come forward to serve, and the process must start now. The process must not wait. I was asked, two weeks ago, "Mr Lim, is it a good time to increase wages?" I told them there is no such thing as good time or bad time. I said we must do it all the time. And I think some people misunderstood me. They think that Lim Swee Say said "Do all the time" means keep increasing Ministers' pay everyday! That is not what I meant. When I said we must do it all the time, I mean we must attract the best talent possible all the time because the process of forming a new and best team must be a non-stop one. We have to quicken our pace to keep reaching out to those Singaporeans with a globalised brain and a pro-Singapore heart. Where do these people come from - young Singaporeans who have globalised brain and pro-Singapore heart? One important source would be the civil service.”
“As I see it, Mr Speaker, Sir, the real and urgent issue facing the House today is how fast we can move to keep attracting the right people to form the best team. Let me make a confession here. The Prime Minister has heard it before and I want to speak very frankly. I used to hold a lot of reservations about this benchmarking of Ministers' pay, and the Prime Minister knows my view. But, lately, I changed my mind. And this is the reason why today I am standing here speaking with conviction. What makes me change my mind? My union leaders asked me, "SG Lim Swee Say, SG Lim Boon Heng served us for 25 years, 13 years as our Secretary-General. He did not resign, and he was not unhappy being paid $1.2 million. So if the Government decided not to increase your pay, are you going to be unhappy? Are you going to resign as Secretary-General of NTUC?" I told them a story. I said, one day, I walked down the street, I saw this lady from behind, wearing a T-shirt and written on the back was "The answer is No". I thought this was interesting. What was the question in front? So I overtook her and looked in front, and written in front was "The answer is still No". Sir, I told my union leaders, "Doesn't matter what happens to the pay increase, Lim Swee Say will always be happy serving the workers and labour movement. Lim Swee Say will never resign." So they said, "If that's the case, there is no issue. There is no need to increase the pay then." I told them that the issue is not whether this old Lim Swee Say will be unhappy or will resign. I said you should ask yourself this question, "Today, this old Lim Swee Say is 52 years. By the year 2011 general election, the old Lim Swee Say will be 57 years.”
“These are the two strong reasons, I feel, that we must do whatever necessary to ensure that we have the right people and the best team in place - to realise our vision of Singapore United and Singapore Unlimited. Sir, the next question is: how are we going to compete for these right people to form the best team? Mr Market rewards successful corporate leaders. Why? Because these corporate leaders are able to generate profit for the stakeholders and at the same time give better bonuses to the workers. So, successful corporate leaders are rewarded by Mr Market. As a people, we cannot wait for Mr Market to reward our national leaders, our political leaders. The question is, as a people, do we value the contributions and commitment of our national leaders? Our national leaders are different from corporate leaders. Corporate leaders are very good in making money, very good in growing business and growing corporations. But our national leaders are very good in changing the life of the people for the better. The question is: how do we attach a value to this? Since Mr Market is not going to attach a value to that, we, as a people, have to decide. Look at Singapore, if ever we are going to have a record in the Guinness Book of Records, I do not think that the entry proposed by Mr Chiam is the right one - that Singapore has got itself a world record in terms of Ministers' salary. My proposal would be that we have set the record in the Guinness Book for being a country that is able to transform the entire nation from a third world country to a first world country in one generation. And I do not think there are too many countries in the world that are able to achieve it. Looking ahead, our challenge is to keep staying in this First-World.”
“In other words, many of these Ministers, so to speak, have mobile ATM - automated teller machines. Likewise, civil servants too. I was in Siem Reap over the weekends with Buona Vista grassroots leaders. I asked the tour leader, "When you fall sick, where do you go?" He said, "I go to a public hospital." I asked, "How is the public hospital?" He said, "It’s not bad. The price is not too expensive but the UTM can be very expensive." I asked, "What do you mean by UTM?" He said, "Under-table money." And I asked him why did he need to pay under-table money, and he said, "Because if you want to get good care, or you want your parents to get good care, you have to pay UTM so that the nurses and doctors will take good care of you." Sir, I want to emphasise this point about clean wage and dirty wage because these have tremendous impact on the life of the workers. One government - I will not mention which one, but not the Singapore Government - lamented to the NTUC that they wished that their unions can be as constructive as NTUC. So my NTUC colleagues, union leaders, told them, "Look, your government hopes you can be as constructive as the NTUC." And their union leaders told our union leaders, "You please tell our government that the day when our government behaves like the Singapore Government, that is the day when we will behave like the NTUC of Singapore." Sir, win-win-win tripartism is crucial to enhance and protect the well-being of Singaporeans and Singaporean workers, and this can only be possible if we have a clean and capable government in charge of Singapore.”
“Equally important, if not more importantly, we must also take care of each other as one Singapore United. For these two reasons - Singapore United and Singapore Unlimited - I believe it is important that we work together to make sure that we find the right people to form the best team to lead Singapore into the future. What kind of leaders do we need? I think it is the three "Hs". The first "H" is people with a thinking head, otherwise they will not be able to lead us in competing as Singapore Unlimited. The second "H" are leaders with a caring heart, if not they cannot lead us as Singapore United. And, thirdly, most of all, these potential leaders with thinking head and a caring heart must also have a pair of clean "hands"; in other words, no corruption. Every dollar we collect from businesses must go to the Government and every dollar we spend must be for the benefit of the people. I read in the newspapers today and I heard Mr Chiam spoke in the House yesterday. He said that the Singapore Government has set a new Guinness World of Records of Ministers with the highest salary in the world. I would like to ask Mr Chiam: is he referring to "clean" wage or "dirty" wage? Because there is a big difference between "clean" wage and "dirty" wage. A wife of a visiting Minister came to Singapore. My wife accompanied her for shopping at Raffles Hotel. Apparently, she went in and she just told the shopkeeper - I want this, this, and that, and the shopkeeper put everything together and the bill came up to tens of thousands of dollars. And that lady, the wife of the Minister, did not pay a single cent because she had friends who were with her who took out from their handbags not credit cards but a stack of papers and paid everything in cash.”
“But there is one big difference between your company and Singapore Incorporated as a country. Both of us, you as a company and we as a country, have to restructure as fast as we can to stay ahead of competition. But there is one big difference. In your case, you can retrench your workers. In our case, we cannot retrench our citizens." In other words, we not only have to create new jobs for the young, for the better educated, we also have to take care of workers of all ages. Today, if you look at Singapore, what do we have? We have programmes for the low-wage workers, for the mature workers and for the PMETs. For the low-wage workers - we talk about JRP (Job Re-creation), SRP (Skills Re-development). For the mature workers - we talk about re-employment. For the PMETs, Dr Ng Eng Hen announced a few weeks ago in this House the Professionals Conversion Programme, and I was told the response has been tremendous. The various agencies, NTUC and WDA are working together in running a series of seminars and workshops for these PMETs. And for our blue-collar workers, we are now stepping up re-deployment. You may not be aware, Sir. Based on the data collected by the unions, we notice recently that the workers affected by retrenchment today are getting younger and younger. In the manufacturing sector, my colleague, Ms Cham Hui Fong, told me that two years ago, 41% of the retrenched workers were less than 40 years old. It went up to 48%. And last year, it was 51%. In other words, we have to find ways to help many of these workers to keep up the pace of change in terms of re-deployment as the pace of restructuring gets faster and faster, affecting more and more workers, including the younger workers. So, not only do we have to compete as a Singapore Unlimited in future.”
“This is the reason why yesterday we built Jurong Industrial Estate; today, we build wafer fabrication parks; we build chemical island at Jurong, we build Biopolis at OneNorth, and so on. And the task tomorrow will get even bigger and more challenging. Why? When we say that competition in the future will be stronger and bigger, many people think that this is just a slogan. Sir, let me assure you that this is all real. Two weeks ago, Intel, a company that EDB has been promoting since the 1970s, decided to build their wafer fab plant in Dalian of China. This wafer fab plant is going to produce 12-inch wafer fab. It involves about US$2.5 billion worth of investment and it is going to create more than 1,500 jobs. By the year 2010, when this plant is up and running, my guess is that by then, China will surpass Singapore not just in terms of wafer fab production capacity but maybe in terms of technological capabilities as well. In other words, competition will get stronger and better all the time. Sir, there is nothing we can do to stop the competition from getting better and bigger. But I explained to our workers and union leaders that there is one thing we can do, ie, to do whatever necessary to make sure that we have the right people and the best team to lead Singapore. Because that is our best bet of transforming Singapore Incorporated of today into a Singapore Unlimited of tomorrow in the world of unlimited competition. Sir, there is another reason why we have to work together to make sure that we have the right people and the best team to lead Singapore. When the Chairman of that MNC complimented Singapore for Singapore Inc., I told him one thing. I said: "Thank you very much for your compliment.”
“I spent 21 years as a civil servant. And for those of you who think that our civil servants do not work hard enough, just try to say it to our PUB whose staff worked many years to produce NEWater to solve our water problem and to supply NEWater to wafer fab. Just talk to MND and URA - how hard they have to work to find the land needed for our wafer fabrication parks in Ang Mo Kio, Woodlands, Tampines and Pasir Ris. Just talk to our JTC - how at one time, they had to work round-the-clock because the piece of land allocated to a wafer fab park turned out to be an illegal dumping ground, and there was no record that it was an illegal dumping ground. So when they dug the ground, they discovered loads of rubbish underground. In fact, they had to work day and night because we had to meet the deadline that we promised to investors. Just try talking to the EDB - whose staff have been travelling around the world to secure investments, to create jobs for Singapore, and the list goes on. Sir, Singapore Inc. has indeed done very well. As a result, we are today one of the countries with the highest employment rate and the lowest unemployment rate. This is something we all can be proud of. However, let us recognise that this job is never done, because the journey of economic development is one with no end. We have to press on for the benefit of our workers and our people. Yesterday, our pioneering leaders created labour-intensive jobs; today, we are creating skill, technology, and capital-intensive jobs; tomorrow, the next thing we have to go on is to create more innovation and knowledge-intensive jobs for the future generation of Singaporeans. In other words, the process of creating better job, better pay, better life is a journey with no end.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I agree with various Members of the House who spoke before me that salary increase for Ministers is a sensitive and an emotional issue. Over the last few weeks, I had dialogues with a number of union leaders. Many of them asked me: "Why is $1.2 million still not enough? Is this debate about $10.5 million worth of salary increase for the Ministers or is it more to this? And, if so, what is the real issue?" I explained to them that this is about attracting the right people and the best team to lead the nation and to serve the people. And I told them that this is important because having enough jobs is the best welfare for our workers and having a clean and capable government is the best protection for our people. Sir, way back in 1991 to 1993, I spent two years based in New York City working for the EDB. Once I called on the Chairman of a Fortune-500 company - one of the top companies in the world - and he told me that he was very impressed by Singapore Incorporated. He said there was one thing we have in common between Singapore and his company, that is, both of us compete very aggressively in this global economy. In his case, the company has to compete for business revenue. In the case of Singapore Inc., we have to compete for investment and total business spending. In his case, as a Chairman, he has to sustain profitable growth. In our case, we have to sustain economic and job growth. He said that it was not easy for companies to compete successfully, and he fully realised and recognised that it was even more difficult for a country to do so. And he said that he was very impressed because Singapore competed as a Singapore Incorporated. Some Members may feel that the public sector does not work hard enough. I beg to differ.”
“[For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A *.] Mdm Deputy Speaker, the Budget for this year is a pro-business, pro-people, pro-Singapore Budget. That is why the labour movement totally supports this Budget. We have to fully understand that the big environment we are in is a very tough one. We must keep moving forward. Otherwise, we will be lagging behind. But to go forward, is it really that easy? *Cols. 2051-2052. Definitely, it is difficult. Why? Because our country is very small. Our land area is small. Our population is small. Our domestic is pitifully small. However, it does not necessarily mean that Singapore is hopeless and has no future. Although our country is really small, we are also big. In what sense are we big? Our eyes are big. We can see what other nations could not see. Our head is big. We can think of what other nations cannot think of. Our braveness is big. We dare to do what other nations dare not do. Most of all, our confidence is big. Other nations drag things along and change slowly. They are indecisive. But we look at the situation precisely and take the bold step. Overall speaking, this is a great Budget. But we must understand it does not mean that all our problems are solved with this Budget. I hope we will continue to work harder to grow our economy into a Singapore Unlimited Economy, and stay united to strengthen our society into a Singapore United Community. Together, I believe that our Unlimited Singapore and United Singapore will make our nation successful forever. In short, a big small country that other nations will look up to. 6.30 pm”